Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart for article selection for meta-analysis.
Table 1
Meta-analysis data sources
| Study | Fish species | Biofloc source | C:N ratio | Data extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirzakhani et al., (2019) | Oreochromis niloticus | Molasses; wheat flour | 15:1; 20:1 | SGR, FCR, survival rate, DO, TAN, NO2 – |
| Hisano et al., (2021) | Oreochromis niloticus | Sugar cane molasses | 12:1 | SGR, FCR, survival rate, DO |
| Long et al., (2015) | Oreochromis niloticus | Glucose | 12:1 | SGR, FCR, survival rate, DO, TAN, NO2 – |
| Hwihy et al., (2021) | Oreochromis niloticus | Molasses + rice bran | 15:1 | SGR, FCR, DO, TAN |
| Ekasari et al., (2015) | Oreochromis niloticus | Molasses | 10:1 | SGR, survival rate, DO, TAN, NO2 – |
| Elayaraja et al., (2020) | Oreochromis niloticus | Jaggery powder | 12:1; 15:1; 20:1 | SGR, FCR, survival rate |
| Gurung et al., (2024) | Oreochromis niloticus | Sugar; corn flour; rice bran; molasses | 10:1 | SGR*, FCR, survival rate, DO |
| Haraz et al., (2023) | Oreochromis niloticus | Molasses | 10:1; 20:1 | SGR, FCR, DO, TAN |
| García-Ríos et al., (2019) | Oreochromis niloticus | Corn flour; sugar; wheat flour | 12:1 | SGR, FCR, survival rate, DO, TAN, NO2 – |
| de Lima et al., (2018) | Oreochromis niloticus | Sugar; liquid molasses; molasses powder | 15:1 | SGR, FCR, survival rate, DO, TAN, NO2 – |
| Pérez-Fuentes et al., (2018) | Oreochromis niloticus | Liquid molasses | 10:1 | SGR*, FCR, survival rate, DO, NO2 – |
| Rind et al., (2023) | Oreochromis niloticus | Sugarcane molasses; tapioca powder | 15:1 | SGR*, FCR, Survival rate, DO, NO2 – |
Figure 2
Forest plot showing the SMD for SGR of tilapia cultured under BFT compared to control systems.
Figure 3
Baujat plot identifying influential studies contributing to heterogeneity in the SGR meta-analysis.
Figure 4
Funnel plot assessing potential publication bias in studies reporting SGR under BFT.
Figure 5
Forest plot showing the SMD for FCR in tilapia under BFT compared to conventional culture systems.
Figure 6
Baujat plot indicating studies with disproportionate influence on heterogeneity in the FCR meta-analysis.
Figure 7
Funnel plot examining asymmetry and potential publication bias for FCR studies.
Figure 8
Forest plot presenting the effect of BFT on survival rate of tilapia compared to control systems.
Figure 9
Baujat plot identifying studies contributing most to heterogeneity in survival rate outcomes.
Figure 10
Funnel plot evaluating potential publication bias in survival rate studies.
Figure 11
Forest plot showing the effect of BFT on DO levels in tilapia culture systems.
Figure 12
Baujat plot highlighting studies with the greatest influence on heterogeneity in DO outcomes.
Figure 13
Funnel plot assessing asymmetry and potential publication bias for DO studies.
Figure 14
Forest plot presenting the effect of BFT on nitrite (NO2 –) concentrations in tilapia culture systems.
Figure 15
Baujat plot highlighting influential studies contributing to heterogeneity in NO2 - outcomes.
Figure 16
Funnel plot evaluating asymmetry and potential publication bias in NO2 - studies.
Figure 17
Forest plot showing the effect of BFT on TAN in tilapia culture systems.
Figure 18
Baujat plot highlighting influential studies contributing to heterogeneity in TAN outcomes.
Figure 19
Funnel plot evaluating asymmetry and potential publication bias in TAN studies.
Figure 20
Forest plot of SGR by C:N ratio subgroup.
Figure 21
Forest plot of FCR by C:N ratio subgroup.
Figure 22
Forest plot of nitrite (NO2 –) concentration by C:N ratio subgroup.
Figure 23
Forest plot of TAN by C:N ratio subgroup.