How Does Animal Agriculture Affect Ocean Acidification Articles

Introduction

With an almanac production of 27.iii one thousand thousand tons in 2014 and a growth rate of 8% year^−one, seaweed aquaculture now comprises 27% of full marine aquaculture production. Yet the value of the seaweed produced only amounts to 5% of the total value of aquacultural crops (FAO, 2016a). Looking at the procedure chain of seaweed from production through processing to final products, the growth of the actual seaweed production lags backside the demand of biomass for the many traditional and novel applications for this expanding crop (Mazarrasa et al., 2014; Callaway, 2015). Further expansion of seaweed aquaculture will crave development of a skilled labor strength and new technologies to occupy additional suitable areas for farming. Also a diversification of applications volition make the manufacture more resilient to impacts derived from shifting demands from specific industries. A closer synergy betwixt further expansion of seaweed aquaculture and the development of novel demands for this ingather will be essential to proceed to fuel the growth of this emerging blue industry (Mazarrasa et al., 2014). Compensating farmers for the role of seaweed production in climate change mitigation and adaptation demand as well exist considered. Indeed, an increased contribution of seaweed aquaculture to climate change mitigation and adaptation requires that seaweed production continues to grow. However, further growth of seaweed production may drive marketplace prices down, in plough discouraging farmers from engaging in this activeness. Thus, providing economical incentives associated with the benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation may be instrumental in supporting increased seaweed product into the time to come.

Seaweed production, both from wild stocks and from aquaculture, represents an important conduit for CO₂ removal from the atmosphere, with strongly autotrophic seaweed communities globally taking upwards ane.5 Pg C year⁻¹ via their net-production (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016). Yet, the potential of managing seaweed production to mitigate climate change by sequestering CO₂ has not yet been fully incorporated into the emergent concept of Blue Carbon, referring to climate change mitigation strategies based on the capacity of marine plants to bind CO₂ (Nellemann et al., 2009; McLeod et al., 2011; Duarte et al., 2013). The reason for such neglect is the conventionalities that the large bulk of seaweed production is decomposed in the body of water and therefore, does not represent a internet sink for CO₂. However, this view has been recently challenged (Hill et al., 2015; Trevathan-Tackett et al., 2015; Moreira and Pires, 2016) and new evidence suggests that seaweeds are globally-relevant contributors to oceanic carbon sinks (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016). Hence, the contribution of seaweed to Blue Carbon and climate modify mitigation strategies is now being reconsidered.

1 pathway to augment Bluish Carbon strategies to incorporate the CO_two sink capacity of seaweeds is to manage the fate of seaweed production, whether derived from aquaculture or harvest of wild stocks, to reduce CO_two emissions derived from fossil fuel utilize. This can be achieved, for example, through the use of seaweed biomass as biofuel directly replacing fossil fuels (e.g., Kraan, 2013; Chen et al., 2015), and/or replacing food or feed production systems with intense CO₂ emission footprints by seaweed-based food systems, which have much lower life-cycle CO_ii emission (Fry et al., 2012). Indeed, a seaweed-based Blue Carbon program has been developed in Korea (Chung et al., 2013; Sondak and Chung, 2015), providing an initial step in this management. Yet, Korea contributes only half dozen% of global seaweed aquaculture production (FAO, 2016b), so the development of seaweed farming as a Blue Carbon strategy for climatic change mitigation would require that major producers, such as China accounting for more than half of the global seaweed aquaculture production, engage with this strategy.

The development of seaweed farming equally a strategy for climate change mitigation would assistance alleviate nowadays constraints on the further growth of seaweed aquaculture. Growth of seaweed product is exceeding that of traditional markets, leading to a steady refuse in cost at nigh i–2% yr^−one (Kronen et al., 2013), deterring farmers and investors from engaging. Economic compensation for the environmental benefits brought about by seaweed farming, including its office in climatic change mitigation, would allow for further growth and a more than sustainable seaweed aquaculture industry. In particular, economic bounty for climate services associated with seaweed farming would assistance generate a new market for seaweed production while likewise creating incentives to reduce further the life-cycle CO₂ emissions of seaweed aquaculture.

Here we outline the potential to develop seaweed Blue Carbon Farming every bit a strategy for climate modify mitigation and adaptation. Nosotros do and then by kickoff assessing the potential, based on wild and aquaculture production, and the pathways for this product to be managed every bit to consequence in avoidance of CO_ii emissions while possibly generating climate change accommodation co-benefits. We then evaluate the part of seaweed aquaculture in accommodation to specific impacts of climate change in the marine environs, such equally ocean acidification, deoxygenation, and shoreline erosion (e.chiliad., Gattuso et al., 2015). Finally, we propose a number of actions required to consolidate such programme equally a component of the pathway to solutions for climate change accommodation and mitigation.

Global Seaweed Production and the Associated CO₂ Uptake

Seaweed communities are strongly autotrophic, generating far more than organic affair through photosynthesis than consumed by respiration in the ecosystem, and are thus responsible for much of CO₂ capture in marine vegetated habitats (Duarte and Cebrian, 1996). An upper limit to the CO₂ capture potential of seaweed aquaculture tin can be calculated at 2.48 million tons of CO₂ (0.68 Tg C) per year. This upper limit assumes that all of the 27.3 1000000 tons fresh weight produced in 2014 be dedicated to carbon capture with a 100% yield given by the average carbon content of 24.8% of seaweed dry weight (Duarte, 1992) and a conservative dry out weight:fresh weight ratio of 0.one. However, even this upper limit constitutes only about 0.4% of the global wild seaweed CO₂ capture estimated at 173 Tg C twelvemonth⁻¹ (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016). At current growth rates, the upper limit to the CO₂ capture potential of seaweed aquaculture would exceed 6% of the global CO₂ sequestration by wild seaweed by two,050. Hence, CO_ii capture by seaweed aquaculture alone cannot represent a major underpinning of emission reduction programs with the current and even projected potentials. Withal, these comparisons are based on quantities spread over hugely different areas. The 173 Tg C year⁻¹ sequestered by wild seaweed is spread over the unabridged sea, as most of this sequestration occurs in the deep sea, and the carbon supporting this flux is produced over the 3.5 million km^two occupied by seaweed (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016). In dissimilarity, the area occupied by seaweed aquaculture, calculated from a typical yield of seaweed aquaculture of 1,604 tons DW km⁻ⁱⁱ (The Fishery Bureau MoA, 2015), represents but about 1,600 km² globally, i.e., 0.04% of the area covered by wild seaweed habitats or nearly 0.004% of the global extent of agricultural state (43 meg km² in ii,000, Ramankutty et al., 2008). Hence, whereas seaweed aquaculture does not yet have a scale that would support a global office in climate change mitigation, it has a strong potential CO₂ sequestration intensity of about 1,500 tons CO₂ km⁻² yr^−ane, corresponding to the annual CO₂ emissions of nigh 300 Chinese citizens.

Whereas, seaweed aquaculture currently occupies a minimal fraction, 0.004%, of the coastal ocean, the scope for expansion may be express past the availability of suitable areas and competing demands for suitable space, and face constraints due to limits to seaweed production imposed by nutrient availability as well equally shifting temperature regimes. Current technology for seaweed aquaculture, based on simple structures, can exist deployed merely in relatively sheltered areas, which volition restrict the industry to a fraction of the potential area. Whereas, the effects of climate change on macroalgal cultivation are not yet articulate (Callaway et al., 2012), ocean warming may reduce fucoid canopies through physiological stress as well as additional associated pressures from warm-water herbivores (Harley et al., 2012), increased tempest free energy and reduced nutrient supply (Callaway et al., 2012), possibly reducing seaweed aquaculture yields. Species cultured at latitudes close to their thermal limits may be impacted by further warming, whereas warming may increase the yield in areas where temperature or ice cover may limit current production, such equally predicted for the Arctic (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2014). In addition, increased CO_two may increase the yield of seaweed aquaculture (Callaway et al., 2012). Lastly, the expansion of seaweed aquaculture need also consider potential impacts, such as the introduction of invasive species. However, assessment of the impacts of invasive seaweed species, derived from aquaculture (east.g., Undaria pinnatifida), report both benefits and impacts, which are non severe in nature (McLaughlan et al., 2014).

Despite the limitations best-selling above, the telescopic for expansion of seaweed aquaculture with available structures and constraints is substantial. Gattuso et al. (2006) calculated the potential coastal area marine macrophytes may occupy, on the basis of the assessment of their lite requirements and light availability, to be v.71 × 10⁶ kmⁱⁱ in the non-polar regions. All the same, this approximate is based on the light reaching the seafloor, whereas seaweed aquaculture is based on algae suspended virtually the surface, thereby overcoming issues of light limitation. For instance, Norway has assessed that seaweed aquaculture can markedly stimulate the Norwegian bio-economy (Skjermo et al., 2014) by expanding seaweed aquaculture forth its extensive (90,000 km^two) and productive economical zone from electric current negligible levels to 20 × x⁶ tons by 2,050 (Olafsen et al., 2012). The expanse occupied by seaweed cultivation has more than tripled the Norwegian coast in only 3 years along (2014 and 2016, Stévant et al., 2017). Moreover, the scope for expansion of seaweed aquaculture beyond the currently suitable areas may exist facilitated in the futurity by developments in offshore aquaculture, allowing cultivation (e.g., Sulaiman et al., 2015) and seaweed biorefining (Fernand et al., in printing) in offshore farms (Lehahn et al., 2016). Current marine spatial models already propose solutions to competing demands for suitable space, such as the co-location of offshore wind farms and seaweed aquaculture (Gimpel et al., 2015).

Still, calculations of the CO₂ removal potential with seaweed aquaculture as well demand consider the energy consumption of seaweed farming. Life bicycle analyses accept concluded that the cyberspace removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere by biofuel product from seaweed aquaculture is well-nigh 961 kg CO_two per ton DW of seaweed (Alvarado-Morales et al., 2013). The potential CO₂ sequestration intensity of seaweed farms of well-nigh 1,500 tons CO₂ km⁻² year⁻¹ is somewhat higher up 10% of the CO₂ emissions avoided past offshore current of air farms of about 12,500 tons CO₂ km⁻² year⁻¹. The CO_ii emissions avoided per unit expanse by offshore wind farms were derived past dividing the CO₂ avoidance of wind farms by the surface area occupied by the farms, corrected for a 2% lifecycle CO₂ emissions over a nominal twenty year life span of the turbines (Martínez et al., 2009). The calculations were based on data for the Sanbanks offshore wind farms (Germany, 21 turbines in 61 km², Vattenfall, 2016)^ane and for the LINCS offshore wind farms (United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, 83 turbines in 35 km², Centrica Energy, 2007).

Clearly, the comparison above would suggest that seaweed aquaculture cannot be the option of selection if the sole intent is to mitigate climate change. However, establishing a seaweed farm in some areas of the world is rather inexpensive, requiring for example an initial investment of < U.s. $ xv,000 for a 1 ha seaweed farm in United mexican states (Robledo et al., 2013), whereas the cost of a state-of-the-art offshore wind turbine, including installation, is about US $ ane.five meg per turbine, and involves order-of-magnitude larger maintenance costs. Hence, many developing nations cannot afford addressing climate modify mitigation through high-cost solutions, such as off-shore wind farms, only can indeed establish seaweed farms, and thereby in addition to climate mitigation, they will exist producing a valuable biomass with potential for delivering food, feed, biomolecules, and energy http://world wide web.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC287E/AC287E01.htm (Msuya, 2011; Rebours et al., 2014). Moreover, "bluish" biofuels, such as seaweed biofuels, do not compete for resources with agriculture, as they do not require arable land, freshwater or fertilizer, herbicide or pesticide applications and are, therefore in many respects, more environmentally sustainable than current biofuels derived from land crops (Duarte et al., 2009, 2013). Calculations of the area required for seaweed aquaculture to supply sixty% of the transportation fuel vary broadly, from < 1% of the economic exclusive zone (EEZ) for Kingdom of norway, to 10% of the Dutch EEZ and about twice of the German EEZ (Fernand et al., in press). The option to aggrandize seaweed aquaculture past increasingly occupying offshore areas is not without challenges, including new engineering designs to withstand rough body of water states likewise as boosted costs, and energy utilisation, involved in transporting the crops and operators across greater distances (Fernand et al., in press). Further, every bit nutrient concentrations typically decrease offshore, food availability may impose constraints on seaweed aquaculture yield in offshore farms (Fernand et al., in press).

A stepwise approach to maximizing the benefits from seaweed aquaculture would include to sequentially extract high-value molecules used in the nutrient, pharma or biotech industries, such every bit bioactive sulphated polysaccharides, pigments, and antioxidants (D'Orazio et al., 2012; Mak et al., 2014; Herrero and Ibáñez, 2015), and and so convert—after extraction of carbohydrates for the hydrocollid industry or for biofuels production—the lower-value rest to poly peptide concentrates with value in the feed industry (Francavilla et al., 2015; Bikker et al., 2016; Seghetta et al., 2016). Algal biorefineries have evolved from concept and laboratory tests to pilot-scale plants involving a range of seaweed species and environments (e.chiliad., Baghel et al., 2014; Lorbeer et al., 2015; Bikker et al., 2016; Masarin et al., 2016), and may shortly become commercial operations. The range of potential products also include using the nutrient-rich residues from a biofuel production for fertilizer, which may also serve for C retentivity in soil (Seghetta et al., 2016). New bioenergy concepts also use seaweed by-products and debris in free energy product (Kaspersen et al., 2016).

Seaweed farms also human activity as a source of DOC and POC exported to next locations, where some of this carbon may be buried (Zhang et al., 2012). We recently summarized 105 reports of sequestration of seaweed to carbon sequestration in sediments or the deep bounding main, and showed that 25% of the carbon exported from macroalgal stands, which represents about 43% of their net primary production, is sequestered in continental shelf sediments or in the deep-ocean (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016). A fraction of the organic carbon exported from seaweed farms is likewise ultimately sequestered in sediments or exported to the deep sea (e.g., Zhang et al., 2012), further supporting the role of seaweed farms in climate change mitigation. However, as seaweed grown in aquaculture is harvested, the fraction of its net primary production bachelor to be sequestered is likely smaller than that of wild seaweed stands. Whereas, about macroalgal stands grow on rocky shores, thereby requiring the consign of carbon to depositional sites to contribute to carbon sequestration (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016), seaweed farms tin be placed over soft sediments, where detritus could be buried. The processes conducive to sequestration are, otherwise, similar to those operating in wild seaweed stands, including export with sea currents during storms and/or tidal currents, ship to the deep-sea along submarine canyons, and sinking of exported seaweed material ballasted past epiphytes and/or stones attached to their holdflasts (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016).

Even where nutrient product, and not climatic change mitigation, is the main goal of seaweed farming, benefits in terms of climatic change mitigation can be substantial. The reason for this is that the CO₂ emissions involved in producing seaweed aquaculture are much less than those involving in producing a comparable corporeality of agriculture products on state. Agronomics is responsible for about thirty% of greenhouse gas emissions, resulting from land-utilize alter in conversion of wild ecosystems into croplands, intense emissions associated with the product and application of industrial fertilizers and emissions from cattle (Robertson et al., 2000; Smith, 2002). Seaweed aquaculture generates food while minimizing the impacts associated with land-based food production systems (e.g., Duarte et al., 2009). For case, recent in vitro experiments showed that fermentation of seaweed, simulating that of ruminant digestion, essentially reduced methyl hydride emissions (Kinley et al., 2016; Maia et al., 2016), and that add-on of just 2% of specific seaweed species to the diet of cattle could reduce the methyl hydride emission from cattle product past 99% (Machado et al., 2016). Indeed, ruminants were traditionally fed seaweed in many littoral regions during periods of feed scarcity, but the potential benefits in terms of reduced methyl hydride emissions have only recently been realized (Kinley et al., 2016; Maia et al., 2016). Hence, supplementing feed for ruminant cattle with seaweed holds a potential to reduce methane emissions, a possibility that, if confirmed past in vivo and farm-scale experiments, could profoundly contribute to mitigate emissions of this powerful greenhouse gas. Prebiotic compounds and essential minerals in seaweeds may furthermore help to enhance livestock product and wellness (Rey-Crespo et al., 2014; Makkar et al., 2016), as well as substitute the use of antibiotics in the intensive livestock production (O'Doherty et al., 2010; O'Shea et al., 2014). An boosted potential do good of seaweed farming for agriculture is a reported increase in productivity of crops via soil amelioration by nutrient-rich seaweed biochar (Roberts et al., 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015) or seaweed compost (Cole et al., 2016), thereby fugitive emissions involved in synthetic fertilizer product (Smith, 2002). All the same, it is unlikely that seaweed aquaculture will comprise a sizeable fraction of vegetable product on state, especially as food demand is growing with increasing homo population.

Benefits of Seaweed Aquaculture for Climate change Adaptation

The IPCC defines climate change adaptation as the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects (IPCC, 2014). In human systems, accommodation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities whereas in natural systems it refers to man intervention to facilitate its aligning to expected climate and its effects (IPCC, 2014). In this context, we address the use of seaweed aquaculture for climatic change adaptation in terms of its chapters to avert harms to human being systems (e.g., coastal protection, ensure food security) and vulnerable ecosystems (e.g., provide refugia from ocean acidification and ocean deoxygenation).

By creating coastal habitats, seaweed aquaculture tin potentially contribute some of the ecosystem functions that natural kelp forests and macroalgal beds support (Smale et al., 2013). Some of these functions contribute, every bit mentioned to a higher place, to mitigate climate change while another fix of functions have climatic change adaptation benefits (Figure i, cf. Duarte et al., 2013). For example, the canopies of farmed seaweeds, similar those of wild seaweeds, dampen wave energy and hence, serve as live coastal protection structures buffering against coastal erosion (Mork, 1996; Løvås and Tørum, 2001). Norwegian kelp forests dominated past Laminaria hyperborea have been reported to reduce wave heights by upward to 60% (Mork, 1996). A key divergence, in terms of the capacity of farmed seaweed to reduce wave energy is that their canopies are suspended from the surface rather than being benthic. The moving ridge-attenuating consequence depends on the extent and construction of the seaweed habitat (Gaylord et al., 2007) as well equally the energy involved as seaweed farms will be damaged during high-energy storms.

Figure 1. Overview of fundamental climate change mitigation- and adaptation benefits of seaweed farming. Photograph: Yngvar Olsen.

Dense seaweeds, farmed as well equally wild, also represent productivity hot-spots with associated high pH during twenty-four hour period when photosynthesis reduces CO₂ concentrations (e.g., Middelboe and Hansen, 2007; Krause-Jensen et al., 2015). They may, hence, serve a role in protecting calcifies from projected bounding main acidification (Krause-Jensen et al., 2015). Kelp forests support high biodiversity, including calcifiers such as lobsters, crabs, molluscs, and crustaceans (Steneck et al., 2002; Smale et al., 2013) and loftier daytime pH probably contributes to this effect. Seaweed farms are similarly reported to support high biodiversity (Radulovich et al., 2015). As day-periods of high productivity and pH in seaweed habitats can alternate with night-periods where respiration creates reduced pH (Delille et al., 2009), the potential for pH-upregulation and associated furnishings of seaweeds every bit refugia for calcifiers should increase with photoperiod. Indeed, during midsummer most the poles where photoperiods exceed 21 h, seaweed productivity tin create sustained high pH over the summer catamenia and be especially suitable habitats for calcifiers (Krause-Jensen et al., 2016). The capacity of seaweed aquaculture to bear on pH and provide refugia for calcifiers depend also on flow regimes (Hurd, 2015) and increase where the farms are located in coastal environment with weak currents and/or where the seaweed themselves tiresome down flow. The capacity of seaweed farms to offer habitat for biodiversity is, yet, temporary, as this capacity is lost at harvest.

Ocean de-oxygenation with warming is also a component of climate modify impacts in the ocean of mounting business organization (Keeling et al., 2010), particularly for eutrophic coastal areas, which are especially prone to feel hypoxia (Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008). Seaweed aquaculture results in more autotrophic ecosystems than even those supported by wild seaweed, because the product is harvested, and is, therefore, removed from existence remineralized, consuming oxygen, in the ecosystem. Hence, seaweed farms provide oxygen-rich habitats, providing refugia from hypoxia and failing oxygen levels, further contributing to permit marine organisms to adapt to this component of a warmer ocean.

Spatial Planning to Maximize Seaweed Blue Carbon Farming

Maximizing the climate change mitigation impact of seaweed farming likewise requires that the farms exert no negative affect on natural coastal carbon stocks, particularly those associated with seagrass meadows. Seagrass meadows are hot-spots of carbon sequestration and hence, key Blueish Carbon habitats (Duarte et al., 2005, 2013; McLeod et al., 2011; Fourqurean et al., 2012). They are vulnerable to human disturbance leading to shading and mechanical impairment (Waycott et al., 2009), both of which could issue from activities at neighboring seaweed farms. On the other hand, nutrient removal by seaweed farms can improve water quality and allow recovery of seagrass in severely eutrophied areas.

Of course the placement of seaweed farms must also consider the habitat requirements of the cultured seaweed (Kerrison et al., 2015) likewise as habitat conditions optimizing the quality of the ingather for the targeted employ (Bruhn et al., 2016). Additional ecology benefits may arise from choosing areas already enriched in nutrients, including use in polycultures to reduce nutrient impacts of animal aquaculture. While seaweed farming under eutrophic conditions may increment the yield of some crops, it can represent a severe challenge for other crops such as kelp, which risks overgrowth by epiphytes and hence thrive better at less eutrophic sites with sufficient water flow to replenish nutrients, CO_two, and oxygen, and limit epiphytic growth (Bruhn et al., 2016).

Locating seaweed farms in areas under particular risk from climate change impacts, such every bit low-lying coastal areas, vulnerable to flooding during storms with increasing bounding main level, areas prone to exposure to acidified and/or oxygen-depleted waters, may provide a tactical approach to enhance the benefits of seaweed aquaculture for climate change accommodation. However, these, and other, environmental conditions also place constraints on the blazon of seaweed that tin exist grown every bit well every bit the possible products that can exist derived from the farm.

Spatial planning of seaweed aquaculture to mitigate climate change should also seek to minimize life-cycle CO_two emissions by co-locating farming and processing, and covering energy requirements past renewable energy where possible. In addition, spatial planning is required to minimize negative interactions with other uses of the coastal zone, such as navigation, as well as to minimize environmental impacts from seaweed aquaculture.

Conclusion

The word above provides a suite of arguments supporting the consideration of seaweed aquaculture as a tool for climate change mitigation and adaptation, while also identifying possible caveats and limitations. Indeed, the growing seaweed aquaculture industry is already delivering these benefits, which take not been properly accounted for nor have been credited to seaweed farmers. Because of the very depression investment required to set up seaweed aquaculture farms, seaweed aquaculture is a especially sound strategy for coastal developing nations to contribute to climate change mitigation while protecting their shoreline and marine ecosystems from some of the effects of climate change, such equally body of water acidification and sea de-oxygenation. Constraints for the expansion of the climate mitigation and accommodation benefits associated with seaweed aquaculture are multiple. In the example of Cathay, the main challenges are competition for suitable space with other uses and the maintenance of a sufficient profit margin to continue to engage farmers. More than generically, the constraints involve physical constraints, such as the availability of suitable areas; regulatory constraints, such as the requirements for concessions for seaweed aquaculture; marine spatial planning constraints, such every bit competition for infinite with other marine-based activities; and market place constraints, such as the beingness of demand for seaweed aquaculture products, necessary to maintain a profit margin that may motivate prospective farmers to engage. Promoting seaweed aquaculture every bit a component of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies requires that all four dimensions of the social-ecological system that supports seaweed aquaculture (cf. Broitman et al., 2017) be addressed: (one) biological productivity to enhance carbon capture, (2) environment constraints to the expansion of seaweed aquaculture, (iii) policy tools that enable seaweed aquaculture, and (4) manage societal preferences and markets demands for seaweed products. Maintaining a market toll that encourages seaweed farmers to engage and implement design improvements to maximize climate services delivered past the subcontract requires that markets diversify to increment the demand for seaweed products. Subsidizing farmers, either straight or indirectly through taxation abatement, for farms credited equally blue carbon seaweed farms may further increment engagement with this strategy. While the contribution of seaweed aquaculture to climate change mitigation and adaptation will remain globally modest, it may be substantial in developing coastal nations and will provide add-on value to the societal benefits derived from seaweed aquaculture.

Author Contributions

CD and DK conceived and wrote the piece. AB, Twenty, and JW contributed to the concept and writing. All authors canonical the submission.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential disharmonize of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Rex Abdullah Academy of Science and Engineering (KAUST) through the baseline fund to CD. AB was supported by the MacroAlgae Biorefinery four (MAB4) and the Macrofuels projects, funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark and the European Spousal relationship'southward Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant understanding No 654010, respectively. DK received financial support from the COCOA project under the BONUS programme, which is funded by the European union seventh Framework Plan and the Danish Enquiry Quango. JW and XX were supported by the International Scientific discipline and Technology Cooperation Program of China (Grant No. 2015DFA01410).

Footnotes

References

Alvarado-Morales, G., Boldrin, A., Karakashev, D. B., Holdt, S. 50., Angelidaki, I., and Astrup, T. (2013). Life cycle assessment of biofuel product from dark-brown seaweed in Nordic conditions. Biores. Technol. 129, 92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.xi.029

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baghel, R. S., Reddy, C. R. M., and Jha, B. (2014). Label of agarophytic seaweeds from the biorefinery context. Bioresour. Technol. 159, 280–285. doi: ten.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.083

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bikker, P., Krimpen, M. M., Wikselaar, P., Houweling-Tan, B., Scaccia, N., Hal, J. W., et al. (2016). Biorefinery of the green seaweed Ulva lactuca to produce beast feed, chemicals and biofuels. J. Appl. Phycol. 28, 3511–3525. doi: 10.1007/s10811-016-0842-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Broitman, B. R., Halpern, B. Due south., Gelcich, South., Lardies, 1000. A., Vargas, C. A., Vásquez-Lavín, F., et al. (2017). Dynamic interactions amidst boundaries and the expansion of sustainable aquaculture. Front end. Mar. Sci. four:xv. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bruhn, A., Tørring, D. B., Thomsen, 1000., Canal-Vergés, P., Nielsen, M. Chiliad., Rasmussen, M. B., et al. (2016). Bear upon of environmental conditions on biomass yield, quality, and bio-mitigation of Saccharina latissima. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 8, 619–636. doi: ten.3354/aei00200

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Callaway, R., Shinn, A. P., Grenfell, South. E., Bron, J. E., Burnell, G., Cook, E. J., et al. (2012). Review of climate change impacts on marine aquaculture in the UK and Ireland. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst. 22, 389–421. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2247

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Chen, H., Zhou, D., Luo, G., Zhang, Due south., and Chen, J. (2015). Macroalgae for biofuels production: progress and perspectives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 47, 427–437. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.086

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Chung, I. Grand., Oak, J. H., Lee, J. A., Shin, J. A., Kim, J. K., and Park, Thousand.-South. (2013). Installing kelp forests/seaweed beds for mitigation and adaptation against global warming: Korean Projection Overview. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 1038–1044. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fss206

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cole, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Garside, A. 50., de Nys, R., and Paul, N. A. (2016). Seaweed compost for agricultural crop product. J. Appl. Phycol. 28, 629–642. doi: 10.1007/s10811-015-0544-two

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Delille, B., Borges, A. V., and Delille, D. (2009). Influence of behemothic kelp beds (Macrocystis pyrifera) on diel cycles of pCO₂ and DIC in the Sub-Antarctic coastal area. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 81, 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2008.10.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

D'Orazio, North., Gemello, Eastward., Gammone, K. A., de Girolamo, G., Ficoneri, C., and Riccioni, G. (2012). Fucoxanthin: a treasure from the sea. Mar. Drugs 10, 604–616. doi: 10.3390/md10030604

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Duarte, C. M. (1992). Nutrient concentration of aquatic plants: patterns beyond species. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37, 882–889. doi: 10.4319/lo.1992.37.iv.0882

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Duarte, C. Yard., and Cebrian, J. (1996). The fate of marine autotrophic production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41, 1758–1766. doi: 10.4319/lo.1996.41.viii.1758

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Duarte, C. M., Holmer, One thousand., Olsen, Y., Soto, D., Marbà, N., Guiu, J., et al. (2009). Will the oceans help feed humanity? BioScience 59, 967–976. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.8

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Duarte, C. M., Losada, I. J., Hendriks, I. E., Mazarrasa, I., and Marbà, N. (2013). The role of coastal plant communities for climatic change mitigation and accommodation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 961–968. doi: x.1038/nclimate1970

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Duarte, C. 1000., Middelburg, J., and Caraco, N. (2005). Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon bicycle. Biogeosciences ii, 1–viii. doi: 10.5194/bg-two-1-2005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO (2016a). The State of Earth Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All. Rome: FAO.

FAO (2016b). "Fisheries and aquaculture software. FishStat Plus - Universal software for fishery statistical fourth dimension series," in: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Rome. Updated 28 Nov 2013. Available online at: www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en (Accessed 22 November 2016).

Fernand, F., Israel, A., Skjermo, J., Wichard, T., Timmermans, K. R., and Golberg, A. (in printing). Offshore macroalgae biomass for bioenergy production: Environmental aspects, technological achievements and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.ten.046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fourqurean, J. W., Duarte, C. Grand., Kennedy, H., Marbà, Northward., Holmer, 1000., Mateo, Grand. A., et al. (2012). Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nat. Geosci. v, 505–509. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1477

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Francavilla, M., Manara, P., Kamaterou, P., Monteleone, K., and Zabaniotou, A. (2015). Pour approach of carmine macroalgae Gracilaria gracilis sustainable valorization past extraction of phycobiliproteins and pyrolysis of residue. Bioresource Technol. 184, 305–313. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.147

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fry, J. 1000., Joyce, P. J., and Aumonier, S. (2012). Carbon Footprint of Seaweed as a Biofuel. Prepared by Environmental Resources Management Express (ERM), London for the Crown Estate, 64.

Gattuso, J.-P., Gentili, B., Duarte, C. M., Kleypas, J. A., Middelburg, J. J., and Antoine, D. (2006). Light availability in the coastal ocean: impact on the distribution of benthic photosynthetic organisms and their contribution to primary production. Biogeosciences 3, 489–513. doi: 10.5194/bg-3-489-2006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gattuso, J. P., Magnan, A., Billé, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Howes, E. 50., Joos, F., et al. (2015). Contrasting futures for ocean and society from unlike anthropogenic CO₂ emissions scenarios. Scientific discipline 349:aac4722. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4722

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaylord, B., Rosman, J. H., Reed, D. C., Koseff, J. R., Fram, J., MacIntyre, S., et al. (2007). Spatial patterns of menses and their modification inside and around a giant kelp forest. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1838–1852. doi: ten.4319/lo.2007.52.5.1838

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gimpel, A., Stelzenmüller, Five., Grote, B., Buck, B. H., Floeter, J., Núñez-Riboni, I., et al. (2015). A GIS modelling framework to evaluate marine spatial planning scenarios: Co-location of offshore air current farms and aquaculture in the German EEZ. Mar. Policy 55, 102–115. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harley, C. D. Thousand., Anderson, K. Chiliad., Demes, K. Due west., Jorve, J. P., Kordas, R. L., Coyle, T. A., et al. (2012). Effects of climatic change on global seaweed communities. J. Phycol. 48, 1064–1078. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01224.x

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Herrero, M., and Ibáñez, E. (2015). Greenish processes and sustainability: an overview on the extraction of high added-value products from seaweeds and microalgae. J. Supercrit. Fluids 96, 211–216. doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2014.09.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hill, R., Bellgrove, A., Macreadie, P. I., Petrou, 1000., Beardall, J., Steven, A., et al. (2015). Can macroalgae contribute to bluish carbon? An Australian perspective. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 1689–1706. doi: ten.1002/lno.10128

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

IPCC (2014). "Summary for policymakers," in Climatic change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Grouping Ii to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Modify, eds C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, G. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, One thousand. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. South. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Printing), 1–32.

Kaspersen, B. South., Christensen, T. B., Fredenslund, A. M., Møller, H. B., Butts, Chiliad. B., Jensen, N. H., et al. (2016). Linking climate change mitigation and littoral eutrophication management through biogas technology: show from a new Danish bioenergy concept. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.x.015

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kerrison, P. D., Stanley, Thou. Southward., Edwards, M. D., Black, K. D., and Hughes, A. D. (2015). The cultivation of European kelp for bioenergy: Site and species selection. Biomass Bioenerg. lxxx, 229–242. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.035

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kinley, R. D., de Nys, R., Vucko, M. J., Machado, L., and Tomkins, N. Due west. (2016). The ruby macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis is a strong natural antimethanogenic that reduces methyl hydride production during in vitro fermentation with rumen fluid. Anim. Prod. Sci. 56, 282–228. doi: 10.1071/AN15576

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kraan, S. (2013). Mass-tillage of sugar rich macroalgae, a possible solution for sustainable biofuel production. Mitigation Adap. Strateg. Glob. Modify xviii, 27–46. doi: ten.1007/s11027-010-9275-v

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krause-Jensen, D., and Duarte, C. Grand. (2014). Expansion of vegetated coastal ecosystems in the time to come Chill. Front. Mar. Sci. i:77. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00077

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Krause-Jensen, D., and Duarte, C. M. (2016). Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nat. Geosci. 9, 737–742. doi: 10.1038/NGEO2790

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krause-Jensen, D., Duarte, C. Thou., Hendriks, I. East., Meire, L., Blicher, M. E., Marbà, North., et al. (2015). Macroalgae contribute to nested mosaics of pH variability in a sub-Arctic fjord. Biogeoscience 12, 4895–4911. doi: 10.5194/bg-12-4895-2015

CrossRef Full Text

Krause-Jensen, D., Marbà, Northward., Sanz-Martin, Chiliad., Hendriks, I. E., Thyrring, J., Carstensen, J., et al. (2016). Long photoperiods sustain loftier pH in Chill kelp forests. Sci. Adv. 2:e1501938. doi: x.1126/sciadv.1501938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kronen, 1000., Ponia, B., Pickering, T., Teitelbaum, A., Meloti, A., Kama, J., et al. (2013). Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in Solomon Islands. Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming. Fish. Aqua. Tech. Paper 580, 147–161.

Google Scholar

Lehahn, Y., Ingle, Grand. North., and Golberg, A. (2016). Global potential of offshore and shallow waters macroalgal biorefineries to provide for nutrient, chemicals and energy: feasibility and sustainability. Algal Res. 17, 150–160. doi: 10.1016/j.algal.2016.03.031

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lorbeer, A. J., Lahnstein, J., Bulone, V., Nguyen, T., and Zhang, W. (2015). Multiple-response optimization of the acidic handling of the brownish alga Ecklonia radiata for the sequential extraction of fucoidan and alginate. Bioresour. Technol. 197, 302–309. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.103

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Løvås, S. M., and Tørum, A. (2001). Effect of the kelp Laminaria hyperborea upon sand dune erosion and water particle velocities. Coast. Eng. 44, 37–63. doi: x.1016/S0378-3839(01)00021-seven

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Machado, L., Magnusson, Yard., Paul, Due north. A., Kinley, R., de Nys, R., and Tomkins, Due north. (2016). Dose-response effects of Asparagopsis taxiformis and Oedogonium sp. on in vitro fermentation and marsh gas production. J. Appl. Phycol. 28, 1443–1452. doi: ten.1007/s10811-015-0639-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maia, M. R. Grand., Fonseca, A. J. 1000., Oliveira, H. M., Mendonca, C., and Cabrita, A. R. J. (2016). The potential role of seaweeds in the natural manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production. Sci. Rep. 6:32321. doi: 10.1038/srep32321

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mak, West., Wang, S. K., Liu, T., Hamid, Due north., Li, Y., Lu, J., et al. (2014). Anti-proliferation potential and content of fucoidan extracted from sporophyll of New Zealand Undaria pinnatifida. Forepart. Nutr. i:ix. doi: x.3389/fnut.2014.00009

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Makkar, H. P., Tran, Thousand., Heuzé, 5., Giger-Reverdin, Due south., Lessire, K., Lebas, F., et al. (2016). Seaweeds for livestock diets: a review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 212, ane–17. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.09.018

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martínez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jiménez, Due east., and Blanco, J. (2009). Life bike cess of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renewable Energy 34, 667–673. doi: x.1016/j.renene.2008.05.020

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Masarin, F., Cedeno, F. R. P., Chavez, E. 1000. S., Oliveira, Fifty. E., Gelli, V. C., and Monti, R. (2016). Chemical analysis and biorefinery of cherry algae Kappaphycus alvarezii for efficient production of glucose from residue of carrageenan extraction process. Biotechnol. Biofuels ix:122. doi: 10.1186/s13068-016-0535-nine

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mazarrasa, I., Olsen, Y. Southward., Mayol, E., Marbà, Northward., and Duarte, C. M. (2014). Global unbalance in seaweed product, inquiry attempt and biotechnology markets. Biotechnol. Adv. 32, 1028–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.05.002

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McLaughlan, C., Gallardo, B., and Aldridge, D. C. (2014). How complete is our noesis of the ecosystem services impacts of Europe's top x invasive species? Acta Oecol. 54, 119–130. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2013.03.005

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

McLeod, E., Chmura, G. L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C. M., et al. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: towards an improved agreement of the part of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO_two. Forepart. Ecol. Environ. 9, 552–560. doi: ten.1890/110004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Middelboe, A. 50., and Hansen, P. L. (2007). High pH in shallow-water macroalgal habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 338, 107–117. doi: 10.3354/meps33810

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mork, M. (1996). "Wave attenuation due to bottom vegetation," in Waves and Nonlinear Processes in Hydrodynamics, eds J. Grue, B. Gjevik, and J. E. Weber (Oslo: Kluwer Academic Publishing), 371–382.

Google Scholar

Msuya, F. East. (2011). The impact of seaweed farming on the socioeconomic condition of coastal communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. World Aquaculture 42, 45–48.

Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C. M., Valdés, L., De Young, C., Fonseca, 50., et al. (eds.). (2009). Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Cess. United Nations Environment Programme. Birkeland: Filigree-Arendal. Available online at: www.grida.no

O'Doherty, J. V., Dillon, S., Figat, S., Callan, J. J., and Sweeney, T. (2010). The furnishings of lactose inclusion and seaweed extract derived from Laminaria spp. on performance, digestibility of nutrition components and microbial populations in newly weaned pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 157, 173–180. doi: x.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olafsen, T., Winther, U., Olsen, Y., and Skjermo, J. (2012). Value Created from Productive Oceans in 2050. DKNVS and NTVA.

O'Shea, C. J., McAlpine, P., Sweeney, T., Varley, P. F., and O'Doherty, J. V. (2014). Effect of the interaction of seaweed extracts containing laminarin and fucoidan with zinc oxide on the growth performance, digestibility and faecal characteristics of growing piglets. Br. J. Nutr. 111, 798–807. doi: 10.1017/S0007114513003280

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Radulovich, R., Umanzor, S., Cabrera, R., and Mata, R. (2015). Tropical seaweeds for human food, their cultivation and its event on biodiversity enrichment. Aquaculture 436, 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.10.032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramankutty, Due north., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C., and Foley, J. A. (2008). Farming the planet: one. Geographic distribution of global agronomical lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22:GB1003. doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rebours, C., Marinho-Soriano, East., Zertuche-González, J., Hayashi, L., Vásquez, J., Kradolfer, P., et al. (2014). Seaweeds: an opportunity for wealth and sustainable livelihood for littoral communities. J. Appl. Phycol. 26, 1939–1951. doi: 10.1007/s10811-014-0304-eight

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rey-Crespo, F., Lopez-Alonso, M., and Miranda, M. (2014). The employ of seaweed from the Galician coast every bit a mineral supplement in organic dairy cattle. Animate being eight, 580–586. doi: 10.1017/s1751731113002474

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roberts, D. A., Paul, N. A., Dworjanyn, S. A., Bird, M. I., and de Nys, R. (2015). Biochar from commercially cultivated seaweed for soil amelioration. Sci. Rep. 5:9665. doi: x.1038/srep09665

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robertson, G. P., Paul, Eastward. A., and Harwood, R. R. (2000). Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Scientific discipline 289, 922–1925. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5486.1922

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

Robledo, D., Gasca-Leyva, E., and Fraga, J. (2013). "Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in Mexico," in Social and Economic Dimensions of Carrageenan Seaweed Farming, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Technical Paper No. 580, eds D. Valderrama, J. Cai, N. Hishamunda and N. Ridler (Rome: FAO), 185–204.

Google Scholar

Seghetta, Thou., Tørring, D., Bruhn, A., and Thomsen, Yard. (2016). Bioextraction potential of seaweed in Denmark — An musical instrument for circular food management. Sci. Total Environ. 563–564, 513–529. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Skjermo, J., Rebours, C., and Chapman, A. (2014). A New Norwegian Bioeconomy Based on Cultivation and Processing of Seaweeds: Opportunities and R&D Needs. Trondheim: SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture. SINTEF A25981.

Google Scholar

Smale, D. A., Burrows, Thou. T., Moore, P., O'Connor, N., and Hawkins, S. J. (2013). Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecol. Evol. iii, 4016–4038. doi: 10.1002/ece3.774

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sondak, C. F., and Chung, I. Yard. (2015). Potential blue carbon from littoral ecosystems in the Democracy of Korea. Ocean Sci. J. 50, i–8. doi: x.1007/s12601-015-0001-950(one)

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steneck, R. S., Graham, M. H., Bourq, B. J., Corbett, D., and Erlandson, J. M. (2002). Kelp woods ecosystems, biodiversity, stability resilience and future. Environ. Conserv. 29, 436–459. doi: 10.1017/S0376892902000322

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stévant, P., Rebours, C., and Chapman, A. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: contempo industrial developments and hereafter perspectives. Aquacult. Internat. ane–18. doi: ten.1007/s10499-017-0120-vii

CrossRef Total Text

Sulaiman, O. O., Kader, A. S. A., Magee, A., and Othman, K. (2015). Mooring assay of offshore aquaculture oceanic farming platform for seaweed. J. Coast Zone Manag. 18:399. doi: 10.4172/2473-3350.1000399

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

The Fishery Bureau MoA. (2015). China Fishery Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Agriculture Press.

Trevathan-Tackett, S. M., Kelleway, J., Macreadie, P. I., Beardall, J., Ralph, P., and Bellgrove, A. (2015). Comparison of marine macrophytes for their contributions to bluish carbon sequestration. Ecology 96, 3043–3057. doi: 10.1890/15-0149.1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Waycott, Grand., Duarte, C. M., Carruthers, T. J., Orth, R. J., Dennison, W. C., Olyarnik, South., et al. (2009). Accelerating loss of seagrasses beyond the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.Due south.A. 106, 12377–12381. doi: ten.1073/pnas.0905620106

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zacharia, P. U., Kaladharan, P., and Rohith, G. (2015). "Seaweed farming as a climate resilient strategy for Indian coastal waters," in The International Conference on Integrating Climate, Crop, Ecology – The Emerging Areas of Agronomics, Horticulture, Livestock, Fishery, Forestry, Biodiversity, and Policy Issues (New Delhi).

Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Fang, J., Wang, Due west., Du, Thou., Gao, Y., and Zhang, One thousand. (2012). Growth and loss of mariculture kelp Saccharina japonica in Sungo Bay, China. J. Appl. Phycol. 24, 1209–1216. doi: ten.1007/s10811-011-9762-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100/full

Posted by: fultshishly.blogspot.com

Share this post