Are compensatory growth and catch-up growth two sides of the same coin?

Abstract

Compensatory growth refers to an animal's ability to grow extremely rapidly after it has experienced a period of reduced growth. It is also widely held that the growth trajectories of animals showing compensatory growth converge towards those followed by conspecifics that have experienced favorable growth conditions throughout their lives. In other words, it is often assumed that animals undergoing compensatory growth also show some recovery, and thereby exhibit catch-up growth. This belief has resulted in the terms compensatory growth, recovery growth, and catch-up growth being used as synonyms, and has also created some problems with regard to data analysis and interpretation. Following a discussion of methods of analysis and their limitations, a series of growth simulations is presented to illustrate why the terms should not be used as synonyms. The simulations, based upon the assumption that compensatory growth results in a restoration of body composition (using condition index as a surrogate), show that compensatory growth is not always accompanied by a convergence of growth trajectories. Compensatory growth can occur in the absence of catch-up growth, and the simultaneous observation of compensatory growth and a recovery of body mass is a special combination of events. Further, it is possible for growth trajectories to converge even when animals that have experienced a period of reduced growth do not display compensatory growth. Definitions are proposed that distinguish between the terms compensatory growth, recovery growth, and catch-up growth, and guidelines are given relating to the analysis of the results of fish compensatory growth studies.

The effect of temperature and fish size on growth of juvenile lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus L.)

“…This indicates a rapid downwards shift in the optimum temperature for growth with increasing body weight (FIGURE 3.4), which is in accordance with the findings for plaice (Fonds et al 1992), turbot (Imsland et al 1996;Arnason et al 2009), spotted wolffish (Imsland et al 2006), juvenile cod (Björnsson & Steinarsson 2002;Imsland et al 2005), halibut (Hallaraker et al 1995;Aune et al 1997;Jonassen et al 1999) and the general pattern of fish growth with increasing body size (Brett & Groves 1979;Jobling 2010). …”

Effect of restricted feeding on the growth and body composition of European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758)

“…Hu et al (2001) observed a more rapid growth during feeding following the starvation period. Studies have also reported reduction in the SGR during starvation period (Eroldogan et al, 2006;Jobling, 2010).…”

“…On termination of the study, crude protein and crude fat values in limited feeding groups were found higher than those of control group (p<0.05), whereas there were no significant differences between the dry matter values (p>0.05). It is a known fact that starvation leads to changes in biochemical composition of the body (Jobling, 2010). Some limited feeding studies have reported decreased protein and lipid values during restricted feeding (Peres et al, 2011;Adakli and Tasbozan, 2015;Gao et al, 2015;Halder and Ali, 2015), whereas some have reported decreased protein and increased lipid values (Simkins, 2002;Wu et al, 2004).…”

First feeding and subsequent growth performances in piscivorous larvae of Chinese perch Siniperca chuatsi (Perciforms: Sinipercidae)

“…Fish may accelerate growth rate to converge growth trajectories when favorable conditions are restored after a period of growth depression (Zhu et al 2001;Ali et al 2003;Jobling 2010;Hector and Nakagawa 2012). Chinese perch larvae in the three treatments were all provided with enough prey after 6 DAH, however, their specific growth rates were still different throughout the experiment.…”