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.)

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns are creating health and economic crises that threaten food and nutrition security. The seafood sector provides important sources of nutrition and employment, especially in low-income countries, and is highly globalized allowing shocks to propagate. We studied COVID-19-related disruptions, impacts, and responses to the seafood sector from January through May 2020, using a food system resilience 'action cycle' framework as a guide. We find that some supply chains, market segments, companies, small-scale actors and civil society have shown initial signs of greater resilience than others. COVID-19 has also highlighted the vulnerability of certain groups working in- or dependent on the seafood sector. We discuss early coping and adaptive responses combined with lessons from past shocks that could be considered when building resilience in the sector. We end with strategic research needs to support learning from COVID-19 impacts and responses., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. HEF serves on the Technical Advisory Group for Aquaculture Stewardship Council. JAG is a member of the Oceana Science Advisory Board. DC Little is a Member, Standards Oversight Committee for Global Aquaculture Association, Director Nam Sai, Thailand. JSS owns and operates a small-scale oyster farm; coordinates Local Catch Network. MFT is on the Scientific and Nutritional Advisory Council for Seafood Nutrition Partnership, the Standards Oversight Committee for Global Aquaculture Association, and a judge for Future of Fish Feed Challenge., (© 2021 The Authors.)

The US seafood sector is susceptible to shocks, both because of the seasonal nature of many of its domestic fisheries and its global position as a top importer and exporter of seafood. However, many data sets that could inform science and policy during an emerging event do not exist or are only released months or years later. Here, we synthesize multiple data sources from across the seafood supply chain, including unconventional real-time data sets, to show the relative initial responses and indicators of recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic. We synthesized news articles from January to September 2020 that reported effects of COVID-19 on the US seafood sector, including processor closures, shortened fishing seasons and loss of revenue. Concerning production and distribution, we assessed past and present landings and trade data and found substantial declines in fresh seafood catches (-40%), imports (-37%) and exports (-43%) relative to the previous year, while frozen seafood products were generally less affected. Google search trends and seafood market foot traffic data suggest consumer demand for seafood from restaurants dropped by upwards of 70% during lockdowns, with recovery varying by state. However, these declines were partially offset by an increase (270%) in delivery and takeout service searches. Our synthesis of open-access data sets and media reports shows widespread, but heterogeneous, ramifications of COVID-19 across the seafood sector, implying that policymakers should focus support on states and sub-sectors most affected by the pandemic: fishery-dependent communities, processors, and fisheries and aquaculture that focus on fresh products., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Global food demand is rising, and serious questions remain about whether supply can increase sustainably 1 . Land-based expansion is possible but may exacerbate climate change and biodiversity loss, and compromise the delivery of other ecosystem services 2-6 . As food from the sea represents only 17% of the current production of edible meat, we ask how much food we can expect the ocean to sustainably produce by 2050. Here we examine the main food-producing sectors in the ocean-wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture-to estimate 'sustainable supply curves' that account for ecological, economic, regulatory and technological constraints. We overlay these supply curves with demand scenarios to estimate future seafood production. We find that under our estimated demand shifts and supply scenarios (which account for policy reform and technology improvements), edible food from the sea could increase by 21-44 million tonnes by 2050, a 36-74% increase compared to current yields. This represents 12-25% of the estimated increase in all meat needed to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050. Increases in all three sectors are likely, but are most pronounced for mariculture. Whether these production potentials are realized sustainably will depend on factors such as policy reforms, technological innovation and the extent of future shifts in demand.

Aquaculture is predicted to supply the majority of aquatic dietary protein by 2050. For aquaculture to deliver significantly enhanced volumes of food in a sustainable manner, appropriate account needs to be taken of its impacts on environmental integrity, farmed organism health and welfare, and human health. Here, we explore increased aquaculture production through the One Health lens and define a set of success metrics - underpinned by evidence, policy and legislation - that must be embedded into aquaculture sustainability. We provide a framework for defining, monitoring and averting potential negative impacts of enhanced production - and consider interactions with land-based food systems. These metrics will inform national and international science and policy strategies to support improved aquatic food system design., (© 2020. Springer Nature Limited.)

Carbon offsetting-receiving credit for reducing, avoiding, or sequestering carbon-has become part of the portfolio of solutions to mitigate carbon emissions, and thus climate change, through policy and voluntary markets, primarily by land-based re- or afforestation and preservation [1, 2]. However, land is limiting, creating interest in a rapidly growing aquatic farming sector of seaweed aquaculture [3-5]. Synthesizing data from scientific literature, we assess the extent and cost of scaling seaweed aquaculture to provide sufficient CO 2 eq sequestration for several climate change mitigation scenarios, with a focus on the food sector-a major source of greenhouse gases [6]. Given known ecological constraints (nutrients and temperature), we found a substantial suitable area (ca. 48 million km 2 ) for seaweed farming, which is largely unfarmed. Within its own industry, seaweed could create a carbon-neutral aquaculture sector with just 14% (mean = 25%) of current seaweed production (0.001% of suitable area). At a much larger scale, we find seaweed culturing extremely unlikely to offset global agriculture, in part due to production growth and cost constraints. Yet offsetting agriculture appears more feasible at a regional level, especially areas with strong climate policy, such as California (0.065% of suitable area). Importantly, seaweed farming can provide other benefits to coastlines affected by eutrophic, hypoxic, and/or acidic conditions [7, 8], creating opportunities for seaweed farming to act as "charismatic carbon" that serves multiple purposes. Seaweed offsetting is not the sole solution to climate change, but it provides an invaluable new tool for a more sustainable future., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Climate change is an immediate and future threat to food security globally. The consequences for fisheries and agriculture production potential are well studied, yet the possible outcomes for aquaculture (that is, aquatic farming)-one of the fastest growing food sectors on the planet-remain a major gap in scientific understanding. With over one-third of aquaculture produced in marine waters and this proportion increasing, it is critical to anticipate new opportunities and challenges in marine production under climate change. Here, we model and map the effect of warming ocean conditions (Representative Concentration Pathway scenario 8.5) on marine aquaculture production potential over the next century, based on thermal tolerance and growth data of 180 cultured finfish and bivalve species. We find heterogeneous patterns of gains and losses, but an overall greater probability of declines worldwide. Accounting for multiple drivers of species growth, including shifts in temperature, chlorophyll and ocean acidification, reveals potentially greater declines in bivalve aquaculture compared with finfish production. This study addresses a missing component in food security research and sustainable development planning by identifying regions that will face potentially greater climate change challenges and resilience with regards to marine aquaculture in the coming decades. Understanding the scale and magnitude of future increases and reductions in aquaculture potential is critical for designing effective and efficient use and protection of the oceans, and ultimately for feeding the planet sustainably.

Reducing food production pressures on the environment while feeding an ever-growing human population is one of the grand challenges facing humanity. The magnitude of environmental impacts from food production, largely around land use, has motivated evaluation of the environmental and health benefits of shifting diets, typically away from meat toward other sources, including seafood. However, total global catch of wild seafood has remained relatively unchanged for the last two decades, suggesting increased demand for seafood will mostly have to rely on aquaculture (i.e., aquatic farming). Increasingly, cultivated aquatic species depend on feed inputs from agricultural sources, raising concerns around further straining crops and land use for feed. However, the relative impact and potential of aquaculture remains unclear. Here we simulate how different forms of aquaculture contribute and compare with feed and land use of terrestrial meat production and how spatial patterns might change by midcentury if diets move toward more cultured seafood and less meat. Using country-level aquatic and terrestrial data, we show that aquaculture requires less feed crops and land, even if over one-third of protein production comes from aquaculture by 2050. However, feed and land-sparing benefits are spatially heterogeneous, driven by differing patterns of production, trade, and feed composition. Ultimately, our study highlights the future potential and uncertainties of considering aquaculture in the portfolio of sustainability solutions around one of the largest anthropogenic impacts on the planet., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Marine aquaculture presents an opportunity for increasing seafood production in the face of growing demand for marine protein and limited scope for expanding wild fishery harvests. However, the global capacity for increased aquaculture production from the ocean and the relative productivity potential across countries are unknown. Here, we map the biological production potential for marine aquaculture across the globe using an innovative approach that draws from physiology, allometry and growth theory. Even after applying substantial constraints based on existing ocean uses and limitations, we find vast areas in nearly every coastal country that are suitable for aquaculture. The development potential far exceeds the space required to meet foreseeable seafood demand; indeed, the current total landings of all wild-capture fisheries could be produced using less than 0.015% of the global ocean area. This analysis demonstrates that suitable space is unlikely to limit marine aquaculture development and highlights the role that other factors, such as economics and governance, play in shaping growth trajectories. We suggest that the vast amount of space suitable for marine aquaculture presents an opportunity for countries to develop aquaculture in a way that aligns with their economic, environmental and social objectives.

Aquaculture is developing rapidly at a global scale and sustainable practices are an essential part of meeting the protein requirements of the ballooning human population. Locating aquaculture offshore is one strategy that may help address some issues related to nearshore development. However, offshore production is nascent and distinctions between the types of aquatic farming may not be fully understood by the public-important for collaboration, research, and development. Here we evaluate and report, to our knowledge, the first multinational quantification of the relative sentiments and opinions of the public around distinct forms of aquaculture. Using thousands of newspaper headlines (Ntotal = 1,596) from developed (no. countries = 26) and developing (42) nations, ranging over periods of 1984 to 2015, we found an expanding positive trend of general 'aquaculture' coverage, while 'marine' and 'offshore' appeared more negative. Overall, developing regions published proportionally more positive than negative headlines than developed countries. As case studies, government collected public comments (Ntotal = 1,585) from the United States of America (USA) and New Zealand mirrored the media sentiments; offshore perception being particularly negative in the USA. We also found public sentiment may be influenced by local environmental disasters not directly related to aquaculture (e.g., oil spills). Both countries voiced concern over environmental impacts, but the concerns tended to be more generalized, rather than targeted issues. Two factors that could be inhibiting informed discussion and decisions about offshore aquaculture are lack of applicable knowledge and actual local development issues. Better communication and investigation of the real versus perceived impacts of aquaculture could aid in clarifying the debate about aquaculture, and help support future sustainable growth., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MBR is a government employee for NOAA Office of Aquaculture, but was not financially supported through SNAPP. The perceived competing interest does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Hypoxia [dissolved oxygen (DO)<2 mg L(-1)] is a major environmental perturbation for many aquatic ecosystems, particularly highly productive estuaries. Most research attention and understanding about the impacts of hypoxia on estuarine species has focused on the benthos, where hypoxia is most common. Although the pelagic zone is also susceptible to the effects of hypoxia, the biological interactions and consequences are not as well understood in marine environments because documenting exposure or avoidance of hypoxia is often difficult. Physiological biomarkers may provide a way to gain more detailed spatiotemporal information regarding species' exposure to hypoxia. Here, we identified and tested a hypoxia-specific responsive gene, hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (hif-1α), to evaluate its potential as a biomarker for hypoxia exposure in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii). We conducted controlled laboratory experiments to establish the level of hepatic hif-1α elevated gene expression (>1 sd normoxic mean), exposure amplification (≥2 hours), reduction rate (ca. 24 hours), and some evidence of a lethal hypoxic limit (ca. 2 mg L(-1), ≥4 hours). We then used these findings to evaluate the spatiotemporal patterns of hif-1α for Pacific herring in a seasonally hypoxia estuary, Hood Canal, Washington, USA. Although expression did not parallel the local hypoxic conditions in the estuary, herring from the more severe hypoxic year (2013) had a higher probability of having elevated mRNA levels. These patterns indicate that hepatic hif-1α levels may not be directly indicative of local DO levels for pelagic marine fish, but rather provide insight into hypoxia exposure over broader scales., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Forage fish support the largest fisheries in the world but also play key roles in marine food webs by transferring energy from plankton to upper trophic-level predators, such as large fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Fishing can, thereby, have far reaching consequences on marine food webs unless safeguards are in place to avoid depleting forage fish to dangerously low levels, where dependent predators are most vulnerable. However, disentangling the contributions of fishing vs. natural processes on population dynamics has been difficult because of the sensitivity of these stocks to environmental conditions. Here, we overcome this difficulty by collating population time series for forage fish populations that account for nearly two-thirds of global catch of forage fish to identify the fingerprint of fisheries on their population dynamics. Forage fish population collapses shared a set of common and unique characteristics: high fishing pressure for several years before collapse, a sharp drop in natural population productivity, and a lagged response to reduce fishing pressure. Lagged response to natural productivity declines can sharply amplify the magnitude of naturally occurring population fluctuations. Finally, we show that the magnitude and frequency of collapses are greater than expected from natural productivity characteristics and therefore, likely attributed to fishing. The durations of collapses, however, were not different from those expected based on natural productivity shifts. A risk-based management scheme that reduces fishing when populations become scarce would protect forage fish and their predators from collapse with little effect on long-term average catches.