4.4 Review

Implications of Sea Bream and Sea Bass Escapes for Sustainable Aquaculture Management: A Review of Interactions, Risks and Consequences

期刊

REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 214-234

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2017.1384789

关键词

Escapes; fish-farming; risk assessment; fisheries; management

资金

  1. Prevent Escape project (7th European Framework) [226885]
  2. EscaFEP project (European Fisheries Fund)
  3. EscaFEP project (Biodiversity Foundation)
  4. EscaFEP project (Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment)
  5. Croatian Science Foundation [IP-2014-09-9050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gilthead sea bream and European sea bass aquaculture is widely established in the Mediterranean and North-eastern Atlantic regions, and rearing is mainly in coastal net-pen facilities. The rapid growth of the fish farming industry increases the potential number of farmed fish in the wild. Escape-related issues are likely to increase unless escape-management policies are included into the aquaculture legislation in the near future. This review summarizes the potential direct interactions among escaped fish and nearby farmed fish stocks, wild conspecifics, and coastal fish populations, since these interactions could compromise sustainability in coastal areas. Socioeconomic implications are also addressed, given that escape events can also lead to economic losses for farmers and may alter local fishery landings. Fish markets and consumers might be also affected. This review compiles the current knowledge on the potential effects of escapees in coastal areas, and contributes to the existing risks analyses regarding sea bream and sea bass escapes. Eventually, the need to design management policies to prevent or minimize escape events and to mitigate further impacts, applicable to Mediterranean countries and of special interest in areas where these species are locally absent, is discussed in the context of sustainable fin-fish aquaculture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据