|
|
|
| Correlation and Path Analysis of Morphological Traits on Body Weight in Different Populations of Pearl Oyster Pinctada fucata martensii |
| BAI Ke1,2, ZHANG Xingzhi2, GUAN Junliang2, HE Pingping2, WEI Pinyuan2, ZHANG Li2, LI Wei2, ZHENG Yusi2, CHEN Yongxian2, HU Na2, PENG Jinxia1,2, ZHU Peng1 |
1. College of Oceanography, Beibu Gulf University, Qinzhou 535011, China;
2. China(Guangxi)-ASEAN Key Laboratory of Comprehensive Exploitation and Utilization of Aquatic Germplasm Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Academy of Fishery Sciences, Nanning 530021, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract To investigate the effects of shell morphological traits on body weight traits in different populations of pearl oyster Pinctada fucata martensii and to provide theoretical basis for selective breeding, three shell morphological traits including shell height (h), shell length (L), shell width (b) and two body weight traits including soft body weight (m1) and live body weight (m2) were measured in the cultured, nucleated, and wild populations of pearl oyster. The relationships between shell morphological traits and body weight traits were analyzed using multiple regression, correlation, and path analysis across various populations. There were significant differences in soft body weight and shell width index(P＜0.05)among the three populations, especially, with the maximal soft body weight of 26.05％ in the cultured population, and the maximal shell width index of 0.154 in the nucleated pearl oyster population. Correlation coefficients between shell height, shell length, and shell width to soft body weight and live body weight were shown to be significantly correlated(P＜0.05)across all three populations. Shell height was identified as the primary determinant of soft body weight in all populations. In the case of the nucleated pearl oyster population, shell width was the main factor affecting live body weight. Shell height was found to be the predominant factor influencing live body weight in both the cultured and wild populations. Optimal regression equations were expressed as: the cultured population m1 =-14.230+ 0.312h+0.041L+0.051b, the cultured population m2 =-37.893+0.926h+0.094L+0.183b; the nucleus insertion population m1 =-6.044+0.016h+0.213b, the nucleus insertion population m2 =-23.324+0.254h +0.634L+0.306b; the wild population m1 =-27.035+0.258h+0.643b, the wild population m2 =-154.107+ 0.990h+0.718L+3.740b using multiple regression analysis for the quantitative traits of pearl oyster in different populations. The findings provide reference with selective breeding of growth traits in P. fucata martensii.
|
|
Received: 16 August 2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]王爱民,阎冰,叶力,等.三个野生种群马氏珠母贝遗传多样性的RAPD分析[J].农业生物技术学报,2003,11(2):163-168.
[2]邹杰,彭慧婧,郑德斌,等.马氏珠母贝杂交家系生长性状与遗传参数分析[J].南方农业学报,2021,52(12):3221-3227.
[3]邓正华,陈明强,李有宁,等.3种野生珍珠贝表型性状比较及通径分析[J].广东农业科学,2019,46(1):122-132.
[4]魏海军.马氏珠母贝四种壳色选育系生长性能及生理指标的比较研究[D].海口:海南大学,2020.
[5]陈琨.马氏珠母贝黑壳色选育系的生产性能及选择印记分析[D].湛江:广东海洋大学,2022.
[6]郭文学,闫喜武,肖露阳,等.中国蛤蜊壳形态性状对体质量性状的影响[J].大连海洋大学学报,2013,28(1):49-54.
[7]范超,张学开,张兴志,等.不同群体合浦珠母贝表型性状的相关性与通径分析[J].中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版),2022,52(增刊):12-19.
[8]韦嫔媛,李蔚,张兴志,等.不同规格香港牡蛎壳形态性状对重量性状的影响[J].南方农业学报,2020,51(4):961-967.
[9]王松林,许星鸿,涂康,等.不同地理群体菲律宾蛤仔壳形态对体重性状的影响研究[J].渔业科学进展,2023,44(6):142-154.
[10]方伟,陈明强,李有宁,等.凸加夫蛤(Gafrarium tumidum)形态性状对体质量性状的相关性及通径分析[J].中国渔业质量与标准,2022,12(2):47-53.
[11]梁飞龙,邓岳文.几种抗生素和手术季节对马氏珠母贝育珠贝成活率、留核率和商品珠率的影响[J].海洋湖沼通报,2022,44(4):50-56.
[12]闫红艳,吴锦隆.浅析利用我国马氏珠母贝肉资源带来的经济效益及发展前景[J].福建茶叶,2020,42(4):89-91.
[13]吕林兰,杜晓东,王嫣,等.马氏珠母贝3个野生种群及种群间杂交后代遗传多样性的ISSR分析[J].水生生物学报,2008,32(1):26-32.
[14]陈健,白丽蓉,罗会,等.2种贝龄合浦珠母贝数量性状的相关与通径分析[J].南方农业学报,2020,51(10):2557-2564.
[15]刘志刚,王辉,孙小真,等.马氏珠母贝经济性状对体重决定效应分析[J].广东海洋大学学报,2007,27(4):15-20.
[16]王祎哲,邓正华,王雨,等.合浦珠母贝不同壳色选育系F6数量性状的相关性和通径分析[J].中国水产科学,2018,25(5):988-997.
[17]瞿栗.苏闽两地西施舌形态特征及转录组比较分析[D].南京:南京师范大学,2013.
[18]HUO Z M, WU Y, GAO Z Y, et al. Effects of shell morphological traits on the weight trait of the orange strain of the Manila clam[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2017,37(2):75-78.
[19]HUO Z M, YAN X W, ZHAO L Q, et al. Effects of shell morphological traits on the weight traits of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum)[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2010,30(5):251-256.
[20]高鑫,闫喜武,张辉,等.蛤仔南北方养殖群体杂交子代早期生长发育的研究[J].大连海洋大学学报,2013,28(1):39-43.
[21]张嘉丽,罗燕秋,黄怡,等.马氏珠母贝近交与杂交家系的遗传结构比较[J].基因组学与应用生物学,2015,34(4):723-730.
[22]吕高伦,吕雪峰,王昊,等.不同年龄三角帆蚌新生长性状臀角放射肋长与其他生长性状相关性和通径分析[J].上海海洋大学学报, 2024,33(3):562-571.
[23]李昂,冯加岭,李加琦,等.蛤蜊岗不同贝龄四角蛤蜊数量性状的通径分析[J].渔业科学进展,2024,45(1):185-193.
[24]翟子钦,喻达辉,白丽蓉.织锦巴非蛤形态性状对体质量的影响[J].广东农业科学,2022,49(7):113-119.
[25]朱金超,徐文斌,王月,等.日本镜蛤连云港群体形态性状对体质量性状的影响[J].水产科技情报,2023,50(5):289-293.
[26]刘小林,常亚青,相建海,等.栉孔扇贝壳尺寸性状对活体重的影响效果分析[J].海洋与湖沼,2002,33(6):673-678.
[27]刘辉,张兴志,鹿瑶,等.菲律宾蛤仔橙色品系壳形态性状对质量性状的通径及多元回归分析[J].大连海洋大学学报,2015,30(5):514-518.
[28]韩自强,李琪.长牡蛎壳橙品系形态性状与体质量的相关及通径分析[J].中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版),2017,47(12):46-52.
[29]梁健,王俊杰,郭永军,等.不同地理群体菲律宾蛤仔表型性状的相关性与通径分析[J].水产科学,2020,39(1):40-47.
[30]刁宏山,赖胜琪,尹聪,等.北部湾海域不同地理群体钝缀锦蛤表型性状的相关分析与通径分析[J].安徽农业科学,2023,51(18):87-93.
[31]陈雅琦,梁健,郭永军,等.硬壳蛤形态性状与体质量、软体质量及肥满度的相关性和通径分析[J].海洋科学,2022,46(10):122-128.
[32]于德良,丁君,郝振林,等.不同养殖群体虾夷扇贝数量性状的相关性与通径分析[J].大连海洋大学学报,2013,28(4):350-354.
[33]闫喜武,王琰,郭文学,等.四角蛤蜊形态性状对重量性状的影响效果分析[J].水产学报,2011,35(10):1513-1518.
[34]肖露阳,马贵范,郭文学,等.不同性别中国蛤蜊数量性状的相关与通径分析[J].中国农学通报,2012,28(29):115-119.
[35]任红,黄海,杨宁,等.华贵栉孔扇贝软体部营养成分分析及评价[J].食品工业,2015,36(6):279-282.
[36]黎筠,王昭萍,于瑞海,等.紫石房蛤壳性状对活体重影响的定量分析[J].海洋水产研究,2008,29(6):71-77.
[37]刘博,滕爽爽,邵艳卿,等.琴文蛤形态性状对体量的影响效果分析[J].海洋科学,2011,35(10):91-95.
[38]吴杨平,陈爱华,姚国兴,等.文蛤贝壳形态性状对活体重的影响分析[J].海洋渔业,2010,32(3):320-325.
[39]陈丽梅,刘利华,秦传新,等.渤海地区毛蚶形态性状对活体重的影响效果[J].安徽农业科学,2012,40(28):13813-13814.
[40]宋坚,张伟杰,常亚青,等.硬壳蛤形态性状对活体重的影响效果分析[J].安徽农业大学学报,2010,37(2):273-277. |
|
|
|
