Advertisement

Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 657–665 | Cite as

Composition of phytobenthos in “lab-lab”, a periphyton-based extensive aquaculture technology for milkfish in brackishwater ponds during dry and wet seasons

  • N.R. FortesEmail author
  • L.A.G. Pinosa
Article

Abstract

The study compared the species composition of phytoperiphyton (“lab-lab”) present in ponds when gradually filled with water weekly to depths of 5, 10, 15 and 30 cm between the wet and dry seasons, for one month before the stocking of fish was studied. This was done during the dry season (March–April, 2003) and wet season (June–July, 2002). Periphyton was allowed to grow on 24 artificial substrates set at equal distances in a 1000 m2 pond. “Lab-lab” that colonized the artificial substrates and that on the pond surrounding the substrates were scraped off from a measured surface area. Simultaneously, water was collected for the analysis of physical, chemical and biological parameters. Sampling was done bi-weekly coinciding with 2 and 7 days submergence at a desired depth before adjusting the water level. The major algae consisted of the diatoms (Bacilliarophyta), the blue green algae (Cyanobacteria), and the green algae (Chlorophyta). The diatoms were dominant during the dry season while the cyanobacteria dominated during the wet season. Twenty eight genera were observed during the dry season and 25 genera were noted in the wet season. Variation in genera and density that were observed every sampling period, was influenced by environmental conditions and the incoming water. The total algal density ranged from 100.7 × 108 – 855.1 × 108 and to 24.7 × 108 – 83.9 × 108 organisms.m−2 during the dry and wet seasons, respectively.

Keywords

Algal mat Benthic algal community Biological complex Phytobenthos Pond scum Phytoperiphyton “lab-lab” 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas for financial support, the Brackishwater Aquaculture Center, Institute of Aquaculture, University of the Philippines Visayas for the pond used, Dr. Romeo D. Fortes for his help in the manuscript preparation, Dr. Roman Sanares for statistical advice and Mr. Pedro Fernandez for the weather data, Ms. Mercy Fabrigas for computer works, and support staff and laborers for their help in purchasing, sampling pond, and for all the work they did to complete this study.

References

  1. Asaeda T, Son D (2001) A model of the development of periphyton community: resource and flow dynamics. Ecol Model 137:61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azim ME, Wahab MA, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM, Milstein A, Verdegam MCJ (2001) Optimization of fertilization rate for periphyton production on artificial substrates and the implications for periphyton based aquaculture. Aquacult. Res. 32:749–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azim ME, Wahab MA, van Dam AA, van Rooij JM, Beveridge MCM, Verdegam MCJ (2002) The effects of artificial substrate on freshwater pond productivity and water quality and the implications for periphyton-based aquaculture. Aquat. Living Res. 15:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azim ME, Milstein A, Wahab MA, Verdegam MCG (2003) Periphyton-water quality relationships in fertilized fishpond with artificial substrates. Aquacult 228:169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard GF, Guarini JM, Orvain F, Sauriau PG (2001) Dynamic behaviour of benthic microalgal biomass in inter-tidal mudflats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 264:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bachmann, RW, Horsburgh CA, Hoyer MV, Mataraza LK, Canfield DE Jr (2002) Relations between trophies state indicators and plant biomass in Florida lakes. Hydrobiol 470:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattaneo A, Kalff J (1986) The effect of grazer size manipulation on periphtyon communities. Oecologia 69:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delgado M, de Jonge VN, Peletier H (1991) Effect of sand movement on growth of benthic diatoms. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 145:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempster PW, Beveridge MCM, Baird DJ (1993) Herbivory in tilapia Orechromis niloticus (L): a comparison of feeding rates on periphyton and phytoplankton. J Fish Biol 47:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dodds WK (2003) The role of periphyton phosphorus retention shallow freshwater aquatic systems. J Phycol 39:840–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esguerra RS (1951) Enumeration of algae in the Philippine bangus fishponds and in the digestive tract of the fish with notes on conditions of favorable growth. Phil J Fish 1:171–192Google Scholar
  12. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 680p. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Havens KE, Hauxwell J, Tyler AC, Thomas S, Mc Glathery KJ, Cebrian J, Valiela I, Steinman AD, Hwang SJ (2001) Complex interaction between autotrophs in shallow marine and freshwater ecosystems: implications for community responses to nutrient stress. Environ Pollut 113:95–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herbst DV, Blinn DW (1998) Experimental mesocosm studies of salinity effects on the benthic algal community of a saline lake. J Phycol 34:772–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillebrand H, Kahlert M (2002) Effect of grazing and water column nutrient supply on biomass and nutrient content of sediment microalgae. Aquat Bot 72:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horner RR, Welch EB, Seeley MR (1990) Responses of periphyton to changes in current velocity, suspended sediment and phosphorus concentration. Fresh Biol 24:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kinne O (1971) Salinity. In: Kinne O (ed) Marine Ecology. Academic Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1(2):821–995Google Scholar
  18. Lane CM, Taffs K, Corfield JL (2003) A comparison of diatom community structure on natural and artificial substrata. Hydrobiologia 493:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liboriussen L, Jeppesen E (2006) Structure, biomass, production and depth distribution of periphyton artificial substratum in shallow lakes with contrasting nutrient concentrations. Freshw Biol 51:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lukin VB (2002) Changes in phytoperiphyton community during seasonal succession: influence of plankton sedimentation and grazing by phytophages (Chironomid larvae). Zh Obshch Biol 63:418–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lukin VB (2003) Mechanisms responsible for the development of periphyton community structure during seasonal succession: the role of interspecies competition and plankton sedimentation. Zh Obshch Biol 64:263–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinez MR, Chakroff CL, Pantastico JF (1975) Direct phytoplankton counting techniques using the haemacytometer. Phil Agri 55:43–50Google Scholar
  23. McCormick PV, O’Dell MB, Shuford III RBE, Backus JG, Kennedy WC (2001) Periphyton responses to experimental phosphorus enrichment in a subtropical wetland. Aquat Bot 71:119–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McIntire CD (1968) Structural characteristics of benthic algal communities in laboratory streams. Ecology 49:520–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moschini CV, Henry R, Pompeo LM (2000) Seasonal variation of biomass and productivity of the periphytic community of artificial substrata in the Jurumirim reservoir [2pt] (SaoPaulo, Brazil). Hydrobiologia 434:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neckles HA, Koepler ET, Haas LW, Wetzel R, Orth RJ (1994) Dynamics of epiphytic photoautotrophs in Zostera marina (eel grass) microcosms: response to nutrient enrichment and grazing. Estuaries 17:567–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paerl HW (1988) Nuisance phytoplankton blooms in coastal estuarine and inland waters. Limnol Oceanogr 33:823–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Page HM, Dugan JE, Hubbard DM (1992) Comparative effects of in faunal bivalves on an epibenthic community. J Exp Biol Ecol 157:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patrick R (1948) Factors affecting the distribution of diatoms. Bot Rev 14:473–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabanal HR (1966) The culture of lab-lab, the natural food of milkfish or bangus (Chanos chanos Forskal) fry and fingerlings under cultivation. Phil Fishing J 22–26Google Scholar
  31. Rejmankova E, Komarkova J (2000) A function of cyanobacterial mats in phosphorus limited wetlands. Hydrobiologia 431:135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riis T, Hawes I (2002) Relationships between water level fluctuations and vegetation diversity in shallow water of New Zealand lakes. Aquat Bot 74:133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ronquillo IA, de Jesus C (1957) Notes on the growing of lab-lab in nursery ponds. Phil J Fish 5:99–102Google Scholar
  34. Shimmel SM, Darley WM (1985) Productivity and density of soil microalgae in an agricultural system. Ecology 66:1439–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strickland JD, Parsons TR (1972) A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis, 310p, 2nd edn. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Tang YA, Chen SH (1966) A survey of algal pasture soils of milkfish ponds in Taiwan. In: Pillay TVR (ed) Proc. FAO Symposium on Warm-water Fish Culture. FAO Fish. Rep. 44:41–45Google Scholar
  37. Twomey L, John J (2001) Effects of rainfall and salt-wedge movement on phytoplankton succession in the Swan-Canning Estuary, Western Australia. Hydrobiol Proc 15:2655–2669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vicencio ZT (1977) Studies on the food habits of Milkfish in Chanos chanos (Forskal). Fish Res J Philipp 2:1–18Google Scholar
  39. Welch P (1949) Limnological Methods, 380p. Mc Graw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Weitzel RL (1979) Periphyton measurements and applications. In: Weitzel RL (ed.) Methods and Measurements of Periphyton Communities, pp.3–33Google Scholar
  41. Wetzel RG (1971) Periphyton: Methods of measuring production rates. In: Vollenweider RA (ed) A Manual on Methods of Measuring Primary Production in Aquatic Environments. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp.41–133Google Scholar
  42. Zimba P, Mischke CC, Brashear S (2003) Pond age-water column trophic relationships in channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus production ponds. Aquaculture 219:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUniversity of the Philippines VisayasMiagao, IloiloPhilippines
  2. 2.Brackishwater Aquaculture Center, Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUniversity of the Philippines VisayasLeganes, IloiloPhilippines

Personalised recommendations