fishing

1. Fishing near sea-cage farms along the coast of the Turkish Aegean Sea
By O. Akyol and O. Ertosluk
Ege University Faculty of Fisheries, Urla, Izmir, Turkey
Summary
This study reports on the yield of commercially important
species captured intentionally around and under fish-cage
farms using specific types of gear from both sea-cage farmers
and artisanal fishermen, and to identify the species composi-
tion of these catches. The 2004–2008 research was carried out
in 21 fish farms, randomly chosen along the coast of Izmir
Province on the Aegean Sea. A total of 91 persons were
interviewed, including directors, fishers from the fish farms and
artisanal fishermen. The technical characteristics of a special
trap used by some fish farmers were diagramed. Total wild fish
catch quantities as well the species raised in the sea-cages were
recorded. A total of 34 finfish and four invertebrate species
were identified from the sea-cage farm fishery. Eight fish
species according to the descending quantities raised were
bogue (Boops boops), grey mullet (Mugil spp.), blackspot
seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo), salema (Sarpa salpa), common
two-banded seabream (Diplodus vulgaris), annular seabream
(Diplodus annularis), striped seabream (Lithognathus mormy-
rus) and gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Mean quantities of
wild fish caught from 2004 to 2008 in a sampled farm were
13 998 ± 210, 34 434 ± 482, 30 116 ± 529, 27 893 ± 429,
and 32 366 ± 808 kg, respectively. There were significant
differences between fish amounts and years (P < 0.05).
Introduction
Cage farming attracts large numbers of both pelagic and
demersal wild fish, a result of uneaten or lost food and profuse
fouling around the cages as well as through Fish Attraction
Devices (FADs). Additionally, numerous types of predators
interact with coastal aquaculture; marine mammals have
proved particularly problematic for sea-cage farmers (CIESM,
2007; Sanchez-Jerez et al., 2007, 2008). Large aggregations of
wild fish near the cages attract legal and illegal fishing and
increase the vulnerability of already depleted populations.
However, intensive aquaculture zones boost local fisheries
through the increase in size and number of demersal fish up to
a 12-km distance from the farming zone. Such changes can be
managed through traditional fisheries management ap-
proaches (CIESM, 2007).
Mariculture production in Turkey, as in other Mediterra-
nean countries, has developed significantly over the past two
decades. Dempster et al. (2007) stated that Greece, Turkey and
Spain were the leading producers in the Mediterranean. Since
the establishment of the first finfish cage farm at the Izmir
coast of the Aegean Sea in 1985, total marine aquaculture
production increased from 35 to 80 840 t in 2007. Most fish
farms are deployed along the coasts of the Aegean Sea,
especially in Mug˘ la and Izmir provinces. Marine fish produc-
tion from 71 fish farms on the coast of Izmir concentrates on
gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) for a total of 17 500 t. Other cultivated species are
mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) with 704 t and others such
as sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo), common dentex
(Dentex dentex), common seabream (Pagrus pagrus), white
seabream (Diplodus sargus), striped seabream (Lithognathus
mormyrus), etc. with 1360 t. Total marine fish catch in the
Turkish area of the Aegean Sea is 44 386 t (TUIK, 2008).
Many fish farmers and artisanal fishermen in the Turkish
Aegean Sea catch wild fish beneath the floating sea-cages using
trammel nets, handline or longlines and traps. A special
floating trap to catch wild fish in Mug˘ la Province was first
reported by Beg˘ burs and Altınag˘ ac¸ (2003). However, there had
as yet been no studies to investigate fish diversities and catch
amounts by fish farmers using various types of fishing gear.
The objective of the study was to assess the extent to which
cage farms contribute to the yield of commercially important
species captured intentionally around and under fish-cage
farms using specific gear as well as to identify the composition
of the cage-raised species in the Turkish Aegean Sea.
Materials and methods
A study from 2004 to 2008 was carried out in 21 of 71 fish
farms randomly chosen along the coastline of Izmir Province
on the Aegean Sea (Fig. 1). Data collection was through
interviews with 91 persons, of whom 21 were directors, 15
fishers from fish farms and 55 artisanal fishermen.
Specific questions were asked of (i) the directors of 21 fish
farms: location, founding date of the firm, number of partners
and workers, number of cages and characteristics, total
production, stock densities of species, area usage (m2
), depth,
problems in farms, problems and ⁄ or conflicts with coastal
fishers, etc.; (ii) the fish farmers: if there is any fishing near the
sea-cages, and if yes then what type of gear and quantities,
operation details, for which species, etc.; technical character-
istics of the gear, are there any fishermen working under an
agreement with the fish farm, fish escapes, predator attacks,
etc.; (iii) the coastal fishermen: do they have a membership in a
fishery cooperative, and if yes then the participation dates,
fishing experience, fishing area, technical characteristics of the
gear, if there is any fishing near the fish farms, and if yes then
the operation details, problems ⁄ conflicts with fish farms,
target species, etc.
Replies to questionnaires were obtained from 21 finfish
farms. Farm features such as location, production, number of
cages, area usage and the number of fishing gear are given in
Table 1. Some farmers did not report the number of fishing
gear because these gear were not licensed. However, it was
determined to be at least 29 traps, 13 set trammel nets and some
handlines, especially jigs for squids from the sampled farms.
J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26 (2010), 11–15
Ó 2009 The Authors
Journal compilation Ó 2009 Blackwell Verlag, Berlin
ISSN 0175–8659
Received: March 20, 2009
Accepted: April 20, 2009
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01348.x
U.S. Copyright Clearance Centre Code Statement: 0175–8659/2010/2601–0011$15.00/0
Applied Ichthyology
Journal of

2. The aquaculture fish cage sizes ranged from 5 · 5 to
30 · 30 m square, 10 to 20 m Ø circle, and 8 to 11 m Ø
octagonal cages. Fish farmers stated that the maximal stocking
densities for each cage were 60 000 specimens for 12 · 12 m,
150 000 specimens for 20 · 20 m and 350 000 specimens for
30 · 30 m cages. Average stocking density in the 21 farms was
560 t ± 155. Annual food consumption in principle was 2 kg
pellets for 1 kg fish. Hence, average food supply was assessed
as 1120 t ± 311. Cage depths ranged from 10 to 45 m, and
distances from the coast were from 120 to 1000 m.
The technical characteristics of a special trap were observed in
five fish farms. The authors participated 20 times in the trammel
net fishery in and around the sea-cages during 2006–2008. Fish
harvested from the traps were observed and recorded on 19
random days throughout the sampling period and identified to
taxonomic level. Total amounts of species recorded by a
manager in one sampled fish farm were collected monthly from
2004 to 2008 and the 5 years of data were combined. All means
are given with standard errors (± SE). A chi-square test was
used to compare total amounts of fishes to the years.
Results
Fish farmers stated that the floating trap was first developed in
the early 1990s in Bodrum, Mug˘ la Province. This very simple
and effective special trap (Fig. 2) has widespread use on fish
farms along the Aegean coasts. The trap is connected to the
floating cages and baited to attract the wild fish, especially grey
mullet (Mugil spp.), bogue (Boops boops), salema (Sarpa
salpa), etc. which aggregate beneath the cages and enter the
cages via plastic entrances. Fish farmers harvest the fish with a
scoop net each day then re-bait the traps. Juvenile wild fishes
often enter the floating cages to take advantage of the fish feed
and thereby continue to grow inside the cages. Additionally,
some trammel nets are used near the floating cages. Total
amounts harvested from the three methods (i.e. trap, cage and
trammel net) between 2006 and 2008 are given in Fig. 3. The
traps caught 91% of the catch and were more effective during
the summer months.
Yearly catch records from a sampled farm were combined.
Wild fish quantities from 2004 to 2008 were 13 998 ± 210,
34 434 ± 482, 30 116 ± 529, 27 893 ± 429, and 32 366 ±
808 kg, respectively (Fig. 4). There were significant differences
between fish quantities and years (P < 0.05).
Captured species from all gear types employed in a farm are
given in Table 2. There was a total of 38 species, four of which
were invertebrates. The first eight species according to
descending quantities were bogue (Boops boop), grey mullet
Table 1
Results of interviews with Aegean fish farmers about features of their farms
In farms (number)
Farm
no
Farm
location
Production
(t)
No. of
cages
Farm
start
Area usage
(· 1000 m2
)
Fish in
cages Trap
Trammel
net
Hand
line
1 Balıklıova 60 6 2004 2.5 Br, Ba ? ? ?
2 Balıklıova 300 9 1996 2.5 Br, Ba ? + (1) ?
3 Balıklıova 300 15 2005 20.0 Br, Ba ? ? ?
4 Mordog˘ an 250 23 1990 10.0 Ba + (8) ) )
5 Gerence 2930 208 1985 100.0 Br, Ba, SBr + (8) + (9) )
6 Gerence 250 12 2003 0.5 Br, Ba ? ? ?
7 Gerence 800 30 1991 20.0 Br, Ba ) + (1) )
8 Gerence 25 30 2001 2.5 Br, Ba + + +
9 Gerence 300 23 2001 15.0 Br, Ba ) + +
10 Gerence 200 20 1998 2.5 Br, Ba ) ) )
11 Gerence 100 26 1995 2.5 Br, Ba + (2) + (2) )
12 Gerence 400 27 2000 25.0 Br, Ba ? ? ?
13 Sıg˘ acık 100 30 1992 5.0 Br, Ba + ? ?
14 Kokar 1500 300 1992 15.0 Br, Ba, CBr ) + )
15 Mersin Bay 60 10 1996 2.5 Br, Ba ? ? ?
16 Mersin Bay 1600 70 1992 22.5 Br, Ba, SBr ? ? ?
17 Mersin Bay 1000 100 1994 4.0 Br, Ba + (8) ) )
18 Mersin Bay 180 36 1988 5.0 Br + (3) ) )
19 Foc¸ a 300 50 1988 14.0 Br, Ba ? ? ?
20 C¸ andarlı 1000 52 1996 15.0 Br, Ba ) ? ?
21 C¸ andarlı 100 5 2004 2.0 Ba ? ? ?
Total 11 755 1082 288.0
Br, seabream; Ba, sea bass; SBr, striped seabream; CBr, common seabream; ?, no data; +, available; ), absent.
Fig. 1. Study area (black dots = selected fish farms, Flag = fish farm
sampled for data collection)
12 O. Akyol and O. Ertosluk

3. (Mugil spp.), blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo), salema
(Sarpa salpa), common two-banded seabream (Diplodus vul-
garis), annular seabream (Diplodus annularis), striped seab-
ream (Lithognathus mormyrus), and gilthead seabream (Sparus
aurata), respectively (Fig. 5). Wild fish captured beneath the
cages and ⁄ or from traps were relatively larger than those
captured in other areas due to the food pellets.
Discussion
In this study, captures from the sea-cage farms were carried
out with a special cage trap and trammel net. Hand or
longlines and underwater harpoons, although rare, were also
in use. Mean 2004–2008 yearly quantities of wild fish from a
fish farm were computed as 13 998 ± 210, 34 434 ± 482,
30 116 ± 529, 27 893 ± 429 and 32 366 ± 808 kg, respec-
tively. A total of 38 species were recorded from capture
fisheries in a farm; of these, seven species, Conger conger,
Dentex dentex, Epinephelus marginatus, Lichia amia, Pagellus
bogaraveo, Sphyraena sphyraena and Thunnus thynnus are very
highly vulnerable according to Fishbase (Froese and Pauly,
2009). Eight species of fish were dominant in the captures,
bogue (48.9%), grey mullet (22.1%), blackspot seabream
(10.9%), salema (10.2%), common two-banded seabream
(2.7%), annular seabream (1.4%), striped seabream (0.7%),
and gilthead seabream (0.7%). According to artisanal fisher-
men, large numbers of fish were near the sea-cages but never
captured because of forbidden catch zones around the cages.
Dempster et al. (2002) and Machias et al. (2004) also found
that the effect of attraction seemed to be higher around farms
than around traditional Fish Attraction Devices (FADs) due
to the availability of food, with up to 2800 times more wild fish
in their immediate vicinity than in areas remote from farms. A
single sea-cage farm covering a sea surface area of just one
hectare may attract up to 40 t. of wild fish beneath it.
Dempster et al. (2002) reported that 28 species belonging to 14
families were determined at nine fish farm locations southeast
of Spain in 2001, whereby Carangidae (four species) and
Sparidae (12 species) were the most represented. Furthermore,
the fish assemblage in SE Spain had a marked seasonal
variability, mainly dominated by migrations of species such as
B. boops, Sardinella aurita and T. mediterraneus. Valle et al.
(2007) also recorded by visual census using SCUBA that 12
fish species belonging to six families were estimated in the same
area. The most abundant species at Spanish farms differed
with the season: T. mediterraneus dominated in spring,
B. boops in autumn and winter, and O. melanura and
T. mediterraneus in summer. Whereas in the present study
bogue (B. boops) and grey mullet (Mugil spp.) were the most
abundant species each season, no Sardinella aurita were
observed. The total of 38 species, as defined only from capture
fisheries in this study, indicated that there was much greater
species richness on Izmir coasts (i.e. central Aegean Sea) than
in SE Spain. The most interesting fish species on the Izmir
Province list was bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), probably an
escapee from a nearby tuna farm in Ildır Bay.
Fig. 2. Trap diagram (PA, polyamide;
23 Tex ⁄ 18 no, net yarn thickness;
7 cm ø at the top; canonical 14 cm ø at
the bottom)
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
9000
10500
12000
13500
15000
16500
18000
JanuaryFebruary
M
arch
April
M
ay
June
July
AugustSeptem
berO
ctoberN
ovem
berD
ecem
ber
Amount(kg)
Trammel Net
Trap
Cage
Fig. 3. Total amounts (kg) of wild fish caught under floating cages in
sampled farm from pooled data, 2006–2008
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Amount(tones)
Fig. 4. Means (± SE) of wild fish catch quantities from a fish farm
over a 5-year period
Fishing near sea-cage farms 13

4. The present study indicates that the trap fishery on fish
farms increased from 2004 to 2008. The recent increase in the
number of fish farms on Aegean coasts has caused some
conflict with other coast users. Artisanal fishers especially are
disturbed by sea-cage farms. Fish farms have limited the
artisanal fishing areas and the coastal fishers can only fish at a
200 m distance from the sea-cages. Whereas fish farmers are
fishing illegally by using traps and trammel nets in the farms,
they claim that they need to catch predator fish (e.g. bluefish,
European conger) and those fish infected with parasites. Also,
fish farmers note that schools of bluefish sometimes attack the
cages, causing large numbers of cultured fish to escape. A
recent study (Sanchez-Jerez et al., 2008) reported the effect of
bluefish predation on aquaculture in Spain, Italy, Malta,
Turkey, Greece and Cyprus. Moreover, the isopod parasite,
Ceratothoa oestroides, may be transferred to the cages via wild
bogue (B. boops), hence necessitating removal of the wild fish.
However, the capture fishery in fish farms also obviously
brings in additional income. Other predation problems are
attacks by monk seals (Monachus monachus), cormorants
(Phalacrocorax spp.) and congers (Conger conger). Gu¨ c¸ lu¨ soy
and Savas¸ (2003) noted 40 attacks by monk seals in 11
marine fish farms on the Turkish Aegean coast from 1992 to
2000.
The special cage-trap may be in use on only the Turkish
Aegean coast. Beg˘ burs and Altınag˘ ac¸ (2003) made note of it in
Alagu¨ n Bay on Mug˘ la coasts (SE Aegean Sea) in 1998; their
preliminary study reported the sizes (i.e. length and weight) of
the four most abundant species, L. saliens, M. cephalus,
S. salpa and D. annularis from the trap in a sea-cage farm.
The traps in Alagu¨ n Bay caught more fish in summer months,
as in the present study.
Table 2
Wild species list from fisheries in one fish farm (pooled data, 2004–2008)
Scientific name Common name TW (kg) TW (%) Wmean ± SE
Catch amount
Aegean Sea in
2007 (t)
Alosa fallax (Lace´ pe` de, 1803)1,2
Twaite shad 3.0 0.00 3.0 ND
Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758)3
European eel 8.7 0.01 8.7 ND
Belone belone (Linnaeus, 1761)3
Garpike 0.4 0.00 0.4 29
Boops boops (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Bogue 67 857.5 48.89 13 572 ± 3267.4 3170
Chelidonichthys lucerna (Linnaeus, 1758)3
Tub gurnard 2.5 0.00 1 ± 0.7 30
Conger conger (Linnaeus, 1758)3, 4
European conger 3.0 0.00 3.0 ND
Dentex dentex (Linnaeus, 1758)2
Common dentex 13.4 0.01 3 ± 1.3 73
Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
European seabass 322.6 0.23 65 ± 28.1 234
Diplodus annularis (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Annular seabream 1889.1 1.36 378 ± 83.0 269
Diplodus puntazzo (Cetti, 1777)1–3
Sharpsnout seabream 392.2 0.28 79 ± 20.5 8
Diplodus sargus (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
White seabream 227.5 0.16 46 ± 12.9 ND
Diplodus vulgaris (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817)1–3
Common twobanded seabr. 3735.2 2.69 747 ± 51.8 101
Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)3,4
Dusky grouper 25.0 0.02 13 ± 10.6 31
Lichia amia (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Leerfish 57.2 0.04 19 ± 5.8 240
Lithognathus mormyrus (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Striped seabream 1016.8 0.73 203 ± 80.8 63
Loligo vulgaris (Lamarck, 1798)3,5
European squid 7.6 0.01 2 ± 0.4 667
Mugil spp. (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Grey mullets 30 669.4 22.09 6134 ± 889.7 1671
Mullus barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758)3
Red mullet 683.6 0.49 137 ± 23.2 460
Mullus surmuletus (Linnaeus, 1758)3
Striped red mullet 15.1 0.01 5 ± 2.3 409
Oblada melanura (Linnaeus, 1758)1,3
Saddled seabream 87.3 0.06 22 ± 10.0 134
Octopus vulgaris (Lamarck, 1798)3
Common octopus 466.0 0.34 93 ± 29.0 451
Pagellus bogaraveo (Bru¨ nnich, 1768)1–3
Blackspot seabream 15 103.4 10.88 3021 ± 1037.1 ND
Pagellus erythrinus (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Common pandora 23.3 0.02 5 ± 1.8 230
Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758)2,3
Common seabream 170.2 0.12 34 ± 31.7 59
Penaeus kerathurus (Forsska˚ l, 1775)3
Prawn 1.0 0.00 1.0 16
Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766)3
Bluefish 90.0 0.06 45 ± 9.9 685
Sarda sarda (Bloch, 1793)3
Atlantic bonito 1.2 0.00 1.2 590
Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792)1,2
European pilchard 287.8 0.21 72 ± 46.5 13 088
Sarpa salpa (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Salema 14 121.1 10.17 2824 ± 697.8 303
Scomber japonicus (Houttuyn, 1782)3
Chub mackerel 0.3 0.00 0.3 1389
Sepia officinalis (Linnaeus, 1758)3
Cuttlefish 27.0 0.02 14 ± 12.8 366
Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810)1–3
Greater amberjack 171.2 0.12 34 ± 8.0 27
Solea solea (Linnaeus, 1758)3
Common sole 4.1 0.00 1 ± 0.5 228
Sparus aurata (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Gilthead seabream 934.3 0.67 187 ± 77.2 326
Sphyraena sphyraena (Linnaeus, 1758)3
European barracuda 82.4 0.06 17 ± 5.8 133
Spicara maena (Linnaeus, 1758)1–3
Blotched picarel 9.0 0.01 5 ± 2.8 176
Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758)6
Northern bluefin tuna 260.0 0.19 260.0 45
Trachurus sp. (Rafinesque, 1810)1–3
Horse mackerel 40.9 0.03 10 ± 5.5 3490
Total 138 810.3 99.98 29 191
1, Trap; 2, Cage; 3, Trammel net; 4, Longline; 5, Jigging line; 6, Harpoon; TW, Total weight; ND, No data.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
bogue
grey mullets
blackspot seabream
salema
common two-banded seabream
annular seabream
striped seabream
gilthead seabream
others
%
Fig. 5. Proportion of dominant wild fish species from captures in a
fish farm
14 O. Akyol and O. Ertosluk

5. The conflicts between aquaculture and local fishers tend to
increase each year and thus are in need of cooperation. A good
example of a type of cooperation is in Catalonia, Spain.
Jordana i de Simon (1999) noted that there are various ways in
which fishermenÕs associations and other fishing sector asso-
ciations could participate together in aquaculture projects.
Among them: (i) complete the installation of management, (ii)
participation in capital, (iii) participation in management, (iv)
participation of fishermen, and (v) cooperation in services (ice,
weighing, warehouses, ships). The integration of local fisheries
into aquaculture enterprises, complementary to traditional
fisheries, would thus profit the most from the marine produc-
tivity and resources.
In conclusion, there are many conflicts between aquaculture
and coastal fisheries and ⁄ or fishery cooperatives on the
Turkish Aegean coast. The problems are similar to other
Mediterranean areas and are in urgent need of solutions.
Fishing by cage-fish farmers must be prevented by the fishery
authorities. However, cooperation among fishing groups can
be encouraged. Further studies on interactions between
aquaculture and coastal fisheries in the area should be done
on the basis of bio-ecological and socio-economical issues.
References
Beg˘ burs, C. R.; Altınag˘ ac¸ , U., 2003: A preliminary study on usage of
fish cage as a trap in fish farms. E.U¨ . Su U¨ ru¨ nleri Dergisi. 20,
489–495. [in Turkish].
CIESM, 2007: Impact of mariculture on coastal ecosystems. In:
CIESM Workshop Monographs. F. Briand (Ed.). No. 32,
Monaco, 80 p.
Dempster, T.; Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Bayle-Sempere, J. T.; Gimenez-
Casalduero, F.; Valle, C., 2002: Attraction of wild fish to sea-cage
fish farms in the south-western Mediterranean Sea: spatial and
short-termtemporalvariability.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.242, 237–252.
Dempster, T.; Moe, H.; Fredheim, A.; Jensen, Q.; Sanchez-Jerez, P.,
2007: Escapes of marine fish from sea-cage aquaculture in the
Mediterranean Sea: status and prevention. In: Impact of mari-
culture on coastal ecosystems, Lisboa, 21–24 Feb., CIESM
Workshop Monographs. F. Briand (Ed.). No. 32, 86 p.
Froese, R.; Pauly, D., 2009: Fishbase. World Wide Web electronic
publication. http://www.fishbase.org; version (2 ⁄ 2009).
Gu¨ c¸ lu¨ soy, H.; Savas¸ , Y., 2003: Interaction between monk seals
Monachus monachus (Hermann, 1779) and marine fish farms in
the Turkish Aegean and management of the problem. Aquacult.
Res. 34, 777–783.
Jordana i de Simon, R., 1999: Aquaculture planning and local
fisheries: the case of Catalonia, Spain. Aquaculture planning in
Mediterranean countries, Zaragoza: CIHEAM-IAMZ. (Cahiers
options Mediterraneannes; V.43). In: Workshop of the CIHEAM
Network on Socio-economic and Legal Aspects of Aquaculture in
the Mediterranean (SELAM), 12–14 March 1998, Morocco,
Tangiers, 188 p.
Machias, A.; Karakassis, I.; Labropoulou, M.; Somarakis, S.;
Papadopoulou, K. N.; Papaconstantinou, C., 2004: Changes in
wild fish assemblages after the establishment of a fish farming
zone in an oligotrophic marine ecosystem. Estuar. Coast. Shelf.
Sci. 60, 771–779.
Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Bayle-Sempere, J.; Fernandez-Jover, D.; Valle, C.;
Dempster, T., 2007: Ecological relationship between wild fish
populations and Mediterranean aquaculture in floating fish cages.
In: Impact of mariculture on coastal ecosystems, Lisboa, 21–24
Feb., CIESM Workshop Monographs. F. Briand (Ed.), No. 32,
86 p.
Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Fernandez-Jover, D.; Bayle-Sempere, J.; Valle, C.;
Dempster, T.; Tuya, F.; Juanes, F., 2008: Interactions between
bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix (L.) and coastal sea-cage farms in
the Mediterranean Sea. Aquaculture 282, 61–67.
TUIK, 2008: Fishery Statistics 2007: Turkish Statistical Institute,
Ankara, Sept. 2008, No. 3178, 62 p.
Valle, C.; Bayle-Sempere, J. T.; Dempster, T.; Sanchez-Jerez, P.;
Gimenez-Casalduero, F., 2007: Temporal variability of wild fish
assemblages associated with a sea-cage farm in the south-western
Mediterranean Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 72, 299–307.
Author’s address: Okan Akyol, Ege University Faculty of Fisheries,
TR-35440 Urla, Izmir, Turkey.
E-mail: okan.akyol@ege.edu.tr
Fishing near sea-cage farms 15