4.4 Article

The estimation of DEB parameters for various Northeast Atlantic bivalve species

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEA RESEARCH
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 107-124

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seares.2006.03.005

关键词

dynamic energy budget; parameter estimation; Cerastoderma edule; Crassostrea gigas; Macoma balthica; Mya arenaria; Mytilus edulis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dynamic energy budgets are used for the description of the energy flow through individual organisms from the assimilation of food to the utilisation for maintenance, growth, development and reproduction. In this paper, a procedure for estimation of the parameters of Kooijman's Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB) model is introduced and subsequently parameters are estimated for the following Northeast Atlantic bivalve species: the Baltic clam Macoma balthica (L.), the sandgaper Mya arenaria L., the cockle Cerastoderma edule (L.), the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg, 1793). For none of the species, a complete set of parameters could be compiled. A special protocol was developed to account for missing values and to achieve consistency between parameters. Species were similar in their optimal temperature range, as reflected in a common Arrhenius temperature of 5800 K, which corresponds with a Q(10) of 2. Differences between species were observed in width of the optimal temperature range. The taxonomic relatedness between species was reflected in similar volume-specific maintenance costs, costs for growth and almost similar maximum storage density of energy. Species differed in their maximum surface area-specific assimilation rate by a factor of 6 and in the fraction of energy allocated to reproduction (ranging from 0.15 to 0.50). These differences are reflected in the maximum theoretical total shell length of the species, which varied from about 3 cm in M balthiea, 6 cm in C edule, 15 cm in M arenaria and M edulis and 45 cm in C gigas. (c) 2006 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