We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
The anthropogenic influence of shellfish aquaculture and microplastics on juvenile Pacific salmon on the east coast of Vancouver Island
Summary
Good news for salmon (and seafood lovers): researchers studying young Pacific salmon near shellfish farms on Vancouver Island found that oyster and clam farming doesn't harm baby salmon, in fact, one species actually did better near these farms. The salmon did contain tiny bits of microplastic (about 1 per fish), but the levels were low compared to other studies, suggesting that, at least for now, these coastal farms and plastic pollution aren't posing an immediate threat to salmon populations that many communities and diets depend on. Still, scientists recommend continued monitoring since coastal development and plastic pollution are
In the northeast Pacific, salmon are an integral part of ecology, economics and culture. Nearshore areas, where juvenile salmon reside upon leaving their natal streams, are important habitat during a critical time where growth can determine overall survivorship. With the rise in human development in coastal areas, these valuable habitats are becoming increasingly modified, however, the ecological ramifications are not fully understood. This study focuses on two types of anthropogenic influence including shellfish aquaculture, which modifies intertidal areas by adding structures such as intertidal fencing and anti-predator nets, and plastic marine pollution in the form of microplastics. We beach seined at sites within an area extensively modified for shellfish aquaculture (Baynes Sound) to examine juvenile salmon abundance, condition, feeding intensity and prey at aquaculture and non-aquaculture areas. In addition, we also beach seined, and along the east coast of Vancouver Island to determine the incidence of microplastics in juvenile Chinook salmon and their nearshore environments. No significant differences were found between areas in the abundance, diets, condition or feeding intensity of juvenile Coho and Chinook. Chum had different prey and a higher condition and feeding intensity at aquaculture sites, suggesting that species such as Chum feeding on more benthic prey items have a higher probability of being impacted by shellfish aquaculture modifications and in this case we observed positive effects. Microplastic analysis showed juvenile Chinook salmon contained 1.15 1.41 (SD) microplastics per individual while water and sediment samples had 659.88 520.87 microplastics m-3 and 60.2 63.4 microplastics kg-1 dry weight, respectively. We found no differences in microplastic concentrations in juvenile Chinook and water samples among sites but observed significantly higher concentrations in sediment at our Deep Bay site compared to Nanaimo and Cowichan Bay. These differences may be due to site bathymetry and oceanographic differences facilitating settlement at the Deep Bay site and/or may be a result of differential plastic sources in the area including shellfish farming and a marina. Shellfish aquaculture had negligible or positive effects on juvenile salmon abundance, diet, condition and feeding intensity and Chinook microplastic concentrations were relatively low compared to literature values. Although fitness consequences and ecosystem-wide implications must be addressed in the future, it appears shellfish aquaculture and microplastics are not immediate threats to juvenile Pacific salmon along the east coast of Vancouver Island at this time. However, continued monitoring programs and larger-scale studies should be implemented as shoreline modification and plastic use continues to increase.