spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Parra, G.
Right arrow Articles by Yúfera, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Parra, G.
Right arrow Articles by Yúfera, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparative energetics during early development of two marine fish species, Solea senegalensis (Kaup) and Sparus aurata (L.)

G. Parra* and M. Yúfera{ddagger}

Instituto de Ciencias, Marinas de Andalucía, CSIC, Apartado Oficial s/n, Puerto Real, E-11510 Cádiz, Spain
* Present address: Dept. Biología Animal, Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Jaén, Paraje de las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain



View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Changes in dry mass during larval development for (A) Solea senegalensis and (B) Sparus aurata. DM, larval body dry mass (µg); t, time (days); r, correlation coefficient; N, number of samples.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Mouth width with respect to total larval length for Solea senegalensis and Sparus aurata. TL, total length (mm); Wm, mouth width (mm). Sparus aurata data are taken from Fernández-Díaz et al. (Fernández-Díaz et al., 1994). For Sparus aurata, Wm=0.044+0.088TL; r=0.95; N=113. For Solea senegalensis, Wm=0.214+0.057TL; r=0.67; N=119.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Energy content (Jmg-1) of Solea senegalensis (N=3) and Sparus aurata (N=3) larvae during the first month after hatching. Values are mean ± S.D.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Ingestion rate (I; µglarva-1day-1) as a function of larval body dry mass for (A) Solea senegalensis and (B) Sparus aurata.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Rates of oxygen uptake rate (V.O2; nmolO2larva-1h-1) as a function of larval body dry mass for (A) Solea senegalensis and (B) Sparus aurata.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Patterns of gross growth efficiency (K1), assimilation efficiency (A) and gross metabolic efficiency (M1) as a function of larval body dry mass for Solea senegalensis.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 7. Patterns of gross growth efficiency (K1), assimilation efficiency (A) and gross metabolic efficiency (M1) for (A) Sparus aurata and (B) Solea senegalensis larvae with a dry mass of less than 600µg.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 8. Patterns of net growth efficiency (K2) and net metabolic efficiency (M2) as a function of larval body dry mass for (A) Solea senegalensis and (B) Sparus aurata.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2001