Variation in filtration and ingestion rates among different microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae and post‐set juveniles
Summary This study investigated filtration and ingestion rates of various microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae (veliger, pediveliger) and post‐set. Four microalgae species, Tisochrysis lutea, Pavlova lutheri, Chaetoceros gracilis and C. muelleri were evaluated for larvae, a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Aquaculture research 2022-02, Vol.53 (2), p.684-688 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 688 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 684 |
| container_title | Aquaculture research |
| container_volume | 53 |
| creator | Hassan, Md Mahbubul Parks, Victoria Laramore, Susan |
| description | Summary
This study investigated filtration and ingestion rates of various microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae (veliger, pediveliger) and post‐set. Four microalgae species, Tisochrysis lutea, Pavlova lutheri, Chaetoceros gracilis and C. muelleri were evaluated for larvae, and an additional species Cyclotella nana, were evaluated for post‐set. Flagellates (T. lutea and P. lutheri) were filtered and ingested at higher rates than diatoms (C. gracilis, C. muelleri and C. nana) by both larvae and post‐set. T. lutea was filtered and ingested at a higher rate than all other microalgae species evaluated. The filtration rate of T. lutea was 11.2 µl/ hr, 26.6 µl/ hr and 342.2 µl/ hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. Ingestion rate of T. lutea was 369 cells/hr, 1441 cells/hr and 10,357 cells/hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. In contrast, C. muelleri was filtered and ingested at lower rates by larvae, and C. nana was filtered and ingested at lower rates by post‐set compared with other microalgae species. The differences in filtration and ingestion rates among microalgae species were primarily attributed to the size, shape and dry weight of microalgae species. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/are.15585 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2616484073</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2616484073</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3325-5d028321792b7fbd01c5214c93ef7ba105cf9130f4742cd0bab70f5a5253e3943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsL3yDgSui0-Zl0OstS6g9UBFFxN2QyNzVlJlOTaaU7H0HwDX0SMx1xZza59_LdezgHoXNKhjS8kXQwpEJMxAHqUT4WEaMkPWxrISIhkpdjdOL9ihAaE0576OtZOiMbU1tsLNambFzXSVuEyRL8vgtD8FhWtV3iwmgNDmyDK6NcLculBOzXoExA8h1-la7AqpTVAN-BU2BbBVz9lQNcSrcNO63EuvbN98enhwavNluwpgR_io60LD2c_f599HQ1f5zdRIv769vZdBEpzllwUxA24YwmKcsTnReEKsForFIOOsklJULplHKi4yRmqiC5zBOihRRMcOBpzPvooru7dvXbJjjNVvXG2SCZsTEdx5OYJDxQlx0VvHrvQGdrZyrpdhklWZt5FjLP9pkHdtSx78HH7n8wmz7Mu40fdtqGGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2616484073</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Variation in filtration and ingestion rates among different microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae and post‐set juveniles</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Hassan, Md Mahbubul ; Parks, Victoria ; Laramore, Susan</creator><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Md Mahbubul ; Parks, Victoria ; Laramore, Susan</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
This study investigated filtration and ingestion rates of various microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae (veliger, pediveliger) and post‐set. Four microalgae species, Tisochrysis lutea, Pavlova lutheri, Chaetoceros gracilis and C. muelleri were evaluated for larvae, and an additional species Cyclotella nana, were evaluated for post‐set. Flagellates (T. lutea and P. lutheri) were filtered and ingested at higher rates than diatoms (C. gracilis, C. muelleri and C. nana) by both larvae and post‐set. T. lutea was filtered and ingested at a higher rate than all other microalgae species evaluated. The filtration rate of T. lutea was 11.2 µl/ hr, 26.6 µl/ hr and 342.2 µl/ hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. Ingestion rate of T. lutea was 369 cells/hr, 1441 cells/hr and 10,357 cells/hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. In contrast, C. muelleri was filtered and ingested at lower rates by larvae, and C. nana was filtered and ingested at lower rates by post‐set compared with other microalgae species. The differences in filtration and ingestion rates among microalgae species were primarily attributed to the size, shape and dry weight of microalgae species.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1355-557X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2109</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/are.15585</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Hindawi Limited</publisher><subject>Algae ; Aquatic microorganisms ; Cells ; Chaetoceros gracilis ; Chaetoceros muelleri ; Clams ; Cyclotella nana ; Diatoms ; Dry weight ; Filtration ; Flagellates ; Ingestion ; Juveniles ; Larvae ; Marine microorganisms ; Mercenaria mercenaria ; Microalgae ; Pavlova lutheri ; Phytoplankton ; post‐set ; Tisochrysis lutea ; Veligers</subject><ispartof>Aquaculture research, 2022-02, Vol.53 (2), p.684-688</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3325-5d028321792b7fbd01c5214c93ef7ba105cf9130f4742cd0bab70f5a5253e3943</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3325-5d028321792b7fbd01c5214c93ef7ba105cf9130f4742cd0bab70f5a5253e3943</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7826-6787</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fare.15585$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fare.15585$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Md Mahbubul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parks, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laramore, Susan</creatorcontrib><title>Variation in filtration and ingestion rates among different microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae and post‐set juveniles</title><title>Aquaculture research</title><description>Summary
This study investigated filtration and ingestion rates of various microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae (veliger, pediveliger) and post‐set. Four microalgae species, Tisochrysis lutea, Pavlova lutheri, Chaetoceros gracilis and C. muelleri were evaluated for larvae, and an additional species Cyclotella nana, were evaluated for post‐set. Flagellates (T. lutea and P. lutheri) were filtered and ingested at higher rates than diatoms (C. gracilis, C. muelleri and C. nana) by both larvae and post‐set. T. lutea was filtered and ingested at a higher rate than all other microalgae species evaluated. The filtration rate of T. lutea was 11.2 µl/ hr, 26.6 µl/ hr and 342.2 µl/ hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. Ingestion rate of T. lutea was 369 cells/hr, 1441 cells/hr and 10,357 cells/hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. In contrast, C. muelleri was filtered and ingested at lower rates by larvae, and C. nana was filtered and ingested at lower rates by post‐set compared with other microalgae species. The differences in filtration and ingestion rates among microalgae species were primarily attributed to the size, shape and dry weight of microalgae species.</description><subject>Algae</subject><subject>Aquatic microorganisms</subject><subject>Cells</subject><subject>Chaetoceros gracilis</subject><subject>Chaetoceros muelleri</subject><subject>Clams</subject><subject>Cyclotella nana</subject><subject>Diatoms</subject><subject>Dry weight</subject><subject>Filtration</subject><subject>Flagellates</subject><subject>Ingestion</subject><subject>Juveniles</subject><subject>Larvae</subject><subject>Marine microorganisms</subject><subject>Mercenaria mercenaria</subject><subject>Microalgae</subject><subject>Pavlova lutheri</subject><subject>Phytoplankton</subject><subject>post‐set</subject><subject>Tisochrysis lutea</subject><subject>Veligers</subject><issn>1355-557X</issn><issn>1365-2109</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsL3yDgSui0-Zl0OstS6g9UBFFxN2QyNzVlJlOTaaU7H0HwDX0SMx1xZza59_LdezgHoXNKhjS8kXQwpEJMxAHqUT4WEaMkPWxrISIhkpdjdOL9ihAaE0576OtZOiMbU1tsLNambFzXSVuEyRL8vgtD8FhWtV3iwmgNDmyDK6NcLculBOzXoExA8h1-la7AqpTVAN-BU2BbBVz9lQNcSrcNO63EuvbN98enhwavNluwpgR_io60LD2c_f599HQ1f5zdRIv769vZdBEpzllwUxA24YwmKcsTnReEKsForFIOOsklJULplHKi4yRmqiC5zBOihRRMcOBpzPvooru7dvXbJjjNVvXG2SCZsTEdx5OYJDxQlx0VvHrvQGdrZyrpdhklWZt5FjLP9pkHdtSx78HH7n8wmz7Mu40fdtqGGA</recordid><startdate>202202</startdate><enddate>202202</enddate><creator>Hassan, Md Mahbubul</creator><creator>Parks, Victoria</creator><creator>Laramore, Susan</creator><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7826-6787</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202202</creationdate><title>Variation in filtration and ingestion rates among different microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae and post‐set juveniles</title><author>Hassan, Md Mahbubul ; Parks, Victoria ; Laramore, Susan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3325-5d028321792b7fbd01c5214c93ef7ba105cf9130f4742cd0bab70f5a5253e3943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Algae</topic><topic>Aquatic microorganisms</topic><topic>Cells</topic><topic>Chaetoceros gracilis</topic><topic>Chaetoceros muelleri</topic><topic>Clams</topic><topic>Cyclotella nana</topic><topic>Diatoms</topic><topic>Dry weight</topic><topic>Filtration</topic><topic>Flagellates</topic><topic>Ingestion</topic><topic>Juveniles</topic><topic>Larvae</topic><topic>Marine microorganisms</topic><topic>Mercenaria mercenaria</topic><topic>Microalgae</topic><topic>Pavlova lutheri</topic><topic>Phytoplankton</topic><topic>post‐set</topic><topic>Tisochrysis lutea</topic><topic>Veligers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Md Mahbubul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parks, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laramore, Susan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Aquaculture research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hassan, Md Mahbubul</au><au>Parks, Victoria</au><au>Laramore, Susan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Variation in filtration and ingestion rates among different microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae and post‐set juveniles</atitle><jtitle>Aquaculture research</jtitle><date>2022-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>684</spage><epage>688</epage><pages>684-688</pages><issn>1355-557X</issn><eissn>1365-2109</eissn><abstract>Summary
This study investigated filtration and ingestion rates of various microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae (veliger, pediveliger) and post‐set. Four microalgae species, Tisochrysis lutea, Pavlova lutheri, Chaetoceros gracilis and C. muelleri were evaluated for larvae, and an additional species Cyclotella nana, were evaluated for post‐set. Flagellates (T. lutea and P. lutheri) were filtered and ingested at higher rates than diatoms (C. gracilis, C. muelleri and C. nana) by both larvae and post‐set. T. lutea was filtered and ingested at a higher rate than all other microalgae species evaluated. The filtration rate of T. lutea was 11.2 µl/ hr, 26.6 µl/ hr and 342.2 µl/ hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. Ingestion rate of T. lutea was 369 cells/hr, 1441 cells/hr and 10,357 cells/hr by veliger larvae, pediveliger larvae and post‐set respectively. In contrast, C. muelleri was filtered and ingested at lower rates by larvae, and C. nana was filtered and ingested at lower rates by post‐set compared with other microalgae species. The differences in filtration and ingestion rates among microalgae species were primarily attributed to the size, shape and dry weight of microalgae species.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Hindawi Limited</pub><doi>10.1111/are.15585</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7826-6787</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1355-557X |
| ispartof | Aquaculture research, 2022-02, Vol.53 (2), p.684-688 |
| issn | 1355-557X 1365-2109 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2616484073 |
| source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Algae Aquatic microorganisms Cells Chaetoceros gracilis Chaetoceros muelleri Clams Cyclotella nana Diatoms Dry weight Filtration Flagellates Ingestion Juveniles Larvae Marine microorganisms Mercenaria mercenaria Microalgae Pavlova lutheri Phytoplankton post‐set Tisochrysis lutea Veligers |
| title | Variation in filtration and ingestion rates among different microalgae species by hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, larvae and post‐set juveniles |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T17%3A45%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Variation%20in%20filtration%20and%20ingestion%20rates%20among%20different%20microalgae%20species%20by%20hard%20clam,%20Mercenaria%20mercenaria,%20larvae%20and%20post%E2%80%90set%20juveniles&rft.jtitle=Aquaculture%20research&rft.au=Hassan,%20Md%20Mahbubul&rft.date=2022-02&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=684&rft.epage=688&rft.pages=684-688&rft.issn=1355-557X&rft.eissn=1365-2109&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/are.15585&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2616484073%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2616484073&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |