4.5 Article

Can use of substrates affect water quality in aquatic organism culture?

期刊

AQUACULTURE INTERNATIONAL
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 1771-1783

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10499-021-00718-1

关键词

Dolomite; Alkalinity; Aquaculture; Ornamental fish; Shell gravel; Handling Editor; Michael Hartnett

资金

  1. National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES) [1728668]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the influence of different substrates on water quality and the development of lambari fish and freshwater shrimp. It was found that dolomite and shell gravel affected the parameters related to the acid-base balance of the water and the availability of calcium and magnesium. The productive performance of lambari fish was not affected by the different substrates, but freshwater shrimp showed lower productivity in the absence of substrates.
The choice of suitable substrates has received special attention in aquaculture and fishkeeping ventures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different substrates on water quality and the development of lambari fish (Astyanax bimaculatus) and freshwater shrimp (Macrobrachium potiuna). Two experiments were performed sequentially, one with fish and the other with shrimp. In both experiments, three different substrates were evaluated (shell gravel, river gravel, and dolomite), and the control was without any substrate. The water parameters evaluated were as follows: dissolved oxygen, saturation, oxide-reduction potential, temperature, pH, alkalinity, conductivity, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and phosphorus. It was observed that both dolomite and shell gravel interfered with the parameters that are related to the acid-base balance of the water and the availability of calcium and magnesium. The productive performance of lambari fish was not affected considering the different substrates evaluated; however, the productive performance of freshwater shrimp was lower in the absence of substrates in relation to the other treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据