4.7 Article

New insights in oocyte dynamics shed light on the complexities associated with fish reproductive strategies

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-54672-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish research grant DREAMER, Recruitment Dynamic of European Hake [CTM2015-66676-C2-1-R]
  2. Annenberg Foundation, CA, USA [16-249]
  3. University of Girona [BR-UdG 2015]
  4. Fundacion Tatiana Perez de Guzman el Bueno

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information on temporal variations in stock reproductive potential (SRP) is essential in fisheries management. Despite this relevance, fundamental understanding of egg production variability remains largely unclear due to difficulties in tracking the underlying complex fluctuations in early oocyte recruitment that determines fecundity. We applied advanced oocyte packing density theory to get in-depth, quantitative insights across oocyte stages and seasons, selecting the commercially valuable European hake (Merluccius merluccius) as a case study. Our work evidenced sophisticated seasonal oocyte recruitment dynamics and patterns, mostly driven by a low-cost predefinition of fecundity as a function offish body size, likely influenced also by environmental cues. Fecundity seems to be defined at a much earlier stage of oocyte development than previously thought, implying a quasi-determinate - rather than indeterminate -fecundity type in hake. These results imply a major change in the conceptual approach to reproductive strategies in teleosts. These findings not only question the current binary classification of fecundity as either determinate or indeterminate, but also suggest that current practices regarding potential fecundity estimation in fishes should be complemented with studies on primary oocyte dynamics. Accordingly, the methodology and approach adopted in this study may be profitably applied for unravelling some of the complexities associated with oocyte recruitment and thereby SRP variability.

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

4.7
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