Abstract

Over the last 2 decades, cleaner fishes have been employed to remove external sea lice parasites from Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in sea cages. Norway, Scotland, Ireland, and the Faroe Islands combined now use ~60 million cleaner fish per year. While small-scale experiments demonstrate the efficacy of cleaner fishes, industrial-scale sea cages have multiple structures and conditions that create different environments, which may impact cleaner fish efficacy and welfare. Here, in commercial sea cages, we investigated if 4 different anti-lice strategies impacted the delousing efficacy, physical condition, and behaviour of cleaner fish (corkwing wrasse Symphodus melops). The strategies tested were: (1) cleaner fishes only; (2) cleaner fishes and functional feed; (3) cleaner fishes, functional feed, and deep lights and feeding; and (4) cleaner fishes, functional feed, deep lights and feeding, and lice skirts. Corkwing wrasse were sampled from 3 cage-level replicates of each anti-lice strategy 3 times over 2 mo. Lice levels on salmon were recorded every 3 to 4 wk. Only 11% of corkwing wrasse had salmon lice in their gut, with individual wrasse having up to 72 lice in their stomach. Wrasse in cages encircled by lice skirts consumed one-ninth as many lice as those in other anti-lice treatments and had less overall impact on the number of lice per salmon. Fin, skin, mouth and eye condition, K factor, and observed cleaning behaviours of corkwing wrasse were similar across all anti-lice strategies. Our results demonstrate that different in-cage anti-lice strategies altered the magnitude of lice consumption in corkwing wrasse at this site and for this production period. Moreover, while a small proportion of corkwing wrasse appear to target lice as prey, most individual corkwing wrasse were ineffective biological control agents in a full-scale farm setting.

Highlights

  • The hunt is on for ethical, effective, and costefficient solutions that will protect the world’s most farmed marine fish, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, from salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestations

  • Salmon lice are ectoparasitic copepods that feed on salmonid tissues, causing lesions which can lead to immunosuppression, osmoregulatory failure

  • Wrasses and lumpsuckers were discovered as biological control agents in the 1980s (Bjordal 1988), and in tank trials, wrasse can maintain lice numbers at < 0.5 lice per salmon when stocked at 5−10% of salmon numbers (Leclercq et al 2014)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The hunt is on for ethical, effective, and costefficient solutions that will protect the world’s most farmed marine fish, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, from salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestations. Biological control via the use of cleaner fish is an alternative, widely used method for lice control in sea cages (Treasurer 2018). Cleaner fishes (many species of wrasse, e.g. Centrolabrus exoletus, Ctenolabrus rupestris, Labrus bergylta, Symphodus melops, and Tautogolabrus adspersus, and lumpsuckers Cyclopterus lumpus) eat salmon lice directly off the skin of salmon. Cleaner fish are regarded by some as an economically and ecologically sound solution to the salmon lice problem (Liu & Bjelland 2014). Over 54 million cleaner fishes were stocked in 65% of Norway’s salmon farms in 2017, a 30-fold increase since 2008 (Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries 2018), while ~6.5 million are stocked each year in Scotland and Ireland (Munro & Wallace 2017, 2018, Bolton-Warberg 2018)

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call