Statolith Identification of Mediterranean Octopodidae, Sepiidae, Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae and Enoploteuthidae Based on Warp A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. (2006), 86,767^771 Printed in the United Kingdom Statolith identi¢cation of Mediterranean Octopodidae, Sepiidae, Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae and Enoploteuthidae based on warp analyses P O Antoni Lombarte* , Marta M. Ru¢no* and Pilar Sa¤nchez* O *Institut de Cie' ncies del Mar (CMIMA-CSIC), Passeig Mar|¤tim 37^49, Barcelona 08003, Catalonia (Spain). Present address: P CripSul, Ipimar/Iniap, Av. 5 Outubro, s/n 8700-305 Olha‹ o, Portugal. Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] The statoliths of 14 species (193 right statoliths from subadult to adult individuals), belonging to ¢ve Cephalopoda families (Sepiidae, Loliginidae, Enoploteuthidae, Ommastrephidae and Octopodidae) were analysed using morphometric methods based on landmarks (geometric morphometry). The aim of the current study is to determine the discriminating power of statolith shape analysis in species identi¢cation of Mediterranean cephalopods. Discriminant analyses of the partial warps were able to fully identify (100% discrimination) the species of all families, except Octopodidae which showed some misclassi¢cation (correctly classi¢ed about 68^90%).These results were also shown by relative warp analysis. Octopodidae statoliths were studied for the ¢rst time using geometric landmark-based methods. Greatest di¡erences in statolith shape between Octopodidae species, were in the area that unites the statolith dome with the £at wing. Landmark analysis applied to statoliths can be a useful taxonomic tool in the identi¢cation of closely related species. INTRODUCTION Dommergues et al. (2000) studied statoliths from the families Sepiidae, Sepiolidae, Loliginidae, Enopleu- Cephalopods statoliths are paired calcareous structures teuthidae and Ommastrephidae based on the comparison composed of aragonite and calcite, associated with sensory of homologous points (landmarks). Landmark based epithelia and located inside two adjacent cavities, the methods provide variables with a morphological interpre- statocysts (Clarke, 1978; Arkhipkin & Bizikov, 2000). The tation (Adams et al., 2003). A similar methodology was statocysts are organs associated with the detection of employed in the morphometric study of the shells of three gravity and angular acceleration. Some authors believe Mediterranean cuttle¢sh species: Sepia o⁄cinalis, Sepia that these organs are also sensitive to vibrational elegans Sepia orbignyana stimulation (Hanlon & Budelmann, 1987). and (Neige & Boletzky, 1997). Similar to ¢sh otoliths, statoliths have been used in age Considering the speci¢c characteristics of the statolith’s morphology and the e⁄ciency of shape analysis based on identi¢cation (Lipinski, 1986; Villanueva, 1992; Sa¤nchez, landmarks the objectives of the present work are: (1) to 1995 among others). Statoliths are more precise for describe the main speci¢cities of Octopodidae statoliths species identi¢cation of both recent and fossil cephalo- and the most characteristic landmarks of this group; and pods, compared to other hard structures, such as beaks (2) to determine the adequacy of landmark analysis for and gladii (Clarke, 1978; Clarke & Fitch, 1979). Thus, discriminating species according to the statolith shape in morphological analyses of statoliths are useful in studies Mediterranean cephalopod families. of cephalopod biology. In the ¢rst studies, the shape description of the statoliths was qualitative, without any quanti¢cation of the degree of similarity (Clarke, 1978). In these works, statolith nomenclature was established, MATERIALS AND METHODS i.e. in orders Sepiida and Teuthida the statolith structure Subadult and adult individuals of 14 species of the western is formed by the lateral dome, dorsal dome, rostrum, Mediterranean Sea, belonging to the families Sepiidae: Sepia spur, ventral rostrum and wing, whereas in order elegans (7 right statoliths), Sepia o⁄cinalis (19) and Sepia Octopoda, the statolith shows a limpet or cone shape on orbignyana (10); Loliginidae: Loligo (Alloteuthis) media (16), one side and a £at attachment area on the other side. Loligo (Alloteuthis) subulata (9) and Loligo (Loligo) vulgaris (14); With the advances of image processing systems, quanti- Enoploteuthidae: Abralia veranyi (6); Ommastrephidae: Illex tative analytical methods for studying the shape of stato- coindetii (8), Todarodes sagittatus (35) and Todaropsis eblanae (3); liths have been developed. Lombarte et al. (1997) studied Octopodidae: Eledone cirrhosa (19), Eledone moschata (14), the statolith intraspeci¢c variability of three cephalopod Octopus salutii (18) and Octopus vulgaris (15) were analysed. A species through contour analysis (outlines) of Eledone total of 193 right statoliths was dissected and stored in a dry cirrhosa, Sepia o⁄cinalis and Todarodes sagittatus. However, state. In Sepiida and Teuthida statoliths an orthogonal with this method, that is based on Fourier’s harmonics, it projection image of the anterior view (Clarke & Fitch, is not possible to determine the morphological features 1979) was digitized, and in Octopoda, a lateral view projec- responsible for shape changes (Adams et al., 2003). tion (Clarke, 1978) was used. Both groups were digitized Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (2006) 768 A. Lombarte et al. Statolith identi¢cation based on warp analyses Details on the procedures for geometrical morpho- metric analysis can be found in Adams et al. (2003), never- theless a brief description is given here. After digitizing, landmark maps were rotated, scaled (to unit centroid size) and translated through a generalized least squares superimposition (GLS) procedure (generalized procrustes) to eliminate scale and orientation distorsions (using tpsRel 1.24 Rohlf, 2001). A thin-splate spline proce- dure was used to ¢t an interpolated function to an average map (consensus con¢guration) of the carapace shape and derive the uniform and non-uniform (partial warps) components of shape variation. The two uniform compo- nents describe di¡erences that a¡ect all parts of the cara- pace equally (global di¡erences). The magnitude of the ¢rst of these indicates the degree of stretching along the X-axis relative to the average carapace map. Whereas the magnitude of the second indicates compressions or Figure 1. Location of the landmarks and pseudo-landmarks dilatations along the Y-axis. The non-uniform shape on the statoliths. (A) Lateral view of an Octopoda statolith; components (partial warps) describe localized departures (B) anterior view of a Teuthiida statolith. from the average carapace map. Both partial warps and uniform components were used as shape variables in a discriminant analysis and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), within each group. Shape changes using a Sony High-res CCD video camera coupled to a were visualized through relative warp analysis (similar to LeicaWild microscope. Processing of digital images, calibra- principal components). The consensus con¢guration tion and analysis was carried out using Optimas 6.0 soft- statolith shape of each species was estimated. ware. Figure 1A shows the location of the seven landmarks and pseudolandmarks selected in Octopoda statoliths. RESULTS The pseudolandmarks in Octopoda statoliths (2, 6 and 7) The greatest di¡erences in shape, among species, were were based on the points of maximum in£exion of the found in the concavities of the statolith outlines (points of outline (Adams et al., 2003). Figure 1B shows the 18 land- maximum in£ection) (Table 1A,B, Figure 1). The marks and pseudo-landmarks in Teuthida and Sepiida geometric morphometric analyses carried out on the stato- statoliths considered by Dommergues et al. (2000). Six liths within each taxonomic group: Sepiidae, Loliginidae, landmarks were positioned in the lateral dome, eight in Enoploteuthidae, Ommastrephidae (both families from the wing, three in the ventral rostrum and one in the the suborder Oegopsina were analysed together) and dorsal dome. Octopodidae, are described below. Table 1. Relative contribution of each landmark in the relative warp analyses. (A) Octopodidae, represented by 7 landmarks. (B) Sepiidae, Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae and Enoploteuthidae (last two families below to suborder Oegopsina) represented by 18 landmarks. The landmarks with maximum variability are indicated in bold print. Landmark locations are shown in Figure 1. A. B. landmak Octopodidae landmark Sepiidae Loliginidae Oegopsina 1 0.004 1 0.214 0.080 0.067 2 0.015 2 0.256 0.212 0.172 3 0.123 3 0.029 0.033 0.018 4 0.563 4 0.019 0.031 0.015 5 0.194 5 0.048 0.091 0.096 6 0.070 6 0.042 0.051 0.063 7 0.032 7 0.037 0.062 0.063 8 0.052 0.104 0.150 9 0.028 0.071 0.093 10 0.004 0.025 0.024 11 0.008 0.026 0.022 12 0.062 0.039 0.046 13 0.031 0.023 0.018 14 0.014 0.019 0.012 15 0.012 0.007 0.006 16 0.079 0.074 0.098 17 0.051 0.043 0.030 18 0.015 0.006 0.007 Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (2006) Statolith identi¢cation based on warp analyses A. Lombarte et al. 769 Figure 2. Landmark analyses of Sepiidae statoliths: (A) plots Figure 3. Landmark analyses of Loligindae statoliths: (A) of the ¢rst two relative warps; and (B) consensus landmark plots of the ¢rst two relative warps; and (B) consensus land- ¢gure of each analysed species (Sepia o⁄cinalis, Sepia orbignyana mark ¢gure for each analysed species (Loligo (Alloteuthis) media, and Sepia elegans). Loligo (Alloteuthis) subulata and Loligo (Loligo) vulgaris). Sepiidae Loligo (Alloteuthis) subulata) the two subgenera (Alloteuthis The relative warps of the three species of Sepia in the and Loligo) were separated by the ¢rst relative warp, western Mediterranean (Figure 2A) showed that the ¢rst while the two species of the subgenus Alloteuthis (L. media axis (20.96% of the variability) separated the Sepia and L. subulata) were separated by the second relative o⁄cinalis (with negative values) from Sepia orbignyana and warp (Figure 3A). The shape di¡erences observed were Sepia elegans (with positive values). The three species were mainly in the statolith width and in the extension of the di¡erentiated mainly by the relative position of the land- wing ¢ssure (landmark 2).