“The
very act of aquaculture has positive effects on wild populations of oysters,”
said Tal Ben-Horin, a postdoctoral fellow at the URI Department of Fisheries,
Animal and Veterinary Sciences in the College of the Environment and Life
Sciences. “The established way of thinking is that disease spreads from
aquaculture, but in fact aquaculture may limit disease in nearby wild
populations.”
Working
with colleagues at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, Rutgers
University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Ben-Horin integrated data from previous studies into mathematical
models to examine the interactions between farmed oysters, wild oysters and the
common oyster disease Dermo.
Oyster farm in Delaware Bay (Tal Ben-Horin) |
Their research, part of a synthesis project at the National
Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, was published this week in the
journal Aquaculture Environment Interactions.
According
to Ben-Horin, diseases are among the primary limiting factors in wild oyster
populations. There are few wild populations of oysters in New England because
of Dermo and other diseases, and in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay, wild
oysters are managed with the understanding that most will die from disease.
Dermo
is caused by a single-celled parasite that occurs naturally in the environment
and proliferates in the tissue of host oysters, which spread the parasite to
other oysters when they die and their parasite-infected tissues decay in the
water column. But it takes two to three years for the parasite to kill the
oysters. As long as the oysters are held on farms long enough to filter
disease-causing parasites from the water, but not so long that parasites
develop and proliferate and spread to wild oysters nearby, aquaculture
operations can reduce disease in wild populaitons.
The
disease does not cause illness in humans.
“As
long as aquaculture farmers harvest their product before the disease peaks,
then they have a positive effect on wild populations,” Ben-Horin said. “But if
they’re left in the water too long, the positive effect turns negative.”
He said
that several factors can confound the positive effect of oyster aquaculture.
Oyster farms that grow their product on the bottom instead of in raised cages
or bags, for instance, are unlikely to recover all of their oysters, resulting
in some oysters remaining on the bottom longer. This would increase rather than
reduce the spread of the disease.
“But
when it’s done right, aquaculture can be a good thing for wild oyster
populations,” Ben-Horin said. “Intensive oyster aquaculture – where oysters are
grown in cages and growers can account for their product and remove it on
schedule – is not a bad thing for wild populations.”
The
study’s findings have several implications for the management of wild and
farmed oysters. Ben-Horin recommends establishing best management practices for
the amount of time oysters remain on farms before harvest. He also suggests
that aquaculture managers consider the type of gear – whether farmers hold
oysters in cages and bags or directly on the seabed – when siting new oyster
aquaculture operations near wild oyster populations.
The next step in Ben-Horin’s research is to gain a better
understanding of how far the Dermo parasite can spread by linking disease models
with ocean circulation models.
“Everything
that happens in the water is connected. There’s a close relationship between
the wild and farmed oyster populations and their shared parasites,” he said.
“Sometimes ecosystem level effects are overlooked, but in this case they’re
front and center.”
No comments:
Post a Comment