4.6 Article

Validation of a method of estimating age, modelling growth, and describing the age composition of Coilia mystus from the Yangtze Estuary, China

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 1655-1661

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsn143

关键词

age; Coilia mystus; growth; otoliths; straight/curved annuli; validation; Yangtze Estuary

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30770354, 30000125]
  2. China Three Gorges Project Corporation [0799507]
  3. HSBC Climate Partnership WWF China Programme [CN087901]
  4. State Key Technologies RD Programme [2006BAD03B02, 2007BAD37B02]
  5. Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences [065103-1-201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A collection of 577 Coilia mystus was made during April 2006 and 2007 from China's Yangtze Estuary to estimate the age structure and growth patterns of the population. Examination of sectioned sagittal otoliths revealed a periodic straight/curved growth pattern. The straight zone was from April to November, and the curved zone from October to May, indicating annual periodicity. Annual periodicity was also verified by margin zone analysis. The shift from a curved-zone to the next straight-zone stanza was defined as an annulus. The fish from which the otoliths were taken were 0-5 years old. The von Bertalanffy growth function was fitted to standard length (LS)-at-age data as L-S = 215.16 (1 - e(-0.53(t+0.30))) (n = 577, r(2) = 0.81, p < 0.05). The mature females included five age classes, ages 1 and 2 accounting for 74.3% of the population. The mature males included fish aged 1 and 2, those at age 1 accounting for 86.4% of the population. Mean length was smaller, and annual growth less, for mature males than for females of comparable age. The study demonstrated that the Yangtze population of C. mystus consists of more age classes than previously thought and that the age structure of the population needs to be considered in management decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据