Biofouling in marine aquaculture is a specific problem where both the target culture species and/or infrastructure are exposed to a diverse array of fouling organisms, with significant production impacts. In shellfish aquaculture the key impact is the direct fouling of stock causing physical damage, mechanical interference, biological competition and environmental modification, while infrastructure is also impacted. In contrast, the key impact in finfish aquaculture is the fouling of infrastructure which restricts water exchange, increases disease risk and causes deformation of cages and structures. Consequently, the economic costs associated with biofouling control are substantial. Conservative estimates are consistently between 5-10% of production costs (equivalent to US$ 1.5 to 3 billion yr 71 ), illustrating the need for effective mitigation methods and technologies. The control of biofouling in aquaculture is achieved through the avoidance of natural recruitment, physical removal and the use of antifoulants. However, the continued rise and expansion of the aquaculture industry and the increasingly stringent legislation for biocides in food production necessitates the development of innovative antifouling strategies. These must meet environmental, societal, and economic benchmarks while effectively preventing the settlement and growth of resilient multi-species consortia of biofouling organisms.

No abstract

Aggregations of wild fish were counted around 9 floating sea-cage fish farms along a 300 km stretch of the Spanish coastline in the southwestern Mediterranean Sea. Each fish farm cultivated Sparus aurata and Dicentrarchus labrax in 6 to 16 floating sea cages between 10 m and 7.4 km from the coast. During September and October 2001, assemblages of fish were counted on 3 separate days at each of 9 farms. Six 5 min rapid visual counts using SCUBA and covering 11 250 m 3 were performed within each farm complex and at open water control sites 200 m distant from farms. Abundance (52 to 2837×), biomass (2.8 to 1126 ×) and number of species (1.6 to 14 ×) were greater in fish farm counts than control counts at all locations. Twenty-seven species were recorded at fish farms, with 2 families, Sparidae (12 species) and Carangidae (4 species), being particularly abundant. Over 85% of farm-associated fish were of adult size. Assemblages of wild fish differed greatly between farms separated by 10s to 100s of km, although there was some evidence to suggest that similar assemblages occur at farms separated by 100s of m to several km. Abundance, biomass and number of species differed among fish farms, with all 3 variables negatively correlated with distance of farms from shore and positively correlated with size of farms. Limited variability of wild fish assemblages and abundance of the dominant taxa at each farm among times sampled indicated some degree of temporal stability on a scale of several weeks. Due to the strong aggregative effect of fish farms, possible residence of fishes for periods of weeks to months and the prohibition of fishing within farm leasehold areas, we suggest that coastal sea-cage fish farms may act as small (up to 160 000 m 2), pelagic marine protected areas (MPAs). Furthermore, at farms where wild fish are abundant, ecological interactions that may influence both wild fish stocks and the impact of farms must be considered.

No abstract