Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 200–205 | Cite as

ZResponse to selection, heritability and genetic correlations between body weight and body size in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei

  • Farafidy Andriantahina (安迪)
  • Xiaolin Liu (刘小林)
  • Hao Huang (黄皓)
  • Jianhai Xiang (相建海)


To quantify the response to selection, heritability and genetic correlations between weight and size of Litopenaeus vannamei, the body weight (BW), total length (TL), body length (BL), first abdominal segment depth (FASD), third abdominal segment depth (TASD), first abdominal segment width (FASW), and partial carapace length (PCL) of 5-month-old parents and of offspnng were measured by calculating seven body measunngs of offspnng produced by a nested mating design. Seventeen half-sib families and 42 full-sib families of L. vannamei were produced using artificial fertilization from 2–4 dams by each sire, and measured at around five months post-metamorphosis. The results show that hentabilities among vanous traits were high: 0.515±0.030 for body weight and 0.394±0.030 for total length. After one generation of selection. the selection response was 10.70% for offspring growth. In the 5th month, the realized heritability for weight was 0.296 for the offspnng generation. Genetic correlations between body weight and body size were highly variable. The results indicate that external morphological parameters can be applied dunng breeder selection for enhancing the growth without sacrificing animals for determining the body size and breed ability; and selective breeding can be improved significantly, simultaneously with increased production.


genetic correlation growth heritability Litopenaeus vannamei selection response 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benzie J A H, Kenway M, Trott L. 1997. Estimates for the heritability of size in juvenile Penaeus monodon prawns from half sib matings. Aquaculture, 152: 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bondari K. 1983. Response to bidirectional selection for body weight in Channel cattish. Aquaculture, 33: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr W H, Fjalestad K T, Godin D M, Swingle J, Sweeney JN. Gjedrem T. 1997. Genetic vanation in weight and survival in a population of specific pathogen free shrimp, Penaeus vannamei. In: Book of Abstracts. World Aquaculture. Bangkok, Thailand, p.63.Google Scholar
  4. Charo-Karisa H, Komen H, Rezk M A, Ponzom R W, van Arendonk J A M, Bovenhms H. 2006. Hentability estimates and response to selection for growth of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in low-input earthen pond. Aquaculture, 261: 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cock J, Gitterte T, Salazar M, Rye M. 2009. Breeding for disease resistance of Penaeid shrimps. Aquaculture, 286: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eknath A E, Bentsen H B, Ponzom R W, Rye M, Nguyen N H. Thodesen J, Gjerd B. 2007. Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: composition and genetic parameters of a synthetic base population of Oreochromis niloticus for selective breeding. Aquaculture, 273: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falconer D S. 1989. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman Scientific and Technical. Harlowr Wiley, New York.438p.Google Scholar
  8. FAO. 2008. World review of fisheries and aquaculture, Rome. 84p.
  9. Gitterle T, Odegard J, Gjerde B, Rye M, Salte R. 2006. Genetic parameters and accuracy of selection for resistance to White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) in Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei using different statistical models. Aquaculture, 251: 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gjerde B, Refstie T 1984. Complete diallel cross between five strains of Atlantic salmon. Livest. Prod. Sci., 11: 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harvey W R. 1990. Mixed Model Least-squares and Maximum Likelihood Computer Programme. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  12. Hershberger W K, Myers J M, Iwamoto R N, Mcauley W C. Saxton AM. 1990. Genetic changes m the growth of Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in marine net-pens, produced by ten years of selection. Aquaculture, 85: 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hetzel D J S, Crocos P J, Davis G P, Moore S S, Preston N C. 2000. Response to selection and heritability for growth in the Kuruma prawn, Penaeus japonicus. Aquaculture, 181: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ibarra A M, Racotta I S, Arcos F G, Palacios E. 2007. Progress on the genetics of reproductive performance in penaeid shrimp. Aquaculture, 268: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenway M, Macbeth M, Salmon M, McPhee C, Benzie I Wilson K, Kmbb W. 2006. Hentabihty and genetic correlations of growth and survival in black tiger prawn Penaeus monodon reared in tanks. Aquaculture, 259: 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lotz J M, Browdy C L, Carr W H, Frelier P F, Lightner D V. 1995. USMFP suggested procedures and guidelines for assuring the specific pathogen status of shrimp broodstock and seed. In: Browdy C L, Hopkins J S eds. Swimming through Troubled Waters: Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, p.66–75.Google Scholar
  17. Malecha S R, Masuno S, Omzuka D. 1984. The feasibility of measuring the heritability of growth pattern variation in juvenile freshwater prawns Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man). Aquaculture, 38: 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maluwa A O, Gjerde B. 2007. Response to selection for harvest body weight of Oreochromis shiranus. Aquaculture, 273: 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore S S, Whan V, Davis G P, Byrne K, Hetzel D J S, Preston N. 1999. The development and application of genetic markers for the Kuruma prawn Penaeus japonicus. Aquaculture, 173: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neira R, Diaz N F, Gall GAE, Gallardo J A, Lhorente J P, Manterola R. 2006. Genetic improvement m Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). I: Selection response and inbreeding depression on harvest weight. Aquaculture, 257: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Preston N P, Crocos P J, Keys S J, Coman G J, Koemg R. 2004. Comparative growth of selected and non-selected Kuruma shrimp Penaeus (Marsupenaeus) japonicus in commercial farm ponds; implications for broodstock production. Aquaculture, 231: 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rezk M A, Ponzoni R W, Khaw H L, Kamel E, Dawood T, John G. 2009. Selective breeding for increased body weight in a synthetic breed of Egyptian Nile tilapia. Oreochromis niloticus: response to selection and genetic parameters. Aquaculture, 293: 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sung H H, Ye Y Z. 2009. Effect of nonylphenol on giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) via oral treatment: toxicity and messenger RNA expression of hemocyte genes. Aquat. Toxicol, 91: 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thanh N M, Ponzoni R W, Nguyen N H, Vu N T, Barnes A, Mather P B. 2009. Evaluation of growth performance in a diallel crosses of three strains of giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) in Vietnam. Aquaculture, 287: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yuan D, Yi Y, Yakupitiyage A, Fitzimmons K, Diana J S. 2010. Effects of addition of red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) at different densities and sizes on production, water quality and nutrient recovery of intensive culture of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) in cement tanks. Aquaculture, 298: 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farafidy Andriantahina (安迪)
    • 1
  • Xiaolin Liu (刘小林)
    • 1
  • Hao Huang (黄皓)
    • 2
  • Jianhai Xiang (相建海)
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Animal Science and TechnologyNorthwest A & F University, Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for AgricultureYanglingChina
  2. 2.Hainan Guangtai Ocean Breeding Company LimitedHaikouChina
  3. 3.Experimental Marine Biology Laboratory, Institute of OceanologyChinese Academy of SciencesQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations