Aquacultural Engineering 4 (1985) 191-208

Aquaculture Pond Temperature Modeling Stanley L. Klemetson

Department of Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, USA

and Gary L. Rogers

University of Hawaii, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, PO Box 1346, Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744-1346, USA

ABSTRACT The prediction o f aquaculture pond temperatures throughout the year is essential to the design and evaluation o f potential aquaculture sites. A site may obtain the necessary heat inputs from the sun, geothermal wells or industrial and power plant waste heat. The amount o f heat addition necessary is dependent upon climatic and environmental factors at the site. The M.APT (Maintenance o f Aquaculture Pond Temperatures) model was developed to determine the potential for warm water aquaculture at any site in the world. Hot water sources and solar radiation provided the heat inputs to the model while the heats o f evaporation, convection and radiation were responsible for the heat losses. The model was used to consider a variety o f heat loss reduction methods, heat transfer methods and projected the pond temperatures and animal production rates. It has been applied to several sites around the world and provides an inexpensive means for evaluation o f production potential without extensive site data collection.

INTRODUCTION The use of aquaculture ponds in temperate and subtropical climates of the world often requires the application of heat loss reduction methods and the use of supplemental heat. The heat is most often available in the form of power plant waste heat or geothermal hot water, although other sources may also be used. 191 Aquacultural Engineering 0144-8609/85/$03.30 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1985. Printed in Great Britain

192

S. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

An evaluation of factors affecting pond water temperatures, and subsequently aquatic animal productivity, led to the development of a computer model that predicts the temperature of the water for given climatic and site conditions. The model has been entitled Maintenance of Aquaculture Pond Temperatures (MAPT) (Klemetson and Rogers, 1981). The model can be set up for climatic conditions anywhere in the world and has been used to evaluate potential aquaculture sites in several parts of the world already. It can use geothermal or power plant hot water to provide supplemental heat but these values can also be set equal to zero when no supplemental heat is provided. The optimum temperature for any aquatic species can be entered into the model to determine productivity potentials. The model also allows the comparison of various heat loss reduction methods. For the purposes of this paper, specific operating conditions were chosen to use as an example. These consisted of a geothermal well at a site located in Alamosa, Colorado. At this location, 37 30'N, 105 52' E, the elevation is 7535 ft (2297 m). The freshwater Malaysian prawn Macrobrachian rosenbergii was chosen as the aquatic species. The optimum temperature range of 82-87F (26-30.5C) was used for 100% productivity. The productivity was cut in half for each drop in the temperature of 5F (2.6C). The basic concepts of the model with sample data are shown in the following sections. These will be followed by a brief discussion of the use of the model for design and evaluations.

COMPUTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT In this paper, quantities are given in Imperial units. These values can be expressed in metric units using the conversion factors given in Table 1.

Energy budget equation

The temperature of the water is determined by local climatic factors on the basis of the following energy budget equation (Velz, 1970):
H = He + Hc + H , - - H s - - H a

(1)

where: H = net heat loss, He = heat loss by evaporation, Hc = heat

Aquaculture pond temperature modeling

TABLE 1

193

Imperial-Metric Conversion Factors

Customary unit
Btu Btu lb -~ Btu h -1 Btu h -1 f t -2 Btu h -1 ft -2 F -I ft 3 s-1 ft in. Langleys day -1 lb ft -3 mph

Conversion factor
1.055 2.326 1.055 3.154 5.677 0-028 32 3-048 25.40 0.485 1.602 1.609

SI unit
kJ kJ kg -1 kJ h -1 J m -2 s-1 J m -2 s-1 C-l m a s-1 m mm J m -z s -a kg m -3 km h -x

loss by c o n v e c t i o n , Hr = heat loss by radiation, Hs = heat gain b y solar radiation and Ha = heat transfer by advection.

Evaporative losses, I E v a p o r a t i o n f r o m the w a t e r b o d y to a d e p t h n a t u r a l l y w h e t h e r the gives a measure o f the e q u a t i o n is:

w a t e r surface will cause a loss o f heat f r o m the o f a b o u t 10 ft (3 m). This e v a p o r a t i o n will o c c u r p o n d s are used for a q u a c u l t u r e or n o t ; it also w a t e r balance f r o m the system. T h e e v a p o r a t i o n ( M e y e r ' s f o r m u l a for e v a p o r a t i o n ) (2)

I = C1(1 + 0.1 W) (Vw -- Va)

where: I = e v a p o r a t i o n f r o m natural w a t e r bodies (in m o n t h - i ) , W = m e a n wind v e l o c i t y ( m p h at 25 ft), Vw = saturated water v a p o r pressure at surface w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e s 1 ft b e l o w surface (in Hg), V~ = s a t u r a t e d w a t e r v a p o r pressure times relative h u m i d i t y at 25 ft above surface (in Hg), 6'1 = empirical c o n s t a n t ( = 10 for large d e e p lakes and reservoirs, 14 for flowing streams o f m o d e r a t e d e p t h , 15 for shallow p o n d s and surface a c c u m u l a t i o n s ) .

Evaporative heat losses, He The evaporative heat loss, He, is d e t e r m i n e d b y m u l t i p l y i n g the evaporative loss e q u a t i o n , I, b y the latent heat o f v a p o r i z a t i o n , Hv. The

194

S. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

evaporative heat loss equation is: He = 0.007 22Hv C~(1 + 0-1 W) (Vw -- Va) (3)

where: He = evaporative heat loss (Btu h -1 ft -2 of water surface) and Hv = heat of vaporization (Btu lb -1 of water evaporated). Sample data: H , = 1044-6 Btu lb -~ at 87F (Velz (1970), page 283), C1 = 15, W = 9-3 mph average, Vw = 1-28 in Hg at 87F (Velz (1970), page 289), and V~ = 0-097 in Hg 0-715 = 0.069 in Hg at 17F and 71-5% relative h u m i d i t y (Velz (1970), page 289). He = 0-00722 (1044.6) (15)[1 + 0.1(9.3)1 (1.28 --0.069) = 264.4 Btu h -1 ft -2

Convective heat losses, Hc

Convection is a major source of heat loss within the pond. It is dependent upon the wind velocity, the mixing o f the water within the pond, and temperature gradient between the pond and ambient air (Velz (1970), page 282). He = (C3 + C2(W/2)) (Tw -- Ta) (4)

where: Hc = convective heat loss (Btu h -~ ft-2), C2 = constant (= 0-16 for quiescent water body, 0.24 for most water bodies, 0.32 for flowing stream), C3 = convective losses from flat surface (= 0.5 Btu h -1 ft -2 F -a for Tw --Ta = a few F, 0.8 Btu h -1 ft -2 F -1 for typical range, 1-0 Btu h -l ft -2 F -1 for Tw --Ta = 50-100F), l+' = surface wind velocity (mph at 25 ft), Tw = surface water temperature (F), Ta = ambient air temperature (F). Sample data: C2 = 0.24, C3 = 1.0, W = 9.3 mph, Tw = 87F, Ta = 17F (January mean), Hc = [ 1 . 0 + 0 - 2 4 ( 9 . 3 / 2 ) ] ( 8 7 - - 1 7 F ) , H c = 148.1 Btu h -1 ft -2.

Radiation heat losses, Hr

The pond water acts as a warm body which radiates heat to the colder atmosphere during most of the year. This radiation loss in Btu h -1 ft -2 can be computed using the Stefan-Boltzmann law in the form Hr = 0-173 10 -8 (Tw + 460) 4. However, a linear approximation of this formula is given by (Velz (1970), page 285): Hr = (Tw -- Ta) (5)

where: Hr = radiation heat loss (Btu h -1 ft-2), Tw = temperature of

Aquaculture pond temperature modeling

195

water (F), Ta = temperature of air (F). Sample data: Tw = 87F, Ta = 17F, Hr = (Tw -- Ta) = 8 7 - - 17 = 70 Btu h -~ ft -2.

Solar radiation heat gains, Hs

While all of the other factors considered have removed heat from the water body, the energy from the sun adds heat to the water (Velz (1970), page 75). Hs = SR X 0.1535 X f (6a)

where: H~ = solar radiation gain (Btu h -~ ft-2), SR = solar radiation (langleys day -I), f = absorption coefficient at surface. Alternative equation: Hs = S R f / 2 4 (6b)

Sample data: SR = 201 langleys d a y - X , f = 0.95 (Velz (1970), page 75), H~ = 201 x 0.1535 x 0.95 = 29.3 B t u h - l f t -2.

Advection heat transfer, Ha

The water movement into and out of the pond from the surrounding soil also carries heat with it. However, this heat transfer is considered insignificant and therefore has been neglected. Assume no significant net advection.

Total heat loss, H

The total heat losses and gains would be summarized utilizing eqn (1).
n = He + H c

H = 0.007 22Hv C~( 1 + 0.1 W) (Vw -- Va) + (C3 + C2(W/2)) (Tw -- Ta) + (Tw --Ta) + (SR) ( 0 . 1 5 3 5 ) ( f ) . H = 264-4 + 148.1 + 70.0 -- 29.3 = 453.2 Btu h -1 ft -2.

Hot water volumes required

Assuming an adequate water quality, the water from a geothermal well or power plant cooling system can be exchanged directly with the water in the aquaculture ponds or it can be passed through a heat exchange unit to extract its heat. The direct exchange of water is more efficient,

196

S. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

uses less water, and provides more heat to the ponds. Each of these methods will be discussed.

Heat balances

The amount o f hot water required will depend upon the heat balance within the pond and the quantity of water flowing in the system. Assuming that the ponds are full and that the b o d y stays at a constant elevation, the water entering from the well must equal the water flowing out of the ponds and the water evaporating from the ponds. Rainfall and snowmelt have been neglected in this analysis, but they would improve the water balance if they were included. The heat balance relates the total heat capacity o f the hot water minus the heat capacity of the water leaving the ponds to the net heat losses computed in the previous section. Therefore, the hot water quantities required can be computed directly when the desired level of net heat losses are known. The computations within the model are based on the total heat capacity within the system.

Direct exchange w a t e r required

The net capacity of the water coming into the system via the hot water source and the loss of heat capacity from the water leaving the pond at a given pond temperature can be calculated on the basis o f flow rate and changes in water temperatures as shown below: q = Qw 3'(Thw -- Tpw) (7a)

where: q = maximum available heat energy (Btu h-l), Qw = flow rate of geothermal waters (ft 3 s-l), 3" = average specific weight of water (lb ft-3), Thw = temperature of hot water (F), Tpw = temperature of pond water (F). Alternative equation: Qw(ft 3 s -1 acre -1) = 277.78 q(mil Btu h -1 acre -1)

3'(Thw --Tpw)

(7b)

Sample data: 3' = 61.38 lb ft -3, Thw = 140F, Tpw = 87F. /mil Btu](3600s] q = (Qw)(61-38) (140 - 8 7 ) ~ ]-~ B~u / k----h---/

Aquaculture pond temperature modeling

197

q = 11.71Q w Qw ( ft3 s-l) = 0 . 0 8 5 4 q (mil Btu h-X).

Heat exchange unit water required

The use of a heat exchanger for the transfer of heat from the hot water is less efficient than the direct exchange of water, but it does permit the use of lower quality heated water. Water is still evaporated from the pond system, will have to be made up from other sources, and some makeup water is needed to reduce salinity buildup. It is assumed that this system would not have a discharge or that the quantity of water discharged would be reduced and a treatment process would be used on the recycled water. When the heat exchanger can be installed in the same shelter as the ponds, any heat lost from the exchanger as a result of inefficiency will still be contained within the shelter. Since this loss is therefore being used to heat the system, 100% heat transfer efficiency can be assumed for the heat exchange unit. The heat transfer rate of the heat exchanger is based on the log-mean temperature difference between the hot water and the cold water. Assuming a hot water discharge temperature 10F above the pond temperature, the following relationship has been derived: q = Qw 3'[- (Thw -- Tpw) -- (Tpw+lo -- Tow) Thw -- Tpw )

(8a)

I n ( Tp~+l o --Tp--ow/

where: q = available heat energy (mil Btu h-l), Qw = flow rate of hot water (ft 3 s-1),7 = average specific weight of water (lb ft-3), Thw = initial hot water temperature (F), Tpw = pond water temperature (F), Tpw+lo = heat exchanger discharge temperature (F). Alternative equation: Q2(ft 3 s -1 acre-l) = q (mil Btu h -1 acre -1)

/
][ \ Tpw+lo --Tpw]
Sample data: 3' = 61.71 lb ft -3, Thw = 140F, Tow = 87F, Tpw+lO = 97F.

198

S. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

q = (aw) (61-71 ) F (140 - 8 7 ) - (97 - 8 7 ) - ]

L
(1 Btu]{ mil B t u ) ( 3 6 0 0 s) X \ l b F / \ Bt-----106 ~ = 5.73 Qw Qw ft3 s-1 = 0.1746q (mil Btu -1 h -1)

COMPUTER MODELING

Model input and options

Calculations that can be done manually can be done faster and more accurately with a computer model. The model developed to utilize the previous equations has been entitled Maintenance of Aquaculture Pond Temperatures (MAPT) (Klemetson and Rogers, 1981). However, several of the concepts and equations must be modified to assure compatibility of operation within the computer model. The basic operation of the model and any significant modifications of approach will be noted in the following sections. The data input for each site includes: well flow rate, well temperature, pond depth, pond area, initial pond temperature, and name of well location. Any specific conditions can be evaluated by changing one of these program inputs. The model will sequentially evaluate a number of different sites during the same computer run. The principal factors that affect the heat loss calculations are the wind speed, ambient air temperature, relative humidity and solar radiation. These are site specific factors that must be obtained for each site, or at least in the general locale. A number of factors must be computed for use in the heat loss equations. Two of these are vapor pressure and heat of vaporization. Since both of these factors are temperature dependent, it was necessary to develop an approximation equation for each rather than put the entire tables of data in computer memory. Plotting of the data for the latent heat of vaporization, Hv, an approximately straight line plot was obtained which yielded the equation:

Aquaculture pond temperature modeling

Hv = 1 0 9 4 - - 0 . 5 7 (~F)

199 (9)

The plot of the saturated vapor pressure data versus temperature yielded a higher level exponential curve. The simplified form of the equation is: VP = 0 . 0 4 9 8 e '37s (10)

Another factor, C3, which is related to the convective losses from flat surfaces was entered as input data but can be computed using the equation: C3 = 0.5 + 0-01 (F) (valid range, 0-50F) (11 )

Above 50F the value is set at C3 = 1-0, and below 0F the value is set at C3 = 0.5. The final temperature of the pond water is determined b y iteration using the net heat losses of the pond calculated from climatic conditions and the net heat input from hot water. Once equilibrium is reached between the heat losses and gains, this temperature is used to initialize the pond temperature for the next month. The model also computes evaporation water losses.

Evaporative water losses While these data are not essential to the calculation of the heat losses, they are available and may be useful in related water balance calculations. Evaporation is dependent on the same climatic factors as heat loss. While evaporation occurs naturally in all bodies of water, it is increased by the higher temperatures required for aquaculture ponds. Since a reasonable limit to pond temperature for animal production is 90F (32.2C), this temperature was used as the maximum pond temperature for the calculation of the evaporation rate. Any temperature below this level yielded its own evaporation rate and was recorded. Animal productivity The productivity rate for production of the Macrobrachium rosenbergii prawn has been assumed to be equal to one for temperatures above 82F (27.7C) and to decrease by 50% for each 5F (2-8C) temperature drop. Below 62F (16-7C) it is assumed that productivity drops to zero. These values are conservative and can be refined as additional information is available.

200

s. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

Area required f o r production

Given a desired rate of animal production, the pond temperature is determined and therefore the net heat losses are determined. On this basis, it is possible to calculate the pond surface area that can be supported for each hot water source and each level of productivity during the entire year.

Model output
It was assumed that the ponds would be either open to the environment or completely enclosed. The enclosed condition assumes that there is no wind and 100% humidity over the pond surface. These data include the temperature profile throughout the year, the animal productivity rates, and the area of pond that can be supported at each site with the existing facilities. The results are given for both normal site wind conditions and for no-wind conditions which would simulate the use of an enclosed structure. The o u t p u t (Table 2) of the model includes the temperature profile o f the pond at a specific site throughout the year and for different pond sizes. In addition it also indicates the percent of total annual production available at each site on the basis of 12 months o f optimum production rate. The second o u t p u t (Table 3) is the productivity profile for the same site on the basis of 100% productivity in any given month. Also provided is the annual evaporation rate (in year-I). These values were computed on the basis o f the temperature data in the previous output. Also shown in this o u t p u t is the total productivity on the basis of a year's production potential. The third o u t p u t (Table 4) presents the pond surface area in acres that can be supported at a given site for the indicated productivity rate. It will be used to calculate areas that can be used in a management system aquaculture production.

APPLICATION TO HEAT LOSS REDUCTION

Evaporation suppression
In order to conserve energy and improve productivity, several heat loss reduction mechanisms were evaluated utilizing the MAPT model. Only

TABLE 2

C o m p u t e r P r e d i c t i o n o f A q u a c u l t u r e P o n d T e m p e r a t u r e s in F ( A q u a c u l t u r e P o n d T e m p e r a t u r e Profile S u m m a r y for D i r e c t E x c h a n g e o f Water, P o n c h a H o t Springs A r e a ) Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Production b #nonths) Total production c {%)

Normal wind and normal humidity a Jan.

blow Temp. (ft 3 s- ~) [ F)

Depth {]?]

Area (acres}

0-53 0-53 0-53 0.53 0-53 0.53 0.53

141-00 141.00 141.00 141.00 141.00 141-00 141.00

3.50 3-50 3-50 3.50 3.50 3,50 3.50

0.5 1.0 5-0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0

84.06 70.81 50.06 46.25 43-78 42.93 42.50

84.30 71.56 49.58 45-03 41.87 40.74 40-17

83.72 72.07 53-16 49.18 46.44 45.46 44.96

85.06 74.63 58.30 55.02 52.79 52-00 51-59

88-04 78.58 64.55 61-81 59.96 59.31 58.97

90.81 82.18 69.75 67.39 65.82 65.26 64.98

94.44 86.39 74-89 72-72 71-29 70.78 70.52

94-44 86-18 74-35 72.14 70.67 70.16 69.90

91.63 82-38 68-66 66-05 64.32 63.71 63.40

88-43 77-60 60"55 67.17 54-91 54.11 53.70

85.96 73.54 52.77 48.47 45.55 44.52 43.99

84.43 70.95 47.29 42-17 38.65 37-40 36.75

12 12 5 4 4 4 4

100.00 74.01 19-03 13-87 11-44 10-58 10.15

t~

a Normal wind and humidity means that no heat losses reduction methods were used during this computer analysis. b Indicates the number of m o n t h s when temperatures were above a predetermined survival level for the aquatic species chosen. c Indicates the percent of total production achieved as compared to total production possible if o p t i m u m temperatures maintained for entire year.

t,3

1",9 O 1",9

TABLE 3

Computer Prediction of Animal Productivity (Agriculture Pond Productivity Profile Summary for Direct Exchange of Water)
Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Evapora- Total tion a produc(in year -1) tivity b t~

Flow Temp. (ft3s -1) (FJ

Depth (ft)

Area Jan. (acres)

o~

0.53 0.53 0.53 0-53 0.53 0.53 0-53

141-00 141.00 141.00 141-00 141.00 141.00 141.00

3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3-50

0.5 1.0 5-0 10.0 25-0 50-0 100.0

100-00c100.00 100.00 100.00 100-00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100-00 100-00 100.00 100-00 283.26 1200.00 47-42 50.93 53.35 64.89 83.95 100.00 100.00 100.00 100-00 79-30 60.24 48.09 272.43 888.17 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 17.99 42.42 66-58 64.05 37.32 0-00 0.00 0.00 262-75 228-37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.33 56.40 53-64 25.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 261-57 166-42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.95 49.65 46.76 16-90 0.00 0-00 0.00 260.88 137.25 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.34 47.27 44.34 14.04 0-00 0.00 0.00 260-65 126.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 20.01 46.05 43.11 12.58 0-00 0.00 0-00 160.54 121.75

~ t~

t~

a Indicates total evaporation expected from water surface each year. b Summation of monthly aquatic animal productivity figures. A value of 1200 is maximum possible for year. c A value of 100 indicates that optimum growth temperatures were obtained for species being evaluated.

TABLE 4 Computer Prediction of Pond Surface Area Required for Selected Animal Productivity (Pond Size in Acres That Will Support Various Monthly Productivities)

~ ~

Flow Tempera- Depth Produc- Jan. (ft3 s-1) ture (F) (ft) tivity

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct. Nov. Dec.

0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53

141-00 141-00 141.00 141.00

3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50

25.00 a 50-00 75.00 100.00

1.29 t' 0.96 0-73 0-56

1-38 1.01 0.75 0.57

1.50 1.05 0.75 0.55

1.99 1.27 0.86 0.61

3.93 25.05 1.94 3.68 1.17 1.73 0.77 1.02

999.99 c 999:99 28.78 14.58 3.47 3.13 1.59 1-53

9.14 2.48 3.10 1.57 1.67 1.06 1 - 0 3 0-75

1.57 1.13 0.83 0.62

1-30 0.98 0-74 0.57

"~

a Productivity is a function of the pond temperature and can be selected for aquatic species under study. b Indicates the number of acres of pond area that can be maintained at the desired temperature with the heated water supplied. c Indicates that no hot water is required to maintain ponds at desired temperature.

b,9 O

204

s. L. Kleraetson and G. L. Rogers

a brief presentation of information about heat loss reduction methods will be presented to set the stage for utilization of the model. There are three main classes of evaporation suppression (Magin and Randall, 1960): (1) wind shear fences and shelterbelts; (2) surface covers and films; and (3) greenhouses. A fourth alternative of reducing surface area by constructing deep reservoirs or storing underground was not considered in this study. A review of the literature related to fences and shelterbelts (Van Eimern, 1964) showed that they can reduce wind shear and evaporative losses. Wind speeds may be reduced by 80-20% of ambient winds on the leeward side of a fence for a distance of ten times the height of the barrier. Evaporation rate may be reduced by 20% to ten times the height of the fence downwind. Surface covers and films include aquatic plants, floating plastic covers, floating balls, inflatable plastic structures and monomolecular films. Monomolecular films could be used if an adequate grid system were constructed for protection from wind and wave action (Nicholaichuk, 1978). The chemical film would not affect growth of animals though submerged aeration and feeding may be required. Greenhouses would provide the best alternative for maintenance of pond water temperatures, although they can be expensive (Walker and Duncan, 1975). Conventional heating systems could provide back up for extending the growing season and increasing productivity. Greenhouses should find special application in hatchery and nursery facilities generally smaller than 1 acre in size. They could also be used in multiple-use facilities for other cash crops like tomatoes or mushrooms in addition to prawn production.

Assumptions for model analysis

The wind shear fences reduced the wind speed to a minimum of about 20% of the prevailing wind speed and evaporation rates by about 20%. Either rigid or fluid surface covers can be used on the ponds. The inflatable plastic structures and the floating plastic covers reduce wind speeds to zero and increase humidity to near 100%. The monomolecular films provide about 25% reduction in evaporation, and the floating ball systems reduce heat losses by about 75% and liquid losses by about 87%. A structural shelter or greenhouse, like the inflatable plastic structures, reduces wind speeds to zero and increases the humidity to near

Aquaculture pond temperature modeling

205

100%. Although there was insufficient information available, it was assumed that the insulating characteristics and the interior temperature gradients above the water surface would significantly reduce these losses. Applications o f the computer model are presented in Figs 1-4. Figure 1 gives the results of wind speed reduction for a 1 acre (0.405 ha)

11
90"
o n

E
I-t0 n

70

f / ~ . ~ /

\'~,;40%

20% CO 60%

100%
J J I I I j I l I I I

Fig. 1.

Effect of wind speed reduction on the temperature profile of a 1-acre aquaculture pond (geothermal 1.0 ft 3 s-1, 100F, 3.5 ft depth).
1O0

90

~70 n 60

Film Normal

Fig. 2. Comparison of pond temperatures with and without monomolecular film on surface of 1-acre pond (assume 25% reduction in evaporation rate, geothermal 1.0 ft 3 s -x, IO0F, 3.5 ft depth).

206
90,

S. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

80
o

~ 70

E
I-"-. U

~ G r e e n h o u s e
Open Pond

g. Bo

Fig. 3. Comparison of pond temperatures with and without greenhouse cover (no wind, 100% humidity in greenhouse, geothermal 1-0 ft 3 s-z, 100F, 3.5 ft depth).
90

80

~7o
" 0-

Greenhouses Fences Monomolecular film Normal conditions

g. eo

J
Fig. 4.

s , M, , A, , M

j 0

Projected pond temperature profiles as a function of heat loss reduction mechanism at Alamosa (geothermal 1-0 ft 3 s-z, IO0F, 1 acre).

aquaculture pond 3.5 ft (1.15 m) in depth with a geothermal hot water flow o f 1.0 ft 3 s -1 (0.028 m 3 s -l) and a temperature o f 100F (37-8C). The pond water temperature improvement was approximately 5-8F (2.8-4-4(3) for each m o n t h o f the year. Similar analysis for monomolecular films assuming 25% reduction of evaporation (Fig. 2)

Aquaculture pond temperature modeling

207

suggests that the water temperature may be improved by about 3-5F (1-7-2-8C) each month. Figure 3 presents the expected pond water temperature for each month of the year under the same conditions with or without a greenhouse. The greenhouse could improve the pond water temperature by as much as 6F (3.3C). Greenhouses, fences and monomolecular films are compared in Fig. 4. The greenhouse would be the best alternative for reducing heat losses.

CONCLUSIONS The use of heat loss reduction methods can be worth considering for the development of any site. The following conclusions were reached in this evaluation: 1. Wind shear fences and monomolecular films can achieve the same 6F (3.3C) improvement in pond temperature (Figs 1 and 2). 2. Monomolecular films require some wind and wave protection. 3. Structural shelters, inflatable shelters and greenhouses are feasible methods of covering the ponds and can achieve 5-8F (2.8-4-4C) improvement in temperature. Further study is needed to determine the total degree of effectiveness. 4. Fixed film or plastic surface covers should be considered as a viable solution to both the heat loss and water loss problem. Subsurface aeration may be required. 5. Floating ball systems are questionable until more study is completed concerning their effects on the aquatic animals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was funded in part by the Southern Colorado Economic Development district under Grant FCRC No. 292-399-104-8, Document No. 109-50104.

REFERENCES Hanson, J. A. & Goodwin, H. L. (1977). Shrimp and Prawn Farming in the Western Hemisphere, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

208

S. L. Klemetson and G. L. Rogers

Kawaratani, R. K. (1978). State of the Art: Waste Heat Utilization for Agriculture and Aquaculture, Tennessee Valley Authority. Klemetson, S. L. & Rogers, G. L. (1981). Development of geothermal-aquaculture system in Colorado utilizing the Macrobrachium rosenbergii prawn, Klemetson Engineering Report to Coury & Assoc., Denver, Colorado. Ling, S. W. & Cotellow, T. J. (1976). Status and problems of Macrobrachium fanning in Asia, Food and Drugs from the Sea Conference, Puerto Rico, pp. 66-71. Magin, G. B. & Randall, L. E. (1960). Review of Literature on Evaporation Suppression, Geological Survey Professional Paper 272-C, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Nicholaichuk, W. (1978). Evaporation control in farm-size reservoirs, J. Soil and Water Conservation, 33, 185-8. Van Eimern, J. (1964). Windbreaks and Shelterbelts, World Meteorological Organization, Tech. Note 59, Geneva, Switzerland. Velz, C. T. (1970). Applied Stream Sanitation, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Walker, J. N. & Duncan, G. A. (1975). Environmental equipment and traditional energy considerations for heating systems, in: Greenhouse Vegetable Workshop, Tennessee Valley Authority Bulletin Y-94, pp. 53-63.