2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01126.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of long-day photoperiod on growth, body composition and skin colour in immature gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.)

Abstract: Immature gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) with a mean initial weight of 25.6 g were reared over 11 months to market size under di¡erent photoperiods: 16L:8D; 24L:0D and a control. Di¡erences in ¢nal mean weight were signi¢cant between the three treatments (Po0.001): 16L:8D, 465.0 g; 24L:0D, 445.9 g; control, 402.6 g. Fish from the 24L:0D consumed most while 16L:8D ¢sh converted it most e⁄ciently. The lipid content of ¢llets was lower (Po0.05) for the 24L:0D (5.37 AE 0.16 g100 g À1 of ¢llet) than for the c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
44
1
10

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
8
44
1
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The finding that higher growth accompanied with both higher feed intake and feed efficiency under long and continuous photoperiods parallels the findings in other species, such as haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus (Trippel and Neil, 2003) and gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata (Kissil et al, 2001;Ginés et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…The finding that higher growth accompanied with both higher feed intake and feed efficiency under long and continuous photoperiods parallels the findings in other species, such as haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus (Trippel and Neil, 2003) and gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata (Kissil et al, 2001;Ginés et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…In this case, the fish possibly had the highest appetite, as demonstrated by Biswas et al (2005Biswas et al ( , 2006. As described in a review by Boeuf & Bail (1999), Gross et al (1965) were the first to demonstrate that growth is influenced by photoperiod by not only stimulating consumption, but also by improving the feed conversion ratio. Biswas et al (2005Biswas et al ( , 2006 showed that long intervals between feeding fish during a long and constant photoperiod might allow for more efficient digestion, which probably improved nutrient retention.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…For some species, long photoperiods might indirectly modify growth by eliciting an increased feed intake, developing muscle mass through increased locomotor activity (Boeuf & Bail, 1999), enhancing nutrient use efficiency (Biswas et al, 2006) and/or redirecting energy from gonadal development into somatic growth (Boeuf & Bail, 1999;Ginés et al, 2004;Rad et al, 2006). However, the effect of photoperiod on somatic growth and sexual maturation has been little studied during the early stages of fish development (Rad et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrasting these results, several studies pointed out the interference of photoperiod on reproductive variables. Studies on photoperiods and long light regimes tend to promote a continuous suppression of gonadal maturation and to redirect the gonadal development of food energy to somatic growth (Ginés et al, 2004). Rad et al (2006) found that Nile tilapia, kept under continuous light, had a reduced gonadal maturation and lowered values of GSI, followed by increased somatic growth.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%