"The otolith analysis revealed that about 90 percent of Apache Lake’s buffalofishes were more than 85 years old".
That sounds very fishy. Perhaps they just have some sort of genetic code that make them create those new layers of calcium carbonate structures more often than once a year.
It is important to validate any aging method, including otoliths, and there have been cases of system misaging. The fin ray and scale based ages used in West Coast ground fishery management in the 80s resulted in systemic under aging that contributed to the over fishing and collapse of multiple rockfish species, for example. But otoliths in temperate fish species are generally one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods across multiple taxa.
So hopefully otolith aging has been validated for this species in particular or at least a closely related one, but if not it's more likely than not reasonably reliable.
As for the population dynamics, it's not actually necessarily that strange. For many species, mortality occurs almost entirely in the early life history. Once fish escape that period, they are very unlikely to die. This can take in exactly this kind of dynamic were very few young fish are alive at any one point and most of the extent fish are very old.
> otoliths in temperate fish species are generally one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods
Ha ha ha haaaa!!
Sorry, but that claim was hilarious. I had the (lets call it) "pleasure" to read otoliths in the past, and consistent and reliable is not how I would describe it. Not even close. For most species it just happens that nobody validated the system first. This means that everybody extrapolates, but nobody really knows how many rings are formed each year. But "oh, that fish lived for 800 years"... highly publishable
I currently work in a lab that primarily does otolith based growth and aging. It is and has been my primary job for over 7 years (although I don't do that actual reading of the otoliths, I work with the data that comes out of it)
I think you are misreading my comment. I did not say that it was easy or that it was always consistent and reliable. I said it was one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods, which is an inherently relative statement. Compared to other common aging techniques such as scales, fin rays, and vertebrae, it is exactly those two things: more consistent and reliable.
It can be more and yet still not particularly. And, in many cases, yes, it is not always very reliable and in many species it has not been specifically validated. But it is still the best, more reliable technique we have for aging fishes. In addition, please note that literally the first sentence in my comment was the importance of validating an age technique. I am well aware of the issues in aging. Those issues absolutely do not amount to the (implied) conclusion of your comment that they are garbage that shouldn't be relied upon.
Also, just a piece of advice: you do not come off as particularly authoritative when you make wildly hyperbolic statements like contesting claims of 800 year old fish.
> I currently work in a lab that primarily does otolith based growth and aging.
The magic of HN. That's pretty interesting. Can I ask with what species do you work?. Anchovy? Cod?
> I did not say that it was easy or that it was always consistent and reliable. I said it was one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods
Fair point. Yep, is all what we have, but I would wish that somebody find a better method. Is very fuzzy after some ages with all those rings that fork or fuse.
