Advertisement

Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 3633–3641 | Cite as

Influence of colonization time on phytoperiphyton growth during wet and dry seasons in brackish water pond

  • Lily Anne G. PiñosaEmail author
Article

Abstract

The changes in phytoperiphyton growth using algal density and ash free dry weight (AFDW) for 28 days colonization time in a brackish water pond during wet and dry seasons were studied. Twenty-four artificial substrata were evenly installed at the bottom of a 1000-m2 pond. Three substrata were removed every sampling for numerical and gravimetrical analyses before and after increasing the pond water at approximate depths of 5, 10, 15, and 30 cm, a practice of growing natural food prior to milkfish (Chanos chanos Forsskal) stocking. Changes in algal density during the wet season varied irregularly and were not related to colonization time; while during the dry season, colonization time affected density with significantly high values from 16th to 28th days. The influence of colonization time on the AFDW was evident for both seasons. During the wet season, significantly higher values were measured from 21st to 28th days of colonization; while during the dry season, significantly high values were measured on the 28th and 21st day to 23rd day of colonization. The phytoperiphyton biomass during the dry season reached 1.2 kg m−2, but only 240 g m−2 during the wet season. There was a linear relationship between density and biomass during the dry season but not during the wet season. Growth rate changed each time water level was raised. Higher growth rate was observed every after addition of water with values ranged from 0.46–0.54 g m−2 and 0.50–0.52 org m−2, and before addition, this decreased to 0.21–0.25 g m−2 and 0.19–0.22 org m−2 for AFDW and algal density, respectively.

Keywords

Algal mat Benthic algae Ash free dry weight Artificial substrate Instantaneous growth rate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the substantial efforts of Professor Norma R. Fortes, who started the work on periphyton and encouraged me to continue the work. I would like to thank the University of the Philippines Visayas for the financial support, the University of the Philippines Visayas, Brackishwater Aquaculture Center, Institute of Aquaculture (UPV-BAC-IA), for the facilities used, Dr. Liah C. Cathedrilla for patiently reading the manuscript, Professor Roman C. Sanares for the statistical advice, Dr. Romeo D. Fortes for the help extended, and the UPV-BAC staff and laborers for their assistance and support.

References

  1. Addy MM, Kabir F, Zhang R, Lu Q, Deng X, Current D, Griffith R, Ma Y, Zhou W, Chen P, Ruan R (2017) Co-cultivation of microalgae in aquaponic systems. Bioresour Technol 245(Pt A) 245:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akinrotimi OA, Gabriel UU, Owhonda NK, Onunkwo DN, Opara JY, Anyanwu PE, Cliffe PT (2007) Formulating an environmental friendly fish feed for sustainable aquaculture development in Nigeria. Ag J 2:606–612Google Scholar
  3. Anh PT, Kroeze C, Bush SR, Mol APJ (2010) Water pollution by intensive brackish shrimp farming in south-east Vietnam: causes and options for control. Ag Water Manage 97:872–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansari FA, Singh P, Guldhe A, Bux F (2017) Microalgal cultivation using aquaculture wastewater: integrated biomass generation and nutrient remediation. Algal Res 21:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (1990) Official methods of analysis (15th ed). Arlington, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Azim ME (2001) The potential of periphyton-based aquaculture production systems. Dissertation, Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Azim ME, Asaeda T (2005) Periphyton structure, diversity and colonization. In: Azim ME, Beveridge MCM, van Dam AA, Verdegem MCJ (eds) Periphyton: ecology, exploitation and management. Cambridge: CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azim ME, Wahab MA, Verdegam MCJ, van Dam AA, van Rooij JM, Beveridge MCM (2002) The effects of artificial substrates on freshwater pond productivity and water quality and the implications for periphyton-based aquaculture. Aquat Living Res 15:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azim ME, Verdegam MCJ, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM (2005) Periphyton: ecology, exploitation and management. CABI Publishing, 319 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Bharti A, Velmourougane K, Prasanna R (2017) Phototrophic biofilms: diversity, ecology and applications. J Appl Phycol 29:2729–2744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casartelli MR, de Jesus Lavagnolli G, Ferragut C (2016) Periphyton biomass accrual rate changes over the colonization process in a shallow mesotrophic reservoir. Acta Limnol Bras 28:e9  https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X0116
  12. Dempster PW, Beveridge MCM, Baird DJ (1993) Herbivory in tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L): a comparison of feeding rates on periphyton and phytoplankton. J Fish Biol 47:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferragut C, Rodello AF, de Mattos Bicudo CE (2010) Seasonal variability of periphyton nutrient status and biomass on artificial and natural substrates in a tropical mesotrophic reservoir. Acta Limnol Bras 22:397–409Google Scholar
  14. Fortes NR, Pinosa LAG (2007) Composition of phytobenthos in “lab-lab”, a periphyton-based extensive aquaculture technology for milkfish in brackishwater ponds during dry and wet seasons. J Appl Phycol 19:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortes NR, Piñosa LAG (2010) Community structure of phytoperiphyton in “lab-lab” (algal mat) in brackishwater ponds in relation to water depth. Philippine J Sci 139:17–25Google Scholar
  16. Franca RCS, Lopes MRM, Ferragut C (2011) Structural and successional variability of periphytic algal community in an Amazonian lake during the dry and rainy season (Rio Branco, Acre). Acta Amaz 41:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gao F, Li C, Yang ZH, Zeng GM, Feng LJ, Liu J, Liu M, Cai H (2016) Continuous microalgae cultivation in aquaculture wastewater by a membrane photobioreactor for biomass production and nutrients removal. Ecol Eng 92:55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garg SK (2016) Impacts of grazing by milkfish (Chanos chanos Forsskal) on periphyton growth and its nutritional quality in inland saline ground water: fish growth and pond ecology. Ecol Evol Biol 1: 41–52Google Scholar
  19. Grote B (2016) Bioremediation of aquaculture wastewater: evaluating the prospects of the red alga Palmaria palmata (Rhodophyta) for nitrogen uptake. J Appl Phycol 28:3075–3082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Havens KE, East TL, Meeker RH, Davis WP, Steinman AD (1996) Phytoplankton and periphyton responses to in situ experimental nutrient enrichment in a shallow subtropical lake. J Plankton Res 18:551–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill WR, Fanta SE (2008) Phosphorus and light colimit periphyton growth at subsaturating irradiances. Freshw Biol 53:215–225Google Scholar
  22. Hillebrand H, Sommer U (2000) Diversity of benthic microalgae in response to colonization time and eutrophication. Aquat Bot 67:221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jana SN, Garg SK, Thirunavukkarasu AR, Bhatnagar A, Kalla A, Patra BC (2006) Use of additional substrate to enhance growth performance of milkfish Chanos chanos (Forsskal) in inland saline groundwater ponds. J Appl Aquac 18:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khatoon H, Yusoff F, Banerjee S, Shariff M, Bujang JS (2007) Formation of periphyton biofilm and subsequent biofouling on different substrates in nutrient enriched brackishwater shrimp ponds. Aquaculture 273:470–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Komulainen SF, Slastina YL (2012) Effects of urbanization on phytoplankton and phytoperiphyton structure in the Lososinka river (Republic Karelia, Russia). Is. Rivers pp 1–3. http://www.graie.org/ISRivers/actes/pdf2012/2B307-262KOM.pdf
  26. Kühlmann KJ, Focken U, Coloso RM, Becker K (2009) Diurnal feeding pattern and gut content of milkfish Chanos chanos (Forsskal, 1775) cultured semi-intensively during the wet and dry season in brackish ponds in the Philippines. Aquac Res 40:2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de la Pena MR (2007) Cell growth and nutritive value of the tropical benthic diatom, Amphora sp., at varying levels of nutrients and light intensity, and different culture locations. J Appl Phycol 19:647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levy A, Milstein A, Neori A, Harpaz S, Shpigel M, Guttman L (2017) Marine periphyton biofilters in mariculture effluents: nutrient uptake and biomass development. Aquaculture 473:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marasigan AN, Fortes NR, Pahila IG (2001) Relative contribution of different food sources in milkfish growth as determined from carbon isotope ratios. UPV J Nat Sci 2:60–71Google Scholar
  30. Martinez MR, Chakroff CL, Pantastico JF (1975) Direct phytoplankton counting techniques using the haemacytometer. Phil Agri 55:43–50Google Scholar
  31. Mohapatra BC, Sahu H, Mahanta SK, Lenka S, Anantharaja K, Jayasankar P (2016) Growth of periphyton on different plastic materials in freshwater medium. Adv Appl Sci Res 7:228–234Google Scholar
  32. Mulholland PJ, Steinman AD, Marzolf ER, Hart DR, DeAngelis DL (1994) Effect of periphyton biomass on hydraulic characteristics and nutrient cycling in streams. Oecologia 98:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oliver RL, Ganf GG (2000) Freshwater blooms. In: Whitton BA, Potts M (eds) The ecology of cyanobacteria, their diversity in time and space. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 149–194Google Scholar
  34. Ronquillo IA, de Jesus C (1957) Notes on the growing of “lab-lab” in nursery ponds. Phil J fish 5:99–102Google Scholar
  35. dos Santos TR, Ferragut C (2013) The successional phases of a periphytic algal community in a shallow tropical reservoir during the dry and rainy seasons. Limnetica 32: 337–352Google Scholar
  36. Sayre R (2010) Microalgae: the potential for carbon capture. Bioscience 60:722–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sumagaysay NS, Marquez FE, Chiu-Chern YN (1991) Evaluation of different supplemental feeds for milkfish (Chanos chanos) reared in brackishwater ponds. Aquaculture 93:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Troell M, Rönnbäck P, Halling C, Kautsky N, Buschmann A (1999) Ecological engineering in aquaculture: use of seaweeds for removing nutrients from intensive mariculture. J Appl Phycol 11:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vadeboncoeur Y, Jeppesen E, Van der Zanden MJ, Schierup HH, Christoffersen K, Lodge DM (2003) From Greenland to green lakes: cultural eutrophication and the loss of benthic pathways in lakes. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1408–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verdegem MCJ, Ekram-Ul-Azim M (2001) Periphyton-based aquaculture: a novel fish culture technology. Research for sustainable development. Bulletin vol 14 n°1–4 37–39 pp. http://ec.europa.eu/ development /body/publications/fish/120137.pdf. December 2001
  41. Vicencio ZT (1977) Studies on the food habits of milkfish Chanos chanos (Forsskal). Fish Res J Philipp 2:1–18Google Scholar
  42. Welch P (1949) Limnological methods, 380p. Mc Graw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Wood AM, Everroad RC, Wingard LM (2005) Measuring growth rates in microalgal cultures. In: Andersen RA (ed) Algal culturing techniques. Elsevier, New York, pp 269–285Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUP VisayasMiagaoPhilippines

Personalised recommendations