The contrasting hatching patterns and larval growth of two sympatric clingfishes inferred by otolith microstructure analysis

Jorge E. Contreras, Mauricio F. Landaeta, GUIDO PLAZA PASTEN, F. Patricio Ojeda, Claudia A. Bustos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

Larval abundance, age, growth and hatching patterns of two sympatric clingfishes, Gobiesox marmoratus and Sicyases sanguineus (Pisces, Gobiesocidae), were estimated by using otolith microstructure analysis and compared on the basis of collections performed during the austral spring in 2010 off the coast of central Chile. G. marmoratus larvae were more abundant than S. sanguineus larvae during the study period. For both species, the sagittae deposited micro-increments during embryonic development (before hatching) and a hatch mark was observable in all examined otoliths. The sagittae otoliths of G. marmoratus grew in radius, perimeter and area faster than did the otoliths of S. sanguineus. Both species showed significant (P<0.05) differences in larval growth and lunar periodicity of the hatching events. G. marmoratus hatched at smaller sizes (2.6mm) mainly during the first-quarter moon and the larvae grew at rates of 0.24±0.01mmday-1. S. sanguineus hatched as larger larvae (>3mm) during the first-quarter and full moons and grew at slower rates (0.14±0.01mmday-1) during the initial 25 days. The high abundance of larval clingfish in near-shore waters, temporal decoupling among the hatching events, and the different growth rates may be tactics to increase self-recruitment in coastal waters.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)157-167
Number of pages11
JournalMarine and Freshwater Research
Volume64
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 7 Mar 2013

Keywords

  • Gobiesocidae
  • Gobiesox marmoratus
  • lunar cycle
  • sagittae
  • Sicyases sanguineus.

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The contrasting hatching patterns and larval growth of two sympatric clingfishes inferred by otolith microstructure analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this