Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T21:12:28.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of otolith morphology and morphometry for species discrimination of megrims Lepidorhombus spp. in the Central Eastern Adriatic Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2021

Nika Ugrin Open the ORCID record for Nika Ugrin [Opens in a new window] ,
Frane Škeljo ,
Josipa Ferri  and
Svjetlana Krstulović Šifner
Nika Ugrin*
Affiliation:
University of Split, University Department of Marine Studies, Ruđera Boškovića 37, PO Box 190, 21 000 Split, Croatia
Frane Škeljo
Affiliation:
Falkland Islands Fisheries Department, Bypass Rd, PO Box 598, FIQQ 1ZZ Stanley, Falkland Islands
Josipa Ferri
Affiliation:
University of Split, University Department of Marine Studies, Ruđera Boškovića 37, PO Box 190, 21 000 Split, Croatia
Svjetlana Krstulović Šifner
Affiliation:
University of Split, University Department of Marine Studies, Ruđera Boškovića 37, PO Box 190, 21 000 Split, Croatia
*
Author for correspondence: Nika Ugrin, E-mail: nika.ugrin@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sagittal otolith morphology and otolith shape of two megrim species, Lepidorhombus boscii and Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis, were compared using descriptive morphological characters and Wavelet shape coefficients. Differences in otolith shape were examined by linear discriminant analysis (LDA). The first discriminant axis explained 66.6% of the variation between the groups, and the second axis 28.5%. Otolith classification based on LDA showed that in 79.5% of cases an otolith can be correctly classified based only on its shape. Relationships between otolith morphometric parameters (length and width) and fish size (total length) were described by fitting simple linear regression models. For L. boscii the highest positive correlation was found between right otolith width and total body length (R2 = 0.82), and for L. whiffiagonis between left otolith length and total body length (R2 = 0.39).

Keywords

Lepidorhombusmegrimsotolithshape

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 101 , Issue 4 , June 2021 , pp. 735 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bani, A, Poursaeid, S and Tuset, VM (2013) Comparative morphology of the sagittal otolith in three species of south Caspian gobies. Journal of Fish Biology 82, 1321–1332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capoccioni, F, Costa, C, Aguzzi, J, Menesatti, P, Lombarte, A and Ciccotti, E (2011) Ontogenetic and environmental effects on otolith shape variability in three Mediterranean European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) local stocks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 397, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castilho, R, Dinis, MT and Erzini, K (1993) Age and growth of megrim Lepidorhombus boscii Risso of the Portuguese continental coast. Fisheries Research 16, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cengiz, O, Ozekinci, U, Ismen, A and Oztekin, A (2013) Age and growth of the four-spotted megrim (Lepidorhombus boscii Risso, 1810) from Saros Bay (Northern Aegean Sea, Turkey). Mediterranean Marine Science 14, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, HT, Rigéta, F, Balslev Backea, M, Sahac, A, Johansenc, T and Hedeholma, RB (2018) Comparison of three methods for identification of redfish (Sebastes mentella and S. norvegicus) from the Greenland east coast. Fisheries Research 201, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, DC and Jackson, S (1986) Diet studies of seabirds: a review of methods. Colonial Waterbirds 9, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurostat data browser – Catches – Mediterranean and Black Sea. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/FISH_CA_ATL37-custom304823/default/table?lang=en/ Accessed online 14 January 2021.Google Scholar
Ferri, J, Bartulin, K and Škeljo, F (2018) Variability of otolith morphology and morphometry in eight juvenile fish species in the coastal eastern Adriatic. Croatian Journal of Fisheries 76, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossen, I, Albert, OT and Nilssen, EM (2003) Improving the precision of ageing assessments for long rough dab by using digitised pictures and otolith measurements. Fisheries Research 60, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliano, M and Mccormick, MI (2004) Feeding history influences otolith shape in tropical fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series 278, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, JJ (1992) Morphological characteristics of otoliths for selected fish in the northwest Atlantic. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 13, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, EJ (1980) Stomach contents analysis – a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, J and Piñeiro, C (2000) Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) growth in the North-eastern Atlantic based on the back calculation of otolith ring. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 1077–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libungan, LA and Pálsson, S (2015) ShapeR: an R package to study otolith shape variation among fish populations. PLoS ONE 10, e0121102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombarte, A and Lleonart, J (1993) Otolith size changes related with body growth, habitat depth and temperature. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, RPR (2006) Otoliths and their applications in fishery science. Ribarstvo 64, 89–102.Google Scholar
Morte, S, Redon, MJ and Sanz Brau, A (1999) Feeding ecology of two megrims Lepidorhombus boscii and Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis in the western Mediterranean (Gulf of Valencia, Spain). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 9, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, JG (1986) Scophthalmidae. In Whitehead, PJP, Bauchot, ML, Hureau, JC, Nielsen, J and Tortonese, E (eds), Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO.Google Scholar
Nikolsky, G.V. 1963. The Ecology of Fishes. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 1287–1293.Google Scholar
Pierce, GJ and Boyle, PR (1991) A review of methods for diet analysis in piscivorous marine mammals. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 29, 409–486.Google Scholar
Pilling, GM, Grandcourt, EM and Kirkwood, GP (2003) The utility of otolith weight as a predictor of age in the emperor Lethrinus mahsena and other tropical fish species. Fisheries Research 60, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org//.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Mendoza, RP (2006) Otoliths and their applications in fishery science. Ribarstvo 64, 89–102.Google Scholar
Sanchez, F, Perez, N and Landa, J (1998) Distribution and abundance of megrim (Lepidorhombus boscii and Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in the northern Spanish shelf. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55, 494–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šantić, M, Stagličić, N, Pallaoro, A, Markov, M and Jardas, I (2013) Age and growth of megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis (Scophthalamidae) from eastern central Adriatic Sea. Cybium 37, 255–261.Google Scholar
Santos, PT (1994) Growth and reproduction of the population of the four-spot megrim (Lepidorhombus boscii Risso) off the Portuguese coast. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 32, 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Škeljo, F and Ferri, J (2012) The use of otolith shape and morphometry for identification and size estimation of five wrasse species in predator-prey studies. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 28, 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Škeljo, F, Brčić, J, Vuletin, V and Ferri, J (2015) Age and growth of the axillary wrasse, Symphodus mediterraneus (L.) from the eastern Adriatic Sea. Marine Biology Research 11, 780–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, MJ, Watson, G and Hecht, T (1995) Otolith atlas of southern African marine fishes. J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology. Ichthyological Monographs, 253.Google Scholar
Smith, WE and Kwak, TJ (2014) A capture-recapture model of amphidromous fish dispersal. Journal of Fish Biology 84, 897–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuset, VM, Lombarte, A and Assis, CA (2008) Otolith atlas for the western Mediterranean, north and central eastern Atlantic. Scientia Marina 72, 7–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuset, VM, Otero-Ferrer, JL, Siliprandi, C, Manjabacas, A, Marti-Puig, P and Lombarte, A (2021) Paradox of otolith shape indices: routine but overestimated use. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 78, 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, J, Vieira, AR, Sequeira, V, Gonzales, JA, Kaufmann, M and Serrano Gordo, L (2018) Identifying populations of the blue jack mackerel (Trachurus picturatus) in the Northeast Atlantic by using geometric morphometrics and otolith shape analysis. Fishery Bulletin 116, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassilopoulou, V (2006) Dietary habits of the deep-sea flatfish Lepidorhombus boscii in northeastern Mediterranean waters. Journal of Fish Biology 69, 1202–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, WN and Ripley, BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waessle, JA, Lasta, CA and Favero, M (2003) Otolith morphology and body size relationships for juvenile Sciaenidae in the Río de la Plata estuary (35–36°S). Scientia Marina 67, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar