Application of elliptical Fourier analysis of otolith form as a tool for stock identification
By S. Tracey, J. Lyle, Guy Duhamel. 2006
169 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Geometric morphometrics is a relatively new tool to fisheries research showing promise as a means of enabling researchers to cheaply and quickly categorise fish to individual stocks based on variations in otolith form, most commonly size and shape. In this study we introduce the method of elliptical Fourier analysis using two widely separated populations of striped trumpeter (Latris lineata) as a case study and compare the interpretation of results based on both unconstrained and constrained ordination techniques. There were no significant differences in otolith morphometrics between sex or age classes within each region. All form descriptors were standardised for fish length, thereby minimising confounding effects on any potential inter-regional otolith form differences. Non-metric multidimensional scaling was not sufficient to elucidate differences in otolith form between populations. However, using constrained canonical analysis of principal coordinates and canonical discriminant analysis, regional differences became evident with allocation success of 75 and 87%, respectively. Based on this study differences in otolith form reflect that the two tested striped trumpeter populations have reasonable phenotypic anonymity. This study further supports the usefulness of shape analysis and constrained non-parametric statistical tests as tools for stock discrimination and introduces elliptical Fourier analysis to the study of otolith morphometrics.
Subfields: Genetics, Geometry and Topology, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa1c6eb751c4d7ac7575f39246fef4a497c59fe5
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Genetics
- R. Lecomte-Finiger
- Antoni Lombarte
- K. Hüssy
- Yves Letourneur
- Matthias Vignon
- Deirdre Brophy
- B. Mérigot
- F. Morat
In Geometry and Topology
In Global and Planetary Change
- K. Hüssy
- Matthias Vignon
- V. Tuset
- R. Lecomte-Finiger
- Antoni Lombarte
- Yves Letourneur
- Deirdre Brophy
- Stefano Mariani
Citations in the corpus
- Characterization of local populations of the common sole Solea solea (Pisces, Soleidae) in the NW Mediterranean through otolith morphometrics and shape analysis (2007, methodology): “Among several possibilities for analysing shape with Fourier series, the elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) descriptors are often considered as more powerful than those issued from fast Fourier transformation (FFT) for shape analysis, and was therefore used in this work, although EFA is in fact less us”
- Use of otolith shape for stock identification of John's snapper, Lutjanus johnii (Pisces: Lutjanidae), from the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea (2014, background): “v d a eparation among stocks, which is comparable to Elliptical Fourier escriptors (e.g., Castonguay et al., 1991; Campana and Casselman, 993; Cardinale et al., 2004; Tracey et al., 2006; Stransky et al., 008; Neves et al., 2011) and reinforces the application of wavelets n these studies.”
- A comparison of otolith microchemistry and otolith shape analysis for the study of spatial variation in a deep-sea teleost, Coryphaenoides rupestris (2010, background): “Each individual was therefore represented by 77 unique coefficients, more than twice as many as in Tracey et al. (2006) .”
- Environmental and genetic determinant of otolith shape revealed by a non-indigenous tropical fish. (2010, methodology): “Moreover, variation in otolith shape is also a useful tool for discriminating between species (L’Abée-Lund 1988, Stransky & MacLellan 2005, Tuset et al. 2006) and fish stocks (Campana & Casselman 1993, DeVries et al. 2002, Cardinale et al. 2004, Tracey et al. 2006, Burke et al. 2008).”
- Otolith shape in juvenile cod (Gadus morhua): Ontogenetic and environmental effects (2008, methodology): “…rates between groups, this response may to some degree also be the reason for differences between geographical areas (Castonguay et al., 1991; Pothin et al., 2006; Smith, 1992; Tracey et al., 2006) and year-classes (Bolles and Begg, 2000; Campana and Casselman, 1993; Castonguay et al., 1991).”