DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Fish Communities at Two Danish Coastal Boulder Reefs Studied Through Snorkel Visual Census, Stomach Analyse and Stable Isotopes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Fish Communities at Two Danish Coastal Boulder Reefs Studied Through Snorkel Visual Census, Stomach Analyse and Stable Isotopes Master thesis: Comparison of Fish Communities at Two Danish Coastal Boulder reefs studied through Snorkel Visual Census, Stomach Analyse and Stable Isotopes By Simone Lorange Jensen – 201206193 Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University 20 November 2017 Supervised by: Tomas Cedhagen & Peter Grønkjær Preface This study is a 60 ECTS master thesis at Aarhus university. This study was conducted from February to November 2017. The aim was to describe two fish communities and their feeding habits. Fieldwork was carried out from May to September at a newly established boulder reef at Aarhus Ø and an older boulder reef located at Aarhus east harbor. The methods used were snorkel visual census (SVC), stomach analysis and stable isotope analyses. Supervision and support during the thesis work was provided by Tomas Cedhagen and Peter Grønkjær, Department of Bioscience – Aquatic biology, Aarhus University. Simone Lorange Jensen, Stud.nr. 201206193 Bioscience, Aarhus University, Denmark Submission date: 20.11.2017 2 Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Dansk Resumé ................................................................................................................................................. 7 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1. Ecological quality of boulder reefs ................................................................................................................. 8 1.2. Biodiversity on Danish boulder reefs............................................................................................................. 9 1.3. Importance for fish communities ................................................................................................................. 10 1.3.1. Attraction or production ......................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2. Boulder reefs as a feeding ground ....................................................................................................................... 11 1.4. Study methods ................................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4.1. Visual census method .............................................................................................................................................. 13 1.4.2. Feeding analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 1.5. Aim ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2. Method and Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 16 2.1. Locality Description ......................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.1. Aarhus Bay ................................................................................................................................................................. 16 2.1.2. Aarhus Ø ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3. Aarhus Harbor ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Sampling ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2.1. Snorkeling visual census ........................................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2. Stomach analysis and stable isotope sampling ................................................................................................ 19 2.2.3. Gut examinations ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.4. Stable isotope analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 20 2.2.5. Data analysis and statistics .................................................................................................................................... 21 3. Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.1. Fish species abundance analysis ................................................................................................................... 22 3.2. Stomach content analysis ................................................................................................................................ 26 3.2.1. Food composition ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2. Prey type ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.2.3. Trophic analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 3.3. Stable isotope analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 36 3.3.1. Stable isotope composition of species ................................................................................................................ 36 3.3.2. Visualization of likely food composition .......................................................................................................... 39 3.3.3. Ctenolabrus rupestris .............................................................................................................................................. 41 4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 43 4.1. Fish species analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 43 4.1.1. Fish Species abundance patterns .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.1.2. Diel variations ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 4.1.3. Physiochemical factors ........................................................................................................................................... 45 4.1.4. Method efficiency ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.1.5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 48 4.2. Stomach content analysis ................................................................................................................................ 48 4.2.1. Diet analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 48 4.2.2. Trophic categories .................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.3. Food species patterns ............................................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.4. Method efficiency ..................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 54 4.3. Stable isotope analyses .................................................................................................................................... 54 3 4.3.1. Difference between stations .................................................................................................................................. 54 4.3.2. Stable isotope composition of fish species ....................................................................................................... 54 4.3.3. Ctenolabrus rupestris .............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SNH Commissioned Report 765: Seagrass (Zostera) Beds in Orkney
    Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 765 Seagrass (Zostera) beds in Orkney COMMISSIONED REPORT Commissioned Report No. 765 Seagrass (Zostera) beds in Orkney For further information on this report please contact: Kate Thompson Scottish Natural Heritage 54-56 Junction Road KIRKWALL Orkney KW15 1AW Telephone: 01856 875302 E-mail: [email protected] This report should be quoted as: Thomson, M. and Jackson, E, with Kakkonen, J. 2014. Seagrass (Zostera) beds in Orkney. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 765. This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage. © Scottish Natural Heritage 2014. COMMISSIONED REPORT Summary Seagrass (Zostera) beds in Orkney Commissioned Report No. 765 Project No: 848 Contractors: Emma Jackson (The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom) and Malcolm Thomson (Sula Diving) Year of publication: 2014 Keywords Seagrass; Zostera marina; Orkney; predictive model; survey. Background Seagrasses (Zostera spp) are marine flowering plants that develop on sands and muds in sheltered intertidal and shallow subtidal areas. Seagrass beds are important marine habitats but are vulnerable to a range of human induced pressures. Their vulnerability and importance to habitat creation and ecological functioning is recognised in their inclusion on the recommended Priority Marine Features list for Scotland’s seas. Prior to this study, there were few confirmed records of Zostera in Orkney waters. This study combined a predictive modelling approach with boat-based surveys to enhance under- standing of seagrass distribution in Orkney and inform conservation management.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Checklist of Marine Fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the Proposed Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf
    European Journal of Taxonomy 73: 1-73 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.73 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2014 · Carneiro M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A5F217D-8E7B-448A-9CAB-2CCC9CC6F857 Updated checklist of marine fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf Miguel CARNEIRO1,5, Rogélia MARTINS2,6, Monica LANDI*,3,7 & Filipe O. COSTA4,8 1,2 DIV-RP (Modelling and Management Fishery Resources Division), Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. Brasilia 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3,4 CBMA (Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] * corresponding author: [email protected] 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:90A98A50-327E-4648-9DCE-75709C7A2472 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:1EB6DE00-9E91-407C-B7C4-34F31F29FD88 7 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6D3AC760-77F2-4CFA-B5C7-665CB07F4CEB 8 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:48E53CF3-71C8-403C-BECD-10B20B3C15B4 Abstract. The study of the Portuguese marine ichthyofauna has a long historical tradition, rooted back in the 18th Century. Here we present an annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Portuguese waters, including the area encompassed by the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf and the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The list is based on historical literature records and taxon occurrence data obtained from natural history collections, together with new revisions and occurrences.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 1 Classified List of Fishes Mentioned in the Text, with Scientific and Common Names
    APPENDIX 1 Classified list of fishes mentioned in the text, with scientific and common names. ___________________________________________________________ Scientific names and classification are from Nelson (1994). Families are listed in the same order as in Nelson (1994), with species names following in alphabetical order. The common names of British fishes mostly follow Wheeler (1978). Common names of foreign fishes are taken from Froese & Pauly (2002). Species in square brackets are referred to in the text but are not found in British waters. Fishes restricted to fresh water are shown in bold type. Fishes ranging from fresh water through brackish water to the sea are underlined; this category includes diadromous fishes that regularly migrate between marine and freshwater environments, spawning either in the sea (catadromous fishes) or in fresh water (anadromous fishes). Not indicated are marine or freshwater fishes that occasionally venture into brackish water. Superclass Agnatha (jawless fishes) Class Myxini (hagfishes)1 Order Myxiniformes Family Myxinidae Myxine glutinosa, hagfish Class Cephalaspidomorphi (lampreys)1 Order Petromyzontiformes Family Petromyzontidae [Ichthyomyzon bdellium, Ohio lamprey] Lampetra fluviatilis, lampern, river lamprey Lampetra planeri, brook lamprey [Lampetra tridentata, Pacific lamprey] Lethenteron camtschaticum, Arctic lamprey] [Lethenteron zanandreai, Po brook lamprey] Petromyzon marinus, lamprey Superclass Gnathostomata (fishes with jaws) Grade Chondrichthiomorphi Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an Updated Checklist
    1 2 Marine fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an updated checklist 3 4 5 RAFAEL BAÑON1, DAVID VILLEGAS-RÍOS2, ALBERTO SERRANO3, 6 GONZALO MUCIENTES2,4 & JUAN CARLOS ARRONTE3 7 8 9 10 1 Servizo de Planificación, Dirección Xeral de Recursos Mariños, Consellería de Pesca 11 e Asuntos Marítimos, Rúa do Valiño 63-65, 15703 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. E- 12 mail: [email protected] 13 2 CSIC. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas. Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo 14 (Pontevedra), Spain. E-mail: [email protected] (D. V-R); [email protected] 15 (G.M.). 16 3 Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Santander, Spain. E-mail: 17 [email protected] (A.S); [email protected] (J.-C. A). 18 4Centro Tecnológico del Mar, CETMAR. Eduardo Cabello s.n., 36208. Vigo 19 (Pontevedra), Spain. 20 21 Abstract 22 23 An annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Galician waters is presented. The list 24 is based on historical literature records and new revisions. The ichthyofauna list is 25 composed by 397 species very diversified in 2 superclass, 3 class, 35 orders, 139 1 1 families and 288 genus. The order Perciformes is the most diverse one with 37 families, 2 91 genus and 135 species. Gobiidae (19 species) and Sparidae (19 species) are the 3 richest families. Biogeographically, the Lusitanian group includes 203 species (51.1%), 4 followed by 149 species of the Atlantic (37.5%), then 28 of the Boreal (7.1%), and 17 5 of the African (4.3%) groups. We have recognized 41 new records, and 3 other records 6 have been identified as doubtful.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibition Brochure Treasures of the Sea (Pdf)
    TREASURES OF THE SEA 20.4.–3.10.2021 THE BIOLOGICAL MUSEUM Photo: Mats Westerbom. Mats Photo: TREASURES OF THE SEA The underwater world of the appear together and form a de- Finnish sea areas is extremely tailed mosaic where the various diverse compared to many other habitats with different species coasts by the Baltic Sea. Much alternate. like there are various types of forests, meadows and marshes The Baltic Sea is home to an on land, there are also various unusual variety of species, since types of natural habitats and many marine species requiring a landscapes in the Baltic Sea. high salt content meet freshwa- The more diverse the seabed is, ter species there. Nowhere else the more organisms live there. do the freshwater polyp and the In turn, high species richness sea slug live on the stem of the contributes to the stability of the same plant, or the turbot and the ecosystem, including the ability whitefish get caught in the same to withstand sudden changes. net. In the Baltic Sea, species may form completely unique The underwater landscapes of relationships. the Baltic Sea may be classified by the quality of the seabed, Even though the Baltic Sea is for example. The Finnish coast in poor condition in places, the has a wide variety of sand, coast of Finland still has breath- gravel and mud beds, as well takingly beautiful places worth as reefs, meaning hard seabed protecting. In this exhibition, we that houses species adapted to will take a look at the most valu- these specific conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sound Biodiversity, Threats, and Transboundary Protection.Indd
    2017 The Sound: Biodiversity, threats, and transboundary protection 2 Windmills near Copenhagen. Denmark. © OCEANA/ Carlos Minguell Credits & Acknowledgments Authors: Allison L. Perry, Hanna Paulomäki, Tore Hejl Holm Hansen, Jorge Blanco Editor: Marta Madina Editorial Assistant: Ángeles Sáez Design and layout: NEO Estudio Gráfico, S.L. Cover photo: Oceana diver under a wind generator, swimming over algae and mussels. Lillgrund, south of Øresund Bridge, Sweden. © OCEANA/ Carlos Suárez Recommended citation: Perry, A.L, Paulomäki, H., Holm-Hansen, T.H., and Blanco, J. 2017. The Sound: Biodiversity, threats, and transboundary protection. Oceana, Madrid: 72 pp. Reproduction of the information gathered in this report is permitted as long as © OCEANA is cited as the source. Acknowledgements This project was made possible thanks to the generous support of Svenska PostkodStiftelsen (the Swedish Postcode Foundation). We gratefully acknowledge the following people who advised us, provided data, participated in the research expedition, attended the October 2016 stakeholder gathering, or provided other support during the project: Lars Anker Angantyr (The Sound Water Cooperation), Kjell Andersson, Karin Bergendal (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Malmö/Skåne), Annelie Brand (Environment Department, Helsingborg municipality), Henrik Carl (Fiskeatlas), Magnus Danbolt, Magnus Eckeskog (Greenpeace), Søren Jacobsen (Association for Sensible Coastal Fishing), Jens Peder Jeppesen (The Sound Aquarium), Sven Bertil Johnson (The Sound Fund), Markus Lundgren
    [Show full text]
  • N Ireland Ballyhenry Seagrass Survey 2009
    In total, 137 species were recorded. 502 species records were made. Species recorded are listed below: Sponges Boring sponge Cliona celata; Porifera indet; sulphur sponge Suberites ficus. Anemones, Corals, Hydroids and Jellyfish beadlet anemone Actinia equina; moon jellyfish Aurelia aurita; burrowing anemone Cerianthus lloydii; lion’s mane jellyfish Cyanea capillata; blue lion’s mane Cyanea lamarckii; plumose anemone Metridium senile; antenna hydroid Nemertesia antennina; kelp fur Obelia geniculata; anemone Sagartia sp. Sea gooseberries comb jelly Bolinopsis infundibulum; sea gooseberry Pleurobrachia pileus. Crustaceans barnacles Balanus sp.; edible crab Cancer pagurus; shore crab Carcinus maenas; brown shrimp Crangon crangon; blue striped squat lobster Galathea strigosa; angular crab Goneplax rhomboides; spider crab Inachus sp.; harbour swimming crab Liocarcinus depurator; spider crab Macropodia sp.; velvet swimming crab Necora puber; langoustine Nephrops norvegicus; hermit crabs Paguridae indet., Pagurus bernhardus; common prawn Palaemon serratus. Molluscs grey top shell Gibbula cineraria; flat topshell Gibbula umbilicalis; painted top shell Calliostoma zizyphinum; Rissoa membranacea; netted dog whelk Hinia reticulata; periwinkle Littorina littorea; dog whelk Nucella lapillus; white hedgehog seaslug Acanthodoris pilosa; seaslug Eubranchus farrani; seaslug Favorinus branchialis; mussel Mytilus edulis; king scallop Pecten maximus; saddle oyster Pododesmus patelliformis; bivalve Astarte sulcata; razor shell Ensis sp.; cuttlefish Sepiola
    [Show full text]
  • Female Choice and Paternal Care in the Fifteen-Spined Stickleback, Spinachia Spinachia
    Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 571 _____________________________ _____________________________ Female Choice and Paternal Care in the Fifteen-Spined Stickleback, Spinachia spinachia BY SARA ÖSTLUND-NILSSON ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS UPPSALA 2000 Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Animal Ecology presented at Uppsala University in 2000 Abstract Östlund-Nilsson, S. 2000. Female choice and paternal care in the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 571. 30 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 91-554- 4824-0. In the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia, males provide females with direct benefits by fanning, cleaning and guarding the offspring. Males announce their parental skills through intense body shakes during courtship. Females preferred to mate with more intensely shaking males. As a result, females got better fathers for their offspring, as such males achieved a higher hatching success. Not only did male behavioural cues attract females, but males also used their nests as extrabodily ornaments. The nest is held together with shiny secretional threads consisting of a glycoprotein. Females chose to spawn in nests with more secretional threads. A likely reason for this is that the threads are metabolically costly for the male to produce and the amount of secretion indicates a male’s nutritional status, which is of great importance as parental duties are energetically costly. Moreover, females preferred nests built high up in the vegetation, as such nests were safer from egg predators. Competition with other males for females favoured males building higher nests than did their neighbours, probably because females preferred high nests.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Diversification of Body Form and the Axial Skeleton in the Gasterosteoidei: the Sticklebacks and Their Closest Relatives
    Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2016, 17: 373–393 Evolutionary diversification of body form and the axial skeleton in the Gasterosteoidei: the sticklebacks and their closest relatives Windsor E. Aguirre, Seth E. Contreras, Katelyn M. Carlson, Alex J. Jagla and Lissette Arellano Department of Biological Sciences, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA ABSTRACT Background: Many fishes have evolved long bodies. Decades of research have uncovered substantial variability in body form within the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and among its relatives in the Gasterosteoidei, including the evolution of extremely long bodies. Elongation is likely to be associated with the evolution of the axial skeleton but we need studies linking variation in length and the axial skeleton. Objectives: Examine the relationship between body form and vertebral variation in the Gasterosteoidei (the sticklebacks and their closest relatives). Methods: We examined samples of all genera of the Gasterosteidae, Aulorhynchidae, and Hypoptychidae, collected throughout their ranges. We examined body form variation using geometric morphometric methods and the fineness ratio. We obtained total vertebral number and the proportion of precaudal to caudal vertebrae from X-rays of the same specimens. Results: Mean total vertebral number varied from 26.8 in Gasterosteus wheatlandi to 54.5 in Hypoptychus dybowskii. Body shape was significantly related to total vertebral number across taxa, with longer bodied species having more vertebrae. Hypoptychus dybowskii, which has more vertebrae than predicted from its relative body length, is an outlier. The number of precaudal and caudal vertebrae covary linearly across taxa. Again, Hypoptychus dybowskii was an exception, having an excess of precaudal vertebrae for the number of caudal vertebrae that it possesses.
    [Show full text]
  • HELCOM Red List
    SPECIES INFORMATION SHEET Spinachia spinachia English name: Scientific name: Fifteen-spined stickleback Spinachia spinachia Taxonomical group: Species authority: Class: Actinopterygii Linnaeus, 1758 Order: Gasterosteiformes Family: Gasterosteidae Subspecies, Variations, Synonyms: – Generation length: 1.3 Past and current threats (Habitats Directive Future threats (Habitats Directive article 17 article 17 codes): codes): – – IUCN Criteria: HELCOM Red List LC – Category: Least Concern Global / European IUCN Red List Category Habitats Directive: NE/NE – Previous HELCOM Red List Category (2007): VU Protection and Red List status in HELCOM countries: Denmark –/–, Estonia –/DD, Finland –/DD, Germany –/D (Data deficient, Baltic Sea), Latvia –/RA, Lithuania –/–, Poland Prohibited to kill, catch or disturb this species under strict protection /–, Russia – /–, Sweden –/LC Distribution and status in the Baltic Sea region This marine species is widely distributed and reproducing as far into the Baltic Sea as the Bothnian Sea. It is considered very rare in Poland but common in other areas. It is not caught in regular coastal fish monitoring due to its slender body shape and small size. The only known trend data are from catches in Swedish nuclear power plant cooling water intake in Kattegat where the population show no overall trend in the last 10 years. Fifteen-spined stickleback. Photo by Timo Moritz Deutches Meeresmuseum. 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Fig1. Number of fifteen-spined sticklebacks caught per hour using a small-mesh sized Isaac Kidd trawl in a monitory fishing in the cooling water intake in a Swedish nuclear power plant in the Kattegat. Mean number of individuals caught yearly was 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Zander Et Al.Indd
    Bulletin of Fish Biology Volume 15 Nos 1/2 31.07.2015 33-51 The phytal fauna of the SW Baltic Sea and its importance as reservoir for fi sh prey Die Phytalfauna der SW-Ostsee und ihre Bedeutung als Reservoir von Fischnahrung C. Dieter Zander1*, Klaus Rupp1, Kristin Böhme1, Saskia Brix1, Kim C. Detloff 2, Jörg Melander3, Inga Nordhaus4, Christine Schiro1 1Biozentrum Grindel, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; ²NABU, Wollankstr. 4, D-13187 Berlin, Germany ³Gruner & Jahr, D-20080 Hamburg, Germany 4Leibniz-Zentrum für marine Tropenökologie, Fahrenheitstr. 6, D-28359 Bremen, Germany * Corresponding author: [email protected] Summary: The phytal fauna of the SW Baltic was investigated at three localities of the German coast: Flensburg fjord (Kiel Bight), Dahmeshöved (Lübeck Bight) and Salzhaff (NW Mecklenburg). The samples comprised fi ve algae species (Fucus vesiculosus, Ceramium sp., Enteromorpha sp., Ectocarpus sp., Chorda sp.), two spermatophytes (Zostera marina, Zannichellia palustris) and animal aufwuchs by Mytilus edulis. Additionally, succession experiments were performed in the Mytilus and Ceramium belts of Dahmeshöved. The investi- gations were focused on the organisms living between the sub strate and their possible exploitation by fi sh. Therefore, the question arose what substrate is best suited to be colonized by “invertebrates”. At all three localities highest biomass was found in the Ectocarpus belt in late spring, in Ceramium, Enteromorpha and Mytilus belts in summer. The Zostera belts presented highest values in spring, whereas Fucus and Zannichellia belts attained relatively low values. Production of fi sh prey animals was highest in Enteromorpha belts followed by Ceramium and Mytilus belts.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Mitochondrial Genome of the Ukrainian Nine-Spined Stickleback Pungitius Platygaster (Gasterosteiformes, Gasterosteidae)
    Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resources ISSN: (Print) 2380-2359 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmdn20 Complete mitochondrial genome of the Ukrainian nine-spined stickleback Pungitius platygaster (Gasterosteiformes, Gasterosteidae) Baocheng Guo, Takahito Shikano, Jasna Vukić, Radek Šanda & Juha Merilä To cite this article: Baocheng Guo, Takahito Shikano, Jasna Vukić, Radek Šanda & Juha Merilä (2016) Complete mitochondrial genome of the Ukrainian nine-spined stickleback Pungitius platygaster (Gasterosteiformes, Gasterosteidae), Mitochondrial DNA Part B, 1:1, 68-69, DOI: 10.1080/23802359.2015.1137827 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2015.1137827 © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. Published online: 01 Feb 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 121 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmdn20 Download by: [University of Helsinki] Date: 01 February 2017, At: 02:11 MITOCHONDRIAL DNA PART B: RESOURCES, 2016 VOL. 1, NO. 1, 68–69 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2015.1137827 MITOGENOME ANNOUNCEMENT Complete mitochondrial genome of the Ukrainian nine-spined stickleback Pungitius platygaster (Gasterosteiformes, Gasterosteidae) Baocheng Guoa, Takahito Shikanoa, Jasna Vukic´b, Radek Sandac and Juha Meril€aa aEcological Genetics Research Unit, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; bDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, cDepartment of Zoology, National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The complete mitochondrial genome of the Ukrainian nine-spined stickleback Pungitius platygaster was Received 8 December 2015 obtained using massive parallel sequencing of genomic DNA.
    [Show full text]