2020
DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00166
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do the Fish Scales Shape of Mugil curema Reflect the Genetic Structure Using Microsatellites Markers and the Mexican Marine Ecoregions Classification?

Abstract: Pacheco-Almanzar et al. Scale Shape Empirical Relationships Tropical Pacific ecoregions show more identification rate (80.4%), whereas the rest of marine ecoregions discriminate less than 53.3%. Possibly, hydrographic features as currents or upwellings circumscribe boundaries between marine ecoregions, and this could produce inherent genetic structure.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fish scales demonstrate numerous hidden morphological and structural characteristics and sculptural design (e.g., type, shape, and size in general term and circuli, radii, lepidonts, and granules configurations in specific term), that contribute efficiently in fish identification and classification at the species level or higher ranks. Scales have been used to access sexual dimorphism, age determination, and growth, past environment experienced by fish, discrimination between hatchery‐reared and wild populations, migration, environmental pollution of the water, assessing the genetic structure of the population, and phylogenetic affinities (Chu, 1935; Dapar, Torres, Fabricante, & Demayo, 2012; Das, 1959; Esmaeili, Zarei, Vahed, & Masoudi, 2019; Ferrito, Corsaro, & Tigano, 2003; Jawad, 2005a, 2005b; Lanzing & Higginbotham, 1974; Pacheco‐Almanzar, Loza‐Estrada, & Ibáñez, 2020; Seshappa, 1999). The use of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) has greatly increased the importance of scale morphology in ichthyological studies by providing hidden characteristics (see Esmaeili et al, 2007; Esmaeili, Baghbani, Zareian, & Shahryari, 2009; Esmaeili et al, 2019; Jawad, 2005a, 2005b; Teimori, Esmaeili, & Motamedi, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fish scales demonstrate numerous hidden morphological and structural characteristics and sculptural design (e.g., type, shape, and size in general term and circuli, radii, lepidonts, and granules configurations in specific term), that contribute efficiently in fish identification and classification at the species level or higher ranks. Scales have been used to access sexual dimorphism, age determination, and growth, past environment experienced by fish, discrimination between hatchery‐reared and wild populations, migration, environmental pollution of the water, assessing the genetic structure of the population, and phylogenetic affinities (Chu, 1935; Dapar, Torres, Fabricante, & Demayo, 2012; Das, 1959; Esmaeili, Zarei, Vahed, & Masoudi, 2019; Ferrito, Corsaro, & Tigano, 2003; Jawad, 2005a, 2005b; Lanzing & Higginbotham, 1974; Pacheco‐Almanzar, Loza‐Estrada, & Ibáñez, 2020; Seshappa, 1999). The use of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) has greatly increased the importance of scale morphology in ichthyological studies by providing hidden characteristics (see Esmaeili et al, 2007; Esmaeili, Baghbani, Zareian, & Shahryari, 2009; Esmaeili et al, 2019; Jawad, 2005a, 2005b; Teimori, Esmaeili, & Motamedi, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, no gene flow has occurred between populations to this date, as evidenced by the genetic structure and divergence between A. tropicus populations caused by the allopatric isolation resulting from the Central American mountain range (Barrientos‐Villalobos & Espinosa de los Monteros, 2008). Genetic analyses have shown the close relationship of the genetic structure between the populations of Mugil curema inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific basins, also attributed to this mountain range (Pacheco‐Almanzar, Loza‐Estrada & Ibáñez, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Mugil curema shows wide morphological variation at various localities, especially in the Gulf of Mexico (Ibáñez‐Aguirre et al, 2006). Therefore, the identification of the mullet was based on microsatellite markers (Pacheco‐Almanzar et al, 2017; Pacheco‐Almanzar, Loza‐Estrada & Ibáñez, 2020), in addition to the taxonomic keys of Harrison (2002) and Harrison et al (2007). Thus, tissue samples for DNA extraction were obtained in situ from the caudal fin, placed in 1.5‐ml tubes, and preserved in absolute ethanol until processing in the laboratory for microsatellite analysis (Pacheco‐Almanzar et al, 2017; Pacheco‐Almanzar et al, 2020).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%