Egg and larval quality criteria as predictive measures for juvenile production in turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.)
Abstract
Although much effort has been made to evaluate criteria for marine egg and larval quality, the significance of poor egg quality for the results in the final juvenile production has not been clarified. The aim of our experiments with turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) was to determine whether the initially observed egg quality affected offspring viability and normal development up to the juvenile stage. Eggs from each of six individual females were divided into three replicate groups, and the eggs in each replicate was quality evaluated according to fertilization rates and the ratio of normal cell cleavages (blastomere morphology) at the 8-32 cell stage. The condition of yolk-sac larvae was tested by an acute high salinity stress test, and the larvae were fed according to our standard feeding regime with microalgae, enriched rotifers and Artemia nauplii. Significant positive correlations were found between observed egg quality characteristics and hatching rates, larval tolerance to acute stress, and to survival, metamorphosis and juvenile pigmentation. Larvae hatching from poor quality egg groups thus had a lower viability and were less able to develop normally to the juvenile stage than larvae from good quality egg groups. Our conclusion is that egg quality observed as fertilization rate and rates of normal blastomeres at early egg stages may be a useful predictive tool for evaluation of the potential juvenile production in turbot.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
High-quality eggs generally lead to higher hatching rates, improving recruitment success.
“Consequently, high-quality eggs generally lead to higher hatching rates, improving the recruitment success (Kjørsvik et al., 2003; Ienaga et al., 2021).”
From Impacts of phytoplankton availability on bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) recruitment in the Indian Ocean (2024) · cites this paper as Kjørsvik et al., 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Geng, Z., & Zhu, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2024.1392273 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kjørsvik, E., Hoehne-Reitan, K., & Reitan, K. I.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Kjørsvik, E.
- Venue
- Aquaculture
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 227
- Issue
- 1-4
- Pages
- 9-20
- ISSN
- 0044-8486 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042629293
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 1.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aquaculture (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Norges Forskningsråd
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Physiology › Reproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
- Keywords
- turbot, egg quality, larval quality, fertilization rate, hatchability, larval survival, metamorphosis, juvenile production, microalgae feeding, rotifers, Artemia nauplii
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