Use exclusion nets

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Study locations

Key messages

A replicated, controlled trial in Australia found higher levels of sediment carbon at stocked cages with exclusion nets compared to cages without exclusion nets.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled study in Fremantle, Western Australia in 2001 (Felsing et al., 2005) found sediment carbon to be greater at cages containing fish and with an exclusion net than cages without fish or an exclusion net. Sediment carbon levels increased at the stocked cages with exclusion nets (to 9.8% and 10.0%) whereas at all other stations, sediment carbon either remained the same or decreased (sediment carbon values ranged from 6.3% to 7.5% C). Organic carbon deposition levels at cages with exclusion nets were measured as 4.5 g C m^-2 day^-1 compared to 0.7 to 1.1 g C m^-2 day^-1 at control and reference sites. Three treatments in duplicate were set up within a harbour in water 3 to 4m depth; cages without exclusion nets, cages surrounded by a 35mm mesh exclusion net and empty cages surrounded by exclusion nets (control). The first two treatments were stocked with rainbow trout at2.4 kg m^-3. Four reference sites without cages were set up 150m from fish cages. Sediment samples and sediment cores were taken one week prior to sampling and immediately after the 62 day trial.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Felsing M., Glencross B. & Telfer T. (2005) Preliminary study on the effects of exclusion of wild fauna from aquaculture cages in a shallow marine environment. Aquaculture, 243, 159-174.

Please cite as:

Jones, A.C., Mead, A., Austen, M.C.V. & Kaiser, M.J. (2013) Aquaculture: Evidence for the effects of interventions to enhance the sustainability of aquaculture using Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as a case study. Bangor University

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Sustainable Aquaculture

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Establish fallowing to reduce pollution Action Link	Awaiting assessment	1	Synopsis Link
Dry sludge in beds Action Link	Awaiting assessment	1	Synopsis Link
Integrated aquaculture systems Action Link	Awaiting assessment	4	Synopsis Link