Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
28
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
3
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Ratios that vary significantly (p < 0.05) among sites and between years within a site were marked # and *, respectively. The elemental signatures in otoliths are known to vary annually (Reis-Santos et al, 2012;Schaffler et al, 2014), but in the present study, we found nearly temporal stability in the detected differences among the sampling sites; therefore, the classification accuracy of individuals to their original populations is consistent over the selected time period. Moreover, the overall percentage of classification accuracy showed no significant differences when otolith chemistry was compared with either microsatellite markers or truss morphometry of the fish body.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 49%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Ratios that vary significantly (p < 0.05) among sites and between years within a site were marked # and *, respectively. The elemental signatures in otoliths are known to vary annually (Reis-Santos et al, 2012;Schaffler et al, 2014), but in the present study, we found nearly temporal stability in the detected differences among the sampling sites; therefore, the classification accuracy of individuals to their original populations is consistent over the selected time period. Moreover, the overall percentage of classification accuracy showed no significant differences when otolith chemistry was compared with either microsatellite markers or truss morphometry of the fish body.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 49%
“…Spatial variations of otolith chemical signatures are more frequently investigated as compared to temporal differences (Martin et al, 2013;Walther, Thorrold, & Olney, 2008). There are several reports on the temporal variations in the otolith chemistry at both intra-annual (Pangle et al, 2010;Reis-Santos et al, 2012;Schaffler, Miller, & Jones, 2014;Thorrold & Shuttleworth, 2000) and interannual (Gillanders, 2002;Martin et al, 2013;Reis-Santos et al, 2012;Schaffler et al, 2014) levels, which may not necessarily corroborate the spatial variations in otolith chemical signatures. The consistency of natural chemical markers among cohorts and years can be discerned by assessing spatio-temporal variations in otolith and ambient water chemistry (Walther & Thorrold, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geochemical tools, particularly trace element fingerprinting (TEF), allow the distinction of populations or stocks using the elemental profile of mineral structures, such as mollusk shells (Figure 2A), invertebrate statoliths, and fish otoliths [22,23]. Given that these mineral structures grow throughout the year and their compositions are affected by local environmental conditions, TEF appears to be a reliable and accurate method to distinguish specimens from geographically close populations [24][25][26].…”
Section: Seafood Traceabilitymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The rationale behind this method lies in the fact that different bacterial communities are associated with organisms of different nature and geographical position. With the exception of this molecular technique, geochemical tools, in particular the fingerprinting of trace elements (TEF), are generally employed to distinguish entire populations using the elementary profile of mineral structures [118,119]. The TEF is a reliable and accurate method, especially to distinguish samples belonging to geographically close populations [120][121][122].…”
Section: Biological Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%