Growth

doi:10.1002/9781119045212.ch6

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 200 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…growth variation within bivalve populations has been demonstrated by means of reciprocal transplantation, common garden experiments or genomic tools (Gosling, 2015).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T determinants of growth are not trivial, and might be due to synergetic effects of the different environmental factors (temperature, food availability, salinity) on bivalve growth (Gosling, 2015).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In shellfish aquaculture worldwide, growth and condition indexes are the main means to assess bivalve health and farming success (Pouvreau & Prasil, 2001;Saxby, 2002). Similarly to other organisms, the growth of cultivated bivalves is the result of genotype and environment interaction (Gosling, 2015).…”

Section: A C C E P T E D M Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The environmental influence on the growth of organisms was quickly demonstrated for bivalves on the basis of several factors including temperature (Mann, 1979;Brown & Hartwick, 1988;Hiebenthal et al, 2012), salinity (Dickinson et al, 2012;Hiebenthal et al, 2012) and hydrodynamic conditions (Steffani & Branch, 2003). Among these environmental factors, food availability is certainly considered as the most important factor affecting the growth of bivalves (Gosling, 2015). This factor is so essential that it determines most farming strategies of shellfish producers regarding farming density (Fréchette, 2010), structure design (Strohmeier et al, 2008) and biofouling management (Lacoste & Gaertner-Mazouni, 2015).…”

Section: A C C E P T E D M Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Phenotype plasticity, local adaptation, and biofouling influence on growth of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera: A common garden approach

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of our study is to investigate (1) the influence of phenotype plasticity and local adaptation on pearl-oyster physiology by testing the persistence of growth differentiation of two pearl oyster populations (Arutua and Mangareva) in common garden experiment; (2) to quantify the influence of biofouling development on the growth of each pearl oyster population. According to our observations, the growth rate in terms of total oyster weight suggested better growth performance of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera in Mangareva (0.21-0.24 ± 0.01 g.day−1) than Arutua (0.14-0.15 ± 0.01 g.day−1). However, similar growth performances are observed at the Vairao common garden site for oyster stocks from Mangareva (0.07 ± 0.01 mm.day−1 or 0.15 ± 0.01 g.day−1) and Arutua (0.07 ± 0.01 mm.day−1 or 0.13 ± 0.01 g.day−1). Our results thus suggest that growth performance variability observed at the pearl farming sites of Arutua and Mangareva is due more to phenotypic plasticity than to local adaptation. This result thus accords a major importance to site selection for the pearl farming optimization process. Highlights ► Faster biofouling colonization was observed in Mangareva than in Arutua. ► Mangareva biofouling colonization was associated with tunicate settlement. ► Biofouling had no negative effect on Pinctada margaritifera growth by 14-15 months. ► Large growth differences in Pinctada margaritifera were mainly phenotype plasticity.

show abstract

“…growth variation within bivalve populations has been demonstrated by means of reciprocal transplantation, common garden experiments or genomic tools (Gosling, 2015).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A C C E P T E D M Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A C C E P T E D M Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phenotype plasticity, local adaptation, and biofouling influence on growth of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera: A common garden approach

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluating the influences of temperature, primary production, and evolutionary history on bivalve growth rates

Saulsbury¹,

Moss

Ivany

et al. 2019

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organismal metabolic rates reflect the interaction of environmental and physiological factors. Thus, calcifying organisms that record growth history can provide insight into both the ancient environments in which they lived and their own physiology and life history. However, interpreting them requires understanding which environmental factors have the greatest influence on growth rate and the extent to which evolutionary history constrains growth rates across lineages. We integrated satellite measurements of sea-surface temperature and chlorophyll-a concentration with a database of growth coefficients, body sizes, and life spans for 692 populations of living marine bivalves in 195 species, set within the context of a new maximum-likelihood phylogeny of bivalves. We find that environmental predictors overall explain only a small proportion of variation in growth coefficient across all species; temperature is a better predictor of growth coefficient than food supply, and growth coefficient is somewhat more variable at higher summer temperatures. Growth coefficients exhibit moderate phylogenetic signal, and taxonomic membership is a stronger predictor of growth coefficient than any environmental predictor, but phylogenetic inertia cannot fully explain the disjunction between our findings and the extensive body of work demonstrating strong environmental control on growth rates within taxa. Accounting for evolutionary history is critical when considering shells as historical archives. The weak relationship between variation in food supply and variation in growth coefficient in our data set is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the increase in mean body size through the Phanerozoic was driven by increasing productivity enabling faster growth rates.

show abstract

Shellfish culture: a complex driver of planktonic communities

Hulot

Saulnier

Lafabrie

et al. 2018

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review features recent updates on planktonic community alteration attributed to shellfish farming across three major drivers: predation, nutrient availability and the hydrodynamic environment. The grazing pressure generated by filter‐feeder communities (shellfish and epibionts) constitutes a ‘top‐down’ control of planktonic communities in aquaculture areas, inducing a significant depletion of planktonic organism concentration. By selecting larger cells during the filtration process, shellfish also favour smaller organisms in the water column, leading to the dominance of the latter. Direct excretion and the benthic alteration process tend to fertilise the water column and significantly stimulate primary production. The associated epibiont community particularly contributes to this regeneration process. The expected consequence of increasing nutrient availability is generally a planktonic shift in favour of small planktonic species. However, investigation on the relationship between planktonic structure and nutrient conditions has revealed a wide complexity and variability. Finally, all structures used in shellfish farming activities interact with water currents and tend to significantly increase the residence time of planktonic organisms inside shellfish farming areas. In grazing‐dominated systems, an increase in residence time tends to increase the exposure time of planktonic populations to detrimental conditions, reducing biomass and production. The general consequences of shellfish farming are a decrease in primary production in farming ecosystems, and a possible alteration of structure and functioning of planktonic communities. The implications of shellfish farming also appear to be quite different from other aquaculture activities such as fish farming, which tend to promote primary production leading to eutrophication process.

show abstract

Growth

Cited by 4 publications

References 200 publications

Phenotype plasticity, local adaptation, and biofouling influence on growth of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera: A common garden approach

Phenotype plasticity, local adaptation, and biofouling influence on growth of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera: A common garden approach

Evaluating the influences of temperature, primary production, and evolutionary history on bivalve growth rates

Shellfish culture: a complex driver of planktonic communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About