Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1021–1031 | Cite as

Effect of water aeration and nutrient load level on biomass yield, N uptake and protein content of the seaweed Ulva lactuca cultured in seawater tanks



The effects of 16 different combinations of nutrient load and agitation on yield, nutrient uptake and proximate chemical composition of the seaweed Ulva lactuca cultured in tanks were evaluated. Intensive fishpond outflow passed through seaweed tanks at four nutrient loading levels and four water agitation combinations of water exchange, bottom aeration and frequently changing water levels (an accelerated tide regime). Specific results from these outdoor experiments were examined further under controlled conditions in laboratory experiments. Agitation treatments affected the performance of U. lactuca only under TAN (\({\text{NH}}_{3} + {\text{NH}}^{ + }_{4} \)) load levels below 4 g N m−2 day−1; biofiltration of TAN was the parameter most affected. Biomass yields at each of the four nutrient loading levels were not significantly different between the agitation treatments. Protein content increased significantly with increasing nutrient loading. The agitation treatments had a slight effect on seaweed protein content only at the lowest nutrient loading levels. There were no significant differences in dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and temperature among the agitation treatments at all nutrient loading levels. Under laboratory conditions, growth rates, protein content, and photosynthetic and biomass yield of the seaweed were affected by water velocity under low nutrient concentrations. It is concluded that the effect of air agitation under the conditions of these experiments was not directly related to photosynthesis, excess dissolved oxygen, or carbon limitation, but to the diffusion of macro nutrients from the water to the seaweed. Therefore, once nutrient concentrations are high enough (above about 4 μM of TAN with the other nutrients in their corresponding proportions), aeration per se is not essential for effective growth and biofiltration by seaweeds.


Seaweed biofiltration Water movement Agitation treatment Fishpond effluents Nutrient uptake Yield 



F.M. expresses her gratitude for the support provided by a World Wildlife Fund scholarship and by Tel Aviv University, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Botany. The Israeli National Centre for Mariculture (NCM) funded part of the research. The Institute of Marine Sciences of the University of Dar es Salaam is thanked for granting the time for F.M.’s study. Special thanks to S. Beer for his continual support and guidance. We also acknowledge the technical help of V. Odintsev, L. Shauli, A. Zalmanzon, and the Departments of Nutrition, Engineering, and Maintenance at NCM. Finally, we thank M. Friedlander, A. Schuenhoff, G. Kissil, and two anonymous reviewers for their many useful comments.


  1. Beer S, Ilan M, Eshel A, Weil A, Brickner I (1998) Use of pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) fluorometry for in situ measurements of photosynthesis in two Red Sea faviid corals. Mar Biol 131:607–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bidwell RGS, McLachlan J, Lloyd NDH (1985) Tank cultivation of Chondrus crispus Stackh. Bot Mar 28:87–97Google Scholar
  3. Bird K (1989) Intensive seaweed cultivation. Aquac Mag 1989:29–34Google Scholar
  4. Blaedel WJ, Meloche VW (1957) Elementary quantitative analysis: theory and practice. Row, Peterson and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Boarder SJ, Shpigel M (2001) Comparative performance of juvenile Haliotis roei fed on enriched Ulva rigida and various artificial diets. J Shellfish Res 20:653–657Google Scholar
  6. Chopin T, Buschmann AH, Halling C, Troell M, Kautsky N, Neori A, Kraemer G, Zertuche-Gonzalez J, Yarish C, Neefus C (2001) Integrating seaweeds into aquaculture systems: a key towards sustainability. J Phycol 37:975–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen I, Neori A (1991) Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond effluents. I. Ammonia uptake kinetics and nitrogen content. Bot Mar 34:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craigie JS, Shacklock PF (1995) Culture of Irish moss. In: Boghen AD (ed) Cold-water aquaculture in Atlantic Canada, 2nd edn. The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, Moncton, pp 241–270Google Scholar
  9. DeBusk TA, Blakeslee M, Ryther JH (1986) Studies on the outdoor cultivation of Ulva lactuca L. Bot Mar 29:381–386Google Scholar
  10. Dodds WK (1991) Community interactions between the filamentous alga Cladophora glomerata (L.) Kutzing, its epiphytes and epiphyte grazers. Oecologia 85:572–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doty MS (1971) Measurement of water movement in reference to benthic algal growth. Bot Mar 14:32–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duke CS, Lapointe BE, Ramus J (1986) Effects of light on growth, RuBPCase activity and chemical composition of Ulva species (Chlorophyta). J Phycol 22:362–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duke CS, Litaker RW, Ramus J (1989) Effects of temperature, nitrogen supply and tissue nitrogen on ammonium uptake rates of the chlorophyte seaweeds Ulva curvata and Codium decorticatum. J Phycol 25:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans F, Langdon CJ (2000) Co-culture of dulse Palmaria mollis and red abalone Haliotis rufescens under limited flow conditions. Aquaculture 185:137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedlander M, Dawes CJ (1985) In situ uptake kinetics of ammonium and phosphate and chemical composition of the red seaweed Gracilaria tikvahiae. J Phycol 21:448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gao K, Aruga Y, Asada K, Ishihara T, Akano T, Kiyohara M (1992) Photorespiration and CO2 fixation in the red alga Porphyra yezoensis Ueda. Jap J Phycol 40:373–377Google Scholar
  17. Glenn EP, Doty MS (1992) Water motion affects the growth rates of Kappaphycus alvarezii and related red seaweeds. Aquaculture 108:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonen Y, Kimmel E, Friedlander M (1993) Effect of relative water motion on photosynthetic rate of red alga Gracilaria conferta. Hydrobiologia 260/261:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanisak MD, Ryther JH (1984) Cultivation biology of Gracilaria tikvahiae in the United States. Hydrobiologia 116/117:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huguenin JH (1976) An examination of problems and potentials for future large-scale intensive seaweed culture systems. Aquaculture 9:313–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Israel A, Friedlander M, Neori A (1995) Biomass yield, photosynthesis and morphological expression of Ulva lactuca. Bot Mar 38:297–302Google Scholar
  22. Krom MD, Grayer S, Davidson A (1985) An automated method of ammonia determination for use in mariculture. Aquaculture 44:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krom MD, Ellner SP, van Rijn J, Neori A (1995) Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and transformations in a prototype “non-polluting” integrated mariculture system, Eilat, Israel. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 118:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lapointe BE, Ryther JH (1978) Some aspects of the growth and yield of Gracilaria tikvahiae in culture. Aquaculture 15:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lapointe BE, Ryther JH (1979) The effects of nitrogen and seawater flow rate on the growth and biochemical composition of Gracilaria foliifera var. angustissima in mass outdoor cultures. Bot Mar 22:529–538Google Scholar
  26. Lobban CS, Harrison PJ, Duncan MJ (1985) The physiological ecology of seaweeds. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Madsen TV, Sand-Jensen K (1991) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation in aquatic macrophytes. Aquat Bot 41:5–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madsen JD, Chambers PA, James WF, Koch EW, Westlake D (2001) The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submerged macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 444:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McHugh DJ (2003) A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries technical paper no. 441. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  30. Msuya FE (2004) The influence of culture regimes on the performance of seaweed biofilters in integrated mariculture. PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  31. Neori A (1996) The type of N-supply (ammonia or nitrate) determines the performance of seaweed biofilters integrated with intensive fish culture. Isr J Aquac-Bamidgeh 48:19–27Google Scholar
  32. Neori A, Cohen I, Gordin H (1991) Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond effluents. II. Growth rate, yield and C:N ratio. Bot Mar 34:483–489Google Scholar
  33. Neori A, Krom MD, Ellner SP, Boyd CE, Popper D, Rabinovitch, Davidson PJ, Dvir O, Zuber D, Ucko M, Angel D, Gordin H (1996) Seaweed biofilters as regulators of water quality in integrated fish-seaweed culture units. Aquaculture 141:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neori A, Msuya FE, Shauli L, Schuenhoff A, Fidi K, Shpigel M (2003) A novel three-stage seaweed (Ulva lactuca) biofilter design for integrated mariculture. J Appl Phycol 15:543–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neori A, Chopin T, Troell M, Buschmann AH, Kraemer GP, Halling C, Shpigel M, Yarish C (2004) Integrated aquaculture: rationale, evolution and state of the art emphasizing seaweed biofiltration in modern mariculture. Aquaculture 231:361–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ni IH, Wu M, Shek S, Qian PY (1999) Integrated mariculture. I. Comparison of nutrients uptake among macroalgae, phytoplankton and bacteria. APEC Conference on Sustainability of Marine Environment: What Can the Private Sector Do? Kaohslung, Chinese Taipei, 1–3 September 1999Google Scholar
  37. Parker HS (1981) Influence of relative water motion on the growth, ammonium uptake and carbon and nitrogen composition of Ulva lactuca (Chlorophyta). Mar Biol 63:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Phang SM, Miah MS, Yeoh BG, Hashim MA (2000) Spirulina cultivation in digested sago starch factory wastewater. J Appl Phycol 12:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenberg G, Ramus J (1982) Ecological growth strategies in the seaweeds Gracilaria foliifera (Rhodophyceae) and Ulva sp. (Chlorophyceae): soluble nitrogen and reserve carbohydrate. Mar Biol 66:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shpigel M, Ragg NL, Lupatsch I, Neori A (1999) Protein content determines the nutritional value of the seaweed Ulva lactuca L for the abalone Haliotis tuberculata L. and H. discus hannai Ino. J Shellfish Res 18:227–233Google Scholar
  41. Smith FA, Walker NA (1980) Photosynthesis by aquatic plants: effects of unstirred layers in relation to assimilation of CO2 and \({\text{HCO}}^{ - }_{3} \) and to carbon isotopic discrimination. New Phytol 86:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Troell M, Robertson-Andersson D, Anderson RJ, Bolton JJ, Maneveldt G, Halling C, Probyn T (2006) Abalone farming in South Africa: an overview with perspectives on kelp resources, abalone feed, potential for on-farm seaweed production and socio-economic importance. Aquaculture 257:266–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vandermeulen H (1989) A low-maintenance tank for mass culture of seaweeds. Aquac Eng 8:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vandermeulen H, Gordin H (1990) Ammonia uptake using Ulva (Chlorophyta) in intensive fishpond system: mass culture and treatment of effluent. J Appl Phycol 2:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vergara JJ, Sebastián M, Pérez-Lloréns JL, Hernández I (1998) Photoacclimation of Ulva rigida and U. rotundata (Chlorophyta) arranged in canopies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 165:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallentinus I (1984) Comparisons of nutrient uptake rates for Baltic macroalgae with different thallus morphologies. Mar Biol 80:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Marine SciencesUniversity of Dar es SalaamZanzibarTanzania
  2. 2.National Centre for MaricultureIsrael Oceanographic and Limnological ResearchEilatIsrael

Personalised recommendations