1996
DOI: 10.2331/fishsci.62.142
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of Growth Pattern Based on Otolith-tagging in the Early Life Stage of Reared Red Sea Bream

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1997
1997
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These sources of error would have been substantially less important for 30 d old larvae as the fish length/otolith diameter relationship was tighter and right and left otoliths became more similar. Umino et al (1996) also found that the relationship relating otolith diameter and body length improved dramatically as fish grew from first feeding, where the two variables were initially uncorrelated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These sources of error would have been substantially less important for 30 d old larvae as the fish length/otolith diameter relationship was tighter and right and left otoliths became more similar. Umino et al (1996) also found that the relationship relating otolith diameter and body length improved dramatically as fish grew from first feeding, where the two variables were initially uncorrelated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Although strong autocorrelations were detected in the sizes of larvae over time, this was only partly due to autocorrelation in growth rates. Such size autocorrelations have also been found in larval red sea bream (Umino et al 1996), juvenile turbot Scophthalrnus maximus (Rosenberg & Haugen 1982, Imsland et al 1996 and halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus (Hallaraker et al 1995). Likewise, Chambers & Miller (1995) found similar degrees of autocorrelation in larval Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus for similar time spans between measurements (10 to 15 d) and also found that growth autocorrelations were weaker than those for size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%