Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 21;16(6):e0252810.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252810. eCollection 2021.

Conservation aquaculture as a tool for imperiled marine species: Evaluation of opportunities and risks for Olympia oysters, Ostrea lurida

Affiliations

Conservation aquaculture as a tool for imperiled marine species: Evaluation of opportunities and risks for Olympia oysters, Ostrea lurida

April D Ridlon et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Conservation aquaculture is becoming an important tool to support the recovery of declining marine species and meet human needs. However, this tool comes with risks as well as rewards, which must be assessed to guide aquaculture activities and recovery efforts. Olympia oysters (Ostrea lurida) provide key ecosystem functions and services along the west coast of North America, but populations have declined to the point of local extinction in some estuaries. Here, we present a species-level, range-wide approach to strategically planning the use of aquaculture to promote recovery of Olympia oysters. We identified 12 benefits of culturing Olympia oysters, including identifying climate-resilient phenotypes that add diversity to growers' portfolios. We also identified 11 key risks, including potential negative ecological and genetic consequences associated with the transfer of hatchery-raised oysters into wild populations. Informed by these trade-offs, we identified ten priority estuaries where aquaculture is most likely to benefit Olympia oyster recovery. The two highest scoring estuaries have isolated populations with extreme recruitment limitation-issues that can be addressed via aquaculture if hatchery capacity is expanded in priority areas. By integrating social criteria, we evaluated which project types would likely meet the goals of local stakeholders in each estuary. Community restoration was most broadly suited to the priority areas, with limited commercial aquaculture and no current community harvest of the species, although this is a future stakeholder goal. The framework we developed to evaluate aquaculture as a tool to support species recovery is transferable to other systems and species globally; we provide a guide to prioritizing local knowledge and developing recommendations for implementation by using transparent criteria. Our collaborative process engaging diverse stakeholders including managers, scientists, Indigenous Tribal representatives, and shellfish growers can be used elsewhere to seek win-win opportunities to expand conservation aquaculture where benefits are maximized for both people and imperiled species.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

While the following authors were affiliated with commercial companies - Gary Fleener, Hog Island Oyster Company; Gifford Pinchot IV, Chelsea Farms; and John Adams, Sound Fresh Clams and Oysters – they did not receive any salary support to contribute to the manuscript. This commercial affiliation does not alter their adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Location of estuaries and their ecological priority index scores.
Names of the numbered estuaries are provided in Fig 2.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Conservation aquaculture indices.
Estuaries are arranged from North to South, with the exception of subbasin areas, which are grouped for simplicity. Province or state abbreviations are shown (BCC = British Columbia, Canada; WA = Washington, OR = Oregon, CA = California, USA; BCM = Baja California, Mexico). The names of the ten estuaries that emerged as ecological priorities are shown in bold font; all index scores ≥0.5 are highlighted. The individual scores for each criterion are shown to the right (darker shading represents higher scores; missing data shown in white).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Conceptual diagram of steps to take in evaluating conservation aquaculture for a new species or region.
The diagram follows a logical chronological flow, but in practice some steps may occur simultaneously or there may be iterative rounds revisiting particular steps. For the first steps, the process should only move forward if the determination of the previous step is affirmative (e.g. only move to step 2 if the species requires restoration, to step 3 if reproduction is deemed limiting, to step 4 if aquaculture is feasible, to step 5 if there is a team, etc.).
Fig 4
Fig 4. Examples of different approaches to implementing conservation aquaculture with Olympia oysters.
A) Restoration with hatchery-raised juveniles led by a coastal management organization. Staff of the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, with community volunteers and partners, assemble stakes with clam shells bearing hatchery-raised juveniles. (Photo: B. Tougher). B) Community restoration. Staff members from the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community work with AmeriCorps volunteers from the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association to enhance habitat for Olympia oysters on Swinomish tidelands. (Photo: J. Barber); C) Commercial production and sale of Olympia oysters (Photo: M. Wilkinson, Hog Island Oyster Company). All individuals shown in images provided prior consent.

References

    1. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, et al.. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. science. 2006. Nov 3;314(5800):787–90. doi: 10.1126/science.1132294 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Angelini C, Altieri AH, Silliman BR, Bertness MD. Interactions among foundation species and their consequences for community organization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience. 2011. Oct 1;61(10): 782–789.
    1. Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Bjork M, Duarte CM, et al.. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ. 2011. Dec;9(10): 552–560.
    1. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby P, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, Harvell CD, et al.. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science. 2007. Dec 14;318(5857): 1737–1742. doi: 10.1126/science.1152509 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, et al.. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009. July 28; 106: 12377–12381. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905620106 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types