Coastal salmon farms attract large and persistent aggregations of wild fish: an ecosystem effect

By T. Dempster, I. Uglem, P. Sanchez‐Jerez, D. Fernández-Jover, J. Bayle-Sempere, R. Nilsen, P. Bjørn. 2009

174 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/395f5554792f8ceed4ae3be60f3797a0ee3a9d1d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. T. Dempster
2. P. Cranford
3. P. Sanchez‐Jerez
4. P. Bjørn
5. I. Uglem
6. Myriam D. Callier
7. C. McKindsey
8. F. O’Beirn

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Robert Poulin
2. Ø. Strand
3. F. Økland
4. E. Petersson
5. T. Dempster
6. D. Bengtson
7. T. Svåsand

Citations in the corpus

• Disease interaction and pathogens exchange between wild and farmed fish populations with special reference to Norway (2011, background): “Saithe, which is the most abundant fish species associated with Norwegian salmon farms (Dempster et al., 2009), has been suggested to act as a natural reservoir of SAV (Graham et al., 2006) and is a carrier of IPNV (Wallace et al., 2008).”
• Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review (2018, background): “Many studies have shown that the aggregative effect of fish farms varies seasonally and may only be present at certain times of the year (Valle et al. 2007, Fernandez-Jover et al. 2008, Dempster et al. 2009, Šegvić Bubić et al. 2011, Bacher et al. 2012, Özgül & Angel 2013).”
• Impacts of marine and freshwater aquaculture on wildlife: a global meta-analysis (2018, unknown): “…amek et al. 2003; G€uc l€usoy & Savas 2003; Quick et al. 2004; Freitas et al. 2007; Dorr et al. 2012; Sep ulveda et al. 2015), while farm waste from sea cages also attracts significant aggregations of opportunistic wild fish (Dempster et al. 2002, 2009; Tuya et al. 2006; SanchezJerez et al. 2011).”
• The Ecosystem Services of Marine Aquaculture: Valuing Benefits to People and Nature (2018, background): “Aggregations of transient and resident fish are often observed around sea cages (Machias et al. 2006, Dempster et al. 2009), because of the structural habitat, facilitation of prey organisms (e.g., within biofouling), and organic enrichment through food and animal waste they provide (Costa-Pierce…”
• High connectivity of salmon farms revealed by aggregation, residence and repeated movements of wild fish among farms (2009, methodology): “In Norway, 1198 salmon and trout farms operated in 2007 and used a total of 1.16 million t of fish feed to produce 689 000 tons of fish (Norwegian Fish- eries Directorate 2008).”
• Collateral diseases: Aquaculture impacts on wildlife infections (2020, background): “In addition, cages and net pens attract ag - gregations of wild fish seeking food or shelter, further increasing the risk of parasite exchange between farmed and wild fish and between neighbouring farms (Dempster et al., 2009; Johansen et al., 2011).”