Aquaculture International

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 381–398 | Cite as

Microeukaryote community and the nutritional composition of the biofloc during Nile tilapia culture in water-reusing biofloc systems

  • Alfredo Gallardo-Collí
  • Carlos Iván Pérez-RostroEmail author
  • Martha Patricia Hernández-Vergara
  • Ignacio Alejandro Pérez-Legaspi


A 25-week experiment was conducted to investigate the changes in the microeukaryote community (MEC) and nutritional composition of the biofloc during Nile tilapia culture in water-reusing biofloc systems. The study evaluated two treatments: tilapia culture in biofloc (TB) and tilapia culture in biofloc with reuse water (RWTB). Each of the treatments was evaluated using a main culture tank (3 m3) and three experimental tanks (0.2 m3). The biofloc samples were revised with an inverted microscope and the groups of microorganisms and genera of the MEC were recorded. Total abundance of microorganisms (TAM), number of accumulated genera, ecological indices and water quality were evaluated. The MEC of both treatments consisted of microalgae, ciliates, flagellates, amoebas, rotifers, nematodes and annelids; the number of accumulated genera and TAM in RWTB (74 genera, 161.52 ± 80.60 org mL−1) was significantly greater than in TB (63 genera, 139.54 ± 81.39 org mL−1). The TAM in TB and RWTB varied in relation to the temperature, sedimentable solids, NH4-N and NH3-N. The dominance index observed in the RWTB group (0.59) was statistically greater than in the TB group (0.57) during the first 2 weeks of the study. The nutritional composition of the biofloc varied with time; at the end of the study, an increase in the percentage of protein (47%) and a reduction in the percentage of lipids (2%) was observed when compared with values recorded at the beginning of the study. The results suggest that both the richness and TAM of the MEC increase in water-reusing biofloc systems and that the biochemical constitution of the microorganisms which constitute the MEC affects the proximal composition of the biofloc.


Biofloc technology Ecological index Eukaryotic microorganism Microbial community Reuse water Single cell protein 



Microeukaryote community


Tilapia culture in biofloc


Tilapia culture in biofloc with reuse water


Total abundance of microorganisms


Biofloc technology


Settleable solids




Dissolved oxygen


Total dissolved salts


General hardness


Carbonate hardness


Nitrogen-free extract


Principal component 1


Principal component 2



The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Funding information

A.G.C. is the grant for posgraduate support by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de México (CONACYT, grant No. 229713).


  1. Abolafia J (2006) Order Rhabditida: Suborder Rhabditina. In: Eyualem-Abebe AI, Traunspurger W (eds) Freshwater nematodes: ecology and taxonomy. CABI Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis of the association of official analytical chemists, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1995) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. Asaduzzaman M, Rahman MM, Azim ME, Islam MA, Wahab MA, Verdegem MCJ, Verreth JAJ (2010) Effects of C/N ratio and substrate addition on natural food communities in freshwater prawn monoculture ponds. Aquaculture 306:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avnimelech Y (1999) Carbon/nitrogen ratio as a control element in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 176:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azim ME, Little DC, Bron JE (2008) Microbial protein production in activated suspension tanks manipulating C:N ratio in feed and the implications for fish culture. Bioresour Technol 99:3590–3599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellinger EG, Sigee DC (2015) Freshwater algae: identification, enumeration and use as bioindicators, 2nd edn. Willey Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Browdy CL (2014) Shrimp biofloc technologies, feeds and gut health. In: Browdy CL, Hargreaves J, Tung H, Avnimelech Y (eds) Proceedings of the Biofloc Technology and Shrimp Disease Workshop. Ho Chi Minh, 9–10 Dec 2013Google Scholar
  9. Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Available via DIALOG. Cited 22 Oct 2016
  10. De Schryver P, Crab R, Defoirdt T et al (2008) The basics of bio-flocs technology: the added value for aquaculture. Aquaculture 277:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebeling JM, Timmons MB, Bisogni JJ (2006) Understanding photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic bacterial based systems using basic water quality parameters. In: Rakestraw TT, Douglas LS, Marsh L, Granata L, Correa A, Flick GJ (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Recirculation Aquaculture. Roanoke, VA, 20–22 July 2006Google Scholar
  12. Emerenciano M, Ballester C, Cavalli R et al (2011) Effect of biofloc technology (BFT) on the early postlarval stage of pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus paulensis: growth performance, floc composition and salinity stress tolerance. Aquac Int 19:891–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerenciano M, Martínez-Córdova L, Martínez-Porchas M et al (2017) Biofloc Technology (BFT): A Tool for Water Quality Management in Aquaculture. In: Hlanganani Tutu (ed) Water Quality, InTech, pp 91–109Google Scholar
  14. Fiałkowska E, Pajdak-Stós A (2008) The role of Lecane rotifers in activated sludge bulking control. Water Res 42:2483–2490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foissner W, Berger H (1996) A user-friendly guide to the ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) commonly used by hydrobiologists as bioindicators in rivers, lakes, and waste waters, with notes on their ecology. Freshw Biol 35:375–482Google Scholar
  16. Fracker SB, Brischle HA (1944) Measuring the local distribution of Ribes. Ecology 25:283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fugimura M, dos Reis Flor H, de Melo E et al (2014) Brewery residues as a source of organic carbon in Litopenaeus schmitti white shrimp farms with BFT systems. Aquac Int 23:509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furtado PS, Poersch LH, Wasielesky W Jr (2011) Effect of calcium hydroxide, carbonate and sodium bicarbonate on water quality and zootechnical performance of shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei reared in bio-flocs technology (BFT) systems. Aquaculture 321:130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Govedich TR, Bain BA, Moser WE et al (2009) Annelida (Clitellata): Oligochaeta, Branchiobdellida, Hirudinida, and Acanthobdellida. In: Thorp JH, Covich AP (eds) Ecology and classification of north American freshwater invertebrates, 3rd edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hargreaves J (2013) Biofloc production systems for aquaculture. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center publication 4503Google Scholar
  21. Holovachov O, De Ley P (2006) Order Plectida. In: Eyualem-Abebe AI, Traunspurger W (eds) Freshwater nematodes: ecology and taxonomy. CABI Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibrahim F, Noll C, Valenti WC (2015) Zooplankton capturing by Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Teleostei: Cichlidae) throughout post-larval development. Zoologia 32:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeuck A, Arndt H (2013) A short guide to common heterotrophic flagellates of freshwater habitats based on the morphology of living organisms. Protist 164:842–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim SK, Jo JC, Jang IK (2015) Characterization of bacterial community in biofloc farms. Available via DIALOG. Cited 28 Oct 2016
  25. Krummenauer D, Samocha T, Poersch L, Lara G, Wasielesky W Jr (2014) The reuse of water on the culture of pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei, in BFT system. J World Aquacult Soc 45:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lara G, Krummenauer D, Abreu PC et al (2016) The use of different aerators on Litopenaeus vannamei biofloc culture system: effects on water quality shrimp growth and biofloc composition. Aquac Int 25:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu W, Luo G, Tan H et al (2016) Effects of sludge retention time on water quality and bioflocs yield, nutritional composition, apparent digestibility coefficients treating recirculating aquaculture system effluent in sequencing batch reactor. Aquac Eng 72–73:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loureiro CK, Wasielesky W Jr, Abreu PC (2012) The use of protozoan, rotifers and nematodes as live food for shrimp raised in BFT system. Atlântica 4:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luna-Pabello VM, Aladro-Lubel A, Durán-de-Bazúa C (1992) Temperature effects on ciliates diversity and abundance in a rotating biological reactor. Bioresour Technol 39:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manan H, Moh J, Kasan NA et al (2016) Identification of biofloc microscopic composition as the natural bioremediation in zero water exchange of Pacific white shrimp, Penaeus vannamei, culture in closed hatchery system. Appl Water Sci 7:2437–2446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martínez-Córdova LR, Emerenciano M, Miranda-Baeza A et al (2014) Microbial-based systems for aquaculture of fish and shrimp: an updated review. Rev Aquac 7:131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Monroy-Dosta M, Lara-Andrade D, Castro-Mejía J et al (2013) Microbiology community composition and abundance associated to biofloc in tilapia aquaculture. Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr 48:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nevejan N, De Schryver P, Wille M et al (2016) Bacteria as food in aquaculture: do they make a difference? Rev Aquac 10:180–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pandey PK, Bharti V, Kumar K (2014) Biofilm in aquaculture production. Afr J Microbiol Res 8:1434–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patterson DJ, Hedley S (1992) Free-living freshwater protozoa: a color guide. Manson Publishing Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Pérez-Fuentes J, Hernández-Vergara M, Pérez-Rostro C et al (2016) C:N ratios affect nitrogen removal and production of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus raised in a biofloc system under high density cultivation. Aquaculture 425:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ray AJ, Lewis BL, Browdy CL, Leffler JW (2010a) Suspended solids removal to improve shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) production and an evaluation of a plant-based feed in minimal-exchange superintensive culture systems. Aquaculture 299:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ray AJ, Seaborn G, Leffler JW, Wilde SB, Lawson A, Browdy CL (2010b) Characterization of microbial communities in minimal-exchange, intensive aquaculture systems and the effects of suspended solids management. Aquaculture 310:130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallace RL, Snell TW (2009) Rotifera. In: Thorp JH, Covich AP (eds) Ecology and classification of north American freshwater invertebrates, 3rd edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu WJ, Morris TC, Samocha TM (2016) Effects of C/N ratio on biofloc development, water quality, and performance of Litopenaeus vannamei juveniles in a biofloc-based, high-density, zero-exchange, outdoor tank system. Aquaculture 453:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zar J (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratorio de Mejoramiento Genético y Producción AcuícolaInstituto Tecnológico de Boca del RíoVeracruzMexico

Personalised recommendations