{"title":"Wild and farmed burbot Lota lota: differences in energy consumption and behavior during the spawning season","authors":"O. Slavík, P. Horký","doi":"10.3354/meps00389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Farmed fish released in a native environment can display different spawning behaviour compared to their wild conspecifics. In our study, farmed and wild burbot, a species recently introduced for aquacultural production, were equipped with electromyogram (EMG) radio tags. EMG biotelemetry allows a description of the spatial distribution of fish together with simultaneous measurements of individual energy consumption. Farmed burbot were released into the wild to simulate stocking or hatchery escape and were observed over a nocturnal phase during November to January. The observational period was assumed to cover the whole spawning season, including an expected peak of spawning activity determined according to egg production by naturally spawning burbot in an experimental seminatural river channel. We detected increased energy consumption and lower movement activity at the time of expected peak spawning for wild burbot only. Across the whole spawning season, farmed females showed lower movement activity and energy consumption than wild females, whereas the opposite results were found for farmed males. Farmed and wild fish kept larger distances between each other than the individuals within a group (farmed and wild) across the whole spawning season. The closest positions occurred between males and females in the wild group, while for farmed fish, the closest position was found within the same sex. Sexually conditioned energy consumption and spatial distribution differed between wild and farmed fish.","PeriodicalId":8376,"journal":{"name":"Aquaculture Environment Interactions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aquaculture Environment Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3354/meps00389","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: 1
Abstract
Farmed fish released in a native environment can display different spawning behaviour compared to their wild conspecifics. In our study, farmed and wild burbot, a species recently introduced for aquacultural production, were equipped with electromyogram (EMG) radio tags. EMG biotelemetry allows a description of the spatial distribution of fish together with simultaneous measurements of individual energy consumption. Farmed burbot were released into the wild to simulate stocking or hatchery escape and were observed over a nocturnal phase during November to January. The observational period was assumed to cover the whole spawning season, including an expected peak of spawning activity determined according to egg production by naturally spawning burbot in an experimental seminatural river channel. We detected increased energy consumption and lower movement activity at the time of expected peak spawning for wild burbot only. Across the whole spawning season, farmed females showed lower movement activity and energy consumption than wild females, whereas the opposite results were found for farmed males. Farmed and wild fish kept larger distances between each other than the individuals within a group (farmed and wild) across the whole spawning season. The closest positions occurred between males and females in the wild group, while for farmed fish, the closest position was found within the same sex. Sexually conditioned energy consumption and spatial distribution differed between wild and farmed fish.
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.