A Fishy Story Promoting a False Dichotomy to Policy-Makers: It Is Not Freshwater vs. Marine Aquaculture

References

• Abdullah MI, Fredriksen S. 2004. Production, respiration and exudation of dissolved organic matter by the kelp Laminaria hyperborean along the west coast of Norway. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 84(5):887–894. doi:10.1017/S002531540401015Xh
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Kapetsky JM, Soto D. 2010. The potential of spatial planning tools to support the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome (Italy): Fao.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed N, Wahab MA, Thilsted SH. 2007. Integrated aquaculture-agriculture systems in Bangladesh: Potential for sustainable livelihoods and nutritional security of the rural poor. Aquac Asia. 12:14–22.
   Google Scholar
• Alleway HK, Gillies CL, Bishop MJ, Gentry RR, Theuerkauf SJ, Jones R. 2019. The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: valuing benefits to people and nature. BioScience. 69(1):59–68. doi:10.1093/biosci/biy137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson J. 2002. Aquaculture and the future: why fisheries economists should care. Mar Res Econ. 17(2):133–151. doi:10.1086/mre.17.2.42629357
   Google Scholar
• Araújo R, Vázquez Calderón F, Sánchez López J, Azevedo IC, Bruhn A, Fluch S, Garcia Tasende M, Ghaderiardakani F, Ilmjärv T, Laurans M, et al. 2021. Current status of the algae production industry in Europe: an emerging sector of the blue bioeconomy. Front Mar Sci. 7:626389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck MW, Brumbaugh RD, Airoldi L, Carranza A, Coen LD, Crawford C, Defeo O, Edgar GJ, Hancock B, Kay MC, et al. 2011. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. BioScience. 61(2):107–116. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belton B, Little DC, Zhang W, Edwards P, Skladany M, Thilsted SH. 2020. Farming fish in the sea will not nourish the world. Nat Commun. 11(1):5804. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19679-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjørgen H, Li Y, Kortner TM, Krogdahl A, Koppang EO. 2020. Anatomy, immunology, digestive physiology and microbiota of the salmonid intestine: knowns and unknowns under the impact of an expanding industrialized production. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 107(Pt A):172–186. doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2020.09.032
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blikra MJ, Skipnes D, Noriega Fernandez E, Skara T. 2020. Challenges related to processing and analysis of Norwegian seaweed, focusing on Sugar Kelp and Winged Kelp. Tromso (Norway): Nofima AS.
   Google Scholar
• BOM. 2021. Monitoring. Kailua-Kona (Hawaii): Blue Ocean; [accessed 2021 Nov 04]. https://www.bofish.com/stewardship/monitoring/.
   Google Scholar
• Botta R, Asche F, Borsum JS, Camp EV. 2020. A review of global oyster aquaculture production and consumption. Mar Policy. 117:103952. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruinsma J. 2009. The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? Expert meeting on how to feed the world in 2050. Rome (Italy): Fao.
   Google Scholar
• Buck BH, Walter U, Rosenthal H, Neudecker T. 2006. The development of mollusc farming in Germany: past, present and future. World Aquac. 6–11:66–69.
   Google Scholar
• Buer A-L, Maar M, Nepf M, Ritzenhofen L, Dahlke S, Friedland R, Krost P, Peine F, Schernewski G. 2020. Potential and feasibility of Mytilus spp. farming along a salinity gradient. Front Mar Sci. 7:371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bush SR, Marschke MJ. 2014. Making social sense of aquaculture transitions. Ecol Soc. 19:50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne J. 2020. Use of Europe Soya certified SPC source in feed could drastically boost the sustainability profile of Norwegian salmon production; [accessed 2021 Nov 04]. feednavigator.com.
   Google Scholar
• Cage A, McLuckie M, Thoumi G. 2020. Loch-ed profits. Forecast farmed salmon industry growth not converting to stable profit margins; [accessed 2021 Nov 03]. https://planet-tracker.org/report/loch-ed-profits-forecast-farmed-salmon-industry-growth-not-converting-to-stable-profit-margins/.
   Google Scholar
• Callier MD, Byron CJ, Bengtson DA, Cranford PJ, Cross SF, Focken U, Jansen HM, Kamermans P, Kiessling A, Landry T, et al. 2018. Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review. Rev Aquacult. 10(4):924–949. doi:10.1111/raq.12208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calysta. 2020. FeedKind® Protein: Natural Alternative to Fishmeal and Soy. San Mateo (CA): Calysta; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.calysta.com/feedkind/product/.
   Google Scholar
• Camia A, Robert N, Jonsson K, Pilli R, Garcia Condado S, Lopez Lozano R, Van Der Velde M, Ronzon T, Gurria Albusac P. 2018. Biomass production, supply, uses and flows in the European Union: first results from an integrated assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Chopin T. 2013. Aquaculture, integrated multi-trophic (IMTA). In: Christou P, Savin R, Costa-Pierce BA, Misztal I, Whitelaw CBA, editors. Sustainable food production. New York (NY): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chopin T. 2015. Marine aquaculture in Canada: well-established monocultures of finfish and shellfish and an emerging integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) approach including seaweeds, other invertebrates and microbial communities. Fisheries. 40(1):28–31. doi:10.1080/03632415.2014.986571
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopin T. 2018a. The Monaco Blue Initiative – Building relationships between marine protected areas (MPAs) and aquaculture. Int Aquafeed. 21:36–37.
   Google Scholar
• Chopin T. 2018b. Conservation vs development: finding balance – Marine protected areas and sustainable aquaculture are not incompatible; they could, in fact, work together. Aquac N Am. 9:12–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chopin T. 2021. Seaweeds are finally getting their moment. How do we translate it into a momentum beyond the present hype? Int Aquafeed. 24:12–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chopin T, Buschmann AH, Halling C, Troell M, Kautsky N, Neori A, Kraemer GP, Zertuche-Gonzalez JA, Yarish C, Neefus C. 2001. Integrating seaweeds into marine aquaculture systems: a key towards sustainability. J Phycol. 37(6):975–986. doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.01137.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopin T, Tacon AGJ. 2021. Importance of seaweeds and extractive species in global aquaculture production. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 29(2):139–148. doi:10.1080/23308249.2020.1810626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie MR, Marine ML, Fox SE, French RA, Blouin MS. 2016. A single generation of domestication heritably alters the expression of hundreds of genes. Nat Commun. 7:10676. doi:10.1038/ncomms10676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu YI, Wang CM, Park JC, Lader PF. 2020. Review of cage and containment tank designs for offshore fish farming. Aquac. 519:734928. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke CN, Fraser DJ, Purchase CF. 2016. Lifelong and carry-over effects of early captive exposure in a recovery program for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Anim Conserv. 19(4):350–359. doi:10.1111/acv.12251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa-Pierce BA. 1998. Constraints to the sustainability of cage aquaculture for resettlement from hydropower dams in Asia: An Indonesian case study. J Env Dev. 7(4):333–363. doi:10.1177/107049659800700402
   Google Scholar
• Costa-Pierce BA. 2016. Ocean foods ecosystems for planetary survival in the Anthropocene In: Binder EM, editor. World nutrition forum: Driving the protein economy. Austria: Erber AG. p. 301–320.
   Google Scholar
• Costa-Pierce BA. 2021. The social ecology of aquaculture in its new geographies. World Aqua. 52(3):43–50.
   Google Scholar
• Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S, Cisneros-Mata MÁ, Free CM, Froehlich HE, Golden CD, Ishimura G, Maier J, Macadam-Somer I, et al. 2020. The future of food from the sea. Nature. 588(7836):95–100. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cottrell RS, Metian M, Froehlich HE, Blanchard JL, Sand Jacobsen N, McIntyre PB, Nash KL, Williams DR, Bouwman L, Gephart JA, et al. 2021. Time to rethink trophic levels in aquaculture policy. Rev Aquacult. 13(3):1583–1593. doi:10.1111/raq.12535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Halpern BS, Remenyi TA, Corney SP, Fleming A, Fulton EA, Hornborg S, Johne A, Watson RA, et al. 2019. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat Sustain. 2(2):130–137. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel NA. 2018. A review on replacing fish meal in aqua feeds using plant protein sources. Int J Fish Aquat Stud. 6:164–179.
   Google Scholar
• Delago DF. 2021. Investigating larval spillover from oyster aquaculture through geospatial habitat suitability index modeling: A Damariscotta River estuary case study [thesis]. Biddeford (Maine): University of New England.
   Google Scholar
• Delaney A, Frangoudes K, Ii SA. 2016. Society and seaweed: understanding the past and present. In: Fleurence J, Levine I, editors. Seaweed in health and disease prevention. London (UK): Academic Press. p. 7–40.
   Google Scholar
• Dempster T, Sanchez-Jerez P, Fernandez-Jover D, Bayle-Sempere J, Nilsen R, Bjørn P-A, Uglem I. 2011. Proxy measures of fitness suggest coastal fish farms can act as population sources and not ecological traps for wild gadoid fish. PLoS One. 6(1):e15646. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015646
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Directorate of Fisheries. 2021. Aquaculture Statistics: Algae. Bergen (Norway): Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.fiskeridir.no/Akvakultur/Tall-og-analyse/Akvakulturstatistikk-tidsserier/Alger.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte CM, Wu J, Xiao X, Bruhn A, Krause-Jensen D. 2017. Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Front Mar Sci. 12:100.
   Google Scholar
• Edelfarm. 2021. Velkommen til Edelfarm. Rognan (Norway): Edelfarm; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. http://www.edelfarm.no/.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards P, Little DC, Demaine H. 2002. Rural Aquaculture. Wallingford (CT): CABI Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• EMODnet. 2021. View data. The European Marine Observation and Data Network; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/view-data.php.
   Google Scholar
• FAIRR. 2021. Amazon soy moratorium. London (UK): FAIRR; [accessed 2021 11 06]. https://www.fairr.org/engagements/amazon-soy-moratorium/.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 1989. Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. Rome (Italy): FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2010. Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome (Italy): FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2020. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020: sustainability in action. Rome (Italy): FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2021. FishStatJ, a tool for fishery statistics analysis. Release: 4.01.1 May 2021. Universal Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series. Global aquaculture production: Quantity 1950–2019; Value 1950–2019; Global capture production. Rome (Italy): FAO. p. 1950–2019.
   Google Scholar
• Farmery AK, Allison EH, Andrew NL, Troell M, Voyer M, Campbell B, Eriksson H, Fabinyi M, Song AM, Steenbergen D. 2021. Blind spots in visions of a ‘‘blue economy’’ could undermine the ocean’s contribution to eliminating hunger and malnutrition. One Earth. 4(1):28–38. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.002
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira JG, Bricker SB. 2019. Assessment of Nutrient Trading Services from Bivalve Farming. In: Smaal A, Ferreira J, Grant J, Petersen J, Strand Ø, editors. Goods and services of marine bivalves. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. p. 551–584.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira JG, Ramos L, Costa-Pierce BA. 2013. Key drivers and issues surrounding carrying capacity and site selection, with emphasis on environmental components. In: Ross LG, Telfer TC, Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Falconer L, editors. Site selection and carrying capacity for inland and coastal aquaculture. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling Expert Workshop; 2010. 12 06–08. Stirling, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Rome (Italy): FAO. p. 47–86
   Google Scholar
• Filbee‑Dexter K, Wernberg T, Grace SP, Thormar J, Fredriksen S, Narvaez CN, Feehan J, Norderhaug KM. 2020. Marine heatwaves and the collapse of marginal North Atlantic kelp forests. Sci Rep. 10(1):13388. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70273-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest Trends. 2015. Forest conversion for commercial agriculture now a top driver of deforestation in Myanmar; puts country at high risk of illegality and land conflicts. Washington (DC): Forest Trends Association; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.forest-trends.org/pressroom/forest-conversion-commercial-agriculture-now-top-driver-deforestation-myanmar-puts-country-high-risk-illegality-land-conflicts/.
   Google Scholar
• Froehlich HE, Runge CA, Gentry RR, Gaines SD, Halpern BS. 2018. Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 115(20):5295–5300. doi:10.1073/pnas.1801692115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry JP, Mailloux NA, Love DC, Milli MC, Cao L. 2018. Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly? Environ Res Lett. 13(2):024017. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatlin DM, Barrows FT, Brown P, Dabrowski K, Gaylord TG, Hardy RW, Herman E, Hu G, Krogdahl A, Nelson R, et al. 2007. Expanding the utilization of sustainable plant products in aquafeeds: a review. Aquaculture Res. 38(6):551–579. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01704.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentry RR, Alleway HK, Bishop MJ, Gillies CL, Waters T, Jones R. 2020. Exploring the potential for marine aquaculture to contribute to ecosystem services. Rev Aquacult. 12(2):499–512. doi:10.1111/raq.12328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentry RR, Froehlich HE, Grimm D, Kareiva P, Parke M, Rust M, Gaines SD, Halpern BS. 2017. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat Ecol Evol. 1(9):1317–1324. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershenson G. 2020. Climate breakdown is causing the Gulf of Maine to heat up. London (UK): Guardian News and Media; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/19/im-not-a-quitter-lobstermen-turn-to-kelp-farming-in-the-face-of-global-crises.
   Google Scholar
• GIFAS. 2021. Aktuelt. Inndyr (Norway): Gildeskål Forskningsstasjon AS; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://gifas.no/.
   Google Scholar
• Gjedrem T. 2000. Genetic improvement of cold-water fish species. Aquac Res. 31(1):25–33. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2109.2000.00389.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of Iceland. n.d. Fisheries Management. Reykjavik (Iceland): Government of Iceland; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.government.is/topics/business-and-industry/fisheries-in-iceland/fisheries-management/.
   Google Scholar
• Grienke U, Silke J, Tasdemir D. 2014. Bioactive compounds from marine mussels and their effects on human health. Food Chem. 142:48–60. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.07.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara M, Njokweni G, Semoli B. 2017. Community opportunities in commercial agriculture: Possibilities and challenges. Working Paper 48. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrian Studies, University of the Western Cape. Cape Town (South Africa). https://media.africaportal.org/documents/WP48__Hara_et_al_Community_opportunities_7_Nov_.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Haws M, Seale AP, Corbin J, Moss S, Callan C, Klinger-Bowen R, Asuncion B, Tamaru C, Sombardier L, Weidenbach R, et al. 2019. Aquaculture in Hawai’I – ancient traditions, modern innovation. World Aquac. 2019:16–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hilborn R, Banobi J, Hall S, Pucylowski T, Walsworth T. 2018. The environmental cost of animal source foods. Front Ecol Environ. 16(6):329–335. doi:10.1002/fee.1822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoegh-Guldberg O, Caldeira K, Chopin T, Gaines S, Haugan P, Herner M, Howard J, Konar M, Krause-Jensen D, Lindstad E, et al. 2019. The ocean as a solution to climate change: five opportunities for action. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Huhnt MP. 2019. Concept design of a floating support structure for hydrophilic crop [thesis]. Trondheim (Norway): Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Huysveld S, Schaubroeck T, De Meester S, Sorgeloos P, Van Langenhove H, Van Linden V, Dewulf J. 2013. Resource use analysis of Pangasius aquaculture in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam using exergetic life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod. 51:225–233. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• iLaks. 2019. Dropped Brazilian soy. Bergen (Norway): iLaks AS; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://ilaks.no/droppet-brasiliansk-soya-vi-onsker-ikke-a-vaere-forbundet-med-noe-av-det-som-skjer-der-borte-uansett-hvor-sertifisert-det-er/.
   Google Scholar
• International Salmon Farmers Association. 2018. Salmon farming sustaining communities and feeding the world. International Salmon Farmers Association; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. http://www.salmonfarming.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/isfa-final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Isqueen. 2021. Isqueen Lofoten. Sennesvik (Norway): Isqueen AS; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.facebook.com/IsqueenAS/.
   Google Scholar
• Jasechko S, Perrone D. 2021. Global groundwater wells at risk of running dry. Science. 372(6540):418–421. doi:10.1126/science.abc2755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones R. 2017. Aquaculture by design: the Nature Conservancy’s global aquaculture strategy. Washington (DC): The Nature Conservancy.
   Google Scholar
• Krause V. 2007. The Demarketing of farmed salmon by 35 environmental organizations in the United States and Canada. Salmon of the Americas; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.salmonfacts.org/newsletters/previous/Jan08/images/0108/DemarketingFarmedSalmon.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Krost P, Mühl M. 2014. Aquakultur und Klimawandel in der Ostsee.R-Berichtsreihe. Berlin (Germany): Ecologic Institut gGmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Larson S, Stoeckl N, Fachry ME, Mustafa MD, Lapong I, Purnomo AH, Rimmer MA, Paul NA. 2021. Women’s well-being and household benefits from seaweed farming in Indonesia. Aquac. 530:735711. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindahl H. 2014. Good Brazilian: a mapping of soy consumption in Norwegian agriculture and aquaculture industry. The Future in Our Hands. Oslo (Norway). (In Norwegian)
   Google Scholar
• Loffoley D, LeGouvello R, Simard F. 2019. Aquaculture and marine protected areas. Gland (Switzerland): International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
   Google Scholar
• Lopes AS, Ferreira JG, Vale C, Johansen J. 2017. The mass balance of production and consumption: supporting policy-makers for aquatic food security. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 188:212–223. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2017.02.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovatelli A, Holthus P. 2008. Capture-based aquaculture. Global overview. Rome (Italy): FAO. Report No: 508.
   Google Scholar
• Lovundlaks. 2021. Lovundlaks as. Lovund (Norway): Lovundlaks AS; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.facebook.com/lovundlaks/.
   Google Scholar
• Morton D, Defries R, Randerson Z, Gigio L, Schroeder W, Vaderwerf G. 2008. Agricultural intensification increases deforestation fire activity in Amazonia. Glob Change Biol. 14:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Msuya FE, Hurtado AQ. 2017. The role of women in seaweed aquaculture in the Western Indian Ocean and South-East Asia. Eur J Phycol. 52(4):482–494. doi:10.1080/09670262.2017.1357084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Buschmann AH, Bush SR, Cao L, Klinger DH, Little DC, Lubchenco J, Shumway SE, Troell M. 2021. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature. 591(7851):551–563. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nekton. 2021. Even though we are small, we are actually quite large. Smola (Norway): Nekton Havbruk; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://nekton.no/om-oss.
   Google Scholar
• Newton R, Zhang W, Xian Z, McAdam B, Little DC. 2021. Intensification, regulation and diversification: The changing face of inland aquaculture in China. Ambio. 50(9):1739–1756. doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01503-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norderhaug KM, Christie H, Fosså JH, Fredriksen S. 2005. Fish-macrofauna interactions in a kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) forest. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 85(5):1279–1286. doi:10.1017/S0025315405012439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrie C, Dunphy B, Roughan M, Weppe S, Lundquist C. 2020. Spill-over from aquaculture may provide a larval subsidy for the restoration of mussel reefs. Aquacult Environ Interact. 12:231–249. doi:10.3354/aei00363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øverland M. 2011. Bacterial meal prevents soybean meal induced enteritis in Atlantic salmon. J Nut. 141(1):124–130. doi:10.3945/jn.110.128900
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ocean Economist. 2021. How the shipping sector is decarbonizing. The economist newspaper limited; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://ocean.economist.com/innovation/articles/how-the-shipping-sector-is-decarbonising?RefID=news-woi-sept2021&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Eloqua&utm_campaign=worldoceaninitiative&utm_content=news-sept2021.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega A, Geraldi NR, Alam I, Kamau AA, Acinas SG, Logares R, Gasol JM, Massana R, Krause-Jensen D, Duarte CM. 2019. Important contribution of macroalgae to oceanic carbon sequestration. Nat Geosci. 12(9):748–754. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0421-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelletier N, Klinger DH, Sims NA, Yoshioka J-R, Kittinger JN. 2018. Nutritional attributes, substitutability, scalability, and environmental intensity of an illustrative subset of current and future protein sources for aquaculture feeds: joint consideration of potential synergies and trade-offs. Environ Sci Technol. 52(10):5532–5544. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b05468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piconi P, Veidenheimer R, Chase B. 2020. Edible seaweed market analysis. Rockland (Maine): Island Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Pritcher G, Calder D. 1998. Shellfish mariculture in the Benguela system: Phytoplankton production and the availability of food for commercial mussel farms in Saldanha Bay, South Africa. J Shellfish Res 17:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid GK, Gurney-Smith HJ, Flaherty M, Garber AF, Forster I, Brewer-Dalton K, Knowler D, Marcogliese DJ, Chopin T, Moccia RD, et al. 2019a. Climate change and aquaculture: considering adaptation potential. Aquacult Environ Interact. 11:603–624. doi:10.3354/aei00333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid GK, Gurney-Smith HJ, Marcogliese DJ, Knowler D, Benfey T, Garber AF, Forster I, Chopin T, Brewer-Dalton K, Moccia RD, et al. 2019b. Climate change and aquaculture: considering biological response and resources. Aquacult Environ Interact. 11:569–602. doi:10.3354/aei00332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sala E, Mayorga J, Bradley D, Cabral RB, Atwood TB, Auber A, Cheung W, Costello C, Ferretti F, Friedlander AM, et al. 2021. Author Correction: Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature. 592(7856):E25. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03496-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saue OA. 2021. Norwegian breeders now refuse to buy soy. Oslo (Norway): E24; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://e24.no/hav-og-sjoemat/i/PR5Moe/naa-nekter-norske-oppdrettere-aa-kjoepe-soya-fra-selskaper-som-hugger-regnskog.
   Google Scholar
• SciencesPo. 2018. Projected water stress in 2040. Paris (France): SciencePo; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://espace-mondial-atlas.sciencespo.fr/en/topic-resources/map-5C33-EN-projected-water-stress-in-2040.html.
   Google Scholar
• Shen Y, Firoozkoohi R, Greco M, Faltinsen OM. 2021. Experimental investigation of a closed vertical cylinder-shaped fish cage in waves. Ocean Eng. 236:109444. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shumway SE. 2011. Shellfish aquaculture and the environment. Ames (Iowa): Wiley-Blackwell Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sims NA, Vollbrecht L. 2020. The offshore aquaculture agenda: co-opting economic incentives to drive ecological imperatives. Eco-Magazine July/August, 2020:26–27.
   Google Scholar
• Sims NA. 2013. Kona Blue Water Farms case study: permitting, operations, marketing, environmental impacts, and impediments to expansion of global open ocean mariculture. In: Lovatelli A, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Soto D, editors. Expanding mariculture farther offshore: technical environmental, spatial and governance challenges. FAO Technical Workshop; 2010 March, 22–25; Orbetello, Italy. Rome (Italy): FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 24. p. 263–296.
   Google Scholar
• Smaal AC, Ferreira JG, Grant J, Petersen JK, Strand Ø. 2019. Goods and services of marine bivalves. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-96776-9.
   Google Scholar
• Statista. 2010. Feed conversion ratio of selected meat and fish worldwide. Hamburg (Germany): Statista; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/254421/feed-conversion-ratios-worldwide-2010/.
   Google Scholar
• Stergiou KI, Tsikliras AC, Pauly D. 2009. Farming up Mediterranean food webs. Conserv Biol. 23(1):230–232. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01077.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strzepek K, Boehlert B. 2010. Competition for water for the food system. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365(1554):2927–2940. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulefisk. 2021. Laks Fra Solund. Hardbakke (Norway): Sulefisk AS; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://sulefisk.no/.
   Google Scholar
• Tacon AGJ. 2021. Aquaculture and aquafeed production in 2019. Aquafeed: Advances in Processing and Formulation 13:66–69.
   Google Scholar
• Teagle H, Hawkins SJ, Moore PJ, Smale DA. 2017. The role of kelp species as biogenic habitat formers in coastal marine ecosystems. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 492:81–98. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Nature Conservancy. 2021. (Alleway H, Brummett R, Cai J, Cao L, Cayten MR, Costa-Pierce BA, Dobbins P, Dong Y-w, Brandstrup Hansen SC, Jones R, Liu S, Liu Q, Shelley CC, Theuerkauf S, Tucker L, Waters T, Wang Y). 2021. Global Principles of Restorative Aquaculture. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC_PrinciplesofRestorativeAquaculture.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Theuerkauf SJ, Barrett LT, Alleway HK, Costa-Pierce BA, St. Gelais A, Jones RC. 2021. Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: pathways, synthesis and next steps. Rev Aquac. 14:54–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas JBE, Sinha R, Strand A, Soderqvist T, Stadmark J, Franzen F, Ingmansson I, Grondahl F, Hasselstrom L. 2021. Marine biomass for a circular blue-green bioeconomy?: A life cycle perspective on closing nitrogen and phosphorus land-marine loops. J Ind Ecol. 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrissen O, Olsen RE, Toresen R, Hemre GI, Tacon AGJ, Asche F, Hardy RW, Lall S. 2011. Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar): The “Super-Chicken” of the Sea? Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 19(3):257–278. doi:10.1080/10641262.2011.597890
   Google Scholar
• Undercurrent News. 2019. French supermarket introduces Lingalaks salmon fed veramaris’ algae oil. London (UK): Undercurrent News; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/06/06/french-supermarket-introduces-lingalaks-salmon-fed-veramaris-algae-oil/.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. 2021. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2021: Valuing water. Paris (France): UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2019. World Population Prospects 2019. New York (NY): United Nations; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://population.un.org/wpp/.
   Google Scholar
• UN-Water. 2021. UN-Water Annual Report 2020. Geneva (Switzerland): United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• van Ginneken VJ, Helsper JP, de Visser W, van Keulen H, Brandenburg WA. 2011. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in various macroalgal species from north Atlantic and tropical seas. Lipids Health Dis. 10:104. doi:10.1186/1476-511X-10-104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veramaris. 2018. Half-time for Veramaris’algal oil production facility in Nebraska. [accessed 2021 Nov 04]. https://www.veramaris.com/press-releases-detail/half-time-for-veramaris-algal-oil-production-facility-in-nebraska.html.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver R, Hanks J, Low J, Flint J, Nixon C, Ferguson A. 2020. Supporting the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the UK’s marine sectors: A research report for Marine Scotland. Edinburgh (Scotland): Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Wernberg T, Krumhansl KA, Filbee-Dexter K, Pedersen MF. 2019. Status and trends for the world’s kelp forests In: Sheppard C, editor. World seas: an environmental evaluation, Vol III: ecological issues and environmental impacts. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press. p. 57–78.
   Google Scholar
• White C. 2020. Truite Service trout raised on Veramaris algae feed sold in France. Seafood Source; [accessed 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/premium/aquaculture/truite-service-trout-raised-on-veramaris-algae-feed-sold-in-france.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank Group. 2016. Seaweed aquaculture for food security, income generation and environmental health in tropical developing countries. Washington (DC): World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• World Fish Center (Hall SJ, Delaporte A, Phillips MJ, Beveridge M, O’Keefe M). 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The World Fish Center, Penang, Malaysia. http://www.worldfishcenter.org/global_aquaculture/. www.conservation.org/marine.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Lei J, Huguenard K, Fredriksson DW. 2021. Wave attenuation by suspended canopies with cultivated kelp (Saccharina latissima). Coast Eng. 168:103947. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2021.103947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• zu Ermgassen PSE, Grabowski JH, Gair JR, Powers SP. 2016. Quantifying fish and mobile invertebrate production from a threatened nursery habitat. J Appl Ecol. 53(2):596–606. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar