Cited by 136Aquaculture Nutrition and GrowthReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFish Biology and Ecology Studies

Effects of fatty acid composition and spawning season patterns on egg quality and larval survival in common snook (Centropomus undecimalis)

Yanes-Roca, Carlos, Rhody, Nicole, Nystrom, Michael, Main, Kevan L.·2009·Aquaculture

Abstract

Common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) is a new candidate species for aquaculture. Its reproductive cycle has not been completed in farmed fish since knowledge of their behaviour in the wild and its reproductive physiology remains incomplete, and the only source of seeds comes from wild broodstock. This study was undertaken to examine the fatty acid profile of common snook eggs throughout the spawning season (May to September) in relation to egg quality and larval survival. The fatty acid (FA) composition of eggs collected from wild broodstock stripped on the field (2002-2005), was determined over the spawning season. In general the FA profile observed was consistent with that observed in marine fish apart from a high level of arachidonic acid (ARA) (3.68% of Total FA). The profile of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) changed over the spawning season (37.5%-29.4% Total FA) and egg quality was best in May, June and July. Eggs with higher concentration (13% of Total FA) of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were found to have higher fertilization, hatching and larval survival rate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.10.043

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lipid composition of fish eggs improves due to the alteration of habitat that adults are exposed to during the spawning seasons.

    “Some researchers have shown that the lipid composition of egg improved due to the alteration of habitat that adults are exposed to during the spawning seasons (Navas et al., 1997; Yanes-Roca et al., 2009).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yanes-Roca, C., Rhody, N., Nystrom, M., & Main, K. L.
Affiliations
Mote Marine Laboratory (US)
Venue
Aquaculture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
287
Issue
3-4
Pages
335-340
ISSN
0044-8486 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092121938
Cited by
136
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Aquaculture (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
  • University of Florida
  • University of Stirling
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Physiology › Reproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
common snook, Centropomus undecimalis, egg fatty acid composition, spawning season, egg quality, larval survival, arachidonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, polyunsaturated fatty acids, fertilization rate, hatchability, wild broodstock, fish reproduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review