Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2014 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 4

Does light duration (photoperiod) have an effect on the mortality and welfare of cultured Oreochromis niloticus and Clarias gariepinus?

Pages
466–470
Publication Date
2014-05-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

If welfare challenges arising from photoperiodism are taken into account during culture of the species with photoperiodic manipulation, the species' mortality will be decreased and the farmer's profits will increase.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One hundred and eighty juveniles of Oreochromis niloticus with a respective smean total length and weight of 7.30 ± 0.5 cm and 7.05 ± 0.5 g and 180 fry of Clarias gariepinus with a mean total length and weight of 14.90 ± 0.1 cm and 32.10 ± 0.5 g were separately cultured in 3 replicates in 18 plastic tanks (1 × 1 × 0.5 m; 200 L), 9 for O. niloticus and 9 for C. gariepinus, for photoperiods of 24 L: 0 D, 0 L: 24 D, and 12 L: 12 D for 13 weeks.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Mortality was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the 0 L: 24 D photoperiod among O. niloticus and significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the 24 L: 0 D photoperiod among C. gariepinus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:If welfare challenges arising from photoperiodism are taken into account during culture of the species with photoperiodic manipulation, the species' mortality will be decreased and the farmer's profits will increase.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Oreochromis niloticus · Clarias gariepinus · photoperiod

Abstract

One hundred and eighty juveniles of Oreochromis niloticus with a respective smean total length and weight of 7.30 ± 0.5 cm and 7.05 ± 0.5 g and 180 fry of Clarias gariepinus with a mean total length and weight of 14.90 ± 0.1 cm and 32.10 ± 0.5 g were separately cultured in 3 replicates in 18 plastic tanks (1 × 1 × 0.5 m; 200 L), 9 for O. niloticus and 9 for C. gariepinus, for photoperiods of 24 L: 0 D, 0 L: 24 D, and 12 L: 12 D for 13 weeks. Mortality and welfare impairment were evaluated daily. Mortality was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the 0 L: 24 D photoperiod among O. niloticus and significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the 24 L: 0 D photoperiod among C. gariepinus. In general, mortality was significantly higher (P < 0.05) among O. niloticus than in C. gariepinus, with mortality being very high in the first 5 weeks of culture in the 2 species in all 3 photoperiods. Mortality was probably due to stress in the tanks arising from poor acclimatization to the environmental conditions, feeding inhibition, cannibalism, and maladjustment to the light/dark rhythmic cycle. The 0 L: 24 D photoperiod had a profound effect on the welfare of the juveniles of O. niloticus, and 24 L: 0 D compromised the welfare of the juveniles of C. gariepinus, as shown by the nonintrusive welfare indicators. The 2 unfavorable photoperiods manifested in stress conditions that caused injuries and affected swimming activity, behavior, coloration, and growth. If welfare challenges arising from photoperiodism are taken into account during culture of the species with photoperiodic manipulation, the species' mortality will be decreased and the farmer's profits will increase.

Özet

One hundred and eighty juveniles of Oreochromis niloticus with a respective smean total length and weight of 7.30 ± 0.5 cm and 7.05 ± 0.5 g and 180 fry of Clarias gariepinus with a mean total length and weight of 14.90 ± 0.1 cm and 32.10 ± 0.5 g were separately cultured in 3 replicates in 18 plastic tanks (1 × 1 × 0.5 m; 200 L), 9 for O. niloticus and 9 for C. gariepinus, for photoperiods of 24 L: 0 D, 0 L: 24 D, and 12 L: 12 D for 13 weeks. Mortality and welfare impairment were evaluated daily. Mortality was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the 0 L: 24 D photoperiod among O. niloticus and significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the 24 L: 0 D photoperiod among C. gariepinus. In general, mortality was significantly higher (P < 0.05) among O. niloticus than in C. gariepinus, with mortality being very high in the first 5 weeks of culture in the 2 species in all 3 photoperiods. Mortality was probably due to stress in the tanks arising from poor acclimatization to the environmental conditions, feeding inhibition, cannibalism, and maladjustment to the light/dark rhythmic cycle. The 0 L: 24 D photoperiod had a profound effect on the welfare of the juveniles of O. niloticus, and 24 L: 0 D compromised the welfare of the juveniles of C. gariepinus, as shown by the nonintrusive welfare indicators. The 2 unfavorable photoperiods manifested in stress conditions that caused injuries and affected swimming activity, behavior, coloration, and growth. If welfare challenges arising from photoperiodism are taken into account during culture of the species with photoperiodic manipulation, the species' mortality will be decreased and the farmer's profits will increase.

🔖

Cite This Article

MUSTAPHA, M. K., OLADOKUN, O. T., SALMAN, M. M., ADENIYI, I. A., OJO, D. (2014). Does light duration (photoperiod) have an effect on the mortality and welfare of cultured Oreochromis niloticus and Clarias gariepinus?. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 4, 466–470. https://ajindex.com/articles/203983

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Almazán-Rueda P, Helmond ATM, Verreth JAJ, Schrama JW (2005). Photoperiod affects growth, behavior and stress variables in Clarias gariepinus. J Fish Biol 67: 1029–1039.
  2. Alvarez-Rosario J, Feliz-Carrasco L, Montoya-Ospina R, Velasco M (2009). Tilapia fry perform similarly under varied photoperiods. Global Aquaculture Advocate: 70–72.
  3. Appelbaum S, Kamler E (2000). Survival, growth, metabolism and behaviour of Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822) early stages under different light conditions. Aquacult Eng 22: 269–287.
  4. Aride PH, Roubach RR, Nozawa SR, Val AL (2006). Tambaqui growth and survival when exposed to different photoperiods. Acta Amazonica 36: 381–384.
  5. Bast GB (2001). Saltwater polyculture: gaining by experience in Peru. Global Aquaculture Alliance: 61–62.
  6. Bezerra KS, Santos GJ, Leite RM, da Silva MA, de Lima RM (2008). Growth and survival of tilapia chitralada submitted to different photoperiods. Braz J Agric Res 43: 737–743.
  7. Burgos A, Valenzuela A, Gonzalez M, Klempau A (2004). Nonspecific defence mechanisms of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) during artificial photoperiod. Bull Euro Assoc Fish Pathol 24: 240–245.
  8. Burke MG, Kirk MR, Macbeth NA, Bevan DJ, Moccia RD (2005). Influence of photoperiod and feed delivery on growth and survival of first-feeding Arctic char. N Am J Aquacult 67: 344–350.
  9. Canavate JP, Zerolo R, Fernandez-Diaz C (2006). Feeding and development of Senegal sole (Solea senegalensis) larvae reared in different photoperiods. Aquaculture 258: 368–377.
  10. Cerqueira VR, Brugger AM (2001). Effect of light intensity on initial survival of fat snook (Centropomus parallelus) larvae. Braz Arch Biol Tech 44: 343–349.
  11. Damsgard B, Juell JE, Braastad BO (2006).
  12. Welfare in farmed fish. Bergen, Norway: Fiskeriforskning Report 5. Freitas LS, Rodrigues RV, Okamoto MH, Louzada LR, Sampaio LA (2009). Effects of photoperiod on survival and growth of the marine pejerrey Odontesthes argentinensis larvae. Aquacult Res 40: 252–255.
  13. FSBI (2002). Fish Welfare. Briefing Paper 2. Cambridge, UK: Fisheries Society of the British Isles. Giri SS, Sahoo SK, Sahu BB, Sahu AK, Mohanty SN, Mukhopadhyay PK, Ayyappan S (2002). Larval survival and growth in Wallago attu (Bloch and Schneider): effects of light, photoperiod, and feeding regimens. Aquaculture 213: 151–161.
  14. Hastein T (2004). Animal welfare issues relating to aquaculture. In: Proceedings of the Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative. Paris: World Organization for Animal Health, pp. 219–227. He