Table S1. Summary of the model structure fitted to each species’ body size data.-- Table S2. Summary table indicating the body size reference points and source of information for each species’ length at maturity.-- Figure S1. Percentage of annual change for the body size of each species at catch for the period 2000-2018 in ICES division 9.a (lower panel) and ICES division 8.c (upper panel).-- Figure S2. Time series of the estimated indices of abundance for the 20 species analysed from 2000 to 2018 in the Galician coast (NE Atlantic) taken from Alonso-Fernández et al. (2019) and updated up to year 2018.-- Figure S3. Percentage of change by year for each species index of abundance for the period 2000-2018 in ICES division 9.a (lower panel) and ICES division 8.c (upper panel).-- Figure S4. Time series of the skewness of the body size frequency distribution for the 20 species analysed over the period 2000 to 2018.-- Figure S5. Slope of the linear trend of body size skewness for each species in ICES division 9.a (lower panel) and ICES division 8.c (upper panel).-- Figure S6. Residual check for the model fitted to Trisopterus luscus body size data.-- Figure S7. Residual check for the model fitted to Pollachius pollachius body size data.-- Figure S8. Residual check for the model fitted to Mullus surmuletus body size data.-- Figure S9. Residual check for the model fitted to Dicentrarchus labrax body size data.-- Figure S10. Residual check for the model fitted to Conger conger body size data.-- Figure S11. Residual check for the model fitted to Labrus bergylta body size data.-- Figure S12. Residual check for the model fitted to Diplodus sargus body size data.-- Figure S13. Residual check for the model fitted to Scophthalmus maximus body size data.-- Figure S14. Residual check for the model fitted to Scophthalmus rhombus body size data.-- Figure S15. Residual check for the model fitted to Solea solea body size data.-- Figure S16. Residual check for the model fitted to Solea senegalensis body size data.-- Figure S17. Residual check for the model fitted to Pegusa lascaris body size data.-- Figure S18. Residual check for the model fitted to Platichthys flesus body size data.-- Figure S19. Residual check for the model fitted to Scyliorhinus canicula body size data.-- Figure S20. Residual check for the model fitted to Raja undulata body size data.-- Figure S21. Residual check for the model fitted to Sepia officinalis body size data.-- Figure S22. Residual check for the model fitted to Octopus vulgaris body size data.-- Figure S23. Residual check for the model fitted to Loligo vulgaris body size data.-- Figure S24. Residual check for the model fitted to Maja brachydactyla body size data.-- Figure S25. Residual check for the model fitted to Necora puber body size data.-- Table S3. Values for all explanatory variables used for predictions for each species' model (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 in the main text and Fig. S26).-- Figure S26. Estimated (±95 C.I.) variation in body size at catch with depth for the 20 species.-- Figure S27. Plots of the DFA model fitted to the predicted body size at catch for each species in ICES division 8.c in the Galician coast (NE Atlantic).-- Figure S28. Plots of the DFA model fitted to the predicted body size at catch for each species in ICES division 9.a in the Galician coast (NE Atlantic).-- Figure S29. Relationship between (a) the rate of change in body size (% · year-1) and (b) the rate of change in relative abundance (% · year-1) with the average proportion of immature individuals caught (in number, ImC).-- Figure S30. Relationship between the rate of change in body size (% · year-1) with the time trend of body size skewness

Supplementary Material for the article https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107141

3 tables, 30 figures

Peer reviewed