Sustainability 14 03257

sustainability
Review
Aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals in the Context of
Sustainability: Cultivation Techniques, Integration, and
Blue Revolution
Abdallah Tageldein Mansour 1,2, * , Mohamed Ashour 3, * , Ahmed E. Alprol 3 and Ahmed Saud Alsaqufi 1
1 Animal and Fish Production Department, College of Agricultural and Food Sciences, King Faisal University,
P.O. Box 420, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
2 Fish and Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University,
Alexandria 21531, Egypt
3 National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries (NIOF), Cairo 11516, Egypt; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.T.M.); [email protected] (M.A.)
Abstract: The aquaculture industry has rapidly increased in response to the increasing world popula-
tion, with the appreciation that aquaculture products are beneficial for human health and nutrition.
Globally, aquaculture organisms are mainly divided into two divisions, aquatic animals (finfish,
crustaceans, and molluscs) and aquatic plants (microalgae and seaweed). Worldwide aquaculture
production has reached more than 82 million tonnes (MTs) in 2018 with more than 450 cultured
species. The development of economical, environmentally friendly, and large-scale feasible technolo-
gies to produce aquaculture organisms (even aquatic animals and/or aquatic plants) is an essential
need of the world. Some aquaculture technologies are related to aquatic animals or aquatic plants,

as well as some technologies have an integrated system. This integration between aquatic plants
Citation: Mansour, A.T.; Ashour, M.; and aquatic animals could be performed during early larvae rearing, on-growing and/or mass
Alprol, A.E.; Alsaqufi, A.S. Aquatic
production. In the context of the blue revolution, the current review focuses on the generations of
Plants and Aquatic Animals in the
integration between aquatic plants and aquatic animals, such as live feeds, biomass concentrates,
Context of Sustainability: Cultivation
water conditioners “green water technique”, aqua-feed additives, co-culturing technologies, and
Techniques, Integration, and Blue
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). This review could shed light on the benefit of aquatic
Revolution. Sustainability 2022, 14,
3257. https://doi.org/10.3390/
animals and plant integration, which could lead future low-cost, highly efficient, and sustainable
su14063257 aquaculture industry projects.
Academic Editors: José

Keywords: integrated aquaculture; IMTA; aquatic animals; microalgae; seaweeds; feed additive;
Manuel Mirás-Avalos and Emily
microalgae biomass concentrates
Silva Araujo
Received: 13 February 2022

Accepted: 9 March 2022
Published: 10 March 2022 1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral As our understanding of aquatic ecosystems has paralleled dramatic growth in aqua-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in culture, we have recognized that utilizing plant species with aquatic animals can dramati-
published maps and institutional affil- cally improve sustainability in this important field. In the last few years, scientific progress
iations. has resulted in a far stronger understanding of how aquatic ecosystems operate, as well
as an improved intercultural understanding of the need to sustainably management of
these resources [1]. The world has been rapidly changing and both global population and
consumption have significantly increased. As a result, many international organizations
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
and governments have recognized that aquatic resources must be developed and sustain-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ably managed [2,3]. Globally, many countries have dealt well with this important issue
This article is an open access article
and implemented many national and/or international projects that supported intelligent
distributed under the terms and
integration of aquaculture industries and activities [4,5]. Aquaculture industries have
conditions of the Creative Commons
successfully and rapidly increased in response to the increasing world population [6–8].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
While aquaculture has developed significantly and can have sustainable aspects, critics
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
have pointed to a number of challenges in the industry. For example, before the last two
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063257 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3257 2 of 28
decades, Naylor et al., 2000 [9] published an interesting review, in Nature, which char-
acterized aquaculture as a potential sustainable solution to repair the global decrease in
fisheries stocks. At that time, aquaculture production had increased from 10 million tonnes
(MTs) in 1987 to 29 MTs in 1997, and almost 300 species of fish, shellfish, microalgae, and
seaweeds were cultured all over the world. Recently, Naylor et al., 2021 [10] published
another review, in Nature, describing the development of the aquaculture sector over the
last 20 years, from having a comparatively secondary role to playing an essential role in the
universal food system. Interestingly, the worldwide aquaculture production has increased
from 29 MTs in 1997 to more than 82 MTs in 2018 with more than 450 species of finfish,
shellfish, microalgae, and seaweeds [1,10]. Mainly, commercially, aquaculture organisms
are divided into two divisions, aquatic animals (finfish, crustaceans, and molluscs) and
aquatic plants (microalgae and seaweeds). These aquatic animals and aquatic plants are
the most commonly cultured organisms of great commercial and nutritional value [11].
According to FAO [1], in 2018, world aquaculture production comprised 46.0% of
global fish production, contributing 114.5 MTs. This total production consisted of 82.1 MTs
of aquatic animals (fish and shellfish), 32.4 MTs of aquatic plants (microalgae, and sea-
weeds), and 26,000 tonnes (Ts) of pearls and ornamental seashells. Aquatic animals, which
come from freshwater and/or marine water, are one of the main animal-protein sources for
humans, which include finfish, crustaceans, and molluscs. In 2018, finfish (54.3 MTs) was
the most dominant aquatic animal produced from inland aquaculture (47 MTs), marine,
and coastal aquaculture (7.3 MTs), followed by molluscs mostly bivalves (17.7 MTs), crus-
taceans (9.4 MTs), marine invertebrates (435,400 Ts), aquatic turtles (370,000 Ts), and frogs
(131,300 Ts) [1,10].
Aquatic plants are photosynthetic organisms that utilize carbon, nutrients, and solar
energy to produce organic compounds, such as lipids, carbohydrates, protein, and pig-
ments [11–13]. Because of their advantages over terrestrial plants, aquatic plants are a
viable and competitive source of biomass [14]. Aquatic plants have high photosynthetic
efficiency, can produce biomass quickly, are resistant to a variety of pollutants, and can
be cultivated on land that would otherwise be unsuitable for other uses [15–17]. Due to
the wide range of their applications, such as aquaculture [18–22], biofuel [19,23,24], cos-
metics [11,14,25], functional foods [11,15,26], and pharmaceuticals [27,28], aquatic plants
gained more and more attention at industrial and academic scale, over the world [11,29].
On the other hand, bioremediation is a global concern [17,30–34], and in this regard, aquatic
plants are one of the most promising solutions [18,19,35–37]. In terms of environmental
aspects, algal cells (microalgae and/or macroalgae) can safely treat wide ranges of many
types of polluted waters, including agriculture [26,38–41], industrial, and aquaculture
wastewater via bioremediation process [18,19], which means that algal cells can convert
and transform highly toxic compounds into less biologically toxic chemicals, as well as at
the same time producing a variety high-valuable compounds [42,43].
Globally, the concept of aquatic plants (microalgae and seaweeds) production is a separate
concept from aquatic animals’ cultivation. In 2018, the seaweed aquaculture produced was
approximately 31.04 MTs [1]. For microalgae, the total recorded production was 87,000 tonnes.
However, the microalgae production is not correctly estimated as the statistics provided
by the important global producers are sometimes incorrect and confidential; FAO statistics
underestimate the true scale of microalgae cultivation globally [1,44,45]. Recently, extensive
studies have been conducted to develop the technologies used to enhance algal biomass.
Despite the problems faced by the production of microalgal biomass, the projected rise in the
global population will result in an increasing dependence on natural resources, favouring
relying on sustainable bio-resources, which does not bring microalgal biomass under high
consumption stress [44,46]. In the context of the blue revolution, the current review focuses on
the generations of integration between aquatic plants and aquatic animals, which can drive
low-cost, highly efficient, and sustainable aquaculture industry projects in the future (Figure 1).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

between aquatic plants and aquatic animals, which can drive low-cost, highly efficient,
and sustainable aquaculture industry projects in the future (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramofofthe
theintegration
integrationbetween aquatic
between animals
aquatic andand
animals plants.
plants.
2.
2. Cultivation Techniques
Cultivation Techniques
On one
one hand,
hand,microalgae
microalgae andand macroalgae
macroalgae cultivation
cultivation are included
are included in the widely
in the widely ac-
accepted concept
cepted concept of of aquaculture.
aquaculture. OnOnthethe other
other hand,
hand, algaealgae production
production is widely
is widely maintained
maintained
and
and regulated
regulated independently
independently of aquaculture globally [1,25,47]. [1,25,47]. In In the
the world
world of of aquacul-
aquaculture,
ture, several
several studiesstudies
havehavebeenbeen published
published acknowledging
acknowledging thatmicroalgae
that microalgaeare areconsidered
considered the
the “super
“super food” food” for aquatic
for all all aquatic animals
animals [48].
[48]. InIn thiscontext,
this context,thethenutritional
nutritional profiles
profiles (pro-
(protein,
tein, lipid, and carbohydrate) of algae
lipid, and carbohydrate) of algae (microalgae (microalgae and seaweed) in comparison
seaweed) in comparison with mostmost
with
commercially available
commercially availableaquafeed
aquafeedcomponents
componentsare presented
are presented in in
Table 1. 1.
Table
For all aquatic animals, microalgae are the best source
For all aquatic animals, microalgae are the best source of protein of protein (essential and and
(essential non-non-
essential amino acids, and peptides), lipid (poly and monounsaturated
essential amino acids, and peptides), lipid (poly and monounsaturated fatty acids fatty acids and and
phospholipids), carbohydrates
phospholipids), carbohydrates (mono (monoand andpolysaccharides),
polysaccharides),minerals
minerals(macro
(macroand andmicro-
micronu-
nutrients),
trients), andand vitamins
vitamins (A,(A,
B, B,
C, C,
E, E, riboflavin,
riboflavin, folic
folic acid,nicotinic
acid, nicotinicacid,
acid,and
andbiotin).
biotin).Microal-
Mi-
croalgae
gae also contain
also contain pigments
pigments (chlorophylls,
(chlorophylls, phycocyanin,
phycocyanin, xanthophylls,
xanthophylls, lutein,carotenoids,
lutein, carote-
noids, astaxanthin,
astaxanthin, phycobiliproteins,
phycobiliproteins, and and phytol),
phytol), as well
as well as biologically
as biologically activemolecules
active molecules (hy-
(hydrocarbons, alkaloids, terpenoids, and phenol), which have antimicrobial
drocarbons, alkaloids, terpenoids, and phenol), which have antimicrobial and antioxidant and antiox-
idant activities
activities [5,49,50].[5,49,50].
In general, algal cells could be utilized during all stages of aquaculture activities,
In general, algal cells could be utilized during all stages of aquaculture activities,
which mainly consist of three phases: (1) hatchery seeds and/or incubations; (2) early rear-
which mainly consist of three phases: (1) hatchery seeds and/or incubations; (2) early
ing and/or nurseries, and (3) on-growing and/or mass production. Microalgae were fed to
rearing and/or nurseries, and (3) on-growing and/or mass production. Microalgae were
the larvae, post-larvae, and juveniles of most aquatic animals, as well as adults of bivalve,
fed to the larvae, post-larvae, and juveniles of most aquatic animals, as well as adults of
mollusc, and crustacean species, and early developmental stages of some fish species, in
bivalve, mollusc, and crustacean species, and early developmental stages of some fish
hatcheries. Besides, it is the main feed for different zooplankton [5].
species, in hatcheries. Besides, it is the main feed for different zooplankton [5].
There are many forms of microalgae utilization in different aquaculture activities,
There are many forms of microalgae utilization in different aquaculture activities,
such as fresh form (live food), concentrated biomass (pastes), dried biomass, spry-dried,
such as fresh flakes,
freeze-dried, form (live food),
defatted concentrated
biomass biomass
(biodiesel-by (pastes),
product), anddried biomass,(wastes)
the residuals spry-dried,
freeze-dried, flakes, defatted biomass (biodiesel-by product), and
of bioindustries-based-microalgae. Because of their unique biochemical composition, the residuals (wastes) of
bioindustries-based-microalgae. Because of their unique biochemical
aquatic plants in the aquafeed industry are used as dietary supplements or as substitutes composition, aquatic
plants
for dietary ingredients, which are mainly fishmeal or fish oil [51,52]. On the other hand, for
in the aquafeed industry are used as dietary supplements or as substitutes
dietary
regarding ingredients,
the growing which are mainly
of aquatic animals,fishmeal
seaweedor can fish
be oil [51,52]. On
incorporated intothe
theother hand,
culture
regarding the growing of aquatic animals, seaweed can be incorporated into the culture
with different aquatic animals, which leads to positive sustainable, environmental, and
economic aspects [53].
Table 1. The typical nutritional profiles (protein, lipid, and carbohydrate, based on % of dry matter
DW) of the most commercially aquafeed components, compared to microalgae and seaweed species.
Biochemical Composition (%, Dry Weight Bases)

Item References
Protein Carbohydrate Lipid
The most Commercially Aquafeed Ingredients
Fish meal 63.00 11.00 12.5 [54]
Soybean 44.00 2.20 39.00 [55]
Corn-gluten meal 62.00 5.00 18.50 [56]
Wheat meal 12.20 2.90 69.00 [57]
Yeast (Saccharomyces
50.10 1.80 4.6 [58]
cerevisiae)
Hydrolyzed feather meal 84.00 10.40 - [59]
Amphipod meal
40.00 27.40 5.5.0 [60]
(Gammarus pulex)
Microalgae Species
Arthrospira platensis 50–65 8–14 4–9 [61,62]
Nannochloropsis 18–34 27–36 24–28 [61,63,64]
Chlorella vulgaris 51–58 2–17 14–22 [65]
Tetraselmis chuii 25 25 12 [63,66]
T. suecica 38.73 44.29 12.38 [21]
Isochrysis galbana 27 34 11 [67]
Botryococcus braunii 39–40 19–31 25–34 [63]
Pavlova sp. 24–29 6–9 9–14 [65,66]
Dunaliella salina 11–34 14–32 6–14 [65,67,68]
Scenedesmus obliquus 48–56 10–17 12–14 [66,69]
Phaeodactylum
34–38 11–17 13–20 [61,63]
tricornutum
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii 48 17 21 [66]
Haematococcus pluvialis 17–45 20–37 15–40 [70]
Skeletonema costatum 25 4–6 10 [66]
Chaetoceros muelleri 59.00 10.00 31.00 [71]
C. calcitrans 40.00 37.00 3.00 [71]
Chaetoceros sp. 12–59 4–37 7–31 [66]
Thalassiosira pseudonana 34.00 9.00 19.00 [66]
T. weissflogii 13.2 10.00 20.00 [72]
Porphyridium cruentum 28–39 40–57 9–14 [65]
Macroalgae Species
Eucheuma sp. 9.8–5.5 26.5–63 1–5 [73,74]
Kappaphycus sp. 3.4–6.2 65.2–55.7 1.1–1.5 [75,76]
Sargassum sp. 7.5–5.5 28–30 1.5–0.4 [74,77,78]
Gracilaria sp. 11–21 19–27 0.5–2.8 [74,79]
Pterocladia capillacea 17–20 47–51 1.7–2.5 [80]
Jania rubens 9–23 34–50 1–2.5 [80]
Ulva lactuca 12–20 42–46 2–4 [80]
Dictyota dichotoma 7–7.5 24–26 7–7.5 [27]
Turbinaria decurrens 32–33 2.5 5 [27]
Laurencia obtusa 21 4 3 [81]
Porphyra sp. 25–42 36 0.5 [82,83]
2.1. Microalgae as Livefeeds in Aquaculture Hatcheries

In the aquatic environment, microalgae are at the base of the food chain. As a result,
microalgae are critical for the commercial rearing of various types of aquatic animals
as a food source for all growth stages of bivalve, molluscs, sea cucumbers, seahorses,
larval stages of some crustacean species, and very early developmental stages of some
fish species [84,85]. Several species of microalgae have been tried as live food in marine
hatcheries, but only around ten species have become widely used in aquaculture. To
be useful in aquaculture, suitable microalgae species must possess several important
characteristics. These keys are (1) an acceptable ingestion size (from 1 to 15 µm for filter
feeders and 10 to 100 µm for grazers), (2) high digestibility, (3) fast growth rate, (4) easy for
mass production, (5) adapted to environmental conditions, (6) cultivable under nutrient
limitation, and (7) good nutritional content [5,86].
In aquatic habitats, as presented in Table 2, phytoplankton organisms (microalgae) are

the basic food in the aquatic food chain [87] that provides all nutritional requirements to the
wild zooplankton species, such as rotifers, copepods, amphipods, and daphnia, which are
sequentially utilized as live feeds for crustaceans, fish, and fish larvae [88–90]. In marine
hatcheries, microalgae (phytoplankton) are utilized and cultured to nourish zooplankton
(rotifers, copepods, and artemia), which in turn are used as feed for fish and shellfish [5].
The most important zooplankton live-feed species used in marine hatcheries are
rotifers, artemia, and copepods [91,92]. The two global species of rotifer are Brachionus
plicatilis and B. rotundiformis [93]. For the rearing of marine larvae, two species of artemia
(Artemia franciscana and A. salina) are more widely and commercially used in marine
hatcheries [94]. As well, several copepod species were commercially produced, such as
Oithona nana, Acartia spp., O. rigida, Bestiolina sp., Temora stylifera, Nannocalanus minor,
Paracalanus pas, Table 2, [95–101]. In general, all unicellular microalgae species are stable for
the production and rearing of rotifers, artemia, and copepods, while the microalgae species
differ in their importance for rotifers due to several characteristics, such as their morpholog-
ical states, cell wall, cell volume, digestibility, form, and their nutritional values [102]. On
the other hand, there are several feeding protocols to enrich the biochemical composition
(such as enhancing the content of PUFAs, HUFAs, EPA, and DHA) of zooplankton by the
microalgae, before using these zooplankton species as prey [93,103,104].
Recently, the demand for shrimp has been globally increasing due to their nutritional
value [105]. Pacific white leg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, has been extensively hatched
and cultivated worldwide (the production in 2018 is about 52.91 × 1000 Ts), due to their
disease tolerance, rapid metamorphoses, high growth, and survival rate of larvae and post
larvae, and ease of culture in several systems. The Pacific white leg shrimp followed by the
Giant Black Tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon (the production in 2018 is about 7.99 × 1000
Ts) [1]. Until now, all shrimp species still depend on live diatoms and microalgae as essential
live feeds during larval stages (Nauplius, Zoea, Mysis, and early postlarval stages) [106].
Among all the microalgae classes, the diatoms (Class: Bacillariophyceae) are among the best
suitable microalgae for marine shrimp larval rearing in naupulius (N5 and N6 ), zoea (Z1 to
Z3 ), mysis (M1 to M3 ), and postlarval (PLs) stages, due to their physiological (like small
cell volume size, fast growth, and easy to culture) and nutritional aspects (especially high
content of EPA, DHA, and PUFA) [107], such as Chaetoceros [108], Skeletonema, Detonula [109],
T. weissflogii [72], Phaeodactylum, Nitzschia, and Navicula [106]. Besides diatom species,
some genera have been extensively utilized in shrimp larval due to their high nutritional
aspects, such as Isochrysis [108], Tetraselmis, Tisochrysis, Dunaleilla [110], Chlorella [111], and
Nannochloropsis [112], (Table 2). Rohani-Ghadikolaei et al. [108] concluded that P. indicus
larvae fed on a mixture of I. galbana and C. muelleri showed higher significant survival,
growth, and development than larvae fed on single species. In this study, six species
of macroalgae (U. lactuca, Enteromorpha intestinalis, Colpomenia sinuosa, S. ilicifolium, G.
corticata, and Hypnea valentiae) were used in the form of liquid seaweed extract (SWE) as
supplementation to F/2 medium. However, the results found that I. galbana and C. muelleri
cultured with the SWE supplementation can be widely utilized, as an alternative low-cost
method for F/2 media preparation, in the production of livefoods to produce shrimp larvae
in the marine hatcheries.
In all bivalves’ life cycle, microalgae are the main food source. According to the
literature, the microalgae genera of Tetraselmis, Chaetoceros, Skeletonema, Isochrysis, Pavlova,
Schizochytrium, Cyclotella, Hematococcus, Phaeodactylum, Tisochrysis, Arthrospira, and Tha-
lassiosira are the most recommended live feed species for several commercial bivalves
(Table 2), such as Pacific oyster, C. gigas, juvenile of scallop, Pecten fumatus, larvae and
juvenile of Sydney rock oyster, S. glomerata, larvae of Manila clam, T. Philippinarum, larvae
of grooved carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus, juveniles of Pacific geoduck clam, Panopea
generosa, larvae of giant clam, Tridacna noae [113–124]. Microalgal species of Isochrysis,
Pavlova salina, C. simplex, Micromonas sp., Chaetoceros sp., and S. costatum as live feeds for
significantly enhanced the nutritional value and increased the growth performances and
survival rate of larvae of the black-lip pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) [125,126].
Sea cucumbers are one of the most profitable aquatic animal species worldwide, attributed
to their nutritional and pharmacological applications [127]. Developing appropriate feeding
protocols that improve the growth, enhance metamorphosis and settlement, increase the
survival rate, and improve the nutritional value of larvae, juveniles, and even adults of several
commercial sea cucumber species (Table 2) have received global attention. The live feed diets
of C. calcitrans, C. muelleri, C. gracilis, I. galbana, Isochrysis sp., T. chuii, T. suecica, T. tetrathele, D.
tertiolecta, P. lutheri, P. tricornutum, T. pseudonana, A. platensis, Dicrateria inornata, Rhodomonas sp.,
Cylindrotheca fusiformis, and Nitzschia closterium were utilized in the commercial production of
several sea cucumber species. The using of these species significantly increased the survival
rate, enhanced metamorphosis, and improved the nutritional value and energy contents of
larval and juvenile stages of several sea cucumber species, such as sandfish, Holothuria scabra,
Selenka, Apostichopus japonicus, red sea cucumber, Parastichopus tremulus and California sea
cucumber, P. californicus [128–131]. Among all the examined microalgae species, the marine
diatom species C. calcitrans was the only specie that achieved significant larval survival, growth,
development, and metamorphosis [130–132].
Sea urchins and seahorses are valuable food products and have many nutritional,
pharmacological, and therapeutic properties, besides their positive impacts on environmen-
tal ecosystems. Globally, these valuable aquatic animals are facing overfishing and their
fisheries are in decline. On the other hand, the hatching, larval rearing, and aquaculture
trails of these important aquatic animals are a positive point for their future [133,134].
According to the previous literature, many microalgal species such as Isochrysis sp., C.
gracilis, C. muelleri, S. pseudocostatum, P. lutheri, P. viridis, T. suecica, D. tertiolecta, Cricosphaera
elongata, Pleurochrysis carterae, C. vulgaris, Platymonas subcordiformis, and D. zhanjiangensis
were reported as recommended live feeds for larvae stages of several sea urchin species,
such as Tripneustes gratilla, Paracentrotus lividus, and Anthocidaris crassispina, as presented in
Table 2 [135–137]. Many studies, on the other hand, reported that feeding N. oculata or I.
galbana to longsnout seahorse (Hippocampus reidi) juveniles resulted in significantly higher
survival, ingestion rate, and growth performances [78,134,138–140].
2.2. Microalgae Biomass

Microalgae have traditionally been used as live feeds for a wide range of aquatic
animal organisms, and it is essential to increase the nutritional value (quality) and mass
production (quantity) of cultured zooplankton species. Microalgae production is the critical
point in marine hatcheries because it involves many risk factors that make it un-vaccinable.
Live feeds produced in marine hatcheries represent more than 50% of the total production
costs for marine larvae production [141]. Previously, these problems have prompted many
researchers to seek forage sources other than live microalgae, such as yeasts [142], micro-
particulate diets [143], micro-encapsulated, and inert food [144] microalgae paste [145],
and microalgae past in the form of free lipid biomass, as a biodiesel by-product [62,64].
The microalgae biomass concentrate has many forms, such as dried biomass, freeze-dried,
pastes, flakes, defatted (biodiesel by-product), and microalgae by-products of bioindustries-
based-microalgae [145].
Microalgae concentrates are preserved using a variety of techniques [86]. When
fresh live microalgae are well harvested, treated, protected, and appropriately stored,
they can significantly replace live microalgae as diets utilized to raise marine larval and
juvenile stages, adults of bivalves, molluscs, and abalone, as well as shrimp larvae, and
different zooplankton species in marine hatcheries [62,64,101]. Microalgae concentrates
have achieved the most promising results in total or partial (mixed diet) substitution of the
traditional live feed supply in marine hatcheries [62,64,114,146].
Due to many reasons, aquatic organisms (animals and plants) are the richest in their
valuable bioactive compounds contents on the planet [27,147,148]. Microalgae (live feeds)
provide all aquatic animals with their necessary bioactive compounds, besides the bioactive
mass molecules (proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates) that are needed for their growth and
metamorphosis. On the other hand, the transformation of microalgae from live feeds to
microalgae biomass concentrates renders them free from ciliated protozoa, which act as a
contamination source and the main fierce enemy for different marine larvae [145].
Recently, potential applications of different forms (live, dried biomass, freeze-dried
biomass, defatted biomass, dried biomass loaded with NH4 or toxic dye of aquaculture
effluent or industrial wastewater treatment, respectively) of several microalgal species
(Arthrospira platensis NIOF17/003, Nannochloropsis oceanica NIOF15/001, N. oculata, I. lutea,
Rhodomonas sp., Cryptomonad sp., and P. salina) were positively applied for zooplankton
species, such as rotifer, B. plicatilis [18,19,62,142], artemia, A. franciscana [64], and several
copepods species, such as O. nana [101], Acartia sinjiensis [149], Pseudodiaptomus euryhali-
nus [150], or Cyclopina kasignete [151].
The harvesting process is the separation of microalgal biomass from the culture
medium using several techniques, including centrifugation, filtration, sedimentation, flota-
tion, chemical and biological flocculation [11]. Harvesting (dewatering) of microalgae is a
challenging process, which is attributed to many factors [13]. Several studies have been
conducted to investigate the potential of harvested microalgae (even sun-dried form, paste
form, or freeze-dried) as a substitution and/or a complete alteration of shrimp larvae live
feeds; however, the life form of microalgae is still the best nutritional and optimal feeds for
shrimp larvae [152–156].
Microalgal species of P. lutheri, I. galbana; Tetraselmis sp.; C. calcitrans; C. muelleri, which
were harvested and stored for six to eight weeks, achieved adequate survival and growth
of the larvae and the juvenile of Sydney rock oyster (S. glomerata) similar to the live feeds
form of the same algal species [116]. Ponis et al. [157] found that no significant differences
in growth or survival were obtained when the larvae of Pacific oyster (C. gigas) reared on
fresh or the preserved biomass of P. lutheri. The commercial products of dried microalgal
species of Isochrysis sp. (Isochrysis 1800® ), and T. pseudonana, Tetraselmis sp., Pavlova sp., T.
weissflogii, and C. calcitrans (Shellfish Diet 1800® ) confirmed comparable results to those of
the same live feeds that traditionally used in the commercial production of sea cucumber
H. scabra (sand fish) larvae and juveniles in marine hatcheries [158]. Recently, Yu et al. [159]
studied the potential of Shellfish Diet 1800® and the dried powder of seaweed Saccharina
latissima and Ascophyllum nodosum as dried feed for the adult individuals of the orange-
footed sea cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa). The results obtained from this study found
that the physiological characteristics of adult C. frondosa are similar in both of those fed
dried microalgae and seaweeds, and they concluded that the powdered seaweed diet is a
promising feed source for intensive aquaculture of adult individuals of C. frondosa.
As well, the dried microalgae product, Shellfish Diet 1800® , has been reported as
a good feed for larvae of sea urchin (P. lividus) [133]. The juveniles of white sea urchin
(T. gratilla) fed and reared for 20 days on U. pertusa, Gloiopeltis furcata, Undaria pinnatifida,
and mixtures of them (1:1:1) showed different specific growth rates, fatty acid profiles, and
feed conversion efficiencies, which were attributed to the different fatty acid (FAs) profiles
of selected seaweeds [160]. Lyons and Scheibling [161] found that the mixed diet of seaweed
species (Laminaria longicruris and Codium fragile) may be the best feeding strategy for food
preference and feeding rate of the green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis).
2.3. Algae as Aqua-Feed Additives and/or Replacement of Diet Ingredient

Fish nutritionist needs to develop and improve nutritionally balanced diets using com-
monly available raw ingredients. The disadvantages of fishmeal and fish oil have motivated
aquatic feed producers to reduce their use of forage fish by partially substituting terrestrial
plant ingredients. Furthermore, due to competition for aquafeed ingredients from produc-
ers of other animal feed and human nutritional supplements, aquafeed manufacturers are
also seeing actual increases in fishmeal prices [162,163]. In general, the most limiting factors
that influence the inclusion of aquatic plants (microalgae and/or seaweeds) in the diets
of aquatic animals are (1) the form of inclusion, and (2) the level of inclusion [21,22,24,39].
Microalgae have greater potential for aquaculture than macroalgae or other plant sources
due to their higher nutritional value, high growth rate, and availability of several species
that have wide ranges of culture conditions, simpler production processes, and have high
levels of antioxidants, probiotics, antimicrobial, and colouring compounds, all of which are
important variables in fish and invertebrate aquaculture [61,164]. The use of microalgae as
feed additives and/or fishmeal replacement is limited by several factors, such as availabil-
ity, ease of digestion, high production cost, the potential of mass production, and overall
high value. However, not all microalgal species are compatible in supporting the survival
and growth of aquatic animals [164,165].
Many studies have reported that the inclusion of microalgae in different aquatic
animals increased survival, growth performance, feed utilization, enhanced health sta-
tus, improved gut health, coloration, and stimulated immune response [164]. The 1.2%
inclusion of Schizochytrium sp. meal in the diet of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) posi-
tively influenced the gut microbiota and improved the overall health of the Nile tilapia,
O. niloticus [166].
A diet of white leg shrimp, L. vannamei, supplemented with 1–2% of D. salina signifi-
cantly increased their survival rate [167]. The weight gain of the post-larvae of L. vannamei
was increased by 30% when a diet contained 7.5 g kg−1 of microalga T. suecica, compared
to the control diet [21]. Replacement of fish meal with 6–8% C. vulgaris improved the
immune response of post-larvae of the Macrobrachium rosenbergii, along with improved
survival against the infection of Aeromonas hydrophila [168]. The inclusion of N. gaditana,
T. chuii, and P. tricornutum improved growth performance and enhanced the immune ac-
tivity of gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata [169]. Rohu fish, Labeo rohita, achieved increased
immunostimulatory effects when fed the biomass of Euglena viridis besides improving
survival against A. hydrophila [170]. According to the literature, aqua-diets supplemented
with Arthrospira have significantly improved the coloration of different aquatic animals
such as Koi, Red tilapia, Striped jack, Yellow catfish, and Black tiger prawn [171–173]. Sun
et al. [174] cited that the pigmentation of koi fish was positively enhanced by the inclusion
rate of 7.5% A. platensis. Ribeiro et al. [175] reported that a diet supplemented with 2.5% of
a diatom, containing a high level of fucoxanthin, P. tricornutum, improved the bright yellow
pigmentation of gilthead seabream. Liu et al. [173] cited that 0.4% Spirulina-lipid-extract
and 4% defatted-Spirulina had significantly improved skin coloration of the yellow catfish
Pelteobagrus fulvidraco.
On the other hand, macroalgae (seaweeds), either in the form of whole dry weight
and/or their extracts, has recently shown excellent potential as feed additives, attributed to
their high levels of pigments, antioxidants and antimicrobial compounds, and secondary
metabolites, and cell walls like the saccharides (mono, poly, oligo, and lipo), which support
the immunity of aquatic animals [24,39,164]. Interestingly, previous research concluded
that using a commercial seaweed liquid extract (TrueAlgaeMax, TAM® ) as aqua-feed ad-
ditive significantly promoted growth performance, improved zooplankton community,
enhanced non-specific immune responses of Nile tilapia O. niloticus challenged with A. hy-
drophila [24]. Meanwhile, the utilization of high levels of seaweeds as feed additives lead
to low digestibility, due to their high excess of heavy metals content and the existence
of anti-nutritional factors like amylase and trypsin inhibitors, lectins, phlorotannins, and
phytic acids [164].
In another study, seaweed species of Ecklonia radiata, S. linearifolium, Gracilaria sp.,
Lophocladia kuetzingii, and U. lactuca have been successfully utilized as stimulant dry feed
additives for the regime of the sea urchin T. gratilla. These selected macroalgae-dry-
additives significantly increased the growth performance, feed intake, energy, and protein
consumption of T. gratilla [176]. At different protein and lipid levels, the dried seaweed
(Sargassum spp., Solieria robusta, and U. lactuca) were used, as a single or multiple, as
a feed additive to the diet of sea urchin (Heliocidaris erythrogramma), which improved
gonad indices [177].
2.4. Algae as a Water Conditioner

Algae as water conditioner is a technology that uses microalgae, macroalgae, or their
extracts and phytochemical compounds, as water optimizers, which leads to improved
growth performances, control of pathogenic bacteria, increased disease resistance, im-
proved feed efficiency, and stimulation of the immunity of cultured aquatic animals [39].
The technique of rearing aquatic animals/larvae in the presence of microalgae called “green
water technology” is common and usually connected with higher survival and growth
rates than larvae reared in clear water [93,178]. Green water technology is to manage the
rearing environment in aquaculture [53]. In this technology, microalgae, microbes, and
zooplankton were abundant in rearing ponds where fish larvae were kept. This technology
can be based on natural microalgal populations that are stimulated to flourish with the
addition of fertilizer, or cultured microalgae strains can be inoculated to culture tanks if the
system water has been pre-treated to exclude competing bacteria [48].
Several authors have indicated that the better growth and survival rates in this tech-
nique are mainly attributed to (1) achieving better direct and indirect feeding of larvae, (2)
lower stress levels, (3) improving environmental conditions for feeding by increasing turbid-
ity, light, and enhanced visual contrast, (4) increased oxygenation rates, and (5) increased
antibacterial properties in rearing ponds [53]. There are various mechanisms associated
with the profitable and beneficial effects of green water, such as the production of bioactive
compounds by algal cells, which have antibacterial and antioxidant substances that control
virulence genes [179,180]. Chlorella, N. gaditana, Nannochloropsis sp., I. galbana, Isochrysis sp.,
and Tetraselmis sp. are the most common microalgal species used for this purpose [49,181].
Green water is generally a low-cost technique. For example, shrimp grown in “green
water” costs US $1–3 kg–1 , while shrimp feed on the traditional diet costs US $4–8 kg–1 [182,183].
In this technology, the survival rates are increased and the fry rearing conditions have improved
for several commercial aquatic animal species, such as Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) [184], Tilapia
(mosambique and Nile hybrid) [185], Pacific white shrimp (P. vannamei) [186], Giant Tiger
shrimp (P. monodon) [187], banana prawn (Fenneropenaeus merguiensis) [188], gilthead seabream
(S. aurata) [93,178], red sea bream (Pagrus auratus), Australian bass (Macquaria novemaculeata),
dusky flathead (Platycephalus fuscus), and sand whiting fish (Sillago ciliata) [188].
On the other hand, seaweed extract has recently shown excellent potential as a water-
conditioner. Few studies have been conducted on this important point. Interestingly,
previous studies concluded that the addition of the commercial seaweed liquid extract
(TrueAlgaeMax, TAM® , prepared from U. lactuca, J. rubens, and P. capillacea) as an aqua-
culture water conditioner significantly enhanced the growth performance, improved zoo-
plankton community and abundance, and enhanced non-specific immune responses of O.
niloticus challenged with A. hydrophila [39].
2.5. Seaweed Co-Culture and Integration with Aquatic Animals

The commercial integration of seaweed with aquatic animals has shown various ben-
efits to aquaculturists and allows for large quantities of additional valuable aquaculture
products to be produced in the coastal area, in addition to providing many benefits to the
aquaculture environment. Combining economic and valuable seaweeds in aquaculture
can improve the economic yields of aquatic animals by reducing the environmental con-
sequences without increasing pressure on crowded coastal areas and resources [189]. In
all cases, the growth and survival rates for seaweed and co-cultured aquatic animals were
positively increased above those reported in commercial monoculture [190]. The use of
seaweed in polyculture systems can assist in improving the value of aquaculture products
by removing up to 80% or 90% of inorganic wastes and nitrogen, resulting in a positive
impact on resource utilization efficiency [190,191]. In this type of culture system, seaweed
captures inorganic nutrients in the water and converts them into profitable biomass [192].
Various Gracilaria species have shown their great ability to remove nutrients from fish and
shrimp effluents, promote growth and survival, and act as a natural food source for many
aquatic species [190,193,194]. Moreover, the same positive effects have been demonstrated
when using Ulva sp. [195–197]. Beltran-Gutierrez et al. [198] concluded that co-cultivation
of red seaweed, Kappaphycus striatum, and sea cucumber, H. scabra, is a highly effective
co-culture system of lagoons, lakes, and tropical climates. This type of culture is proposed
as a promising alternative to the coastal livelihood alternative for lagoon and lake growers
in tropical climates because it makes better use of limited coastal land than monoculture.
However, seaweeds are important biological filters, because they can remove soluble in-
organic components from aquaculture effluents and are cheap to use, even for beginner
farmers [190,191,198].
Besides the simplistic view of seaweed cultivation, as a single product, seaweeds
can be incorporated into an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) to solve various
environmental problems in aquaculture [199,200]. The IMTA model is recognized by
breeding species from various trophic levels close to one other. As a result, the co-products
(organic and inorganic wastes) of one cultured species are recycled as food inputs for the
others [201]. Because of the integrated aspect of this type of aquaculture, there is no need
to use chemical fertilizers to promote seaweed growth, and sustainability and profitability
are not affected [202]. IMTA can decrease environmental impacts around aquaculture
systems, through product diversity, faster production cycles, and financial advantages to
aquaculture operators and enhancing societal views of aquaculture. In the IMTA concept,
nutrients produced by aquatic animals, rich in ammonia and phosphate, are dissolved into
the water and absorbed, and transformed by other microorganisms into useful biomass
while keeping stable levels of oxygen, pH, and CO2 [203–205]. Some of the advantages of
the IMTA system include utilizing the remains of the diet of finfish by shellfish (organic)
and seaweeds (inorganic) extractive aquaculture, taking advantage of the enrichment in
dissolved inorganic nutrients [206]. The most recent studies reported that the seaweed
biomass produced by the IMTA system was higher, compared to wild seaweed as well as
monoculture seaweed. In addition, IMTA-based seaweeds are characterized as a source
of improved biochemical composition, protein profiles, potent bioactive compounds, and
techno-functional components [207]. In conclusion, Table 2 focused on some examples of
the application types, generations of integration, and interactions between aquatic plants
and aquatic animals in the different phases of aquaculture activities.
Table 2. The applications and the interactions of the generations of integration between aquatic plants
and aquatic animals, in the different phases of aquaculture activities.
Integration/Applications
Aquatic Animal Species Aquatic Plant Species Results/Interactions References
Type
Zooplankton
N. salina, N. oculata, N.
Improved egg production,
gaditana, Nannochloropsis
hatchability, filtration and
sp., Nannochloris sp., C.
ingestion rates,
Rotifers (B. plicatilis and B. salina, Chlorella sp.,
productivity, population,
rotundiformis), artemia (A. Dunaleilla salina, C.
sex ratio, growth
Live Feeds franciscana and Artemia calcitrans, Chaetoceros sp., I.
performance, survival
sp.), and copepods galbana; T. chuii, T. suecica, [94–100,102,103]
rates, reproductive
(Bestiolina sp., T. stylifera, P. lutheri, Coscinodiscus sp.,
behaviour. In addition,
O. rigida, N. minor, Acartia S. costatum,
enhance the biochemical
spp., Paracalanus pas). Pseudo-nitzschia sp.,
composition; PUFAs;
Prorocentrum sp.,
HUFAs; EPA; and DHA
Rhodomonas sp., and
contents.
Navicula sp.
Table 2. Cont.
Type
Shrimp
The larvae that fed on
Chaetoceros, Skeletonema, different diatom species
Larvae of Pacific white leg Thalassiosira, Detonula, achieved a higher survival
shrimp, L. vannamei, Giant Phaeodactylum, Nitzschia, rate, growth, body
[106,109,110,112,154,167,
Tiger shrimp, P. monodon, Navicula Isochrysis, composition,
208,209]
and Kuruma shrimp, Tetraselmis, development, digestive
Marsupenaeus japonicus. Nannochloropsis, Chlorella, capability, and digestive
Dunaliella, and Tisochrysis enzyme activities, than the
other microalgae genera.
I. galbana and C. muelleri Microalgae cultured with
cultured with F/2 media F/2 media supplemented
supplemented with with SWE can be widely
Larvae of Giant tiger seaweed liquid extract utilized as an alternative
[108]
shrimp, P. monodon (SWE) of U. lactuca, E. low-cost media in the
intestinalis, C. sinuosa, S. production of live foods
ilicifolium, G. corticata, and for the production of
H. valentiae. shrimp larvae P. monodon.
Bivalve
Larvae and juvenile of
Pacific oyster, C. gigas,
juvenile of scallop, Pecten
fumatus, larvae and
juvenile of Sydney rock
oyster, S. glomerata, larvae Bivalves larvae and
of Manila clam, T. juveniles fed on the live
Tetraselmis, Chaetoceros,
philippinarum, larvae of form of microalgae
Skeletonema, Isochrysis,
grooved carpet shell showed increased survival
Pavlova, Schizochytrium,
Ruditapes decussatus, rates, enhanced growth,
Cyclotella, Hematococcus, [113–124]
juveniles of Pacific nutritional value, body
Phaeodactylum, Tisochrysis,
geoduck clam, Panopea composition filtration,
A. platensis, and
generosa, larvae of Giant ingestion rates, and
Thalassiosira
clam, Tridacna noae, larvae improved digestibility
and juvenile of some rates.
important commercial
bivalves of Ostrea edulis,
Mercenaria mercenaria, T.
semidecussata, and Mytilus
galloprovincialis
Sea Cucumber
Increased the survival rate,
enhanced metamorphosis,
C. gracilis, I. galbana, and T. settlement, and improved
Larvae of sandfish H. chuii, Rhodomonas sp., and the nutritional value of
[128,131]
scabra T. tetrathele (single or larvae.
mixed diets). Improved the larval
survival, development,
and growth.
Among all the examined
C. calcitrans, C. muelleri, D. species, the diatom species
tertiolecta, Isochrysis sp., P. C. calcitrans was the best
Larvae of California sea
lutheri, P. tricornutum, T. species that achieved [130]
cucumber, P. californicus
suecica, and T. pseudonana significant larval survival,
(single or mixed diets). growth, and
metamorphosis.
The juvenile growth,
A. platensis, D. inornata,
Juvenile of Selenka, A. energy contents, and
Cylindrotheca fusiformis, [129]
japonicus nutritional value were
and N. Closterium.
improved.
D. tertiolecta, I. galbana, Low food availability
Adults red sea cucumber,
and T. chuii (a mixture of (10–20 × 103 cell mL–1 ) [132]
P. tremulus
them). resulted in high mortality.
Table 2. Cont.
Type
Sea Urchin
Isochrysis sp., C. muelleri, S.
Isochrysis sp., C. muelleri, S.
Larvae of white-spined pseudocostatum, and are
pseudocostatum, P. lutheri, [135]
sea urchin, T. gratilla the best significant species
and T. suecica,
for the rearing of larvae.
When larvae fed on C.
elongata, P. carterae, and D.
tertiolecta, the
metamorphosis was
D. tertiolecta, T. suecica, C. successfully enhanced.
Larvae of P. lividus [136]
elongata, and P. carterae. Larvae fed on C. elongata
had 300% and 20% higher
survival and development
rates than larvae fed on P.
carterae and D. tertiolecta.
There were significant
differences in the larvae’s
survival and growth. The
C. gracilis, P. viridis, C.
highest level was recorded
vulgaris, Platymonas
by the larvae fed on D.
subcordiformis, D.
Larvae of A. crassispina. zhanjiangensis followed by [137]
zhanjiangensis, and mixture
C. gracilis, P. viridis, C.
of C. gracilis, and D.
vulgari, and, finally, the
zhanjiangensis.
mixture of D.
zhanjiangensis and C.
gracilis.
Seahorses
The survival, ingestion
rate, and growth of the
Juveniles of longsnout juveniles were
N. oculate, and I. galbana. [78,134,138–140]
seahorse, H. reidi. significantly higher in the
treatment that fed on N.
oculata or I.
Zooplankton
Applications of
Rotifers, B. plicatilis and B.
freeze-dried N. oculata can
rotundiformis, used in N. oculata (live and
be used successful with [93,178,210]
larvae rearing of Gilthead freeze-dried forms).
100% survival and without
seabream, S. aurata.
affecting water quality.
All examined species
I. galbana, C. muelleri, P. could apply to relative
lutheri, and enriched PUFA, EPA, and
Rotifer, B. plicatilis. Nannochloropsis sp. (live DHA levels in the rotifer, [104]
and frozen-concentrated even in live and/or
forms). frozen-concentrated
forms.
Biomass
Unlive species of
freeze-dried N. oculata and
N. oculata (freeze-dried), A.
dried A. platensis resulted
platensis (dried),
Rotifer, B. plicatilis. in an adequate rotifer [142]
comparing to baker’s
population and
yeast S. cerevisiae (dried).
population growth rate,
comparing to yeast.
There was a significant
increase in rotifer females
A. platensis NIOF17/003 carrying eggs and
Rotifer, B. plicatilis. (defatted, biodiesel population when fed free [62]
by-product). lipid A. platensis
NIOF17/003 at a level of
0.6 g L–1 .
Table 2. Cont.
Type
Rotifers are highly
sensitive to the dried
biomass of A. platensis
A. platensis NIOF17/003
loaded with ammonia
(dried form), loaded with
levels or toxic dyes.
Rotifer, B. plicatilis. aquaculture effluent based [18,19]
Overall, the dried A.
ammonia or toxic dye
platensis loaded with
(Ismate violet 2R, IV2R).
ammonia levels is a
potential feed source for
rotifers.
Applying defatted
biomass of N. oceanica
N. oceanica NIOF15/001
NIOF15/001 at 0.1 g L−1
Artemia, A. franciscana. (Defatted biodiesel [64]
significantly enhanced
by-product).
growth (40%) and survival
(500%) of A. franciscana.
The copepod C. kasignete
that fed Melosira sp. (live
Melosira sp. and N. oculata
or dried form) achieved
Copepod, Cyclopina (dried form), compared to
higher EPA, DHA, ARA [151]
kasignete. I. lutea and N. oculata (live
contents, trypsin, and
form).
protease activities than
other microalga species.
Shrimp
The survival, growth, and
beneficial bacterial count
in the gut of marine
Larvae and postlarval of shrimp, L. vannamei, was
Chaetoceros sp.
Pacific white leg shrimp, L. significantly increased by [155]
(freeze-dried).
vannamei. the addition of
freeze-dried Chaetoceros sp.
directly in the culture
water of propped.
Larvae fed the sun-dried
Chaetoceros sp. and
Sun-dried Chaetoceros sp., Tetraselmis sp. had good
Larvae of Giant tiger Isochrysis sp., and survival and growth
[152]
shrimp, P. Monodon. Tetraselmis, compared the performance, compared to
live form of Chaetoceros sp. the sun-dried Isochrysis sp.
and the live form of
Chaetoceros sp.
Larval metamorphosis,
survival, beneficial
bacterial count and
C. muelleri and T. stability, digestive
Larvae of Giant tiger weissflogii in live form capability, and digestive
[154]
shrimp, P. monodon. comparing to Arthrospira enzyme activities of larvae
powder. fed the microalgae life
form were significantly
higher than those of the
Arthrospira powder.
Replacement of live
Chaetoceros sp. in partial or
Larvae growth
total replacement using
performances were
Larvae of brown shrimp, their paste form
significantly lower than [153]
Farfantepenaeus aztecus. (Chaetoceros 1000® ,
the control “live
Premium Fresh Instant
Chaetoceros sp.”
Algae™ paste) and other
inert feeds.
Table 2. Cont.
Type
The microcapsules
(application contains the
extracts of Tetraselmis and
Partial replacement of
Skeletonema) improved the
Larvae of Indian prawn, P. Tetraselmis and Skeletonema
survival and growth of the [156]
indicus. with a freeze dried
P. indicus larval stages,
microencapsulated diets.
besides reducing their
reliance on microalgae life
forms.
Bivalves
No significant differences
in growth or survival
Larvae of Pacific oyster, C. P. lutheri (biomass
between the larvae reared [86]
gigas. compared to live form).
on the fresh and the
preserved biomass.
P. lutheri (concentrated as
Larvae of Pacific oyster, C. in growth or survival
replacing live C. calcitrans [113]
gigas. compared to the control
of 50–80%).
live form.
There were no significant
Larvae of Pacific oyster, C. T. suecica (concentrated differences in larval
[211]
gigas. compared to live form). growth compared to the
control live form.
C. calcitrans, S. costatum; I. There were no significant
galbana (concentrates as differences in larvae and
Larvae and juvenile of
partial replacement or juvenile growth rates [86]
Pacific oyster, C. gigas.
supplementation, compared to the live
compared to live form). forms.
C. calcitrans, S. costatum
Juvenile of Pacific oyster, differences in juvenile
(concentrated, compared [115]
C. gigas growth compared to the
to live form)
live forms.
Improved the growth
Juveniles Scallop, C. gigas, C. muelleri (concentrated,
performances of [114]
and Pecten fumatus. compared to live form).
juveniles.
The survival rates and
P. lutheri, I. galbana,
growth performance of
Larvae and juveniles of Tetraselmis sp., C. calcitrans,
bivalves (larval and
Sydney rock oyster, S. C. muellei (concentrated [116]
juvenile) are equal to that
commercialis and storage for 6–8
achieved by the microalgal
weeks).
live forms.
Similar and/or higher
P. lutheri, I. galbana, C.
Larvae of Sydney rock growth performance than
calcitrans (mixed [212]
oyster, S. commercialis larvae fed the control live
concentrated).
forms.
Larval growth was similar
Larvae Manila clam, T. T. suecica; Nannochloris sp.
to that of the same live [118]
Philippinarum. (spray-dried)
species.
Juvenile of five important
commercial bivalve The juvenile growth was
T. suecica (spray-dried),
species (C. gigas, O. edulis, similar to live
compared to live T. suecica; [117]
M. mercenaria, T. Tetraselmis, while less than
C. calcitrans.
philippinarum, and T. C. calcitrans.
decussata).
Schizochytrium sp.
Similar juvenile growth
Juveniles C. gigas and T. (spray-dried as a 40%
compared to the control [120]
Semidecussata. partial replacement of the
live form.
live form).
Juveniles of C. gigas, T. T. suecica; Cyclotella
differences in juvenile
philippinarum, and O. cryptica (mixed [119]
growth compared to the
edulis. spray-dried, 70:30%).
live form.
Table 2. Cont.
Type
Growth performances of
Juveniles of Schizochytrium sp.; A. juvenile fed spray-dried
Mediterranean mussels M. Platensis; Hematococcus algae were significantly [121]
galloprovincialis pluvialis (spray-dried). higher than those of live
feeds form.
The growth of larvae fed
Larvae Ruditapes
I. galbana; T. suecica; P. freeze-dried algal species
decussatus (Grooved carpet [122]
tricornutum (freeze-dried). was significantly lower
shell).
than that of live feeds.
C. muelleri; Tisochrysis
Low significant growth
lutea; Schizochytrium sp.; A.
Juveniles of Pacific rates of juveniles were
platensis (spray-dried as a
Geoduck Clam Panopea obtained when replacing [123]
different partial
generosa. 25–50% of the live forms
replacement of the live
with spray-dried.
form).
Growth of umbo larvae
fed a 1:1 mixture of fresh
T. suecica (dried in a
Juveniles of black-lip pearl algae and dried Tetraselmis
mixture of 1:1 with the life [213]
oyster, P. margaritifera. was significantly greater
form).
than that of those fed live
forms.
All experimented
microalgae were ingested
and, thereafter, digested
Isochrysis sp., Pavlova sp.,
Larvae of Giant clam, by larvae, confirming that
Tetraselmis sp., T. [124]
Tridacna noae. the investigated algae
weissflogii.
concentrates were a good
food source for the giant
clam larvae.
Seacucumber
Significantly increased the
survival rate, enhanced
growth performance, and
Larvae of sandfish, H. Isochrysis sp., Pavlova sp.,
improved the nutritional [214]
scabra. and T. weissflogii.
value of larvae. Besides, it
reduced larvae production
cost.
Isochrysis 1800® (Isochrysis
sp.), and the product The examined microalgal
named Shellfish Diet concentrates confirm
1800® (consisting of a mix comparable results to
of Isochrysis sp., T. those of the same live
Larvae of sandfish, H.
pseudonana, Tetraselmis sp., feeds traditionally utilized [158]
scabra
Pavlova sp., T. weissflogii, in the commercial
and C. calcitrans (with a production of H. scabra
ratio: 30:30:19:13:6: and (sand-fish) in marine
3%, respectively, on a dry hatcheries.
weight basis).
Live microalgae Isochrysis
All experimental algal
sp. and C. muelleri
species (even in live or
compared to six
concentrated form) were
concentrated algal diets
ingested by the juveniles.
(Instant Algae® , Reed
The live form of C. muelleri
Mariculture Inc.) which
Larvae of sandfish, H. showed the highest
were Isochrysis sp. [85,215]
scabra. juvenile growth. Overall,
Pavlova sp., Tetraselmis sp.,
microalgae concentrates
T. weissflogii, T. pseudonana,
are suitable alternatives to
and a mixture of Isochrysis
live microalgae through
sp., Tetraselmis sp., T.
the hatchery stages of sea
pseudonana, and Pavlova sp.
cucumber, H. scabra.
(Shellfish Diet 1800® ).
Table 2. Cont.
Type
Adult sea cucumbers fed
A commercial microalgae with powdered
diet (Shellfish Diet 1800® : macroalgae have similar
a mix of Isochrysis, physiological
Tetraselmis, T. pseudonana characteristics to those fed
The orange-footed adult and Pavlova, with a ratio of with commercial
sea cucumber, Cucumaria 40:25:20:15% dry weight powdered microalgae [159]
frondose. 8%), dried powder of diets, confirming that
seaweed (S. latissimi and powdered macroalgae
A. nodosum) compared to diets are a promising feed
the control (no diet source for intensive
supplementation). aquaculture of adult
individuals of C. frondosa.
Sea-Urchin
There is no significant
D. tertiolecta and a difference in survival and
Larvae of P. lividus. concentrated algal paste metamorphosis rates for [133]
(Shellfish Diet 1800® ). larvae fed on live or paste
microalgae.
Seahorses
N. oculata (live form, were recorded in the
Juvenile of newborn
commercial paste, and survival rates, dry weight, [216]
seahorse H. reidi.
flocculated paste). or ingestion rates of the
juvenile seahorse.
Fish
Defatted N. oculata,
Significantly increase
Schizochytrium sp., A.
productive performance
platensis, Chlorella sp.,
nutrient utilization,
Anabaena sp., Dunaliella
survival rate, immune
Nile tilapia, O. niloticus. sp., G. arcuata, and [24,217–222]
status, antioxidant
seaweed liquid extract
enzymes, gene expression,
(TrueAlgaeMax, TAM® ,
histological status, and
prepared from U. lactuca, J.
disease resistance.
rubens, and P. capillacea).
I. lutea, T. suecica, P. viridis Significantly improve the
Nannochloropsis sp., N. muscle tissue composition,
Juveniles of European sea
oceanica, defatted growth, nutrient [52,223–226]
bass, Dicentrarchus labrax.
Nannochloropsis sp., G. utilization, survival, and
Aqua-Feed Additives gracilis. nutritional quality.
and/or Replacement of
Defatted Tetraselmis sp., T.
Diet Ingredients Significantly improve S.
chuii, Cellulose
aurata weight gain,
hydrolyzed N. gaditana,
specific growth rate, feed
Juveniles of gilthead Schizochytrium sp., P.
conversion ratio, survival, [175,227–232]
seabream S. aurata. tricornutum, N. gaditana,
nutritional quality, innate
Navicula sp., hydrolyzed A.
immune parameters, and
platensis, and heat-treated
acute hypoxia tolerance.
Gracilaria sp., and Ulva sp.
Significantly improve
N. oceanica, defatted N. weight gain, specific
Salmonids Atlantic
oceanica, Scenedesmus sp., growth rate, improve FCR, [233–235]
salmon, Salmo salar L.
Schizochytrium sp. survival, and fatty acid
profiles.
Nannochloropsis sp., Significantly increase
Juveniles and adults
Schizochytrium sp., weight gain, improve feed
Rrainbow trout, [236–238]
Isochrysis sp., S. almeriensis, conversion ratio and
Oncorhynchus mykiss.
U. lactuca, E. linza survival rate.
Table 2. Cont.
Type
Shellfish
Significantly enhance the
T. suecica, Schizochytrium
Pacific white shrimp, L. growth, immune, nutrient
sp., Aurantiochytrium sp.,
vannamei, black tiger utilization, survival, gene
C. calcitrans, defatted H.
shrimp, P. monodon, and expression, nutritional [21,167,217,239–245]
pluvialis, D. salina, C.
freshwater prawn, M. quality, disease resistance,
vulgaris, A. platensis, U.
rosenbergii. and improve tolerance
lactuca and Gracilaria sp.
stress.
Significantly increase
E. radiata, S. linearifolium, growth performances,
Sea urchin, T. gratilla and Sargassum spp., Gracilaria feed intake, energy,
[176,177]
Heliocidaris erythrogramma. sp., Solieria robusta, L. protein consumption, and
kuetzingii, and U. lactuca. improve gonad indices
and of T. gratilla.
Applications of different
forms (live and/or
freeze-dried) of N. oculata
in the rearing tanks
N. oculata (live and significantly improved
freeze-dried forms). growth, survival, and
Larval Gilthead seabream,
N. gaditana and I. galbana histological status. The [93,178,246]
S. aurata
(live and freeze-dried complete replacement of
forms). live algae in larval rearing
tanks with freeze-dried
algae resulted in the same
survival and growth of
larvae reared for 43 days.
Application of green water
is effective in controlling
Water Conditioner the luminous bacteria. The
dominant species of
Nitzschia, Pleurosigma,
Nitzschia, Pleurosigma,
Nannochloropsis, and
Nannochloropsis and
Oscillatoria have a positive
Tilapia (mosambique and Oscillatoria.
effect on the pathogenic
hybrid tilapia) Seaweed liquid extract [39,185]
bacteria in ponds and
Nile tilapia, O. niloticus (TrueAlgaeMax, TAM® ,
hatcheries, in general.
prepared from U. lactuca, J.
It significantly enhances
rubens, and P. capillacea)
growth performance,
immune responses, feed
utilization, and
zooplankton community
and diversity.
Reduce the white spot
Giant tiger shrimp, P.
Chlorella sp. disease load in culture [187]
monodon
ponds of P. monodon.
Black tiger shrimp, P.
monodon, Nile tilapia, O. Improved water quality,
niloticus, Mediterranean G. tenuistipitata, G. shrimp survival, growth,
mussels, M. verrucosa, G. corticata, Ulva, antibacterial activities, and [46,190,194–198]
Seaweed Co- galloprovincialis, Pacific K. striatum. disease resistance
CultureandIntegration white shrimp, L. vannamei, significantly.
with Aquatic Animals sea cucumber, H. scabra.
Seaweed significantly
removed large amounts of
Black rockfish, Sebastes U. pertusa, S. japonica, and
nutrients (NH4 , NO3 , [191]
schlegeli. Gracilariopsis chorda.
NO2 , and PO4 ) from the
fish tank effluents.
Table 2. Cont.
Type
The IMTA systems
between aquatic animals
(S. aurata and P. lividus)
and aquatic plants (U.
lactuca) resulted in a lower
FCR, and decreased
Gilthead seabream, S.
growth period, enhanced
aurata, and sea urchin, P. U. lactuca. [247]
gonadal development and
lividus.
quality, improved
economic return,
bioremediation efficiency,
and decreased the
treatment cost of the
effluent.
The IMTA systems
between aquatic animals
Cobia fish, Rachycentron (R. canadum and P. perna)
canadum and The Brown U. lactuca. and aquatic plants (U. [248]
mussel, Perna perna. lactuca) increased yield
and bioremediation
efficiency.
Grunt cab, Isacia
conteptionis, G. chilensis was highly
Pacific oyster, C. gigas, and G. chilensis. effective in bioremediation [249]
Chilean sea urchin, of the soluble nutrients.
Loxechinus albus.
3. Future Prospective
It is well known that blue biotechnology can make a significant contribution to the
key societal challenges due to the huge biological diversity populating water ecosystems.
Globally, to develop and enhance the integrated production of aquatic animals and aquatic
plants, several strategies must be pursued to achieve this goal, such as increasing research
funding for smart and integrated aquaculture, particularly in developing countries, in-
creasing scientific missions, technology transfer, exchanging information, encouraging the
companies producing seaweeds and microalgae to reveal the real data of algae production,
and the establishment of international blocs specialized in this vital industry. In conclusion,
the applications of granted patents, especially in the equipment and facilities of aquaculture
integration technologies, are the future of this vital industry that will improve, enhance,
and develop production with low-cost technologies.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.; software, A.T.M., M.A. and A.E.A.; writing—original
draft preparation, A.T.M. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, A.T.M., M.A., A.E.A. and A.S.A.;
visualization, A.T.M., M.A. and A.E.A.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, A.T.M. and A.S.A.;
funding acquisition, A.T.M. and A.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported through the Annual Funding track by the Deanship of Scientific
Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi
Arabia [Project No. AN000339].
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020. [CrossRef]
2. Ashour, M.; Abo-Taleb, H.; Abou-Mahmoud, M.; El-Feky, M. Effect of the integration between plankton natural productivity and
environmental assessment of irrigation water, El-Mahmoudia Canal, on aquaculture potential of Oreochromis niloticus. Turk. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2018, 18, 1163–1175. [CrossRef]
3. Shaalan, M.; El-Mahdy, M.; Saleh, M.; El-Matbouli, M. Aquaculture in Egypt: Insights on the current trends and future perspectives
for sustainable development. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2018, 26, 99–110. [CrossRef]
4. Kaleem, O.; Sabi, A.-F.B.S. Overview of aquaculture systems in Egypt and Nigeria, prospects, potentials, and constraints. Aquac.
Fish. 2020, 6, 535–547. [CrossRef]
5. Ashour, M. Current and future perspectives of microalgae-aquaculture in Egypt, case study: SIMAF-prototype-project. Egypt. J.
Anim. Prod. 2020, 57, 163–170.
6. Barkia, I.; Saari, N.; Manning, S.R. Microalgae for high-value products towards human health and nutrition. Mar. Drugs 2019,
17, 304. [CrossRef]
7. Tocher, D.R. Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and aquaculture in perspective. Aquaculture 2015, 449, 94–107.
[CrossRef]
8. Limbu, S.M.; Zhou, L.; Sun, S.-X.; Zhang, M.-L.; Du, Z.-Y. Chronic exposure to low environmental concentrations and legal
aquaculture doses of antibiotics cause systemic adverse effects in Nile tilapia and provoke differential human health risk. Environ.
Int. 2018, 115, 205–219. [CrossRef]
9. Naylor, R.L.; Goldburg, R.J.; Primavera, J.H.; Kautsky, N.; Beveridge, M.C.; Clay, J.; Folke, C.; Lubchenco, J.; Mooney, H.; Troell, M.
Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 2000, 405, 1017–1024. [CrossRef]
10. Naylor, R.L.; Hardy, R.W.; Buschmann, A.H.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; Klinger, D.H.; Little, D.C.; Lubchenco, J.; Shumway, S.E.; Troell,
M. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 2021, 591, 551–563. [CrossRef]
11. Alam, M.A.; Xu, J.-L.; Wang, Z. Microalgae Biotechnology for Food, Health and High Value Products; Springer: New York, NY,
USA, 2020.
12. Javed, M.R.; Bilal, M.J.; Ashraf, M.U.F.; Waqar, A.; Mehmood, M.A.; Saeed, M.; Nashat, N. Microalgae as a feedstock for biofuel
production: Current status and future prospects. Top 5 Contrib. Energy Res. Dev. 2019, 5, 1–39.
13. Muhammad, G.; Alam, M.A.; Xiong, W.; Lv, Y.; Xu, J.-L. Microalgae biomass production: An overview of dynamic operational
methods. In Microalgae Biotechnology for Food, Health and High Value Products; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 415–432.
[CrossRef]
14. Kamani, M.H.; Eş, I.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Remize, F.; Roselló-Soto, E.; Barba, F.J.; Clark, J.; Khaneghah, A.M. Advances in plant
materials, food by-products, and algae conversion into biofuels: Use of environmentally friendly technologies. Green Chem. 2019,
21, 3213–3231. [CrossRef]
15. Santhakumaran, P.; Ayyappan, S.M.; Ray, J.G. Nutraceutical applications of twenty-five species of rapid-growing green-microalgae
as indicated by their antibacterial, antioxidant and mineral content. Algal Res. 2020, 47, 101878. [CrossRef]
16. Smita, P.; Gunjan, P.; Lali, A.M. Reduced chlorophyll antenna mutants of Chlorella saccharophila for higher photosynthetic efficiency
and biomass productivity under high light intensities. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 1559–1567.
17. Tolboom, S.N.; Carrillo-Nieves, D.; de Jesús Rostro-Alanis, M.; de la Cruz Quiroz, R.; Barceló, D.; Iqbal, H.M.; Parra-Saldivar,
R. Algal-based removal strategies for hazardous contaminants from the environment—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,
665, 358–366. [CrossRef]
18. Alprol, A.E.; Heneash, A.M.M.; Ashour, M.; Abualnaja, K.M.; Alhashmialameer, D.; Mansour, A.T.; Sharawy, Z.Z.; Abu-Saied,
M.A.; Abomohra, A.E. Potential Applications of Arthrospira platensis Lipid-Free Biomass in Bioremediation of Organic Dye from
Industrial Textile Effluents and Its Influence on Marine Rotifer (Brachionus plicatilis). Materials 2021, 14, 4446. [CrossRef]
19. Ashour, M.; Alprol, A.E.; Heneash, A.M.M.; Saleh, H.; Abualnaja, K.M.; Alhashmialameer, D.; Mansour, A.T. Ammonia
Bioremediation from Aquaculture Wastewater Effluents Using Arthrospira platensis NIOF17/003: Impact of Biodiesel Residue and
Potential of Ammonia-Loaded Biomass as Rotifer Feed. Materials 2021, 14, 5460. [CrossRef]
20. Abo-Taleb, H.A.; El-feky, M.M.M.; Azab, A.M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Elokaby, M.A.; Ashour, M.; Mansour, A.T.; Abdelzaher, O.F.;
Abualnaja, K.M.; Sallam, A.E. Growth Performance, Feed Utilization, Gut Integrity, and Economic Revenue of Grey Mullet, Mugil
cephalus, Fed an Increasing Level of Dried Zooplankton Biomass Meal as Fishmeal Substitutions. Fishes 2021, 6, 38. [CrossRef]
21. Sharawy, Z.Z.; Ashour, M.; Abbas, E.; Ashry, O.; Helal, M.; Nazmi, H.; Kelany, M.; Kamel, A.; Hassaan, M.; Rossi, W.; et al. Effects
of dietary marine microalgae, Tetraselmis suecica, on production, gene expression, protein markers and bacterial count of Pacific
white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquacult. Res. 2020, 51, 2216–2228. [CrossRef]
22. Sharawy, Z.Z.; Ashour, M.; Labena, A.; Alsaqufi, A.S.; Mansour, A.T.; Abbas, E.M. Effects of dietary Arthrospira platensis
nanoparticles on growth performance, feed utilization, and growth-related gene expression of Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus
vannamei. Aquaculture 2022, 551, 737905. [CrossRef]
23. Abomohra, A.E.-F.; Almutairi, A.W. A close-loop integrated approach for microalgae cultivation and efficient utilization of
agar-free seaweed residues for enhanced biofuel recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 317, 124027. [CrossRef]
24. Ashour, M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Ayoub, H.F.; El-Feky, M.M.; Zaki, S.Z.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Rossi, W.; Van Doan, H.; El-Haroun, E.;
Goda, A. Effect of dietary seaweed extract supplementation on growth, feed utilization, hematological indices, and non-specific
immunity of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus challenged with Aeromonas hydrophila. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 3467–3479.
[CrossRef]
25. Barra, L.; Chandrasekaran, R.; Corato, F.; Brunet, C. The challenge of ecophysiological biodiversity for biotechnological applica-
tions of marine microalgae. Mar. Drugs 2014, 12, 1641–1675. [CrossRef]
26. Elshobary, M.E.; El-Shenody, R.A.; Ashour, M.; Zabed, H.M.; Qi, X. Antimicrobial and antioxidant characterization of bioactive
components from Chlorococcum minutum. Food Biosci. 2020, 35, 100567. [CrossRef]
27. El-Shenody, R.A.; Ashour, M.; Ghobara, M.M.E. Evaluating the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of three Egyptian
seaweeds: Dictyota dichotoma, Turbinaria decurrens, and Laurencia obtusa. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2019, 22, 1–15. [CrossRef]
28. El-Shouny, W.; Sharaf, M.; Abomohra, A.; Abo-Eleneen, M. Production enhancement of some valuable compounds of Arthrospira
platensis. J. Basic Environ. Sci. 2015, 2, 74–83.
29. Choi, Y.Y.; Hong, M.-E.; Chang, W.S.; Sim, S.J. Autotrophic biodiesel production from the thermotolerant microalga Chlorella
sorokiniana by enhancing the carbon availability with temperature adjustment. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2019, 24, 223–231.
[CrossRef]
30. Abualnaja, K.M.; Alprol, A.E.; Abu-Saied, M.A.; Ashour, M.; Mansour, A.T. Removing of Anionic Dye from Aqueous Solutions
by Adsorption Using of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes and Poly (Acrylonitrile-styrene) Impregnated with Activated Carbon.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7077. [CrossRef]
31. Abualnaja, K.M.; Alprol, A.E.; Ashour, M.; Mansour, A.T. Influencing Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes for the Removal of Ismate
Violet 2R Dye from Wastewater: Isotherm, Kinetics, and Thermodynamic Studies. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4786. [CrossRef]
32. Abualnaja, K.M.; Alprol, A.E.; Abu-Saied, M.; Mansour, A.T.; Ashour, M. Studying the Adsorptive Behavior of Poly (Acrylonitrile-
co-Styrene) and Carbon Nanotubes (Nanocomposites) Impregnated with Adsorbent Materials towards Methyl Orange Dye.
Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 1144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Alprol, A.E. Study of environmental concerns of dyes and recent textile effluents treatment technology: A Review. Asian J. Fish.
Aquat. Res. 2019, 3, 1–18. [CrossRef]
34. Alprol, A.E.; Abd El Azzem, M.; Amer, A.; El-Metwally, M.E.; Abd El-Hamid, H.T.; El-Moselhy, K.M. Adsorption of cadmium (II)
ions from aqueous solution onto mango leaves. Asian J. Phys. Chem. Sci. 2017, 2, 1–11. [CrossRef]
35. Geddie, A.W.; Hall, S.G. Development of a suitability assessment model for the cultivation of intertidal macroalgae in the United
States. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 699, 134327. [CrossRef]
36. Geddie, A.W.; Hall, S.G. The effect of salinity and alkalinity on growth and the accumulation of copper and zinc in the Chlorophyta
Ulva fasciata. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 172, 203–209. [CrossRef]
37. Geddie, A.W.; Hall, S.G. An introduction to copper and zinc pollution in macroalgae: For use in remediation and nutritional
applications. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 691–708. [CrossRef]
38. Ashour, M.; Hassan, S.M.; Elshobary, M.E.; Ammar, G.A.G.; Gaber, A.; Alsanie, W.F.; Mansour, A.T.; El-Shenody, R. Impact of
Commercial Seaweed Liquid Extract (TAM® ) Biostimulant and Its Bioactive Molecules on Growth and Antioxidant Activities of
Hot Pepper (Capsicum annuum). Plants 2021, 10, 1045. [CrossRef]
39. Hassan, S.M.; Ashour, M.; Sakai, N.; Zhang, L.; Hassanien, H.A.; Gaber, A.; Ammar, G. Impact of Seaweed Liquid Extract
Biostimulant on Growth, Yield, and Chemical Composition of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Agriculture 2021, 11, 320. [CrossRef]
40. Hassan, S.M.; Ashour, M.; Soliman, A.A.F.; Hassanien, H.A.; Alsanie, W.F.; Gaber, A.; Elshobary, M.E. The Potential of a New
Commercial Seaweed Extract in Stimulating Morpho-Agronomic and Bioactive Properties of Eruca vesicaria (L.) Cav. Sustainability
2021, 13, 4485. [CrossRef]
41. Hassan, S.M.; Ashour, M.; Soliman, A. Anticancer Activity, Antioxidant Activity, Mineral Contents, Vegetative and Yield of Eruca
sativa Using Foliar Application of Autoclaved Cellular Extract of Spirulina platensis Extract, Comparing to NPK Fertilizers. J.
Plant Prod. 2017, 8, 529–536. [CrossRef]
42. Vega, J.; Álvarez-Gómez, F.; Güenaga, L.; Figueroa, F.L.; Gómez-Pinchetti, J.L. Antioxidant activity of extracts from marine
macroalgae, wild-collected and cultivated, in an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture system. Aquaculture 2020, 522, 735088.
[CrossRef]
43. Ardiles, P.; Cerezal-Mezquita, P.; Salinas-Fuentes, F.; Órdenes, D.; Renato, G.; Ruiz-Domínguez, M.C. Biochemical Composition
and Phycoerythrin Extraction from Red Microalgae: A Comparative Study Using Green Extraction Technologies. Processes 2020,
8, 1628. [CrossRef]
44. Araújo, R.; Vázquez Calderón, F.; Sánchez López, J.; Azevedo, I.C.; Bruhn, A.; Fluch, S.; Garcia Tasende, M.; Ghaderiardakani, F.;
Ilmjärv, T.; Laurans, M. Current status of the algae production industry in Europe: An emerging sector of the Blue Bioeconomy.
Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 7, 1247. [CrossRef]
45. Araújo, R.; Sanchez Lopez, J.; Landa, L.; Lusser, M. Report on the community of practice workshop: Algae production in europe:
Status, challenges and future developments. In Proceedings of the European Commission’s Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy,
Brussels, Belgium, 27 February 2019; Volume 3, pp. 1–27. Available online: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/
report-community-practice-workshop-algae-production-europe-status-challenges-future_en (accessed on 28 February 2022).
46. An, B.N.T.; Anh, N.T.N. Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different
feeding rates: Effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 2031–2040. [CrossRef]
47. Ferdouse, F.; Holdt, S.L.; Smith, R.; Murúa, P.; Yang, Z. The global status of seaweed production, trade and utilization. Globefish
Res. Programme 2018, 124, I.
48. Shields, R.; Lupatsch, I. 5 Algae for aquaculture and animal feeds. In Microalgal Biotechnology: Integration and Economy; De Gruyter:
Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 79–100. [CrossRef]
49. Kaparapu, J. Application of microalgae in aquaculture. Phykos 2018, 48, 21–26.
50. Wikfors, G.H.; Ohno, M. Impact of algal research in aquaculture. J. Phycol. 2001, 37, 968–974. [CrossRef]
51. Delgado, E.; Valles-Rosales, D.J.; Flores, N.C.; Reyes-Jáquez, D. Evaluation of fish oil content and cottonseed meal with ultralow
gossypol content on the functional properties of an extruded shrimp feed. Aquacult. Rep. 2021, 19, 100588. [CrossRef]
52. Cardinaletti, G.; Messina, M.; Bruno, M.; Tulli, F.; Poli, B.; Giorgi, G.; Chini-Zittelli, G.; Tredici, M.; Tibaldi, E. Effects of graded
levels of a blend of Tisochrysis lutea and Tetraselmis suecica dried biomass on growth and muscle tissue composition of European
sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fed diets low in fish meal and oil. Aquaculture 2018, 485, 173–182. [CrossRef]
53. Yang, W.; Zheng, Z.; Lu, K.; Zheng, C.; Du, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhu, J. Manipulating the phytoplankton community has the potential to
create a stable bacterioplankton community in a shrimp rearing environment. Aquaculture 2020, 520, 734789. [CrossRef]
54. Hodar, A.; Vasava, R.; Mahavadiya, D.; Joshi, N. Fish meal and fish oil replacement for aqua feed formulation by using alternative
sources: A review. J. Exp. Zool. India 2020, 23, 13–21.
55. El-Sayed, A.-F.M. Evaluation of soybean meal, spirulina meal and chicken offal meal as protein sources for silver seabream
(Rhabdosargus sarba) fingerlings. Aquaculture 1994, 127, 169–176. [CrossRef]
56. Liu, W.-Y.; Fang, L.; Feng, X.-W.; Li, G.-M.; Gu, R.-Z. In vitro antioxidant and angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory
properties of peptides derived from corn gluten meal. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2020, 246, 2017–2027. [CrossRef]
57. Sørensen, M.; Morken, T.; Kosanovic, M.; Øverland, M. Pea and wheat starch possess different processing characteristics and
affect physical quality and viscosity of extruded feed for Atlantic salmon. Aquacult. Nutr. 2011, 17, e326–e336. [CrossRef]
58. Blomqvist, J.; Pickova, J.; Tilami, S.K.; Sampels, S.; Mikkelsen, N.; Brandenburg, J.; Sandgren, M.; Passoth, V. Oleaginous yeast as
a component in fish feed. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Yu, R.; Cao, H.; Huang, Y.; Peng, M.; Kajbaf, K.; Kumar, V.; Tao, Z.; Yang, G.; Wen, C. The effects of partial replacement of fishmeal
protein by hydrolysed feather meal protein in the diet with high inclusion of plant protein on growth performance, fillet quality
and physiological parameters of Pengze crucian carp (Carassius auratus var. Pengze). Aquacult. Res. 2020, 51, 636–647.
60. Abo-Taleb, H.A.; Zeina, A.F.; Ashour, M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Sallam, A.E.; El-feky, M.M. Isolation and cultivation of the freshwater
amphipod Gammarus pulex (Linnaeus, 1758), with an evaluation of its chemical and nutritional content. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish.
2020, 24, 69–82. [CrossRef]
61. Niccolai, A.; Zittelli, G.C.; Rodolfi, L.; Biondi, N.; Tredici, M.R. Microalgae of interest as food source: Biochemical composition
and digestibility. Algal Res. 2019, 42, 101617. [CrossRef]
62. Zaki, M.A.; Ashour, M.; Heneash, A.M.M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Alprol, A.E.; Khairy, H.M.; Nour, A.M.; Mansour, A.T.; Hassanien,
H.A.; Gaber, A.; et al. Potential Applications of Native Cyanobacterium Isolate (Arthrospira platensis NIOF17/003) for Biodiesel
Production and Utilization of Its Byproduct in Marine Rotifer (Brachionus plicatilis) Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1769.
[CrossRef]
63. Tibbetts, S.M.; Milley, J.E.; Lall, S.P. Chemical composition and nutritional properties of freshwater and marine microalgal biomass
cultured in photobioreactors. J. Appl. Phycol. 2015, 27, 1109–1119. [CrossRef]
64. Ashour, M.; Elshobary, M.E.; El-Shenody, R.; Kamil, A.-W.; Abomohra, A.E.-F. Evaluation of a native oleaginous marine microalga
Nannochloropsis oceanica for dual use in biodiesel production and aquaculture feed. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 120, 439–447. [CrossRef]
65. Becker, E.W. Micro-algae as a source of protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 2007, 25, 207–210. [CrossRef]
66. Brown, M.R. The amino-acid and sugar composition of 16 species of microalgae used in mariculture. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1991,
145, 79–99. [CrossRef]
67. da Silva Gorg, C.M.; Aranda, D.A.G. Morphological and chemical aspects of Chlorella pyrenoidosa, Dunaliella tertiolecta, Isochrysis
galbana and Tetraselmis gracilis microalgae. Nat. Sci. 2013, 5, 783–791. [CrossRef]
68. Becker, E.W. Microalgae: Biotechnology and Microbiology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; Volume 10.
69. López, C.V.G.; García, M.d.C.C.; Fernández, F.G.A.; Bustos, C.S.; Chisti, Y.; Sevilla, J.M.F. Protein measurements of microalgal and
cyanobacterial biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 7587–7591. [CrossRef]
70. Shah, M.; Mahfuzur, R.; Liang, Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Daroch, M. Astaxanthin-producing green microalga Haematococcus pluvialis: From
single cell to high value commercial products. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 531. [CrossRef]
71. Velasco, L.A.; Carrera, S.; Barros, J. Isolation, culture and evaluation of Chaetoceros muelleri from the Caribbean as food for the
native scallops, Argopecten nucleus and Nodipecten nodosus. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2016, 44, 557–568. [CrossRef]
72. Tam, L.T.; Van Cong, N.; Thom, L.T.; Ha, N.C.; Hang, N.T.M.; Van Minh, C.; Vien, D.T.H.; Hong, D.D. Cultivation and biomass
production of the diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii as a live feed for white-leg shrimp in hatcheries and commercial farms in Vietnam.
J. Appl. Phycol. 2021, 33, 1559–1577. [CrossRef]
73. Kawaroe, M.; Salundik, R.W.; Lestari, D.F. Comparison of Biogas Productionfrom Macroalgae Eucheuma cottonii in Anaerobic
Degradation under Different Salinity Conditions. World Appl. Sci. J. 2017, 35, 344–351.
74. Muraguri, E.N.; Wakibia, J.G.; Kinyuru, J.N. Chemical composition and functional properties of selected seaweeds from the
Kenya coast. J. Food Res. 2016, 5, 114. [CrossRef]
75. Khalil, H.A.; Yap, S.W.; Tye, Y.Y.; Tahir, P.M.; Rizal, S.; Fazita, M.N. Effects of corn starch and Kappaphycus alvarezii seaweed blend
concentration on the optical, mechanical, and water vapor barrier properties of composite films. BioResources 2018, 13, 1157–1173.
76. Xiren, G.; Aminah, A. Proximate composition and total amino acid composition of Kappaphycus alvarezii found in the waters of
Langkawi and Sabah, Malaysia. Int. Food Res. J. 2017, 24, 1255.
77. Arguelles, E.; Monsalud, R.G.; Sapin, A.B. Chemical composition and in vitro antioxidant and antibacterial activities of Sargassum
vulgare C. Agardh from Lobo, Batangas, Philippines. J. Int. Soc. Southeast Asian Agric. Sci. (ISSAAS) 2019, 25, 112–122.
78. Kasimala, M.; Mogos, G.; Negasi, K.; Bereket, G.; Abdu, M.; Melake, H. Biochemical Composition of Selected Seaweeds from Intertidal
Shallow Waters of Southern Red Sea, Eritrea; NISCAIR-CSIR: New Delhi, India, 2020.
79. Benjama, O.; Masniyom, P. Biochemical composition and physicochemical properties of two red seaweeds (Gracilaria fisheri and G.
tenuistipitata) from the Pattani Bay in Southern Thailand. Sonklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 34, 223.
80. Khairy, H.M.; El-Shafay, S.M. Seasonal variations in the biochemical composition of some common seaweed species from the
coast of Abu Qir Bay, Alexandria, Egypt. Oceanologia 2013, 55, 435–452. [CrossRef]
81. Crespi, V.; New, M. Cultured Aquatic Species Fact Sheets; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009.
82. Admassu, H.; Abera, T.; Abraha, B.; Yang, R.; Zhao, W. Proximate, mineral and amino acid composition of dried laver (Porphyra
spp.) seaweed. J. Acad. Ind. Res. (JAIR) 2018, 6, 149.
83. Cho, T.J.; Rhee, M.S. Health functionality and quality control of laver (Porphyra, Pyropia): Current issues and future perspectives
as an edible seaweed. Mar. Drugs 2020, 18, 14. [CrossRef]
84. Spolaore, P.; Joannis-Cassan, C.; Duran, E.; Isambert, A. Commercial applications of microalgae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2006, 101, 87–96.
[CrossRef]
85. Duy, N.D.Q.; Francis, D.S.; Southgate, P.C. The nutritional value of live and concentrated micro-algae for early juveniles of
sandfish, Holothuria scabra. Aquaculture 2017, 473, 97–104. [CrossRef]
86. Brown, M.; Robert, R. Preparation and assessment of microalgal concentrates as feeds for larval and juvenile Pacific oyster
(Crassostrea gigas). Aquaculture 2002, 207, 289–309. [CrossRef]
87. Alprol, A.E.; Ashour, M.; Mansour, A.T.; Alzahrani, O.M.; Mahmoud, S.F.; Gharib, S.M. Assessment of Water Quality and
Phytoplankton Structure of Eight Alexandria Beaches, Southeastern Mediterranean Sea, Egypt. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1328.
[CrossRef]
88. Abo-Taleb, H.; Ashour, M.; El-Shafei, A.; Alataway, A.; Maaty, M.M. Biodiversity of Calanoida Copepoda in Different Habitats of
the North-Western Red Sea (Hurghada Shelf). Water 2020, 12, 656. [CrossRef]
89. Alprol, A.E.; Heneash, A.M.M.; Soliman, A.M.; Ashour, M.; Alsanie, W.F.; Gaber, A.; Mansour, A.T. Assessment of Water Quality,
Eutrophication, and Zooplankton Community in Lake Burullus, Egypt. Diversity 2021, 13, 268. [CrossRef]
90. Abo-Taleb, H.A.; Ashour, M.; Elokaby, M.A.; Mabrouk, M.M.; El-feky, M.M.M.; Abdelzaher, O.F.; Gaber, A.; Alsanie, W.F.;
Mansour, A.T. Effect of a New Feed Daphnia magna (Straus, 1820), as a Fish Meal Substitute on Growth, Feed Utilization,
Histological Status, and Economic Revenue of Grey Mullet, Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758). Sustainability 2021, 13, 7093.
[CrossRef]
91. Abdel-Rahim, M.M.; Mansour, A.T.; Mona, M.H.; El-Gamal, M.M.; El Atafy, M.M. To what extent can maternal inherited immunity
acquired from a crustacean-enhanced diet improve the performance and vitality of the offspring and enhance profitability of
European Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax)? J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2019, 50, 550–574. [CrossRef]
92. El-Gamal, M.M.; Othman, S.I.; Abdel-Rahim, M.M.; Mansour, A.T.; Alsaqufi, A.S.; El Atafy, M.M.; Mona, M.H.; Allam, A.A.
Palaemon and artemia supplemented diet enhances sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, broodstock reproductive performance and egg
quality. Aquacult. Rep. 2020, 16, 100290. [CrossRef]
93. Navarro, N.; Sarasquete, C. Use of freeze-dried microalgae for rearing gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata, larvae: I. Growth,
histology and water quality. Aquaculture 1998, 167, 179–193. [CrossRef]
94. Zaki, M.; Saad, H. Comparative study on growth and survival of larval and juvenile Dicentrarchus labrax rearing on rotifer and
Artemia enriched with four different microalgae species. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 3676–3688.
95. Camus, T.; Zeng, C. Roles of microalgae on total egg production over female lifespan and egg incubation time, naupliar and
copepodite survival, sex ratio and female life expectancy of the copepod Bestiolina similis. Aquacult. Res. 2010, 41, 1717–1726.
[CrossRef]
96. Ianora, A.; Romano, G.; Carotenuto, Y.; Esposito, F.; Roncalli, V.; Buttino, I.; Miralto, A. Impact of the diatom oxylipin 15S-HEPE
on the reproductive success of the copepod Temora stylifera. Hydrobiologia 2011, 666, 265–275. [CrossRef]
97. Ananth, S.; Santhanam, P. Intensive Culture, Biochemical Composition Analysis, and Use of Zooplankton Tisbe sp.(Copepoda:
Harpacticoida) as an Alternative Live Feed for Shrimp Larviculture. In Basic and Applied Zooplankton Biology; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 2019; pp. 329–362. [CrossRef]
98. Jothiraj, K.; Santhanam, P. Optimisation of the Culture Conditions of Nannocalanus minor (Copepoda: Calanoida). In Basic and
Applied Zooplankton Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 225–246. [CrossRef]
99. Schipp, G.R.; Bosmans, J.M.; Marshall, A.J. A method for hatchery culture of tropical calanoid copepods, Acartia spp. Aquaculture
1999, 174, 81–88. [CrossRef]
100. Altaff, K.; Vijayaraj, R. Micro-Algal Diet for Copepod Culture with Reference to Their Nutritive Value—A Review. Int. J. Cur. Res.
Rev. Vol. 2021, 13, 86.
101. Magouz, F.I.; Essa, M.A.; Matter, M.; Mansour, A.T.; Gaber, A.; Ashour, M. Effect of Different Salinity Levels on Population
Dynamics and Growth of the Cyclopoid Copepod Oithona nana. Diversity 2021, 13, 190. [CrossRef]
102. Ferreira, M.; Coutinho, P.; Seixas, P.; Fábregas, J.; Otero, A. Enriching rotifers with “premium” microalgae. Nannochloropsis
gaditana. Mar. Biotechnol. 2009, 11, 585–595. [CrossRef]
103. Palmtag, M.R.; Faulk, C.K.; Holt, G. Highly unsaturated fatty acid composition of rotifers (Brachionus plicatilis) and Artemia fed
various enrichments. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2006, 37, 126–131. [CrossRef]
104. Seychelles, L.; Audet, C.; Tremblay, R.; Fournier, R.; Pernet, F. Essential fatty acid enrichment of cultured rotifers (Brachionus
plicatilis, Müller) using frozen-concentrated microalgae. Aquacult. Nutr. 2009, 15, 431–439. [CrossRef]
105. Abbas, E.M.; Ali, F.S.; Desouky, M.G.; Ashour, M.; El-Shafei, A.; Maaty, M.M.; Sharawy, Z.Z. Novel Comprehensive Molecular
and Ecological Study Introducing Coastal Mud Shrimp (Solenocera Crassicornis) Recorded at the Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J. Mar. Sci.
Eng. 2020, 9, 9. [CrossRef]
106. Sivakumar, N.; Sundararaman, M.; Selvakumar, G. Efficacy of micro algae and cyanobacteria as a live feed for juveniles of shrimp
Penaeus monodon. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 11594–11599.
107. Rodríguez-Núñez, K.; Toledo-Aguero, P. Fatty acids profile and nutritional composition of two tropical diatoms from the Costa
Rican Pacific Coast. Grasas Aceites 2017, 68, e209. [CrossRef]
108. Rohani-Ghadikolaei, K.; Abdolalian, E.; Hojatollah, F.; Masoud, G.; Ng, W.K. The nutritional effect of Isochrysis galbana and
Chaetoceros muelleri cultured with different seaweed extracts on the larval development, growth and survival of the marine shrimp,
Penaeus indicus. Aquacult. Res. 2015, 46, 1444–1454. [CrossRef]
109. Abdel Rahman, S.; Abdel Razek, F.; AbouZeid, A.; Ashour, M. Optimum growth conditions of three isolated diatoms species;
Skeletonema costatum, Chaetoceros calcitrans and Detonula confervacea and their utilization as feed for marine penaeid shrimp larvae.
Egypt. J. Aquat. Res 2010, 36, 161–183.
110. Pratiwi, D.Y. A mini review-effect of Dunaliella salina on growth and health of shrimps. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 2020, 8, 317–319.
111. Muller-Feuga, A.; Robert, R.; Cahu, C.; Robin, J.; Divanach, P. Uses of microalgae in aquaculture. Live Feed. Mar. Aquac. 2003, 1,
253–299.
112. Mai, T.D.; Lee-Chang, K.J.; Jameson, I.D.; Hoang, T.; Cai, N.B.A.; Pham, H.Q. Fatty acid profiles of selected microalgae used as
live feeds for shrimp postlarvae in Vietnam. Aquac. J. 2021, 1, 26–38. [CrossRef]
113. Ponis, E.; Robert, R.; Parisi, G.; Tredici, M. Assessment of the performance of Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) larvae fed with fresh
and preserved Pavlova lutheri concentrates. Aquacult. Int. 2003, 11, 69–79. [CrossRef]
114. Knuckey, R.M.; Brown, M.R.; Robert, R.; Frampton, D.M. Production of microalgal concentrates by flocculation and their
assessment as aquaculture feeds. Aquacult. Eng. 2006, 35, 300–313. [CrossRef]
115. McCausland, M.A.; Brown, M.R.; Barrett, S.M.; Diemar, J.A.; Heasman, M.P. Evaluation of live microalgae and microalgal pastes
as supplementary food for juvenile Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas). Aquaculture 1999, 174, 323–342. [CrossRef]
116. Heasman, M.; Diemar, J.; O’connor, W.; Sushames, T.; Foulkes, L. Development of extended shelf-life microalgae concentrate diets
harvested by centrifugation for bivalve molluscs—A summary. Aquacult. Res. 2000, 31, 637–659.
117. Laing, I.; Verdugo, C.G. Nutritional value of spray-dried Tetraselmis suecica for juvenile bivalves. Aquaculture 1991, 92, 207–218.
[CrossRef]
118. Laing, I.; Child, A.R.; Janke, A. Nutritional value of dried algae diets for larvae of Manila clam (Tapes philippinarum). J. Mar. Biol.
Assoc. UK 1990, 70, 1–12. [CrossRef]
119. Laing, I.; Millican, P.F. Indoor nursery cultivation of juvenile bivalve molluscs using diets of dried algae. Aquaculture 1992,
102, 231–243. [CrossRef]
120. Boeing, P.; Escondido, C. Use of spray-dried Schizochytrium sp. as a partial algal replacement for juvenile bivalves. J. Shellfish Res
1997, 16, 284.
121. Langdon, C.; Önal, E. Replacement of living microalgae with spray-dried diets for the marine mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis.
Aquaculture 1999, 180, 283–294. [CrossRef]
122. Albentosa, M.; Pérez-Camacho, A.; Labarta, U.; Fernández-Reiriz, M.J. Evaluation of freeze-dried microalgal diets for the seed
culture of Ruditapes decussatus using physiological and biochemical parameters. Aquaculture 1997, 154, 305–321. [CrossRef]
123. Arney, B.; Liu, W.; Forster, I.P.; McKinley, R.S.; Pearce, C.M. Feasibility of dietary substitution of live microalgae with spray-dried
Schizochytrium sp. or Spirulina in the hatchery culture of juveniles of the Pacific geoduck clam (Panopea generosa). Aquaculture 2015,
444, 117–133. [CrossRef]
124. Militz, T.A.; Braley, R.D.; Southgate, P.C. Factors influencing the capacity for pediveliger larvae of the giant clam, Tridacna noae, to
ingest and digest cells of microalgae concentrates. Aquaculture 2021, 533, 736121. [CrossRef]
125. Mélo, R.C.S.; Santos, L.P.d.S.; Brito, A.P.M.; Gouveia, A.d.A.; Marçal, C.; Cavalli, R.O. Use of the microalga Nannochloropsis occulata
in the rearing of newborn longsnout seahorse Hippocampus reidi (Syngnathidae) juveniles. Aquacult. Res. 2016, 47, 3934–3941.
[CrossRef]
126. Martínez-Fernández, E.; Southgate, P.C. Use of tropical microalgae as food for larvae of the black-lip pearl oyster Pinctada
margaritifera. Aquaculture 2007, 263, 220–226. [CrossRef]
127. Bordbar, S.; Anwar, F.; Saari, N. High-value components and bioactives from sea cucumbers for functional foods—A review. Mar.
Drugs 2011, 9, 1761–1805. [CrossRef]
128. Abdelaty, M.; Al-Solami, L.; Al-Harbi, M.; Abu El-Regal, M. Utilization of Different Types of Microalgae to Improve Hatcheries
Production of the Sea Cucumber Holothuria scabra Jaeger, 1833 in the Red Sea, Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2021, 25, 193–204.
[CrossRef]
129. Shi, C.; Dong, S.; Wang, F.; Gao, Q.; Tian, X. Effects of four fresh microalgae in diet on growth and energy budget of juvenile sea
cucumber Apostichopus japonicus (Selenka). Aquaculture 2013, 416, 296–301. [CrossRef]
130. Ren, Y.; Liu, W.; Dong, S.; Pearce, C. Effects of mono-species and bi-species microalgal diets on the growth, survival and
metamorphosis of auricularia larvae of the California sea cucumber, Parastichopus californicus (Stimpson, 1857). Aquacult. Nutr.
2016, 22, 304–314. [CrossRef]
131. Sibonga, R.C.; Laureta, L.V.; Lebata-Ramos, M.J.H.; Nievales, M.F.J.; Pedroso, F.L. Single and mixed species of microalgae as
larval food for the tropical sea cucumber Holothuria scabra. J. Appl. Phycol. 2021, 33, 3103–3112. [CrossRef]
132. Schagerström, E.; Christophersen, G.; Sunde, J.; Bakke, S.; Matusse, N.R.; Dupont, S.; Sundell, K.S. Controlled spawning and
rearing of the sea cucumber, Parastichopus tremulus. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2021, 53, 224–240. [CrossRef]
133. Liu, H.; Kelly, M.S.; Cook, E.J.; Black, K.; Orr, H.; Zhu, J.X.; Dong, S.L. The effect of diet type on growth and fatty-acid composition
of sea urchin larvae, I. Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) (Echinodermata). Aquaculture 2007, 264, 247–262. [CrossRef]
134. Willadino, L.; Souza-Santos, L.P.; Mélo, R.C.; Brito, A.P.; Barros, N.C.; Araújo-Castro, C.M.; Galvão, D.B.; Gouveia, A.; Regis, C.G.;
Cavalli, R.O. Ingestion rate, survival and growth of newly released seahorse Hippocampus reidi fed exclusively on cultured live
food items. Aquaculture 2012, 360, 10–16. [CrossRef]
135. Scholtz, R.; Bolton, J.; Macey, B. Effects of different microalgal feeds and their influence on larval development in the white-spined
sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2013, 35, 25–34. [CrossRef]
136. Carboni, S.; Vignier, J.; Chiantore, M.; Tocher, D.R.; Migaud, H. Effects of dietary microalgae on growth, survival and fatty acid
composition of sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus throughout larval development. Aquaculture 2012, 324, 250–258. [CrossRef]
137. Shigai, X.; Chuanxin, Q.; Zhenhua, M.; Gang, Y.; Jinhui, S.; Wanni, P.; Tao, Z.; Hongmei, M.; Wentao, Z. Effects of dietary
microalgae on growth and survival of larval development of sea urchin (Anthocidaris crassispina). South China Fish. Sci. 2020,
16, 115–120.
138. Koldewey, H. Syngnathid Husbandry in Public Aquariums 2005 Manual; Project Seahorse: London, UK, 2005.
139. Olivotto, I.; Avella, M.A.; Sampaolesi, G.; Piccinetti, C.; Ruiz, P.N.; Carnevali, O. Breeding and rearing the longsnout seahorse
Hippocampus reidi: Rearing and feeding studies. Aquaculture 2008, 283, 92–96. [CrossRef]
140. Pham, N.K.; Lin, J. The effects of different feed enrichments on survivorship and growth of early juvenile longsnout seahorse,
Hippocampus reidi. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2013, 44, 435–446. [CrossRef]
141. Oostlander, P.; van Houcke, J.; Wijffels, R.H.; Barbosa, M.J. Microalgae production cost in aquaculture hatcheries. Aquaculture
2020, 525, 735310. [CrossRef]
142. Heneash, A.; Ashour, M.; Matar, M. Effect of Un-live Microalgal diet, Nannochloropsis oculata and Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis,
comparing to yeast on population of rotifer, Brachionus plicatilis. Mediterr. Aquac. J. 2015, 7, 48–54. [CrossRef]
143. Amjad, S.; Jones, D. An evaluation of artificial larval diets used in the culture of penaeid shrimp larvae Penaeus monodon (Fabricius).
Pak. J. Zool. 1992, 24, 135.
144. Medina-Reyna, C.E.; Ronson-Paulin, J.A.; Hernandez-Rojas, F.; Santiago-Morales, I.; Pedroza-Islas, R.; Vernon-Carter, E.J. Dual
benefits of whey protein concentrate in a microencapsulated diet for larval white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. J. World Aquacult.
Soc. 2005, 36, 401–410. [CrossRef]
145. Raja, R.; Coelho, A.; Hemaiswarya, S.; Kumar, P.; Carvalho, I.S.; Alagarsamy, A. Applications of microalgal paste and powder as
food and feed: An update using text mining tool. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 740–747. [CrossRef]
146. Nunes, M.; Pereira, A.; Ferreira, J.F.; Yasumaru, F. Evaluation of the microalgae paste viability produced in a mollusk hatchery in
Southern Brazil. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2009, 40, 87–94. [CrossRef]
147. Metwally, A.S.; El-Naggar, H.A.; El-Damhougy, K.A.; Bashar, M.A.E.; Ashour, M.; Abo-Taleb, H.A.H. GC-MS analysis of bioactive
components in six different crude extracts from the Soft Coral (Sinularia maxim) collected from Ras Mohamed, Aqaba Gulf, Red
Sea, Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish 2020, 24, 425–434. [CrossRef]
148. Rani, A.; Saini, K.C.; Bast, F.; Mehariya, S.; Bhatia, S.K.; Lavecchia, R.; Zuorro, A. Microorganisms: A potential source of bioactive
molecules for antioxidant applications. Molecules 2021, 26, 1142. [CrossRef]
149. Knuckey, R.M.; Semmens, G.L.; Mayer, R.J.; Rimmer, M.A. Development of an optimal microalgal diet for the culture of the
calanoid copepod Acartia sinjiensis: Effect of algal species and feed concentration on copepod development. Aquaculture 2005,
249, 339–351. [CrossRef]
150. Puello-Cruz, A.; Mezo-Villalobos, S.; Gonzalez-Rodriguez, B.; Voltolina, D. Culture of the calanoid copepod Pseudodiaptomus
euryhalinus (Johnson 1939) with different microalgal diets. Aquaculture 2009, 290, 317–319. [CrossRef]
151. Rasdi, N.W.; Qin, J.G.; Li, Y. Effects of dietary microalgae on fatty acids and digestive enzymes in copepod C yclopina kasignete, a
potential live food for fish larvae. Aquacult. Res. 2016, 47, 3254–3264. [CrossRef]
152. Millamena, O.M.; Aujero, E.J.; Borlcmgan, I.G. Techniques on algae harvesting and preservation for use in culture and as larval
food. Aquacult. Eng. 1990, 9, 295–304. [CrossRef]
153. Robinson, C.; Samocha, T.; Fox, J.; Gandy, R.; McKee, D. The use of inert artificial commercial food sources as replacements of
traditional live food items in the culture of larval shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus. Aquaculture 2005, 245, 135–147. [CrossRef]
154. Tang, Y.; Wang, R.; Tan, L.; Guo, L.; Duan, Y.; Yang, L.; Jiang, S.; Zhou, F.; Jiang, S.; Huang, J. Effects of live microalgae and algae
powder on microbial community, survival, metamorphosis and digestive enzyme activity of Penaeus monodon larvae at different
growth stages. Aquaculture 2020, 526, 735344. [CrossRef]
155. Nimrat, S.; Boonthai, T.; Vuthiphandchai, V. Effects of probiotic forms, compositions of and mode of probiotic administration
on rearing of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) larvae and postlarvae. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 169, 244–258.
[CrossRef]
156. Kumlu, M.; Jones, D. The effect of live and artificial diets on growth, survival, and trypsin activity in larvae of Penaeus indicus. J.
World Aquacult. Soc. 1995, 26, 406–415. [CrossRef]
157. Ponis, E.; Parisi, G.; Zittelli, G.C.; Lavista, F.; Robert, R.; Tredici, M. Pavlova lutheri: Production, preservation and use as food for
Crassostrea gigas larvae. Aquaculture 2008, 282, 97–103. [CrossRef]
158. Militz, T.A.; Leini, E.; Duy, N.D.Q.; Southgate, P.C. Successful large-scale hatchery culture of sandfish (Holothuria scabra) using
micro-algae concentrates as a larval food source. Aquacult. Rep. 2018, 9, 25–30. [CrossRef]
159. Yu, Z.; Robinson, S.; MacDonald, B.; Lander, T.; Smith, C. Effect of diets on the feeding behavior and physiological properties of
suspension-feeding sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2020, 38, 883–893. [CrossRef]
160. Floreto, E.A.; Teshima, S.-I.; Ishikawa, M. The Effects of seaweed diets on the growth, lipid and acids of juveniles of the white sea
Urchin Tripneustes gratilla. Fish. Sci. 1996, 62, 589–593. [CrossRef]
161. Lyons, D.A.; Scheibling, R.E. Effect of dietary history and algal traits on feeding rate and food preference in the green sea urchin
Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2007, 349, 194–204. [CrossRef]
162. Sarker, P.K.; Kapuscinski, A.R.; Bae, A.Y.; Donaldson, E.; Sitek, A.J.; Fitzgerald, D.S.; Edelson, O.F. Towards sustainable aquafeeds:
Evaluating substitution of fishmeal with lipid-extracted microalgal co-product (Nannochloropsis oculata) in diets of juvenile Nile
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
163. Mabrouk, M.M.; Ashour, M.; Labena, A.; Zaki, M.A.A.; Abdelhamid, A.F.; Gewaily, M.S.; Dawood, M.A.O.; Abualnaja, K.M.;
Ayoub, H.F. Nanoparticles of Arthrospira platensis improves growth, antioxidative and immunological responses of Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) and its resistance to Aeromonas hydrophila. Aquacult. Res. 2022, 53, 125–135. [CrossRef]
164. Nagappan, S.; Das, P.; AbdulQuadir, M.; Thaher, M.; Khan, S.; Mahata, C.; Al-Jabri, H.; Vatland, A.K.; Kumar, G. Potential of
microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture. J. Biotechnol. 2021, 341, 1–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
165. Skrede, A.; Mydland, L.; Ahlstrøm, Ø.; Reitan, K.; Gislerød, H.; Øverland, M. Evaluation of microalgae as sources of digestible
nutrients for monogastric animals. J. Anim. Feed. Sci. 2011, 20, 131–142. [CrossRef]
166. Souza, F.P.d.; Lima, E.C.S.d.; Urrea-Rojas, A.M.; Suphoronski, S.A.; Facimoto, C.T.; Bezerra Júnior, J.d.S.; Oliveira, T.E.S.d.;
Pereira, U.d.P.; Santis, G.W.D.; Oliveira, C.A.L.d. Effects of dietary supplementation with a microalga (Schizochytrium sp.) on the
hemato-immunological, and intestinal histological parameters and gut microbiota of Nile tilapia in net cages. PLoS ONE 2020,
15, e0226977. [CrossRef]
167. Medina-Félix, D.; López-Elías, J.A.; Martínez-Córdova, L.R.; López-Torres, M.A.; Hernández-López, J.; Rivas-Vega, M.E.;
Mendoza-Cano, F. Evaluation of the productive and physiological responses of Litopenaeus vannamei infected with WSSV and fed
diets enriched with Dunaliella sp. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2014, 117, 9–12. [CrossRef]
168. Maliwat, G.C.; Velasquez, S.; Robil, J.L.; Chan, M.; Traifalgar, R.F.; Tayamen, M.; Ragaza, J.A. Growth and immune response of
giant freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man) postlarvae fed diets containing Chlorella vulgaris (Beijerinck). Aquacult.
Res. 2017, 48, 1666–1676. [CrossRef]
169. Cerezuela, R.; Guardiola, F.A.; Meseguer, J.; Esteban, M.A. Enrichment of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.) diet with microalgae:
Effects on the immune system. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 38, 1729–1739. [CrossRef]
170. Das, B.K.; Pradhan, J.; Sahu, S. The effect of Euglena viridis on immune response of rohu, Labeo rohita (Ham.). Fish Shellfish
Immunol. 2009, 26, 871–876. [CrossRef]
171. Ansarifard, F.; Rajabi Islami, H.; Shamsaie Mehrjan, M.; Soltani, M. Effects of Arthrospira platensis on growth, skin color and
digestive enzymes of Koi, Cyprinus carpio. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2018, 17, 381–393.
172. Dineshbabu, G.; Goswami, G.; Kumar, R.; Sinha, A.; Das, D. Microalgae–nutritious, sustainable aqua-and animal feed source. J.
Funct. Foods 2019, 62, 103545. [CrossRef]
173. Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, Z.; Yuan, L.; Liu, H.; Han, D.; Jin, J.; Yang, Y.; Hu, Q.; Zhu, X. Effects of dietary whole and defatted Arthrospira
platensis (Cyanobacterium) on growth, body composition and pigmentation of the yellow catfish Pelteobagrus fulvidraco. J. Appl.
Phycol. 2021, 33, 2251–2259. [CrossRef]
174. Sun, X.; Chang, Y.; Ye, Y.; Ma, Z.; Liang, Y.; Li, T.; Jiang, N.; Xing, W.; Luo, L. The effect of dietary pigments on the coloration of
Japanese ornamental carp (koi, Cyprinus carpio L.). Aquaculture 2012, 342, 62–68. [CrossRef]
175. Ribeiro, A.R.; Gonçalves, A.; Barbeiro, M.; Bandarra, N.; Nunes, M.L.; Carvalho, M.L.; Silva, J.; Navalho, J.; Dinis, M.T.; Silva,
T. Phaeodactylum tricornutum in finishing diets for gilthead seabream: Effects on skin pigmentation, sensory properties and
nutritional value. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 1945–1956. [CrossRef]
176. Dworjanyn, S.A.; Pirozzi, I.; Liu, W. The effect of the addition of algae feeding stimulants to artificial diets for the sea urchin
Tripneustes gratilla. Aquaculture 2007, 273, 624–633. [CrossRef]
177. Warren-Myers, F.; Turchini, G.; Swearer, S.E.; Francis, D.; Dempster, T. The balancing act: Protein, lipid and seaweed dietary
levels to maximize gonad quantity in a wild-caught sea urchin. Aquacult. Nutr. 2021, 27, 1019–1030. [CrossRef]
178. Navarro, N.; Yúfera, M.; García-Gallego, M. Use of freeze-dried microalgae for rearing gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata L., larvae.
II. Biochemical composition. Hydrobiologia 2001, 452, 69–77. [CrossRef]
179. Kokou, F.; Makridis, P.; Kentouri, M.; Divanach, P. Antibacterial activity in microalgae cultures. Aquacult. Res. 2012, 43, 1520–1527.
[CrossRef]
180. Natrah, F.M.; Bossier, P.; Sorgeloos, P.; Yusoff, F.M.; Defoirdt, T. Significance of microalgal–bacterial interactions for aquaculture.
Rev. Aquacult. 2014, 6, 48–61. [CrossRef]
181. Tendencia, E.A.; dela Peña, M. Investigation of some components of the greenwater system which makes it effective in the initial
control of luminous bacteria. Aquaculture 2003, 218, 115–119. [CrossRef]
182. Biao, X.; Kaijin, Y. Shrimp farming in China: Operating characteristics, environmental impact and perspectives. Ocean Coast.
Manage. 2007, 50, 538–550. [CrossRef]
183. Neori, A. “Green water” microalgae: The leading sector in world aquaculture. J. Appl. Phycol. 2011, 23, 143–149. [CrossRef]
184. Suárez-Puerto, B.; Delgadillo-Díaz, M.; Sánchez-Solís, M.J.; Gullian-Klanian, M. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness and growth of
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in biofloc and green water technologies during two seasons. Aquaculture 2021, 538, 736534.
[CrossRef]
185. Jimenez, B.D.; Gaid, R.D.; Jimenez, C.R. Microalgal profile and anti-Vibrio activity of crude extracts from green water reservoir
stocked with tilapia. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Environ. Eng. 2016, 3, 259–262.
186. Chithambaran, S.; Harbi, M.; Broom, M.; Khobrani, K.; Ahmad, O.; Fattani, H.; Sofyani, A.; Ayaril, N. Green water technology for
the production of Pacific white shrimp Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931). Indian J. Fish 2017, 64, 43–49. [CrossRef]
187. Tendencia, E.A.; Bosma, R.H.; Sorio, L.R. Effect of three innovative culture systems on water quality and whitespot syndrome
virus (WSSV) viral load in WSSV-fed Penaeus monodon cultured in indoor tanks. Aquaculture 2012, 350, 169–174. [CrossRef]
188. Palmer, P.J.; Burke, M.J.; Palmer, C.J.; Burke, J.B. Developments in controlled green-water larval culture technologies for estuarine
fishes in Queensland, Australia and elsewhere. Aquaculture 2007, 272, 1–21. [CrossRef]
189. Kalasariya, H.S.; Patel, R.V.; Pandya, K.Y.; Jasrai, R.; Brahmbhatt, N.H. A review on nutritional facets of seaweeds. Int. J. Chem.
Sci. Technol. 2016, 1, 27–32.
190. Anh, N.T.N.; Vinh, N.H.; An, B.N.T.; Lan, L.M.; Hai, T.N. Polyculture culture of black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon and red
seaweed Gracilaria tenuistipitata under different densities: Effects on water quality, post-larvae performance and their resistance
against Vibrio parahaemolyticus. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 4333–4345. [CrossRef]
191. Kang, Y.H.; Park, S.R.; Chung, I.K. Biofiltration efficiency and biochemical composition of three seaweed species cultivated in a
fish-seaweed integrated culture. Algae 2011, 26, 97–108.
192. Yang, Y.; Chai, Z.; Wang, Q.; Chen, W.; He, Z.; Jiang, S. Cultivation of seaweed Gracilaria in Chinese coastal waters and its
contribution to environmental improvements. Algal Res. 2015, 9, 236–244. [CrossRef]
193. Ajjabi, L.C.; Abaab, M.; Segni, R. The red macroalga Gracilaria verrucosa in co-culture with the Mediterranean mussels Mytilus
galloprovincialis: Productivity and nutrient removal performance. Aquacult. Int. 2018, 26, 253–266. [CrossRef]
194. Fourooghifard, H.; Matinfar, A.; Mortazavi, M.S.; Roohani Ghadikolaee, K.; Roohani Ghadikolaee, M. Nitrogen and phosphorous
budgets for integrated culture of whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei with red seaweed Gracilaria corticata in zero water exchange
system. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2018, 17, 471–486.
195. Brito, L.O.; Arantes, R.; Magnotti, C.; Derner, R.; Pchara, F.; Olivera, A.; Vinatea, L. Water quality and growth of Pacific white
shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) in co-culture with green seaweed Ulva lactuca (Linaeus) in intensive system. Aquacult. Int.
2014, 22, 497–508. [CrossRef]
196. Elizondo-González, R.; Quiroz-Guzmán, E.; Escobedo-Fregoso, C.; Magallón-Servín, P.; Peña-Rodríguez, A. Use of seaweed Ulva
lactuca for water bioremediation and as feed additive for white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4459. [CrossRef]
197. Pallaoro, M.F.; do Nascimento Vieira, F.; Hayashi, L. Ulva lactuca (Chlorophyta Ulvales) as co-feed for Pacific white shrimp. J.
Appl. Phycol. 2016, 28, 3659–3665. [CrossRef]
198. Beltran-Gutierrez, M.; Ferse, S.C.; Kunzmann, A.; Stead, S.M.; Msuya, F.E.; Hoffmeister, T.S.; Slater, M.J. Co-culture of sea
cucumber Holothuria scabra and red seaweed Kappaphycus striatum. Aquacult. Res. 2016, 47, 1549–1559. [CrossRef]
199. Chávez-Crooker, P.; Obreque-Contreras, J. Bioremediation of aquaculture wastes. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2010, 21, 313–317.
[CrossRef]
200. Granada, L.; Sousa, N.; Lopes, S.; Lemos, M.F. Is integrated multitrophic aquaculture the solution to the sectors’ major challenges?—
A review. Rev. Aquacult. 2016, 8, 283–300. [CrossRef]
201. Namvar, F.; Mohamed, S.; Fard, S.G.; Behravan, J.; Mustapha, N.M.; Alitheen, N.B.M.; Othman, F. Polyphenol-rich seaweed
(Eucheuma cottonii) extract suppresses breast tumour via hormone modulation and apoptosis induction. Food Chem. 2012,
130, 376–382. [CrossRef]
202. García-Poza, S.; Leandro, A.; Cotas, C.; Cotas, J.; Marques, J.C.; Pereira, L.; Gonçalves, A.M. The evolution road of seaweed
aquaculture: Cultivation technologies and the industry 4.0. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6528. [CrossRef]
203. Abreu, M.H.; Pereira, R.; Yarish, C.; Buschmann, A.H.; Sousa-Pinto, I. IMTA with Gracilaria vermiculophylla: Productivity and
nutrient removal performance of the seaweed in a land-based pilot scale system. Aquaculture 2011, 312, 77–87. [CrossRef]
204. Tanaka, Y.; Ashaari, A.; Mohamad, F.S.; Lamit, N. Bioremediation potential of tropical seaweeds in aquaculture: Low-salinity
tolerance, phosphorus content, and production of UV-absorbing compounds. Aquaculture 2020, 518, 734853. [CrossRef]
205. Zheng, Y.; Jin, R.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Q.; Wu, J. The considerable environmental benefits of seaweed aquaculture in China. Stoch.
Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2019, 33, 1203–1221. [CrossRef]
206. Freeman, S.; Angel, D.; Freeman, S. Integrated aquaculture (INTAQ) as a tool for an ecosystem approach to the marine farming
sector in the Mediterranean Sea. Integr. Maric. 2019, 529, 133–183.
207. Machado, M.; Machado, S.; Pimentel, F.B.; Freitas, V.; Alves, R.C.; Oliveira, M. Amino acid profile and protein quality assessment
of macroalgae produced in an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture system. Foods 2020, 9, 1382. [CrossRef]
208. Pérez-Morales, A.; Band-Schmidt, C.J.; Martínez-Díaz, S.F. Changes in mortality rates during the larval stage of the Pacific white
shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) on the basis of algal (Chaetoceros calcitrans or Tetraselmis suecica) food density. Ecosistemas Y. Recur.
Agropecu. 2016, 3, 415–420.
209. Jamali, H.; Ahmadifard, N.; Abdollahi, D. Evaluation of growth, survival and body composition of larval white shrimp (Litopenaeus
vannamei) fed the combination of three types of algae. Int. Aquat. Res. 2015, 7, 115–122. [CrossRef]
210. Navarro, N. Feeding behaviour of the rotifers Brachionus plicatilis and Brachionus rotundiformis with two types of food: Live and
freeze-dried microalgae. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1999, 237, 75–87. [CrossRef]
211. Robert, R.; Parisi, G.; Rodolfi, L.; Poli, B.M.; Tredici, M.R. Use of fresh and preserved Tetraselmis suecica for feeding Crassostrea
gigas larvae. Aquaculture 2001, 192, 333–346. [CrossRef]
212. Nell, J.A.; O’Connor, W.A. The evaluation of fresh algae and stored algal concentrates as a food source for Sydney rock oyster,
Saccostrea commercialis (Iredale & Roughley), larvae. Aquaculture 1991, 99, 277–284.
213. Southgate, P.C.; Beer, A.C.; Duncan, P.F.; Tamburri, R. Assessment of the nutritional value of three species of tropical microalgae,
dried Tetraselmis and a yeast-based diet for larvae of the blacklip pearl oyster, Pinctada margaritifera (L.). Aquaculture 1998,
162, 247–257. [CrossRef]
214. Duy, N.D.Q.; Francis, D.S.; Pirozzi, I.; Southgate, P.C. Use of micro-algae concentrates for hatchery culture of sandfish, Holothuria
scabra. Aquaculture 2016, 464, 145–152. [CrossRef]
215. Duy, N.D.Q.; Pirozzi, I.; Southgate, P.C. Ingestion and digestion of live microalgae and microalgae concentrates by sandfish,
Holothuria scabra, larvae. Aquaculture 2015, 448, 256–261. [CrossRef]
216. Sales, R.; Mélo, R.C.S.; de Moraes Junior, R.M.; da Silva, R.C.S.; Cavalli, R.O.; Navarro, D.M.d.A.F.; de Souza Santos, L.P.
Production and use of a flocculated paste of Nannochloropsis oculata for rearing newborn seahorse Hippocampus reidi. Algal Res.
2016, 17, 142–149. [CrossRef]
217. Sarker, P.K.; Kapuscinski, A.R.; McKuin, B.; Fitzgerald, D.S.; Nash, H.M.; Greenwood, C. Microalgae-blend tilapia feed eliminates
fishmeal and fish oil, improves growth, and is cost viable. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–14. [CrossRef]
218. Fadl, S.E.; ElGohary, M.; Elsadany, A.Y.; Gad, D.M.; Hanaa, F.F.; El-Habashi, N.M. Contribution of microalgae-enriched fodder for
the Nile tilapia to growth and resistance to infection with Aeromonas hydrophila. Algal Res. 2017, 27, 82–88. [CrossRef]
219. Fadl, S.E.; Elsadany, A.Y.; El-Shenawy, A.M.; Sakr, O.A.; El Gammal, G.A.; Gad, D.M.; Norag, M.A.A.; Eissa, I. Efficacy of
cyanobacterium Anabaena sp. as a feed supplement on productive performance and immune status in cultured Nile tilapia.
Aquacult. Rep. 2020, 17, 100406. [CrossRef]
220. Fadl, S.E.; El-Habashi, N.; Gad, D.M.; Elkassas, W.M.; Elbialy, Z.I.; Abdelhady, D.H.; Hegazi, S.M. Effect of adding Dunaliella
algae to fish diet on lead acetate toxicity and gene expression in the liver of Nile tilapia. Toxin Rev. 2021, 40, 1155–1171. [CrossRef]
221. Younis, E.-S.M.; Al-Quffail, A.S.; Al-Asgah, N.A.; Abdel-Warith, A.-W.A.; Al-Hafedh, Y.S. Effect of dietary fish meal replacement
by red algae, Gracilaria arcuata, on growth performance and body composition of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Saudi J. Biol.
Sci. 2018, 25, 198–203. [CrossRef]
222. Mansour, A.T.; Alsaqufi, A.S.; Alkhamis, Y.A.; Al-Gazar, F.F.; Zaki, M.A.; Nour, A.A.M.; Ramada, K.M.A. The evaluation of
Arthrospira platensis bioactivity and their dietary supplementation to Nile tilapia vegetarian diet on growth performance, feed
utilization, body composition and hemato-biochemical parameters Ann. Anim. Sci. 2021, 21, 1061–1080. [CrossRef]
223. Pascon, G.; Messina, M.; Petit, L.; Valente, L.M.P.; Oliveira, B.; Przybyla, C.; Dutto, G.; Tulli, F. Potential application and beneficial
effects of a marine microalgal biomass produced in a high-rate algal pond (HRAP) in diets of European sea bass, Dicentrarchus
labrax. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 62185–62199. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
224. Haas, S.; Bauer, J.; Adakli, A.; Meyer, S.; Lippemeier, S.; Schwarz, K.; Schulz, C. Marine microalgae Pavlova viridis and Nan-
nochloropsis sp. as n-3 PUFA source in diets for juvenile European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.). J. Appl. Phycol. 2016,
28, 1011–1021. [CrossRef]
225. Valente, L.M.P.; Custódio, M.; Batista, S.; Fernandes, H.; Kiron, V. Defatted microalgae (Nannochloropsis sp.) from biorefinery as a
potential feed protein source to replace fishmeal in European sea bass diets. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 45, 1067–1081. [CrossRef]
226. Batista, S.; Pereira, R.; Oliveira, B.; Baião, L.F.; Jessen, F.; Tulli, F.; Messina, M.; Silva, J.L.; Abreu, H.; Valente, L.M. Exploring the
potential of seaweed Gracilaria gracilis and microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica, single or blended, as natural dietary ingredients for
European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 2041–2059. [CrossRef]
227. Reyes-Becerril, M.; Guardiola, F.; Rojas, M.; Ascencio-Valle, F.; Esteban, M.Á. Dietary administration of microalgae Navicula
sp. affects immune status and gene expression of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 883–889.
[CrossRef]
228. Cerezuela, R.; Guardiola, F.A.; González, P.; Meseguer, J.; Esteban, M.Á. Effects of dietary Bacillus subtilis, Tetraselmis chuii, and
Phaeodactylum tricornutum, singularly or in combination, on the immune response and disease resistance of sea bream (Sparus
aurata L.). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2012, 33, 342–349. [CrossRef]
229. Pereira, H.; Sardinha, M.; Santos, T.; Gouveia, L.; Barreira, L.; Dias, J.; Varela, J. Incorporation of defatted microalgal biomass
(Tetraselmis sp. CTP4) at the expense of soybean meal as a feed ingredient for juvenile gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Algal Res.
2020, 47, 101869. [CrossRef]
230. Seong, T.; Matsutani, H.; Haga, Y.; Kitagima, R.; Satoh, S. First step of non-fish meal, non-fish oil diet development for red
seabream,(Pagrus major), with plant protein sources and microalgae Schizochytrium sp. Aquacult. Res. 2019, 50, 2460–2468.
[CrossRef]
231. Galafat, A.; Vizcaíno, A.J.; Sáez, M.I.; Martínez, T.F.; Arizcun, M.; Chaves-Pozo, E.; Alarcón, F.J. Assessment of dietary inclusion
of crude or hydrolysed Arthrospira platensis biomass in starter diets for gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Aquaculture 2022,
548, 737680. [CrossRef]
232. Magnoni, L.J.; Martos-Sitcha, J.A.; Queiroz, A.; Calduch-Giner, J.A.; Gonçalves, J.F.M.; Rocha, C.M.; Abreu, H.T.; Schrama, J.W.;
Ozorio, R.O.; Pérez-Sánchez, J. Dietary supplementation of heat-treated Gracilaria and Ulva seaweeds enhanced acute hypoxia
tolerance in gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). Biol. Open 2017, 6, 897–908.
233. Gong, Y.; Bandara, T.; Huntley, M.; Johnson, Z.I.; Dias, J.; Dahle, D.; Sørensen, M.; Kiron, V. Microalgae Scenedesmus sp. as a
potential ingredient in low fishmeal diets for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 2019, 501, 455–464. [CrossRef]
234. Gong, Y.; Sørensen, S.L.; Dahle, D.; Nadanasabesan, N.; Dias, J.; Valente, L.M.; Sørensen, M.; Kiron, V. Approaches to improve
utilization of Nannochloropsis oceanica in plant-based feeds for Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 2020, 522, 735122. [CrossRef]
235. Wei, M.; Parrish, C.C.; Guerra, N.I.; Armenta, R.E.; Colombo, S.M. Extracted microbial oil from a novel Schizochytrium sp.(T18) as
a sustainable high DHA source for Atlantic salmon feed: Impacts on growth and tissue lipids. Aquaculture 2021, 534, 736249.
[CrossRef]
236. Sarker, P.K.; Kapuscinski, A.R.; Vandenberg, G.W.; Proulx, E.; Sitek, A.J.; Thomsen, L. Towards sustainable and ocean-friendly
aquafeeds: Evaluating a fish-free feed for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) using three marine microalgae species. Elem. Sci.
Anthr. 2020, 8, 1–16. [CrossRef]
237. Tomás-Almenar, C.; Larrán, A.; de Mercado, E.; Sanz-Calvo, M.; Hernández, D.; Riaño, B.; García-González, M. Scenedesmus
almeriensis from an integrated system waste-nutrient, as sustainable protein source for feed to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). Aquaculture 2018, 497, 422–430. [CrossRef]
238. Yıldırım, Ö.; Ergün, S.; Yaman, S.; Türker, A. Effects of two seaweeds (Ulva lactuca and Enteromorpha linza) as a feed additive in
diets on growth performance, feed utilization, and body composition of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Kafkas Univ. Vet.
Fak. Derg. 2009, 15, 455–460.
239. Allen, K.M.; Habte-Tsion, H.-M.; Thompson, K.R.; Filer, K.; Tidwell, J.H.; Kumar, V. Freshwater microalgae (Schizochytrium sp.) as
a substitute to fish oil for shrimp feed. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–10. [CrossRef]
240. Guimarães, A.M.; Dias Schleder, D.; Nagata, M.; Nóbrega, R.O.; Fracalossi, D.M.; Quadros Seiffert, W.; do Nascimento Vieira,
F. Aurantiochytrium sp. meal can replace fish oil in practical diets for the juvenile Pacific white shrimp. Aquacult. Nutr. 2019,
25, 798–807. [CrossRef]
241. Rodríguez-González, H.; Orduña-Rojas, J.; Villalobos-Medina, J.P.; García-Ulloa, M.; Polanco-Torres, A.; López-Álvarez, E.S.;
Montoya-Mejía, M.; Hernández-Llamas, A. Partial inclusion of Ulva lactuca and Gracilaria parvispora meal in balanced diets for
white leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 2453–2459. [CrossRef]
242. Seraspe, E.B.; Gabotero, S.; Milagros, R.; Pahila, I.G.; Amar, E.C. Evaluation of dietary freeze-dried Chaetoceros calcitrans
supplementation to control Vibrio harveyi infection on Penaeus monodon juvenile. Aquaculture 2014, 432, 212–216. [CrossRef]
243. Ju, Z.Y.; Deng, D.-F.; Dominy, W. A defatted microalgae (Haematococcus pluvialis) meal as a protein ingredient to partially replace
fishmeal in diets of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei, Boone, 1931). Aquaculture 2012, 354, 50–55. [CrossRef]
244. Radhakrishnan, S.; Belal, I.E.; Seenivasan, C.; Muralisankar, T.; Bhavan, P.S. Impact of fishmeal replacement with Arthrospira
platensis on growth performance, body composition and digestive enzyme activities of the freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium
rosenbergii. Aquacult. Rep. 2016, 3, 35–44. [CrossRef]
245. Maliwat, G.C.F.; Velasquez, S.F.; Buluran, S.M.D.; Tayamen, M.M.; Ragaza, J.A. Growth and immune response of pond-reared
giant freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii post larvae fed diets containing Chlorella vulgaris. Aquac. Fish. 2021, 6, 465–470.
[CrossRef]
246. Cañavate, J.P.; Fernández-Díaz, C. Pilot evaluation of freeze-dried microalgae in the mass rearing of gilthead seabream (Sparus
aurata) larvae. Aquaculture 2001, 193, 257–269. [CrossRef]
247. Shpigel, M.; Shauli, L.; Odintsov, V.; Ben-Ezra, 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]
248. Nardelli, A.E.; Chiozzini, V.G.; Braga, E.S.; Chow, F. Integrated multi-trophic farming system between the green seaweed Ulva
lactuca, mussel, and fish: A production and bioremediation solution. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 847–856. [CrossRef]
249. Chow, F.; Macchiavello, J.; Cruz, S.S.; Fonck, E.; Olivares, J. Utilization of Gracilaria chilensis (Rhodophyta: Gracilariaceae) as a
biofilter in the depuration of effluents from tank cultures of fish, oysters, and sea urchins. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2001, 32, 215–220.
[CrossRef]

Sustainability 14 03257

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 03257

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 03257

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editors: José

Received: 13 February 2022

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063257 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3257 3 of 28

Biochemical Composition (%, Dry Weight Bases)

2.1. Microalgae as Livefeeds in Aquaculture Hatcheries

In aquatic habitats, as presented in Table 2, phytoplankton organisms (microalgae) are

2.2. Microalgae Biomass

2.3. Algae as Aqua-Feed Additives and/or Replacement of Diet Ingredient

2.4. Algae as a Water Conditioner

2.5. Seaweed Co-Culture and Integration with Aquatic Animals

You might also like