4.5 Article

Impact of food type on growth, survival and reproduction of the cyclopoid copepod Cyclopina kasignete as a potential live food in aquaculture

Journal

AQUACULTURE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 1281-1295

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10499-018-0283-x

Keywords

Algae; Zooplankton; Live food; Copepod

Categories

Funding

  1. Malaysian government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the efficacy of different dietary algae on the growth and reproduction of the cyclopoid copepod Cyclopina kasignete, a potential live food species for fish larvae in aquaculture. The experimental diets for the copepod consisted of three monoalgal diets (Nannochloropsis oculata, Tisochrysis lutea and dry Melosira sp.) and two mixed algae diets (T. lutea+N. oculata, T. lutea+dry Melosira sp.). The experiment was carried out for 30days, and the population growth, survival and reproductive performance (generation time, hatching rate, life spawning times, daily offspring production, eggs per sac, lifespan and sex ratio) were used to assess the responses of C. kasignete to different food types. Population growth, survival and reproductive capacities of C. kasignete were significantly affected by the mono and binary species of algal diets. The results showed that copepods exhibited superior growth, survival and productivity when fed on fresh T. lutea, dry Melosira sp. and a mixture of both species compared to other dietary treatments. Copepods produced comparable growth, survival and productivity when fed on diatoms (dry Melosira sp.) as a single or in combination with other algae. This study indicates that cyclopoid copepod C. kasignete grow fast and have the potential to serve as a live food for aquaculture. The algae T. lutea, dry Melosira sp. and their combination are appropriate food to sustain the growth and reproduction of this copepods in mass culture as a potential live food in fish hatchery.

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