4.6 Article

Description of dermal denticles from the caudal region of Raja clavata and their use for the estimation of age and growth

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 65, Issue 9, Pages 1701-1709

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsn167

Keywords

caudal thorns; edge analysis; precision analysis; Rajidae; thornback ray; vertebrae

Funding

  1. EU Data Collection/PNAB
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BDD/23777/2005, SFRH/BD/29052/2006]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/29052/2006] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work is a response to a lack of knowledge of the biology of Raja clavata in southern European waters, particularly in terms of age and growth. Two structures were analysed: dermal denticles and vertebral centra. Six types of dermal denticle were identified in the tail. Among those, small thorns were the most suitable for age determination owing to their fixed position, persistence throughout their lifespan, and defined growth-band pattern. Caudal thorns were more accurate than vertebral centra for age determination and were therefore selected as the most appropriate structure for ageing R. clavata. Based on edge analysis, annual band deposition was verified. The birthdate was established as 1 June based on the prevalence of hyaline edges in age-0 class specimens: prevalence peaked in May and June. Both von Bertalanffy and Gompertz growth models were fitted to age-at-length data, but the former was considered more appropriate based on similarity between the estimated L-infinity and the maximum size recorded for the species. No significant differences in growth parameters were observed between sexes. The estimated growth parameters were L-infinity = 1280 mm, k = 0.117 year(-1), and t(0) = -0.617 years. The maximum age estimated for R. clavata was 10 years, for a female of length 835 mm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available