Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:18:57.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Otolith Microstructure of the Lesser Sandeel, Ammodytes Marinus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

P. J. Wright
P. J. Wright
Affiliation:
SOAFD Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB9 8DB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Daily increments were demonstrated in the sagittae of the lesser sandeel, Ammodytes marinus, maintained in outdoor enclosures. Daily increment formation was also inferred for wild sandeels from an analysis of changes in age composition within a series of field samples. A comparison between sagitta microstructure and morphological development of larval and juvenile sandeels indicated that the first sagitta increment was formed around the time of hatching. Yolk-sac absorption and larval metamorphosis were accompanied by changes in otolith microstructure.

The lesser sandeel, Ammodytes marinus (Raitt), is important as a prey item for many species of fish, seabirds and marine mammals (Furness, 1990) and supports major fisheries in the North Sea (Anon., 1991). However, little is known about the ecological processes affecting year-class strength in this species. Otolith microstructure has been demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for investigating early survivorship in fishes, since otoliths may provide a chronological record of early growth and life-history events (see Campana & Neilson, 1985). This paper examines the usefulness of otolith microstructure for studies of sandeel growth, from investigations of increment periodicity and a comparison between otolith microstructure and morphological development.

Type
Short Communications
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 245 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon., , 1991. Report of the Industrial Fisheries Working Group, Copenhagen, 20–27 March 1991. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (CM Papers and Reports), CM 1991 / Assess:14, 104 pp.Google Scholar
Brothers, E. B., Mathews, C. P. & Lasker, R., 1976. Daily growth increments in otoliths from larval and adult fishes. Fishery Bulletin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC, 74, 1–8.Google Scholar
Cameron, J., 1958. Studies on the Ammodytidae of Isle of Man waters. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Campana, S. E. & Neilson, J. D., 1985. Microstructure of fish otoliths. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 42, 1014–1032.Google Scholar
Furness, R. W., 1990. A preliminary assessment of the quantities of Shetland sandeels taken by seabirds, seals, predatory fish and the industrial fishery in 1981–83. Ibis, 132, 205–217.Google Scholar
Geffen, A. J., 1987. Methods of validating daily increment deposition in otoliths of larval fish. In Age and growth of fish (ed. Summerfelt, R. C. and Hall, G. E.), pp. 223–240. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, C., 1986. Determining age of larval fish with the otolith increment technique. Fishery Bulletin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC, 84, 91–103.Google Scholar
Macdonald, P. D. M. & Pitcher, T. J., 1979. Age-groups from size-frequency data: a versatile and efficient method of analysing distribution mixtures. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 36, 987–1001.Google Scholar
Radtke, R. L., 1989. Larval fish age, growth, and body shrinkage: information available from otoliths. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 46, 1884–1894.Google Scholar
Scott, J. S., 1973. Otolith structure and growth in northern sand lance, Ammodytes dubius, from the Scotian Shelf. Research Bulletin. International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, 10, 107–116.Google Scholar
Stevens, E. G., Matarese, A. C. & Watson, W., 1984. Ammodytoidei: development and relationships. In Ontogeny and systematics of fishes, International Symposium to the memory of E. H. Ahlstrom (ed. Moser, H. G.et al.), pp. 574–575. Special publication of the American Society of Ichthyology and Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Tanaka, K., Mugiya, Y. & Yamada, J., 1981. Effects of photoperiod and feeding on daily growth patterns in otoliths of juvenile Tilapia nilotica. Fishery Bulletin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC, 79, 459–466.Google Scholar
Winslade, P., 1971. Behavioural and embryological investigations of the lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus (Raitt). PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
Winslade, P., 1974. Behavioural studies on the lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus (Raitt). II. The effect of light intensity on activity. Journal of Fish Biology, 6, 577–586.Google Scholar
Wright, P. J., Metcalfe, N. B. & Thorpe, J. E., 1990. Otolith and somatic growth rates in Atlantic salmon parr, Salmo salar L.: evidence against coupling. Journal of Fish Biology, 36, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar