4.0 Article

Otolith chemical signatures of spottedtail goby Synechogobius ommaturus in coastal waters of China

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF OCEANOLOGY AND LIMNOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 640-646

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s00343-011-0125-4

关键词

Synechogobius ommaturus; otolith chemistry; stock identification

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2005CB422306]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [Y2008D21]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China for Creative Research Groups [40821004]
  4. Key Laboratory of Marine and Estuarine Fisheries Resources and Ecology, Ministry of Agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the potential existence of local stocks of Synechogobius ommaturus using otolith chemical signatures. The concentrations of 10 elements (K, Ca, Na, Mg, Sr, Pb, Ba, Mn, Co, Zn) in the otoliths from eight stocks (Dandong, Dalian, Tianjin, Dongying, Weihai, Qingdao, Ganyu and Xiamen) of S. ommaturus were measured by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry and regressed against otolith weight. No significant correlation between otolith weight and concentrations of Na, Mg, Ca, Sr, Co, Ba, Zn and Pb were observed. Concentrations of K and Mn were correlated with otolith weight. Consequently, the residuals of the regressions were used instead of the original concentrations in subsequent analyses. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant difference between males and females in otolith chemical signatures. Differences were found among the locations for K, Sr, Mn, Co, Ba, Pb, but not for Ca, Na, Mg and Zn. Residuals of the regressions of elemental concentrations against otolith weight that fitted the normal distribution and homogeneity were studied by discriminant analysis. The success of the discriminant function to predict the location of S. ommaturus capture ranged from 100% for Weihai and Xiamen stocks, to only 44.4% and 62.5% for Qingdao and Dandong stocks, respectively. The average prediction success was 80.3%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据