A review of data collection methods used to monitor the associations of wild species with marine aquaculture sites

Aquaculture contributes a significant portion of the global aquatic biomass destined for human consumption. Bivalve and marine finfish aquaculture operations require sea‐based farm sites that result in considerable interactions with the natural environment. The addition of feed waste and physical st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Reviews in aquaculture 2024-06, Vol.16 (3), p.1160-1185
Main Authors: English, Greg, Lawrence, Michael J., McKindsey, Christopher W., Lacoursière‐Roussel, Anaïs, Bergeron, Hannah, Gauthier, Stéphane, Wringe, Brendan F., Trudel, Marc
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aquaculture
aquaculture‐ecosystem interactions
Aquatic crustaceans
Artificial reefs
Cage culture
Crustaceans
Data collection
Ecosystems
eDNA
Marine aquaculture
Marine crustaceans
Mollusks
Mussel culture
Natural environment
Shellfish
Site selection
sonar
telemetry
video
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aquaculture contributes a significant portion of the global aquatic biomass destined for human consumption. Bivalve and marine finfish aquaculture operations require sea‐based farm sites that result in considerable interactions with the natural environment. The addition of feed waste and physical structures (e.g., net pens and longline mussel culture) can provide an attractive artificial reef for many species and studies have shown both positive and negative effects on the surrounding ecosystem due to wild species interactions with aquaculture sites. Assessing these interactions can be complex, depending on the local ecosystem, and several monitoring techniques have been used to accurately determine associations of wild finfish and decapods to marine farms. In this review, we assessed the main methods used to monitor aquaculture‐ecosystem interactions. The advantages and disadvantages of each technique are discussed and suggestions to mitigate shortfalls for future studies are outlined. It was evident that combining methodologies should be prioritised to lessen the impact of identified weaknesses of any given approach. Designing studies with complementary approaches may help attain robust data that can be used to further understand aquaculture‐ecosystem interactions and the underlying proximate mechanisms.
ISSN:1753-5123
1753-5131
DOI:10.1111/raq.12890