Devrim MEMİŞ, Lukas KALOUS, Miloslav PETRTYL

Comparison of manual measurements and computer-assisted image analysis in fsh morphometry

Fish usually have a simple body shape and many morphological characters can be easily obtained by 2-dimensional imageanalysis. Measuring errors are ofen analyzed using data from several researchers or repeated measurements, but the testing of accuracyand repeatability based on diferent methods has rarely been examined. Here we report the comparison of manual measurements usingProma 150D digital calipers and computer-assisted image analysis in LUCIA sofware to evaluate the accuracy of both methods andthe suitability of digital images for exploration of fsh morphology. Eighteen morphometric characters of 20 specimens of Prussian carpwere examined by 2 researchers. The mean of the relative bias within and between researchers separately for the manual and computer-assisted methods (expressed as a percentage of a character s value) varied from 4.27% to 9.48%. Comparison of interresearcher resultsusing digital caliper, interresearcher results using LUCIA, intraresearcher results using digital caliper, and the 2 methods using manualcaliper and LUCIA revealed signifcant differences in several characters. Only testing of intraresearcher relative bias using LUCIAshowed no signifcant difference.

PDF

___

1. Holčík J, Hensel K. Ichtyologická príručka. Bratislava, Czechoslovakia: Obzor, 1972 (book in Slovak).
2. Chaput GJ, Leblanc CH, Bourque C. Evaluation of an electronic fsh measuring board. ICES J Mar Sci 1992; 49: 335339.
3. Armstrong MC, Nagtegaal DA, Boutillier JA. Microcomputer- based measuring device for collecting biological data. Prog Fish-Cult 1989; 51: 4751.
4. Sigler MF. An electronic measuring board with bar codes. T A Fish Soc 1993; 123: 115117.
5. Ovredal JT, Totland B. Te scantrol FishMeter for recording fsh length, weight and biological data. Fish Res 2002; 55: 325328.
6. Roitberg ES, Orlova VF, Kuranova VN, Bulakhova NA, Zinenko OI, Ljubisavljevic K, Shamgunova RR, Carretero MA, Clasen A, Fokt M et al. Inter-researcher and intra-researcher diferences in measuring body length: a test in the common lizard, Zootoca vivipara. Amphibia-Reptilia 2011; 32: 477484.
7. Mazurová E, Zukal J, Jurajda P. Methodical notes to morphometric studies in ichthyology. In: 5th Czech Conference of Ichthyology, Brno, 2002: 108113.
8. Billy AJ. Te efects of formalin and isopropyl alcohol on length and weight measurements of Sarotherodon mossambicus Trewavas. J Fish Biol 1982; 21: 107112.
9. Murphy BR, Willis DW. Fisheries Techniques. 2nd ed. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society, 1996.
10. Neave FB, Mandrak NE, Docker MF, Noakes DL. Efects of preservation on pigmentation and length measurements in larval lampreys. J Fish Biol 2006; 68: 9911001.
11. Sagnes P. Potential artefacts in morphometric analyses of fsh: efects of formalin preservation on 0+ grayling. J Fish Biol 1997; 50: 910914.
12. Quinonez-Velazquez C. Shrinkage of haddock larvae Melanogrammus aeglefnus Linnaeus (1758) preserved in ethanol. Cienc Mar 1996; 22: 18.
13. Torstad EB, Finstad AG, Jensen AJ, Museth J, Naesje TF, Saksgard LM. To what extent does ethanol and freezing preservation cause shrinkage of juvenile Atlantic salmon and European minnow? Fisheries Manag Ecol 2007; 14: 295298.
14. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the revolution. Ital J Zool 2004; 71: 516.
15. Bookstein FL. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
16. Zelditch M, Swiderski D, Sheets DH, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. San Diego, CA, USA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004.
17. Arnqvist G, Martensson T. Measurement error in geometric morphometrics: empirical strategies to assess and reduce its impact on measures of shape. Acta Zool Acad Sci H 1998; 44: 7396.
18. Goodenough AE, Staford R, Catlin-Groves CL, Smith AL, Hart AG. Within- and among-observer variation in measurements of animal biometrics and their infuence on accurate quantifcation of common biometric-based condition indices. Ann Zool Fenn 2010; 47: 323334.
19. Goodenough AE, Smith AL, Stubbs H, Williams R, Hart AG. Observer variability in measuring animal biometrics and fuctuating asymmetry when using digital analysis of photographs. Ann Zool Fenn 2012; 49: 8192.
20. Önsoy B, Tarkan AS, Filiz H, Bilge G. Determination of the best length measurement of fsh. N West J Zool 2011; 7: 178 180.
21. Yezerinac SM, Lougheed SC, Handford P. Measurement error and morphometric studies: statistical power and observer experience. Syst Biol 1992; 41: 471482.
22. StatSof Inc. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Sofware System), version 9.0. Tulsa, OK, USA: StatSof, 2009.
23. Bourque C, Cairns DK. Efciency and accuracy of an automated data capture and error-checking system for laboratory fsh processing. N Am J Fish Manage 1994; 14: 650655.
24. Gutreuter S, Krzoska DJ. Quantifying precision of in situ length and weight measurements of fsh. N Am J Fish Manage 1994; 14: 318322.
25. Cavalcanti MJ, Monteiro LR, Lopes PRD. Landmark-based morphometric analysis in selected species of serranid fshes (Perciformes: Teleostei). Zool Stud 1999; 38: 287294.
26. Hard JJ, Berejikian BA, Tezak EP, Schroder SL, Knudsen CM, Parker LT. Evidence for morphometric diferentiation of wild and captively reared adult Coho salmon: a geometric analysis. Environ Biol Fish 2000; 58: 6173.
27. Loy A, Busilacchi S, Costa C, Ferlin L, Cataudella S. Comparing geometric morphometrics and outline ftting methods to monitor fsh shape variability of Diplodus puntazzo (Teleostea: Sparidae). Aquacult Eng 2000; 21: 271283.
28. Palma J, Andrade JP. Morphological study of Diplodus sargus, Diplodus puntazzo , and Lithognathus mormyrus (Sparidae) in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Fish Res 2002; 57: 18.
29. Trapani J. Geometric morphometric analysis of body-form variability in Cichlasoma minckleyi, the Cuatro Cienegas cichlid. Environ Biol Fish 2003; 68: 357369.