Knowledge of aquaculture–environment interactions is essential for the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry and efficient marine spatial planning. The effects of fish and shellfish farming on sessile wild populations, particularly infauna, have been studied intensively. Mobile fauna, including crustaceans, fish, birds and marine mammals, also interact with aquaculture operations, but the interactions are more complex and these animals may be attracted to (attraction) or show an aversion to (repulsion) farm operations with various degrees of effects. This review outlines the main mechanisms and effects of attraction and repulsion of wild animals to/from marine finfish cage and bivalve aquaculture, with a focus on effects on fisheries‐related species. Effects considered in this review include those related to the provision of physical structure (farm infrastructure acting as fish aggregating devices (FADs) or artificial reefs (ARs), the provision of food (e.g. farmed animals, waste feed and faeces, fouling organisms associated with farm structures) and some farm activities (e.g. boating, cleaning). The reviews show that the distribution of mobile organisms associated with farming structures varies over various spatial (vertical and horizontal) and temporal scales (season, feeding time, day/night period). Attraction/repulsion mechanisms have a variety of direct and indirect effects on wild organisms at the level of individuals and populations and may have implication for the management of fisheries species and the ecosystem in the context of marine spatial planning. This review revealed considerable uncertainties regarding the long‐term and ecosystem‐wide consequences of these interactions. The use of modelling may help better understand consequences, but long‐term studies are necessary to better elucidate effects.

Models and tools for assessing the carrying capacity of an area of interest for bivalve culture can be classified according to their level of complexity and scope. In this report, we discuss and outline four hierarchical categories of carrying capacity studies: physical, production, ecological, and social carrying capacity. The assessment of carrying capacity for progressively higher categories of models is based on a sound understanding of preceding categories. We discuss each in brief and the third in more detail as this is the level at which knowledge is the most lacking and for which science may make the most advances.(1) Physical carrying capacity may be assessed by a combination of hydrodynamic models and physical information, ideally presented and analysed within a Geographic Information System (GIS). (2) Most scientific effort to date has been directed towards modelling production carrying capacity and some of the resulting models have been used successfully to this end. Further development of these models should pay attention to (i) better modelling of feedback mechanisms between bivalve culture and the environment, (ii) a consideration of all steps in the culture process (seed collection, ongrowing, harvesting, and processing), and (iii) culture technique. (3) The modelling of ecological carrying capacity is still in its infancy. The shortcomings mentioned for models for production carrying capacity estimates are even greater for ecological carrying capacity models. GIS may be employed to consider interactions between culture activities and sensitive habitats. (4) It is recommended that social carrying capacity be evaluated only after the preceding levels have been completed so that an unbiased assessment is obtained. This however does not exclude direction from managers for scientists as to which factors (such as water clarity, specific habitats, etc.) should be evaluated. The use of expert systems to aid in management decisions is briefly discussed with a suggested application of a fuzzy expert system to this end.

Evaluating and understanding biodiversity in marine ecosystems are both necessary and challenging for conservation. This paper compiles and summarizes current knowledge of the diversity of marine taxa in Canada's three oceans while recognizing that this compilation is incomplete and will change in the future. That Canada has the longest coastline in the world and incorporates distinctly different biogeographic provinces and ecoregions (e.g., temperate through ice-covered areas) constrains this analysis. The taxonomic groups presented here include microbes, phytoplankton, macroalgae, zooplankton, benthic infauna, fishes, and marine mammals. The minimum number of species or taxa compiled here is 15,988 for the three Canadian oceans. However, this number clearly underestimates in several ways the total number of taxa present. First, there are significant gaps in the published literature. Second, the diversity of many habitats has not been compiled for all taxonomic groups (e.g., intertidal rocky shores, deep sea), and data compilations are based on short-term, directed research programs or longer-term monitoring activities with limited spatial resolution. Third, the biodiversity of large organisms is well known, but this is not true of smaller organisms. Finally, the greatest constraint on this summary is the willingness and capacity of those who collected the data to make it available to those interested in biodiversity meta-analyses. Confirmation of identities and intercomparison of studies are also constrained by the disturbing rate of decline in the number of taxonomists and systematists specializing on marine taxa in Canada. This decline is mostly the result of retirements of current specialists and to a lack of training and employment opportunities for new ones. Considering the difficulties encountered in compiling an overview of biogeographic data and the diversity of species or taxa in Canada's three oceans, this synthesis is intended to serve as a biodiversity baseline for a new program on marine biodiversity, the Canadian Healthy Ocean Network. A major effort needs to be undertaken to establish a complete baseline of Canadian marine biodiversity of all taxonomic groups, especially if we are to understand and conserve this part of Canada's natural heritage.

Experimental and field studies were carried out to characterise biodeposit dynamics in a suspended mussel Mytilus edulis L. farm in Great-Entry Lagoon, eastern Canada. We assessed: (1) the quantity and quality of biodeposits produced by different age classes of mussels, (2) the sizedependent sinking velocity of faeces and (3) the variation in sedimentation rates at different spatial and temporal scales. Individual 0+ mussels produced on average only 63% of the mass of biodeposits (32.4 mg dry wt d -1 ind.-1) that 1+ mussels did (51.5 mg dry wt d -1 ind.-1 ). In contrast, the amount of biodeposits produced per unit body weight (dry weight of soft tissue) was greater for 0+ than for 1+ mussels. Faecal pellet sinking velocity ranged from 0.27 to 1.81 cm s -1 for mussels ranging in size from 3 to 7 cm, and was best correlated with faecal pellet width. Sedimentation rates were greater within the farm than at reference sites, supporting the hypothesis that mussel farming increases sedimentation rates. Variations in sedimentation were also observed at small spatial scales and through time. Prior to the harvesting of 1+ mussels, sedimentation rates directly under the 1+ mussel lines were about twice those 10 m distant, between the lines, and in other zones (reference sites and sites in the lease with 0+ mussels). These observations and sedimentation patterns along transects leading away from the mussel farm suggest that biodeposits from the farm are not dispersed broadly. The estimated initial dispersal of faecal pellets ranges from 0-7.4 m (1+ mussels) to 7-24.4 m (0+ mussels).

Bivalves have been grown and transported for culture for hundreds of years and the introduction of some species outside of their native range for aquaculture has been suggested to be one of the greatest modes of introduction of exotic marine species. However, there has yet to be a thorough assessment of the importance of aquaculture and bivalve culture in particular, to the introduction and spread of exotic species. This paper reviews some of the environmental and ecological implications of the relationship between bivalve aquaculture and the introduction and spread of exotic species, management implications and mitigation strategies. Two broad classes of introductions of exotic species may result from activities associated with bivalve aquaculture. First, the intentional introduction of exotic species into an area for aquaculture purposes, i.e. the ''target'' species. These are typically foundation or engineering species and may have a considerable influence on receiving ecosystems. Second, the introduction of species that are either associated with introduced bivalves or facilitated by aquaculture activities (i.e. structures or husbandry practices). These may include both ''hitchhiking'' species (organisms that grow in association with or may be transferred with cultured bivalves) and disease causing organisms. Management options should include the use of risk assessments prior to transfers and quarantines. Various types of mitigation for exotic species have been evaluated but are generally not very successful. Because the risk of exotic species to ecosystems and the bivalve farming industry itself may be great, effort should be directed to better predict and halt introductions of potentially harmful species.