Growth model of the reared sea urchin Paracentrotus ... - SciViews
Growth model of the reared sea urchin Paracentrotus ... - SciViews
Growth model of the reared sea urchin Paracentrotus ... - SciViews
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
General introduction<br />
method used. In addition, Levitan (1988) demonstrated that interactions<br />
exist between adult Diadema antillarum as maximal size is densitydependent.<br />
The second method to estimate age uses <strong>the</strong> natural growth bands. The<br />
trabecules within <strong>the</strong> <strong>sea</strong> <strong>urchin</strong> skeleton are more or less densely packed<br />
depending on growth rate (Pearse & Pearse, 1975). A succession <strong>of</strong> fast<br />
and slow growth stages results in light and dark bands, respectively, in <strong>the</strong><br />
stereom <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ossicles (Jensen, 1969b; Pearse & Pearse, 1975; Sime,<br />
1981; Gage, 1991, 1992; Lumingas & Guillou, 1994). It is postulated that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is only one period <strong>of</strong> fast growth and ano<strong>the</strong>r period <strong>of</strong> slow growth<br />
per year. If this is true, counting <strong>the</strong>se growth bands allows determining<br />
<strong>the</strong> ages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> echinoids. If <strong>the</strong>re is a single recruitment in a narrow time<br />
window during <strong>the</strong> year (Ebert, 1983), precision is even better. Not all<br />
authors agree with <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> this method. Ebert (1986) questioned it<br />
and Russell & Meredith (2000) experimentally demonstrated it is not valid<br />
for Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. However, Gage (1992) validated it<br />
for Echinus esculentus with an experiment using echinoids kept in cages in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>sea</strong> during two years.<br />
Many authors consider that if <strong>the</strong>y use both methods simultaneously –<br />
cohort separation and growth rings analysis– and get <strong>the</strong> same result, each<br />
method is validated by <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r one (Duineveld & Jenness, 1984;<br />
Lumingas & Guillou, 1994; Gebauer & Moreno, 1995; Turon et al, 1995;<br />
Jordana et al, 1997). Yet, if <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> growth rings is correlated with<br />
<strong>the</strong> size, not <strong>the</strong> age, one would interpret a group <strong>of</strong> fast-growing<br />
individuals as being older, and a group <strong>of</strong> slow-growing ones as being<br />
younger and eventually mix animals <strong>of</strong> different age in a single cohort.<br />
This would result in an agreement between both methods although<br />
conclusions on size at age are incorrect.<br />
Measuring relative growth (without knowing age) is an alternative to<br />
calculating growth rate <strong>of</strong> individuals in <strong>the</strong> field. Animals are tagged,<br />
field-released and captured again one year later (Ebert, 1977, 1988a;<br />
58