Use exclusion nets

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • A replicated, controlled trial in Australia found higher levels of sediment carbon at stocked cages with exclusion nets compared to cages without exclusion nets.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in Fremantle, Western Australia in 2001 (Felsing et al., 2005) found sediment carbon to be greater at cages containing fish and with an exclusion net than cages without fish or an exclusion net. Sediment carbon levels increased at the stocked cages with exclusion nets (to 9.8% and 10.0%) whereas at all other stations, sediment carbon either remained the same or decreased (sediment carbon values ranged from 6.3% to 7.5% C). Organic carbon deposition levels at cages with exclusion nets were measured as 4.5 g C m-2 day-1 compared to 0.7 to 1.1 g C m-2 day-1 at control and reference sites. Three treatments in duplicate were set up within a harbour in water 3 to 4m depth; cages without exclusion nets, cages surrounded by a 35mm mesh exclusion net and empty cages surrounded by exclusion nets (control). The first two treatments were stocked with rainbow trout at2.4 kg m-3. Four reference sites without cages were set up 150m from fish cages. Sediment samples and sediment cores were taken one week prior to sampling and immediately after the 62 day trial.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Jones, A.C., Mead, A., Austen, M.C.V.  & Kaiser, M.J. (2013) Aquaculture: Evidence for the effects of interventions to enhance the sustainability of aquaculture using Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as a case study. Bangor University


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Sustainable Aquaculture

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Sustainable Aquaculture
Sustainable Aquaculture

Sustainable Aquaculture - Published 2013

Atlantic salmon Aquaculture Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust