1989
DOI: 10.1016/0044-8486(89)90269-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Heritability of growth in larvae and juveniles of Mytilus edulis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
26
2

Year Published

1991
1991
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
4
26
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Using the most conservative heritability estimates (sire component) obtained for larval growth in M. chilensis , and applying a selection intensity of 1.755 that is equivalent to select the higher 10% of the population for the trait, the estimated mean change in larval shell growth ranges between 18.3% and 33.6% per generation. Other studies (Mallet et al 1986; Stromgren & Nielsen 1989) report the same conclusion for the blue mussel M. edulis. Shell length growth rate is closely correlated with meat weight increase in M. edulis juveniles (Nielsen 1985), suggesting that selection for shell growth will at the same time increase the meat growth of mussels.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Using the most conservative heritability estimates (sire component) obtained for larval growth in M. chilensis , and applying a selection intensity of 1.755 that is equivalent to select the higher 10% of the population for the trait, the estimated mean change in larval shell growth ranges between 18.3% and 33.6% per generation. Other studies (Mallet et al 1986; Stromgren & Nielsen 1989) report the same conclusion for the blue mussel M. edulis. Shell length growth rate is closely correlated with meat weight increase in M. edulis juveniles (Nielsen 1985), suggesting that selection for shell growth will at the same time increase the meat growth of mussels.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Several other studies also describe heritabilities for larvae growth rates in C. virginica by analysing full‐ and half‐sib families; these estimates ranged between 0.25 and 0.71 (Newkirk et al 1977; Losee 1978). Another study based on a nested design reported heritabilities for larval growth rate in M. edulis ranging between h 2 =0.5±0.2 and 0.9±0.3 (Stromgren & Nielsen 1989). These estimates agree with the results obtained in the present study and it seems that a large portion of these traits show additive genetic variation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is tendentious to compare heritabilities from different experiments since this parameter depends on the environment, the population under study and the experimental conditions. However, it is interesting to notice that the significant heritabilities we obtained for the selected populations (0n27 h# 0n84) are in the same range as heritabilities for growth performance found in natural populations of other bivalves (h# ss pSD l 0n5j0n2 and h# bs pSD l 0n8p0n3 in Mytilus edulis (Stro$ mgren & Nielsen, 1989), h# ss pSE l 0n72p0n32 to 0n91p0n17 in Mercenaria mercenaria (Rawson & Hilbish, 1990) and h# ss l 0n43p0n18 to 0n69p0n11 in Ostrea chilensis (Toro, 1995)). …”
Section: (Iii) What About a Further Round Of Selection ?supporting
confidence: 68%
“…In addition to Toro et al (2004b), – who reported realized heritabilities – our results would be the second to report narrow‐sense heritabilities in adult body size of this species, and suggest that there exists additive genetic variation in this trait, but large non‐additive/common environmental effects persist during adulthood. One of the problems with quantitative genetic studies concerns the great differences that can be obtained with different methods of analysis (see, for instance Mallet, Freeman & Dickie 1986; Strömgren & Nielsen 1989; Ibarra, Ramirez, Ruiz Cruz & Avila 1999; Bolivar & Newkirk 2002; Toro et al 2004a). In the case of bivalve size, the great majority of published studies have been performed by standard statistical methods derived from linear models (i.e., parent–offspring regression, realized heritabilities from selection experiments, sib‐analyses and expected mean squares from anova (e.g., Toro & Paredes 1996, Toro et al 2004a, b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%