Field scale evaluation of seaweed aquaculture as a nutrient bioextraction strategy in Long Island Sound and the Bronx River Estuary

The presence of microcystins in fish Cyprinus carpio tissues: a histopathological study

“…The high suspended solids and shallow euphotic zone at the study site had a noticeable effect on the growth of aquacultured macroalga. Kim et al (2014) reported that the growth of Gracilaria tikvahiae McLachlan at the site declined from just 0.5 m below surface to 2.5 m depth, with maximum growth near the surface. The higher nitrogen and lower carbon content at the depth implied slower photosynthetic rates beneath 0.5 m depth.…”

Offshore and Multi-Use Aquaculture with Extractive Species: Seaweeds and Bivalves

“…In coastal waters, high levels of these nutrients can trigger harmful microalgal blooms (red tides) and contribute to excessive growth of nuisance or opportunistic macroalgae (green and brown tides), which in turn have negative consequences on coastal ecosystems and economies. These nutrients could instead be used to support the growth of economically important seaweeds, which would compete for nutrients with nuisance species, especially in nearshore coastal environments, hence mitigating these potentially adverse environmental impacts (Neori et al 2004(Neori et al , 2007Chopin et al 2008;Pereira and Yarish 2008;Abreu et al 2009Abreu et al , 2011bBuschamnn et al 2008;Corey et al 2012Corey et al , 2014Kim et al 2013Kim et al , 2014aKim et al , 2015a. Seaweeds take up N, P and C, which they use for growth and production of proteins and energy storage products (mostly carbohydrates).…”

“…First attempts to calculate nutrient budgets of Saccharina latissima and Palmaria palmata for the use as offshore IMTA candidate was investigated by Grote (2016) as well as Grote and Buck (2017). Recently, Kim et al (2014aKim et al ( , 2015a cultivated Gracilaria tikvahiae and Saccharina latissima in open water nutrient bioextraction farms in Long Island Sound (LIS) and the Bronx River Estuary (BRE), and evaluated the nutrient bioextraction performance in urbanized estuaries. They estimated that the biomass yields of G. tikvahiae and S. latissima could be up to 21 and 62 metric tons fresh weight per hectare, respectively.…”

“…Kim et al (2014aKim et al ( , 2015a estimated that Gracilaria and Saccharina could sequester up to 300 (LIS) and 727 kg C ha −1 (BRE), and 1800 (LIS) and 1350 kg C ha −1 (BRE), respectively. Together, over 2000 kg C ha −1 could be removed by alternating these two species at the seaweed farm sites.…”

“…Considering a 10:1 DW:FW ratio and average values of nitrogen (Pyropia/Porphyra: 5.5%, Gracilaria: 3.0%, Kappaphycus/Eucheuma: 1.7%, kelp: 2.0% and Sargassum: 4.1%) and carbon (Pyropia/Porphyra: 38%, Gracilaria: 28%, Kappaphycus/Eucheuma: 29%, kelp: 30% and Sargassum: 34%), the total nitrogen and carbon removal by these five major aquaculture groups is approximately 54 million t of nitrogen per year and 700 million t of carbon per year (equivalent to 2600 million t of CO 2 ), respectively (Asare and Harlin 1983;Gerard 1997;Schaffelke and Klumpp 1998;Gevaert et al 2001;Schaffelke 2001;Chung et al 2002;Rawson et al 2002;Sahoo and Ohno 2003;Dean and Hurd 2007;Kim et al 2007Kim et al , 2014aKim et al , 2015aBuschmann et al 2008;Abreu et al 2009;Robertson-Andersson et al 2009;Levine and Sahoo 2010;Broch et al 2013). This is, in fact, a significant amount of carbon and nitrogen removal.…”