Study

Biological recovery from organic enrichment: some systems cope better than others

  • Published source details Macleod C., Moltschaniwskyj N., Crawford C. & Forbes S. (2007) Biological recovery from organic enrichment: some systems cope better than others. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 342, 41-53.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave a fallow period during fish/shellfish farming

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Leave a fallow period during fish/shellfish farming

    A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in 2001–2003 at two soft seabed locations in the Tasman Sea, southeastern Tasmania, Australia (Macleod et al. 2007 – same experimental set-up as Macleod et al. 2006) found that after a three-month fallow period invertebrate community composition had changed at farmed sites. After the fallow period (no fish in cages), communities were different to that of the pre-fallow period (fish in cages), and similar to communities present before fish were added (empty cages), but not to that of nearby sites without fish farms (natural seabed). Community data were reported as statistical model results and graphical analyses). Although not tested for statistical significance, at one location, abundances of three pollution-indicator polychaete worms tended to be lower after the fallow period (Capitella capitata pre-fallow: 17,248 post-fallow: 2,621; Neanthes cricognatha pre-fallow: 199 post-fallow: 94; Maldanidae sp. pre-fallow: 54 post-fallow: 0 individuals/m2), but remained higher than at sites without fish farms (Capitella capitata 5; Neanthes cricognatha 4; Maldanidae sp. 0 individual/m2). At the second location, abundances of the opportunistic worms Capitella capitata and Nebalia longicornis tended to be lower following the fallow period (Capitella capitata pre-fallow: 7,470 post-fallow: 5,525; Nebalia longicornis: pre-fallow: 14,902 post-fallow: 1,791 individuals/m2) but remained higher than at sites without fish farms (Capitella capitata: 19; Nebalia longicornis: 0). Sediment samples were collected using a grab (0.07 m2) at 20 m depth. At each of the two locations, five samples were collected at farmed and unfarmed (located 150 m away) sites before fish were added, following nine months of fish farming (pre-fallow period), and following the three-month fallow period. Invertebrates (>1 mm) were identified and counted.

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)

Output references
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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust