Stocking density and its effects on the sanity and zootechnical development of young Colossoma macropomum in an aquaponics system using constructed semi-dry wetland

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2485022/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Stocking density and its effects on the sanity and zootechnical development of young Colossoma macropomum in an aquaponics system using constructed semi-dry wetland

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2485022/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study investigated the growth performance parameters and parasites of Colossoma macropomum farmed in an aquaponic system constructed semi-dry wetland. Fingerling of C. macropomum (8.3 ± 0.9 g) were stocked in three experimental densities: 334, 668 and 1,002 g m^− 3 g using four replicates by each treatment. The initial weight of C. macropomum was similar between fish densities tested. Electrical conductivity, nitrite, nitrate, potassium, and magnesium, turbidity, phosphate, total ammonia, and alkalinity increased with fish density. Dissolved oxygen concentrations showed a reduction, reflecting on fish growth. The final weight was different and that it was negatively impacted with increased density. The specific growth rate was similar between treatments with 334 and 668 g m^− 3, but it differed significantly from treatment with and 1,002 g m^− 3 of fish. The mean weight gain decreased with increased of fish density, while feed conversion ratio increased. Relative condition factor and survival of fish were not affected by the densities of fish. Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, Anacanthorus spathulatus, Notozothecium janauachensis and Mymarothecium boegeri were parasites found on C. macropomum gills in low abundance, which was not influenced by different densities of fish. Our results showed that fish yield was negatively impacted with increased density and differed between the by different density of fish, while the sanity was not affected.

Freshwater fish

Production

Sustainability

Tambaqui

Water.

Aquaponic systems have emerged as important technology for food production using cultivation of aquatic organisms, for example, fish combined with hydroponic plants in recirculating aquaculture system (Zou et al., 2016; Pinho et al., 2021). Residues of fish feed provides most of the nutrients required for plant growth, and the hydroponic component serves as a biofilter, and therefore a separate biofilter is not needed as in other recirculating aquaculture systems (Pinho et al., 2017; Sace et al., 2013). In general, tilapias and catfish have been the fish most used in aquaponics systems (Geisenhoff et al., 2016; Pinho et al., 2021) because other fish species have been little tested (Sikawa and Yakupitiyage, 2010; Pinho et al., 2021). However, only in the last decade this technology has been investigated in Brazil, and the results indicates the aquaponic systems as an alternative for food production in small scale to meet the requirements by proteins in family fish farming in many Brazilian cities, as well as in the Amazon region (Carneiro et al., 2015; Castellani et al., 2009; Hundley and Navarro 2013; Emerenciano, 2015; Lima et al., 2019; Pinho et al., 2021).

In many around world regions, including the Brazil, aquaponic systems with small private installations have been used due to social interests for subsistence of communities. However, as much the small private installations as enterprises of aquaponics worldwide yet have great challenges and economic issues to solve (Junge et al., 2017; Bosma et al., 2017). For fish producers to successfully adopt and an aquaponic system, they need to consider the fish species farmed, and sanitary management easiness, in addition get to master the system administration.

Colossoma macropomum Cuvier, 1818 (tambaqui) is larger Serrasalmidae from the Amazon basin, and is one of the most important fish species in the Amazon region, including Brazil. In addition, this fish species has been introduced in Panamá and Taiwan in the eighties and lately, to Cuba, Dominican Republic, United States, Honduras, Jamaica, Philippines, Guatemala, Hungary, Costa Rica, Porto Rico, and China, where they are being cultured or live in free populations in nature (Liao et al., 2001). Thus, this Amazonian fish has aroused interest of researchers, fish farmers and aquaculture industry due to its good adaptation to intensive production systems, fast growth, tolerates high stocking densities, excellent commercial price, rusticity and resistance to handling, and high value of its meat (Mendonça et al,. 2012; Pinho et al., 2021). The aim of this study was to investigate the growth performance parameters of C. macropomum farmed in different densities in an aquaponics system using semi-dry wetland with lettuces in treating wastewater of cultivation.

A semi-dry wetland is structurally like artificial treatment wetlands, but its filter media are more oxygenated those traditional wetlands, serving as an excellent biofilter for an aquaponic system (Lima et al., 2019). Integrated wetland technology (such as hydroponic, constructed treatment wetland or floating island) with food production processes, coupled with a polyculture of different fish species or other organisms including shrimps, can promote ecosystem health and achieve sustainability, mainly via its wastewater purification (Chen and Wong, 2016). As semi-dry wetland has demonstrated efficacy in production of shrimps and in treatment of culture effluents in an aquaponic system (Lima et al., 2019), we questioned if a similar aquaponic system using lettuces has the same efficiency in production of C. macropomum and on water treatment of fish culture.

2.1. Aquaponic and recirculating aquaculture system

These trials were carried out at the Laboratory of Aquaculture and Fishing from Embrapa Amapá (Amapá State, Brazil), in three identical aquaponic experimental units consisted of four culture tanks (1 m³ tank^− 1), a conical sedimentation tank (0.1 m³), a circular holding tank (0.2 m³) and a constructed semi-dry wetland (0.2 m x 1.0 m x 4.0 m) containing 32 lettuce seedlings in each wetland (Fig. 1). Two submersible pumps being a water flow of 5,000 Lh^− 1 in a continuous flow for the fish tanks and other with 1,200 Lh^− 1 actuated by a timer every 15 minutes inflow for semi-dry wetlands, controlled the water flux in each aquaponic group. The fish tanks bottom was daily siphoned, while the decanter tanks bottom was cleaned every two days. The pH buffering was accomplished by daily adding 50 g hydrated lime. The system oxygenation was performed using a radial compressor with air stones (3 air stone m^− 2) connected to the fish tank and at the entrance of constructed semi-dry wetland. The fingerlings of C. macropomum were acclimatized in this system for one week and then subjected to the treatments. A commercial ration (Guabi™, Brazil) was used ad libitum twice per day (9 am and 16 pm).

2.2. Fish and experimental design

In aquaponic system, 960 C. macropomum fingerling (8.35 ± 0.91 g) were stocked in three experimental densities: 40 fish (334 g m^− 3), 80 fish (668 g m^− 3) and 120 fish (1,002 g m^− 3) using four replicates by each density treatment. To fish feed was used commercial extruded ration contend 36.3% protein, 6.8% lipid, 4.6% fiber, 10.6% ash, and 18.6 kJg ^− 1 gross energy (Guabi™, Brazil). During trials, fingerlings were fed at 9 am and 4 pm daily at a rate of 3% body weight per day for fish. Fed was according to the fish intake rate adjusted (Lin et al., 2005). Extruded pellets with 2.4 mm for the first 60 days and 4 mm were to end the culture used, totaling 90 days.

2.3. Fish growth parameters and analysis of parasites

Growth performance parameters of fish included the specific growth rate (SGR), mean weight gain (MWG), survival rate (SR), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and protein efficiency ratio (PER) were calculated in each density over the experimental period as described below:

a) Relative condition factor (Kn) according to Le Cren (1951);

b) Specific growth rate (SGR);

The SGR for each treatment group of the study was estimated as:

$SGR= \frac{Ln W2-LnW1}{T} x 100$ Where W1 is the weight (g) of fish at stocking; W2 is the weight (g) of fish at each sampling time; InW2 – InW1 is the difference between the natural logarithms of W1 and W2; T is the time interval (in days) between stocking of fish and each sampling period.

c) Mean weight gain (MWG);

The MWG was estimated as:

MWG = FMW – IMW (Effong et al. 2009), where, FMW is the final mean weight (g) of fish, while IMW is the initial mean weight (g) of fish.

d)Feed conversion ratio (FCR)

FCR was estimated as suggested by Effong et al. (2009):

$FCR= \frac{Total\: feed\: given}{Total\: weight\: gain\: by\: fish }$ e) Protein efficiency ratio (PER);

PER was computed as suggested by Effiong et al. (2009):

$$PER= \frac{Total \text{w}eight\: gained\: by\: fish}{Total\: protein\: fed\: to\: fish}$$

Where protein intake of each fingerling was estimated as the total feed given multiplied by the percentage crude protein in feed.

Study of parasitological analyses was performed. The mouth, gills, opercula, fins, viscera and tract digestive were examined for the presence of parasites. The collection, fixation, conservation, and preparation of the parasites for identification followed the recommendations of Eiras et al. (2006). The ecological terms (prevalence and mean abundance) used were those described by Bush et al. (1997).

2.4. Water quality physicochemical parameters and analytical methods

Water samples were obtained twice by weeks from each holding tank and fish tanks, done approximately one hour after feeding at about 10 am. Using a multiparameter photometer for water analysis (Hanna™. Model HI83200) were sampled total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrite nitrogen (NO₂–N), nitrate nitrogen (NO₃–N), and alkalinity (CaCO₃). The temperature, hydrogen ionic potential (pH), dissolved oxygen (DO), electric conductivity, turbidity (NTU), and total dissolved solids (TDS) were checked using a Multiparameter Water Quality Checker (Horiba™. Model U-50).

2.5. Statistical analysis

All data were initially assuming a normal distribution and homoscedasticity using the Shapiro-Wilk and Bartlett tests, respectively. As data of growth parameters had Gaussian distribution, ANOVA was applied, followed by Tukey’s test. Parasite data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Dunn test for comparison between medians (p < 0.05) (Zar, 2010). The statistical analysis of the data was performed with the aid of the BioEstat 5.0® software (Ayres et al., 2007).

3.1. Water quality physicochemical parameters

The temperature varied within a narrow range, reached a minimum of 25 ºC and a maximum of 30 ºC, accompanying the daily fluctuations of higher and lower insolation, but did not differ among the treatments. The pH showed little variation, remained relatively stable until the 20th day of cultivation, after which this parameter presented acidifying tendencies altering among the treatments. Same after the correction with hydrated lime, the pH was slightly alkaline in 40 fish density and almost neutral in 80 and 120 fish densities. Electrical conductivity, nitrite, nitrate, potassium, and magnesium increased with fish density, and differences were observed between 40 and 120 fish densities. Conductivity and TDS parameters presented values relatively low and stable until the 36th day; then, these parameters increased until the 56th day of cultivation, where they started a little downward trend in all treatments.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) values, and water turbidity showed an antagonistic behavior in all treatments. While DO concentrations showed an apparent reduction, turbidity values continued to rise, probably reflecting fish growth, and total solids and oxygen dissolved reduced with density increase and showed lower level in density with 80 and 120 fish. Turbidity, phosphate, total ammonia, and alkalinity value increased with fish density and differences among treatments (Table 1).

Table 1

Water physicochemical parameters from *Colossoma macropomum* reared for 110 days at different stocking densities in an aquaponic system.
			Treatments
Parameters	Unit	40 fish m^− 3	80 fish m^− 3	120 fish m^− 3	F	P
Temperature	ºC	27.16 ± 0.93^a	27.12 ± 0.94^a	27.10 ± 0.94^a	0.09	0.915
pH		7.48 ± 0.23^a	7.09 ± 0.26^b	7.04 ± 0.35^b	20.79	< 0.001
Conductivity	µS cm^− 1	694.01 ± 148.3^a	809.40 ± 130.5^ab	848 ± 125.3^b	4.87	0.008
Turbidity	NTU	4.35 ± 1.51^a	5.94 ± 1.46^b	8.24 ± 1.82^c	37.55	< 0.001
DO	mg/L	6.82 ± 0.58^a	6.08 ± 0.55^b	5.91 ± 0.90^b	5.26	0.005
TDS	mg/L	0.51 ± 0.13^a	0.68 ± 0.14^b	0.73 ± 0.17^b	6.23	0.001
TAN	mg/L	0.65 ± 0.41^a	1.11 ± 0.55^b	1.89 ± 0.74^c	22.90	< 0.001
NO2- N	mg/L	0.40 ± 0.26^a	0.58 ± 0.25^ab	0.74 ± 0.23^b	10.17	< 0.001
NO3- N	mg/L	28.04 ± 14.11^a	42.30 ± 20.96^ab	50.80 ± 22.18^b	7.37	0.001
Alkalinity	CaCO₃ mg/L	14.58 ± 5.34^a	22.19 ± 6.40^b	27.57 ± 7.38^c	21.63	< 0.001
Values express mean ± SD. Means followed by equal letters on the same line do not indicate any difference between treatments by the Tukey test.

Total ammonia levels in 40 and 80 fish densities showed an increase until the seventh day of cultivation, followed by a decrease. In the treatment with 120 fish density, this parameter only showed a reduction around the 16th day. Nitrite concentration was detected only on the sixth day of cultivation and showed different values between each treatment and similar oscillation pattern. From this period, it is possible to observe in all treatments an apparent elevation of nitrate concentration up to the 41st day of farming, followed by a slight decrease until the 56th day. Nitrate concentrations in the treatments with 80 and 120 fish densities increased again up to the 72nd day of cultivation and reached peaks close to 100 mg/L. In the treatment with 40 fingerlings, nitrate concentrations follow a stable oscillation between 16 and 30 mg/L. The alkalinity values also increased in all fish densities and showed a similar variation pattern (Table 1).

3.2. Fish growth parameters and parasitological analysis

The initial weight of C. macropomum was similar (p > 0.05) between fish densities tested. However, the final weight was different and it was negatively impacted with increased density. The SGR was similar between treatments with 40 and 80 fish, but it differed significantly (p < 0.05) from treatment with 120 fish. The MWG and FCR were different between treatments. The MWG decreasing with increased fish density, while FCR increased with increased fish density. These factors did not affect the relative condition factor and survival of fish, which remained similar among treatments. Fish yield was negatively impacted with increased density and differed between the treatments, being 3.52, 6.16, and 7.99 kg m^− 3 in 40, 80, and 120 fish, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2

Growth parameters of *Colossoma macropomum* reared for 110 days at different stocking densities in an aquaponic system using constructed semi-dry wetlands.

Parameters	40 fish m^− 3	80 fish m^− 3	120 fish m^− 3	F	P
Initial mass (g)	8.85 ± 1.07^a	8.13 ± 0.65^a	8.08 ± 0.98^a	0.18	0.918
Final mass (g)	90.89 ± 5.05^a	80.29 ± 2.16^b	68.59 ± 1.73^c	44.72	< 0.001
SGR (g)	2.59 ± 0.12^a	2.55 ± 0.06^a	2.38 ± 0.12^b	4.28	0.049
MWG (g)	83.36 ± 2.15^a	72.16 ± 1.58^b	60.51 ± 1.22^c	181.06	< 0.001
Kn	1.00 ± 0.13^a	1.00 ± 0.13^a	1.00 ± 0.12^a	0.008	0.992
FCR	1.14 ± 0.08^a	1.32 ± 0.01^b	1.39 ± 0.08^c	13.06	0.002
SR (%)	96.88 ± 2.39^a	95.94 ± 2.77^a	97.08 ± 4.33^a	0.14	0.872
PER (%)	2.23 ± 0.10^a	2.03 ± 0.04^b	1.75 ± 0.10^c	31.46	< 0.001
Fish yield (kg m⁻³)	3.52 ± 0,23^a	6.16 ± 0.59^b	7.99 ± 0.53^c	24.34	< 0.001
Values express mean ± SD. Means followed by equal letters on the same line do not indicate any difference between treatments by the Tukey test’s: Specific growth rate, MWG: Mean weight gain, K: condition factor, SR: Survival rate, FCR: Feed conversion ratio, PER: Protein efficiency ratio.

Four species of ectoparasites were found on C. macropomum gills and low abundance, which did not differ among the treatments (Table 3).

Table 3

Prevalence (P%) and mean abundance (MA) of ectoparasites in the gills of *Colossoma macropomum* cultivated, for 110 days, in an aquaponics system and three stocking densities.
Treatments	40 fish m³		80 fish m³		120 fish m³
Parasite species	P (%)	MA ± SD	P (%)	MA ± SD	P (%)	MA ± SD
Anacanthorus spathulatus	70.0	3.0 ± 3.9^a	80.0	10.3 ± 12.1^a	60.0	3.4 ± 5.8^a
Notozothecium janauachensis	15.0	0.3 ± 0.9^a	10.0	0.3 ± 1.1^a	0	0^a
Mymarothecium boegeri	25.0	1.3 ± 3.7^a	55.0	10.3 ± 24.9^a	45.0	0.9 ± 1.7^a
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis	10.0	3.6 ± 11.2^a	25.0	12.7 ± 24.9^a	20.0	17.0 ± 37.2^a
Values express mean ± SD. Means followed by equal letters on the same line do not indicate any difference between treatments by the Dunn test (p < 0.05).

In present study, the water treatment filters were efficient and at the densities tested are within the appropriate range for the cultivation of C. macropomum. The temperature and pH remained within the range recorded for farmed C. macropomum in other cultivation systems (Silva et al., 2013; Santos et al., 2014; Silva and Fujimoto, 2015; Sousa et al., 2016; Saint-Paul, 2017; Costa et al., 2019). However, the lettuces have optimal growth with temperatures around 24 ºC (Rakocy et al., 2006; Rakocy, 2007), suggesting that the temperatures here observed (25–30 ºC) did not remain within values recommended for cultivation of this vegetable. The increase in the water flow rate is a factor that might favor lower temperatures and higher DO concentrations in nutritive solution, due to less exposure of the nutrient solution during the time of increased incidence of solar radiation (Genuncio et al., 2012). It is essential that the water flow rate between fish tank and wetland increased, reducing the timer control the interval of every water pump activation. Another suggestion is the choice of lettuce cultivars adapted to higher temperatures, as observed by Rodrigues et al. (2008) who studied the performance of lettuce cultivars in Manaus, in Brazilian Amazon region. Moreover, mean temperature, TDS, DO, pH, nitrogen compounds, and alkalinity values found in this study were similar to reported for other aquaponics systems (Sikawa and Yakupitiyage, 2010; Roosta, 2014; Zou et al., 2016; Cerozi and Fitzsimmons, 2016; Costa et al., 2019).

It has been reported that constraints to the use of aquaculture water for lettuce production are due to a low macronutrients’ concentrations, low dissolved oxygen levels and high suspended solids concentrations (Sikawa and Yakupitiyage, 2010; Sace and Fitzsimmons, 2013). In present study, the organic waste volume generated trial seems that has not provided adequate nutrition for lettuce. However, in hydroponic systems, the growth of lettuces suffers significant influence of with ionic concentration and water flow rate of the nutrient solution, which are relevant variables at the nutrient availability and water retention (Genuncio et al., 2012; Guimarães et al., 2016).

Leaves number, total fresh mass, and yield of the lettuce varieties studied were relatively superior that the values reported by Sikawa andYakupitiyage (2010); however, were lower than the values reported for aquaponics systems using effluent enriched with a nutrient solution (Seawright et al., 1998; Rakocy et al., 2006). In addition, interactions between fish stocking density and leaf number, total fresh mass, and yield of lettuces were found here. Both varieties of lettuces had an increase in biomass, possibly due to the increased availability of nutrients in aquaponic system. Although no additional nutrient solution was added in our aquaponic system, except hydrated lime, the lettuce biomass obtained was like values reported for grew lettuces hydroponically using saline wastewater from fish farming (Guimarães et al., 2016). On the other hand, number of leaves, total fresh mass, and yield of lettuces, in present study, were relatively lower than the values reported for grew lettuces hydroponically with uses of nutrient solutions (Genuncio et al., 2012) and in an aquaponics system of lettuces with the addition of biofertilizers in different substrates (Jordan et al., 2018). Therefore, our results showed the potential use of C. macropomum cultivation tank water for supplying a family hydroponic production of lettuces, because for the commercial production of lettuces is necessary add nutrients to aquaponics systems.

Stocking density is critical for successful of C. macropomum production because it influences numerous growth performance parameters (Silva et al., 2013; Santos et al., 2014; Silva and Fujimoto, 2015; Sousa et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2019), as well as the sanity. With the increasing of C. macropomum cultivation there is also an increase in the load of ectoparasites such as Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, Anacanthorus spathulatus, Notozothecium janauachensis and Mymarothecium boegeri, due to a poor environmental quality (Dias et al., 2015; Baia et al., 2019), which may lead to economic losses due to epizooties in fish farming. However, we found not difference in the infection levels by I. multifiliis and monogeneans A. spathulatus, N. janauachensis and M. boegeri between the different densities of C. macropomum used in aquaponic system. In addition, mean abundance of these parasites was lower that for C. macropomum farmed in ponds (Dias et al., 2015) and in net-cages (Baia et al., 2019).

An inverse relationship between stocking density of fish and growth has been reported for C. macropomum in different farming systems, suggesting that high stocking densities can negatively influence their final yield (Santos et al., 2014; Silva and Fujimoto, 2015; Sousa et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2019), and this fact was also observed in present study. The results showed that C. macropomum did not present apparent stress in the three stocking densities used. Still, a worsened in the growth parameters values was noticed in the final of the study with increasing stocking density. The effects observed include the final weight decreased, FCR, and consumed food increased, suggesting that C. macropomum farmed in small tanks can be sensible to the intraspecific competition. Nevertheless, survival was not affected, and productivity has increased with increasing stocking density, which are therefore positive parameters.

Survival of C. macropomum in aquaponic system were similar to reported for this fish farmed in other systems of production (Santos et al., 2014; Silva and Fujimoto, 2015; Sousa et al., 2016), suggesting therefore that the cultivation conditions were suitable for development of this Amazonian fish. Thus, hypothesis of a higher survival and productivity in handling with low stocking density of C. macropomum was not confirmed in this study, corroborating that this fish species tolerates intensification during fingerlings phase and can be raised in both semi-intensive and intensive farming systems with high survival and productivity; in addition, in aquaponic systems may be used densities beyond 80 and 120 fish m³.

High fish stocking densities in a reduced space can be led to the occurrence of problems related to stress, and it could interfere negatively in the growth and development of individuals. In general, in small volume tanks, the feeding area is reduced, causing the food dispute to be great, hence, there is an energetic expense that leads to an increase in feed consumption to maintain vital functions and continue to grow (Gomes et al., 2004). Although the growth performance parameters of C. macropomum fingerlings in aquaponic system has been negatively affected by the increasing stocking density, the parameters were compatible, and even superior to those reported for this same fish in others farming intensive systems (Silva et al., 2013; Santos et al., 2014; Silva and Fujimoto, 2015; Sousa et al., 2016). Therefore, results indicated that C. macropomum has a good performance in aquaponic system using constructed semi-dry wetlands, and the fish yield observed suggests that this Amazonian fish is a species suitable for the aquaponics systems. As 80 and 120 fish densities were the most productive, it is recommended for the rearing of C. macropomum fingerlings at a cycle of up to 110 days.

In conclusion, survival and productivity of C. macropomum in aquaponic system were high, in contrast to other growth parameters observed in traditional amazon fish farming system. The parasitic infection levels in gills were low, despite the high density of fish, demonstrating that aquaponics is isolated system that can be efficiency on reduce the occurrence of numerous parasite species being good option for intensive farming C. macropomum and other fish species. The water treatment using semi-dry wetland were efficient and at the densities tested are within the appropriate range for the cultivation of C. macropomum. Aquaponics system using semi-dry wetland is a potential system for intensive C. macropomum production with small environmental impacts.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was developed following the principles recommended by the Brazilian College of Animal Experimentation (COBEA) and with the authorization from Ethics Committee in the Use of Animals of Embrapa Amapá (# 008 - CEUA/CPAFAP).

Data Availabity Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico/CNPq (Grant 444367/2014-4). Marcos Tavares-Dias was supported by a research fellowship from the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil) (Grant 303013/2015-0).

Ayres M, Ayres JRM, Ayres DL, Santos AAS (2007) Bioestat: aplicações estatísticas nas áreas das ciências bio-médicas. Belém, Sociedade Civil Mamirauá
Baia RRJ, Santos GG, Silva AS, Sousa BO, Tavares-Dias M (2019) Parasite fauna of tambaqui reared in net-cages at two stocking densities. Bol Inst Pesca 45(3):e492. doi: 10.20950/1678-2305.2019.45.3.492
Bosma RH, Lacambra L, Landstra Y, Perini C, Poulie J, Schwaner M, Yin Y (2017) The financial feasibility of producing fish and vegetables through aquaponics. Aqua Eng 78:146–154. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.07.002
Bush AO, Lafferty KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis. Revisit J Parasitol 83:575–583. doi: 10.2307/3284227
Carneiro PCF, Morais CAR, Nunes MUC, Maria NA, Fujimoto RY (2015) Produção integrada de peixes e vegetais em aquaponia. Aracaju: Embrapa Tabuleiros Costeiros. 23p. (Embrapa Tabuleiros Costeiros. Comunicado Técnico, 189)
Castellani D, Camargo AFM, Abimorad EG (2009) Aquaponics: use of the effluent from the secondary nursery of Macrobrachium amazonicum for the production of hydroponic lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium aquaticum). Bioikos 23:67–75 (in Portuguese with English abstract)
Cerozi BS, Fitzsimmons K (2016) The effect of pH on phosphorus availability and speciation in an aquaponics nutrient solution. Bioresour Technol 219:778–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.079
Chen RZ, Wong MH (2016) Integrated wetlands for food production. Environ Res 148:429–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.007
Costa OTF, Dias LC, Malmann CSY, Ferreira CAL, Carmo IB, Wischneski AG, Sousa RL, Cavero BAS, Lameiras JLV, Santos MC (2019) The effects of stocking density on the hematology, plasma protein profile and immunoglobulin production of juvenile tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) farmed in Brazil. Aquaculture 499:260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.09.040
Dias MKR, Neves LR, Marinho RGB, Tavares-Dias M (2015) Parasitic infections in tambaqui from eight fish farms in Northern Brazil. Arq Brasil Med Vet Zoot 67:1070–1076
Effiong BN, Sanni A, Fakunle JO (2009) Effect of partial replacement of fishmeal with duckweed (Lemna paucicostata) meal on the growth Performance of Heterobranchus longifilis fingerlings. Rep Opin 1:76–81
Emerenciano MGC, Mello GL, Pinho SM, Molinari D, Blum MN (2015) Aquaponia: uma alternativa de diversificação na aquicultura. Pan Aquicult 25:24–35
Eiras JC, Takemoto RM, Pavanelli GC (2006) Métodos de estudo e técnicas laboratoriais em parasitologia de peixes. Eduem, Maringá
Geisenhoff LO, Jordan RA, Santos RC, Oliveira FC, Gomes EP (2016) Effect of different substrates in aquaponic Lettuce production associated with intensive tilapia farming with water recirculation systems. Eng Agr 36(2):291–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v36n2p291-299/2016
Genuncio GC, Gomes M, Ferrari AC, Majerowicz N, Zonta E (2012) Hydroponic lettuce production in different concentrations and flow rates of nutrient solution. Horticul Brasil 30:526–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-5362012000300028
Gomes LC, Brandão FR, Chagas EC, Ferreira MFB, Lourenço JNP (2004) Efeito do volume do tanque-rede na produtividade de tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) durante a recria. Acta Amaz 34(1):111–113
Guimarães IP, Oliveira FA, Torres SB, Pereira FECB, França FD, Oliveira MKT (2016) Use of fish-farming wastewater in lettuce cultivation. Rev Brasil Eng Agr 20(8):728–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-929/agriambi. v20n8p728-733
Hundley GMC, Navarro RD (2013) Aquaponia: a integração entre piscicultura e a hidroponia. Rev Brasil Agrop Susten 3:52–61. https://doi.org/10.21206/rbas.v3i2.218
Jordan RA, Geisenhoff LO, Oliveira FC, Santos RC, Martins EAS (2018) Yield of lettuce grown in aquaponic system using different substrates. Rev Brasil Eng Agr Amb 22(1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/ agriambi.v22n1p27-31
Junge R, König B, Villarroel M, Komives T, Jijakli MH (2017) Strategic points in aquaponics. Water 9:182. https://doi:10.3390/w9030182
Le Cren ED (1951) The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). J Anim Ecol 20:201–219. doi: 10.2307/1540
Lima JF, Duarte SS, Bastos AM, Carvalho T (2019) Performance of an aquaponics system using constructed semi-dry wetland with lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) on treating wastewater of culture of Amazon River shrimp (Macrobrachium amazonicum). Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:13476–13488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04496-5
Liao IC, Su HM, Chang EY (2001) Techniques in finfish larviculture in Taiwan. Aquaculture 200:1–31
Lin YF, Jing SR, Lee DY, Chang YF, Chen YM, Shih KC (2005) Performance of a constructed wetlands treating intensive shrimp aquaculture wastewater under high hydraulic loading rate. Environ Poll 134:411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envpol.2004.09.015
Mendonça PP, Vidal-Junior MV, Polese MF, Santos MVBS, Rezende FP, Andrade DR (2012) Morphometrical development of tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum, Cuvier, 1818) under different photoperiods. Rev Brasil Zoot 41(6):1337–1341
Pinho SM, Molinari D, Mello GL, Fitzsimmons KM, Emerenciano MGC (2017) Effluent from a biofloc technology (BFT) tilapia culture on the aquaponics production of different lettuce varieties. Ecol Eng 103:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng. 2017.03.009
Pinho SM, David LH, Garcia F, Keesman KJ, Portella MC, Goddek S (2021) South American fish species suitable for aquaponics: a review. Aquac Inter 29:1427–1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-021-00674-w
Rakocy JE, Masser MP, Losordo TM (2006) Aquaponics - integrating fish and plant. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems, SRAC Publication No. 454 (Obtained from http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/454fs.PDF on January 2019
Rakocy JE (2007) Ten guidelines for aquaponic systems. Aquap J 46:14–17
Rodrigues IN, Lopes MTG, Lopes R, Gama AS, Milagres CP (2008) Performance of lettuce cultivars in the region of Manaus. Horticul Brasil 26:524–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-05362008000400020
Roosta HR (2014) Effects of foliar spray of K on mint, radish, parsley and coriander plants in aquaponic system. J Plant Nutr 37:2236–2254. https://doi.org/10.1080/019041 67.2014.920385
Sace CF, Fitzsimmons KM (2013) Recirculating aquaponic systems using Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) polyculture and the productivity of selected leafy vegetables. MRJBM 1:11–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.15413/ajar.2013.0138
Saint-Paul U (2017) Native fish species boosting Brazilian’s aquaculture development. Acta Fish Aqua Res 5(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.2312/ActaFish.2017.5.1.1-9
Santos BLT, Andrade JE, Garcez RCS (2014) Densidade de estocagem utilizada no desenvolvimento do tambaqui em fase de pré-engorda. Sci Amaz 3(3):41–50
Seawright DE, Stickney RR, Walker RB (1998) Nutrient dynamics in integrated aquaculture-hydroponics systems. Aquaculture 160(97):215–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486
Sikawa DC, Yakupitiyage A (2010) The hydroponic production of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) by using hybrid catfish (Clarias macrocephalus x C. gariepinus) pond water: potentials and constraints. Agric Water Manag 97(9):1317–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat. 2010.03.013
Silva ADR, Santos RB, Bruno AMSS, Soares EC (2013) Cultivo de tambaqui em canais de abastecimento sob diferentes densidades de peixes. Acta Amaz 43(4):517–524. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672013000400014
Silva CA, Fujimoto RY (2015) Crescimento de tambaqui em resposta a densidade de estocagem em tanques-rede. Acta Amazonica 45(3):323–332
Sousa RGC, Piñeyro JIG, Cardoso NA, Andrade JE, Silva JG, Barbosa HTB (2016) Stocking density and its effects to the zootechnical development of young tambaqui in an intensive production system. Acta Fish Aqua Res 4(1):80–92. doi 10.2312/ActaFish.2016.4.1.80–92
Zar JH (201) Biostatistical analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Zou Y, Hu Z, Zhang J, Xie H, Guimbaud C, Fang Y (2016) Effects of pH on nitrogen transformations in media-based aquaponic. Bioresour Technol 210:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.12.079

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Stocking density and its effects on the sanity and zootechnical development of young Colossoma macropomum in an aquaponics system using constructed semi-dry wetland

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials And Methods

2.1. Aquaponic and recirculating aquaculture system

2.2. Fish and experimental design

2.3. Fish growth parameters and analysis of parasites

2.4. Water quality physicochemical parameters and analytical methods

2.5. Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1. Water quality physicochemical parameters

3.2. Fish growth parameters and parasitological analysis

4. Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1