BIOFILTER UTILIZATION IN Leptobarbes hoevenii (JELAWAT ... utilization in Leptobarbes... · Hydrilla verticil/ata and Pistia stratiotes in intensive Leptobarbes hoevenii fry production

BIOFILTER UTILIZATION IN Leptobarbes hoevenii (JELAWAT) FRY PRODUCTION SYSTEM

Jafaruddin Bin Ali

Master of Science 2012

Pusat Khidm t MakJumat Akademi!, UNIVF.. MALAYSJA SARAWAV

BIOFILTER UTILIZATION IN Leptobarbes hoevenii (Jelawat) FRY PRODUCTION SYSTEM

JAFARUDDIN BIN ALI

A thesis submitted In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Faculty of Resource Science and Technology UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank ALLAH Almighty for His continuous strength,

blessing and protection over me while doing this research.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Dr. Hj. Isa Ipor for

his wonderful guidance, dedication and advice throughout the project. I also wish to convey

my deepest gratitude to my co-supervisors, Dr. Norhadi Ismail and Associate Professor Dr.

Hjh. Cheksum Tawan for their assistance and guidance during my entire research work.

My sincere appreciation also goes to the dedicated laboratory assistants, Mr. Mohd Rizan

Abdullah, Mr. Mohammad Nurfazillah and Haji Karni Taha for their commitment and

assistance. I am also indebted to the Fisheries Officers in the Department of Agriculture

Sarawak, especially Mr. Hariffin Awg Bini and Mdm. Lucy Gabriel Pusin for their assistance

and cooperation throughout the project.

I would like to pay tribute to all my friends who had provided strong moral support,

especially Juraidah Salimun, Hafizah Abdul Razak, Angela Tida Henry and Angeline Simon.

Last but not least, I would like to express my special. gratitude and dedication to my beloved

father and mother for their patience, encouragement and constant prayers for my success.

ii

ABSTRACT

(This study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of using of Eichhornia crassipes,

Hydrilla verticil/ata and Pistia stratiotes in intensive Leptobarbes hoevenii fry production

system. It was established that the optimum ammonia-nitrogen and orthophosphate

absorption between species was achieved with the E. crassipes treatment, followed by the H.

verticil/ata and P. stratiotes. The P. stratiotes was later removed in subsequent experiments

due to poor ammonia-nitrogen and orthophosphate absorptioflj In optimum density of E.

cra . ipes experiment, four levels of E. crassipes density were used, which were 0, 150, 300

and 450 grams. The highest L. hoevenii survival and growth were achieved in the 150 gram

E. crassipes treatment. Meanwhile, the highest L. hoevenii fry performance in the four H.

verticil/ala density levels was acquired in the 50 gram H. verticil/ata treatment. The highest

L. hoevenii fry survival and growth in the four combined biofilter treatments was acquired in

the 150 gram E. crassipes treatment. Result showed that the 150 gram E. crassipes with

mechanical filter obtained the highest fry growth performance when compared with three

other treatments. For the study regarding the fish fry density levels, the highest survival and

growth of L. hoevenii fry were achieved at 20 fish fry, which was the lowest density level in

this research. Based on the overall results, the best design consisted of the following

sequence: the first cycle - the water treatment cycle - the second cycle. The first and second

cycles were done for five weeks and the water treatment cycle for two weeks.

Keywords: Leptobarbes hoevenU, Eichhornia crassipes, Hydril/a verticil/ata, biofilter,

ammonia-nitrogen, orthophosphate,

III

PENGGUNAAN PENAPIS BIOLOGI BAGI SISTEM PENGELUARAN BENIH

Leptobarbes hoevenii (Je/awat)

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini dijalankan untuk menentukan keberkesanan penggunaan Eichhornia crassipes.

Hydrilla verticil/ata dan Pistia stratiotes di dalam sistem pengeluaran anak benih ikan L.

hoevenii. Ianya telah ditentukan bahawa kadar penyerapan optimum ammonia-nitrogen dan

ortofosfat telah diperolehi melalui rawatan E. crassipes diikuti H vertic illata dan P.

stratioles. P. stratiotes kemudiannya dikeluarkan dari ekperimen seterusnya disebabkan

penyerapan ammonia-nitrogen dan ortofosfat yang lemah. Bagi eksperimen ketumpatan

optimum E. crassipes. empat tahap ketumpatan E. crassipes digunakan, iaitu 0, 150, 300 dan

450 gram. Keputusan tertinggi bagi kehidupan dan pertumbuhan L. hoevenii telah dicapai

pada rawatan 150 gram E. crassipes. Manakala kadar tertinggi bagi benih ikan untuk empat

tahap ketumpatan H verticil/ata telah dicapai pada rawatan 50 gram H verticil/ata. Kadar

hidup dan pertumbuhan paling tinggi empat tahap rawatan penapis biologi dicapai pada

rawatan 150 gram E. crassipes. Keputusan menunjukkan penggunaan 150 gram E. crassipes

digabungkan bersama penapis mekanikal memberi keputusan tertinggi berbanding tiga

rawatan lain. Bagi kajian tahap ketumpatan benih ikan, kehidupan dan pertumbuhan

tertinggi bagi L. hoevenii dicapai pada 20 ekor benih ikan, iaitu ketumpatan terendah dalam

penyelidikan ini. Keseluruhannya, rekabentuk rawatan terbaik melalui peringkat terse but:

pusingan pertama - pusingan rawatan air - pusingan kedua. Pusingan pertama dan kedua

dijalankan 'elama lima minggu manakala pusingan rawatan air selama dua minggu.

Kata /cunei: Leptobarbes hoevenii, Eichhornia crassipes, Hydrilla vertic illata. ammonia

nitrogen, penapis biologi, ortofos/at

IV

Pusat Khldnrnt Maklumat Akademik UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement ii

Abstract iii

Abstrak iv

Table of Contents v

List of Figures ix

List of Tables xv

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General Review

1.2 Problem Statements 4

1.3 Objectives 5

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Biofilter Aquatic Plant 6

2.1.1 Eichhornia crassipes (Marti us) Solms-:Laubach 7

2.1.2 Hydrilla vertic illata (L.f.) Royle 9

2.1.3 Pistia stratiotes (L.) 10

2.2 Freshwater Fish Aquaculture 11

2.2.1 Recirculation System 12

2.2.2 Fish Fry 13

v

2.2.3 Mechanical Filter 13

2.2.4 Dry Diets 14

2.2.5 Reality and Potential 14

2.3 Water Quality 15

2.3.1 Ammonia-nitrogen 15

2.3.2 Orthophosphate 17

2.3.3 Turbidity 18

2.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen 18

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Materials and Methods

3.1 Study Area 20

3.2 Ammonia-nitrogen and Orthophosphate Absorption 20

3.3 Optimum Plant Density 21

3.3.1 First Cycle 21

3.3.2 Water Treatment Cycle 22

3.3.3 Second Cycle 22

3.4 Combined Biofilter System 23




3.5 E. crassipes and Mechanical Filter Treatment 24



vi


3.6 Optimum L. hoevenii Fry Density 26




3.7 Fish Fry Growth Performance 28

3.8 Water Quality Analysis 29

3.9 Plant Biomass Allocation 29

3.10 Feeding ofFish Fry 30

3.11 Water Recirculating System 30

3.1 2 Data Analysis 31

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Results


4.2 Optimum Biofilter Density - E. crassipes Treatment 34

4.3 Optimum Biofilter Density - H vertic illata Treatment 46


4.5 Biofilter with Mechanical Filter System 65


CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Discussion


VB

5.2 Optimum Biofilter Density - E. crassipes Treatment 85

5.3 Optimum BiofiIter Density - H verticil/ata Treatment 92


5.5 Biofilter and Mechanical Filter Treatment 102


CHAPTER SIX

6.0 Conclusion 108

REFERENCES 109

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure I: The ammonia-nitrogen concentration from different biofilter. P. 33 stratiotes (.....), H vertic illata ( ) and E. crassipes ('....).Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's fo llowing two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 2: The orthophosphate concentration from different biofilter. P. 37 stratioies (......), H verticillata ( ) and E. crassipes (-+-).Yertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's fo llowing two-way ANOV A results.

Figure 3: The ammonia-nitrogen concentration from different E. crassipes 37 treatment. Treatment: O-gram (.....), 150-gram ( ...... ), 300-gram ( ) and 450-gram ( .....). Cycle: 3a = first cycle, 3b = water treatment cycle and 3c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05 . Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 4: The orthophosphate concentration from different E. crassipes 38 treatment. Treatment: O-gram (-+-), 150-gram ( .....), 300-gram ( ) and 450-gram (.,....). Cycle: 4a = first cycle, 4b = water treatment cycle and 4c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at a=O.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 5: The turbidity level from different E. crassipes treatment. 39 Treatment: O-gram (-+-), 150-gram ( ...... ), 300-gram ( ) and 450-gram (-). Cycle: 5a = first cycle, 5b = }Vater treatment cycle and 5c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

Figure 6: The dissolved oxygen concentration from different E. crassipes 40 treatment. Treatment: O-gram (-+-), I 50-gram ( .....), 300-gram ( ) and 450-gram (....-). Cycle: 6a = first cycle, 6b = water treatment cycle and 6c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 7: The biomass allocation of the E. crassip~own in the first 41 cleo Treatment: 150-gram (mn, 300-gram (_ ) and 450-gram

( '.~ . Vertical bars are values ofstandard error.

Figure 8: The leaf ratio of the E. crassiP rown in the first c cle. 42 Treatment: 150-gram (mn, 300-gram ( 11 ) and 450-gram (S I III). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

IX

Figure 9: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes grown in the water 43 treatment cycle. Treatment: l50-gram C~, 300-ram C- ) and 450gram Cl m1 ). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

Figure 10: The leaf ratio of the E. crassipes grown in the water treatment 43 c cleo Treatment: l50-gram C~, 300-gram C- ) and 450-gram ( . ill). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

Figure 11: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes frown in the second 44 c~le. Treatment: 150-gram C~, 300-gram C ) and 450-gram CII, II~.. Vertical bars are values of standard error. .

Figure 12: The leaf ratio of the E. crassipe!.Jl.own in the second c cle. 45 Treatment: 150-gram C~, 300-gram C-) and 450-gram C .I

Vertical bars are values of standard error.

Figure 13: The ammonia-nitrogen concentration from different H. 48 verticillata treatment. Treatment: O-gram C......), 25-gram C......), 50-gram C ) and 75-gram C~). Cycle: 13a = first cycle, 13b = water treatment cycle and 13c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at a=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 14: The orthophosphate concentration from different H. verticillata 49 treatment. Treatment: O-gram C.....), 25-gram ( .....), 50-gram ( ) and 75-gram C.....). Cycle: 14a = first cycle, 14b = water treatment cycle and 14c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at a=O.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 15: The turbidity level from different H. verticillata treatment. 50 Treatment: O-gram (-+-), 25-gram C... ~-), 50-gram C ) and-75 gram C- ). Cycle: 15a = first cycle, 15b = water treatment cycle and 15c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at a=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 16: The dissolved oxygen concentration from different H. 51 verticillata treatments. Treatment: O-gram (-+-), 25-gram C.....), 50-gram ( ) and 75-gram (~). Cycle: 16a = first cycie, 16b = water treatment cycle and 16c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at a=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 17: The H. verticillata wet weight increment from different 52 treatments. Treatment: 25-gram = m, 50-gram = _ and 75-gram =

I i. Cycle: I 7 a = first cycle, 17b = water treatment cycle and 1 7 c =t .

second cycle). Vertical bars are values 0 f standard error.

x

Figure 18: The ammonia-nitrogen concentration from different treatments. Treatment: Bo = no biofilter (-+-), B 1 = 1 50-gram E. crassipes (.....), B2 = 50-gram of H. verticil/ala ( ) and B3 = 1 50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticil/ala (~). Cycle: 18a = first cycle, l8b = water treatment cycle and 18c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at 0.=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

55

Figure 19: The orthophosphate concentration from different treatments. Treatment: Bo = no biofilter (---t-), B1 = 1 50-gram E. crassipes (~), B2 = 50-gram of H. verlicillata ( ) and B3 = l50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verlicil/ala (~). Cycle: 19a = first cycle, 19b = water treatment cycle and 19c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at 0.=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

56

Figure 20: The turbidity level in different treatments. Treatment: Bo = no biofilter ( .....), B, = 150-gram E. crassipes ( ....... ), B2 = 50-gram of H. verticil/ala ( ) and B3 = l50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticillata ( ). Cycle: 2la = first cycle, 21b = water treatment cycle and 2lc = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at 0.=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

57

Figure 21: The dissolved oxygen concentration from different treatments. Treatment: Bo = no biofilter ( ....), B, = 1 50-gram E. crassipes (.....), B2 = 50-gram of H. verticillata (-*"") and B3 = l50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticil/ata (~) . Cycle: 21 a = first cycle, 21 b = water treatment cycle and 21 c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at 0.=0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

58

Figure 22: The wet weight increment for the H. verticil/ata from different treatments. Treatment: B2 = 50-gram of H. verticil/ata ~ and B3 =

I 50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram of H. verticil/ata (I:II!I ~). Cycle: 22a =

first cycle, 22b = water treatment cycle and 22c = second cycle. Vertical bars are values ofstandard error. .

59

Figure 23: The biomass allocation for E. crassipes grown in the first cycle. Treatment: B, = 150-gram of E. crassipe'IIl,1r) and B2 = 150gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. vertic illata ( ). Vertical bars are values ofstandard error.

60

Figure 24: The leaf ratio of the E. crassipes in the first cycle. Treatment: BJ = I 50-gram E. cras~,es (~ and B2 = 1 50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticillata ). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

61

Xl

Figure 25: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes in the water treatment cycle. Treatment: B, = I50-gram E. crassipes (§m) and B2 = 150-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticillata ~). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

62

Figure 26: The leaf ratio level of the E. crassipes in the water treatment cycle. Treatment: B, = 1 50-gram E. cr~si,es (~ and B2 = 150-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticil/ata ). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

62

Figure_ 27: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes in the second cycle. Treatment: B, = 150-gram of E. crassiies (~ and B2 = 1 50-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticillata ( ). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

63

Figure 28: The leaf ratio of the E. crassipes in the second cycle. Treatment: BJ = 150-gram E. crassiPesll)~ and B2 = 150-gram E. crassipes and 50-gram H. verticillata ( ). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

64

Figure 29: The ammonia-nitrogen concentration from different treatments. Treatment: MJ = 1 50-gram ofE. crassipes and mechanical filter (.-), M2 = I 50-gram ofE. crassipes (1-), M3 = mechanical filter ( ) and ~ = without filter ( .....). Cycle: 29a = first cycle, 29b = water treatment cycle and 29c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

67

Figure 30: The orthophosphate concentration from different treatments. Treatment: M, = 1 50-gram ofE. crassipes and mechanical filter (.-), M2 = ISO-gram ofE. crassipes (---), M3 =mechanical filter ( .....) and ~ =

without filter (--). Cycle: 30a = first cycle, 30b = water treatment cycle and 30c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

68

Figure 31: The turbidity level from different tr~atments Treatment: MJ =

1 50-gram of E. crassipes and mechanical filter (.-), M2 = I 50-gram of E. crassipes (---), M3 = mechanical filter ( ) and ~ = without filter ( ). Cycle: 31 a = first cycle, 31 b = water treatment cycle and 31 c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at n=O.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

69

xii

Figure 32: The dissolved oxygen concentration from different treatments. Treatment: MJ == I 50-gram ofE. crassipes and mechanical filter (-+-), M2 == I 50-gram ofE. crassipes ( ...... ), M3 == mechanical filter ( ) and Mt == without filter ( ). Cycle: 32a == first cycle, 32b == water treatment cycle and 32c == second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

70

Figure 33: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes in the first cycle. Treatment: MJ == I 50-gram E. crassipes and mechanical filter (~ and M2 = I50-gram ofE. crassipes (§W). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

71

Figure 34: The leaf ratio between the E. crassipes in the first cycle. Treatment: MJ == I50-gram E. crassipes and mechanical filter (1aI) and M2 = I 50-gram ofE. crassipes (§W). Vertical bars are values of standard

72

error.

Figure 35: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes in the water treatment cycle. Treatment: MJ == I 50-gram E. crassipes and mechanical filter ~ and M2 == I 50-gram of E. crassipes (§W). Vertical bars are values ofstandard error.

73

Figure 36: The leaf ratio of the E. crassipes in the water treatment cycle. Treatment: MJ == I 50-gram E. crassipes and mechanical filter (~ and M2 = I 50-gram ofE. crassipes (§W). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

73

Figure 37: The biomass allocation of the E. crassipes in the second cycle. Treatment: MJ == I 50-gram E. crassipes and mechanical filter ~) and M2 = I 50-gram ofE. crassipes (§W). Vertical bars are values of standard error.

74

Figure 38: The leaf ratio of the E. crassipes in the second cycle. Treatment: MJ == 150-gram of E. crassipes and mechanical filter (~ and M2 == 150-gram of E. crassipes (§W). Vertical bars are values of standard error

75

Figure 39: The ammonia-nitrogen concentration from different fish fry densities. Density: 20 fish fry (-+-), 50 fish fry (-11-), 80 fish fry ( ) and 11 0 fish fry ( .......). Cycle: 39a == first cycle, 39b == water treatment cycle and 39c == second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (F0.05. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

78

X111

Figure 40: The concentration from different fish fry densities. Density: 20 79 fish fry ( ..... ), 50 fish fry (1-), 80 fish fry ( ) and 110 fish fry ( ). Cycle: 40a = first cycle, 40b = water treatment cycle and 40c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (FO.OS. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

Figure 41: The turbidity level from different fish fry densities. Density: 20 80 fish fry ( ..... ), 50 fish fry (1-), 80 fish fry ( ) and 110 fish fry (-). Cycle: 41 a = first cycle, 41 b = water treatment cycle and 41 c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (FO.OS. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOVA results.

Figure 42: The dissolved oxygen concentration from different fish fry 81 densities. Density: 20 fish fry ( .....), 50 fish fry (1-), 80 fish fry ( ) and 110 fish fry ("""""-). Cycle: 42a = first cycle, 42b = water treatment cycle and 42c = second cycle. Vertical bars show statistically significant differences at (FO.OS. Test involves Tukey's following two-way ANOV A results.

XIV

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: The mean percentage of L. hoevenii fry survival, weight and length increment from different E. crassipes treatments. Means sharing the same letter within column are not significantly different at a=O.OS. Test involves Tukey's following one-way ANOV A results.

3S

Table 2: The mean percentage of L. hoevenii fry survival, weight and length increment from different H vertic illata treatments. Means sharing the same letter within column are not significantly different at a=O.OS. Test involves Tukey's following one-way ANOV A results.

47

Table 3: The mean percentage of L. hoevenii fry survival, weight and length S4 from different treatments. Treatment: Bo = no biofilter, B J = ISO gram E. crassipes, B2 = SO gram of H verticil/ata and B3 = ISO gram E. crassipes and SO gram H verticillata. Means sharing the same letter within column are not significantly different at a=O.OS. Test involves Tukey's following one-way ANOV A results.

Table 4: The mean percentage of L. hoevenii survival, weight and length 66 increment from different treatments. Treatment: MJ = ISO gram E. crassipes and mechanical filter, M2 = ISO gram E. crassipes, M3 = mechanical filter, Mt = without filter. Means sharing the same letter within column are not significantly different at a=O.OS. Test involves Tukey's following one-way ANOV A results.

Table 5: The mean percentage of L. hoevenii fry survival, weight and length 77 increment from different densities. Means sharing the same letter within column are not significantly different at a=O.OS. Test involves Tukey's following one-way ANOV A results.

xv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Review

Aquaculture is the reanng of aquatics organisms under controlled or semi-controlled

conditions and is considered as one of the major economic activities in Malaysia (Stickney,

1979). Besides economic return, this agriculture industry also creates substantial number of

employment. However, the success of this newly potential industry depends on sustainable

and sufficient upply of healthy fish and fry or seeds. Presently, wild or imported fish fry or

seeds are available from hatcheries. Sustainability of fish fry production requires careful

management in all aspects, from farm practices, to its sensitivity to environmental condition,

and impact to the environment (Tan, 1998).

Water quality in aquaculture encompasses all physical, chemical and biological variables that

affect aquaculture production (Stickney, 1979). High fish mortality in aquaculture system

occurs because of toxicity in undesired water quality, which is caused by ammonia-nitrogen

and phosphorus contents. The sedimentation of waste from uneaten food supplements is the

main cause of increase in ammonia and phosphorus content in water. The quantity of nutrients

dissolved in water depends on faecal release and uneaten food composition, and the water's

physical properties such as temperature, depth and turbulence. Uncontrolled aquaculture

practices results in negative impacts on the environment, as untreated waters from these

systems empty directly into rivers (Philip et al., 1993).

1

Generally, many water quality parameters influence the fish survival and growth perfonnance,

and this tolerance varies with life stages. Ammonia-nitrogen exists in two fonns, NH3 and

N~+. The toxicity of unionized ammonia depends on dissolved oxygen level, water

temperature and other water quality parameters (Popma and Masser, 1999). The prolonged

exposure of aquatic animals for several weeks in unionized ammonia that above 3.0 mglL

causes losses particularly to juveniles and fish fry (Alessandro et al., 1999). Meanwhile,

according to Greiner and Timmons (1998), the minimum level of dissolved oxygen required

for optimum and survival growth is 5.0 mglL. Almost all of the phosphorus dissolved in water

is in the form of phosphate (P04), and orthophosphate are product from natural processes in

wastewater (Nakashima and Legget, 1980). The total phosphorus concentration limit in waters

is not more than 20 mglL (Anon, 2009) that eventually prevent nutrients poor aquaculture

systems. In addition, the turbidity levels that are below 25.0 mg/L have no hannful effect to

any aquatic animals (Alabaster and Llyod, 1980).

Currently, large varieties of biofilters that are commercially available are mainly designed to

minimize the impacts by aquaculture effluents. However, they are very expensive and

difficult to set up. An alternative way is by using aquatic plants as biofilters, a practice which

can reduce the treatment and management costs significantly (Sipauba-Tavares et at., 2002).

Aquatic plants obtain most of their nutrients from the water where they grow. According to

Lee and Newman (1992), the continuous uptake of nutrients simultaneously removes waste,

consequently enhances the cleaning of water in wastewater treatment facilities.

In aquaculture systems, many biological processes, such as photosynthesis, occur, whereby

the plant utilizes light energy in the presence of chlorophyll to convert carbon dioxide and

2

water into carbohydrates that provides energy to the plant (Lee and Newman, 1992). The

usage of aquatic plants as the biological filter in water treatment can reduce and eliminate

harmful wastes and nutrients in the water (Davis and Roger, 1972; Willkie and Sooknah,

2004). Moreover, aquatic plants have other multiple uses as they can be fish feed, act as a

turbidity-releasing agent, and reduce algae bloom (Sipauba-Tavares et at., 2003).

The knowledge of the characteristics and interactions of aquatic plants with water quality is

essential to derme new technologies in solving some of the existing problems, especially

nutrient and chemical absorptions and the growth and survival of fish in aquaculture system

(Sipauba-Tavares et al., 2003). The macrophytes that are utilized as biofilters must have

certain characteristics such as fast growing, possess high nutrient absorption, readily

available, and easy to remove from the treatment area (Mitchell, 1978).

3

I 1.2 Problem Statements

Most fanners from aquaculture industries still depend on fish fry from government agencies.

However, the supply is inadequate to fulfil the increasing demand of the fish fry due to poor

water quality and management. Observation on growth performance of fry in aquaculture·

systems fully utilized aquatic plants such as the Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes and

Hydrilla verticil/ala to improve the water quality. These biofilters have been reported to be

promising water plants used to remove ammonia and phosphorus in aquaculture system. With

continuous and efficient nursery preparation, this environment-friendly system may achieve

sustainable supply of sufficient fish fry or seeds throughout the year.

Waters from most aquaculture systems empty directly into the rivers and seas without proper

treatment, which leads to adverse impacts on environments in Malaysia. However, the

°ghtening of pollution control legislations in developed countries and increased pressure from

environmentalists for a reduction of the adverse effects of aquaculture on the environment

have encouraged the adaptation of wastewater treatment technology for the treatment of

.aquaculture wastewater (Redding et aI., 1997).

onetheless, the available water treatment systems are highly specialized, costly to implement

and maintain, and therefore, are beyond the means of most small and medium-scale farmers in

the developing world. As a result, the utilization of these aquatic plants as biofilter is viewed

a new approach in aquaculture, especially in Malaysia. The success of this system will

of the recycling of suitable water and reduce the cost of

ewater management.

4

Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademn UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAJ(

Objectives

I. To determine the effects of E. crassipes, H verticillata and P. stratiotes as biofilters

for the absorption of ammonia-nitrogen and orthophosphate.

To determine the effects of E. crassipes and H verticillata as biofilters on the survival

and growth rate performance of L. hoevenii under control condition.

To identify the biomass allocation of the E. crassipes and H verticil/ata in a

designated nursery culture system.

To develop a protocol in utilizing the combination of E. crassipes and mechanical

filter for efficient water recycling system.

5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Biofilter Aquatic Plants

Aquatic plants contribute to nutrient transfonnation through their physical, chemical and

microbial processes besides by removing nutrients for their own growth. They improve

nductance of the water as the roots grow (Sipauba -Tavares et ai., 2003). Aquatic plants

can be used as biofilters must have certain characteristics before they can be use

intensively in aquaculture systems. First, the biofilters should be inexpensive to obtain and

easy to manage and clean. Second, the biofilters should occupy small space and have

optimum performance to increase water quality. Finally, the biofilters should not produce

dangers to either human or fish (Smith, 2003).

ilkie and Sooknah. (2004) identified that the high productivity and capability of aquatic

water treatment and resource recovery. Floating aquatic plants also have potential in

L.....noV1D2 and recovering nutrients in wastewater from animal based agricultural operation.

rding to Gopal (1999), macrophytes roots and floating plants are the primary producers

.~rtiI1lg all the other lives in the aquaculture systems. Wang et ai. (2007) stated that

~1PC:rg~~ macrophytes are utilized for the environmental engineering of the controlling

"tmJ3lhicaticm or alternative for remediation of eutrophic lakes. Aquatic macrophytes played

_~lBnt role in structuring fish assemblages (Carpenter and Lodge, 1986)

6

....~-------------------------------------I

On the other hand, aquatic plants in aquaculture are generally seen as prejudicial to the

system. Researchers like Lodge (1993) pointed out in his research that biological invasions

ve become a serious global environmental problem. In eutrophic systems such as a

pond, aquatic plants tend to propagate quickly and to cover the entire surface of the pond,

mainly due to the lack of adequate management (Sipauba-Tavares et aI., 2003). Miranda et al.

2000) stated that high density of aquatic plants could lead to physical and chemical

restrictions for the fish. Moreover, according to Milon et al. (1986), the combined cost of

ing the recreational use of certain water bodies and plant management are extremely high.

1.1.1 Eichhornia crassipes (Martius) Solms-Laubach

B. crassipes (Mart) Solms is a member of the Pontaderiaceae family. It is a perennial,

monocotyledonous and free-floating aquatic plant (Wolverton and McDonald, 1979). It

originated from the state of Amazonas, Brazil spread to other regions of South America,

was carried out by humans throughout the tropics and sub-tropics (Howard and Harley,

998). The E. crassipes floats, but it can be rooted in either wet soil or mud and mainly

994). The E. crassipes can reproduce vegetatively or sexually, but its rapid spread

iOrou,~ water is almost entirely by vegetative reproduction and occurs only in freshwater

~~'VCU. 1987). Howard and Harley (1998) described the leaves as having either bulbous or

petioles. Flowers are very attractive, bluish purple with yellow centres and

mlJlgC=c:I spirally in spikes. The roots are fibrous with many laterals tailing to a depth of

7

E. erassipes is one of the most important and commonly found aquatic macrophyte found

topical region and has the ability to take up toxic elements from contaminated waters

993). The E. eras ipes is highly capable of removing nutrients used in its growth and it

partially reduces the load resulting from the culture of aquatic organism, thus improving water

quality (Sipauba-Tavares et al., 2002). The resulting gain in vegetative biomass can provide

nomic returns, such as animal feed (Bagnall et aI., 1974), compost (Parra and Hornstein,

974), biogas production (Shiralipour and Smith, 1984) and fibre for paper making

production (Nolan and Kirmse, 1974) when harvested.

The use of aquatic plants such as the E. crassipes however, is also questionable, as biological

mvasions have become a serious global environmental problem today (Lodge, 1993). The E.

crassipes is the most damaging floating aquatic weed that causes negative impacts on the

iW8ter use, and a lot of money has been spent in control attempts (Harley, 1994). The

iafestation of E. erassipes in many aquatic systems have reduced native biodiversity,

'orated ecosystem functioning and services, clogged the lakes and rivers, obstructed

-iJljriliition, damaged irrigation and hydroelectric facilities, and resulted in colossal economic

in many regions of the world (Lu et al., 2007).

NX:oraing to Baki (2004), the problem of E. crassipes in major drainage and irrigation canals

Malaysia is that it can reduces water flows. The infestation also caused damage to fisheries,

transports, water quality and biodiversity in Uganda (Howard and Harley, 1998). In

_IttiOln, Holm et al. (1969) stated that the free-floating macrophytes like the E. crassipes

generate serious difficulties in dam operations.

8

BIOFILTER UTILIZATION IN Leptobarbes hoevenii (JELAWAT ... utilization in Leptobarbes... · Hydrilla verticil/ata and Pistia stratiotes in intensive Leptobarbes hoevenii fry production

Documents