1 Chapter 4 RESULTS To study the relative efficacy of organic and inorganic fertilizers and supplementary feed on growth performance of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio, the experiment was conducted in earthen ponds with six treatments, each with two replications for the duration of one year. The amount of organic manure, fertilizer and supplementary feed was calculated on N-equivalence of 0.2g N/100g body weight of fish daily. Fertilization was done on weekly basis while feeding was done on daily basis. Water samples from all the ponds were also taken on fortnightly basis to see the changes in physico-chemical factors and their average values were calculated on monthly basis. 4.1. Growth Performance of Fish The growth performance of three cultured fish species under six different treatments was studied on the following morphmetric parameters: a. Increase in average fish body weight (g) b. Increase in average total length (mm) a. Increase in Average Fish Body Weight i. Labeo rohita The initial wet average body weights of Labeo rohita were recorded as 16.3, 16.5, 17.1, 16.5, 16.1 and 16.4g whereas the final average body weight were 933.7, 923.1, 974.8, 931.9, 1024.6 and 1215.0g in T 1 , T 2 , T 3, T 4 ,T 5 and T 6, respectively (Table 3). The minimum weight gain of Labeo rohita was 28.8, 20.8, 18.3, 21.2, 23.1 and 30.3g in the start of the experiment (August) in T 1 , T 2 , T 3, T 4 , T 5 and T 6, respectively. Labeo rohita showed the maximum average body weight gain of 141.4g in T 1 which was noted in May. In T 2, T 3, T 4 and T 6, the maximum body weight increase of 140.5, 155.6, 148.9 and 219.1g was observed during July, while in T 5 the maximum increase in the average body weight was noted as 156.8g in June (Table 3, Fig. 1). .
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Chapter 4 RESULTS
To study the relative efficacy of organic and inorganic fertilizers and
supplementary feed on growth performance of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus
carpio, the experiment was conducted in earthen ponds with six treatments, each with
two replications for the duration of one year. The amount of organic manure, fertilizer
and supplementary feed was calculated on N-equivalence of 0.2g N/100g body weight of
fish daily. Fertilization was done on weekly basis while feeding was done on daily basis.
Water samples from all the ponds were also taken on fortnightly basis to see the
changes in physico-chemical factors and their average values were calculated on
monthly basis.
4.1. Growth Performance of Fish The growth performance of three cultured fish species under six different treatments
was studied on the following morphmetric parameters:
a. Increase in average fish body weight (g)
b. Increase in average total length (mm)
a. Increase in Average Fish Body Weight
i. Labeo rohita
The initial wet average body weights of Labeo rohita were recorded as 16.3, 16.5, 17.1,
16.5, 16.1 and 16.4g whereas the final average body weight were 933.7, 923.1, 974.8,
931.9, 1024.6 and 1215.0g in T1, T2, T3, T4,T5 and T6, respectively (Table 3). The
minimum weight gain of Labeo rohita was 28.8, 20.8, 18.3, 21.2, 23.1 and 30.3g in the
start of the experiment (August) in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Labeo rohita
showed the maximum average body weight gain of 141.4g in T1 which was noted in
May. In T2, T3, T4 and T6, the maximum body weight increase of 140.5, 155.6, 148.9 and
219.1g was observed during July, while in T5 the maximum increase in the average
body weight was noted as 156.8g in June (Table 3, Fig. 1).
.
2
Table 3: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Labeo rohita under different treatments
** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio SEM for Months 4.6394 4.4937 2.8298 SEM For Treatments 3.2805 3.1775 2.0010 Comparison of Means Months August 23.75 G 26.25 I 25.82 D September 42.90 F 51.15 G 50.25 C October 58.60 E 67.97 F 66.68 B November 56.27 E 68.27 F 51.95 C December 27.93 G 33.30 H 35.40 D January 23.98 G 29.25 I 35.32 D February 65.85 E 77.30 E 76.62 B March 107.50 D 111.50 D 132.70 A April 128.60 C 136.30 C 129.30 A May 142.90 B 147.10 B 131.10 A June 147.90 AB 150.00 AB 130.90 A July 157.90 A 151.60 A 133.50 A Treatments
T1 76.45 B 79.46 E 82.43 ABC T2 75.55 B 72.63 F 74.70 C T3 79.81 B 87.86 C 80.66 BC T4 76.28 B 96.84 B 90.09 AB T5 84.04 B 85.03 D 80.68 BC T6 99.88 A 103.10 A 91.22 A
** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
12
Table 7: Analysis of variance on final wet body weight (g) of three fish species under different treatments.
S.O.V d.f MS F-value Prob.
Replications 1 151.29 0.09
Species 2 56790.59 34.16** 0.00
Treatments 5 14378.28 8.65** 0.00
Species x Treatments 10 742.60 4.66** 0.00
Error 17 1662.61
** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Standard error of means: Replications = 9.611 Species = 16.646 Treatments = 11.771 Species × Treatments = 28.832 Comparison of means: Treatments
Species Mean Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
T1 933.7 ghi 972.1 f-i 1013.7 d-h 973.2 C T2 923.1 hi 890.6 i 921.3 hi 911.7 D T3 974.8 f-i 1073.0 cde 992.6 e-h 1013.5 C T4 931.9 hi 1181.0 ab 1105.8 bcd 1072.9 B T5 1024.6 c-g 1038.7 c-f 992.4 e-h 1018.6 C T6 1215.0 a 1256.7 a 1119.0 bc 1196.9 A
Mean 1000.5 B 1068.7 A 1024.1 B
Means sharing similar letter in a row and column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). Small letters represent comparison among interaction means and capital letters are used for overall mean.
13
Figure 4: Final body weight (g) of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Fina
l bod
y w
eigh
t (g)
Labeo rohita
Catla catla
Cyprinus carpio
14
b. Increase in Average Total Length
i. Labeo rohita
The average initial and final average total length of Labeo rohita were recorded as
100.8, 102.5, 105.2, 100.9, 104.1 and 102.5mm and 444.0, 441.5, 456.6, 447.7, 461.5
and 495.0mm in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 , respectively. The minimum increment in
average total length of Labeo rohita was 10.7, 10.8, 8.9, 10.0 and 9.9mm in T1, T2, T3
T4 and T5, respectively in January but in T6 it was noted as 9.8 in December (Table 8,
Fig. 5). The maximum gain in average total length of Labeo rohita was observed as
46.7, 42.9mm in T1, T2, during June whereas in case of T3, 45.6mm was observed in
July. However, in treatments T4 and T5 it was observed as 44.8 and 41.6mm in May.
Maximum increase in total length in T6 was found to be 45.8mm during the month of
March. Overall among the different treatments, maximum increment in total body length
was recorded in T6, as 45.8mm which was treated with cow manure, nitrophos and
supplemetary feed.
Analysis of variance revealed that highly significant (P< 0.01) difference existed
among the treatments and months for final total body length of Labeo rohita. The
performance of Labeo rohita was superior in T6 which showed that fertilization and
supplementary feed caused the increment in body length, while other treatment means
represented non significant variation. According to statistical analysis,T6 was
significant differ(P< 0.05) from T5 and T4 whereas non-significant(P>0.05) difference
was noted among the other treatments. Comparison of mean values showed that the
best performance of Labeo rohita was observed in terms of total body length from May
to July, however, its poor performance was recorded in December and January (Table
11).
ii) Catla catla:
The initial average total length of Catla catla was 109.5, 111.0, 118.5, 109.7,
108.5 and 110.2 mm during August and the final average total length were recorded as
421.6, 391.2, 474.5, 441.1, 449.0 and 481.1mm, in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 , respectively
(Table 9, Fig 6). The minimum increment was recorded as 7.1, 6.0, 8.3, 6.9 and 8.7mm
15
(January) in T1, T2, T3 T4 and T5 but in T6 it was recorded as 8.2mm in December. Catla
catla showed the maximum increase in T6 with the average total length of 48.8mm
during June. In T1, this species showed maximum average total length of 40.3mm in
April. Under T2, T3 T4, and T5, maximum average total length, increment of 35.5, 45.7,
38.6 and 43.7mm was noted during May (Table 9, Fig. 6).
Analysis of variance on the final average total length of Catla catla showed a
highly significant difference (P< 0.01) for the treatments and months (Table 11). In
case of Catla catla, comparison of mean values of average total length in different
treatments and months showed that it appeared to attain maximum length under the
influence of T6 receiving cow manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed that showed
the significant difference (P< 0.05) with respect to T3 and T2, while the means of other
treatments showed less variation (P> 0.05) among them. While comparing monthly
performance on the basis of mean values, it can be concluded that this fish species gave
its best performance in terms of increase in average total length from March to July.
However the minimum increase in body length was obvious in December and January
(Table 11).
16
Table 8: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Labeo rohita under different treatments
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio SEM for Months 1.4100 1.5253 1.5170 SEM For Treatments 0.9970 1.0786 1.0727 Comparison of Means Months August 20.67 F 21.42 DE 27.78 BC September 27.98 DE 27.60 CDE 35.50 A October 31.67 CD 29.73 BCD 28.40 B November 24.57 EF 23.50 DE 23.92 B-E December 11.28 G 8.97 F 11.05 F January 10.20 G 7.88 F 12.05 F February 26.77 E 20.30 E 20.87 E March 34.98 BC 35.63 ABC 25.67 BCD April 38.52 AB 37.35 AB 23.68 CDE May 42.75 A 40.10 A 21.55 DE June 43.07 A 39.57 A 19.45 E July 42.60 A 39.80 A 20.23 E Treatments
T1 28.60 B 26.01 AB 23.04 A T2 28.25 B 23.35 B 19.61 B T3 29.28 B 29.67 A 21.92 AB T4 28.90 B 27.62 AB 23.50 A T5 29.78 AB 28.38 AB 22.63 AB T6 32.71 A 30.91 A 24.37 A
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
24
Table 12: Analysis of variance on final total length (mm) of three fish species under different treatments. S.O.V d.f MS F-value Prob. Replications 1 65.61 0.39 Species 2 2848.45 17.09** 0.00 Treatments 5 11878.40 71.27** 0.00 Species x Treatments 10 466.95 2.80* 0.03 Error 17 166.65 * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Standard error of means: Replications = 3.0428 Species = 5.2703 Treatments = 3.7267 Species x Treatments = 9.1284 Comparison of means:
Treatments Species Mean Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
T1 444.0 de 421.6 efg 401.5 g 422.4 C T2 441.5 def 391.2 sh 363.5 h 398.7 D T3 456.6 bcd 474.5 abc 391.1 gh 440.7 B T4 447.7 cde 441.1 def 412.2 fg 433.7 BC T5 461.5 bcd 449.0 cde 397.5 g 436.0 BC T6 495.0 a 481.1 ab 418.6 efg 464.9 A
Mean 457.7 A 443.1 B 397.4 C Means sharing similar letter in a row and column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). Small letters represent comparison among interaction means and capital letters are used for overall mean.
25
Comparison of mean showed that the increment in the average total length of Labeo
rohita was found to be statistically non- significant in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and but in T6, it was
observed as significant. Table 12 showed that T6 is significantly different(P< 0.05) from all
the treatments except T3 for Catla catla. In case of Cyprinus carpio there was a statistically
significant difference (P< 0.01) among T6 and T2 however non-significant difference (P>
0.05) was noted in all the other treatments. Among these three fish species Labeo rohita
showed the maximum average total length in T1, T2, T4, T5 and T6 while in case of T3 for Catla
catla showed the best growth performance. However there was a significant difference in
final average total length of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio in all the
treatments (Fig. 8).
26
Figure 8: Final total length of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Fina
l tot
al le
ngth
(mm
)
Labeo rohita
Catla catla
Cyprinus carpio
27
c. Condition Factor
Table 13 depicted the condition factor of three cultured fish species viz., Labeo
rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under the semi-intensive culture system with the
provision of fertilization and supplementary feed in various combinations, designated as
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
Labeo rohita:
The minimum value of condition factor (K) for the Labeo rohita was observed as
1.067, 1.073, 1.024, 1.038, 1.042 and 1.002 in July for T1 to T6, respectively. The
maximum values were recorded as 2.866, 2.430, 2.138, and 2.524 for T1, T2, T3 and T4
during September while in T5 and T6, 2.122 and 2.414 was noted in October, respectively
(Table 13, Fig, 9).
Catla catla:
For the Catla catla the lowest value of condition factor was noted as 1.297, 1.004,
1.376, 1.147 and 1.128 for T1, T3, T4, T5 and T6 at the end of the experiment whereas in
T2, it was found as 1.396 duing August. The highest value of condition factor was found
to be 2.240, (T1) during October, 2.577 and 2.177 in T2 and T3 (Feburary) and 2.444 was
recorded in T4 in the month of the January but 2.843 and 2.885 were observed for T5 and
T6, during September (Table 13, Fig, 10).
Cyprinus carpio:
In case of Cyprinus carpio, the minimum value was recorded as 1.254, 1.182,
1.177, 1.119, 1.217 and 1.209 in August in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6. The maximum values
of condition factor was observed to be 2.005 (October) in T1, 1.918 (July) in T2, 1.768
(May) in T3, 1.588 (June) in T4, 1.597 (May) in T5 and 1.574 (April) in T6 (Table 13, Fig,
11).
Data of condition factor were subjected to statistical analysis by using analysis of
variance and Duncan Multiple Range Test to compare the relative heaviness and
28
suitability of environment under different treatments for fish rearing. Table 14 revealed
that a highly significant difference existed in the months and treatments for the condition
factor. According to statistical analysis, comparison of mean indicated that T6 differ
significantly from T1 and T2 but non-significant difference (P> 0.05) was noted among
the T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Catla catla showed the significant variation in T6 that
differ from T1 and T3 while other treatments differ least significantly from each other
except T3 . In case of Cyprinus carpio, there was ahighly significant variation (P< 0.01)
among T2, T3 and T4 whereas significant difference (P< 0.05) was noted in T1, T2 and T3.
Non-significant (P> 0.05) variation was fonud among the T4, T5 and T6. Among these
cultured fish species, the highest average values of condition factor viz., 2.885
(September) in T6 for the Catla catla followed by Labeo rohita showed the value of
2.866 (September) in T1.
29
Table 13: Condition factor (K) of three fish species under different treatments
Months Treatments
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Labeo rohita
Initial 1.592 1.532 1.468 1.606 1.427 1.523
August 2.578 2.230 1.875 2.187 2.022 2.003
September 2.866 2.430 2.138 2.524 2.091 2.354
October 2.803 2.252 2.088 2.198 2.122 2.414
November 2.651 2.128 2.097 2.144 2.089 2.150
December 2.537 2.082 2.074 2.022 1.995 2.173
January 2.479 2.036 1.996 1.948 1.958 2.037
February 2.237 1.894 1.899 1.791 1.729 1.781
March 2.069 1.795 1.778 1.693 1.564 1.492
April 1.816 1.687 1.599 1.556 1.444 1.258
May 1.517 1.436 1.387 1.352 1.303 1.141
June 1.263 1.223 1.179 1.181 1.175 1.053
July 1.067 1.073 1.024 1.038 1.042 1.002
Catla catla
Initial 1.417 1.396 1.124 1.432 1.433 1.427
August 1.856 1.771 1.446 2.029 2.280 2.345
September 2.105 1.988 2.082 2.226 2.843 2.885
October 2.240 2.127 2.152 2.341 2.792 2.729
November 2.121 2.255 2.097 2.377 2.772 2.703
December 2.155 2.353 2.107 2.416 2.717 2.736
January 2.208 2.490 2.080 2.444 2.676 2.596
February 2.219 2.577 2.177 2.219 2.542 2.448
March 2.084 2.465 1.845 2.023 2.042 1.959
April 1.798 2.179 1.563 1.876 1.811 1.786
May 1.639 1.899 1.318 1.664 1.526 1.571
June 1.468 1.680 1.151 1.517 1.320 1.317
July 1.297 1.487 1.004 1.376 1.147 1.128
30
Continued Table 13: Cyprinus carpio
Initial 1.254 1.182 1.177 1.119 1.217 1.209
August 1.429 1.313 1.301 1.291 1.409 1.362
September 1.698 1.500 1.368 1.284 1.452 1.459
October 2.005 1.638 1.568 1.493 1.457 1.469
November 1.702 1.618 1.509 1.475 1.389 1.493
December 1.697 1.666 1.597 1.486 1.422 1.476
January 1.644 1.699 1.582 1.460 1.419 1.459
February 1.628 1.626 1.566 1.501 1.479 1.509
March 1.727 1.772 1.680 1.513 1.573 1.567
April 1.667 1.844 1.765 1.526 1.578 1.574
May 1.611 1.894 1.768 1.557 1.597 1.559
June 1.597 1.914 1.727 1.588 1.597 1.565
July 1.566 1.918 1.659 1.579 1.580 1.525
31
Table 14: Analysis of variance on condition factor of three fish species under different treatments.
** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio SEM for Months 0.0480 0.0785 0.0319 SEM For Treatments 0.0326 0.0533 0.0217 Comparison of Means Months Initial 1.53 F 1.37DE 1.19 F August 2.15 C 1.95 BC 1.35 E September 2.40 A 2.35 A 1.46 D October 2.31 AB 2.39 A 1.57 ABC November 2.21 B 2.39 A 1.53 CD December 2.15 C 2.41 A 1.56 BCD January 2.07C 2.42 A 1.54BCD February 1.88 D 2.36 A 1.55 BCD March 1.73 E 2.07 B 1.64AB April 1.56 F 1.84 C 1.66 A May 1.36 G 1.60 D 1.66 A June 1.18 H 1.41 DE 1.66 A July 1.04 I 1.24 E 1.64 AB Treatments
T1 2.11A 1.89 B 1.62 AB T2 1.83B 2.0 AB 1.66A T3 1.74 BC 1.70C 1.56 B T4 1.79 BC 1.99 AB 1.45 C T5 1.69 C 2.15 A 1.47 C T6 1.72C 2.13A 1.48 C
** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
32
Figure 9: Condition (K) factor for Labeo rohita under the different treatments.
33
Figure 10: Condition factor (K) for Catla catla under the different treatments.
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Initia
l
Augu
stSe
ptem
ber
Octo
ber
Nove
mbe
rDe
cem
ber
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
April
May
June
July
Month
Con
ditio
n factor
(K)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
34
Figure 11: Condition factor (K) for Cyprinus carpio under the different treatments
35
d. Specific growth rate: Table 15 showed the specific growth rate of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and
Cyprinus carpio under the influence of organic manure, inorganic fertilizer and
supplementary feed in various combinations under six different treatments.
Labeo rohita showed the minimum value of specific growth rate as 1.103 and
1.105 in T2 and T4 in which inorganic fertilizer and organic and supplementary feed was
applied. Maximum value of 1.177% of specific growth rate was noted in T6. For the
Labeo rohita the overall range of specific growth rate was observed as 1.109, 1.103,
1.107, 1.105, 1.138 and 1.177% in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 respectively.
The specific growth rate of Catla catla in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 were noted as
1.084, 1.055, 1.109, 1.133, 1.106 and 1.147%. The minimum value was 1.055 in T2
treated with inorganic fertilizers. This species attained the best value of specific growth
rate (1.147%) in T6, which was treated with organic, inorganic and supplementary feed.
For Cyprinus carpio, the values of specific growth rate were recorded as 1.019,
0.989, 1.012, 1.042, 1.016 and 1.049% in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 respectively. The
minimum value (0.989%) was remained in T2 with inorganic fertilization. The maximum
value of specific growth rate was recorded as 1.049% in T6, followed by 1.042% in T4
receiving organic manure and supplementary feed (Table. 15, Fig.12)
The highest specific growth rate was observed for the Labeo rohita (1.177) as
compared to the Catla catla (1.147) and Cyprinus carpio (1.049). The lowest value of
1.103, 1.055 and 1.019% SGR was recorded for the Cyprinus carpio in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5
and T6 (Fig 12). Comparison of means showed the similar trends in specific growth rate
of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio in all the treatments but T6 showed the
highest value of 1.12% which differ significantly (P< 0.05) from the other treatments.
There was a significant difference among the T6 and T2, T3 and T5 while T1, T2, T3, T4 and
T5 varies non-significantly from each others (Table 16). Statistical analysis revealed a
highly significant difference (P< 0.01) for the specific growth rate among the species and
the treatments (Table 16).
Fig. 12 represent that the Labeo rohita showed the maximum value of specific
growth rate in T1, T2, T5 and T6 but in T3 and T4 Catla catla obtained the highest specific
growth rate as compared to Labeo rohita and Cyprinus carpio, respectively.
36
Table 15: Specific growth rate (%) of three fish species under different treatments
Table 24: Analysis of variance on nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) of three fish species under different treatments.
NCR NIE SEM for Months 0.1169 0.0130 SEM For Treatments 0.0826 0.0092
Comparison of Means
Months August 9.02 A 0.11 I September 8.57 B 0.12 HI October 6.57 C 0.15H November 4.53 D 0.22 G December 2.09 I 0.48 B January 1.72J 0.59 A February 3.72 EF 0.27 F March 4.04 E 0.25 FG April 3.67 F 0.27 F May 3.08G 0.32 E June 2.72 H 0.37 D July 2.33 I 0.43 C
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean.Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
56
Figure 16: Nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) of three fish species under different treatments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun
Months
Nitr
ogen
Con
vers
ion Ratio
T1T2T3T4T5T6
57
Figure 17: Nitrogen Incorporation Efficiency (NIE) of three fish species under different treatments
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun
Months
Nitrog
en In
corporation Effic
ienc
y
T1T2T3T4T5T6
58
i. Total fish production The gross fish production of Labeo rohita, pond-1year-1 were calculated to be 18.67,
18.46, 19.49, 18.64, 20.49 and 24.30kg whereas for Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio 14.58,
13.36, 16.05, 17.72, 15.58 and 18.85 kg and 15.21, 13.82, 14.89, 16.59, 14.89 and 16.78kg-1
pond-1 year-1 in T1, T2, T3 ,T4, T5 and T6 , respectively (Table 25-30).
The gross fish production pond-1 acre-1 was calculated to be 376.41, 372.18, 392.94,
375.81, 413.10 and 489.92; 293.95, 269.35, 323.59, 357.26, 314.11 and 380.05 and 306.65,
278.63, 300.20, 334.47, 300.20 and 338.31 kg-1acre-1year-1 for Labeo rohita, Catla catla and
Cyprinus carpio in T1, T2, T3 ,T4, T5 and T6 , respectively (Table 25-30).
The gross fish production of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio pond-1
hectare-1 were calculated to be 933.50, 923.00, 974.50, 932.00, 1024.50 and 1215.00; 729.00,
668.00, 802.50, 886.00, 779.00 and 942.53 and 760.50, 691.00, 744.50, 829.50, 744.50 and
839.00 in T1, T2, T3 ,T4, T5 and T6 respectively (Table 25-30, Fig. 18).
The net fish production of Labeo rohita, Catla catla was also calculated. It was found to
be 18.35, 18.13, 19.15, 18.31, 20.17 and 23.97 and 14.30, 13.07, 15.81, 17.43, 15.31 and 18.56
and for Cyprinus carpio, it was recorded as 14.84, 13.45, 14.52, 16.22, 14.52 and 16.42 kg-
1pond-1 year-1 (Table 25-30, Fig. 16).
The net fish production of all three fish species ( Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus
carpio) kg-1 pond-1 acre-1 was calculated to be 369.96, 365.52, 386.08, 369.15, 406.65 and
483.31; 288.31, 263.51, 318.75, 351.41, 308.67 and 374.27 and 299.19, 271.17, 292.74, 327.05,
292.74 and 331.05kg-1acre-1 year-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Similarly net fish
production pond-1 hectare-1 was calculated to be 917.50, 906.50, 957.50, 915.50, 1008.50 and
1198.60; 715.00, 653.50, 790.50, 871.50, 765.50 and 928.20 and 742.00, 672.50, 726.00, 811.00,
726.00 and 821.00 kg-1 ha-1year-1 in all the treatments. (Table 25-30, Fig. 18)
The gross fish production of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio was recorded
as 2423.00, 2282.00, 2521.50, 2647.50, 2548.00 and 2996.53kg-1hectare-1year-1 in all the
treatments.
59
Table 25: Total fish production of three fish species in T1
Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
No. of stocked fish 20 15 15 Survival rate (%) 100 100 100 Initial average body weight (g) 16.3 18.6 24.5 Final average body weight (g) 933.7 972.1 1013.7 Increase in average body weight (g) 917.4 953.5 989.2 Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 18.67 14.58 15.21 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 376.41 293.95 306.65 Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 933.50 729.00 760.50 Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 18.35 14.30 14.84 Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 369.96 288.31 299.19 Net fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 917.50 715.00 742.00
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 48.46 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 977.01 Gross fish production ha-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 2423.00
60
Table 26: Total fish production of three fish species in T2
Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
No. of stocked fish 20 15 15 Survival rate (%) 100 100 100 Initial average body weight (g) 16.5 19.1 24.9 Final average body weight (g) 923.1 890.6 921.3 Increase in average body weight (g) 906.6 871.5 896.4 Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 18.46 13.36 13.82 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 372.18 269.35 278.63 Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 923.00 668.00 691.00 Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 18.13 13.07 13.45 Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 365.52 263.51 271.17 Net fish production-1 ha-1year-1 (kg) 906.50 653.50 672.50
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 45.64 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 920.16 Gross fish production ha-1 year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2282.00
61
Table 27: Total fish production of three fish species in T3
Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
No. of stocked fish 20 15 15
Survival rate (%) 100 100 100
Initial average body weight (g) 17.1 18.7 24.7
Final average body weight (g) 974.8 1073.0 992.6
Increase in average body weight (g) 957.7 1054.3 967.9
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 19.49 16.05 14.89
Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 392.94 323.59 300.20
Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 974.50 802.50 744.50
Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 19.15 15.81 14.52
Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 386.08 318.75 292.74
Net fish production-1 ha-1year-1 (kg) 957.50 790.50 726.00
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 50.43 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1016.73 Gross fish production ha-1year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2521.50
62
Table 28: Total fish production of three fish species in T4
Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
No. of stocked fish 20 15 15
Survival rate (%) 100 100 100
Initial average body weight (g) 16.5 18.9 24.7
Final average body weight (g) 931.9 1181.0 1105.8
Increase in average body weight (g) 915.4 1162.1 1081.1
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 18.64 17.72 16.59
Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 375.81 357.26 334.47
Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 932.00 886.00 829.50
Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 18.31 17.43 16.22
Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 369.15 351.41 327.05
Net fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 915.50 871.50 811.00
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 52.95 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1067.54 Gross fish production ha-1 year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2647.50
63
Table 29: Total fish production of three fish species in T5
Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
No. of stocked fish 20 15 15
Survival rate (%) 100 100 100
Initial average body weight (g) 16.1 18.3 24.3
Final average body weight (g) 1024.6 1038.7 992.4
Increase in average body weight (g) 1008.5 1020.4 968.1
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 20.49 15.58 14.89
Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 413.10 314.11 300.20
Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 1024.50 779.00 744.50
Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 20.17 15.31 14.52
Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 406.65 308.67 292.74
Net fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 1008.50 765.50 726.00
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 50.96 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1027.41 Gross fish production ha-1year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2548.00
64
Table 30: Total fish production of three fish species in T6
Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio
No. of stocked fish 20 15 15
Survival rate (%) 100 100 100
Initial average body weight (g) 16.4 19.1 24.3
Final average body weight (g) 1215.0 1256.7 1119.0
Increase in average body weight (g) 1198.6 1237.6 1094.7
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 24.30 18.85 16.78
Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 489.92 380.05 338.31
Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 1215.00 942.53 839.00
Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 23.97 18.56 16.42
Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 483.31 374.27 331.05
Net fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 1198.60 928.20 821.00
Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 59.93 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1208.28 Gross fish production ha-1year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 2996.53
65
Figure 18: Gross fish production of three species under different treatments
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Gro
ss fi
sh p
rodu
ctio
n ha
-1 y
ear-1
(kg
)Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio
66
Figure 19: Net fish production of three species under different treatments
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Net
fish
pro
duct
ionh
a-1 y
ear-1
(kg
)Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio
67
4.2 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF FISH MEAT: At the end of the experiment, meat samples of stocked three fish species viz., Labeo rohita,
Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio of each fish species were selected from experimental ponds to
investigate the influence of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer and artificial feed in six
different combinations on the meat quality for its proximate composition. Table 32 shows the
moisture, crude protein, total fats, and total ash and carbohydrates contents of experimental fish
species as a measure of their meat quality.
Moisture: In this experiment, Labeo rohita showed the moisture contents of 78.40, 78.90, 78.80,
78.20, 77.22 and 77.18 %under the influence of T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The
minimum and maximum value of moisture contents was noted as 77.18 and 78.90 % in T6 and
T2, respectively. In Catla catla, the moisture contents varied from 78.09 to 79.71% under T1, T2,
T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The Cyprinus carpio was observed as 80.10, 80.35, 80.20, 78.30, 79.45 and 77.20 % in
T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The minimum percentage was found as 77.20 % in T6
under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed while the maximum was recorded
80.35% in T2. The comparison of moisture percentage value under all the treatments showed that
the Cyprinus carpio had highest moisture contents (79. 27%), followed by Catla catla (79.07%)
and for Labeo rohita (78.12%) which differ non-significantly (P>0.05) from each others. In all
the six different treatments, the moisture contents of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus
carpio showed non-significant difference (P>0.05) as shown in Table 31. Whereas the mean
values of moisture percentage was non-significant from each other in different treatments (Table
32, Fig. 20).
Crude protein:
The percentage of protein contents in Labeo rohita was found to be 18.25, 17.90,
17.72, 18.09, 18.30 and 18.90% in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Catla catla showed the
crude protein contents of 16.85, 16.06, 17.09, 17.00, 17.00 and 17.55 % in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and
T6, respectively. The minimum (16.06%) and maximum (17.55%) crude protein contents were
68
noted in T2 and T6 under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed. The Cyprinus
carpio showed the variation in the mean of its protein contents as 15.72, 15.65, 15.62, 16.95,
16.80 and 17.10% reared under T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The lowest value 15.62%
was observed in T3 while in T6, the highest value was being noted as 17.10% in the combined
effect of fertilization and supplementary feed (Table 32, Fig. 21).
There was significant (P<0.05) difference in the percentage of protein contents among the
species but non-significant difference (P>0.05) was observed among the treatments and
interaction among the species and treatments (P<0.05). The comparison mean of crude protein
contents showed that Labeo rohita significantly differ from Cyprinus carpio as compared to
Catla catla. According to the overall performance of these three fish species, Labeo rohita
showed the best performance (18.90%) in terms of accumulated protein in the body(T6),
followed by T5 (18.30%)(Table 31, Fig. 21).
Total fats:
In Labeo rohita, the total fat contents were recorded as 1.05, 1.10, 1.08, 1.06, 1.42 and
1.30% in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The minimum was observed in 1.05 under the
influence of organic manure while the maximum fat contents were noted 1.42% in T5. The Catla
catla showed the variation in the total fat contents as 1.55, 1.68, 0.95, 1.62, 1.72 and 2.02%
reared under T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The lowest value (0.95%) was observed in
T3 while in T6, the highest value was being noted as 2.02% under the effect of fertilization and
supplementary feed. As regarding to Cyprinus carpio showed the percentage of fat contents
reared under T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 which were recorded as 1.42, 1.28, 1.39, 1.52, 1.82 and
2.00%, respectively. In T6, the highest percentage was being noted as 2.00, while the lowest
percentage 1.28 was observed in T2. Among these three fish species, the overall performance of
Catla catla showed the maximum total fat contents (2.02) was recorded in T6. (Table 32, Fig.
22).
Statistical analysis showed the highly significant difference in the percentage of total
fat contents among the species, treatments and interaction among the species and treatments
(P<0.01). Duncan multiple range tests revealed significant difference for these three fish species
among all the treatments (Table 32).
69
It is evident from fig. 22 that the total fat contents of Labeo rohita was lower than the other
two species viz.,Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio in T1, T2, T4, T5 and T6 but higher in T3 than
Catla catla, respectively.Total fat contents of Catla catla found to be maximum in T1, T2, T4 and
T6 but minimum in T3 and T5 higher than Labeo rohita. In case of Cyprinus carpio, it was
observed in T3 and T5. Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio showed almost similar trend in the fat
contents in T6 receiving organic, inorganic and supplementary feed.
Total ash:
The ash contents of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio showed highly
significant difference (P<0.01) as shown in Table 31 in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 respectively.
The ash contents of Labeo rohita were recorded as 1.15, 1.20, 1.12, 1.28, 1.34 and 1.30%, in T1,
T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 respectively. The minimum and maximum value of ash was observed as and
1.12 and 1.34% in T2 and T5. Catla catla showed the lowest and highest total ash percentage as
1.08 and 1.50% in T1 and T4, respectively. Ash percentage of Cyprinus carpio was found to be
1.35, 1.42, 1.52, 1.78, 0.92 and 1.84 in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 respectively. In case of Cyprinus
carpio, the minimum and maximum percentage was recorded as 0.92 and 1.84% in T5 and T6.
Statistical analysis revealed the highly significant (P<0.01) difference in the percentage
of total fat contents among the species, treatments and interaction among the species and
treatments (Table 31). The comparison of ash percentage showed that Cyprinus carpio had a
highest ash contents (1.47%), followed by 1.23% which differ significantly (P<0.05) from that of
Labeo rohita and Catla catla.The mean values of ash percentage among the treatment showed
significant variation among the T5 and T6 but non-significant from each other in T1, T2, T3, T5
and T6 v/s T4, respectively (Table32, Fig. 23).
Fig. 23 depicts that Cyprinus carpio had the prominent effect of fertilization and
supplementary feed on the ash contents . In T1, T2, T3, T4, and T6, Cyprinus carpio showed the
maximum ash contents while minimum in T5. In case of Labeo rohita, T5 showed the higher ash
contents as compare to the other fish species. The lowest ash contents of Catla catla was noted
in T1 and T2 whereas in the case of T3 and T4, Labeo rohita showed the minimum ash contents
but in T5 and T6, Cyprinus carpio, Catla catla and Labeo rohita showed the lowest ash contents
in T6.
70
Carbohydrates:
The carbohydrates percentage in the meat of Labeo rohita in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6
were recorded as 1.15, 0.90, 1.28, 1.37, 1.72 and 1.32%, respectively. Under the influence of
inorganic fertilizer and supplementary feed, minimum was found as 0.90 in T2, whereas the
maximum percentage was being noted as 1.72 in T5. In Catla catla, the carbohydrate contents
were observed as 1.10, 1.44, 1.07, 1.38, 1.13and 1.06% in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The carbohydrate contents being minimum (1.06%) and maximum (1.38%) were noted in T6 and
T4. (Table 32, Fig. 24). The Cyprinus carpio showed the minimum and maximum percentage of
carbohydrates in 1.01 and 1.86% in T5 and T6, respectively.
Statistical analysis revealed the highly significant difference in the percentage of
carbohydrates contents among the species, treatments and interaction among the species and
treatments (P< 0.01) (Table 31). Comparison of mean revealed the significant difference in
carbohydrates contents among Cyprinus carpio and Catla catla but Labeo rohita varies non-
significantly (P< 0.05) from other fish species (Table 32).Among these three fish species,
Cyprinus carpio showed the highest carbohydrates percentage (1.86%), which was found in T6,
differ significantly from the other treatments (Table 32). The mean values of ash percentage
among the treatment showed significant variation among the T6 and T3 but non-significant from
each other in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 v/s T5, respectively (Table32, Fig. 24).
Fig. . 24 revealed rhat carbohydrates contents of Cyprinus carpio remained highest in T1,
T3, T4 and T6, except T2 and T5 . Catla catla and Labeo rohita showed the maximum value of
carbohydrates contents in T2 and T5. Amongthe three fish species, Catla catla had the lowest
vlalue in T1,T3 and T6. In case of Labeo rohita and Cyprinus carpio it was found in T2 and T5
by the utilization of nitrophos and supplementary feed. In T4, Labeo rohita, Catla catla and
Cyprinus carpio showed the similar trends in the carbohydrates contents receiving cow manure
and supplementary feed.
71
Table 31: Analysis of variance on proximate composition of three fish species under different treatments.
S.O.V
Moisture Crude protein Total fats Total ash Carbohydrates MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob.
Crude protein (%)Labeo rohita 18.25 17.90 17.72 18.09 18.30 18.90 18.19 A Catla catla 16.85 16.06 17.09 17.00 17.00 17.55 16.93 AB Cyprinus carpio 15.72 15.65 15.62 16.95 16.80 17.10 16.31 B Mean 16.94 16.54 16.81 17.35 17.37 17.85
Total fats (%)
Labeo rohita 1.05 hi 1.10 ghi 1.08 hi 1.06 hi 1.42 def 1.30 fgh 1.17 B Catla catla 1.55 c-f 1.68 cde 0.95 i 1.62 cde 1.72 bcd 2.02 a 1.59 A Cyprinus carpio 1.42 def 1.28 fgh 1.39 efg 1.52 c-f 1.82 abc 2.00 ab 1.5 7 A Mean 1.34 B 1.35 B 1.14 C 1.40 B 1.65 A 1.77 A
Total ash (%)Labeo rohita 1.15 efg 1.20 d-g 1.12 efg 1.28 c-f 1.34 c-f 1.30 c-f 1.23 B Catla catla 1.08 fg 1.12 efg 1.18 efg 1.50 cd 1.15 efg 1.28 c-f 1.22 B Cyprinus carpio 1.35 c-f 1.42 cde 1.52 bc 1.78 ab 0.92 g 1.84 a 1.47 A Mean 1.19 B 1.25 B 1.27 B 1.52 A 1.14 B 1.47 A
Carbohydrates (%)Labeo rohita 1.15 c-i 0.90 i 1.28 c-h 1.37 c-g 1.72 ab 1.32 c-h 1.29 AB Catla catla 1.10 e-i 1.44 bcd 1.07 f-i 1.38 c-f 1.13 d-i 1.06 ghi 1.20 B Cyprinus carpio 1.41 cde 1.30 c-h 1.27 c-h 1.45 hi 1.01 hi 1.86 a 1.38 A Mean 1.22 B 1.11 B 1.21 B 1.40 AB 1.29 AB 1.41 A
Means sharing similar letter in a row or in a column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). Small letters represent comparison among interaction means and capital letters are used for overall mean.
73
Figure 20: Moisture contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments
60
65
70
75
80
85
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Moi
stur
e (%
)
Labeo rohita
Catla catla
Cyprinus carpio
74
Figure 21: Crude protein contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments
0
5
10
15
20
25
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Prot
ein
(%)
Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio
75
Figure 22: Total fat contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Fat (
%)
Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio
76
Figure 23: Total ash contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Ash
(%)
Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio
77
Figure 24: Carbohydrates contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
Carb
ohyd
rate
s (%
)
Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio
78
j. Cost benefits analysis of three fish species: The cost-benefit analysis of this experimental trail was shown in Table 33. At the final
harvesting, Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio showed the average body weight of
2919.5, 2735.0, 3040.4, 3218.7, 2155.7 and 3590.7g-1fish -1 pond-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,
respectively.
During the experimental trail, various inputs likes’ organic manure, inorganic fertilizers
and supplementary feed were utilized in required doses according to the treatments. These
amounts were recorded as 1824.40 (cow manure), 59.90 (nitrophos), 955.31 and 33.23 (cow
manure and nitrophos), 992.02 and 165.34 (cow manure and supplementary feed), 33.89 and
160.85 (nitrophos and supplementary feed) and 573.05, 19.73 and 188.23 kg-1pond-1 (cow
manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed). According to Table 33, cost of these various inputs
were observed as Rs.912.20, 2396.00, 1806.85, 3802.81, 4572.60 and 4840.32 in T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5 and T6, respectively.
The income of three fish species acre-1 were found to be Rs. 4381.85, 3890.32,4565.30,
4857.80, 4716.0 and 6667.50 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Table 33 revealed that
fixed cost remained as Rs.700 but the total cost difference among the treatments was recorded as
Rs.1612.20, 3096.00, 2506.85, 4502.81, 5272.60 and 5540.33 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,
respectively.
In case of total cost and total income acre-1, T6 remained the best with Rs. 1108066 and
133350.00 as compared to the other treatments. According to the net profit of three fish species
in different treatments, T6 showed the highest benefit of Rs.974716.00 with a total cost of Rs.
1108066 followed by T1, which showed the net profit of Rs. 55393.00 under the influence of cow
manure. Total cost and total income hectare-1, T6 remained the best with Rs. 277016.50 and
333375.00 as compared to the other treatments. The net profit-1 hectare-1, of three fish species in
T6 with the highest profit of Rs.56358.50 with the provision of of cow manure, nitrophos and
supplementary feed. But economical point of view, T1 with low cost inputs (Rs. 32244.00 and
80610.00) showed the maximum production as being feasible to farmers.
79
Table 33: Cost benefits analysis per hectare of three fish species under different treatments
Table 35: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in water temperature (°C) and secchi disc penetration (cm) of pond water under different treatments
S.O.V
d.f
Water temperature (°C) Secchi disc penetration (cm) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.
Months 11 434.68 4609.9** 0.00 52.59 11.47** 0.00 Treatments 5 0.14 1.52NS 0.19 22.67 4.95** 0.00 Error 55 0.09 4.58 Total 71 Water temperature Secchi disc penetration SEM for Months 0.1254 0.8739 SEM For Treatments 0.0886 0.6180 Comparison of Means Months August 28.65 E 19.00 ABC September 26.69 F 17.48 BC October 18.31 G 17.42 BC November 15.35 H 18.48 ABC December 13.28 I 19.78 AB January 11.31 J 20.28 A February 10.38 K 20.08 AB March 18.31 G 16.72 CD April 29.16 D 14.68 DE May 30.35 C 13.47 E June 31.21 B 12.25 E July 33.33 A 12.35 E Treatments
T1 22.34 18.95 A T2 22.29 17.64 AB T3 22.24 17.33 ABC T4 22.13 16.04 BC T5 22.11 15.50 C T6 22.06 15.54 C
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
84
Figure 25: Seasonal variations in water temperature of pond water under different treatments
7
12
17
22
27
32
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Months
Wat
er te
mpe
ratu
re (°
C)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
85
Figure 26: Seasonal variations in secchi disc penetration of pond water under different treatments
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
Aug
Sept Oct
Nov
Dec Jan
Feb
Mar Ap
r
May Jun
Jul
Months
Secc
hi's
dis
c vi
sibi
lity
T1T2T3T4T5T6
86
Dissolved oxygen: There are two main sources of dissolved oxygen in water are by diffusion from air and
photosynthetic activity of the plant. The ability of water to retain oxygen is strongly determined
by the salts concentration and the temperature greatly of water. The solubility of oxygen
increases with the decrease in temperature, while it decreases with the increase in salinity.
Dissolved oxygen depends upon the surface area, circulation of water by wind or wave action
and the amount produced and consumed by living organism. Therefore, a daily seasonal and
spatial variation can be expected in dissolved oxygen levels of natural water.
The seasonal variations in average dissolved oxygen were noted as 5.1 to 8.5, 5.8 to 8.5,
5.1 to 8.5, 5.3 to 8.1, 5.4 to 8.3 and 5.5 to 8.1 mg L-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The minimum value 5.1 mg L-1 was observed in T1 and T3 during July-August, whereas, the
maximum value 8.5 mgL-1 was found in T3 during January (Table 36, Fig. 27). Statistical
analysis showed a highly significant difference for dissolved oxygen among the different
month of experiment (P <0.05), while remainecd non-significant among the different
treatments, respectively (Table 37, Fig, 27). Seasonal variation in dissolved oxygen was
maximum and statistically significant during the month of Deember, January and Feburary.
However it varied non-significantly (P >0.05) in November and March but was significantly
different from the dissolved oxygen in rest of the year.
pH: pH is the measure of hydrogen ion concentration. Each organism has its maximum and
minimum toleration range of pH. It can be regarded as index of environmental condition. The
water used in fish culture is chemically not pure and contains different substances, which make
it acidic, neutral and alkaline in reaction in terms of pH. The majority of natural water has an
alkaline pH, due the presence of sufficient quantities of carbonates and bicarbonates It
increases during the day largely due to the photosynthetic activity, whereas decreases at night
due to respiratory activity.
The range of pH in different treatments is presented in Table 36 and Fig. 28. The
average pH value ranged from 7.8 to 8.5 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Statistical
analysis showed that there was a non-significant(P >0.05) difference among the treatments and
months (Table 37).
87
Table 36: Seasonal variations in dissolved oxygen and pH of pond water under different treatments
Months Dissolved oxygen (mg L-1)
pH
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 5.5 5.8 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 8.0 8.1 8.4 8.0 8.5 8.4
Table 37: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in dissolved oxygen (mgL-1) and pH of pond water under different treatments
S.O.V
d.f
Dissolved oxygen (mg L-1) pH MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.
Months 11 5.74 40.56** 0.00 0.03 0.60 NS Treatments 5 0.22 1.59NS 0.176 0.03 0.63 NS Error 55 0.14 0.047 Total 71 Dissolved oxygen pH SEM for Months 0.1536 0.0886 SEM For Treatments 0.1086 0.0627 Comparison of means Months August 5.43 E 8.23 September 5.72 E 8.28 October 6.62 C 8.26 November 7.50 B 8.26 December 8.02 A 8.25 January 8.28 A 8.10 February 8.10 A 8.33 March 7.20 B 8.18 April 6.62 C 8.30 May 6.62 C 8.36 June 6.18 CD 8.28 July 5.80 DE 8.26 Treatments
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
89
Figure 27: Seasonal variations in dissolved oxygen of pond water under different treatments
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun Jul
Months
Dis
solv
ed o
xyge
n (m
g/L)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
90
Figure 28: Seasonal variations in the pH of pond water under the different treatments
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun Jul
Months
pHT1T2T3T4T5T6
91
Total alkalinity:
Carbonates and bicarbonates are the most common ions present in water which
are the major cause of increase in alkalinity because carbonate minerals particularly
calcium carbonate occur abundantly in nature. The wide range of fluctuations in
alkalinity levels depends upon the location, season, plankton population and nature of
sediments. The overall range in the total alkalinity is shown in Table 38. The average
total alkalinity varied from 403.0 to 490.5, 405.5 to 529.5, 400.5 to 520.0, 399.5 to
581.0, 430.5 to 560.5 and 425.5 to 501.5 mg L-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The minimum average value of alkalinity (399.5 mg L-1) was recorded in the treatment
T4 during December while maximum average alkalinity (581.0 mgL-1 ) was noticed in
treatment T4 during September (Table 38, Fig. 29). There was a statistically non-
significant difference(P >0.05) for months but significant(P <0.05) in response to
treatments .There was a non-significant difference existed among T2, T3, T4, T6 and T1
v/s T5 (Table 39).
Carbonates and bicarbonates:
Carbonates and bicarbonates present in natural water, determine the quality of
water in terms of alkalinity.
The average carbonates values showed the seasonal variation from 45.0 to 85.0,
50.0 to 85.0, 48.0 to 80.0, 50.0 to 80.0, 50.0 to 90.0 and 60.0 to 90.0 mgL-1 while
bicarbonates were recorded as 321.5 to 426.5, 335.5 to 469.5, 330.5 to 470.0, 329.5 to
511.0, 351.5 to 490.5 and 345.5 to 441.5 mgL-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The minimum average values of carbonates and bicarbonates 45 and 321.5 mg L-1were
recorded in the treatment T1 during May and November. The maximum average
carbonate and bicarbonate values (85.0 mg L-1 and 511.0 mg L-1) were observed in T1
and T4 during November and September (Table 38, 40, Fig. 30, 31). There was a
statistically non-significant(P >0.05) difference existed between months and in
response to seasonal variations in carbonates and bicarbonates under different
treatments (Table 39, 41).
92
Table 38: Seasonal variations in total alkalinity and carbonates of pond water under different treatments
Months Total alkalinity (mg L-1) Carbonates (mg L-1)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 465.0 502.5 475.5 425.0 510.5 475.0 80.0 60.0 75.0 65.0 90.0 70.0
Table 39: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in total alkalinity (mgL-1) and carbonates (mgL-1) of pond water under different treatments
S.O.V
d.f
Total alkalinity (mg L-1) Carbonates (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.
Months 11 947.07 0.674 NS 200.98 1.62NS 0.117 Treatments 5 3600.07 2.56 * 0.03 85.53 0.69NS Error 55 1404.70 123.62 Total 71 Total alkalinity Carbonates SEM for Months 15.301 4.539 SEM For Treatments 10.819 3.210 Comparison of means Months August 475.58 73.33 September 484.50 67.16 October 498.50 63.33 November 455.25 70.00 December 472.66 68.33 January 484.91 78.33 February 464.91 60.50 March 459.51 69.16 April 468.91 65.00 May 461.00 61.66 June 465.66 74.16 July 465.50 60.00 Treatments
T1 443.58 A 65.83 T2 471.95 AB 66.08 T3 468.50 AB 64.83 T4 469.58 AB 67.08 T5 497.45 A 70.00 T6 477.33 AB 71.66
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
94
Figure 29: Seasonal variations in total alkalinity of pond water under the different treatments
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Aug
Sept Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun
Jul
Months
Tota
l alkalin
ity (m
g/L)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
95
Figure 30: Seasonal variations in the carbonates of pond water under different treatments
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun Jul
Months
Car
bona
tes
(mg/
L)T1T2T3T4T5T6
96
Total hardness:
The hardness of water is generally due to the presence of salts of calcium and
magnesium. Hardness is also caused by the presence of carbonates and bicarbonates.
The hardness of water plays an important role in the distribution of aquatic organisms.
Calcium and magnesium are also concerned in controlling the permeability of living
tissues to water and solutes and are essential components of the outer covering of many
arthropods and mollusks.
Data presented in Table 40 revealed statistically significant results. The overall
range of total hardness was recorded as 190 to 245, 193 to 246, 202 to 255, 202 to 240,
203 to 250 and 205 to 245 mg L-1 for the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,
respectively. The minimum average value of total hardness (190.0 mg L-1) was recorded
in the treatment T1 during October while maximum concentration (255 mg L-1) of total
hardness was recorded in treatment T3 during January (Table 40, Fig. 32). There was a
statistically significant difference(P <0.05) for months and non-significant(P >0.05)
difference in response to different treatments (Table 41).
97
Table 40: Seasonal variations in bicarbonates and total hardness of pond water under different treatments
Months Bicarbonates (mg L-1) Total hardness (mg L-1 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Table 41: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in bicarbonates (mg L-1) and total hardness (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments S.O.V
d.f
Bicarbonates (mg L-1) Total hardness (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.
Months 11 1025.28 0.64NS 532.98 2.39* 0.016 Treatments 5 2994.76 1.86NS 0.1152 92.25 0.41NS Error 55 1604.38 222.74 Total 71 Bicarbonates Total hardness SEM for Months 16.35 6.09 SEM For Treatments 11.56 4.31 Comparison of means Months August 402.25 219.67 A-D September 417.33 218.50 A-D October 435.16 208.00 CD November 385.25 213.00 BCD December 404.33 227.33 ABC January 406.58 230.00 AB February 404.41 223.33 A-D March 390.25 225.50 A-D April 403.91 208.17 CD May 399.33 206.00 D June 391.50 235.50 A July 405.50 215.83 A-D Treatments
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean.Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
99
Figure 31: Seasonal variations in bicarbonates of pond water under different treatments
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Aug
Sept Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun Jul
Months
Bic
arbo
nate
s (m
g/L)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
100
Figure 32: Seasonal variations in the total hardness of pond water under the different treatments
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
Aug
Sept Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun Jul
Months
Tota
l har
dnes
s (m
g/L)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
101
Calcium:
Calcium is one of the most abundant ions present in fresh water in the form of
calcium carbonate, being soluble in water. Data pertaining to calcium in pond water are
given in Table 42 and Fig. 33. The average value of calcium under the influence of
different treatments was ranged from 16.0 to 26.3, 16.0 to 26.8, 16.0 to 24.0, 16.0 to 24.5,
14.4 to 24.0 and 19.0 to 26.0 mg L-1 for the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,
respectively. The minimum average value of calcium (14.4 mg L-1) was recorded in the
treatment T5 during August. The maximum concentration (26.8 mg L-1) of calcium was
recorded in treatment T2 during November. Statistically non-significant (P >0.05)
relationship was found among months as well as different treatment for the concentration
of calcium (Table 43).
Magnesium:
Magnesium concentration in ponds is absolutely essential for chlorophyll bearing
aquatic plants for photosynthetic activity. It is present in water in the form of magnesium
carbonate, sulphate and chloride. The overall range of magnesium concentration is given in
(Table 42, Fig. 34). It ranges from 32.81 to 48.56, 31.81 to 48.81, 36.12 to 48.75, 35.93 to
48.75, 37.50 to 49.31 and 37.37 to 49.12 mg L-1 with minimum value (31.81 mg L-1) found
in treatment T2 in December and maximum value (49.12 mg L-1) observed in treatment T6
in August. Statistically significant difference(P <0.05) was found in monthly variation but
non significant (P >0.05) difference for treatments of magnesium concentration (Table
43).
102
Table 42: Seasonal variations in calcium and magnesium of pond water under different treatments
Table 43: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in calcium (mg L-1) and magnesium (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments
S.O.V
d.f
Calcium (mg L-1) Magnesium (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.
Months 11 10.71 1.83 NS 0.07 36.31 2.57* 0.01 Treatments 5 3.17 0.54 NS 12.82 0.91NS Error 55 5.85 14.14 Total 71 Calcium Magnesium SEM for Months 0.98 1.53 SEM For Treatments 0.69 1.08 Comparison of means Months August 19.30 42.85 A-D September 20.08 42.07 A-D October 22.66 37.83 D November 22.05 39.46 CD December 23.50 39.41 CD January 20.76 44.51 AB February 23.51 41.13 A-D March 21.16 43.14 ABC April 20.33 39.33 CD May 20.48 38.69 CD June 21.03 45.72 A July 21.51 40.50 BCD Treatments
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
104
Figure 33: Seasonal variations in calcium of pond water under different treatments
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Ju
n Jul
Months
Cal
cium
(mg/
L)T1T2T3T4T5T6
105
Figure 34: Seasonal variations in the magnesium of pond water under different treatments
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Ju
n Jul
Months
Mag
nesi
um (m
g/L)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
106
Total solids:
Total solids present in natural water comprises of suspended and dissolved material,
plankton, finely divided substances of organic origins, silt and non living substances. Total solids
in any water body affect the availability of natural food to fish in aquatic environment. The annual
changes in the average concentration of total solids are shown in Table 44 and Fig. 35.
During the experimental period, the average value of total solids was found to be 1394.38
to 1605.00, 1390.50 to 1573.20, 1370.00 to 1568.20, 1334.25 to 1608.50, 1413.50 to 1612.20 and
1460.20 to 1558.20 mg L-1in the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively (Table 44). The
treatment T3 gave lowest value (1370.00 mg L-1) in August while the highest value (1612.20 mg L-
1) of total solids was recorded in T5 in January. Statistical analysis of the data showed the highly
significant (P <0.01) difference for the months and significant (P <0.05) for the treatments
(Table 45, Fig, 35).
Total dissolved solids:
Natural water contains dissolved solids. Total dissolved solid is a measurement by weight
of total amount of material dissolved in measured volume of water. A large number of salts are
found in natural water in dissolved form. The common ones are: carbonates, bicarbonates,
chlorides, phosphates and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and manganese etc.
The quantity and the quality of dissolved solids depends on the nature of basin, erosion of
shoreline, wind blow material, rainfall, inflow of seepage and decay of organic matter. Total
dissolved solids play an important role directly or indirectly in the biology of aquatic organism.
The average value of total dissolved solids is given in Table 44 and Fig. 36.
The minimum value (1230 mg L-1) was noted in treatment T4 in December while the
maximum value (1510 mg L-1) was observed in treatment T5 in January. The average value of total
dissolved solids showed the seasonal fluctuation of 1340 to 1480, 1290 to 1460, 1280 to 1450,
1230 t0 1490, 1310 to 1510 and 1340 to 1450 mg L-1in different treatments. Statistically, for total
dissolved solids, highly significant (P <0.01) difference was noted among the month and
significant(P <0.05) difference in the treatments (Table 45).
107
Table 44: Seasonal variations in total solids and total dissolved solids of pond water under different treatments
Months Total solids (mg L-1 ) Total dissolved solids (mg L-1 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Table 45: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in total solids (mg L-1) and total dissolved solids (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments S.O.V
d.f
Total solids (mg L-1) Total dissolved solids (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.
Months 11 15996.91 12.43** 0.00 14796.97 15.47** 0.00 Treatments 5 3351.49 2.60* 0.035 2370.00 2.48* 0.043 Error 55 1286.69 956.06 Total 71 Total solids Total dissolved solids SEM for Months 14.64 12.62 SEM For Treatments 10.35 8.92 Comparison of means Months August 1432.39 EF 1338.3 CD September 1453.20 DE 1350.0 C October 1464.50 CDE 1358.3 C November 1525.83 AB 1420.0 AB December 1408.15 F 1305.0 D January 1506.44 BC 1410.0 B February 1553.18 A 1450.0 A March 1559.70 A 1445.0 AB April 1570.21 A 1450.0 A May 1487.88 BCD 1361.7 C June 1502.52 BC 1371.7 C July 1467.11 CDE 1340.0 CD Treatments
T1 1496.12 AB 1393.3 A T2 1491.01 AB 1385.0 AB T3 1465.79 B 1360.0 B T4 1493.28 AB 1375.8 AB T5 1516.61 A 1400.0 A T6 1502.73 A 1385.8 AB
* = Significant (P<0.01); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). .
109
Figure 35: Seasonal variations in total solids of pond water under different treatments
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Ju
n Jul
Months
Tota
l sol
ids
(mg/
L)T1T2T3T4T5T6
110
Figure 36: Seasonal variations in total dissolved solids of pond water different treatments
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
May Jun
Jul
Months
Total disso
lved
solids (m
g/L)
T1T2T3T4T5T6
111
Planktonic biomass:
Planktonic biomass includes the complete biotic components (producers, consumers
and decomposers) of the pond ecosystem. Planktonic biomass data is given in Table 46.
Data presented in Table revealed that the results statistically significant. Lowest value
(54.38 mg L-1) was obtained in T1 in August while the highest planktonic biomass value
(138.20 mg L-1) was observed in treatment T3 in June. The overall planktonic biomass
value ranged from 54.38 to 135.50, 58.50 to 132.20, 60.00 to 138.20, 100.80 to 130.35,
98.90 to 131.55 and 101.20 to 130.75 mg L-1 in the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,
01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 54.38 58.50 60.00 128.25 130.50 126.37
01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 78.37 72.76 75.47 130.35 131.55 130.75
01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 89.81 93.62 85.39 120.65 122.25 125.30
01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 100.20 105.55 106.50 109.25 105.30 108.20
01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 98.25 100.50 102.20 104.25 103.50 110.20
01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 64.20 101.50 103.25 104.30 102.20 103.20
01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 108.20 105.80 104.20 100.80 98.90 101.20
01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 115.20 120.20 118.20 116.20 110.20 108.20
01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 125.00 123.20 119.20 118.50 117.20 118.20
01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 132.20 130.20 128.30 125.20 121.20 120.20
01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 135.50 132.20 138.20 125.20 128.25 125.80
01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 132.20 128.20 122.30 126.50 128.30 125.20
113
Table 47: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in planktonic biomass (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments
S.O.V
d.f
Planktonic biomass (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob.
Months 11 890.35 4.01** 0.00 Treatments 5 474.79 2.14* 0.07 Error 55 221.74 Total 71 Planktonic biomass SEM for Months 6.08 SEM For Treatments 4.29 Months August 93.00 C September 103.20 BC October 106.17 BC November 105.83 BC December 103.15 BC January 101.44 BC February 103.18 BC March 114.70 AB April 120.21 AB May 126.21 A June 130.85 A July 127.11 A Treatments
T1 105.29 A T2 106.01 A T3 105.26 B T4 117.45 C T5 116.61 D T6 116.90 E
* = Significant (P<0.01); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05)
114
Figure 37: Seasonal variations in the Planktonic biomass of pond water under different treatments
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov Dec Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Ju
n Jul
Months
Plan
kton
ic b
iom
ass
(mg/
L)
T1
T2T3
T4
T5
T6
115
Studies of correlation coefficient among different water attributes under
different treatments Among the six different treatments, correlation among the water quality attributes
was studied during the experimental trial for one year as depicted in Table 48-53.
1. Cow manure fertilized pond (T1)
The water temperature showed negative but significant correlation with secchi disc
penetration while it was found to be negative and highly significantly correlated with
dissolved oxygen. Negative and non significant correlation was observed with PH, total
alkalinity, carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium, total solids and total
dissolved solids as obvious from Table 48. According to statistical analysis, water
temperature is positively and non-significantly correlated with magnesium and planktonic
biomass. Secchi disc penetration is found to be negatively and non-significantly
correlated with pH, magnesium, total solids and total dissolved solids. However it
showed positive and non-significant correlation with dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity,
carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness and calcium. In contrast, it showed highly
significant and negative correlation with the planktonic biomass (P<0.001).
The statistical analysis indicated that dissolved oxygen is negatively and non-
significantly correlated with pH, magnesium and planktonic biomass, but it had non-
significant and positively correlation with total alkalinity carbonates, bicarbonates, total
hardness, total solids and total dissolved solids. It had also shown positive and significant
correlation with calcium.
pH showed negative and non-significant correlation with total alkanity, CO3, HCO3,
total hardness, calcium and magnesium but in case of total solids, total dissolved solids
and planktonic biomass,it showed positive and non-significant relationship.
Table 48 depicted the negative and non-significant correlation of total alkalinity with
carbonates and planktonic biomass (P >0.05) but positive and non-significant relationship
was observed with bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium and magnesium. Total alkalinity
showed negative but significant correlation with total dissolved solids and higly
significant correlation with total solids
116
Carbonates showed negative and non-significant correlation with bicarbonates,
total hardness, magnesium and planktonic biomass. With the total dissolved solids, total
solids and calcium, positive and non-significant correlation was noted.
In case of bicarbonates, positive and non-significant correlation was observed
with total hardness, calcium and magnesium (P> 0.05). Negative and significant
correlation was noted with total solids and total dissolved solids while negative and non-
significant correlation was observed with bicarbonates and planktonic biomass.
Statistical analysis for water quality attributes showed the negative and non-
significant correlation of total hardness with calcium, total solids and planktonic biomass
but positive and non-significant relationship was observed with magnesium and total
dissolved solids.
Calcium showed the negative and non-significant correlation with magnesium
total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass (P > 0.05) but magnesium
showed positive and non-significant correlation with total solids, total dissolved solids
and planktonic biomass. Total solids showed positive and non-significant correlation with
total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass. Total dissolved solids also showed the
positive and non-significnat correlation with planktonic biomass.
117
Table 48: Correlation co-efficient among various physico-chemical parameters of pond water in T1. WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS
SDP -0.600*
DO -0.901** 0.469
pH -0.019 -0.558 -0.025
TA -0.232 0.546 0.116 -0.319
CO3 -0.348 0.526 0.198 -0.571 -0.009
HCO3 -0.073 0.289 0.027 -0.064 0.917 -0.407
TH -0.286 0.175 0.325 -0.242 0.465 -0.048 0.444
Ca -0.574 0.536 0.678* -0.119 0.239 0.068 0.191 -0.054