ArticlePeerJ2021
Experimental validation of otolith-based age and growth reconstructions across multiple life stages of a critically endangered estuarine fish.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phenotypic variation in otolith shape of American shad across eastern North American rivers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visual, spectral, and microchemical quantification of crystalline anomalies in otoliths of wild and cultured delta smelt.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Allometric model of brain morphology of Hemiculter leucisculus and its variation along climatic gradients.Journal of anatomy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of otolith-based tools to inform the management and conservation of fishes first requires taxon- and stage-specific validation. The Delta Smelt (
methodsUsing known-age cultured Delta Smelt and multiple independent otolith analysts, we examined otolith formation, otolith-somatic proportionality, aging accuracy and precision, left-right symmetry, and the effects of image magnification for larval, juvenile, and adult Delta Smelt.
resultsOverall, otolith size varied linearly with fish size (from 10-60 mm), explaining 99% of the variation in fish length, despite a unique slope for larvae < 10 mm. Otolith-somatic proportionality was similar among wild and cultured specimens. Aging precision among independent analysts was 98% and aging accuracy relative to known ages was 96%, with age estimates exhibiting negligible differences among left and right otoliths. Though error generally increased with age, percent error decreased from 0-30 days-post-hatch, with precision remaining relatively high (≥ 95%) thereafter. Increased magnification (400×) further improved aging accuracy for the oldest, slowest-growing individuals. Together, these results indicate that otolith-based techniques provide reliable age and growth reconstructions for larval, juvenile, and adult Delta Smelt. Such experimental assessments across multiple developmental stages are key steps toward assessing confidence in otolith-derived metrics that are often used to assess the dynamics of wild fish populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.