Home sweet home: Comparison of epibiont assemblages associated with cultivated and wild sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), co-cultivated blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and farm infrastructure
Seaweed farming is expanding in Europe and may provide environmental benefits similar to those from natural kelp forests and shellfish farms, including habitat provisioning. Few studies have substantiated these claims however, and it remains uncertain whether seaweed farms will support similar biodi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied phycology 2024-04, Vol.36 (2), p.611-625 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 625 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 611 |
container_title | Journal of applied phycology |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Corrigan, Sophie Brown, A. Ross Tyler, Charles R. Wilding, Catherine Daniels, Carly Ashton, Ian G. C. Smale, Dan A. |
description | Seaweed farming is expanding in Europe and may provide environmental benefits similar to those from natural kelp forests and shellfish farms, including habitat provisioning. Few studies have substantiated these claims however, and it remains uncertain whether seaweed farms will support similar biodiversity to kelp forests or provide valuable long-term habitat beyond the harvest season. We repeatedly surveyed an integrated sugar kelp (
Saccharina latissima
) and blue mussel (
Mytilus edulis
) farm in southwest UK to compare epibiont assemblages between cultivated kelps, to those from three nearby wild kelp populations, and to epibionts on farmed mussel lines and unseeded ‘bare’ lines. We found farmed kelps supported over 217 times the abundance of epibionts living on wild kelps at harvest time, however, taxonomic diversity per kelp was lower at the farm. Farmed kelp assemblages were dominated by amphipods, which were present on the wild kelps but in much lower numbers. Farmed kelp also supported distinct assemblages to cultivated mussels, which were similarly dominated by amphipods, but hosted higher relative abundances of crabs, echinoderms, worms and red algal biomass. The bare lines were heavily colonised by another pseudo-kelp,
Saccorhiza polyschides
, which supported similar epibiont assemblages to the seeded
S. latissima
lines. Our findings indicate that cultivating bivalves alongside seaweed can increase habitat provisioning at a seaweed farm and extend its permanence beyond typical seaweed cultivation periods as bivalves have longer, continuous farming periods. However, the presence of mussels will likely influence the epibiont assemblages on the farmed kelp, which are distinct from wild kelp populations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10811-023-03055-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3056055613</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3056055613</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-cc440db865c5b2aaa5201fbd0079aff2ddf994db6eaa4e618878e6414f21a6293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UctuFDEQHCGQWBJ-gJMlLomEiT3v4YZWQJCCcgicrR5Pe9fBMx7cNlF-jm_Du4sEJ079UFW1uqooXknxVgrRXZEUvZRclBUXlWgaXj0pNrLpKt7Irn1abMRQSt4PnXxevCC6F0IMvew3xa9rPyOjB8TI9rl9x7Z-XiFY8gvzhuFqR-uXyIAI59HBDunQe20h4sQebNwznVy0P48zLIedmxilHQT2Hd3KLu5A633WXIA5iJbIznD5hmnP_2GOLiGbUz7jiF18eYzWJWI4JWfp8qhrIMzMLiYAxZB0TAHPi2cGHOHLP_Ws-Pbxw9ftNb-5_fR5-_6G60rWkWtd12Ia-7bRzVgCQFMKacYpWzeAMeU0mWGop7FFgBpb2fddj20ta1NKaMuhOiten3TX4H8kpKjufQpLPqmy3W12vJVVRpUnlA6eKKBRa8ivhkclhTrkpE45qZyTOuakDqTqRKIMXnYY_kr_h_UbucSaig</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3056055613</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Home sweet home: Comparison of epibiont assemblages associated with cultivated and wild sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), co-cultivated blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and farm infrastructure</title><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>Corrigan, Sophie ; Brown, A. Ross ; Tyler, Charles R. ; Wilding, Catherine ; Daniels, Carly ; Ashton, Ian G. C. ; Smale, Dan A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Corrigan, Sophie ; Brown, A. Ross ; Tyler, Charles R. ; Wilding, Catherine ; Daniels, Carly ; Ashton, Ian G. C. ; Smale, Dan A.</creatorcontrib><description>Seaweed farming is expanding in Europe and may provide environmental benefits similar to those from natural kelp forests and shellfish farms, including habitat provisioning. Few studies have substantiated these claims however, and it remains uncertain whether seaweed farms will support similar biodiversity to kelp forests or provide valuable long-term habitat beyond the harvest season. We repeatedly surveyed an integrated sugar kelp (
Saccharina latissima
) and blue mussel (
Mytilus edulis
) farm in southwest UK to compare epibiont assemblages between cultivated kelps, to those from three nearby wild kelp populations, and to epibionts on farmed mussel lines and unseeded ‘bare’ lines. We found farmed kelps supported over 217 times the abundance of epibionts living on wild kelps at harvest time, however, taxonomic diversity per kelp was lower at the farm. Farmed kelp assemblages were dominated by amphipods, which were present on the wild kelps but in much lower numbers. Farmed kelp also supported distinct assemblages to cultivated mussels, which were similarly dominated by amphipods, but hosted higher relative abundances of crabs, echinoderms, worms and red algal biomass. The bare lines were heavily colonised by another pseudo-kelp,
Saccorhiza polyschides
, which supported similar epibiont assemblages to the seeded
S. latissima
lines. Our findings indicate that cultivating bivalves alongside seaweed can increase habitat provisioning at a seaweed farm and extend its permanence beyond typical seaweed cultivation periods as bivalves have longer, continuous farming periods. However, the presence of mussels will likely influence the epibiont assemblages on the farmed kelp, which are distinct from wild kelp populations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0921-8971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5176</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10811-023-03055-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Algae ; Amphipoda ; Aquatic crustaceans ; Biodiversity ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Bivalvia ; Crustaceans ; Ecology ; Epibionts ; Farming ; Farms ; Freshwater & Marine Ecology ; Habitats ; Kelp ; Kelp beds ; Life Sciences ; Marine crustaceans ; Marine invertebrates ; Marine molluscs ; Mollusks ; Mussels ; Mytilus edulis ; Permanence ; Plant Physiology ; Plant Sciences ; Populations ; Provisioning ; Saccharides ; Saccharina latissima ; Seaweed culture ; Seaweeds ; Shellfish ; Shellfish culture ; Shellfish farming ; Sugar</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied phycology, 2024-04, Vol.36 (2), p.611-625</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-cc440db865c5b2aaa5201fbd0079aff2ddf994db6eaa4e618878e6414f21a6293</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1929-995X ; 0000-0003-4157-541X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10811-023-03055-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10811-023-03055-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Corrigan, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, A. Ross</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tyler, Charles R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilding, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daniels, Carly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashton, Ian G. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smale, Dan A.</creatorcontrib><title>Home sweet home: Comparison of epibiont assemblages associated with cultivated and wild sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), co-cultivated blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and farm infrastructure</title><title>Journal of applied phycology</title><addtitle>J Appl Phycol</addtitle><description>Seaweed farming is expanding in Europe and may provide environmental benefits similar to those from natural kelp forests and shellfish farms, including habitat provisioning. Few studies have substantiated these claims however, and it remains uncertain whether seaweed farms will support similar biodiversity to kelp forests or provide valuable long-term habitat beyond the harvest season. We repeatedly surveyed an integrated sugar kelp (
Saccharina latissima
) and blue mussel (
Mytilus edulis
) farm in southwest UK to compare epibiont assemblages between cultivated kelps, to those from three nearby wild kelp populations, and to epibionts on farmed mussel lines and unseeded ‘bare’ lines. We found farmed kelps supported over 217 times the abundance of epibionts living on wild kelps at harvest time, however, taxonomic diversity per kelp was lower at the farm. Farmed kelp assemblages were dominated by amphipods, which were present on the wild kelps but in much lower numbers. Farmed kelp also supported distinct assemblages to cultivated mussels, which were similarly dominated by amphipods, but hosted higher relative abundances of crabs, echinoderms, worms and red algal biomass. The bare lines were heavily colonised by another pseudo-kelp,
Saccorhiza polyschides
, which supported similar epibiont assemblages to the seeded
S. latissima
lines. Our findings indicate that cultivating bivalves alongside seaweed can increase habitat provisioning at a seaweed farm and extend its permanence beyond typical seaweed cultivation periods as bivalves have longer, continuous farming periods. However, the presence of mussels will likely influence the epibiont assemblages on the farmed kelp, which are distinct from wild kelp populations.</description><subject>Algae</subject><subject>Amphipoda</subject><subject>Aquatic crustaceans</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bivalvia</subject><subject>Crustaceans</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Epibionts</subject><subject>Farming</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Freshwater & Marine Ecology</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Kelp</subject><subject>Kelp beds</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Marine crustaceans</subject><subject>Marine invertebrates</subject><subject>Marine molluscs</subject><subject>Mollusks</subject><subject>Mussels</subject><subject>Mytilus edulis</subject><subject>Permanence</subject><subject>Plant Physiology</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Populations</subject><subject>Provisioning</subject><subject>Saccharides</subject><subject>Saccharina latissima</subject><subject>Seaweed culture</subject><subject>Seaweeds</subject><subject>Shellfish</subject><subject>Shellfish culture</subject><subject>Shellfish farming</subject><subject>Sugar</subject><issn>0921-8971</issn><issn>1573-5176</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UctuFDEQHCGQWBJ-gJMlLomEiT3v4YZWQJCCcgicrR5Pe9fBMx7cNlF-jm_Du4sEJ079UFW1uqooXknxVgrRXZEUvZRclBUXlWgaXj0pNrLpKt7Irn1abMRQSt4PnXxevCC6F0IMvew3xa9rPyOjB8TI9rl9x7Z-XiFY8gvzhuFqR-uXyIAI59HBDunQe20h4sQebNwznVy0P48zLIedmxilHQT2Hd3KLu5A633WXIA5iJbIznD5hmnP_2GOLiGbUz7jiF18eYzWJWI4JWfp8qhrIMzMLiYAxZB0TAHPi2cGHOHLP_Ws-Pbxw9ftNb-5_fR5-_6G60rWkWtd12Ia-7bRzVgCQFMKacYpWzeAMeU0mWGop7FFgBpb2fddj20ta1NKaMuhOiten3TX4H8kpKjufQpLPqmy3W12vJVVRpUnlA6eKKBRa8ivhkclhTrkpE45qZyTOuakDqTqRKIMXnYY_kr_h_UbucSaig</recordid><startdate>20240401</startdate><enddate>20240401</enddate><creator>Corrigan, Sophie</creator><creator>Brown, A. Ross</creator><creator>Tyler, Charles R.</creator><creator>Wilding, Catherine</creator><creator>Daniels, Carly</creator><creator>Ashton, Ian G. C.</creator><creator>Smale, Dan A.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1929-995X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-541X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240401</creationdate><title>Home sweet home: Comparison of epibiont assemblages associated with cultivated and wild sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), co-cultivated blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and farm infrastructure</title><author>Corrigan, Sophie ; Brown, A. Ross ; Tyler, Charles R. ; Wilding, Catherine ; Daniels, Carly ; Ashton, Ian G. C. ; Smale, Dan A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-cc440db865c5b2aaa5201fbd0079aff2ddf994db6eaa4e618878e6414f21a6293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Algae</topic><topic>Amphipoda</topic><topic>Aquatic crustaceans</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bivalvia</topic><topic>Crustaceans</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Epibionts</topic><topic>Farming</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Freshwater & Marine Ecology</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Kelp</topic><topic>Kelp beds</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Marine crustaceans</topic><topic>Marine invertebrates</topic><topic>Marine molluscs</topic><topic>Mollusks</topic><topic>Mussels</topic><topic>Mytilus edulis</topic><topic>Permanence</topic><topic>Plant Physiology</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Populations</topic><topic>Provisioning</topic><topic>Saccharides</topic><topic>Saccharina latissima</topic><topic>Seaweed culture</topic><topic>Seaweeds</topic><topic>Shellfish</topic><topic>Shellfish culture</topic><topic>Shellfish farming</topic><topic>Sugar</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Corrigan, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, A. Ross</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tyler, Charles R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilding, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daniels, Carly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashton, Ian G. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smale, Dan A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied phycology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Corrigan, Sophie</au><au>Brown, A. Ross</au><au>Tyler, Charles R.</au><au>Wilding, Catherine</au><au>Daniels, Carly</au><au>Ashton, Ian G. C.</au><au>Smale, Dan A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Home sweet home: Comparison of epibiont assemblages associated with cultivated and wild sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), co-cultivated blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and farm infrastructure</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied phycology</jtitle><stitle>J Appl Phycol</stitle><date>2024-04-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>611</spage><epage>625</epage><pages>611-625</pages><issn>0921-8971</issn><eissn>1573-5176</eissn><abstract>Seaweed farming is expanding in Europe and may provide environmental benefits similar to those from natural kelp forests and shellfish farms, including habitat provisioning. Few studies have substantiated these claims however, and it remains uncertain whether seaweed farms will support similar biodiversity to kelp forests or provide valuable long-term habitat beyond the harvest season. We repeatedly surveyed an integrated sugar kelp (
Saccharina latissima
) and blue mussel (
Mytilus edulis
) farm in southwest UK to compare epibiont assemblages between cultivated kelps, to those from three nearby wild kelp populations, and to epibionts on farmed mussel lines and unseeded ‘bare’ lines. We found farmed kelps supported over 217 times the abundance of epibionts living on wild kelps at harvest time, however, taxonomic diversity per kelp was lower at the farm. Farmed kelp assemblages were dominated by amphipods, which were present on the wild kelps but in much lower numbers. Farmed kelp also supported distinct assemblages to cultivated mussels, which were similarly dominated by amphipods, but hosted higher relative abundances of crabs, echinoderms, worms and red algal biomass. The bare lines were heavily colonised by another pseudo-kelp,
Saccorhiza polyschides
, which supported similar epibiont assemblages to the seeded
S. latissima
lines. Our findings indicate that cultivating bivalves alongside seaweed can increase habitat provisioning at a seaweed farm and extend its permanence beyond typical seaweed cultivation periods as bivalves have longer, continuous farming periods. However, the presence of mussels will likely influence the epibiont assemblages on the farmed kelp, which are distinct from wild kelp populations.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10811-023-03055-3</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1929-995X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-541X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0921-8971 |
ispartof | Journal of applied phycology, 2024-04, Vol.36 (2), p.611-625 |
issn | 0921-8971 1573-5176 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3056055613 |
source | SpringerLink (Online service) |
subjects | Algae Amphipoda Aquatic crustaceans Biodiversity Biomedical and Life Sciences Bivalvia Crustaceans Ecology Epibionts Farming Farms Freshwater & Marine Ecology Habitats Kelp Kelp beds Life Sciences Marine crustaceans Marine invertebrates Marine molluscs Mollusks Mussels Mytilus edulis Permanence Plant Physiology Plant Sciences Populations Provisioning Saccharides Saccharina latissima Seaweed culture Seaweeds Shellfish Shellfish culture Shellfish farming Sugar |
title | Home sweet home: Comparison of epibiont assemblages associated with cultivated and wild sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), co-cultivated blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and farm infrastructure |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T19%3A01%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Home%20sweet%20home:%20Comparison%20of%20epibiont%20assemblages%20associated%20with%20cultivated%20and%20wild%20sugar%20kelp%20(Saccharina%20latissima),%20co-cultivated%20blue%20mussels%20(Mytilus%20edulis)%20and%20farm%20infrastructure&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20phycology&rft.au=Corrigan,%20Sophie&rft.date=2024-04-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=611&rft.epage=625&rft.pages=611-625&rft.issn=0921-8971&rft.eissn=1573-5176&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10811-023-03055-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3056055613%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3056055613&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |