8142 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 69 significantly differ in size until 17 d (Table 9). Larvae deprived of food continued to increase through dID, after which time TL changed little. Log-weight transformations showed a similar response as TL (Table 10). Through d 6, larvae in all treatments gained in TL and weight. Starved larvae continuously lost weight from d 6 on. By the end of the experiment Starved larvae that had survived experienced a weight reduction of almost 50% from an average of 0.44 mg at d 6 to and average 0.23 mg at d 33. Suboptimal larvae doubled in weight during this same time period, 0.40 mg to 0.80 mg, while. Ad libitum larvae had a nearly 7-fold increase in weight from 0.45 to 3.4 mg. Treatments differed from each other by dID. Log of lipids as percentage dry weight in Ad libitum larvae, other than an initial drop at dID, remained relatively constant (Table 10, Figure 14 c). Both Suboptimal and Starved larvae showed and maintained marked decreases in body lipids throughout the experiment. As percentage of body weight, Suboptimal larvae actually maintained a lower overall percentage than Starved larvae. Although body lipids in Starved larvae remained about 10%, they continually lost body weight so total lipids present still decreased. 2. 180C Larvae at the beginning of the 180C experiment averaged 9.42:t mm, had a mean weight of 0.17 :t mg, and contained about 20.5 :t % body fat. These larvae were slightly larger and heavier than newly hatched larvae from the other two experiments presumably