4.5 Article

Effects of dietary supplementation of Astragalus membranaceus, Codonopsis pilosula, and Glycyrrhiza uralensis extract mixture on growth performance, haematological parameters and hepatopancreatic performance in juvenile Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 2707-2717

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/are.14251

关键词

Astragalus membranaceus; Codonopsis pilosula; Glycyrrhiza uralensis; histology; immune response; Litopenaeus vannamei

资金

  1. Guangdong Provincial Commission of Economic and Information
  2. Guangzhou Science, Technology and Innovation Commission [201604020135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pacific white shrimp is the major farmed shrimp species in the world. It is known to be very sensitive to the environmental and management changes such as intensification, which is one of the primary necessities to increase shrimp production, but represents a stressful condition, and needs to be managed properly to diminish its negative effects in aquaculture. In this study, juvenile Pacific white shrimp were fed diets supplementing with equal quantities of Astragalus membranaceus, Codonopsis pilosula and Glycyrrhiza uralensis extracts in different concentrations (0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 g/kg) for 8 weeks. We subsequently estimated the effects of supplemented diets on growth performance, haematological parameters, and histological changes of hepatopancreas. Results revealed that the supplemented mixture had no benefits on growth and survival rate, but had favourable effects on haemocyte count, number of granulocytes, and hemocyanin concentration in the haemolymph (p > 0.05). We observed that R cells and B cells were increased in hepatopancreatic tubules of shrimps fed on supplemented diets. Besides, a diet containing 2.0 g/kg of extract mixture maintained the decreased levels of alanine aminotransferase (p < 0.05) and aspartate aminotransferase (p > 0.05). Among the used concentrations, 2.0 g/kg seemed to be the most suitable concentration.

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

4.5
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