2010
DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2010.9665077
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Precision of Scales and Pectoral Fin Rays for Estimating Age of Highfin Carpsucker, Quillback Carpsucker, and River Carpsucker

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rates of exact agreement between reading pairs for otolith age estimates were generally lower than those reported for other fish species but rates of agreement within one year were similar to values reported in published studies (Welch et al 1993;Isermann et al 2003). Rates of exact agreement between reading pairs and agreement within one year for pectoral fin ray age estimates were within the ranges of values reported in published studies for other fish species (Sikstrom 1983;Welch et al 1993;Rien and Beamesderfer 1994;Spiegel et al 2010). Several studies have reported an effect of reader experience on precision of otolith or fin ray age estimates (Campana and Moksness 1991;Ross et al 2005;Brenden et al 2006), whereas other studies found no difference with experience level (Howland et al 2004;Vandergoot et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Rates of exact agreement between reading pairs for otolith age estimates were generally lower than those reported for other fish species but rates of agreement within one year were similar to values reported in published studies (Welch et al 1993;Isermann et al 2003). Rates of exact agreement between reading pairs and agreement within one year for pectoral fin ray age estimates were within the ranges of values reported in published studies for other fish species (Sikstrom 1983;Welch et al 1993;Rien and Beamesderfer 1994;Spiegel et al 2010). Several studies have reported an effect of reader experience on precision of otolith or fin ray age estimates (Campana and Moksness 1991;Ross et al 2005;Brenden et al 2006), whereas other studies found no difference with experience level (Howland et al 2004;Vandergoot et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Precision of age estimates from rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax; Walsh et al 2008) pectoral fin rays and muskellunge (Esox masquinongy; Brenden et al 2006) pelvic fin rays were similar to pectoral fin ray age estimates for M. dolomieu. However, age estimates derived from pectoral fin rays were more precise for carpsuckers, (Carpiodes spp., Spiegel et al 2010), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus; Hurley et al 2004), and white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus; Rien and Beamesderfer 1994) compared to pectoral fin ray age estimates in this study. Failure to identify the first annulus is a common occurrence when aging fish with pectoral fin rays due to central lumen expansion and obliteration of the first annulus (Buckmeier et al 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Catostomids were identified, measured to the nearest millimeter (total length), and weighed to the nearest gram. The left marginal pectoral fin ray was removed by cutting just proximal to the point of where the fin ray joined the body wall (Koch et al, 2008;Spiegel et al, 2010). After drying, fin rays were mounted in epoxy following the methods provided in the study by Koch and Quist (2007).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Knowledge of fish length and age estimates from other readers were not shared between readers during the age estimation process to avoid bias. In addition to the presumptive number of annuli, readers also assigned a confidence rating to each structure (Fitzgerald et al 1997, Koch et al 2008, Spiegel et al 2010. Confidence ratings were used as a measure of the readability of individual structures.…”
Section: Hard Structure Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%