4.5 Article

Effects of temperature and salinity on oxygen consumption and ammonia excretion in different colour strains of the Manila clam, Ruditapes philippinarum

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 2778-2786

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/are.13111

关键词

Ruditapes philippinarum; temperature; salinity; respiration; excretion; metabolism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31302183]
  2. Program for Liaoning Excellent Talents in University [LJQ2014076]
  3. Cultivation Plan for Youth Agricultural Science and Technology Innovative Talents of Liaoning Province [2014004]
  4. Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System [CARS-48]
  5. National High Technology Research and Development Program [2012AA10A410-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The metabolic responses of different colour strains of Ruditapes philippinarum in terms of oxygen consumption and ammonia excretion to changes in temperature (15-35 degrees C) and salinity (20-40) were investigated. In our range of temperatures (15-35 degrees C), oxygen consumption rate (OCR) increases in cultivated strains (White and Zebra) in opposition to the effect in the wild strain which reach a maximum at 25 degrees C. The highest Q(10) coefficients were 2.741 for zebra strain, 4.326 for white strain, and 1.944 for wild at temperatures of 25-30, 30-35 and 20-25 degrees C respectively. In our range of salinity (20-40 degrees C), OCRs of white strain and zebra strain firstly decreased to lowest level at 25 and 30, and then increased to highest level at 35 and 40 respectively. When the salinity is beyond 35, the OCR decreased and the turning point was found in the white strain and wild, but the zebra strain OCR still increased to a highest level (1.906 mg g(-1) h(-1)) at 40 (P < 0.05). These results show that the cultivated colour strains of R. philippinarum were different from wild in terms of metabolic responses, and information on its response to different temperature and salinity have implications in the aquaculture industry.

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