4.4 Article

Age estimation of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) over multiple seasons from the southern Gulf of Carpentaria using FT-NIR spectroscopy

期刊

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
卷 72, 期 9, 页码 1268-1279

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF20300

关键词

fish ageing; otolith; spectroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates the potential for accurately and rapidly aging southern Gulf of Carpentaria barramundi using FT-NIR spectroscopy, with a high predictive accuracy of 96%. The models were also successful in predicting the age of otoliths from 2006 and 2009, indicating the reliability of the method for long-term storage samples.
The age of whole otoliths from barramundi (Lates calcarifer) obtained from the southern Gulf of Carpentaria were estimated using Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy. Otoliths from 1716 barramundi collected in 2006, 2009 and 2012-2015 were used in this study. Partial least-squares regression models (PLS-R) and multiple linear regression models (MLR) were developed from the diffuse reflectance spectra and the age was obtained from traditional sectioned otoliths. Calibration models were built up over consecutive years (2012-2015) by using a subset of the samples and used to predict the age of the remaining samples and samples from the following year. Results suggest that when seasonal (temporal) variability is incorporated into the calibration model, FT-NIR has the ability to predict barramundi age (validation R-2 ranged from 0.73 to 0.78; RMSEP ranged from 6.92 to 7.64 months). The predicted age class was within 1 year of the reference age in over 96% of the samples. These models were also able to predict the age of otoliths from 2006 and 2009, which were retrieved from long-term storage (validation R-2 ranged from 0.77 to 0.84; RMSEP ranged from 8.66 to 10.88 months). The results from this study have shown the potential for barramundi from the southern Gulf of Carpentaria to be aged quickly and accurately by using FT-NIR.

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

4.4
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