2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2013.07.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving macroscopic maturity determination in a pre-spawning flatfish through predictive modeling and whole mount methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Microscopic identification is the most accurate method to assign the maturity status of an individual, but it requires trained workers and high financial and time investment. On the other hand, macroscopic identification may display high accuracy as it considers the external morphological features of the gonads linked to the maturation stage, such as size and colour (Midway et al ., 2013; Peer et al ., 2012). Compared to the former, macroscopic identification requires less financial and time investment, but it is biased by individual perception (Hashiguti et al ., 2019) and exhibits high levels of misclassification ( e.g ., Ferreri et al ., 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Microscopic identification is the most accurate method to assign the maturity status of an individual, but it requires trained workers and high financial and time investment. On the other hand, macroscopic identification may display high accuracy as it considers the external morphological features of the gonads linked to the maturation stage, such as size and colour (Midway et al ., 2013; Peer et al ., 2012). Compared to the former, macroscopic identification requires less financial and time investment, but it is biased by individual perception (Hashiguti et al ., 2019) and exhibits high levels of misclassification ( e.g ., Ferreri et al ., 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to the former, macroscopic identification requires less financial and time investment, but it is biased by individual perception (Hashiguti et al ., 2019) and exhibits high levels of misclassification ( e.g ., Ferreri et al ., 2009). Error in the classification of maturity status is primarily associated with classifying individuals in early maturation stages as mature or classifying resting individuals as immature (Midway et al ., 2013; Núñez & Duponchelle, 2009), which may bias L 50 estimates and the establishment of reproductive periods. Sampling should be performed during the main spawning period to avoid such bias (ICES, 2008), which may not be possible for species that spawn continuously, such as R. transfasciatus .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Building on the work of these authors, a number of additional statistical tests were conducted to produce even more extensive quantitative comparisons between macroscopic and microscopic phasing. Other authors should be encouraged to continue to advance these analyses, and also consider alternative approaches using predictive models to determine maturity status from demographic traits and macroscopic gonad features (Peer et al , ; Midway et al , ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, reliable and cost‐effective alternatives based on macroscopic criteria and routinely collected biological information are needed by management agencies. For instance, Midway, White, Roumillat, Batsavage, and Scharf () achieved up to >90% success rates in predicting the reproductive status of the southern flounder Paralicthys lethostigma by including regularly collected biological information, such as ovarian morphology, sampling dates, and fish length, in predictive models. Similarly, using only morphological measures to discriminate sexually mature individuals from immature juveniles achieved a 72–80% correct classification in the American eel Anguilla rostrata (Cottrill, McKinley, & Van Der Kraak, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%