4.3 Article

Development of the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis parasitic stages in temperatures ranging from 3 to 24°C

期刊

AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 429-443

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/aei00320

关键词

Salmo salar; Molt rate; Thermal tolerance; Reproduction; Lepeophtheirus salmonis; Poikilotherm; Ecdysis

资金

  1. TEMPLUS project [90283]
  2. SFI-Sea Lice Research Centre [203513]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development rate of the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis is greatly influenced by seawater temperature. This study describes how the growth rate of L. salmonis changes with temperature and identifies the extreme high and low temperatures at which development to the adult stage is compromised. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar were infected with copepodids and development was monitored in 8 temperature groups spanning 3 to 24 degrees C until the lice were adults. Development was severely compromised at 3 and 24 degrees C, while the lice developed normally in the temperature range from 6 to 21 degrees C. At 6 degrees C, most female lice had become adults at 72 d post infection (432 degree-days). At 21 degrees C, development was significantly faster and most females were adults after 13 d, at only 271 degree-days. After infection, lice grew through 5 stages before reaching the adult stage, all of which, with a few exceptions, appeared to last approximately equally long. Thus, a simple model describing the mean daily growth rate (stages per day) as a function of temperature was made for each sex. The relationship between mean daily growth rate and temperature was best described by a second-order polynomial. The term relative age is introduced and used to describe the pattern of development in terms of percent of total development time to the adult stage. This was applied to calculate the timing of developmental events as a function of temperature. Photoperiod and development under rising or decreasing temperatures had minor effects on development rate.

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

4.3
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