4.4 Article

Osmoregulatory role of the paternal brood pouch for two Syngnathus species

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.05.003

关键词

Brood pouch; Embryonic development; Ion transfer; Osmoregulation; Syngnathus floridae; Syngnathus fuscus

资金

  1. Commonwealth of Virginia Marine Resources Commission [03-36, 04-21]
  2. West Virginia University Animal Care and Use Committee [03-0501]
  3. Oak Ridge Associated Universities
  4. West Virginia University Research Corporation
  5. West Virginia University Department of Biology
  6. National Science Foundation [IOS-0722120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even though sea horses, sea dragons, and pipefishes of the teleost family Syngnathidae have been studied for over a century, the physiological significance of the paternal brood pouch is not well defined. Here we document the regulation of brood pouch osmolality during embryonic development for Syngnathus floridae and Syngnathus fuscus, particularly during the middle brood stages or around hatching. S. fuscus brood pouch osmolality was significantly lower than non-brooding conspecifics for all brood stages, but early and late stage S. floridae displayed pouch osmolality comparable to non-brooding males, suggesting brood pouch osmoregulation at these stages may be important for S. fuscus embryonic development. Quantification of Na(+), K(+), Ca(2+), and Mg(2+) in paternal blood plasma, pouch fluid, and embryos indicated that regulation of these ions contributes to pouch osmoregulation and furthermore, that ions in the brood pouch are most likely derived from the environment and not paternal blood. While both species displayed significant increases in dry mass and changes in embryonic ion concentrations during development net uptake of paternally-derived ions was not documented. Overall, this examination furthers our understanding of syngnathid brood pouch physiology and offers insight into the evolution of paternal care in these fishes. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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