Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 11;13(1):209.
doi: 10.3390/life13010209.

Development and Diversity of Epibiont Assemblages on Cultivated Sugar Kelp (Saccharina latissima) in Relation to Farming Schedules and Harvesting Techniques

Sophie Corrigan  1   2   3 , A Ross Brown  1   2 , Charles R Tyler  1   2 , Catherine Wilding  3 , Carly Daniels  4 , Ian G C Ashton  4 , Dan A Smale  3
Affiliations

Development and Diversity of Epibiont Assemblages on Cultivated Sugar Kelp (Saccharina latissima) in Relation to Farming Schedules and Harvesting Techniques

Sophie Corrigan et al. Life (Basel). .

Abstract

Seaweed farming in Europe is growing and may provide environmental benefits, including habitat provisioning, coastal protection, and bioremediation. Habitat provisioning by seaweed farms remains largely unquantified, with previous research focused primarily on the detrimental effects of epibionts, rather than their roles in ecological functioning and ecosystem service provision. We monitored the development and diversity of epibiont assemblages on cultivated sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) at a farm in Cornwall, southwest UK, and compared the effects of different harvesting techniques on epibiont assemblage structure. Increases in epibiont abundance (PERMANOVA, F4,25 = 100.56, p < 0.001) and diversity (PERMANOVA, F4,25 = 27.25, p < 0.001) were found on cultivated kelps over and beyond the growing season, reaching an average abundance of >6000 individuals per kelp plant with a taxonomic richness of ~9 phyla per kelp by late summer (August). Assemblages were dominated by crustaceans (mainly amphipods), molluscs (principally bivalves) and bryozoans, which provide important ecological roles, despite reducing crop quality. Partial harvesting techniques maintained, or increased, epibiont abundance and diversity beyond the farming season; however, these kelp plants were significantly fouled and would not be commercially viable in most markets. This paper improves understanding of epibiont assemblage development at European kelp farms, which can inform sustainable, ecosystem-based approaches to aquaculture.

Keywords: biofouling; ecosystem approach to aquaculture; macroalgal cultivation; partial harvesting; seaweed aquaculture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Site map of Porthallow Bay seaweed and mussel farm with (A) location in Cornwall, UK; (B) position in relation to Helford and Lizard peninsula; (C) diagram of the Porthallow farm detailing position of seaweed and mussel lines; (D) diagram of the long line system suspending seaweed droppers (not to scale; seaweed graphics are from Biorender (biorender.com)).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Seasonal monthly averages of (A) kelp mass, (B) habitable holdfast volume, (C) blade surface area, (D) taxa richness, (E) epibiont abundance for mobile or loosely attached epibionts, (F) epibiont biomass for mobile or loosely attached individuals and algae, and (G) percentage cover of blade by sessile or mat-forming epibionts. For box and whisker plots (A–D), the box represents the upper and lower quartiles of the data with the horizontal thicker line representing the median; the vertical line represents the greatest and lowest values, excluding outliers (dots). Significant differences between months are denoted with letters. For bar graphs (E–G), bars represent the mean with error bars of SE.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Metric MDS plots depicting multivariate analyses of epibiont assemblages on kelp plants across seasonal months for (A) presence–absence of total assemblage including mobile and sessile epibionts, (B) percentage coverage of blades by sessile taxa (square root transformed data with dummy variable = 0.4) (C) abundance of mobile or loosely attached epibionts (fourth-root transformed), (D) biomass for mobile or loosely attached epibionts and algae (fourth-root transformed). All plots are ordinated based on Bray–Curtis similarity matrices of taxa at coarse taxonomic level (i.e., phyla).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Differences between holdfasts (blue) and blades (pink) between months for (A) kelp mass, (B) epibiont taxa richness, (C) epibiont abundance, (D) epibiont biomass, (E) percentage cover of kelp structure by sessile epibionts. For box and whisker plots (A–E), the box represents the upper and lower quartiles of the data with the horizontal thicker line representing the median. The vertical line represents the greatest and lowest values, excluding outliers (dots). Asterisks denote no significant differences between kelp structures.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Metric MDS plots depicting multivariate analyses of epibiont assemblages on kelp plant holdfasts and blades across months for (A) presence–absence of total assemblage including mobile and sessile epibionts, (B) percentage coverage of kelp structure by sessile taxa (square root transformed data with dummy variable = 0.4), (C) abundance of mobile or loosely attached epibionts (fourth-root transformed), and (D) biomass for mobile or loosely attached epibionts and algae (fourth-root transformed). All plots are ordinated based on Bray–Curtis similarity matrices of taxa at coarse taxonomic level (i.e., phyla, class, order).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Differences between kelps for control (May2020 and May2021) and regrowth (Left2019 and 10cmOct20) treatments in (A) average kelp mass, (B) habitable holdfast volume, (C) blade surface area, (D) taxa richness, (E) epibiont abundance for mobile or loosely attached epibionts, (F) epibiont biomass for mobile or loosely attached individuals and algae, and (G) percentage cover of blade by sessile or mat-forming epibionts. For box and whisker plots (A–D), the box represents the upper and lower quartiles of the data with the horizontal thicker line representing the median. The vertical line represents the greatest and lowest values, excluding outliers (dots). Significant differences between months are denoted with letters. For bar graphs (E–G), bars represent the mean with error bars of SE.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Metric MDS plots depicting multivariate analyses of epibiont assemblages on kelp plants between control and regrowth treatments for (A) presence–absence of total assemblage including mobile and sessile epibionts, (B) percentage coverage of blades by sessile taxa (square root transformed), (C) abundance of mobile or loosely attached epibionts (fourth-root transformed), (D) biomass for mobile or loosely attached epibionts and algae (fourth-root transformed). All plots are ordinated based on Bray–Curtis similarity matrices of taxa at coarse taxonomic level (i.e., phyla, class, order).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. FAO . The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in Action. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA); FAO; Rome, Italy: 2020.
    1. Schlarb-Ridley B., Parker B. A Road Map for Algal Technologies in the UK. 2013. [(accessed on 8 January 2023)]. Available online: https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Roadmapping/UK-Roadmap-for-Algal-T....
    1. Capuzzo E., McKie T. Seaweed in the UK and Abroad—Status, Products, Limitations, Gaps and CEFAS Role. [(accessed on 8 January 2023)];2016 Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-seaweed-industry-in-the-u....
    1. Buschmann A.H., Camus C., Infante J., Neori A., Israel Á., Hernández-González M.C., Pereda S.V., Gomez-Pinchetti J.L., Golberg A., Tadmor-Shalev N., et al. Seaweed production: Overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity. Eur. J. Phycol. 2017;52:391–406. doi: 10.1080/09670262.2017.1365175. - DOI
    1. Wood D., Capuzzo E., Kirby D., Mooney-McAuley K., Kerrison P. UK macroalgae aquaculture: What are the key environmental and licensing considerations? Mar. Policy. 2017;83:29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.021. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources