Embryos of many valued salmonid species incubate in the hyporheic zone of boreal streams over winter. Influence of individual winter‐related environmental variables on salmonid embryo success has been previously investigated. However, how multiple variables act together to influence embryo incubation remains poorly understood. Using a naturally spawning population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Miramichi River basin (New Brunswick, Canada), we related variation in the abiotic embryo incubation habitat in different streams (spatial) and over the course of two winters (temporal) to embryo mortality between fertilisation and hatch. Over two years (2013–2014 and 2014–2015), we introduced fertilised eggs to six simulated salmon redds in each of three riffles in each of five active spawning reaches (nredds = 90) with a range of hyporheic conditions. Embryo mortality was quantified at an early sampling event (March; pre‐freshet and during late embryonic development) and a late sampling event (May; post‐freshet and post‐hatch). We extracted 22 abiotic predictor variables for statistical analyses from continuous records of hyporheic environmental conditions, collected for the duration of the incubation period in each study reach. Through partial least squares regression analyses, 37.6% of the total variation in mortality was explained by the predictor variables. Each group of predictor variables explained similar proportions of variation (water temperature: 8.4%, water level: 7.4%, dissolved oxygen: 7.1%, ice conditions: 7.2%, and substrate characteristics: 7.5%), which suggests that mortality is influenced by multiple interacting abiotic conditions, rather than a single variable in isolation, and that the factors contributing to ideal salmonid incubation habitats are complex and interconnected. Our research highlights the value of a multi‐faceted research perspective and provides a baseline from which future changes in threatened salmonid populations can be measured and compared in an effort to identify relevant species‐ or population‐specific differences.

Debates around fishes' ability to feel pain concern sentience: do reactions to tissue damage indicate evaluative consciousness (conscious affect), or mere nociception? Thanks to Braithwaite's discovery of trout nociceptors, and concerns that current practices could compromise welfare in countless fish, this issue's importance is beyond dispute. However, nociceptors are merely necessary, not sufficient, for true pain, and many measures held to indicate sentience have the same problem. The question of whether fish feel pain – or indeed anything at all – therefore stimulates sometimes polarized debate. Here, we try to bridge the divide. After reviewing key consciousness concepts, we identify “red herring” measures that should not be used to infer sentience because also present in non-sentient organisms, notably those lacking nervous systems, like plants and protozoa (P); spines disconnected from brains (S); decerebrate mammals and birds (D); and humans in unaware states (U). These “S.P.U.D. subjects” can show approach/withdrawal; react with apparent emotion; change their reactivity with food deprivation or analgesia; discriminate between stimuli; display Pavlovian learning, including some forms of trace conditioning; and even learn simple instrumental responses. Consequently, none of these responses are good indicators of sentience. Potentially more valid are aspects of working memory, operant conditioning, the self-report of state, and forms of higher order cognition. We suggest new experiments on humans to test these hypotheses, as well as modifications to tests for “mental time travel” and self-awareness (e.g., mirror self-recognition) that could allow these to now probe sentience (since currently they reflect perceptual rather than evaluative, affective aspects of consciousness). Because “bullet-proof” neurological and behavioral indicators of sentience are thus still lacking, agnosticism about fish sentience remains widespread. To end, we address how to balance such doubts with welfare protection, discussing concerns raised by key skeptics in this debate. Overall, we celebrate the rigorous evidential standards required by those unconvinced that fish are sentient; laud the compassion and ethical rigor shown by those advocating for welfare protections; and seek to show how precautionary principles still support protecting fish from physical harm.

Current frameworks for designing and evaluating good enclosures and “enrichments” typically focus on animals' active interactions with these features. This has undoubtedly improved the welfare of zoo‐housed animals over the last 30 years or more. However, literature reviews from this same period identify persistent gaps in how such frameworks are applied: experiences and behaviors that do not rely on active interaction with stimuli or resources are largely ignored, when evaluating the welfare value of enclosures and enrichments within them. Here, we review research evidence demonstrating that active interaction is not always a reliable measure of welfare value, showing that items that elicit little or no interaction can nevertheless still reduce stress and improve well‐being. This evidence largely comes from research on humans, lab animals and farm animals, but also from some zoo studies too. We then investigate why. We review psychology and ethology literatures to show that such welfare benefits can arise from five, non‐mutually exclusive, processes or mechanisms that are well‐understood in humans and domestic animals: (1) some motivations are sated quickly by interaction with resources, yet still have large welfare benefits; (2) active interaction may just be a way to achieve a goal or solve a problem, without being beneficial for welfare in itself; (3) having opportunities for choice and control may be inherently beneficial, even when not acted on; (4) some enclosure features meet social needs for structure, landmarks, and blocked sightlines; and (5) some stimuli may be preferred because they signaled good environments to an animal's ancestors. We use this information to identify  improved ways of enhancing and assessing zoo animal welfare. Incorporating these concepts should expand the scope of behaviors and subjective experiences that are targeted, to now include those that involve little active interaction and yet still are important for good welfare.

No abstract

Aquaculture is a growing industry worldwide and Canadian finfish culture is dominated by marine salmonid farming. In part due to increasing public and stakeholder concerns around fish welfare protection, the first-ever Canadian Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farmed Salmonids was recently completed, following the National Farm Animal Care Council's (NFACC) rigorous Code development process. During this process, both the Scientific (responsible for reviewing existing literature and producing a peer-reviewed report that informs the Code) and Code Development (a diverse group of stakeholders including aquaculture producers, fish transporters, aquaculture veterinarians, animal welfare advocates, food retailers, government, and researchers) Committees identified research gaps in tandem, as they worked through the literature on salmonid physiology, health, husbandry, and welfare. When those lists are combined with the results of a public “top-of-mind” survey conducted by NFACC, they reveal several overlapping areas of scientific, stakeholder, and public concern where scientific evidence is currently lacking: (1) biodensity; (2) health monitoring and management, with a focus on sea lice infection prevention and management; (3) feed quality and management, particularly whether feed restriction or deprivation has consequences for welfare; (4) enclosure design, especially focused on environmental enrichment provision and lighting design; and (5) slaughter and euthanasia. For each of these five research areas, we provide a brief overview of current research on the topic and outline the specific research gaps present. The final section of this review identifies future research avenues that will help address these research gaps, including using existing paradigms developed by terrestrial animal welfare researchers, developing novel methods for assessing fish welfare, and the validation of new salmonid welfare indices. We conclude that there is no dearth of relevant research to be done in the realm of farmed salmonid welfare that can support crucial evidence-based fish welfare policy development.