Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 23–39 | Cite as

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Advancements in morphometric differentiation: a review on stock identification among fish populations

Reviews
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Identifying intraspecific units or stocks of a species with unique morphological characteristics has now become more powerful and enables a better management of these subunits of species and ensures better management and conservation of the fishery resources. These morphometric characteristics typically show ontogenic changes in body shape particularly rapid at key life history stages. For about the past 50 years, traditional multivariate morphometrics, accounting for variation in size and shape, have successfully discriminated many fish stocks throughout the world, however, they have always been criticized because of several biases and weaknesses. To contribute to the advancement of fish stock identification, a new technology based on “Truss Network System” has emerged as a new tool with more effective strategies for descriptions of shape, better data collection and diversified analytical tools. In the present communication, recent developments made in the discipline of morphometric differentiation in body shape among fish populations are briefly reviewed and it appears that the truss based techniques has now been proved to be more effective than manual distance measurement for the management of fishery resources throughout the world. However in India, these techniques have not been commonly applied in fisheries research to discriminate fish stocks. The study expands the potential through various advancements in morphometric differentiation analysis which could serve as a tool for stock identification among fish populations.

Keywords

Stock identification Morphometry Fish population 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ali MY, Lindsey CC (1974) Heritable and temperate-induced meristic variation in the medaka, Oryzias latipes. Can J Zool 52:959–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagherian A, Rahmani H (2009) Morphological discrimination between two populations of shemaya, Chalcalburnus chalcoides (Actinopterygii, Cyprinidae) using a truss network. Anim Biodivers Conserv 32(1):1–8Google Scholar
  3. Beacham TD (1990) A genetic analysis of meristic and morphometric variation in chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) at three different temperatures. Can J Zool 68:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begg G, Friedland KD, Pearce JB (1999) Stock identification-its role in stock assessment and fisheries management. Fish Res 43:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bektas Y, Belduz AO (2009) Morphological variation among Atlantic horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus populations from Turkish coastal waters. J Anim Vet Adv 8(3):511–517Google Scholar
  6. Bertrand M, Marcogliese DJ, Magnan P (2008) Trophic polymorphism in brook charr revealed by diet, parasites and morphometrics. J Fish Biol 72:555–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackith RE, Reyment RA (1971) Multivariate morphometrics. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackstone NW (1987) Allometry and relative pattern and process in evolutionary studies. Syst Zool 36(1):76–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booke HE (1981) The conundrum of the stock concept-are nature and nature definable in fishery science? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1479–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bookstein FL (1982) Foundation of morphometrics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 13:451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bookstein FL (1990) Introduction to methods for landmark data. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds) Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication, vol 2, pp 215–226Google Scholar
  12. Bookstein FL, Chernoff B, Elder RL, Humphries JM, Smith GR, Strauss RE (1985) Morphometrics in evolutionary biology, the geometry of size and shape change with examples of fishes. Acad Natl Sci Philadelphia Spec Pub 15:277Google Scholar
  13. Bronmark C, Miner JG (1992) Predator-induced phenotypical change in body morphology in crucian carp. Science 258:1348–1350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnaby TP (1966) Growth-invariant discriminant functions and generalized distances. Biometrics 22:96–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cadrin SX (2000) Advances in morphometric identification of fishery stocks. Rev Fish Biol 10:91–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cadrin SX (2005) Morphometric landmarks. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, UK, pp 153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cadrin SX, Friedland KV (1999) The utility of image processing techniques for morphometric analysis and stock identification. Fish Res 43:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cadrin SX, Silva VM (2005) Morphometric variation of yellowtail flounder. ICES J Mar Sci 62:683–694 [NB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (2005) Stock identification methods—an overview. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, UK, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  20. Çakmak E, Alp A (2010) Morphological differences among the mesopotamian spiny eel, Mastacembelus mastacembelus (Banks & Solander 1794), populations. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci 10:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cambell NA (1976) A multivarate approach to variation in microfilariae: examination of the species Wuchereria lewisi and demes of the species W. bancrofti. Aust. J. Zool. 24:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carvalho GR (1993) Evolutionary aspects of fish distribution: genetic variability and adaptation. J Fish Biol 43(suppl A):53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cavalcanti MJ, Monteiro LR, Lopez PRD (1999) Landmark based morphometric analysis in selected species of Serranid fishes (Perciformes: Teleostei). Zool Stud 38(3):287–294Google Scholar
  24. Chamarthi S, Ram PS, Josyula L (2008) Effectofriver discharge on Bay of Bengal circulation. Mar Geodesy 31(3):160–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen WY, Su WC, Shao KT, Lin CP (1989) Morphometric Studies of the Grey Mullet (Mugil cephalus) from the waters around Taiwan. J Fish Soc Taiwan 16(3):153–163Google Scholar
  26. Conover DO (1998) Local adaptation in marine fishes: evidence and implications for stock enhancement. Bull Mar Sci 62:477–493Google Scholar
  27. Corruccini RS (1983) Principal components for allometric analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 60:451–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Corti M, Thorpe RS, Sola L, Sbordoni V, Cataudella S (1988) Multivariate morphometrics in aquaculture: a case study of six stocks of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) from Italy. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:1548–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Creech S (1992) A multivariate morphometric investigation of Atherina boyeri Risso, 1810 and A. presbyter Cuvier, 1829 (Teleostei: Atherinidae): morphometric evidence in support of the two species. J Fish Biol 41:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Currens KP, Sharpe CS, Hjort R, Schreck CB, Li HW (1989) Effects of different feeding regimes on the morphometrics of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Evolution 48:1723–1734Google Scholar
  31. Day T, McPhail JD (1996) The effect of behavioral and morphological plasticity on foraging efficiency in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus sp.). Oecologia 108:380–388Google Scholar
  32. Day T, Pritchard J, Schluter D (1994) A comparison of two sticklebacks. Evolution 48:1723–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 2nd edn. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Ferguson A, Taggart JB, Prodohl PA, McMeel O, Thompson C, Stone C, McGinnity P, Hynes RA (1995) The application of molecular markers to the study and conservation of fish populations, with special reference to Salmo. J Fish Biol 47:103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fernandez I, Devraj M (1989–1990) Identity of the stocks of the gold spotted grenadier anchovy (Coilia dussumieri) and the Bombay duck (Harpondon nehereus) along the Northwest coast of India. Matsya 15–16:1–13Google Scholar
  36. Gopikrishna G, Sarada C, Sathianandan TV (2006) Truss morphometry in the Asian seabass—Lates calcarifer. J Marine Biol Assoc India 48(2):220–223Google Scholar
  37. Gould SJ (1966) Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol Rev 41:537–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grimes CB, Johnson AG, Fable WA Jr (1987) Delineation of king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) stocks along the US east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Kumpf HE, Vaught RN, Grimes CB, Johnson AG, Nakamura EL (eds) Proceedings of the stock identification workshop. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-SEFC, vol 199, pp 186–187Google Scholar
  39. Grudzien TA, Turner BJ (1984) Direct evidence that the Ilyodon morphs are a single biological species. Evolution 38:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haas TC, Blum MJ, Heins DC (2010) Morphological responses of a stream fish to water impoundment. Biol Lett 6(6):803–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Haddon M, Willis TJ (1995) Morphometric and meristic comparison of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus: Trachichithyidae) from the Puysegur Bank and Lord Howe Rise, New Zealand, and its implications for stock structure. Mar Biol 123:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4(1):9Google Scholar
  43. Hard JJ (1995) A quantitative genetic perspective on the conservation of intraspecific diversity. Am Fish Soc Symp 17:304–326Google Scholar
  44. Hatcher L (2003) A step by step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equational modeling. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, pp 57–125Google Scholar
  45. Hatfield T (1997) Genetic divergence in adaptive characters between sympatric species of sticklebacks. Am Nat 149:1009–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hedgecock D, Hutchinson ES, Li G, Sly FL, Nelson K (1989) Genetic and morphometric variation in the Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax caerulea: comparisons and contrasts with historical data and with variability in the northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. Fish Bull 87(3):653–671Google Scholar
  47. Hossain MAR, Nahiduzzaman M, Habiba Khanam DS, Mst U, Alam MS (2010) Landmark-Based Morphometric and Meristic Variations of the Endangered Carp, Kalibaus Labeo calbasu, from Stocks of Two Isolated Rivers, the Jamuna and Halda, and a Hatchery. Zoological Studies 49(4):556–563Google Scholar
  48. Hubbs CL, Lagler KF (1947) Fishes of the Great Lake region. Cranbrook Inst of Sci Bull 26, pp 186Google Scholar
  49. Humphries JM, Bookstein FL, Chernoff B, Smith GR, Elder RL, Poss SG (1981) Multivariate discrimination by shape in relation to size. Ibid 30:291–308Google Scholar
  50. Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Dial Press, New York, 276 ppGoogle Scholar
  51. Ibáñez-Aguirre AL, Cabral-Solís E, Gallardo-Cabello M, Espino-Barr E (2006) Comparative morphometrics of two populations of Mugil curema (Pisces: Mugilidae) on the Atlantic and Mexican Pacific coasts. Sci Mar 70(1):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ihssen PE, Booke HE, Casselman JM, McGlade JM, Payne NR, Utter FM (1981) Stock identification: materials and methods. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1838–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Imre I, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2002) Phenotypic plasticity in brook charr: changes in caudal fin induced by water flow. J Fish Biol 61:1171–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Janhunen M, Peuhkuri N, Piironen J (2009) Morphological variability among three geographically distinct Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) populations reared in a common hatchery environment. Ecol Freshw Fish 18:106–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jayasankar P, Thomas PC, Paulton MP, Mathew J (2004) Morphometric and Genetic Analyzes of Indian Mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) from Peninsular India. Asian Fisheries Science 17:201–215Google Scholar
  56. Jerry DR, Cairns SC (1998) Morphological variation in the catadromous Australian bass, from seven geographical distinct drainages. J Fish Biol 52:829–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jolicoeur PJ (1963) The multivariate generalization of the allometric equation. Biometrics 19:497–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Junquera S, Perez-Gandaras G (1993) Population diversity in Bay of Biscay anchovy, Engranlis capensis. Gilchrist. Fish Biol. 27:23–29Google Scholar
  59. Kinsey ST, Orsoy T, Bert TM, Mahmoudi B (1994) Population structure of the Spanish sardine Sardinella aurita: natural morphological variation in a genetically homogeneous population. Mar Biol 118:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Klingenberg CP (1996) Multivariate allometry. In Advances in Morphometrics (Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G. J. P. & Slice, D. E. eds.). NATO ASI Series A: Life Sci. 284:23–49Google Scholar
  61. Knudsen R, Amundsen PA, Primicerio R, Klemetsen A, Soerensen P (2007) Contrasting niche-based variation in trophic morphology within Arctic charr populations. Evol Ecol Res 9:1005–1021Google Scholar
  62. Kolla V, Moore DG, Curray JR (1976) Recent bottom-current activity in the deep western Bay of Bengal. Mar Geol 21(4):255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lakra WS, Sarkar UK (2010) NBFGR-marching ahead in cataloguing and conserving fish genetic resources of India. Fish Chimes 30(1):102–107Google Scholar
  64. Lanyon LE (1984) Functional strain as a determinant for bone remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int 36:556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lanyon LE, Rubin CT (1985) Functional adaptation in skeletal structures. In: Hildebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake DB (eds) Functional Vertebrate Morpholgy. Belknap Press, Cambridge, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  66. Lavin PA, McPhail JD (1987) Morphological divergence and the organization of trophic characters among lacustrine populations of the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44:1820–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lee PJ (1971) Multivariate analysis for the fisheries biology. Fish Res Bd Can Tech Rep 244:1–182Google Scholar
  68. Lindsey CC (1962) Experimental study of meristic variation in a population of threespine sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Can J Zool 40:271–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lowe SA, Van doornik DM, Winans GA (1998) Geographic variation in genetic and growth pattern of Atka mackerel, Pleurogrammus monopterygius (Hexagrammidae), in the Aleutian archipelago. Fish Bull 96:502–515Google Scholar
  70. Mamuris Z, Apostolidis AP, Panagiotaki P, Theodorou AJ, Triantaphyllidis C (1998) Morphological variation between red mullet populations in Greece. J Fish Biol 52:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marcus LF (1990) Traditional morphometrics. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds) Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication, vol 2, pp 77–122Google Scholar
  72. Martin WR (1949) The mechanics of environmental control of body form of fishes. University of Toronto Studies, Biological Series, No. 58; Publications of the Ontario Fisheries Research Laboratory, No. 78, 91 ppGoogle Scholar
  73. McPhail JD (1984) Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticlebacks (Gasterosteus): morphological and genetic evidence for a species pair in Enos Lake, British Columbia. Can J Zool 62:1402–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McPhail JD (1992) Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticlebacks (Gasterosteus): evidence for a species-pair in Paxton Lake, Texada Island, British Columbia. Can J Zool 70:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Melvin GD, Dadswell MJ, McKenzie JA (1992) Usefulness of meristic and morphometric characters in discriminating populations of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) (Osteichthyes: Clupeidae) inhabiting a marine environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:266–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Meyer A (1987) Phenotypic plasticity and heterochrony in Cichlasoma managuense (Pisces, Cichlidae) and their implications for speciation in cichlid fishes. Evolution 41:1357–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Meyer A (1990) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of trophic polymorphism in Cichlasoma citrinellum (Pisces: Cichlidae). Biol J Linn Soc 39:279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Misra RK, Easton MDL (1999) A note on the number of morphometric characters used in fish stock delineation studies employing a MANOVA. Fish Res 42:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Murta AG (2000) Morphological variation of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in the Iberian and North African Atlantic: implications for stock identification. ICES J Mar Sci 57:1240–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nishida T (1992) Considerations of stock structure of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the Indian Ocean based on fishery data. Fish Oceanogr 1(2):143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Omoniyi T, Agbon AO (2007) Morphometric variations in Sarotherodon melanotheron (Pisces: Cichlidae) from brackish and fresh water habitats in South-western Nigeria. West Afr J Appl Ecol 12:101–105Google Scholar
  82. Pakkasmaa S (2001) Morphological differentiation among local trout (Salmo trutta) populations. Biol J Linn Soc 72:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. PAST (2001) Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. In: Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (eds) Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1):9Google Scholar
  84. Peres-Neto PR, Magnan P (2004) The influence of swimming demand on phenotypic plasticity and morphological interaction: a comparison of two polymorphic charr species. Oecologia 140:36–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Pimentel RA (1979) Morphometrics, the multivariate analysis of biological data. Kendall Hunt, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  86. Poulet N, Reyjol Y, Collier H, Lek S (2005) Does fish scale morphology allow the identification of fish population of Leuciscus burdigalensis (SW France)? Aquat Sci 61:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Proulx R, Magnan P (2004) Contribution of phenotypic plasticity and heredity to the trophic polymorphism of lacustrine brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis M.). Evol Ecol Res 6:503–522Google Scholar
  88. Quilang JP, Basiao ZU, Pagulayan RC, Roderos RR, Barrios EB (2007) Meristic and morphometric variation in the silver perch, Leiopotherapon plumbeus (Kner, 1864), from three lakes in the Philippines. J Appl Ichthyol 23:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL: http://www.R-project.org
  90. Reist JD (1985) An empirical evaluation of several univariate methods that adjust for size variation in morphometric variation. Can J Zool 63:1429–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Reyment R (1990) Reification of classical multivariate analysis in morphometry. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds) Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication, vol 2, pp 123–144Google Scholar
  92. Reyment R, Blackith RE, Campbell NA (1984) Multivariate morphometrics, 2nd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  93. Ricker WE (1975) Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull Fish Res Board Can 191:382Google Scholar
  94. Riddell BE, Leggett WC, Saunders RL (1981) Evidence of adaptive polygenic variation between two populations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) native to tributaries of the S. W. Miramichi River, N. B. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rincon PA (2000) Big fish, small fish: still the same species. Lack of morphometric evidence of the existence of two sturgeon species in Guadalquivir River. Mar Biol 136:715–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Robinson BW, Parsons KJ (2002) Changing times, spaces, and faces: tests and implications of adaptive morphology plasticity in the fishes of northern postglacial lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1819–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Robinson BW, Wilson DS (1994) Character release and displacement in fishes: a neglected literature. Am Nat 144:596–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Robinson BW, Wilson DS (1995) Experimentally induced morphological diversity in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Copeia 1995:294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rohlf FJ (2006) tpsDig2, Version 2.1. State University of New York, Stony Brook. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph
  100. Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (1987) A comment on shearing as a method for “size correction”. Syst Zool 36:356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rohlf FL, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Royce WF (1957) Statistical comparison of morphological data. In: Marr JC (eds) Contributions to the Study of subpopulations of fishes. US Fish Wildlife Serv Spec Sci Rep Fish 208:7–28Google Scholar
  103. Ryman N, Lagercrantz U, Andersson L, Chakraborty R, Rosenberg R (1984) Lack of correspondence between genetic and morphologic variability patterns in Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Heredity 53:687–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sacotte S, Magnan P (2006) Inherited differences in foraging behaviour in the offspring of two forms of lacustrine brook charr. Evol Ecol Res 8:843–857Google Scholar
  105. Saila SB, Martin BK (1987) A brief review and guide to some multivariate methods for stock identification. In: Kumpf HE, Vaught RN, Grimes CB, Johnson AG, Nakamura EL (eds) Proceedings of the stock identification workshop. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-SEFC, vol 199, pp 149–175Google Scholar
  106. Saini A, Dua A, Mohindra V (2008) Comparative morphometrics of two populations of giant river catfish (Mystus seenghala) from the Indus river system. Integr Zool 3:219–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Sajina AM, Chakraborty SK, Jaiswar AK, Pazhayamadam DG, Sudheesan D (2011) Stock structure analysis of Megalaspis cordyla (Linnaeus, 1758) along the Indian coast based on truss network analysis. Fish Res 108:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sarkar UK, Lakra WS (2010) Life history traits of freshwater fish population and implications on aquatic biodiversity conservation: a review. Indian J Anim Sci 80(4 Suppl. 1):85–97Google Scholar
  109. Sarkar UK, Deepak PK, Lakra WS (2009) Stock Identification of Endangered Clown Knife Fish Chitala chitala (Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822) from Indian rivers inferred by morphological attributes. Electron J Ichthyol 2:59–75Google Scholar
  110. SAS Institute Inc. (1990) SAS/STAT* user’s guide, Version 6, 4th edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  111. Serajuddin M (2004) Intraspecific diversity of riverine population of spiny eel, Mastacembelus armatus. Appl Fish Aquac 4(1):25–29Google Scholar
  112. Sheehan TF, Kocik JF, Cadrin SX, Legault C (2005) Marine growth and morphometrics for three populations of Atlantic salmon from eastern Maine, USA. Trans Am Fish Soc 134:775–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Shepherd G (1999) Meristic and morphometric variation in the black sea bass north of Cape Hatteras, North Caroloina. North Am J Fish Manag 11:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Skulason S, Noakes DLG, Snorrason SS (1989) Ontogeny of trophic morphology in four sympatric morphs of arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Biol J Linn Soc 38:281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Ota D, Noakes DLG (1993) Genetically based differences in foraging behaviour among sympatric morphs of arctic charr (Pisces: Salmonidae). Anim Behav 45:1179–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Noakes DLG, Ferguson MM (1996) Genetic basis of life history variations among sympatric morphs of arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1807–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Snorrason SS, Skulason S, Jonsson B, Malmquist HJ, Jonasson PM, Sandlund OT, Lindem T (1994) Trophic specialization in arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (Pisces: Salmonidae): morphological divergence and ontogenic niche shifts. Biol J Linn Soc 52:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Solow A (1990) A randomization test for misclassification probability in discriminant analysis. Ecology 71:2379–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. SPSS (2011) 10.0 statistical package. SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  120. Strauss RE (1985) Evolutionary allometry and variation in the body form in the South American catfish genus Corydoras (Callichthydae). Syst Zool 34:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Strauss RE, Bookstein FL (1982) The truss: body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Syst Zool 31(113–135):1982Google Scholar
  122. Sumantadinata K, Taniguchi N (1990) Study on morphological variation in Indonesia common Carp Stocks. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 56(6):879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Suneetha Gunawickrama KB (2007) Morphological heterogeneity and population differentiation in the green chromid Etroplus suratensis (Pisces: Cichlidae) in Sri Lanka. Ruhuna J Sci 2:70–81Google Scholar
  124. Surre C, Persat H, Gaillard JM (1986) A biometric study of three populations of the European grayling, Thymallus thymallus (L.) from the French Jura Mountains. Can J Zool 64:2430–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Swain DP, Foote CJ (1999) Stocks and chameleons: the use of phenotypic variation in stock identification. Fish Res 43:113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Swain DP, Hutchings JA, Foote CJ (2005) Environmental and genetic influences on stock identification characters. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, UK, pp 45–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. SYSTAT (2002) SYSTAT for Windows, Version 10.2. SYSTAT Software Inc., RichmondGoogle Scholar
  128. Teissier G (1960) Relative growth. In: Waterman TH (ed) The physiology of crustacea. Academic Press, New York, pp 537–560Google Scholar
  129. Thrope RS, Leamy L (1983) Morphometric studies in inbreed and hybrid house mice (Mus sp.): multivariate analysis of size and shape. J Zool 199:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Todd TN, Smith GR, Cable LE (1981) Environmental and genetic contributions to morphological differentiation in ciscoes (Coregoninae) of the Great Lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Trapani J (2003) Morphological variability in the Cuatro Cienegas cichlid, Cichlasoma minckleyi. J Fish Biol 62(2):276–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Turan C (1999) A note on the examination of morphometric differentiation among fish populations: the truss system. Turk J Zool 23:259–263Google Scholar
  133. Turan C, Ergden D, Grlek Mt, Bapusta N, Turan F (2004) Morphometric Structuring of the Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus L.) in the Black, Aegean and Northeastern Mediterranean Seas. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 28:865–871Google Scholar
  134. Turan C, Yalcin S, Turan F, Okur E, Akyurt I (2005) Morphometric comparisons of African catfish, Clarias gariepinus, populations in Turkey. Folia Zool 54(1–2):165–172Google Scholar
  135. Tzeng TD (2004) Morphological variation between populations of spotted mackerel (Scomber australasicus) off Taiwan. Fish Res 68:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Wainwright PC, Osenberg CW, Mittelbach GG (1991) Trophic polymorphism in the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus Linnaeus): effect of environment on ontogeny. Funct Ecol 5:40–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Walsh MG, Bain MB, Squiers T, Waldman JR, Wirgin I (2001) Morphological and genetic variation among shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum from adjacent and distant rivers. Estuaries 24:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wimberger PH (1991) Plasticity of jaw and skull morphology in the neotropical cichlids Geophagus brasiliensis and G. steindachneri. Evolution 45:1545–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wimberger PH (1992) Plasticity of fish body shape. The effects of diet, development, family and age in two species of Geophagus (Pisces, Cichlidae). Biol J Linn Soc 45:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Winans GA (1984) Multivariate morphometry variabilityin Pacific salmon: technical demonstration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41:1150–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Winans GA (1987) Using morphometric and meristic characters for identifying stocks of fish. In: Kumpf HE, Vaught RN, Grimes CB, Johnson AG, Nakamura EL (eds) Proceedings of the stock identification workshop. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-SEFC, vol 199, pp 135–146Google Scholar
  142. Witte F, Barel CDN, Hoogerhoud RJC (1990) Phenotypic plasticity of anatomical structures and its ecomorphological significance. Neth J Zool 40:278–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Zelditch ML, Book Stein FL, Lundrigan BL (1992) Ontogeny of integrated skull growth in the cotton rat Sigmodon fulviventer. Evolution 46:1164–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Bureau of Fish Genetic ResourcesDilkusha, LucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations