1 Remarks

1.1 General remarks

  • Unpredictable influence:
    • Observations WILD: non-mature JUVENILES entered fresh water [1]
  • Competition:
    • Observations WILD: additional competitor for food [2].
  • Disease transmission: 
    • Observations WILD: possible transmitter of diseases and parasites [2]
  • Interbreeding: 
    • Observations WILD: breeding with native populations could reduce fitness and productivity in hybrids (because of the smaller genetic variability in farmed individuals) and eventually survival [3].
  • No general preferences for substrate, water velocity, depth, and water temperature. This may be due to several factors:
    • Genetic adaptation to local habitats, e.g., larger pectoral fin in fast-flowing streams [4]
    • Species is tolerant of wide range of conditions [4]
    • Between-study variation, e.g., individuals may use preferred habitat at low densities but sub-optimal habitat with increasing density [4]. There is a difference between habitat use and preference: Preference can only be determined at a wide range of habitat availability, i.e. when individuals may choose the preferred condition, not when they simply adjust to what is available [5]-[6] . Many studies reporting depth preference are biased in that they only observed shallow sections of rivers, but hydrostatic pressure is not high or light intensity not low enough to prevent PARR from diving in deeper parts of rivers [7].
    • Variables interact [4].  
  • Habitat preference: not only determined by substrate but a complex interaction between hydro-geomorphologic, ecologic, and dynamic factors [8] [9] [10].

1.2 Other remarks

No data found yet.

2 Ethograms

  • For feeding [6] [11].
  • For daily rhythm  [12].
  • For swimming  [6].
  • For migration  [13].
  • For nest building  [14].
  • For territoriality  [15] [11].

3 Distribution

  • Species occurrence (natural and introduced). Note: areas either verified by FAO records ("good" point) or not [28].
  • Observations: northern Atlantic coasts of Canada and the USA, southern Greenland, Iceland, and United Kingdom, as well as Scandinavia to Portugal [29]-[30] [31]-[32] [33].
  • Observations Canada: Catamaran brook, New Brunswick, Canada [34] [35] [11], Escoumins river, Québec, Canada [8], Magaguadavic river, New Brunswick, Canada [1], Petite Cascapédia and Bonaventure river, Québec, Canada [10], Sainte-Marguerite river, Québec, Canada [9] [8], West Salmon river, Canada [12].
  • Observations United Kingdom: river Bush, Northern Ireland [36], Girnock Burn, Scotland [37], Newmills Burn, Scotland [38], several rivers in England and Wales [14].
  • Observations Scandinavia, Russia: Eidfjord, Norway [39], river Lilleaa, Denmark [13], Louvenga river, Russia [15], river Tana, Finland [40], river Teno and tributaries, Finland [41], river Tverrelva, Norway [42], rivers Todalselva, Vindøla, and Humla, Norway [7].
  • Observations Bering Sea: [2].

4 Natural co-existence

No data found yet.

5 Substrate and/or shelter

5.1 Substrate

  • Plants: no data found yet.
  • Rocks and stones:
    • Observations WILDFRY: 16-256 mm [43]-[4].
    • Observations WILDPARR: 64-512+ mm [43]-[4] [44]-[4] [45]-[4], 20-1,000 mm: river Teno and tributaries, Finland [41], 30-60 mm: Sainte-Marguerite river, Québec, Canada [9], 80-500 mm: river Tana, Finland [40], 0-2 years: gravel > cobble > sand [46], ≥256 mm: Petite Cascapédia and Bonaventure river, Québec, Canada [10], 16-250 mm: Catamaran brook, New Brunswick, Canada [34], 200-400+ mm: Catamaran brook, New Brunswick, Canada [35], 4-256+ mm [47], 30-60 mm: Louvenga river, Russia [15].
    • Substrate serves as holding station while feeding [48]-[10] [49]-[10] [50]-[10].
    • For substrate and nest building  [F1].
  • Sand and mud: avoids mud and fine substrate:
    • WILD, ALEVINS: infiltration of sediment may negatively affect embryo survival, because the fine materials limit water flow through the substrate resulting in lack of oxygenation [51]-[37] [36] and poor removal of metabolic waste [14] [51]-[37] [52]-[4].
    • WILD: PARR avoided fine substrate (<10 mm) [6]
    • WILD/LAB: in flow-through tank with river water, decreasing survival of ALEVINS with increasing percentage of fine material <1mm: adding 10% fines decreased survival from 38% to 9.3%; at 25% fines, 0% survival. In river without tank (river Bush, Northern Ireland), no correlation between percentage fine material and embryo survival. Time of oxygen stress through infiltration seems essential: embryos in tank were subjected to fines in earliest developmental stages, embryos in river experienced fines as those accumulated over time [36].
    • WILD: decreasing survival of embryos with increasing percentage of fines <1 mm (Sainte-Marguerite river, Canada): coarse sand (<1 mm) and smaller material negatively correlated with survival of hatched embryos, fine sand (<0.3 mm) and smaller material with survival of pre-eyed and eyed stages – although fines (<1 mm) only amounted to 3.3-29.2% of all material, fine sand (<0.3mm) only to 0.4-6.4% [53].
  • Other substrate: no data found yet.
  • LAB: ALEVINS (until exogenous feeding) grew better when reared on artificial substrate (polyethylene astro-turf) than on flat screen, because no vertical stability without substrate results in swimming and decreased conversion from yolk to body weight. FRY showed best yolk conversion efficiency when transferred to feeding tanks (without substrate and with increase in temperature from average 9.6 to average 12.5 °C) on day 28 than on day 19, 22, or 43; best weight when transferred on day 22 and 28 than 19 or 43 [54].

5.2 Shelter or cover

  • Plants:
    • WILD: decreasing PARR density with increasing vegetation (rooted aquatic macrophytes), probably because it limits visibility and thereby feeding opportunities. Of 94% taking cover, most (53%) used a cobble-sized or larger stone, 37% used rooted aquatic macrophytes, 10% used woody debris or overhanging riparian vegetation. Moderate vegetation might provide alternative cover in gravel and sand areas that lack coarse-substrate cover [46].
  • Rocks and stones:
    • WILD: ALEVINS remain covered by gravel for 2-15 weeks depending on temperature and how long their yolk sacs last [16].
    • WILD: JUVENILES preferred complete cover, avoided areas with partial cover [34].
    • WILD: PARR preferred larger substrate during the day than at night, probably because they use the interstitial pockets as cover from predators as well as shelter from high velocities [55].
    • JUVENILES-ADULTS use substrate as cover from predators [49]-[47] [56]-[47] [57]-[9] [58]-[10] [46].
  • Sand and mud: no data found yet.
  • Other cover:
    • WILD: abandoned spawning channel at Noel Paul's Brook, Canada, with three types of sections: a) control, including gravel substrate and 13-60 cm boulders along the banks, b) mid-channel, including a low-head barrier dam and a cluster of five large boulders (30-60 cm diameter), c) stream bank, including two artificial undercut banks, two wing deflectors, optional overhanging cover. When given the choice, PARR preferred the stream bank section over the mid-channel section (probably due to too little discharge in the latter), control section in between. At higher density (99 versus 68 PARR/100 m2), PARR were indifferent between the sections. In the mid-channel section, PARR took a position closer to cover than in the other sections. In the stream bank section, PARR moved deeper (18-21 cm versus 15-18 cm in mid-channel versus 10-15 cm in control section) than in other sections [55].
  • Low temperatures and shelter: seeks shelter from cold temperatures by building pools [59]-[60] or hiding in interstitial pockets:
    • Observations hiding: eggs and JUVENILES [61]-[47] [49]-[47] [56]-[47] [62]-[63], LAB, PARR [64].
    • WILDPARR preferred larger substrate during the day than at night, probably because they use the interstitial pockets as shelter from low temperatures [55].
    • WILD: PARR tended to avoid finer substrate with decreasing temperatures [6], probably because only coarser work as shelter [43]-[6].
    • LAB: at low temperatures (3.4 °C), PARR sought shelter made from 1 L opaque plastic bottles cut in half lengthways creating cavities 17 x 9 x 4 cm deep, with a 2.5 x 3.0 cm wide opening on level with the gravel surface. Average of one PARR per shelter, therefore – at a constant number of shelters – the larger the population the less PARR sheltered [18].
    • LAB: the more PARR sought shelter the less PARR lost weight, probably because they saved metabolic costs otherwise spent on predator alertness or competition for shelters [64].
  • High temperatures and shelter: seeks shelter at high temperatures:
    • Observations WILD: 14-23 °C: 45% of FRY, 10% of PARR [65]-[4], [66]-[60].
    • Without shelter, temperatures of >24 °C might be fatal for PARR [67]-[60].
  • FARM: covering 67% of tank surface with floating cover (fibreglass and polystyrene, attached to the side of the tank with nylon guy-lines) increased the proportion of FRY to SMOLT congregating beneath the cover versus over the aluminium grill on the tank ground, increased the growth rate, had little effect on the severity or duration of ectoparasitic infestations, had no effect on mortality. Control group without cover displayed decreased thrombocyte and lymphocyte count indicating stress. Disadvantage of having to take cover off for cleaning outweighed by reduced algal growth on tanks due to light limitation [68].

6 Food, foraging, hunting, feeding

6.1 Trophic level and general considerations on food needs

  • Observations: 4.5±0.3 se [63].
  • Carnivorous [F2]. The fishery that provides fish meal and fish oil has two major impacts:
    1. It contributes considerably to overfishing, as it accounts for 1/4 [69] or even 1/3 [70] of the world catch volume.
    2. It challenges animal welfare, because in the face of 450-1,000 MILLIARD wild fishes caught worldwide each year to be processed into fish meal or fish oil [71], the individual fish gets overlooked and, thus, suffering increases at rearing, live marketing, and slaughtering levels [72].

6.2 Food items

  • Food items: carnivorous:
    • Observations WILD, PARR (1-3+ years): invertebrates: mainly aquatic insects: mayfly nymphs, caddis larvae, and flying insects: river Tana, Finland [40], Louvenga river, Russia [15], stonefly nymphs, simuliid larvae and pupae: river Tana, Finland [40].
  • Food items and habitat: no data found yet.
  • Food items and life stages: generally high overlap in food items but some difference between life stages:
    • Observations diet overlap WILD: great diet overlap between 2- and 3-year-old PARR, larger difference to 1-year-old PARR [40].
    • Observations prey size WILD, PARR: for prey present in all age groups, 1-year-old fed on smaller, 2- and 3-year-old on larger species [40].
    • Observations habitat WILD, PARR: 1-year-old mainly Mayfly nymphs and simuliid larvae and pupae from the benthos, 2- and 3-year-old mainly large Trichoptera larvae and flying insects from the drift [40].
  • Food preference: no data found yet.
  • Food partitioning: no data found yet.
  • Prey density: no data found yet.
  • Prey size selectivity: no data found yet.
  • Particle size: no data found yet.

6.3 Feeding behaviour

  • WILD: PARR fed on benthic as well as drift prey [40].
  • WILD, PARR: multiple central-place forager (for details [F3]): sit-and-wait, switch foraging stations, rarely attack while moving. Young-of-the-year PARR mostly foraged on drift prey than benthos (75-99.1% versus 0-25%); no correlation with current velocity. Larger PARR attacked prey from greater distance: Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada [11].
  • For foraging and vision  [F4].
  • LAB: In groups of ten 1+ year old PARR, no difference in growth but more - and more severe - dorsal fin erosion under unpredicted than predicted feeding schedule, indicating stress. More aggression and more attacks in groups with predicted than unpredicted feeding schedules might represent food-anticipatory behaviour [21].
  • LAB: JUVENILES with low feed intake and low growth rate in group rearing had higher feed intake and higher growth rate when reared in isolation for four weeks, probably because of missing competition [27].
  • Feeding and temperature: either ceases feeding with low temperatures, still feeds but decreasingly so, or turns to nocturnal feeding:
    • Observations cessation: 6-7 °C [75]-[76] [56]-[76].
    • Observations decrease WILD, PARR: 4.9-16 °C [6], 1-6 °C [77]-[78].
    • Observations nocturnal WILD, PARR: -0.5-0.2 °C [6]; LAB, JUVENILES: <10 °C [79]-[6].
  • For feeding and...
    ...dominance  [F5].
    ...adaptation to the wild (restocking)  [F6],
    ...exploration-avoidance continuum  [F7].

7 Photoperiod

7.1 Daily rhythm

  • Daily rhythm:
    • LAB: JUVENILES are diurnal [80]-[81] [81] and possibly used to sleep during night [81].
    • LAB, PARR: visual forager and territory defender (less active and territorial in dark conditions). Aggressive interactions increased with increasing light intensity: up to average of five times more aggressiveness at intensity of one hour before sunset (1 lux) versus complete darkness. Tolerated distance to nearest neighbour increased with increasing light intensity, but most likely does not have to do with conspecifics but with reduced visibility of feed that determine the size of the territory to defend – might still be territorial but defend much smaller territory. Also explains findings of higher locomotion in dusk and dawn: PARR re-establish/adjust territories [22].
  • Nocturnal activity and low temperatures: switches to nocturnal behaviour when temperatures fall:
    • Observations WILD, JUVENILES: <8 °C [56]-[10], 0-3.1 °C [12].
    • Observations WILD, PARR: [79]-[4] [82]-[4], 4-18.5 °C [55], 0-3 °C [35], -0.5-0.2 °C [6].
    • WILD: in winter (0-3.1 °C), 18 of 19 JUVENILES active throughout diel cycle, one nocturnal. JUVENILES less active during daytime than nighttime with peaks at 1 a.m. in early and ca 10 p.m. in late winter [12].
    • WILD: SMOLT migrated predominantly nocturnally at temperatures of 5-10 °C [13].
  • Nocturnal activity and predator avoidance:
    • SMOLT migrate at night, probably to avoid avian and fish predators [83]-[13] [84]-[39].
  • Phototaxis: photonegative:
    • LAB: newly hatched ALEVINS (0-20 days) accumulated in the aquarium corners most distant from the light source [16], probably to make sure ALEVINS in streams settled in the protection of the gravel [85]-[16]. With exhaustion of the yolk sac, individuals lost the photonegative behaviour [85]-[16].
  • For daily rhythm and depth  [F8].

7.2 Light intensity

No data found yet.

7.3 Light colour

No data found yet.

8 Water parameters

8.1 Water temperature

  • Standard temperature range: -0.5-23 °C:
    • Observations WILD: 0-19 °C: river Teno and tributaries, Finland [41], 1.8-6.7 °C: river Bush, Northern Ireland [36], 8-20 °C: rivers Todalselva, Vindøla, and Humla, Norway [7], -0.5-17.7 °C: rivers Todalselva and Vindøla, Norway [6], 0.2-17 °C: river Tana, Finland [40], 2-15 °C: river Lilleaa, Denmark [13], 0-3.1 °C: West Salmon river, Canada [12], 14-23 °C: rivers Escoumins and Sainte-Marguerite, Canada [8], 21.5-23 °C: Catamaran brook, Canada [34], 0-3 °C: Catamaran brook, Canada [35], 7-12 °C: Eidfjord, Norway [39], 17.5-22.5 °C: Catamaran brook, New Brunswick, Canada [11].
    • WILD: ADULTS spawn in rivers where the temperature rises above 10 °C for about three months per year and does not exceed 20 °C for more than a few weeks in summer [62]-[63].
  • Temperature preference: 4-17.5 °C:
  • Migration temperature:
    • WILD: SMOLT migrate to the sea at a temperature range of >5-10 °C [89]-[47].
  • For temperature and...
    ...shelter  [F9],
    ...daily rhythm  [F4],
    ...swimming  [F10],
    ...column velocity  [F11],
    ...depth  [F8].
  • Lower and upper lethal limits:
    • Depend on acclimation [90]-[4].
    • Lower lethal limit:
      a) incipient (survival over 7 days): 0-2 °C (eggs: 0 °C, ALEVINS: 0-2 °C, PARR: 0-2 °C) [78],
      b) ultimate (survival for no more than 10 min): -0.8-1 °C (PARR: 0-1 °C, -0.8 °C) [78].
    • Upper lethal limit:
      a) incipient (survival over 7 days): 16-28 °C (eggs: 16 °C, ALEVINS: 23-24 °C, PARR: 22-28 °C) [78],
      b) ultimate (survival for no more than 10 min): 24-33 °C (ALEVINS: 24-25 °C, PARR: 30-33 °C) [78].
  • Ice cover:
    • WILD: dominant problem is the low flow that decreases the overwintering habitat area: redds may freeze [91]-[92] [93]-[92], FRY may strand and suffocate, freeze, or fall prey to predators [94]-[30]. Ice cover reduces the spawning season to between breakup of the old and formation of the new cover which potentially minimises future populations [30].
  • Egg-to-SMOLT survival in rivers with potential ice cover: 0.4-6.2%:
    • Observations WILD: 0.6-6.2% [95]-[92], 1.7%: Newfoundland rivers [91]-[92], 0.4%: two Irish rivers [96]-[92], 0.3-1%: Newfoundland rivers [97]-[92], 0.4%: Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada [92].

8.2 Oxygen

  • Obsevations: high egg survival rate at ≥7 mg/L oxygen concentrations and 12.5 °C incubation temperature (lower oxygen concentrations tolerated at lower temperatures) and ≥100 cm/h water velocity [90]-[4].

8.3 Salinity

  • Salinity tolerance:
    • Natural and introduced distribution in fresh water from egg to PARR stage and again as GRILSE, in between as SMOLT in seawater [F13] [F14] [F15].
  • Standard salinity range: no data found yet.

8.4 pH

  • Standard pH range:
    • Observations WILD, PARR: pH 6.8-7.9: river Teno and tributaries, Finland [41].
  • pH preference: no data found yet.
  • Lower and upper lethal limits:
    • FARMJUVENILES: tolerance towards pH levels differed during life stages. No effect at pH ≥5.4, but increasing mortality with decreasing levels [47].

8.5 Turbidity

No data found yet.

8.6 Water hardness

No data found yet.

8.7 NO4

No data found yet.

8.8 Other

No data found yet.

9 Swimming

9.1 Swimming type, swimming mode

  • Swimming type: sub-carangiform:
  • Ontogenesis of swimming behaviour:
    • FARM, ALEVINS (0-40 days), in glass aquaria without substrate:
      a) day 0-10: most ALEVINS have an on-side, on-bottom, or upright orientation. If in upright orientation, the ventral surface of the yolk sac is in contact with the substrate, the anterior-posterior axis is at an angle of 45 degrees off horizontal with the head pointing down. ALEVINS move their tails or entire bodies resulting in changes between the different orientations or forward motion in the head-down position. By flexing the posterior portion of the body and pushing off the substrate with the lateral body wall, ALEVINS display sudden vertical movements followed by a passive dropping to the substrate [16].
      b) from day 10 on: the anterior-posterior axis in upright position is horizontal. If moving, ALEVINS may now additionally swim freely and reach the water surface [16].
      c) from day 20 on: the predominant orientation is still on bottom and upright. The pectoral fin tips and the ventral portion of the caudal fin come in contact with the substrate with the anterior-posterior axis at an angle of approximately 10 degrees off horizontal with the head pointing up. Movements to change between different orientations without leaving the substrate decrease by day 30 [16].
      d) from day 30 on: The orientation is off bottom, and free swimming prevails [16].
  • Buoyancy:
    • ADULTS inflate swim bladder and maintain buoyancy by swallowing air [110]-[111] during jumping behaviour [112]-[111].
    • FARM: after diving away from a light source ( [F8]), ADULTS deflated the swim bladder, leading to a 29% reduction in echo-signal, and increased swim bladder re-filling afterwards [113].This supports the hypothesis that salmons release gas from the swim bladder to facilitate escape [110]-[113].
  • Passive swimming:
    • WILD: when SMOLT have chosen their position in a river, transportation downstream is almost passive [114]-[60].
    • WILD: because post-SMOLT migration patterns have been found to be correlated with water currents [115]-[60] [116]-[60], transportation seems to be passive.
  • Swimming direction:
    • WILD: usually, downstream-migrating SMOLT swim head first, only temporarily going upstream at too steep velocity gradients [117]-[60]. They continue downstream movement if there is no other way of escape [118]-[60].
  • Station holding:
    • LAB, PARR: station holding at a speed <10 cm/s by “standing on the tips of their extended pectoral fins and heading upstream with the body at an angle of 10-15° to the substratum” [17]. From speed of 50 cm/s on, body parallel to the bottom, dorsal fin progressively furled. Passive behaviour to 1) avoid swimming but stay close to fast currents whose speed they could not endure very long, 2) look for food and be ready to catch it [17].

9.2 Swimming speed

  • Absolute swimming speed: 0.2-28 km/d in streams or fjords, 15-30 km/d at sea:
  • Relative swimming speed: no data found yet.
  • (Swimming) activity and temperature: decreases activity with decreasing temperatures:
    • WILD: at <5 °C, most FRY hid in the substratum; at 6-7 °C, FRY came out of hiding, but remained relatively inactive on the streambed; at 10-11 °C, FRY became more active in faster open water [75]-[4].
    • WILD: JUVENILES less able to hold position on substratum during winter than during summer [123]-[4]. Swimming ability impaired with decreasing temperatures [124]-[6] [125]-[6] [126]-[6].
    • WILD, PARR: decreasing station holding with decreasing water temperature [6]. The larger the individual, the fewer movements [12].
    • LAB: PARR rested on substratum rather than swam in the current [18].
    • Optimal temperatures for swimming: 16-17 °C [127]-[60].
  • Snout water velocity as experienced by individuals: 4-50 cm/s:
    • Observations WILD, FRY: 10-30 cm/s [49]-[4], 5-15 cm/s [50]-[4].
    • Observations WILD, PARR: 10-50 cm/s [49]-[4], 5-35 cm/s [50]-[4], 0-20 cm/s [45]-[4], 4-50 cm/s [6].
    • WILD: habitat preference of JUVENILES best predicted by mean flow velocity, probably because correlated with drift rate: JUVENILES avoided flows <3 cm/s, preferred flows >6 cm/s, range over the summer: 6-48 cm/s, highest preference: >30 cm/s at water depth of 30 cm [34].
  • Column velocity: 5-120 cm/s:
    • Observations WILDFRY: 10-30 cm/s [128]-[4], <100 cm/s [44]-[4], 20-40 cm/s [129]-[4] [90]-[4], >5-15 cm/s [45]-[4]
    • Observations WILDPARR: 50-65 cm/s [43]-[4], <120 cm/s [50]-[4], <50-100+ cm/s [41], 10-65 cm/s [45]-[4], <20>60 cm/s  [45]-[4], 40-120 cm/s [9], 30-70 cm/s [40], 10-100 cm/s [8], 47 cm/s [15], PARR (0+): range 0-82.3 cm/s, average 24.7±1.5 cm/s [46], PARR (1-2): range 0-55.4 cm/s, average 22.9±-1.9 cm/s [46], 1-36 cm/s: Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada [11].
  • Velocity preference and discharge:
    • WILD: decreasing number of PARR with increasing discharge (low 3.2 cm3/s, medium 6.3 cm3/s, high discharge 13 cm3/s) [55]PARR moved deeper and farer from nearest conspecific with increasing discharge [55].
    • WILD: JUVENILES moved from pool to riffle habitats at higher discharge [130]-[47] and to pools at low discharge [50]-[47]. SMOLT sought lower water velocities with high discharge [131]-[60].
  • Velocity preference and density:
    • WILD: higher density of mixed-size PARR (age 0 and age 1-2) in riffles (average 26.6 cm/s) than runs (average 17.3 cm/s) [46].
    • LAB: when given the choice between pools (depth 12-16 cm, water velocity 5-10 cm/s) and riffles (depth 3-6 cm, 4-35 cm/s), JUVENILES (age 0+) preferred pools at low density (6 IND/m2), riffles at medium density (12 IND/m2) and were indifferent between pools and riffles at high density (18 IND/m2[23].
  • Velocity and low temperatures: avoids high velocity at low temperatures:
    • WILD: JUVENILES-ADULTS used snout velocities <10 cm/s during autumn [49]-[4]JUVENILES chose slower-flowing water at low temperatures [132]-[4].
    • WILD, PARR: tendency to leave fast-flowing brooks [41] and avoid fast velocities [6] with decreasing temperatures.
  • For velocity and...
    ...redd construction  [F1],
    ...territoriality  [F3].

9.3 Home range

  • Observations WILD, FRY: 0+ <0.1 km [41], <0.005 km [34].
  • Observations WILD, PARR: <0.005-0.023 km [35].
  • WILD: in river Tverrelva (Norway) with width 3-4 m and predominantly 10-30 cm riffle areas, 40% 1+ year old PARR moved further than 75 m up- or downstream (out of observation section). Of remaining 60%, PARR moved maximally 62.5 m up- or downstream, majority within 12.5 m length, i.e. 40-50 m2 [42].
  • WILD: in river Teno (Finland) and main tributaries, mainly JUVENILES of age 0+ to 2+; in tributary brooks, mainly PARR of age 2+ to 4+. Except for one brook, increasing number of 3+ PARR upstream in brooks (up to 8+ km), decreasing number of 1+ PARR upstream (up to 3 km). Suggests that 3+ PARR actively migrate, probably to a) find better environmental conditions (coarser substrate, deeper and faster water) and food resources and b) flee from predators [41].
  • WILD: SMOLT migrate from the spawning ground along freshwater rivers of 1-1,800 km length [30] to sea ( [F13]). At sea, SMOLT stayed close to the shore if food abundance in the adjacent estuary was high [133]-[60].

9.4 Depth

  • Depth range in the wild: 0.05-6.5 m:
  • Depth in cages or tanks: use the complete depth available:
    • Observations LAB, SMOLT: 6-10 m [19].
    • Observations FARM, ADULTS: 15 m [87], 5 m [113].
  • Depth preference:
    • WILD, JUVENILES: highest preference at water depth of 30 cm and mean flow velocity of >30 cm/s [34].
  • Depth and daily rhythm: moves deeper in the water column during the day than during the night:
    • Observations WILDPARR [137]-[39] [138]-[39] [139]-[39] [140]-[39].
    • Observations WILD, post-SMOLT: individual differences, though [39].
    • WILD, JUVENILES-ADULTS: move deeper during the day, probably to minimise predation risk from avian predators [141]-[39].
    • FARMADULTS: moved deeper during the day, probably to avoid high light intensities. Individual differences, though [87].
  • Depth and low temperatures: stays in warmer layer at low temperatures:
    • WILD: individuals primarily used riffle-run habitats (average depth 40.9-48.9 cm) over pools in winter [56]-[4].
    • WILD: PARR took higher position in water column during day than during night in winter (-0.5-0.2 °C) but avoided shallow water (<100 cm) [6].
    • WILD: post-SMOLT in the Baltic sea prefer to stay at sea surface temperatures of 9-11 °C [115]-[60] [142]-[60].
    • LAB: in a 15 m deep cage, SMOLT stayed in the warm surface layer (<3 m, 9-14 °C) [19].
  • Depth and high temperatures:
    • WILD: JUVENILES increased their use of runs rather than pools and riffles as temperatures increased [130]-[4].
    • FARM: at night and water temperatures of 13-20 °C, PARR crowded at the surface to avoid deeper warmer layers, whereas at temperatures of 8-14 °C, they avoided cooler surface water [87].
  • Position in habitat and age:
    • WILD, PARR: tendency to increase distance from shore (horizontal axis) as well as bottom (vertical axis) with increasing age – independent of available depth. Probably trade-off between competitive ability, food availability (higher the higher the water current, and this increases with distance from shore and bottom), and predation risk [7].
    • WILD: older PARR (>10 cm) moved deeper and to faster current velocities (correlated with drift rate) during the day than during the night, younger PARR (≤10 cm) moved deeper and to faster current velocities at night. Whereas older PARR stayed close to structures in the channel (where drift rates were higher compared to open areas), younger PARR kept larger distance [55].
    • For depth and subordination [F16].
  • Depth and light intensity: moves deeper after a sudden change in the light environment:
  • Depth and noise:  [F17].
  • Depth and threat:
    • LAB: equal increase in activity and equal move to lower water vertical position after pretended predator attack in hatchery-reared and wild-caught PARR, both equally reared from egg to 1+ or 2+ years. 1+ year PARR moved deeper than 2+ year [147].

9.5 Migration

  • Hatched ALEVINS stay in their freshwater territory [148]-[63] [8] through FRY and PARR stages for up to 5 years:
    • Observations WILD: 2-4 years: Magaguadavic river, New Brunswick, Canada [1], average 3 years: Catamaran brook, New Brunswick, Canada [149]-[92], ≤5 years: river Teno and tributaries, Finland [41], 2-5 years [33], 2-3 years [150].
  • When a proportion of the population has undergone seawater adaptation, the now called SMOLT migrate along freshwater rivers of 1-1,800 km length to the sea [30] in spring:
    • Observations WILD: spring to early summer [83]-[13], spring [151], March-June [33].
  • After up to 4 years, in winter, individuals return as GRILSE to their rivers of origin to spawn: 
    • Observations age WILD: 1+ years [151] [92] [150], ≤4 years [33].
    • Observations season WILD: Oct-Nov, Catamaran brook, New Brunswick, Canada [152]-[92], Oct-Jan [33].
  • Although some may return to the sea as KELT, most die of exhaustion [60].
  • For migration and temperature  [F18].

10 Growth

10.1 Ontogenetic development

  • Observations yolk sac absorption: during ca 300 degree days [33].
  • Observations TOTAL LENGTH: no data found yet.
  • Observations weight: no data found yet.
  • ALEVINS that opened their mouth and began exogenous feeding [16] [151].
  • Observations length WILD: <35 mm fork length [92].
  • Observations weight: no data found yet.
  • Parr: 0-5 years, <5-12.6 cm:
    • FRY from first summer after hatching on [60].
    • Observations age and TOTAL LENGTH WILD: 0+ years: <5 cm, 1+ years: 5-8.4 cm, 2+ years: >8.4 cm [92], average 4.4-11.4 cm [40], 8.4-12.6 cm [35].
    • PARR with >10 cm length at the end of a growth season will usually smoltify the next spring [60], at 2-5 years ( [F13]).
    • Observations weight: no data found yet.
  • Smolt: 2-5 years:
    • Observations age:  Parr.
    • Observations TOTAL LENGTH: no data found yet.
    • Observations weight: no data found yet.
  • Maturation and photoperiod manipulation:
    • FARM, JUVENILES: only those 0+ males matured that experienced natural photoperiod in the “maturation window” in February combined with elevated temperatures in their first year of growth. Males that experienced ambient temperatures or advanced photoperiod did not mature [154].
  • Maturation and temperature manipulation: no data found yet.
  • Grilse:
    • Adults that return to home river after spending at least one winter at sea [60].
    • Observations age and TOTAL LENGTH WILD: 2-9 years [F13], spawning female length: >50<90 cm [14], average length of males and females: 63.9 and 67.8 cm [37].
    • Observations age and weight FARM: 30 months, 2-4 kg [155].
  • Kelt:
    • Grilse surviving spawning, may migrate to sea and return for spawning but more likely die of weakness [60].
    • Observations age: 3-9 years [F13].
    • Observations TOTAL LENGTH: no data found yet.
    • Observations weight: no data found yet.

10.2 Sexual conversion

No data found yet.

10.3 Sex ratio

No data found yet.

10.4 Effects on growth

  • FARM: size-grading of SMOLT in 105-120 m3 cages led to an increase of average weight (0-51%) in 13 of 17 cages and a decrease (-5 to -11%) in four cages, all in all an average increase of 14% [156].
  • For growth and...
    ...substrate  [F19],
    ...shelter or cover  [F20], competition  [F21],
    ...temperature  [F22],
    ...stocking density  [F23],
    ...shyness [F24].

10.5 Deformities and malformations

  • Otolith deformations and hearing loss:
    • WILD/LAB: higher proportion of sagittal otoliths containing vaterite in hatchery-reared JUVENILES from Norway (ca 41% versus 10%) than in wild-caught JUVENILES from 21 Norwegian rivers. Frequency of at least one vaterite otolith per individual increased with age from 66% at mean 33 g and 7 months (small JUVENILES) to 100% at mean 4,658 g and 18 months (large JUVENILES). Vaterite otoliths were on average 17% larger and 8% lighter than normal aragonite ones. Otoliths containing vaterite lost oscillation amplitude compared to aragonite ones, impairing response to sound. Loss increased with increasing percentage of vaterite from 29% loss at 708 Hz for small and at 583 Hz for medium JUVENILES to 51% loss at 522 Hz for large JUVENILES. Loss in 1-20 Hz infrasound range: 19-35%. Proportion of vaterite otoliths in ADULTS: 30% in Canada, 57% in Australia, 58% in Scotland, 64% in Chile, indicating that hearing loss due to otolith deformations and resulting reduction in welfare is worldwide problem [157].

11 Reproduction

11.1 Nest building

  • Redd construction and substrate: grain size maximally 10% of female's body length, <1-100 mm, 2.3-29.3% fine material (<1-2 mm):
    • Observations grain size WILD, ADULTS: 0.8-40 mm, 7-9% of body length [158]-[159], 100 mm [160]-[4], average 20.7 mm [37], median 11.5 mm [38], median 29.2-64 mm [53].
    • Observations fine material WILD, ADULTS: average 3.3-12.5% <1 mm: several rivers in England and Wales [14], 2.3-8% <1 mm: Girnock Burn, Scotland [37], 9.4-17.8% <2 mm: river Bush, Northern Ireland [36], 23% <2 mm: Newmills Burn, Scotland [38], average 3.3-29.3% <1 mm: Sainte-Marguerite river, Canada [53]
    • WILD, ADULTS: in river with clay ground, female started cutting to prepare redd and omitted site when reached the clay layer [14].
  • Redd construction and water velocity: range 0.2-1.1 m/s, average 0.5 m/s:
    • Observations WILD, ADULTS: range 0.4-0.8 m/s, average 0.5 m/s [161]-[4], average 0.2-1 m/s [14], range 0.2-1.1 m/s, average 0.5 m/s [37], average 0.5 m/s [38].
  • Redd construction and water depth: 5-76 cm:
    • Observations WILD, ADULTS: range 17-76 cm, average 38 cm [161], average 5-50 cm [14], range 10-50 cm, average 25 cm [37], average 26 cm [38].
  • Redd construction:
    • WILD, ADULTS: female cut by repeated flexures of her body, increasingly with shorter time to oviposition. Dominant male chased away competing males [14].

11.2 Attraction, courtship, mating

No data found yet.

11.3 Spawning

  • Spawning substrate:  [F1].
  • Spawning season: October-January:
    • Observations WILD: October-November [1] [152]-[92], November-December [38], October-January [33].
  • Spawning (day)time: no data found yet.
  • Spawning temperature: no data found yet.
  • Spawning salinity: fresh water  [F13] [F1].
  • Spawning and water velocity:  [F1].
  • Spawning depth:  [F1].
  • Spawning density: no data found yet.

11.4 Fecundity

  • Number of redds:
    • Observations WILD, ADULTS: average 1 redd per female [37],
  • Fecundity per redd: 17-450 eggs:
    • Observations absolute fecundity WILD, ADULTS: 17-42 eggs [14], median 450 eggs [38].
    • Observations relative fecundity: no data found yet.

11.5 Brood care, breeding

  • WILD, ADULTS: after female spawning, female cut quickly to cover eggs in gravel in one or more egg pockets per redd [14] which protects them from light, predators, and high water flow [14] [59]-[47].

12 Senses

12.1 Vision

  • FARM, ADULTS: sensitive to blue light at low intensity (0.82 μmol/m2/s) at night: dived away to cage bottom. At medium (26.8 μmol/m2/s) and high (35.4 μmol/m2/s) intensity: fast swimming and collisions with conspecifics and cage (probably temporarily blinded), jumped 18 times more than at low intensity or without light [113].
  • For vision and foraging  [F4].

12.2 Olfaction (and taste, if present)

  • Olfaction and navigation:
    • WILD, JUVENILES-ADULTS: speculation that individuals navigate through the sea by sensing the earth's magnetic field through magnetic particles in either their olfactory system [162]-[60] or in their lateral line [163]-[60] or a combination of both. Only when coming close to the river mouth, do they go by olfactory cues [164]-[60] [165]-[60].
    • FARM: SMOLT brought to the sea in a tank could not follow the river flow and imprint on the scent of the water: did not return to exact location but moved towards the general area of the river [166]-[60]. Homing, usually, is so accurate that restocking measures have to specify the exact location to where salmons ought to return, not just a random section of the river [167]-[60].

12.3 Hearing

  • Hearing type:
    • LAB, ADULTS: hearing GENERALIST [26].
  • Hearing spectrum:
    • LAB, SMOLT: under quiet sea conditions, sensitive to sound from 30-380 Hz, greatest sensitivity at 160 Hz. More sensitive to sounds in water (high particle motion) than in air. Loud speaking in close proximity and footsteps in the substratum on the shore will most likely be heard. Swim bladder is far removed from the skull (opens into the gut) and thus most likely is not involved in hearing [26].
  • FARM, ADULTS: at infrasound of 12.5 Hz, erratic swimming, deep diving, increased swimming activities, three times greater swimming speed. Dropping a disc on the water surface caused descend to depths of 1.5-2 m and twice as high swimming speed. ADULTS are potentially able to habituate to regular disturbance, though [113].
  • For hearing loss and otolith deformations  [F25].

12.4 Touch, mechanical sensing

No data found yet.

12.5 Lateral line

  • Lateral line system and sensing water movement and vibrations:
    • Detects local water movements, so that individual perceives and localises prey, enemies, and sexual partners [170]-[171].
    • Detects surface and low frequency waves in the vicinity of the fish body, indirectly detects vibrations from sound waves [172]-[171].
    • For lateral line and navigation  [F26].

12.6 Electrical sensing

No data found yet.

12.7 Nociception, pain sensing

No data found yet.

12.8 Other

No data found yet.

13 Communication

13.1 Visual

No data found yet.

13.2 Chemical

No data found yet.

13.3 Acoustic

No data found yet.

13.4 Mechanical

No data found yet.

13.5 Electrical

No data found yet.

13.6 Other

No data found yet.

14 Social behaviour

14.1 Spatial organisation

  • FARM: in 10 x 10 m cages (15 m deep), 500 SMOLT separated into two schools at different cage depths, 4-6 m and 6-11 m [19].
  • WILD: after one month in a river, hatchery-released PARR kept higher densities (average 0.35 versus 0.06 IND/m2) than wild PARR [15].
  • FARM, SMOLT: decreasing welfare score (with fin condition and condition factor contributing positively, plasma cortisol and plasma glucose contributing negatively) with increasing stocking density. Certain variability of welfare at densities 10-21 kg/m3. From ca 22 kg/m3 on, welfare decreased [156].
  • Inverse relation:
    • WILD, PARR: the higher the density (0.01-1.7 IND/m2) the lower the growth – power curve with steepest decrease at low densities [173].
  • Direct relation:
    • LAB: in 50 cm deep tanks with 78 cm diameter, age 1+ PARR had lower weight, length, and body condition when held at 8 kg/m3 than at 30 kg/m3 [25].

14.2 Social organisation

  • Hierarchy and group size: no data found yet.
  • Establishing hierarchy: no data found yet.
  • For dominance  [F5], for subordination  [F16].
  • Features of dominance:
    • LAB: dominant FRY stayed in place where food accumulates, were highly mobile in that area, and showed more aggressive behaviour than subordinate FRY [20].
  • Hierarchy and time of emergence:
    • LAB: among nine pairs of similar-weighted early and late emerging FRY, five early and four late emerging FRY became dominant [20].
  • Hierarchy and weight:
    • LAB: initiators of aggression among 1+ year old PARR with higher weight (average 108.8 g versus 89.6 g) than receivers [21].
  • Features of subordination:
    • LAB: to avoid confrontations with higher-ranked individuals, subordinate FRY displayed vertical swimming in the upper water level, hardly moved in the tank, and kept a position away from food [20].
  • Hierarchy and stress: no data found yet.

14.3 Exploitation

No data found yet.

14.4 Facilitation

No data found yet.

14.5 Aggression

  • Direct relation:
    • LAB, FRY: increasing density in pools (6, 12, or 18 IND/m2) increased aggression in the form of intentional movements, nips, chases, and displays [23].
  • No effect:
    • LAB: not much aggression via chasing, charging, displacement, or fin-nipping among 2+ PARR in densities of 15, 25, or 35 kg/m3 [24].
  • Inverse relation:
    • LAB: more aggression via fin biting among 1+ PARR at a density of 30 kg/m3 than at 8 kg/m3. Total amount of aggression (attacks, displacements, fin biting), though not as severe, was higher at low density [25].
  • LAB, PARR: no effect of husbandry disturbance (tank cleaning and staff passing by the tank) at density of 25 kg/m3, highest average welfare. At 15 kg/m3 and 35 kg/m3, high and middle-high disturbance affected welfare positively, whereas lower disturbance was detrimental to welfare. Probably more direct aggression at low density and more aggression following collisions at high density that is suppressed by the external disturbance, similar to a predator or larger conspecific [24].

14.6 Territoriality

  • WILD: PARR occupied optimal habitats with fast current velocity and high drift rates at low densities (average 0.06 IND/m2) and displayed low levels of aggressiveness [15].
  • WILD: during 40 min observation period, PARR visited 3-26 foraging stations (median 12.5) within territories of mean 0.3-4.5 m2, travelling 15.7-95.0 m (median 39.3 m) within territory. Foraged at station 0.9-48 times before switching every 10 min to every 12.9 s. Distance travelled mainly determined by foraging and switching stations (96.6%) before chasing (3%) and fleeing intruders (0.4%). Territory size decreased with increasing current velocity and increased with larger depth. Number of foraging stations did not increase with decreasing velocity. Relationship between total distance travelled and velocity is curvilinear: largest distance travelled at intermediate velocity. Highest aggression at intermediate velocity: Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada [11].
  • For territoriality and daily rhythm  [F4].

15 Cognitive abilities

15.1 Learning

  • LAB: in a group of 5, ADULTS learned to associate a conditioned stimulus (a sound) – in place of the unconditioned stimulus of a mild electric shock – with a conditioned response (stress = change in the heart beat). Allowed determination of hearing spectrum ( [F27]) [26].
  • Adaptation and feeding:
    • WILD: adaptation to hatchery conditions hindered fast adaptation to wild habitat in 2+ year old PARR: after one month in a river, hatchery-released PARR consumed 20-30% more poor quality food (exuvia, algae, detritus, sand) than wild PARR, missed more drift items especially in fast current velocities, fed more on benthic than on drift prey, had lower stomach fulness (82% versus 94%) [15].

15.2 Memory

No data found yet.

15.3 Problem solving, creativity, planning, intelligence

No data found yet.

15.4 Other

No data found yet.

16 Personality, coping styles

  • Stress coping and subordination:
    • LAB: JUVENILES with low growth rate prior to experiment released more cortisol when confined for 30 min in 0.6 L chamber than JUVENILES with high growth rate, indicating relationship between subordination and stress coping style [27].
  • Stress coping and locomotion:
    • LAB: JUVENILES of different families differed in locomotor activity and cortisol release (average 2.1-6.6 ng/g/h) during confinement for 30 min in 0.6 L chamber, indicating different stress coping styles and heritable hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal responsiveness. Families moving longer also released more cortisol, indicating higher stress levels. Families moving longer and releasing more cortisol also displayed lower resistance towards infectious pancreatic necrosis, no correlation with furunculosis. No difference between families in feeding resumption or feed intake during four weeks of isolation [27].

In the structure of menu item 16 and the definition of "SHYNESS-BOLDNESS", we follow [174].

  • Boldness and time of emergence:
    • LAB: latency to eat first pellet decreased over five days of isolation, similar for early and late emerging FRY. On days 4 and 5, early emerged FRY ate first pellet sooner than late emerged FRY. Decreasing latency and difference in FRY of different time of emergence (on days 8, 9, and 10) held in second experiment five months later. Number of pellets consumed increased over five days of isolation, similar for early and late emerged FRY. On days 4 and 5, early emerged FRY ate more than late emerged FRY. Increasing amount of pellets consumed held in second experiment five months later. Faster food resumption in early emerged FRY after move to new environment and under isolation suggests boldness, but no difference in oxygen consumption, cortisol levels ( [F28]), and social status ( [F5] [F16]) between early and late emerged FRY refute hypothesis of proactive and reactive coping styles [20].

In the structure of menu item 16 and the definition of "EXPLORATION-AVOIDANCE", we follow [174].

  • For aggressiveness and...
    ...dominance [F5],
    ...subordination [F16],
    ...stocking density [F29].

In the structure of menu item 16 and the definition of "AGGRESSIVENESS", we follow [174].


17 Emotion-like states

17.1 Joy

No data found yet.

17.2 Relaxation

No data found yet.

17.3 Sadness

No data found yet.

17.4 Fear

No data found yet.

18 Self-concept, self-recognition

No data found yet.

19 Reactions to husbandry

19.1 Stereotypical and vacuum activities

No data found yet.

19.2 Acute stress

  • LAB: FRY confined to 50 mL containers for 30 min had higher cortisol levels than unstressed FRY. No difference between early and late emerging FRY [20].
  • Crowding and chilling:
    • FARM: ADULTS in 1,000 m3 net-pen at density 20 kg/m3 killed by blow to head, gill cut, transferred to bleeding tank with 1 °C seawater at density 75 kg/m3 for 60 min. Second group transferred to 1 m3 chilling tank with 1 °C seawater at density 75 kg/m3 for 60 min before slaughter. Higher plasma cortisol in live-chilled (ca 1 mmol/L versus 0.3 mmol/L) compared to unchilled group. Even higher cortisol level (ca 1.3-1.5 mmol/L) after 24 h crowding in net-pen at density 200 kg/m3 and stressed by reducing water level to increase density to 500 kg/m3 for 5 min every 6 h; no difference if additionally live-chilled. Highest rigour scores at ca 8 h after slaughter in unchilled (ca 3.8-4.3 versus 2.8-3.3 where 1 means no rigour, 5 means full rigour) compared to chilled groups, regardless of crowding. Unchilled groups reached highest rigour scores earlier (at ca 8 h versus 18 h) than chilled groups. Higher muscle glycogen in uncrowded (ca 1.7 g/kg versus 0.5 g/kg) than crowded groups regardless of chilling, indicating higher energy depletion in crowded groups [155].
  • For acute stress and...
    ...water temperature  [F30],
    ...pH  [F31],
    ...noise  [F17],
    ...shyness [F24],
    ...stunning  [F32].

19.3 Chronic stress

  • Cage submergence:
    • LAB, SMOLT: cutting off access to air by submerging the sea-cage caused jumping behaviour [19] [111]. Increasing the time of submergence [19] and exposition to light or feed during submergence [111] increased the number of jumps. Submerged SMOLT increased swimming speed, probably to create hydrodynamic lift to avoid sinking, and did not display buoyancy control problems or tilted swimming (indicating stress) in 10 x 10 x 11 m cages. Submergence did not affect appetite – the slightly lower growth could be due to lower temperatures in the deeper water layer and went away when on-grown for three months in a re-surfaced cage [19].
    • Application of cage submergence: counter-measurement to short-term (bad weather conditions) or long-term (algal-bloom, low temperatures) detrimental surface conditions [19]. Also a stress-free method for delousing from sea lice when jumping individuals break water surface with floating chemical therapeutant infused in oil [111]. 
  • For chronic stress and...
    ...cover  [F20],
    ...feed delivery  [F33],
    ...water temperature  [F30],
    ...stocking density  [F34],
    ...aggression  [F35].

19.4 Stunning reactions

  • Stunning rules: to minimise pain reactions and enhance welfare before slaughter:
    1. induce insensibility as fast as possible,
    2. prevent recovery from stunning,
    3. monitor effectiveness (observations, neurophysiological measurements) [175].
  • Time to loss of visual evoked response (response to flash of light to stimulate retina of eye):
    a) percussive stunning: LAB, ADULTS: 0-1 min if the blow is administered correctly and with sufficient force [176],
    b) spiking: LAB, ADULTS: 0-1 min if the stab is administered correctly and with sufficient force [176],
    c) exsanguination by gill-cutting (without prior stunning): LAB, ADULTS: 2.5-7.5 min [176],
    d) stunning by carbon dioxide narcosis: LAB, ADULTS: 3-9 min, accompanied by vigorous movements, fast swimming, and escape attempts [176].
  • Percussive stunning to be preferred over spiking, because individuals do not have to be removed from water possibly maximal prevention of suffering. No evidence of improved meat quality for exsanguination without prior stunning, so prior stunning would improve welfare without loss of quality. Because immobilisation through carbon dioxide narcosis sets in before loss of sensibility, risk of being sensible at exsanguination [175].


ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
AGGRESSIVENESS = agonistic reactions towards conspecifics. Tests: mirror image, social interaction/diadic encounters [174].
ALEVINS = larvae until the end of yolk sac absorption, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
EXPLORATION-AVOIDANCE = reaction to new situations, e.g. new habitat, new food, novel objects. Referred to as neophobia/neophilia elsewhere. Tests: open field, trappability for first time, novel environment, hole board (time spent with head in holes), novel object [174].
FARM = setting in farm environment
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
GENERALIST = Generalists detect a narrow bandwidth of sound frequencies (<50-500 Hz, 1,500 Hz max.). High hearing threshold = cannot detect quieter sounds. Typically no swim bladder or no attachment of the swim bladder to the inner ear. Live in loud environments (rivers) [168] [169].
GRILSE = adults returning from sea to home river to spawn, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
KELT = adults surviving spawning, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
MILLIARD = 1,000,000,000 [73] [74]
PARR = juvenile stage in rivers, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SHYNESS-BOLDNESS = reaction to risky (but not new!) situations, e.g. predators or humans. Referred to as docility, tameness, fearfulness elsewhere. Tests: predator presentation, predator stimulus, threat, trappability (latency to enter a trap for first time can be exploration), resistance to handlers (Trapezov stick test), tonic immobility (catatonic-like death-feigning anti predator response) [174].
SMOLT = juvenile stage migrating to the sea, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
TOTAL LENGTH = from snout to tip of caudal fin as compared to fork length (which measures from snout to fork of caudal fin) [153] or standard length (from head to base of tail fin) or body length (from the base of the eye notch to the posterior end of the telson)
WILD = setting in the wild


[1] Carr, J. W., J. M. Anderson, F. G. Whoriskey, and T. Dilworth. 1997. The occurrence and spawning of cultured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a Canadian river. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 54: 1064–1073. doi:10.1016/S1054-3139(97)80010-0.
[2] Brodeur, Richard D., and Morgan S. Busby. 1998. Occurrence of an Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar in the Bering Sea. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 5: 64–66.
[3] McGinnity, P., C. Stone, J. B. Taggart, D. Cooke, D. Cotter, R. Hynes, C. McCamley, T. Cross, and A. Ferguson. 1997. Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater performance of wild, farmed, and hybrid progeny in a natural river environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 54: 998–1008. doi:10.1016/S1054-3139(97)80004-5.
[4] Armstrong, J. D, P. S Kemp, G. J. A Kennedy, M Ladle, and N. J Milner. 2003. Habitat requirements of Atlantic salmon and brown trout in rivers and streams. Fisheries Research 62. The Scientific Basis for Management of Salmonid Stocks in the British Isles: 143–170. doi:10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00160-1.
[5] Jacobs, Jürgen. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia 14: 413–417. doi:10.1007/BF00384581.
[6] Bremset, Gunnbjørn. 2000. Seasonal and Diel Changes in Behaviour, Microhabitat use and Preferences by Young Pool-dwelling Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar, and Brown Trout, Salmo trutta. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59: 163–179. doi:10.1023/A:1007691316864.
[7] Bremset, Gunnbjørn, and Ole Kristian Berg. 1999. Three-dimensional microhabitat use by young pool-dwelling Atlantic salmon and brown trout. Animal Behaviour 58: 1047–1059. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1218.
[8] Guay, J C, D Boisclair, M Leclerc, and M Lapointe. 2003. Assessment of the transferability of biological habitat models for Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1398–1408. doi:10.1139/f03-120.
[9] Guay, J C, D Boisclair, D Rioux, M Leclerc, M Lapointe, and P Legendre. 2000. Development and validation of numerical habitat models for juveniles of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 2065–2075. doi:10.1139/f00-162.
[10] Coulombe-Pontbriand, M, and Michel Lapointe. 2004. Landscape controls on boulder-rich, winter habitat availability and their effects on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr abundance in two fifth-order mountain streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 648–658. doi:10.1139/f04-023.
[11] Steingrímsson, Stefán Ó, and James W. A. Grant. 2011. Determinants of multiple central-place territory use in wild young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65: 275–286. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1042-9.
[12] Hiscock, M. J., D. A. Scruton, J. A. Brown, and C. J. Pennell. 2002. Diel activity pattern of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar ) in early and late winter. Hydrobiologia 483: 161–165. doi:10.1023/A:1021372822784.
[13] Aarestrup, Kim, Christian Nielsen, and Anders Koed. 2002. Net ground speed of downstream migrating radio-tagged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) smolts in relation to environmental factors. In Aquatic Telemetry, ed. Eva B. Thorstad, Ian A. Fleming, and Tor Fredrik Næsje, 95–102. Developments in Hydrobiology 165. Springer Netherlands.
[14] Crisp, D. T., and P. A. Carling. 1989. Observations on siting, dimensions and structure of salmonid redds. Journal of Fish Biology 34: 119–134. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1989.tb02962.x.
[15] Orlov, Alexander V., Yuri V. Gerasimov, and Oleg M. Lapshin. 2006. The feeding behaviour of cultured and wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in the Louvenga River, Kola Peninsula, Russia. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63: 1297–1303. doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.05.004.
[16] Dill, Peter A. 1977. Development of behaviour in alevins of atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and rainbow trout, S. gairdneri. Animal Behaviour 25, Part 1: 116–121. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(77)90073-2.
[17] Arnold, G. P., Paul W. Webb, and B. H. Holford. 1991. Short Communication: The Role of the Pectoral Fins in Station-Holding of Atlantic Salmon Parr (Salmo Salar L.). Journal of Experimental Biology 156: 625–629.
[18] Armstrong, J. D., and S. W. Griffiths. 2001. Density-dependent refuge use among over-wintering wild Atlantic salmon juveniles. Journal of Fish Biology 58: 1524–1530. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02309.x.
[19] Dempster, Tim, Jon-Erik Juell, Jan Erik Fosseidengen, Arne Fredheim, and Pål Lader. 2008. Behaviour and growth of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) subjected to short-term submergence in commercial scale sea-cages. Aquaculture 276: 103–111. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.018.
[20] Vaz-Serrano, J., M. L. Ruiz-Gomez, H. M. Gjoen, P. V. Skov, F. A. Huntingford, Øyvind Øverli, and E. Höglund. 2011. Consistent boldness behaviour in early emerging fry of domesticated Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Decoupling of behavioural and physiological traits of the proactive stress coping style. Physiology Behavior 103: 359–364. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.02.025.
[21] Cañon Jones, Hernán Alberto, Chris Noble, Børge Damsgård, and Gareth P. Pearce. 2012. Investigating the influence of predictable and unpredictable feed delivery schedules upon the behaviour and welfare of Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) using social network analysis and fin damage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138: 132–140. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.01.019.
[22] Valdimarsson, Sveinn K., and Neil B. Metcalfe. 2001. Is the level of aggression and dispersion in territorial fish dependent on light intensity? Animal Behaviour 61: 1143–1149. doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1710.
[23] Blanchet, S., J. J. Dodson, and S. Brosse. 2006. Influence of habitat structure and fish density on Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. territorial behaviour. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 951–957. doi:10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.00970.x.
[24] Adams, C E, J F Turnbull, A Bell, J E Bron, and F A Huntingford. 2007. Multiple determinants of welfare in farmed fish: stocking density, disturbance, and aggression in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 336–344. doi:10.1139/f07-018.
[25] Cañon Jones, Hernán Alberto, Chris Noble, Børge Damsgård, and Gareth P. Pearce. 2011. Social network analysis of the behavioural interactions that influence the development of fin damage in Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) held at different stocking densities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133: 117–126. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.005.
[26] Hawkins, A. D., and A. D. F. Johnstone. 1978. The hearing of the Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar. Journal of Fish Biology 13: 655–673. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1978.tb03480.x.
[27] Kittilsen, Silje, Tim Ellis, Joachim Schjolden, Bjarne O. Braastad, and Øyvind Øverli. 2009. Determining stress-responsiveness in family groups of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using non-invasive measures. Aquaculture 298: 146–152. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.10.009.
[28] Reviewed distribution maps for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). 2016. Aquamaps.
[29] Netboy, Anthony. 1974. The salmon: their fight for survival: Illustrated with photos. Houghton Mifflin.
[30] Elliott, Scott R, Treva A Coe, James M Helfield, and Robert J Naiman. 1998. Spatial variation in environmental characteristics of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 267–280. doi:10.1139/d98-001.
[31] MacCrimmon, Hugh R., and Barra L. Gots. 1979. World Distribution of Atlantic Salmon, Salmo solar. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 422–457. doi:10.1139/f79-062.
[32] Crozier, W. W., P.-J. Schön, G. Chaput, E. C. E. Potter, N. Ó Maoiléidigh, and J. C. MacLean. 2004. Managing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the mixed stock environment: challenges and considerations. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 61: 1344–1358. doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.08.013.
[33] Jones, M. 2004. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Salmo salar. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[34] Girard, Isabelle L, James W.A Grant, and Stefán Ó Steingrímsson. 2004. Foraging, growth, and loss rate of young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in relation to habitat use in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 2339–2349. doi:10.1139/f04-216.
[35] Roussel, Jean-Marc, Richard A. Cunjak, Robert Newbury, Daniel Caissie, and Alexander Haro. 2004. Movements and habitat use by PIT-tagged Atlantic salmon parr in early winter: the influence of anchor ice. Freshwater Biology 49: 1026–1035. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01246.x.
[36] Cowx, I. G., K. T. O’Grady, W. C. K. O’Connor, and T. E. Andrew. 1998. The effects of siltation on Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., embryos in the River Bush. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 393–401. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2400.1998.550393.x.
[37] Moir, H. J., C. Soulsby, and A. Youngson. 1998. Hydraulic and sedimentary characteristics of habitat utilized by Atlantic salmon for spawning in the Girnock Burn, Scotland. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 241–254. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2400.1998.00105.x.
[38] Soulsby, C., A. F. Youngson, H. J. Moir, and I. A. Malcolm. 2001. Fine sediment influence on salmonid spawning habitat in a lowland agricultural stream: a preliminary assessment. Science of The Total Environment 265: 295–307. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00672-0.
[39] Davidsen, J. G., N. Plantalech Manel-la, F. Økland, O. H. Diserud, E. B. Thorstad, B. Finstad, R. Sivertsgård, R. S. McKinley, and A. H. Rikardsen. 2008. Changes in swimming depths of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar post-smolts relative to light intensity. Journal of Fish Biology 73: 1065–1074. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02004.x.
[40] Amundsen, Per-Arne, Heidi-Marie Gabler, and Lars Sigvald Riise. 2001. Intraspecific food resource partitioning in Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar) parr in a subarctic river. Aquatic Living Resources 14: 257–265. doi:10.1016/S0990-7440(01)01127-5.
[41] Erkinaro, J. 1995. The age structure and distribution of Atlantic salmon parr, Salmo salar L., in small tributaries and main stems of the subarctic River Teno, northern Finland. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 4: 53–61. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.1995.tb00117.x.
[42] Hesthagen, T. 1990. Home range of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and brown trout, Salmo trutta, in a Norwegian stream. Freshwater Biology 24: 63–67. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.1990.tb00307.x.
[43] Symons, P. E. K., and M. Heland. 1978. Stream Habitats and Behavioral Interactions of Underyearling and Yearling Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35: 175–183. doi:10.1139/f78-029.
[44] Heggenes, Jan. 1990. Habitat utilization and preferences in juvenile atlantic salmon (salmo salar) in streams. Regulated Rivers: Research Management 5: 341–354. doi:10.1002/rrr.3450050406.
[45] Heggenes, J., J. L. Baglinière, and R. A. Cunjak. 1999. Spatial niche variability for young Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (S. trutta) in heterogeneous streams. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8: 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.1999.tb00048.x.
[46] Beland, K. F., J. G. Trial, and J. F. Kocik. 2004. Use of Riffle and Run Habitats with Aquatic Vegetation by Juvenile Atlantic Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 525–533. doi:10.1577/M02-196.1.
[47] Amiro, Peter G. 2006. A synthesis of fresh water habitat requirements and status for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Canada. Research Document 2006/017. Dartmouth, Canada: Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
[48] Wańkowski, J. W. J., and J. E. Thorpe. 1979. Spatial distribution and feeding in atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. juveniles. Journal of Fish Biology 14: 239–247. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1979.tb03515.x.
[49] Rimmer, D. M., U. Paim, and R. L. Saunders. 1984. Changes in the Selection of Microhabitat by Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) at the Summer–Autumn Transition in a Small River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41: 469–475. doi:10.1139/f84-056.
[50] Morantz, D. L., R. K. Sweeney, C. S. Shirvell, and D. A. Longard. 1987. Selection of Microhabitat in Summer by Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 120–129. doi:10.1139/f87-015.
[51] Adams, J. N., and R. L. Beschta. 1980. Gravel Bed Composition in Oregon Coastal Streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 1514–1521. doi:10.1139/f80-196.
[52] Payne, Brigid A, and Michel F Lapointe. 1997. Channel morphology and lateral stability: effects on distribution of spawning and rearing habitat for Atlantic salmon in a wandering cobble-bed river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2627–2636. doi:10.1139/f97-171.
[53] Julien, H. P., and N. E. Bergeron. 2006. Effect of Fine Sediment Infiltration During the Incubation Period on Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Embryo Survival. Hydrobiologia 563: 61–71. doi:10.1007/s10750-005-1035-2.
[54] Hansen, Tom, and Krisna R. Torrissen. 1985. Artificial hatching substrate and different times of transfer to first feeding: Effect on growth and protease activities of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 48: 177–188. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(85)90103-6.
[55] Mitchell, J., R. S. McKinley, G. Power, and D. A. Scruton. 1998. Evaluation of Atlantic salmon parr responses to habitat improvement structures in an experimental channel in Newfoundland, Canada. Regulated Rivers: Research Management 14: 25–39. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199801/02)14:125::AID-RRR4743.0.CO;2-1.
[56] Cunjak, Richard A. 1988. Behaviour and Microhabitat of Young Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) during Winter. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 2156–2160. doi:10.1139/f88-250.
[57] Heggenes, J., Å. Brabrand, and S. J. Saltveit. 1991. Microhabitat use by brown trout, Salmo trutta L. and Atlantic salmon, S. salar L., in a stream: a comparative study of underwater and river bank observations. Journal of Fish Biology 38: 259–266. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb03112.x.
[58] Valdimarsson, S. K., and N. B. Metcalfe. 1998. Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology 52: 42–49. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01551.x.
[59] Bardonnet, Agnès, and Jean-Luc Baglinière. 2000. Freshwater habitat of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 497–506. doi:10.1139/f99-226.
[60] Lindberg, Dan-Erik. 2011. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) migration behavior and preferences in smolts, spawners and kelts. Report 14. Umeå Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies.
[61] Gibson, R. John. 1978. The Behavior of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) with Regard to Temperature and to Water Velocity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107: 703–712. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1978)107703:TBOJAS2.0.CO;2.
[63] Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2014. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
[64] Finstad, A. G., S. Einum, T. Forseth, and O. Ugedal. 2007. Shelter availability affects behaviour, size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Freshwater Biology 52: 1710–1718. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x.
[65] Gries, Gabe, and Francis Juanes. 1998. Microhabitat use by juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar ) sheltering during the day in summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 1441–1449. doi:10.1139/z98-074.
[66] Holbrook, Christopher M., Joseph Zydlewski, Dimitry Gorsky, Steven L. Shepard, and Michael T. Kinnison. 2009. Movements of Prespawn Adult Atlantic Salmon Near Hydroelectric Dams in the Lower Penobscot River, Maine. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 495–505. doi:10.1577/M08-042.1.
[67] Breau, Cindy, Richard A. Cunjak, and Stephan J. Peake. 2011. Behaviour during elevated water temperatures: can physiology explain movement of juvenile Atlantic salmon to cool water? Journal of Animal Ecology 80: 844–853. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01828.x.
[68] Pickering, A. D., R. Griffiths, and T. G. Pottinger. 1987. A comparison of the effects of overhead cover on the growth, survival and haematology of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., brown trout, Salmo trutta L., and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. Aquaculture 66: 109–124. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(87)90226-2.
[69] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations. 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[70] Watson, R., Jackie Alder, and Daniel Pauly. 2006. Fisheries for forage fish, 1950 to the present. In On the Multiple Uses of Forage Fish: from Ecosystems to Markets, ed. Jackie Alder and Daniel Pauly, 14:1–20. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 3. Vancouver, Canada: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia.
[71] Mood, A. 2012. Average annual fish capture for species mostly used for fishmeal (2005-2009).
[72] Mood, A., and P. Brooke. 2012. Estimating the Number of Farmed Fish Killed in Global Aquaculture Each Year.
[73] Kopf, Von Kristin. 2012. Milliarden vs. Billionen: Große Zahlen. Sprachlog. December 4.
[74] Weisstein, Eric W. 2018. Milliard. Text. MathWorld - a Wolfram Web resource. Accessed February 2.
[75] Gardiner, W. Ross, and Peter Geddes. 1980. The influence of body composition on the survival of juvenile salmon. Hydrobiologia 69: 67–72. doi:10.1007/BF00016537.
[76] Elliott, J. M., and M. A. Hurley. 1997. A functional model for maximum growth of Atlantic Salmon parr, Salmo salar, from two populations in northwest England. Functional Ecology 11: 592–603. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.1997.00130.x.
[77] Finstad, Anders G., Tor F. Næsje, and Torbjørn Forseth. 2004. Seasonal variation in the thermal performance of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Freshwater Biology 49: 1459–1467. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01279.x.
[78] Elliott, J. M., and J. A. Elliott. 2010. Temperature requirements of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, brown trout Salmo trutta and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus: predicting the effects of climate change. Journal of Fish Biology 77: 1793–1817. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02762.x.
[79] Fraser, Neil H. C., Niel B. Metcalfe, and John E. Thorpe. 1993. Temperature-Dependent Switch between Diurnal and Nocturnal Foraging in Salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 252: 135–139. doi:10.1098/rspb.1993.0057.
[80] Hoar, William S. 1942. Diurnal Variations in Feeding Activity of Young Salmon and Trout. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 6a: 90–101. doi:10.1139/f42-011.
[81] Hirata, Hachiro. 1973. Diurnal Rhythm of Metabolic and Activity Rates in Juvenile Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar LINNAEUS. Memoirs of Faculty of Fisheries Kagoshima University 22: 73–93.
[82] Fraser, Neil H. C., Neil B. Metcalfe, Jan Heggenes, and John E. Thorpe. 1995. Low summer temperatures cause juvenile Atlantic salmon to become nocturnal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 446–451. doi:10.1139/z95-051.
[83] Moore, A., E. C. E. Potter, N. J. Milner, and S. Bamber. 1995. The migratory behaviour of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in the estuary of the River Conwy, North Wales. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 1923–1935. doi:10.1139/f95-784.
[84] Lacroix, Gilles L., Paul McCurdy, and Derek Knox. 2004. Migration of Atlantic Salmon Postsmolts in Relation to Habitat Use in a Coastal System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 1455–1471. doi:10.1577/T03-032.1.
[85] Woodhead, P. M. J. 1957. Reactions of Salmonid Larvae to Light. Journal of Experimental Biology 34: 402–416.
[86] Jobling, M. 1981. Temperature tolerance and the final preferendum—rapid methods for the assessment of optimum growth temperatures. Journal of Fish Biology 19: 439–455. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1981.tb05847.x.
[87] Johansson, David, Kari Ruohonen, Jon-Erik Juell, and Frode Oppedal. 2009. Swimming depth and thermal history of individual Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in production cages under different ambient temperature conditions. Aquaculture 290: 296–303. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.02.022.
[88] Johansson, David, Kari Ruohonen, Anders Kiessling, Frode Oppedal, Jan-Erik Stiansen, Mark Kelly, and Jon-Erik Juell. 2006. Effect of environmental factors on swimming depth preferences of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and temporal and spatial variations in oxygen levels in sea cages at a fjord site. Aquaculture 254: 594–605. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.10.029.
[89] Forsythe, Michael George. 1968. Analysis of the 1966 smolt run in the Northwest Miramichi River, New Brunswick. Technical Report (Fisheries Research Board of Canada) 91. Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
[90] Crisp, D. T. 1996. Environmental requirements of common riverine European salmonid fish species in fresh water with particular reference to physical and chemical aspects. Hydrobiologia 323: 201–221. doi:10.1007/BF00007847.
[91] Chadwick, E. M. P. 1982. Stock-Recruitment Relationship for Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in Newfoundland Rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 1496–1501. doi:10.1139/f82-201.
[92] Cunjak, R. A., and J. Therrien. 1998. Inter-stage survival of wild juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 209–223. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2400.1998.00094.x.
[93] Baglinière, Jean Luc, Gérard Maisse, and Alix Nihouarn. 1993. Comparison of two methods of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) wild smolt production. In Production of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon, Salmo Salar, in Natural Waters, ed. R. John Gibson and Richard E. Cutting, 189–201. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 118. NRC Research Press.
[94] Cunjak, R A. 1996. Winter habitat of selected stream fishes and potential impacts from land-use activity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 267–282. doi:10.1139/f95-275.
[95] Symons, Philip E. K. 1979. Estimated Escapement of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) for Maximum Smolt Production in Rivers of Different Productivity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 132–140. doi:10.1139/f79-022.
[96] Kennedy, G. J. A, and W. W. Crozier. 1993. Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) - Production and Prediction. In Production of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon, Salmo Salar, in Natural Waters, ed. R. John Gibson and Richard E. Cutting, 179–187. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 118. NRC Research Press.
[97] Gibson, R. John. 1995. Regulation of the fitness of altantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) by intra-specific competition amongst the juveniles. Freshwater Forum A Journal of the Freshwater Biological Association 5: 54–72.
[98] Lee, R. L.G., and G. Power. 1976. Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) of the Leaf River, Ungava Bay. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 2616–2621. doi:10.1139/f76-311.
[99] Power, Geoffrey. 1969. The Salmon of Ungava Bay. Arctic Institute of North America.
[100] Jensen, Arne Johan, and Bjørn Ove Johnsen. 1986. Different Adaptation Strategies of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Populations to Extreme Climates with Special Reference to some Cold Norwegian Rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 980–984. doi:10.1139/f86-120.
[101] Jensen, Arne J., Bjørn O. Johnsen, and Laila Saksgård. 1989. Temperature Requirements in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), and Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) from Hatching to Initial Feeding Compared with Geographic Distribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 786–789. doi:10.1139/f89-097.
[102] Evans, Geoffrey T., Jake C. Rice, and E. Michael P. Chadwick. 1985. Patterns of Growth and Smolting of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Parr in a Southwestern Newfoundland River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 539–543. doi:10.1139/f85-071.
[103] Allen, K. R. 1969. Limitations  on  production  in  salmonid populations in streams. In Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams, ed. T. G. Northcote, 3–18. Institute of Fisheries, University of British Columbia.
[104] Higgins, P. J., and C. Talbot. 1985. Growth  and  feeding  in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). In Nutrition and Feeding in Fish, ed. C. B. Cowey, Alexander Milne Mackie, and J. G. Bell, 243–263. Acad. Press.
[105] Dwyer, William P., and Robert G. Piper. 1987. Atlantic Salmon Growth Efficiency as Affected by Temperature. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 49: 57–59. doi:10.1577/1548-8640(1987)4957:ASGEAA2.0.CO;2.
[106] Peterson, R. H., and D. J. Martin-Robichaud. 1989. First feeding of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fry as influenced by temperature regime. Aquaculture 78: 35–53. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(89)90004-5.
[107] Webb, Paul W. 1984. Form and Function in Fish Swimming. Scientific American 251: 72–83.
[108] Wootton, Robert J. 1990. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. London: Chapman and Hall.
[109] Katopodis, Chris. 1992. Introduction to fishway design.
[110] Fänge, R. 1952. The mechanisms of gas transport in the euphysoclist swimbladder. Acta physiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum 30: 1–133.
[111] Bui, Samantha, Frode Oppedal, Øyvind J. Korsøen, and Tim Dempster. 2013. Modifying Atlantic salmon behaviour with light or feed stimuli may improve parasite control techniques. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 3: 125–133. doi:10.3354/aei00055.
[112] Furevik, Dag M., Åsmund Bjordal, Ingvar Huse, and Anders Fernö. 1993. Surface activity of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in net pens. Aquaculture 110: 119–128. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(93)90266-2.
[113] Bui, Samantha, Frode Oppedal, Øyvind J. Korsøen, Damien Sonny, and Tim Dempster. 2013. Group Behavioural Responses of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) to Light, Infrasound and Sound Stimuli. PLoS ONE 8: e63696. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063696.
[114] Rivinoja, P., J. Östergren, K. Leonardsson, H. Lundqvist, J. Kiviloog, L. Bergdah, and L. Brydsten. 2004. Downstream migration of Salmo salar and S. trutta smolts in two regulated northern Swedish rivers.
[115] Holm, M., J. Chr Holst, and L. P. Hansen. 2000. Spatial and temporal distribution of post-smolts of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the Norwegian Sea and adjacent areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57: 955–964. doi:10.1006/jmsc.2000.0700.
[116] Dadswell, M. J., A. D. Spares, J. M. Reader, and M. J. W. Stokesbury. 2010. The North Atlantic subpolar gyre and the marine migration of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar: the ‘Merry-Go-Round’ hypothesis. Journal of Fish Biology 77: 435–467. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02673.x.
[117] Enders, Eva C., Michael H. Gessel, and John G. Williams. 2009. Development of successful fish passage structures for downstream migrants requires knowledge of their behavioural response to accelerating flow. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 2109–2117. doi:10.1139/F09-141.
[118] Haro, Alex, Mufeed Odeh, John Noreika, and Theodore Castro-Santos. 1998. Effect of Water Acceleration on Downstream Migratory Behavior and Passage of Atlantic Salmon Smolts and Juvenile American Shad at Surface Bypasses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 118–127. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1998)1270118:EOWAOD2.0.CO;2.
[119] Ruggles, C. P. 1980. A Review of the Downstream Migration of Atlantic Salmon. Vol. 952. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[120] Hubley, P. Bradford, Peter G. Amiro, A. Jamie F. Gibson, Gilles L. Lacroix, and Anna M. Redden. 2008. Survival and behaviour of migrating Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) kelts in river, estuarine, and coastal habitat. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 65: 1626–1634. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn129.
[121] Davidsen, J. G., A. H. Rikardsen, E. Halttunen, E. B. Thorstad, F. Økland, B. H. Letcher, J. Skarðhamar, and T. F. Næsje. 2009. Migratory behaviour and survival rates of wild northern Atlantic salmon Salmo salar post-smolts: effects of environmental factors. Journal of Fish Biology 75: 1700–1718. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02423.x.
[122] Halttunen, Elina, Audun H. Rikardsen, Jan G. Davidsen, Eva B. Thorstad, and J. Brian Dempson. 2009. Survival, Migration Speed and Swimming Depth of Atlantic Salmon Kelts During Sea Entry and Fjord Migration. In Tagging and Tracking of Marine Animals with Electronic Devices, ed. Jennifer L. Nielsen, Haritz Arrizabalaga, Nuno Fragoso, Alistair Hobday, Molly Lutcavage, and John Sibert, 35–49. Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9. Springer Netherlands.
[123] Rimmer, D. M., R. L. Saunders, and U. Paim. 1985. Effects of temperature and season on the position holding performance of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 92–96. doi:10.1139/z85-017.
[124] Rimmer, D. M., and U. Paim. 1990. Effects of temperature, photoperiod, and season on the photobehaviour of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 1098–1103. doi:10.1139/z90-162.
[125] Graham, W Douglas, John E Thorpe, and Neil B Metcalfe. 1996. Seasonal current holding performance of juvenile Atlantic salmon in relation to temperature and smolting. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 80–86. doi:10.1139/f95-167.
[126] Gibson, R. John. 1988. Mechanisms regulating species composition, population structure, and production of stream salmonids; a review. Polish Archives of Hydrobiology 35: 469–495.
[127] Salinger, David H., and James J. Anderson. 2006. Effects of Water Temperature and Flow on Adult Salmon Migration Swim Speed and Delay. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 188–199. doi:10.1577/T04-181.1.
[128] Degraaf, D. A., and L. H. Bain. 1986. Habitat Use by and Preferences of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon in Two Newfoundland Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 671–681. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1986)115671:HUBAPO2.0.CO;2.
[129] Crisp, D. Trevor. 1993. The environmental requirements of salmon and trout in fresh water. Freshwater Forum 3: 176–202.
[130] Bult, Tammo P, Stephen C Riley, Richard L Haedrich, R John Gibson, and Jan Heggenes. 1999. Density-dependent habitat selection by juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in experimental riverine habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1298–1306. doi:10.1139/f99-074.
[131] Holm, C. F., J. D. Armstrong, and D. J. Gilvear. 2001. Investigating a major assumption of predictive instream habitat models: is water velocity preference of juvenile Atlantic salmon independent of discharge? Journal of Fish Biology 59: 1653–1666. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb00228.x.
[132] Metcalfe, Neil B., Sveinn K. Valdimarsson, and Neil H. C. Fraser. 1997. Habitat Profitability and Choice in a Sit-And-Wait Predator: Juvenile Salmon Prefer Slower Currents on Darker Nights. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 866–875. doi:10.2307/6002.
[133] Kallio-Nyberg, Irma, Heikki Peltonen, and Hannu Rita. 1999. Effects of stock-specific and environmental factors on the feeding migration of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Baltic Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 853–861. doi:10.1139/f99-022.
[134] Kennedy, G. J. A., and C. D. Strange. 1982. The distribution of salmonids in upland streams in relation to depth and gradient. Journal of Fish Biology 20: 579–591. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1982.tb03956.x.
[135] Døving, Kjell B., Håkan Westerberg, and Peter B. Johnsen. 1985. Role of Olfaction in the Behavioral and Neuronal Responses of Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar, to Hydrographic Stratification. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 1658–1667. doi:10.1139/f85-207.
[136] Mäki-Petäys, Aki, Ari Huusko, Jaakko Erkinaro, and Timo Muotka. 2002. Transferability of habitat suitability criteria of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 218–228. doi:10.1139/f01-209.
[137] Thorpe, J. E., and R. I. G. Morgan. 1978. Periodicity in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. smolt migration. Journal of Fish Biology 12: 541–548. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1978.tb04200.x.
[138] Youngson, A. F., R. J. G. Buck, T. H. Simpson, and D. W. Hay. 1983. The autumn and spring emigrations of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., from the Girnock Burn, Aberdeenshire, Scotland: environmental release of migration. Journal of Fish Biology 23: 625–639. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1983.tb02942.x.
[139] Hansen, Lars P., and Bror Jonsson. 1985. Downstream migration of hatchery-reared smolts of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the River Imsa, Norway. Aquaculture 45. Salmonid Smoltification II: 237–248. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(85)90273-X.
[140] Hesthagen, Trygve, and Erik Garnås. 1986. Migration of Atlantic Salmon Smolts in River Orkla of Central Norway in Relation to Management of a Hydroelectric Station. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: 376–382. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1986)6376:MOASSI2.0.CO;2.
[141] Solomon, D. J. 1982. Smolt migration in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and sea trout (Salmo trutta L.). In Proceedings of the Salmon and Trout Migratory Behavior Symposium - International Symposium, ed. E. L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, 196–203. Seattle: University of Washington.
[142] Jutila, E., E. Jokikokko, and E. Ikonen. 2009. Post-smolt migration of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., from the Simojoki river to the Baltic Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 25: 190–194. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01212.x.
[143] Davidsen, Jan, Martin-A. Svenning, Panu Orell, Nigel Yoccoz, J. Brian Dempson, Eero Niemelä, Anders Klemetsen, Anders Lamberg, and Jaakko Erkinaro. 2005. Spatial and temporal migration of wild Atlantic salmon smolts determined from a video camera array in the sub-Arctic River Tana. Fisheries Research 74: 210–222. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2005.02.005.
[144] Mork, O. I., and J. Gulbrandsen. 1994. Vertical activity of four salmonid species in response to changes between darkness and two intensities of light. Aquaculture 127: 317–328. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(94)90234-8.
[145] Bratland, Silje, Lars Helge Stien, Victoria A. Braithwaite, Jon-Erik Juell, Ole Folkedal, Jonatan Nilsson, Frode Oppedal, Jan Erik Fosseidengen, and Tore S. Kristiansen. 2010. From fright to anticipation: using aversive light stimuli to investigate reward conditioning in large groups of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture International 18: 991–1001. doi:10.1007/s10499-009-9317-8.
[146] Folkedal, O., T. Torgersen, J. Nilsson, and F. Oppedal. 2010. Habituation rate and capacity of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr to sudden transitions from darkness to light. Aquaculture 307: 170–172. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.06.001.
[147] Johnsson, Jörgen I, Johan Höjesjö, and Ian A Fleming. 2001. Behavioural and heart rate responses to predation risk in wild and domesticated Atlantic salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 788–794. doi:10.1139/f01-025.
[148] Balon, Eugene K. 1990. Epigenesis of an epigeneticist : the development of some alternative concepts on the early ontogeny and evolution of fishes. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 1.
[149] Cunjak, Richard A. 1995. Adressing Forestry Impacts in the Catamaran Brook Basin: An Overview of the Prelogging Phase. In Water, Science, and the Public: The Miramichi Ecosystem, ed. Edward Michael Pakenham Chadwick, 191–210. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 123. NRC Research Press.
[150] FAO. 2014. FAO Fisheries Aquaculture - Species Fact Sheets - Salmo salar (Linnaeus, 1758). World Wide Web electronic publication.
[151] Armstrong, John D, James WA Grant, Harvey L Forsgren, Kurt D Fausch, Richard M DeGraaf, Ian A Fleming, Terry D Prowse, and Isaac J Schlosser. 1998. The application of science to the management of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): integration across scales. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 303–311. doi:10.1139/d98-014.
[152] Cunjak, Richard A., Daniel Caissie, N. El-Jabi, P. Hardie, J. H. Conlon, T. L. Pollock, D. J. Giberson, and S. Komadina-Douthwright. 1993. The Catamaran Brook (New Brunswick) habitat research project: biological, physical and chemical conditions (1990-1992). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1914. Moncton, NB: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Gulf Region, Science Branch, Fish Habitat and Enhancement Division.
[153] Pawson, M.G., and G.D. Pickett. 1996. The Annual Pattern of Condition and Maturity in Bass, Dicentrarchus Labrax, in Waters Around England and Wales. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 76: 107. doi:10.1017/S0025315400029040.
[154] Adams, Colin E., and John E. Thorpe. 1989. Photoperiod and temperature effects on early development and reproductive investment in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 79: 403–409. doi:10.1016/0044-8486(89)90483-3.
[155] Skjervold, Per Olav, Svein Olav Fjæra, Per Braarød Østby, and Olai Einen. 2001. Live-chilling and crowding stress before slaughter of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 192: 265–280. doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00447-6.
[156] Turnbull, James, Alisdair Bell, Colin Adams, James Bron, and Felicity Huntingford. 2005. Stocking density and welfare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture 243: 121–132. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.022.
[157] Reimer, T., T. Dempster, F. Warren-Myers, A. J. Jensen, and S. E. Swearer. 2016. High prevalence of vaterite in sagittal otoliths causes hearing impairment in farmed fish. Scientific Reports 6. doi:10.1038/srep25249.
[158] Warner, Kendall. 1963. Natural Spawning Success of Landlocked Salmon, Salmo salar. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 92: 161–164. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1963)92[161:NSSOLS]2.0.CO;2.
[159] Kondolf, G. Mathias, and M. Gordon Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resources Research 29: 2275–2285. doi:10.1029/93WR00402.
[160] Heggberget, T. G. 1991. Some Environmental Requirements of Atlantic Salmon. In Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium: American Fisheries Society Symposium, ed. J. Colt and R. J. White, 10:132–135. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.
[161] Beland, Kenneth F., Richard M. Jordan, and Alfred L. Meister. 1982. Water Depth and Velocity Preferences of Spawning Atlantic Salmon in Maine Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 11–13. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1982)211:WDAVPO2.0.CO;2.
[162] Walker, Michael M., Carol E. Diebel, Cordula V. Haugh, Patricia M. Pankhurst, John C. Montgomery, and Colin R. Green. 1997. Structure and function of the vertebrate magnetic sense. Nature 390: 371–376. doi:10.1038/37057.
[163] Moore, A., S. M. Freake, and I. M. Thomas. 1990. Magnetic Particles in the Lateral Line of the Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 329: 11–15. doi:10.1098/rstb.1990.0145.
[164] Nordeng, Hans. 1971. Is the Local Orientation of Anadromous Fishes determined by Pheromones ? Nature 233: 411–413. doi:10.1038/233411a0.
[165] Leggett, W C. 1977. The Ecology of Fish Migrations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8: 285–308. doi:10.1146/
[166] Hansen, L P, and T P Quinn. 1998. The marine phase of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) life cycle, with comparisons to Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 104–118. doi:10.1139/d98-010.
[167] Gorsky, Dimitry, Joan Trial, Joseph Zydlewski, and James McCleave. 2009. The Effects of Smolt Stocking Strategies on Migratory Path Selection of Adult Atlantic Salmon in the Penobscot River, Maine. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 949–957. doi:10.1577/M08-068.1.
[168] Brown, Culum. 2014. Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics. Animal Cognition 18: 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0761-0.
[169] Amundsen, Lasse, and Martin Landro. 2011. Marine seismic sources part VIII: Fish hear a great deal. Recent Advances in Technology 8: 1–5.
[170] Dijkgraaf, S. 1967. Biological significance of the lateral line organs. In Lateral Line Detectors: Proceedings. Edited by Phyllis H. Cahn, ed. Phyllis H. Cahn, 83–95. Indiana University Press.
[171] Carrillo, J, G Koumoundouros, P Divanach, and J Martinez. 2001. Morphological malformations of the lateral line in reared gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L. 1758). Aquaculture 192: 281–290. doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00454-3.
[172] Bleckmann, Horst. 1986. Role of the Lateral Line in Fish Behaviour. In The Behaviour of Teleost Fishes, ed. Tony J. Pitcher, 177–202. Springer US.
[173] Imre, I., J. W. A. Grant, and R. A. Cunjak. 2005. Density-dependent growth of young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 508–516. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00949.x.
[174] Réale, Denis, Simon M. Reader, Daniel Sol, Peter T. McDougall, and Niels J. Dingemanse. 2007. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews 82: 291–318. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00010.x.
[175] Robb, D H F, and S C Kestin. 2002. Methods Used to Kill Fish: Field Observations and Literature Reviewed. Animal Welfare 11: 269–282.
[176] Robb, Dave, Stephen Wotton, Justin L Mckinstrey, N K Sørensen, and S C Kestin. 2000. Commercial slaughter methods used on Atlantic salmon: determination of the onset of brain failure by electroencephalography. The Veterinary record 147: 298–303. doi:10.1136/vr.147.11.298.