2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2005.04.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Daily otolith increment validation in larval mackerel icefish, Champsocephalus gunnari

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The growth rate we estimated in early larvae of D. hunteri from western Ross Sea (0.11 mm/day) is very similar in other larval channichthyids, ranging between 0.07 and 0.17 mm/day in Champsocephalus gunnari from South Georgia (North 1988;Morley et al 2005), and 0.11 and 0.16 mm/day in Chaenocephalus aceratus from King George Island (Slosarczyk 1987).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…The growth rate we estimated in early larvae of D. hunteri from western Ross Sea (0.11 mm/day) is very similar in other larval channichthyids, ranging between 0.07 and 0.17 mm/day in Champsocephalus gunnari from South Georgia (North 1988;Morley et al 2005), and 0.11 and 0.16 mm/day in Chaenocephalus aceratus from King George Island (Slosarczyk 1987).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…However, the validation of daily increment formation in different species is still a necessary prerequisite to otolith microstructure work of any kind (Campana and Neilson 1985). Validation methods include the monitoring of known-age fish in the laboratory (Mugiya and Tanaka 1992;Chang et al 1994;Xie et al 1995a, b;Fu et al 1997), marking with fluorescent substances (Villanueva and Molí 1997;Song and Cao 1999;Arai et al 2000;Cieri and McCleave 2001;Sugeha et al 2001), statistical inferences (Joyeux et al 2001;Morley et al 2005), and marginal increment analysis (Moku et al 2005). Among these methods, monitoring of known-age larvae was regarded as the most accurate and reliable method of validating daily increments, and was frequently used (Campana 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This could be due to the presence of embryonic increments and to the rearing conditions, mainly temperature. The age at first increment deposition is species specific (Jones, 1986;Høie et al, 1999;Morley et al, 2005). Usually, initial increment formation on otoliths is associated with hatching, first feeding, or the start of activity (Morales-Nin, 2000;Joh et al, 2005).…”
Section: Age Of First Increment Depositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But, without proper validation, reconstruction of early life history events using otolith growth increments is dubious (Beamish and Mcfarlane, 1983;Cieri and McCleave, 2001). Daily growth increment deposition has been validated in many fish species living under optimal conditions (Campana and Neilson, 1985;Jones, 1986;Siegfried and Weinstein, 1989;Villanueva and Molí, 1997;Quiñonez-Velázquez, 1999;Morley et al, 2005;Xie et al, 2005). But some works indicate that the daily deposition of otolith increments is not a universal feature of all larvae in all conditions (Geffen, 1982;Campana and Neilson, 1985;Jones, 1986;Jones and Brothers, 1987;Radtke and Fey, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%