1998
DOI: 10.1007/s002270050360
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of specimen handling and otolith preparation on concentration of elements in fish otoliths

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
80
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
80
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The heads were then removed and preserved in 95% ethanol for later removal of the otoliths. Proctor & Thresher (1998) found little difference between preservation methods such as freezing and ethanol immersion on otolith Ca concentration, and variability in Sr:Ca ratio was due largely to variability in Sr concentration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The heads were then removed and preserved in 95% ethanol for later removal of the otoliths. Proctor & Thresher (1998) found little difference between preservation methods such as freezing and ethanol immersion on otolith Ca concentration, and variability in Sr:Ca ratio was due largely to variability in Sr concentration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…This method of storage has been shown to have the least impact on elemental concentrations (Milton & Chenery 1998). Proctor & Thresher (1998) showed that a delay in the removal of the otolith of just 3 h may influence the concentrations of a range of elements including sodium, potassium, calcium and strontium. In this study, otoliths were collected freshly from the dead specimens upon sorting of the catch and the abovementioned elements were not included in the analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). To minimise the effects of differences among sample collections of handling artefacts on measurements of trace metal concentrations, both saggittae were taken as soon as possible after collection (Proctor & Thresher 1998, Milton & Chenery 1998. Fish were kept on ice when it was impractical to remove otoliths immediately after capture.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The otolith was then polished to the core with 1200 grade wet and dry sandpaper moistened with doubledistilled water. Water use was kept to a minimum during otolith preparation to minimise and standardise any preparation bias (Proctor & Thresher 1998). To remove any contamination, the surface was wiped vigorously after polishing with a piece of tissue paper moistened with 0.5 M aristar nitric acid.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%