Phenotypic plasticity in wild marine fishes associated with fish-cage aquaculture

Abaad, Mouna; Tuset, Víctor M.; Montero, Daniel; Lombarte, Antoni; Otero-Ferrer, José Luís; Haroun, Ricardo

doi:10.1007/s10750-015-2428-5

Cited by 30 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 114 publications

(124 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fish in farm sites were, on average, smaller than those in reference areas, which was reflected in lower growth rates, as detected by otolith measurements in salema (S. salpa). Abaad et al (2016) also found that otolith size varied for salema between seabream/ seabass farm cage sites and natural sites on Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) but that fish size-corrected otoliths were larger in fish close to farms than in those from reference sites; the size of bogue otoliths did not differ between treatment areas.…”

Section: Growth and Reproductive Successmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Abaad et al . () also found that otolith size varied for salema between seabream/seabass farm cage sites and natural sites on Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) but that fish size‐corrected otoliths were larger in fish close to farms than in those from reference sites; the size of bogue otoliths did not differ between treatment areas.…”

Section: Interactions Between Finfish Farms and Wild Populationsmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review

Callier

Byron

Bengtson

et al. 2017

Reviews in Aquaculture

110

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of aquaculture–environment interactions is essential for the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry and efficient marine spatial planning. The effects of fish and shellfish farming on sessile wild populations, particularly infauna, have been studied intensively. Mobile fauna, including crustaceans, fish, birds and marine mammals, also interact with aquaculture operations, but the interactions are more complex and these animals may be attracted to (attraction) or show an aversion to (repulsion) farm operations with various degrees of effects. This review outlines the main mechanisms and effects of attraction and repulsion of wild animals to/from marine finfish cage and bivalve aquaculture, with a focus on effects on fisheries‐related species. Effects considered in this review include those related to the provision of physical structure (farm infrastructure acting as fish aggregating devices (FADs) or artificial reefs (ARs), the provision of food (e.g. farmed animals, waste feed and faeces, fouling organisms associated with farm structures) and some farm activities (e.g. boating, cleaning). The reviews show that the distribution of mobile organisms associated with farming structures varies over various spatial (vertical and horizontal) and temporal scales (season, feeding time, day/night period). Attraction/repulsion mechanisms have a variety of direct and indirect effects on wild organisms at the level of individuals and populations and may have implication for the management of fisheries species and the ecosystem in the context of marine spatial planning. This review revealed considerable uncertainties regarding the long‐term and ecosystem‐wide consequences of these interactions. The use of modelling may help better understand consequences, but long‐term studies are necessary to better elucidate effects.

show abstract

Section: Growth and Reproductive Successmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Interactions Between Finfish Farms and Wild Populationsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review

Callier

Byron

Bengtson

et al. 2017

Reviews in Aquaculture

110

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these species, this plasticity apparently depends on food quality (i.e. food rich in fatty acids versus food with lower fatty acid concentrations; Abaad et al, ). Bogue associated with fish farms (and hence a supply of food rich in fatty acids) did not show significant differences in the mass or 2D contour of saccular otoliths compared to individuals living far from such farms.…”

Section: Evolution Of Teleost Otolithsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This also applies to taxon-specific differences in otolith morphology (e.g. Vignon & Morat, 2010;Abaad et al, 2016). Seasonal plasticity was observed in the number of ciliary bundles on the macula sacculi and in hearing abilities of female plainfin midshipman [Porichthys notatus (Batrachoididae) (Sisneros et al, 2004;Coffin et al, 2012a)].…”

Section: (2) Ecomorphology and Phenotypic Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Enigmatic ear stones: what we know about the functional role and evolution of fish otoliths

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Otoliths in bony fishes play an important role in the senses of balance and hearing. Otolith mass and shape are, among others, likely to be decisive factors influencing otolith motion and thus ear functioning. Yet our knowledge of how exactly these factors influence otolith motion is incomplete. In addition, experimental studies directly investigating the function of otoliths in the inner ear are scarce and yield partly conflicting results. Herein, we discuss questions and hypotheses on how otolith mass and shape, and the relationship between the sensory epithelium and overlying otolith, influence otolith motion. We discuss (i) the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge regarding otolith function, (ii) gaps in knowledge that remain to be filled, and (iii) future approaches that may improve our understanding of the role of otoliths in ear functioning. We further link these functional questions to the evolution of solid teleost otoliths instead of numerous tiny otoconia as found in most other vertebrates. Until now, the selective forces and/or constraints driving the evolution of solid calcareous otoliths and their diversity in shape in teleosts are largely unknown. Based on a data set on the structure of otoliths and otoconia in more than 160 species covering the main vertebrate groups, we present a hypothetical framework for teleost otolith evolution. We suggest that the advent of solid otoliths may have initially been a selectively neutral ‘by‐product’ of other key innovations during teleost evolution. The teleost‐specific genome duplication event may have paved the way for diversification in otolith shape. Otolith shapes may have evolved along with the considerable diversity of, and improvements in, auditory abilities in teleost fishes. However, phenotypic plasticity may also play an important role in the creation of different otolith types, and different portions of the otolith may show different degrees of phenotypic plasticity. Future studies should thus adopt a phylogenetic perspective and apply comparative and methodologically integrative approaches, including fossil otoliths, when investigating otoconia/otolith evolution and their function in the inner ear.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, body shape is also used because it is a multifunctional and single factor related to aspects of behavioural ecology, such as the mode of feeding, predator evasion or courtship displays (Lavin and McPhail 1985;Loy et al 2000;Walker 2010). In addition, body shape may also be influenced by anthropogenic activities, such as aquaculture or fishing pressure (Alós et al 2014;Abaad et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing otolith morphology for measuring marine fish biodiversity

Tuset¹,

Farré²,

Otero-Ferrer³

et al. 2016

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.To check the suitability of otoliths for measuring biodiversity, the contour and shape of the sulcus acusticus of sagittal otoliths were described using geometric morphological analysis. Thirteen and fourteen points were used to define these structures respectively. Three current coastal fish assemblages of the north-western Mediterranean were selected for the present study. The results demonstrate that the relative warps generated in the geometric analysis explained both characteristics related to contour and the otolith sulcus. A comparative study with body fish shape using morphospaces and clusters revealed that otolith shape is a better variable for explaining the ecological structure of a fish assemblage. Moreover, three morphological indices (morphological richness (MR), morphological disparity and the morphogeometric index) were estimated from relative warps of otoliths and were compared with ecological, taxonomic, functional and morphological (from body shape) indices. MR increased with functional diversity and average taxonomic distinctness, reflecting the ecological and taxonomic character of otolith morphology. These findings suggest that otoliths could be a useful tool for studying the diversity of present and past fish assemblages.

show abstract

Phenotypic plasticity in wild marine fishes associated with fish-cage aquaculture

Cited by 30 publications

References 114 publications

Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review

Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review

Enigmatic ear stones: what we know about the functional role and evolution of fish otoliths

Testing otolith morphology for measuring marine fish biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About