Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Management of the Interaction and Cannibalism of Postlarvae and Adults of the Freshwater Shrimp Cryphiops caementarius (Molina, 1782)

Written By

Walter Reyes A.

Submitted: February 25th, 2019 Reviewed: June 6th, 2019 Published: July 14th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.87438

From the Edited Volume

Crustacea

Edited by Genaro Diarte-Plata and Ruth Escamilla-Montes

Chapter metrics overview

726 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Cryphiops caementarius shrimp inhabits the rivers of the western slope of the Andes of Peru and Chile. But the greatest population densities found in the rivers of Arequipa (Peru) have social, economic, commercial, and gastronomic importance. Researches on this species of shrimp date from 1950. The males of C. caementarius are aggressive by having one of the most developed chelipeds, causing greater interaction and cannibalism. To reduce the interaction of the species, it has been used two culture systems. For postlarvae, using brackish water can maintain high survival (>85%), but only in initial culture which lasts for 50 days. For the fattening of adult males, culturing in separate containers conditioned in various levels improves the survival (87–100%) and yield (1.0 kg m−2), and with this system, the culture is also performed with tilapia. It is still required to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of fattening male shrimp in individual containers within seminatural ponds.

Keywords

  • freshwater shrimp
  • cannibalism
  • interaction
  • culture systems

1. Introduction

The Palaemonid shrimps that inhabit the rivers of the western slope of the Andes are represented by 12 species, three of which correspond to the genus Palaemon, eight to Macrobrachium,and one to Cryphiops[1]. Of these, Cryphiops caementarius(Molina, 1782) inhabits the rivers of the coast of Peru and Chile. However, only in Peru, it has social, economic, and commercial importance since it is extracted from the Pativilca River in Lima to the Tambo River in Arequipa, where there is high population density [2], which, in 2016, was captured as 1112.9 t [3]. In addition, the species has culinary importance whose potential markets are restaurants in the regions of Lima and Arequipa in Peru [4]. C. caementariusis also distributed until Valparaiso in Chile [5], although with less commercial importance due to the low population densities and because it is a vulnerable species in the northern region and in danger of extinction in the Metropolitan Region of Chile [6].

Other species of Cryphiopsinhabit caves in the state of Chiapas in Mexico, as C.(Bithynops) luscusand C.(Bithynops) perspicax[7] and C. (Bithynops) villalobosiinhabits rivers and streams [8]. In Brazil, C. brasiliensisinhabit in a river of the Federal District [9]. All these species are small in size, whose populations are not attractive to trade.

Researches related to shrimp C. caementariusdate from 1950, and the generated interest is in order to establish commercial cultivation. However, the culturing is affected as the strong interaction given the size and thicker of the second pair of pereiopods that is a sign that the species is aggressive, and for the cannibalism that happens between congeners. These limitations affect the growth and yield of shrimp.

The purpose of this chapter was to review progress in research with that of the freshwater shrimp C. caementarius, related to alternative solutions to the problems of the management of the interaction and cannibalism of postlarvae and adults.

Advertisement

2. Interaction

In decapod crustaceans, there are those who are very aggressive as portunids crabs (Scylla, Callinectes, and Portunus), king crabs (Lithodesand paralithodes), followed by chelated lobsters (Homarusand Nephrops) and spiny lobsters (Panulirusand Jasus), and also, those who are less aggressive as crayfish (Procambarus, Cherax, Pacifastacus, and Astacus) and penaeids (Litopenaeus) and are less cannibals [10]. Therefore, the aggressiveness between congeners depends on the species.

In the territorialist decapod crustaceans, the second pair of pereopods (chelipeds) is long and thick and also those are used for attack and defense, for agonistic interaction and for courtship and mating [11]. Males of C. caementariushave one of the most developed chelipeds (Figure 1), either the right or the left. In females, the chelipeds are of similar size. This morphological feature of the chelipeds makes males an aggressive species whose interaction and cannibalism are observed in aquariums, tanks, and ponds [12], but this behavior has not been assessed yet. In Callinectes arcuatusand C. bellicosus, the chelipeds are dimorphic, and generally, the right cheliped is the largest and the thicker that permit to consume mollusks and crustaceans [13].

Figure 1.

Body parts and appendages of the freshwater shrimpC. caementarius.

The interaction of male C. caementariusis greater than that of females, because of this situation, males always show serious injuries in the cephalothorax, abdomen, and chelipeds, although it is common to observe shrimps without chelipeds. In juvenile C. caementarius, interaction and increasing stocking density cause high metabolic rate (87–91%) that affects the growth in weight [14] and probably the physiological state of the animal. In Macrobrachium rosenbergii, the chelipeds of older males are larger and thicker with which they access easily to food and shelter, in addition to giving them greater ability to combat due to the visualization of the opponent [15, 16]. This explains why the most affected parts of the crustaceans are the pereopods, pleopods, antennae, antennules, and uropods [17].

Advertisement

3. Cannibalism

All decapod crustaceans use chelipeds for interaction, access to food, shelter, and mating, resulting in energy expenditure during the fight and can reach the autotomy of appendages and even cannibalism. Cannibalism, defined as intraspecific predation, is a behavior established in a wide variety of animals [18] and is considered as the process of killing and eating an individual of the same species [19], whether it consumes all or part of it. In C. caementarius, cannibalism is often a response to captivity, lack of shelter, ecdysis, increased density, lack of food, and poor water quality, and it is probably a natural behavior.

The molting fluid accumulated between the old cuticle and epidermis is the product of degradation of the old cuticle [20], which is released with ecdysis and acts as a chemical stimulant [21]. In the Hermit crabs, Clibanarius diguetiand Paguristes perrieri, the odor of the injured animals of the same species as well as other species is a feeding signal [22]. Similarly, the odor released during autotomy to escape a predatory aggression influences agonistic behavior in decapod crustaceans [10]. The C. caementariusadults who are close to the ecdysis (premuda D3 and D4) during ecdysis (E) or after ecdysis (postmoult A) are more prone to cannibalism, mainly after the ecdysis, where the soft exoskeleton, which takes time to harden, makes movement and defense difficult for himself. The cannibalism of C. caementarius starts from Zoea 8 and increases as they grow [23, 24]. These observations indicate that cannibalism may have a genetic component, at least in the species, as suggested in other cannibalistic species [19].

In M. rosenbergii, interaction and cannibalism by molt is attenuated with the use of shelters [25, 26], artificial substrates [27, 28], and by increasing tryptophan in the diet [29], with which high survival is maintained and growth is improved. Further research is needed to evaluate these culturing systems in C. caementarius.

Advertisement

4. Cultivation of postlarvae in brackish water

The crustacean’s cultivation comprises producing postlarvae in hatchery, the postlarvae growth until reaching juvenile stage or condition of preadult and the fattening until reaching commercial weight (>20 g). Postlarvae adapt to environmental conditions during the initial culture, and those who survive are resistant, and have higher growth rate. However, as mentioned, the problem is the interaction and cannibalism that happens throughout the animal’s life. Similar advantages are reported during the nursery phase of M. rosenbergiipostlarvae due to the interaction and cannibalism [30].

To reduce cannibalism of postlarvae during communal cultivation and obtain juveniles with greater weight (200 mg) for stocking in ponds, growing in brackish water should be performed. Recent postlarvae of C. caementarius(11 mm total length and 40 mg total weight) have remarkable euryhalinity and achieve greater weight when grown for 50 days in brackish water of 12‰ and with density of 114 PLs m−2 [31]. These results demonstrate the physiological efficiency of organisms to accumulate biomass in such salinity conditions, probably because they are in their isosmotic point. In addition, 95% of postlarvae survive in water with salinity of 12‰, 70% live in water of 24‰, and 40% in fresh water. This high survival of postlarvae in brackish water than in fresh water is due to the reduction of cannibalism probably because the released substances before, during, and after ecdysis are attenuated by ions of the brackish water from the culture medium [31].

Furthermore, the culture of postlarvae C. caementariusin brackish water with 12‰ allows increasing the density up to 500 PLs m−2 without affecting the growth and survival after 60 days of culture [32]. In juveniles of M. tenellum[33] and M. rosenbergii, the higher growth and higher survival (>90%) are obtained in water with 10‰ salinity [34]. Under these conditions of salinity and density, it is convenient to use shelters or artificial substrates to enhance the growth of postlarvae.

Advertisement

5. Adult shrimp culturing in individual containers

The main problems of the communal culturing of adult crustaceans are the interaction and cannibalism per molt, which are accentuated as the animals grow and affect the growth and survival, respectively. In the communal culturing of C. caementarius, survival decreases to 17% in aquariums [12] and 25% in tanks [24, 35]. In seminatural ponds, it is likely to obtain survivals between 40 and 50%, and even the density is 5 shrimp m−2, due to increased cannibalism. These survival results of the species prevent the establishment of commercial cultivation.

Cultivation in individual containers was first used in lobster H. americanuswhere the container shape (circular, square, and rectangular) does not affect the growth, but the size of these (20–181 cm2) retards the growth [36]. Larger containers were also used (750 cm2) [37]. The cultures in individual containers and conditioned at several levels used are Cherax tenuimanus[38], C. quadricarinatus[39], and H. americanus[40, 41]. Although the circular containers can have mesh as used in H. gammarus[42]. In any type of culture container, physical interaction of organisms is avoided, improving the growth and survival.

The first cultivation system in individual containers was performed with adult females C. caementarius[43] and then with males [12], both in aquariums (Figure 2) and fiberglass tanks (Figure 3). In this system, the species tolerates cultivation in containers of reduced physical space (133–284 cm2), not being affected by ovarian maturation, the spawning, the molting period, and the growth and survival during 4–6 months of culture. Moreover, the lower specific density factor k = 16 means that the species requires less space than the other crustaceans [12] obtained. The specific density factor is an indicator when the size of the containers inhibits the species growth, and the k factor is ≤ 22 from C. quadricarinatus[39], k ≤ 45 from C. tenuimanus[38], and k ≤ 50 from C. destructor[44]. That is, these species of crustaceans cannot tolerate reduced physical spaces during cultivation in individual containers.

Figure 2.

System culture ofC. caementariusin individual containers conditioned in aquariums with water recirculation system and biofilter.

Figure 3.

System culture ofC. caementariusin individual containers conditioned in fiberglass tanks with water recirculation system and biofilter.

Individual containers are conditioned in various levels, both aquariums and tanks or seminatural ponds, thus increasing the planting density. In aquariums (0.186 m2 and effective volume of 55 L), the containers are installed in three levels, but in two columns, making a total of six containers per aquarium equivalent to 32 shrimps m−2 (Figure 2). In fiberglass tanks (with a bottom area of ​​0.159 m2 and an effective volume of 100 L), the containers are installed in five levels, but in three columns, making a total of 15 containers per tank equivalent to 94 shrimps m−2 (Figure 3). In both cases, the increased production is achieved in large containers (284 cm2), although no significant differences with those of smaller areas (Table 1) are seen. In C. quadricarinatus, the culture containers are conditioned in seven levels within 3 m2 tanks where high yield in containers of 490 cm2 is achieved [39]. But, as shrimp C. caementariusis sold by weight, including the chelipeds, then it is preferable to use the large containers. Shrimp farming in individual containers installed in seminatural ponds has not been investigated, but environmental and productivity pond water conditions could benefit the growth, color of the shrimp, and reduce the feed conversion.

ContainerEffective density (shrimp m−2)Final weight (g)Estimated performance (kg m−2)Estimated production* (t ha−1 period−1)
Area (cm2)Diameter (cm)
1331394.34 ± 0.008.09 ± 1.37ª0.763 ± 0.129ª7.64 ± 1.29ª
2011694.34 ± 0.009.99 ± 0.62ªb0.941 ± 0.058ª9.42 ± 0.59ª
2841981.76 ± 10.8913.20 ± 1.99b1.049 ± 0.059ª10.49 ± 0.59ª

Table 1.

Estimated production (mean ± standard deviation) of males of C. caementariuscultivated during 4 months in individual containers of different sizes conditioned in five levels inside fiberglass tanks [12].

Data were estimated for a 4-month period. Letters a and b in superscript in a column indicate that there is a significant difference (p < 0.05).


The effective density is the number of surviving organisms at the end of the culture period according to the area of the container. In C. caementarius, the effective density of 94 shrimps m−2, obtained by cultivation in individual containers, is considered high, and therefore, cultivation is intensive, which could produce 10.5 t ha−1 per period in 4 months (Table 1), and get 31.5 t ha−1 y−1, which is 10 times higher than that one obtained in semi-intensive monoculture of M. rosenbergiireaching 3 t ha−1 y−1 [45]. However, in C. quadricarinatus, stocked in individual containers, the final effective density after 100 days of culture was between 143 and 348 individuals m−2 and the yield between 4 and 8 kg m−2 [39]. Future research should establish in detail the conditions of the cultivation system in individual containers, to intensify the cultivation of C. caementarius. Parallel to this, a technical-economic study must be made to know the feasibility of shrimp farming in the system.

However, the cultivation of C. caementariusin individual containers causes loss of body color and of cephalothoracic appendages (Figure 4), but the use of Capsicum annuum(250 mg kg−1) [12] and in the diet (300 mg kg−1) improves pigmentation of the body [46]. Consequently, the shrimp diet should contain carotenoid pigments, since crustaceans cannot synthesize carotenoids de novo [47]. Body depigmentation attributed to diet happens in C. tenuimanus[38] and H. gammarus[40], when they are grown in individual containers.

Figure 4.

Color of theC. caementariusbody after culturing in individual containers: (A) female of normal color; (B) female depigmented; (C) male of normal color; and (D) male depigmented.

In the culture of C. caementariusin individual containers, the management of food at the commercial level would imply a cost of additional labor that increases the cost of cultivation. It is, therefore, necessary to design a food distribution system as used in Homarussp. [48] and H. gammarus[49]. In species of Scylla, the most sophisticated designed system to date includes cameras linked to a computer system that regularly scans the cells to see if there are one or two crabs in each container indicating that the crab has made an ecdysis, by the presence of exoskeleton and crab. In addition, this system also includes a sophisticated water recirculation system [50].

In studies with male shrimps C. caementariusin individual containers installed in aquaria and tanks with recirculation system with water and biological filters, growth is evaluated by eyestalk ablation [51] per culturing at different water hardness [52] and by different inputs used in the diet such as paprika [46], yeast [53], common salt [54], biological silage [55], and soya lecithin [56]. Survival of >90% are obtained in all these investigations, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the culture system by avoiding the physical interaction and cannibalism of river shrimp. In similar culture conditions, survivals between 71 and 83% in C. tenuimanus[38] and 96% in C. quadricarinatus[39] are achieved. However, the system requires individual containers to be improved with regard to handling molting, feed system, monitoring of the species, the recirculation system automation, and use in seminatural ponds. In the same way, the individual containers are not only useful for enhancing the growth of C. caementarius, but also for the management of female reproduction, and in the case of shrimp males, also for selecting those with the highest rates of specific growth (>1% weight day−1) for the purposes of genetic improvement.

Advertisement

6. Co-culture of shrimp/tilapia

The co-culturing is done out with two species share a common aquatic environment (aquarium, tank, or pond), but whose construction does not allow physical interaction between organisms because they remain separate, and therefore, both species are a major management factor. Instead, in the polyculture, two or three species within the aquatic environment interact constantly competing for space and food, and therefore only one species is the main one.

Combinations of species in a co-culturing allow maximizing the performance of those who are territorial and aggressive. The co-culture of Oreochromis niloticusin cages inside ponds with M. rosenbergii[57] is well known. Also, it is known to co-culture of C. caementariusmale shrimp in individual containers inside aquariums with O. niloticusfingerlings (Figure 5), where tilapia production was estimated at 0.511 kg m−3. The tilapia consumed only food that came out of the shrimp culture container [12]. In other researches, co-culture of C. caementariusshrimp with tilapia O. niloticusat different densities were performed [58], and co-culturing shrimp with tilapia was performed to evaluate different concentrations of biological silage [55]. In both cases, 100% survival was achieved and production of species is improved. Co-cultivation of shrimp/tilapia mainly generates high nitrates that may be used in the cultivation of vegetables, whose integration would result in an aquaponics system.

Figure 5.

(A) Co-culture ofC. caementariusin individual containers withO. niloticus. (B) System of co-culture in aquarium. (C) Co-culture system in fiberglass tank.

Advertisement

7. Transportation of adult shrimp

The communal transport of male adult shrimps C. caementariusfor fattening purposes is difficult due to the increased interaction causing injuries, chelipeds loss, shrimp death mainly of those who are about to carry out ecdysis or those who molt during the transport. In addition, the increased mortality depends on the density and transport time; but water temperature is a dominant factor that affects shrimp during transport [59].

The transport of adult C. caementariusshrimps in individual containers is performed by using plastic cups where a shrimp (≥4 cm of total length) is introduced into each plastic cup (250 mL). The plastic cup has holes to allow the water flow (Figure 6A). Then, all plastic cups are conditioned in plastic containers (45 L) with water of river (Figure 6B) and with either continuous or intermittent aeration (Figure 6C). The average water temperature is around 20°C. This system allows to transport 77 shrimps (17 shrimps for 10 L) per container for 5 h and with 100% survival [12]. However, the ideal size of transporting cups of live shrimps has not been studied, but as they support very small physical space, it is possible to use smaller plastic cups or to use PVC pipes according to the animal size.

Figure 6.

Transport system of live shrimps ofC. caementarius. (A) Plastic cup with a shrimp. (B) Plastic cups put into a plastic container. (C) Aerator system.

On the other hand, the conventional transport of C. caementarius, an adult shrimp of 6 cm of total length, is also carried out in 4‰ of water salinity, because with this salinity, the shrimps do not show interaction or cannibalism and all survive in these conditions for 45 days [60]. The M. rosenbergiibroodstock are transported in containers with brackish water (12‰), with oxygen and at low temperature to reduce metabolism, thus obtaining mortalities <10% [61]. In addition, aerated plastic barrels, or trucks with aerated water tanks, are used [62]. Other techniques such as increasing air humidity, the use of refrigerated sawdust or chips, and purging to reduce nitrogenous waste have been developed to increase the survival during transportation of live specimens of shrimp, prawns, lobsters, and crabs [63].

Advertisement

8. Conclusions

The male shrimps C. caementariusare aggressive for having one of the chelipeds more developed, causing greater interaction and cannibalism in any culture system. Female shrimps are less aggressive. To reduce interaction and shrimp cannibalism, two management systems are proposed. For postlarvae, using brackish water (12‰) keeps high survival (>85%) but only in the initial culture which lasts for 50 days. For the fattening of adult males, growing in individual containers conditioned in multiple levels allows high survival (87 and 100%) and yields between 0.7 and 1.0 kg m−2. Furthermore, in this system, the co-culture of shrimp/tilapia is also performed to maximize performance. It is still required to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of fattening male shrimp in individual containers within seminatural ponds.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Department of Biology, Microbiology, and Biotechnology of the Faculty of Sciences of the National University of Santa, for allowing the use of laboratories and instruments and equipment for conducting various investigations.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Méndez M. Claves de identificación y distribución de los langostinos y camarones (Crustacea: Decapoda) del mar y ríos de la costa del Perú. Boletín Instituto del Mar del Perú. 1981;5:1-170
  2. 2. Zacarías S, Yépez V. Camarón de ríoCryphiops caementarius(Molina, 1782) en la costa centro-sur del Perú, 2007. Informe Instituto del Mar del Perú. 2015;42(3):398-415
  3. 3. Produce (Ministerio de Producción). Anuario estadístico pesquero y acuícola 2016. Perú: Ministerio de la Producción; 2017. p. 42
  4. 4. Carrillo AA, Pacora A, Risco RA, Zerpa R. Plan estratégico para el camarón de río [tesis]. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2012
  5. 5. Moscoso V. Catálogo de crustáceos decápodos y estomatópodos del Perú. Boletín Instituto del Mar del Perú. 2012;27:1-209
  6. 6. Bahamonde N, Carvacho A, Jara C, López M, Ponce F, Retamal MA, et al. Categorías de conservación de decápodos nativos de aguas continentales de Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay. 1998;47:91-100
  7. 7. Hobbs HH. Biogeography of subterranean decapods in north and central America and the Caribbean region (Caridea, Astacidea, Brachyura). Hydrobiologia. 1994;287:95-104
  8. 8. Villalobos JL, Nates JC, Díaz AC. Revisión de los génerosCryphiopsDana, 1852 yBithynopsholthuis, 1973, de la familia Palaemonidae (Crustacea, Decapoda), y descripción de una especie nueva para el estado de Chiapas, México. Anales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Serie Zoología. 1989;60(2):159-184
  9. 9. Gomes MM. Descrição de uma espécie nova do géneroCryphiops(Decapoda, Natantia, Palaemonidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia. 1973;33(2):169-173
  10. 10. Romano N, Zeng C. Cannibalism of decapod crustaceans and implications for their aquaculture: A review of its prevalence, influencing factors, and mitigating methods. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture. 2017;25(1):42-69. DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2016.1221379
  11. 11. Mariappan P, Balasundaram C, Schmithz B. Decapod crustacean chelipeds: An overview. Journal of Biosciences. 2000;25(3):301-313
  12. 12. Reyes W. Engorde del camarón nativo de los ríos costeros del Perú. Un estudio en sistema de recipientes individuales y con recirculación de agua. Alemania: Publicia; 2016. 89 p
  13. 13. Rodríguez A. Hábitos alimentarios de las jaibasCallinectes bellicosusSTIMPSON yC. arcuatusORDWAY (Brachiura: Portunidae) en Bahía Magdalena, Baja California Sur México [tesis]. La Paz, Baja California Sur, México: Instituto Politécnico Nacional Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas; 2014
  14. 14. Zúñiga O, Ramos R. Balance energético en juveniles deCryphiops caementarius(Crustacea, Palaemonidae). Biota. 1987;3:33-43
  15. 15. Barki A, Harpaz S, Karplus I. Contradictory asymmetries in body and weapon size, and assessment in fighting male prawns,Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Aggresive Behavior. 1997;23:81-91
  16. 16. Barki A, Karplus I, Goren M. Effects of size and morphotype on dominance hierarchies and resource competition in the freshwater prawnMacrobrachium rosenbergii. Animal Behaviour. 1992;44(3):547-555
  17. 17. Santos DB, Pontes CS. Behavioral repertoire of the giant freshwater prawnMacrobrachium rosenbergii(De Man, 1879) in laboratory. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology. 2016;4(4):109-115
  18. 18. Fox LR. Cannibalism in natural population. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1975;6:87-106
  19. 19. Polis GA. The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 1981;12:225-251
  20. 20. Dennell R. Integument and exoekeleton. In: Waterman TH, editor. The Physiology of Crustacea. Metabolismo and Growth. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Academic Press; 1960. pp. 447-472
  21. 21. Adams JA, Moore PA. Discrimination of conspecific male molt odor signals by male crayfishOrconectes rusticus. Journal of Crustacean Biology. 2003;23(1):7-14
  22. 22. Tran MV. The scent of cannibalism: The olfactory basis of cannibalism in hermit crabs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2014;457:8-14
  23. 23. Ponce JE. Importancia del flujo de agua en los estanques-criaderos de camarón. Actas del Simposio sobre Acuicultura en América Latina, Montevideo, Uruguay, 26 de noviembre a 2 de diciembre de 1974. Documentos de Investigación. FAO, Informes de Pesca. 1977;1(159):240-248
  24. 24. Reyes WE. Efecto de dos probióticos bioencapsulados en nauplios deArtemia franciscanaen el desarrollo larval del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementarius, en laboratorio [tesis]. Perú: Universidad Nacional de Trujillo; 2008
  25. 25. Shivananda H, Kumarswamy R, Palaksha KJ, Sujatha HR, Shankar R. Effect of different types of shelters on survival and growth of giant freshwater prawn,Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. 2012;20(2):153-157
  26. 26. Santos DB, Pontes CS, Campos PMO, Arruda MF. Behavioral profile ofMacrobrachium rosenbergiiin mixed and monosex culture submitted to shelters of different colors. Acta Scientiarum. Biological Sciences. 2015;37(3):273-279
  27. 27. Mamun MAA, Hossain MA, Hossain MS, Ali ML. Effects of different types of artificial substrates on nursery production of freshwater prawn,Macrobrachium rosenbergii(de Man) in recirculatory system. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2010;8(2):333-340
  28. 28. Tuly DM, Islam MS, Hasnahena M, Hasan MR, Hasan MT. Use of artificial substrate in pond culture of freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii): A new approach regarding growth performance and economic return. Journal of Fisheries. 2014;2(1):53-58
  29. 29. Laranja JLQ , Quinitio ET, Catacutan MR, Coloso RM. Effects of dietary L-tryptophan on the agonistic behavior, growth and survival of juvenile mud crabScylla serrata. Aquaculture. 2010;310:84-90
  30. 30. Coyle SD, Alston DE, Sampaio CMS. Nursery systems and management. In: New MB, Valenti WC, Tidwell JH, D’Abramo LR, Kutty MN, editors. Freshwater Prawn. Biology and Farming. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. pp. 108-126
  31. 31. Reyes WE, Bacilio S, Villavicencio M, Mendoza R. Efecto de la salinidad en el crecimiento y supervivencia de postlarvas del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementariusMolina, 1782 (Crustacea, Palaemonidae), en laboratorio. Comunicación Científica. In: IV Congreso Iberoamericano Virtual de Acuicultura CIVA 2006; Zaragoza, España. 2006. pp. 341-346
  32. 32. Cano F, Carrión S, Reyes W. Efecto de altas densidades de siembra en el crecimiento y supervivencia de postlarvas deCryphiops caementarius(Crustacea: Palaemonidae) en agua salobre. Revista Citecsa. 2014;5(8):62-78
  33. 33. Vega-Villasante F, Galavíz-Parada JD, Guzmán-Arroyo M, Flores CA, Espinosa-Chaurand LD. Efecto de diferentes salinidades sobre el crecimiento y supervivencia de juveniles del langostino de ríoMacrobrachium tenellum(Smith, 1871). Zootecnia Tropical. 2011;29(4):467-473
  34. 34. Chand BK, Trivedi RK, Dubey SK, Rout SK, Beg MM, Das UK. Effect of salinity on survival and growth of giant freshwater prawnMacrobrachium rosenbergii(de Man). Aquaculture Reports. 2015;2:26-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2015.05.002
  35. 35. Ponce JE, Eguren MC. Evaluación del crecimiento del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementarius(Molina) en una poza piloto en Camaná. Véritas. 2005;9(1):95-101
  36. 36. Shleser RA. The effects of feeding frequency and space on the growth of the American lobster,Homarus americanus. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 1974;5(1-4):149-155
  37. 37. Van Olst JC, Carlberg JM. The effects on container size and transparency on growth and survival of lobster cultured individually. Proceeding of the Annual Meeting–World Mariculture Society. 1978;9(1-4):469-479
  38. 38. Jussila J. Physiological responses of astacid and parastacid crayfishes (Crustacea: Decapoda) to conditions of intensive culture [tesis]. Australia: University of Kuopio; 1977
  39. 39. Manor R, Segev R, Pimenta M, Aflalo ED, Sagi A. Intensification of redclaw crayfishCherax quadricarinatusculture II. Growout in a separate cell system. Aquaculture Engineering. 2002;26:263-276
  40. 40. Ford RF, Van Olst JC, Calberg JM, Dorband WR, Johnson RL. Beneficial use thermal effluent in lobster culture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 1975;6(1-4):509-519
  41. 41. Kristiansen TS, Drengstig A, Bergheim A, Drengstin T, Svensen R, Kollsgård I, et al. Development of methods for intensive farming of European lobster in recirculated seawater. Results from experiments conducted at Kvitsay lobster hatchery from 2000 to 2004. Fisken og havet. 2004;6:1-52
  42. 42. Daniels CL, Wills B, Ruiz-Perez M, Miles E, Wilson RW, Boothroyd D. Development of sea based container culture for rearing European lobster (Homarus gammarus) around south west England. Aquaculture. 2015;448:186-195
  43. 43. Reyes WE. Crecimiento, reproducción y supervivencia de hembras del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementariuscriados en recipientes individuales. Sciéndo. 2011;14(1-2):75-86
  44. 44. Geddes MC, Mills BJ, Walker KF. Growth in the Australian freshwater crayfishCherax destructor clark, under laboratory conditions. Australian Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research. 1988;39:555-568
  45. 45. New MB. Farming freshwater prawn. A manual for the culture of the giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 2002;428:1-212
  46. 46. Fuentes AS, Quezada LJ. Efecto de diferentes concentraciones de harina deCalendula officinalis“marigold” en la pigmentación de camarones machos adultos deCryphiops caementarius[tesis]. Perú: Universidad Nacional del Santa; 2015
  47. 47. Meyers SP. Papel del carotenoide astaxantina en nutrición de especies acuáticas. In: Civera-Cerecedo R, Pérez-Estrada CJ, Ricque-Marie D, Cruz-Suárez LE, editors. Avances en Nutrición Acuícola IV. Memorias del IV Simposium Internacional de Nutrición Acuícola; 1998; La Paz, B.C.S., México. 2000. pp. 473-491
  48. 48. Wickins JF, Jones E, Beard TW, Edwards DB. Food distribution equipament for individually-housed juvenile lobster (Homarusspp.). Aquaculture Engineering. 1987;6:277-288
  49. 49. Drengstig A, Bergheim A. Commercial land-based farming of European lobster (Homarus gammarusL.) in recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) using a single cage approach. Aquacultural Engineering. 2013;53:14-18
  50. 50. Shelley C, Lovatelli A. Mude crab aquaculture. A practical manual. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. Vol. 567. 2011. pp. 1-78
  51. 51. Pérez RA, Tinoco KL. Cocultivo de machos del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementariuscon ablación del pedúnculo ocular criados en recipientes individuales dentro de tanques con machos de tilapiaOreochromis niloticusy su efecto en el crecimiento de las especies [tesis]. Perú: Universidad Nacional del Santa; 2013
  52. 52. Graciano FP, Vásquez JF. Efecto de diferentes niveles de dureza del agua en la muda, crecimiento y supervivencia de adultos del camarón ede ríoCryphiops caementariusen condiciones de laboratorio [tesis], Perú. Universidad Nacional del Santa; 2015
  53. 53. Cornejo J, Pérez L, Reyes W. Effect ofSaccharomyces cerevisiaeyeast in the diet of male shrimpCryphiops caementarius(Crustacea, Palaemonidae) on total and differential hemocytes count. Revista Bio Ciencias. 2015;3(3):173-186
  54. 54. Ramirez M, Cántaro R, Reyes W. Growth and survival of males ofCryphiops caementarius(Palaemonidae) with diets supplemented with common salt. Latin American Journal Aquatic Research. 2018;46(2):469-474. DOI: 10.3856/vol46-issue2-fulltext-22
  55. 55. Terrones S, Reyes W. Efecto de dietas con ensilado biológico de residuos de molusco en el crecimiento del camarónCryphiops caementariusy tilapiaOreochromis niloticusen co-cultivo intensivo. Scientia Agropecuaria, 2018;9(2):167-176. DOI: 10.17268/sci.agropecu.2018.02.01
  56. 56. Acosta A, Quiñones D, Reyes W. Efecto de dietas con lecitina de soya en el crecimiento, muda y supervivencia de machos del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementarius(Crustacea: Palaemonidae). Scientia Agropecuaria. 2018;9(1):143-151. DOI: 10.17268/sci.agropecu.2018.01.15
  57. 57. Danaher J, Tidwell J, Coyle S, Dasgupta D. Effects of two densities of caged monosex nile tilapia,Oreochromis niloticus, on water quality, phytoplankton populations, and production when polyculture withMacrobrachium rosenbergiiin temperate pond. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 2007;38(3):367-382
  58. 58. Mogollón AV. Cocultivo de machos del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementariusen recipientes individuales dentro de acuario con machos deOreochromis niloticusa diferentes densidades de siembra y sus efectos en el crecimiento y supervivencia de las especies [tesis]. Perú. Universidad Nacional del Santa; 2013
  59. 59. Coyle SD, Tidwell JH, Yasharian DK, Caporelli A, Skudlarek NA. The effect of biomass density, temperature, and substrate on transport survival of market-size freshwater prawn,Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Journal of Applied Aquaculture. 2005;17(4):61-71. DOI: 10.1300/J028v17n04_04
  60. 60. Escobar C, Pachamoro MA, Reyes W. Supervivencia y crecimiento de machos adultos del camarón de ríoCryphiops caementariusMolina 1782 (Crustacea, Palaemonidae) expuestos a salinidades. Ecología Aplicada. 2017;16(2):75-82. DOI: 10.21704/rea.v16i2.1010
  61. 61. Ahmed N. Freshwater prawn hatcheries in Bangladesh: Concern of broodstock. Aquaculture Asia Magazine, July-September, 2008. pp. 22-26
  62. 62. Yang G, Frinsko M, Chen X, Wang J, Hu G, Gao Q. Current status of the giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) industry in China, with special reference to live transportation. Aquaculture Research. 2012;43:1049-1055. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.03009.x
  63. 63. Fotedar S, Evans L. Health management during handling and live transport of crustaceans: A review. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2011;106:143-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2010.09.011

Written By

Walter Reyes A.

Submitted: February 25th, 2019 Reviewed: June 6th, 2019 Published: July 14th, 2019