Submitted:
22 August 2025
Posted:
25 August 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance of a Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) integrated with macroalgae (Ulva ohnoi) cultivation and sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) feeding, in a multi-trophic aquaculture approach. This system aimed to enhance sustainability through water bioremediation by macroalgae and valorization of the algal biomass as echinoderms feed. Over a 180-day trial, biomass production of U. ohnoi remained stable, with daily growth rates ranging from 7.4% to 24.4%. Statistical analyses (PCA and GAM) indicated no significant linear or non-linear relationship between macroalgae growth and environmental parameters (temperature, radiation, photoperiod). A theoretical estimate of nutrient production showed fairly stable values that do not statistically explain biomass production variation, highlighting the species’ adaptability. Sea urchins fed with fresh U. ohnoi showed regular growth, supporting the nutritional suitability of this macroalgae. For fishes (Sparus aurata), no significant differences in growth or feed conversion ratio were observed between systems with and without algae. Parasitological monitoring revealed lower parasite loads and egg deposition in tanks in recirculation with U. ohnoi during certain periods, suggesting a potential role of macroalgae in reducing monogenean propagation. These findings underscore the feasibility of integrating Ulva cultivation into RAS, contributing to circular aquaculture models with improved sustainability and resource efficiency.

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Integrated Recirculation System (RAS)

2.2. Macroalgae and Sea Urchin Production
2.2.1. Macroalgae
2.2.2. Sea Urchin Rearing and Feeding Protocol
2.2.3. Sea Bream Cultivation Protocol
2.2.4. Biometric Sampling
2.2.5. Environmental Parameters and Sampling Procedures
2.3. Impact of Integrated Macroalgae Production on Fish Health and Welfare
2.3.1. Fish Welfare: Ectoparasite Analysis
2.4. Data Processing
2.4.1. Macroalgae and Sea Urchin Production
2.4.2. Fish Production and Ectoparasite Analysis
2.5. Use of Artificial Intelligence Assistance
3. Results
3.1. First Phase: Macroalgae and Sea Urchin Production
3.1.1. Macroalgae Production
3.1.2. Sea Urchin Production
3.2. Second Phase: Analyzing Fish Welfare
3.2.1. Fish Growth, Condition and Nutrition Indices
3.2.2. Ectoparasite Analysis

4. Discussion
4.1. Macroalgae Production
4.2. Sea Urchin Production
4.3. Sea Bream Production and Welfare
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. In Brief to The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2024. Blue Transformation in action. Rome.
- FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. Rome.
- Ahmed, N.; Turchini, G.M; Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS): Environmental solution and climate change adaptation, J. Clean. Prod., 2021, Volume 297, 126604, ISSN 0959-6526.
- Hall, S.J.; Delaporte, A.; Phillips, M.; Beveridge, M.; O’Keefe, M.; Center, T. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, 2011, Penang, Malaysia.
- Boyd, C.; Clay, J. Shrimp Aquaculture and the Environment. Sci. Amer. 1998, 278. 58-65. [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, S. Assessing the role of commercial aquaculture in displacing mangrove forest. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2013, 89, pp. 585-601. [CrossRef]
- Milewski, I. Impacts of Salmon Aquaculture on the Coastal Environment : A Review. Environ. Sci. 2001, 35pp.
- G.L. Taranger, Ø. Karlsen, R.J. Bannister, K.A. Glover, V. Husa, E. Karlsbakk, B.O. Kvamme, K.K. Boxaspen, et al. Risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farmingICES (Int. Counc. Explor. Sea) J. Mar. Sci., 2015, 72, pp. 997-1021.
- Abbas Dakheel, N.; Al-Saeedi, N.K.; Zainab D.D. Carp Fish and Effects on the Aquatic Environment, UTJagr, 2024, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 327–334.
- Aich, N.; Nama, S.; Biswal, A.; Paul, T. A review on recirculating aquaculture systems: challenges and opportunities for sustainable aquaculture. Inno. Farm, 2020,5(1), 17-24.
- Roy, S.M.; Choi, H.; Kim, T. Review of state-of-the-art improvements in recirculating aquaculture systems: Insights into design, operation, and statistical modeling approaches. Aquac. 2025, 605, 742545, ISSN 0044-8486,.
- Neori, A.; Troell, M.; Chopin, T.; Yarish, C. & Critchley, A.; Buschmann, A. The Need for a Balanced Ecosystem Approach to Blue Revolution Aquaculture. JESSD. 2007, 49, 36-43.
- Martins, C.; Eding, E.; Verdegem, M.; Heinsbroek, L.; Schneider, O.; Blancheton, J.; d’Orbcastel, E.; Verreth, J. Aquac. Eng. 2010, 43 (3), 83–93. [CrossRef]
- Chopin, T. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture. What it is and why you should care... and don’t confuse it with polyculture. North. Aquac. 2006, 12, 4.
- Chopin, T.; Buschmann, A.; Halling, C.; Troell, M.; Kautsky, N.; Neori, A.; Kraemer, G.; Zertuche, J.; Yarish, C.; Neefus, C. Integrating seaweeds into marine aquaculture systems: A key toward sustainability. J. Phycol. 2001, 37, 975–986. [CrossRef]
- Cirino, P.; Ciaravolo, M.; Paglialonga, A.; Toscano, A. Long-term maintenance of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus in culture. Aquac. Rep. 2017, 7, 27–33. [CrossRef]
- Harris, L.; Eddy, S. Sea urchin ecology and biology. In Echinoderm Aquaculture; Brown, N., Eddy, S., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2005; pp. 3–24.
- Chatzoglou, E.; Kechagia, P.; Tsopelakos, A.; Miliou, H. Co-culture of Ulva sp. and Dicentrarchus labrax in recirculating aquaculture system: effects on growth, retention of nutrients and fatty acid profile. Aquat. Living Resour. 2020, 33, 19. [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, C.; Ripol, A.; Afonso, C.; Freire, M.; Varela, J.; Quental-Ferreira, H.; Pousão-Ferreira, P.; Bandarra, N. Fatty acid profiles of the main lipid classes of green seaweeds from fish pond aquaculture. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 5(6), 1186–1194. [CrossRef]
- Araújo, J.; Loureiro, P.; Candeias-Mendes, A.; Gamboa, A.; Bandarra, N.; Cardoso, C.; Soares, F.; Dias, J.; Pousão-Ferreira, P. The effect of a formulated feed on the body growth and gonads quality of purple sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) aquaculture produced. J. Aquac. Mar. Biol. 2023, 12(1), 11–18. [CrossRef]
- Ortiz, J. et al. Nutritional value of seaweeds. Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 5(4), 998–1006.
- Guruge, W. A. H. P. Effects of Ulva lactuca and Sargassum cinereum supplemented diets on haematological parameters and survival of Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) against bacterial pathogen (Aeromonas species). Ceylon J. Sci. 2021.
- Amin, M. A.; Chondra, U.; Mostafa, E.; Alam, M. M. Green seaweed Ulva lactuca, a potential source of bioactive peptides revealed by in silico analysis. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2022, 33, 101099. ISSN 2352-9148. [CrossRef]
- Afonso, C.; Cardoso, C.; Ripol, A.; Varela, J.; Quental-Ferreira, H.; Pousão-Ferreira, P.; Ventura, M. S.; Delgado, I. M.; Coelho, I.; Castanheira, I.; Bandarra, N. M. Composition and bioaccessibility of elements in green seaweeds from fish pond aquaculture. Food Res. Int. 2018, 105, 271–277. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribeiro, M. C.; Lourenço-Marques, C.; Baptista, T., Pousão-Ferreira, P.; Soares, F. First reporto f Calceostoma glandulosum (Monogenea) in Argyrosomus regius: morphological and molecular characterization and themperature effects on life cycle. Aquaculture Research, 2025, 2025(1), 1-16.
- Andree, K. B.; Roque, A.; Duncan, N.; Gisbert, E.; Estevez, A.; Tsertou, M. I.; Katharios, P. Diplectanum sciaenae (Van Beneden & Hesse, 1863) (Monogenea) infecting meagre, Argyrosomus regius (Asso, 1801) broodstock in Catalonia, Spain. A case report. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2015, 1–2, 75–79.
- Doan, H. V.; Soltani, E.; Ingelbrecht, J.; Soltani, M. Medicinal Herbs and Plants: Potential Treatment of Monogenean Infections in Fish. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2020, 28(2), 260 282.
- Hutson, K. S.; Mata, L.; Paul, N. A.; de Nys, R. Seaweed extracts as a natural control against the monogenean ectoparasite, Neobenedenia sp., infecting farmed barramundi (Lates calcarifer). Int. J. Parasitol. 2012, 42(13–14), 1135–1141.
- Riera-Ferrer, E.; Del Pozo, R.; Piazzon, M. C.; Sitjà-Bobadilla, A.; Estensoro, I.; Palenzuela, O. Sparicotyle chrysophrii experimental infection of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata): Establishment of an in vivo model reproducing the pathological outcomes of sparicotylosis. Aquaculture 2023, 573, 739588. [CrossRef]
- Shinn, A. P.; Pratoomyot, J.; Bron, J. E.; Paladini, G.; Brooker, E. E.; Brooker, A. J. Economic costs of protistan and metazoan parasites to global mariculture. Parasitology 2015, 142(1), 196–270. [CrossRef]
- Kearn, G. C.; Ogawa, K.; Maeno, Y. Hatching Patterns of the Monogenean Parasites Benedenia seriolae and Heteraxine heterocerca from the Skin and Gills, Respectively, of the Same Host Fish, Seriola quinqueradiata. Zool. Sci. 1992, 9(2), 451–455.
- Cheng, T. C. Monogenea: The Monogenetic Trematodes. Gen. Parasitol. 1986, 273–298.
- Repullés-Albelda, A.; Holzer, A. S.; Raga, J. A.; Montero, F. E. Oncomiracidial development, survival and swimming behaviour of the monogenean Sparicotyle chrysophrii (Van Beneden and Hesse, 1863). Aquaculture 2012, 338–341, 47–55.
- Jahangiri, L.; MacKinnon, B.; St-Hilaire, S. Infectious diseases reported in warm-water marine fish cage culture in East and Southeast Asia—A systematic review. Aquac. Res. 2022, 53(6), 2081–2108. [CrossRef]
- Sitjà-Bobadilla, A.; Redondo, M. J.; Alvarez-Pellitero, P. Occurrence of Sparicotyle chrysophrii (Monogenea: Polyopisthocotylea) in gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) from different mariculture systems in Spain. Aquac. Res. 2010, 41(6), 939–944.
- Villar-Torres, M.; Montero, F. E.; Raga, J. A.; Repullés-Albelda, A. Come rain or come shine: Environmental effects on the infective stages of Sparicotyle chrysophrii, a key pathogen in Mediterranean aquaculture. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11(1), 1–19. [CrossRef]
- Antonelli, L.; Quilichini, Y.; Marchand, B. Sparicotyle chrysophrii (Van Beneden and Hesse 1863) (Monogenea: Polyopisthocotylea) parasite of cultured Gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata (Linnaeus 1758) (Pisces: Teleostei) from Corsica: Ecological and morphological study. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 107(2), 389–398. [CrossRef]
- Patel, S. Therapeutic importance of sulfated polysaccharides from seaweeds: updating the recent findings. 3 Biotech 2012, 2(3), 171–185. [CrossRef]
- European Commission: Directorate-General for Communication. Circular economy action plan – For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Publications Office of the European Union, 2020.
- Bush, A. O.; Lafferty, K. D.; Lotz, J. M.; Shostak, A. W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J. Parasitol. 1997, 83(4), 575. [CrossRef]
- Servén, D.; Brummitt C. pyGAM: Generalized Additive Models in Python 2018. Zenodo.
- Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blonder, M.; Prettenhofer, P; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; Duchesnay, É. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 2011. 12, 2825-2830.
- Schneider, O., Sereti, V., Eding, E. H., & Verreth, J. A. J.Analysis of nutrient flows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquacult. Eng. (2005), 32(3–4), 379–401.
- Lupatsch, I., Kissil, G. W., & Sklan, D. Comparison of energy and protein efficiency among three fish species: gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and white grouper (Epinephelus aeneus). Aquaculture. 200. 196(1–2), 87–94.
- Zhao, X.; Guo, Y.; Li, J.; Ma, Z.; Yu, G.; Qin, C. Effects of light color on the growth, feeding, digestion, and antioxidant enzymes of Tripneustes gratilla. Biology 2024, 13, 65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lourenço, S.; José, R.; Andrade, C.; Valente, L. M. P. Growth performance and gonad yield of sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) fed with diets of increasing protein: energy ratios. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 270, 114690. ISSN 0377-8401. [CrossRef]
- Araújo, J.; Gamboa, M.; Choulis, I.; Candeias-Mendes, A.; Cabrita, E.; Pousão-Ferreira, P.; Soares, F. Histological evaluation of purple sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) gonads: influence of temperature, photoperiod regimes, and diets. Fishes 2024, 9, 207. [CrossRef]
- Bonaldo, A.; Isani, G.; Fontanillas, R.; Parma, L.; Grilli, E.; Gatta, P. P. Growth and feed utilization of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata, L.) fed to satiation and restrictively at increasing dietary energy levels. Aquacult. Int. 2010, 18, 909–919. [CrossRef]
- Favot, G.; Engelen, A. E.; Cunha, M. E.; Serrão, M. E. A. Identification of Ulva sp. grown in multitrophic aquaculture systems. J. Aquac. Fish. 2019, 3, 024. [CrossRef]
- Carl, C.; de Nys, R.; Paul, N. A. The seeding and cultivation of a tropical species of filamentous Ulva for algal biomass production. PLOS ONE 2014, 9, e98700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riccardi, N.; Solidoro, C. The influence of environmental variables on Ulva rigida C. Ag. growth and production. Bot. Mar. 1996, 39, 27–32. [CrossRef]
- Taylor, R.; Fletcher, R. L.; Raven, J. A. Preliminary studies on the growth of selected ‘Green tide’ algae in laboratory culture: effects of irradiance, temperature, salinity and nutrients on growth rate. Bot. Mar. 2001, 44, 327–336. [CrossRef]
- Olischläger, M.; Bartsch, I.; Gutow, L.; Wiencke, C. Effects of ocean acidification on growth and physiology of Ulva lactuca (Chlorophyta) in a rockpool-scenario. Phycol. Res. 2013, 61, 180–190. [CrossRef]
- Toth, G. B.; Harrysson, H.; Wahlström, N.; et al. Effects of irradiance, temperature, nutrients, and pCO₂ on the growth and biochemical composition of cultivated Ulva fenestrata. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 3243–3254. [CrossRef]
- Nakamura, M.; Kumagai, N.; Tamaoki, M.; Arita, K., Ishii, Y.; Nakajima, N.; Tohru, Y. Photosynthesis and growth of Ulva ohnoi and Ulva pertusa (Ulvophyceae) under high light and high temperature conditions, and implications for green tide in Japan. Phycol. Res. 2019. 68. 10.1111/pre.12410.
- NASA. Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources (POWER) Data Access Viewer. Available online: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/ (accessed on 23 June 2025).
- Lawton, R. J.; Mata, L.; de Nys, R.; Paul, N. A. Algal bioremediation of waste waters from land-based aquaculture using Ulva: Selecting target species and strains. PLOS ONE 2013, 8(10), e77344. [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Mayorga, D. M.; Ladah, L.; Zertuche, J.; Leichter, J. J.; Filonov, A.; Lavín, M. F. Nitrogen uptake and growth by the opportunistic macroalga Ulva lactuca (Linnaeus) during the internal tide. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2011, 406, 108-115. [CrossRef]
- Fujita, R. M. The role of nitrogen status in regulating transient ammonium uptake and nitrogen storage by macroalgae. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1985, 92(2-3), 283-301. ISSN 0022-0981.
- Gómez-Pinchetti, J. L. G.; Fernandez, E. C.; Diez, P. M.; Reina, G. G. Nitrogen availability influences the biochemical composition and photosynthesis of tank-cultivated Ulva rigida (Chlorophyta). J. Appl. Phycol. 1998, 10, 383–389. [CrossRef]
- Hernández, I.; Peralta, G.; Pérez-Lloréns, J.; Vergara, J. J.; Niell, F. X. Biomass and dynamics of growth of Ulva species in Palmones River Estuary. J. Phycol. 1997, 33, 764–772. [CrossRef]
- Oca, J., Cremades, J., Jiménez, P., Pintado, J., & Masaló, I. (2019). Culture of the seaweed Ulva ohnoi integrated in a Solea senegalensis recirculating system: influence of light and biomass stocking density on macroalgae productivity. Journal of Applied Phycology, 31(4), 2461-2467.
- John A. Hargreaves. (2006). Photosynthetic suspended-growth systems in aquaculture, Aquacultural Engineering, Volume 34, Issue 3. Pages 344-363, ISSN 0144-8609. [CrossRef]
- Candeias-Mendes, A.; Araújo, J.; Santos, M.; Namora, M.; Soares, F.; Gomes, R.; Cardoso, C.; Afonso, C.; Bandarra, N.M.; Pousão-Ferreira, P. Growth, survival and fatty acids profile of sea urchins, Paracentrotus lividus juveniles fed with Ulva spp. and maize in aquaculture production. First results using G1 generation in Portugal. J. Aquac. Mar. Biol. 2020, 9(6), 208–214. [CrossRef]
- Cyrus, M.; Bolton, J.; De Wet, L.; Macey, B. M. The development of a formulated feed containing Ulva (Chlorophyta) to promote rapid growth and enhanced production of high-quality roe in the sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus). Aquac. Res. 2012, 45(1), 159–176. [CrossRef]
- Cyrus, M.; Bolton, J.; De Wet, L.; Macey, B. M. The development of a formulated feed containing Ulva (Chlorophyta) to promote rapid growth and enhanced production of high-quality roe in the sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus). Aquac. Res. 2012, 45(1), 159–176. [CrossRef]
- Prato, E.; Fanelli, G.; Angioni, A.; Biandolino, F.; Parlapiano, I.; Papa, L.; Denti, G.; Secci, M.; Chiantore, M.; Kelly, M.; Ferranti, M.; Addis, P. Influence of a prepared diet and a macroalga (Ulva sp.) on the growth, nutritional and sensory qualities of gonads of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. Aquaculture 2018, 493.
- Turon, X.; Giribet, G.; López, S.; Palacín, C. Growth and population structure of Paracentrotus lividus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) in two contrasting habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1995, 122, 193–204. [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, P. The effect of two inert diets on purple sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) growth and gonadal development, in aquaculture. Universidade do Algarve. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia 2021.
- Fernandez, C.; Pergent, G. Effect of different formulated diets and rearing conditions on growth parameters in the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. J. Shellfish Res. 1998, 17, 1571–1581.
- Shpigel, M.; Shauli, L.; Odintsov, V.; Ben, D.; Neori, A.; Guttman, L. The sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus, in an Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) system with fish (Sparus aurata) and seaweed (Ulva lactuca): Nitrogen partitioning and proportional configurations. Aquaculture 2018, 490, 260-269. [CrossRef]
- Parma, L.; Pelusio, N. F.; Gisbert, E.; Esteban, M. A.; D’Amico, F.; Soverini, M.; Candela, M.; Dondi, F.; Gatta, P. P.; Bonaldo, A. Effects of rearing density on growth, digestive conditions, welfare indicators and gut bacterial community of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata, L. 1758) fed different fishmeal and fish oil dietary levels. Aquaculture 2020, 518, 734854. ISSN 0044-8486. [CrossRef]
- Zohar, Y.; Tal, Y.; Schrier, H.; Steven, C.; Stubblefield, J.; Place, A. Commercially feasible urban recirculated aquaculture: Addressing the marine sector. In Urban Aquaculture; Costa-Pierce, B., DesBonnet, A., Edwards, P., Baker, D., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, 2005; pp. 159–171.
- Petridis, D.; Rogdakis, I. The development of growth and feeding equations for sea bream, Sparus aurata L., culture. Aquac. Res. 1996, 27, 413-419. [CrossRef]







| Pair of samples | Q value | P value |
| 4 October / 30 December | 3.854 | 0.014 |
| 4 October / 9 January | 4.589 | <0.001 |
| 4 October / 23 January | 4.480 | <0.001 |
| 4 October / 05 February | 4.240 | 0.003 |
| 4 October / 14 March | 3.900 | 0.012 |
| 12 Nov / 9 January | 4.149 | 0.004 |
| 12 Nov / 23 January | 4.016 | 0.007 |
| 12 Nov / 05 February | 3.721 | 0.024 |
| 20 December / 09 January | 4.028 | 0.007 |
| 20 December / 23 January | 3.895 | 0.012 |
| 20 December / 05 February | 3.600 | 0.038 |
| Sea Urchins |
At 0 days T (ºC) = 20,8 ± 0,99 |
At 76 days T (ºC) = 17,7 ± 1,59 |
At 150 days T (ºC) = 15,3 ± 1,16 |
At 175 days T (ºC) = 16,4 ± 0,61 |
| Biomass (Kg) | 3,11 ± 0,35 | 4,01 ± 0,81 | 4,82 ± 1,05 | 4,99 ± 1,23 |
| DIR (%) | - | 2,04 ± 0,06 | 1,83 ± 0,02 | 1,77 ± 0,02 |
| FCR | - | 5,97 ± 0,27 | 6,36 ± 0,10 | 6,60 ± 0,06 |
| SGR (% day ˉ¹) | - | 0,33 ± 0,23 | 0,29 ± 0,29 | 0,27 ± 0,34 |
| GSI (%) | 7,34 ± 1,72 | - | - | 2,88 ± 1,23 |
|
At 0 days T (ºC) = 17.2 ± 0.17 |
At 43 days T (ºC) = 20.0 ± 1.41 |
At 65 days T (ºC) = 21.8 ± 1.98 |
||||
| Gilthead Seabream (S. aurata) Production | In the presence of algae | Number of Fishes | 220 | 213 | 207 | |
| Biomass (Kg) | 50.66 ± 8.46 | 56.58 ± 8.69 | 57.30 ± 9.33 | |||
| Density (Kg m³ ˉ¹) | 16.89 ± 2.82 | 18.86 ± 2.90 | 19.10 ± 3.11 | |||
| DIR (%) | - | 0.70 ± 0.02 | 0.71 ± 0.01 | |||
| FCR | - | 2.13 ± 0.13 | 2.58 ± 0.05 | |||
| SGR (% day ˉ¹) | - | 0.33 ± 0.14 | 0.28 ± 0.24 | |||
| CF (g cmˉ³) | 1.66 ± 0.13 | 1.72 ± 0.25 | 1.65 ± 0.10 | |||
| In the absence of algae | Number of Fishes | 220 | 214 | 208 | ||
| Biomass (Kg) | 51.47 ± 8.36 | 57.16 ± 8.67 | 58.68 ± 10.78 | |||
| Density (Kg m³ ˉ¹) | 17.16 ± 2.79 | 19.05 ± 2.89 | 19.56 ± 3.59 | |||
| DIR (%) | - | 0.71 ± 0.02 | 0.71 ± 0.01 | |||
| FCR | - | 2.50 ± 0.12 | 2.53 ± 0.03 | |||
| SGR (% day ˉ¹) | - | 0.31± 0.15 | 0.29 ± 0.48 | |||
| CF (g cmˉ³) | 1.64 ± 0.14 | 1.78 ± 0.21 | 1.64 ± 0.10 | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).