M. Richard, F. Forget, A. Mignucci, Serge Mortreux, P. L. Gall, Callier, A. Weise, C. McKindsey, J. Bourjea
{"title":"Farmed bivalve loss due to seabream predation in the French Mediterranean Prevost Lagoon","authors":"M. Richard, F. Forget, A. Mignucci, Serge Mortreux, P. L. Gall, Callier, A. Weise, C. McKindsey, J. Bourjea","doi":"10.3354/aei00383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bivalve predation by seabream has been observed worldwide and is a major concern for bivalve farmers. Farmed bivalve-seabream interactions must be better understood to ensure the sustainability of bivalve aquaculture. The objectives of this study were to characterize gilthead seabream Sparus aurata presence in a bivalve farm in Prevost Lagoon (Mediterranean Sea) using acoustic telemetry and to evaluate monthly losses of mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and oysters Crassostrea gigas due to seabream predation over an 18 mo period inside the farm and at an unprotected experimental platform. Large (281 to 499 mm TL) seabream were more commonly detected in the bivalve farm than were small (200 to 280 mm TL) seabream. In contrast to small seabream, 90% of large seabream returned to and spent extended periods in the study area the following year, suggesting inter-annual site fidelity for large fish that used the bivalve farm as a feeding site. Signs of predation were observed on mussels and oysters throughout the year at the unprotected experimental platform. Farmers noted losses in the farm from April to September. Maximal losses (90 to 100%) were observed post-oyster ‘sticking’ and mussel socking. Despite the deployment of nets as mechanical protection to reduce predation, oyster losses represented 28% of the annual value of oysters sold while mussel losses were estimated at ca. 1%. These results suggest that bivalves must be protected by nets throughout the year to avoid predation, particularly post-handling. A collaboration between shellfish farmers and fishermen could be a sustainable solution for bivalve farming, by regularly fishing for seabream in farms, between tables and inside protective nets.","PeriodicalId":8376,"journal":{"name":"Aquaculture Environment Interactions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aquaculture Environment Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00383","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: 4
Abstract
Bivalve predation by seabream has been observed worldwide and is a major concern for bivalve farmers. Farmed bivalve-seabream interactions must be better understood to ensure the sustainability of bivalve aquaculture. The objectives of this study were to characterize gilthead seabream Sparus aurata presence in a bivalve farm in Prevost Lagoon (Mediterranean Sea) using acoustic telemetry and to evaluate monthly losses of mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and oysters Crassostrea gigas due to seabream predation over an 18 mo period inside the farm and at an unprotected experimental platform. Large (281 to 499 mm TL) seabream were more commonly detected in the bivalve farm than were small (200 to 280 mm TL) seabream. In contrast to small seabream, 90% of large seabream returned to and spent extended periods in the study area the following year, suggesting inter-annual site fidelity for large fish that used the bivalve farm as a feeding site. Signs of predation were observed on mussels and oysters throughout the year at the unprotected experimental platform. Farmers noted losses in the farm from April to September. Maximal losses (90 to 100%) were observed post-oyster ‘sticking’ and mussel socking. Despite the deployment of nets as mechanical protection to reduce predation, oyster losses represented 28% of the annual value of oysters sold while mussel losses were estimated at ca. 1%. These results suggest that bivalves must be protected by nets throughout the year to avoid predation, particularly post-handling. A collaboration between shellfish farmers and fishermen could be a sustainable solution for bivalve farming, by regularly fishing for seabream in farms, between tables and inside protective nets.
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.