4.7 Article

Sedimentation of organic matter from fish farms in oligotrophic Mediterranean assessed through bulk and stable isotope (δ13C and δ15N) analyses

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 262, 期 2-4, 页码 268-280

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.09.033

关键词

fish farms; sedimentation; Posidonia oceanica; Mediterranean sea; carbon; nitrogen phosphorus; stable isotopes (delta C-13 and delta N-15)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bulk sedimentation and carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes were used to investigate the dispersion of particle waste products from 3 fish farms distributed along the Mediterranean Sea and characterized by the seagrass Posidonia oceanica growing in immediate vicinity of the fish cages. The farms were located at sites with rapid water exchange (average current speeds > 5.5 cm s(-1)) and water depths ranging from 16 to 28 m. Sedimentation traps were deployed along transects from each farm on bare and vegetated sites for 48 h during summer, where the production in the farms is at maximum. The sedimentation under,the net cages was 8 to 25 times higher than at control sites located 1 km away. The farm with the largest production showed the highest sedimentation rates. Phosphorus (P) deposition rates were particularly high at all farms, and the underlying sediments were enriched in P. These results indicate that P can be used as a sensitive indicator of farm loadings. The isotopic signals (delta C-13 and delta N-15) of the sediment trap materials at the control sites varied among the 3 study sites (delta C-13 - 14.9 parts per thousand to -23.4 parts per thousand and delta N-15 2.2 parts per thousand to 6.2 parts per thousand), but some general trends were observed with less negative delta C-13 and more positive delta N-15 signals under the net cages. These signals were reflected in the underlying sediments, in particular for delta N-15, suggesting that N isotopes can be used as indicators of farm waste products in traps and sediments. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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