Search

Climate change threatens food production, yet gaps remain in our understanding of these threats to aquaculture, the fastest growing food production subsector. To build climate-resilient practices and policies we need to quantify and map current and future climate threats to aquaculture. Here, we explore how downscaled climate change [SSP 2 (eq. RCP 4.5) and SSP 5 (eq. RCP8.5), CMIP6] threats - including water scarcity, flooding, and increasing temperature - may directly affect United States (US) freshwater farmed fish (N = 7) based on their biological thermal tolerances and indirectly challenge the operations required for production, including to the human workforce. Aquaculture in the US is dominated by catfish, trout, and tilapia production and is widespread, with some form of finfish aquaculture present in every state and nearly half of all counties across the country. Given the current location of catfish, tilapia, bass, and carp in the US and their tolerance to warmer conditions, we find increasing temperatures are less likely to biologically impact these species negatively. In contrast, current trout, sturgeon, and perch production will be biologically threatened by rising temperatures. With respect to operational needs for facilities, increases in 'wet bulb' temperatures in the Southeast will regularly challenge human physiological limits and constrain worker capacity. Drought in the Southwest will also limit an intrinsically water dependent system, affecting nearly all taxa. While current areas of aquaculture will tend to become increasingly challenging for farmed fishes, new potential habitats will open up for nearly all species. Overall, in the absence of immediate greenhouse gas mitigation, there are several non-mutually exclusive climate adaptations, yet these adaptations can be extremely costly. Ultimately, freshwater aquaculture in the US is going to be under intense climate pressure, which may drive out small operations and cause the country to further increase dependence on international aquatic food imports., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Terrestrial and ocean ecosystems are increasingly under threat from an array of anthropogenic pressures. And while threats mount, how people view and value nature is changing. In the United States (U.S.) in particular, there is a shift away from viewing nature as something to 'dominate,' as evidenced in the decline in hunting. However, it is unclear if or how opinions around environmental issues and conservation need might differ when comparing ocean versus terrestrial ecosystems, especially given the prevalence and continued importance of wild capture fishing in the U.S. We employed two national parallel surveys, one focused on oceans, the other land, receiving responses from nearly every state in the U.S. (N = 1,973). While we found only slight, but statistically significant more concern for ocean habitats and animals over terrestrial ecosystems, this did not translate to increased willingness to monetarily support more ocean conservation actions. Using Random Forest models, we also found the best predictor of conservation need was feeling most impacted by environmental issues personally (self and/or community), regardless of ecosystem type. In fact, land versus sea (survey) had the lowest rank in the models, underscoring the importance of general nature-based interactions. Instead, the number of outdoor recreational activities was a highly ranked variable explaining the level of reported impact to self/community, with people who participate in 2 or more activities scoring higher levels of impact, on average. Notably, people who hunt and fish, versus only do one or the other, reported higher levels of impact and participated in more activities overall, providing a more nuanced finding regarding the nature 'dominance hypothesis.' Voting, not political affiliation, was also important in explaining responses, and governmental mechanisms to fund conservation were favored over voluntary. Overall, our results add to the strong existing literature that access and connection to nature is key, but uniquely broad connection may "float all boats," especially when diversified., Competing Interests: Jono Wilson is an employee of the Nature Conservancy. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Froehlich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Food production, particularly of fed animals, is a leading cause of environmental degradation globally. 1 , 2 Understanding where and how much environmental pressure different fed animal products exert is critical to designing effective food policies that promote sustainability. 3 Here, we assess and compare the environmental footprint of farming industrial broiler chickens and farmed salmonids (salmon, marine trout, and Arctic char) to identify opportunities to reduce environmental pressures. We map cumulative environmental pressures (greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient pollution, freshwater use, and spatial disturbance), with particular focus on dynamics across the land and sea. We found that farming broiler chickens disturbs 9 times more area than farming salmon (∼924,000 vs. ∼103,500 km 2 ) but yields 55 times greater production. The footprints of both sectors are extensive, but 95% of cumulative pressures are concentrated into <5% of total area. Surprisingly, the location of these pressures is similar (85.5% spatial overlap between chicken and salmon pressures), primarily due to shared feed ingredients. Environmental pressures from feed ingredients account for >78% and >69% of cumulative pressures of broiler chicken and farmed salmon production, respectively, and could represent a key leverage point to reduce environmental footprints. The environmental efficiency (cumulative pressures per tonne of production) also differs geographically, with areas of high efficiency revealing further potential to promote sustainability. The propagation of environmental pressures across the land and sea underscores the importance of integrating food policies across realms and sectors to advance food system sustainability., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests H.E.F. is a member of the Technical Advisory Group for Aquaculture Stewardship Council. J.L.B. and R.S.C. acknowledge a relationship with BioMar Group A/S including funding grants., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As the human population and demand for food grow 1 , the ocean will be called on to provide increasing amounts of seafood. Although fisheries reforms and advances in offshore aquaculture (hereafter 'mariculture') could increase production 2 , the true future of seafood depends on human responses to climate change 3 . Here we investigated whether coordinated reforms in fisheries and mariculture could increase seafood production per capita under climate change. We find that climate-adaptive fisheries reforms will be necessary but insufficient to maintain global seafood production per capita, even with aggressive reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. However, the potential for sustainable mariculture to increase seafood per capita is vast and could increase seafood production per capita under all but the most severe emissions scenario. These increases are contingent on fisheries reforms, continued advances in feed technology and the establishment of effective mariculture governance and best practices. Furthermore, dramatically curbing emissions is essential for reducing inequities, increasing reform efficacy and mitigating risks unaccounted for in our analysis. Although climate change will challenge the ocean's ability to meet growing food demands, the ocean could produce more food than it does currently through swift and ambitious action to reduce emissions, reform capture fisheries and expand sustainable mariculture operations., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Aquaculture recently became the main source of global seafood production and many countries, including the United States, see potential in marine aquaculture to sustainably fill growing demand. The U.S. supports the majority of its seafood consumption through imports, and therefore identifying bottlenecks to domestic aquaculture growth is a priority at the federal and state level. Yet, one critical aspect that appears not yet addressed is the quality and accessibility of marine aquaculture data. In this study we conducted the first multi-state synthesis and comparison of the most comprehensive suite of species, volume, and value information on U.S. marine aquaculture over time, across the 23 marine coastal states. Using publicly available data sources from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), state-level solicited data that we aggregated, and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), we found strong evidence that marine aquaculture has played an increasingly important role in marine coastal states, but also uncovered numerous data gaps and discrepancies between and within these sources. In particular, we found a dearth of volumetric data and millions in missing value (USD$). We found U.S. marine aquaculture is likely much more diverse, abundant and valuable than is currently reported, but the main sources of error in any given state remain unclear. We recommend U.S. state governments adopt a standardized, digital and annual data collection program, such as the NOAA Fisheries Information Networks. Better strategic aquaculture planning, management, and research depend on accurate data, and existing digital data infrastructures provide strong opportunities for improvement., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)