Artificial reefs of Europe: perspective and future

Jensen, A.C.

doi:10.1006/jmsc.2002.1298

Cited by 111 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research into scientific, engineering, legal and socio-economic aspects has contributed greatly to this success, providing a basis of information and experience which has been highly useful for a better understanding of the many challenges offered by artificial reefs for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment and exploitable resources (JENSEN, 2002). The European Artificial Reef Research Network (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998) has played an important role in this process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview on artificial reefs in Europe

Fabi¹,

Spagnolo²,

Bellan‐Santini³

et al. 2011

Braz. j. oceanogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TArtificial reefs in Europe have been developed over the last 40 yrs. Most of these reefs have been placed in the Mediterranean Sea, but there is an increasing interest on the part of northern European countries. Fish stock enhancement and fishery management are the main purposes of reef construction in the Mediterranean Sea and on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, while nature conservation/restoration, research, and recreation have been the main purposes served in the other European regions to date. Artificial reef deployment falls under some general regulations concerning the protection of the sea against pollution due to the dumping of unsuitable materials. Specific Regional Plans relating to the use of artificial reefs in the marine environment and Guidelines for reef construction have been derived from these general regulations. In spite of recent developments, national and/or regional programs for the deployment of artificial reefs and/or their inclusion in overall management plans for integrated management of coastal zones are in force only in the majority of Mediterranean countries, while only a few projects have, to date, been undertaken in the other European Regions. Moreover, there is a noteworthy lack of plans, in many countries, for the management of the reefs after their deployment. R E S U M OOs recifes artificiais, na Europa, foram desenvolvidos nos últimos 40 anos. A maioria desses recifes foram instalados no Mar Mediterrâneo, mas despertam um interesse crescente por parte dos paises do norte europeu. O incentivo aos estoques pesqueiros e o manejo da pesca são os principais objetivos da construção de recifes no Mar Mediterrâneo e na costa Atlântica da Península Ibérica, enquanto a preservação / recuperação da natureza, a pesquisa e a recreação tem sido os principais objetivos das demais regiões européias até hoje. A implantação de recifes artificiais está submetida a algumas regulamentações básicas quanto à proteção dos oceanos com relação à poluição devido ao despejo de materiais. Projetos Regionais específicos relativos ao uso de recifes artificiais no ambiente marinho e Instruções para a construção de recifes são decorrentes dessa Regulamentação Geral. Apesar de avanços recentes, programas regionais e/ou nacionais sobre a instalação de recifes artificiais e/ou a sua inclusão nos planos gerais de planejamento para a gestão integral das zonas costeiras tem mais destaque somente em grande parte dos paises do Mediterrâneo, enquanto que, poucos projetos até hoje tem sido realizados nas outras Regiões Européias. Além disso, em muitos países, há uma notável falta de projetos para o manejo dos recifes, depois de instalados.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview on artificial reefs in Europe

Fabi¹,

Spagnolo²,

Bellan‐Santini³

et al. 2011

Braz. j. oceanogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is much scientific literature showing that the abundance of fish and macroinvertebrates is greater in areas on or immediately surrounding artificial reefs (structures placed on the bottom of the sea by humans) (Jensen, 2002) and fish aggregation devices (FADsstructures positioned in the water column or at the surface of the water) (Castro et al, 2002), relative to areas distant to them. Aquaculture sites may function in a manner analogous to these structures (Costa-Pierce and Bridger, 2002;Olin, 2002;Davenport et al, 2003).…”

Section: Review Of Ecological Carrying Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of recent carrying capacity models for bivalve culture and recommendations for research and management

McKindsey¹,

Thetmeyer²,

Landry³

et al. 2006

Aquaculture

246

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models and tools for assessing the carrying capacity of an area of interest for bivalve culture can be classified according to their level of complexity and scope. In this report, we discuss and outline four hierarchical categories of carrying capacity studies: physical, production, ecological, and social carrying capacity. The assessment of carrying capacity for progressively higher categories of models is based on a sound understanding of preceding categories. We discuss each in brief and the third in more detail as this is the level at which knowledge is the most lacking and for which science may make the most advances.(1) Physical carrying capacity may be assessed by a combination of hydrodynamic models and physical information, ideally presented and analysed within a Geographic Information System (GIS). (2) Most scientific effort to date has been directed towards modelling production carrying capacity and some of the resulting models have been used successfully to this end. Further development of these models should pay attention to (i) better modelling of feedback mechanisms between bivalve culture and the environment, (ii) a consideration of all steps in the culture process (seed collection, ongrowing, harvesting, and processing), and (iii) culture technique. (3) The modelling of ecological carrying capacity is still in its infancy. The shortcomings mentioned for models for production carrying capacity estimates are even greater for ecological carrying capacity models. GIS may be employed to consider interactions between culture activities and sensitive habitats. (4) It is recommended that social carrying capacity be evaluated only after the preceding levels have been completed so that an unbiased assessment is obtained. This however does not exclude direction from managers for scientists as to which factors (such as water clarity, specific habitats, etc.) should be evaluated. The use of expert systems to aid in management decisions is briefly discussed with a suggested application of a fuzzy expert system to this end.

show abstract

“…Today ARs are used for diverse applications even though the principal one remains enhancement of the fishing yields. This enhancement, however, is not to be taken for granted, as ARs are assumed to function in a combination of two mechanisms: aggregation of scattered specimens and secondary biomass production through increased survival and growth of juveniles (e.g., BOHNSACK & SUTHERLAND, 1985;PRATT, 1994;BOHNSACK et al, 1997;SEAMAN, 2000;JENSEN et al 2000;JENSEN, 2002;OSENBERG et al, 2002). An AR may even entirely deplete stocks by merely concentrating the fishing effort (POLOVINA, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%