4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biological life‐history and farming scenarios of marine aquaculture to help reduce wild marine fishing pressure

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aquaculture (freshwater and marine) has largely supplemented fisheries, but in theory could help reduce fishing pressure on wild stocks. Although not the sole factors, some potential benefits depend on aquaculture pressures on fished species, including collection of wild ‘seed’ material—earlier to later life stages—for rearing in captivity and the capacity of aquaculture to increase. Here we first classify 203 marine (saltwater and brackish) animal species as being produced by either open‐cycle capture‐based aquaculture ( CBA) or closed‐cycle domesticated aquaculture ( DA)—based on their likely reliance on wild seed—and assess the extent to which these forms of aquaculture could support seafood production and greater wild biomass. Using a data‐limited modelling approach, we find evidence that current aquaculture practices are not necessarily helping reduce fishing to sustainable levels for their wild counterparts—consistent with emerging scientific research. However, if some wild capture species (87 equivalent spp.) were instead produced through CBA, almost a million extra tonnes could theoretically be left in the wild, without reducing seafood production. Alternatively, if reliance on wild seed inputs is further reduced by shifting to DA production, then a little less than doubling of aquaculture of the overexploited species in our study could help fill the ‘production gap’ to support fishing at maximum sustainable levels. While other ecological (e.g. escapes), social and economic considerations (e.g. market substitution) are important, we focused on a critical biological linkage between wild fisheries and aquaculture that provides another aspect on how to improve management alignment of the sectors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references108

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

          Food's environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes.

            Data from 4,713 fisheries worldwide, representing 78% of global reported fish catch, are analyzed to estimate the status, trends, and benefits of alternative approaches to recovering depleted fisheries. For each fishery, we estimate current biological status and forecast the impacts of contrasting management regimes on catch, profit, and biomass of fish in the sea. We estimate unique recovery targets and trajectories for each fishery, calculate the year-by-year effects of alternative recovery approaches, and model how alternative institutional reforms affect recovery outcomes. Current status is highly heterogeneous-the median fishery is in poor health (overfished, with further overfishing occurring), although 32% of fisheries are in good biological, although not necessarily economic, condition. Our business-as-usual scenario projects further divergence and continued collapse for many of the world's fisheries. Applying sound management reforms to global fisheries in our dataset could generate annual increases exceeding 16 million metric tons (MMT) in catch, $53 billion in profit, and 619 MMT in biomass relative to business as usual. We also find that, with appropriate reforms, recovery can happen quickly, with the median fishery taking under 10 y to reach recovery targets. Our results show that commonsense reforms to fishery management would dramatically improve overall fish abundance while increasing food security and profits.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Aquaculture: global status and trends

              Aquaculture contributed 43 per cent of aquatic animal food for human consumption in 2007 (e.g. fish, crustaceans and molluscs, but excluding mammals, reptiles and aquatic plants) and is expected to grow further to meet the future demand. It is very diverse and, contrary to many perceptions, dominated by shellfish and herbivorous and omnivorous pond fish either entirely or partly utilizing natural productivity. The rapid growth in the production of carnivorous species such as salmon, shrimp and catfish has been driven by globalizing trade and favourable economics of larger scale intensive farming. Most aquaculture systems rely on low/uncosted environmental goods and services, so a critical issue for the future is whether these are brought into company accounts and the consequent effects this would have on production economics. Failing that, increased competition for natural resources will force governments to allocate strategically or leave the market to determine their use depending on activities that can extract the highest value. Further uncertainties include the impact of climate change, future fisheries supplies (for competition and feed supply), practical limits in terms of scale and in the economics of integration and the development and acceptability of new bio-engineering technologies. In the medium term, increased output is likely to require expansion in new environments, further intensification and efficiency gains for more sustainable and cost-effective production. The trend towards enhanced intensive systems with key monocultures remains strong and, at least for the foreseeable future, will be a significant contributor to future supplies. Dependence on external feeds (including fish), water and energy are key issues. Some new species will enter production and policies that support the reduction of resource footprints and improve integration could lead to new developments as well as reversing decline in some more traditional systems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Fish and Fisheries
                Fish and Fisheries
                Wiley
                1467-2960
                1467-2979
                November 2023
                August 17 2023
                November 2023
                : 24
                : 6
                : 1034-1047
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology University of California Santa Barbara California USA
                [2 ] Environmental Studies University of California Santa Barbara California USA
                [3 ] Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California Santa Barbara California USA
                [4 ] Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment University of Leeds Leeds UK
                [5 ] National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis University of California Santa Barbara California USA
                [6 ] Australian Rivers Institute, School of Environment and Science Griffith University Nathan Queensland Australia
                [7 ] Coastal and Marine Research Centre Griffith University Nathan Queensland Australia
                Article
                10.1111/faf.12783
                1c136c62-7207-40ba-9280-0079ed9019ce
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article