2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.12.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic variation and genotype by location interaction in body weight, spinal deformity and sexual maturity in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) reared at different locations off Norway

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
33
1
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
6
33
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The value for body weight heritability obtained in our study also agrees with estimates previously reported in European sea bass, which range from medium heritabilities (0.2 in [12], 0.38-0.44 in [15] and 0.39 in [16,17]) to high heritabilities when taking into account different environments (0.31-0.60 in [18]). Generally, body length and body weight have moderate to high heritability values in teleost fishes: 0.6 in Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch [19], 0.12-0.47 in brown trout, Salmo trutta [20], 0.09-0.44 in carp, Cyprinus carpio [21,22], 0.38-0.79 in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus [23,24], 0.64 (± 0.12) in cod, Gadus morhua [25], 0.38 ± 0.07 in gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata [26]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value for body weight heritability obtained in our study also agrees with estimates previously reported in European sea bass, which range from medium heritabilities (0.2 in [12], 0.38-0.44 in [15] and 0.39 in [16,17]) to high heritabilities when taking into account different environments (0.31-0.60 in [18]). Generally, body length and body weight have moderate to high heritability values in teleost fishes: 0.6 in Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch [19], 0.12-0.47 in brown trout, Salmo trutta [20], 0.09-0.44 in carp, Cyprinus carpio [21,22], 0.38-0.79 in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus [23,24], 0.64 (± 0.12) in cod, Gadus morhua [25], 0.38 ± 0.07 in gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata [26]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, Thodesen et al (2013) reported, in a different population of red tilapia, that the genetic correlation between body weight in freshwater earthen ponds and floating cages was high (0.92 ± 0.06), while that between freshwater earthen ponds and brackish water tanks was low (0.33 ± 0.14). The G × E interaction effect was reported for a range of fish species, including Nile tilapia (Bentsen et al, 2012; Trọng et al, 2013), rainbow trout (Kause et al, 2003), Atlantic cod (Kolstad et al, 2006), Asian and European sea bass (Dupont-Nivet et al, 2010; Domingos et al, 2013; Le Boucher et al, 2013). A synthesis of the literature review across farmed aquaculture species indicates that when the environments are similar (e.g., pond vs. cage), the G × E effect is not of commercial importance for body traits (e.g., Nguyen, 2016; Sae-Lim et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Besides, genetic background has been frequently mentioned as a significant factor affecting the response variability in fish (Fjelldal et al., ; Boglione et al., ,b). Genetic variations have already been linked with feed utilization (Thodesen et al., , ; Henryon et al., ), mineral absorption (Thodesen et al., ) or spinal deformities occurrences (McKay and Gjerde, ; Gjerde et al., ; Kolstad et al., ; Gislason et al., ). In an applied context, further studies focusing on genetic variation related to plasticity of response to P deprivation might be highly relevant to help reduce P output and ensure animal welfare.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The amount of P in bone (and resulting bone condition such as strength, mineralization or deformities) are tightly balanced by cellular processes such as bone apposition (osteoblasts) and bone resorption either diffuse (halastasy) or control by osteoclast and osteocyte (in cellular bone fish such as salmonids) cells (Kacem and Meunier, ; Witten and Huysseune, ). These processes are impacted by various factors such as rearing or environmental conditions (Takle et al., ; Deschamps and Sire, ; Ytteborg et al., ; Grini et al., ), genetics (McKay and Gjerde, ; Gjerde et al., ; Kolstad et al., ), life stage/fish size (Baeverfjord et al., ; Lellis et al., ) or nutrient deficiency (Cahu et al., ; Lall and Lewis‐McCrea, ). The factors affecting bone tissue mineralization and the processes involved in bone formation and resorption/remodeling in larva and juvenile fish have been recently reviewed (Boglione et al., ,b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%