4.5 Article

Influence of broodstock diet on somatic growth, fecundity, gonad carotenoids and larval survival of sea urchin

Journal

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 4, Pages 969-976

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/are.12256

Keywords

Paracentrotus lividus; sea urchin; nutrition; larval performance; maternal provisioning; carotenoids

Categories

Funding

  1. EU FP7 project ENRICH
  2. University of Stirling
  3. Ardtoe Marine Laboratory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of formulated feeds on Paracentrotus lividus broodstock performances and carotenoid compositions were investigated. Performance of offspring derived from each dietary treatment was compared to determine whether maternal provisioning of nutrients affected offspring development and survival under commercial culture conditions. At the end of the experimental period (3months), urchins were induced to spawn, relative fecundity measured, and offspring derived from each treatment were reared independently and survival up to competence assessed. Carotenoid composition of the gonads was also measured. Data showed that the highest dietary protein content significantly improved somatic growth, whereas higher lipid content increased gonadal index (GI) consistent with the use of gonads as nutrient storage in sea urchins. Nonetheless, gonad lipid concentration was not significantly different between treatments indicating that higher dietary lipid content favoured gonadal size rather than increase lipid content of the gonadal tissue. Interestingly, GI and fecundity were not correlated, although the latter may have been enhanced by dietary xanthophyll. This suggests the importance of including carotenoids in broodstock diets to enhance hatchery outputs. This study also indicated that, although broodstock diet can influence fecundity, it had no significant impact on larval survival, which could instead be influenced by rearing conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available