Risk Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms in Salmon Farming: Scotland as a Case Study.

Fatima Gianella, Michael T Burrows, Keith Davidson
Author Information
  1. Fatima Gianella: Scottish Association for Marine Science-UHI, Oban PA37 1QA, UK.
  2. Michael T Burrows: Scottish Association for Marine Science-UHI, Oban PA37 1QA, UK.
  3. Keith Davidson: Scottish Association for Marine Science-UHI, Oban PA37 1QA, UK. ORCID

Abstract

This study explored harmful algal bloom (HAB) risk as a function of exposure, hazard and vulnerability, using Scotland as a case study. Exposure was defined as the fish biomass estimated to be lost from a bloom event, based on the total recorded annual production. Hazard was estimated from literature-reported bloom events. Vulnerability was calculated from records of the number of employees (2020), as an estimate of aquaculture-based employment. The dinoflagellate was identified as the HAB species with the highest frequency of reported bloom events in Scotland, with variable spatial and temporal reports, but environmental and climatological variables regulating these events are currently unknown. The Shetland Islands region exhibited the highest combined HAB risk, with the highest scores in all three components. Vulnerability was particularly important to overall risk within an island setting, where a larger proportion of the population was dependent on aquaculture. The analysis demonstrated the potential to evaluate the economic and social consequences of HAB events on the aquaculture industry. As fish-killing HABs and fish health impacts are likely under-reported, more transparent reporting of events and related fish health and physiological consequences is recommended for a more quantitative application of this approach.

Keywords

References

  1. Harmful Algae. 2020 Jan;91:101632 [PMID: 32057342]
  2. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Nov 29;362(1487):1937-46 [PMID: 17472927]
  3. Harmful Algae. 2021 Feb;102:101989 [PMID: 33875185]
  4. Commun Earth Environ. 2021;2: [PMID: 37359131]
  5. Harmful Algae. 2021 Feb;102:101852 [PMID: 33875179]
  6. Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 22;8(1):1330 [PMID: 29358586]
  7. Harmful Algae. 2016 Mar;53:118-134 [PMID: 28073438]
  8. Harmful Algae. 2023 Nov;129:102512 [PMID: 37951607]
  9. Harmful Algae. 2015 Nov 1;49:68-93 [PMID: 27011761]
  10. Harmful Algae. 2016 Mar;53:145-159 [PMID: 28073440]
  11. Sci Total Environ. 2021 Apr 20;766:144383 [PMID: 33421787]
  12. Harmful Algae. 2019 Dec;90:101702 [PMID: 31806160]
  13. Harmful Algae. 2017 Nov;69:48-64 [PMID: 29122242]
  14. Harmful Algae. 2018 Jul;77:55-65 [PMID: 30005802]

Grants

  1. RCUK projects CAMPUS (NE/R00675X/1), Off-Aqua (BB/S004246/1)/Ocean Risk Ph.D. scholarship from AXA XL, RCUK projects CAMPUS (NE/R00675X/1), Off-Aqua (BB/S004246/1), EU Interreg Atlantic Area project "Predicting the Impact of Regional Scale Events on the Aqua-culture Sector" (PRIMROSE)

MeSH Term

Harmful Algal Bloom
Scotland
Animals
Risk Assessment
Aquaculture
Dinoflagellida
Salmon
Environmental Monitoring

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0eventsbloomHABriskScotlandfishhigheststudyestimatedVulnerabilityaquacultureconsequencesfish-killingHABshealthexploredharmfulalgalfunctionexposurehazardvulnerabilityusingcaseExposuredefinedbiomasslosteventbasedtotalrecordedannualproductionHazardliterature-reportedcalculatedrecordsnumberemployees2020estimateaquaculture-basedemploymentdinoflagellateidentifiedspeciesfrequencyreportedvariablespatialtemporalreportsenvironmentalclimatologicalvariablesregulatingcurrentlyunknownShetlandIslandsregionexhibitedcombinedscoresthreecomponentsparticularlyimportantoverallwithinislandsettinglargerproportionpopulationdependentanalysisdemonstratedpotentialevaluateeconomicsocialindustryimpactslikelyunder-reportedtransparentreportingrelatedphysiologicalrecommendedquantitativeapplicationapproachRiskAssessmentHarmfulAlgalBloomsSalmonFarming:CaseStudyKareniamikimotoialgaeassessmentsalmonfarming

Similar Articles

Cited By