| Title |
Growth rates of larval and juvenile bigeye scad Selar crumenophthalmus in captivity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-2-634 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aaron Welch, Ronald Hoenig, John Stieglitz, Zach Daugherty, Bruno Sardenberg, Sasa Miralao, Dan Farkas, Dan Benetti |
| Abstract |
Growth rates of larval and juvenile bigeye scad Selar crumenophthalmus reared in captivity were studied. The results are presented, discussed, and compared to wild S. crumenophthalmus and other pelagic fish. S. crumenophthalmus are a small pelagic carangid fish of circumtropical distribution. Larvae were reared in a modified mesocosm system and sampled daily for growth. Larvae grew to a mean size of 4.74 cm (Standard Length) and 1.30 g by 45 days post hatch (dph). Larval length-at-age was best described by the exponential equation Y = 1.966e(0.0704t) . For juvenile growth trials, 1940 fish were stocked into four 2.5 m(3) cylindro-conical tanks at two different densities (262 fish m(-3) and 120 fish m(-3)) and reared from 45 dph to subadult stage. Fish were sampled daily for growth. No statistically significant differences in growth or survival were detected between tanks. Mean length and weight at 141 dph was 13.24 cm (Total Length) and 25.20 g. Juvenile length-at-age was best described by the Von Bertalanffy Growth Model equation L t = 27.75(1 - e(-0.03(t-1.57))). Weight-at-age was best described by a linear equation W t = 1.7313x + 12.4662. The exponent of the length-weight equation was 3.14. In addition to providing the first published description of larviculture and juvenile growout techniques for S. crumenophthalmus, this study contains the first published data on this species' larval growth and directly confirms estimates of S. crumenophthalmus juvenile growth done by other researchers using indirect techniques such as otolith daily growth increment and frequency distribution analysis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 43% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 14% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,453,479
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#492
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,564
of 304,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#26
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 304,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.