Printer Friendly

Efecto de la adicion de Navicula sp. sobre la composicion del plancton y el crecimiento de postlarvas de Litopenaeus vannamei criadas en estanques de cultivo sin recambio de agua.

Effect of addition of Navicula sp. on plankton composition and postlarvae growth of litopenaeus vannamei reared in culture tanks with zero water exchange

INTRODUCTION

Large quantities of formulated feed with high animal protein content can cause eutrophication in aquaculture systems, increasing the nutrient load in effluents (Tacon et al., 2002). Their use increases production costs (Audelo-Naranjo et al., 2012) and can result in an insufficient supply of some essential nutrients (Crab et al., 2007), thus becoming a limiting factor in intensive systems. To minimize or reduce this nutrient deficiency, organic and inorganic fertilizers can be added to the cultivation systems to promote growth of the microbial community, which is a food source (Brito et al., 2009a, 2009b; Asaduzzaman et al., 2010; Lara-Anguiano et al., 2013). Shrimp can feed on natural biota such as phytoplankton, zooplankton and bacteria present in culture systems (Otoshi et al., 2011). This biota can supply some of the shrimps' nutritional needs (Martinez-Cordova & Enriquez-Ocana, 2007), and improve the activity of digestive enzymes (Xu et al., 2012).

In intensive farming systems with Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), microalgae (through photosynthesis) and the other constituents of the microbial community can play an important role in recycling nutrients (Audelo-Naranjo et al., 2012; Sanchez et al., 2012) decreasing the anoxic zones in ponds and alleviating the nutrient load in wastewater (Martinez-Porchas et al., 2010), while providing a nutrition source for shrimp in semi-intensive (Otoshi et al., 2011) and intensive systems (Sanchez et al., 2012).

Depending on the species and culture conditions, benthic diatoms contain an average of 32 to 38% crude protein (Gordon et al., 2006). However, Khatoon et al. (2009) found that Navicula sp., grown in a Conway culture medium contains 494 g of crude protein, 259 g of lipids and 111 g of carbohydrates per kilogram of dry matter, and the profile of polyunsaturated fatty acids includes 82 g of EPA and 22 g of DHA for each kilogram of total fatty acids. Despite the importance of diatoms, little attention has been paid to them in zero water exchange systems, mainly due to the reduced availability of light and the predominance of heterotrophic bacteria.

In zero or minimal exchange systems, the main forms of nitrogen removal are photosynthetic and heterotrophic bacterial activities (Cohen et al., 2005; Becerra-Dorame et al., 2011). For this reason, in zero or minimal water exchange, it is necessary to know the components of the natural community and understand the role of each one in the entire ecosystem (Avnimelech, 2009; Crab et al., 2012).

In this respect, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the addition of the benthic diatom Navicula sp. on the plankton composition and postlarvae growth of Litopenaeus vannamei, reared in culture tanks in zero water exchange.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental conditions

An indoor trial was conducted for 20 days at the Sustainable Mariculture Laboratory (LAmArSU) of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (DEPAq) of the Rural Federal University at Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Brazil (08[degrees]01'00.16"S, 034[degrees]56'57.74"W). The experimental design was completely randomized with four treatments: zero water exchange (ZWE); ZWE with the addition of feed (ZWE-F); ZWE with the addition of Navicula sp. (ZWE-N) and ZWE with the addition of feed and Navicula sp. (ZWE-FN), all in triplicate.

Five days prior to stocking shrimp, water from a matrix tank (TAN 0.12 mg [L.sup.-1], N[O.sub.2]-N 2.26 mg [L.sup.-1], alkalinity 100 mg CaC[O.sub.3]

[L.sup.-1] and settleable solids 27 mL [L.sup.-1]) was mixed and equally distributed to fill twelve black-plastic tanks (50x35x23 cm) up to approximately 50% of the volume, completed with 50% sea water (with a salinity of 35 g [L.sup.-1], filtered and treated with a chlorine solution of 10 mg [L.sup.-1], then dechlorinated and aerated for 48 h).

Aeration was supplied with three airstones from a 2HP blower. There was no water exchange during the experimental period, but dechlorinated freshwater was added to compensate for evaporation. The light intensity was kept at ~1000 lux using a fluorescent lamp with a 12-h light/dark photoperiod.

Shrimp stocking, feeding, and addition of organic carbon

Specific pathogen-free postlarvae (17.7 [+ or -] 0.02 mg) of L. vannamei were obtained from a commercial laboratory (Potipora, Barra de Sirinhaem, PE, Brazil) and stocked at a density of 2500 shrimp [m.sup.-3]. The postlarvae were fed four times a day (at 08:00, 11:00, 14:00 and 17:00 h), with a commercial shrimp feed with 42% crude protein (Aquavita Premiun, Guaraves, Paraiba, Brazil) based on Van Wyk table (1999), and adjusted daily according to estimated shrimp consumption, mortality rate and leftover feed. Molasses (40% organic carbon) were added once a day to establish a 12:1 C:N ratio in the experimental units throughout the culture period, assuming that 50% of the amount of feed is organic carbon and 1 kg of the 42% crude protein feed with 6.25%-N has 67.2 g of nitrogen, there is a need for 306.4 g organic carbon, or 766.1 g of molasses (Samocha et al., 2007; Avnimelech, 2009).

Shrimp performance parameters

Shrimp weight was monitored at the end of the experiment, when biomass gain, specific growth rate (SGR), mean final weight, weekly growth, feed conversion ratio (FCR), survival and yield were determined based on the following equations: Biomass gain (g) = final biomass (g) - initial biomass (g); SGR (% [day.sup.-1]) = 100 x [ln final weight (g) - ln initial weight (g)]/time (days); Final weight (g) = final biomass (g)/survival; Weekly growth (g [week.sup.-1]) = biomass gain (g)/times (weeks) of culture; FCR = feed supplied (dry weight)/biomass gain; Survival (%) = (number of individuals at the end of the evaluation period/initial number of individuals stocked) x 100; Yield (kg [m.sup.-3]) = final biomass (kg)/volume of experimental unit ([m.sup.3]).

Diatom addition

The benthic diatoms (Navicula sp.) were obtained from LAMARSU-DEPAq-UFRPE and cultured in a Conway medium (Walne, 1966) containing Fe[Cl.sub.3] x 6[H.sub.2]O 1.30 g [L.sup.-1]; Mn[Cl.sub.2] x 4[H.sub.2]O 0.36 g [L.sup.-1]; [H.sub.3]B[O.sub.3] 33.6 g [L.sup.-1]; EDTA 45.0 g [L.sup.-1]; Na[H.sub.2]P[O.sub.4] x 2[H.sub.2]O 20.0 g [L.sup.-1]; NN[O.sub.3] 100.0 g [L.sup.-1]; Zn[Cl.sub.2] 1.1 g [L.sup.-1]; Co[Cl.sub.2] x 6[H.sub.2]O 1.0 g [L.sup.-1]; (N[H.sub.4])6[Mo.sub.7][O.sub.24] x 4[H.sub.2]O 0.45 g [L.sup.-1]; CuSO4 x 5H2O 1.0 g [L.sup.-1]; [Na.sub.2]Si[O.sub.3] x 5[H.sub.2]O 2.0 g [L.sup.-1]; vitamins [B.sub.12] 0.1 g [L.sup.-1] and [B.sub.1] 1.0 g [L.sup.-1], which was used in a 1.0 mL [L.sup.-1] solution, maintained in water with 30 g [L.sup.-1] salinity, pH 7.9, temperature 25 [+ or -] 1[degrees]C and the light intensity was kept at ~2000 lux using a fluorescent lamp with a 12-h light/dark photoperiod. Diatoms were added on 1st, 5 th, 10th and 15 th days of cultivation in the (ZWE-N) and (ZWE-FN) tanks at a concentration of 5 x [10.sup.4] [mL.sup.-1], corresponding to an addition of approximately 400 mL of microalgae to the tanks.

Water quality monitoring

Dissolved oxygen and temperature were monitored with a DO meter (YSI model 55, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA), twice a day (08.00 and 16.00 h). Salinity (YSI 30 model 30/50, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA), pH (pH meter YSI model 100, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrite-nitrogen (N[O.sub.2]-N) and alkalinity (CaC[O.sub.3]) were monitored every five days using a spectrophotometer (ALFAKIT-AT10P, Brazil) and a compact alkalinity kit (ALFAKIT, Brazil), respectively.

Phytoplankton, Zooplankton and Cyanobacteria monitoring

Vertical water sampling was performed at the start and end of the experiment using plastic bottles of 500 mL for phytoplankton, zooplankton and cyanobacteria collection. The water was filtered through a cylindricalconical net (mesh: 15 [micro]m for phytoplankton and cyanobacteria, 50 [micro]m for zooplankton) to 10 mL, to obtain a 50-fold concentration. The phytoplankton, zooplankton and cyanobacteria were fixed with formalin (4%), buffered with borax (1%) and stored in 10-mL plastic recipients. A Sedgewick-Rafter chamber and stereomicroscope with magnification of 800x were used for identification and quantification of the phytoplankton, zooplankton and cyanobacteria samples, respectively (Pereira-Neto et al., 2008).

The phytoplankton and cyanobacteria were identified following Hoek et al. (1995) and Stanford (1999), and concentrations were estimated following PereiraNeto et al. (2008) and expressed as cells [mL.sup.-1]. The zooplankton was identified following Bradford-Grieve et al. (1999) and concentrations were estimated following APHA (2005) and expressed as ind [mL.sup.-1].

Statistical analysis

A parametric one-way ANOVA was used to analyze production parameters, after confirming homocedasticity (Cochran P < 0.05) and normality (ShapiroWilk P < 0.05). The Student's t-test (P < 0.05) was used in the analysis of FCR. Water quality parameters, phytoplankton, zooplankton and cyanobacteria density were analyzed by performing repeated measures ANOVA. Data analyses were performed using ASSISTAT Version 7.7 (Assistat Analytical Software, Campina Grande, Paraiba, Brazil).

RESULTS

The mean values of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and salinity determined in the four treatments were not significantly different (P > 0.05) (Table 1). However, significant differences (P < 0.05) were detected for TAN, N[O.sub.2]-N and alkalinity (Table 1).

The phytoplankton population was composed of 35 genera at the start of the experiment and 28 genera at the end. The most frequent genera were Fragilaria, Orthoseira, Rhabdonema and Skeletonema at the start and Cylindrotheca, Hemiaulus, Skeletonema, Phymatodocis and Ulothrix at the end (Table 2). The zooplankton population was composed of seven genera at the start and 13 at the end. The most frequent genera were Daphnia and Brachionus at the start, and Arcella, Bosmina, Daphnia, Asplanchma, Brachionus and Keratella at the end (Table 3). The cyanobacteria were composed of 13 genera at the start and 11 at the end. The most frequent genera were Anabaena, Oscillatoria and Sckizothrix at the start and at the end (Table 4). However, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were detected for phytoplankton, zooplankton and cyanobacteria density.

The shrimp survival rates were all above 87% during the 20-day experimental period in ZWE-FN and ZWE-F. However in ZWE and ZWE-N the survival rates were below 50%. The shrimp FCR in ZWE-FN was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the ZWE-F. Shrimp performance parameters (final weight, final biomass, weight gain, biomass gain and SGR in the ZWE-FN were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than in the other treatments (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

The water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity and TAN were within the ranges suggested by Van Wyk & Scarpa (1999) for marine shrimp. However, temperature and N[O.sub.2]-N for all treatments and alkalinity, with the exception of ZWE-FN, were different than that recommended. The water temperature was lower in all treatments, yet presented no influence on growth and feed consumption, because growth and FCA rates were good.

The N[O.sub.2]-N levels found in this study did not cause great problems when salinity was between 20-35 g [L.sup.-1] (Wasielesky et al, 2006) However, Cohen et al. (2005), studying a zero water exchange system, observed an exponential increase in N[O.sub.2]-N levels during the growth period, causing shrimp mortality. The ZWE-FN had the highest concentration of TAN among the treatments. A zero water exchange system can have sudden changes of TAN and N[O.sub.2]-N and accumulate N[O.sub.3]-N, due to variations in the microbial biomass during the culture period (Cohen et al., 2005), even with a higher C:N ratio (15-20:1) (Gao et al., 2012).

Khatoon et al. (2009) observed higher TAN and N[O.sub.2]-N concentrations in the control than in the groups treated with the addition of diatoms during the culture of Penaeus monodon. Sanchez et al. (2012) observed significant differences in concentrations of N[O.sub.2]-N in tanks with and without the addition of diatoms in cultivation of L. vannamei. However, Godoy et al. (2012), when comparing tanks receiving bioflocs, tanks with addition of diatoms and mixed tanks (bioflocs and diatoms), noted significant differences in water quality variables. The diatoms can probably absorb part of the nutrients provided in autotrophic microbial-basedsystems, but in heterotrophic microbial-based-systems the accumulation of particles reduces the penetration of light, which in turn likely reduces the nutrient absorption rates of the diatoms. Castillo-Soriano et al. (2013) showed that hetero-trophic and nitrifying bacteria are the main factors responsible for the transformation of TAN and N[O.sub.2]-N in heterotrophic microbial-based-systems.

Levels of CaC[O.sub.3] less than or equal to 100 mg [L.sup.-1] and pH under 7 for long periods can affect the performance of shrimp in zero water exchange systems (Furtado et al., 2011). The alkalinity levels in the ZWEFN was at the recommended level, which probably contributed to the better growth of shrimp. The higher alkalinity may be related to phytoplankton production since microalgae take in C[O.sub.2] from the water column during photosynthesis, leading to C[O.sub.2] + [H.sub.2]O = HC[O.sub.3.sup.-] + [H.sup.+], thus making more bicarbonate ions available in the water column (Van Wyk & Scarpa, 1999; BecerraDorame et al., 2011).

Cyanobacteria were the most abundant organisms, followed by Heterokontophyta and Chlorophyta. However, Microcystis and Merismopedia (Cyanobacteria) were not observed in the ZWE-N and ZWEFN treatments, at the end of the experiment. The data in the literature on the quantity and composition of phytoplankton in shrimp farming systems are extremely variable. Maia et al. (2011, 2013), studying intensive culture systems in Brazil, reported densities above 400,000 cells [mL.sup.-1]. These amounts may vary according to the fertilization regime and environmental conditions (temperature and salinity), which can favor undesirable blooms of Pyrrophyta and Cyanobacteria (Campos et al, 2007). Ray et al. (2010) and Becerra-Dorame et al. (2012) found a predominance of cyanobacteria in relation to other plankton groups, in zero water exchange systems. The prevalence of cyanobacteria in shrimp culture is probably related to the accumulation of phosphorus and eutrophication of the culture environment, as documented by Emerenciano et al. (2011), who found an increase in the concentration of phosphorous in systems with zero water exchange.

In zero water exchange systems, zooplankton can be part of the microbial aggregate (Ray et al., 2010), however, factors such as the addition of feed and Navicula sp. appear not to influence the development of zooplankton, because its composition was very similar in all treatments. The higher Rotifera density observed, in comparison with other zooplankton groups, is probably related to the adaptation of these organisms to higher levels of nutrients and solids. Case et al. (2008) found a higher rotifer density with increased availability of organic matter in shrimp ponds. Similar results were reported in zero water exchange systems by Anand et al. (2013) and Campos et al. (2009). Other zooplankton groups, such as Copepoda, Cladocera and Protozoa were found in biofloc systems (Anand et al., 2013; Emerenciano et al., 2013).

Shrimp prefer diatoms over other microalgae groups (Ju et al., 2008, 2009). Even in intensive culture systems, the microbial community may play an important role in nutrient cycling (Sanchez et al., 2012) providing important nutritional compounds, such as essential amino acids and highly unsaturated fatty acids that are essential to shrimp survival and growth (Ju et al., 2008, 2009; Khatoo et al., 2009). Increased natural productivity can cause a positive productive response in the shrimp postlarvae (Becerra-Dorame et al., 2011). According to Porchas-Cornejo et al. (2012) shrimp in the enhanced ponds consumed 68% natural foods and 32% formulated feed, while shrimp in unenhanced ponds consumed 42% natural foods and 58% formulated feed.

Our results illustrate the beneficial effects of a bacterial and Navicula sp. consortium on growth of shrimp postlarvae in a zero water exchange system. Similar results indicating the beneficial effects of diatoms were observed by Moss & Pruder (1995) with the use of pennate and centric diatoms, which improved growth of L. vannamei in intensive systems; Otoshi et al. (2011) with higher growth percentages (22-390%) in tanks with high concentrations of diatoms, especially of the genera Navicula sp. in a semi-intensive system and Khatoon et al. (2009) which found a significantly higher growth rate of P. monodon (postlarvae) shrimp reared in tanks containing substrate coated with Amphora, Navicula and Cymbella. The final weights (242-348 mg) at 20 days were higher than those found by Becerra-Dorame et al. (2011), in autotrophic (72 mg) and heterotrophic (93 mg) microbial-based-systems at 28 days, and Kim et al. (2014) in heterotrophic (132 mg) microbial-based-systems at 14 days with L. vannamei postlarvae, this demonstrates high natural productivity in the experimental tanks in our study. The SGR (14.9% [day.sup.-1]) in ZWE-FN were significantly higher as compared to Becerra-Dorame et al. (2011) in autotrophic (5.6% [day.sup.-1]) and heterotrophic (6.2% [day.sup.-1]) microbial-based-systems. This is similar to that observed by Banerjee et al. (2010), who found a significantly higher SGR (~15% [day.sup.-1]) for shrimp P. monodon (postlarvae) reared with additional Bacillus pumilus and periphytic microalgae.

The survival rate was highest in ZWE-F (87%) and ZWE-FN (96%) indicating that shrimp of this species need commercial feed for their survival and growth. Becerra-Dorame et al. (2011) (76%) and Kim et al. (2014) (91.5%) found higher survival rates in heterotrophic microbial-based-systems. Khatoon et al. (2009) found that the use of diatoms increased the survival rate and growth of postlarvae, because the biochemical composition of the shrimp raised in tanks with substrates coated with mixed diatoms had significantly higher protein, lipids, PUFA, and EPA and DHA content than those reared in control tanks.

The lower FCR (0.99) in ZEW-FN showed that Navicula sp. are a significant food source for postlarvae shrimp. Sanchez et al. (2012) reported that microalgae present in the culture system significantly improved weight gain and FCR of shrimp, thus potentially reducing the feed cost associated with shrimp production. Lower FCR in a zero water exchange system was also observed by Silva et al. (2009) (0.81.2), Becerra-Dorame et al. (2011) (0.65-0.69) and Becerra-Dorame et al. (2012) (0.54-0.61).

According to Otoshi et al. (2011) and Kent et al. (2011), L. vannamei has a good ability to utilize the microbial community present in aquaculture systems as a food source. Xu et al. (2012) showed that the accumulation of microorganisms in the form of flocs substantially contributes to nourishment of the shrimp. However, the availability of these microbial aggregates alone is not enough for the satisfactory growth of shrimp. Similar results were observed by Emerenciano et al. (2007, 2011).

In intensive systems a beneficial microbial community should be developed and sustained (Ray et al., 2010). But it is difficult to maintain high densities of diatoms in bioflocs systems, because of competition with bacteria for nutrients, reduction in light and higher levels of suspended matter (Godoy et al., 2012). The addition of Navicula sp. appears to boost the postlarval growth of L. vannamei in zero water exchange systems. Nevertheless, the data obtained in the ZWE-F and ZWE-FN treatments showed that even with plentiful natural food, shrimp of this species need commercial feed for their survival and growth, but the presence of benthic diatoms appears to increase the efficiency of the use of the commercial feed in systems with zero water exchange, because the FCR was significantly lower in the ZWE-FN than in the ZWE-F treatment.

Thus, the addition of the benthic diatom Navicula sp. increased the growth of postlarvae L. vannamei and improved the FCR in a zero water exchange system. These diatoms provide a significant natural food source for shrimp in their early stage. However, further studies related to the density and frequency of adding Navicula sp., or other diatoms are needed to improve control over cyanobacteria and increase the shrimp growth rate in zero water exchange systems.

DOI: 103856/vol42-issue3-fulltext-4

Received: 15 February 2013; Accepted: 24 April 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq), Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) and Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP). Thanks are also to anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions. Alfredo Olivera is a CNPq research fellow.

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association (APHA). 2005. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, 560 pp.

Anand, P.S.S., S. Kumar, A. Panigrahi, T.K. Ghoshal, J.S. Dayal, G. Biswas, J.K. De Sundaray, R.R. Ananda, A.D. Deo, S.M. Pillai & P. Ravichandran. 2013. Effects of C:N ratio and substrate integration on periphyton biomass, microbial dynamics and growth of Penaeus monodon juveniles. Aquacult. Int., 21: 511-524.

Asaduzzaman, M., S.M.S. Rahman, M.E. Azim, M.A. Islam, M.A. Wahab, M.C.J. Verdegem & J.A.J. Verreth. 2010. Effects of C/N ratio and substrate addition on natural food communities in freshwater prawn monoculture ponds. Aquaculture, 306: 127136.

Audelo-Naranjo, J.M., D. Voltolina & E. Romero-Beltran. 2012. Cultural of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) with zero water exchange and no food addition: an eco-friendly approach. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 40(2): 441-447.

Avnimelech, Y. 2009. Biofloc technology. A practical guide book. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, 182 pp.

Banerjee, S., H. Khatoon, M. Shariff & F.M.D. Yusoff. 2010. Enhancement of Penaeus monodon shrimp postlarvae growth and survival without water exchange using marine Bacillus pumilus and periphytic microalgae. Fish. Sci., 76: 481-487.

Becerra-Dorame, M.J., L.R. Martinez-Cordova, J.A. Lopez-Elias & M. Martinez-Porchas. 2011. Evaluation of autotrophic and heterotrophic microcosm-based systems on the production response of Litopenaeus vannamei intensively nursed without Artemia and with zero water exchange. Isr. J. Aquacult.-Bamidgeh., IIC: 63.2011.620, 7 pp.

Becerra-Dorame, M.J., M. Martinez-Porchas, L.R. Martinez-Cordova, M. Rivas-Vega, J.A. Lopez-Elias & M.A. Porchas-Cornejo. 2012. Production response and digestive enzymatic activity of the Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) intensively pregrown in microbial heterotrophic and autotrophic-based systems. Sci. World J., 2012: Article ID 723654, 6 pp.

Bradford-Grieve, J.M., E.L. Markhaseva & C.E.F. Rocha 1999. Copepoda. In: D. Boltovskoy (ed.). South Atlantic zooplankton. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 8691098.

Brito, L.O., D.M.M. Dantas, J.B. Pereira-Neto, R. Soares & A. Olivera. 2009a. Efeito de duas estrategias de fertilizacao na composicao do fitoplancton no cultivo de Litopenaeus vannamei. Arq. Cienc. Mar., 42(1): 3035.

Brito, L.O., L.F. Pimentel, S.C. Marcelino, V.F. Melo, W.M. Costa & A. Oliveira. 2009b. Efeito de duas estrategias de fertilizacao na composicao do zooplancton no cultivo de Litopenaeus vannamei. Rev. Bras. Enga. Pesca, 4(1): 57-66.

Campos, S.S., U.L. Silva, M.Z.T. Lucio & E.S. Correia. 2009. Natural food evaluation and water quality in zero water exchange culture of Litopenaeus vannamei fertilized with wheat bran. Aquacult. Int., 17: 113-124.

Campos, A.A.B., E.P. Maia, W.M. Costa, L.O. Brito & A. Olivera. 2007. Descricao dos principais grupos fitoplanctonicos do afluente e efluente em fazenda de criacao do camarao marinho Litopenaeus vannamei com sistema de recirculacao parcial de agua. Bol. Inst. Pesca, 33(1): 113-119.

Case, M., E.E. Leca, S.N. Leitao, E.E. Santanna, R. Schwamborn & A.T.M. Junior. 2008. Plankton community as an indicator of water quality in tropical shrimp culture ponds. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 56: 13431352.

Castillo-Soriano, F.A., V. Ibarra-Junquera, P. Escalante-Minakata, O. Mendoza-Cano, J.J. Ornelas-Paz, J.C. Almanza-Ramirez & A.O. Meyer-Willerer. 2013. Nitrogen dynamics model in zero water exchange, low salinity intensive ponds of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, at Colima, Mexico. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 41(1): 68-79.

Cohen, J.M., T.M. Samocha, J.M. Fox, R.L. Gandy & A.L. Lawrence. 2005. Characterization of water quality factors during intensive raceway production of juvenile Litopenaeus vannamei using limited discharge and biosecure management tools. Aquacult. Eng., 32: 425-442.

Crab, R., T. Defoirdt, P. Bossier & W. Verstraete. 2012. Biofloc technology in aquaculture: beneficial effects and future challenges. Aquaculture, 356-357: 351-356.

Crab, R., Y. Avnimelech, T. Defoirdt, P. Bossier & W. Verstraete. 2007. Nitrogen removal techniques in aquaculture for a sustainable production. Aquaculture, 270: 1-14.

Emerenciano, M., G. Cuzon, A. Paredes & G. Gaxiola. 2013. Evaluation of biofloc technology in pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum culture: growth performance, water quality, microorganisms profile and proximate analysis of biofloc. Aquacul. Int., 21(6): 1381-1394.

Emerenciano, M., E.L.C. Ballester, R.O. Cavalli & W. Wasielesky. 2011. Effect of biofloc technology (BFT) on the early postlarval stage of pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus paulensis: growth performance, floc composition and salinity stress tolerance. Aquacult Int., 19(5): 891-901.

Emerenciano, M.G.C., W. Wasielesky Jr., R.B. Soares, E.C. Ballester, E.M. Izeppi & R.O. Cavalli. 2007. Crescimento e sobrevivencia do camarao-rosa (Farfantepenaeus paulensis) na fase de bercario em meio heterotrofico. Acta. Sci. Biol. Sci., 29(1): 1-7.

Furtado, P.S., L.H. Poersch & W. Wasielesky. 2011. Effect of calcium hydroxide, carbonate and sodium bicarbonate on water quality and zootechnical performance of shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei reared in bio-flocs technology (BFT) systems. Aquaculture, 321: 130-135.

Gao, L., H.W. Shan, T.W. Zhang & W.Y. Bao. 2012. Effects of carbohydrate addition on Litopenaeus vannamei intensive culture in a zero-water exchange systems. Aquaculture, 342: 89-96.

Godoy, L.C., C. Odebrecht, E.L.C. Ballester, T.G. Martins & W. Wasielesky. 2012. Effect of diatom supplementation during the nursery rearing of Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) in a heterotrophic culture system. Aquacult. Int., 20(3): 559-569.

Gordon, N., A. Neori, M. Shpigel, J. Lee & S. Harpaz. 2006. Effect of diatom diets on growth and survival of the abalone Haliotis discus hannai postlarvae. Aquaculture, 252: 225-233.

Hoek, C., D. Mann & H.M. Jahns. 1995. Algae: an introduction to Phycology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 623 pp.

Ju, Z.Y., I.P. Forster & W.G. Dominy. 2009. Effects of supplementing two species of marine algae or their fractions to a formulated diet on growth, survival and composition of shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Aquaculture, 292: 237-243.

Ju, Z.Y., L. Forster, L. Conquest, W. Dominy, W.C. Kuo & F.D. Horgen. 2008. Determination of microbial community structures of shrimp floc cultures by biomarkers and analysis of floc amino acid profiles. Aquacult. Res., 39: 118-133.

Kent, M., C.L. Browdy & J.W. Lefler. 2011. Consumption and digestion of suspended microbes by juvenile pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture, 319: 363-368.

Khatoon, H., S. Banerjee, F.M. Yusoff & M. Shariff. 2009. Evaluation of indigenous marine periphytic Amphora, Navicula and Cymbella grown on substrate as feed supplement in Penaeus monodon postlarvae hatchery systems. Aquacult. Nutr., 15: 186-193.

Kim, S.K., Z. Pang, H.C. Seo, T.R. Cho, T. Samocha & I. K. Jang. 2014. Effect of bioflocs on growth and immune activity of Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae. Aquacult. Res., 45: 362-371.

Lara-Anguiano, G.F., H.M. Esparza-Leal, J.C. Sainz-Hernandez, J.T. Ponce-Palafox, W. ValenzuelaQuinonez, J.P. Apun-Molina & M.G. Klanian. 2013. Effects of inorganic and organic fertilization on physicochemical parameters, bacterial concentrations, and shrimp growth in Litopenaeus vannamei cultures with zero water exchange. J. World. Aquacult. Soc., 44(4): 499-510.

Maia, E.P., A. Olivera & L.O. Brito. 2011. Brazilian shrimp farms for Litopenaeus vannamei with partial and total recirculation systems. Int. J. Aquacult. Sci., 2(1): 16-26.

Maia, E.P., G.A. Modesto, L.O. Brito, A. Olivera & T.C.V. Gesteira. 2013. Effect of commercial probiotic on bacterial and phytoplankton concentration in intensive shrimp farming (Litopenaeus vannamei) recirculation systems. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 41(1): 126-137.

Martinez-Cordova, L.R. & L.F. Enriquez-Ocana. 2007. Study of benthic fauna in the discharge lagoon of a shrimp farm with special emphasis on the polychaetes. J. Biol. Sci., 7: 12-17.

Martinez-Porchas, M., L.R. Martinez-Cordova, M.A. Porchas-Cornejo & J.A. Lopez-Elias. 2010. Shrimp polyculture: a potentially profitable, sustainable, but uncommon aquacultural practice. Rev. Aquacult., 2: 73-85.

Moss, S.M. & G.D. Pruder. 1995. Characterization of organic particles associated with rapid growth in juvenile white shrimp, Penaeus vannamei Boone, reared under intensive culture conditions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 187(2): 175-191.

Otoshi, C.A., D. Moss & S.M. Moss. 2011. Growthenhancing effect of pond water on four size clases of Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. J. World Aquacult. Soc., 42(3): 417-422.

Pereira-Neto, J.B., D.M.M. Dantas, A. Olivera & L.O. Brito. 2008. Avaliacao das comunidades planctonica e bentonica de microalgas em viveiros de camarao (Litopenaeus vannamei). Bol. Inst. Pesca, 34(4): 543551.

Porchas-Cornejo, M.A., M. Martinez-Porchas, L.R. Martinez-Cordova, L. Ramos-Trujillo & R. Barraza-Guardado. 2012. Consumption of natural and artificial foods by shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) reared in ponds with and without enhancement of natural productivity. Isr. J. Aquacult.-Bamidgeh., IJA64.2012.709, 7 pp.

Ray, A.J., G. Seaborn, J.W. Leffler, S.B. Wilde, A. Lawson & C.L. Browdy. 2010. Characterization of microbial communities in minimal exchange, intensive aquaculture systems and the effects of suspended solids management. Aquaculture, 310: 130-138.

Samocha, T.M., S. Patnaik, M. Speed, A.M. Ali, J.M. Burger, R.V. Almeida, Z. Ayub, M. Harisanto, A. Horowitz & D.L. Brock. 2007. Use of molasses as carbon source in limited discharge nursery and growout systems for Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquacult. Eng., 36: 84-191.

Sanchez, D.R., J.M. Fox, D. Gatlin & A.L. Lawrence. 2012. Dietary effect of squid and fish meals on growth and survival of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei in the presence or absence of phytoplankton in an indoor tank system. Aquacult. Res., 43: 18801890.

Silva, U.L., F.P. Melo, R.B. Soares, D.B.N. Spanghero & E.S. Correia. 2009. Efeito da adicao do melaco na relacao carbono/nitrogenio no cultivo de camarao Litopenaeus vannamei na fase bercario. Acta. Sci. Biol. Sci., 31(4): 337-343.

Stanford. C. 1999. A guide to phytoplankton of aquaculture ponds: collection, analysis and identification. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, 55 pp.

Tacon, A.G., J.J. Cody, L.D. Conquest, S. Divakaran, I.P. Forster & O.E. Decamp. 2002. Effect of culture system on the nutrition and growth performance of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) fed different diets. Aquacult. Nutr., 8: 121-137.

Van Wyk, P. 1999. Nutrition and feeding of Litopenaeus vannamei in intensive culture systems. In: P. Van Wyk, M. Davis-Hodgkins, R. Laramore, K.L. Main, J. Mountain & J. Scarpa. (eds.). Farming marine shrimp in recirculating freshwater systems. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Harbor Branch Oceanic Institute, Florida, pp. 125-139.

Van Wyk, P. & J. Scarpa. 1999. Water quality requirements and management. In: P. Van Wyk, M. Davis-Hodgkins, R. Laramore, K.L. Main, J. Mountain & J. Scarpa. (eds.). Farming marine shrimp in recirculating freshwater systems. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Harbor Branch Oceanic Institute, Florida, pp. 141-162.

Xu, W.J., L.Q. Pan, D.H. Zhao & J. Huang. 2012. Preliminary investigation into the contribution of bioflocs on protein nutrition of Litopenaeus vannamei fed with different dietary protein levels in zero water exchange culture tanks. Aquaculture, 350-353: 147153.

Walne, P.R. 1966. Experiments in the large scale culture of the larvae of Ostrea edulis. Fish. Invest., 25(4): 153.

Wasielesky, W., M. Emereciano, E. Ballester, R. Soares, R. Cavalli & P.C. Abreu. 2006. Cultivos em meios com flocos microbianos: um novo caminho a ser percorrido. Panorama Aquicult., 16(96): 14-23.

Yllana Ferreira-Marinho (1), Luis Otavio-Brito (2), Clarissa Vilela Figueiredo da Silva (1) Itala Gabriela Sobral dos Santos (1) & Alfredo Olivera-Galvez (1)

(1) Laboratorio 2e Maricultura Sustentavel, Departamento 2e Pesca e Aquicultura Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Rua Dom Manoel de Medeiros s/n Dois Irmaos, Recife, PE, Brazil

(2) Departamento 2e Assistencia Tecnica e Extensao Rural, Instituto Agronomico 2e Pernambuco Av. General San Martin 1371, Bongi, Recife, PE, Brazil

Corresponding author: Yllana Ferreira-Marinho (yllanamar@gmail.com)
Table 1. Water quality parameters during the culture (20 days) of
Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae reared in zero water exchange, with
and without the addition of feed and/or diatoms. (1) The data
correspond to the mean [+ or -] standard deviation. Mean values in
same row with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Results from repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey test; Zero water
exchange (ZWE); ZWE with the addition of feed (ZWE-F); ZWE with the
addition of Navicula sp. (ZWE-N) and ZWE with the addition of feed
and Navicula sp. (ZWE-FN); dissolved oxygen (DO), total ammonia
nitrogen (TAN) and nitrite-nitrogen (N[O.sub.2]-N).

Parameters/      Salinity (ppt)        Temperature
Treatments (1)                         ([degrees]C)

ZWE              27.0 [+ or -] 0.10a   25.0 [+ or -] 0.10a
ZWE-F            27.0 [+ or -] 0.06a   25.0 [+ or -] 0.10a
ZWE-N            27.0 [+ or -] 0.07a   25.0 [+ or -] 0.12a
ZWE-FN           26.9 [+ or -] 0.01a   24.5 [+ or -] 3.15a

Parameters/      DO (mg [L.sub.-1])   pH
Treatments (1)

ZWE              6.6 [+ or -] 0.03a   7.4 [+ or -] 0.13a
ZWE-F            6.2 [+ or -] 0.07a   7.4 [+ or -] 0.06a
ZWE-N            6.5 [+ or -] 0.04a   7.4 [+ or -] 0.05a
ZWE-FN           6.1 [+ or -] 0.12a   7.4 [+ or -] 0.08a

Parameters/      TAN (mg [L.sub.-1])   N[O.sub.2]-N
Treatments (1)                         (mg [L.sub.-1])

ZWE              0.10 [+ or -] 0.09b   2.71 [+ or -] 0.15a
ZWE-F            0.32 [+ or -] 0.04b   2.56 [+ or -] 0.22a
ZWE-N            0.40 [+ or -] 0.02b   2.76 [+ or -] 0.05a
ZWE-FN           1.07 [+ or -] 0.21a   1.52 [+ or -] 0.26b

Parameters/      Alkalinity (mg
Treatments (1)   CaC[O.sub.3] [L.sub.-1])

ZWE              96.7 [+ or -] 8.10b
ZWE-F            87.3 [+ or -] 7.60b
ZWE-N            99.3 [+ or -] 4.41ab
ZWE-FN           131.3 [+ or -] 9.75a

Table 2. Phytoplankton composition during the culture (20 days) of
Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae reared in zero water exchange, with
and without the addition of feed and/or diatoms. 'The data correspond
to the mean. Mean values in same row with different superscript
differ significantly (P < 0.05). Results from repeated measures
ANOVA; Zero water exchange (ZWE); ZWE with the addition of feed
(ZWE-F); ZWE with the addition of Navicula sp. (ZWE-N) and ZWE with
the addition of feed and Navicula sp. (ZWE-FN).

Division/Genera       Initial
                      culture   ZWE

Dinophyta (cells      1.37      5.38a
[mL.sup.-1])
Gymnodinium           0.23      1.54
Peridinium            0.21      3.08
Scrippsiella          0.93      0.77
Heterokontophyta      1828.95   3546.74a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])
Biddulphia            0.06      0.00
Characiopsis          0.03      0.00
Chloridella           9.31      1.92
Cocconeis             0.18      0.00
Coscinodiscus         0.08      0.00
Cyclotela             0.08      1.54
Cylindrotheca         26.82     1412.74
Cymbella              0.93      0.00
Diatoma               14.00     28.09
Diploneis             0.00      0.00
Fragilaria            555.17    0.00
Hemiaulus             49.58     663.67
Navicula              101.89    17.31
Ophiocytium           0.03      0.00
Orthoseira            192.79    14.11
Rhabdonema            454.45    0.00
Skeletonema           421.57    1402.36
Synedra               1.78      5.00
Tetracyclus           0.13      0.00
Thalassiosira         0.03      0.00
Triceratium           0.03      0.00
Chlorophyta           1310.67   2726.22a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])
Actinastrum           0.06      0.00
Botryococcus          14.98     106.19
Characium             0.03      0.00
Haematococcus         0.71      1.15
Koliella              0.00      6.16
Micrasterias          0.00      0.38
Mychonastes           344.77    747.92
Phymathodocis         92.30     1064.17
Planctonema           291.58    126.96
Spirogyra             145.02    121.96
Spirotaenia           2.49      0.00
Tetradesmus           0.00      0.00
Ulothrix              418.73    551.32
Euglenophyta          3.05      3.08a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])
Euglena               0.79      0.77
Trachelomonas         2.26      2.31

Total phytoplankton   3.144     6.281a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])

Division/Genera       Final culture
                      ZWE-F      ZWE-N      ZWE-FN

Dinophyta (cells      6.15a      2.69a      3.46a
[mL.sup.-1])
Gymnodinium           3.08       1.92       1.15
Peridinium            0.77       0.77       1.15
Scrippsiella          2.31       0.00       1.15
Heterokontophyta      3218.17a   3514.92a   3683.04a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])
Biddulphia            0.00       0.00       0.00
Characiopsis          0.00       0.00       0.00
Chloridella           5.77       3.46       1.92
Cocconeis             0.00       0.00       0.00
Coscinodiscus         0.38       0.38       0.38
Cyclotela             13.47      1.15       0.00
Cylindrotheca         1994.46    1495.85    1488.92
Cymbella              0.38       0.00       0.38
Diatoma               61.17      47.32      50.40
Diploneis             0.00       0.00       0.00
Fragilaria            7.31       21.54      38.47
Hemiaulus             150.70     736.77     939.13
Navicula              13.85      116.19     36.55
Ophiocytium           0.00       0.00       0.00
Orthoseira            31.55      0.00       0.00
Rhabdonema            1.92       0.00       0.00
Skeletonema           934.90     1090.72    1121.88
Synedra               2.30       1.54       5.00
Tetracyclus           0.00       0.00       0.00
Thalassiosira         0.00       0.00       0.00
Triceratium           0.00       0.00       0.00
Chlorophyta           2873.73a   1896.35a   1572.98a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])
Actinastrum           0.00       0.00       0.00
Botryococcus          35.39      13.85      30.78
Characium             0.00       0.00       0.00
Haematococcus         1.15       0.77       1.15
Koliella              2.31       146.58     8.85
Micrasterias          0.00       0.77       0.00
Mychonastes           706.37     0.00       173.13
Phymathodocis         860.80     1029.55    634.81
Planctonema           459.76     288.55     173.13
Spirogyra             73.10      9.62       71.37
Spirotaenia           0.00       0.00       0.00
Tetradesmus           0.77       0.00       0.00
Ulothrix              734.07     548.63     479.76
Euglenophyta          6.93a      1.92a      2.31a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])
Euglena               0.77       0.00       0.77
Trachelomonas         6.16       1.92       1.54

Total phytoplankton   6.104a     5.415a     5.261a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])

Table 3. Zooplankton composition during the culture (20 days) of
Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae reared in zero water exchange, with
and without the addition of feed and/or diatoms. (1) The data
correspond to the mean. Mean values in same row with different
superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). Results from repeated
measures ANOVA; Zero water exchange (ZWE); ZWE with the addition of
feed (ZWE-F); ZWE with the addition of Navicula sp. (ZWE-N) and ZWE
with the addition of feed and Navicula sp. (ZWE-FN).

Division/Genera      Initial           Final culture
                     culture   ZWE     ZWE-F   ZWE-N   ZWE-FN

Protozoa (ind        0.30      0.3'a   0.4'a   0.3'a   0.55a
[mL.sup.-1])
Arcella sp.          0.22      0.25    0.2'    0.2'    0.43
Leprotintinnus sp.   0.08      0.05    0.20    0.'0    0.'3
Cladocera (ind       0.43      0.89a   0.97a   '.'6a   '.07a
[mL.sup.-1])
Bosmina sp.          0.09      0.39    0.40    0.47    0.53
Daphnia sp.          0.35      0.50    0.58    0.69    0.54
Cirripedia (ind      0.00      0.'6a   0.25a   0.'0a   0.28a
[mL.sup.-1])
Nauplios             0.00      0.'6    0.25    0.'0    0.28
Copepoda (ind        0.13      0.27a   0.5'a   0.96a   0.'3a
[mL.sup.-1])
Clausocalanus sp.    0.00      0.'0    0.''    0.39    0.00
Euterpina sp.        0.'3      0.'2    0.'7    0.26    0.''
Harpaticoida sp      0.00      0.04    0.23    0.3'    0.02
Rotifers (ind        0.62      '.54a   '.08a   '.5'a   '.62a
[mL.sup.-1])
Asplanchna sp.       0.06      0.39    0.3'    0.44    0.63
Brachionus sp.       0.56      0.43    0.27    0.45    0.43
Euchlanis sp.        0.00      0.08    0.'4    0.04    0.09
Filinia sp.          0.00      0.23    0.'0    0.32    0.''
Keratella sp.        0.00      0.40    0.26    0.27    0.35
Total zooplankton    1.48      3.'6a   3.2'a   4.05a   3.65a
(ind [mL.sup.-1])

Table 4. Cyanobacteria composition during the culture (20 days) of
Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae reared in zero water exchange, with
and without the addition of feed and/or diatoms. (1) The data
correspond to the mean. Mean values in same row with different
superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). Results from repeated
measures ANOVA; Zero water exchange (ZWE); ZWE with the addition of
feed (ZWE-F); ZWE with the addition of Navicula sp. (ZWE-N) and ZWE
with the addition of feed and Navicula sp. (ZWE-FN).

Genera                Initial             Final culture
                      culture   ZWE       ZWE-F     ZWE-N     ZWE-FN

Anabaena              25.47     153.51    185.83    48.48     122.35
Aphanocapsa           529.54    937.98    2300.71   575.18    2004.85
Dactylococcopsis      17.05     25.01     19.24     33.86     21.55
Gloeothece            2.76      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00
Merismopedia          28.27     0.00      19.24     0.00      0.00
Microcystis           6.41      134.66    192.37    0.00      0.00
Oscillatoria          542.28    5454.80   4969.61   5251.62   4816.1
Plectonema            38.12     22.89     114.46    34.34     57.23
Pseudanabaena         59.96     205.06    155.05    120.04    175.05
Schizothrix           838.57    3123.27   2369.96   3758.08   1599.72
Spirulina             18.52     90.03     74.64     20.39     143.5
Radiocystis           0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      9.62
Synechocystis         0.45      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00
Total Cyanobacteria   2.107a    10.147a   10.401a   9.841a    8.949a
(cells [mL.sup.-1])

Table 5. Shrimp production parameters during the culture (20 days) of
Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae reared in zero water exchange, with
and without feed and/or diatoms. (1) The data correspond to the mean
of three replicates [+ or -] standard deviation. Mean values in same row
with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). Results
from one-way ANOVA, Tukey test and Student's t-test. Zero water
exchange (ZWE); ZWE with the addition of feed (ZWE-F); ZWE with the
addition of Navicula sp. (ZWE-N) and ZWE with the addition of feed
and Navicula sp. (ZWE-FN); SGR (% [day.sup.-1]) = 100 x [ln final
weight (g)-ln initial weight (g)]/time, and FCR: amount of feed
consumed / biomass.

Parameters/   Final weigth (mg)    Final biomass (mg)
Treatments

ZWE           242 [+ or -] 31.2b   10056 [+ or -] 1297c
ZWE-F         272 [+ or -] 7.5b    23693 [+ or -] 658b
ZWE-N         256 [+ or -] 31.5b   11278 [+ or -] 1386c
ZWE-FN        348 [+ or -] 41.5a   33440 [+ or -] 3992a

Parameters/   Weight gain (mg)     Biomass gain (mg)
Treatments

ZWE           224 [+ or -] 31.2b   8286 [+ or -] 1297c
ZWE-F         254 [+ or -] 7.5b    21923 [+ or -] 658b
ZWE-N         238 [+ or -] 31.5b   9508 [+ or -] 1386c
ZWE-FN        330 [+ or -] 41.5a   31670 [+ or -] 3992a

Parameters/   SGR (% day-1)          Survival (%)
Treatments

ZWE           13.05 [+ or -] 0.65b   41.5 [+ or -] 0.70b
ZWE-F         13.66 [+ or -] 0.13b   87.0 [+ or -] 13.0a
ZWE-N         13.34 [+ or -] 0.61b   44.0 [+ or -] 2.82b
ZWE-FN        14.87 [+ or -] 0.61a   96.0 [+ or -] 1.41a

Parameters/   FCR
Treatments

ZWE           -
ZWE-F         1.2 [+ or -] 0.11a
ZWE-N         -
ZWE-FN        0.9 [+ or -] 0.22b
COPYRIGHT 2014 Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Escuela de Ciencias del Mar
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:articulo en ingles
Author:Ferreira-Marinho, Yllana; Otavio-Brito, Luis; Figueiredo da Silva, Santos, Clarissa Vilela; Sobral d
Publication:Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research
Date:Jul 1, 2014
Words:7288
Previous Article:Dispersion de larvas de Emerita analoga (Stimpson, 1857) en la costa norte de Chile (25[grados]-31,5[grados]S). .
Next Article:Contenido estomacal del cazon bironche del Pacifico, Rhizoprionodon longurio (Carcharhiniformes, Carcharhinidae) en el sector suroriental del Golfo...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters