Action: Source spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-native or problematic species
Key messagesRead our guidance on Key messages before continuing
- We found no studies that evaluated the effects of sourcing spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-native or problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.
‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.
The expanding aquaculture industry has led to the accidental introduction of diseases, and non-native and other problematic species into the wild marine environment (Arechavaia-Lopez et al. 2013; Bax et al. 2003; Campbell & Hewitt 2008; Manchester & Bullock 2000). There, they can impact on native subtidal benthic invertebrate species through predation, competition for resources (food & space), contamination (for pathogens and diseases), or hybridization (through reproduction) (Bishop et al. 2010; Fitridge et al. 2012). Spat is the name used for very young shellfish, usually mussels or oysters. In aquaculture, spat, as well as juveniles (young adults), can be obtained from hatchery facilities or from natural stocks. Spat and juveniles are then cultured at sea and will grow into marketable adults. Depending on the water quality at the site spat and juveniles are sourced from, individuals can carry diseases and non-native or problematic species, either inside them or on their shell (Brenner et al. 2014). The introduction of diseases, non-native and other problematic species to a new environment could be potentially avoided by only selecting spat and juveniles from non-infested areas and hatcheries, for instance accredited or certified facilities.
Arechavaia-Lopez P., Sanchez-Jerez P., Bayle-Sempere J.T., Uglem I. & Mladineo I. (2013) Reared fish. Farmed escapees and wild fish stockes – a triangle of pathogen transmission of concern to Mediterranean aquaculture management. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 3, 153–161.
Bax N., Williamson A., Aguero M., Gonzalez E. & Geeves W. (2003) Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy, 27, 313–323.
Bishop M.J., Krassoi F.R., McPherson R.G., Brown K.R., Summerhayes S.A., Wilkie E.M. & O’Connor W.A. (2010) Change in wild-oyster assemblages of Port Stephens, NSW, Australia, since commencement of non-native Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) aquaculture. Marine and Freshwater Research, 61, 714–723.
Brenner M., Fraser D., Van Nieuwenhove K., O'Beirn F., Buck B.H., Mazurié J., Thorarinsdottir G., Dolmer P., Sanchez-Mata A., Strand O. & Flimlin G. (2014) Bivalve aquaculture transfers in Atlantic Europe. Part B: environmental impacts of transfer activities. Ocean & Coastal Management, 89, 139–146.
Campbell M.L. & Hewitt C.L. (2008) Introduced marine species risk assessment – aquaculture. Pages 121–133 in: M.G. Bondad-Reantaso; J.R. Arthur. & R.P. Subasinghe (eds). Understanding and Applying Risk Analysis in Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 519. Rome, FAO.
Fitridge I., Dempster T., Guenther J. & de Nys R., (2012) The impact and control of biofouling in marine aquaculture: a review. Biofouling, 28, 649–669.
Manchester S.J. & Bullock J.M. (2000) The impacts of non‐native species on UK biodiversity and the effectiveness of control. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 845–864.