Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 102, Issue 4, pp 439–443 | Cite as

Day/night differences in determination of growth rate of mackerel Scomber scombrus larvae during a patch-study in the Celtic Sea

  • A. Röpke
Article

Abstract

The growth rate of mackerel, Scomber scombrus, larvae was calculated by analysing mean cohort length over time. The study took place on the central spawning ground of mackcrel in the Celtic Sea (Great Sole Bank) in April 1986. In order to minimize horizontal catch variability, repeated small-scale sampling with the “Mocness” plankton net was undertaken close to a satellite-tracked drifting buoy during a period of 78 h. Eighteen samples from nine hauls distributed over the whole sampling period were considered. One hundred larvae per sample were measured using a semi-automatic method. The proportion of larger larvae was significantly higher in night catches than in day catches. Independently calculated growth rates were 0.18 mm d-1 for day catches and 0.14 mm d-1 for night catches. This difference was not statistically significant. However, confidence in the calculation of growth rate, computed from night sampling, was much higher than that for day sampling. This may result as an effect of avoidance behaviour by larvae in daylight. Thus, night sampling seems to be a more reliable tool in the study of larval growth and should be used more extensively than daylight sampling.

Keywords

Growth Rate Sampling Period Avoidance Behaviour Reliable Tool Larval Growth 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Bridger, J. P. (1956). On day and night variation in catches of fish larvae. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 22: 42–57Google Scholar
  2. Clutter, R. I., Anraku, M. (1968). Avoidance of saplers. In: Trainter, D. J. (ed.) Reviews on zooplankton sampling methods, part I. In: Zooplankton sampling. Monogr. oceanogr. Methodol. (UNESCO) 2: 57–76Google Scholar
  3. Colton, J. B., Jr., Honey, K. A., Temple, R. F. (1961). The effectiveness of sampling methods used to study the distribution of larval herring in the Gulf of Maine. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 26: 180–190Google Scholar
  4. Coombs, S. S., Lindley, J. A., Fosh, C. A. (1983). Vertical distribution of larvae of mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and microplankton, with some conclusions on feeding conditions and survey methods. F.A.O. Fish. Rep. 291: 939–954Google Scholar
  5. Houde, E. D. (1986). Potential for growth, duration of early life stages and regulation of recruitment in marine fish. Int. Counc. Explor. Sea Conn. Meet. Biol. Oceanogr. Conn) L: 28:1–19Google Scholar
  6. Kendall, A. W., Jr., Gordon, D. (1981). Growth rate of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) larvae in the Middle Atlantic Bight. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 178: 337–341Google Scholar
  7. Ndomahina, E. T. (1988). Light microscopic observations of fish larval otolith microstructure (their preparation, interpretation and application in growth studies). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. KielGoogle Scholar
  8. Peterson, W. T., Ausubel, S. J. (1984). Diets and selective feeding by larvae of Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus on zooplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 17: 65–75Google Scholar
  9. Ricker, W. E., Foerster, R. E. (1948). Computation of fish production. Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 11: 173–211Google Scholar
  10. Röpke, A. in press. Small-scale vertical distribution of ichthyoplankton in the Celtic Sea in April 1986. MeeresforschungGoogle Scholar
  11. Saville, A., Schnack, D. (1981). Some thoughts on the current status of studies of fish egg and larval distribution and abundance. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 178: 153–157Google Scholar
  12. Sette, O. (1943). Biology of the Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) of North America. Part I: Early life history, including growth, drift, and mortality of the egg and larval populations. Fishery Bull Fish Wildl. Serv. U.S. 38 (50): 148–237Google Scholar
  13. Shepherd, J. G., Cushing, D. H. (1980). A mechanism for densitydependent survival of larval fish as the basis of a stock — recruitment relationship. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 39(2): 160–167Google Scholar
  14. Wiebe, P. H., Burt, K. H., Boyd, S. H., Morton, A. W. (1976). A multiple opening/closing net and environmental sensing system for sampling zooplankton. J. mar. Res. 34(3): 313–326Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Röpke
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Hydrobiologie and FischereiwissenschaftUniversität HamburgHamburg 50FRG

Personalised recommendations