4.5 Article

Effects of dietary carbohydrate on weight gain and gonad production in small sea urchins, Lytechinus variegatus

Journal

AQUACULTURE NUTRITION
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 375-386

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anu.12403

Keywords

carbohydrate level; growth; Lytechinus variegatus; nutrition; production; sea urchin

Categories

Funding

  1. National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under NOAA [NA16RG2258, NA06OAR4170078]
  2. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium project [R/SP-9, R/SP-15]
  3. University of Alabama at Birmingham
  4. NIH [P30DK056336]
  5. Aquatic Animal Research Core (NORC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In experiment 1, juvenile sea urchins (n=80, 0.088 +/- 0.001g wet weight and 5.72 +/- 0.04mm diameter) were held individually and fed adlibitum one of three semi-purified formulated diets (n=16 individuals treatment(-1)). In the diets, protein was held constant (310gkg(-1) dry, as fed) and carbohydrate level varied (190, 260, or 380gkg(-1) dry, as fed). Wet weights were measured every 2weeks. Total wet weight gain was inversely proportional to dietary carbohydrate level and energy content of the respective diet. In experiment 2, sea urchins (5.60 +/- 0.48g wet weight, n=40) fed 190gkg(-1) carbohydrate consumed significantly more dry feed than those fed 260gkg(-1), but not more than those fed 380gkg(-1) carbohydrate. Based on differential feed intake rates, sea urchins that consumed more feed also consumed higher levels of protein and had the highest weight gain. Consequently, protein content and/or protein: energy ratio may be important in determining feed utilization and growth among sea urchins in this study. The average digestible energy intake was approximately 70kcalkg(-1) body weight day(-1), suggesting daily caloric intake of juvenile Lytechinus variegatus is lower than in shrimp and fish.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available