Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment 2011
DOI: 10.1002/9780470960967.ch4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bivalve Filter Feeding: Variability and Limits of the Aquaculture Biofilter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
120
1
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 136 publications
(137 citation statements)
references
References 213 publications
8
120
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A recent review by Cranford et al (2011) suggested that the constant b could be universally written as 0.58 for filter-feeding bivalves. While species-specific estimates for C. virginica are rare, they have ranged from 0.59 (Pruder et al 1976 cited in Epifanio andEwart 1977) to 0.73±0.22 (Riisgaard 1988).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent review by Cranford et al (2011) suggested that the constant b could be universally written as 0.58 for filter-feeding bivalves. While species-specific estimates for C. virginica are rare, they have ranged from 0.59 (Pruder et al 1976 cited in Epifanio andEwart 1977) to 0.73±0.22 (Riisgaard 1988).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 to the laboratory-measured filtration rates for O. lurida using the Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least squares method (Press et al 2007) in Mathematica version 7. As FR is known to vary between studies (Cranford et al 2011), we sought to reduce uncertainty in our model by deriving fits for increasing numbers of estimated parameters, initially substituting the allometric relationship (b) and the optimum temperature (T o ) for values derived or estimated from the literature. Fits were subsequently compared by F test to determine whether the estimation of a greater number of parameters with the Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least squares method significantly improved the model fit to the data and was therefore justified.…”
Section: Model Fittingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main arguments to explain the differences between studies are the use of different methodologies (Riisgård 2001;Riisgård et al 2014), differences in mussel condition index (Filgueira et al 2008;Riisgård et al 2014) or food type, with lower clearance rates measured when natural plankton is used (Doering and Oviatt 1986). Nowadays, there seems to be consensus on the concept of considering filtration rates determined in controlled laboratory experiments using cultured algal species and low mussel densities as maximum rates, while clearance rates established under field conditions can be regarded as realised clearance rates (Cranford et al 2011;Riisgård et al 2014). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These experiments resulted in estimates of the maximum clearance rate, while it can be expected that under natural conditions, clearance rates will be lower. The need for information on actual realised clearance rates under natural conditions and the specific usage of natural plankton by these dense collections of juvenile mussels has been recognised (Bunt et al 1992;Cranford et al 2003Cranford et al , 2011Trottet et al 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation