Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:50:33.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Study of the growth of Octopus vulgaris in the Moroccan Mediterranean Sea by direct age estimation through the analysis of upper beaks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2023

Ahmed Faiki*
Affiliation:
Research team in Biological Engineering, Food Processing and Aquaculture, Polydisciplinary Faculty of Larache, B.P 745, Main Post 92000, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tetouan, Morocco
Hicham Chairi
Affiliation:
Research team in Biological Engineering, Food Processing and Aquaculture, Polydisciplinary Faculty of Larache, B.P 745, Main Post 92000, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tetouan, Morocco
Mohammed Malouli Idrissi
Affiliation:
National Fisheries Research Institute (INRH), Regional Centre of Tangier, P.O. Box 5268, Tangier, Morocco
Jilali Bensbai
Affiliation:
National Fisheries Research Institute (INRH), Bd Sidi Abderrahmane 2, Ain Diab, Casablanca, Morocco
*
Corresponding author: Ahmed Faiki; E-mail: ahmed.faiki@mpm.gov.ma
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beaks are one of the most important sclerochronological structures used to study the age and growth of cephalopods, in particular Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797. The present study provides results of ageing of 128 O. vulgaris (56–239 mm dorsal mantle length, DML; 121–5974 g total weight, TW) collected in the southern Moroccan Mediterranean coasts between Fnideq and Jebha. The number of increments corresponding to the age (days since hatching) varied from 137–368 in females and from 129–382 in males. There was a significant correlation between beak and somatic growth. The correlation coefficients of the growth curves DML-Age and TW-Age were similar for both power and exponential models: DML = 0.185Age1.188 (R2 = 0.547), DML = 35.933e0.005Age (R2 = 0.546), TW = 0.00002Age3.260 (R2 = 0.532), TW = 29.56e0.014Age (R2 = 0.541). The average width of the increments was similar between females and males. It varied significantly with season and stage of sexual maturity. Comparison of the growth curve with those estimated by other authors showed that Moroccan Mediterranean O. vulgaris grew faster than that of Sardinia (Italy) and slower than that of the Mauritanian coast.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

Introduction

The common octopus is characterized by rapid non-asymptotic growth (Alford & Jackson, Reference Alford and Jackson1993), with high individual variability (Semmens et al., Reference Semmens, Pecl, Villanueva, Jouffre, Sobrino, Wood and Rigby2004). This variability has been found both in aquaculture (Iglesias et al., Reference Iglesias, Otero, Moxica, Fuentes and Sánchez2004) and in the wild (Domain et al., Reference Domain, Jouffre and Caverivière2000). The growth rate of cephalopods is influenced by diet (Forsythe & van Heukelem, Reference Forsythe, Van Heukelem and Boyle1987; García García & Cerezo Valverde, Reference García García and Cerezo Valverde2006; Cerezo Valverde et al., Reference Cerezo Valverde, Hernandez, Aguado-Gimenez and García García2008) and temperature (Aguado Giménez & García García, Reference Aguado Giménez and García Garcia2002). However, a comparative study of age between wild and cultivated O. vulgaris paralarvae showed that temperature and the age × temperature interaction significantly influenced the deposition of daily increments, whereas diet had no influence (Perales-Raya et al., Reference Perales-Raya, Nande, Roura, Bartolome, Gestal, Otero, Garcia-Fernandez and Almansa2017).

Ageing methods based on the count of growth increment on age-registering structures (Lipinski & Durholtz, Reference Lipinski and Durholtz1994; Bettencourt & Guerra, Reference Bettencourt and Guerra2000; Arkhipkin et al., Reference Arkhipkin, Bizikov, Doubleday, Laptikhovsky, Lishchenko, Perales-Raya and Hollyman2018) are considered the most appropriate for cephalopods. Distinctive increments, possibly related to daily growth, have been observed on statoliths (Young, Reference Young1960), eye lenses (Gonçalves, Reference Gonçalves1993), the inner rostral area (Raya & Hernández-González, Reference Raya and Hernández-González1998) and lateral walls (Hernandez-Lopez et al., Reference Hernandez-Lopez, Castro-Hernandez and Hernandez-Garcia2001) of Octopus vulgaris beaks and inner shell (stylets) (Sousa-Reis & Fernandes, Reference Sousa-Reis and Fernandes2002; Doubleday et al., Reference Doubleday, Semmens, Pecl and Jackson2006; Leporati et al., Reference Leporati, Semmens and Pecl2008). However, among all of them the reading of growth increments on beaks seems to be the most reliable method for octopods. A summary of the studies on growth increments on O. vulgaris beaks, some of which validated the daily deposition of these increments, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Validating Octopus vulgaris age studies based on beaks, carried out by several authors

The main aim of this study is to assess growth of the common octopus on the Moroccan Mediterranean coast.

Materials and methods

Materials

A total of 128 octopus specimens were used for the age study using octopus beaks, with sizes between 56–239 mm and weights between 121–5974 g. This sample is composed of 58 females and 70 males, derived from the catches of artisanal boats and trawlers, between 7 March 2019 and 13 September 2019 in the maritime area Fnideq-Jebha (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Study area between Fnideq (35.86°N 5.34°W) and Jebha (35.20°N 4.59°W) in the Moroccan Mediterranean.

Processing and measurements

In all octopuses, the DML was measured with an ichthyometer to the nearest 1 mm, the TW to the nearest 1 g, and sexual maturity was assessed using the Idelhaj (Reference Idelhaj1984) scale: immature, maturing, mature and spent (females only). Upper and lower beaks were preserved in distilled water below 6°C as recommended by Perales-Raya et al. (Reference Perales-Raya, Bartolomé, Garcia-Santamaria, Pascual-Alayon and Almansa2010). Rostrum length (RL), hood length (HL) and crest length (CrL) were measured by a calliper to the nearest 0.01 mm for upper beaks (Figure 2), the weight of upper and lower beaks was estimated within the nearest 0.001 mg.

Figure 2. Side view drawing of Octopus vulgaris upper beak with measured lengths (HL: Hood length, RL: Rostrum length, CrL: Crest length).

Age estimation

We used the growth line reading approach of Hernandez-Lopez et al. (Reference Hernandez-Lopez, Castro-Hernandez and Hernandez-Garcia2001). It consists of making a sagittal section with scissors of the upper beaks’ lateral walls to obtain two symmetrical half-beaks from each one, cleaned with water. Then the sectioned lateral walls were placed dried after washing under a stereo-microscope: concave (inner) part on top and convex (outer) part on the bottom. The presence of water droplets or humidified areas on the lateral walls of the half-beaks hinders the good visibility of the growth increments.

During age estimation, the half-beaks tended to dry out quickly and became concave. The rehydration of the half-beaks was essential before continuing the counting. Using an oily solution (glycerol) to impregnate the half-beaks, reduce the desiccation time, increase the reflection of light rays and improve the visibility of the growth increments, has been unsuccessful, as it blurred growth lines instead of increasing their visibility.

A stereo-microscope (NIKON SMZ 745T) connected to a computer with NIS-Elements F imaging software, with 40× magnification for adult individuals and 50× for young ones, was used to count upper beak growth increments. The 20× magnification was used to follow the trajectory of the growth increments when the 40× did not provide clear visibility of the increments.

The use of an external white reflected light was necessary to illuminate the half-beaks, from the inner side, by placing the light source very obliquely. As counting the increments proved to be an almost impossible task directly with the naked eye, several photos per half-beak were taken (3–5 photos for young specimens and up to 8 for older ones) to count on the screen. The direction of counting and taking the pictures started from the rostral tip to the posterior edge of the lateral wall.

Statistical analysis (processed by XLSTAT 2021.2.1. and R software) was carried out using regressions (linear, power, exponential models): RL/HL/CrL-DML, Upperbeak weight/Total beak weight-TW and DML/TW/HL/RL/CrL/Upper beak weight/Total beak weight-Increments number. Due to a better distinction between stress marks and growth increments during counting, the second count values (L 2) were adopted for calculations and analyses. The normality and homogeneity hypotheses were checked by the graphs diagnosis generated by the R software in addition to the Shapiro–Wilk and Lilifors (Kolmogorov–Smirnov) tests. A non-parametric Mann–Whitney test was used to determine whether there were significant differences in the increments number between males and females.

Precision is defined as the reproducibility of repeated measurements (age readings) on a given structure, whether those measurements are accurate or not (Kalish et al., Reference Kalish, Beamish, Brothers, Casselman, Francis, Mosegaard, Panfili, Prince, Thresher, Wilson, Wright, Secor, Dean and Campana1995). Nevertheless, there are two widely used and statistically valid measures for assessing the precision of age readings: the average percentage error (APE) and the coefficient of variation (CV) (Campana, Reference Campana1995). However, the use of APE as a measure of precision is not advisable as it varies widely both between species and between ages within a species. A study can be considered valid when the CV of age readings is <7.6% (Campana, Reference Campana2001).

In the second growth increment counting, 1043 streak width measurements (μm) were taken from photographs – each scaled in μm – of 112 upper beaks using an image processing and analysis program (Image J 1.46r. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij). The widths were measured at the area rostral tip–posterior end of the lateral wall with an average of 9 measurements. A three-way ANOVA was performed between increment width (dependent variable) and sex, maturity stage and increment season (qualitative explanatory variables). In fact, it would be possible to deduce the season of each increment formation knowing the capture date of octopus individuals, their age (increments number) and the sequence number of the increment.

To compare octopus growth of the current study in the Moroccan Mediterranean with that from three other studies in Sardinian, Mauritanian and Brazilian coasts, the monthly sea surface temperature (sst) was provided for the period of each study from the database: NOAA NCEP EMC CMB GLOBAL Reyn_SmithOIv2 monthly sst: Sea Surface Temperature data, https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/Global/Ocean_Temp/Monthly_Temp.html.

Results

Biometric relationships: beak and body measurements

The residuals normality (H0) and homogeneity hypotheses are valid for the length variables (DML, RL, HL, CrL) but not for the weight ones (TW, Upper beak weight, Total beak weight) (Appendix 1). The Shapiro–Wilk tests showed that H0 is correct for relationships CrL-Age (w = 0.987, P = 0.29), HL-Age (w = 0.98, P = 0.49), RL-Age (w = 0.98, P = 0.15), Total beak weight-Age (w = 0.98, P = 0.08) at α = 0.05, and for DML-Age (w = 0.98, P = 0.04) at α = 0.01, respectively. The Lilliefors (Kolmogorov–Smirnov) test showed that this H0 is correct for the relationship Upper beak weight-Age (D = 0.081<D critical, P = 0.052). D critical = 1.031/√n = 0.092 at α = 0.01 (Rakotomalala, Reference Rakotomalala2011).

The power regressions in Appendix 2 showed that there was a very good correlation between the length measurements (RL/HL/CrL-DML) on the one hand and the weight measurements (Upper beak weight/Total beak weight-TW) on the other. Coefficients of determination R 2, demonstrated that the power model was more appropriate than the linear (Appendix 3). Beak growth is, therefore strongly proportional to somatic growth.

The increments: morphology, counts and precision

Stereomicroscopic observation shows that the growth increments are perpendicular to the counting line (tip of the rostrum – posterior end of the lateral wall) with an undulating trajectory. The width of each growth increment varies very little along its trajectory (Figure 3A). Figure 3B–E shows the sequence of growth rings from the anterior region (rostral tip) to the posterior one of the lateral wall of the upper beak.

Figure 3. (A) Width of Octopus vulgaris growth increments. Growth increments of a male specimen (DML = 82 mm, TW = 321 g, maturity stage 1); (B) anterior region showing the first increment with the extrapolated part; (C–D) increments of the middle region; (E) posterior region showing the last increment with the extrapolated part (×50).

Counting increments was possible for 125 specimens of 128 in total, i.e. 97.7% of the individuals sampled. Two counts per beak were performed. The calculated coefficients of variation of the two readings have ranged from 0–0.7% (mean CV = 0.13%). A third counting was therefore considered not necessary.

The increments number (age in days) ranged from 137–368 days for females and from 129–382 days for males. The oldest individual (382 days, DML = 225 mm, TW = 5318 g, male, maturity stage 3) was not the largest (277 days, 239 mm, 4662 g, female stage 3) and the youngest individual (129 days, 62 mm, 174 g, male stage 1) was not the smallest (150 days, 56 mm, 124 g, female, maturity stage 1) (Appendix 4).

The non-parametric Mann–Whitney test showed no significant differences in the increments number between males and females (U = 1600, P = 0.094 at α = 0.05).

Growth curves: octopus individuals and beaks

Figure 4 showed that regression equations have provided a satisfactory correlation between DLM and Age (DML = 0.185Age1.188, R 2 = 0.55), and between TW and Age (TW = 29.56e0.014Age, R 2 = 0.54). The statistical results of both power and exponential models are presented in Table 2. For beak measurements, the best regression equations (Appendix 5) were RL = 0.0015Age0.337 R 2 = 0.621 and HL = 2.802e0.004age R 2 = 0.618 (Table 2).

Figure 4. (A) Relationship between octopus size DML and Increments number; (B) relationship between octopus weight TW and Increments number. N = 125.

Table 2. Statistical analysis results of regressions: size (DML), weight (TW), beak measurements according to the age (Increments number)

The octopus measurements (DML, TW, CrL, HL, Upper beak weight) estimated by equation growth curves (Appendix 6) lead to conclude that, Moroccan Mediterranean Octopus vulgaris was larger than that of the Brazilian and Sardinian coasts and smaller than that of the Mauritanian coasts.

Increment width

The three-way ANOVA showed that there were significant differences in increment width variation by increment season (P = 0.002), and sexual maturity stage (P < 0.0000). There was no significant difference in increment width by sex (P = 0.72) (Table 3).

Table 3. Three-way ANOVA statistical result of upper beak increments widths by sex, sexual maturity stage and increment season (Statistical language R).

‘**’: 0.01, ‘***’: 0.001.

The mean increment width was similar between females and males though juvenile males at stage 1 generally had wider increments than juvenile females (Kruskal–Wallis test, P = 0.0066) (Figure 5A). The narrowest increments for combined sex were formed in spring (59.4 μm) whereas the widest was formed in summer (72 μm) (Figure 5B). The same result was found for all males, all females and mature males but not in mature females considered separately (narrow increments in spring and wide in autumn) (Table 4).

Figure 5. (A) Estimated means of upper beak increment widths by sex and sexual maturity stage with standard error bars. : Males. : Females; (B) estimated means of upper beak increment widths per season with standard error bars; (C) evolution of the octopus upper beak increment widths according to their sequence number (N = 1043); (D) evolution of the octopus upper beak increment mean widths by sequence number (N = 232).

Table 4. Mean width (μm) by season, sex (female: F, male: M) and mature individuals (stage 3) of O. vulgaris in the Moroccan Mediterranean

In general, the growth increment widths of the O. vulgaris upper beaks varied between 17–136 μm from the 37th to the 352nd increment with no clear trend (Figure 5C). The high individual variability of increment widths (SD = 22.5) seems to be due to the low number of increment widths measured by individual. The mean increment width per sequence number showed a trend similar to the bell-shaped curve (Figure 5D) from the 40th to around the 290th increment. After, the remaining points were scattered randomly.

Discussion

The growth increments in common octopus beaks consist of two parts: a thick one that appears clear under reflected light and a thin, deep one that appears dark (Raya & Hernández-González, Reference Raya and Hernández-González1998). Counting these increments is generally more difficult in the rostral tip area as they are frequently discontinuous (Hernandez-Lopez et al., Reference Hernandez-Lopez, Castro-Hernandez and Hernandez-Garcia2001) and generally narrower than those in the medial and posterior region of the beak.

Hernandez-Lopez et al. (Reference Hernandez-Lopez, Castro-Hernandez and Hernandez-Garcia2001) and Perales-Raya et al. (Reference Perales-Raya, Almansa, Bartolomé, Felipe, Iglesias, Sánchez, Carrasco and Rodríguez2014a, Reference Perales-Raya, Nande, Roura, Bartolome, Gestal, Otero, Garcia-Fernandez and Almansa2017) had proven according to studies on O. vulgaris paralarvae that the daily deposition of growth rings on the lateral wall of the upper beak begins on the first day after hatching. This would allow confirmation of the deposition time of the first increment, essential to validate the age deduced from any hard structure (Campana, Reference Campana2001). True increments can only be observed when the darkening process starts to occur, and those noted on the lateral walls during the embryonic phase could be considered false increments (Miserez et al., Reference Miserez, Rubin and Waite2010). To ensure a good estimation of the common octopus age, it is always necessary to determine the age of the formation of the first increment in the lateral walls of the beak (Armelloni et al., Reference Armelloni, Lago-Rouco, Bartolomé, Felipe, Almansa and Perales-Raya2020).

Erosion of the rostrum area of the lower and upper beak, due to predation on armoured prey such as bivalves or crustaceans, may result in an underestimation of the number of increments (Perales-Raya et al., Reference Perales-Raya, Bartolomé, Garcia-Santamaria, Pascual-Alayon and Almansa2010). To minimize any underestimation, Perales-Raya et al. (Reference Perales-Raya, Bartolomé, Garcia-Santamaria, Pascual-Alayon and Almansa2010) proposed counting increments in the dorsal area of the rostrum, less affected by erosion. The presence of false increments, as their formation may be induced by environmental or metabolic conditions independently of age, might overestimate this counting (Canali et al., Reference Canali, Ponte, Belcari, Rocha and Fiorito2011). All studied lower beaks were more eroded than the upper beaks, all of which were very little eroded. Large width consisting from several fused primary increments may underestimate the age during the counting. Perales-Raya et al. (Reference Perales-Raya, Jurado-Ruzafa, Bartolomé, Duque, Carrasco and Fraile-Nuez2014b) observed, in the daily increments sequence of rostrum area, checks or discontinuities (assimilated to large widths) that may record periods of perturbation or stress in the octopus life.

The maximum age of O. vulgaris observed in this study was slightly more than 12 months (12.7 for males and 12.3 for females) as was recorded by Hernandez-López et al. (Reference Hernandez-Lopez, Castro-Hernandez and Hernandez-Garcia2001), Perales-Raya et al. (Reference Perales-Raya, Jurado-Ruzafa, Bartolomé, Duque, Carrasco and Fraile-Nuez2014b), Smale & Buchan (Reference Smale and Buchan1981) in the Atlantic, Castanhari & Tomás (Reference Castanhari and Tomás2012) on the Brazilian coast and Cuccu et al. (Reference Cuccu, Mereu, Cau, Pesci and Cau2013) on the Sardinian coast (Mediterranean). Those recorded by Domain et al. (Reference Domain, Jouffre and Caverivière2000) on the Senegalese coast and Nafkha et al. (Reference Nafkha, Rocha, Ben Abdallah-Ben Hadj Hamida, Ben Hadj Hamida, Chemmam, Velasco, Ezzeddine-Najai and Jarboui2019) on the Tunisian coast (Mediterranean), estimated at 14–20 months and 24–30 months, respectively were different.

Pastor et al. (Reference Pastor, Valiente and Palau2018) found that the lowest sea temperature in Mediterranean is in winter (typically February) with a steep increase in spring towards the highest values in summer (August). From autumn onwards, temperatures are decreasing throughout the winter. Considering that the spring season is the most important spawning period in the Mediterranean (Otero et al., Reference Otero, González, Sieiro and Guerra2007; Cuccu et al., Reference Cuccu, Mereu, Cau, Pesci and Cau2013; Sieiro et al., Reference Sieiro, Otero and Guerra2014) and mature male and female stage 3 (Table 4) pre-spawning individuals, sexual maturity might explain the narrowest increment growth in spring (Table 4). Likewise, the high seawater temperature could explain the highest increment growth noted in summer.

Estimating octopus measurements of 180 and 270 days old for example, through the growth curve equations of the present study and other authors (Perales-Raya et al., Reference Perales-Raya, Bartolomé, Garcia-Santamaria, Pascual-Alayon and Almansa2010; Castanhari & Tomás, Reference Castanhari and Tomás2012; Cuccu et al., Reference Cuccu, Mereu, Cau, Pesci and Cau2013), allows comparing the octopus growth in the four areas studied. Because the average annual SST on Moroccan Mediterranean, Sardinian and Mauritanian coasts estimated from the NOAA database of Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, Rayner, Smith, Stokes and Wang2002) was respectively 18.8, 19 and 21.2°C, the Moroccan Mediterranean octopus grew faster than that of Sardinian and slower than that of Mauritanian coasts (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Comparisons of Octopus vulgaris growth curves DML/TW/Crl/HL/Upper beak weight-Age (Increments number).

In conclusion, the direct age estimation of Octopus vulgaris, by reading growth increments on the lateral walls of the upper beaks, for the first time provides information on growth of the population of the Moroccan Mediterranean. Growth rates of this stock were found to be intermediate between more northerly octopuses (Sardinia) and more southern stock in Mauritania. Sardinian coasts are generally nutrient-poor regions (Caddy et al., Reference Caddy, Refk and Do-Chi1995) whereas biological productivity of the Moroccan Mediterranean, where the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea meet and mix, is greater than those of other parts of the Mediterranean (Vargas-Yáñez et al., Reference Vargas-Yáñez, Moya, García Martínez, Rey and González2009). The coastal upwelling area off Mauritania is one of the most biologically productive regions of the world oceans (Kock et al., Reference Kock, Gebhardt and Bange2008; Bonino et al., Reference Bonino, di Lorenzo, Masina and Iovino2019). In addition to the influence of sea surface temperature, this would explain the difference in O. vulgaris growth from Moroccan Mediterranean, Sardinian and Mauritanian coasts.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315423000218.

Data availability

Data available on request from the corresponding author [, ].

Acknowledgements

The authors of this work would like to thank Dr Catalina Perales-Raya, from the Spanish Institute of Oceanography of the Canary Islands, for the explanations provided on the technique of adequate use of an external illuminator, considered a key to visualize clearly the growth increments of the upper beaks of Octopus vulgaris specimens. Our thanks go also to Drs Yassine Ouagajjou and Jawad Kassila of National Institute for Fisheries Research of Tangier-Morocco for their help and advice in using the stereo-microscope to visualize growth rings and to reviewers for their relevant comments and suggestions that greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Author contributions

AF, HC, and MMI conceived and planned the experiments. AF conducted all the required experiments, found all the results, both experimental and statistical and wrote the manuscripts. HC, MMI, and JB provided critical feedback and corrections to all the results found, supervised and contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

Financial support

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Competing interest

The author(s) declare no conflict of interests.

Ethical standard

Nothing to declare.

References

Aguado Giménez, F and García Garcia, B (2002) Growth and food intake models in Octopus vulgaris Cuvier (1797): influence of body weight, temperature, sex and diet. Aquaculture International 10, 361377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, RA and Jackson, GD (1993) Do cephalopods and larvae of other taxa growth asymptotically? American Naturalist 141, 717728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arkhipkin, A, Bizikov, V, Doubleday, Z, Laptikhovsky, V, Lishchenko, F, Perales-Raya, C and Hollyman, P (2018) Techniques for estimating the age and growth of molluscs: II Cephalopods. Journal of Shellfish Research 37, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armelloni, EN, Lago-Rouco, MJ, Bartolomé, A, Felipe, BC, Almansa, E and Perales-Raya, C (2020) Exploring the embryonic development of upper beak in Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797: new findings and implications for age estimation. Fisheries Research 221, 105375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettencourt, V and Guerra, A (2000) Growth increments and biomineralization process in cephalopod statoliths. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 248, 191205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonino, G, di Lorenzo, E, Masina, S and Iovino, D (2019) Interannual to decadal variability within and across the major Eastern Boundary Upwelling Systems. Scientific Reports 9, 19949. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56514-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caddy, JF, Refk, R and Do-Chi, T (1995) Productivity estimates for the Mediterranean: evidence of accelerating ecological change. Ocean & Coastal Management 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campana, S (1995) Expert age determination of 4VW and 4X haddock otoliths by national and international laboratories. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Atlantic Fisheries Research Document 95/120.Google Scholar
Campana, SE (2001) Accuracy, precision and quality control in age determination, including a review of the use and abuse of age validation methods. Journal of Fish Biology 59, 197242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canali, E, Ponte, G, Belcari, P, Rocha, F and Fiorito, G (2011) Evaluating age in Octopus vulgaris: estimation, validation and seasonal differences. Marine Ecology Progress Series 441, 141149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanhari, G and Tomás, ARG (2012) Contagem de incrementos embicos como uma ferramenta para os estudos de crescimento do polvo-comum octopus vulgaris do sudeste-sul do Brasil. Boletim Do Instituto de Pesca 38, 323331.Google Scholar
Cerezo Valverde, J, Hernandez, MD, Aguado-Gimenez, F and García García, B (2008) Growth, feed efficiency and condition of common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) fed on two formulated moist diets. Aquaculture 275, 266273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuccu, D, Mereu, M, Cau, A, Pesci, P and Cau, A (2013) Reproductive development vs estimated age and size in a wild Mediterranean population of Octopus vulgaris (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93, 843849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domain, F, Jouffre, D and Caverivière, A (2000) Growth of Octopus vulgaris from tagging in Senegalese waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 80, 699706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doubleday, Z, Semmens, JM, Pecl, GT and Jackson, G (2006) Assessing the validity of stylets as ageing tools in Octopus pallidus. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338, 3542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, JW and Van Heukelem, WF (1987) Growth. In Boyle, PR (ed.), Cephalopod Life Cycles, Vol. II: Comparative Reviews. London: Academic Press, pp. 135156.Google Scholar
García García, B and Cerezo Valverde, J (2006) Optimal proportions of crabs and fish in diet for common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) on growing. Aquaculture 253, 502511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, JMA (1993) Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 (polvo-comun): sinopse da biologia e exploração. MsC thesis. Universidade dos Açores, Horta, Açores, 470 pp.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Lopez, JL, Castro-Hernandez, JJ and Hernandez-Garcia, V (2001) Age determined from daily deposition of concentric rings on common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) beaks. Fishery Bulletin 99, 679684.Google Scholar
Idelhaj, A (1984) Analyse de la pêche des céphalopodes de la zone de Dakhla (26 °N–22 °N) et résultats des études biologiques effectuées lors des campagnes du navire de recherche IBN-SINA de 1980 à 1983. InsL Sci. Pêches Mar. (Office national des Pêches du royaume du Maroc), coll. Travaux et Documents, 42, 34 pp.Google Scholar
Iglesias, J, Otero, JJ, Moxica, C, Fuentes, L and Sánchez, FJ (2004) The completed life cycle of the octopus (Octopus vulgaris, Cuvier) under culture conditions: paralarval rearing using Artemia and zoeae, and first data on juvenile growth up to 8 months of age. Aquaculture International 12, 481487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalish, JM, Beamish, RJ, Brothers, EB, Casselman, JM, Francis, RICC, Mosegaard, H, Panfili, J, Prince, ED, Thresher, RE, Wilson, CA and Wright, PJ (1995) Glossary for otolith studies. In Secor, DH, Dean, JM and Campana, SE (eds), Recent Developments in Fish Otolith Research. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, pp. 723729.Google Scholar
Kock, A, Gebhardt, S and Bange, HW (2008) Methane emissions from the upwelling area off Mauritania (NW Africa). Biogeosciences Discussion 5, 297315. doi: 10.5194/bg-5-1119-2008.Google Scholar
Leporati, SC, Semmens, JM and Pecl, GT (2008) Determining the age and growth of wild octopus using stylet increment analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367, 213222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipinski, MR and Durholtz, MD (1994) Problems associated with ageing squid from their statolits: towards a more structured approach. Antarctic Science 6, 215222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miserez, A, Rubin, D and Waite, JH (2010) Cross-linking chemistry of squid beak. Journal of Biological Chemistry 285, 3811538124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nafkha, B, Rocha, F, Ben Abdallah-Ben Hadj Hamida, O, Ben Hadj Hamida, N, Chemmam, B, Velasco, C, Ezzeddine-Najai, S and Jarboui, O (2019) How long can Octopus vulgaris live? An extended life cycle in southern Tunisian coast from age estimation using stylet analysis. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 60, 243252.Google Scholar
Otero, J, González, AF, Sieiro, MP and Guerra, Á (2007) Reproductive cycle and energy allocation of Octopus vulgaris in Galician waters, NE Atlantic. Fisheries Research 85, 122129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, F, Valiente, JA and Palau, JL (2018) Sea surface temperature in the Mediterranean: trends and spatial patterns (1982–2016). Pure and Applied Geophysics 175, 40174029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perales-Raya, C, Almansa, E, Bartolomé, A, Felipe, BC, Iglesias, J, Sánchez, FJ, Carrasco, RF and Rodríguez, C (2014a) Age validation in Octopus vulgaris beaks across the full ontogenetic range: beaks as recorders of life events in octopuses. Journal of Shellfish Research 33, 481493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perales-Raya, C, Bartolomé, A, Garcia-Santamaria, MT, Pascual-Alayon, P and Almansa, E (2010) Age estimation obtained from analysis of octopus (Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797) beaks: improvements and comparisons. Fisheries Research 106, 171176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perales-Raya, C, Jurado-Ruzafa, A, Bartolomé, A, Duque, V, Carrasco, MN and Fraile-Nuez, E (2014b) Age of spent Octopus vulgaris and stress mark analysis using beaks of wild individuals. Hydrobiologia 725, 105114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perales-Raya, C, Nande, M, Roura, A, Bartolome, A, Gestal, C, Otero, JJ, Garcia-Fernandez, P and Almansa, E (2017) Comparative study of age estimation in wild and cultured Octopus vulgaris paralarvae: effect of temperature and diet. Marine Ecology Progress Series 598, 247259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakotomalala, R (2011) Tests de normalité Techniques empiriques et tests statistiques Version 2.0. Université Lumière Lyon 2. 53 pp.Google Scholar
Raya, CP and Hernández-González, CL (1998) Growth lines within the beak microstructure of the octopus Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797. South African Journal of Marine Science 20, 135142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, RW, Rayner, NA, Smith, TM, Stokes, DC and Wang, W (2002) An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. Journal of Climate 15, 16091625.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semmens, JM, Pecl, GT, Villanueva, R, Jouffre, D, Sobrino, I, Wood, JB and Rigby, PR (2004) Understanding octopus growth: patterns, variability and physiology. Marine and Freshwater Research 55, 367377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieiro, P, Otero, J and Guerra, Á (2014) Contrasting macroscopic maturity staging with histological characteristics of the gonads in female Octopus vulgaris. Hydrobiologia 730, 113125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, MJ and Buchan, PR (1981) Biology of Octopus vulgaris off the east coast of South Africa. Marine Biology 65, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sousa-Reis, C and Fernandes, R (2002) Growth observations on Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 from Portuguese waters: growth lines in the vestigial shell as possible tools for age determination. Bulletin of Marine Science 71, 10991103.Google Scholar
Vargas-Yáñez, M, Moya, F, García Martínez, M, Rey, J and González, M (2009) Relationships between Octopus vulgaris landings and environmental factors in the northern Alboran Sea (Southwestern Mediterranean). Fisheries Research 99, 159167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JZ (1960) The statocyst of Octopus vulgaris. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 152, 329.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Validating Octopus vulgaris age studies based on beaks, carried out by several authors

Figure 1

Figure 1. Study area between Fnideq (35.86°N 5.34°W) and Jebha (35.20°N 4.59°W) in the Moroccan Mediterranean.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Side view drawing of Octopus vulgaris upper beak with measured lengths (HL: Hood length, RL: Rostrum length, CrL: Crest length).

Figure 3

Figure 3. (A) Width of Octopus vulgaris growth increments. Growth increments of a male specimen (DML = 82 mm, TW = 321 g, maturity stage 1); (B) anterior region showing the first increment with the extrapolated part; (C–D) increments of the middle region; (E) posterior region showing the last increment with the extrapolated part (×50).

Figure 4

Figure 4. (A) Relationship between octopus size DML and Increments number; (B) relationship between octopus weight TW and Increments number. N = 125.

Figure 5

Table 2. Statistical analysis results of regressions: size (DML), weight (TW), beak measurements according to the age (Increments number)

Figure 6

Table 3. Three-way ANOVA statistical result of upper beak increments widths by sex, sexual maturity stage and increment season (Statistical language R).

Figure 7

Figure 5. (A) Estimated means of upper beak increment widths by sex and sexual maturity stage with standard error bars. : Males. : Females; (B) estimated means of upper beak increment widths per season with standard error bars; (C) evolution of the octopus upper beak increment widths according to their sequence number (N = 1043); (D) evolution of the octopus upper beak increment mean widths by sequence number (N = 232).

Figure 8

Table 4. Mean width (μm) by season, sex (female: F, male: M) and mature individuals (stage 3) of O. vulgaris in the Moroccan Mediterranean

Figure 9

Figure 6. Comparisons of Octopus vulgaris growth curves DML/TW/Crl/HL/Upper beak weight-Age (Increments number).

Supplementary material: File

Faiki et al. supplementary material

Appendices 1-6

Download Faiki et al. supplementary material(File)
File 931.1 KB