Acta Nat. Sci.   |  e-ISSN: 2718-0638

Original article | Acta Natura et Scientia 2020, Vol. 1(1) 24-35

The Effect of Different Ground Materials on the Survival Rate of Tubifex tubifex (Müller, 1774) under Light/Dark Photoperiod Conditions and Mineral Matter Composition

Pınar Çelik

pp. 24 - 35   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2020.313.4   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2101-09-0005

Published online: December 31, 2020  |   Number of Views: 32  |  Number of Download: 148


Abstract

In this study, two experimental studies were conducted with Tubifex tubifex, which was adapted to laboratory conditions after being collected from nature. In the first experiment, the effect of some ground materials that can be used in controlled breeding conditions on the survival rates of T. tubifex was investigated. For this purpose, 7 different ground materials (trout mud, grain, vegetables, fish offal, cow liver, cow dung, and sand) were used. Initially, 20 T. tubifex were stocked for each repetition of the experimental groups consisting of these materials. At the end of the 45-day experiment, the number of alive individuals in the groups was compared. At the end of the experiment, alive individuals were observed in 3 groups including trout mud, cow dung, and sand. In the second experiment, the mineral substance compositions of living T. tubifex samples collected from nature were compared with the mineral substance compositions of alive individuals kept at different water temperatures (14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28ºC) for 90 days. In terms of magnesium, potassium, iron, copper, and zinc, statistically differences were found between the values measured at the beginning and at the end of the experiment. At the beginning of the experiment, while magnesium values tended to decrease in some groups, it increased in other groups. At the end of the experiment, it was determined that the potassium level was lower in all groups. At the end of the experiment, it was observed that the iron, copper, and zinc values were much higher than the values at the beginning of the experiment.

Keywords: Tubifex tubifex, Aquaculture, Ground material, Mineral composition


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Celik, P. (2020). The Effect of Different Ground Materials on the Survival Rate of Tubifex tubifex (Müller, 1774) under Light/Dark Photoperiod Conditions and Mineral Matter Composition . Acta Natura et Scientia, 1(1), 24-35. doi: 10.29329/actanatsci.2020.313.4

Harvard
Celik, P. (2020). The Effect of Different Ground Materials on the Survival Rate of Tubifex tubifex (Müller, 1774) under Light/Dark Photoperiod Conditions and Mineral Matter Composition . Acta Natura et Scientia, 1(1), pp. 24-35.

Chicago 16th edition
Celik, Pinar (2020). "The Effect of Different Ground Materials on the Survival Rate of Tubifex tubifex (Müller, 1774) under Light/Dark Photoperiod Conditions and Mineral Matter Composition ". Acta Natura et Scientia 1 (1):24-35. doi:10.29329/actanatsci.2020.313.4.

References
  1. Ahamed, M. T., & Mollah, M. F. A. (1992). Effects of various levels of wheat bran and mustard oil cake in the culture media on tubificid production. Aquaculture, 107(1), 107-113. [Google Scholar]
  2. Antony Jesu Prabhu, P. (2015). Minerals in fish: does the source matter? [PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, The Netherlands]. 267p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aston Finogenova, N. P., & Lobasheva, T. M. (1987). Growth of Tubifex tubifex Müller (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae) under various trophic conditions. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 72(6), 709-726. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aston, R. J. (1968). The effect of temperature on the life cycle, growth and fecundity of Branchiura sowerbyi (Oligochaeta: Tubificidae). Journal of Zoology, 154(1), 29-40. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aydin, I. (2008). Comparison of dry, wet and microwave digestion procedures for the determination of chemical elements in wool samples in Turkey using ICP-OES technique. Microchemical Journal, 90(1), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2008. 03.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Begum, M., Noor, P., Ahmed, K. N., Sultana, N., Hasan, M. R., & Mohanta, L. C. (2014). Development of a culture techniques for Tubificid worm, under laboratory conditions. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology, 42(1), 117-122. [Google Scholar]
  7.  Bilgüven, M. (2002). Yemler Bilgisi, Yem Teknolojisi ve Balık Besleme. Akademisyen Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinkhurst, R. O. (1971). Guide for the Identification of British aquatic Oligochaeta. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication, No: 22, Toronto. 55. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinkhurst, R. O., & Jamieson, B. G. M. (1971). Aquatic Oligochaeta of the world. Oliver and Boyd. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chekanovskaya, O. V. (1981). Aquatic oligochaeta of the USSR. Amerind Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hossain, A, Hasan, M., & Mollah, M. F. A. (2011). Effects of soybean meal and mustard oil cake on the production of live fish food Tubificid worms in Bangladesh. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 3, 183-189. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kaster, J. L. (1980). The reproductive biology of Tubifex tubifex Müller (Annelidae: Tubificidae). American Midland Naturalist, 104, 364-366. [Google Scholar]
  13. Koşal Şahin S., & Yıldız S. (2011). Species distribution of oligochaetes related to environmental parameters in Lake Sapanca (Marmara Region, Turkey), Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 11 (3), 359-366. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v11_3_04 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Lall, S. P., & Milley, J. E. (2008). Trace mineral requirements of fish and crustaceans (pp. 203-214). In P. Schlegel, S. Durosoy, A. W. Jongbloed (Eds.), Trace elements in animal production systems. Wageningen Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lazim, M. N., & Learner, M. A. (1986). The life‐cycle and productivity of Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta; Tibificidae) in the Moat‐Feeder Stream, Cardiff, South Wales. Ecography, 9(3), 185-192. [Google Scholar]
  16. Marian, M. P., Chandran, S., & Pandian, T. J. (1989). A rack culture system for Tubifex tubifex. Aquacultural Engineering, 8(5), 329-337. [Google Scholar]
  17. Oplinger, R. W., Bartley, M., & Wagner, E. J. (2011). Culture of Tubifex tubifex: Effect of feed type, ration, temperature, and density on juvenile recruitment, production, and adult survival. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 73, 68-75. [Google Scholar]
  18. Paoletti, A. (1989). Cohort cultures of Tubifex tubifex forms. Hydrobiologia, 180, 143-150. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pasteris, A., Bonomi, G., & Bonacina, C. (1996). Age, stage and size structure as population state variables for Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae). Hydrobiologia, 334 (1-3), 125-132. [Google Scholar]
  20. Timur, G., Timur, M., Turna, I., Kubilay, A., & İkiz, R. (1993). Tubificid culture, Turkish Journal of Zoology, 20, 99-101. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ünal, H. (2003). Tubifeks (Tubifex tubifex) yetiştiriciliğinde farklı besi ortamlarının etkisi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana]. [Google Scholar]
  22. Yanar, M., Yanar, Y., & Genç, M. A. (2003). Tubifex tubifex Müller, 1774 (Annelidae)’in Besin Kompozisyonu. Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Dergisi, 20(1-2), 103-110. [Google Scholar]