Abstract

The importance of fish as a valuable source of protein for human population has indeed been realised and hence rated high for its nutritional value. Fishery biologists often calculate condition factor to determine not only the health status of fish but also advise / suggest the time of harvesting of fish for human consumption. While it is impossible to enrich / enhance the quality of food of marine fish in the wild condition, for fresh water species, especially those which are reared, it is often possible to enrich the feed in order to have impact on the nutritional status of the fish for human consumption. Knowledge of the food and feeding habits of fishes of any water body is thus a prerequisite to improve its fishery potential as also to any program of fishery management. Study of the any program of fishery management. Study of the food and feeding habits of fishes therefore had attracted the attention of fishery biologists almost from the beginning of the present century. 

Keywords

• RADIATION,
• NUTRITIONAL

References

• Scharf I, Feldman A, Novosolov M, Pincheira-Donoso D, Das I, Böhm M, et al. Late bloomers and baby boomers: ecological drivers of longevity in squamates and the tuatara. Glob EcolBiogeogr. 2015;24:396–405.
• Shine R. Propagule size and parental care: the “safe harbor” hypothesis. J Theor Biol. 1978;75:417–24.
• Chen CK, Chuang HF, Wu SM, Li WH. Feather evolution from precocial to altricial birds. Zool Stud. 2019;58:24.
• Crawford NG, Faircloth BC, McCormack JE, Brumfield RT, Winker K, Glenn TC. More than 1000 ultraconserved elements provide evidence that turtles are the sister group of archosaurs. Biol Lett. 2012;8:783–6.
• Irisarri I, Baurain D, Brinkmann H, Delsuc F, SIre JY, Kupfer A, et al. Phylotranscriptomic consolidation of the jawed vertebrate timetree. Nat EcolEvol. 2017;1:1370–8.
• Gemmell NJ, Rutherford K, Prost S, Tollis M, Winter D, Macey RJ, et al. The tuatara genome reveals ancient features of amniote evolution. Nature. 2020;584:403–9.
• Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP. Herpetology. 4th ed. London: Elsevier; 2013.
• Shine R. The evolution of oviparity in squamate reptiles: an adaptationist perspective. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2015;324:487–92.
• Seigel RA, Fitch HS. Ecological patterns of relative clutch mass in snakes. Oecologia. 1984;61:293–301.
• Recknagel H, Elmer KR. Differential reproductive investment in co-occurring oviparous and viviparous common lizards (Zootoca vivipara) and implications for life history trade offs with viviparity. Oecologia. 2019;190:85–98.
• Meiri S, Feldman A, Schwarz R, Shine R. Viviparity does not affect the numbers and sizes of reptile offspring. J Anim Ecol. 2020;89:360–9.
• Feldhamer GA, Drickamer LC, Vessey SH, Merritt JF, Krajewski C. Mammalogy: adaptation, diversity, ecology. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007.
• Tyndale-Biscoe H, Renfree M. Reproductive physiology of marsupials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
• Hamilton MJ, Davidson AD, Sibly RM, Brown JH. Universal scaling of production rates across mammalian lineages. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011;278:560–6.
• Peters HR. The ecological implications of body size. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
• Calder WA. Size, function and life history. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984.
• Schmidt-Nielsen K, Knut SN. Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.
• Kaplan RH, Salthe SN. The allometry of reproduction: an empirical view in salamanders. Am Nat. 1979;113:671–89.
• Duarte CM, Alearaz M. To produce many small or few large eggs: a size-independent reproductive tactic of fish. Oecologia. 1989;80:401–4.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.