A.  Maharajan, B.S.  Vijaykumar, 
    Comparative Evaluation of <I>Penaeus monodon</I> (Fabricius, 1798) Culture in Different Saline Grow-Out Systems in India,
    Journal of Fisheries International,
    Volume 8,Issue 2,
    2013,
    Pages 31-40,
    ISSN 1817-3381,
    jfish.2013.31.40,
    (https://makhillpublications.co/view-article.php?doi=jfish.2013.31.40)
    Abstract: Present study was conducted for a period of 156 days (February 
  to July, 2010) in three earthen ponds of each 10000 m<SUP>2</SUP> area in different 
  salinities. <I>P. monodon</I> seeds were stocked at a density of 15 nos m<SUP>-2</SUP> 
  in all the ponds. The water quality parameters, such as temperature, salinity, 
  hydrogen ion concentration (pH), dissolved oxygen and alkalinity were monitored. 
  The alkalinity at pond 1-3 showed a significantly value (60-130, 180-230 and 
  220-260 ppm) at 86 DOC. The pond 2 showed higher survival rate than that of 
  pond 1 and 3. The survival at the time of harvest was 86.6% for pond 1, 95.6% 
  for pond 2 and 72.6% for pond 3 at 142, 114 and 156 DOC, respectively. The Average 
  Body Weight (ABW) gained during the 114 DOC was 33.16&plusmn;0.83, 23.44&plusmn;0.62 
  and 17.83&plusmn;0.28 g for pond 2, 1 and 3, respectively. The Average Daily 
  Growth (ADG) at the time of harvest was 0.23 g for pond 1, 0.29 g for pond 2 
  and 0.17 g for pond 3 at 142, 114 and 156 DOC, respectively. Among the ponds, 
  Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) was found to be lower in pond 2, followed by pond 
  1 and 3. A similar trend was observed for Specific Growth Rate (SGR), also in 
  which pond 2 showed 37% higher SGR than pond 3 and 29.31% higher than pond 1. 
  Pond 2 obtained higher harvested biomass of shrimps at lesser DOC (4928 kg in 
  114 DOC) than pond 1 (4390 kg in 142 DOC) and pond 3 (3150 kg in 156 DOC). The 
  Revenue Over Investment (ROI) was maximum for pond 2 (99%), followed by a moderate 
  ROI at pond 1 (60%) and the least was for pond 3 (10%), respectively.
    Keywords: Penaeus monodon;salinity;water quality;growth;cost analysis