Bacteria in shrimp pond sediments: their role in mineralizing nutrients and some suggested sampling strategies

Strategies for sampling sediment bacteria were examined in intensive shrimp, Penaeus monodon (Fabricius), ponds in tropical Australia. Stratified sampling of bacteria at the end of the production season showed that the pond centre, containing flocculated sludge, had significantly higher bacterial counts (15.5 X 10(9) g(-1) dw) than the pond periphery (8.1 X 10(9) g(-1) dw), where the action of aerators had swept the pond floor. The variation in bacterial counts between these two zones within a pond was higher than that between sites within each zone or between ponds. Therefore, sampling effort should be focused within these zones: for example, sampling two ponds at six locations within each of the two zones resulted in a coefficient of variation of approximate to 5%. Bacterial numbers in the sediment were highly correlated with sediment grain size, probably because eroded soil particles and organic waste both accumulated in the centre of the pond. Despite high inputs of organic matter added to the ponds, principally as pelleted feeds, the mean bacterial numbers and nutrient concentrations (i.e. organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus) in the sediment were similar to those found in mangrove sediments. This suggests that bacteria are rapidly remineralizing particulates into soluble compounds. Bacterial numbers were highly correlated with organic carbon and total kjeldahl nitrogen in the sediment, suggesting that these were limiting factors to bacterial growth.

Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.

The interaction of water flow and nutrients on aquatic plant growth

A long-term experiment was conducted to compare the effects of flowing and still water on growth, and the relationship between water flow and nutrients, in Aponogeton elongatus, a submerged aquatic macrophyte. A. elongatus plants were grown for 23 weeks with three levels of nutrition (0, 0.5 and 1g Osmocote Plus(R) fertiliser pot(-1)) in aquaria containing stirred or unstirred water. Fertilized plants grew much better than non-fertilized. The highest fertilizer level produced 29% wider leaves and 58% higher total dry weight in stirred water. Stirred water increased leaf area by 40% and tuber size by 81%, but only with the highest level of nutrition. These results suggest that this plant depends on its roots for mineral uptake, rather than from the open water, and the major limitation to growth in still water is the supply of dissolved inorganic carbon. It was the combined effects of nutrient availability and stirring that produced the strongest response in plant growth, morphology and composition. This study provides some explanation for the observations of others that these plants grow best in creeks or river systems with permanently flowing water.