Distribution, Growth, and Predation of Juvenile White Mullet (Mugil curema) in Oceanside Waters of Virginia's Eastern Shore

Richards, C. E.; Castagna, Michael

doi:10.2307/1350525

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Comparisons Of the Different Data From Von Bertalanffy Growtmentioning

confidence: 45%

“…4). Thus growth curves from the present study and Richards & Castagna (1976) were the only ones to describe growth from the origin, whereas in Alvarez-Lajonchère (1981), Ibáñez-Aguirre & Gallardo-Cabello (1996), Ibáñez-Aguirre et al (1999) and Gallardo-Cabello et al (2005), the growth curve intercepts the y-axis at around 10 cm, which is well above the origin.The inclusion of fish of all sizes in age and growth studies results in a more representative growth curve for the species of interest across its entire life cycle as well as estimates of longevity and growth rate for different phases of development of white mullet. These estimates are particularly important for the calculation of biomass and recruitment in fisheries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 45%

“…The opposite occurs when only very young individuals are analyzed, as in the case of Richards & Castagna (1976), who included individuals from 2.5 to 14.2 cm FL (<1 yr old) in the growth curve and obtained a higher K-value than those described by any other author (Table 3), bringing about an overestimation of K, as the VBGF is biased towards specimens with fast growth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Age and growth of white mullet from the western Atlantic has been estimated in the United States, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela from periodic rings of the spines of dorsal fins, scales and otoliths (Richards & Castagna 1976, Alvarez-Lajonchère 1981, Ibáñez-Aguirre et al 1995, 1999, Gallardo-Cabello et al 2005, leading to rather dissimilar growth parameters. According to Santana da Silva (2007), dissimilarities have been attributed to: (1) the different hard structures used; (2) nonvalidated growth marks; or (3) the lack of the use of both micro-and macrostructures of otoliths.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Otolith micro- and macrostructure analysis to improve accuracy of growth parameter estimation for white mullet Mugil curema

Santana¹,

Morize²,

Clavier³

et al. 2009

Aquat. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age and growth studies on the white mullet Mugil curema present (Valenciennes, 1836) dissimilarities with regard to the parameters estimated. It is therefore necessary to undertake a growth analysis based on micro-and macrostructures of otoliths from the species in order to reveal the cause of such dissimilarities. Microstructures were validated through otolith marking by balneation in alizarine complexone and demonstrated daily periodicity. Daily microstructures were observed in individuals up to 15.7 cm in fork length and exhibited 5 distinct growth zones. Zones I, II and III (62 d) composed the first macrostructure and Zone IV (223 d) composed the second. It was not possible to see microstructures in Zone V and, beginning with this zone, macrostructures were considered annual, based on the analysis of mean monthly marginal increments. Using daily microstructures and annual macrostructures, the von Bertalanffy function provided the following parameters: L ∞ = 34.4 cm, K = 0.365 and t 0 = 0.311 yr. The following factors caused the dissimilarities between curves for white mullet: (1) absence of samples for ages 0 + and 1 yr, which caused a high value of mean lengths for these age classes and a diminished K-value; (2) the tendency toward overestimation at the age of 1 yr when estimated from macrostructures; (3) identification of the first 2 macrostructures as annual; and (4) absence of young-of-the-year specimens, causing t 0 to be significantly different from 0. These factors lead to the underestimation of the parameters, which makes growth estimates imprecise. 7: 199-206, 2009 68.7% of the total catch of the species in certain areas along the northeastern coast (Santana da Silva 2007). KEY WORDS: Mugil curema · Otoliths · Age and growth · White mullet Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher OPEN PEN ACCESS CCESSAquat BiolAge and growth of white mullet from the western Atlantic has been estimated in the United States, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela from periodic rings of the spines of dorsal fins, scales and otoliths (Richards & Castagna 1976, Alvarez-Lajonchère 1981, Ibáñez-Aguirre et al. 1995, 1999, Gallardo-Cabello et al. 2005, leading to rather dissimilar growth parameters. According to Santana da Silva (2007), dissimilarities have been attributed to: (1) the different hard structures used; (2) nonvalidated growth marks; or (3) the lack of the use of both micro-and macrostructures of otoliths.Taking into account that coastal fishing resources along the Brazilian coast are now either fully exploited or overexploited (Lessa et al. 2006), caution should be taken when management decisions for the white mullet fishery are undertaken. Thus, as accurate age and growth information is needed as input data for agebased approaches used for stock assessments, the goal of the present study is to provide a validated growth curve based both on micro-and macrostructure analyses, which will allow reliable growth parameters for white mullet in northeastern Brazil for the requi...

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Of the Different Data From Von Bertalanffy Growtmentioning

confidence: 45%

mentioning

confidence: 45%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations