Alcalase enzyme treatment affects egg incubation and larval quality in pikeperch (Sander lucioperca)

  • Uroš LjubobratovićEmail author
  • Géza Péter
  • Rene Alvestad
  • Zoltán Horváth
  • András Rónyai
European Percid Fish Culture


Although egg de-adhesion has been the subject of research in pikeperch of late, the possible effect of this technological procedure on larval viability under intensive rearing conditions has not yet been evaluated. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of the Alcalase enzyme on egg incubation and larviculture success compared to a commonly used procedure with milk and kaolin clay suspension. Preliminary research was conducted in order to find the minimal exposure time of eggs in Alcalase enzyme solution for the total elimination of adhesiveness. Further on, stripped eggs from three females were divided into two equal portions, and each portion was treated according to the abovementioned procedures. Efficiency of the procedures was evaluated and compared through egg incubation and larviculture. Alcalase-treated eggs exhibited significantly shorter incubation time (121 ± 12 h vs. 157 ± 10 h), hatching period (16 ± 7 h vs. 48 ± 21 h) and lower embryo survival (82.5 ± 2.4% vs. 87.7 ± 1.4%) with a significantly higher hatching rate (98.5 ± 1.0% vs. 72.0 ± 35.3 %). The larviculture yielded significantly lower production efficacy in eggs treated with Alcalase manifested as the share of larvae with an inflated swim bladder in the total number of stocked eggs (5.8 ± 2.4%) compared to larvae hatched in eggs treated with milk and kaolin (20.1 ± 11.9%). The Alcalase enzyme treatment reduced the incubation time and diminished the larval performance; therefore, its application in eggs of pikeperch should be reconsidered.


Alcalase Milk Kaolin Egg de-adhesion Hatching Larviculture 



Alcalase enzyme egg de-adhesion treatment


day post-fertilisation


final oocyte maturation


human chorionic gonadotropin


milk plus kaolin egg de-adhesion treatment


recirculation aquaculture system


Funding information

This work was supported by the European Regional and Development Fund and the Government of Hungary within the project GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00025.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors.


  1. Al Hazzaa R, Hussein A (2003) Stickiness elimination of Himri Barbel (Barbus lutes, Heckel) eggs. TrFJAS 3:47–50Google Scholar
  2. Becker CD, Neitzel DA, Abernethy CS (1983) Effects of dewatering on Chinook salmon redds: tolerance of four development phases to one-time dewatering. N Am J Fish Manag 3:373–382.<373:EODOCS>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben Khemis IB, Hamza N, Messaoud NB, Rached SB, M’Hetli M (2014) Comparative study of pikeperch Sander lucioperca (Percidae; Linnaeus, 1758) eggs and larvae from wild females or from captive females fed chopped marine fish. Fish Physiol Biochem 40:375–384. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dabrowski K, Czesny S, Kolkovski S, Lynch WE Jr, Bajer P, Culver DA (2000) Intensive culture of walleye larvae produced out of season and during regular season spawning. N Am J Aquac 62:219–224.<0219:ICOWLP>2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demska-Zakęś K, Zakęś Z, Roszuk J (2005) The use of tannic acid to remove adhesiveness from pikeperch, Sander lucioperca, eggs. Aquac Res 36:1458–1464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eed J (2013) Factors affecting enzyme activity. ESSAI 10:47–51 Available at Google Scholar
  7. Hermelink B, Wuertz S, Trubiroha A, Rennert B, Kloas W, Schulz C (2011) Influence of temperature on puberty and maturation of pikeperch, Sander lucioperca. Gen Comp Endocrinol 172:282–292. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hermelink B, Wuertz S, Rennert B, Kloas W, Schulz C (2013) Temperature control of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) maturation in recirculating aquaculture systems -induction of puberty and course of gametogenesis. Aquaculture 400:36–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hermelink B, Kleiner W, Schulz C, Kloas W, Wuertz S (2016) Photo-thermal manipulation for the reproductive management of pikeperch Sander lucioperca. Aquac Int 25: 1–20.
  10. Hilge V, Steffens W (1996) Aquaculture of fry and fingerling of pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca) - a short review. J Appl Ichthyol 12:167–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kestemont P, Xueliang X, Hamza N, Maboudou J, Toko II (2007) Effect of weaning age and diet on pikeperch larviculture. Aquaculture 264:197–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krise WF (1988) Optimum protease exposure time for removing adhesiveness of walleye eggs. Prog fish-cult 50: 126–127.Google Scholar
  13. Krise WF, Bulkowski-Cummings L, Shellman DA, Kraus KA, Gould RW (1986) Increased walleye egg hatch and larval survival after protease treatment of eggs. Prog fish-cult 48:95–100.<0126:OPETFR>2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Křišt’an J, Blecha M, Policar T (2017) Alcalase treatment for elimination of stickiness in pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L.) eggs under controlled conditions. Aquac Res 47:3998–4003. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kucharczyk D, Kestemont P, Mamcarz A (2007) Artificial reproduction of pikeperch. Mercurius, Olsztyn 80 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Li Q, Yi L, Marek P, Iverson BL (2013) Commercial proteases: present and future. FEBS Lett 587:1155–1163. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Linhart O, Gela D, Flajshans M, Duda P, Rodina M, Novák V (2000) Alcalase enzyme treatment for elimination of egg stickiness in tench, Tinca tinca L. Aquaculture 191:303–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Linhart O, Rodina M, Gela D, Flajšhans M, Kocour M (2003) Enzyme treatment for elimination of egg stickiness in tench (Tinca tinca L.), European catfish (Silurus glanis L.) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Fish Physiol Biochem 28:507–508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ljubobratović U, Balogh E, Lengyel S, Kovacs Gy, Adorjan A, Janurik E, Csengeri I, Ronyai A (2014) Improved techniques for egg de-adhesion in pikeperch, Sander lucioperca. Paper presented at the 28th Halászati Tudományos Tanácskozás. Szarvas, Hungary, 28–29 July Available at,014.pdf
  20. Ljubobratović U, Csengeri I, Kucska B, Balogh E, Lengyel S, Kovács G, Adorjan A, Feledi T, Janurik E, Rónyai A (2017a) Comparison of the procedures for adhesiveness removal in pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) eggs with special emphasis on the effect of tannic acid. TrFJAS 17:461–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ljubobratović U, Péter G, Horváth Z, Żarski D, Ristović T, Percze V, Zs S, Lengyel S, Rónyai A (2017b) Reproductive performance of indoor-reared pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) females after wintering in outdoor earthen ponds. Aquac Res 48:4851–4863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ljubobratović U, Péter G, Horváth Z, Demény F, Rónyai A (2018) HANDBOOK – State-of-the-art in zander (Sander lucioperca) artificial reproduction at NAIK HAKI institute. In: Poleksić V, Marković Z (eds) Proceedings of the VIIIth International conference “Water and Fish”. University of Belgrade - Faculty of Agriculture, Belgrade-Zemun, pp 500–517Google Scholar
  23. Mani-Ponset L, Diaz JP, Schlumberger O, Connes R (1994) Development of yolk complex, liver and anterior intestine in pike perch larvae, Stizostedion lucioperca (Percidae), according to the first diet during rearing. Aquat Living Resour 7:191–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Müller-Belecke A, Zienert S (2008) Out-of-season spawning of pike perch (Sander lucioperca L.) without the need for hormonal treatments. Aquac Res 39:1279–1285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nahm FS (2016) Nonparametric statistical tests for the continuous data: the basic concept and the practical use. Korean J Anesthesiol 69: 8–14.
  26. Policar T, Stejskal V, Křišt’an J, Podhorec P, Svinger V, Blaha M (2013) The effect of fish size and stocking density on the weaning success of pond-cultured pikeperch Sander lucioperca L. juveniles. Aquac Int 21:869–882. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasband WS (1997–2011) ImageJ. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Rónyai A (2007) Induced out-of-season and seasonal tank spawning and stripping of pike perch (Sander lucioperca L.). Aquac Res 38:1144–1151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rónyai A, Csengeri I (2008) Effect of feeding regime and temperature on ongrowing results of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L.). Aquac Res 39:820–827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rónyai A, Gál D (2008) Deadhesion of the eggs of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L.). In: Fontaine P, Kestemont P, Teletchea F, Wang N (eds) Percid fish culture, from research to production. Presses Universitaires de Namur, Namur, p 150Google Scholar
  31. Ruuhijärvi M, Virtanen E, Salminen J, Muyunda M (1991) The growth and survival of pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca L.), larvae fed formulated feeds. In: Lavens P, Sorgeloos P, Jespers E, Ollevier F (eds) LARVI‘91 – Fish Crustacean Larvicult Symp. European Aquaculture Society, Gent, Belgium, pp 154–156Google Scholar
  32. Siddique MAM, Psenicka M, Cosson J, Dzyuba B, Rodina M, Golpour A, Linhart O (2016) Egg stickiness in artificial reproduction of sturgeon: an overview. Rev Aquac 8:18–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Small BC, Wolters WR (2003) Hydrogen peroxide treatment during egg incubation improves channel catfish hatching success. N Am J Aquac 65:314–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steenfeldt S (2015) Culture methods of pikeperch early life stages. In: Kestemont P, Dabrowski K, Summerfelt RC (eds) Biology and culture of percid fishes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steenfeldt S, Lund I, Höglund E (2011) Is batch variability in hatching time related to size heterogeneity and cannibalism in pikeperch (Sander lucioperca)? Aquac Res 42:727–732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steenfeldt S, Fontaine P, Overton JL, Policar T, Toner D, Falahatkar B, Horváth Á, Ben Khemis I, Hamza N, Mhetli M (2015) Current status of Eurasian percid fishes aquaculture. In: Kestemont P, Dabrowski K, Summerfelt RC (eds) Biology and culture of percid fishes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 817–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Summerfelt RC, Johnson JA, Clouse CP (2011) Culture of walleye, sauger, and hybrid walleye. In: Barton B (ed) Biology, management, and culture of walleye, sauger, and hybrid walleye American Fisheries Society Special Publication. Bethesda, Maryland, pp 451–570Google Scholar
  38. Sweeney PJ, Walker JM (1993) Proteinase K (EC 3.4. 21.14). In: Burrell MM (ed) Enzymes of Molecular Biology Methods in Molecular Biology™, vol 16. Humana Press, Totova, New Jersey, pp 305–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szkudlarek M, Zakęś Z (2007) Effect of stocking density on survival and growth performance of pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.), larvae under controlled conditions. Aquac Int 15:67–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang N, Xu X, Kestemont P (2009) Effect of temperature and feeding frequency on growth performances, feed efficiency and body composition of pikeperch juveniles (Sander lucioperca). Aquaculture 289:70–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zakęś Z, Demska-Zakęś K (2005) Artificial spawning of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca (L.)) stimulated with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and mammalian GnRH analogue with a dopamine inhibitor. Arch Pol Fish 13: 63–75.Google Scholar
  42. Zakęś Z, Kowalska A, Czerniak S, Demska-Zakęś K (2006a) Effect of feeding frequency on growth and size variation in juvenile pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.). Czech J Anim Sci 51:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zakęś Z, Demska- Zakęś K, Roszuk K, Kowalska A (2006b) Odklejanie ikry sandacza (Sander lucioperca) przy użyciu taniny i proteazy. In: Zakes Z, Demska-Zakes K, Wolnicki J (eds) Rozród, podchów, profilaktyka ryb karpiowatych i innych gatunków – Wydawnictw IRS, Olsztyn, pp 239–249 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  44. Żarski D, Palińska K, Targońska K, Bokor Z, Kotrik L, Krejszeff S, Kupren K, Horváth A, Urbányi B, Kucharczyk D (2011) Oocyte quality indicators in Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis L., during reproduction under controlled conditions. Aquaculture 313:84–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Żarski D, Krejszeff S, Palińska K, Targońska K, Kupren K, Fontaine P, Kestemont P, Kucharczyk D (2012) Cortical reaction as an egg quality indicator in artificial reproduction of pikeperch, Sander lucioperca. Reprod Fertil Dev 24:843–850. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Żarski D, Krejszeff S, Kucharzyk D, Palińska K, Targońska K, Kupren K, Fontaine P, Kestemont P (2015) The application of tannic acid to the elimination of egg stickiness at varied moments of the egg swelling process in pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.). Aquac Res 46:324–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zimmerman DW (1994) A note on the influence of outliers on parametric and nonparametric tests. J Gen Psychol 121:391–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture NAIK HAKISzarvasHungary
  2. 2.Aquaculture and Fisheries GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.H&H Carpió Halászati Kft.ÓcsárdHungary

Personalised recommendations