Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review
By Myriam D. Callier, C. Byron, D. Bengtson, P. Cranford, S. Cross, U. Focken, H. Jansen, P. Kamermans, A. Kiessling, T. Landry and 8 more. 2018
130 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Knowledge of aquaculture–environment interactions is essential for the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry and efficient marine spatial planning. The effects of fish and shellfish farming on sessile wild populations, particularly infauna, have been studied intensively. Mobile fauna, including crustaceans, fish, birds and marine mammals, also interact with aquaculture operations, but the interactions are more complex and these animals may be attracted to (attraction) or show an aversion to (repulsion) farm operations with various degrees of effects. This review outlines the main mechanisms and effects of attraction and repulsion of wild animals to/from marine finfish cage and bivalve aquaculture, with a focus on effects on fisheries-related species. Effects considered in this review include those related to the provision of physical structure (farm infrastructure acting as fish aggregating devices (FADs) or artificial reefs (ARs), the provision of food (e.g. farmed animals, waste feed and faeces, fouling organisms associated with farm structures) and some farm activities (e.g. boating, cleaning). The reviews show that the distribution of mobile organisms associated with farming structures varies over various spatial (vertical and horizontal) and temporal scales (season, feeding time, day/night period). Attraction/repulsion mechanisms have a variety of direct and indirect effects on wild organisms at the level of individuals and populations and may have implication for the management of fisheries species and the ecosystem in the context of marine spatial planning. This review revealed considerable uncertainties regarding the long-term and ecosystem-wide consequences of these interactions. The use of modelling may help better understand consequences, but long-term studies are necessary to better elucidate effects.
Subfields: Aquatic Science, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/683b0b5956e4901be0d166d1da7a6bff13633f5c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Aquatic Science
Citations in the corpus
- Impacts of marine and freshwater aquaculture on wildlife: a global meta-analysis (2018, unknown): “Cetaceans may benefit from easy food when they visit farms (Diaz L opez 2017) and culling and entanglements are relatively rare (Diaz L opez & Bernal-Shirai 2007; Callier et al. 2017).”
- Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: Pathways, synthesis and next steps (2021, background): “15,16 While it is possible that the presence of greater abundances of wild fish and mobile invertebrates at farms could simply represent increased concentrations of these organisms and not additional production, 16 we posit that the mechanisms described in detail below could— in certain…”