Evolution of Plankton Community Structure During the Pond Aquaculture of Chinese Softshell Turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0699

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the evolution of the plankton community structure during the pond aquaculture of Chinese softshell turtle (Pelodiscus sinensis), water samples were collected at three stages: pre-aquaculture, mid-aquaculture stage and late-aquaculture stage for physicochemical and phytoplankton detection and analysis. The results showed that the NH₄⁺-N reached 2.38 mg/L in the late-aquaculture stage, which was significantly higher than that of pre-aquaculture, mid-aquaculture stage. 62 species of phytoplankton in 5 phyla were detected, and the species composition was mainly Chlorophyta and Cyanophyta; 4 types and 39 species of zooplankton were detected, which were mainly protozoa and Rotifers. The abundance and biomass of phytoplankton were mainly Chlorophyta, and that of zooplankton were mainly copepods. The average abundance of phytoplankton and zooplankton reached the highest at the mid-aquaculture stage, with values of 4762600 ind/L and 1634 ind/L, respectively, and the biomass of phytoplankton and zooplankton reached the highest at the late-aquaculture stage, with 18.09 mg/L and 10.106 mg/L, respectively. The mean values of phytoplankton diversity index (H) and evenness index (J) were 0.1779 and 0.0604, respectively, which were significantly lower than those of pre-aquaculture. In the middle and late stage of aquaculture, Closterium gracile breb was the dominant algae. There was no significant difference in zooplankton diversity index (H) before and after aquaculture of P.sinensis. The results showed that the community structure of phytoplankton changed greatly while zooplankton changed little during the aquaculture of P.sinensis. The aquaculture water showed the trend of first getting worse and then gradually getting better, and the water stability was poor in the mid-aquaculture stage, so it was necessary to transfer water actively.

Key words: Chinese Softshell turtle, plankton, community structure, evolution, diversity index

SONG Guangtong, WANG Fen, XU Xiaona, ZHU Chengjun, CHEN Zhu, LI Xiang, ZHOU Xiang, YE Shengtao, JIANG Yelin. Evolution of Plankton Community Structure During the Pond Aquaculture of Chinese Softshell Turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(8): 157-164.

Figures/Tables 11

References 27

[1]	王素芬. 中华鳖淡水池塘高效生态混养试验[J]. 科学养鱼, 2022(4):43-45.
[2]	吴本丽, 黄龙, 张烨, 等. 行株距对稻鳖共作模式水稻和中华鳖生长形态及综合效益的影响[J]. 淡水渔业, 2022, 52(2):105-112.
[3]	陈静, 何吉祥, 方燚, 等. 稻鳖共作中华鳖放养密度对稻鳖产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2022, 28(8):123-125,164.
[4]	汤二红, 曲春娟, 张莹莹, 等. 稻鳖共生优质高效模式总结[J]. 科学养鱼, 2022(8):39-41.
[5]	毛栽华, 宋光同, 王芬, 等. 莲藕面积对藕鳖共生田浮游植物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(6):68-74. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2020-00009
[6]	李海军. 光照对温室中华鳖、中华草龟生长及生理的影响效应研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2023.
[7]	孙建军. 人工甲鱼礁对中华鳖稚鳖生长性能及非特异性免疫机能的影响[D]. 上海: 上海海洋大学, 2023.
[8]	蒋业林, 李翔, 陈华良, 等. 不同生态装备对中华鳖稚鳖生长·抗病力和品质的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(34):21042-21044,21058.
[9]	罗皓, 胡亚军, 朱波, 等. 中华鳖营养与饵料学研究进展[J]. 现代畜牧兽医, 2022(11):91-96.
[10]	梁倩蓉, 郑天伦, 陈小明, 等. 饲料中添加蝇蛆蛋白对中华鳖肝和血清免疫代谢应答的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10):2172-2181. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.10.11
[11]	陈师师, 薛静, 何中央, 等. 2种不同品系中华鳖的营养成分分析与比较[J]. 食品科学, 2015, 36(18):114-119. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201518021
[12]	聂月美. 饲料维生素C对中华鳖免疫、抗应激和体组成的影响[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2007.
[13]	陈思, 李艺彤, 蔡文贵, 等. 虾蟹混养池塘浮游植物群落结构的变化特征[J]. 南方水产科学, 2020, 16(3):79-85.
[14]	张俊芳, 胡晓红, 马沛明, 等. 汤浦水库浮游植物功能群季节演替及关键驱动因子[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2021, 42(3):55-62.
[15]	赵秀侠, 卢文轩, 李静, 等. 安徽城东湖浮游植物群落结构与水质评价[J]. 生态科学, 2020, 39(5):187-196.
[16]	赵秀侠, 卢文轩, 梁阳阳, 等. 安徽三座通江湖泊秋季浮游植物群落结构特征及其影响因子[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(1):67-75.
[17]	章宗涉, 黄祥飞. 淡水浮游生物研究方法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1991:414.
[18]	MARGALEF R. Information theory in ecology[J]. Gen.Systems 3, 1958:36-71.
[19]	SHANNON C E, WEAVER W, WIENER N. The Mathe-matical Theory of Communication[M]. Urbana, Illinois: The University of illinois press, 1949.
[20]	PIELOU E C. Species-diversity and pattern-diversity in the study of ecological succession[J]. Journal of theoretical biology, 1966, 10(2):370-383. pmid: 5964400
[21]	杨亮杰, 余鹏飞, 竺俊全, 等. 浙江横山水库浮游植物群落结构特征及其影响因子[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(2):569-576.
[22]	吕林兰, 董学兴, 赵卫红, 等. 罗氏沼虾不同养殖模式对水体浮游生物的影响[J]. 水产学报, 2018, 42(10):1589-1595.
[23]	董双林. 鲢鱼的放养对水质影响的研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 1994, 13(2):66-68.
[24]	侯德昌, 张莹莹, 魏文志. 不同中华鳖养殖模式浮游植物功能群特征及水环境评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(9):96-99,170.
[25]	高欣, 景泓杰, 赵文, 等. 凡纳滨对虾高位养殖池塘浮游生物群落结构及水质特征[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2017, 32(1):44-50.
[26]	刘乾甫, 赖子尼, 高原, 等. 珠江三角洲地区精养淡水鱼塘浮游植物功能群特征[J]. 中国水产科学, 2018, 25(1):124-136.
[27]	宋勇军, 戚菁, 刘立恒, 等. 程海湖夏冬季浮游植物群落结构与富营养化状况研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2019, 39(12):4106-4113.

采样时间（年-月-日）	WT/℃	DO/(mg/L)	pH	NH₄⁺-N/(mg/L)	NO₂^--N/(mg/L)
2021-06-17	25.6	9.47±0.54^a	8.44±0.05^a	0.02±0.02^a	0.015±0.013^a
2021-07-29	30.2	11.4±2.47^a	9.04±0.12^b	0.42±0.48^a	0.018±0.016^a
2021-09-08	29.8	9.52±9.41^a	8.64±0.0.37^ab	2.38±1.63^b	0.076±0.019^b

采样时间（年-月-日）	WT/℃	DO/(mg/L)	pH	NH₄⁺-N/(mg/L)	NO₂^--N/(mg/L)
2021-06-17	25.6	9.47±0.54^a	8.44±0.05^a	0.02±0.02^a	0.015±0.013^a
2021-07-29	30.2	11.4±2.47^a	9.04±0.12^b	0.42±0.48^a	0.018±0.016^a
2021-09-08	29.8	9.52±9.41^a	8.64±0.0.37^ab	2.38±1.63^b	0.076±0.019^b

采样时间（年-月-日）	藻浮游植物种类数/优势种数			浮游植物平均种类数	浮游植物平均优势种数	浮游动物种类数/优势种			浮游动物平均种类数	浮游动物平均优势种数
采样时间（年-月-日）	1#	2#	3#	浮游植物平均种类数	浮游植物平均优势种数	1#	2#	3#	浮游动物平均种类数	浮游动物平均优势种数
2021-06-17	21/4	23/3	26/3	23±3^a	3±1^a	12/4	11/5	11/4	11±1^a	4±1^a
2021-07-29	14/1	21/1	17/1	17±4^a	1±0^b	11/4	19/3	19/3	16±5^a	3±1^a
2021-09-08	13/1	20/2	33/4	22±10^a	2±2^ab	16/3	13/3	18/6	16±3^a	4±2^a

采样时间（年-月-日）	藻浮游植物种类数/优势种数			浮游植物平均种类数	浮游植物平均优势种数	浮游动物种类数/优势种			浮游动物平均种类数	浮游动物平均优势种数
采样时间（年-月-日）	1#	2#	3#	浮游植物平均种类数	浮游植物平均优势种数	1#	2#	3#	浮游动物平均种类数	浮游动物平均优势种数
2021-06-17	21/4	23/3	26/3	23±3^a	3±1^a	12/4	11/5	11/4	11±1^a	4±1^a
2021-07-29	14/1	21/1	17/1	17±4^a	1±0^b	11/4	19/3	19/3	16±5^a	3±1^a
2021-09-08	13/1	20/2	33/4	22±10^a	2±2^ab	16/3	13/3	18/6	16±3^a	4±2^a

采样时间（年-月-日）	浮游植物丰度/(ind/L)				浮游植物生物量/(mg/L)
采样时间（年-月-日）	1#	2#	3#	平均丰度	1#	2#	3#	平均生物量
2021-06-17	153600	85200	261450	166317±89456	0.053	0.077	0.229	0.1197±0.0954
2021-07-29	6442500	1501800	6343500	4762600±2824370	19.39	4.371	19.223	14.33±8.624
2021-09-08	9980400	304500	660000	3648300±5486640	50.522	0.938	2.798	18.09±28.11