Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:12:22.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sex identification and biomass reconstruction from the cuttlebone of Sepia officinalis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Eduardo Almonacid-Rioseco
Affiliation:
Biota Austral Consultores, C/ Francisco Bilbao 940, Casilla de Correo 19, Punta Arenas, Chile
Vicente Hernández-García
Affiliation:
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ciencias Básicas, Campus de Tafira, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain
Aldo P. Solari
Affiliation:
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ciencias Básicas, Campus de Tafira, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain
Ángelo Santana Del Pino
Affiliation:
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ciencias Básicas, Campus de Tafira, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain
José J. Castro*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ciencias Básicas, Campus de Tafira, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: José J. Castro, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Edificio de Ciencias Básicas, Campus de Tafira, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Significant differences were found between males and females in the fragmocone, external cone and widths of the cuttlebone in Sepia officinalis caught in the small-scale trap fishery off Gran Canaria Island (Spain). It is suggested that: (a) differences may depend on morphological adaptations of females for egg laying; (b) cuttlebones represent over 50% of the total cuttlefish caught (which is unrecorded in the fishery); and (c) the relationships between several morphometric measures of the cuttlebone and the mantle length and wet weight may allow more accurate biomass estimations of this species in the fishery.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009

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

REFERENCES

Almonacid-Rioseco, E. (2006) Contribución a la ecología de Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda: Sepiidae) en Gran Canaria. Mem. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.Google Scholar
Bandel, K. and Boletzky, S.v. (1979) A comparative study of chambered cephalopod shells. Veliger 21, 313354.Google Scholar
Bettencourt, V. and Guerra, A. (2001) Age studies based on daily growth increments in statoliths and growth lamellae in cuttlebone of cultured Sepia officinalis. Marine Biology 139, 327334.Google Scholar
Boletzky, S.v. (1974) Effects de la Sous-nutrition prolongée sur le développement de la coquille de Sepia officinalis L. (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Buletin de la Société Zoologique de France 99, 667673.Google Scholar
Boletzky, S.v. (1983) Sepia officinalis. In Boyle, P.E. (ed.) Cephalopod life cycles, vol. 1. London: Academic Press, pp. 3153.Google Scholar
Choe, S. (1963) Daily age marking on the shell of cuttlefishes. Nature 197, 306307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M.R. (1962) Significance of cephalopods beaks. Nature 193, 560561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M.R. (1986) A handbook for the identification of cephalopod beaks. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gouver, D. and Vincent, F.V. (1996) The mechanical design of the cuttlebone and its bathymetric implications. Biomimetics 4, 3757.Google Scholar
Hernández-García, V., Hernández-López, J.L. and Castro, J.J. (1998) The octopus (Octopus vulgaris) in the small-scale trap fishery off the Canary Islands (central-east Atlantic). Fisheries Research 35, 183189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, R.A. and Stait, B. (1988) Seasonal variation in septal spacing of Sepia officinalis and some Ordovician actinocerid nautiloids. Lethaia 11, 383394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Goff, R., Gauvrit, E., Pinzon du Sel, G. and Daguzan, J. (1998) Age group determination by analysis of the cuttlebone of cuttlefish Sepia officinalis L. in reproduction in the Bay of Biscay. Journal of Molluscan Studies 64, 183193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, C.C. (1998) Use of sepion in the taxonomy of Sepiidae (Cephalopoda: Sepioidea) with an emphasis on the Australian fauna. In Voss, N.A. et al. (eds) Systematics and biogeography of cephalopods. Smithsonian Contribution to Zoology 586, 207214.Google Scholar
Natsukari, Y., Hirata, S. and Washizaki, M. (1991) Growth and seasonal changes of cuttlebone characters of Sepia esculenta. In Boucaud-Camou, E. (ed.) Actes du premier symposium international sur la seiche. Université de Caen, pp. 4967.Google Scholar
Neige, P. (2006) Morphometrics of hard structures in cuttlefish. Vie et Milieu 56, 121127.Google Scholar
Pérez-López, C. (2001) Técnicas Estadísticas con SPSS®. Madrid, España: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
, P. and Narciso, L. (1994) Growth and cuttlebone microstructure of juvenile cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis L., under controlled conditions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 177, 7378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, A. (1969) The part placed by temperature in the rhythm of formation of markings on the shell of cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.) (Cephalopoda, Mollusca). Experientia 25, 10511052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, A. (1972) La coquille de Sepia officinalis: series et interstries, leurs variations en rapport avec l'ecologie de l'animal. Haliotis 2, 195202.Google Scholar
Roper, C.F.E. and Voss, G.L. (1983) Guidelines for taxonomic descriptions of cephalopod species. Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria 44, 4963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainz, J. (1990) Cuttlebone development in Sepia officinalis. 1990. Pacific Science. Abstract of Papers 44, 194195.Google Scholar