MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969661222 · doi:10.5539/jas.v6n11p103

Feeding Activity and Growth Performance of Shrimp Post Larvae Litopenaeus vannamei Under Light and Dark Condition

2014· article· en· W1969661222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noorsyarinah Sanudin, Audrey Daning Tuzan, Annita Seok Kian Yong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Malaysia Sabah
KeywordsLitopenaeusShrimpphotoperiodismDarknessBiologyAnimal scienceCrustaceanFisheryDecapodaLarvaEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was conducted to elucidate the effects of light and dark condition on the feeding activity of shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Examination on the ingestion rate of shrimps at different sizes (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm total length, TL) under light and dark condition was conducted using newly hatched frozen Artemia nauplii. For each condition, shrimp were let to ingest known number of Artemia nauplii for 30 minutes, thereafter the remaining Artemia nauplii was counted. For the observation of eye structures under light and dark conditions, 1.0 cm TL shrimps were preserved in Bouin’s solution for histological observation. Another feeding trial was conducted to examine the growth performance and survival of shrimps (initial size 1.0± cm, TL) under different photoperiod regimes (24 hours dark: 24D, 24 hours light: 24L and 12 hours light and dark: 12LD) for three weeks. Results showed that, the 0.5cm TL shrimp significantly ingested more Artemia nauplii under light condition compared to dark condition (P = 0.000). The 1.0 and 1.5 cm TL shrimps consumed Artemia naulplii equally under both conditions. The shrimp attained a complete eye structure which can be differentiated into crystalline cone, clear zone, rhabdom and fasciculated zone at 1.0cm TL. This study also showed that growth (P = 0.557) and survival (P = 0.686) of shrimps did not vary significantly among different photoperiod. This study suggests that the feeding activity of the smallest shrimp (0.5 cm TL) is affected by light condition. However, feeding activity, growth and survival of bigger sized shrimp (> 1.0 cm TL) were not affected by light and photoperiod regimes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207