J. Atalah, L. Fletcher, I. Davidson, PM South, B. Forrest
{"title":"Artificial habitat and biofouling species distributions in an aquaculture seascape","authors":"J. Atalah, L. Fletcher, I. Davidson, PM South, B. Forrest","doi":"10.3354/aei00380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The global proliferation of marine artificial habitats is rapidly altering the physical structure of coastlines, with knock-on effects on physical, chemical, and ecological processes at seascape scales. Ecological consequences of maritime sprawl associated with aquaculture are poorly understood, despite the fact that these suspended structures are particularly prone to biofouling, which can affect the industry and seascape around it. We characterised seascape-scale spatial and temporal distribution patterns of 10 biofouling taxa in relation to the presence and distance to Perna canaliculus mussel farms in New Zealand’s largest aquaculture region. Seven of 10 taxa had significantly higher cover on farms than in natural habitats throughout the region. The cover of 4 of those 7 taxa, including the high-profile pests Mytilus galloprovincialis and Undaria pinnatifida, exponentially decreased with distance from the nearest farm, while some taxa were absent from natural habitats (e.g. the ascidian Ciona robusta). In contrast, several opportunistic macroalgal species, such as Cladophora ruchingeri and Pylaiella littoralis, had colonised extensive areas of natural habitat. Our results suggest that biofouling is a persistent issue on mussel farms and that farm structures may act as reservoirs or ‘stepping stones’ for the dispersal of potential marine pests. These distributional and dispersal patterns can inform integrated pest management efforts focusing on spatial management strategies, such as ‘firebreaks’ in farm connectivity, avoidance of pest hotspots, and farm fallowing.","PeriodicalId":8376,"journal":{"name":"Aquaculture Environment Interactions","volume":"12 1","pages":"495-509"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aquaculture Environment Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00380","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
The global proliferation of marine artificial habitats is rapidly altering the physical structure of coastlines, with knock-on effects on physical, chemical, and ecological processes at seascape scales. Ecological consequences of maritime sprawl associated with aquaculture are poorly understood, despite the fact that these suspended structures are particularly prone to biofouling, which can affect the industry and seascape around it. We characterised seascape-scale spatial and temporal distribution patterns of 10 biofouling taxa in relation to the presence and distance to Perna canaliculus mussel farms in New Zealand’s largest aquaculture region. Seven of 10 taxa had significantly higher cover on farms than in natural habitats throughout the region. The cover of 4 of those 7 taxa, including the high-profile pests Mytilus galloprovincialis and Undaria pinnatifida, exponentially decreased with distance from the nearest farm, while some taxa were absent from natural habitats (e.g. the ascidian Ciona robusta). In contrast, several opportunistic macroalgal species, such as Cladophora ruchingeri and Pylaiella littoralis, had colonised extensive areas of natural habitat. Our results suggest that biofouling is a persistent issue on mussel farms and that farm structures may act as reservoirs or ‘stepping stones’ for the dispersal of potential marine pests. These distributional and dispersal patterns can inform integrated pest management efforts focusing on spatial management strategies, such as ‘firebreaks’ in farm connectivity, avoidance of pest hotspots, and farm fallowing.
期刊介绍:
AEI presents rigorously refereed and carefully selected Research Articles, Reviews and Notes, as well as Comments/Reply Comments (for details see MEPS 228:1), Theme Sections and Opinion Pieces. For details consult the Guidelines for Authors. Papers may be concerned with interactions between aquaculture and the environment from local to ecosystem scales, at all levels of organisation and investigation. Areas covered include:
-Pollution and nutrient inputs; bio-accumulation and impacts of chemical compounds used in aquaculture.
-Effects on benthic and pelagic assemblages or processes that are related to aquaculture activities.
-Interactions of wild fauna (invertebrates, fishes, birds, mammals) with aquaculture activities; genetic impacts on wild populations.
-Parasite and pathogen interactions between farmed and wild stocks.
-Comparisons of the environmental effects of traditional and organic aquaculture.
-Introductions of alien species; escape and intentional releases (seeding) of cultured organisms into the wild.
-Effects of capture-based aquaculture (ranching).
-Interactions of aquaculture installations with biofouling organisms and consequences of biofouling control measures.
-Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture; comparisons of re-circulation and ‘open’ systems.
-Effects of climate change and environmental variability on aquaculture activities.
-Modelling of aquaculture–environment interactions; assessment of carrying capacity.
-Interactions between aquaculture and other industries (e.g. tourism, fisheries, transport).
-Policy and practice of aquaculture regulation directed towards environmental management; site selection, spatial planning, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, and eco-ethics.