2001
DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-58-9-1805
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new model of growth back-calculation incorporating age effect based on otoliths

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
47
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since changes in otolith shape were subtle, our finding is not incompatible with the ubiquitous finding of a positive relationship between somatic and otolith growth (e.g. Messieh 1975, Meekan et al 1998, Vigliola et al 2000, Morita & Matsuishi 2001, since there is often considerable variability in fish-size/otolith-size relationships, particularly at specific ages or at key developmental stages (e.g. Chambers & Leggett 1987, McCormick 1994.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 43%
“…Since changes in otolith shape were subtle, our finding is not incompatible with the ubiquitous finding of a positive relationship between somatic and otolith growth (e.g. Messieh 1975, Meekan et al 1998, Vigliola et al 2000, Morita & Matsuishi 2001, since there is often considerable variability in fish-size/otolith-size relationships, particularly at specific ages or at key developmental stages (e.g. Chambers & Leggett 1987, McCormick 1994.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 43%
“…Back-calculated size at annulus formation was determined from fish size at capture, otolith radius, and annular radii using the Frasier-Lee method (see Morita and Matsuishi, 2001):…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, back-calculating body length-at-age calls for caution. In particular, unless we understand how different external factors affect the relationship between scale growth and body growth, applying the biological intercept back-calculation method, which assumes constant proportionality between body growth and scale growth in space and time Morita and Matsuishi, 2001), might produce artifactual patterns. However, although a variety of other back-calculation methods exist (reviewed in , the biological and mechanistic assumptions underlying each of them render their application equally controversial.…”
Section: Discussion: Challenges Inherent To Using Back-calculation Mementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, although a variety of other back-calculation methods exist (reviewed in , the biological and mechanistic assumptions underlying each of them render their application equally controversial. Despite the remarkable effort invested into reviewing and clarifying back-calculation methods (see for e.g., Morita and Matsuishi, 2001;Schirripa, 2002;Li et al, 2008), the differential merits and limitations of alternative approaches remain difficult to appreciate. …”
Section: Discussion: Challenges Inherent To Using Back-calculation Mementioning
confidence: 99%