Characteristics of sagittae morphology in sixteen marine fish species collected from the Persian Gulf: Demonstration of the phylogenetic influence on otolith shape

Teimori, Azad; Khajooei, Azam; Motamedi, Mina; Hesni, Majid Askari

doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100661

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, to our knowledge, this is the first study documenting such a difference in otolith shape between wild and reared fish. Given that the excisura ostia is part of the sulcus acusticus, an important structure for sagittae frequency response and auditory threshold (Popper et al ., 2005; Popper & Coombs, 1980; Teimori et al ., 2019), it should be interesting to examine in the future whether the excisura notch of reared fish has any functional significance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)

Geladakis

Somarakis

Koumoundouros

2020

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)

Geladakis

Somarakis

Koumoundouros

2020

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reichenbacher et al, 2007; Teimori, Jawad, et al, 2012) as valuable features to identify distinct Aphanius species, and even discriminate different populations (Gholami et al, 2014; Teimori, Schulz‐Mirbach, et al, 2012). It has also been documented that besides the genetic factors that play role in the formation of otolith morphology (Annabi et al, 2013; Teimori, Khajooei, Motamedi, & Askari Hesni, 2019; Tuset et al, 2016), environmental variability (Capoccioni et al, 2011; Teimori, Schulz‐Mirbach, et al, 2012), as well as ontogenetic factors (Jawad, Sabatino, Ibáñez, Andaloro, & Battaglia, 2017; Motamedi et al, 2019; Reichenbacher et al, 2009), have also been suggested to influence the otolith morphology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrapopulation variation of otolith associated with ontogeny and morphological dimorphism in Hormuz tooth‐carp Aphanius hormuzensis (Teleostei: Aphaniidae)

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intrapopulation variation in otolith morphology was investigated for the first time in a recently discovered tooth‐carp Aphanius hormuzensis by considering ontogenetic variation and morphological dimorphism. The otolith materials were examined by scanning electron microscopy and quantitative analyses. The results underlined clear ontogenetic variation in the otolith morphology, which could be valuable to delineate the certain developmental stages of A. hormuzensis. Besides, some otolith features were found to be consistent during fish development and, therefore, appreciated to identify the species. The otoliths of A. hormuzensis demonstrated considerable sexual dimorphism in the adult fishes. Also, morphological side dimorphism was observed more in the otoliths of the females. As a result, the present study designated a clear intrapopulation variation in the otolith of A. hormuzensis, which were mainly influenced by fish development, sexual factors and morphological side dimorphism. The outcomes of the present study provide new basic data on the natural intrapopulation variation of this tooth‐carp during its life history and offered new data to interpret those factors that regulate otolith shape during the development, which has less been considered in previous studies.

show abstract

“…Four classifiers were compared. a) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) is the most common parametric method used in the literature (Stransky et al 2008a, b;Zhang et al 2013;Teimori et al 2019). b) K-nearest neighbour (KNN) determines the classification of objects finding the k closest neighbours of a query element inside the database by comparing one by one in the feature space and with a distance metric defined in this space (Marti-Puig and Reig-Bolaños 2016); the advantage of KNN is its higher tolerance in the data structure (Hastie et al 2009).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The otolith shape depends on the ecological, evolutionary and phylogenetic characteristics of species (Škeljo and Ferri 2012;Zhuang et al 2014, 2016Mille et al 2016;Lombarte et al 2018;Teimori et al 2019), which are not always differentiated by the shape indices. For instance, otolith shape changes can be more or less prominent and localize in sections or the whole contour during ontogenetic development (Monteiro et al 2005;Tuset et al 2008;Biolé et al 2019).…”

Section: Limitations Of Shape Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradox of otolith shape indices: routine but overestimated use

Tuset

Otero-Ferrer²,

Siliprandi

et al. 2021

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The identification of fish species using otolith shape has been common in many fields of the marine science. Different analytical processes can be applied for the morphological discrimination, but reviewing the literature we have found conceptual and statistical limitations in the use of shape indices and wavelets (contour analysis), being specially worrying in the first case due to their widespread routine use. In the present study, 42 species were classified using otolith shape indices and wavelets and applying traditional and machine learning classifiers and performance measures (accuracy, Cohen’s kappa statistic, sensitivity and precision). Our results were conclusive, wavelets were a more adequate option for the classification of species than shape indices, independently of classifiers and performance measures considered. The artificial neural network and support vector machine provided the highest values for all performance measures using wavelets. In all cases, the measures of sensitivity and precision pointed out a higher confusion between some otolith patterns using shape indices. Therefore, we strongly discourage the routine use of shape indices for the identification of species.

show abstract

Characteristics of sagittae morphology in sixteen marine fish species collected from the Persian Gulf: Demonstration of the phylogenetic influence on otolith shape

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)

Differences in otolith shape and fluctuating‐asymmetry between reared and wild gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758)

Intrapopulation variation of otolith associated with ontogeny and morphological dimorphism in Hormuz tooth‐carp Aphanius hormuzensis (Teleostei: Aphaniidae)

Paradox of otolith shape indices: routine but overestimated use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About