Advertisement

Aquaculture International

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 511–524 | Cite as

Effects of C:N ratio and substrate integration on periphyton biomass, microbial dynamics and growth of Penaeus monodon juveniles

  • P. S. Shyne AnandEmail author
  • Sujeet Kumar
  • A. Panigrahi
  • T. K. Ghoshal
  • J. Syama Dayal
  • G. Biswas
  • J. K. Sundaray
  • D. De
  • R. Ananda Raja
  • A. D. Deo
  • S. M. Pillai
  • P. Ravichandran
Article

Abstract

An outdoor growth trial was conducted for 75 days to investigate the effect of C:N ratio and bamboo substrate (S) in brackish water shrimp culture. Penaeus monodon juveniles (0.35 ± 0.03 g) were stocked in experimental tanks with and without bamboo substrate. C:N ratio of 10 and 20 was manipulated with shrimp feed containing 32 % crude protein and rice flour as carbohydrate source. Addition of substrate and higher C:N ratio (CN20+S) significantly reduced (p < 0.01) inorganic nitrogen NH3–N by 48.2 %, NO3–N by 41.6 %, NO2–N by 42.7 % compared with CN10. Substrate addition significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the turbidity by 22.4 % (CN10+S against CN10) and 20.7 % (CN20+S against CN20). Periphyton biomass and total heterotrophic bacterial load were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in CN20+S in comparison with CN10+S treatment. The autotrophic index increased from 123.4 ± 0.62 to 158.9 ± 3.8 for CN10+S and, 121.8 ± 1.6 to 228 ± 9.11 for CN20+S system. Provision of substrate and carbohydrate addition resulted in the highest body weight, 4.87 ± 0.12 g in CN20+S against 3.66 ± 0.07 g in CN20 and 2.90 ± 0.12 g in CN10 through provision of natural food in the form of periphytic algae and heterotrophic bacterial community. Treatment with substrates showed a higher survival rate by 7 % in comparison with without substrate treatments as it acted as shelter to shrimp during molting and there by reduced cannibalism. Thus, our results demonstrated that high C:N ratio and substrate addition improved growth, reduced FCR and better water quality conditions.

Keywords

Carbon nitrogen ratio Microbial dynamics Penaeusmonodon Periphyton Substrate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. A.G. Ponniah, the Director, Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai and the Officer-in-Charge, Kakdwip Research Centre of CIBA, Kakdwip for providing the required facilities to conduct this study. Comments and suggestions of anonymous reviewers certainly improved the quality of this paper.

References

  1. Abreu PC, Ballester ELC, Odebrecht C, Wasielesky JW, Cavalli RO, Granéli W, Anesio AM (2007) Importance of biofilm as food source for shrimp (Farfantepenaeus paulensis) evaluated by stable isotopes (δ13C and δ15N). J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 347:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alava VR, Lim C (1983) The quantitative dietary protein requirements of Penaeus monodon juveniles in a controlled environment. Aquaculture 30:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amisah S, Adjei-boateng D, Afianu D (2008) Effects of bamboo substrate and supplementary feed on growth and production of the African catfish, Clarias gariepinus. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 12:25–28Google Scholar
  4. APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. APHA, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold SA, Sellars MJ, Crocos PJ, Coman GJ (2005) Response of juvenile brown tiger shrimp (Penaeus esculentus) to intensive culture conditions in a flow through tank system with three dimensional artificial substrate. Aquaculture 246:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold SA, Sellars MJ, Crocos PJ, Coman GJ (2006) Intensive production of juvenile tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon: an evaluation of stocking density and artificial substrates. Aquaculture 261:890–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnold SJ, Coman FE, Jackson CJ, Groves SA (2009) High-intensity, zero water-exchange production of juvenile tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon: an evaluation of artificial substrates and stocking density. Aquaculture 293:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asaduzzaman M, Wahab MA, Verdegem MCJ, Huque S, Salam MA, Azim ME (2008) C/N ratio control and substrate addition for periphyton development jointly enhance freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii production in ponds. Aquaculture 280:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asaduzzaman M, Wahab MA, Verdegem MCJ, Mondal MN, Azim ME (2009) Effects of stocking density of freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii and addition of different levels of tilapia Oreochromis niloticus on production in C/N controlled periphyton based system. Aquaculture 286:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Asaduzzaman M, Rahman MM, Azim ME, Islam MA, Verdegem MCJ, Verreth JAJ, Wahab MA (2010) Effects of C/N ratio and substrate addition on natural food communities in freshwater prawn monoculture ponds. Aquaculture 305:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Audelo-Naranjo JM, Martínez-Córdova LR, Voltolina D, Gómez-Jiménez S (2011) Water quality, production parameters and nutritional condition of Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) grown intensively in zero water exchange mesocosms with artificial substrates. Aquacult Res 42:1371–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Avnimelech Y (1999) Carbon/nitrogen ratio as a control element in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 176:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Avnimelech Y (2007) Feeding with microbial flocs by tilapia in minimal discharge bio-flocs technology ponds. Aquaculture 264:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Azim ME, Asaeda T (2005) Periphyton structure, diversity and colonization. In: Azim ME, Asaeda T, Verdegem MCJ, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM (eds) Periphyton: ecology, exploitation and management. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 15–33Google Scholar
  15. Azim ME, Wahab MA, Van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM, Verdegem MCJ (2001) The potential of periphyton-based culture of two Indian major carps, rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and gonia Labeo gonius (Linnaeus). Aquacult Res 32:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Azim ME, Verdegem MCJ, Rahman MM, Wahab MA, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM (2002) Evaluation of polyculture of Indian major carps in periphyton-based ponds. Aquaculture 213:131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Azim ME, Verdegem MCJ, Singh M, Van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM (2003) The effects of periphyton substrate and fish stocking density on water quality, phytoplankton, periphyton and fish growth. Aquacult Res 34:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ballester ELC, Wasielesky W Jr, Cavalli RO, Abreu PC (2007) Nursery of the pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus paulensis in cages with artificial substrates: biofilm composition and shrimp performance. Aquaculture 269:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bratvold D, Browdy CL (2001) Effects of sand sediment and vertical surfaces (Aquamatsk) on production, water quality, and microbial ecology in an intensive Litopenaeus vannamei culture system. Aquaculture 195:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burford MA, Thompson PJ, McIntosh RP, Bauman RH, Pearson DC (2003) Nutrient and microbial dynamics in high-intensity, zero-exchange shrimp ponds in Belize. Aquaculture 219:393–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burford MA, Thompson PJ, McIntosh RP, Bauman RH, Pearson DC (2004) The contribution of flocculated material to shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) nutrition in a high-intensity, zero-exchange system. Aquaculture 232:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crab R, Avnimelech Y, Defoirdt T, Bossier P, Verstraete W (2007) Nitrogen removal techniques in aquaculture for a sustainable production. Aquaculture 270:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Focken U, Groth A, Colosso RM, Becker K (1998) Contribution of natural food and supplemental feed to the gut content of Penaeus monodon Fabricius in a semi-intensive pond system in the Philippines. Aquaculture 164:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hari B, Kurup BM, Varghese JT, Schrama JW, Verdegem MCJ (2004) Effects of carbohydrate addition on production in extensive shrimp culture systems. Aquaculture 241:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hari B, Madhusoodana Kurup B, Varghese JT, Schrama JW, Verdegem MCJ (2006) The effect of carbohydrate addition on water quality and the nitrogen budget in extensive shrimp culture systems. Aquaculture 252:248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huchette SMH, Beveridge MCM, Baird DJ, Ireland M (2000) The impacts of grazing by tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus L.) on periphyton communities growing on artificial substrate in cages. Aquaculture 186:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keshavanath P, Gangadhar B, Ramesh TJ, Van Rooij JM, Beveridge MCM, Baird DJ, Verdegem MCJ, Van Dam AA (2001) Use of artificial substrates to enhance production of freshwater herbivorous fish in pond culture. Aquacult Res 32:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khatoon H, Yusoff F, Banerjee S, Shariff M, Bujang JS (2007) Formation of periphyton biofilm and subsequent biofouling on different substrates in nutrient enriched brackish water shrimp ponds. Aquaculture 273:470–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khatoon H, Banerjee S, Yusoff F, Shariff M (2009) Evaluation of indigenous marine periphytic Amphora, Navicula and Cymbella grown on substrate as feed supplement in Penaeus monodon postlarval hatchery system. Aquacult Nutr 15:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moss KRK, Moss SM (2004) Effects of artificial substrate and stocking density on the nursery production of pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. J World Aquacult Soc 35:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramesh MR, Shankar KM, Mohan CV, Varghese TJ (1999) Comparison of three plant substrates for enhancing carp growth through bacterial biofilm. Aquacult Eng 19:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richard M, Trottier C, Verdegem MCJ, Hussenot JME (2009) Submersion time, depth, substrate type and sampling method as variation sources of marine periphyton. Aquaculture 295:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richard M, Maurice JT, Anginot A, Paticat F, Verdegem MCJ, Hussenot JME (2010) Influence of periphyton substrates and rearing density on Liza aurata growth and production in marine nursery ponds. Aquaculture 310:106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sargent JR (1976) The Structure, function, and metabolism of lipids in marine organisms. In: Malins DC, Sargent JR (eds) Biochemical and biophysical perspectives in marine biology, vol 3. Academic Press, London, pp 149–212Google Scholar
  35. Sen N, Naskar KR (2003) Algal flora of Sundarbans mangals. Daya publishing house, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  36. Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1972) A practical handbook of seawater analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd, Can 167Google Scholar
  37. Tan B, Kangsen M, Shixuan Z, Qicun Z, Lihe L, Yu Y (2005) Replacement of fish meal by meat and bone meal in practical diets for the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquacult Res 36:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson FL, Abreu PC, Wasielesky W (2002) Importance of biofilm for water quality and nourishment in intensive shrimp culture. Aquaculture 203:263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tidwell JH, Coyle S, Weibel C, Evans J (1999) Effects and interactions of stocking density and added substrate on production and population structure of freshwater prawns Macrobrachium rosenbergii. J World Aquacult Soc 30:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verdegem MCJ, Eding EH, Sereti V, Munubi RN, Satacruz-Reyes RA, van Dam AA (2005) Similarities between microbial and periphytic biofilms in Aquaculture systems. In: Azim ME, Verdegem MCJ, van Dam AA, Berveridge MCM (eds) Periphyton: ecology, exploitation and management. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 191–205Google Scholar
  41. Verlencar XN, Desai S (2004) Phytoplankton identification manual. National Institute of Oceanography, Dona PaulaGoogle Scholar
  42. Wahab MA, Azim ME, Ali MH, Beveridge MCM, Khan S (1999) The potential of periphyton-based culture of the native major carp, Calbaush, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton). Aquacult Res 30:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wetzel RG (1983) Attached algal-substrata interactions: fact or myth, and when and how? In: Wetzel RG (ed) Periphyton of freshwater ecosystems. Junk, The Hague, pp 207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang B, Lin W, Wang Y, Xu R (2010) Effects of artificial substrates on growth, spatial distribution and non-specific immunity factors of Litopenaeus vannamei in the intensive culture condition. Turkish J Fish Aquat Sci 10:491–497Google Scholar
  45. Zhukova NV, Kharlamenko VI (1999) Sources of essential fatty acids in the marine microbial loop. Aquat Microb Ecol 17:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. S. Shyne Anand
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sujeet Kumar
    • 1
  • A. Panigrahi
    • 2
  • T. K. Ghoshal
    • 1
  • J. Syama Dayal
    • 2
  • G. Biswas
    • 3
  • J. K. Sundaray
    • 1
  • D. De
    • 1
  • R. Ananda Raja
    • 1
  • A. D. Deo
    • 1
  • S. M. Pillai
    • 2
  • P. Ravichandran
    • 2
  1. 1.Kakdwip Research CentreCentral Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (ICAR)West BengalIndia
  2. 2.Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (ICAR)ChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of MiyazakiMiyazakiJapan

Personalised recommendations