Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquaculture

Effects of different stocking densities on growth performance of Asian T

swamp eel Monopterus albus, water quality and plant growth of watercress
Nasturtium officinale in an aquaponic recirculating system
Hua Thai Nhana, , Nguyen Tan Taia, Pham Thanh Liema, Vu Ngoc Uta, Harry Akob
⁎

a
College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, Viet Nam
b
Department of Molecular Bioscience and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study was conducted to determine the effect of different stocking densities on growth rate of Asian swamp
Asian Swamp eel eel (Monopterus albus), growth of watercress (Nasturtium officinale) in a floating-draft aquaponic recirculating
Monopterus albus system. Two factorial experiment designs consist of three different swamp eel (16.67 ± 3.48 g/individual)
Stocking density densities of 100, 180 and 260 individuals/m2 (8.4, 15.0 and 21.7 kg/m3, respectively) integrated with hydro-
Watercress
ponic trough of watercress (SEW) or without watercress (swamp eel only, SE). Watercress seeds were put into
Nutrient reduction
Aquaponic
styrofoam, floating rack (80 heads/m2). Swamp eels were fed 2 times per day with commercial pellet (42%
protein). The experiment was run for 65 days with two cycles of watercress. Statistical analysis by Two-way
ANOVA showed that there is no significant difference (P > .05) in growth performance of swamp eel at dif-
ferent stocking densities between the SEW and SE systems. However, statistical analysis by One way ANOVA
showed that there is a significant difference (P < .05) on weight gain (WG) and daily weight gain of animals
among the SEW treatments. The highest WG was 32.78 ± 2.09 g/ind. and 41.71 ± 9.05 g/ind. for treatment of
180 inds./m2 at the SEW and SE, respectively. The average survival rate of animal in all treatments was above
80% and was not significant difference among the treatments. The lowest FCR (2.15 ± 0.94) were found in
treatment 180 inds./m2 of the SEW. Production of watercress was low in all treatments, the highest biomass
(507.81 ± 91.01 g/m2) was recorded for treatment 180 inds./m2 of the SEW. Nutrient accumulation was re-
latively high at higher stocking densities of swamp eel and was higher in the SE system compared to the SEW
system. Total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) concentrations in the SE treatments were ranging from 2.61 ± 1.81 mg/
L (120 ind./m2) to 5.77 ± 3.19 mg/L (260 ind./m2). Whereas, the TAN levels in the SEW treatments were only
ranging from 1.94 ± 1.44 to 5.35 ± 0.36 mg/L and even lower in hydroponic trough (1.3–3.15 mg/L).
Similarly, nitrate‑nitrogen level was high in the SE treatments (1.43 ± 1.36–2.36 ± 1.43 mg/L) and lower in
the SEW treatments (0.89 ± 1.36–1.42 ± 1.34 mg/L). Generally, swamp eel farming combined with hydro-
ponic trough was feasible in handling water quality and required little water change in contrast to SE treatments
which required as much as 1 water change a day. This study found that the stocking density of 180 inds./m2
seems to be the most effective density for growth, survival of swamp eel as well as nutrient accumulation in the
SEW. The results of this study provide an important information as to how aquaculture of swamp eel may be
expanded in the Mekong Delta without destroying the environment by releasing nutrient rich effluent from
growing chambers.

1. Introduction
Aquaculture has developed rapidly in aspects of production and
culture systems. In particular, Mekong Delta (MKD), Vietnam con-
tributes > 70% total production of the country. The MKD is very di-
verse in trend of culture species such as white legged shrimp, striped
catfish, giant freshwater prawn, black tiger shrimp, tilapia, swamp eel,
etc. (Vinh, 2006).
The Asian swamp eel Monopterus albus (Zuiew, 1739) commonly
distributes in muddy ponds, lakes, rice fields in the tropical South- East
Asia (Rainboth, 1996; Chew et al., 2005). Asian swamp eel is one of the
species which is cultured widely because it has good taste of meat, high

⁎
Corresponding author at: Campus 2, 3/2 Street, Ninh Kieu District, Can Tho City, Viet Nam.
E-mail address: htnhan@ctu.edu.vn (H.T. Nhan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.12.067
Received 16 August 2018; Received in revised form 20 December 2018; Accepted 20 December 2018
Available online 21 December 2018
0044-8486/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H.T. Nhan et al.
nutritional level and high economic value for domestic consumption
and export (Lu and Khuyen, 2004). Currently, swamp eel is cultured
commonly at different scales in MKD of Vietnam, but there is a lack of
studies on aquaculture technology of this species. There is only study on
biological characteristics and artificial reproduction of this species by
Huong et al. (2010). Currently, culture density of swamp eel is very
high in culture models, yields can be up to 2.1 kg/m2 in tanks using
tarpaulin liner and nylon rope substrate without mud. Growth perfor-
mance of swamp eel varies depending on feed and environmental
conditions. Study by Pedersen et al. (2012) showed that species growth
rate (SGR) of swamp eel was arranging from 3.4 to 4.0 g/month at
different salinity levels, while Nhu and Nhan (2018) found that SGR of
this animal was about 7.5 g/month in the integrated culture with dif-
ferent watercress densities. Since the successful study on seed produc-
tion of swamp eel in 2014, the intensification of swamp eel farming has
expanded widely in Mekong region. This occasion caused problems on
soil pollution and water pollution due to huge amount of water ex-
change daily (100% daily). The problems of feed and water quality led
many difficulties for households. Water exchange cost occupies large
proportion in the intensive swamp eel farming system (Loan, 2013).
There is not much known how much water exchange is needed for
various stocking densities. There is no study on the effect of stocking
density and/or integrated aquaculture production system between
swamp eel and vegetables.
Numerous studies have found that integrated fish-vegetable culture
are known as aquaponics. These system combines recirculating aqua-
culture system - RAS with hydroponics, poly-culture or integrated
aquaculture (Rakocy et al., 1993, 2006, 2011; Troell et al., 2009; Ako
and Baker, 2009). Application of this approach in aquaculture has
several benefits such as eliminating the risk of ecological impacts, im-
proving the yield of both primary and secondary production, nitrogen
transformations and maintaining optimum water quality in a particular
aquaculture system (Troell et al., 2009; Wongkiew et al., 2017a,
2017b). Aquaponics is the integrated culture of fish and plants, can
reduce the environmental impacts of aquaculture (Adler et al., 2003;
Tyson et al., 2011). In aquaculture, as with any agricultural enterprise
where animals are concentrated, wastes accumulate and will degrade
the production system and the environment unless handled appro-
priately. Aquaponics is one of the few techniques available that can
remove concentrations of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus generated
via aquaculture (Buzby and Lin, 2014). Therefore, it is possible to apply
aquaponic techniques to intensive swamp eel culture. A warning should
be made. There are many showcase systems on the web. Commercial
production must be aware of generating enough profit for farmers
(Tokunaga et al., 2015).
In aquaponic systems, many plant species are well adapted such as
lettuce, herbs, and specialty greens (spinach, chives, basil, and water-
cress), etc. Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) appears as a potential
plant in combination with swamp eel in an aquaponic systems
(Somerville et al., 2014). Watercress is in high demand and has a high
economic value in urban and peri-urban zones, which makes it a very
suitable crop for household-scale or commercial scale hydroponic pro-
duction (Henderson and Cilliers, 2002). In regional markets, the de-
mand for watercress is beyond the capabilities offered (Somerville
et al., 2014).
In this study, our hypothesis was that if optimum culture stocking
density of swamp eel integrated with plant growth system would
minimize water exchange, reducing water pollution in farming area as
well as obtaining good growth of animal and plant. Therefore, the
stocking density of Asian swamp eel was the first priority for this trial.
The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the effects of different
stocking densities on growth performance of swamp eel (Monopterus
albus) when integrated with and without hydroponic trough of water-
cress (Nasturtium officinale) and (2) investigate the growth performance
of watercress in the integrated aquaculture production system using
treating aquaculture wastewater and nutrient accumulation from in the
97
Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104
integrated system.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental swamp eel
Juvenile swamp eels were purchased from the reliable commercial
swamp eel hatchery that followed the protocol of spawning induction
by Huong et al. (2010). The initial average size of swamp eels was about
16.67 ± 3.48 g/individual (n = 30). This is a common size for growth
out farm in the Mekong Delta (Hien et al., 2018). Animal were accli-
mated to experimental conditions for one week before use. Only healthy
swamp eel without skin injury or damage, actively moving and rela-
tively uniform in size were selected for this study.
2.2. Experimental set up
The experiment was randomly assigned to two factors with three
different swamp eel densities of 100 individuals swamp eel per square
meter (inds./m2),this is a common applied stocking density of swamp
eel by household in Mekong Delta (Hien et al., 2018), 180 inds./m2 and
260 inds./m2 integrated with hydroponic bed of watercress and without
hydroponic bed of watercress (served as control). Alternate ways of
expressing densities are 8.4, 15.0, and 21.7 kg/m3, respectively. The
experiment was set up randomly with triplicate and was summarized as
Table 1.
The experimental set up was summarized in the Fig. 1, in which,
swamp eel tank was rectangular (0.91 × 0.76 × 0.41 m, length x width
x height), the water level was 30 cm height (volume = 200 L). All tanks
were gently aerated for 24 h. Water volume of clarifier and biofilter
tanks was about 30 L each. Biofilter tank contained three litters of
biofilter media (RKPlast Bioelement, Brorup, Denmark, surface area
750 m2/m3) to promote nitrification. Designing of hydroponic trough of
floating raft and operation of the system was followed by Ako and Baker
(2009). Two single hydroponic trough (0.5 × 1.0 × 0.41 m; width x
length x height) of watercress was about 200 L of water and surface
area was about 1m2 for each system. Styrofoam was used as a floating
draft for watercress. The experiment was run in the Net house, College
of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, Vietnam.
There was no water discharge during the course of the experimental
period for the SEW treatments, except for replacing water lost due to
evaporation, whereas water exchange was needed for the SE treat-
ments. Animals were fed 2 times (8:00 AM and 4:00 PM) a day at the
feeding rate of about 3–5 % body weight/day for all treatments using
commercial pellet feed (42 % protein, 7 % moisture).
Watercress was seeded in plastic cups (4 cm in diameter) containing
coconut dirt-fiber with about 5–8 seeds/cup to germinate to a height of
2–3 cm (about 10 days, 2–3 leaf) then transplanted into the hydroponic
tray. Plant density was 80 plastic cups/m2 (Somerville et al., 2014). The
experiment was done with 65 days covering 2 vegetable cycles. The first
cycle of watercress was lasts for 35 days (including 10 days for the
nursery, and 25 days incorporated in hydroponic systems) and the
second cycle took only 30 days because watercress was seeded in plastic
cups about 10 days prior to finishing the first cycle then the cups were
placed into the grow bed soon after harvesting watercress of the first
cycle. The flow rate of water from swamp eel tank to hydroponic bed
was examined regularly and maintained at 3 L/min (Endut et al., 2009).
Table 1
Summary of experimental layout.
Treatment Swamp eel densities (inds./m2)
Swamp eel only (SE) + No plant 100 180 260
Swamp eel + watercress (SEW) 100 180 260
H.T. Nhan et al. Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104

- Daily length gain (DLG):

(3)
Clarifier
30L Biofilter DLG (cm/day) = (Final length–Initial length)/days of culture
30L

Grow bed - Daily weight gain (DWG):

DWG (g/day) = (Final weight–Initial weight)/days of culture (4)
0.91 m
- Specific growth rate (SGR):
Feed
0.41 m

Swamp eel SGR (%/day) = {LnWfinal –LnWinitial/Tfinal Tinitial} x100 (5)

Air
tank, 200 L supply
- Survival rate:
Fig. 1. Schematics of a floating-raft aquaponic of swamp eel and watercress. Survival rate (%) = Final number of swamp eel
/Initial number of swamp eel × 100 (6)
2.3. Samples analyses
- Feed conversion ratio (FCR):
Water temperature, pH and Dissolved oxygen (DO) were measured
every day at 7:00 AM and 14:00 PM using DO meter (HANNA 98196, FCR = Feed provided (dry weight)/Weight gain (wet weight) (7)
Hanna Instruments Inc., Woonsocket, RI). pH level in the experimental
Production of watercress. Biomass (BMS) of watercress was mea-
tanks was maintained by using KOH at the ratio of 1:10 to daily feeding.
sured at the end of each cycle by the following equation:
Water samples were taken weekly at each culture tank of swamp eel,
and effluent of growth bed (outlet of hydroponic trough of watercress) BMS (kg/m2) = Final weight of watercress/hydroponic systems area
for chemical of oxygen demand (COD), total amomium nitrogen (TAN),
nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), total phosphorus
2.5. Statistical analysis
(TP) analysis according to the Standard Method (APHA 2012). The
TAN, NO2−N, NO3−N and TP measurement were performed using
All data were calculated into mean and standard deviation by using
Unicam UV/VIS spectrophotometer according to salicylate, diazotiza-
Microsoft Excel 2007, One-way ANOVA and Two-way ANOVA were
tion, cadmium reduction method (APHA, 4500-NO3−), arcobic acid
used for statistical analysis by using SPSS (Version 17.0; SPSS Inc.,
method (APHA, 4500-P) respectively. Sampling water was carried out
Chicago. IL, USA). The difference in LG, GW, DLG, DWG and SGR of
and refrigerated at 4 °C and being analyzed within a week.
animal, water chemistry parameters among the treatments were sta-
tistical analysis by One-way ANOVA and Two-way ANOVA was em-
2.4. Growth performance of swamp eel ployed to compare mean difference in LG, GW, DLG, DWG and SGR of
animal, and production of watercress between the SE and SEW systems.
The growth rate of swamp eel growth was periodically measured Differences of mean were evaluated for significance differences by
every 2 weeks by measuring body weight and length of 30 inds./tank. Tukey HSD at P < .05.
Growth performance data of experimental swamp eel was calculated
using the following Eqs. (1)–(5): 3. Results

- Length gain (LG): 3.1. Growth performance of swamp eel

LG (cm) = Final length–Initial length (1) Growth in length of swamp eel is shown in the Table 2. The results
showed that there is no significant difference in final length gain and
- Weight gain (WG): daily length gain of swamp eel among the SEW treatments and com-
pared to those in the SE treatments (P > .05). Daily length gain (DLG)
WG (g) = Final weight–Initial weight (2) of swamp eel ranged from 0.11 cm/day to 0.13 cm/day.

Table 2
Growth performance in the length (cm/ind.) of swamp eel.
Parameter Stocking density treatment (inds./m2) P-value

100 180 260

Initial length 27.20 ± 2.10

Final length SE only 33.22 ± 4.18a 35.92 ± 4.70a 33.43 ± 3.74a > .05
SEW 34.94 ± 3.42a 35.47 ± 3.79a 34.29 ± 3.69a > .05
Mean ± SD 34.08 ± 3.90a 35.70 ± 4.26a 33.93 ± 3.72a SE x SEW:
> .05
Length gain SE only 6.37 ± 1.81a 8.13 ± 2.20a 6.36 ± 3.35a > .05
SEW 7.47 ± 0.37a 8.00 ± 0.74a 7.05 ± 0.34a > .05
Mean ± SD 7.03 ± 1.12a 8.05 ± 1.22a 6.78 ± 1.73a SE x SEW:
> .05
DLG (cm/day) SE only 0.11 ± 0.04a 0.14 ± 0.04a 0.11 ± 0.06a > .05
SEW 0.13 ± 0.01a 0.13 ± 0.01a 0.12 ± 0.01a > .05
Mean ± SD 0.12 ± 0.02a 0.13 ± 0.02a 0.11 ± 0.03a SE x SEW:
> .05

Note: Values are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). a,b are statistical symbols. Mean values with different superscripts in the same row are
significantly different (P < .05).

98
H.T. Nhan et al. Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104

Table 3
Growth performance in the weight (g/ind.), FCR and survival rate (%) of swamp eel at the end of the experiment.
Parameter Stocking density treatment (inds./m2) P-Value

100 180 260

Initial weight 16.67 ± 3.48

Final weight SE only 42.81 ± 12.21a 59.52 ± 21.90a 44.66 ± 11.74a > .05
SEW 46.70 ± 13.28ab 50.55 ± 15.70b 39.89 ± 13.30a < .05
Mean ± SD 45.11 ± 12.80ab 55.03 ± 19.50b 42.28 ± 12.72a SE x SEW: < .05
Final production (kg/m3) SE only 21.76 ± 2.26 53.57 ± 8.35 58.06 ± 13.25 < .05
SEW 23.15 ± 2.28 44.68 ± 1.41 52.31 ± 1.0 < .001
Mean ± SD 22.59 ± 2.11a 48.24 ± 6.49b 54.61 ± 7.37b SE x SEW: < .001
Weight gain (65 days) SE only 26.40 ± 4.02a 41.71 ± 9.05b 27.30 ± 9.81a > .05
SEW 29.55 ± 3.80ab 32.78 ± 2.09b 23.58 ± 0.54a < .05
Mean ± SD 28.29 ± 3.78ab 36.35 ± 6.82b 25.07 ± 7.04a SE x SEW: < .05
DWG (g/day) SE only 0.44 ± 0.07a 0.70 ± 0.15a 0.46 ± 0.16a P > .05
SEW 0.49 ± 0.07ab 0.55 ± 0.04b 0.39 ± 0.01a P < .05
Mean ± SD 0.47 ± 0.06ab 0.61 ± 0.11b 0.42 ± 0.09a SE x SEW:
< .05
SGR (%/day) SE only 1.40 ± 0.54a 1.79 ± 0.60a 1.43 ± 0.51a > .05
SEW 1.52 ± 0.57ab 1.66 ± 0.53b 1.30 ± 0.51a < .05
Mean ± SD 1.46 ± 0.56ab 1.72 ± 0.57b 1.37 ± 0.51a SE x SEW: < .05
FCR SE only 3.84 ± 0.00a 3.55 ± 0.06b 3.72 ± 0.11a < .05
SEW 2.79 ± 0.23b 2.15 ± 0.29a 3.39 ± 0.19c < 0.05
Mean ± SD 3.21 ± 0.60a 2.71 ± 0.80b 3.52 ± 0.23a SE x SEW: < .05
Survival rate (%) SE only 87.00 ± 0.90a 83.89 ± 0.21a 77.84 ± 0.76a > .05
SEW 81.33 ± 0.73a 88.15 ± 0.32a 83.59 ± 0.82a > .05
Mean ± SD 83.60 ± 6.84a 86.44 ± 0.17a 81.29 ± 0.96a SE x SEW: > .05

Note: Values are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). a,b are statistical symbols. Mean values with different superscripts in the same row are
significantly different (P < .05).

Growth in weight of swamp eel is shown in the Table 3. Statistical
analysis by Two-way ANOVA showed that there is no significant dif-
ference (P > .05) in final weight of swamp eel between the SEW
treatments and the SE treatments. One Way ANOVA showed that weigh
gain, DWG, and SGR of animal were different significantly among the
stocking densities of the SEW treatments, whereas there is no sig-
nificant difference in weight gain or SGR of animal among stocking
densities of the SE treatments. The average weight gain of swamp eel in
the SE treatments (31.80 ± 9.90 g) was higher than those animals in
the SEW treatments (28.63 ± 4.60 g). In the SEW treatments, weight
gain, SGR of swamp eel at the density of 180 inds./m2
(32.78 ± 2.09 g) was higher significantly than those of 260 inds./m2
(23.58 ± 0.54 g) treatment, but did not differ significantly compared
to 100 inds./m2 treatment.
Feed conversion ratio is shown in Table 5. The results showed that
the lowest FCR was found for the treatment of 180 ind./m2 in the SEW
and was significant difference (P < .05) with other treatments. There
was no significant difference in survival rate of swamp eel among the SE
treatments and between the SEW treatments. The highest survival rate
was 86.44% at treatment of 180 inds./m2 and the lowest was 77.84 %
at the density of 260 inds./m2 of the SE treatments.
3.2. Production of vegetable
The highest production of watercress were obtained at the treat-
ments of 180 inds./m2, and was statistically significant (P < .05)
compared with other treatments (Table 4).
3.3. Water quality
During the experiment, water temperature ranged from 26.6 °C to
29.1 °C. DO values were above 5.0 mg/L in all SEW treatments, whereas
DO values were fluctuated and dropped below 5 mg/L for the SE
treatments, especially for the treatment of 260 ind./m2 (Fig. 2). pH
ranged from 5.50 to 7.00 and the variation of pH values during the
experimental period is showed in Fig. 3. For the SE treatments, 100%
water exchange occurred every 1 day for treatments of 180 inds./m2
and 260 inds./m2 and every 2 other days for treatment of 100 inds./m2.
The results also noticed that total water amount of 17.70 ± 1.31 m3 is
needed for discharge of raising 1 kg of swamp eel weight after 65 cul-
ture days in the SE treatments.
Water chemistry parameters were monitored and recorded in the
Table 5. There was no significant difference (P > .05) in TAN levels
among the stocking density of both SEW and SE treatments. It may be
that TAN and other nutrient/toxicant levels are maintained at low le-
vels by uptake by plants in the SEW tanks and by water exchange in the
SE tanks. However, TAN levels were significantly lower in hydroponic
trough compared to those levels in swamp eel tank of the same stocking
density in the SEW treatment and SE treatments (P < .05). Possibly
some nitrification occurs in the hydroponics troughs. The percentage of
nutrient reduction (TAN, NO2−N, NO3−N and TP) in the SEW treat-
ments were relatively decreased when increase stocking density.
The fluctuation of nitrite level during the experiment is presented
Fig. 4. The average NO2−N level in all treatments ranged from 0.42 mg/
L to 2.96 mg/L and tended to increase to the end of the experiment.
Statistical analysis showed that there is a significant difference
(P < .05) in nitrite levels between the SE and SEW of the same density
treatments (Table 5), but there is no significant difference in nitrite
levels among different stocking densities. For the SEW treatments, the
difference of nitrite level was not statistically significant (P > .05) at
different densities, whereas nitrite level in swamp eel tanks was sig-
nificant (P < .05) lower than in growth bed of the same density.
The variation of nitrate level of all treatments is presented in the
Fig. 4. The results showed that the level of NO3−N in the SE treatments
were low and the difference was statistically significant with the SEW
treatments (P < .05). The average nitrate level in the SEW treatments
was relatively high, ranging from 3.19 mg/L to 20.4 mg/L and tended
to increase to the end of the experiment. There is no significant dif-
ference of nitrate level in swamp eel tanks compared to the vegetable
tanks at the same density.
The variation of TP level during the experiment was presented in
the Fig. 5. The results showed that the average TP level in the SEW
treatments was relatively high, ranged from 0.13 mg/L to 18.86 mg/L
and tended to increase to the end of the experiment. Particularly, from

99
H.T. Nhan et al. Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104

Table 4
Growth performance and production of watercress in two cycles.
Plant Cycle Stocking density (ind./ m2) Length (cm/plant) Root length (cm/plant) Production (g WW/m2)

1 100 15.33 ± 3.99a 7.18 ± 2.10a 187.65 ± 80.78a

180 26.62 ± 10.83b 11.63 ± 6.15b 507.81 ± 91.01b
260 13.33 ± 2.48a 7.46 ± 2.65a 123.03 ± 58.30a
2 100 16.00 ± 1.21a 8.70 ± 1.82a 90.70 ± 75.81a
180 18.93 ± 1.03b 7.47 ± 1.50a 318.53 ± 28.67b
260 12.73 ± 2.27a 8.08 ± 1.70a 108.60 ± 88.23a
Average ± SD 100 15.67 ± 3.10AB 7.94 ± 3.30AB 163.41 ± 81.86A
180 22.78 ± 8.88B 9.55 ± 4.99B 460.49 ± 120.33B
260 13.00 ± 3.22A 7.80 ± 3.02A 119.43 ± 48.14A

Values are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). a,b and A,B are statistical symbols. Mean values with different superscripts in the same column are
significantly different (P < .05).

the day 37 onwards, the TP level increased dramatically in all treat-

8.00 ments. TP levels in SEW treatments were significant higher than those
SEW: Swamp eel tank A
7.50 in the SE treatments (P < .05). However, there is no significant dif-
7.00
SE: Swamp eel tank
ference in TP levels among different densities (P > .05) in the SEW
6.50 treatments.
Chemical oxygen demand in all treatments is shown in the Fig. 5.
DO (mg/L)

6.00
5.50
The result showed that the average of COD concentration fluctuated
from 10.13 mgO2/L to 96.52 mgO2/L. The average of COD level in
5.00
swamp eel tanks of the SEW treatments was lower significantly as
compared to those in the SE treatments (P < .05). However, there was
4.50
4.00
no significantly difference (P > .05) among the SEW treatments at
3.50 different swamp eel densities.
3.00
4. Discussion
1 8 15 22 30 37 44 51 58 65
Time (days)

7.50 Our purpose was to examine the increase of swamp eel aquaculture
SEW: Swamp eel tank B without increasing environmental pollution via the use of hydroponics
SE: Swamp eel tank
7.00 trays coupled to eel tanks. The process is known as aquaponics. A sub-
purpose is to determine the optimum stocking density for commercial
DO (mg/L)

6.50
aquaculture of swamp eel in Mekong Delta. In this study, we found
6.00 optimum stocking density for swamp eel in both cultured systems:
conventional system and integrated with hydroponic in recycling
5.50 system. There is no significant difference in weight gain and SGR of
animal between the SEW and SE treatment. This shows that the animal
5.00
growth well in both systems. There is no significant in weight gain and
4.50 SGR of animal among stocking densities in the SE treatments (without
combination with hydroponic trough). The average highest weight gain
4.00
was obtained at treatment of 180 ind./m2, with final production of
1 8 15 22 30 37 44 51 58 65
53.6 ± 8.35 kg/m3. It probably due to good water quality management
Time (days)
by changing water every 2 days for the treatment of 100 ind./m2 and
every day for the treatments of 180 and 260 ind./m2. This issue re-
9.00
SEW: Swamp eel tank C
8.00 SE: Swamp eel tank
quired 17.70 ± 1.31 m3 water for water exchange of raising 1 kg of
swamp eel weight after 65 culture days. This would indicate that water
DO (mg/L)

7.00 exchange is a big problem for the conventional culture of swamp eel.
While weigh gain and DWG of swamp eels in tank integrated with
6.00 hydroponic trough of watercress (the SEW treatments) gave a sig-
nificant difference among the stocking densities treatments. The highest
5.00 weigh gain and SGR was also found at the treatment of 180 ind./m2,
while no water discharge took place during the experimental period.
4.00
This shows that the feasibility of applying this combination system into
3.00 the commercial culture of swamp eel in the Mekong Delta. In addition,
the lowest FCR was also recorded at the stocking density of 180 ind./
2.00 m2, this indicates that swamp eel utilized feed more effectively at this
1 8 15 22 30 37 44 51 58 65 stocking density than other treatments. Feeding behavior of swamp eel
Time (days) appears to be similar to other species that eat and grow competitively
Fig. 2. Dissolved oxygen values during the period of the study. A: stocking
based on density (Ako et al., 2005). The 180 ind./m2 level seems to
density of 100 ind./m2, B: stocking density of 100 ind./m2; C: Stocking density signal an optimal behavioral density. Thus, our study show that at
of 260 ind./m2. Data presented as mean ± SD of three replicates data (n = 3). stocking density of 180 ind./m2 would be the optimum stocking density
for commercial culture of swamp eel.
Production of watercress in the hydroponic trough was low in all

100
H.T. Nhan et al. Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104

Fig. 3. pH and Total ammonia nitrogen values during the period of the study. A: stocking density of 100 ind./m2, B: stocking density of 100 ind./m2; C: Stocking
density of 260 ind./m2. Data presented as mean ± SD of three replicates data (n = 3).

treatments ranging from 115.8 ± 16.4 to 667.1 ± 8.8 g wet weight
per m2. Watercress grew well for the first three weeks after seedling and
transplanted into the hydroponic trough. However, plants started to die
off slowly. Especially, root and lower part of plant's body were spoiled.
It may due to the change in water quality such as DO levels in the grow
bed during this period. This has been seen in Hawaii in commercial
production troughs as they are used over and over again and accumu-
late organic matter over time. Production returns to normal after
cleaning the trays. This was a good trial and we will also have to ad-
dress it in the future.
In addition, insufficient of nutrients may cause bad growth of wa-
tercress. Low level of NO3-N (Fig. 4) in the two treatments of 100 ind./
m2 (12.55 ± 6.22 mg/L) and 180 ind./m2 (12.11 ± 4.71 mg/L) may
also cause poor growth performance of plant. Ako and Baker (2009)
found that lettuce grew well at nitrate level in the water of about
47 mg/L. Other studies show good growth at lower nitrate levels,

Table 5
Mean values for various water quality parameters and percentage removal of water chemistry.
Water parameters Stocking density treatment (inds./m2)

100 180 260

b b
TAN (mg/L) SE only 2.61 ± 1.81 3.50 ± 2.14 5.77 ± 3.19b
Swamp eel tank of SEW 1.94 ± 1.44b 2.17 ± 1.21b 5.35 ± 2.36b
Hydroponic trough 1.30 ± 1.10a 1.49 ± 0.88a 3.15 ± 1.60a
NO2-N (mg/L) SE only 1.43 ± 1.36c 1.51 ± 1.12c 2.36 ± 1.43c
Swamp eel tank of SEW 0.89 ± 1.36a 0.43 ± 0.32a 1.42 ± 1.34a
Hydroponic trough 1.13 ± 1.27b 0.56 ± 0.29b 1.66 ± 1.07b
NO3-N (mg/L) SE only 6.31 ± 3.77a 5.11 ± 3.39a 3.61 ± 3.20a
Swamp eel tank of SEW 12.55 ± 6.22b 12.11 ± 4.71b 17.52 ± 6.58b
Hydroponic trough 12.87 ± 7.13b 14.07 ± 6.77b 17.41 ± 6.88b
PO4-P (mg/L) SE only 4.75 ± 3.26a 4.75 ± 3.24a 5.41 ± 2.79a
Swamp eel tank of SEW 6.53 ± 5.41b 5.85 ± 4.23b 9.12 ± 5.93b
Hydroponic trough 5.15 ± 3.53b 5.91 ± 4.29b 8.38 ± 5.27b
COD (mg/L) SE only 49.29 ± 19.62b 67.09 ± 20.58b 55.40 ± 15.87b
Swamp eel tank of SEW 40.66 ± 19.09a 42.06 ± 21.38a 53.54 ± 21.64a

Note: Values are the mean of multiple date (n = 18). a,b are statistical symbols. Mean values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different
(p < .05).

101
H.T. Nhan et al.
Fig. 4. The variation of nitrite‑nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen levels of all treatments during the experimental period. A: stocking density of 100 ind./m2, B: stocking
density of 100 ind./m2; C: Stocking density of 260 ind./m2. Data presented as mean ± SD of three replicates (n = 3).
however, according to Rakocy et al. (2006), suggested that the op-
timum NO3-N level for normal growth of leafy plant was ranging from
26.3–42 mg/L. In our study, nitrate levels were low in treatment of 100
ind./m2 and 180 ind./m2 for the first 22 days. This could probably due
to denitrification occurring in the system. Denitrification occurs when
there are too high levels of organic matter in the grow beds and DO
levels are low. Wongkiew et al. (2017a, 2017b) stated that nitrogen loss
due to denitrification is enhanced by low DO levels. Unfortunately,
grow bed DO levels in the grow bed were not measured, assuming that
it must be lower than 5.0 mg/L in the morning time because COD levels
were high in grow bed of all treatments (Fig. 5). In fact that nitrate
levels were improved in all treatments during the period of day 8 to day
22 and remained constantly until the end of the experiment (Fig. 4).
However, these levels were still lower than recommended level.
Nevertheless, the balance of NO3- in the aquaponic system of watercress
is unknown. The increase level of NO3- over the time (Fig. 4) may
suggest that NO3- uptake rate by watercress was low compared to the
NO3- generation in the system, especially, higher NO3- level was re-
corded after flowing through the growth bed (Table 5).
In aquaponic system, NO3-N level plays an important role for
growing plant. Production of NO3-N is the results of the nitrification
process (Randall and Tsui, 2002; Wongkiew et al., 2017a, 2017b). It is
difficult to maintain the balance of NO3-N in the aquaponic system
because the rate of plants uptake at different ages plants and fish as well
as nitrogen generation in the system (Wongkiew et al., 2017a, 2017b).
Feed rate is also another possible issue, although the feeding amount in
our study ranges from 44.6–167.4 g/day. Study by Al-Hafedh et al.
(2008) found that the optimum ratio for cultured tilapia (Oreochromis
102
Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104
nilotica) in RAS with plant was 56 g feed/m2. Endut et al. (2010) found
that the optimum ratio of feed rate was 15–42 g of fish feed per square
meter when planting water spinach with African catfish. While Rakocy
et al. (2006) recommended that the appropriate ratio of fish feed to
plant growing area was 60–100 g feed/m2 when growing tilapia O. ni-
lotica in recirculation aquaponic system and a variety of vegetable. This
support that the feed rate in our study was enough to supply for each
planting area. Wongkiew et al. (2017a, 2017b) also stated that deni-
trification process also affected by feeding rate. A lower stocking den-
sity which means that lower feed rate occurred in this study therefore
reducing of nitrogen loss. This supported a better nitrate accumulation
rate for plant growth at the stocking density of 180 ind./m2 as com-
pared to the 260 ind./m2.
Accumulated TAN levels were relative to high stocking density and
significant difference among stocking density (Table 5, Fig. 3). Espe-
cially, TAN level was high in the SE treatments, although water ex-
change was taken daily. Whereas there was no water exchange in the
SEW treatment and reduction of TAN after flowing through a hydro-
ponic trough. TAN reduction was low at higher stocking density, except
for treatment of 260 ind./m2 in this study. It could probably due to
feeding rate was reduced at the last two weeks of the experiment period
and bacteria growing well in the system. Endut et al. (2009) found that
hydroponic bed of water spinach Ipomoea aquatic could remove 64–78%
TAN in the recirculating water. Lin et al. (2005) reported that a TAN
reduction was high ranging from 64% to 66% when used cattail and
common reed to constructed wetland for nutrient removal from the
white leg shrimp culture. Similarly, NO2-N accumulation rate is rela-
tively increased with increasing of higher stocking density. Nitrite
H.T. Nhan et al.
Fig. 5. The variation of TP and COD levels of all treatments during the experimental period. A: stocking density of 100 ind./m2, B: stocking density of 100 ind./m2; C:
Stocking density of 260 ind./m2. Data presented as mean ± SD of three replicates (n = 3).
levels increased sharply over the time and ranged from 0.42 to
2.96 mg/L. Especially, it was increased above 2 mg/L from day 15 to
day 22 and then remain low until the end of the experiment (Fig. 4).
This could due to high rate of denitrification resulting in nitrogen loss.
The NO2-N reductions were significantly influenced by stocking density.
The results of this study indicated that 180 swamp eels in tank 200 L
with initial stocking density of swamp eel at 15.0 kg/m3, with 80 cups/
m2 of watercress seems to be recommended for further study on prac-
tical application of aquaponic system of swamp eel and watercress.
Hence, our consequent study found that initial stocking density of
swamp eel at 15.0 kg/m3 with watercress density of 110 cups of wa-
tercress/m2 was the most effective modeling for practical application of
aquaponic system of swamp eel and watercress (Nhu and Nhan, 2018).
5. Conclusion
This study demonstrated that the changes in culture technology of
swamp eel in aquaponic recirculation system was as good as in con-
ventional systems but did not require effluent release into the en-
vironment or addition of large volumes of makeup water. Water ex-
change is big problem for the SE system (conventional culture
technique) of swamp eel. It needed 17.70 ± 1.31 m3 water for raising
1 kg of swamp eel weight after 65 culture days. Higher stocking density
of swamp eel yielded relatively high production of swamp eel as well as
high accumulation rate of nutrients concentration in the system. The
optimum stocking density for production of swamp eel, plant and nu-
trient uptake was found at 15.0 kg/m3 (180 ind./m2) in the SEW
system. From a bigger picture perspective aquaculture of swamp eels
103
Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104
cannot increase without destroying the environment except if aqua-
ponics is used. This study provides a promising method as to how
aquaculture may be expanded in the Mekong Delta, especially, under
climate change conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Department of Science and
Technology of Vinh Long Province, Vietnam for financial support this
research (08/HĐ-2016).
References
Adler, P.R., Summerfelt, S.T., Glenn, D.M., Takeda, F., 2003. Mechanistic approach to
phytoremediation of water. Ecol. Eng. 251–264.
Ako, H., Baker, A., 2009. Small-scale lettuce production with hydroponics or aquaponics.
In: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Publication No. SA-2.
University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii, USA.
Ako, H., Shimizu, E., de Lemos, K., Asano, L., Tamaru, C., 2005. Behavior limitations of
high density fish growout. World Aquac. 36 (67), 25–29.
Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Alam, A., Beltagi, M.S., 2008. Food production and water conservation in
a recirculating aquaponic system in Saudi Arabia at different ratios of fish Feed to
plants. J. World Aquac. Soc. 39 (4), 510–520.
Buzby, K.M., Lin, L.S., 2014. Scaling aquaponic systems: balancing plant uptake with fish
output. Aquac. Eng. 63, 39–44.
Chew, S.F., Gan, J., Ip, Y.K., 2005. Nitrogen metabolism and excretion in the swamp eel,
Monopterus albus, during 6 or 40 days of estivation in mud. Physiol. Biochem. Zool.
78, 620–629.
Endut, A., Jusoh, A., Ali, N., Wan Nik, W.N.S., Hassan, A., 2009. Effect of flow rate on
water quality parameters and plant growth of vegetables in an aquaponic re-
circulating systems. Desalin. Water Treat. 5, 19–28.
Endut, A., Jusoh, A., Ali, N., Wan Nik, W.B., Hassan, A., 2010. A study on the optimal
hydraulic loading rate and plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresour.
H.T. Nhan et al.
Technol. 101, 1511–1517.
Henderson, L., Cilliers, C.J., 2002. Invasive Aquatic Plants. Plant Protection Research
Institute, Pretoria, South Africa, Handbook, No. 16. (88 pp.).
Hien, H.V., Ha, N.T.N., Huy, N.H., 2018. A comparison of production efficiency between
of eel (Monopterus albus) culture in VietGap standard model and normal culture
model in an Giang province, Can Tho Uni. J. Sci. 1, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.
22144/ctu.jsi.2018.025.
Huong, D.T.T., Hoa, N.T.L., Tuan, N.A., 2010. Maturation culture and induced spawning
of the swamp eel (Monopterus albus) by HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropine), Can
Tho Uni. J. Sci. 14, 258–268.
Lin, Y.F., Jing, S.R., Lee, D.Y., Chang, Y.F., Chen, Y.M., Shih, K.C., 2005. Performance of a
constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture wastewater under high
hydraulic loading rate. Environ. Pollut. 134, 411–421.
Loan, L.T.H., 2013. Assessing the Current State on Techniques and Economic Efficiency of
Swamp Eel (Monopterus albus) Farming Model. M.S Thesis. Can Tho University, Can
Tho.
Lu, N.T., Khuyen, L.D., 2004. Techniques Rearing Walking Catfish, Swamp Eel,
Earthworm. Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi.
Nhu, P.Q., Nhan, H.T., 2018. Effects of plant density on watercress growth and water
quality in combination with swamp eel in aquaponic system. J. Vietnam Agric. Sci.
Technol. 9 (94), 118–124.
Pedersen, P.B.M., Hansen, K., Houng, D.T.T., Bayley, M., Wang, T., 2012. Effects of
salinity on osmoregulation, growth and survival in Asian swamp eel (Monopterus
albus) (Zuiew 1793). Aquacult. Res. 1–12.
Rainboth, W.J., 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO Species Identification Field
Guide for Fishery Purposes. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Rakocy, J.E., Hargreaves, J.A., Bailey, D.S., 1993. Nutrient accumulation in a
104
Aquaculture 503 (2019) 96–104
recirculation aquaculture system integrated with vegetable hydroponics. In: Wang,
J.K. (Ed.), Techniques for Modern Aquaculture. Proceedings of a Conference, 21–23
June 1993, Spokane, WA, pp. 148–158.
Rakocy, J.E., Masser, M.P., Losordo, T.M., 2006. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank
Production Systems: Aquaponics-Integrating Fish and Plant Culture.
Rakocy, J.E., Michael, M.P., Thomas, L.M., 2011. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank
Production Systems: Aquaponics - Integrating. Fish and Plant Culture, Division of
Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources - Oklahoma State University.
Randall, D.J., Tsui, T.K.N., 2002. Ammonia toxicity in fish. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 45 (1−12),
17–23.
Somerville, C.J., Cohen, M., Pantanella, E., Stankus, A., Lovatelli, A., 2014. Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical: Small-Scale Aquaponic Food Production Integrated Fish and
Plant Farming. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome. Italy.
Tokunaga, K., Tamaru, C., Ako, H., Leung, P.S., 2015. Economics of Commercial
Aquaponics in Hawaii. J. World Aquacul. Soc. 46, 20–32.
Troell, M., Joyce, A., Chopin, T., Neori, A., Buschmann, A.H., Fang, J.G., 2009. Ecological
engineering in aquaculture - potential for integrated multi-tropic aquaculture (IMTA)
in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297, 1–9.
Tyson, R.V., Treadwell, D.D., Simonne, E.H., 2011. Opportunities and challenges to
sustainability in aquaponic systems. Hor. Technol. 21, 6–13.
Vinh, D.T.T., 2006. Aquaculture in Vietnam. Dev. Pract. 16, 498–503.
Wongkiew, S., Hu, Z., Chandran, K., Woo, J., Khanal, S.K., 2017a. Nitrogen transforma-
tions in aquaponic systems: a review. Aquac. Eng. 76, 9–19.
Wongkiew, S., Popp, B.N., Kim, H., Khanal, S.K., 2017b. Fate of nitrogen in floating-raft
aquaponic systems using natural abundance nitrogen isotopic compositions. Int.
Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 125, 24–32.