Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 89, Issue 3–4, pp 579–590 | Cite as

A new otolith image contour descriptor based on partial reflection

  • Ramon Reig-BolañoEmail author
  • Pere Marti-PuigEmail author
  • Antoni Lombarte
  • Jose Antonio Soria
  • Vicens Parisi-Baradad


In this paper we propose a new contour descriptor for reconstructing fish otolith contours that uses half the number of coefficients needed by the classical elliptical Fourier descriptors (EFDs) for the same accuracy. The efficiency of the proposed shape descriptor has been tested with two different species, Liza aurata and Liza ramada, belonging to the family Mugilidae (, and two populations (from the USA and Canada) of the family Merlucciidae. These groups are characterized by high similarity between species; therefore, accurate, detailed shape analyses of their otoliths can help to identify and discriminate morphologically close species or different populations. For comparative purposes the descriptor was also tested with specimens of Mullus barbatus (Family Mullidae). For a certain number of coefficients (<50) the new descriptor clearly outperforms the reconstruction accuracy of the EFD.


Contour descriptors Elliptic Fourier descriptors Shape analysis Feature extraction 



The authors would like to thank L Recasens, M Demestre, C Costa, N Ortega, H. Aguirre, D. Flescher and JL Butler as donors of the otoliths. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions made during the review process of this paper


  1. Abidi MA, Gonzalez RC (1986) Shape decomposition using elliptic fourier descriptors. Proc. 18th IEEE Southeast Sympo. Sys. Theory, pp 53–61, Knoxvlle, TN USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkiran N (1985) A systematic study on Carangidae (Pisces) employing the otolith characters in the Eastern Mediterranean. Bilj Notes Inst Oceanogr Ribar Split 63:1–9Google Scholar
  3. Begg GA, Brown RB (2000) Stock identification of haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus on Georges Bank based on otolith shape analysis. Trans Am Fish Soc 129:935–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird JL, Eppler DT, Checkley DM (1986) Comparisons of herring otoliths using Fourier-series shape-analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43(6):1228–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campana SE, Casselman JM (1993) Stock discrimination using otolith shape analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:1062–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardinale M, Doering-Arjes P, Kastowsky M, Mosegaard H (2004) Effects of sex, stock, and environment on the shape of known-age atlantic cod (gadus morhua) otoliths. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(2):158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casselman JM, Collins JJ, Crossman EJ, Ihssen PE, Spangler GR (1981) Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) stocks of the Ontario waters of Lake Huron. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1772–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castonguay M, Simard P, Gagnon P (1991) Usefulness of Fourier analysis of otolith shape for atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) stock discrimination. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(2):296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen SYY, Lestrel PE, Kerr WJS, McColl JH (2000) Describing shape changes in the human mandible using elliptical Fourier functions. Eur J Orthodont 22:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooley JW, Tukey JW (1965) An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier Series. Math Comput 19:297–301Google Scholar
  11. Colura RL, King TL (1995) Using scale and otolith morphologies to separate spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) collected from two areas within Galveston Bay. In: Secor DH, Dean JM, Campana SE (eds) Recent developments in fish otolith research. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 617–628Google Scholar
  12. Friedland KD, Reddin DG (1994) Use of otolith morphology in stock discriminations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaemers PAM (1984) Taxonomic position of the Cichlidae (Pisces, Perciformes) as demonstrated by the morphology of their otoliths. Neth J Zool 34:566–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gavrila D (2000) Pedestrian detection from a moving vehicle. Proc. Europ. Conf. Computer Vision, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  15. Hecht T, Appelbaum S (1982) Morphology and taxonomic significance of the otoliths of some bathypelagic Anguilloidei and Saccopharyngoidei from the Sargasso Sea. Helgol Meeresunters 35:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iwata H, Ukai Y (2002) SHAPE: a computer program package for quantitative evaluation of biological shapes based on elliptic Fourier descriptors. J Hered 93:384–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhl FP, Giardina CR (1982) Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput Graph Image Process 18:236–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. L’Abée-Lund JH (1988) Otolith shape discriminates between juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and brown trout, Salmo trutta. J Fish Biol 33:899–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lestrel PE (ed) (1997) Fourier descriptors and their application in biology. Cambridge University Press, UK, p 466Google Scholar
  20. Lombarte A, Torres GJ, Morales-Nin B (2003) Specific Merluccius otolith growth patterns related to phylogenetics and environmental. J Mar Biol Ass UK 83:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lombarte A, Chic O, Parisi-Baradad V, Olivella R, Piera J, García-Ladona E (2006) A web-based environment for shape analysis of fish otoliths. The AFORO database. Sci Mar 70(1):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKern JL, Horton HF, Koski KV (1974) Development of steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) otoliths and their use for age analysis and for separating summer from winter races and wild from hatchery stocks. J Fish Res Board Can 31(8):1420–1426Google Scholar
  23. Messieh SN (1972) Use of otoliths in identifying herring stocks in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and adjacent waters. J Fish Res Board Can 29(8):1113–1118Google Scholar
  24. Morrow JE (1976) Preliminary keys to otoliths of some adult fishes of the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Beaufort Sea. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS Circ 420:1–32Google Scholar
  25. Nasreddine K, Benzinou A, Fablet R (2009) Shape geodesics for the classification of calcified structures: beyond Fourier shape descriptors. Fish Res 98(1–3):8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neilson JD, Geen GH, Chan B (1985) Variability in dimensions of salmonid otolith nuclei: implications for stock identification and microstructure interpretation. Fish Bull 83(1):81–89Google Scholar
  27. Parisi-Baradad V, Lombarte A, García-Ladona E, Cabestany J, Piera J, Chic O (2005) Otolith shape contour analysis using affine transformation invariant wavelet transforms and curvature scale space representation. Mar Freshw Res 56:795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piera J, Parisi-Baradad V, García-Ladona E, Lombarte A, Recasens L, Cabestany J (2005) Otolith shape feature extraction oriented to automatic classification with open distributed data. Mar Freshw Res 56:805–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ponton D (2006) Is geometric morphometrics efcient for comparing otolith shape of diferent fish species? Comput Vis Image Underst 427267(6):750–757Google Scholar
  30. Postuma KH (1974) The nucleus of the herring as a racial character. J Cons Int Explor Mer 35(2):121–129Google Scholar
  31. Proakis John G, Manolakis Dimtris G (2007) Digital signal processing, 4th edn. Pearsons Education.Google Scholar
  32. Rätz HJ (1994) Assessment of the migration of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) between the stocks off West and East Greenland in 1984–86 by means of otolith typing. J Northw Atl Fish Sci 16:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenfeld A, Pfaltz JL (1968) Distance functions on digital pictures. Pattern Recogn 1(1):33–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saborido-Rey F (1998) Differences in weight and length of otoliths between populations of genus Sebastes in the North Atlantic. Poster, 2nd International Symposium on Fish Otolith Research and Application. Bergen, 20–25 June 1998. (Abstract in Moksness 1998)Google Scholar
  35. Shepherd CE (1910) Comparisons of otoliths found in fishes. The Zoologist, London, Ser 4(14):292–298Google Scholar
  36. Smith MK (1992) Regional differences in otolith morphology of the deep slope red snapper Etelis carbunculus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Torres GJ, Lombarte A, Morales-Nin B (2000) Sagittal otolith size and shape variability to identify geographical intraspecific differences in three species of the genus Merluccius. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 80:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuset VM, Lombarte A, Assuis CA (2008) Otolith atlas for the Western Mediterranean, North and Central Eastern Atlantic. Sci Mar 72S1:7–198Google Scholar
  39. Tracey SR, Lyle JM, Duhamelb G (2006) Application of elliptical Fourier analysis of otolith form as a tool for stock identification. Fish Res 77:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramon Reig-Bolaño
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pere Marti-Puig
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antoni Lombarte
    • 2
  • Jose Antonio Soria
    • 3
  • Vicens Parisi-Baradad
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitat de Vic (UVIC)CatalunyaSpain
  2. 2.Institut de Ciències del Mar (CMIMA-CSIC)CatalunyaSpain
  3. 3.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Av/ Víctor BalaguerCatalunyaSpain

Personalised recommendations