Protected Species and Marine Aquaculture Interactions

Recommendations

Info

RON kNIGHT Common eider reports of seabird deaths as a result of entanglement in aquaculture facilities in New Zealand though the risk is acknowledged. Nonlethal effects include habitat exclusion and ingestion of marine debris. Potential benefits of aquaculture include the provision of roost sites closer to foraging areas and the attraction and aggregation of small fish to the farm, which are potential prey of seabirds. Table 10 summarizes the potential effects to seabirds and management options to reduce risk. Overall, Sagar (2013) report concludes that harmful effects of existing aquaculture on seabirds are not presently considered significant. As with marine mammals loose and thin lines pose the greatest threat to diving seabirds. Hence, entanglement risk appears low in the New Zealand mussel industry where longlines are under considerable tension. Recommended management strategies include careful site selection to avoid threatened, endangered or protected bird species’ home ranges, critical breeding and foraging habitats and migration routes. Minimizing marine debris, using minimal lighting at night, and using downward-pointing and shaded lights are also suggested and easily managed on a farm-by-farm basis. 36 | ProtEctEd SPEciES and MarinE aquaculturE intEractionS
Table 10 Overview of potential effects on seabirds from shellfish farming (adapted from Clement et al. 2013) Effects Entanglement (resulting in birds drowning) Management Options Careful site selection to avoid critical breeding and foraging habitats Habitat exclusion Providing roost sites closer to foraging areas Aggregation of prey fish Ensure waste material and debris are collected and disposed of correctly Minimize lighting at night Monitoring and reporting of negative interactions of seabirds with aquaculture structures Sharks We found no published reports on sharks being entangled in aquaculture gear, and there is little published information about the interactions of sharks and marine farms. Sharks have been documented as being attracted to fish cages in the Pacific Northwest (Nash et al. 2005), Puerto Rico (Alston et al. 2005), The Bahamas (Benetti et al. 2005), Latin America (Rojas & Wadsworth 2007) and Australia (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013). Because sharks pose a threat to the stocked fish and potentially divers, dangerous species may be destroyed. In Australia, an estimated 20 great white sharks Carcharodon carcharias a year are killed at marine aquaculture farms (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013). Siting of a salmon farm off South Africa within an ecologically significant great white shark congregation area and eco-tourist destination elicited major negative public response (Scholl & Pade 2005), and the farm was later closed. A telemetry study of sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus and tiger Galeocerdo cuvier sharks near fish cages off Hawaii found that sharks did aggregate near the cages with some individuals being recorded for the entire term of the 2.5-year study (Papastimatiou et al. 2010). These animals were considered to pose minimal threat to humans. The economic and ecological potential risk of large scale fish releases due to sharks tearing nets may be a concern as the industry moves into offshore sites (Holmer 2010) depending on the types of nets and locations used. Technological improvements in shark resistant aquaculture cage materials decreases the predation risk that sharks pose to aquaculture and may deter them from damaging farm equipment. Great white shark Protected Species & Mussel longline aquaculture interactions | 37
Page 1 and 2: Protected Species and Marine Aquacu
Page 3 and 4: CAROL SEALS PRICE* NOAA Affiliate |
Page 5 and 6: Humpback whale
Page 7 and 8: tory agencies may look to informati
Page 9 and 10: Introduction SPRING BAY SEAFOODS Th
Page 11 and 12: FEDERAL Human Health APPROVED Biodi
Page 13 and 14: Table 1 ESA species under NMFS’ j
Page 15 and 16: Table 3 Sources of information (n=1
Page 17 and 18: (A) (B) Figure 2. Representative sc
Page 19 and 20: The site specific features of the f
Page 21 and 22: GABRIEl BARATHIEu activity (Keeley
Page 23 and 24: fully or partially excluded from ar
Page 25 and 26: Table 6 underwater noise caused by
Page 27 and 28: Table 8 Global cases of protected s
Page 29 and 30: overlap with any protected species
Page 31 and 32: 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Applicatio
Page 33 and 34: eported by the farmers as more effe
Page 35 and 36: Research results support the views
Page 37 and 38: Bottlenose dolphin An ecosystem mod
Page 39 and 40: kAllERNA assessing overlap with act
Page 41 and 42: any loose lines or floating equipme
Page 43: individual level, but requires perm
Page 47 and 48: turtles and seabirds from marine aq
Page 49 and 50: uoys associated with fishing gear a
Page 51 and 52: dian waters was 3.85 right whales,
Page 53 and 54: equaling 19- 29 deaths per year (Ro
Page 55 and 56: In the U. S. northeast region, sea
Page 57 and 58: northeast and southwest were not av
Page 59 and 60: Table 11 Fishery gear impacts to pr
Page 61 and 62: Table 12 Fishery gear modifications
Page 63 and 64: into aquaculture gear development f
Page 65 and 66: use of visual deterrents and prelim
Page 67 and 68: Knowledge Gaps There is still much
Page 70 and 71: References Alston DE, Cabarcas A, C
Page 72 and 73: .ufsc.br/index.php/biotemas/article
Page 74 and 75: enclosures for growing algae (OMEGA
Page 76 and 77: Marine Mammal Commission, February
Page 78 and 79: Otts SS, Bowling T (2012) Offshore
Page 80 and 81: Scholl MC, Pade N (2005) Salmon far
Page 82: PENNY PRITZKER Secretary of Commerc

Protected Species and Marine Aquaculture Interactions

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?