4.5 Article

Otolith shape and size: The importance of age when determining indices for fish-stock separation

Journal

FISHERIES RESEARCH
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages 43-52

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2017.01.017

Keywords

Fourier descriptors; Curvature Scale Space; Otolith shape; Otolith size; Stock discrimination

Categories

Funding

  1. University of East Anglia (UEA)
  2. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)
  3. Cefas Seedcorn project 'Trawling Through Time'

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stock-separation of highly mobile Clupeids (sprat - Sprattus sprattus and herring - Clupea harengus) using otolith morphometrics was explored. Analysis focused on three stock discrimination problems with the aim of reassigning individual otoliths to source populations using experiments undertaken using a machine learning environment known as WEKA (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis). Six feature sets encoding combinations of size and shape together with nine learning algorithms were explored. To assess saliency of size/shape features half of the feature sets included size indices, the remainder encoded only shape. Otolith sample sets were partitioned by age so that the impact of age on classification accuracy could be assessed for each method. In total we performed 540 experiments, representing a comprehensive evaluation of otolith morphometrics and learning algorithms. Results show that for juveniles, methods encoding only shape performed well, but those that included size indices held more classification potential. However as fish age, shape encoding methods were more robust than those including size information. This study suggests that methods of stock discrimination based on early incremental growth are likely to be effective, and that automated classification techniques will show little benefit in supplementing early growth information with shape indices derived from mature outlines. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available