medigraphic.com

2009, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2009; 40 (3)

Genotype by environment interaction effects for body weight at 130 days of age in the Pacific white shrimp [Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei]

Campos-Montes GR, Montaldo HH, Martínez-Ortega A, Castillo-Juárez H

Language: English/Spanish
References: 19
Page: 255-268
PDF size: 498.13 Kb.


ABSTRACT

´Body weight of Pacific white shrimp [Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei] at 130 days of age was analyzed in three environments corresponding to different management systems: semi-intensive (10 shrimp/m2) in Pozos, Sinaloa (POZOS10), intensive (30 shrimp/ m2) in Pozos, Sinaloa (POZOS30), and super-intensive (85 shrimp/m2) in Bahia de Kino, Sonora (KINO85). Data were obtained from 18 087 sibs from 113 sires and 143 dams. The aim of the study was to evaluate the presence of genotype by environment interaction effects (IGA) and the effect of the (co)variance between full-sibs family common effects on the genetic parameter estimates. Estimates of h2 with a model including independent full-sibs family common effects were between 0.26 and 0.39 across environments, while the estimates for a model with correlated full-sibs family common effects were estimated between 0.14 and 0.23. No differences were found for h2 values between environments. The genetic correlations between environments were not lower from unity with any model; therefore, it is concluded that no evidence of genotype-environment interaction exists for body weight at 130 days in Pacific white shrimp, under the environments used in this study. The inclusion of the (co)variance between full-sibs family common effects of different environments affected the parameter estimates. These results also indicate that ranking of the breeding animals will be similar in all the studied production environments.


REFERENCES

  1. 1.FALCONER DS, MACKAY T. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 3rd ed. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1996.

  2. 2.MONTALDO HH. Genotype by environment interactions in livestock breeding programs: A review. Interciencia 2001;26:229-235.

  3. 3.CUVIN-ARALAR MLA, LAZARTIGUE AG, ARALAR EV. Cage culture of the Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) at different stocking densities in a shallow eutrophic lake. Aquaculture Res 2009;40:181-187.

  4. 4.GALL GAE, BAKAR Y. Stocking density and tank size in the design of breed improvement programs for body size of tilapia. Aquaculture 1999;173:197-205.

  5. 5.RAUX P, BAILLY D. Literature review on world shrimp farming. Individual Partner Report for the Project: Policy Research for Sustainable Shrimp Farming in Asia. European Commission INCODEV, Project No. IC4-2001-10042. CEMARE University of Portsmouth UK and CEDEM, Brest, France, 2002: 46.

  6. 6.IBARRA AM, FAMULA TR. Genotype by environment interaction for adult body weights of shrimp Penaeus vannamei when grown at low and high densities. Genet Sel Evol 2008;40:541-551.

  7. 7.PEREZ-ROSTRO C, IBARRA MA. Heritabilities and genetic correlations of size traits at harvest size in sexually dimorphic Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) grown in two environments. Aquaculture Res 2003;34:1079-1085.

  8. 8.GITTERLE T, RYE M, SALTEC R, COCK J, JOHANSEN H, LOZANO C et al. Genetic (co)variation in harvest body weight and survival in (Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei) under standard commercial conditions. Aquaculture 2005;243:83-92.

  9. 9.CASTILLO-JUAREZ H, QUINTANA CJC, CAMPOSMONTES GR, CABRERA VC, MARTINEZ OA, MONTALDO HH. Heritability for body weight at harvest size in the Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei), from a multi-environment experiment using univariate and multivariate animal models. Aquaculture 2007;273:42-49.

  10. 10.GILMOUR AR, GOGEL BJ, CULLIS BR, WELHAM SJ, THOMPSON R. ASReml User Guide. Release 1.0, Hemel Hempstead: VSN International Ltd, 2002.

  11. 11.CHOW S, SANDIFER PA. Differences in growth, morphometric traits, and male sexual maturity among Pacific white shrimp, Penaeus vannamei, from different commercial hatcheries. Aquaculture 1991;92:165-178.

  12. 12.PALOMINO G, CONTRERAS F, SANCHEZ A, ROSAS C. Density and water exchange-dependent growth and survival of Litopenaeus setiferus post larvae. J World Aquaculture Soc 2001;32:167-176.

  13. 13.ARANEDA M, PEREZ EP, GASCA-LEYVA E. White shrimp Penaeus vannamei culture in freshwater at three densities: Condition state based on length and weight. Aquaculture 2008;283:13-18.

  14. 14.VIEIRA C, PASYUKOVA EG, ZENG Z, HACKETT JB, LYMAN RF, MACKAY TFC. Genotype-environment interaction for quantitative trait loci affecting life span in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2000;154,:213-227.

  15. 15.CASTILLO-JUAREZ H, OLTENACU PA, CIENFUEGOS- RIVAS EG. Genetic and phenotypic relationships among milk production and composition traits in primiparous Holstein cows in two different herd environments. Livest Prod Sci 2002;78:223-231.

  16. 16.FIKSE WF, REKAYA R, WEIGEL KA. Genotype × environment interaction for milk production in Guernsey cattle. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:1821-1827.

  17. 17.BAGLEY MJ, BENTLEY B, GALL GAE. A genetic evaluation of the influence of stocking density on the early growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 1994,121:313-326.

  18. 18.ROBISON OW. The influence of maternal effects on the efficiency of selection; A review. Livest Prod Sci 1981;8:121-137.

  19. 19.GJERDE B, TERJESEN BF, BARR Y, LEIN I, THORLAND I. Genetic variation for juvenile growth and survival in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Aquaculture 2004;236:167-177.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com