Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:37:12.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphometric variation of fish scales among some species of rattail fish from New Zealand waters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2018

A. L. Ibáñez  and
L. A. Jawad
A. L. Ibáñez*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186. CP 09340, Ciudad de México, México
L. A. Jawad
Affiliation:
4 Tin Turn Place, Flat Bush, Manukau, Auckland, New Zealand
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: A.L. Ibáñez Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186. CP 09340, Ciudad de México, México email: ana@xanum.uam.mx
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New Zealand rattail fish are of great interest both to biologists who study their phylogenetics and in fisheries. In contrast, their morphological evolution is little studied and poorly understood. Geometric morphometric methods based on scale shape were applied in this study to determine differences among species and genera. Scale shapes were described using seven landmarks, the coordinates of which were subjected to a generalized Procrustes analysis, followed by a principal components analysis. A cross-validated discriminant analysis was applied to assess and compare the size-shape (centroid size plus shape variables) efficacy in the species and the discrimination of the genera. Two main phenetic groups were identified: cluster no. 1 with eight species and cluster no. 2 with six species. Coelorhinchus aspercephalus and Mesovagus antipodum were more separated from the other species in the first cluster. The cross-validated canonical discriminant analysis correctly classified 74% at the genus level, with most misclassifications occurring between Coelorhinchus and Coryphaenoides, whereas the best classified genera were Mesovagus and Trachyrincus. The discrimination of correctly classified species ranged from 41.2 to 100%. The highest correct classification rates were recorded for Coryphaenoides armatus, Coelorhinchus innotabilis, Trachyrincus longirostris and Mesovagus antipodum.

Keywords

geometric morphometricslandmarksscale morphologyRattail fishdiscrimination analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 98 , Special Issue 8: Special Section: European Marine Biology Symposium Papers 2018 , December 2018 , pp. 1991 - 1998
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2018 

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

Adams, D.C., Rohlf, F.J. and Slice, D.E. (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Italian Journal of Zoology 71, 5–16. doi: 10.1080/11250000409356545.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L. (1834–1843) Recherches sur les poissons fossiles. Volume 1–5. Neuchâtel: Imprimerie de Petitpierre.Google Scholar
Anderson, O.F., Bagley, N.W., Hurst, R.J., Francis, M.R., Clark, M.R. and McMillan, P.J. (1998) Atlas of New Zealand fish and squid distributions from research bottom trawls. NIWA Technical Report 42.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2004) Estimation of the abundance of orange roughy on Northeast Chatham Rise, 2004. Tangaroa (TAN0408) and Tasman Viking (TVI0401). Unpublished NIWA Report. Wellington, New Zealand: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. (1989) Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11, 567–585.Google Scholar
Casteel, R.W. (1972) A key based on scales, to the families of native California freshwater fishes. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 39, 75–86.Google Scholar
Chervinski, J. (1984) Using scales for identification of four Mugilidae species. Aquaculture 38, 79–81.Google Scholar
Clark, M.R. (1982) Food and feeding relationships of fish species from the Campbell Plateau, New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Clark, M.R. (1985) The food and feeding of seven fish species from the Campbell Plateau, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19, 339–363.Google Scholar
Clark, M.R., King, K.J. and McMillan, P.J. (1989) The food and feeding of black oreo, Allocyttus niger, smooth oreo, Pseudocyttus maculatus, and eight other fish species from the continental slope of the southwest Chatham Rise New Zealand. Journal of Fish Biology 35, 465–484.Google Scholar
Cohen, D., Inada, M., Iwamoto, T., Scialabba, T., Whitehead, N. and Palmer, P.J. (1990) FAO species catalogue, volume 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis 125. Rome: FAO, pp. 10–442.Google Scholar
Daniels, R.A. (1996) Guide to the identification of scales of the inland fishes of Northeastern North America. Albany, NY: New York State Museum Bulletin 488, p. 97.Google Scholar
Dryden, I.L. and Mardia, K.V. (1993) Multivariate shape analysis. Sankya Series A 55, 460–480.Google Scholar
Dryden, I.L. and Mardia, K.V. (1998) Statistical shape analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Endo, H. (2002) Phylogeny of the Order Gadiformes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii). Memoirs of the Graduate School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University 49, 1–149.Google Scholar
Garduño-Paz, M.V., Demetriou, M. and Adams, C.E. (2010) Variation in scale shape among alternative sympatric phenotypes of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus from two lakes in Scotland. Journal of Fish Biology 76, 1491–1497.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, A.L. (2015) Fish traceability: guessing the origin of fish from a seafood market using fish scale shape. Fisheries Research 170, 82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2015.05.016.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, A.L., Cowx, I.G. and O'Higgins, P. (2007) Geometric morphometric analysis of fishscales for identifying genera, species and local populations within the Mugilidae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 64, 1091–1100.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, A.L., Cowx, I.G. and O'Higgins, P. (2009) Variation in elasmoid fish scale patterns is informative with regard to taxon and swimming mode. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 155, 834–844.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, A.L. and Gallardo-Cabello, M. (2005) Identification of two Mugilidae species, Mugil cephalus and M. curema (Pisces: Mugilidae), using the ctenii of their scales. Bulletin of Marine Science 77, 305–308.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, A.L. and O'Higgins, P. (2011) Identifying fish scales: the influence of allometry on scale shape and classification. Fisheries Research 109, 54–60.Google Scholar
Ibáñez-Aguirre, A.L. and Lleonart, J. (1996) Relative growth and comparative morphometrics of Mugil cephalus L. and M. curema V. in the Gulf of Mexico. Scientia Marina 60, 361–368.Google Scholar
Iwamoto, T., McMillan, P. and Shcherbachev, Y.N. (1999) A new grenadier, genus Caelorinchus, from Australia and New Zealand (Pisces, Gadiformes, Macrouridae). New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33, 49–54. DOI: 10.1080/00288330.1999.9516855.Google Scholar
Jarvis, R.S., Klodowski, H.F. and Sheldon, S.P. (1978) New method of quantifying scale shape and an application to stock identification in walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107, 528–534.Google Scholar
Kent, J.T. (1994) The complex Bingham distribution and shape analysis. Journal of The Royal Statistical Society Series B–Statistical Methodology 56, 285–299.Google Scholar
Maitland, P.S. (2004) Keys to the freshwater fish of Britain and Ireland, with notes on their distribution and ecology. Scientific Publications of the Freshwater Biological Association 62, 121–132.Google Scholar
Marcus, L.F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G.J.P. and Slice, D. (1996) Advances in morphometrics. Nato ASI series. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
McMillan, P.J. (1980) New Zealand macrourids of the genus Coelorinchus (Pisces: Gadiformes) with detailed descriptions of six common species and notes on aspects of their biology. Unpublished MSc thesis. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
McMillan, P.J. and Iwamoto, T. (2015) Macrouridae. In Roberts, C.D., Stewart, A.L. and Struthers, C.D. (eds) The fishes of New Zealand. Wellington: Te Papa Press, Museum of New Zealand, pp. 747–827.Google Scholar
McMillan, P.J. and Paulin, C.D. (1993) Descriptions of nine new species of rattails of the genus Caelorinchus (Pisces, Macrouridae) from New Zealand. Copeia 3, 819–840.Google Scholar
Nakayama, N. and Endo, H. (2017) Mesovagus, a replacement name for the grenadier genus Mesobius Hubbs and Iwamoto 1977 (Actinopterygii: Gadiformes: Macrouridae), a junior homonym of Mesobius Chamberlin 1951 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae). Ichthyological Research 64, 120–122. doi: 10.1007/s10228–016–0531-x.Google Scholar
Nelson, J.S., Grande, T.C. and Wilson, M.V.H. (2016) Fishes of the world, 5th edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
O'Higgins, P. and Jones, N. (2006) Tools for statistical shape analysis. Hull York Medical School. Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/res/fme/resources/software.htm (accessed 10 March 2012).Google Scholar
Poulet, N., Reyjol, Y., Collier, H. and Lek, S. (2005) Does fish scale morphology allow the identification of populations at a local scale? A case study for rostrum dace Leucius leuciscus burdigalensis in River Viaur (SW France). Aquatic Science 67, 122–127.Google Scholar
Richards, R.A. and Esteves, C. (1997) Use of scale morphology for discriminating wild stocks of Atlantic striped bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126, 919–925.Google Scholar
Richtsmeier, J., Deleon, V.B. and Lele, S.R. (2002) The promise of geometric Morphometrics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45, 63–91.Google Scholar
Roberts, C.D. (1993) Comparative morphology of spined scales and their phylogenetic significance in the Teleostei. Bulletin of Marine Science 52, 60–113.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. (2006) Tps series. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University Stony Brook, New York. Available at http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morphGoogle Scholar
Smith, P.J., Steinke, D., McMillan, P.J., Stewart, A.L., McVeagh, S.M., Diaz de Astarloa, J.M., Welsford, D. and Ward, R.D. (2011) DNA barcoding highlights a cryptic species of grenadier Macrourus in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Fish Biology 78, 355–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1095–8649.2010.02846.x.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.R. Jr and Attia, P. (2003) Interrelationships of the subgenera of Coryphaenoides (Teleostei: Gadiformes: Macrouridae): synthesis of allozyme, peptide mapping, and DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27, 343–347. doi: 10.1016/S1055–7903(02)00419–0.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.R. Jr, Siebenaller, J.F. and Bonnie, J. D. (1991) Phylogenetic analysis of species of three subgenera of Coryphaenoides (Teleostei: Macrouridae) by peptide mapping of homologs of LDH-A4. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 19, 277–287.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M.L., Swiderski, L.D., Sheets, H.D. and Fink, W.L. (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.Google Scholar