Comment on Stadmark and Conley (2011) “Mussel farming as a nutrient reduction measure in the Baltic Sea: Consideration of nutrient biogeochemical cycles”

Rose, Julie M.; Ferreira, J.G.; Stephenson, Kurt; Bricker, Suzanne B.; Tedesco, Mark A.; Wikfors, Gary H.

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.11.024

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conley (2011, 2012) concluded from that such intervention in the local nutrient cycle could suppress denitrification and therefore eliminate the advantage of nitrogen storage within the mussels. Petersen et al (2012) and Rose et al (2012) argue that the reduced phytoplankton concentration due to mussels lead to reduced sedimentation on the basin scale. They emphasize that overall mussel farming quite is a suitable mitigation tool for nutrient reduction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of a mussel farm on water transparency in the Kiel Fjord

Schröder

Stank

Schernewski

et al. 2014

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of a mussel farm on water transparency in the Kiel Fjord

Schröder

Stank

Schernewski

et al. 2014

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Comparatively, permanent N removal through the biomass harvest of 5 × 10 5 oysters (76.2 mm) is 66 kg N (Higgins et al 2011), or 26% of the modeled sediment removal estimate. Therefore, whereas sediment N 2 production varies by site and season, is generally no different than background N 2 production, and is impractical to verify, biomass harvest is a reliable nutrient removal mechanism that can be estimated with highly confident models (Higgins et al 2011), and harvest of aquacultured biomass is a substantial net N removal mechanism available to balance nutrient inputs across many marine ecosystems (Petersen et al 2012, Rose at al. 2012.…”

Section: Quantification Of N Loss Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of aquacultured oyster biodeposition on sediment N<sub>2 production in Chesapeake Bay

Higgins¹,

Tobias²,

Piehler³

et al. 2013

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suspension feeding bivalves have the potential to mitigate estuarine and coastal marine eutrophication by permanently removing nitrogen (N) from the system. We conducted an integrated field and laboratory examination of the effect of eastern oyster biodeposition on sediment denitrification (DNF) and anammox (AMX) rates to quantify the N removal potential of oyster aquaculture using 2 commercial-scale sites in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Sediment N 2 production rates were measured using 2 techniques, 15 N isotope tracer (n = 51) and N 2 :Ar (n = 30). Oyster biodeposit N-load rates explained 21% of variation in sediment N 2 production (DNF and AMX). Oyster sediment N 2 production rates ranged from 0.00 to 1.56 mmol N m −2 d −1 and were almost always lower than reference sediments. From laboratory-based biodeposit addition and fieldbased forced biodeposit accumulation experiments, we found ~2.50 mmol N m −2 d −1 to be the maximum sediment N 2 production capacity of these sediments, regardless of increasing organic N or labile organic carbon delivery rates. We found no evidence to support the contention that biodeposition associated with oyster aquaculture significantly impacts annual N removal via sediment N 2 production, i.e. stimulation or inhibition, above reference rates, but there was evidence that sediment NH 4 + efflux rates were increased. We estimate the N removal rate via sediment N 2 production at similar oyster cultivation sites (1750 m 2 ) with 5 × 10 5 oysters ranges from 0.49 to 12.60 kg N yr −1 , compared to 2.27 to 16.72 kg N yr −1 at reference sites. Thus, aqua cultured oyster biodeposition did not have a ubiquitously enhancing effect on N removal rates via N 2 production and is therefore unlikely to be effective as a policy initiative for eutrophication mitigation.

show abstract

“…Blue mussels Mytilus edulis can grow rapidly under eutrophic conditions because of the high phyto plankton concentrations, and transform the excess nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) into mussel meat that is subsequently removed from coastal waters during the mussel harvest. Consequently, the introduction of suspended bivalve farms has been proposed as an eco-engineering approach for removing nutrients from eutrophic marine environments and improving water quality (Haamer 1996, Edebo et al 2000, Newell 2004, Petersen 2004, Lindahl et al 2005, Gren et al 2009, Petersen et al 2012, Rose et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%