Environmental influences on the physiological and behavioural growth responses in salmonids; with reference to the growth-dip phenomenon
Photoperiod manipulations are widely used throughout the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) farming industry as a means of producing a product of uniform quality all-year round. However, farmers still remain sceptical over their effectiveness to regulate growth and maturation during the on-growing stage....
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Doctoral or Postdoctoral Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Stirling
2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1893/212 http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/212/1/M.Sprague%20PhD%20Thesis%202006.pdf |
| Summary: | Photoperiod manipulations are widely used throughout the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) farming industry as a means of producing a product of uniform quality all-year round. However, farmers still remain sceptical over their effectiveness to regulate growth and maturation during the on-growing stage. Furthermore, reports of a characteristic growth-dip following light exposure suggest that light may negatively affect the physiological performance of fish in the short-term. Thus, this thesis investigates the effects of light characteristics (spectral quality, intensity and photoperiod) on growth and maturation of salmonid fish and addresses some of the uncertainties surrounding photoperiod use currently reported within the industry. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are seemingly an ideal model species for examining photoperiod effects on growth. Consequently, the application of constant light exposure (LL) at two different intensities (28W and 16W) during two different thermal conditions (summer and winter) was examined on individually tagged fish. Feed intake and growth appeared to be related to the ambient water temperature and did not appear to be affected by intensity or photoperiod, although the onset of constant light did appear to initially affect growth rate. This may indicate that LL has a limiting effect on the growth of trout or that the prevailing water temperature at which light is applied may override the photoperiodic effect. Furthermore, the lack of enhanced growth in trout exposed to LL, unlike that demonstrated for other salmonids, suggest that there may be a species-specific response to environmental variables. Thus, questions regarding photoperiod effects should be limited to the species in question. The main source of variation in results observed under photoperiod manipulations stems from the salmon industry. Atlantic salmon post-smolts were reared in seawater tanks and either maintained under a natural photoperiod (NP) or exposed to a simulated natural photoperiod (SNP), constant light ... |
|---|