4.3 Article

Salmon lice infection on wild salmonids in marine protected areas: an evaluation of the Norwegian 'National Salmon Fjords'

期刊

AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 1-16

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/aei00090

关键词

Sea trout; Salmo trutta; Arctic charr; Salvelinus alpinus; Lepeophtheirus salmonis; Area protection

资金

  1. Nor wegian Food Safety Authority
  2. Institute of Marine Research,
  3. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Norway, 29 fjords and 52 rivers have been designated for protection in order to prevent the infection of important populations of wild salmonids with salmon lice of farm origin. We evaluated the effect of this protection on the lice infection pressure for wild salmonids based on lice counts performed on wild-caught sea trout and Arctic charr inside one-third of these protected fjords (known as 'National Salmon Fjords'). Results indicate that these areas may provide a certain extent of protection against lice of farm origin, but their configuration will play a key role in their success. When the size and shape of a protected area are such that fish farms are kept at a minimum distance (calculated here as at least 30 km, but this distance is likely site-dependent), wild fish seem unaffected by the direct lice infection pressure imposed by fish farms. In contrast, the effects of small protected fjords were strongly dependent on the production pattern of the aquaculture industry in the surrounding area, and we found a clear correlation between lice levels on wild salmonids and lice production in nearby salmon farms. To establish more precise management practices, both in National Salmon Fjords and other fjord systems along the Norwegian coast, the development and validation of accurate distribution and abundance models for the dispersion of planktonic lice larvae is needed; this could also be the basis for an area management system based on 'maximum sustainable lice loads' or 'lice quotas.'

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据