Atlantic salmon

Salmo salar

Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Salmoniformes
        • Salmonidae
          • Salmo salar
Distribution
Distribution map: Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon)

Information


Author: Jenny Volstorf
Version: 2.0 (2022-01-22)

Cite

Reviewer: Kerstin Glaus
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Volstorf, Jenny. 2022. Salmo salar (Farm: Findings). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2014-03-15. Version 2.0. https://fishethobase.net.«





1  Remarks

1.1 General remarks

Escapees and consequences: negative or at most unpredictable for the local ecosystem 
  • 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.
Preferences: none in general (i.e. across habitat) 
  • 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

In the wild: on feeding, daily rhythm, swimming, migration, reproduction, social behaviour 
  • For feeding 6 11.
  • For daily rhythm  12.
  • For swimming  6.
  • For migration  13.
  • For nest building  14.
  • For territoriality  15 11.
In the farm or lab: on swimming, social behaviour, cognitive abilities, coping styles 
  • For swimming  16 17 18.
  • For schooling  19.
  • For dominance and subordination  20 21.
  • For aggression  22 23 24 25.
  • For learning  26.
  • For coping styles  27 20.



3  Distribution

Species occurrence (natural and introduced). Note: areas either verified by FAO records ("good" point) or not 28.


Natural distribution: northern Atlantic coasts of Canada and USA, southern Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom, Scandinavia to Portugal, boardering rivers 
  • 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.
Introduced: Bering Sea 
  • Observations Bering Sea: 2.



4  Natural co-existence

No data found yet.


5  Substrate and/or shelter

5.1 Substrate

Substrate range, substrate preference: opportunistic – reported from gravel to boulder substrate – but avoids mud 
  • 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.
Substrate and growth: direct effect (further research needed) 
  • 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

Shelter or cover preference: rocks and stones for cover from predators or shelter from low or high temperatures 
  • 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.
Shelter or cover and growth: direct effect (further research needed) 
  • 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 SMOLTS 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

Trophic level: 4.5 
  • Observations: 4.5±0.3 se 63.
Impacts of feed fishery: contributes to overfishing, challenges animal welfare 
  • 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, food preference: carnivorous, increasing prey size with increasing age 
  • 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

Feeding style, foraging mode: sit-and-wait but still mobile 
  • 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.
Feed delivery and stress: unpredicted schedule increases stress and aggression (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Food competition and growth: inverse effect (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Effects on feeding: direct relation with temperature 
  • 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: diurnal, occasionally nocturnal 
  • 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: SMOLTS migrated predominantly nocturnally at temperatures of 5-10 °C 13.
  • Nocturnal activity and predator avoidance:
    • SMOLTS 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, temperature preference: -0.5-23 °C, 4-17.5 °C 
  • 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:
    • Observations: 4-12 °C 62-63, 12-15 °C 86-87, 16-17.5 °C 88-87.
  • Migration temperature:
    • WILD: SMOLTS 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.
Temperature and stress: decreasing survival <2 °C and >22 °C (eggs >16 °C) (further research needed) 
  • 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-SMOLTS 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.
Temperature and growth: range 1-26.7 °C, optimally 14-19 °C 
  • Temperature must exceed: 1-7.7 °C:
  • Temperature must not go beyond: 22.5-26.7 °C:
    • Observations: 23 °C 76, 22.5-26.7 °C 78.
  • Optimal temperature for growth: 14-19 °C:
    • Decreasing with decreasing energy 78.
    • Observations: 14-18 °C 86-87, PARR: 16-19 °C 48-76 105-76 106-76, PARR feeding to satiation: 15.9 °C 76.
  • For temperature and feeding  F12.

8.2 Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen range: ≥7 mg/L (further research needed) 
  • 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, standard salinity range: euryhaline 
  • Salinity tolerance:
    • Natural and introduced distribution in fresh water from egg to PARR stage and again as GRILSE, in between as SMOLTS in seawater F13 F14 F15.
  • Standard salinity range: no data found yet.

8.4 pH

Standard pH range: 6.8-7.9 (further research needed) 
  • Standard pH range:
    • Observations WILD, PARR: pH 6.8-7.9: river Teno and tributaries, Finland 41.
  • pH preference: no data found yet.
pH and stress: decreasing survival pH <5.4 (further research needed) 
  • 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, swimming mode: sub-carangiform 
  • 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 SMOLTS have chosen their position in a river, transportation downstream is almost passive 114-60.
    • WILD: because post-SMOLTS 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 SMOLTS 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

Swimming speed: 0.2-30 km/d, decreasing activity with decreasing temperatures 
  • Absolute swimming speed: 0.2-28 km/d in streams or fjords, 15-30 km/d at sea:
    • Observations in streams or fjords WILD: SMOLTS: 0.2-28 km/d in 119-13, 1-7 km/d 13, KELT: 10 km/d 120-60.
    • Observations at sea WILD: post-SMOLTS 121-60 and KELT 120-60 122-60 ca 15-30 km/d.
  • 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.
Standard velocity range, velocity preference: 1-120 cm/s, 4-50 cm/s, decreasing with decreasing temperatures 
  • 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) 55PARR 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. SMOLTS 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/m223.
  • Velocity and low temperatures: avoids high velocity at low temperatures:
    • WILD: JUVENILES-ADULTS used snout velocities <10 cm/s during autumn 49-4JUVENILES 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

Home range: 0.005-8+ km, depending on age, barriers to fish passage, availability of suitable habitat 
  • 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: SMOLTS migrate from the spawning ground along freshwater rivers of 1-1,800 km length 30 to sea ( F13). At sea, SMOLTS stayed close to the shore if food abundance in the adjacent estuary was high 133-60.

9.4 Depth

Depth range, depth preference: 0.05-6.5 m, moves deeper probably to avoid threats 
  • Depth range in the wild: 0.05-6.5 m:
    • Observations WILD, FRY: <25 cm 43-4 134-4 129-4, 20-40 cm 50-4, 0.05-1 m 44-4, <10 cm 45-4, 20-39 cm 34.
    • Observations WILD, PARR: 25-60 cm 43-4 49-4, median of 2 m 135-39, 15-55 cm 128-9, 20-70 cm 44-4 9, 10-70 cm 41, 1-1.5 m 41, >0-3.5 m 7, <3.5 m 6, <1.3 m 9, 30-50 cm 136-8, 0.1-1.5 m 8, 20-39 cm 34, 0.2-3.2 m 35, 14.6-78.7 cm: Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada 11.
    • Observations WILD, post-SMOLTS: 0-6.5 m, average 0.5-2.3 m 39.
    • WILD: at sea, KELT seem to stay close to the surface 120-60 122 which may be beneficial to reduce osmoregulatory demands, as shallow layers are lower in salinity 39.
    • For depth and redd construction  F1.
  • Depth in cages or tanks: use the complete depth available:
    • Observations LAB, SMOLTS: 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-SMOLTS: 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-SMOLTS 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, SMOLTS 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

Migration type: anadromous 
  • 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 SMOLTS 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

Larvae: here called alevins, hatching to ca 300 degree days 
  • Observations yolk sac absorption: during ca 300 degree days 33.
  • Observations TOTAL LENGTH: no data found yet.
  • Observations weight: no data found yet.
Fry: beginning of exogenous feeding, ca 35 mm fork length (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Juveniles, sexual maturity: fully developed to beginning of maturity, here called parr (first summer after hatching) and smolt (from 2-5 years on) 
  • 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 manipulation: advanced photoperiod and ambient temperatures delay maturation (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Adults: here called grilse (2-9 years, 50-90 cm, 2-4 kg) and kelt (further research needed) 
  • 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

Growth and size-grading: mixed effects (further research needed) 
  • FARM: size-grading of SMOLTS 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,
...food competition  F21,
...temperature  F22,
...stocking density  F23,
...shyness F24.


10.5 Deformities and malformations

Deformities and malformations: otolith deformations 30-64% worldwide 

  • 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

Nest building: female cuts redd in <1-100 mm substrate, at 0.2-1.1 m/s water velocity, in 5-76 cm depth 
  • 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 conditions: gravel, October-January, fresh water, 0.2-1.1 m/s water velocity, 5-76 cm water depth 
  • 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

Female fecundity: average 1 redd with 17-450 eggs 
  • 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

Breeding type: gravel breeder 
  • 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

Visible spectrum: blue (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Importance of vision: foraging (further research needed) 
  • For vision and foraging  F4.

12.2 Olfaction (and taste, if present)

Importance of olfaction: probably for navigation (further research needed) 
  • 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: SMOLTS 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, hearing spectrum: hearing generalist, 30-380 Hz (further research needed) 
  • Hearing type:
    • LAB, ADULTS: hearing GENERALIST 26.
  • Hearing spectrum:
    • LAB, SMOLTS: 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.
Noise and stress: sensitive to infrasound (further research needed) 
  • 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

Importance of lateral line: probably for navigation (further research needed) 
  • 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

Aggregation type: school (further research needed) 
  • FARM: in 10 x 10 m cages (15 m deep), 500 SMOLTS separated into two schools at different cage depths, 4-6 m and 6-11 m 19.
Stocking density in the wild: 0.06 ind/m2 (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Stocking density and stress: direct relation from ca 22 kg/m3 on (further research needed) 
  • FARM, SMOLTS: 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.
Stocking density and growth: mixed effects (further research needed) 
  • 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

Social organisation type: linear hierarchy (when in small groups) 
  • Hierarchy and group size: no data found yet.
  • Establishing hierarchy: no data found yet.
  • For dominance  F5, for subordination  F16.
Features of dominance: occupy and patrol best feeding sites, heavier and more aggressive than subordinates 
  • 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: hardly move, stay away from food 
  • 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

Aggression and stocking density: mixed effects (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Aggression and stress: mixed effects (further research needed) 
  • 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

Territoriality and feeding: territory decreases with increasing velocity (i.e. increasing food abundance) 
  • 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

Classical conditioning: may be used for measuring perception 
  • 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 to wild (restocking): suboptimal with food items and feeding 
  • 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

Shyness-boldness continuum: relationship with growth rate, stress coping, locomotion, disease resistance (further research needed) 
  • 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.

Exploration-avoidance continuum: relationship with emergence from redd, feeding resumption (further research needed) 
  • 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.

Aggressiveness continuum: in dominance-subordination, given stocking density 
  • 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

Confinement: stressful if done for 30 min (further research needed) 
  • 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: stressful if done at 75 kg/m3 for 60 min, worse if combined with live-chilling (further research needed) 
  • 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

Effects on welfare: cage submergence may be beneficial (further research needed) 
  • Cage submergence:
    • LAB, SMOLTS: 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 SMOLTS 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: fast, effective, safe 
  • 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.
Stunning methods: percussive stunning, spiking most effective (further research needed) 
  • 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.
Stunning methods and stress: percussive stunning less stressful than spiking (further research needed) 
  • 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.



Glossary


WILD = setting in the wild
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PARR = juvenile stage in rivers, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
ALEVINS = larvae until the end of yolk sac absorption, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
FARM = setting in farm environment
SMOLTS = juvenile stage migrating to the sea, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
MILLIARD = 1,000,000,000 73 74
GRILSE = adults returning from sea to home river to spawn, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
KELT = adults surviving spawning, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
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)
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
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.
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.
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.
AGGRESSIVENESS = agonistic reactions towards conspecifics. Tests: mirror image, social interaction/diadic encounters 174.



Bibliography


[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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00160-1.
[5] Jacobs, Jürgen. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia 14: 413–417. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.02.025.
[21] NOT FOUND
[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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199801/02)14:1<25::AID-RRR474>3.0.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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1978)107<703:TBOJAS>2.0.CO;2.
[62] Kottelat, Maurice, and Jörg Freyhof. 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat.
[63] Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2014. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.
[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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(87)90226-2.
[69] FAO. 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014. 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). fishcount.org.uk.
[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.
[74] Weisstein, Eric W. 2018. Milliard. Text. MathWorld - a Wolfram Web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Milliard.html. 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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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 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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1139/f86-120.
[101] Jensen, Arne J., Bjørn O. Johnsen, and Laila Saksgård. 2011. 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. Ottawa, Canada. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1987)49<57:ASGEAA>2.0.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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(93)90266-2.
[113] NOT FOUND
[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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1998)127<0118:EOWAOD>2.0.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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1986)115<671:HUBAPO>2.0.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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1986)6<376:MOASSI>2.0.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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. www.fao.org.
[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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00447-6.
[156] NOT FOUND
[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. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25249.
[158] Warner, Kendall. 1963. Natural Spawning Success of Landlocked Salmon, Salmo salar. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 92: 161–164. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1982)2<11:WDAVPO>2.0.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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0145.
[164] Nordeng, Hans. 1971. Is the Local Orientation of Anadromous Fishes determined by Pheromones ? Nature 233: 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1038/233411a0.
[165] Leggett, W C. 1977. The Ecology of Fish Migrations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8: 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001441.
[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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1577/M08-068.1.
[168] Brown, Culum. 2015. Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics. Animal Cognition 18: 1–17. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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, D. H. F., S. B. Wotton, J. L. McKinstry, N. K. Sørensen, S. C. Kestin, and N. K. Sørensen. 2000. Commercial slaughter methods used on Atlantic salmon: determination of the onset of brain failure by electroencephalography. Veterinary Record 147: 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.11.298.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy