↓ Skip to main content

Effects of dietary supplementation of golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) egg on survival, pigmentation and antioxidant activity of Blood parrot

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Effects of dietary supplementation of golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) egg on survival, pigmentation and antioxidant activity of Blood parrot
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3051-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang, Song, Liu, Qiao, Wang, Yue, Zhao, Liu-Lan, Wang, Yan, Yang, Shi-Yong, Du, Zong-Jun, Zhang, Jia-En

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effects of supplementing golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) eggs powder (EP) in the diet as a source of natural carotenoids on survival, pigmentation and antioxidant activity of Blood parrot. A total of 90 fish were divided into three treatment groups with three replicates per treatment. Blood parrot were fed with diets containing 0 (control), 5 % (EP 5 %), and 15 % (EP 15 %) dry powder of golden apple snail egg for 60 days, and nine fish per group were sampled at 20, 40, and 60 days. No differences in survival of the fish among treatments were found throughout the experiment. The body coloration of Blood parrot was enhanced in the skin and caudal fin with increasing content of golden apple snail egg powder in the diet. At the end of the experiment, the carotenoid content in the caudal fin and the number of scale chromatophores of the fish fed dietary with EP were higher (P < 0.05) than those of the control group. The EP 15 % treated fishes showed a significant higher (P < 0.05) in the activities of SOD after 60 days, but we could not observe significant changes (P > 0.05) in CAT activities. Results demonstrated that golden apple snail eggs can be used as a colorant to promote the pigmentation efficacy of Blood parrot.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,388,650
of 8,418,826 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,082
of 1,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,396
of 253,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#78
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,418,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,737 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.