4.4 Article

Discrimination of red porgy Pagrus pagrus (Sparidae) potential stocks in the south-western Atlantic by otolith shape analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY
卷 98, 期 2, 页码 548-556

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfb.14598

关键词

Fourier; marine fish; otolith morphology; ShapeR; stock identification; Wavelet

资金

  1. CAPES [88882.347007/2019-01]
  2. Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity (FUNBIO) marine research grant [104/2016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Otolith shape analysis is a powerful method for fish stock identification, and in the study of Red Porgy, four potential stocks were identified in different regions of the southwestern Atlantic. The differences in otolith shape suggest that Red Porgy does not form a homogeneous group in southern Brazil.
Otolith shape analysis is a powerful method for fish stock identification. We compared the otolith shape of Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus 1758) along with its distribution in four south-western Atlantic regions where it is commercially fished: Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil, the Argentine-Uruguayan Common Fishing Zone (UA) and the Argentinian Exclusive Fishing Zone (AR). Otolith shapes were compared by Elliptical Fourier and Wavelet coefficients among specimens in a size range with similar otoliths, morphometric parameters and ages. Four potential stocks were identified: one in the AR, a second along the UA which included specimens from southern Brazil with well-marked opaque bands in its otoliths (MRS), the third in southern Brazil with faint or absent opaque bands in its otoliths (FRS) and the fourth along Rio de Janeiro. The difference in the otolith shape among regions followed differences reported using other stock identification techniques. The similarity between otoliths from UA and MRS (ANOVA-like, P > 0.01) can be explained by seasonal short-range migrations. Otoliths shape differences between MRS and FRS (ANOVA-like, P < 0.01) suggest that P. pagrus does not form a homogeneous group in southern Brazil.

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