Effect of different Water Sources on Hatching and Larval Survival of Clarias gariepinus

Advertisements

By Kenule, BN; Nnam, BS (2024). Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 14(1): 34-41

Greener Journal of Biological Sciences

Vol. 14(1), pp. 34-41, 2024

ISSN: 2276-7762

Copyright ©2024, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

https://gjournals.org/GJBS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15580/GJBS.2024.1.091424114

Article’s title & authors

Effect of different Water Sources on Hatching and Larval Survival of Clarias gariepinus

Kenule, Bariledum Nudee1; Nnam, Bright Saro*1

1Rivers State University, Port Harcourt Rivers State, Nigeria.

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Article No.: 091424114

Type: Research

Full Text: PDF, PHP, HTML, EPUB, MP3

DOI: 10.15580/GJBS.2024.1.091424114

Hatcheries in Nigeria utilize water from various sources ranging from surface water to water sourced from underground aquifers. This research is aimed at determining the most ideal of three water sources (Fisheries Department’s Borehole, Well at Eagle Island Well and Fresh water River) for hatching and larval survival of Clarias gariepinus. The quality of the water (Temp.=27.16 – 28.280C; DO= 4.63 – 6.47mg/L; pH= 4.85 – 5.89; salinity= 0.01 – 0.08ppt; TDS= 20.64 – 111.56mg/L and Electric. Cond. =32.43 – 168.26ms/cm) did not indicate significant differences between the water sources (ANOVA, P<0.05). However the range of values recorded were within ideal range for production of Clarias garipinus. Mean percentage hatchability did not indicate significant difference between the water sources (ANOVA P<0.05). Mean + SD value recorded for hatchability were 87.90±0.10; 85.97±0.06 and 79.97±0.15 for Borehole, Well and River water respectively. Mean percentage survival did not indicate significance different between the water sources (ANOVA P<0.05). Mean + SD value recorded for survival were 96.87±0.81; 98.87±0.23 and 99.50 ±0.17 for Borehole, Well and River water respectively. At the end of the study there was a difference between the percentage hatchability and percentage survival in the three water types (ANOVA P>0.05); results indicated that borehole water was better for hatching, while river water was more ideal for larval survival of C. gariepinus.

Accepted: 17/09/2024

Published: 08/10/2024

*Corresponding Author

Nnam Bright Saro

E-mail: nnamadoorah@gmail.com,

bnk0036@gmail.com

Phone: 08137997714, 08160289817

Keywords: Water, Hatchability, Larval Survival, Clarias gariepinus.
   

INTRODUCTION

The culture of the African mud catfish (Clarias gariepinus) dominate local fish production in Nigeria and has grown rapidly because it grows fast and feeds on a large variety of food items, tolerate a wide range of water quality conditions, is relatively easy to reproduce in captivity and can be raised in high density resulting in high yield (Okechi, 2004). However, constraints to intensification and expansion of fish culture in Nigeria include inadequate supply of quality fingerlings and juveniles for stocking in ponds, cages and pens (Charo & Orirere 2000; Atanda, 2006; Ojutiku, 2008). Also C. gariepinus larvae is hindered by many factors including low hatching and larval survival rates (Muchlisin et al., 2010), source and quality of water used in the culture (Madu and Ufodike, 2001).

Hatcheries in Nigeria utilize water from various sources ranging from ground water from aquifers of varying depths and water quality to surface water; the variety of water sources produce water of varying quality (Saeed, 2000; Pulatsu et al., 2004).

 

MATERIALS AND METHOD

The study was conducted in the Fisheries laboratory of the Rivers State University, Nkpolu, Port Harcourt.

 

Experimental design

The study was a Randomize Design (RD) and utilized a triplicate design for each treatment.

Fig. 1: An overview of the proposal experimental design.

 

Triplicate design for treatment tanks

The experimental units consist of nine (9) large circular basins of 70 liters capacity each. These were arranged randomly over the work space.

Each basin (test tank) was filled with water to a depth of 8 cm with water collected from one of the three sources – fresh river water; hand dug well water and borehole water. The tanks were pre-labeled with the code of the test water before the introduction of fertilized eggs. The half and top method of water changing was adopted, such that 50% of the water was removed and top again in each of the test tanks on daily bases.

Water Sources/Water quality monitoring

Water samples were sourced from three (3) places namely; the departmental Borehole water, hand dug well water from Eagle Island and fresh river water from Luubara creek at Duburo town. A 50 liters jerry-can was used to collect water from each of the sources and transported to the fisheries laboratory.

Water quality parameters such as; pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity, total dissolve solid (TDS), ammonia and conductivity were measured using a digital prob (Extech model DO700). Measurement of these water qualities was carried out before the experiment begins. Daily monitoring of the test water quality were carried out.

Test Organisms and spawning agent

Larval of Clarias gariepinus (African catfish) were used for the study.

A total of two (2) brood stocks of C. gariepinus (1 male: 1 female) was bought from a commercial farm in Port-harcourt, Rivers State. The brood stocks were of similar weight and not less than 1kg. Selection of brood stocks was based on the readiness of the genitals. Gravid female brood stocks of C. gariepinus was selected based on the swollen, reddish genital opening and with the release of ripe eggs (golden colour) by gentle press on the abdomen. Sexually ready males was selected based on the reddish and pointed genital papillae.

Brood stocks were transported from the commercial farm to the Fisheries laboratory of the Rivers State University. Brood stocks were acclimated and conditioned in separate tanks a day before inducement.

Ovaprim (SGnRHa + Domperidone) was used as the spawning agent during this study. The recommended dose is 0.5ml/kg of fish.

Artificial Propagation

The female brood stock was injected intramuscularly into the dorsal muscle above the lateral line with ovaprim at 0.5ml/kg fish on the same day. After which they were kept in individual troughs with water level reduced to the minimum for conditioning of fish.

The male brood stock was sacrificed and teste removed. Milt was collected by cutting the testes into smaller pieces, squeezed and washed into already prepared 0.9% concentration of saline solution. This is to keep the sperm alive but not active.

Female brood was brought out from the bowl, the head covered with a moist towel and the body wiped dry. This action is to prevent the eggs coming in contact with water which will seal the micropyle and prevent fertilization. Hence, gentle pressure was applied on the anterior-posterior direction of the abdomen to strip the eggs. Stripped eggs were collected into pre-weighed dry bowls and weighed again.

Thereafter, the milt collected in physiological saline was poured on the stripped eggs and stirred thoroughly to enable the milt saturate the eggs. There was continuous mixing to ensure increased fertilization and to avoid the eggs sticking together. This process lasted for 60 to 90 seconds. The fertilized eggs was spread on a spawning sponge in each treatment tank for incubation and allowed to stand for 36 hours (until hatched) hatching. When hatching is completed, larval are expected to go to the bottom of the incubation trough. While unhatched eggs remains attached to the spawning sponge. Both the unhatched eggs and spawning sponge was removed from the tanks after the hatching to avoid fungi attack on the larvae.

Determination of Percentage Hatchability and Survival

The numbers of eggs released was calculated using this method:

No of eggs released = (Wb – Wa) g x (no.s of eggs in 1 gram)…………. (Equation 1)

Where:

Wa = weight of female after stripping female

Wb = weight of female before stripping

1g = (I counted the numbers of eggs in one gram)

Percentage Hatchability

After hatching, the number of larvae in each experiment trough was carefully counted and the percentage hatchability was determined as described by Ndimele et al. (2011) using the formula:

……………………………….…. (Equation 2)

 

Percentage survival

Percentage survival was determined by the end of the experiment as describe by Florence and Harrison, (2012) using the formula:

……… (Equation 3)

Statistical analysis of data

The data collected were subjected to standard statistical analysis such as single ANOVA (Analyses of variance) and confidence interval statistics with the aid of Microsoft Excel sheet.

RESULTS

The result of the water quality parameters of different water sources utilized during hatchery operations is presented in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. The results revealed that value of parameters recorded during hatching were similar to values recorded during survival. Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen and pH values range between 27.16 – 28.280C; 4.63 – 6.47mg/L and 4.85 – 5.89 respectively while salinity, TDS and Electric. Cond. Values range between 0.01 – 0.08ppt, 20.64 – 111.56mg/L and 32.43 – 168.26ms/cm respectively. These values were subjected to analysis of variance and no significant differences occurred (P<0.05) for hatching and larval survival in the different water sources.

Figure 4.1 compare the mean temperature values during hatchery operations in Borehole, Well and River water. Values recorded during hatching were slightly higher than values for survival in Borehole (28.280C; 27.200C) and Well (28.240C; 27.160C) water while River water maintained the same values (27.230C; 27.230C) during hatching and larval survival. DO and pH mean values are presented together in Fig.4.2 because they are related. DO values recorded during survival test were higher than values during hatching in Borehole (6.43mg/L;5.42mg/L) and Well water (6.47mg/L; 4.63mg/L), while DO values recorded during hatching and survival were the same in tanks containing River water (6.15mg/L;6.15mg/L). pH values recorded in tanks containing Borehole water (5.79;4.85) were slightly higher during hatching than survival while pH values recorded in other treatment tanks were almost the same in Well water (5.66;5.76) and the same River water (5.89; 5.89) for hatching and survival. Figure 4.3 shows that the different water sources used for the study were fresh (0.01ppt – 0.08ppt). The mean TDS and Electrical conductivity values recorded during the hatchery operations are presented in fig.4.4. It shows that TDS and Electrical Conductivity values were almost the same in tanks containing water from the Borehole (91.40mg/L; 93.21mg/L) and Well (111.56mg/L; 108.89mg/L) during hatching and survival test While tanks containing water from the River recorded the same values for hatching and survival.

Table 4.1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Water Quality Parameters Recorded for Borehole water utilized during Hatchery Operations

  Hatchery Operations
Parameters Hatching Survival
Temperature(0C) 28.28 ±1.65 27.20 ± 0.91
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 5.42 ± 1.52 6.43 ± 0.23
pH 5.79 ± 0.53 4.85 ± 0.71
Salinity(ppt) 0.06 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.01

TDS(mg/L)

91.40 ± 11.78 93.21 ± 3.23
Electric.Cond. (s/cm) 138.89 ± 17.66 141.02 ± 4.73

Table 4.2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Water Quality Parameters Recorded for Well water utilized during Hatchery Operations

  Hatchery Operations  
Parameters Hatching Survival
Temperature(0C) 28.24 ± 1.74 27.16 ± 1.11
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 4.63 ± 1.35 6.47 ± 0.33
pH 5.66 ± 0.49 5.76 ± 0.27
Salinity(ppt) 0.08 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.00
TDS(mg/L) 111.56 ± 12.56 108.89 ± 3.62
Electric.Cond. (s/cm) 168.26 ± 18.33 164.66 ± 4.73

Table 4.3: Mean and Standard Deviation of Water Quality Parameters Recorded for River water utilized during Hatchery Operations

Parameters Hatchery Operations
Hatching Survival
Temperature(0C) 27.23 ± 1.82 27.23 ± 0.90
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 6.15 ± 1.74 6.15 ± 0.54
pH 5.89 ± 0.61 5.89 ± 0.32
Salinity(ppt) 0.02 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.00
TDS(mg/L) 20.64 ± 7.39 20.64 ± 0.99
Electric. Cond. (s/cm) 32.43 ± 11.03 32.43 ± 1.47

Fig. 4.1: Mean temperature values during hatchery operations

 

Fig. 4.2: Mean DO and pH values during hatchery operations

 

Fig. 4.3: Mean Salinity values during hatchery operations

 

Fig. 4.4: Mean TDS and Electrical conductivity values during hatchery operation

 

The mean percentage hatchability of C. gariepinus using different water sources is presented in Table 4.4.It shows that the lowest mean hatchability percentage of 79.97% was recorded in the tanks containing water from the River while water sourced from the Fisheries Department’s Borehole and well were slightly higher at 87.90% and 85.97% respectively. The result indicated that there were no significant differences (P<0.05) in the different water sources used for the study.

Table 4.4. shows that Bore hole water with the highest mean (87.90%) percentage hatchability were with the range of 87.90 to 88.00 while River water with the lowest mean (79.97%) value were within the range of 79.80 to 80.00. Well water value 85.97% were within the range of 85.90 to 86.00.

Figure 4.5 compare the mean percentage hatchability in the different water sources during the hatchery operations. Tanks containing water from the Borehole has the highest (87.90) percentage of hatched eggs while the lowest values of 79.97 was recorded in treatment tanks containing River water.

Table 4.4: Percentage Hatchability of C. gariepinus using different water sources (mean ±SD)

Water Source Mean Range

min max

Borehole Water 87.90±0.10 87.90 88.00

Well water

85.97±0.06 85.90 86.00
River Water 79.97±0.15 79.80 80.00

Key: TRT-01= Borehole Water; TRT-02= Well Water and TRT-03 = River Water

Percentage Survival

The mean percentage survival of C. gariepinus using different water sources is presented in Table 4.5.The result shows that the lowest mean percentage survival of 96.87% was recorded in the tanks containing water from the Fisheries department’s Bore hole while water sourced from the River and Well were higher at 99.50% and 98.87% respectively. The difference observed was not significant (P<0.05).

Table 4.5 shows that River water with the highest mean (99.50%) percentage survival were within the range of 99.3 to 99.6 while Bore hole water with the lowest value (96.87%) were within the range of 96.60 to 97.60. Well water value of 98.87% was within the range of 98.60 to 99.00.Figure 4.6 compare the mean percentage survival in the different water sources during the hatchery operations. Tanks containing water from the River has the highest (99.50) percentage of larval survival while the lowest values of 96.87 was recorded in treatment tanks containing fisheries department’s Borehole water.

Table 4.5: Percentage survival of C. gariepinus using different water sources (mean ± SD)

Water Source Mean Range

Min Max

Borehole Water 96.87±0.81 96.60 97.60
Well water 98.87±0.23 98.60 99.00
River Water 99.50 ±0.17 99.30 99.60

Key: TRT-01= Borehole Water; TRT-02= Well Water and TRT-03 = River Water

 

DISCUSSIONS

Water Quality Parameters

Fish larval are very sensitive to changes in their environment. Any changes add stress to the fish larval and the larger and faster the changes, the greater the stress. So the maintenance of all the factors becomes very essential for getting maximum yield in a hatchery (Boyd, 1982).

Water Temperature influences performance of fish species, especially the interval between fertilization and embryonic development (Laurel and Bradbury, 2006). Small fluctuation affects a species vital rate (O’Connor et al., 2007), genetic structure (Bradbury et al., 2010) and survival (Houde, 2008). It also affects dissolved oxygen level in water – solubility of oxygen and rate of oxidation of organic matter (Pepin, 1991). The water temperature recorded in this study were within temperature values obtained in an earlier researched (King, 1998), for successful fish production and Boyd and Tucker (1998) for optimum production of Clarias species.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is a very basic requirement for aquaculture species. Is a complex parameter because its concentrations are dependent upon many processes. Reduced levels impair growth and development of different life stages of fish (Boyd,1982; Chatakond and Torrans, 2012). Such impact affects fitness and survival by altering embryo incubation periods, and decreasing feeding activity (Townsend et al., 2003). DO values measured were within values obtained in an earlier research (Ufodike and Garba, 1992), for adequate culture (Afroz et al., 2014) production of Clarias larva species.

Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) is an important parameter which determines the suitability of water for various purposes. Source water with a proper pH is imperative, and the pH of any potential source water should be screened. An extreme pH value affects growth and cause mortality in fish culture with a lower tolerance at embryonic and larval stages (Lloyd and Jordan, 1964; Zweig et al., 1999). At lower pH, ability to maintain its salt balance is affected, <6.5 species experience slow growth ≤pH 4 and >pH 11 most species die. The pH values obtained for this study are within the limits for optimum larva fish production (Boyd, 1982).

The salinity values were within freshwater values and were within values recommended for production of Clarias species (FAO, 2006). TDS varies widely across the different water sources and were within TDS required levels recommended (FAO, 1992) for a successful production of Clarias species. The variations in electrical conductivity were wide and were within the desired and acceptable range and agree with earlier researched (Boyd, 1990) for optimum production of Clarias species.

Percentage Hatchability

Percentage hatchability is usually as low as between 50-70% in hatcheries (de Graaf et al., 1995). However breeding failure has been attributed to biological (broodstock size and age, strain and species) and environmental (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, stocking density, photoperiod etc.) factors (Ataguba et al., 2012, Ataguba et al., 2013). For this experiment the hatchability rate were higher suggesting that the biological and environmental factors were suitable for production of C. gariepinus. Percentage hatchability varies in the different water source used for the study; Fisheries Department’s Borehole water in rivers state university has the highest percentage hatchability of 87.90% while River water recorded the lowest values (79.97%) in hatchability. These values are higher than those reported by de Graaf et al.(1995).

Percentage Survival

Channel catfish survival rates for production of fingerlings from fry in ponds ranges from 40 to 85% (UFL, 2009); for Hybrid bass survival rates tend to be between 25 and 40 percent for hatcheries (Ludwig, 2004)and striped bass fingerlings are between 25 and 40 percent (Brewer and Rees, 1990). Muskellunge survival rates seem to be extremely low due to cannibalism (TWRA, 2012). For this experiment the survival rate were much higher suggesting that the general conditions of the water and hatchery were suitable for C. gariepinus production. Larval survival varies in the different water sources, as shown in the study; River water has the highest percentage survival of 99.5% while Well water and Fisheries Department’s Borehole water were slightly lower at 98.87% and 96.87% respectively.

REFERENCES

Afroz A, Islam MS, Hasan MR, Hasnahena M, Tuly DM.(2014) Larval rearing of spiny eel, Mastacembeluspancalusin the captivity with emphasis on their development stages. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies; 1(6):163-167.

Ataguba G. A. Solomon S. G. & Onwuka M. C. (2012). Broodstock Size Combination in artificial spawning of cultured Clarias gariepinus. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol 24(12).www.Irrd.org/Irrd24/12atag24223

Ataguba G.A., Okomoda V.T. &Onwuka M. C. (2013): Relationship between broodstock weight combination and spawning success in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Croatian Journal of Fisheries Vol.71 (4) Pp 176-181.

Atanda, A.N. (2006) Analysis of freshwater fish seed resources in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference of the Fisheries Society of Nigeria Calabar p: 12.

Boyd CE, Tucker CS (1998) Pond Aquaculture Water Quality Management. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Boyd, C. E. 1990. Water Quality in ponds for aquaculture. Agriculture Experiment Station, Auburn Univ., Alabama, U.S.A: 482.

Boyd, D.C (1982). Water Quality Management for Fish Culture. Development in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, 19(1), 21-22.

Bradbury I.R, S. Hubert, B. Higgins, T. Borza, S. Bowman, I.G. Paterson, P.V.R Snelgrove, C.J. Morris, R.S. Gregory, D.C Hardie, J.A Hutchings, D. E. Ruzzante, C.T. Taggart, & Bentzen, P. (2010). Parallel adaptive evolution of Atlantic Cod on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean in response to Temperature. Proc. R. Soc. B. Doi: 277(1701) 3725-3734. 10.1098/rspb. 2010.0985.

Brewer, Daniel L. &Robert A. Rees. (1990). Pond culture of phase I striped bass fingerlings. Culture and Propagation of Striped Bass and its Hybrids. 1990: Ch.8: 99-120.

Charo, H., & Oirere, W. (2000) River-based artificial propagation of the African Catfish, Clarias garipinus: An option for the small fish farmer. Naga-The Iclarm Q 2, 14-16.

De Graaf, G.J., F. Galemoni & Banzoussi, B. (1995). The artificial reproduction and fingerling production of the African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822) in protected and unprotected ponds. Aquaculture Research 26: 233-242.

FAO (1992) Fishery information, data and statistics service; A strategic assessment of warm water fish farming potential in Africa.

FAO (2010) Regional Compendium on Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Legislation (Asian Region). Rome: FAO Development Law Service.

FAO, (1992) manual on seed production of African catfish Clarias gariepinus. Volume 74, FAO fish series 43, FAO, Rome, Italy, Pages: 677.

FAO. (2007). Status of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006, FAO fisheries and aquaculture department. FAO, Rome, Italy,180

Federal Department of Fisheries (2005) Fishery Statistics. Federal Department of Fisheries, Abuja, Nigeria.

Haruna, A.B. (2003) Aquaculture in the Tropics: Theory and Practice. Kano: Alh Nassan Publication pp: 79-81.

Houde, E.D. (2008). Emerging from Hjort’s Shadow. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 41,53-70.

King, R.P. (1998) Physico-chemical indices of the fisheries potential of Nigerian rainforest pond. J Aqua Sci 13: 49-54.

Laurel, B.J & Bradbury, I.R. (2006). “Big” Concerns with high latitude marine protected areas (MPAs): Trends in connectivity and MPA size. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science 63,2603-2607.

Lloyd R, Jordan D.H.M, (1964). Some factors affecting the resistance of Rainbow Trout, International Journal of Air water Pollution. 8, 393-403

Ludwig, Gerald M. (2004). Hybrid striped bass: fingerling production in ponds. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. January 2004: 302: 1-7.

Madu CT, Ufodike EBC.(2001). Growth and Survival of Mudfish, Clarias anguillaris). Hatchlings fed various natural and artificial feeds as test starter diets for indoor nursery management. Journal of Aquatic Sciences16 (2), 127-131.

Muchlisin, Z.A., Nadiya, N., Nadiah, W.N., Musman, M., & Siti-Azizah, M.N. (2010) Preliminary study on the natural extenders for artificial breeding of African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822).AACL Bioflux3, 119-124

O’Connor, M.I, J.F. Bruno, S.D. Gaines, B.S. Halpern, S.E. Lester, B.P. Kinlan, &Weiss,J.M. (2007). Temperature control of Larval dispersal and the implications for Marine Ecology, Evolution and Conservation. Proc. Natl. Academic Science.104,266-1271.

Ojutiku, R.O. (2008) Comparative Survival and Growth Rate of Clarias gariepinus and Hetero clarias Hathclings Fed Live and Frozen Daphnia. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 7, 527-529.

Okechi, J.K., (2004) Profitability assessment: a case study of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) farming in the lake Victoria basin, Kenya. Final project, Fisheries Training Programme. Iceland: The United Nations University p: 70 .

Pepin, P. (1991). The effect of temperature and size on development and mortality rates of the pelagic early life history stages of marine fish. Canadian Journal of Fish Aquatic Science.48,503–518.

Pulatsu, S., Rad, F., Koksal, G., Aydin, F., Benli, A.C.K. &Topcu, A. (2004) The Impact of Rainbow Trout Farm Effluents on Water Quality of Karasu Stream, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 4, 9-15.   [Citation Time(s):2]

Saeed, M. S. (2000). A study on factors affecting fish production from certain fish farms in the delta. M. Sc. Thesis. Ins. Environmental studies and Research. Ain Shams Univ. Egypt.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2012. The angler’s guide to Tennessee fish including aquatic nuisance species. January 2012. 328898: 1-68http://www.tn.gov/twra/pdfs/anglersguide.pdf. Accessed: May 3, 2012.

Townsend, C.R., L.V.F Silva & Baldisserotto, B. (2003). Growth and Survival of Rhamdiaquelen (Siluriformes Pimelodidae) Larvae exposed to different levels of water hardness. Aquaculture.215, 103-108.

Ufodike, E.B. &Garba, A.J. (1992). Seasonal variation in Limnology and productivity of a tropical highland fish pond in Jos Plateau, Nigeria journal of Aquatic sciences, 7:29-34

University of Florida IFAS Extension (UFL). 2009. Farm-Raised Channel Catfish. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa010. Accessed: April 30, 2012

Woynarovich, E. & Horvath, L. (1980). The artificial propagation of warmwater fin fishes: A manual for extension. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 201:183

Woynarovitch, E. & Horvath, L. (1980). La Reproduction Artificielle des Poissons en eau Chaude: Manuel de Vulgarization, Food and Agricultural Organization Document, Techniques de peche Volume 201, page 191.

Zweig .R.D, Morton J.D &Stewart M.M (1999).Source water quality for Aquaculture. A guide for assessment. Environmentally and socially sustainable development. 23764

Cite this Article:

Kenule, BN; Nnam, BS (2024). Effect of different Water Sources on Hatching and Larval Survival of Clarias gariepinus. Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 14(1): 34-41, https://doi.org/10.15580/GJBS.2024.1.091424114.

PDF VIEWER

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [316.25 KB]

 

Loading

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× Chat on Whatsapp?