Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
E-ISSN: 2322-5270; P-ISSN: 2383-0956
Journal homepage: www.ij-aquaticbiology.com
© 2013 Iranian Society of Ichthyology
Original Article
Compensatory growth response of sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna (Lesueur, 1821) to
starvation and refeeding
Vahid Morshedi1, 2, Preeta Kochanian*1, Meysam Ahmadi-Niko1, Maryam Azodi3, Hossein Pasha-Zanoosi1
1Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Marine Natural Resources, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology University, PB No:669, Khoramshahr, Iran.
2Young Researchers Club of Ilam Azad University, Ilam, Iran.
3Persian Gulf Research and Study Centre, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran.
Article history:
Received 25 April 2013
Accepted 22 May 2013
Available online 2 0 June 2013
Keywords:
Catch-up growth
Body composition
Starvation
Hyperphagia
Ornamental fish
Abstract: Compensatory growth response and body composition of male sailfin molly, Poecilia
latipinna subjected to short-term starvation and subsequent feeding were studied for 54 days. Four
feeding schedules were used in this study: C, Control (were fed to apparent satiation throughout the
experiment); T1, Treatment 1 (3 days Starvation and 6 days refeeding); T2, Treatment 2 (6 days
Starvation and 12 days refeeding); T3, Treatment 3 (9 days Starvation and 18 days refeeding). At the
end of the experiment, the starved fish gained a body weight comparable to that of the control fish.
There were no differences in condition factor, specific growth rate and weight gain between the starved
and control fish at the end of the experiment. Daily feed intake was significantly higher in T3 than that
in the control. Short-term starvation did not influence protein, lipid and ash contents. Moisture content
of T2 and T3 fish were significantly higher than those of T1 and control one. The results indicated that
complete compensation occurred in the starved fish and that this species can tolerate to short term
starvation without any significant effects on growth and feeding performance.
Introduction
Culture of ornamental fish is an important industry
in the world. The volume and value of ornamental
fish export in the world are 47,548 tonnes and $703
million US dollars (FAO, 2007). Freshwater teleosts
make up to 90-96% of the ornamental fish trade
(Livengood and Chapman, 2007). Mollies, the
family Poeciliidae, are very popular among the
ornamental fish hobbyists worldwide and are
cultured usually in outdoor earthen ponds or net
cages (Fernando and Phang, 1994). Sailfin molly,
Poecilia latipinna is a good candidate as an
ornamental fish. A high reproductive potential,
feeding from different types of feed and tolerance to
changes in temperature and dissolved oxygen
fluctuations makes sailfin molly a suitable species
* Corresponding author: Preeta Kochanian
E-mail address: pkochanian@kmsu.ac.ir
Tel: +986324234725
for aquarium rearing (Jacobs, 1971; Snelson, 1982).
As in other aquaculture operations, feed costs can
affect the economics of an aquarium business. Thus,
a suitable feeding strategy that improves the growth
performance may considerably reduce the cost of
culture operations. Compensatory (or catch-up)
growth in fish is usually defined as a growth
acceleration seen following the return of favorable
conditions after a period of growth depression
(Dobson and Holmes, 1984; Jobling, 1994; Ali et al.,
2003). Compensatory growth has a vital role in feed
management and optimization in fish culture
practices (Lovell, 1980).
There are several studies on the effect of starvation
and refeeding in coldwater fishes (Miglavs and
Jobling, 1989; Quinton and Blake, 1990; Nicieza and
110
Morshedi et al./ Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
Metcalfe, 1997; Nikki et al., 2004) and warm water
fishes (Russell and Wootton, 1992; Hayward et al.,
1997; Gaylord and Gatlin, 2000, 2001; Wang et al.,
2000; Zhu et al., 2001). Sailfin molly, P. latipinna is
a popular ornamental fish, but compensatory growth
has not been examined in this species. Thus, this
study was conducted to investigate a compensatory
growth response in sailfin molly subjected to short-
term starvation and refeeding. This study also aimed
to evaluate the effects of feeding regimes on growth,
feed utilization, and body composition of sailfin
molly.
Materials and methods
The experimental male fish, P. latipinna, were
transported from a commercial farm (Rahvand Ltd,
Kashan, Iran) to the laboratory. Specimens were
acclimated in 500 L tank for two weeks before the
start of the experiment where they were fed with
frozen bloodworms twice a day.
During the experiment, data were collected every 9
days. Fish were randomly selected and weighed to
the nearest 0.01 g and measured to the nearest 0.1
mm. After adaptation, 400 fish (1.30±0.82 g) were
randomly distributed into 20 rectangular glass
aquaria (33.6×25×25 cm, 21 L). Each aquarium was
supplied with air stone and aeration. Four treatment
groups were established with five replicates. The
control group (C) was fed ad libitum twice a day with
a commercial formulated feed (manufactured by
Tetra, Germany), containing 35% crude protein, 5%
crude lipid, 4% crude fiber and 12% moisture, at
09:00 and 16:00 h throughout the experiment. Fish
in the other three treatments were starved for 3, 6, or
9 days followed by 6, 12 or 18 refeeding (referred to
as T1, T2 and T3, respectively) in repeated cycles
during 54 days the experiment. During the refeeding
days, the specimens were fed ad libitum twice a day
with the same commercial feed as described above.
In each tank, the number of uneaten pellets was
counted for calculation of daily food consumption.
Throughout the experiment, dissolved oxygen,
temperature and pH were monitored weekly. Water
temperature was maintained at 28±1 °C, dissolved
oxygen was > 6 mg L-1, water pH and ammonia were
7-7.6 and 1.01±0.12 mg L-1. A photoperiod of
14L: 10D using fluorescent lights was supplied
throughout the experiment.
At the end of the experiment following 16 h of
starvation, fish were randomly sampled dried to
constant weight at 105°C to measure the moisture
content. The dried samples homogenized for
determining the following parameters, which crude
protein was determined by micro Kjeldahl method
(N×6.25) after acid digestion, lipid by ether-
extraction method using a Soxtec system, fiber by
acid and alkaline digestion then combustion in a
muffle oven at 550°C for 5 h and moisture content
by drying at an oven with a temperature of 120°C for
5 h (AOAC, 1995).
The following indices were calculated: specific
growth rate (SGR % day-1) = 100[(lnWt-lnW0)/t];
percentage weight gain (%) = 100[(Wt-W0)/ W0],
where Wt and W0 are final and initial weight (g) and
t is the feeding duration (day); condition factor =
100[W/ L3], where L = length (cm); feed conversion
ratio = intake (g, dry weight) / wet weight gain (g);
protein efficiency ratio = wet weight gain / protein
consumed (dry matter); daily feeding intake (g) = g
feed day-1.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS,
version 15.0 for Windows. The normality of
distribution of variables was tested using
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s F test. The
possible differences in the variables among the
treatments were tested using one-way ANOVA. A
significant difference between sample means was
tested using the Tukey test. Data were expressed as
mean±standard error (SE) and differences were
considered statistically significant at P<0.05.
Results
Survival of the experimental male fish ranged from
97 to 100% and did not differ among the treatments
(P>0.05). At the end of the 54 days of experiment,
there were no significant differences in mean final
111
Morshedi et al./ Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
body weight between the treatments (P>0.05, Fig. 1,
Table 1).
There were no significant differences between the
treatments in specific growth rate, weight gain or
condition factor at the end of the experiment
(P>0.05). However, these parameters increased with
increase of starvation periods (Table 1).
At the end of the experiment, daily feed intake was
significantly higher in T3 fish than that of the control
fish (P<0.05, Table 2). The highest daily feed intake
levels were observed in T3, T2 T1and control fish,
respectively. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) varied
between 3.6 and 5.3 and no significant difference
was found between the control group and the starved
group. However, FCR tended to decrease with
Parameters
Treatment
C T1 T2 T3
Initial weight(g) 1.32±0.78 1.41±0.86 1.35±0.90 1.29±0.72
Final weight(g) 2.29±0.17 2.20±0.12 2.30±0.86 2.30±0.94
CF 2.06±0.33 1.93±0.24 1.98±0.24 1.99±0.02
SGR(% day-1) 1.00±0.13 0.81±0.09 0.99±0.28 1.07±0.12
WG (%) 73.33±6.28 55.41±1.50 74.49±11.27 79.17±4.12
Table 1. Growth performance of sailfin molly reared at four feeding regimes for 54 days (mean ±SE).
C, Control (fed twice daily to apparent satiation); T1, Treatment 1 (3 days starvation and 6 days refeeding); T2, Treatment 2 (6 days starvation and
12 days refeeding); T3, Treatment 3 (9 days starvation and 18 days refeeding). Different superscript letters denote significant differences between
the experimental groups.
Parameters
Treatment
C T1 T2 T3
Daily feed intake(g) 0.20±0.01a 0.23±0.01ab 0.21±0.02ab 0.24±0.01b
FCR 4.03±0.98 5.37±0.04 4.04±1.35 3.69±0.19
PER 0.78±0.15 0.53±0.00 0.78±0.24 0.77±0.03
Table 2. Feed utilization of sailfin molly reared in four different feeding regimes for 54 days (mean ±SE).
C, Control (fed twice daily to apparent satiation); T1, Treatment 1 (3 days starvation and 6 days refeeding); T2, Treatment 2 (6 days starvation and
12 days refeeding); T3, Treatment 3 (9 days starvation and 18 days refeeding). Different superscript letters denote significant differences between
the experimental groups.
Treatment
Parameters
Protein (%) Lipid (%) Ash (%) Moisture (%)
Initial 13.87±0.01a 5.79±0.04a 3.08±0.03a 76.19±0.02a
C 13.33±0/47a 5.71±0.08a 2.75±0.16a 76.75±0.74a
T1 12.14±1.49a 5.12±2.78a 2.76±1.51a 78.76 ±0.28ab
T2 11.77±0.49a 4.41±2.36a 2.95±1.16a 79.63 ±0.18bc
T3 11.58±1.38a 4.28±1.56a 2.94±0.39a 79.97±0.34c
Table 3. Body composition of sailfin molly subjected to four feeding regimes for 54 days (mean ±SE, n=5, each n consist of measurements of five
fish).
C, Control (fed twice daily to apparent satiation); T1, Treatment 1 (3 days starvation and 6 days refeeding); T2, Treatment 2 (6 days starvation and
12 days refeeding); T3, Treatment 3 (9 days starvation and 18 days refeeding). Different superscript letters denote significant differences between
the experimental groups.
112
Morshedi et al./ Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
increasing the duration of starvation (P>0.05, Table
2). There were no significant differences in protein
efficiency ratio (PER) among different treatments
(P>0.05, Table 2).
Short-term starvation did not affect the whole-body
protein, lipid and ash at the end of the experiment
(P>0.05), and no significant differences was
detected between the starved and the control fish
(Table 3). However, moisture content was
significantly higher in T2 and T3 fish than that of the
control fish (P<0.05), and the body’s water content
tended to increase with longer starvation periods
(Table 3).
Discussion
This experiment indicated that compensatory growth
is occurred following short-term starvation periods
in sailfin molly. At the end of the experiment, all
starved fish fully compensated the lost weight, which
was indicated by the similar final mean weights in
the four treatments. The results of this study are in
agreement with many other compensatory growth
studies (e.g. Gaylord and Gatlin, 2000 (channel
catfish, Ictalurus punctatus), Xie et al., 2001 (gible
carp, Carassius auratus), Zhu et al., 2001 (three-
spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus and
minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus), Tian and Qin, 2003
(barramundi, Lates calcarifer), Nikki et al., 2004
(rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss fasted for 2 or
4 days), Mattila et al., 2009 (pick perch, Sander
lucioperca fasted for 1 day)). In contrast, studies on
gibel carp and Chinese long snout, Leiocassis
longirostris (Zhu et al., 2004), gilthead sea bream,
Sparus aurata (Eroldoĝan et al., 2006), Atlantic
halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus (Heide et al.,
2006) and white fish, Coregonus lavaretus
(Kankanen and Pirhonen, 2009) showed partial
compensatory growth. The present differences
among these experiment could be due to different
experimental protocols or condition, temporal
differences, physiological condition and severity of
feed deprivation (Jobling, 1987; Jobling and
Koskela, 1996).
In the present study, the specific growth rate,
although not significantly, tended to increase with
increase of the feed deprivation. This may be due to
reduced metabolic rate during feed deprivation as a
result of decreased activity (Love, 1970; Jobling,
1980; Eroldoĝan et al., 2006) and increased daily
food intake or both (Heide et al., 2006). There were
no difference in condition factor between the starved
and control fish (Table 1) indicating that
compensatory mechanisms had occurred (Kankanen
and Pirhonen, 2009).
The fish in the T3 treatment had a significantly
higher mean daily feed intake than other treatments,
but there were no significant differences in feeding
performance (as FCR and PER) compared to the
control fish during the period of refeeding (Table 2).
Compensatory growth can be achieved by
hyperphagia (Wang et al., 2000; Tian and Qin, 2003,
2004; Nikki et al., 2004; Mattila et al., 2009) or
combination of hyperphagia and improved feed
efficiency (Qian et al., 2000; Gaylord and Gatlin,
2001; Li et al., 2005). As there were no differences
in feed conversion ratio, it can be assumed that the
mechanism to compensate for weight loss in the
sailfin molly was probably hyperphagia during the
period of refeeding. The present results consistent
with the contention (Heide et al., 2006) that for
aquaculture purposes, an initial longer period of
Figure 1. Mean weight of sailfin molly subjected to different
cycles of starvation and refeeding for 54 days. C, Control (fed
twice daily to apparent satiation); T1, Treatment 1 (3 days
starvation and 6 days refeeding); T2, Treatment 2 (6 days
starvation and 12 days refeeding); T3, Treatment 3 (9 days
starvation and 18 days refeeding). No significant differences
observed in four groups (Error bars have been omitted for clarity).
113
Morshedi et al./ Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
starvation is preferable to achieve a clear
compensatory effect.
The body composition of the fish subjected to a
period of starvation was similar at the end of the
experiment to that of the control fish. There was an
exception in moisture content, which was
significantly different between the deprived and
control fish. Moisture content was significantly
increased in the deprived fish than in the control fish
and there was a general tendency for lipid content,
although not significantly, to decrease with
increasing moisture content (Table 3), indicating that
the inverse relationship between lipid and moisture
content that was probably caused by replacement of
utilized lipid with an equal volume of water
(Grigorakis and Alexis, 2005). This is in agreement
with the results obtained in previous studies.
However, different results have been reported for
other fish species. For example, Mattila et al. (2009)
reported that moisture content in pikeperch subjected
to longer starvation period was much higher than that
of the control fish. The results on hybrid tilapia,
Oreochromis mossambicus × Oreochromis niloticus
(Wang et al., 2000) and great sturgeon, Huso huso
(Falahatkar et al., 2009) also indicated that starvation
had a significant effect on moisture content. The
effect of starvation on utilization of reserve protein
and lipid seems to be species-specific (Ince and
Thorpe, 1976; Mehner and Wiese, 1994), which may
have caused the difference in the results. The present
study indicated that sailfin molly adapted to short-
term period of starvation and can defend body
composition (except moisture) in these periods.
Overall, this study showed that sailfin molly reared
under different cycles of starvation and refeeding
protocols for 54 days lead to complete
compensation. The deprived fish were still
undergoing compensatory growth at the end of the
experiment. However, further research including
physiological response is needed to confirm this
finding. The tendency of decreased feed conversion
ratio and increased specific growth rate in the
deprived fish indicated that the use of starvation-
refeeding cycles could decrease costs of labour, food
and culture time in the commercial production of
sailfin molly. In addition, these regimes could
improve water quality in aquarium.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Khoramshahr Marine
Science and Technology University for the financial
support and providing the rearing facilities.
References
Ali M., Nicieza A., Wootton R.J. (2003). Compensatory
growth in fishes: a response to growth depression. Fish
and Fisheries, 4: 147-190.
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists).
(1990). Official methods of analysis, 15th edition.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Arlington, Virginia, USA. 1298 pp.
Dobson S.H., Holmes R.M. (1984). Compensatory
growth in the rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri
Richardson. Journal of Fish Biology, 25: 649-656.
Eroldoĝan O.T., Kumlu M., Kirisx G.A., Sezer B. (2006).
Compensatory growth response of Sparus aurata
following different starvation and re-feeding
protocols. Aquaculture Nutrition, 12: 203–210.
Falahatkar B., Foadian A., Abbasalizadeh A., Gilani
M.H.T. (2009). Effects of starvation and feeding
strategies on growth performance in sub-yearling
great sturgeon (Huso huso). In: The Sixth
International Sturgeon Symposium, Wuhan, China.
pp: 241–243.
FAO. (2007). Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and
Statistics Service (FIES). Fisheries Commodities
Production and Trade 1976-2005, release April (2007)
Rome, Italy.
Fernando A.A., Phang V.P.E. (1994). Freshwater
Ornamental Fish Aquaculture in Singapore. Singapore
Polytechnic, Singapore. 123.
Gaylord T.G., Gatlin III D.M. (2001). Dietary protein and
energy modification to maximize compensatory
growth of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus.
Aquaculture, 194: 337-348.
Gaylord T.G., Gatlin III D M. (2000). Assessment of
compensatory growth in channel catfish, Ictalurus
punctatus R. and associated changes in body condition
indices. Journal of the world Aquaculture Society, 31:
326–336.
Grigorakis K., Alexis M.N. (2005). Effects of fasting on
114
Morshedi et al./ Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
the meat quality and fat deposition of commercial-size
farmed gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) fed
different dietary regimes. Aquaculture Nutrition, 11:
341-344.
Harpaz S., Hakim Y., Slosman T., Barki A., Karplus I.,
Eroldogan O.T. (2005). Effects of different feeding
levels during day and/or night on growth and brush
border enzyme activity in juvenile Lates calcarifer fish
reared in freshwater re-circulating tanks. Aquaculture,
248: 325–335.
Hayward R.S., Noltie D.B., Wang N. (1997). Use of
compensatory growth to double hybrid sunfish growth
rates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,
126: 316–322.
Heide A., Foss A., Stefansson S.O., Mayer I., Norbery B.,
Roth B., Jenssen M.D., Nortvedt R., Imsland A.K.
(2006). Compensatory growth and fillet crude
composition in juvenile Atlantic halibut: Effects of
short-term starvation periods and subsequent feeding.
Aquaculture, 261: 109-117.
Ince B.W., Thorpe A. (1976). The effects of starvation
and force feeding on the metabolism of the Northern
Pike, Esox lucius L. Journal of Fish Biology, 8: 79–
88.
Jacobs K. (1971). Livebearing aquarium fishes. The
Macmillan Company, California. 459.
Jobling M. (1980). Gastric evacuation in plaice,
Pleuronectes platessa L.: effects of temperature and
fish size. Journal of Fish Biology, 17: 547-551.
Jobling M. (1987). Growth of Arctic charr (Salvelinus
alpinus L.) under conditions of constant light and
temperature. Aquaculture, 60: 243–249.
Jobling M. (1994). Fish bioenergetics. Chapman and
Hall. New York, New York, USA. 309.
Jobling M., Koskela J. (1996). Interindividual variations
in feeding and growth in rainbow trout during
restricted feeding and in subsequent period of
compensatory growth. Journal of Fish Biology, 49:
658-667.
Kankanen M., Pirhonen J. (2009). The effect of
intermittent feeding on feed intake and compensatory
growth of whitefish Coregonus lavaretus L.
Aquaculture, 288: 92-97.
Krogdahl A., Bakke-McKellep A.M. (2005). Fasting and
refeeding cause rapid changes in intestinal tissue mass
and digestive enzyme capacities of Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar L. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology, 141(A): 450–460.
Li M.H., Robinson E.H., Bosworth B.G. (2005). Effects
of periodic feed deprivation on growth, feed
efficiency, processing yield, and body composition of
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus. Journal of the
world Aquaculture Society, 36: 444-453.
Livengood E.J., Chapman F.A. (2007). The ornamental
fish trade: an introduction with perspectives for
responsible aquarium fish ownership. University of
Florida, IFAS extension, FA 124.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FA124.
Love R.M. (1970). The chemical biology of fishes.
Academic Press, London, UK. 547.
Lovell T. (1980). Nutrition and feeding of fish. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, USA. 267.
Mattila J., Koskela J., Pirhonen J. (2009). The effect of
the length of repeated feed deprivation between single
meals on compensatory growth of pikeperch Sander
lucioperca. Aquaculture, 296: 65–70.
Mehner T., Wieser W. (1994). Energetic and metabolic
correlates of starvation in juvenile perch, Perca
fluviatilis. Journal of Fish Biology, 45: 325–333.
Miglavs I., Jobling M. (1989). The effects of feeding
regime on proximate body composition and patterns
of energy deposition in Juvenile Arctic Charr,
Salvelinus alpines. Journal of Fish Biology, 35: 1-11.
Nicieza A.G., Metcalfe N.B. (1997). Growth
compensation in juvenile Atlantic salmon: Responses
to depressed temperature and food availability.
Ecology, 78: 2385-2400.
Nikki J., Pirhonen J., Jobling M., Karjalainen J. (2004).
Compensatory growth in juvenile rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), held individually.
Aquaculture, 235: 285–296.
Qian X., Cui Y., Xiong B., Yang Y. (2000).
Compensatory growth, feed utilization and activity in
gibel carp, following feed deprivation. Journal of Fish
Biology, 56: 228–232.
Quinton J.C., Blake R.W. (1990). The effect of feed
cycling and ration level on the compensatory growth
response in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss.
Journal of Fish Biology, 37: 33–41.
Russell N.R., Wootton R.J. (1992). Appetite and growth
compensation in the European minnow, Phoxinus
phoxinus (Cyprinidae) following short periods of food
restriction. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 34: 277–
285.
Snelson F.F. (1982). Indeterminate Growth in Males of
Sailfin Molly, Poecilia latipinna. Copeia, 2: 296-304.
115
Morshedi et al./ Int. J. Aquat. Biol. (2013) 1(3): 109-115
Tian X., Qin J.G. (2003). A single phase of food
deprivation provoked compensatory growth in
barramundi, Lates calcarifer. Aquaculture, 224: 169–
179.
Tian X., Qin J.G. (2004). Effects of previous ration
restriction on compensatory growth in barramundi,
Lats calcarifer. Aquaculture, 235: 273-283.
Wang Y., Cui Y., Yang Y., Cai F. (2000). Compensatory
growth in hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus ×
O.niloticus, reared in seawater. Aquaculture, 189:
101-108.
Xie S., Zhu X., Cui Y., Lei W., Yang Y., Wootton R.J.
(2001). Compensatory growth in the gibel carp
following feed deprivation: temporal patterns in
growth, nutrient deposition, feed intake and body
composition. Journal of Fish Biology, 58: 999-1009.
Zhu X., Cui Y., Ali M., Wootton R.J. (2001). Comparison
of compensatory growth responses of juvenile three-
spined stickleback and minnow following similar food
deprivation protocols. Journal of Fish Biology, 58:
1149-1165.
Zhu X., Xie S., Zou Z., Lei W., Cui Y., Yang Y., Wootton
R.J. (2004). Compensatory growth and food
consumption in gibel carp, Carassisus auratus gibelio,
and Chinese long snout catfish, Leiocassis
longirostris, experiencing cycles of feed deprivation
and re-feeding. Aquaculture, 241: 235-247.