2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contribution of gut content to the nutritional value of Brachionus plicatilis used as prey in larviculture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To evaluate the feeding incidence (absence/presence of feed in the larva gut) 10 individual larva per replicate (n = 30 per treatment) were sampled at 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 23, and 28 DAH, always at 2:00 p.m. to ensure the same feeding status between sampling days. For gut content estimation, gut fullness level was examined by image analysis based on the techniques previously described [40,41]. Each larva was photographed under a microscope connected to the Leica Application Suite (LAS) for digital image analysis.…”
Section: Feeding Incidence and Gut Fullnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate the feeding incidence (absence/presence of feed in the larva gut) 10 individual larva per replicate (n = 30 per treatment) were sampled at 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 23, and 28 DAH, always at 2:00 p.m. to ensure the same feeding status between sampling days. For gut content estimation, gut fullness level was examined by image analysis based on the techniques previously described [40,41]. Each larva was photographed under a microscope connected to the Leica Application Suite (LAS) for digital image analysis.…”
Section: Feeding Incidence and Gut Fullnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An inappropriate feeding schedule may limit ingestion, either because the larvae do not eat or do not detect the prey at feeding time or because they are already satiated. In both cases, the prey will spend hours in the tanks before being eaten, with a consequent drop in nutritional quality (Romero‐Romero & Yúfera ). On the other hand, in many species that tend to eat continuously during the early stages of life, an excess of food during the feeding period may shorten the gut passage time, while the prey are less efficiently digested (for details see section Gut transit rate vs dietary protein utilization).…”
Section: Feeding Behaviour and Appetitementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high variability found within the SI results, combined with the higher concentration of 18:2(n‐6) (trophic marker that may be partly of phanerogam origin; Kelly & Scheibling and references therein), inside the MPA for both species, may reflect a higher density and better conservation status of the seagrass meadows inside the MPA (Gili & Ros ; Romero‐Romero & Yufera ). This result is in agreement with previous studies documenting that D. sargus prefer this habitat for living and feeding on the seagrass epibionts (García‐Rubies & Zabala ; Gordoa & Moli ; Sala & Ballesteros ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%