Marine Biology

, Volume 152, Issue 3, pp 537–548 | Cite as

Comparison of absolute and relative growth patterns among five Pinna nobilis populations along the Tunisian coastline: an information theory approach

  • Lotfi Rabaoui
  • Sabiha Tlig Zouari
  • Stelios KatsanevakisEmail author
  • Oum Kalthoum Ben Hassine
Research Article


The variability in absolute and relative growth of Pinna nobilis along the Tunisian coastline was investigated. Five populations of P. nobilis were sampled, three from northern and two from eastern Tunisia. The specimens were aged and ten morphometric characters were measured on each individual. To test if differences existed in absolute and relative growth patterns among the different populations an information theory approach was followed. For absolute growth, von Bertalanffy, Gompertz, the logistic and the power models were fitted in combination with three assumptions regarding inter-population differences in absolute growth patterns: no differences, differences among all five populations or just between northern and eastern populations. The assumption of common absolute growth parameters among all five populations had the greatest support by the data, whereas the assumption of different growth patterns among all five populations had no support. Von Bertalanffy growth model and the power model were both equally supported by the data (while Gompertz had considerably less support and the logistic model had no support), and thus it may not be definitely concluded whether P. nobilis grows asymptotically or not. The P. nobilis populations of the Tunisian coastline had a slow growth and up to an age of ∼ 9 years their shells were smaller than from all other reported populations in the Mediterranean. For relative growth, apart from the classical allometric model Y = aXb , relating the size of a part of a body Y to another reference dimension X, more complicated models were used in combination with the three abovementioned assumptions regarding inter-population differences. Those models, of the form logY = f (logX), either assumed breakpoints in the relative growth trajectories or non-linearities. For most morphometric characters, the classical allometric model had no support by the data and more complicated models were necessary. In most cases, different relative growth either among all five populations or between the northern and eastern population groups was supported by the data. Further investigation is needed to relate the morphological differences observed among different populations of P. nobilis to environmental factors.


Akaike Weight Morphometric Character Allometric Growth Absolute Growth Allometric Exponent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We wish to acknowledge the suggestions and comments of two anonymous reviewers, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. This survey was conducted in compliance with the current laws of Tunisia.


  1. Ackerman JD, Nishizaki MT (2004) The effect of velocity on the suspension feeding and growth of the marine mussels Mytilus trossulus and M. californianus: implications for niche separation. J Mar Sys 49:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  3. Akaike H (1983) Information measures and model selection. Int Stat Inst 44:277–291Google Scholar
  4. Akester RJ, Martel AL (2000) Shell shape, dysodont tooth morphology, and hinge-ligament thickness in the bay mussel Mytilus trossulus correlate with wave exposure. Can J Zool 78:240–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertalanffy von L (1938) A quantitative theory of organic growth (Inquiries on growth laws II). Human Biol 10:181–213Google Scholar
  6. Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH (1997) Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics 53:603–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnaby TP (1966) Growth-invariant discriminant functions and generalized distances. Biometrics 22:96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler AJ, Vincente N, Gaulejac B de (1993) Ecology of the pteroid bivalves Pinna bicolor Gmelin and Pinna nobilis L. Mar Life 3:37–45Google Scholar
  10. Cadrin SX (2000) Advances in morphometric identification of fishery stocks. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:91–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galinou-Mitsoudi S, Vlahavas G, Papoutsi O (2006) Population study of the protected bivalve Pinna nobilis (Linaeus, 1758) in Thermaikos Gulf (North Aegean Sea). J Biol Res 5:47–53Google Scholar
  12. García-March JR, García-Carrascosa AM, Peña Cantero AL, Wang YG (2007a) Population structure, mortality and growth of Pinna nobilis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca: Bivalvia) at different depths in Moraira bay (Alicante, Western Mediterranean). Mar Biol 150:861–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García-March JR, Pérez-Rojas L, García-Carrascosa AM (2007b) Influence of hydrodynamic forces on population structure of Pinna nobilis L., 1758 (Mollusca: Bivalvia): The critical combination of drag force, water depth, shell size and orientation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gompertz B (1825) On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 115:515–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall NG, Smith KD, de Lestang S, Potter IC (2006) Does the largest chela of the males of three crab species undergo an allometric change that can be used to determine morphometric maturity?. ICES J Mar Sci 63:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinch SG, Bailey RC (1988) Within- and among-lake variation in shell morphology of the freshwater clam Elliptio companata (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from south-central Ontario lakes. Hydrobiologia 157:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopkins JW (1966) Some considerations in multivariate allometry. Biometrics 22:747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Houle D, Mezey J, Galpern P (2002) Interpretation of the results of common principal components analyses. Evolution 56:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson GD, Choat JH (1992) Growth in tropical cephalopods: an analysis based on statolith microstructure. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katsanevakis S (2006a) Population ecology of the endangered fan mussel Pinna nobilis in a marine lake. Endanger Species Res 1:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katsanevakis S (2006b) Modelling fish growth: model selection, multi-model inference and model selection uncertainty. Fish Res 81:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katsanevakis S (2007a) Density surface modelling with line transect sampling as a tool for abundance estimation of marine benthic species: the Pinna nobilis example in marine lake. Mar Biol (in press). doi: 10.1007/s00227-007-0659-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katsanevakis S, Thessalou-Legaki M, Karlou-Riga C, Lefkaditou E, Dimitriou E, Verriopoulos G (2007b) Information-theory approach to allometric growth of marine organisms. Mar Biol 151: 949–959. doi: 10.1007/s00227-006-0529-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katsanevakis S, Xanthopoulos J, Protopapas N, Verriopoulos G (2007c) Oxygen consumption of the semi-terrestrial crab Pachygrapsus marmoratus in relation to body mass and temperature: an information theory approach. Mar Biol 151:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lleonart J, Salat J, Torres GJ (2000) Removing allometric effects of body size in morphological analysis. J Theor Biol 205:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Osenberg CW, Miner BG, Vonesh JR (2006) Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia 148:547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreteau JC, Vicente N (1982) Evolution d’une population de Pinna nobilis L. (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Malacologia 22:341–345Google Scholar
  30. Newell CR, Hidu H (1982) The effects of sediment type on growth rate and shell allometry in the soft shelled clam Mya arenaria L. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 65:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Protopapas N, Katsanevakis S, Thessalou-Legaki M, Verriopoulos G (2007) Relative growth of the semi-terrestrial crab Pachygrapsus marmoratus: an information-theory approach. Sci Mar (in press)Google Scholar
  32. Philips NE (2005) Growth of filter-feeding benthic invertebrates from a region with variable upwelling intensity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 295:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramos MA (1998) Implementing the habitats directive for mollusk species in Spain. J Conchol Spec Publ 2:125–132Google Scholar
  34. Richardson CA, Kennedy H, Duarte CM, Kennedy DP, Proud SV (1999) Age and growth of the fan mussel Pinna nobilis from south-east Spanish Mediterranean seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) meadows. Mar Biol 133:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson CA, Peharda M, Kennedy H, Kennedy P, Onofri V (2004) Age, growth rate and season of recruitment of Pinna nobilis (L) in the Croatian Adriatic determined from Mg:Ca and Sr:Ca shell profiles. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 299:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ricker WE (1975) Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull Fish Res Board Can 191:1–382Google Scholar
  37. Seed R (1980) Shell growth and form in Bivalvia. In: Rhoads DC, Lutz RA (eds) Skeletal growth of aquatic organisms. Biological records of environmental change. Premium Press, New York, pp 23–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Šiletić T, Peharda M (2003) Population study of the fan shell Pinna nobilis L. in Malo and Veliko Jezero of the Mljet National Park (Adriatic Sea). Sci Mar 67:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Somers KM (1986) Multivariate allometry and removal of size with principal components analysis. Syst Zool 35:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steffani CN, Branch GM (2003) Growth rate, condition, and shell shape of Mytilus galloprovincialis: responses to wave exposure. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 246:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thorpe RS (1975) Quantitative handling of characters useful in snake systematics with particular reference to intraspecific variation in the Ringed Snake Natrix natrix (L.). Biol J Linn Soc 7:27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorpe RS (1976) Biometric analysis of geographic variation and racial affinities. Biol Rev 51:407–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zavodnik D, Hrs-Brenko M, Legac M (1991) Synopsis on the fan shell Pinna nobilis L. in the eastern Adriatic Sea. In: Boudouresque CF, Avon M, Gravez V (eds) Les Espèces Marines à Protéger en Méditerranée. GIS Posidonie publ., Marseille, pp 169–178Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lotfi Rabaoui
    • 1
  • Sabiha Tlig Zouari
    • 1
  • Stelios Katsanevakis
    • 2
    Email author
  • Oum Kalthoum Ben Hassine
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Unit of Biology, Ecology and Parasitology of Aquatic Organisms, Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences of TunisUniversity campus, El ManarTunisTunisia
  2. 2.Department of Zoology-Marine Biology, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of AthensPanepistimioupolisGreece

Personalised recommendations