Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)
Otolith structure is a useful tool in discrimination among fish populations as it is a permanent record of the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors. In the present study we examined otolith morphology and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) for differences between wild‐caught (by bottom trawl) and r...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of fish biology 2021-01, Vol.98 (1), p.277-286 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 286 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 277 |
container_title | Journal of fish biology |
container_volume | 98 |
creator | Geladakis, George Somarakis, Stylianos Koumoundouros, George |
description | Otolith structure is a useful tool in discrimination among fish populations as it is a permanent record of the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors. In the present study we examined otolith morphology and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) for differences between wild‐caught (by bottom trawl) and reared specimens of Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Based on the frequency of regenerated scales (degree of scale regeneration, SRD) on each specimen, a threshold of 30% SRD was used to assign wild‐caught fish individuals as wild (≤30% SRD, LR group) or as possible aquaculture escapees (>30% SRD, HR group). Based on the analysis of elliptic Fourier descriptors, significant differences were found in otolith shape between reared (Rr) and the wild‐caught groups (LR, HR). Reared fish had otoliths with significantly larger perimeter (OP) than wild‐caught fish. Furthermore, FA was significantly higher in the Rr than the LR group for OP and all except one shape descriptors (harmonics 2–7). The HR group exhibited intermediate levels of FA between the low and high FA levels observed in the LR and Rr groups. Results are discussed in terms of the value of combining otolith and scale morphology for the identification of escapees in wild Gilthead seabream stocks. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jfb.14578 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2449263209</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2477694236</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-f5da6d35bc44ef94538ecd8094617b0baff5aa457fe01f50e7cd87b669b0a5213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10ctu1DAUBmALgegwsOAFkCU2rURaO7aTeAmFctFILIB1dJwcdzxKnMEXVbODN-AZeRJMp7BAwhtLPp9-Wecn5Cln57yci50151yqtrtHVpxpVXWN1PfJirG6rgqoT8ijGHeMMS20eEhOhGCCtZKvyPfXzloM6AeM1Hm6pGVyaUvjFvZIwY_UTnlIGZLz1z-__YB4mGdM4UANphtETwNCwPGW3rhppNduSluEkUYEU4YzPf20h5AjhRwgAd047wFzfEF5q7qzx-SBhSnik7t7Tb5cvfl8-a7afHz7_vLlphqEEl1l1QjNKJQZpESrZXnDYeyYlg1vDTNgrQIoS7DIuFUM2zJtTdNow0DVXKzJ6TF3H5avGWPqZxcHnCbwuOTY11LquhF12dGaPP-H7pYcfPldUW3baFmLpqizoxrCEmNA2--DmyEces763730pZf-tpdin90lZjPj-Ff-KaKAiyMoO8TD_5P6D1evjpG_AL2bmFU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2477694236</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Geladakis, George ; Somarakis, Stylianos ; Koumoundouros, George</creator><creatorcontrib>Geladakis, George ; Somarakis, Stylianos ; Koumoundouros, George</creatorcontrib><description>Otolith structure is a useful tool in discrimination among fish populations as it is a permanent record of the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors. In the present study we examined otolith morphology and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) for differences between wild‐caught (by bottom trawl) and reared specimens of Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Based on the frequency of regenerated scales (degree of scale regeneration, SRD) on each specimen, a threshold of 30% SRD was used to assign wild‐caught fish individuals as wild (≤30% SRD, LR group) or as possible aquaculture escapees (>30% SRD, HR group). Based on the analysis of elliptic Fourier descriptors, significant differences were found in otolith shape between reared (Rr) and the wild‐caught groups (LR, HR). Reared fish had otoliths with significantly larger perimeter (OP) than wild‐caught fish. Furthermore, FA was significantly higher in the Rr than the LR group for OP and all except one shape descriptors (harmonics 2–7). The HR group exhibited intermediate levels of FA between the low and high FA levels observed in the LR and Rr groups. Results are discussed in terms of the value of combining otolith and scale morphology for the identification of escapees in wild Gilthead seabream stocks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1112</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jfb.14578</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33030741</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Aquaculture ; bilateral asymmetry ; Bottom trawling ; Fish ; Fish populations ; Fluctuating asymmetry ; Marine fishes ; Morphology ; otolith morphology ; Otolithic Membrane - anatomy & histology ; Otoliths ; Regeneration ; Regeneration (biological) ; scale regeneration ; Sea Bream - anatomy & histology ; Shape ; Sparus aurata ; Species Specificity ; Stocks</subject><ispartof>Journal of fish biology, 2021-01, Vol.98 (1), p.277-286</ispartof><rights>2020 Fisheries Society of the British Isles</rights><rights>2020 Fisheries Society of the British Isles.</rights><rights>Journal of Fish Biology © 2021 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-f5da6d35bc44ef94538ecd8094617b0baff5aa457fe01f50e7cd87b669b0a5213</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-f5da6d35bc44ef94538ecd8094617b0baff5aa457fe01f50e7cd87b669b0a5213</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9738-0403</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjfb.14578$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjfb.14578$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27915,27916,45565,45566</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33030741$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Geladakis, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Somarakis, Stylianos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koumoundouros, George</creatorcontrib><title>Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)</title><title>Journal of fish biology</title><addtitle>J Fish Biol</addtitle><description>Otolith structure is a useful tool in discrimination among fish populations as it is a permanent record of the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors. In the present study we examined otolith morphology and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) for differences between wild‐caught (by bottom trawl) and reared specimens of Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Based on the frequency of regenerated scales (degree of scale regeneration, SRD) on each specimen, a threshold of 30% SRD was used to assign wild‐caught fish individuals as wild (≤30% SRD, LR group) or as possible aquaculture escapees (>30% SRD, HR group). Based on the analysis of elliptic Fourier descriptors, significant differences were found in otolith shape between reared (Rr) and the wild‐caught groups (LR, HR). Reared fish had otoliths with significantly larger perimeter (OP) than wild‐caught fish. Furthermore, FA was significantly higher in the Rr than the LR group for OP and all except one shape descriptors (harmonics 2–7). The HR group exhibited intermediate levels of FA between the low and high FA levels observed in the LR and Rr groups. Results are discussed in terms of the value of combining otolith and scale morphology for the identification of escapees in wild Gilthead seabream stocks.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aquaculture</subject><subject>bilateral asymmetry</subject><subject>Bottom trawling</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fish populations</subject><subject>Fluctuating asymmetry</subject><subject>Marine fishes</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>otolith morphology</subject><subject>Otolithic Membrane - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Otoliths</subject><subject>Regeneration</subject><subject>Regeneration (biological)</subject><subject>scale regeneration</subject><subject>Sea Bream - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Shape</subject><subject>Sparus aurata</subject><subject>Species Specificity</subject><subject>Stocks</subject><issn>0022-1112</issn><issn>1095-8649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10ctu1DAUBmALgegwsOAFkCU2rURaO7aTeAmFctFILIB1dJwcdzxKnMEXVbODN-AZeRJMp7BAwhtLPp9-Wecn5Cln57yci50151yqtrtHVpxpVXWN1PfJirG6rgqoT8ijGHeMMS20eEhOhGCCtZKvyPfXzloM6AeM1Hm6pGVyaUvjFvZIwY_UTnlIGZLz1z-__YB4mGdM4UANphtETwNCwPGW3rhppNduSluEkUYEU4YzPf20h5AjhRwgAd047wFzfEF5q7qzx-SBhSnik7t7Tb5cvfl8-a7afHz7_vLlphqEEl1l1QjNKJQZpESrZXnDYeyYlg1vDTNgrQIoS7DIuFUM2zJtTdNow0DVXKzJ6TF3H5avGWPqZxcHnCbwuOTY11LquhF12dGaPP-H7pYcfPldUW3baFmLpqizoxrCEmNA2--DmyEces763730pZf-tpdin90lZjPj-Ff-KaKAiyMoO8TD_5P6D1evjpG_AL2bmFU</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Geladakis, George</creator><creator>Somarakis, Stylianos</creator><creator>Koumoundouros, George</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-0403</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)</title><author>Geladakis, George ; Somarakis, Stylianos ; Koumoundouros, George</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-f5da6d35bc44ef94538ecd8094617b0baff5aa457fe01f50e7cd87b669b0a5213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aquaculture</topic><topic>bilateral asymmetry</topic><topic>Bottom trawling</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fish populations</topic><topic>Fluctuating asymmetry</topic><topic>Marine fishes</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>otolith morphology</topic><topic>Otolithic Membrane - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Otoliths</topic><topic>Regeneration</topic><topic>Regeneration (biological)</topic><topic>scale regeneration</topic><topic>Sea Bream - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Shape</topic><topic>Sparus aurata</topic><topic>Species Specificity</topic><topic>Stocks</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Geladakis, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Somarakis, Stylianos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koumoundouros, George</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of fish biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Geladakis, George</au><au>Somarakis, Stylianos</au><au>Koumoundouros, George</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)</atitle><jtitle>Journal of fish biology</jtitle><addtitle>J Fish Biol</addtitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>277</spage><epage>286</epage><pages>277-286</pages><issn>0022-1112</issn><eissn>1095-8649</eissn><abstract>Otolith structure is a useful tool in discrimination among fish populations as it is a permanent record of the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors. In the present study we examined otolith morphology and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) for differences between wild‐caught (by bottom trawl) and reared specimens of Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Based on the frequency of regenerated scales (degree of scale regeneration, SRD) on each specimen, a threshold of 30% SRD was used to assign wild‐caught fish individuals as wild (≤30% SRD, LR group) or as possible aquaculture escapees (>30% SRD, HR group). Based on the analysis of elliptic Fourier descriptors, significant differences were found in otolith shape between reared (Rr) and the wild‐caught groups (LR, HR). Reared fish had otoliths with significantly larger perimeter (OP) than wild‐caught fish. Furthermore, FA was significantly higher in the Rr than the LR group for OP and all except one shape descriptors (harmonics 2–7). The HR group exhibited intermediate levels of FA between the low and high FA levels observed in the LR and Rr groups. Results are discussed in terms of the value of combining otolith and scale morphology for the identification of escapees in wild Gilthead seabream stocks.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>33030741</pmid><doi>10.1111/jfb.14578</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-0403</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-1112 |
ispartof | Journal of fish biology, 2021-01, Vol.98 (1), p.277-286 |
issn | 0022-1112 1095-8649 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2449263209 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Animals Aquaculture bilateral asymmetry Bottom trawling Fish Fish populations Fluctuating asymmetry Marine fishes Morphology otolith morphology Otolithic Membrane - anatomy & histology Otoliths Regeneration Regeneration (biological) scale regeneration Sea Bream - anatomy & histology Shape Sparus aurata Species Specificity Stocks |
title | Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T23%3A12%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences%20in%20otolith%20shape%20and%20fluctuating%E2%80%90asymmetry%20between%20reared%20and%20wild%20gilthead%20seabream%20(Sparus%20aurata%20Linnaeus,%201758)&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20fish%20biology&rft.au=Geladakis,%20George&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=277&rft.epage=286&rft.pages=277-286&rft.issn=0022-1112&rft.eissn=1095-8649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jfb.14578&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2477694236%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2477694236&rft_id=info:pmid/33030741&rfr_iscdi=true |