How to effectively collect zooplankton in illuminated cages for fish rearing?

• Autorzy: Skrzypczak A. , Springer A. , Gozdziejewska A. , Furgala-Selezniow G.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Jak efektywnie pobierać zooplankton w sadzach oświetlonych do podchowu ryb?

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The use of a reliable zooplankton sample collection method is important for the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the food source available for juvenile fish. The effectiveness of zooplankton collection in illuminated cages is related to its concentration in the subsurface layer of water around or under the light source. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three zooplanktonsample collection methods in illuminated cages. The experiment was conducted in Lake Maróz,Poland, in illuminated net cages. The light source was an electric bulb (24 V, 60 W), located just abovewater’s surface and switched on 2 hours before sample collection. The zooplankton samples were collected using a bottle sampler and conical tow-net (mesh 30μm) hauled at two different speeds. Interms of qualitative and quantitative parameters, the optimal sample collection method was planktonnet hauled at a slow vertical rate (0.05 m s–1). Average results were obtained using a bottle sampler(5.0 dm3volume). Where as, plankton net hauled vertically at a fast vertical rate (0.10 m s–1) was the least effective method, due to the displacement of water outside of the net’s inlet

PL

Zastosowanie miarodajnej metody poboru prób zooplanktonu w środowisku sadzów oświetlonych jest istotne w ocenie ilości oraz jakości pokarmu dostępnego dla ryb. Celem pracy było porównanie efektywności trzech wariantów metodycznych poboru prób zooplanktonu w środowisku sadzów oświetlonych. Eksperyment przeprowadzono w sadzach jeziorowych (jez. Maróz) oświetlonych od zmierzchu żarówką elektryczną (24 V, 60 W), umieszczoną tuż nad powierzchnią wody. Próby zooplanktonu pobierano czerpaczem butlowym oraz siatką planktonową techniką zaciągu pionowego w dwóch wariantach prędkości holu. W analizie porównawczej efektywności poboru prób zastosowano znormalizowany wskaźnik liczebności zooplanktonu. Referencyjnym wariantem metodycznym dla badań jakościowych i ilościowych zooplanktonu był powolny zaciąg pionowy siatką planktonową (prędkość holu 0.05 m s–1, teoretyczne tempo filtracji 0.08 dm3dm–2s–1).Odzwierciedlał on największą liczebność zooplanktonu w każdej grupie taksonomicznej (p≤0.001dla Copepoda i Rotifera orazp≤0.01 dla Cladocera). Najmniejszą efektywność poboru prób,tj. liczebność zooplanktonu i wykrywalność taksonów, uzyskano po szybkim zaciągu pionowym siatką (prędkość holu 0.10 m s–1, teoretyczne tempo filtracji 0.16 dm3dm–2s–1). Pośrednie wyniki uzyskano po zastosowaniu czerpacza butlowego o objętości 5.0 dm3. Niska efektywność siatki planktonowej przy szybkim zaciągu spowodowana była zjawiskiem wypierania wody poza krawędź otworu wlotowego

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Natural Sciences
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 32
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.371-387,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Skrzypczak A.

• Department of Tourism, Recreation and Ecology, University of Warmia and Mazury, Michala Oczapowskiego 5, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland

autor

Springer A.

• Department of Tourism, Recreation and Ecology, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland

autor

Gozdziejewska A.

• Department of Tourism, Recreation and Ecology, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland

autor

Furgala-Selezniow G.

• Department of Tourism, Recreation and Ecology, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland

Bibliografia

• BOGOROV B.G. 1959.On the standardization of marine plankton investigations.Revue der gesamtenHydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 44: 62l–642.
• BROUGHTON E.A., LOUGH R.G. 2006.A direct comparison of MOCNESS and Video Plankton Recorderzooplankton abundance estimates. Possible applications for augmenting net sampling with videosystems.Deep Sea Research. Part II. Topical Studies in Oceanography, 53: 2789–2807.
• CECCUZZI P., TEROVA G., BRAMBILLA F., ANTONINI M., SAROGLIA M. 2010.Observations Of EurasianPerch (Perca fluviatilis, L.) post-larvae growth performances reared in an illuminated floating cagein Varese lake (N-W Italy) over a two years period. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 9 (1): 65–72.
• CHAMPIGNEULLE A., ROJAS-BELTRAN R. 1990.First attempts to optimize the mass rearing of withefish (Coregonus lavaretus L.) larvae from Leman and Bourget lakes (France) in tanks and cages.Aquatic Living Resources, 3: 217–228.
• DEBERNARDI R. 1984.Methods for the estimation of zooplankton abundance. In: A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. Eds. J.A. Downing, F.H. Rigler.BP Hand Book 17, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp. 228–265.
• DHARGALKAR V.K., VERLECAR X.N. 2004.Zooplankton methodology, collection & identification – a fieldmanual.National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa.
• FRISCH D., WOHLTMANN A. 2005.The Bag-Sampler. A simple device for collecting zooplankton in shallow vegetated ponds. International Review of Hydrobiology, 90(5–6): 596–602.
• FURGALA-SELEZNIOW G., SKRZYPCZAK A., KUCHARCZYK D., KUJAWA R., MAMCARZ A., ŻARSKI D., TARGOŃSKA K.2014.Food selection of burbot (Lota lota L.) larvae reared in illuminated net cages in mesotrophic Lake Maróz (north-eastern Poland).Aquaculture International, 22: 41–52.
• GRAVES K.G., MORROW J.C. 1988.Technical notes. Tube sampler for zooplankton.The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 50(3): 182–183.
• GREENBERG A.E., CLASCERI L.S., EATON A.D. 1992.Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, 18th Edition, Washington.
• GUTKOWSKA A., PATUREJ E., KOWALSKA E. 2012.Qualitative and quantitative methods for samplingzooplankton in shallow coastal estuaries. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 12: 253–263.
• HERON A.C. 1968.Plankton Gauze.In: Zooplankton sampling.Part 1.Reviews on zooplankton sampling methods. Eds. D.J. Tranter. UNESCO, Monographs on oceanographic methodology, 2,Paris, pp. 9–26.
• KANKAALA P. 2007.A quantitative comparison of two zooplankton sampling methods, a plankton trapand a towed net, in the Baltic. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydro-graphie, 69: 277–287.
• KIEFER F., FRYER G. 1978.Das Zooplankton der Biennengewässer. E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuch-handlung, 2 Teil, Stuttgart.
• KNOECHEL R., CAMPBELL C.E. 1992.A simple, inexpensive device for obtaining vertically integrated,quantitative samples of pelagic zooplankton.Limnology and Oceanography, 37(3): 675–680.
• KRŠINIĆ F. 1990.A new type of zooplankton sampler.Journal of Plankton Research, 12(2): 337–343.
• LANDAU L.D., LIFSZYC J.M. 2009.Hydrodynamics. Wyd. PWN, Warszawa.
• LANGFORD R.R. 1953.Methods of plankton collection and a description of a new sampler.Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 10(5): 238–252.
• MACK H.R., CONROY J.D., BLOCKSOM K.A., STEIN R.A., LUDSIN S.A. 2012.A comparative analysis of zooplankton field collection and sample enumeration methods. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 10(1): 41–53.
• MAHNKEN C.V.D., JOSSI J.W. 1967.Flume experiments on the hydrodynamics of plankton nets. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 31(1): 38–45.
• MAMCARZ A.1995a.Rearing of coregonid (Coregonus sp.) larvae in illuminated cages: a review.Archivfur Hydrobiologie Special Issues Advances in Limnology, 46: 287–292.
• MAMCARZ A. 1995b.Changes in zooplankton structure around illuminated cage culture. AquacultureResearch, 26: 515–525.
• MARTYNOVA D.M., GORDEEVA A.V. 2010.Light-dependent behavior of abundant zooplankton species inthe White Sea. Journal of Plankton Research, 32(4): 441–456.
• MASSON S. 2004.Comparison of nets and pump sampling gears to assess zooplankton vertical distribution in stratified lakes.Journal of Plankton Research, 26(10): 1199–1206.
• MCGAVIGAN C. 2012.A quantitative method for sampling littoral zooplankton in lakes. The active Tube. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 10(5): 289–295.
• MCGOWAN J.A., FRAUNDORF V.J. 1966.The relationship between size of net used and estimates of zooplankton diversity. Limnology and Oceanography, 11(4): 456–469.
• PAGGI J.C., MENDOZA R.O., DEBONIS C.J., DEPAGGI S.B.J. 2001. A simple and inexpensive trap-tubesampler for zooplankton collection in shallow waters. Hydrobiologia, 464: 45–49.
• RADWAN S., BIELANSKA-GRAJNER I., EJSMONT-KARABIN J. 2004.Polish freshwater fauna. Rotifera.Z. 32A/B.Oficyna Wydawnicza TERCJA, Łódź.
• REMSEN A., HOPKINS T.L., SAMSON S. 2004.What you see is not what you catch: a comparison ofconcurrently collected net, optical plankton counter, and shadowed image particle profiling evaluation recorder data from the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea Research. Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 51(1): 129–151.
• SEMENOVA A.S. 2011.Quantitative characteristics of zooplankton of the Curonian Lagoon taken bydifferent sampling methods. Hydrobiological Journal, 47(3): 100–107.
• SICHROWSKY U., SCHABETSBERGER R., GASSNER H., KAISER R., BOUFA B., PSENNER R. 2013.Cradle orplague pit? Illuminated cages increase the transmission risk of parasites from copepods tocoregonids.Aquaculture, 392–395: 8–15.
• SKRZYPCZAK A., MAMCARZ A., KUCHARCZYK D., KUJAWA R. 1998.Use of a floating pump to collect and transfer live zooplankton as food for percid larvae reared in net cages. The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 60(3): 239–241.
• SLUSS T.D., JACK J.D., THORP J.K. 2011.A comparison of sampling methods for riverine zooplankton.River Systems, 19: 315–326.
• SPRINGER A., SKRZYPCZAK A. 2015.The effect of above-water artificial light on the zooplanktonabundance in cages for fish rearing. Polish Journal of Natural Sciences, 30(4): 379–387.
• STARMACH K. 1955. Plankton research methods. Wyd. PWRiL, Warszawa.
• SUTHERSI. M., RISSIK D. 2009.Plankton. A guide to their ecology and monitoring for water quality.CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Vic.
• TRANTER D.J., SMITH P.E. 1968.Filtration performance. In:Zooplankton sampling.Part 1.Reviews onzooplankton sampling methods. Eds. D.J. Tranter. UNESCO Monographs on oceanographicmethodology. 2, Paris, pp. 27–56.
• WANG S., XIE P., WU S., WU A. 2007.Crustacea zooplankton distribution patterns and their biomass asrelated to trophic indicators of 29 shallow subtropical lakes.Limnologica, 37: 242–249.
• WIKTOR K. 1982.The influence of the method of collecting plankton in the coastal waters of the SouthBaltic on the results of the quality and quantity analyses. Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Biologiii Nauki o Ziemi Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, pp. 9: 93–109.
• WILLIAMSON M., MCGOWAN J.A. 2010.The copepod communities of the north and south Pacific centralgyres and the form of species-abundance distributions.Journal of Plankton Research, 32: 273–383.
• ŽILIUKIENĖ V. 2005.The diet of Abramis brama (L.) larvae reared in illuminated cages. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 21(5): 406–409.