4.4 Article

Oxygen and capacity limited thermal tolerance of the lugworm Arenicola marina: A seasonal comparison

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.09.011

关键词

(13)C NMR spectroscopy; Arenicola marina; Exercise performance; Growth rate; Protein synthesis; Seasonal acclimatisation

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Po 278/11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lugworms Arenicola marina were collected from Arcachon Bay in two summers and winters of consecutive years. The worms were acclimated to different temperatures (5 and 10 degrees C for winter animals and 15 degrees C for summer animals). Each group was investigated over an experimental temperature range concerning its optimum in exercise performance, acute growth rate as well as respiration and ventilation activities to reveal seasonal acclimatisation effects, potential inter-annual differences and the influence of laboratory acclimation temperatures on the parameters of interest. The groups investigated at the two consecutive summers yielded nearly identical results for ventilation and respiration activities. A clear seasonal difference developed in exercise performance, with an optimum at lower temperatures in winter than in summer, irrespective of acclimation temperature. Respiration and ventilation activities showed no significant differences between winter specimens acclimated to 10 degrees C and summer specimens acclimated to 15 degrees C. However, an acclimation temperature of 5 degrees C for winter animals caused noticeable differences to those acclimated at 10 degrees C. Acute growth rates differed seasonally as well as between acclimation temperatures with the highest rates found around 10 degrees C in summer and around 15 degrees C in winter. The lowest rates were recorded in winter worms acclimated to 5 degrees C. These acute patterns may reflect high thermal limits in warm acclimated winter worms and temperature dependent shifts in energy demand in summer animals. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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