Scale morphometry allows discrimination of European sardine <i>Sardina pilchardus</i> and round sardinella <i>Sardinella aurita</i> and among their local populations

Bräger, Zs.; Moritz, Timo; Tsikliras, Athanassios C.; Gonzalvo, Joan; Radulović, Marko; Staszny, Ádám

doi:10.1111/jfb.12907

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis was used to determine, whether the differences in clupeid scale shape were sufficient to enable a reliable discrimination among body areas from mixed samples in pilchard and sardinella. Seven landmarks were recorded on each scale (Bräger et al 2016b) using "tpsUtil" v. 1.60 (Rohlf 2015a) and "tpsDig2" v. 2.17 (Rohlf 2015b) utility programs to identify the key features as suggested by Staszny et al (2012). Shape data of the scales were analysed with the software program "MorphoJ" v. 1.06d (Klingenberg 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of scale samples (sampled individuals) varied for the ten sampling areas between 16 and 28 for pilchard, and from 24 to 30 for sardinella (Table 1). The scale material was stored in 70% ethanol upon collection then processed in the laboratory following the procedure described in Bräger et al (2016b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To distinguish clupeoid scales from other fish taxa is fairly easy, but the high degree of similarity in their scale morphology and the plasticity within single individuals impede species identification within families (Patterson et al 2002, Bräger andMoritz 2016). In a previous study, Bräger et al (2016b) showed that the scales of two sympatric clupeid species, i.e., European pilchard, Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) and the round sardinella, Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847, can be reliably discriminated using the landmark-based geometric morphometric method on scales of known origin. To ensure reliable species identification within Clupeidae, here we attempted to reveal inter-and intraspecific, as well as, the intra-individual variability of scale shape in European pilchard and round sardinella.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Advances in image processing and analytical approaches nowadays allow using scale shape as a discriminator among local populations. Morphometric analysis, based on landmark data (geometric morphometric method) has been proven to be a reliable tool to differentiate congeneric species (Ibáñez et al 2007(Ibáñez et al , 2012, allowing for the identification of populations on a local and regional scale (Staszny et al 2012, Bräger et al 2016b) as well as among sympatric phenotypes (Garduño-Paz et al 2010). The geometric morphometric analysis is only sensitive enough to reveal inter-and intra-specific memberships, however, when sample comparability is ensured by deriving them from the same sampling area on the fish body, usually the left flank, and consistency among samples is guaranteed (Ibáñez et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fish scale identification: From individual to species-specific shape variability

Bräger¹,

Staszny²,

Mertzen³

et al. 2017

Acta Ichthyol. Piscat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bräger Z., Staszny Á., Mertzen M., Moritz T., Horváth G. 2017. Fish scale identification: From individual to species-specific shape variability. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 47 (4): 331-338.Background. Species identification from recovered fish scales, e.g., from the sediment or stomach contents, has proven to be problematic for clupeid species. To ensure reliable species discrimination within Clupeidae, we attempted to reveal inter-and intra-specific, as well as, the intra-individual variability of scale shape in two sympatric clupeid species the European pilchard, Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) and the round sardinella, Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847. Our aim was to test, whether the landmark-based geometric morphometric method is reliable for species identification from mixed samples. Material and methods. The specimens of European pilchard and round sardinella were collected between May and October 2014 from the Gulf of Ambracia, Greece. The scale samples were taken from ten body areas (marked by letters A-J) of 487 specimens in total. A multiple-step analysis was conducted on randomly selected blind samples. The differences between body areas were assessed with canonical variate analysis (CVA) and discriminant function analysis (DFA) to compute generalized Mahalanobis distances (D) and discriminant functions (T 2 ), respectively. Results. The CVA based on the total scale samples showed that in sardinella, all body areas differed significantly from each other (D = 2.54 ± 0.79, P < 0.001) except for one (area I vs. J: D = 22.36, P = 0.085). In pilchard, two body area pairs represented non-significant group pairs (area D vs. G: D = 1.03, P = 0.12; and area F vs. G: D = 1.21, P = 0.06), whereas all other areas were significantly different (D = 2.43 ± 0.88, P = 0.003). At the last step of the blind sampling procedure, all scales were correctly classified by species with an average discrimination rate as high as 96.3%. Conclusion. In contrast to scale identification based merely on morphology, the geometric morphometric method is capable of detecting differences in scale shape from mixed samples that are unattainable with the former approach. Therefore, a more reliable and effective species identification can be accomplished from recovered scales, especially when discriminating species within the same family or genus.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fish scale identification: From individual to species-specific shape variability

Bräger¹,

Staszny²,

Mertzen³

et al. 2017

Acta Ichthyol. Piscat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, scales bear valuable information for studies on different levels: on major groups (e.g., coburn & gAglione, 1992;robertS, 1993;SchultZe, 1996;khemiri et al, 2001khemiri et al, , PAtterSon et al, 2002, or on family level (e.g., lAgler 1947;cASteel, 1972cASteel, , 1973liPPitSch, 1990;JAWAd, 2005), down to species level (e.g., moSher, 1969;kAur & duA, 2004;eSmAeili et al, 2007;JAWAd & Al-JuFAili, 2007;eSmAeili & gholAmi, 2011;yokogAWA & WAtAnAbe, 2011;hArAbAWy et al, 2012), and even within a species, e.g., to study sexual dimorphism (e.g., dAPAr et al, 2012;gAnZon et al, 2012). Furthermore, geometric morphometric analysis of fish scales has provided a reliable tool for differentiating congeneric species, e.g., Mugil species by ibáñeZ et al (2007), and allowed identification of populations on a local and regional scale (e.g., Poulet et al, 2005;StASZny et al, 2012;bräger et al, 2016a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scale atlas for common Mediterranean teleost fishes

Braeger¹,

Moritz²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regular body scales of 80 species, belonging to 50 families and 16 orders of marine teleost fishes common in the Mediterranean Sea are described using morphological and morphometric characters. The morphological descriptions are based on the scale’s type, shape, features of the anterior, posterior and lateral fields. Further characteristics of the focus, circuli, radii and spines or cteni, if present, are given. Morphometric indices are calculated for scales from the anterior dorsal flank area of each species. As scale shape varies along the body of a given specimen, respective images are provided generally from ten body areas. The current atlas also provides information that complements the characterization of certain taxa. In addition, it is to constitute a valuable instrument for species identification of scales collected from fossiliferous layers, from archaeological sites or from a variety of feeding remains of piscivorous marine predators.

show abstract

A potential pitfall in studies of biological shape: Does size matter?

Outomuro

Johansson

2017

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of published studies using geometric morphometrics (GM) for analysing biological shape has increased steadily since the beginning of the 1990s, covering multiple research areas such as ecology, evolution, development, taxonomy and palaeontology. Unfortunately, we have observed that many published studies using GM do not evaluate the potential allometric effects of size on shape, which normally require consideration or assessment. This might lead to misinterpretations and flawed conclusions in certain cases, especially when size effects explain a large part of the shape variation. We assessed, for the first time and in a systematic manner, how often published studies that have applied GM consider the potential effects of allometry on shape. We reviewed the 300 most recent published papers that used GM for studying biological shape. We also estimated how much of the shape variation was explained by allometric effects in the reviewed papers. More than one-third (38%) of the reviewed studies did not consider the allometric component of shape variation. In studies where the allometric component was taken into account, it was significant in 88% of the cases, explaining up to 87.3% of total shape variation. We believe that one reason that may cause the observed results is a misunderstanding of the process that superimposes landmark configurations, i.e. the Generalized Procrustes Analysis, which removes isometric effects of size on shape, but not allometric effects. Allometry can be a crucial component of shape variation. We urge authors to address, and report, size effects in studies of biological shape. However, we do not propose to always remove size effects, but rather to evaluate the research question with and without the allometric component of shape variation. This approach can certainly provide a thorough understanding of how much size contributes to the observed shaped variation.

show abstract

Scale morphometry allows discrimination of European sardine Sardina pilchardus and round sardinella Sardinella aurita and among their local populations

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Fish scale identification: From individual to species-specific shape variability

Fish scale identification: From individual to species-specific shape variability

A scale atlas for common Mediterranean teleost fishes

A potential pitfall in studies of biological shape: Does size matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About