Can the world farm more seafood with less impact?

Posted on

Extended Data Fig. 2: Global distribution of CIM in 2050 under the best-case and worst-case scenarios under RCP 4.5. (a) best-case scenario estimated at the global scale, (b) worst-case scenario estimated at the global scale From: Strategic planning could reduce farm-scale mariculture impacts on marine biodiversity while expanding seafood production

A new study says the answer is yes. But the best-case scenario sits on a knife-edge of three factors: Location, location, location.

By Emma Bryce
February 28, 2025
Anthropocene magazine

A new study finds that even as mariculture expands globally, the industry could actually decrease its current biodiversity impact by 30%—if they get smarter about where they farm. But the same study also cautions that seafood farming in the wrong locations could just as easily ramp up current marine biodiversity impacts by over 400%.

One-fifth of the fish we consume is provided by farmed seafood, and that figure is only projected to rise as global demand for protein grows. The new research, published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, calculated that mariculture—the controlled production of shellfish, bivalves, and finfish in coastal areas and in the open ocean—will need to increase by 40.5% from 108,729 hectares to 152,785, to meet this growing demand by 2050.

To understand how this expansion will affect ocean biodiversity, the team of scientists developed an impact index that considered how nutrient pollution and habitat degradation from seafood farms affect over 20,000 individual ocean species. This was based on data about species vulnerability to these pressures, and the probability that those species would occur in the vicinity of fish farms. Then the researchers developed a model to project these impacts out to 2050, according to the expected mariculture expansion. The model also took into account how a warming ocean will drive shifts in species ranges.

The result was a varied global picture showing where in the world the greatest mariculture impacts would unfold in the future—and also, where expansion would come with a lesser cost.

First of all, looking at current-day mariculture impacts, the research showed that nutrient pollution has the biggest biodiversity impact globally, accounting for almost 80% of the harms done. The modelling also showed that Southeast and East Asian countries, including China, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, have the highest concentrations of mariculture, and also the highest marine species richness overall—and in combination, that gives seafood farming in these regions the biggest biodiversity impact overall.

Under a worst-case future scenario, where mariculture expansion occurred only in biodiversity-rich regions such as these, the effects could be profound: the cumulative biodiversity impact of seafood farming would increase by an average 270% at the country level, and by 420.5% at a global scale, compared to current impacts. Species-wise, the worst affected by mariculture under this extreme scenario would be large marine mammals including whales and seals, because these animals have considerable ranges that would overlap with more open-ocean farms.

But just as there’s a worst-case scenario, the researchers also posit a best-case scenario—one we could achieve, they say, if we take a more strategic approach.

“The best case scenario refers to all mariculture farms in 2050 [being] placed in sea areas with low [impact], including relocating existing farms and the new farms,” says Deqiang Ma, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, and lead author in the new study. The model showed that if farms of the future were almost exclusively sited away from biodiversity hubs, the cumulative effects of mariculture would be on average 27.5% lower at the country level compared to 2020. Taken at the global scale, that equaled an impact reduction of 30.5%. Under this best-case future scenario, almost all marine species considered in the study would experience lower impacts compared to the current-day harms of seafood farms.

“The main takeaway is that planning could substantially reduce mariculture impacts on marine biodiversity while meeting the demand for expanding mariculture,” says Ma.

This impact reversal would involve relocating almost 90% of existing bivalve and finfish farms, many of these from high-biodiversity areas currently, to low-impact zones. One location, for example, might be the waters off the United States, where there is a large untapped area available for mariculture development, and also where species richness is lower compared to, say, Indonesia.

While the study paints the possibility of marrying increased production with thriving biodiversity, the researchers picked out some caveats and concerns. The first is that while the future overhaul of mariculture would require shifting the majority of seafood farms elsewhere, the placement of these new and expanding farms must be sensitive to other needs, like those of local fishing communities who should not be displaced by new industry, the researchers urge.

Another point is that even under the model’s best-case scenario, future expansion still had some impact on marine mammals. So even if it were reorganized, mariculture would still have a cost.

The study also notes that biodiversity impacts aren’t only down to location. Bivalves like mussels and oysters double as ocean filters, actually cleansing nutrient pollution as they go, and consistently turned up as the lowest-impact form of mariculture in the research. This hints at an opportunity to move mariculture even further towards sustainability by changing the makeup of what we farm.

The researchers hope their study provides an initial guide on how to manage mariculture, before its expansion causes avoidable harm. A bit of strategic thinking, they write in their study, could “help bridge the important compromise between meeting the world’s nutritional needs and protecting the ocean’s biodiversity.”

Ma et. al. “Strategic planning could reduce farm-scale mariculture impacts on marine biodiversity while expanding seafood production.” Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2025.

References

  1. Larsen, R., Eilertsen, K.-E. & Elvevoll, E. O. Health benefits of marine foods and ingredients. Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 508–518 (2011).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  2. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2022).

  3. Naylor, R. L. et al. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 591, 551–563 (2021).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics. Global Aquaculture and Fisheries Production 1950–2018 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2020).

  5. Costello, C. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588, 95–100 (2020).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Free, C. M. et al. Expanding ocean food production under climate change. Nature 605, 490–496 (2022).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Henriksson, P. J. G. et al. Interventions for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture for future food security. One Earth 4, 1220–1232 (2021).

    Google Scholar

  8. Gentry, R. R. et al. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1317–1324 (2017).

    PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Primavera, J. H. Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean Coastal Manage. 49, 531–545 (2006).

    Google Scholar

  10. Barrett, L. T., Swearer, S. E. & Dempster, T. Impacts of marine and freshwater aquaculture on wildlife: a global meta-analysis. Rev. Aquacult. 11, 1022–1044 (2019).

    Google Scholar

  11. Marbà, N., Santiago, R., Díaz-Almela, E., Álvarez, E. & Duarte, C. M. Seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) vertical growth as an early indicator of fish farm-derived stress. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 67, 475–483 (2006).

    Google Scholar

  12. Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N. & Fatoyinbo, T. Global declines in human‐driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biol. 26, 5844–5855 (2020).

    Google Scholar

  13. Malone, T. C. & Newton, A. The globalization of cultural eutrophication in the coastal ocean: causes and consequences. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 670 (2020).

    Google Scholar

  14. San Diego-McGlone, M. L., Azanza, R. V., Villanoy, C. L. & Jacinto, G. S. Eutrophic waters, algal bloom and fish kill in fish farming areas in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 57, 295–301 (2008).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  15. van der Schatte Olivier, A. et al. A global review of the ecosystem services provided by bivalve aquaculture. Rev. Aquacult. 12, 3–25 (2020).

    Google Scholar

  16. Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Levin, S. A. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341, 1239–1242 (2013).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).

    Google Scholar

  18. The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) Implementation Plan (UNESCO-IOC, 2021).

  19. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

  20. Gephart, J. A. et al. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597, 360–365 (2021).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  21. McIntosh, P. et al. Supersizing salmon farms in the coastal zone: a global analysis of changes in farm technology and location from 2005 to 2020. Aquaculture 553, 738046 (2022).

    Google Scholar

  22. Butt, N. et al. A trait-based framework for assessing the vulnerability of marine species to human impacts. Ecosphere 13, e3919 (2022).

    Google Scholar

  23. Kaschner, K. et al. AquaMaps: Predicted range maps for aquatic species; retrieved from https://www.aquamaps.org(2019).

  24. Clawson, G. et al. Mapping the spatial distribution of global mariculture production. Aquaculture 553, 738066 (2022).

    Google Scholar

  25. Kautsky, N., Rönnbäck, P., Tedengren, M. & Troell, M. Ecosystem perspectives on management of disease in shrimp pond farming. Aquaculture 191, 145–161 (2000).

    Google Scholar

  26. Ramesh, R. et al. In Wetland Science: Perspectives from South Asia (eds Prusty, B. A. K. et al.) 515–544 (Springer, 2017).

  27. Muñoz, J. M. B. Progress of coastal management in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ocean Coastal Manage. 184, 105009 (2020).

    Google Scholar

  28. Yang, S. et al. The transformation of 40-year coastal wetland policies in China: network analysis and text analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 15251–15260 (2022).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Slobodian, L. et al. Mangrove Law and Policy: Legal and Policy Frameworks that Enable Mangrove Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use, in Support of Global Goals for Climate, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development (Global Mangrove Alliance, 2023).

  30. Fang, Q., Ma, D., Zhang, L. & Zhu, S. Marine functional zoning: a practical approach for integrated coastal management (ICM) in Xiamen. Ocean Coastal Manage. 207, 104433 (2021).

    Google Scholar

  31. Teng, X. et al. Implementing marine functional zoning in China. Mar. Policy 132, 103484 (2021).

    Google Scholar

  32. Ehler, C. N. Two decades of progress in marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 132, 104134 (2021).

    Google Scholar

  33. Friess, B. & Grémaud-Colombier, M. Policy outlook: recent evolutions of maritime spatial planning in the European Union. Mar. Policy 132, 103428 (2021).

    Google Scholar

  34. MSPglobal: International Guide on Marine/maritime Spatial Planning (eds Iglesias Campos, A. et al.) (IOC/UNESCO, DG-MARE, 2021).

  35. Brugere, C., Bansal, T., Kruijssen, F. & Williams, M. Humanizing aquaculture development: putting social and human concerns at the center of future aquaculture development. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 54, 482–526 (2023).

    Google Scholar

  36. Asche, F., Bjørndal, T. & Young, J. A. Market interactions for aquaculture products. Aquacult. Econ. Manage. 5, 303–318 (2001).

    Google Scholar

  37. Eagle, J., Naylor, R. & Smith, W. Why farm salmon outcompete fishery salmon. Mar. Policy 28, 259–270 (2004).

    Google Scholar

  38. Mansfield, E. J. et al. Anticipating trade-offs and promoting synergies between small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to improve social, economic, and ecological outcomes. npj Ocean Sustain. 3, 1–11 (2024).

    Google Scholar

  39. Yu, J. & Yin, W. Exploring stakeholder engagement in mariculture development: challenges and prospects for China. Mar. Policy 103, 84–90 (2019).

    Google Scholar

  40. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics—Yearbook 2020 report no. 2070-6057 (FAO, 2023).

  41. Skirtun, M. et al. Plastic pollution pathways from marine aquaculture practices and potential solutions for the North-East Atlantic region. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 174, 113178 (2022).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Findlay, C. et al. Mapping widespread and increasing underwater noise pollution from acoustic deterrent devices. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135, 1042–1050 (2018).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  43. McConnell, A., Routledge, R. & Connors, B. Effect of artificial light on marine invertebrate and fish abundance in an area of salmon farming. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 419, 147–156 (2010).

    Google Scholar

  44. Bath, G. E., Price, C. A., Riley, K. L. & Morris, J. A. Jr A global review of protected species interactions with marine aquaculture. Rev. Aquacult. 15, 1686–1719 (2023).

    Google Scholar

  45. Maxwell, S. M. et al. Cumulative human impacts on marine predators. Nat. Commun. 4, 2688 (2013).

    PubMed Google Scholar

  46. O’Hara, C. C., Frazier, M. & Halpern, B. S. At-risk marine biodiversity faces extensive, expanding, and intensifying human impacts. Science 372, 84–87 (2021).

    PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  48. Weitzman, J., Steeves, L., Bradford, J. & Filgueira, R. In World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, Second Edition (ed. Sheppard, C.) 197–220 (Academic Press, 2019).

  49. Tan, K. et al. Effects of bivalve aquaculture on plankton and benthic community. Sci. Total Environ. 914, 169892 (2024).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Weber, M. M., Stevens, R. D., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. & Grelle, C. E. V. Is there a correlation between abundance and environmental suitability derived from ecological niche modelling? A meta-analysis. Ecography 40, 817–828 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  51. Sardain, A., Sardain, E. & Leung, B. Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nat. Sustainability 2, 274–282 (2019).

    Google Scholar

  52. Bugnot, A. et al. Current and projected global extent of marine built structures. Nat. Sustainability 4, 33–41 (2021).

    Google Scholar

  53. Grall, J. & Chauvaud, L. Marine eutrophication and benthos: the need for new approaches and concepts. Global Change Biol. 8, 813–830 (2002).

    Google Scholar

  54. Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Klein, C. J. et al. Shortfalls in the global protected area network at representing marine biodiversity. Sci. Rep. 5, 17539 (2015).

    PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  56. Brito-Morales, I. et al. Climate velocity reveals increasing exposure of deep-ocean biodiversity to future warming. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 576–581 (2020).

    CAS Google Scholar

  57. Hodapp, D. et al. Climate change disrupts core habitats of marine species. Global Change Biol. 29, 3304–3317 (2023).

    CAS Google Scholar

  58. Ma, D. The code for calculating mariculture impacts on marine biodiversity. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27132759 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. A. Gephart for providing raw data on greenhouse gas, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions per farm. We also thank J. Ruesink for providing comments on mariculture pressures. We acknowledge financial support from University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability and Institute for Global Change Biology. B.S.H. and M.F. were supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (Federal Award Number (FAIN) 2019902). J.G.M was supported by funding from the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST SICORP grant JPMJSC20E5).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Global Change Biology, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Deqiang Ma, Brian C. Weeks & Neil H. Carter

  2. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Benjamin S. Halpern

  3. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Benjamin S. Halpern & Melanie Frazier

  4. Department of Biology, Center for Ecosystem Sentinels, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Briana Abrahms

  5. Institute for Global Change Biology, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Jacob Allgeier

  6. Arctic Research Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan

    Jorge García Molinos

  7. Marine Science Institute, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Christopher M. Free

  8. Department of Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Kristin Kaschner

Contributions

D.M., B.S.H. and N.H.C. conceived this study. D.M., B.S.H., C.M.F., J.G.M., M.F. designed the methods, with input from B.A., J.A., B.C.W. and N.H.C. D.M. collected data, performed the analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. D.M., B.S.H., B.A., J.A., J.G.M., C.M.F., B.C.W., M.F., K.K. and N.H.C. edited the manuscript. N.H.C., B.A., J.A. and B.C.W. acquired the funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deqiang Ma.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Distribution of changes in CIM between the best-case and worst-case scenarios and each randomized mariculture scenario.

(a and b): RCP 8.5 scenario; (c and d): RCP 4.5 scenario.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Global distribution of CIM in 2050 under the best-case and worst-case scenarios under RCP 4.5.

(a) best-case scenario estimated at the global scale, (b) worst-case scenario estimated at the global scale, (c) best-case scenario estimated at the country level, (d) worst-case scenario estimated at the country level. The distribution of CIM was divided into five categories using quintiles.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Global distribution of CIM per unit farm across all potential mariculture areas in 2050 under RCP 8.5.

(a) general marine fish. (b) Salmonidae fish. (c) bivalve. The distribution of CIM per unit farm was divided into five categories using quintiles.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Global distribution of CIM per unit farm across all potential mariculture areas in 2050 under RCP 4.5.

(a) general marine fish. (b) Salmonidae fish. (c) bivalve. The distribution of CIM per unit farm was divided into five categories using quintiles.

Pledge Your Vote Now
Change language