Arapaima gigas (Arapaima): WelfareCheck|farm

Distribution

data deficient

Information

Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: C | 1.3 (2023-03-13)

Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.

Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, María J. Cabrera-Álvarez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2022-08-12
Version information:

Appearance: C
Last minor update: 2023-03-13

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline. 2023. Arapaima gigas (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. Version C | 1.3. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Arapaima gigas

LiPoCe

Criteria

Home range

Depth range

Migration

Reproduction

Aggregation

Aggression

Substrate

Stress

Malformations

Slaughter

Legend

Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

High

Medium

Low

Unclear

No findings

General remarks

Arapaima gigas is a carnivorous fish that naturally inhabits the lowland with slow-flowing waters of the Amazon River basin in South America, occurring in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, and Peru. It is a long-living species with parental care – especially by males – often referred to as one of the largest freshwater fishes of the world. It was already introduced to Bolivia, China, Cuba, Mexico, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, but the main producer is still Brazil. A. gigas has great economic and cultural importance, presenting some characteristics which are advantageous for aquaculture, such as the best growth rate among the Amazonian farmed fish species and a great tolerance to handling and ammonia concentrations. This fish is also tolerant to low dissolved oxygen levels due to its obligatory aerial breathing. A. gigas is harvested as JUVENILES and is commercialised mainly as fillet. The active fishing has reduced its population size and the occurrence of large individuals over the years, especially around the populated regions of the Amazon. Because this fish appears in the CITES II section (strictly regulated and controlled commerce), its aquaculture development relies solely on spontaneous reproduction in captivity. Further research about home range, density of aggregation, and aggression in the wild is still needed. Moreover, nothing is known about a possible high-standard slaughter method for this species or the malformation rates under farming conditions.

Note: for farming conditions, the age class “Fry” refers to fry and juveniles, and the age class “Juveniles” refers to juveniles and fry, as the literature does not always specify.

1 Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: FRY: ponds: 240 m² 1, 200,000 L 2; rectangular tanks: 2 m² (2 x 1 m) 3; tanks: 50-2,000 L 3 4 2 5 6 7 8; cages: 1 m² 9 2.
LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

WILD: range 4,000-4,000,000 m², mean 200,000 m² in a lake of 38,000,000 m² 10. Mean travel distance 39.7 m/day, 155.9 m/night, max 140.0 m/day, 509.2 m/night 11. Lakes: 1,100,000 m² 12 with unclear home range use.
FARM: young JUVENILES: cages: 50 m² (10 x 5 m) 3, 1 m³ 13; ponds: 100-1,000 m² 3 1, 200 m³ 13; tanks: 2 m³ 13 5. On-growing JUVENILES: cages: 100 m² (10 x 10 m) 3, 1-5.3 m³ 14 15, 1 m² 16, 4 m²(2 x 2 m) 17; ponds: 100-50,000 m² 18 19 3 20 21 1 22; tanks: 0.2-5 m³ 5 23 6 24.
LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

WILD: range 4,000-4,000,000 m², mean 200,000 m² in a lake of 38,000,000 m² 10. Mean travel distance 39.7 m/day, 155.9 m/night, max 140.0 m/day, 509.2 m/night 11.
FARM: ponds: 5,000 m² 25 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).
LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS → ADULTS. Ponds: 150-8,000 m² 18 26 25 27 28.
LAB: does not apply.

2 Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: shallow slow-flowing habitats 29.
FARM: FRY: rectangular tanks: 0.5 m 3; net cages: 1 m 9; ponds: 1.3 m 1.
LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

WILD: DEMERSAL 30, but prefer shoreline in a lake of about 6-10 m max 10. Shallow slow-flowing habitats: median 3 m, mostly in range 1.4-5.2 m 29. Floodplains: 7.5 m, lakes: average 11.8-14.1 m during wet season, average 4.2-6.7 m in dry season 11 with unclear depth range use.
FARM: young JUVENILES: net cages: 1 m 3; ponds: 1.3 m 1. On-growing JUVENILES: cages: 1-3 m 3 14 16 17; ponds: 1-2 m 3 20 1 22.
LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

WILD: → JUVENILES.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: spawning: <1 m 18. Build nests in in shallow 11 (1-1.5 m) waters 18 31↶32 32.
FARM: ponds: 0.8-4 m 26 25 27 28.
LAB: does not apply.

3 Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS 32 29.

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: 12-13 h PHOTOPERIOD 29, 24-31 °C 18 33↶29, fresh water 29.
FARM: FRY: tanks: 26.3-28.1 °C, fresh water 4 7 8; net cages: 24.5-29.8 °C, fresh water 9; ponds: 29 °C, fresh water 1. For details of holding systems → F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: strong residency, but can move 1.3-30.8 km (mean 4 km) in 18 months 10. Resident in lakes in dry season, travelling several kilometres in wet season in flooded forest through lakes, streams, main river channel 11. Return to home lake in following year 11. More active at night than during the day 11. 11-13 h PHOTOPERIOD 34 12 29 30, 24-31 °C 18 33↶29, fresh water 34 12 29 30.
FARM: young JUVENILES: ponds: 29 °C, fresh water 1. On-growing JUVENILES: cages: 12 h PHOTOPERIOD 15, 26.3-30.2 °C 17 15, fresh water 17 15; tanks: 26-28.3 °C, fresh water 5 24; ponds: 26.3-29 °C, fresh water 1 22. For details of holding systems → F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: strong residency, but can move 1.3-30.8 km (mean 4 km) in 18 months 10. Resident in lakes in dry season, travelling several kilometres in wet season in flooded forest through lakes, streams, main river channel 11. Return to home lake in following year 11. More active at night than during the day 11. 12-13 h PHOTOPERIOD 34 29, 24-31 °C 18 33↶29, fresh water 34 29.
FARM: ponds: 12-13 h PHOTOPERIOD, fresh water 25 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS). For details of holding systems → F1.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: as water levels rise, IND migrate to flooded forests for feeding and spawning (nest building, mating, and parental care) and, as water levels decline 32 29 or after ca 3 months of parental care at the spawning site 11, IND migrate back to lower habitats of flooded forests and then to connecting channels and lakes for feeding, courting, and pairing 32 29. 12-13 h PHOTOPERIOD 32 29, 24-31 °C 18 33↶29, fresh water 32 29.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS → ADULTS. Ponds: 12-13 h PHOTOPERIOD 25 27, 27.5-32.4 °C 25 26, fresh water 25 27. For details of holding systems → F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

4 Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.

What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of these circumstances?

It is high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES: does not apply.

ADULTS: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: mature at 3 years 25, 2-5 years 18. Males and females form pairs 3 and guard the eggs and the young 30 3 for ca 3 months 11. Spawn April-May 30 or mainly during the rainy season 18 19 3. Multiple spawner 18.
FARM: able to reproduce at 4-6 years old 18 3 25 27 28, sex ratio 1:1 25 27 28. Spawn naturally in captivity, but with a low success rate (29%) 25. Continuous natural spawning throughout the year 3 26, but mainly during rainy season 26 27, short PHOTOPERIOD, and higher temperatures 26, with a better survival of FRY 26. Multiple spawner 3 27, especially when isolated in smaller ponds 3 35. As A. gigas is in the CITES II section (strictly regulated and controlled commerce), only spontaneous reproduction is allowed – no artificial induction of reproduction is available yet 3. For nest building → F3.
LAB: endoscopy can be used for gender confirmation and assessment of ovary development 35.

5 Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: gregarious, shoaling 18 19.
FARM: FRY: rectangular tanks: 50-100 IND/m² 3; tanks: 1-2 g/L 6, 0.2-2 IND/L 3 4 8, better growth, lower cortisol concentrations, higher survival rates at 2 IND/L than 0.4-0.8 IND/L, disorientation at 0.4 IND/L 7; net cages: gregarious at 0.02-0.03 IND/L 9; ponds: 0.2-1.3 IND/m² 18 1.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: gregarious 18. Live together in the dry season (because the habitat is largely reduced) and disperse in the wet season, migrate in groups, range: 0.00005-0.002 IND/m², with one lake having 0.006 IND/m² 11.
FARM: young JUVENILES: cages or ponds: 1.3-10 IND/m² 3 1; ponds: 0.0003 IND/L 13; cages: 0.02 IND/L 13; tanks: 0.008-0.009 IND/L 13. On-growing JUVENILES: ponds: 0.06-1.3 IND/m² 18 3 20 23 1 22; cages: 0.003-0.01 IND/L 3 16 15, decreased growth at 0.013 than 0.010 IND/L 17; tanks: 1-220.1 g/L 23 6 24, 0.04 IND/L 5.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: live together in the dry season (because the habitat is largely reduced) and disperse in the wet season, range: 0.00005-0.002 IND/m², with one lake having 0.006 IND/m² 11.
FARM: 0.003-0.01 IND/m² 19 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS → ADULTS. A few tens of brooders are kept together at the beginning of the rainy (spawning) season 3, 0.002 IND/m² in pairs 28; 1 pair/pond 25 27.
LAB: no data found yet.

6 Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.

What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: FRY: no aggression, food competition or cannibalism 9.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: probably territorial 10, but younger JUVENILES are also reported to be non-aggressive, with no cannibalism 18.
FARM: younger JUVENILES: no cannibalism 19.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: probably territorial 10.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: territorial mating pairs guard the offspring 19 3 31↶32.
FARM: aggression between males or females in unbalanced sex ratios, to the point of male death 27.
LAB: no data found yet.

7 Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).

What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: not found in sediment-rich waters 18.
FARM: FRY: net cages: Secchi disc 0.3-1 m, covered with canvas to prevent bird predation and reduce the incidence of sunlight 9; ponds: Secchi disc 0.6 m 1. For details of holding systems → F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: not found in sediment-rich waters 18, Secchi disc 0.6-1.4 m (mean 1.2 m) 29. Lakes: low water transparency, especially during the rainy season, prefer shoreline closely related to the presence of aquatic vegetation 10.
FARM: ponds: cloudy water 18. Young JUVENILES: ponds: Secchi disc 0.6 m 1. On-growing JUVENILES: cages: Secchi disc 1-1.3 m (mean 1.2 m) 17; ponds: Secchi disc 0.6-0.7m 1 22. For details of holding systems → F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: → JUVENILES.
FARM: for details of holding systems → F1.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: not found in sediment-rich waters 18, Secchi disc mean 0.7 m 29. Build nests (50-57 cm width x 15-16 cm depth) 3 31↶32 32 30 under forested levees 32 with raising water levels 11 in sandy locations 30 32 or clayey bottom with no vegetation 18.
FARM: spawning in a shallow area of the pond in a small depression or nest dug by the two SPAWNERS 26, which occupied mainly one specific area in a pond edge – male spent more time around the nests than female, with male and female being closer during the spawning day 28. Ponds: muddy bottom 28, Secchi disc 0.07-1.2 m (mean 0.3 m) 26, variable floating vegetation cover with shorelines usually covered by grass or other small plants 26. For details of holding systems → F1 and F2.
LAB: no data found yet.

8 Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).

What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: FRY: stressed by 3 or 6 h of transportation in bags inflated with oxygen at 1.2 IND/L or 65-125 g/L 2 6, with mortality <3% between 110-125 g/L 6. Using salt diluted in the water (1-5 g/L) did not prevent stress and can cause osmoregulatory disturbance 2.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: stressed by noise, only found in places away from noise 11.
FARM: stressed by 3 or 6 h of transportation in open boxes or bags inflated with oxygen or air at 0.6-1 IND/bag or box or 50-170 g/L (more stressed at 170 g/L 6), no mortality 14 13 21 6. Using salt diluted in the water (3-6 g/L) did not prevent stress 21. Stressed by 6 h of transportation in tanks at 80-160 kg/m³ followed by continuous handling for blood sampling and adaptation to a new environment, no mortality 23. Stressed by crowding at 0.2 IND/L during 0.5 h for harvesting: abrasive stress due to successive encounters between IND and the intense physical exercise due to attempt to swim, no mortality 13.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

9 Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.

What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

10 Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.

What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: common slaughter method: chilled water, followed by bleeding and evisceration, removal of the skin, head, spinal cord 3. High-standard slaughter method: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: → JUVENILES.
LAB: no data found yet.

Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.

What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 36, level 5 being fully domesticated.

Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.

To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes:

WILD: mainly carnivorous 18 3 12 26.
FARM: fish meal may be partly* replaced by sustainable sources 5. Equal growth in diet containing 37% crude protein (590.5 g/kg) mostly* from sustainable and non-forage fishery components compared to diet containing 47% crude protein (640.6 g/kg) mostly* from fish meal 15.
LAB: no data found yet.

^{*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%.}

Side note: Commercial relevance

How much is this species farmed annually?

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 36
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 Lima, A. F., A. Tavares-Filho, and G. V. Moro. 2018. Natural food intake by juvenile Arapaima gigas during the grow-out phase in earthen ponds. Aquaculture Research 49: 2051–2058. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13662.
2 Gomes, L. C., E. C. Chagas, R. P. Brinn, R. Roubach, C. E. Coppati, and B. Baldisserotto. 2006. Use of salt during transportation of air breathing pirarucu juveniles (Arapaima gigas) in plastic bags. Aquaculture 256: 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.02.004.
3 Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Arapaima gigas. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
4 Cavero, B. A. S., D. R. Ituassú, M. Pereira-Filho, R. Roubach, A. M. Young, F. A. L. Fonseca, and E. A. Ono. 2003. Uso de alimento vivo como dieta inicial no treinamento alimentar de juvenis de pirarucu. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 38: 1011–1015. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2003000800015.
5 Cerdeira, K. A., K. J. N. S. Souza, J. B. Ferreira, A. Zampar, E. A. Ono, and E. G. Affonso. 2018. Soybean meal in diets for juveniles of pirarucu. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 44: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20950/1678-2305.2018.318.
6 Lima, A. F., H. J. B. Oliveira, A. S. Pereira, and S. S. Sakamoto. 2020. Effect of density of fingerling and juvenile pirarucu during transportation on water quality and physiological parameters. Acta Amazonica 50: 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392202000302.
7 Santana, T. M., A. H. Elias, F. A. L. da Fonseca, O. R. Freitas, J. T. Kojima, and L. U. Gonçalves. 2020. Stocking density for arapaima larviculture. Aquaculture 528: 735565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735565.
8 Lima, A. F., A. P. O. Rodrigues, and V. E. Costa. 2021. Frozen zooplankton is efficient as natural food during pirarucu Arapaima gigas weaning. Aquaculture Research 52: 4227–4236. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15261.
9 Cavero, B. A. S., M. Pereira-Filho, R. Roubach, D. R. Ituassú, A. L. Gandra, and R. Crescêncio. 2003. Efeito da densidade de estocagem na homogeneidade do crescimento de juvenis de pirarucu em ambiente confinado. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 38: 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2003000100014.
10 Núñez-Rodríguez, J., F. Duponchelle, M. Cotrina-Doria, J.-F. Renno, C. Chavez-Veintimilla, C. Rebaza, S. Deza, et al. 2015. Movement patterns and home range of wild and re-stocked Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822) monitored by radio-telemetry in Lake Imiria, Peru. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 31: 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12972.
11 Campos-Silva, João Vitor, Joseph E. Hawes, and Carlos A. Peres. 2019. Population recovery, seasonal site fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain mosaic. Freshwater Biology 64: 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13301.
12 Oliveira, V., S. L. Poleto, and P. C. Venere. 2005. Feeding of juvenile pirarucu (Arapaima gigas, Arapaimidae) in their natural environment, lago Quatro Bocas, Araguaiana-MT, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology 3: 312–314. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252005000200010.
13 Brandão, F. R., L. C. Gomes, and E. C. Chagas. 2006. Respostas de estresse em pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) durante práticas de rotina em piscicultura. Acta Amazonica 36: 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672006000300010.
14 Gomes, L. de C., R. Roubach, B. A. S. Cavero, M. Pereira-Filho, and E. C. Urbinati. 2003. Transport of Pirarucu Arapaima gigas juveniles in plastic bag. Acta Amazonica 33: 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672003000400010.
15 Medeiros, P. A., E. L. Costa, E. M. Brasil, E. A. Ono, and E. G. Affonso. 2019. Diets for grow-out of Pirarucu in net cage: performance, physiological parameters, fillet composition and feeding cost. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 45: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.20950/1678-2305.2019.45.4.532.
16 Gandra, A. L., D. R. Ituassú, M. Pereira-Filho, R. Roubach, R. Crescêncio, and B. A. S. Cavero. 2007. Pirarucu growth under different feeding regimes 15: 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-006-9064-z.
17 de Oliveira, E. G., A. B. Pinheiro, V. Q. de Oliveira, A. R. M. da Silva Jr., M. G. de Moraes, I. R. C. B. Rocha, R. R. de Sousa, and F. H. F. Costa. 2012. Effects of stocking density on the performance of juvenile pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) in cages. Aquaculture 370–371: 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.09.027.
18 Bard, J., and E. P. Imbiriba. 1986. Pscicultura do Pirarucu, Arapaima gigas. Circular Técnica, No 52. Belém, Brasil: E M B R A P A - C P A T U.
19 Imbiriba, E. P. 1991. PRODUÇAO E MANEJO DE ALEVINOS DE PIRARUCU, Arapaima gigas [CUVlER]. Circular Técnica No. 57. Belém, Brasil: EMBRAPA-CPATU.
20 Pereira-Filho, M., B. A. S. Cavero, R. Roubach, D. R. Ituassú, A. L. Gandra, and R. Crescêncio. 2003. Cultivo do Pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) em viveiro escavado. Acta Amazonica 33: 715–718. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672003000400017.
21 Brandão, F. R., L. de C. Gomes, R. Crescêncio, and E. da S. Carvalho. 2008. Uso de sal durante o transporte de juvenis (1kg) de pirarucu (Arapaima gigas). Acta Amazonica 38: 767–771. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672008000400022.
22 Lima, A. F. 2020. Effect of size grading on the growth of pirarucu Arapaima gigas reared in earthen ponds. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 48: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.3856/vol48-issue1-fulltext-2334.
23 Lima, A. F., and H. J. B.s de Oliveira. 2018. Effect of density on survival, physiological parameters and water quality during pirarucu transportation in open system. Aquaculture Research 49: 947–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13541.
24 Paredes-López, D., R. Robles-Huaynate, C. Rebaza-Alfaro, J. Delgado-Ramírez, and U. Aldava-Pardave. 2021. Effect of stocking density of juvenile Arapaima gigas on rearing water quality hematological and biochemical profile, and productive performance. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 49: 193–201. https://doi.org/10.3856/vol49-issue2-fulltext-2588.
25 Rebouças, P. M., R. L. Maciel, B. G. B. Costa, J. A. S. Galvão, and J. A. D. B. Filho. 2014. Análise do bem-estar dos reprodutores de Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822) através da relação peso-comprimento, fator de condição e produção de alevinos. Bioscience Journal 30: 873–881.
26 Núñez, J., F. Chu-Koo, M. Berland, L. Arévalo, O. Ribeyro, F. Duponchelle, and J. F. Renno. 2011. Reproductive success and fry production of the paiche or pirarucu, Arapaima gigas (Schinz), in the region of Iquitos, Perú. Aquaculture Research 42: 815–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.02886.x.
27 Lima, A. F. 2018. The influence of sex ratio on the reproduction of pirarucu, Arapaima gigas, in captivity. Acta Amazonica 48: 38–41. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201701181.
28 Núñez-Rodríguez, J., A. V. Díaz, R. Bazan-Albitez, C. R. Alfaro, D. Koua, L. Núñez, B. Testi, J.-F. Renno, F. Duponchelle, and H. Pella. 2018. Use of an acoustic telemetry array for fine scale fish behaviour assessment of captive Paiche, Arapaima gigas, breeders. Aquaculture Research 49: 2296–2304. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13692.
29 Castello, L. 2008. Lateral migration of Arapaima gigas in floodplains of the Amazon. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 17: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2007.00255.x.
30 Froese, R., D., and D. Pauly. 2022. Arapaima gigas (Arapaima): fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
31 Fontanele, O. 1948. Contribuição para o conhecimento da biologica do pirarucu,‘“Arapaima gigas”’ (Cuvier), em cativeiro (Actinopterygii, Osteoglossidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 8: 445–459.
32 Castello, L. 2008. Nesting habitat of Arapaima gigas (Schinz) in Amazonian floodplains. Journal of Fish Biology 72: 1520–1528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01778.x.
33 Sociedade Civil Mamiraua ́. 1996. Mamiraua ́Management Plan. Tefé, Brasil: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Sociedade Civil Mamiraua.
34 Ferraris, C. J. Jr. 2003. Arapaimatidae (Bonytongues). In Checklist of the Freshwater Fishes of South and Central America. Porto Alegre, Brazil: EDIPUCRS.
35 Torati, L. S., A. P. S. Varges, J. A. S. Galvão, P. E. C. Mesquita, and H. Migaud. 2016. Endoscopy application in broodstock management of Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 32: 353–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12988.
36 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.

❮

❯

1 / 3

2 / 3

3 / 3

contents