4.4 Article

Relationship between sperm density, spermatocrit, sperm motility and spawning date in wild and cultured haddock

Journal

JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 319-332

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00451.x

Keywords

haddock; motility; spermatocrit; sperm density; sperm quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Semen was collected repeatedly from captive haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus and the effect of seasonality on various sperm parameters was investigated. No differences in sperm traits were observed for wild and cultured haddock. A highly significant positive relationship existed between spermatocrit and spermatozoa density. A significant increase in mean spermatocrit occurred throughout the spawning season but the amount of variability explained by collection date was low (35.1%) due to variability between males. Each of 10 males sampled repeatedly throughout the spawning season demonstrated an increase in spermatocrit. No relationship existed between spermatocrit and proportion of motile spermatozoa when spermatocrit was less than or equal to70%. Motility was reduced in semen samples with spermatocrits >70%. The proportion of spermatozoa that were motile decreased with time since activation. Some motility was still observed after 60 min in sea water (0.1-15.2%) for sperm collected at all times within the spawning season. Of those spermatozoa that were motile, the proportion that exhibited forward swimming motion decreased and the proportion that had only vibratory movement increased with time post-activation. The speed of forward swimming spermatozoa showed no significant relationship with spermatocrit at any time between 0 and 60 min after activation. Swimming speed was negatively related to time since activation, decreasing from 174-240 mum s(-1) at 0 min to 80-128 mum s(-1) at 60 min after activation. (C) 2004 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available