Water quality parameters during the study period were ranged from 28.9 to 29.2°C, 5.61 to 6.11 ppm, 7.9 to 8.5, 133 to 145 ppm, 220 to 232 ppm, 0.02 to 0.089 ppm and 0.13 to 0.30 ppm for temperature, DO, pH, alkalinity, hardiness, nitrite, ammonia, respectively. There were no significant variations observed in the water quality parameters among the treatments during the experimental period.
Larvae exposed to moderate concentrations of
C. vulgaris performed better than high and low concentrations. Fig 1 shows the survival rates upon time and the appearance of the first PL under various concentrations of
C. vulgaris. Survival rates of larvae treated with or without
C. vulgaris decreased gradually with time and remained constant after metamorphosis of first PL stage. At the end of the experiment, survival rates were parallel for T2, T3, T4 and T5 but varied significantly (
P<0.05) from T1. Highest larval survival was observed in T3 (60.83%) followed by T4 (56.91%), T2 (48.39%), T5 (40.93%) and T1 (30.65%), respectively. Larval metamorphosis occurred significantly earlier (
P<0.05) in T3 than other treatments, while prolong time required to metamorphosis for T1 (clear water). The PL appearance was first witnessed in T3 that took an average duration of 25 days followed by T4, with 28 days; while T2, T5 and T1 recorded 31, 32 and 39 days, respectively (Table 1). A similar developmental pattern was observed for larval weight at first PL stage, larvae treated with moderate concentrations of
C. vulgaris exhibited higher weight gain than high and low concentrations of
C. vulgaris. Weight gain among
C. vulgaris treated larvae were comparable but plummeted significantly (
P<0.05) from untreated control (T1).
The mean values of the larval stage index (LSI) attained in the experimental tanks are presented in Table 2. Larval development was significantly (P<0.05) faster for T3 than those obtained for T4, T2, T5, T1, in this sequence. Larvae converted from zoea to first PL stage within 24 days when they were treated with
C. vulgaris at the concentration of 10×10
5 cells/ml (T3). Larvae treated with T2 (5×10
5 cells/ml), T4 (15×10
5 cells/ml) and T5 (20×10
5) showed a similar pattern of larval development (28 to 32 days), while T1
(control, no microalgae) required prolonged period (40 days).
The larval condition index (LCI) based on the microscopic observation is shown in Table 3. Overall, the larvae appeared healthier regardless of C. vulgaris concentrations and experimental periods but LCI scores gradually decreased with time except T3 and T4. Although the LCI values between the treatments during stocking was insignificant (1.90 to 1.96) significant variations (P>0.05) occurred at the end of the study. The highest LCI values at the end of 25 days rearing were recorded in T3 (1.8) followed by T4 (1.7), T2 (1.47), T5 (1.4) and T1 (1.1) respectively.
Successful rearing of crustacean larvae not only relies on food quality but also depends on the water quality. Any inclusion of fouling organisms or undesirable particles in the water system alters the water parameters that ultimately hamper sustainable production. The present investigation reveals the inclusion of microalgae
C. vulgaris at a suitable concentration in the larval rearing system improved the larval growth and development greatly. Larval survival, larval development (LSI) and larval quality (LCI) was found significantly higher in all
C. vulgaris treated tanks in contract to untreated control. Besides, the improved larval performances especially exposed to
C. vulgaris at varying concentrations resulted in higher dry weight gain of the newly settled post larvae. The incorporation of
C. vulgaris in larval rearing tanks did show any negative impact on water quality parameters throughout the study periods.
Water quality and dietary requirements considered as the important elements influencing the metamorphosis and survival of crustacean larvae (Anger, 2006). In present study, the observed water quality parameters in treated and untreated tanks were found within the optimal range as suggested by New (2002). Application of microalgae in larval rearing tank not only improves water quality but also removes nitrogenous substances in the system
(Cohen et al., 1976; Mallasen and Valentini, 2006). It has been reported that microalgae are able to produce several bioactive compounds that can obstruct the entry of various harmful pathogens (Lober and Zeng, 2009). This study clearly observed the better survival in the presence of moderate of microalgae. Addition of microalgae contributes beneficial bacteria in to the larval rearing systems that may influence intestinal and water microbiota
(Salvesen et al., 2000; Muller-Fegua, 2000;
Jakhar et al., 2016; Maliwat et al., 2017; Pakravan et al., 2017;). Likewise, Gatesoupe (1999) documented that the gut microbiota of fish larvae clearly influenced by the media they survive.
The direct beneficial effects of microalgae in larvae rearing systems are not clear but it is predicted that several factors responsible for better growth and development. The primary reason probably related to the nutritional improvement in the early larval stages by the presence of microalgal cells. While working on
M. rosenbergii larvae, Lober and Zeng (2009) found the presence of micoalgal cells in the larval gut although, they were uncertain whether those cells were actively consumed or accidentally ingested. Similarly, algal residues were witnessed in the larval gut in several instances during present investigation. Occurrence of microalgae or its constituents, even at small quantity in the gut can activate the production of digestive enzymes and enhance growth performances
(Reitan et al., 1993; Brito et al., 2004). Brown et al., (1997) stated the presence of several growth promoting pigments such as chlorophyll, carotenoids and phycobiliproteins in microalgae.
Radhakrishnan et al., (2015); Sukri et al., (2016) and
Maliwat et al., (2017) described the beneficial effects of
C. vulgaris on digestive enzyme activities in
M. rosenbergii. Furthermore,
Xu et al., (2014) and
Shi et al., (2017) witnessed certain improvements of amylase tryptsin, lipase and protease activities in aquatic animals when treated with
Chlorella species.
In addition, larvae may be benefited from the indirect nutrition by the supplementation of live
Artemia that depends microalgae as their food source. Even though
Artemia is considered as the best live feed for the larvae of many crustacean species lacks several essential nutrient components (like HUFA, DHA and EPA) in it may limit the survival and growth of crustacean and fish larvae
(Léger
et_al1986;
Felix et al., 2020). C. vulgaris contains valuable source of LC-PUFAs with presence of ARA, DHA and EPA
(Pakravan et al., 2017; Maliwat et al., 2017) that possibly enhanced the nutritional profile of
Artemia.
High microalgae rations affect the survivorship of cultures, because those cells that are not eaten by larvae suffer microbial decomposition processes, exposing cultures to noxious bacteria and fungi (Loosanoff and Davis, 1963;
Liu et al., 2006). This study confirmed that higher algal concentration caused a marked decline in growth, survivability, larval developments and LCI score particularly in T5 treatment with microalgal concentration of 20×10
5 cells/ml. This agrees with findings of
Hurley et al., (1997), who found that excessive microalgal addition are less productive and an optimal concentration is required for the better larval survival. Furthermore, decline in the larval performance observed in the higher algal density tanks could be associated with restriction of larval free movements due to the thick concentration of algae that possibly obstruct its foraging behavior.
Tank color and light influence the feeding efficiency, embryo developmental stage, survival and growth of fish species
(Downing et al., 2001; Puvanendran and Brown, 2002). The clear water tank reflects more light and attracts larvae towards the tank walls due to their positive phototaxis response which may results in increased agonistic interactions and competition for food and space (Maciel and Valenti, 2014).
Yasharian et al., (2005) found significantly improved survival of
M. rosenbergii larval in red and green tanks than those raised in blue and white tanks. In the present study, addition of
chlorella may possibly controlled overall light distribution in the rearing tank that helped in the uniform dispersal of
Artemia nauplii and prawns larvae in the water column, consequently contributed proper predation activity and non-stressful environment.
M. rosenbergii larvae rearing with
C. vulgaris improved the growth performances as measured by final dry weight, survival, LSI and LCI. Similar context, Lober and Zeng (2009) observed the improved growth performances for
M. rosenbergii larvae reared in combination of
Artemia and
Nannochloropsis sp. (as green water) than without green water. Under the best experimental conditions, this study proved better growth parameters in most cases (dry weight: 0.908 mg, LSI: 24 days and LCI: 1.8) than reported by Lober and Zeng (2009) (dry weight: 0.852 mg, survival: 70.8% and LSI: 30.06 days) except survival (61
vs 71%). The lowering survival in this study could be stocking density, high stocking densities may increase competition for resources as food and space, generating, cannibalism and mortality
(David et al., 2016). Density-dependent stocking of
M rosenberii larvae under
C vulgaries should be explored in future studies.