4.6 Article

Age validation of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) from the Gulf of Alaska using the disequilibrium of Pb-210 and Ra-226

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 63, Issue 8, Pages 1520-1529

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.06.002

Keywords

age determination; age validation; Pb-210/Ra-226; radiometric ageing; walleye pollock

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) is a commercially important species in the North Pacific, and harvest quotas are dependent upon accurate determination of ages. The two techniques (called methods A and 13) currently used to interpret the growth zone patterns in walleye Pollock otoliths were compared. The age distributions from these two techniques differed; method B produced ages twice that of method A. Validation of ages from walleye Pollock has not been done previously. Radiometric ageing based on the ratio of Pb-210/Ra-226 was used to evaluate the accuracy of otolith growth zone counts, and it demonstrated that method A, which produced younger ages between 3 and 8 years, was correct. Walleye pollock grow older than the 3-8 year (method A) age range validated in this study. The experimental design was limited to a maximum method A age of 8 years, because available samples did not provide the minimum of 40 fish required for estimating a radiometric age. Our radiometric ageing study on walleye Pollock appears to be the first to use the Pb-210/Ra-226 radiometric age-validation method in a boreal fish species where all samples were potentially young, 8 years or less. In previous studies, radiometric ages often approached 100 years. Also, only one presumed year class was used, which was sampled in successive years. Therefore, Ra-226 sample measurements were averaged to provide lower error. (c) 2006 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available