Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 901–916 | Cite as

Modeling macroalgae growth and nutrient dynamics for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture

  • Scott Hadley
  • Karen Wild-Allen
  • Craig Johnson
  • Catriona Macleod
Article

Abstract

Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) is being explored on both economic and environmental grounds in many traditional aquaculture regions. To test a variety of suitable macroalgae species and management scenarios, a numerical model is developed to quantify the remediation of dissolved nutrients and production of macroalgae near a nutrient source. Differences in the morphological, physiological, and economic characteristics of different macroalgae species can provide flexibility when considering the cost and benefit of farming macroalgae. Results show that of the three species studied, Macrocystis pyrifera removed 75 % of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) input from a point source, while Porphyra umbilicalis and Ulva lactuca removed 5 %. Both M. pyrifera and P. umbilicalis have reduced bioremediation capacity at increasing flow rates. U. lactuca showed increased bioremediation potential as flow rate increased from low to moderate flows. Increasing the optical depth increased the bioremediation potential of M. pyrifera for moderate values of the light attenuation coefficient, whereas bioremediation was unaffected by optical depth for both U. lactuca and P. umbilicalis. Harvesting increased bioremediation capacity of all species by up to 25-fold dependent on the establishment phase and harvesting frequency. We conclude that the choice of macroalgae species greatly affects the success of IMTA and that both harvesting and farm arrangements can be used to greatly optimize bioremediation.

Keywords

IMTA Macrocystis Ulva Porphyra Bioremediation Temperate estuary Management 

References

  1. Aldridge JN, Trimmer M (2009) Modelling the distribution and growth of ‘problem’ green seaweed in the Medway estuary, UK. Hydrobiologia 629:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hafedh YS, Alam A, Buschmann AH (2014) Bioremediation potential, growth and biomass yield of the green seaweed. Ulva lactuca in an integrated marine aquaculture system at the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia at different stocking densities and effluent flow rates. Rev Aquac. doi:10.1111/raq.12060 Google Scholar
  3. Broch OJ, Slagstad D (2012) Modelling seasonal growth and composition of the kelp Saccharina latissima. J Appl Phycol 24:759–776Google Scholar
  4. Broch OJ, Ellingsen IH, Forbord S, Wang X, Zsolt V, Alver MO, Skjermo J (2013) Modelling the cultivation and bioremediation potential of the kelp Saccharina latissima in close proximity to an exposed salmon farm in Norway. Aquac Env Interact 4:187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruhn A, Dahl J, Nielsen HB, Nikolaisen L, Rasmussen MB, Markager S, Jensen PD (2011) Bioenergy potential of Ulva Lactuca: biomass yield, methane production and combustion. Bioresour Technol 102:2595–2604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buschmann AH, Varela DA, Hernandez-Gonzalez MC, Huovinen P (2008) Opportunities and challenges for the development of an integrated seaweed-based aquaculture activity in Chile: determining the physiological capabilities of Macrocystis and Gracilaria as biofilters. J Appl Phycol 20:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmona R, Kraemer GP, Yarish C (2006) Exploring Northeast American and Asian species of Porphyra for use in an integrated finfish–algal aquaculture system. Aquaculture 252:54–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chopin T, Yarish C, Wilkes R, Belyea E, Lu S, Mathieson A (1999) Developing Porphyra/salmon integrated aquaculture for bioremediation and diversification of the aquaculture industry. J Appl Phycol 11:463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clementson LA, Parslow JS, Turnbull AR, Bonham PI (2004) Properties of light absorption in a highly coloured estuarine system in south-east Australia which is prone to blooms of the toxic dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 60:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CSIRO (2009) CSIRO Atlas of Regional Seas (CARS), from http://www.marine.csiro.au/~dunn/cars2009/.
  11. ElkhornSlough.org (2012). Elkhorn slough plants: sea lettuce, from http://www.elkhornslough.org/sloughlife/plants/sea_lettuce.htm.
  12. Enriquez S, Agusti S, Duarte CM (1994) Light absorption by marine macrophytes. Oecologia 98:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Everett JD, Baird ME, Suthers IM (2007) Nutrient and plankton dynamics in an intermittently closed/open lagoon, Smiths Lake, south-eastern Australia: an ecological model. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72:690–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerard VA (1982) In situ water motion and nutrient uptake by the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Mar Biol 69:51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hafting JT (1999) Effect of tissue nitrogen and phosphorus quota on growth of Porphyra yezoensis blades in suspension cultures. Hydrobiologia 398/399:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haines KC, Wheeler PA (1978) Ammonium and nitrate uptake by the marine macrophytes Hypnea musciformis (Rhodophyta) and Macrocystis pyrifera (Phaeophyta). J Phycol 14:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hepburn CD, Holborow JD, Wing SR, Frew RD, Hurd CL (2007) Exposure to waves enhances the growth rate and nitrogen status of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 339:99–108Google Scholar
  18. Hernandez-Carmona C, Robledo D, Serviere-Zaragoza E (2001) Effect of nutrient availability on Macrocystis pyrifera recruitment and survival near its southern limit off Baja California. Bot Mar 44:221–229Google Scholar
  19. Hernández I, Martínez-Aragón JF, Tovar A, Pérez-Lloréns JL, Vergara JJ (2002) Biofiltering efficiency in removal of dissolved nutrients by three species of estuarine macroalgae cultivated with sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) waste waters 2. Ammonium. J Appl Phycol 14:375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hernandez I, Fernandez-Engo MA, Perez-Llorens JL, Vergara JJ (2005) Integrated outdoor culture of two estuarine macroalgae as biofilters for dissolved nutrients from Sparus aurata waste waters. J Appl Phycol 17:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johansson G, Snoeijs P (2002) Macroalgal photosynthetic responses to light in relation to thallus morphology and depth zonation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 244:63–72Google Scholar
  22. Lee CS, Ang P Jr (1991) A simple model for seaweed growth and optimal harvesting strategy. Ecol Model 55:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lobban CS, Harrison PJ (1994) Seaweed ecology and physiology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markager S, Sand-Jensen K (1996) Implications of thallus thickness for growth-irradiance relationships of marine macroalgae. Eur J Phycol 31:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MarLIN. (2012). Purple laver—Porphyra umbilicalis, from http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=4194
  26. Neori A, Cohen I, Gordin H (1991) Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond effluents. II. Growth rate, yield and C:N ratio. Bot Mar 34:483–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. North WJ, Jackson GA, Manley SL (1986) Macrocystis and its environment, knowns and unknowns. Aquat Bot 26:9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pedersen A, Kraemer G, Yarisha C (2004) The effects of temperature and nutrient concentrations on nitrate and phosphate uptake in different species of Porphyra from Long Island Sound (USA). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 312:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ren JS, Stenton-Dozey J, Plew DR, Fang J, Gall M (2012) An ecosystem model for optimising production in integrated multitrophic aquaculture systems. Ecol Model 246:34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robertson-Andersson DV, Potgieter M, Hansen J, Bolton JJ, Troell M, Anderson R, Probyn T (2008) Integrated seaweed cultivation on an abalone farm in South Africa. J Appl Phycol 20:579–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodriguez GE, Rassweiler A, Reed DC, Holbrook SJ (2013) The importance of progressive senescence in the biomass dynamics of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera). Ecology 94:1848–1858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rykiel EJ (1995) Testing of ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Model 90:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanderson JC, Di Benedetto R (1988) Tasmanian seaweeds for the edible market Department of Sea Fisheries Technical report. Marine Laboratories Department of Sea Fisheries, Hobart, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanderson JC, Cromey CJ, Dring MJ, Kelly MS (2008) Distribution of nutrients for seaweed cultivation around salmon cages at farm sites in north-west Scotland. Aquaculture 278:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva C, Yanez E, Martin-Diaz ML, DelValls TA (2012) Assessing a bioremediation strategy in a shallow coastal system affected by a fish farm culture—application of GIS and shellfish dynamic models in the San Pedro, SW Spain. Mar Pollut Bull 64:751–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Solidoro C, Pecenik G, Pastres R, Franco D, Dejak C (1997) Modelling macroalgae (Ulva rigida) in the Venice lagoon: model structure identification and first parameters estimation. Ecol Model 94:191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson PA, Bonham P, Wilcox S, Crawford C (2005) Baseline monitoring in D’Entrecasteaux Channel Technical report. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Trancoso AR, Saraiva S, Fenandes L, Pina P, Leitao P, Neves R (2005) Modelling macroalgae using a 3D hydrodynamic-ecological model in a shallow, temperate estuary. Ecol Model 187:232–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Troell M, Joyce A, Chopin T, Neori A, Buschmann AH, Fang JG (2009) Ecological engineering in aquaculture—potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Utter BD, Denny MW (1996) Wave-induced forces on the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera (Agardh): field test of a computational model. J Exp Biol 199:2645–2654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang X, Olsen LM, Reitan KI, Olsen Y (2012) Discharge of nutrient wastes from salmon farms: environmental effects, and potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquac Env Interact 2:267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wheeler WN (1980) Effect of boundary layer transport on the fixation of carbon by the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Mar Biol 56:103–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wild-Allen K, Herzfeld M, Thompson PA, Rosebrock U, Parslow J, Volkman JK (2010) Applied coastal biogeochemical modelling to quantify the environmental impact of fish farm nutrients and inform managers. J Mar Syst 81:134–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yokoyama H, Ishihi Y (2010) Bioindicator and biofilter function of Ulva spp. (Chlorophyta) for dissolved inorganic nitrogen discharged from a coastal fish farm—potential role in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquaculture 310:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmerman RC, Kremer JN (1984) Episodic nutrient supply to a kelp forest ecosystem in Southern California. J Mar Res 42:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Hadley
    • 1
  • Karen Wild-Allen
    • 2
  • Craig Johnson
    • 1
  • Catriona Macleod
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Marine and Antarctic StudiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric ResearchHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations