De Silva Sena S 2012 Aquaculture A Newly

Aquaculture: a newly emergent food
production sector—and perspectives of its

impacts on biodiversity and conservation
Sena S. De Silva
Biodiversity and Conservation
ISSN 0960-3115
Biodivers Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s10531-012-0360-9
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Biodivers Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s10531-012-0360-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Aquaculture: a newly emergent food production

sector—and perspectives of its impacts on biodiversity
and conservation
Sena S. De Silva
Received: 20 April 2012 / Accepted: 11 August 2012

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract The fisheries sector in the course of the last three decades have been trans-
formed from a developed country to a developing country dominance. Aquaculture, the
farming of waters, though a millennia old tradition during this period has become a
significant contributor to food fish production, currently accounting for nearly 50 % of
global food fish consumption; in effect transforming our dependence from a hunted to a
farmed supply as for all our staple food types. Aquaculture and indeed the fisheries
sector as a whole is predominated in the developing countries, and accordingly the
development strategies adopted by the sector are influenced by this. Aquaculture also
being a newly emerged food production sector has being subjected to an increased level
of public scrutiny, and one of the most contentious aspects has been its impacts on
biodiversity. In this synthesis an attempt is made to assess the impacts of aquaculture on
biodiversity. Instances of major impacts on biodiversity conservation arising from
aquaculture, such as land use, effluent discharge, effects on wild populations, alien
species among others are highlighted and critically examined. The influence of paradigm
changes in development strategies and modern day market forces have begun to impact
on aquaculture developments. Consequently, improvements in practices and adoption of
more environmentally friendly approaches that have a decreasing negative influence on
biodiversity conservation are highlighted. An attempt is also made to demonstrate direct
and or indirect benefits of aquaculture, such as through being a substitute to meet human
needs for food, particularly over-exploited and vulnerable fish stocks, and for other
purposes (e.g. medicinal ingredients), on biodiversity conservation, often a neglected
entity.
Keywords Food fish supply Farmed Effluents Alien species Tilapias Salmonids
Shrimp Impacts Biodiversity Aquaculture
S. S. De Silva (&)
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Warrnambool, VIC 3280, Australia
e-mail: sena.desilva@deakin.edu.au
123
Biodivers Conserv
Introduction
Aquaculture, the farming of waters, though a millennia old tradition, only over the last
three decades has become literally ‘the new kid on the blocks’ from viewpoints of food
production, food security, a provider of significant employment/livelihood opportunities,
and a source of income generation. Aquaculture currently accounts for nearly 50 % of
global food fish consumption, and is reputed to be the fastest growing primary production
sector, averaging an annual growth rate of nearly 7 % (FAO 2011a). Aquaculture pro-
duction reached 73,044,604 tonnes in 2009 valued at US$110.234 billion. Consequently,
of our modern staple food types aquaculture has gradually triggered the dependence on
food fish from a hunted to a predominantly a farmed supply as for our other staples.
The emergence of aquaculture as a major food production sector coincided with
adoption of new paradigms in relation to all forms of developments, triggered off with the
global acceptance of the Bruntland Report, ‘‘Our Common Future’’ (UNEP 1987), fol-
lowed by the establishment of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1994). The ensuing
paradigms on biodiversity conservation in relation to all forms of development were fur-
ther strengthened by the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the
strategies thereof by the global community (United Nations 2000). These have become the
norm in respect of modern day development. One of the primary aspirations of the MDG is
to reduce the rate of global biodiversity losses by year 2020. In this regard it has been
reported, however, that the rate of reduction of global biodiversity losses is not slowing
down (Butchart et al. 2010). This is so despite some local successes and increasing
responses including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest
management, policy responses to invasive alien species and biodiversity related aid to
developing countries (Butchart et al. 2010).
Modern comprehension of biological diversity has also changed considerably over the
last two to three decades. Traditionally, biological diversity referred to species richness.
However, it has broadened to include the degree of variation of life forms within a given
species, ecosystem, biome or an entire planet, and is often defined as the ‘‘totality of genes,
species, and ecosystems of a region’’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity). The
above definition is thought to have the advantage in that it describes most circumstances
and represents a unified view of the three levels of identified biological variety (i.e. species
diversity, ecosystem diversity and genetic diversity). It is accepted that biological diversity
is a measure of the health/well being of an ecosystem.
In the above contexts, and not unexpectedly, the aquaculture sector, having only
become a major player in providing food fish supplies in the last three decades, has come
under a greater degree of public ‘‘policing’’, perhaps more so than the established food
production sectors (De Silva and Davy 2010). Accordingly, and not surprisingly, the
overall sustainability of the sector from a resource usage view point and its impacts on
aquatic biodiversity have been the subject of much attention and concern (e.g., Chen 1989;
Waples 1991; Beverton 1992; Moyle and Leidy 1992; Naylor et al. 1998, 2000, 2001;
Na-Nakorn et al. 2004; Senanan et al. 2004; Tsilkiras et al. 2010).
Although impacts of aquaculture on aquatic biodiversity have been dealt in passing
many a time, explicit treatment of the subject has often been relatively limited (see
Beveridge et al. 1994; Beardmore et al. 1997), and mostly done at a time when aquaculture
was beginning to emerge as a major food production sector. Beveridge et al. (1994)
concurred that impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity are rarely positive, sometimes
neutral, but usually negative to some degree. On the other hand, Beardmore et al. (1997)
emphasised on the potential impacts on biodiversity brought about through the use of
123
Biodivers Conserv
hatchery bred stocks in aquaculture and the resulting consequences on genetic diversity of
wild populations. More recently, Diana (2009) attempted to correlate aquaculture pro-
duction and ensuing issues on biodiversity.
In the wake of increasing importance of aquaculture as a food source, for food security
in the developing world, and as an economic activity it is timely to consider its impacts on
biodiversity in greater detail and more explicitly. Accordingly, this synthesis attempts to
consider the impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity, including its indirect contributions to
biodiversity conservation which have often been ignored and remains undocumented.
Gross changes in the fisheries sector over the past 60 years
Aquaculture developments and hence its purported impacts on biodiversity have to be

considered in the context of gross changes in the sector as a whole, as the developmental
strategies that have been responsible for the sector to gain current importance are driven, to
a great extent, by the latter. The gross changes in capture fisheries and aquaculture pro-
duction over the past 60 years, in five yearly stanzas, and contributions from developed
and developing countries, are shown in Fig. 1. It is evident that production from the
capture fisheries sector has plateaued since the last decade and its dominance has clearly
shifted to developing countries, whilst throughout the period under consideration devel-
oping countries have been predominant in aquaculture production. Overall, at the end of
the first decade of the new millennium developing countries accounted for 71.4 and 91.9 %
of global capture fisheries and aquaculture, respectively. The above trends in the fisheries
sector were also alerted to previously by Delgado et al. (2003) when it was pointed out that
the consumption of fish products also showed a dominance in the developing countries.
The aquaculture sector in turn, over the years, has been dominated by developing
countries in the Asia–Pacific region, which accounts for nearly 90 % of global aquaculture
production (FAO 2011b). Seven countries in the region (in order of production in 2009;
China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines) are among
the top 10 aquaculture producing countries in the world (FAO 2011a). In most of these
countries the contribution to national GDP from aquaculture has superseded that from
capture fisheries within the last decade (FAO 2011b).
The above trends have been reflected in turn in ‘‘fish trade’’. In the recent times the net
export earnings from fish trade for developing countries have superseded that from the
more traditional export commodities (Fig. 2). Although, export income earnings from
aquaculture are not available as a separate entity, it is documented that some cultured
products are destined almost entirely for export, such as in the case of the cultured striped
catfish, also known as tra catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) in the Mekong Delta
(MD) (8°330 –10°550 N; 104°300 –106°500 E), Vietnam which brought about earnings of
US$1.4 billion in 2009 (Phan Lam et al. 2009; De Silva and Phuong 2011).
Food fish needs of the future
Consumption of fish/sea food has been increasing over the years, and is currently (2008)
estimated at 17.2 kg/year/capita. It is estimated that fish contributed 15.7 % to the global
population’s animal protein intake and 6.1 % of all protein consumed in 2007; being 18.3
and 20.1 % for developing countries and low income food deficit countries (LIFDC),
respectively (FAO 2010). The increase in food fish consumption is driven by the perceived
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 1 Gross trends in world capture fisheries and aquaculture production from 1950 to 2009 in five year
blocks, and the contribution of developed and developing countries to production, and the percent
contribution of the latter to the total. Based on data from FAO (2012). FishStat Plus. http://www.fao.org/
fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en#1
health benefits arising from fish consumption, in developed countries, whereas in devel-
oping countries it provides an affordable and an accessible animal protein supply. Even at
the above per caput intake of fish it is estimated that an additional 30–40 million tonnes
will be required to meet the needs of a growing population of 9 billion by year 2050.
The above leads to the often posed question how could this need gap for food fish be
met. In the wake of the traditional food fish supply—the marine capture fisheries—
dwindling, if not plateauing at around 100 million tonnes per year, at best, the gap in
demand is likely to be met only through aquaculture and perhaps augmented with an
increase in harnessing inland waters more effectively (Beard et al. 2011; de Graff et al.
2012). Equally there are other contentious issues with regard to the tonnage of the marine
capture fishery harvest used for reduction into fish meal and fish oil, which averages 25 %
per year (Tacon and Metian 2008). The main such issue being an ethical/moral one where
it is suggested by some that the raw material used in the reduction processes should be
channelled for direct human consumption among the poor and the needy (Powell 2003;
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 2 Net exports of selected agriculture commodities from developing countries (from FAO 2010)
Aldhous 2004). The issue is further clouded by an increased use of such products for pet
feeds (De Silva and Turchini 2008).
The above ethical/moral questions are likely to linger on. However, it is difficult to
envisage major changes in the channelling of raw fish resources used in the reduction
industry for direct human consumption, leaving with the options stated above to meet the
gap in future food fish needs. The challenge however, would be to meet the demand on
food fish supplies without overall and significant impacts (losses) on biodiversity. It is in
this context that an attempt is made in the following sections to weigh the pros and cons of
impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity, and to ascertain the extent to which this developing
food fish production sector has adjusted to minimise biodiversity impacts.
Aquaculture and biodiversity
Major criticisms of the aquaculture sector have been its purported impacts on biodiversity
and its over-dependence on dwindling natural resources use, such as fish meal and fish oil.
Admittedly, all farming systems, whether on land or in water, are likely to impact the
ecosystems, either directly and or indirectly. In this regard aquaculture is no exception.
However, the question is whether those facets of aquaculture that are purported to impact
on biodiversity are detrimental to the latter and if so to what degree; in essence are the
significant gains from aquaculture to food security, socio-economic and societal well being
through the generation of livelihood opportunities, and household and national incomes
negated and or overweighed by its overall negative impacts on biodiversity. On the other
hand, should not the positive impacts of aquaculture, either directly and or indirectly, not
be built into the equation of overall assessment of the sector’s impacts on biodiversity.
Potential impacts of aquaculture on aquatic biodiversity
Many factors of farming systems that impact on biodiversity are common. However, in
aquaculture by virtue of the medium in which farming is based pose additional entities,
123
Biodivers Conserv
principally through the connectivity of the water sheds, across geographical terrains and
geo-political boundaries. This connectivity often makes it harder to impose controls when
and where needed on spread of a translocated species and or a pathogen/disease for
example.
Beveridge et al. (1994) suggested that impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity stem from
three main factors:
– The consumption of natural resources (land, water, food, seed stocks, construction
material etc.),
– The transformation process (aquaculture) itself, and
– The production of wastes (including food, faecal and urinary products, chemicals,
parasites and feral species).
Diana (2009), on the other hand, listed eight negative impacts of aquaculture on bio-
diversity, in decreasing order of importance. These factors essentially were a further
elaboration of those of the former authors, but considered the that escapement of aquatic
crops and their potential hazard as invasive species, relationships among effluents,
eutrophication of water bodies and changes in the fauna of receiving waters, and con-
version of sensitive land areas and water use to be the most important.
In the following sections an attempt is made to synthesise and deal with information on
what is considered to be the most controversial aspects of aquaculture on biodiversity. This
selection is not thought to negate the importance of the other facets that could impact on
biodiversity, but because some of these have been adequately dealt with in the recent past.
One such prominent example is the use of fish meal and fish oil in aquaculture—its
conceived long term sustainability—and related biodiversity issues (Naylor et al. 1998,
2000; Tacon and Metian 2008; Hasan and Halwart 2009; Jenkins et al. 2009; Tsilkiras et al.
2010; Tacon et al. 2010, 2012, among others).
Use of non-renewable resources, e.g. land, water
Aquaculture is practiced in marine, brackish and fresh waters, the great bulk of current
production being in the latter. In fresh- and brackish-waters aquaculture is practiced in
cages in natural (lakes, rivers, estuaries, streams etc.) and quasi natural water bodies
(reservoirs, irrigation channels etc.), and in purpose built ponds on land, consuming land. It
has been suggested that often aquaculture utilised ‘marginal’ land, not suitable for agri-
culture (Beveridge and Phillips 1993).
Agriculture is purported to occupy 40 % of the Earth’s land area and consume 70 % of
available freshwater (McLaughlin 2011). Estimates of the amount of land consumed by
aquaculture per se are not readily available. However, it is apparent that some developing
countries consider aquaculture as a major strategy for development, for food security,
income generation and overall societal gain. Consequently such nations continue to expand
the land area used for aquaculture. For example, Vietnam, a major aquaculture producing
nation, ranked fifth in the world, has over the years expanded the land area for aquaculture
development (Fig. 3), and particularly so in the MD (8°330 –10°550 N; 104°300 –106°500 E),
which is the home to major aquaculture developments in the country. It is difficult to assess
whether such developments have led to a loss and indeed a gain in biodiversity by creating
new pond environments.
On the contrary to the above, and perhaps the most criticised is land consumption of
aquaculture related to the boom in shrimp farming in the Asia–Pacific and in South
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 3 Trends in the area under aquaculture in the whole country (Vn) and in the MD since 1995, and the
percent of area in the Delta (based on data from General Statistics Office of Vietnam, Forestry and Fishery
Statistics; http://www.gso.gov.vn/)
America, in the period mid-1980s to mid-1990s in particular, when mangroves were

converted into shrimp ponds.
Mangroves are coastal forests occurring in sheltered estuaries and along river banks and
lagoons in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Mangroves are biodiverse rich but fragile
ecosystems and are the nursery grounds for many coastal, euryhaline aquatic species
(Tomlinson 1986 among others). Mangroves have been utilised by communities living in
the vicinities from time immemorial, providing means of livelihoods. Large scale clearing
of mangroves also could lead to an indirect degradation of the ecosystem through altered
hydrodynamic regimes (Rönnabäck 2001). Loss of mangroves have also been correlated to
declines in coastal, artisanal fisheries in Bangladesh (Islam Md and Haque 2004).
In modern times large scale opening up of mangroves were a result of construction of
shrimp ponds, all of which have resulted in a significant decrease in the acreage of
mangroves globally (Table 1). It is also apparent from the table the loss in mangroves has
been curtailed between the period 2000–2005 as compared to the previous decade.
However, the estimated loss of mangrove area for shrimp pond construction over the years
is wide ranging.
Ong (1982) suggested that in Malaysia in recent years the loss of mangrove areas has
been mainly due to construction of port and airport facilities and industrial estates, and to a
lesser extent, to agriculture. However, the author was critical of the plans by the Malaysian
Ministry of Agriculture to utilise an estimated 27 000 ha of land in Peninsular Malaysia for
brackish-water fish culture; that is 20–25 % of the mangrove area in Peninsular Malaysia
for aquaculture. Primavera (1993, 1998) suggested that shrimp farming is responsible for
the major part of the near loss of 50 % of the world’s mangroves. Páez-osuna (2001)
concluded that 1–1.5 million ha of coastal lowlands have been converted into shrimp
ponds, comprising mainly salt flats, mangrove areas, marshes, and agricultural lands. In
Thailand, the global leader in shrimp aquaculture, the mangrove area decreased from about
210,000 to 170,000 ha, with a corresponding increase of shrimp pondage from 40 to
70,000 ha in the period between 1986 and 1992 (Hambrey and Lin, undated). In the
Philippines an estimated 50 % loss of 279,000 ha from 1951 to 1988 was attributed to
pond construction; of course not to all of it to shrimp ponds, however (Primavera 1997).
Alonso-Pérez et al. (2003) estimated that changes in mangrove cover between 1984 and
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 1 Estimates of mangrove area over the years by region and trends in losses (modified after FAO
2007)
Region Year (103 ha) Annual change Year Annual change Year Annual change
1980–1990 (103 ha) 1990–2000 (103 ha) 2000–2005
1980 1990 103 ha % 2000 103 ha % 2005 103 ha %
Africa 3,670 3,428 -24 -0.68 3218 -21 -0.63 3,160 -12 0.36
Asia 7,769 6,741 -103 -1.41 6,163 -58 0.89 5,858 -61 -1.01
N&C 2,951 2,592 -36 -1.29 2,352 -24 -0.97 2,263 -18 -0.77
America
Oceania 2,181 2,090 -9 -0.42 2,012 -8 -0.38 1,972 -8 -0.39
S. America 2,222 2,073 -15 -0.69 1,996 -8 -0.38 1,978 -4 -0.18
World 18,794 16,925 -187 -1.04 15,740 -118 -0.72 15,231 -102 -0.66
1999 within the Ceuta coastal lagoon system, Mexico, amounted to an annual deforestation
rate of around 0.3 %, but was not directly related with shrimp-farming growth. The amount
of mangroves converted into shrimp ponds in a major shrimp farming area in Brazil
revealed that from 1973 to 2005 there was a loss of 2,052 ha of which only 9.6 % was
consumed by shrimp farming (Guimarães et al. 2010). Thornton et al. (2003) attempted to
provide major mangrove consumptions globally.
Apart from ecosystem losses and hence biodiversity impacts the consumption of
mangroves was also associated with ‘‘land grabbing’’ and displacement of poorer sectors of
the communities with loss of livelihoods. Primavera (1997) identified conversion, expro-
priation and privatization of mangroves and other lands, salinization of water and soil,
marginalization of coastal communities and social conflicts as grave socio-economic
consequences emanating from expansion of shrimp farming in S.E. Asia. Gammage (1997)
similarly dealt with the socio-economic impacts resulting from shrimp farming in South
America.
In general, it has also been demonstrated that conversion of natural habitats is not
economically beneficial (Balmford et al. 2002). In their analysis Balmford et al. (2002)
demonstrated, for example, that the total economic value of intact mangroves (in Thailand)
exceeded that of shrimp farming by around 70 % (US$ 60,400 compared with
$16,700 ha-1). When one considers for example consumption of land, primary forests for
crash crops in some of the developing countries with huge losses in biodiversity
(McLaughlin 2011) there is reason to believe that the loss of mangroves and ensuing
impacts on biodiversity resulting from shrimp farming may have been somewhat exag-
gerated from an overall context of development. This however, does not by any means
belittle the damage done and the erroneous judgement of the shrimp farming sector in the
initial phase of development. In hindsight, perhaps the fact that mangrove ponds are sub-
optimal for shrimp farming, because of the acid sulphate nature of the soils (Simpson and
Pedini 1985; Golez 1995; Thomas et al. 2003; Páez-osuna 2001; Sammut undated, among
others), were to be known in the initial phases of the boom of the sector this calamity may
not have occurred.
The shrimp farming boom and the associated consumption of mangroves, as expectedly,
called for political intervention, in response to demands on the need for regulatory actions.
Most notable among these was the verdict of the Supreme Court of India in 1996, and the
consequent establishment of an Aquaculture Authority (now called the Coastal Aquacul-
ture Authority—CAA), when a moratorium was introduced for shrimp farming within
123
Biodivers Conserv
500 m of the high water mark (Yadava 2002). Many shrimp farming nations like wise
introduced legislative measures to safeguard mangroves, even though, by this juncture the
sub optimal nature of practicing shrimp farming in mangrove areas was overly evident. For
example, Thailand issued a Cabinet Decree on 15 December 1997 promulgating three
mangrove zones (Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment 1992): (i) a preser-
vation zone (36,280 ha) as national parks, (ii) a conservation zone (199,690 ha) of rich
mangrove areas, and (iii) a development zone (129,920 ha) consisting of deteriorated
mangrove areas and destined for rehabilitation. Mangrove clearance was completely
banned, and aquaculture was permitted only in certain areas of the third development zone
where mangroves no longer existed. Fresh permits for shrimp farming in mangrove areas
were not given after 18th November 1991.
The shrimp farming sector has moved ahead since then; globally, perhaps the con-
sumption of any further mangrove areas have come to a halt. On the other hand, the
impetus is more towards the rehabilitation and reclaiming of abandoned shrimp ponds in
mangroves (Lin 1995; Stevenson et al. 1999). Perhaps over the years these efforts may
enable some degree of recovery of the lost biodiversity that resulted from mangrove
consumption by shrimp farming, whilst the sector will continue to provide a much sought
food source and a means of livelihood for many small scale shrimp farmers—the great bulk
of producers (e.g. Kongkeo 1997: Kongkeo and Davy 2010; Umesh et al. 2010), partic-
ularly in developing countries, which happen to be the focal point of shrimp aquaculture.
Impacts of waste/effluent discharge
The above falls into the category of impacts described by Beveridge et al. (1994) as the
transformation process of aquaculture itself, and recognised by Diana (2009) as relation-
ships among effluents, eutrophication of water bodies and changes in the fauna of receiving
waters. All farming systems, be on land or in water, perturb the environment through its
contamination by substances used for enhancing production, e.g. nutrient inputs such as
fertiliser, feeds; pesticides, other chemicals such as hormones; this is inevitable. However,
the challenge is to strive towards minimisation of such environmental contamination, and
thereby curtail the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and biodiversity.
Aquaculture is no different to other farming systems in the above regard. However,
there had been many a criticism of high levels of effluent discharge from aquaculture
practices, in a general sense, but often lacked explicit instances that demonstrated direct
impacts on biodiversity. Abery et al. (2005) reported fish kills in three reservoirs in West
Java, Indonesia, with loss of cultured stocks as well as the naturally recruited fish in the
open waters. These calamities, of regular yearly occurrence were attributed to upwelling of
deoxygenated deep waters (plus other noxious gases such as hydrogen sulphide) brought
about due to anaerobic degradation of accumulated nutrients over the years from the
intensive cage culture operations.
A majority of the criticisms on environmental impacts, hence indirectly on biodiversity,
of aquaculture effluent have been associated with shrimp culture, and often so in con-
junction with mangrove clearance for this purpose. Páez-osuna et al. (1998) suggested that
of the cumulative impact of the main anthropogenic sources of nutrients in the Mexican
coastal states the input from shrimp aquaculture is only 1.5 and 0.9 % of the main sources
of nitrogen and phosphorus. In a more detailed study Páez-osuna et al. (1999) estimated the
N and P loads resulting from shrimp farming along the NW coast of Mexico, to the Gulf of
California, in 1993 and 1998. These authors concluded that the shrimp farm loads of N and
P corresponded to 0.7 and 1.3 % and 1.7 and 3.1 % for 1993 and 1998, respectively. These
123
Biodivers Conserv
levels were relatively insignificant when compared to the nutrient loading from agriculture
and municipal sources of 54.9 and 57.7 %, and 3.6 and 4.1 %, respectively for 1993 and
1998.
There are other notable negative environmental impacts from aquaculture that have also
been mostly attributed to shrimp farming. Marhaba et al. (2006) evaluated the trihalo-
methane formation potential (THMFP) and related parameters arising from shrimp farming
in low saline waters (= inland) in Thailand and concluded that these potentially carcino-
genic substances could lead to contamination of potable water. An investigation on impacts
of shrimp farming on a coastal lagoon ecosystem in the Gulf of California was evaluated
through measurements of isotopic (d13C, d15N) signatures in sediments, plants and ani-
mals, and compared with the results of a near-pristine reference site (Serrano-Grijalva et al.
2011). The study demonstrated that nutrient-enriched discharges from shrimp-farm gen-
erated changes in the availability of food sources, that in turn reduced biodiversity and
altered structural and functional food web characteristics.
Interestingly, some of the reported findings on shrimp farm effluent appear to indicate
that it may not be as environmentally adverse as thought to be. Ruiz-Fernández and Páez-
Osuna (2004) compared the influent and effluent water quality of shrimp ponds and
concluded water used for culture returned to the natural environment depleted of nutrients
(inorganic nitrogen and reactive phosphate), and that the rearing activities promoted the
exportation of particulate material to the surrounding environment. Trott et al. (2004) in
their assessment of carbon and nitrogen processes in a mangrove receiving shrimp farm
effluent arrived at the conclusion that on an annual basis, the upper reaches of the creek
appeared to mineralise only a small fraction of the nutrients derived from the shrimp farm
wastes. These authors also observed that the discharge of pond waste C and N during
shrimp harvest periods did not cause eutrophication further downstream, and attributed to
the possibility of a combination of physical mechanisms (intensive tidal flushing) and
biological nutrient transformations by pelagic microbes and their subsequent grazing by
micro-zooplankton and fish. Sousa et al. (2006) evaluated the bacterial communities from
four mangrove systems receiving shrimp farm effluents using classic and molecular
biology methods. The study concluded that neither microbial counts nor genetic profiling
revealed a significant decrease in species richness associated with shrimp farm effluent.
Attention is now also turning to effective use of shrimp effluent for production purposes.
McIntosh and Fitzsimmons (2003) explored the possibilities of utilising shrimp farm
effluent as a fertiliser for land crops; they estimated that the potential benefit of having
nutrient enriched wastewater to irrigate field crops was substantial, supplying between 20
and 31 % of the necessary nitrogen fertilizer for wheat production. Martı́nez-Córdova et al.
(2011) bioremediated shrimp aquaculture effluent and successfully reused it to farm
whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. The experimental study showed that shrimp reared
in the treated effluent resulted in better production (3,166 kg ha-1) and higher survival
(89.2 %) than in the control.
In general, there is a realisation in the sector that effluent and pond sediment could be
better utilised for other agricultural purposes, such as a source of fertiliser for land crops
(McIntosh and Fitzsimmons 2003). Initiatives are being taken to utilise pond sediment,
particularly from aquaculture practices that are clustered together, so that the process
becomes a commercial proposition with gains to fish farmers and adjacent crop cultivators
(Lin and Yi 2003). In this regard Phung et al. (2009) demonstrated the effectiveness of the
use of pond sediment from the striped catfish farming sector in the MD in Vietnam, a
systems that has been subjected to much scrutiny in respect of effluent discharge into the
river directly. The authors suggested the possibility of recycling sludge and or liquid
123
Biodivers Conserv
effluent as a fertiliser input to rice paddies bringing about significant savings to rice
farmers and of course with overall environmental benefits to both rice and fish farming in
the MD.
The foregoing sections attempted to concentrate on shrimp farming related effluent
impacts, in view of the large quantum of studies conducted in this area and also of the
attention it has received over the years from critiques of aquaculture. In a broader context
some of the impacts of shrimp farm effluents are not different to those resulting from other
aquaculture practices, however. In the latter regard the great bulk of information is on
salmonid land and in cage aquaculture, marine and freshwater. An attempt is made in the
following section to highlight some of the relevant findings and perceived impacts on
biodiversity.
One of the earliest studies on the impacts of salmonid cage culture, particularly in
relation to inland fisheries, which was a major point of concern in the early stages of cage
culture development (in freshwater), was conducted by Phillips et al. (1985). In this
analysis the authors suggested that the development models should be directed at obtaining
improved predictability on eutrophication arising from cage culture, to the benefit of fish
farmers, inland fisheries and other freshwater users, but also identifies a clear need for
research in other areas of possible conflict. Islam (2005) reviewed cage aquaculture
nutrient budget and nutrient loadings and proposed a model for nutrients (nitrogen, N and
phosphorus, P). The model showed that 132.5 kg N and 25.0 kg P are released to the
environment for each ton of fish produced; these values were as high as 462.5 kg N and
80.0 kg P when calculated on the basis of dry matter conversion rate instead of usual feed
conversion rate. The study proceeded to estimate that the annual global N and P loadings
from cage aquaculture (10,000 tonnes fish and 3,000 tonnes dry matter) at 1,325 tonnes N
and 250 tonnes P and 1,387 tonnes N and 240 tonnes P based on usual feed conversion and
dry matter conversion rates, respectively.
The sediment quality in terms of organic matter (OM), total carbon (TC), total nitrogen
(TN) and total phosphorus (TP), associated with a rainbow cage culture operation (capacity
of about 20 tonnes year-1) indicated that TP and TC concentrations in the cage sediment
showed 2.6 and 1.4-fold increases, respectively compared to the control sites (Alpaslan and
Pulatsü 2008). But the effects were found to be highly localised. In a comparable study on
cage culture impacts on the benthos in coastal waters, 20–30 m deep, in the Mediterranean
coast (Karakassis et al. 2000) it was reported that the organic carbon and nitrogen contents
of the sediment near the cages increased by a factor of 1.5–5 and ATP content by 4–28
compared with the control. Furthermore, azoic zones were not encountered, but the
macrofaunal community was affected up to 25 m from the edge of the cages and the
ecotone was in the vicinity of 25 m from the cages. These observations lead the authors
(Karakassis et al. 2000) to conclude that impacts of fish farming on benthos in the Med-
iterranean vary considerably depending on site characteristics. Maldonado et al. (2005)
conducted a study to assess whether modern cage farms proliferating at semi-offshore sites
exert environmental impact levels equivalent to the levels described from more traditional
cage farms located in shallow, sheltered sites. For most parameters (dissolved inorganic
nutrients and heterotrophic bacteria in both surface and near-bottom water, benthic chlo-
rophyll a, phaeophytin and OM in sediments and its granulometric structure) substantial
differences between farm and control sites were evident. However, most variation was
explained as a function of depth (surface versus bottom water) or season (spring versus
summer conditions). Deviations of farm values from control values, when they occurred,
were small and did not indicate any significant impact on either bacterioplankton or benthic
chlorophyll. Accordingly, the authors (Maldonado et al. 2005) concluded that medium-
123
Biodivers Conserv
sized fish farms located on semi-exposed western Mediterranean coasts have fewer envi-
ronmental impacts than traditional fish farms located in shallow, sheltered sites.
Many studies, from wide ranging climatic/geographical regions, comparable to the
above have been conducted on cage culture impacts (e.g. Cornel and Whoriskey 1993; Guo
et al. 2009; Cai et al. 2012) and the common denominator of all the findings are that the
impacts are localised (also see Mente et al. 2006), and with proper monitoring and man-
agement the impacts on the environment, hence the impacts on ecosystems and biodi-
versity could be kept to a minimum. In effect cage culture could have beneficial impacts on
biodiversity, away from the immediate vicinity, as had been shown in respect of coral
communities in sub-tropical waters. For example, a study on cage culture impacts on coral
communities in sub-tropical waters indicated that in the cage culture zone the communities
were composed of stress-tolerant massive and sub-massive corals but lacked branching
corals such as Acropora (Huang et al. 2011). The authors suggested that cage culture
caused chronic nutrient enrichment in the surrounding waters which may have resulted in a
deterioration of suitable habitats for coral reef organisms. On the other hand, in the Impact
Zone (800 m away from cages) nutrients and particulate OM from adjacent cage culture,
resulted in a high coral coverage and diversity (Huang et al. 2011). However, as pointed
out earlier, large scale expansion of intensive cage culture activities in inland water bodies,
if carried out without proper planning, such as in reservoirs and lakes, over time, can bring
about fish kills and loss of biota (Abery et al. 2005).
Use of chemicals in aquaculture and consequent environmental impacts
The previous section essentially dealt with nutrient enrichment arising from feeds and
associated waste production in aquaculture. In addition to such waste aquaculture is also
reputed to use many chemical substances, as therapeutics, prophylactics, growth promoters
etc., some of which may remain residual in the stock and others may be washed off in
the effluent into the environment. Some of the chemicals used may degrade only slowly
and or non-degradable, and be even carcinogenic, such as for example malachite green
(Srivastava et al. 2004). Among chemicals, disinfectants, pesticides and antibiotics used in
aquaculture some have been shown to be environmentally hazardous owing to their high
toxicity to non-target organisms and/or potential for bioaccumulation over trophic chains,
and can potentially affect biodiversity and functioning of adjacent aquatic ecosystems
(Rico et al. 2012).
Burridge et al. (2010) reviewed the chemical inputs from salmon aquaculture in
Norway, Chile, UK and Canada, and classified these into antifoulants, antibiotics,
parasiticides, anaesthetics and disinfectants. The authors suggested that the problems asso-
ciated with chemical use in salmonid culture are comparable in all countries but the mag-
nitude of the problems is not. It was pointed out that unfortunately the requirements for public
reporting is inconsistent among countries and these lapses hinder planning and bringing about
stricter regulatory measures which often have to be developed through field studies.
Over the years there had been a very significant reduction in the use of antibiotics in
aquaculture in developed countries, best demonstrated in relation to Norwegian salmonid
culture (Fig. 4). Such a trend has also been reported from other countries also, especially in
respect of salmonid farming (Burridge et al. 2010).
Perhaps, the situation is much more blurred in regard to use of chemicals in aquaculture
in developing countries, which in effect are in a transition phase, primarily driven by food
safety and quality and the demands of the market place (Ababouch 2006; Washington and
Ababouch 2011). Rico et al. (2012) conducted an exhaustive review of chemicals and
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 4 The trends in salmonid production in Norway and the corresponding decline in the use of antibiotics
(from http://www.pharmaq.no/products/antibiotic-in/)
biological products used in major aquaculture producing nations in Asia. This study cat-
egorised each of the substances used in aquaculture based on the purported function.
Accordingly, the chemicals and biological substances used in aquaculture in Asia were
categorised into (i) water and sediment treatment compounds, (ii) fertilisers, (iii) pesti-
cides, (iv) disinfectants, (v) antibiotics, and (vi) immunostimulants, growth promoters,
hormones, vaccines, anaesthetics and probiotics. The numbers of chemicals/substances
used in the first five categories, in order, were 13, 14, 29, 21 and 36, some chemicals being
used for multiple purposes, however. The authors argued that it is the responsibility of
governments to integrate ERA studies in the market registration of potentially hazardous
chemicals. They also suggested that there is an urgent need to collect up-to-date quanti-
tative information on chemical use associated with several aquaculture practices that can
influence the distribution and fate of chemicals in the environment, which will only enable
the development of appropriate regulatory measures.
Overall, aquaculture is in a transition phase in respect to the use of chemicals and other
substances, primarily driven by market demands and associated compliance to standards and
certification needs (Ababouch 2006; Washington and Ababouch 2011). This aspect is also
highlighted later when an attempt is made to demonstrate that some of the major aquaculture
commodities produced in developing countries by virtue of being marketed effectively. This
is implicit of a decreasing trend in the use of banned chemicals and other substances, in turn be
reflected in a comparable trend on biodiversity conservation through this means.
Alien species in aquaculture: selected highlights
Centres of production of almost all our major present day food types, husbanded animals
and some of the major crash crops are not in their centres of origin (Table 2); that is
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 2 Selected examples of some of the major food types, their centres of origin, current top three
ranked geographical regions/nations and volume of production in 2010
Common/scientific name Centre of origina Current production statusb
Country/production in mt
Rice, Oriza sativa Far East (excluding Taiwan, China (197212010); India
Japan. Korea) (120620000); Indonesia
(66411500)
Wheat, Triticum spp. Near East China (115180303); India
(80710000); USA (6010260)
Barley, Hordeum spp Near East Germany (10412100); France
(10102000); Ukraine (8484900)
Maize, Zea mays Mexico through Andean USA (316165000); China
region of Latin America (177540788); Brazil (56060400)
Sorghum, Sorghum vulgare North East Africa USA (8773440); India (6980000);
Nigeria (4784100)
Potato, Solanum tuberosum Andean region of Latin China (74799084); India
America (36577300); Russian Federation
(21140500)
Cassava, Manihot esculenta Guatemala, Venezuela, Nigeria (37504100); Brazil
Colombia (24354000); Indonesia (2390850)
Soybean, Glycine max Peoples Republic of China USA (90609800); Brazil
(68518700); Argentina (52677400)
Sugar cane, Saccharum cvs India and Far East Brazil (719157000); India
(277750000); China (111454359)
a
Data from Jennings and Cock (1977)
b
Data from FAO Stats (2012), http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
production of our main food sources are alien to the territory they are produced in.
Translocations of plant and animals were associated with human migrations across regions
and continents, and the scientific advancements since the industrial revolution have lead to
the modern farming systems and establishment of modern day production centres.
In a similar vein the translocation of selected aquatic organisms, particularly, fin fish
species occurred with waves of human migration and colonization patterns in modern times.
The most notable and one of the first groups of fishes to be translocated across the globe was
common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and crussian carp (Carassius auratus) (Balon 2006), and
salmonids of the genus Oncorhynchus (Crawford and Muir 2008). A large number of finfish
and other aquatic invertebrates have been translocated across regions and most of which are
documented (Welcomme 1988: DIAS 2004). However, only a limited number of introduc-
tions were specifically aimed for aquaculture. In this regard Pillay (1977) commented that the
great bulk of translocations for purposes of food fish production was a post Second World War
phenomenon and that unplanned and haphazard translocations is a thing of the past.
The above prophecy, however, has not been fully realised; many translocations are
conducted for short term gains (De Silva 2001; Nguyen and Na-Nakorn 2004) even though
many international codes and practices have been agreed upon (Bartley and Minchin 1996;
Bartley 1996). It has been pointed out regrettably, however, there appears to be very little
adherence to available codes of practices in affecting translocations even though most
nations are signatories to such codes (De Silva et al. 2006). It has also been pointed out that
even where legislation exists for minimising the spread of alien species, effective imple-
mentation of such laws can often be hampered by other factors (Naylor et al. 2001).
123
Biodivers Conserv
In contrast to the handful of our staple food types the numbers of aquatic species farmed
are much greater. As aquaculture began to impress as a significant contributor to the food
fish supplies the numbers of species farmed also have increased markedly. Bartley et al.
(2009) pointed out that the number of species farmed have increased from 72 in 1950 to
336 currently, representing 34 and 115 families, respectively.
As all our food types aquaculture also is based to a significant extent on alien species.
The dependence of alien species in aquaculture in the Asian region, the backbone of global
aquaculture production, has been dealt with previously (De Silva et al. 2006, 2009), and
that in Europe by Turchini and De Silva (2008). It has also been demonstrated that in
China, the leading global aquaculture producer there has been a gradual increase of
dependence on alien species (Liu and Li 2010).
Species wise there are very notable aquaculture developments that have occurred across
the natural distribution range of these. Of these aquaculture of cichlid species, most sig-
nificantly the tilapias, predominated by Oreochromis niloticus (the Nile tilapia), native to
Africa, in Asia stands out. The current cultured production of tilapias exceed 3 million
tonnes per annum. Its culture progressed over the years (Fig. 5) and most importantly
nearly 80 % of the production occurs in Asia. Equally, whole new aquaculture industries
on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) have got established in the last two decades in Chile
(Gajardo and Laikre 2003) and southern Australia (Tasmania). Chile has become the
biggest producer of cultured Atlantic salmon bypassing Norway (FAO 2011a) providing
another example of production success, and a resulting food source, of an alien species.
The case of farmed shrimp also provide a further example of the importance of an alien
species in aquaculture, particularly in the Asia–Pacific region. However, as it would be
apparent later this example contrasts to those cited in foregoing sections in that it is an
instance where a translocation was effected to replace a faltering farming system based on
an indigenous species, specifically the black tiger prawn, Penaeus monodon (also see
Briggs et al. 2004).
Fig. 5 Tilapia aquaculture production global and each continent, and the percent contribution from Africa
and Asia to the latter (based on FAO, FISHSTAT 2012)
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 6 Changes in trends of production (total Asian and black tiger shrimp and white legged shrimp
production and percent contribution of white legged shrimp to total Asian production) in the Asian shrimp
farming sector from 1985 onwards. WLs white legged shrimp (based on FAO, FISHSTAT 2012)
Shrimp farming was developed over 40 years ago and currently accounts for nearly
70 % of shrimp sold globally (Benzie 2009). Throughout the history of shrimp farming
Asia–Pacific dominated production, and up to about the middle of the 1990s the pre-
dominantly farmed species was black tiger prawn. However, in the early 1990s viral
epidemics (white spot and yellow spot viral outbreaks) of black tiger prawn began to occur
resulting in severe losses of stock and hence financial losses (Briggs et al. 2004; Kongkeo
and Davy 2010). Leading shrimp producing nations in the region, such as China, Indonesia
and Thailand for example made a policy decision to translocate white legged shrimp or the
Pacific shrimp (L. vannamei) as a solution to revive the sector (Kongkeo and Davy 2010).
The availability of specific pathogen free (SPF) L. vannamei seed stocks favouring the
choice of this translocation (Benzie 2009).
Overall, from a production and an economic view point the translocation of L. vannamei
has been successful (Fig. 6). It currently accounts for nearly 70 % of farmed shrimp
production in Asia, which in turn accounts for 85 % of global farmed shrimp production. In
major shrimp farming countries such as Thailand (Wyban 2007) and in China the trans-
located species almost completely dominates the sector (Kongkeo and Davy 2010).
Aquaculture of molluscs in 2009 reached 13.55 million tonnes valued at
US$13.245 billion, contributing 18.1 and 12.5 % to global aquaculture production,
respectively. The great bulk of mollusc aquaculture is also based on translocated species,
and their importance was recently reviewed by Guo (2009). Some species such as the
Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, has been translocated throughout the world (Fig. 7), and
a summary of the other important, selected, translocations, and successes and failures
thereof, are summarised in Table 3. As evident from Table 3 not all translocations have
been successful at every point of transfer, and the reasons for such is discussed by Guo
(2009).
Molluscan aquaculture has an added advantage in that, apart from a few exceptions of
the culture of carnivorous gastropods in small quantities (e.g. babylon, Babylon areolata;
for details see De Silva and Turchinni 2009), the great bulk of cultured molluscs are filter
feeders. As such no external feed inputs are needed, and are overly carbon sequestering. In
a recent review of the ecological role of bivalve shellfish culture in the estuarine
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 7 Historical translocations of Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, across the world (from Guo 2009)
environment Dumbauld et al. (2009) concluded that bivalve aquaculture (in respect to
West Coast, USA) does not degrade water quality like other anthropogenic influences, and
thus has not been implicated in shifts to alternate states or reduced adaptive capacity of the
larger ecological system.
Impacts of alien species on biodiversity
Almost inevitably the general consensus is that cultured alien species have impacted on
biodiversity (e.g. Moyle and Leidy 1992; Naylor et al. 2001). On the other hand, detail
scrutiny on this subject tends to show that explicit evidence of alien species impacting on
biodiversity is lacking.
Beverton (1992) reviewed the global state of introductions and concluded that the
majority of introduced species have proved either non-viable or ecologically neutral; a
small proportion has been beneficial, and some, notably general colonisers and powerful
predators, have seriously harmed the native fish fauna. Of the 1155 fish introductions for
aquaculture (global) only 6.8 % and 0.7 % were considered ecologically and socio-eco-
nomically adverse, respectively, but 4.5 % and 24.5 % were considered beneficial (Bartley
and Casal 1998). In a similar vein Gozlan (2008) suggested that introduction of non-native
freshwater fish for food production purposes may not all be bad. Gozlan (2008) suggested
that a great majority of research on translocations focuses on the few potential negative
impacts and associated risks and went on to demonstrate that the bulk of translocations of
freshwater fish have had no major ecological impacts but delivered great societal benefits.
This study recommended that those translocations beneficial for biodiversity and societal
gains need to be preserved/protected alongside a more systematic ban on species and
families of fish that have historically posed a higher ecological risk.
A detailed investigation on the biodiversity impacts of introduced tilapias into Asia
suggested (De Silva et al. 2004) that it has had minimal impacts on biodiversity, the species
tending to invade waters that are made unsuitable for indigenous ones through other
anthropogenic developments in the water sheds. Comparable observations were made by
Linde et al. (2008) in regard to tilapias in the Brazilian River Paraiba do Sul. Arthur et al.
(2010) conducted a paired comparison of wetlands in Lao PDR, SE Asia, where the
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 3 Introduction of non-native molluscan species for aquaculture based on public and personal
knowledge (adopted from Guo 2009)
Species Origin Destination Outcome
Crassostrea gigas Japan US, Canada, Europe, Successful & significant

Australia, New Zealand, in aquaculture
Mexico, Peru, Chile,
Argentina, South Africa
C. gigas Japan, Australia Southern China Unsuccessful
C. angulata China Europe Successful in aquaculture
C. sikamea Japan West Coast, USA Successful in aquaculture
C. ariakensis Japan West Coast, USA Experimental aquaculture
C. virginica East Coast, USA West Coast, USA Small scale aquaculture
Ostrea edulis Europe Both coasts, USA Small scale aquaculture
Argopecten irradians USA Shandong & Liaoning, Successful & significant
irradians China in aquaculture
A. irradians USA Southern China Small scale aquaculture
concentricus
A. purpuratus Peru Shandong, China Experimental, on-going
Pecten maximus Europe Liaoning, China Unsuccessful
Patinopecten Japan Shandong & Liaoning, Successful & significant
yessoensis China in aquaculture
Placopecten Canada Shandong & Liaoning, Experimental, on-going
magellanicus China
Spisula solidissima USA Shandong & Liaoning, Experimental, on-going
China
Panopea abrupt USA Shandong, China Experimental, so far
unsuccessful
Merceneria USA Zhejiang, Shandong & Experimental aquaculture
merceneria Liaoning, China
Ruditapes Japan USA, Europe Successful & significant
philippinarum aquaculture
Haliotis discus hannai Japan Ireland Small scale aquaculture
H. laevigata Australia Guangdong, China Small scale aquaculture
non-native species (Nile tilapia-Oreochromis niloticus, mrigal—Cirrhinus cirrhosus,

rohu—Labeo rohita and bighead carp-Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) were stocked in sub-
stantial numbers with similar wetlands where the species were absent. This study did not
reveal any significant impacts on native fish species richness, diversity indices, species
composition or feeding guild composition, except for moderately negative effects on
Simpson diversity and equitability. On the basis of this study the authors (Arthur et al.
2010) recommended that such ‘‘evaluations should be extended to the relative benefits and
risks of replacing non-native species with native ones in aquaculture and enhancement,
considering that risks associated with using the current set of non-native species are
increasingly well known and appear mild-to-moderate, whilst ecological and genetic risks
of releasing domesticated types of native species are poorly known.’’
Contrary to the above, Canonico et al. (2005), concluded that in spite of the fact tilapia
species have contributed significantly to aquaculture and food production it has distributed
widely in water sheds. These authors cautioned that its use in aquaculture, because of its
123
Biodivers Conserv
invasive nature, should be conducted in controllable environments. Ironically, however, in

this analysis no explicit evidence was presented in regard to loss of biodiversity from the
translocations per se, but only a general assessment of possible mechanisms of negative
environmental impacts.
Perhaps one of the features of most analyses is that the term invasive is used rather
loosely (Ricciardi and Cohen 2007), and all instances of invasiveness are considered to
impact biodiversity. Ricciardi and Cohen (2007) demonstrated that invasiveness of an
introduced species does not predict its impact. These authors quantified a species’ inva-
siveness to document loss of biodiversity and found the conclusions to be true for intro-
duced plants, mammals, fishes, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles. Lepriuer et al.
(2009) endorsed the suggestion that a majority of freshwater fish translocations for
aquaculture have had minimal ecological impacts but cautioned that there is scientific
uncertainty in assessment and there is a need to improve on risk assessments on future
translocations. Ricciardi and Atkinson (2004) conducted a meta-analysis on the taxonomic
distinctiveness of high- and low-impact invaders in many aquatic systems. The authors
concluded that high impact invaders (i.e. those that displace native species) are more likely
to belong to genera not already present in the system.
On the other hand, with the development of molecular genetic tools our understanding
of impacts on biodiversity has broadened considerably, and the need for mitigating such
impacts have been accepted by the sector at large. Beardmore et al. (1997) dealt with the
related issue in general and cautioned the need for appropriately designed risk analysis in
effecting translocations for aquaculture. Nevertheless, the specific negative impacts on
gene pools brought about through aquaculture is relatively scanty, still. Waples (1991)
documented the genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids in the Pacific
Northwest; Nguyen and Na-Nakorn (2004) with genetic impacts of translocations on
biodiversity of aquatic species with particular reference to Asian countries. For example, it
was reported that the loss of genetic diversity of the indigenous walking catfish, Clarias
macrocephalus, in Thailand resulted from genetic introgression from introduced farmed C.
gariepinus (Na-Nakorn 2004; Na-Nakorn et al. 2004; Senanan et al. 2004). Similarly there
are many examples from N. America on the impacts on the genetic diversity, especially in
respect of salmonid species (Allendorf and Leary 1998; Dowling and Childs 1992; Leary
et al. 1993).
Impacts on biodiversity through introduction of pathogens associated with transloca-
tions for aquaculture purposes per se are few and far apart. Flegel (2006) alerted to the
higher probability of the introduction of new pathogenic viruses in association with shrimp
translocations. It has been suggested that two new viruses the Taura Syndrome Virus
(TSV) and Infectious Myonecrosis Virus, have been introduced to the Asian region through
the translocation of L. vannamei seed stock (De Silva et al. 2007). The overall impacts of
these new pathogens on aquatic fauna is yet to be seen, however. The episode also suggests
that even though all seed and brood stock translocated into the Asian region purported to be
SPF, that all risks associated cannot, however, be completely eliminated.
Species that have been translocated and have induced aquaculture developments in all
corners of the world are perhaps there to stay. There is a general acceptance in the sector
that further developments should involve minimal new translocations, and be conducted
following major risk assessment (Kapuscinski et al. 2007).
Translocations that have been performed to date will continue to remain; with some
successes and some failures, and the controversies in relation to these will also linger on.
Importantly, however, there had been an increasing awareness to minimise further trans-
locations for aquaculture development, and consequent policy developments have been or
123
Biodivers Conserv
are being put in motion in this regard. For example, the Mekong River Commission is
pursuing investigations on impacts of introduction and stocking of exotic species in the
Mekong basin, a major area of aquaculture activity, and are developing policies for their
control (Welcomme and Vidthayanon 2003). These are supplemented by initiatives that
slant its aquaculture development strategies based on indigenous species (MRC 2010).
Comparable strategies backed up by research to effect such changes are also taking place
elsewhere (Ross and Beveridge 1995).
Impacts on wild populations
Aquaculture—fish farming—often results in farmed stock escaping into the wild, in most
instances inadvertently. Jensen et al. (2010) for example, estimated that in the Norwegian
aquaculture sector 3.93 million Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, 0.98 million rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss and 1.05 million Atlantic cod Gadus morhua escaped from 2001 to
2009, primarily resulting from technical and operational failures of fish farming equip-
ment. Farmed stock, which are hatchery reared, are considered to be less adapted to life in
the wild. Any potential interbreeding of farmed and wild stocks is likely to result in a loss
of genetic diversity of the latter making these less adaptive (Waples 1991). On the other
hand, Jacq et al. (2011) reviewed the available information on genetic interactions between
farmed and wild Atlantic salmon in Norway and observed that there is inconclusive evi-
dence to demonstrate that natural selection advantaged farmed salmon. The authors sug-
gested that further studies are needed on population and metapopulation dynamics to
determine levels of gene flow, effective population sizes and the amount of adaptive
variation, when only accurate assessments of environmental risks to the populations,
including those with escaped farmed salmon could be made.
Apart from the genetic impacts escape of farmed stocks could also lead to introduction
of parasites and diseases and population changes in the latter, of the wild stocks. Krkosek
et al. (2006) demonstrated that the spread and impact of farm origin parasitic sea louse
(Lepeophtheirus salmonis) on transmission and pathogenicity of migratory wild juvenile
pink (Oncorhynchus gorbucha) and chum (O. keta) salmon. Farm origin lice induced
9–95 % mortality in several sympatric wild juvenile salmon populations and the authors
argued that as aquaculture intensifies that disease mechanisms may challenge the sus-
tainability of coastal ecosystems and economies. Krkošek et al. (2007) went on to suggest
that louse-induced mortality of pink salmon is commonly over 80 % and exceeds previous
fishing mortality. These authors re-emphasised that if the outbreaks continue, local
extinction is certain, and a 99 % collapse in pink salmon population abundance is expected
in four salmon generations and that in general that salmon farms can cause parasite
outbreaks that erode the capacity of a coastal ecosystem to support wild salmon popula-
tions. In a similar vein Johansen et al. (2011) reported on interaction and pathogen
exchange between wild and farmed fish populations with special reference to Norway.
These authors noted that the overall health situation in Norwegian aquaculture is good, but
some pathogens are not controlled effectively. In the latter regard the authors noted that
salmon lice from farms may cause problems for wild salmon, and also viral diseases in
Atlantic salmon and bacterial diseases in Atlantic cod give rise to several disease out-
breaks, almost annually. The open cage design used permit the pathogen exchange between
farmed and wild fish and improvements to cage design could minimise such transmissions.
Importantly, Johansen et al. (2011) also alerted to the possibility of wild fish which
aggregate around cages could potentially exacerbate transmission of diseases between
123
Biodivers Conserv
farms and farmed and wild stocks and suggested that this is an area that warrants
investigation.
On the other hand, Fernandez-Jover et al. (2010) observed that cage farms did not have
an effect on the total parasite community of farm associated and non-associated bogue,
Boops boops and Mediterranean horse mackerel, Trachurus mediterraneus. These authors
noted that reduced numbers of cestodes, nematodes and the digenean Lecithocladium
excisum occurred in farm-associated wild fish compared to not farm-associated fish,
leading them to come to an overall conclusion that coastal fish farming does not affect the
total parasite communities of wild fish in SW Mediterranean (Fernandez-Jover et al. 2010).
Facets of aquaculture with potential positive impacts on aquatic biodiversity
As pointed out previously all farming systems impact on the ecosystems, to varying
degrees, and hence on biodiversity under its broad definition. However, some aquaculture
systems could be considered to have a net overall positive impact on biodiversity and
conservation, either directly and or indirectly. But more often than not such instances are
not explicitly documented.
In the early stages of development of the aquaculture sector there was a greater degree
of dependence on wild caught seed stocks, such as for example for shrimp culture, marine
finfish culture, etc. This dependence on wild caught seed stock resulted in a high degree of
loss of biodiversity through the capture of larval stages of undesired species, as well as
reducing recruitment to wild fisheries, at times with significant negative impacts (Islam Md
and Haque 2004). For example, it has been stated that for the capture of 1 kg of shrimp
larvae seed stock 10 kg of larvae of other species are sacrificed (Primavera 1998; 2005).
However, with the development of artificial propagation techniques for most of the major
cultured species the sector no longer relies on wild caught seed stock, perhaps with minor
exceptions such as eels (Anguillids). As such a major negative impact of aquaculture on
biodiversity and conservation has almost completely negated at present.
Also many potential impacts of developments of artificial propagation on biodiversity
conservation is expected to emerge in the foreseeable future augmenting conservation of
important, but severely exploited fish stocks. According to the most recent assessment of
the FAO (2010) the proportion of overexploited, depleted or recovering stocks increased
from 10 % in 1974 to 32 % in 2008. Amongst these are stocks such as the Southern bluefin
tuna (Thunnus maccoyti) and Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)—much sought after
up-market food fish species, and which are considered to be of high conservation value.
Equally, there are groups of fin fish species, some occupying relatively fragile and sensitive
habitats, such as sea horses (Family Hippocampidae) which are thought to be overexploited
for traditional medicinal purposed across the globe, often contrary to the notion that it is
utilised for this purpose only in SE Asia (Baum and Vincent 2005; Foster undated; Salin
and Mohanakumara 2006). The above are just two examples of conservation issues that
confront the modern world in order to meet human needs for food and other purposes.
The most plausible and probable solution to the above, and for comparable instances
perhaps rests with the development and commercialisation of the artificial propagation of
the respective species and of the relevant farming activities. Only such initiatives will
enable to meet the human needs, whilst conserving the wild populations and the ecosys-
tems thereof. Much progress is being made in respect of artificial propagation of the tuna
species (EU undated; Kruger 2009) as well as in the aquaculture of selected species of sea
horses (Koldewey and Martin-Smith 2010). The recognition of the public importance of
the nearing of the closing of the bluefin tuna life cycle was such that it was ranked second
123
Biodivers Conserv
of all the 50 best inventions of the year for 2009 by the TIME Magazine (Kruger 2009).
The gains from the establishment of farming systems with closed life cycles are likely to
far outweigh the gains for biodiversity conservation than the losses resulting from the
environmental perturbations of the farming systems per se.
Wider indirect impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity conservation: example

of grouper culture
On the other hand, apart from the above direct positive impact on biodiversity conservation
aquaculture is responsible for, a similar, significant impact, but do so indirectly, and is
worthy of note. In this regard an attempt is made in the following sections to highlight
potential positive impacts of grouper culture on biodiversity conservation.
Aspects on grouper culture, relevant to here, were dealt with previously in relation to
access and benefit sharing of genetic resources (Nguyen et al. 2009). Groupers belong to 14
genera of the subfamily Epinephelinae and the family Serranidae (Tucker 1999), distrib-
uted throughout most warm and temperate marine regions, preferring coral habitats.
Groupers are valued food fish, most sought after by the Live Food Fish Restaurant Trade
(LFFRT) in countries in South East Asia. LFFRT has become a very lucrative trade, with
the increasing standard of living experienced in the region (Pawiro 2005). For example, the
market for live food fish in 2006 was estimated around US $ 275 million (Johnston and
Yeeting 2006).
The market demands of the LFFRT were primarily met with from wild caught
resources, often harvested using destructive fishing methods, such as dynamiting and
poisoning (Jones and Steven 1997), leading to significant destruction of the fragile coral
reef habitats (McManus et al. 1997; Pet 1997; Mous et al. 2000; Pet-Soede and Horuodono
2004; Pomeroy et al. 2006). One such area that has been made vulnerable (Sadovy et al.
2003; Sadovy 2005; Scales et al. 2007) through fishing is the coral triangle in the Indo-
Pacific (see Fig. 8). The gradual spread of the reef fisheries, over the past years, has been
compared to the phenomenon of roving bandits engaged in the exploitation of common
natural resources (Scales et al. 2006).
Through the last decade there has been a concerted effort by conservation lobby groups
to distract patrons of the LFFRT that depend on wild caught fish. This concerted campaign
and awareness raising together with the upsurge in the development of hatchery produced
seed stock of cultured grouper species, and grow-out to marketable size have triggered a
shift in the balance from wild caught to cultured fish (see Fig. 9). As evident from the
Figure the percentage contribution of cultured grouper has risen significantly over the last
decade, and it is also reckoned that nearly 10 species are artificially propagated (Table 4;
also see Liu and Sadovy de Mitcheson 2009), almost completely eliminating the reliance
on wild seed stocks.
The question whether aquaculture is a solution to reducing fishing pressure on coral
reefs (and hence conserve biodiversity) was addressed in a semi-quantitative manner by
Pomeroy et al. (2006). The authors went on to demonstrate that grouper culture would
provide alternative livelihoods to small scale fishers and was economically feasible.
Currently however, estimates on the reduction of the use of destructive fishing gear and the
associated habitat losses are not available. However, it is conceivable that this market
driven food industry is becoming increasingly based on aquaculture and consequently has
lead to a significant degree of conservation of fragile habitats and hence biodiversity
conservation. Needless to state that grouper culture, like the culture of many forms of
carnivorous finfish species depends on feed inputs, ranging from low valued fish/trash fish,
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fig. 8 A map depicting the Coral Triangle, the region which in the past catered to the Live Fish Food
Restaurant Trade (adopted from Coral Geographic, Veron et al., unpublished)
which are gradually being replaced with commercial pellet feeds. Use of feed inputs, in one
form or the other, impacts on biodiversity and environmental integrity, in all forms of
aquaculture. However, it is thought that the positive impacts of grouper aquaculture, whilst
meeting the demand for a much sought after food commodity, far outweighs the negative
impacts on biodiversity conservation and indeed, overall, indirectly aid in conservation of
fragile ecosystems and biodiversity thereof.
Fig. 9 Trends in total global grouper production global and Asia, and the percent contribution from
aquaculture (based on FAO, FISHSTAT 2012)
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 4 Major grouper species of interest to the live reef fish trade and a summary of the current status of
seed stock sourcing
Common/scientific name Three top ranked producers Sources of seed stocks
Highfin (Humpback/mouse) Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Successful in hatchery production.

grouper Thailand Almost all farming based on
Cromileptes altivelis hatchery produced seed
Tiger (Brown marbled) grouper Widely cultured Successful in hatchery production.
Epinephelus fuscoguttatus [75 % from hatchery reared seed
Giant grouper Taiwan, China Successful in hatchery production.
Epinephelus lanceolatus Main source Taiwan
Camouflage (flowery) grouper Cultured in small quantities Reliant on wild seed
Epinephelus polyphekadion throughout SE Asia
Green (Orange-spotted) Cultured in small quantities Main hatchery production China;
grouper throughout SE Asia other countries reliant on a mix of
Epinephelus coioides wild and hatchery-reared seed
Malabar grouper Cultured in small quantities There are some reported cases of
Epinephelus malabaricus throughout SE Asia successful hatchery production,
however, it is likely due to
taxonomic confusion with
E. coioides
Leopard coral grouper Taiwan, Indonesia, and Thailand Mostly reliant on wild seed and
Plectropomus leopardus limited hatchery production.
\20 % from hatchery reared seed
Spotted coral grouper Cultured in small quantities Reliant on wild seed
Plectropomus maculatus throughout SE Asia
Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse CITES listed, some illegal Some success in breeding, but no
Cheilinus undulatus movement. Holding of wild reliable fry/fingerling production
caught fish only
This table is an updated version from a report submitted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia–
Pacific (NACA) to the World Wildlife Fund in October 2010. The updated information is based on personal
observations of the author and inputs from Hassanai Kongkeo of NACA
Changing phases of aquaculture related to biodiversity conservation
Many critiques of aquaculture tend to correlate aquaculture to salmonid and other carni-
vore and shrimp farming, which are very high input intensive practices. But the reality is
not so. In aquaculture there is a visible divide between developing and developed nations
(Tacon et al. 2010), the latter being the backbone of global aquaculture production. Tacon
et al. (2010) pointed out that developing countries have focused, by and large, on the
production of lower trophic level species, barring shrimp and marine finfish farming whilst
developed countries focus essentially on the culture of high value, high trophic level-
carnivorous species, making the sustainability of the latter production systems
questionable.
The sector is witnessing emphasis on adoption of more and more sustainable, eco-
friendly practices, some of which are essentially old, traditional practices suitably modified
to meet modern day market demands and consumer aspirations. For example, the age old
practice of rice-fish culture is expanding significantly in some developing countries (Berg
2002; Miao 2010; Ahmed and Garnett 2010; Ahmed et al. 2011 among others). All these
studies observed a significant reduction in the use of fertiliser and pesticides on the rice
123
Biodivers Conserv
crops, and much higher economic gains from rice-fish farming than the mono-culture of
rice. Although quantitative measures of increased biodiversity is not available as yet, it is
most likely that reductions in fertiliser and pesticide use on the rice crop will entail gains in
this respect, and more over reduce the run-off into the surrounding waters, and also help
conserve biodiversity.
In a similar vein to rice-fish culture the old tradition of composite fish culture or poly
culture (Jhingran 1976, Jhingran 1983; Pillay and Kutty 2005) where low trophic species
that occupy the different niches in a pond water column are used to augment overall
production is being suitably modified. The further improvements and through the adoption
of an eco-system approach to multi-species culture systems each complementing the other;
these practices are popularly known as integrated multi-trophic aquaculture-IMTA (Chopin
et al. 2001; Troell et al. 2009; Chopin 2011).
IMTA aquaculture systems tend to combine fed aquaculture species (e.g. finfish), with
inorganic extractive aquaculture species (e.g. seaweeds) and organic extractive species
(e.g. suspension- and deposit-feeders) cultivated in proximity, and are applicable to off-
shore, land based and near shore aquaculture systems. According to Troell et al. (2009)
IMTA systems should increase significantly the sustainability of aquaculture, based on a
number of potential economic, societal and environmental benefits, including the recycling
of waste nutrients from higher trophic-level species into production of lower trophic-level
crops of commercial value.
Nelson et al. (2001) used a culture system for the commercial production of the seaweed
Gracilaria parI´ispora using shrimp-farm effluents for fertilization and floating cage-cul-
ture for grow-out with positive environmental gains. These authors noted that the benefits
of this two-phase polyculture system include enhanced growth of G. parI´ispora and the use
of effluent from commercial shrimp farms as a resource when effluent-enriched thalli
grown in the cages steadily declined in nitrogen content, to about 1 %, and their C:N ratios
increased to between 20 and 30. Nobre et al. (2010) endeavoured to demonstrate the
ecological and socio-economic advantages of IMTA, relative to single-species aquaculture
based on a system of abalone and seaweed using a Differential Drivers–Pressure–State–
Impact–Response (DDPSIR) methodological approach. The results indicated a reduction in
nitrogen discharges into the adjacent coastal ecosystem (by 3.7–5.0 tonnes year-1), a
reduction in harvest of natural kelp beds (by 2.2–6.6 ha year-1) and very importantly
a reduction of GHG emissions (by 290–350 tonnes CO2 year-1). The above resulted in a
farm profitability of 1.4–5.0 %, and the authors claimed that the corresponding overall gain
from IMTA was several folds larger than the net gain in profit, estimated between US$1.1
and 3.0 million per annum; suggesting that the value of the benefits to the public by
adopting the IMTA configurations can be larger than the gains in farm’s profitability
(Nobre et al. 2010).
In general, there is an attempt to address aquaculture-fisheries interactions through the
implementation of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA), which tend to be
environmentally friendly overall and indirectly aiding biodiversity conservation (Soto et al.
2012). These attempts are further facilitated by market driven elements such as
eco-labelling, food quality and safety and the need to comply to trade standards and
certification processes (Ababouch 2006; Washington and Ababouch 2011). The global
community has only recently endorsed certification guidelines for aquaculture, which
encompass production practices, environment integrity and social harmony, and overall
sustainability (FAO 2011b). The need to comply with certification and other trade related
standards has lead the sector to develop and adopt Better Management Practices (BMPs)
and or Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP), a growing trend seen in the sector in relation
123
Biodivers Conserv
to the culture of major commodities, all of which lead to making the practices environ-
mentally and socially acceptable.
Perhaps the indirect evidence on the improvements in aquaculture practices to the better
is aptly demonstrated by considering the striped/tra catfish farming in the MD, South
Vietnam. This farming sector, almost totally export oriented, has witnessed an explosive
growth within a span of a decade, reaching over 1 million tonnes per year production in an
estimated 6–7,000 ha pond area. However, in its development to this stage it had to
encounter many obstacles, including trade embargoes and negative publicity to attain the
current heights (see Nguyen 2010; De Silva and Phuong 2011 for details). The farming
practices have continued to improve by adopting for example, BMPs (Umesh 2007; NACA
2011) which have resulted in compliance with international standards of food safety and
quality. The following sections attempts to demonstrate the results of these endeavours
through an analysis of information at the end of the market chain.
The European Union (EU) Rapid Alert System for Food and Feeds (RASFF) and the
related Rapid Alert Notifications (RANs) is a tool used to ensure food safety and quality
for all imports to the EU. RANs are issued on the grounds of Unauthorised food treatment/
additives, unauthorised establishment, temperature control/spoilage, pesticides, pathogenic
micro-organisms, packaging defective/incorrect, other veterinary medical products, orga-
noleptic aspects, labelling absent/incomplete/incorrect, heavy metals, antibiotics, allergens,
and adulteration/fraud. Non compliance to any of the above will result in the rejection of a
food consignment.
De Silva and Phuong (2011) using data from the EU on RANs on catfish imports to the
EU demonstrated that the number of RANs issued per 10,000 tonnes of catfish imports per
year declined markedly since 1998. According to these authors there had been a very
significant decline in RANs arising from veterinary drugs, indicative of the fact that the use
of restricted/banned chemicals in tra catfish farming has declined and the producers are
complying to a very high degree to the regulatory measures. In a comparable study (Little
et al. 2012) analysed the data on notifications for 27 member nations from 1998 to 2011 for
the imports of striped catfish (P. hypophthalmus) and penaeid shrimps (Penaeus monodon
and L. vannamei) from Vietnam. In this instance the data were presented in two forms; the
total number of RANs per year, and the numbers falling within each category of notifi-
cation, and the total notifications per 1,000 mt of imports per year. There was a distinct
trend for the RANs to decrease yearly, and also notifications arising from the use of banned
chemicals and the like being none in 2010 for example. The authors concluded that
Vietnamese tra catfish to be generally safe, environmentally benign and beneficial for
actors along the international value chains that characterise the trade. They also made a
case that increasingly politicised debates in Europe around risk and uncertainty are
potentially counterproductive for EU seafood security and European aquaculture industry.
Conclusions
Meeting the food demand for a growing population is a major issue confronting us
globally, with continuing population and consumption growth expected to increase for at
least the next 40 years (Godfray et al. 2010). Assuring food security or the challenge of
feeding 9 billion people by 2050 has to be achieved in a climate of increasing competition
for land, water and energy and importantly with reduced impact of food system on the
environment (Godfray et al. 2010). The challenge for meeting food security is further
123
Biodivers Conserv
exacerbated by the climate change impacts that confronts our planet and its potential
bearing on food production (McMichael 2001, 2003).
Fish constitute a major staple food item and particularly so in terms of animal protein
supply in the nutrition of people in the developing world. The traditional fish supplies have
plateaued and as such modern aquaculture has become the most plausible means of
meeting the gap in food fish supplies for the growing population; this plausibility is further
exemplified by its role in changing our dependence from a hunted to a farmed supply of
this food source in the last three decades or so. Many suggestions and iterations have been
forthcoming on ways of meeting the additional demand of 30–40 million tonnes of food
fish, whilst minimising environmental perturbations and in the wake of increasing limiting
access to primary resources such as land, water and energy. For example, Duarte et al.
(2009) suggested that in the wake of increasing constraints on land and freshwater
availability to produce food for the predicted human population of 9.2 billion the world
will have to explore the potential of using oceans; one means will be to expand oceanic
cage culture to produce the food fish needs.
The aquaculture sector, as pointed out previously, have been under the limelight of
public scrutiny perhaps much more than the other food production sectors. The sector has
perhaps learnt bitter lessons and for most intents and purposes is in an adjustment phase,
attempting to embrace practices that are conceivably more environmentally friendly and
sustainable. In this endeavour the somewhat growing public sentiment that the fish food
needs of the future will have to come from farming (Cressey 2009; Kruger 2009; TIME
2011) will act as a facilitator, and place policy makers to embrace aquaculture in a more
positive vein. When one examines the numerous critiques on aquaculture development
there is a hint of a degree of exaggeration of its negative impacts on biodiversity con-
servation, some often lacking explicit scientific evidence, and almost always not taking
into consideration the sector’s contribution to food security and societal gains.
It is worthy to consider one instance as an example of non-appreciation of aquaculture
as a food producing means, and indeed to class it as a environmentally destructive practice,
based on a study on mine pit lakes in Minnesota, USA (Axler et al. 1996). Mine pits are
man-made and such discarded pits were used for an intensive cage culture operation. Cage
culture increased the nutrient levels in the pits but eutrophication was not a problem due to
light limitation, nor did algal blooms occur. Nevertheless, according to Axler et al. (1996)
highly emotional conflicts arose over the novel use of a few of these man-made water
bodies in spite of its contribution to food fish production and income generation in spite of
the apparent lack of overly environmental perturbations.
It is also important for the sector to bring to the notice of the public the positive impacts
of aquaculture on biodiversity conservation to reinforce the policy making and to gain
public confidence in attaining the ultimate goal of meeting the food fish demands of the
growing population. Added to the latter is the fact that the great bulk of aquaculture
produce are low trophic species, thereby accounting for much less GHG emissions than
high trophic species, together with the farming of species that are carbon sequestrating,
should be a further entity that should favour aquaculture in the modern times.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to a number of my colleagues and friends who engaged with me in

numerous discussions on aquaculture–conservation–biodiversity issues, which have over the years enabled
me to develop ideas that are reflected in this manuscript. In a similar vein my stint at the Network of
Aquaculture Centres in the Asia–Pacific (NACA), 2006–2011, provided me further stimulation on the need
to bring to public awareness for a balanced view on the afore mentioned issues.
123
Biodivers Conserv
References
Ababouch L (2006) Assuring fish safety and quality in international fish trade. Mar Pollut Bull 53:561–568
Abery NW, Sukadi F, Budhiman AA, Kartamihardja ES, Koeshendrajana S, Buddhiman AA, De Silva SS
(2005) Fisheries and cage culture of three reservoirs in west Java, Indonesia: a case study of ambitious
developments and resulting interactions. Fish Manag Ecol 12:315–330
Ahmed N, Garnett ST (2010) Sustainability of freshwater prawn farming in rice fields in Southwest
Bangladesh. J Sustain Agric 34:659–679
Ahmed N, Zander KK, Garnett ST (2011) Socioeconomic aspects of rice-fish farming in Bangladesh:
opportunities, challenges and production efficiency. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 55:199–219
Aldhous P (2004) Fish farms still ravage the sea. Sustainable aquaculture takes one step forward, two steps
back. Nature. doi:10.1038/news040216-10
Allendorf FW, Leary RF (1998) Conservation and distribution of genetic variation in a polytypic species, the
cutthroat trout. Conserv Biol 2:170–184
Alonso-Pérez F, Ruiz-Luna A, Turner T, Berlanga-Robles CA, Mitchelson-Jacob G (2003) Land cover
changes and impact of shrimp aquaculture on the landscape in the Ceuta coastal lagoon system,
Sinaloa, Mexico. Ocean Coast Manag 46:583–600
Alpaslan A, Pulatsü S (2008) The effect of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum, 1792) cage
culture on sediment quality in Kesikköprü Reservoir, Turkey. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci 8:65–70
Arthur RI, Lorenzen K, Homekingkeo P, Sidavong K, Sengvilaikham B, Garaway CJ (2010) Assessing
impacts of introduced aquaculture species on native fish communities: Nile tilapia and major carps in
SE Asian freshwaters. Aquaculture 299:81–88
Axler AR, Larsen C, Tikkanen C, McDonald M, Yokom S, Aas P (1996) Case study in mine pit lakes. Water
Environ Res 68:995–1011
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Constanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M et al (2002) Economic
reasons for conserving nature. Science 297:350–355
Balon EK (2006) The oldest domesticated fishes, and the consequences of an epigenetic dichotomy in fish
culture. J Ichthyol Aquat Biol 11(2):47–86
Bartley DM (1996) Precautionary approach to the introduction and transfer of aquatic species. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 350 (Part 2). FAO, Rome
Bartley DM, Casal CV (1998) Impacts of introductions on the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity. FAO Aquac Newsl 20:15–19
Bartley DM, Minchin D (1996) Precautionary approach to the introduction and transfer of aquatic species.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 350 (Part 2). FAO, Rome
Bartley DM, Nguyen TTT, Matthias H, De Silva SS (2009) Editorial: use and exchange of aquatic genetic
resources in aquaculture: information relevant to access and benefit sharing. Rev Aquac 1:157–162
Baum JK, Vincent ACJ (2005). Magnitude and inferred impacts of the seahorse trade in Latin America.
Environ Conserv. doi:10.1017/S0376892905002481
Beard TD Jr, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, McIntyre P, De Silva SS, Bartley D, Cowx IG (2011) Meeting Report
Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: research needs and implementation strategies. Biol Lett
7:481–483. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0046
Beardmore JA, Mair GC, Lewis RI (1997) Biodiversity in aquatic systems in relation to aquaculture. Aquac
Res 28:829–839
Benzie JA (2009) Use and exchange of genetic resources of penaeid shrimps for food and aquaculture. Rev
Aquac 1:232–250
Berg H (2002) Rice monoculture and integrated rice-fish farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam—economic
and ecological considerations. Ecol Econ 41:95–107
Beveridge MCM, Phillips M (1993) Environmental impact of tropical inland aquaculture. In: Pullin RSV,
Rosenthal H, McLean J (eds) Environment and aquaculture in developing countries, vol 33. ICLARM
conference proceedings, Philippines, pp 171–197
Beveridge MCM, Ross LG, Kelly LA (1994) Aquaculture and biodiversity. Ambio 23:497–502
Beverton RJH (1992) Fish resources; threats and protection. Neth J Zool 42:139–175
Briggs M, Funge-Smith S, Phillips M (2004) Introduction and movement of Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus
stylirostris in Asia and the Pacific. RAP Publication 2004/10. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok
Burridge L, Weis JS, Cabello F, Pizarro J, Bostick K (2010) Chemical use in salmon aquaculture: a review
of current practices and possible environmental effects. Aquaculture 306:7–23
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM et al
(2010) Global biodiversity; indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168. doi:10.1126/
science.1187512
123
Biodivers Conserv
Cai C, Gu X, Ye Y, Yang C, Dai X, Chen D, Yang C (2012) Assessment of pollutant loads discharged from
aquaculture ponds around Taihu Lake, China. Aquac Res. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.03088.x
Canonico GC, Arthington A, Mccrar G, Thieme MI (2005) The effect of introduced tilapias on native
biodiversity. Aquat Conserv 15:463–483
Chen HD (1989) Impact of aquaculture on the ecosystem of Donghu Lake, Wuhan. Acta Hydrobiol Sin
13:359–368 (in Chinese)
Chopin T (2011) Progression of the Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) concept and upscaling of
IMTA systems towards commercialization. Aquac Eur 36(4):5–12
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 37:975–986
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1994) Text and annexes. Interim Secretariat for the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Chatelaine, Switzerland
Cornel GE, Whoriskey FG (1993) The effects of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) cage culture on the
water quality, zooplankton, benthos and sediments of Lac du Passage, Quebec. Aquaculture
109:101–117
Crawford SS, Muir AM (2008) Global introductions of salmon and trout in the genus Oncorhynchus:
1870–2007. Rev Fish Biol Fish 18:313–344
Cressey D (2009) Future fish. Nature 458:398–400
de Graff G, Bartley D, Jorgensen J, Marmulla G (2012) The scale of inland fisheries, can we do better?
Alternative approaches for assessment. Fish Manag Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2011.00844.x
De Silva S.S. 2001. A global perspective of aquaculture in the new millennium. In: Subasinghe RP, Bueno
P, Phillips MJ, Hough C, McGladdery SE, Arthur JR (eds) Aquaculture in the third millennium.
Technical proceedings of the conference on aquaculture in the third millennium, Bangkok, Thailand.
NACA/FAO, Bangkok/Rome, pp 431–459
De Silva SS, Davy FB (2010) Aquaculture successes in Asia, contributing to sustained development and
poverty alleviation. In: SS De Silva, FB Davy (eds) Success stories in Asian aquaculture. Springer-
IDRC-NACA, Dordrecht, pp 08–21
De Silva SS, Phuong NT (2011) Striped catfish farming in the Mekong Delta: a tumultuous path to a global
success. Rev Aquac 3:45–73
De Silva SS, Turchini GM (2008) Towards understanding the impacts of the pet food industry on world fish
and seafood supplies. J Agric Environ Ethics 21:459–467
De Silva SS, Turchinni GM (2009) Use of wild fish and other aquatic organisms as feed in aquaculture: a
review of practices and implications in the Asia-Pacific. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 518, Rome,
pp 63–128.
De Silva SS, Subasinghe RP, Bartley DM, Lowther A (2004) Tilapias as alien aquatics in Asia and the
Pacific: a review. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 453, Rome
De Silva SS, Nguyen TTT, Abery NW, Amarasinghe US (2006) An evaluation of the role and impacts of
alien finfish in Asian inland aquaculture. Aquac Res 37:1–17
De Silva SS, Mohan CV, Phillips MJ (2007) A different form of dumping: the need for a precautionary
approach for yet another new species for shrimp farming in Asia. Aquac Asia Mag XII 1:2–6
De Silva SS, Nguyen TTT, Turchini GM, Amarasinghe US, Abery NW (2009) Alien species in aquaculture
and biodiversity: a paradox in food production. Ambio 38:24–28
Delgado CL, Wada N, Rosegrant MW, Meijer S, Ahmed M (2003) Fish to 2020. Supply and demand in
changing global market. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington
Diana JS (2009) Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 59:27–38
DIAS (2004) Database on introduction of aquatic species. Fisheries Global Information Systems, FAO,
Rome
Dowling TE, Childs MR (1992) Impact of hybridisation on a threatened trout of the Southwestern United
States. Conserv Biol 6:355–364
Duarte CM, Holmer M, Olsen Y, Soto D, Marbà N, Guiu J, Black K, Karakassis I (2009) Will the oceans
help. Feed humanity? Bioscience 59(11):967–976
Dumbauld BR, Ruesink JL, Rumrill SS (2009) The ecological role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture in the
estuarine environment: a review with application to oyster and clam culture in West Coast (USA)
estuaries. Aquaculture 290:196–223
European Union (undated) FP 5. Final report. Reproduction of the Bluefin Tuna in Captivity—feasibility
study for the domestication of Thunnus thynnus. http://www.uniduesseldorf.de/MathNat/Zoophys/
bridges/REPRODOTT%20Final%20Report.pdf
FAO (2007) The world’s mangroves 1980–2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153. FAO, Rome
FAO (2010) FAO fisheries and aquaculture 2010. FAO, Rome
123
Biodivers Conserv
FAO (2011a) World aquaculture 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 500/1, Rome
FAO (2011b) Technical guidelines on aquaculture certification version adopted by the 29th session of
Committee on Fisheries (COFI) held in Rome, Italy from 31 January to 04 February 2011. Rome, Italy
FAO (2012) FishStat Plus. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en#1
Fernandez-Jover D., Faliex E., Sanchez-Jerez P., Sasal P. and Bayle-Sempere J.T. 2010. Coastal fish farming
does not affect the total parasite communities of wild fish in SW Mediterranean. Aquaculture 300:
10–16
Flegel TW (2006) The special danger of viral pathogens in shrimp translocated for aquaculture. Science
32:215–221. http://www.scienceasia.org/2006.32n3/v32_215_221pdf
Foster S (undated) Case study: Hippocampus spp. Project seahorse. http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/
cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/Links-Documentos/Casos%20de%20Estudio/Fishes/WG8%20
CS4.pdf
Gajardo G, Laikre L (2003) Chilean aquaculture boom is based on exotic salmon resources: a conservation
paradox. Conserv Biol 17:1173–1174
Gammage S (1997) Estimating the returns to mangroves: sustainable management or short term gains?
Discussion Paper DP 97-02. Environmental Economics Program, International Institute for Environ-
ment and Development. http://economics.iucn.org
Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrenec D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM,
Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812–817
Golez NV (1995) Formation of acid sulfate soil and its implications for brackishwater ponds. Aquacult Eng
14:297–316
Gozlan RE (2008) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish Fish 9:106–115
Guimarães AS, Travassos P, Souza Filho PWM, Goncalves DF, Costa F (2010) Impact of aquaculture on
mangrove areas in the northern Pernambuco Coast (Brazil) using remote sensing and geographic
information system. Aquac Res 41:828–838
Guo X (2009) Use and exchange of genetic resources in molluscan aquaculture. Rev Aquac 1:251–259
Guo LG, Li Z, Xie P, Ni L (2009) Assessment effects of cage culture on nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics
in relation to fallowing in a shallow lake in China. Aquac Int 17:229–241
Hambrey J, Lin CK (undated) Shrimp culture in Thailand. http://aquafind.com/articles/shmcul.php
Hasan MR, Halwart M (eds) (2009) Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture: practices, sustainability and
implications. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 518, Rome
Huang YCA, Hsieh HJ, Huang SC, Meng PJ, Chen Y-S, Keshavmurthy S, Nozawa Y, Chen CA (2011)
Nutrient enrichment caused by marine cage culture and its influence on subtropical coral communities
in turbid waters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 423:83–93
Islam MdS (2005) Nitrogen and phosphorus budget in coastal and marine cage aquaculture and impacts of
effluent loading on ecosystem: review and analysis towards model development. Mar Pollut Bull
50:48–61
Islam Md S, Haque M (2004) The mangrove-based coastal and nearshore fisheries in Bangladesh: ecology,
exploitation and management. Rev Fish Biol Fish 14:153–180
Jacq C, Ødegård J, Bentsen HB, Gjerde B (2011) A review of genetic influences of escaped farmed Atlantic
salmon on wild Atlantic salmon populations. Nofima, Tromso, Norway. http://www.fiskerifond.no/
files/projects/attach/900580_nofima_report_genetic_interactions_900580_final_2.pdf
Jenkins DJA, Sievenpiper JL, Pauly D, Sumaila UR, Kendall CWC (2009) Are dietary recommendations for
the use of fish oils sustainable? Can Med Assoc J 180:633–637
Jennings PR, Cock JH (1977) Centres of origin of crops and their productivity. Econ Bot 31:51–54
Jensen Ø, Dempster T, Thorstad EB, Uglem I, Fredheim A (2010) Escapes of fishes from Norwegian sea-
cage aquaculture: causes, consequences and prevention. Aquac Environ Interact 1:71–83. doi:
10.3354/aei00008
Jhingran VG (1976) Systems of polyculture of fishes in inland waters of India. Fish Res Board Can
21:906–910
Jhingran VG (1983) Fish and fisheries of India (revised 2nd edn). Hindustan Publishing Corporation. New
Delhi
Johansen L-H, Jensen I, Mikkelsen H, Bjørn P-A, Jansen PA, Bergh Ø (2011) Disease interaction and
pathogens exchange between wild and farmed fish populations with special reference to Norway.
Aquaculture 315:167–186
Johnston B, Yeeting B (2006) Economics and marketing of the live reef fish trade in Asia-Pacific. Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra
Jones RJ, Steven AL (1997) Effect of cyanide on corals in relation to cyanide fishing on reefs. Mar Freshw
Res 48:517–522
123
Biodivers Conserv
Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (2007) Environmental risks assessment of genetically modified
organisms. CABI Publishers, Wallingford
Karakassis I, Tsapakis M, Hatziyanni E, Papadopoulou K-N, Plaiti W (2000) Impact of cage farming of fish
on the seabed in three Mediterranean coastal areas. ICES J Mar Sci 57:1462–1471
Koldewey HJ, Martin-Smith KM (2010) A global review of seahorse aquaculture. Aquaculture 302:131–152
Kongkeo H (1997) Comparison of intensive shrimp farming systems. Aquac Res 28:789–796
Kongkeo H, Davy FB (2010) Backyard hatcheries and small scale shrimp farming in Thailand. In: De Silva
SS, Davy FB (eds) Success stories in Asian aquaculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 67–84
Krkosek M, Lewis MA, Morton A, Frazer NA, Volpe JP (2006) Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish.
PNAS 103(42):15505–15510. www.pnas.org/cgl/doi/10.1073/pnas.0603525103
Krkošek M, Ford JS, Morton A, Lele S, Myers RA, Lewis MA (2007) Declining wild salmon populations in
relation to parasites from farm salmon. Science 318(5857):1772–1775
Kruger J (2009) The best inventions of the year. TIME, pp 16–60
Leary RF, Allendorf FW, Forbes SH (1993) Conservation genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and
Klamath River drainages. Conserv Biol 7:856–865
Lepriuer F, Brosse S, Garćia-Berthou E, Oberdorff T, Olden JD, Townsend CR (2009) Scientific uncertainty
and the assessment of risks posed by non-native freshwater fishes. Fish Fish 10:88–97
Lin CK (1995) Progression of intensive marine shrimp culture in Thailand. In: Browdy CL, Hopkins JS
(eds) Swimming through troubled water. Proceedings of the special session on shrimp farming. World
Aquaculture Society, Louisiana, pp 13–23
Lin CK, Yi Y (2003) Minimizing environmental impacts of freshwater aquaculture and reuse of pond
effluents and mud. Aquaculture 226:57–68
Linde AR, Izquierdo JI, Moreira JC, Garcia-Vazquez E (2008) Invasive tilapia juveniles are associated with
degraded river habitats. Aquat Conserv 18:891–895
Little DC, Bush SR, Belton B, Phuong NT, Young JA, Murray F (2012) White fish wars: Pangasius, politics
and consumer confusion in Europe. Mar Policy 36:738–745
Liu J, Li Z (2010) The role of exotics in Chinese inland aquaculture. In: De Silva SS, Davy FB (eds) Success
stories in Asian aquaculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 173–186
Liu M, Sadovy de Mitcheson Y (2009) Gonad development during sexual differentiation in hatchery-
produced orange-spotted grouper (Epinephelus coioides) and humpback grouper (Cromileptes altivelis)
(Pisces: Serranidae, Epinephelinae). Aquaculture 287:191–202
Maldonado M, Carmona MC, Echeverrı́a Y, Riesgo A (2005) The environmental impact of Mediterranean
cage fish farms at semi-exposed locations: does it need a re-assessment? Helgolander Mar Res
59(2):121–135
Marhaba TF, Mangmeechai A, Chaiwatpongsakorn C, Pavasant P (2006) Trihalomethanes formation
potential of shrimp farm effluents. J Hazard Mater 136:151–163
Martı́nez-Córdova LR, López-Elı́as JA, Leyva-Miranda J, Armenta-Ayón L, Martinez-Porchas M (2011)
Bioremediation and reuse of shrimp aquaculture effluents to farm whiteleg shrimp, Litopenaeus
vannamei: a first approach. Aquac Res 42(10):1415–1423
McIntosh D, Fitzsimmons K (2003) Characterization of effluent from an inland, low salinity shrimp farm:
what contribution could this water make if used for irrigation. Aquac Eng 27:147–156
McLaughlin DW (2011) Land, food and biodiversity. Conserv Biol 25:1117–1120
McManus JW, Reyes RBJ, Nanola CLJ (1997) Effects of some destructive fishing methods on coral cover
and potential rates of recovery. Environ Manag 21:69–78
McMichael AJ (2001) Impact of climatic and other environmental changes on food production and popu-
lation health in the coming decades. Proc Nutr Soc 60:195–201
McMichael AJ (2003) Climate change and human health risks. World Health Organization, Geneva
Mekong River Commission (MRC) (2010) State of the Basin report. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane,
Lao
Mente E, Pierce GJ, Santos MB, Neofitou C (2006) Effect of feed and feeding in the culture of salmonids on
the marine aquatic environment: a synthesis for European aquaculture. Aquacult Int 14:499–522
Miao W (2010) Recent developments in rice-fish culture in China: a holistic approach for livelihood
improvement in rural areas. In: De Silva SS, Davy FB (eds) Success stories in Asian aquaculture.
Springer-IDRC-NACA, Dordrecht, pp 15–40
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (1992) Legal and regulatory aspects of the national
environmental conservation and promotion of Thailand. Government of Thailand, Bangkok
Mous PJ, Pet-Soede L, Erdmann M, Cesar HSJ, Sadovy Y, Pet JS (2000) Cyanide fishing on Indonesian
coral reefs for the live food fish market- what is the problem? SPC Live Reef Fish Inf Bull 7:20–27
123
Biodivers Conserv
Moyle PB, Leidy RA (1992) Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems; evidence from fish faunas. In:
Fielder PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation.
Chapman and Hall, London, pp 129–161
NACA (2011) Better management practices for the striped catfish farming sector in the Mekong Delta,
South Vietnam. http://library.enaca.org/inland/catfishbmps/catfish_bmp_v2.pdf)
Na-Nakorn U (2004) A perspective of breeding and genetics of walking catfish in Thailand. Aquac Asia
IX:23–28
Na-Nakorn U, Kamonrat W, Ngamsiri T (2004) Genetic diversity of walking catfish, Clarias macroceph-
alus, in Thailand and evidence of genetic introgression from introduced farmed C. gariepinus.
Aquaculture 240:145–163
Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Mooney H, Beveridge M, Clay J, Folke C, Kautsky N, Lubchenco J, Primavera J,
Williams M (1998) Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming. Science 282:883–884
Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera J, Kautsky N, Beveridge M, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H,
Troell M (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405:1017–1024
Naylor RL, Williams SL, Strong DR (2001) Aquaculture—a gateway for exotic species. Science
294:1655–1666
Nelson SG, Glenn EP, Conn J, Moore D, Walsh T, Akutagawa M (2001) Cultivation of Gracilaria
parlíspora Rhodophyta in shrimp-farm effluent ditches and floating cages in Hawaii: a two-phase
polyculture system. Aquaculture 193:239–248
Nguyen MD (2010) Application of econometric models for price impact assessment of antidumping mea-
sures and labelling laws on global markets: a case study of Vietnamese striped catfish. Rev Aquac
2:86–101
Nguyen TTT, Na-Nakorn U (2004) Genetic impacts of translocations on biodiversity of aquatic species with
particular reference to Asian countries. Aquaculture Asia IX:4–8
Nguyen Thuy TT, Davy FB, Rimmer M, De Silva SS (2009) Use and exchange of genetic resources of
emerging species for aquaculture and other purposes. Rev Aquac 1:258–272
Nobre AM, Robertson-Andersson D, Neori A, Sankar K (2010) Ecological–economic assessment of
aquaculture options: comparison between abalone monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquacul-
ture of abalone and seaweeds. Aquaculture 306:116–126
Ong JE (1982) Mangroves and aquaculture in Malaysia. Ambio 11:252–257
Páez-osuna F (2001) The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: causes, effects, and mitigating
alternatives. Environ Manag 28:131–140
Páez-osuna F, Guerrero-Galván SR, Ruiz-Fernández AC (1998) The environmental impact of shrimp
aquaculture and the coastal pollution in Mexico. Mar Pollut Bull 36:65–75
Páez-osuna F, Guerrero-Galván SR, Ruiz-Fernández AC (1999) Discharge of nutrients from shrimp farming
to coastal waters of the Gulf of California. Mar Pollut Bull 38:585–592
Pawiro S (2005) Trends in major Asian markets for live grouper. INFOFISH Int 4:20–24
Pet J (1997) Destructive fishing methods in and around Komodo National Park. SPC Live Reef Fish Inf Bull
2:20–25
Pet-Soede L, Horuodono S (2004) SARS and the live food fish trade in Indonesia: some anecdotes. SPC
Live Reef Fish Inf Bull 12:3–9
Phan Lam T, Bui Tam M, Nguyen TTT, Gooley GJ, Ingram BA, Nguyen Hao V, Phuong NT, De Silva SS
(2009) Current status of farming practices of striped catfish, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus in the
Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Aquaculture 296:227–236
Phillips MJ, Beveridge CM, Ross LG (1985) The environmental impact of salmonid cage culture on inland
fisheries: present status and future trends. J Fish Biol 27(1):123–137
Phung CV, Phuc NB, Hoang TK, Bell RW (2009) Recycling of fishpond waste fro rice cultivation in Cuu
Long Delta, Vietnam. In: Nair J, Furedy C, Hoysala C, Doelle H (eds) Technologies and management
for sustainable biosystems. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 85–97
Pillay TVR (1977) Planning of aquaculture development—an introductory guide. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Pillay TVR, Kutty MN (2005) Aquaculture/principles and practices, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Balboa CM (2006) Farming the reef: is aquaculture a solution for reducing fishing
pressure on coral reefs? Mar Policy 30:111–130
Powell K (2003) Fish farming: eat your veg. Nature 426:378–379
Primavera JH (1993) A critical review of shrimp pond culture in the Philippines. Rev Fish Sci 1:151–201
Primavera JH (1997) Socio-economic aspects of shrimp culture. Aquac Res 28:815–827
Primavera JH (1998) Tropical shrimp farming and its sustainability. In: De Silva SS (ed) Tropical Mari-
culture. Academic Press, London, pp 257–290
Primavera J (2005) Mangroves, fish ponds and the quest for sustainability. Science 310:57–59
123
Biodivers Conserv
Ricciardi A, Atkinson SK (2004) Distinctiveness magnifies the impact of biological invaders in aquatic
ecosystems. Ecol Lett 7:781–784
Ricciardi A, Cohen J (2007) The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biol
Invasions 9:309–315
Rico A, Satapornvanit K, Mahfujul Haque M, Min J, Phuong TN, Telfer TC, van den Brink PJ (2012) Use of
chemicals and biological products in Asian aquaculture and their potential environmental risks: a
critical review. Rev Aquac 4:75–93
Rönnabäck P (2001) Shrimp aquaculture-state of the art. Swedish Development Agency, Stockholm &
Swedish EIA Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Report 1
Ross LG, Beveridge M (1995) Is a better strategy necessary for development of native species for aqua-
culture? A Mexican case study. Aquac Res 26:539–547
Ruiz-Fernández AC, Páez-Osuna F (2004) Comparative survey of the influent and effluent water quality of
shrimp ponds on Mexican farms. Water Environ Res 76:5–14
Sadovy YJ (2005) Trouble on the reef: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish
Fish 6:167–185
Sadovy YJ, Donaldson TJ, Graham TR, McGilvray F, Muldoon GJ, Phillips MJ, Rimmer MA, Smith A,
Yeeting B (2003) While stocks last: the live reef food fish trade, Asian Development Bank, Manila
Salin KR, Mohanakumara NC (2006) Resources and biodiversity of seahorses and the need for their
conservation in India. Aquac Asia Mag XI 3:38–44
Sammut J (undated) Amelioration and management of shrimp ponds in acid sulfate soils: key researchable
issues. http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/2196/pr90chapter19.pdf
Scales H, Balmford A, Liu M, Sadovy Y, Manica A (2006) Keeping bandits at bay? Science 313:612–613
Scales H, Balmford A, Manica A (2007) Monitoring the live reef food fish trade: lessons learned from local
and global perspectives. SPC Live Reef Fish Inf Bull 17:36–44
Senanan W, Kapuscinski AR, Na-Nakorn U, Miller LM (2004) Genetic impacts of hybrid catfish farming
(Clarias macrocehalus 9 C. gariepinus) on native catfish populations in central Thailand. Aquaculture
235:167–184
Serrano-Grijalva L, Sánchez-Carrillo S, Angeler DG, Sánchez-Andrés R, Álvarez-Cobelas M (2011) Effects
of shrimp-farm effluents on the food web structure in subtropical coastal lagoons. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol
402:65–74
Simpson HJ, Pedini M (1985) Brackishwater aquaculture in the tropics—the problem of acid sulphate soils.
FAO Fisheries Circular No. 791, Rome
Soto D, White P, Dempster T, De Silva S, Flores A, Karakassis Y, Knapp G, Martinez J, Miao W, Sadovy Y,
Thorstad E, Wiefels R (2012) Addressing aquaculture–fisheries interactions through the implemen-
tation of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA). In: Subasinghe RP, Arthur JR, Bartley DM,
De Silva SS, Halwart M, Hishamunda N, Mohan CV, Sorgeloos P (eds) Farming the waters for people
and food. Proceedings of the global conference on aquaculture, 22–25, 2010 Phuket, Thailand. FAO/
NACA, Rome/Bangkok, pp 385–436
Sousa OV, Macrae A, Menezes FGR, Gomes NCM, Vieira RHSF, Mendonc-Hagler LCS (2006) The impact
of shrimp farming effluent on bacterial communities in mangrove waters, Ceará, Brazil. Mar Pollut
Bull 52:1725–1734
Srivastava S, Sinha R, Roy D (2004) Toxicological effects of malachite green. Aquat Toxicol 66:319–329
Stevenson NJ, Lewis RR, Burbridge PR (1999) Disused shrimp ponds and mangrove rehabilitation.
In: Streever WJ (ed) An international perspective on wetland rehabilitation. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
pp 277–297
Tacon AGJ, Metian M (2008) Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially com-
pounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285(1–4):146–158
Tacon AGJ, Metian M, Turchinni G, De Silva SS (2010) Responsible and aquaculture and trophic level
implications to global fish supply. Rev Fish Sci 18:94–105
Tacon AGJ, Hasan MR, Allan G, El-Sayed AFM, Jackson A, Kaushik SJ, Ng WK, Suresh V, Viana MT
(2012) Aquaculture feeds: addressing the long-term sustainability of the sector. In: Subasinghe RP,
Arthur JR, Bartley DM, De Silva SS, Halwart M, Hishamunda N, Mohan CV, Sorgeloos P (eds)
Farming the waters for people and food. Proceedings of the global conference on aquaculture 2010,
Phuket, Thailand. 22–25 2010. FAO/NACA, Rome/Bangkok, pp 193–232
Thomas BP, Fitzpatrick RW, Merry RH, Hicks WS (2003) Acid sulfate soil technical manual (version 1.2).
Coastal acid sulfate soil management guidelines, Barker Inlet, SA. CSIRO, Canberra
Thornton C, Shanahan M, Williams J (2003) From wetlands to wastelands: impacts of shrimp farming.
Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) Bulletin, pp 48–54
TIME (2011) The future of fish: can farming save the last wild food? July 18, 178 No. 3
Tomlinson PB (1986) The botany of mangroves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
123
Biodivers Conserv
Troell M, Joyce A, Chopin T, Neori A (2009) Ecological engineering in aquaculture—potential for inte-
grated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297:1–9
Trott LA, McKinnon AD, Alongi DM, Davidson A, Burford MA (2004) Carbon and nitrogen processes in a
mangrove creek receiving shrimp farm effluent. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 59:197–207
Tsilkiras AC, Tsalkou E, Pauly D, Stergiou KI (2010) Trends in trophic level of farmed fish in Mediter-
ranean countries. Rapport du 39e Congrès de la Commission Internationale pour l’Exloration Scien-
tifique de la Mer Mèditerranèe
Tucker JWJ (1999) Species profile: Grouper aquaculture. Division of Marine Science Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce
Turchini GM, De Silva SS (2008) Bio-economical and ethical impacts of alien finfish culture in European
inland waters. Aquac Int 16(3):243–272
Umesh NR (2007) Development and adoption of BMPs by self-help farmer groups. Aquac Asia XII:8–10
Umesh RN, Chandra Mohan AB, Ravibabu G, Padiyar PA, Phillips MJ, Mohan CV, Vishnu Bhat B (2010)
Shrimp farmers in India: empowering small-scale farmers through a cluster- based approach. In: De
Silva SS, Davy FB (eds) Success stories in Asian aquaculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–66
UNEP (1987) Our common future. The World Commission on Environment and Commission for the future.
Geneva
United Nations (2000) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Resolution 55/2. United Nations
Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55.2. http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf
Waples RS (1991) Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids: lessons from the Pacific
Northwest. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:124–133
Washington S, Ababouch L (2011) Private standards and certification in fisheries and aquaculture. Current
practice and emerging issues. FAO Fisheries and aquaculture Technical Paper 553
Welcomme RL (1988) International introductions of inland aquatic species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
294: 318 pp
Welcomme RL, Vidthayanon C (2003) The impacts of introduction and stocking of exotic species in the
Mekong basin and policies for their control. MRC Technical Paper, Mekong River Commission,
Cambodia
Wyban J (2007) Thailand’s shrimp revolution. Aquaculture Asia-Pacific Magazine, May–June, 2007,
pp 15–18
Yadava YS (2002) Shrimp farming In India: lessons and challenges in sustainable development. Aquac
Authority News 1:1–4
123

De Silva Sena S 2012 Aquaculture A Newly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Silva Sena S 2012 Aquaculture A Newly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquaculture: a newly emergent food

production sector—and perspectives of its

Sena S. De Silva

Biodiversity and Conservation

Aquaculture: a newly emergent food production

Received: 20 April 2012 / Accepted: 11 August 2012

Gross changes in the fisheries sector over the past 60 years

Aquaculture developments and hence its purported impacts on biodiversity have to be

Food fish needs of the future

Aquaculture and biodiversity

Potential impacts of aquaculture on aquatic biodiversity

Use of non-renewable resources, e.g. land, water

America, in the period mid-1980s to mid-1990s in particular, when mangroves were

1980 1990 103 ha % 2000 103 ha % 2005 103 ha %

Impacts of waste/effluent discharge

Use of chemicals in aquaculture and consequent environmental impacts

Alien species in aquaculture: selected highlights

Impacts of alien species on biodiversity

Crassostrea gigas Japan US, Canada, Europe, Successful & significant

non-native species (Nile tilapia-Oreochromis niloticus, mrigal—Cirrhinus cirrhosus,

invasive nature, should be conducted in controllable environments. Ironically, however, in

Impacts on wild populations

Facets of aquaculture with potential positive impacts on aquatic biodiversity

Wider indirect impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity conservation: example

Highfin (Humpback/mouse) Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Successful in hatchery production.

Changing phases of aquaculture related to biodiversity conservation

Acknowledgments I am grateful to a number of my colleagues and friends who engaged with me in

You might also like