Table 7 Theoretical versus empirical predictions of weight at fish maturity.

The “theoretical” predictions of Wm based on the GOLT (Eq. 9) match the empirical estimates based on Eq. 10 (90); the relationship of Wm to the inflexion (Wi; Eq. 7) of weight growth curves is also as predicted (see text).

#L
(cm)
Lm
(cm)
W (g)*dWm (% of W)
Eq. 10
Wm (% of W)‡
Eq. 9
Wi (% of W)
Eq. 7
2≈20.080.64746 (3460)28
2106.6100.72935 (2451)30
3100521040.81421 (1137)33
410004121070.974 (1–14)34

*Assuming the length-weight relationship W = 0.01·L3, corresponding to a trout-shaped (i.e., “average”) fish when in cm and g and used for L and W, respectively.

†Estimated from W (g) and d ≈ 0.6742 + 0.03574·logWmax in (14, 16), with WWmax.

‡The range (in brackets) corresponds to the 95% confidence interval of A = 1.365, i.e., 1.218 to 1.534.

§The first row values in italics are meant only to illustrate the behavior of Eqs. 7, 9, and 10 for very small sizes. Such fishes are usually iteroparous, and hence, their LmL and their WmW (see text).