4.6 Article

Effect of nutrition on fatty acid profiles of riverine, lacustrine, and aquaculture-raised salmonids of pre-alpine habitats

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 650, 期 1, 页码 243-254

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-010-0266-z

关键词

Aquatic food webs; Dietary fatty acids; Stable isotopes; Aquatic habitats; Fish

资金

  1. Provincial Government of Lower Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined trophic positions and fatty acid concentrations of riverine, lacustrine, and aquaculture diet and fish in Austrian pre-alpine aquatic ecosystems. It was hypothesized that dietary fatty acid (FA) profiles largely influence the FA composition of the salmonids Salvelinus alpinus, Salmo trutta, and Oncorhynchus mykiss. We analyzed trophic positions using stable isotopes (delta N-15) and tested for correlations with polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) concentrations. Gut content analysis revealed benthos (rivers), pellets (aquaculture), and zooplankton (lakes) as the predominant diet source. Results of dorsal muscle tissues analysis showed that the omega-3 PUFA, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n - 3), was the mostly retained PUFA in all fish of all ecosystems, yet with the highest concentrations in S. alpinus from aquaculture (mean: 20 mg DHA/g dry weight). Moreover, we found that eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 20:5n - 3) in fish of natural habitats (rivers, lakes) was the second most abundant PUFA (3-5 mg/g DW), whereas aquaculture-raised fish had higher concentrations of the omega-6 linoleic acid (18:2n - 6; 9-11 mg/g DW) than EPA. In addition, PUFA patterns showed that higher omega-3/-6 ratios in aquacultures than in both riverine and lacustrine fish. Data of this pilot field study suggest that salmonids did not seem to directly adjust their PUFA to dietary PUFA profiles in either natural habitats or aquaculture and that some alterations of PUFA are plausible. Finally, we suggest that trophic positions of these freshwater salmonids do not predict PUFA concentrations in their dorsal muscle tissues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据