4.5 Article

Dusky Grouper Epinephelus marginatus Growth and Survival When Exposed to Different Photoperiods

期刊

FISHES
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fishes6030031

关键词

fish farm; marine; threat; extinction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, different photoperiods were tested on dusky grouper to evaluate growth and survival. The fish exposed to continuous light showed the best performance with significantly higher weight and specific growth rate compared to those exposed to continuous darkness. Modifying the photoperiod could be a key factor in improving aquaculture protocols and increasing production efficiency.
Photoperiod is considered an environmental factor that influences reproduction and the growth processes of fish throughout the year. In the present study, we subjected dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus to different photoperiods in order to evaluate growth and survival. Juvenile dusky grouper were randomly distributed in twelve 100 L tanks containing four fish per aquarium. The fish were exposed to continuous light, normal photoperiod or continuous darkness for 50 days. Fish were fed 3% of their total biomass, twice a day, and the diet consisted of ground commercial dry pellets (42% crude protein, 12% humidity, 9% ether extract, 15% mineral matter, 4% crude fiber, 3.5% calcium and 3% vitamin C, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions). There was no mortality during the experiment. After 50 days, the best performance was found for exposure to continuous light (24 h artificial light). The final weight of the fish reared under continuous light was significantly higher than that of the fish exposed to continuous darkness. The specific growth rate of the fish exposed to continuous light was significantly higher than that of the fish exposed to the natural photoperiod and to continuous darkness. Modifications to the photoperiod can be a key factor in increasing the efficacy of current production and the improvement of current aquaculture protocols.

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