05.06.2013 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!