4.5 Review

Bioremediation potential, growth and biomass yield of the green seaweed, Ulvalactuca in an integrated marine aquaculture system at the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia at different stocking densities and effluent flow rates

Journal

REVIEWS IN AQUACULTURE
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 161-171

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/raq.12060

Keywords

bioremediation; Oreochromisniloticus; Red Sea; Ulvalactuca

Categories

Funding

  1. King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Growth, production and biofiltration rates of seaweed, Ulvalactuca were investigated at two stocking densities (3kg and 6kgm(-2)) and two effluent flow rates (5.4 and 10.8m(3)day(-1)) to optimize an integrated mariculture system at Saudi Red Sea coast. effluents from fish-rearing tank, stocked with 200kg fish (Oreochromisspilurus), fed to six seaweed tanks via sedimentation tank. Fish growth (weight gain 1.75g fish day(-1)), net production (NP, 10.16kgm(-3)) and survival (94.24%) were within acceptable limits. Ulva showed significantly higher (F=62.62, d.f. 3, 35; P<0.0001) specific growth rates at lower density compared with higher density and under high flow versus low flow (SGR=5.78% vs. 2.55% at lower flow and 10.60% vs. 6.26% at higher flow). Biomass yield of Ulva at low- and high-stocking densities (111.11 and 83.2g wet wt m(-2)day(-1), respectively) at low flow and (267.44 and 244.19g wet wt m(-2)day(-1), respectively) at high flow show that high flow rate and lower density favoured growth. Removal rates of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) (0.26-0.31gm(-2)day(-1)) and phosphate phosphorus (0.32-0.41gm(-2)day(-1)) by U.lactuca were not significantly different (F=1.9, d.f. 3, 59; P=0.1394 for TAN and F=0.29, d.f. 3, 59; P=0.8324 for phosphates) at both the flow rates and stocking densities. Results show that the effluent flow rate has significant impact over the performance of the seaweed than stocking density.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available