Table of Contents
Last Updated: December 7, 2025
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Sustaining high planktonic productivity is the cornerstone of successful semi-intensive aquaculture, acting as the primary natural food source for cultured carp species. Search intent: explain / apply the ecological interactions between water chemistry, organic fertilization, and supplementary feeding to maximize pond ecosystem health. This post explores the physico-chemical variables that drive biomass production in composite culture systems involving major and Chinese carps.
Key Takeaways:
- Nutrient Sources: Poultry droppings and uneaten high-protein feed significantly boost plankton levels through nutrient recycling.
- Key Drivers: Total hardness, chlorides, pH, and total ammonia are the primary predictors of plankton biomass in treated ponds.
- The Ammonia Paradox: While higher ammonia levels correlated with increased plankton (T6), they simultaneously stressed fish, reducing overall yield.
- Limiting Factors: Total phosphates and nitrates were identified as the limiting nutrients controlling the biological productivity of the pond water.
The Role of Fertilization and Feed Recycling
In semi-intensive systems, the food web is supported by two inputs: direct supplementary feeding and pond fertilization. This study utilized poultry droppings at a rate of 0.17g Nitrogen/100g wet fish weight daily. However, the study found that supplementary feed does more than just nourish the fish directly; the leaching nutrients and fish excreta fuel the pond’s autotrophic and heterotrophic food chains.
“Planktonic biomass was significantly higher due to 32% DP level (T6) showing additive effect of left over feed through recycling process in ponds.” (Zeb, 2016, p. Abstract)
The data revealed a clear hierarchy in planktonic productivity based on the protein content of the feed supplied. The treatment with the highest protein feed (32%) resulted in the highest dry weight of planktonic biomass. This indicates that un-eaten high-protein pellets and the subsequent nitrogen-rich waste excretion by fish acted as potent fertilizers. Conversely, the control ponds, which received only poultry droppings but no feed, had the lowest plankton levels, likely due to grazing pressure by the fish exceeding the regeneration rate of the plankton.
Student Note: In this study, the Step-wise Regression Method was used to determine the percentage contribution of specific water quality variables to the increase in plankton biomass.
Professor’s Insight: High plankton density does not always equal high fish yield. If the nutrients driving the plankton (like ammonia) reach toxic levels, fish growth will stunt regardless of food availability.
| Treatment | Feed Protein % | Avg. Plankton Biomass (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|
| T6 | 32% | 47.87 ± 19.50 |
| T5 | 30% | 45.97 ± 18.79 |
| T4 | 28% | 44.63 ± 18.23 |
| T3 | 26% | 42.28 ± 17.66 |
| T2 | 24% | 39.67 ± 17.04 |
| T1 | 22% | 37.21 ± 15.84 |
| T7 (Control) | 0% | 31.11 ± 12.05 |
| Fig: Dry weight of planktonic biomass across different feeding regimes (Zeb, 2016, p. 106). |
Physico-Chemical Drivers of Productivity
The thesis conducted an exhaustive fortnightly analysis of water parameters to understand what drives the pond ecosystem. While temperature and light penetration are physical constants that set the baseline for photosynthesis, the chemical composition of the water—specifically the ionic balance—dictated the variance in productivity between treatments.
“Total hardness, chlorides, pH and total ammonia were the water quality variables that explained the most variability in planktonic productivity of ponds under different treatments.” (Zeb, 2016, p. Abstract)
Regression models showed that in ponds with lower protein input (T1, 22%), Total Hardness was the most significant positive predictor of plankton weight. Hardness, representing calcium and magnesium ions, is essential for the molting of zooplankton and the structural integrity of phytoplankton. As protein inputs increased, Total Ammonia became a more dominant predictor. This shift highlights how the pond ecology transitions from a system limited by background minerals to one driven by nitrogen flux from feed inputs.
Student Note: Phosphorous acts as a limiting nutrient; statistical analysis showed significant negative regression in some treatments, implying that as plankton bloomed, phosphate reserves were rapidly depleted.
Professor’s Insight: Managing alkalinity and hardness is just as important as managing nitrogen; without a buffer system (alkalinity), the high respiration rates of a dense plankton bloom can cause dangerous pH swings.
The Disconnect Between Biomass and Yield
One of the most critical findings for aquaculture students is the non-linear relationship between natural food abundance and fish growth. Theoretically, more natural food (plankton) should lead to bigger fish. However, the study found that Treatment 6 (32% protein) had the highest plankton biomass but significantly lower fish yield compared to Treatment 4 (28% protein).
“The concentration of total ammonia… was found to be significantly highest (0.28±0.10mgL-1) in the water due to 32% DP (T6)… whereas the same was found to be significantly lowest (0.11±0.04mgL-1) in control pond.” (Zeb, 2016, p. 99)
This phenomenon occurs because the high protein input degraded the water quality. The excess nitrogen resulted in higher ammonia levels. While this ammonia fertilized the water and created a massive plankton bloom, it simultaneously acted as a chronic stressor for the fish. The energy the fish would have used to forage on that abundant plankton was instead diverted to osmoregulation and detoxification of ammonia. Thus, a “green” pond is not always a productive pond in terms of fish harvest.
Student Note: The correlation between fish yield and plankton was positive (r > 0.70) across all treatments, but the Slope of that benefit flattens when water quality parameters like ammonia exceed optimal thresholds.
Professor’s Insight: This is a classic trade-off in aquatic ecology: Eutrophication boosts primary productivity but can create a hostile chemical environment for the higher-order consumers (fish).
Seasonal Variations in Water Chemistry
The study covered a full year, capturing the drastic effects of seasonal changes on water chemistry and subsequent biological productivity. The water temperature ranged from a low of 12.96°C in January to a high of 34.37°C in October. These fluctuations had profound effects on the metabolic rates of the ecosystem.
“Significantly highest mean value of dissolved oxygen was observed during the month of February (9.74±0.11mgL-1)… whereas it was significantly lowest in the control treatment as compared to all the feeding regimes.” (Zeb, 2016, p. 86, 105)
Planktonic biomass peaked in May (66.67 mg/L) and was lowest in June (7.17 mg/L) at the start of the experiment. This seasonality is critical for management. During colder months (December/January), fish metabolism slows down, reducing their grazing pressure on plankton. Simultaneously, the low temperatures reduce the bacterial decomposition rate of manure, potentially allowing organic matter to accumulate. As temperatures rise in spring (March-May), decomposition accelerates, releasing a pulse of nutrients that triggers the massive plankton blooms observed in the data.
Student Note: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels are inversely related to temperature; however, in fertilized ponds, DO is also heavily influenced by the photosynthetic activity of the phytoplankton bloom.
| Parameter | Month (Max) | Value (Mean) | Month (Min) | Value (Mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature | October | 34.37°C | January | 12.96°C |
| pH | January | 9.15 | August | 8.27 |
| Dissolved Oxygen | February | 9.74 mg/L | June | 8.06 mg/L |
| Plankton Biomass | May | 66.67 mg/L | June | 7.17 mg/L |
| Fig: Seasonal extremes of key physico-chemical parameters (Zeb, 2016, Appendix Tables). |
thus section should be in uniqe words for each post, Reviewed and edited by the Professor of Zoology editorial team. Except for direct thesis quotes, all content is original work prepared for educational purposes.
Real-Life Applications
- Fertilization Schedules: Farmers should adjust poultry dropping application rates based on temperature. In winter (Jan/Feb), reduce inputs to prevent sludge accumulation; in spring (May), inputs yield maximum plankton return.
- Visual Indicators: A dense green bloom (high plankton) alongside slow fish feeding response is a warning sign of high ammonia, not a sign of food abundance.
- Cost-Effective Farming: By maintaining moderate protein levels (28%), farmers maintain water quality that supports both plankton and fish, avoiding the cost of water exchange required in high-protein (32%) systems.
- Polyculture Balance: Stocking Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)—a filter feeder—is essential in these systems to control the plankton blooms generated by the fertilization, preventing oxygen crashes at night.
- Water Testing: Regular testing for Total Hardness and Ammonia is more valuable than testing for nitrates alone, as these were the primary statistical drivers of productivity in this specific culture system.
Why this matters: Understanding pond ecology allows farmers to harness natural food webs, reducing dependency on expensive commercial feeds while maintaining environmental sustainability.
Key Takeaways
- Recycling Efficiency: High-protein supplementary feed contributes significantly to pond fertility; unconsumed feed decomposes to fuel the natural food web.
- The 32% Trap: The highest protein feed produced the most plankton but failed to produce the most fish due to deteriorating water quality (ammonia stress).
- Chemical Dependencies: Plankton growth in T1 (low protein) depended on hardness/chlorides, while T6 (high protein) depended on ammonia/phosphates, showing a shift in ecological drivers.
- Seasonal Management: Planktonic biomass is highly seasonal, peaking in May; management practices must adapt to these natural cycles to prevent dystrophic crises.
- Holistic Approach: Fish yield is a function of both direct nutrition (feed) and indirect nutrition (plankton), but water quality acts as the gatekeeper for both.
MCQs
1. Which treatment resulted in the highest dry weight of planktonic biomass?
A) T1 (22% Protein)
B) T4 (28% Protein)
C) T6 (32% Protein)
D) T7 (Control)
Correct: C
Explanation: T6 resulted in 47.87 mg/L of planktonic biomass due to the nutrient enriching effect of the high-protein feed residues and fish excretion.
2. Which water quality variable showed a significantly positive correlation with fish yield in the Control pond (T7)?
A) Total Ammonia
B) Calcium
C) Nitrates
D) Magnesium
Correct: B
Explanation: In the control pond, calcium showed a positively significant correlation with fish yield increments, as determined by step-wise regression.
3. What was identified as a limiting nutrient for planktonic productivity in the study?
A) Calcium
B) Total Phosphates
C) Chlorides
D) Sodium
Correct: B
Explanation: Total phosphates (along with nitrates) appeared as limiting nutrients; regression analysis showed a negative relationship, implying they were rapidly consumed during plankton growth.
FAQs
Q: Why did the control pond have the lowest plankton levels?
A: The control pond received no supplementary feed. The fish relied entirely on natural food, grazing down the plankton population faster than it could regenerate solely from the poultry manure fertilization.
Q: How does poultry manure help fish growth?
A: Poultry manure is rich in nitrogen and phosphorus. When added to the pond, it decomposes, releasing nutrients that stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and zooplankton, which serve as natural food for the fish.
Q: What is the relationship between water temperature and plankton biomass?
A: They are generally positively correlated in this system. The study found plankton biomass was lowest in June/July and peaked in May, following seasonal trends where warmer temperatures (within optimal range) support faster biological turnover.
Q: Did high ammonia levels kill the fish in the high-protein treatment?
A: No, there was 100% survival across all treatments. However, the high ammonia levels in the 32% protein treatment caused sub-lethal stress, which reduced growth rates despite the abundance of food.
Lab / Practical Note
Safety & Ethics: When working with poultry manure in aquaculture, ensure it is properly composted or handled to minimize pathogen transmission (e.g., Salmonella). In the lab, when measuring Dry Weight of Plankton, filter a known volume of pond water through a standard plankton net, dry the filtrate at 60-80°C until constant weight, and ensure precision to avoid calculating suspended mud/silt as biological mass.
External Resources
Sources & Citations
Thesis Citation:
Zeb, J. (2016). Optimization of protein level in supplementary feeds for fish rearing under semi-intensive composite pond culture systems (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Pages 1-162.
Note on Content: Specific regression data regarding water chemistry and plankton relationships were derived from Tables 26-32 and Appendix Tables 35-50.
Invitation: If you are the author of this thesis and wish to provide updates or corrections, please contact us at contact@professorofzoology.com.
Author Box
Jhan Zeb holds a PhD in Zoology from the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. His research focuses on aquatic sciences, specifically the interactions between fish nutrition, water chemistry, and ecosystem productivity.
Reviewer: Abubakar Siddiq, PhD, Zoology
Note: This summary was assisted by AI and verified by a human editor.
Discover more from Professor Of Zoology
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
