Shafi et al.

, The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 31(2): 2021, Page:

The J.556-566
Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021
ISSN (print): 1018-7081; ISSN (online): 2309-8694

ASSESSMENT OF SOIL QUALITY FOR AQUACULTURE ACTIVITIES FROM FOUR

DIVISIONS OF PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
J. Shafi*, K. N. Waheed, Z. S. Mirza and M. Zafarullah

Fisheries Research and Training Institute, Lahore, Pakistan

*
Corresponding Author Email Address: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Present study was based on determination of soil quality to assess its suitability for aquaculture activities from thirty-one
selected areas situated in four division of Punjab. Results indicated that soil particle size distribution was suitable for
construction of fish ponds at most of the sites in Lahore and Sahiwal. In Gujranwala, about 50% of soil samples
contained higher sand content (>60%). Clay particles were found to be less than 25% in 75% of the soil samples whereas
sand content was higher than 50% in 25% of the samples collected from Sargodha division. Higher soil pH (>7.0) found
at all sites showed calcareous nature of soil and indicated that liming soil to increase pH was not a necessity in these
areas. Soil at all the studied areas of Sargodha was found to be saline or very strongly saline except at Village Hernali in
Mianwali district. It was found that about 83%, 100% and 80% of sites studied in Lahore, Sahiwal and Sargodha can be
used for fish culture respectively. However, none of the site in Gujranwala was found to be suitable for aquaculture if
used in present form. Appropriate soil management techniques can be adopted to use the land with unsuitable soil
particle size distribution for aquaculture. Saline nature of soil in Sargodha division must be considered while selecting
cultureable species of fish/ shrimps in these areas.
Keywords: Aquaculture, site selection, soil salinity, particle size distribution, clay turbidity, water seepage
https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2021.2.0244 Published online October 03,2020

INTRODUCTION physical and chemical characteristics of soil control

stability of pond bottom and chemical parameters of
Among the world food production sectors, overlying water.
aquaculture has the potential to cope up with the global Most of the challenging issues encountered
issues of food security, poverty and malnutrition (Aloo et during fish farming are linked with soil quality e.g.
al., 2017). Nevertheless, development and expansion of control of water seepage, clay turbidity in pond water,
this sector as well as the sustainability of all production unsuitable water pH due to soil basicity or acidity. It is,
and research based aquaculture activities are dependent therefore, necessary to assess the soil characteristics in
on suitability of sites selected during the planning stage. order to decide about land suitability for fish culture and
Negligence in appropriate consideration of this factor can adopt the efficacious soil management practices to
lead to stressed cultured organisms, restricted functioning increase the productivity of aquaculture projects. A
of aquatic ecosystem and even complete failure of number of earlier studies have evaluated the effect of
aquaculture projects (Frankic and Hershner, 2003). aquaculture on soil quality (Boyd et al., 1994; Siddique et
Crucial environmental factors that must be considered al., 2012; Prihutomo and Hardanu, 2016; Mustafa and
while assessing the suitability of a site for extensive and Undu, 2017). However, there is a lack of soil analysis
semi-intensive aquaculture operations are climate, land that may highlight suitability of soil for construction of
topography & elevation, soil quality and available water aquaculture ponds. Present study, therefore, aims to
sources. Out of these, soil quality is the most significant report soil characteristics and suitability for aquaculture
element used to determine potential of a site for fish activities at selected areas in 11 districts of Punjab,
culture activities (Siddique et al., 2012; Mustafa and Pakistan.
Undu, 2017).
Soil is the material which makes the pond MATERIALS AND METHODS
bottom and embankment to hold water for fish culture.
Bottom soil establishes equilibrium in the pond Sample collection: In present study, soil samples were
ecosystem and, therefore, critically influences growth and analysed to determine soil suitability for fish pond
survival of cultured species (Ahmed, 2004). Pond soil not construction at sites proposed to be used for aquaculture
only acts as biological filter but also stores and supplies by potential fish farmers. Soil samples were collected
nutrients for basal level organisms of autotrophic and during 2016-19 from 31 regions of 11 districts located in
heterophic food webs operating in the pond. In addition, four divisions of Punjab. Districts included Lahore,

556
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Nankana Sahab, Sheikhupura (Lahore division); Soil chemical analysis: For chemical analysis, soil
Gujranwala, Mandi Bahauddin, Narowal (Gujranwala sample (100.0 ± 0.01 g) was mixed thoroughly with
division); Pakpattan, Okara (Sahiwal division), Sargodha, distilled water (200 ml) for one hour following (Pansu,
Khushab, Mianwali (Sargodha division). There were 12 2016). pH and electrical conductivity of clear supernatant
sampling sites in Lahore, 6 in Gujranwala, 3 in Sahiwal were measured using pH meter and conductivity meter
and 10 in Sargodha division. A map of sampling sites in respectively.
various divisions has been shown in Figure 1. The area of
Statistical analysis: Spearman’s correlation coefficient
proposed farm sites varied from 0.1 acre to 5.0 acre.
was used to determine bivariate correlation among
Random soil sampling technique was adopted at each
different soil quality parameters. Correlation analysis was
site. Samples were collected in triplicate from 1 ft., 2 ft.
carried out in SPSS version 22 using two tailed test at .05
and 3 ft. soil depth at each sampling site. Samples were
significance level (Field, 2013).
labelled appropriately and transported to laboratory in
polyethylene bags where they were subjected to air
drying. Air dried samples were grinded to pass 2 mm RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
mesh screen and stored in polyethylene bags till further
analysis. Results of soil analysis for particle size
distribution and chemical parameters have been presented
Sample analysis: Air dried soil samples were analysed in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Correlation analysis
for soil particle size distribution, pH, electrical of soil parameters has been shown in Table 3.
conductivity, salinity and alkalinity.
Soil Particle Size Distribution: Average sand content of
Soil particle size distribution: Soil texture and content soil samples collected from 1 ft. varied from 5.89% at
of silt, sand and clay was determined by hydrometer LHR-10 to 56.66% at LHR-11 in Lahore division,
method following the method of Bentone (2003) with 12.67% at GRW-14 to 93.33% at GRW-13 in Gujranwala
slight modification. Calgon solution (5%) containing division, 11.04% at SW-20 to 18.33% at SW-21 in
sodium hexametaphosphate and sodium carbonate was Sahiwal division and 6.67% at SGR-26 to 73.24% at
used as dispersant for determination of sand, silt and clay SGR31 in Sargodha division. Lowest and highest sand
content in soil. An accurately weighed portion of soil content of soil at the depth of 2 ft. was found to be 5.58%
sample (50.0 g ± 0.05 g) was mixed with 100 mL of at LHR-10 and 51.00% at LHR-11in Lahore division,
calgon solution in a 1000 ml glass cylinder. The mixture 19.33% at GRW-14 and 93.67% at GRW-13 in
was allowed to stand undistributed overnight and then Gujranwala division, 8.93% at SW-20 and 27.67% at
volume of soil suspension was made up to the mark with SW-19 in Sahiwal division and 8.54% at SGR-26 and
distilled water. Soil suspension in the cylinder was mixed 69.89% at SGR-31 in Sargodha division respectively. At
thoroughly using a plunger. The plunger was removed the depth of 3 ft., sand content varied from 4.64% at
and a soil hydrometer was placed immediately in soil LHR-10 to 49.33% at LHR-11, 16.23% at GRW-14 to
sample suspension. Hydrometer reading of suspension 93.33% at GRW-13, 15.50% at SW-21 to 26.33% at SW-
was recorded after 40 seconds. Temperature of soil water 20 and 12.35% at SGR-28 to 67.27% at SGR-31 in
slurry was also observed at the same time. Soil Lahore, Gujranwala, Sahiwal and Sargodha divisions
suspension was left undisturbed and hydrometer & respectively.
temperature readings were again recorded after 2 hours. Similar to sand content, soil clay content showed
Hydrometer readings at 40 seconds and 2 hours were also wide variation at studied sites. In Lahore division, lowest
recorded for blank solution containing 100 ml calgon soil clay content was 9.67% while highest clay level was
solution diluted to 1000 ml with distilled water. Two 72.51% found at LHR-11 and LHR-10 respectively at 1
Hydrometer readings of soil suspensions (viz. recorded ft. depth. In Gujranwala and Sahiwal divisions, lowest
after 40 seconds and 2 hours) were corrected using soil clay content was found to be 2.0% (GRW-13) and
temperature of samples and hydrometer readings for 14.18% (SW-21) respectively. In contrast, soil at 1 ft.
blank. Content of sand, silt and clay was calculated as depth of GRW-16 and SW-20 showed highest clay
follows. content (48.84% and 20.81% respectively). In Sargodha,
Silt and clay content (%) = (Corrected lowest (8.79%) and highest (45.58%) clay content at 1 ft.
hydrometer reading recorded at 40 seconds/ soil sample soil depth was found at SGR-31 and SGR-29
weight) x 100 respectively. At the depth of 2 ft., lowest soil clay content
Clay content (%) = (Corrected hydrometer was found to be 13.0% (LHR-11), 0.33% (GRW-13),
reading recorded at 2 hours / soil sample weight) x 100 12.33% (SW-19) and 10.12% (SGR-31) while highest
Silt content (%) = (Silt and clay content) – (Clay soil clay content was 72.02% (LHR-10), 33.63% GRW-
content) 14), 30.49% (SW-20) and 48.20% (SGR-29) in the
Sand content (%) =100- (Silt and clay content) Lahore, Gujranwala, Sahiwal and Sargodha divisions
respectively. At the soil depth of 3 ft., lowest clay content

557
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

was found to be 13.20% (LHR-2), 2.33% (GRW-13), than 35% according to the earlier recommendations
10.33% (SW-19) and 10.11% (SGR-31) while highest (Hajek and Boyd, 1994). However, it was found later that
clay level was 71.99% (LHR-10), 27.67% (GRW-16), soil with high clay content is difficult to work during
23.81% (SW-20) and 42.40% (SGR-28) in the four pond construction and compaction due to its cohesive
divisions. nature and plasticity. In addition, high clay content in soil
In Lahore division, lowest soil silt content was can interfere indirectly with fish production by clogging
found at LHR-10 and highest at LHR-6 and LHR-7. Silt fish gills and causing turbidity in ponds that may restrict
level ranged from 21.60% to 65.33%, 22.40% to 68.65% sunlight and primary production. High soil clay content
and 23.37% to 69.29% at 1 ft. 2 ft. and 3 ft. soil depth can also cause degradation of receiving water bodies.
respectively. Silt content varied from 4.67% (GRW-13) Recommendations on soil clay content are, therefore,
to 57.29% (GRW-17) at 1 ft., 5.00% (GRW-13) to revised and soil with clay content of about 15% is
52.62% (GRW-18) at 2 ft. and 5.30% (GRW-13) to recommended as suitable for fish ponds. Moreover, it was
44.26% (GRW-16) at 3 ft. depth in Gujranwala, 64.67% suggested that soil with clay content of 5-10% can be
(SW-19) to 68.15% (SW-20) at 1 ft., 58.65% (SW-21) to used for pond embankments if it contains suitable
60.58% (SW-20) at 2 ft. and 52.54% (SW-20) to 72.64% distribution of particles of different sizes (Boyd et al.,
(SW-21) at 3 ft. depth in Sahiwal division. In Sargodha 2002).
division, lowest silt content was observed at SGR-31 and In present study, particle size distribution of soil
SGR-25 where it was found to be 17.98% (SGR-31), at most of the investigated sites in Lahore division was
19.98% (SGR-31) and 21.88% (SGR-25) while highest found to be suitable for fish ponds construction.
silt level observed at SGR-27 was 65.18%, 65.95% and However, soil at Village Kala Khatai in Narang Mandi,
67.57%. at 1 ft., 2 ft. and 3 ft. depth respectively. situated in Sheikhura district contained high content of
Variation in soil characteristics along depth has clay (>70%) in samples collected from three depths that
been reported in earlier studies that investigated soil rendered this site (in present form) unsuitable for
quality in context of aquaculture. (Boyd, 1976; Mustafa aquaculture. Soil at Sangla Hill in Nankana Sahab district
and Undu, 2017). It seems plausible that quality contained high sand content (>49%) that would lead to
parameters of upper soil layers may be remarkably high water seepage in constructed ponds. This site can be
different from deeper soils and it is advantageous to used with the aid of suitable soil management techniques
analyse soil characteristics along certain depth as bottom such as soil lining with impervious material or addition of
soil need to be excavated during pond construction & clay minerals. Sand content was less than 40% and clay
management. Therefore, soil samples collected from content was less than 30% in 75 percent of the soil
different depths were subjected to mechanical and samples collected from Lahore district (3 ft. depth; Figure
chemical analysis in the present investigation 2).
Soil texture depends on relative distribution of In Gujranwala, two sites; Phalia in Mandi
particles and their shape and size. Soils separates include Bahauddin district and Village Bhatli in Narowal district
coarse-grained particles with particle size 0.01–2.0 mm contained soil with high sand content (>74%) and low
(e.g. gravel and sand) and fine grained particles with clay content (<5%) in all the samples collected from
particle size of 0.05-0.002 mm for silt and less than 0.002 different soil depths. Soil at two sites of Village Heeran,
mm for clay (Boyd, 2003). Relative percentage of sand, in Narowal district contained higher sand content at 2 ft.
silt and clay in soil is very important parameter that (>40%) and 3 ft. (>60%). Soil at Kotli Nu in Gujranwala
influences suitability of soil for fish farming (Mischke, district and Village Sakantra in Narowal district
2012). Problems associated with water seepage and contained high percentage of clay (>30%) in samples
sediment erosion can be avoided effectively by proper collected from 1-3 ft. of former site and 1 ft. & 2 ft. depth
construction of embankments and sufficiently compacted of later site. However, soil at 3 ft. depth of Village
pond bottom soil that can only be accomplished if soil Sakantra contained 27.67% clay. Relatively lower clay
contains suitable content of sand, silt and clay (Bunting, content at 2-3 ft. depth indicates that soil at deeper depths
2013). It is, therefore, necessary to determine soil texture (greater than 3 ft.) of this site can be investigated for
class and relative content of soil particles before suitable particle size distribution with low clay content.
construction of pond. Soil that is considered as suitable Sand content exhibited wide range i.e. 10%-90% in soil
for construction of pond bottom and embankments should samples of Gujranwala division (3 ft. depth; Figure 2).
be well graded with wide range of different sized Level of sand particles was found to be higher than 30%
particles. High sand content in soil will not only lead to in 75 percent of soil samples while it was higher than
excessive water infiltration rates from pond bottom and 60% in 50 percent of samples. Clay content was less than
embankments but also cause degradation of underground 10% in 50 percent of collected samples. It is suggested
water quality due to percolation of exogenous chemicals that most of the investigated sites in Gujranwala division
along with seeped water (Tucker and Hargreaves, 2009). require appropriate soil management techniques prior to
Moreover, pond soil should have a clay content of greater be used for aquaculture activities.

558
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Relative sand and clay content of soil at the texture classes in four divisions of Punjab studied in
three studied sites of Sahiwal division was suitable for present investigation has been compared in Figure 3. Silt
aquaculture. Sand, silt and clay content exhibited narrow loam was the most abundant soil class in Lahore and
range in soil samples (3 ft. Figure 2) of Sahiwal division. Sahiwal division found in 43.52% and 74.07% of soil
Range of sand, silt and clay particles was found to be samples respectively. Classification of soil in Guranwala
15%-30%, 10%-25% and 50%-75% respectively. and Sargodha division was more diversified. Soil was
In Sargodha division, high sand content (67%) designated as silt loam, loam and loamy sand in 20.37%,
was found at Harnali, Tehsil Peelan in Sargodha district. 18.52% and 18.52% of soil samples in Gujranwala
Relatively high sand content was also found at Chak No. division respectively. In Sargodha division, loam, sandy
188/ NB (>40%), Shahpur (>50%) and Kandewala Road loam and silt loam were found in 24.44%, 15.56% and
(>39%) in Sargodha district. High clay content was found 15.56% of soil samples.
at Village Muhammad Ali Wala and Behak Mekan in Soil pH: Soil pH varied from 7.62-10.23 in soil samples
Sargodha district where it ranged from 38.57% to of 1 ft., 7.61-10.22 in samples collected from 2 ft. and
42.403% and 45.58% to 48.21% respectively. Clay 7.61-10.19 in soil of 3 ft. depth in Lahore division.
content was also relatively high at Chak No. 35/ SB in Lowest soil pH was found at LHR-8 and highest at LHR-
Sargodha district (30.66% to 34.64%). Clay content in 10. In Gujranwala division, pH range of examined sites
upper soil layer (1 ft.) was found to be 32.0% in Village was found to range from 7.63-9.92, 7.71-9.91 and 7.62-
Sandral situated in Khushab district while it reduced to 9.99 at 1 ft., 2 ft. and 3 ft. depth. In Sahiwal and
18.67% at 3 ft. depth which indicates that soil at deeper Sargodha division, lowest soil pH was found to be 7.85
site can be used for construction of pond bottom and (SW-19) & 7.94 (SGR-22) at 1 ft., 7.86 (SW-19) &7.96
embankments. Sand content was less than 35% in half of (SGR-22) at 2 ft. and 7.80 (SW-19) &7.90 (SGR-26) at 3
the soil samples of Sargodha division (3 ft. depth, Figure ft. depth respectively. Highest soil pH was 8.45 (SW-21),
2) while it was higher than 50% in 25 percent of samples. 8.49 (SW-21) & 8.79 (SW-21) in Sahiwal division and
Silt content ranged from 15% to 80% while in half of the 10.06 (SGR-29), 10.04 (SGR-28) & 10.03 (SGR-28) in
soil samples; it was found in the range of 30%-50%. In Sargodha division in samples collected from 1-3 ft. depth
75 percent of soil samples, clay particles were less than respectively.
25% (Figure 2). Uzukwu et al. (2011) reported high Higher pH values of soil as found in present
water seepage in ponds of experimental fish farm at study indicated the absence of potential acid sulphate
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine soils in the studied areas. Acid sulphate soil contains
Research and linked it with high sand content. Water sulfidic sediments and generally have a pH of 5.0 -7.0 in
seepage was also observed in ponds with appreciable clay wet form that might decrease to 2-3 when dried due to the
content and authors attributed it to increased porosity of formation of sulphuric acid under aerobic condition
soil due to mixing of clay with laterite. Yi et al. (2003) (Thompson, 2018). If such soils act as pond bottoms,
investigated the cause of clay turbidity in Nile tilapia refilling of ponds with water can lead to low water pH
ponds situated in Thailand and evaluated different values that is potentially dangerous for fish and shrimp
methods to reduce it. The authors concluded that the main (Boyd et al., 2002). The observed pH values of the tested
cause of turbidity was erosion from pond embankments soil samples indicated the presence of basic ions
that can be covered with rice straw to effectively reduce (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium etc.) on cation
the run-off. exchange sites of soil and very low proportion (or
Soil texture class can be ascertained on the basis absence) of acidic aluminium ions as exchangeable ions
of relative percentage of sand, clay and silt particles bound on these sites
present in it with the aid of soil texture triangle devised Soil pH was found to be less than 10.0 in Lahore
by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) division except at Village Ladhake in Lahore district and
(Osman, 2013). All the texture classes are not suitable for Village Kala Khatai in Sheikhupura district. Moreover, it
the construction of fish ponds. Soil texture with high sand was greater than 8 at all the studied sites of Lahore
(loamy sand, sandy loam, sand) or clay content (clay, division except at Village Nathuki in Lahore district
silty clay) can render a site unsuitable for aquaculture. In where it was 7.61. Soil pH was between 8.0-9.0 in
general, silt loam and clay loam classes are considered as Gujranwala division at Phalia in Mandibahuddin district
suitable for construction of ponds. However, the final and Kotli Nu in Gujranwala district. In Village Bhatli,
recommendation on soil suitability should not be based and two sites of Village Heeran, in Narowal district, it
merely on the texture class in an area but on accurate remained between 7.0-8.0. Village Sakantra in Narowal
determination of relative content of soil separates. For district was the only site where pH of the soil was higher
example, while silt loam is considered as suitable texture than 9.90. Soil of all examined sites in Sahiwal division
class for aquaculture, clay content of this class can be showed suitable pH range 7.0-8.50. pH range at most of
0%-27%. Soils with very low clay content <10% are, the sites in Sargodha division was found to be 7.0-8.70
surely, not acceptable for fish ponds. Prevalence of soil (i.e. at Chak No. 188 NB, Chak No. 35 SB, Cha No. 95

559
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

NB, Shahpur & Kandiwala road in Sargodha district, 1

(SW-20) and 1024.0 µScm-1 (SW-19) at 1-3 ft. depth. In
Village Sandral in Khushab district and Village Hernali Sargodha division, minimum EC was found at SGR-31;
in Mianwali district). Higher soil pH; 9.0-10.10 was 196.67 µScm-1 (1 ft.), 234.67 µScm-1 (2 ft.) and 239.0
found only at Village Muhammad Ali Wala and Village µScm-1 (3 ft.). Highest soil EC was recorded at SGR-30
Behak Mekan in Sargodha district. (14520.0 µScm-1) at 1 ft. and SGR-29 (6590.0 µScm-1
Aquaculture professionals have reported that and 6529.0 µScm-1) at 2 ft. and 3 ft. depth.
optimum soil pH in fish ponds is 7.5-8.0 as functioning Salinity of soil is determined by its electrical
of soil bacterial flora is maximum at this pH range (Boyd conductivity. According to the classification of Dellavalle
and Pippopinyo, 1994). Soil pH can also affect the (1992), soil at seven sites of Lahore division was either
activity of benthic organisms that can only survive in non-saline or very slightly saline with EC of less than 800
specific pH range in pond bottom (Cornut et al., 2012) µScm-1. At Village Manga in Raiwind, Village Ladheki,
and serve as natural food for cultured fish and shrimp situated in Oonche tehsil of Lahore district, Village Kala
(Dokulil, 2009). For soil pH <7.5, it is recommended to Khatai in Sheikhupura district, soil was either saline,
lime the soil to achieve optimum fish production as lower strongly saline or very strongly saline (Table 2). In Chak
soil pH can decrease the rate of microbial decomposition 574 in Nankana Sahab district, upper soil layer was very
of organic matter and lower the availability of strongly saline while deeper layers were moderately
phosphrous from the applied fertilizers. In present study, saline. High soil salinity at some of the studied sites
pH of the soil was higher than 7.5 in samples collected indicates that special attention must be paid to salinity
from different depths, it is, therefore, suggested that soil tolerance of cultured fish/ shrimp species while
at these sites does not require lime treatment to increase considering the sites for aquaculture. It can, therefore, be
soil pH (Boyd and de Queiroz, 2014; Boyd and inferred that when a site is selected to determine its
Pippopinyo, 1994). In the tested areas where soil pH is potential for aquaculture, soil quality at various depths
greater than 9.0, use of acidic fertilizers is recommended can be investigated to locate the layer with suitable
to neutralize soil basicity and reduce its pH to optimum salinity. Soil at all the sites of Gujranwala division was
level (Boyd, 1995). Thunjai et al. (2004) measured found to be non-saline or slightly saline. Moderately
average soil pH of 7.50 (6.62-7.90) in tilapia ponds of 3- saline site was present in Sahiwal division at Chak Jaffer
39 years situated in Thailand. High pH was attributed to Shah, Pakpattan district, while strongly saline nature of
frequent use of lime in the ponds and marked the upper soil layer was recorded at Papli Pehar Road and
equilibrium between soil and calcium carbonate. Mujahid pura in okara district. Saline and very strongly
Wudtisin and Boyd (2006) conducted a study to compare saline soil was found in Sargodha division at all the sites
the sediment characterisics in carp, prawns and catish of Sargodha and Khushab districts except in Village
ponds. They reported slightly acidic sediments in most of Hernali, Peelan tehsil situated in Mianwali district. Figure
the ponds (pH; 6-6.8) although ponds were regularly 4 shows a comparison of soil EC (at 3 ft. depth) in four
limed on annual basis. Munsiri et al. (1995) identified divisions. Highest soil EC was found in Sargodha
variation in soil pH in wet and dry form. When the pond division where it was higher than 2500 µScm-1 in more
soil is wet, its pH is determined by decomposition of iron than 50% of the soil samples and greater than 5000
carbonate under anaerobic conditions. pH of the acidic µScm-1 in about 25% of the samples. Highest soil EC was
dry pond soil depends on aluminium content on cation found at Kandewala road in Sargodha district where it
exchange sites of soil and that of the basic or neutral was 18173 µScm-1 at 1 ft., 4283 µScm-1 at 2 ft. depth and
pond soil by the dissolution of basic minerals e.g. 5200 µScm-1 at 3 ft. depth. These results are in agreement
calcium carbonate (Masuda and Boyd, 1994). with those of Siddiq and Raza (2011) who reported that
nature of soil in 40.6% of soil samples collected from
Soil Electrical Conductivity (EC): Minimum soil
Sargodha division were affected by salt.
electrical conductivity in Lahore division was 128.78
µScm-1 (LHR-05), 117.23 µScm-1 (LHR-06) & 115.33 Correlation Analysis: Results of bivariate correlation
µScm-1 (LHR-05) while highest EC was 2650.00 µScm-1 analysis of soil quality variables have been presented in
(LHR-12), 2613.33 µScm-1 (LHR-3) and 3050.0 µScm-1 Table 3. Sand particles was negatively correlated with
(LHR-3) at 1-3 ft. depth respectively. In Gujranwala soil clay content; rs = -.724, silt content; rs = -.560,
division, soil EC ranged from 124.33 µScm-1 (GRW-15) (P<.001), pH; rs = -.324 and electrical conductivity; rs = -
to 928.33 µScm-1 (GRW-16), 123.47 µScm-1 (GRW-13) .325 ((P<.01). There was significant positive correlation
to 789.00 µScm-1 (GRW-16) and 130.17 µScm-1 (GRW- of clay particles with soil pH; rs = .485 and soil EC; rs
13) to 687.67 µScm-1 (GRW-16) in soil samples collected =.487 (P<.001). Moreover, there was significant positive
from three different depths. Lowest EC in Sahiwal correlation between soil pH and EC; rs = .303 (P<.01).
division was found to be 761.67 µScm-1 (SW-21), 660.33 Results of strong positive correlation between soil clay
µScm-1 (SW-21) and 548.0 µScm-1 (SW-20) while content and pH & EC are in accordance with the fact that
highest EC was 1933.33 µScm-1 (SW-20), 1556.67 µScm- clay particles can adsorb inorganic ions due to their very

560
 Shafietetal.,
Shafi al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021 The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Table 1. Soil particle size distribution at different sites in four divisions of Punjab.

Site code Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)

1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.
LHR-1 30.33 ± 5.86 30.33 ± 8.39 31.33 ± 8.74 56.67 ± 4.04 55.33 ±5.51 55.33 ± 7.02 13.0 ± 2.0 14.33 ± 3.06 13.33 ± 2.08
LHR-2 29.0 ± 1.73 27.33 ± 0.58 30.67 ± 3.51 50.33 ± 1.53 52.0 ± 1.00 49.00 ± 2.65 20.67 ± 1.15 20.67 ± 1.53 20.33 ± 1.53
LHR-3 14.31 ± 1.18 13.00 ± 1.10 13.65 ± 2.01 59.30 ± 6.09 56.63 ± 2.27 55.97 ± 1.99 26.39 ± 6.00 30.38 ± 2.01 30.38 ± 2.01
LHR-4 32.46 ± 6.95 35.11 ± 8.10 39.81 ± 7.57 47.29 ± 6.44 45.30 ± 6.44 45.95 ± 3.47 20.25 ± 1.17 19.59 ± 2.01 14.25 ± 4.16
LHR-5 20.87 ± 4.02 18.87 ± 5.92 21.51 ± 2.33 51.95 ± 2.00 53.95 ± 5.26 51.98 ± 7.22 27.17 ± 5.30 27.18 ± 7.20 26.52 ± 7.01
LHR-6 17.0 ± 5.0 22.33 ± 9.07 31.33 ± 21.39 65.33 ± 6.03 61.67 ± 1.53 54.67 ± 15.70 17.67 ± 9.29 16.00 ± 8.89 14.00 ± 6.56
LHR-7 18.84 ± 5.29 18.15 ± 5.03 17.51 ± 5.03 63.97 ± 5.29 68.65 ± 8.32 69.29 ± 8.09 17.19 ± 0 13.20 ± 3.46 13.19 ± 3.46
LHR-8 37.0 ± 4.58 33.67 ± 2.08 32.33 ± 2.08 47.33 ± 2.89 50.33 ± 0.58 51.00 ± 2.65 15.67 ± 2.08 16.00 ± 2.00 16.67 ± 1.15
LHR-9 24.33 ± 1.12 23.63 ± 0.03 22.98 ± 1.17 50.62 ± 1.14 49.98 ± 2.00 49.31 ± 1.15 25.05 ± 1.15 26.39 ± 2.00 27.72 ± 2.32
LHR-10 5.89 ± 1.77 5.58 ± 3.83 4.64 ± 0.73 21.6 ± 1.14 22.40 ± 1.27 23.37 ± 2.33 72.51 ± 2.89 72.02 ± 4.65 71.99 ± 2.97
LHR-11 56.67 ± 14.64 51.00 ± 11.53 49.33 ± 11.24 34.0 ± 11.0 36.0 ± 7.21 36.33 ± 5.51 9.67 ± 4.62 13.00 ± 4.36 14.33 ± 5.86
LHR-12 15.47 ± 4.62 14.80 ± 4.00 16.13 ± 1.15 54.0 ± 2.0 56.0 ± 4.00 45.33 ± 2.31 30.53 ± 3.06 29.20 ± 4.00 38.53 ± 3.06
GRW-13 93.33 ± 2.52 93.67 ± 2.31 93.33 ± 3.79 4.67 ± 2.52 5.00 ± 3.46 5.33 ± 2.31 2.0 ± 0 0.33 ± 0.58 2.33 ± 0.58
GRW-14 12.67 ± 9.87 19.33 ± 4.16 16.67 ± 19.41 50.35 ± 2.52 47.04 ± 6.53 51.36 ± 18.05 36.99 ± 9.66 33.63 ± 3.19 31.98 ± 10.0
GRW-15 78.33 ± 6.11 75.67 ± 3.06 74.33 ± 5.23 16.67 ± 6.11 19.33 ± 3.06 20.67 ± 1.85 5.0 ± 0 5.00 ± 0.00 5.00 ± 2.64
GRW-16 13.90 ± 1.06 25.43 ± 5.62 28.07 ± 2.87 37.25 ± 4.03 41.84 ± 2.01 44.26 ± 2.52 48.84 ± 2.99 32.73 ± 4.91 27.67 ± 2.50
GRW-17 35.12 ± 6.14 42.44 ± 6.95 73.10 ± 15.13 57.29 ± 4.18 50.63 ± 7.58 19.98 ± 13.84 7.60 ± 2.0 6.93 ± 1.15 6.93 ± 2.31
GRW-18 36.49 ± 3.44 42.45 ± 3.44 63.10 ± 25.46 57.25 ± 3.04 52.62 ± 4.14 31.31 ± 23.84 6.26 ± 1.15 4.93 ± 1.15 5.60 ± 2.00
SW-19 18.33 ± 3.06 27.67 ± 10.26 26.33 ± 2.31 64.67 ± 3.06 60.50 ± 5.20 63.33 ± 7.23 17.0 ± 4.0 12.33 ± 7.37 10.33 ± 4.93
SW-20 11.04 ± 2.02 8.93 ± 0.04 23.65 ± 1.17 68.15 ± 1.5 60.58 ± 2.28 52.54 ± 0.59 20.81 ± 2.08 30.49 ± 2.32 23.81 ± 0.58
SW-21 14.18 ± 5.02 16.16 ± 8.07 15.50 ± 1.15 66.97 ± 12.16 58.65 ± 15.28 72.64 ± 3.06 14.18 ± 5.02 16.16 ± 8.07 15.50 ± 1.15
SGR-22 45.13 ± 4.63 41.11 ± 6.12 51.11 ± 5.03 40.62 ± 4.18 44.30 ± 7.35 35.97 ± 5.29 14.25 ± 1.14 14.59 ± 6.09 12.92 ± 1.15
SGR-23 21.56 ± 2.07 21.37 ± 1.94 21.56 ± 2.31 43.80 ± 2.00 45.23 ± 2.31 47.78 ± 1.94 34.64 ± 2.03 33.40 ± 1.09 30.66 ± 3.53
SGR-24 38.08 ± 7.01 33.69 ± 3.51 33.78 ± 3.47 48.62 ± 5.70 44.52 ± 1.27 43.43 ± 0.38 13.3 ± 8.37 21.79 ± 3.65 22.79 ± 3.80
SGR-25 52.33 ± 7.96 54.25 ± 4.99 50.28 ± 3.03 25.43 ± 6.57 21.14 ± 7.18 21.88 ± 8.43 22.25 ± 1.50 24.60 ± 2.32 27.92 ± 5.96
SGR-26 6.67 ± 4.62 13.33 ± 8.33 41.33 ± 23.44 61.33 ± 12.22 57.33 ± 15.14 40.00 ± 20.78 32.0 ± 13.86 29.33 ± 23.09 18.67 ± 4.62
SGR-27 16.05 ± 0.68 15.86 ± 0.98 16.44 ± 1.41 65.18 ± 11.80 65.95 ± 13.05 67.57 ± 9.89 18.78 ± 12.46 18.19 ± 14.02 16.0 ± 10.58
SGR-28 14.04 ± 2.93 8.54 ± 2.95 12.35 ± 2.73 47.39 ± 11.83 48.44 ± 20.97 45.25 ± 12.86 38.57 ± 10.27 43.02 ± 18.23 42.40 ± 11.89
SGR-29 16.58 ± 4.28 15.34 ± 3.48 20.16 ± 1.49 37.84 ± 4.75 36.45 ± 15.38 39.00 ± 21.16 45.58 ± 7.39 48.21 ± 12.28 40.83 ± 22.10
SGR-30 39.47 ± 7.73 44.35 ± 8.11 44.34 ± 5.02 39.42 ± 4.03 39.94 ± 7.23 35.95 ± 2.00 21.11 ± 4.06 15.71 ± 2.31 19.70 ± 6.10
SGR-31 73.24 ± 5.30 69.89 ± 7.03 67.27 ± 9.96 17.98 ± 3.47 19.98 ± 6.00 22.62 ± 8.29 8.79 ± 2.00 10.12 ± 1.16 10.11 ± 3.05

561
Shafi
Shafietetal.,
al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021 The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Table 2. Soil chemical parameters at different sites in four divisions of Punjab.

pH EC (µScm-1) Soil class

Site code
1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.
LHR-1 8.35 ± 0.20 8.28 ± 0.15 8.37± 0.32 396.3 ± 27.3 354.0 ± 65.2 447.0 ± 99.83 Non saline Non-saline Very slightly saline
LHR-2 9.58 ± 0.09 9.56 ± 0.06 9.77 ± 0.19 319.0 ± 143.9 315.7 ± 70.6 256.3 ± 63.57 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
LHR-3 9.23 ± 0.30 9.85 ± 0.53 9.95 ± 0.17 1348.0 ± 204.4 2613.3 ± 189.3 3050.0 ± 384.32 Saline Strongly saline Strongly saline
LHR-4 8.26 ± 0.27 8.36 ± 0.14 8.30 ± 0.07 172.7 ± 17.9 134.9 ± 42.7 157.3 ± 14.50 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
LHR-5 7.96 ± 0.36 8.16 ± 0.34 8.19 ± 0.44 128.8 ± 31.8 118.2 ± 12.2 115.3 ± 24.47 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
LHR-6 8.02 ± 0.24 8.11 ± 0.25 8.12 ± 0.13 187.8 ± 105.1 117.2 ± 15.0 116.3 ± 11.63 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
LHR-7 9.60 ± 0.65 9.78 ± 0.36 9.88 ± 0.31 420.0 ± 256.1 420.0 ± 148.0 529.3 ± 390.31 Very slightly saline Very slightly saline Very slightly saline
LHR-8 7.62 ± 0.02 7.61 ± 0.01 7.61 ± 0.03 255.3 ± 14.2 252.7 ± 24.1 281.6 ± 29.57 Non-saline Non-saline Strongly saline
LHR-9 10.07 ± 0.14 10.03 ± 0.27 10.01 ± 0.39 1826.7 ± 571.5 2129.7 ± 560.5 2446. ± 570.03 Strongly saline Strongly saline Strongly saline
LHR-10 10.23 ± 0.42 10.22 ± 0.30 10.19 ± 0.28 1639.0 ± 180.5 1359.0 ± 181.3 635.4 ± 180.73 Strongly saline Saline Very slightly saline
LHR-11 9.47 ± 0.05 9.33 ± 0.16 9.40 ± 0.15 551.0 ± 33.0 579.7 ± 66.9 1349.0 ± 24.09 Very slightly saline Very slightly saline Saline
LHR-12 8.63 ± 0.64 9.57 ± 0.09 9.63 ± 0.06 2650.0 ± 757.8 996.0 ± 240.0 1004.0 ± 277.01 Strongly saline Moderately saline Moderately saline
GRW-13 8.51 ± 0.12 8.56 ± 0.21 8.46 ± 0.07 151.4 ± 15.1 123.5 ± 20.9 130.1 ± 41.64 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
GRW-14 8.24 ± 0.07 8.25 ± 0.06 8.28 ± 0.07 145.0 ± 10.0 165.0 ± 30.4 273.3 ± 63.53 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
GRW-15 7.63 ± 0.06 7.71 ± 0.09 7.62 ± 0.09 124.3 ± 8.0 155.3 ± 81.2 277.6 ± 141.23 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
GRW-16 9.92 ± 0.14 9.97 ± 0.21 9.99 ± 0.29 928.3 ± 86.3 789.0 ± 194.8 687.6 ± 116.63 Moderately saline Very slightly saline Very slightly saline
GRW-17 7.78 ± 0.08 7.93 ± 0.17 7.92 ± 0.23 145.3 ± 69.6 140.0 ± 5.6 133.0 ± 7.94 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
GRW-18 7.79 ± 0.16 7.84 ± 0.04 7.86 ± 0.06 198.7 ± 40.1 263.3 ± 64.1 136.0 ± 36.06 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline
SW-19 7.85 ± 0.03 7.86 ± 0.14 7.80 ± 0.20 1051.0 ± 337.4 928.7 ± 269.5 1024.0 ± 460.16 Moderately saline Moderately saline Moderately saline
SW-20 8.40 ± 0.05 8.49 ± 0.09 8.40 ± 0.17 1933.3 ± 58.5 1556.7 ± 240.4 548.0 ± 46.57 Strongly saline Saline Very slightly saline
SW-21 8.45 ± 0.30 8.48 ± 0.31 8.79 ± 0.37 761.7 ± 79.2 660.3 ± 84.8 563.6 ± 152.32 Very slightly saline Very slightly saline Very slightly saline
SGR-22 7.94 ± 0.08 7.96 ± 0.11 8.10 ± 0.27 6280.0 ± 978.7 4953.3 ± 542.4 5090.0 ± 689.42 Very slightly saline Very strongly saline Very strongly saline
SGR-23 8.65 ± 0.17 8.65 ± 0.21 8.33 ± 0.81 2268.3 ± 2356.6 3523.3 ± 2132.4 3303.0 ±1985.98 Strongly saline Very strongly saline Very strongly saline
SGR-24 8.14 ± 0.46 8.54 ± 0.28 8.72 ± 0.31 6780.0 ± 9876.7 2034.3 ± 1655.2 2099.0 ± 1878.12 Very strongly saline Strongly saline Strongly saline
SGR-25 8.32 ± 0.25 8.38 ± 0.21 8.49 ± 0.19 1588.0 ± 827.7 1066.3 ± 73.4 1366.0 ± 888.65 Saline Moderately saline Saline
SGR-26 8.07 ± 0.10 8.07 ± 0.14 7.90 ± 0.35 3180.3 ± 3370.0 3504.7 ± 4275.8 3406.0 ± 4134.57 Strongly saline Very strongly saline Very strongly saline
SGR-27 8.01 ± 0.07 8.02 ± 0.08 8.01 ± 0.10 2987.3 ± 2569.9 2887.7 ± 2471.5 3103.0 ± 2919.20 Strongly saline Strongly saline Strongly saline
SGR-28 9.95 ± 0.27 10.04 ± 0.14 10.03 ± 0.18 1845.0 ± 541.7 1968.7 ± 228.3 2070.0 ± 366.64 Strongly saline Strongly saline Strongly saline
SGR-29 10.06 ± 0.09 9.70 ± 0.47 9.34 ± 0.82 7510.0 ± 8268.9 6590.0 ± 7716.3 6529.0 ± 7951.21 Very strongly saline Very strongly saline Very strongly saline
SGR-30 8.01 ± 0.29 8.52 ± 0.18 8.46 ± 0.13 18173.3 ± 3163.9 4283.3 ± 2097.9 5200.0 .± 2904.96 Very strongly saline Very strongly saline Very strongly saline
SGR-31 8.53 ± 0.08 8.47 ± 0.19 8.65 ± 0.17 196.7 ± 15.2 234.7 ± 15.3 239.0 ± 29.31 Non-saline Non-saline Non-saline

562
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Table 3. Correlation matrix for soil quality parameters.

Sand Silt Clay pH EC

Sand Correlation coefficient (rs) 1.00 -.560** -.724** -.324* -.325
Significance (Two tailed) .000 .000 .002 .001
Silt Correlation coefficient (rs) 1.00 .063 -.067 .057
Significance (Two tailed) .549 .521 .586
Clay Correlation coefficient (rs) 1.00 .485** .478
Significance (Two tailed) .000 .000
pH Correlation coefficient (rs) 1.00 .303*
Significance (Two tailed) .003
EC Correlation coefficient (rs) 1.00
Significance (Two tailed) .
rs: Spearman’s rho
**: Correlation is significant at .001 level (two tailed)
*: Correlation is significant at .01 level (two tailed)

Figure 1. Map of sampling sites in Punjab, Pakistan

563
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Variation in Particle Size Distribution

a. Lahore b. Gujranwala
80 100

80
60

Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)

60
40
40

20
20

0 0

Sand Silt Clay Sand Silt Clay

c. Sahiwal d. Sargodha
80 80

Percentage (%)
60 60
Percentage (%)

40 40

20 20

0 0

Sand Silt Clay Sand Silt Clay

Figure 2. Variation in particle size distribution in four divisions of Punjab, Pakistan

Figure 3. Prevalence of soil texture class in four divisions of Punjab, Pakistan

564
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

a. Lahore 2400 b. Gujranwala

3600
2000
3000

1600

EC (S cm-1)
EC (S cm-1)

2400

1800 1200

1200
800

600
400

0
1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.

10000

c. Sahiwal d. Sargodha
600
8000

EC (S cm-1)
450
EC (S cm-1)

6000

300
4000

150 2000

0 0
1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.

Figure 4. Variation in soil EC recorded in four divisions of Punjab, Pakistan

large surface area of 10-800 m2g-1 (Hendricks, 2006). REFERENCES

Buffering capacity of soil that in turn is related to cation
exchange sites on clay particles is also attributed to their Ahmed, H. (2004). Soil quality analysis and
enormous surface area (Jabin, 2008). considerations in the selection of sites for
Conclusion: Conclusively, most of the sites of Lahore, sustainable aquaculture in the south east coast of
Sargodha and Sahiwal assessed in present study were Chittagong specially Halishahar area. M. Sc.
appropriate for aquaculture. All the selected sites of Thesis (unpublished), Institute of Marine
Gujranwala division were found unsuitable in present Sciences and Fisheries, University of
form for ponds construction. Areas with high soil sand Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh.
content and low level of clay particles cannot be used for Aloo, P., H. Charo-Karisa, J. Munguti and B. Nyonje
ponds without adoption of suitable soil management (2017). A review on the potential of aquaculture
techniques like lining with impervious materials or/and development in Kenya for poverty alleviation
mixing of clay minerals. Soil with high clay content, if and food security. African J. Food, Agric. Nutr.
used as pond bottom and embankments, will cause Dev. 17(1): 11832-11847.
engineering issues during pond construction & Bentone, J.J. (2003). Agronomic handbook :
management and increase the operational cost of the fish Management of crops, soils, and their fertility.
farm because additional steps will be required to reduce CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL.
clay turbidity in pond water. It is concluded that final Boyd, C.E. (1976). Chemical and textural properties of
recommendation on site suitability shouldn’t be derived muds from different depths in ponds.
merely from soil texture class and the actual content of Hydrobiologia. 48(2): 141-144.
soil separates must be considered during taking such Boyd, C.E. (1995). Bottom soils, sediment, and pond
decisions. In future, this type of studies should be aquaculture. Chapman & Hall; New York.
conducted covering other areas of the province to build a Boyd, C.E. (2003). Bottom soil and water quality
database on the basis on soil quality parameters. Such management in shrimp ponds. J. Appl. Aquacult.
type of data will aid in development of GIS based models 13(1-2): 11-33.
to categorize the suitable sites for aquaculture in Punjab, Boyd, C.E. and De Queiroz (2014). The role and
Pakistan. management of bottom soils in aquaculture
ponds. Infofish Int. 2.

565
Shafi et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 31(2):2021

Boyd, C.E. and S. Pippopinyo (1994). Factors affecting a proposed system for describing pond soil
respiration in dry pond bottom soils. horizons. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 26(4): 346-
Aquaculture, 120(3-4): 283-293. 377.
Boyd, C.E., M.E. Tanner, M. Madkour and K. Masuda Mustafa, A. and M.C. Undu (2017). Study on
(1994). Chemical characteristics of bottom soils determination of categories of soil quality
from freshwater and brackishwater aquaculture variable concentrations in brackish water ponds
ponds. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 25(4): 517-534. of Java island, Indonesia. J. Fisheries
Boyd, C.E., C. Wood and T. Thunjai (2002). Aquaculture Sciences.com. 11(3).
pond bottom soil quality management. Pond Osman, K.T. (2013). Forest soils : Properties and
Dynamics/Aquaculture Collaborative Research management. Springer International Publishing;
Support Program, Oregon. Cham.
Bunting, S.W. (2013). Principles of sustainable Pansu, M.G.J. (2016). Handbook of soil analysis :
aquaculture : Promoting social, economic and Mineralogical, organic and inorganic methods.
environmental resilience. Earthscan; London. Springer; New York, NY.
Cornut, J., H. Clivot, E. Chauvet, A. Elger, C. Pagnout Prihutomo, A. and W. Hardanu (2016). Using modified
and F. Guérold (2012). Effect of acidification on soil quality index for determining ponds bottom
leaf litter decomposition in benthic and soil quality status of aquaculture area Bluppb
hyporheic zones of woodland streams. Water Karawang West Java, Indonesia. J. Environment
Res. 46(19): 6430-6444. and Ecology. 7(1): 1-16.
Dellavalle, N.B. (1992). Handbook on reference methods Siddiq, S. and A. Raza (2011). An insight into prominent
for soil analysis. Soil and Plant Analysis soil characters of Sargodha areas for the
Council; Athens, GA. establishment of healthy citrus orchards. J.
Dokulil, M. (2009). Comparative primary production. In: Agric. Res.49(1).
Likens G.E. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Inland Siddique, M., P. Barua, and M. Ghani (2012).
Waters. Vol 1. Elsvier; Oxford. page-130-137. Comparative study of physico-chemical
Field, A.P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM properties of soil according to the age of
SPSS. SAGE; London. aquaculture pond of Bangladesh. Mesopotamian
Frankic, A. and C. Hershner (2003). Sustainable J. Marine Science. 27(1): 29-38.
aquaculture: Developing the promise of Thompson, E. (2018). Indicators of anthropogenic change
aquaculture. Aquacult. Int. 11(6): 517-530. and biological risk in coastal aquatic
Hajek, B.F. and C.E. Boyd (1994). Rating soil and water environments. Encyclopedia of the
information for aquaculture. Aquacult. Eng. Anthropocene. 3: 97-124.
13(2): 115-128. Thunjai, T., C.E. Boyd and M. Boonyaratpalin (2004).
Hendricks, D.W. (2006). Water treatment unit processes : Bottom soil quality in tilapia ponds of different
Physical and chemical. CRC/Taylor & Francis; age in Thailand. Aquacult. Res, 35(7): 698-705.
Boca Raton, FL. Tucker, C.S., and J.A. Hargreaves (2009). Environmental
Jabin, M. (2008). Influence of environmental factors on best management practices for aquaculture. John
the distribution pattern of centipedes (chilopoda) Wiley & Sons; New York, NY.
and other soil arthropods in temperate deciduous Uzukwu, P., O. George, and N. Jamabo (2011). The
forests. Cuvillier Verlag; Göttingen. problem of water seepage in aquaculture: A
Masuda, K. and C.E. Boyd (1994). Chemistry of preliminary study of the soils of arac fish farm,
sediment pore water in aquaculture ponds built Omuihuechi-Aluu, Rivers State, Nigeria. Asian
on clayey ultisols at Auburn, Alabama. J. World J. Agric. Sci. 3(2): 63-69.
Aquacult. Soc. 25(3): 396-404. Wudtisin, I. and C.E. Boyd (2006). Physical and
Mischke, C.C. (2012). Aquaculture pond fertilization : chemical characteristics of sediments in catfish,
Impacts of nutrient input on production. Wiley freshwater prawn and carp ponds in Thailand.
Blackwell; Chichester, UK. Aquacult. Res. 37(12): 1202-1214.
Munsiri, P., C.E. Boyd and B.F. Hajek (1995). Physical Yi, Y., C.K. Lin and J.S. Diana (2003). Techniques to
and chemical characteristics of bottom soil mitigate clay turbidity problems in fertilized
profiles in ponds at Auburn, Alabama, USA and earthen fish ponds. Aquacult. Eng. 27(1): 39-51.

566