Construct artificial reefs

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • One controlled study in the Red Sea found no difference in sediment carbon at artificial reef sites adjacent to or away from fish farms.
  • Another publication from the same controlled study reports that the artificial reefs at both sites were colonised with various species with the potential to remove organic compounds from fish farm effluents.


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

  1. Between 1999 and 2000, a controlled study in the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea (Angel, 2002) found that an artificial reef structure placed below a fish farm became colonised by a variety of organisms with potential to remove organic matter produced by farmed gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata. Both artificial reefs were rapidly colonised by a range of species; algae, small invertebrates, and macro fauna, compared to the control site. Biomass was greatest on the reef under the fish farm. Fish were seldom observed at the control site but numerous at both artificial reefs (886 and 1,185 below and west of the fish farm, respectively). Chlorophyll a was used as an indicator of filtration efficiency and was most efficient at intermediate current speeds (15 to 35% filtration). Two triangular-shaped artificial reefs, made of porous polyethylene, with a total volume of 8.2 m3 were deployed at 20m depth: one below a commercial fish farm and the other 500m west of this farm. A control site was established with no artificial reef structure 10m south of the fish farm. Plates were attached to the reef to allow sampling without disturbing the integrity of the reef structure. Three plates were removed from each reef every other month and were photographed, identified, counted, dried and weighed. Every two months, the fish populations were counted by visual diver surveys and video recordings reefs. Chlorophyll a was measured using a fluorometer. The experiment was conducted over one year.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled study in the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea between 1999 and 2000 (Angel et al., 2002) found similar levels of sediment carbon between artificial reef sites below and to the west of cages containing farmed gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata. Three months after deployment of the reef, percentage carbon in all sediment tested was similar, inclusive of a four control sites. Below the farm, there was 3.95% of carbon, compared to the control sites (4.06%). West of the farm, there was 2.25% of carbon, compared to the control sites (2.34%). Two triangular-shaped artificial reefs, made of porous polyethylene, with a total volume of 8.2 m3 were deployed at 20m depth: one below a commercial fish farm and the other 500m west of this farm. Scuba divers sampled sediments every three months for 12 months. Four sampling stations were established 3m from the edge of reefs on either side to act as control sites. Carbon content of sediment samples was measured.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Sustainable Aquaculture

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Sustainable Aquaculture
Sustainable Aquaculture

Sustainable Aquaculture - Published 2013

Atlantic salmon Aquaculture Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust