Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities (EJPAU) founded by all Polish Agriculture Universities presents original papers and review articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences. It is target for persons working both in science and industry,regulatory agencies or teaching in agricultural sector. Covered by IFIS Publishing (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), ELSEVIER Science - Food Science and Technology Program, CAS USA (Chemical Abstracts), CABI Publishing UK and ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher - full membership). Presented in the Master List of Thomson ISI.
2010
Volume 13
Issue 2
Topic:
Fisheries
ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Czerniawski R. , Pilecka-Rapacz M. , Domagała J. , Krepski T. 2010. LARVAL REARING OF ATLANTIC SALMON AND SEA TROUT USING NAUPLII OF ARTEMIA SALINA, EJPAU 13(2), #10.
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume13/issue2/art-10.html

LARVAL REARING OF ATLANTIC SALMON AND SEA TROUT USING NAUPLII OF ARTEMIA SALINA

Robert Czerniawski, Małgorzata Pilecka-Rapacz, Józef Domagała, Tomasz Krepski
Department of General Zoology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland

 

ABSTRACT

Nauplii of Artemia salina have not been widely applied in rearing of commercial salmonids, much more often they have been used in rearing of larvae of other species, in particular cyprinids. The present study shows results of rearing of Atlantic salmon larvae and sea trout larvae with Artemia nauplii.
The rearing was performed for 4 weeks in three groups: (1) fry fed with live nauplii of Artemia salina, (2) fry fed with mixed diet (live Artemia salina nauplii and commercial pellet diet for trout larvae and (3) only pellet diet. The rate of survival of both species in all groups representing different variants of feeding was very high, but in each variant the survival of Atlantic salmon was greater than that of sea trout. Larvae of Atlantic salmon and sea trout fed on mixed diet characterized by the best rate of survival and growth. In the last week of rearing the highest condition index was noted for the larvae of both species fed on mixed diet, similarly high condition index was found also for the Atlantic salmon fed on pellets. The results of this study shows that the use of live Artemia nauplii as a diet supplement brings satisfactory results in the whole period of rearing.

Key words: Atlantic salmon, sea trout, larval rearing, Artemia salina.

INTRODUCTION

The salmonids belonging to the genus are of great significance in Europe, both as a valuable component of the natural environment and as economical product coming from marine catchment and mariculture [13]. Of great importance for successful stocking or successful rearing is the period of their larvae development. In this critical period of life the fish learn the pattern of behaviour crucial for the efficiency of food intake and thus for their growth and later survival. The use of granulated diet only in the first period of the salmonids larvae rearing is not fully satisfactory, although the starters are excellent for commercial rearing and are characterised by low Food Conversion Rate (FCR). In the first weeks of rearing the larvae of the fish fed only with fodder reveal relatively high mortality and low values of the growth parameters [11,12,6]. An important alternative that can change these negative effects is the use of living diet by itself or as a supplement to fodder diet. Such methods of rearing have been successfully used in rearing e.g. cyprinids. Many authors have indicated the benefits of feeding the larvae on living diet by itself or as a supplement [6,19,20,17,3,5].

The use of living diet in rearing of the salmonids is however problematic as the fish hatch in early spring when there is no or too little living zooplankton in the natural environment. It is thus necessary to grow the living zooplankton but this process is time and work consuming. An interesting solution is the use of the larvae of Artemia salina as food of the salmonids larvae, as their production is relatively simple and not much time consuming. Moreover, the larvae of Artemia are characterised by a high content of nutrients needed for effective growth of salmonids larvae [9]. In spite of these arguments the larvae of Artemia have not been widely applied in rearing of the salmonids, especially those from the genus Salmo. Much more popular has been their use in rearing of fish from the genus Oncorhynchus [14,15,1].

The aim of the study was to establish the effect of feeding the larvae of the Atlantic salmon and sea trout in the first weeks of rearing with the nauplii of Artemia salina and commercial starter on the parameters of the larvae growth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was performed in a closed recirculation system equipped with the diatomite bed biological filter. Into water tanks the 18 day old fish larvae of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and 20-day old fish larvae of Sea trout (Salmo trutta m. trutta L.) from hatch were introduced. The time of rearing in all tanks was 4 weeks. At the beginning densities applied in each tank were 200 fish.

The water volume in each tank was 55 dm3, and the height of the water column was 25 cm. Temperature of the water was maintained by a cooling device between 10 and 13°C. Water flow through the tanks was set at 300 dm3 h-1. Each physical and chemical parameter in tanks was measured three times a day. In whole rearing period mean value ± SD of ammonium (N-NH3) was 0.008 mg l-1 ± 0.005, dissolved oxygen 8.40 mg l-1 ± 0.35 and pH 7.98 ± 0.42.

The rearing was performed in three groups: (1) A – fry fed with live nauplii of Artemia salina, (2) AP – fry fed with mixed diet (live Artemia salina nauplii and commercial pellet diet for trout larvae (Skretting, Perla larva 62% protein and 11% fat) and (3) P – only pellet diet. Each variant was three times repeated. The Atlantic salmon and Sea trout both were given the first food at the same day (3 March 2008), when observed to come to the water surface. In this day the total length (mean ± SD) and weight of Atlantic salmon larvae were 26.90 ± 0.91 mm and 0.15 ± 0.01 g, respectively, while of Sea trout 25.05 ± 1.18 mm and 0.12 ± 0.01, respectively. The food, in three variants, was given ad libitum. The fish could feed ad libitum only during the day. Starting from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. the fish had the food supplied on average every 3–4 hours. For the first 8 days the fish of group P were given the food even every hour, till the time they learnt to collect food from the bottom. In the beginning they were only able to catch the food particles falling in the bulk water.

Every week 50 individuals were caught from each tank, and they were anaesthetised in the solution of Propiscin. Fork length (LF) was recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm and weighed (M) to the nearest 0.1 mg. Roused fish were placed back into the tanks. The condition factor (K) was calculated by K = 105 M LF-3. The specific growth ratio was found from the formula:
SGR = (lnMF – lnMI 102) t-1, where: lnMF – the natural logarithm of the final mass; lnMI – the natural logarithm of the initial mass; t – time (days) between lnMF and lnMI.

Dead fish were counted and removed. Tanks were cleaned twice a day, in the morning and in the evening.

The statistical significance of the differences in rate of survival, SGR, fork length, weight and condition factor between reared groups of fish was tested by the ANOVA.

RESULTS

Survival
The survival of both species in all groups representing different variants of feeding was very high, but in each variant the survival of Atlantic salmon was greater than that of Sea trout, (Table 1). In particular, the survival of Atlantic salmon fed on pellets was significantly greater than that of Sea trout fed in the same variant (Table 2, 3). In the other groups the differences were not significant. From among the groups of Atlantic salmon representing different variants of diet no significant differences in the survival were noted, taking into regard particular weeks of rearing or the whole rearing period. For Sea trout significant differences were found between groups A and P as well as P and AP in each week of rearing (Table 4). The Sea trout fed on pellets revealed a significantly lower level of survival.

Table 1. Mean ± SD of SGR and survival rate of Atlantic salmon and sea trout reared with nauplii of Artemia salina (A), pellet (P) and mix of nauplii of Artemia salina and pellet (AP). E. P. – entire period

Date of study

SGR (% day-1)

Survival (%)

Atlantic salmon

Atlantic salmon

 

A

P

AP

A

P

AP

10.03

2.73 ± 0.11

1.87 ± 0.04

3.74 ± 0.07

99.53 ± 0.40

100.00 ± 0.00

99.07 ± 0.40

17.03

2.61 ± 0.05

4.39 ± 0.06

4.94 ± 0.13

99.77 ± 0.40

99.53 ± 0.40

100.00 ± 0.00

24.03

1.97 ± 0.13

5.83 ± 0.04

6.77 ± 0.04

100.00 ± 0.00

99.53 ± 0.40

100.00 ± 0.00

31.03

1.61 ± 0.04

3.04 ± 0.05

2.28 ± 0.06

100.00 ± 0.00

100.00 ± 0.00

100.00 ± 0.00

E. P.

2.33 ± 0.09

3.74 ± 0.07

4.41 ± 0.04

99.30 ± 0.00

99.07 ± 0.40

99.07 ± 0.40

 

Sea trout

Sea trout

10.03

3.50 ± 0.08

1.87 ± 0.04

4.08 ± 0.05

99.30 ± 0.70

95.07 ± 1.66

99.30 ± 0.70

17.03

2.58 ± 0.04

1.74 ± 0.04

2.53 ± 0.06

99.30 ± 0.00

96.70 ± 0.78

100.00 ± 0.00

24.03

1.14 ± 0.03

4.47 ± 0.05

3.79 ± 0.04

100.00 ± 0.00

93.20 ± 1.21

100.00 ± 0.00

31.03

0.96 ± 0.06

3.45 ± 0.09

3.19 ± 0.03

99.77 ± 0.40

97.13 ± 1.17

100.00 ± 0.00

E. P.

2.10 ± 0.06

2.85 ± 0.03

3.37 ± 0.04

98.43 ± 0.75

83.33 ± 2.31

99.30 ± 0.70

Table 2. Result of ANOVA on the differences between Atlantic salmon and Sea trout in the same reared groups in SGR and survival rate P > 0.05. AS – Atlantic salmon reared with nauplii of Artemia salina, AT – sea trout reared with nauplii of Artemia salina, PS – atlantic salmon reared with pellet, PT – sea trout reared with pellet, APS – atlantic salmon reared with mix of nauplii of Artemia salina and pellet, APT – sea trout reared with mix of nauplii of Artemia salina and pellet. E. P. – entire period. Significant differences are marked with bold

Date of study

AS vs AT

PS vs PT

APS vs APT

F

P

F

P

F

P

Survival

10.03

0.25

0.6433

26.42

0.0068

1.00

0.3739

17.03

4.00

0.1161

31.14

0.0051

no difference

24.03

no difference

73.67

0.0010

no difference

31.03

1.00

0.3739

18.08

0.0131

no difference

E. P.

4.00

0.1161

135.10

0.0003

1.00

0.3739

SGR

10.03

102.93

0.0005

no difference

141.90

0.0002

17.03

1.00

0.3739

4057.09

<0.0001

876.11

<0.0001

24.03

111.22

0.0004

1385.18

<0.0001

7913.23

<0.0001

31.03

283.77

<0.0001

48.37

0.0022

544.00

<0.0001

E. P.

13.52

0.0216

411.37

<0.0001

1014.00

<0.0001

Table 3. Result of ANOVA on the differences between reared groups of Atlantic salmon in fork length, weight, condition index, SGR and survival rate P > 0.05. E. P. – entire period. Significant differences are marked with bold

Date of study

A vs P

A vs AP

P vs AP

F

P

F

P

F

P

Survival

10.03

4.00

0.1161

0.50

0.5185

1.00

0.3739

17.03

0.50

0.5185

1.00

0.3739

4.00

0.1161

24.03

4.00

0.1161

no difference

4.00

0.1161

31.03

no difference

no difference

no difference

E. P.

1.00

0.3739

4.00

0.1161

4.50

0.1012

Fork length

10.03

2.13

0.1609

1.49

0.2366

7.58

0.0131

17.03

0.16

0.6958

10.84

0.0040

6.83

0.0175

24.03

7.38

0.0141

50.96

<0.0001

2.57

0.1259

31.03

9.23

0.0070

56.40

<0.0001

3.42

0.0807

E. P.

6.49

0.0128

22.83

<0.0001

3.08

0.0831

Weight

10.03

4.85

0.0409

4.67

0.0443

22.00

0.0002

17.03

6.50

0.0201

32.93

<0.0001

12.18

0.0026

24.03

8.89

0.0079

136.31

<0.0001

8.34

0.0098

31.03

19.70

0.0003

110.78

<0.0001

5.89

0.0259

E. P.

9.60

0.0027

29.17

<0.0001

4.07

0.0471

Condition index

10.03

0.32

0.5809

0.63

0.4346

1.35

0.2598

17.03

4.47

0.0485

12.23

0.0026

2.22

0.1533

24.03

0.41

0.5258

4.64

0.0449

1.61

0.0219

31.03

6.06

0.0241

12.10

0.0027

<0.01

0.9935

E. P.

3.35

0.0711

11.66

0.0010

1.71

0.1947

SGR

10.03

168.47

0.0002

99.76

0.0005

1093.22

<0.0001

17.03

1725.75

<0.0001

886.51

<0.0001

46.14

0.0024

24.03

2296.17

<0.0001

3550.68

<0.0001

764.65

<0.0001

31.03

1769.62

<0.0001

282.25

<0.0001

290.20

<0.0001

E. P.

478.41

<0.0001

1395.05

<0.0001

196.17

0.0001

Table 4. Result of ANOVA on the differences between reared groups of Sea trout in fork length, weight, condition index, SGR and survival rate P > 0.05. E. P. – entire period. Significant differences are marked with bold

Date of study

A vs P

A vs AP

P vs AP

F

P

F

P

F

P

Survival

 

10.03

16.52

0.0153

no difference

16.52

0.0153

17.03

33.24

0.0045

6.25

0.0667

53.55

0.0018

24.03

94.37

0.0006

no difference

94.38

0.0006

31.03

13.63

0.0209

1.00

0.3739

18.08

0.0131

E. P.

116.00

0.0004

2.14

0.2174

131.33

0.0003

Fork length

10.03

3.35

0.0863

0.13

0.7137

6.20

0.0228

17.03

3.54

0.0759

0.22

0.6413

1.34

0.2616

24.03

0.01

0.9494

1.10

0.3078

0.82

0.3755

31.03

1.38

0.2551

0.65

0.4284

0.65

0.4284

E. P.

0.24

0.6261

0.66

0.4171

2.65

0.1073

Weight

10.03

4.49

0.0582

0.36

0.5557

8.77

0.0083

17.03

3.94

0.0624

0.12

0.7296

3.83

0.0658

24.03

0.37

0.5502

9.85

0.0178

3.05

0.0977

31.03

6.05

0.0242

2.25

0.1507

2.25

0.1507

E. P.

0.14

0.7103

2.89

0.0932

4.69

0.0339

Condition index

10.03

0.10

0.7514

0.09

0.7598

0.29

0.5975

17.03

2.35

0.1426

1.83

0.1932

7.47

0.0136

24.03

2.03

0.1712

12.40

0.0024

2.20

0.1544

31.03

7.88

0.0116

0.78

0.3874.

0.78

0.3874

E. P.

0.87

0.3540

4.49

0.0292

4.52

0.0365

SGR

10.03

976.00

<0.0001

108.76

0.0005

3335.27

<0.0001

17.03

692.32

<0.0001

1.53

0.2837

348.10

<0.0001

24.03

9363.64

<0.0001

9006.29

<0.0001

365.83

<0.0001

31.03

1589.29

<0.0001

3620.16

<0.0001

22.05

0.0093

E. P.

385.97

<0.0001

975.67

<0.0001

405.60

<0.0001

Fork length and weight
After the first week of rearing both species fed on pellets were characterised by the lowest fork length and weight (Fig. 1). The best growth parameters starting from the first week of rearing were obtained for the fish fed on mixed diet. Throughout the whole period of rearing the fork length and weight of Atlantic salmon fed on nauplii of Artemia were significantly lower than the parameters of the fish fed on mixed diet or pellets (Table 3). For Sea trout after the first week till the end of rearing the fork length and weight of the fish fed on the mixed diet were significantly grater than those for the fish fed on pellets (Table 4). The greatest significant differences in the weight of Sea trout were noted between groups A and P as well as P and AP. In particular weeks of rearing more differences were observed in these two parameters between the groups of Atlantic salmon than between the groups of Sea trout.

Fig. 1. Mean ± SD of fork length, weight and condition factor of Atlantic salmon (left side) and Sea trout (right side) reared with nauplii of Artemia salina (A), pellet (P) and mix of nauplii of Artemia salina and pellet (AP)

Condition index
In the last week of rearing the highest condition index was noted for the larvae of both species fed on mixed diet, similarly high condition index was found also for the Atlantic salmon fed on pellets (Fig. 1). The fish fed on nauplii of Artemia were characterised with the lowest condition index values. Throughout the rearing period significant differences in the condition index were observed for Atlantic salmon between groups A and AP, while for Sea trout between groups A and AP as well as P and AP (Tables 3, 4).

Specific Growth Rate (SGR)
Significant differences in SGR were found between all groups in each week of rearing and for each species, (Table 2). Only in the second week of rearing no significant differences appeared between the Sea trout fed on nauplii of Artemia and mixed diet. The highest SGR values were noted for the fish fed on mixed diet (Table 1). In the first week, the Atlantic salmon fed on nauplii of Artemia had greater SGR than those fed on pellets, while the same trend was observed for Sea trout in the first two weeks. The Atlantic salmon fed on pellets had the highest SGR in the last week of rearing, while for Sea trout the highest SGR was reached in the third and fourth week. In each variant of feeding SGR values were higher for Atlantic salmon than for Sea trout. The Atlantic salmon fed on pellets had significantly greater SGR than Sea trout from the same group. Smaller, although also significant, differences in SGR were found between the salmon and the trout fed on nauplii of Artemia. The significant differences in SGR were noted between these two species fed on mixed diet in the whole period of rearing. In the end of rearing the SGR of Atlantic salmon was much greater than that of Sea trout.

DISCUSSION

Living diet, in particular Artemia nauplii have not been widely applied in rearing of commercial salmonids, much more often they have been used in rearing of larvae of other species, in particular cyprinids. However, as follows from the results of this study, feeding of the salmonids larvae on such diet supplied by itself or as a supplement can bring measurable effects. In this study, it was observed that feeding both Atlantic salmon and Sea trout larvae with mixed diet (pellet and Artemia nauplii) resulted in growth improvement and increase of survival rate when compared to the same parameters of the fish fed on pellet diet and living diet (only Artemia). It is reasonable to suppose that the living diet as a supplement to pellets gave better survival rate and SGR of the fish. Similar results have been reported by Czerniawski and Czerniejewski [5] and Czerniawski et al. [6]. These authors obtained the best results as to the survival and SGR of the trout fed during rearing on living zooplankton used as a diet supplement when compared to these obtained for the fish fed on pellets or living zooplankton only. Similar results were obtained by Maynard et al., [17], who used living zooplankton and living insect larvae as a supplement of diet during the rearing of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. The use of living zooplankton and Artemia nauplii as diet supplement gave also good results in rearing of fish other than salmonids. Kwiatkowski et al. [16] reported much higher survival rate and weight as a result of using nauplii of Artemia as a supplement of diet given during the rearing of chub (Leuciscus cephalus), dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) and ide (Leuciscus idus) in comparison to the results obtained for the fish fed on pellets only. Grudniewska et al. [8] reported similar results for the rearing of the larvae of grayling (Thymallus thymallus), and Celada et al., [4] for the rearing of the larvae of tench (Tinca tinca).

Our results have also shown that in the first week of rearing salmon and in the first two weeks of rearing trout the feeding on Artemia only resulted in greater survivability and growth of the fish than the feeding on pellets only. Other authors testing the effect of Artemia nauplii diet given to the salmonids have also reported better survivability and growth in the first weeks of rearing than those obtained for the fish fed only on pellets, e.g. Kim et al. [15] for coho salmon (Oncohynchus kisutch), Kenari et al. [14] for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mukiss) or Arndt et al., [1] for cutthroad trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii). Similar results have been published by other authors rearing fish of different species. For instance Harzevili et. al [10] in the first week of rearing of chub obtained better survivability and growth parameters for the fish fed on Artemia nauplii than for the fish fed on pellets, Harzevili et. al. [9] in the rearing of ide (Leuciscus idus) or Ostaszewska and Boruta [18] for Pikeperch (Sander lucioperca). It should be added that for the fish from the genus Leuciscus, the rearing on the diet of Artemia nauplii was more effective for a period longer than one week. The use of the living Artemia nauplii as the diet of salmonids larvae can be compared with the use of living zooplankton. Czerniawski and Czerniejewski [5] and Czerniawski et al. [6] also obtained better survivability and growth parameters in the larvae of Sea trout fed on living zooplankton than in those fed on pellets. Holm and Moller [12] reported better parameters of Atlantic salmon larvae fed on living zooplankton when compared to those of the larvae fed on pellets.

As follows from our results, in the last week of rearing greater parameters of growth were obtained for the fish fed on pellets than those fed only on Artemia nauplii. Similar results have been reported by the above mentioned authors rearing both salmonids and cyprinids. The commercial food and rearing provides all the components needed for fast growth in a relatively short time and for produce high-quality flesh at minimal cost [13,2]. After all fish from variant A were the smallest and lightest, which is most probably associated with the better nutritious composition of modern dry food. However, according to Wolska-Neja and Neja [22], in respect of nutritive value determining the rearing success the commercial pellet food is much better but the natural food although of lower energetic value has some specific worth. The activity of digestive enzymes of the larvae is lower than that of adult fish of the same species and the deficiency of the own proteolytic enzymes is partly compensated by the enzymes of the live food.

According to our results, Atlantic salmon used the food in much more effective way than Sea trout in each group representing different variant of diet. First of all Atlantic salmon was quicker to learn eating pellets as indicated by the values of survivability and growth parameters. Moreover, among the Atlantic salmon fed on pellets no non-eating individuals were found, while among the trout fed on pellets all individuals that died were non-eating. According to Goryczko [7], the visible symptoms of the irreversible starvation changes in trout larvae are the loss of mass (thinning) and darkening of the colour. As these symptoms were noted in the dead fry in our experiment, we suppose that they died because of not taking food.

The results have also pointed out the importance of the movements of the prey in the beginning period of rearing. Kenari and Mirzakhani [14] who reared the larvae of rainbow trout with Artemia observed that the period of intake after feed distribution may have been longer for Artemia than for pellets because their movement may have elicited a longer feeding response. It was manifested by a faster growth of the fish fed only on Artemia in the beginning period of rearing or fed on Artemia as a supplement in the whole period of rearing. Some authors point to the significance of the prey movement in the process of salmonid larvae learning to look for food and develop eating habits [12,3,21].

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the results of this study as well as the literature data cited imply that the use of Artemia nauplii as living diet may be of key importance for obtaining satisfactory parameters of survivability and growth in the first week of rearing, while the use of Artemia as a diet supplement brings satisfactory results in the whole period of rearing.

REFERENCES

  1. Arndt E.R., Wagner E.J., 2007. Enriched Artemia and Probiotic Diets Improve Survival of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Larvae and Fry. N. Am. J. Aquacult. 69, 190–196.

  2. Brett J.R., 1971. Satiation time, appetite and maximum food intake of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 28, 409–415.

  3. Brown C., Markula A., Laland K., 2003. Social rearing of prey location in hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon. J. Fish Biol. 63, 738–745.

  4. Celada D.J., Aguilera A., Garcia V., Carral M.J., Sanchez-Royuela M., Gonzalez R., Gonzalez I., 2009. Rearing juvenile tench (Tinca tinca L.) under controlled conditions using Artemia nauplii as supplement to a dry diet. Aquacult. Int. 17, 565–570.

  5. Czerniawski R., Czerniejewski P., 2007. Rearing sea trout (Salmo trutta m. trutta L., 1758) fry for stocking fed on zooplankton caught in the outlets of natural and artificial bodies of water. Acta Sci. Pol. Pisc. 6, 15–30.

  6. Czerniawski R., Domagała J., Pilecka-Rapacz M., 2009. Rearing of sea trout fry (Salmo trutta m. trutta L.) – as potential stocking material, with living zooplankton and dry prepared food. EJPAU. Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume12/issue4/art-14.html

  7. Goryczko K., 2001. Pstr±gi. Chów i hodowla [Trouts. The rearing]. IR¦. Olsztyn [in Polish].

  8. Grudniewska J., Dobosz S., Goryczko K., 2007. Grayling (Thymallus thymallus L.) fry rearing in the Rutki Department of Salmonid Research. Rocz. Nauk. PZW. 20, 127–136.

  9. Harzevili A.S., De Charleroy D., Auverx J., Van Slycken J., 2003. Larval rearing of chub, (Leuciscus cephalus (L.)), using decapsulated Artemia as direct food. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 19, 123–125.

  10. Harzevili S.A., Vught I., Auverx J., De Charleroy D., 2004. Larval rearing of ide (Leuciscus idus (L.)) using decapsulated Artemia. Arch. Pol. Fish. 12, 191–195.

  11. Hilton J.W., Cho C.Y., Slinger S.J., 1981. Effect of extrusion processing and steam pelleting diets on pellet durability, pellet water absorption, and the physiological response of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri R.). Aquaculture. 25, 185–194.

  12. Holm J.C., Moller D., 1984. Growth and prey selection by Atlantic salmon yearling reared on live fresh water zooplankton. Aquaculture. 43, 401–412.

  13. Juell J.E., 1995. The behaviour of Atlantic salmon in relation to efficient cage rearing. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 5, 320–335.

  14. Kenari A.A., Mirzakhani M.K., 2005. Effects of using Artemia urmiana enriched with N-3 HUFA in first feeding of Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) larvae. Caspian J. Evv. Sci. 3, 123–129.

  15. Kim J., Massee C.K., Hardy W.R., 1996. Adult Artemia as food for first feeding coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Aquaculture. 144, 217–226.

  16. Kwiatkowski M., Żarski D., Kucharczyk D., Kuprem K., Jamróz M., Targońska K., Krejszeff S., Hakuć-Błażowska A., Kujawa R., Mamcarz A., 2008. Influence of feeding natural and formulated diets on chosen rheophilic cyprinid larvae. Arch. Pol. Fish. 16, 385–396.

  17. Maynard D.J., McDowell G.C., Tezak E.P., Flagg A.P., 1996. Effect of diets supplemented with live food on the foraging behavior of cultured fall Chinook salmon. Prog. Fish Cult. 58, 187–191.

  18. Ostaszewska T., Boruta A., 2006. The effect of diet on the fatty acid composition and liver histology of Pikeperch (Sander lucioperca (L.)) larvae. Arch. Pol. Fish. 1, 53–66.

  19. Paszkowski C.A., Olla B.L., 1985. Foraging behavior of hatchery-produced coho salmon (Onncorhynchus kisutch) smolts on live prey. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sc. 42, 1915–1921.

  20. Stradmeyer L., Thorpe J.E., 1987. Feeding behaviour of wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., parr in mid- to late summer in a Scottish river. Aquac. Res. 18, 33–49.

  21. Ware D.M., 1973. Risk of epibenthis prey to predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30, 787–797.

  22. Wolska-Neja B., Neja Z., 2006. Growth-out of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) larvae under uncontrolled conditions. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 36, 105–112.

 

Accepted for print: 14.05.2010


Robert Czerniawski
Department of General Zoology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
Z. Felczaka 3C
71-412 Szczecin
Poland
phone: +48 91 444 16 24
email: czerniawski@univ.szczecin.pl

Małgorzata Pilecka-Rapacz
Department of General Zoology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
Z. Felczaka 3C
71-412 Szczecin
Poland
phone: +48 91 444 16 24

Józef Domagała
Department of General Zoology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
Z. Felczaka 3C
71-412 Szczecin
Poland
phone: +48 91 444 16 24
email: jozef.domagala@univ.szczecin.pl

Tomasz Krepski
Department of General Zoology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
Z. Felczaka 3C
71-412 Szczecin
Poland

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.