pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

An Integrated Monitoring Approach to the Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of an Inshore Mariculture Plant (Mar Grande of Taranto, Ionian Sea) - PubMed

  • ️Sat Jan 01 2022

An Integrated Monitoring Approach to the Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of an Inshore Mariculture Plant (Mar Grande of Taranto, Ionian Sea)

Adriana Giangrande et al. Biology (Basel). 2022.

Abstract

The results of an ex-ante survey aiming to assess the impact of a fish farm in the Mar Grande of Taranto (southern Italy, Mediterranean Sea) on the surrounding environment are reported. There, the implementation of an innovative IMTA plant was planned, with the goals of environment bioremediation and commercially exploitable biomass production. Analyses were conducted in February and July 2018. Both seawater and sediments were sampled at the four corners of the fish farm to detect the existing biological and physico-chemical features. The investigation was performed to identify the best area of the farming plant for positioning the bioremediating system, but also to obtain a data baseline, to compare to the environmental status after the bioremediating action. Data were also analyzed by canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP). All the measurements, in particular, microbiology and macrobenthic community characterization using AZTI's Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) and the Multivariate-AMBI (M-AMBI) indices, suggest that the effect of fish farm waste was concentrated and limited to a small portion of the investigated area in relation to the direction of the main current. A site named A3, which was found to be the most impacted by the aquaculture activities, especially during the summer season, was chosen to place the bioremediation system.

Keywords: IMTA; mariculture wastes; monitoring program; sediments; water column.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Map of the study area in the Mar Grande of Taranto (A). A3, A6, B3, B6: sampling sites relative to both water column and sediments (B). Stations 1 and 2 refer to the site where current measurements were taken (from [28] with permission from IEEE, 2022, Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink®).

Figure 2
Figure 2

Concentrations of the considered microbiological parameters in seawater samples collected in February and July 2018 at the four sampling sites (A3, A6, B3 and B6). Bacterial counts are reported as mean values ± S.D. of three replicates. Bacterial counts are expressed as CFU/mL for culturable heterotrophic bacteria at 22 °C (a), culturable bacteria at 37 °C (b) and culturable vibrios (c), and as MPN/100 mL for fecal coliforms (d), fecal enterococci (e), and total coliforms (f).

Figure 3
Figure 3

Concentrations of the considered microbiological parameters in sediment samples collected in February and July 2018 at the four sampling sites (A3, A6, B3, and B6). Bacterial counts are reported as mean values ± S.D. of three replicates. Bacterial counts are expressed as CFU/g for culturable heterotrophic bacteria at 22 °C (a), culturable bacteria at 37 °C (b) and culturable vibrios (c), and as MPN/g for fecal coliforms (d), fecal enterococci (e) and total coliforms (f).

Figure 4
Figure 4

Hard substrate taxa abundance detected at each sampling site (A3, A6, B3, and B6) in February and July 2018.

Figure 5
Figure 5

Trends of abundance and species richness in the study sites in the year 2018.

Figure 6
Figure 6

AMBI values and representation of the species group distribution at the different stations in February 2018 (a) and July 2018 (b) campaigns.

Figure 7
Figure 7

M-AMBI values and respective ecological status relative to the 4 examined sites in February (a) and July (b) (modified from [28] with permission from IEEE, 2022, Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink®).

Figure 8
Figure 8

CAP analysis of the mean (February and July 2018) values of the measured parameters: (a) water sample; (b) sediment samples (modified from [28] with permission from IEEE, 2022, Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink®).

Similar articles

References

    1. Gentry R.R., Lester S.E., Kappel C.V., White C., Bell T.W., Stevens J., Gaines S.D. Offshore aquaculture: Spatial planning principles for sustainable development. Ecol. Evol. 2017;7:733–743. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2637. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang X., Cuthbertson A., Gualtieri C., Shao D. A review on mariculture effluent: Characterization and management tools. Water. 2020;12:2991. doi: 10.3390/w12112991. - DOI
    1. Granada L., Sousa N., Lopes S., Lemos M.F.L. Is integrated multitrophic aquaculture the solution to the sectors’ major challenges? A review. Rev. Aquac. 2016;8:283–300. doi: 10.1111/raq.12093. - DOI
    1. James M., Hartstein N., Giles H. Assessment of Ecological Effects of Expanding Salmon Farming in Big Glory Bay, Stewart Island. Part 2 Assessment of Effects; Aquatic Environmental Sciences Ltd.; Whangamata, New Zealand: 2018. pp. 3–45.
    1. Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Hatziyanni E., Papadopoulou K.-N., Plaiti W. Impact of cage farming of fish on the seabed in three Mediterranean coastal areas. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2000;57:1462–1471. doi: 10.1006/jmsc.2000.0925. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources