A global spatial analysis reveals where marine aquaculture can benefit nature and people
Autoři:
Seth J. Theuerkauf aff001; James A. Morris, Jr. aff002; Tiffany J. Waters aff001; Lisa C. Wickliffe aff003; Heidi K. Alleway aff004; Robert C. Jones aff001
Působiště autorů:
Global Oceans Team, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America
aff001; National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Beaufort, North Carolina, United States of America
aff002; CSS, Inc. under contract to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Beaufort, North Carolina, United States of America
aff003; Department of Primary Industries and Regions, Government of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
aff004; University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
aff005
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222282
Souhrn
Aquaculture of bivalve shellfish and seaweed represents a global opportunity to simultaneously advance coastal ecosystem recovery and provide substantive benefits to humanity. To identify marine ecoregions with the greatest potential for development of shellfish and seaweed aquaculture to meet this opportunity, we conducted a global spatial analysis using key environmental (e.g., nutrient pollution status), socioeconomic (e.g., governance quality), and human health factors (e.g., wastewater treatment prevalence). We identify a substantial opportunity for strategic sector development, with the highest opportunity marine ecoregions for shellfish aquaculture centered on Oceania, North America, and portions of Asia, and the highest opportunity for seaweed aquaculture distributed throughout Europe, Asia, Oceania, and North and South America. This study provides insights into specific areas where governments, international development organizations, and investors should prioritize new efforts to drive changes in public policy, capacity-building, and business planning to realize the ecosystem and societal benefits of shellfish and seaweed aquaculture.
Klíčová slova:
Socioeconomic aspects of health – Pollution – Ecosystems – Marine environments – Seaweed – Coastal ecosystems – Aquaculture – Oysters
Zdroje
1. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs. 2011;81: 169–193.
2. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Rome; 2018. pp. 1–227.
3. Lester SE, Gentry RR, Kappel CV, White C, Gaines SD. Opinion: Offshore aquaculture in the United States: Untapped potential in need of smart policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115: 7162–7165.
4. Troell M, Naylor RL, Metian M, Beveridge M, Tyedmers PH, Folke C, et al. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111: 13257–13263.
5. Gentry RR, Froehlich HE, Grimm D, Kareiva P, Parke M, Rust M, et al. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2017;1: 1317–1324. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9 29046547
6. Primavera JH. Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2006;49: 531–545.
7. Gentry RR, Alleway HK, Bishop MJ, Gillies CL, Waters T, Jones R. Exploring the potential for marine aquaculture to contribute to ecosystem services. Reviews in Aquaculture. 2019; doi: 10.1111/raq.12328: 1–14.
8. Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Halpern BS. Conservation aquaculture: Shifting the narrative and paradigm of aquaculture’s role in resource management. Biological Conservation. 2017;215: 162–168.
9. Alleway HK, Gillies CL, Bishop MJ, Gentry RR, Theuerkauf SJ, Jones RC. The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: valuing benefits to people and nature. BioScience. 2019;69: 59–68.
10. Mongin M, Baird ME, Hadley S, Lenton A. Optimising reef-scale CO2 removal by seaweed to buffer ocean acidification. Enviromental Research Letters. 2016;11: 034023.
11. Higgins CB, Stephenson K, Brown BL. Nutrient bioassimilation capacity of aquacultured oysters: Quantification of an ecosystem service. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2011;40: 271–277. 21488516
12. Rabiei R, Phang SM, Yeong HY, Lim PE, Ajdari D, Zarshenas G, et al. Bioremediation efficiency and biochemical composition of Ulva reticulata Forsskål (Chlorophyta) cultivated in shrimp (Penaeus monodon) hatchery effluent. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Science. 2014;13: 621–639.
13. Schröder T, Stank J, Schernewski G, Krost P. The impact of a mussel farm on water transparency in the Kiel Fjord. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2014;101: 42–52.
14. Rose JM, Bricker SB, Ferreira JG. Comparative analysis of modeled nitrogen removal by shellfish farms. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2015;91: 185–190. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.006 25534625
15. Powers MJ, Peterson CH, Summerson HC, Powers SP. Macroalgal growth on bivalve aquaculture netting enhances nursery habitat for mobile invertebrates and juvenile fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2007;339: 109–122.
16. Tallman JC, Forrester GE. Oyster grow-out cages function as artificial reefs for temperate fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 2011;136: 790–799.
17. National Research Council. Ecosystem Concepts for Sustainable Bivalve Mariculture. Washington; 2010. pp. 190.
18. Kraufvelin P, Diaz ER. Sediment macrofauna communities at a small mussel farm in the northern Baltic proper. Boreal Environment Research. 2015;20: 378–390.
19. Ahmed M, Lorica MH. Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development—lessons from Asia. Food Policy. 2002;27: 125–141.
20. Aslan LOM, Iba W, Bolu LOR, Ingram BA, Gooley GJ, de Silva SS. Mariculture in SE Sulawesi, Indonesia: Culture practices and the socio economic aspects of the major commodities. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2015;116: 44–57.
21. Fitriana R. Gendered participation in seaweed production—Examples from Indonesia. Journal of the Asian Fisheries Science. 2017;30S: 245–264.
22. Beck MW, Brumbaugh RD, Airoldi L, Carranza A, Coen LD, Crawford C, et al. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. BioScience. 2011;61: 107–116.
23. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, et al. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106: 12377–12381.
24. Krumhansl KA, Okamoto DK, Rasswiler A, Novak M, Bolton JJ, Cavanaugh KC, et al. Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113: 13785–13790.
25. Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, et al. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications. 2016;26: 1055–1074. 27509748
26. Sapkota A, Sapkota AR, Kucharski M, Burke J, McKenzie S, Walker P, Lawrence R. Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities. Environment International. 2008;34: 1215–1226. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2008.04.009 18565584
27. Kalfagianni A, Pattberg P. Fishing in muddy waters: Exploring the conditions for effective governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Marine Policy. 2013;38: 124–132.
28. International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange of the Intergovernemntal Oceanographic Commission of the UNESCO (IODE-UNESCO). Harmful Algae Event Database, accessible at: haedat.iode.org. 2018.
29. Esri. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2018.
30. Spalding MD, Fox HE, Allen GR, Davidson N, Ferdana ZA, Finlayson M, et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience. 2007;57: 573–583.
31. Handisyde N, Telfer TC, Ross LG. Vulnerability of aquaculture-related livelihoods to changing climate at the global scale. 2017;18: 466–4888.
32. Allison EH. Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security; Working Paper 2011–65 of the WorldFish Center. Penang; 2011. pp. 62.
33. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. National Aquaculture Sector Overview—Australia 2018. Rome; 2008. pp. 9.
34. Gillies CL, McLeod IM, Alleway HK, Cook P, Crawford C, Creighton C, et al. Australian shellfish ecosystems: Past distribution, current status and future direction. PLOSONE, 2018;13: e0190914.
35. Stévant P, Rebours C, Chapman A. Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: recent industrial developments and future perspectives. Aquaculture International. 2017;25: 1373–1390.
36. Costa-Pierce BA, Bridger CJ. The role of marine aquaculture facilities as habitats and ecosystems. In: Stickney RR, McVey JP, editors. Responsible marine aquaculture. New York: CABI Publishing; 2002. pp. 105–144.
37. Dahlback B, Gunnarsson LÅH. Sedimentation and sulfate reduction under a mussel culture. Marine Biology. 1981;63: 269–275.
38. Carlozo N. Integrating water quality and coastal resources into marine spatial planning in the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Coastal Service. Report no. 8192014–724.
39. Neveux N, Bolton JJ, Bruhn A, Roberts DA, Ras M. The bioremediation potential of seaweeds: recycling nitrogen, phosphorus, and other waste products. In: La Barre S, Bates SS, editors. Blue Biotechnology: Production and Use of Marine Molecules. Berlin: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co; 2018. pp. 217–239.
40. Cape Cod Commission. 208 Plan: Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update. Barnstable; 2015. pp. 254.
41. The Nature Conservancy. The Aquaculture Opportunity: Can the sector grow to provide seafood and jobs in harmony with the ocean? The Nature Conservancy https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-aquaculture-opportunity/ (2017).
42. Waters TJ, Lionata H, Prasetyo Wibowo T, Jones R, Theuerkauf S, Usman S, Amin I, Ilman M. Coastal conservation and sustainable livelihoods through seaweed aquaculture in Indonesia: A guide for buyers, conservation practitioners, and farmers. Arlington: 2019. pp. 47.
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 10
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- Masturbační chování žen v ČR − dotazníková studie
- Těžké menstruační krvácení může značit poruchu krevní srážlivosti. Jaký management vyšetření a léčby je v takovém případě vhodný?
- Fixní kombinace paracetamol/kodein nabízí synergické analgetické účinky
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Correction: Low dose naltrexone: Effects on medication in rheumatoid and seropositive arthritis. A nationwide register-based controlled quasi-experimental before-after study
- Combining CDK4/6 inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib with cytotoxic agents does not enhance cytotoxicity
- Experimentally validated simulation of coronary stents considering different dogboning ratios and asymmetric stent positioning
- Risk factors associated with IgA vasculitis with nephritis (Henoch–Schönlein purpura nephritis) progressing to unfavorable outcomes: A meta-analysis