Home About us Contact | |||
Gross Growth Efficiency (gross + growth_efficiency)
Selected AbstractsEffect of cycles of feed deprivation on growth and food consumption of immature three-spined sticklebacks and European minnowsJOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY, Issue 1 2003L. Wu Individual juvenile three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus and European minnow Phoxinus phoxinus, from sympatric populations, were subjected to four cycles of 1 week of food deprivation and 2 weeks of ad libitum feeding. Mean specific growth rate during the weeks of deprivation was negative and did not differ between species. The three-spined stickleback showed sufficient growth compensation to recover to the growth trajectory shown by control fish daily fed ad libitum. The compensation was generated by hyperphagia during the re-feeding periods, and in the last two periods of re-feeding, the gross growth efficiencies of deprived three-spined sticklebacks were greater than in control fish. The expression of the compensatory changes in growth and food consumption became clearer over the successive periods of re-feeding. The European minnow developed only a weak compensatory growth response and the mass trajectory of the deprived fish deviated more and more from the control trajectory. During re-feeding periods, there were no significant differences in food consumption or gross growth efficiency between control and deprived European minnows. The differences between the two species are discussed in terms of the possible costs of compensatory growth, the control of growth and differences in feeding biology. [source] Does timing of daily feeding affect growth rates of juvenile three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus L?ECOLOGY OF FRESHWATER FISH, Issue 3 2001M. Ali Abstract , To assess the consequences of unpredictability in the availability of food, this study measured the effect of timing of the daily feeding on food consumption and growth rates of juvenile Gasterosteus aculeatus. The experiment lasted 21 days at 14 °C and a photoperiod of 10 hours of light and 14 hours of dark. Fish were housed individually and allocated at random to three treatments. The mean initial weight of fish was 0.402 g. Group 1 were fed live enchytraeid worms for 2 h after lights came on ("morning"), group 2 was offered food for 2 h randomly at any time of the day ("random") during the light period and group 3 received food for 2 h before the lights went off ("evening"). There was no significant effect of timing of feeding on mean daily food consumption, which was 0.052 g day,1. Daily consumption on the random schedule was more irregular than on the two fixed schedules. Timing of feeding had no significant effect on mean specific growth rate (G) (2.42% day,1), gross growth efficiency (23.3%), white muscle RNA:DNA ratio (5.6), carcase lipid content (31.7% dry wt) and carcase dry matter content (27.4% wet wt). Thus, a lack of predictability in the availability of food during the light period of the day did not impose a detectable cost on the growth performance of the stickleback., [source] On the ecology of the rotifer Cephalodella hoodi from an extremely acidic lakeFRESHWATER BIOLOGY, Issue 9 2005GUNTRAM WEITHOFF Summary 1.,The biovolume-specific carbon content, relative egg volume (a measure of per-offspring reproductive investment), growth and grazing rates, and the gross growth efficiency (GGE) of the rotifer Cephalodella hoodi, isolated from an extremely acidic habitat (pH 2.65), were determined and compared with literature values for rotifers living in circum-neutral habitats in order to reveal potential special features or adaptations related to the extreme habitat of C. hoodi. 2.,Of the two dominant phytoflagellates (Ochromonas sp. and Chlamydomonas acidophila) that occur in the natural habitat of C. hoodi, only C. acidophila promoted positive growth and reproduction and, thus, the following results were obtained with C. acidophila as a food alga. 3.,The body volume-specific carbon content of C. hoodi is in the range of that found in rotifers from circum-neutral lakes, suggesting that no costly carbon investment, brought about by the thickening of the lorica, for example, was required to withstand low pH. 4.,The egg volume of C. hoodi exhibited no phenotypic plasticity dependent on the food concentration and, thus, C. hoodi allocated a constant, absolute amount of energy to each individual offspring. No adaptation to low food densities was found. 5.,A dome-shaped type II functional response curve was found to describe the ingestion of Chlamydomonas as a source of food. 6.,Compared with other rotifers, C. hoodi had a high threshold and half-saturating food concentration (=low affinity) but also a high maximum growth rate and a relatively high GGE, suggesting no severe adverse effect of low pH. [source] Effect of cycles of feed deprivation on growth and food consumption of immature three-spined sticklebacks and European minnowsJOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY, Issue 1 2003L. Wu Individual juvenile three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus and European minnow Phoxinus phoxinus, from sympatric populations, were subjected to four cycles of 1 week of food deprivation and 2 weeks of ad libitum feeding. Mean specific growth rate during the weeks of deprivation was negative and did not differ between species. The three-spined stickleback showed sufficient growth compensation to recover to the growth trajectory shown by control fish daily fed ad libitum. The compensation was generated by hyperphagia during the re-feeding periods, and in the last two periods of re-feeding, the gross growth efficiencies of deprived three-spined sticklebacks were greater than in control fish. The expression of the compensatory changes in growth and food consumption became clearer over the successive periods of re-feeding. The European minnow developed only a weak compensatory growth response and the mass trajectory of the deprived fish deviated more and more from the control trajectory. During re-feeding periods, there were no significant differences in food consumption or gross growth efficiency between control and deprived European minnows. The differences between the two species are discussed in terms of the possible costs of compensatory growth, the control of growth and differences in feeding biology. [source] |