Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:21:20.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Water quality management in aquaculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Fatimah M. Yusoff*
Affiliation:
Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia International Institute of Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 71050 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
Wahidah A. D. Umi
Affiliation:
Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Norulhuda M. Ramli
Affiliation:
International Institute of Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 71050 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Razif Harun
Affiliation:
International Institute of Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 71050 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Corresponding author: Fatimah M. Yusoff; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aquaculture industry requires good water quality for its successful operation but produces wastes that can cause environmental deterioration and pose high risks to the sector. Adequate waste treatment and recycling are necessary to make aquaculture a sustainable and profitable industry and contribute to the circular economy. Polluted water sources, excess feeding, overstocking, use of antibiotics/chemicals and harmful algal blooms are major causes of water quality deterioration and low production in aquaculture systems. Discharges of untreated wastes would have serious impacts on the receiving water bodies, and eventually on the aquaculture industry itself. Possible solutions include technological innovations in environmentally friendly production systems, use of efficient processes in water quality management and improved legislation and governance. Environmentally feasible aquaculture production technologies such as recycling aquaculture system, integrated multi-trophic aquaculture and aquaponics including features of waste recycling are viable options in aquaculture schemes. Best aquaculture practices integrating advanced water quality treatment processes and technologies, supported by automation and sensors, modeling and artificial intelligence-internet of things are necessary for a sustainable aquaculture environment, production and stable value chain. In general, low-cost technologies for aquaculture waste treatment and environmental impact reduction through good governance are crucial for achieving sustainability in the aquaculture industry and natural environmental management.

Topics structure

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

Good water quality is mandatory in different phases of a successful aquaculture production, water intake, water use and waste discharges. However, unsustainable aquaculture practices can result in low yields and cause negative impacts on the environment and the human community. This review provides assessments of water quality in different aquaculture systems, and the impacts of their effluents on the natural water bodies. To optimize aquaculture production, and minimize their impacts on the environment, effective management of the water quality and wastes in aquaculture is needed. Major constraints in adequate aquaculture wastewater treatment, including high capital and operation costs of waste treatment systems, lack of incentives for waste treatment and lack of legislation and enforcement in discharges of raw aquaculture wastes, should be overcome. Possible solutions include technological innovations in production systems and wastewater treatments, increased professionals in water quality control and waste management, improved legislation, certification, financial assistance and incentives to farmers along the aquaculture industrial chains can be applied for a sustainable aquaculture sector. If water quality management can be effectively carried out, it would have a great long-term impact on the aquaculture industry.

Introduction

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food-production sector, and its sustainable growth is vital to food security, ecosystem health, uninterrupted natural resource utilization, biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic resilience. In the face of declining capture fishery resources and rising demand for fish and fishery products, aquaculture has become the main source of aquatic food/protein supply and contributes to the food security of the global population (Boyd et al., Reference Boyd, McNevin and Davis2022; Troell et al., Reference Troell, Costa‐Pierce, Stead, Cottrell, Brugere, Farmery, Little, Strand, Pullin, Soto, Beveridge, Salie, Dresdner, Moraes-Valenti, Blanchard, James, Yossa, Allison, Devaney and Barg2023). However, there are concerns about the impacts of aquaculture activities on the environment and natural resources, such as habitat destruction, exploitation of wild fish stocks, fishmeal/fish oil requirements and waste disposal (Bull et al., Reference Bull, Cunha and Scudelari2021; Klootwijk et al., Reference Klootwijk, Alve, Hess, Renaud, Sørlie and Dolven2021). Different aquaculture systems (extensive, semi-intensive and intensive); types of systems (closed, semi-open and open); different cultured species and stocking densities can generate different environmental impacts (Figure 1). Environmental impacts can occur through three different processes such as consumption of natural resources, culture procedures/practices and generation of wastes. Each ecosystem has its own carrying capacity, and working within the limit is crucial to avoid negative impacts. The transition of traditional cultural practices to an intensified cultural system involves increased waste that requires proper treatment to avoid pollution and deleterious impacts on the environment (da Silva et al., Reference da Silva, Rotta, Fornari and Streit2022). With the high demand for aquaculture products, more farms are opting for intensive culture systems, which tend to affect the environment more than extensive and semi-intensive systems due to large amounts of waste containing toxins, drugs and chemicals in the former system (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Ma, Huang, Liu, Lu, Peng and Li2021; Nagaraju et al., Reference Nagaraju, Malegole, Chaudhary and Ravindran2022). Thus, unsustainable aquaculture activities could result in widespread habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, declined fishery and other aquatic resources in the surrounding area (Valiela et al., Reference Valiela, Bowen and York2001; Polidoro et al., Reference Polidoro, Carpenter, Collins, Duke, Ellison, Ellison, Farnsworth, Fernando, Kathiresan, Koedam, Livingstone, Miyagi, Moore, Nam, Ong, Primavera, Salmo, Sanciangco, Sukardjo, Wang and Yong2010; Herbeck et al., Reference Herbeck, Unger, Wu and Jennerjahn2013; Cardoso-Mohedano et al., Reference Cardoso-Mohedano, Lima-Rego, Sánchez-Cabeza, Ruiz-Fernández, Canales-Delgadillo, Sánchez-Flores and Paez-Osuna2018).

Figure 1. Different aquaculture production systems in closed (tanks, ponds, and raceways) and open ecosystems (cages and extractive culture systems in lakes, rivers, and coastal waters).

In aquaculture production systems, poor water quality due to accumulation of toxic compounds, including ammonia, nitrite and hydrogen sulfide, together with low dissolved oxygen, hypoxic conditions, harmful algal blooms (HABs) and pathogenic bacteria can greatly affect the fish health through bacterial infections, poor growth and stress rendering them less tolerant to handling. Diseases in aquaculture systems are closely related to the environmental health. Uncontrolled diseases can rapidly decimate operations and can cause high mortality in aquaculture systems. Lusiastuti et al. (Reference Lusiastuti, Prayitno, Sugiani and Caruso2020) attributed the disease outbreaks, mass fish mortality and low aquaculture production to poor water quality associated with environmental degradation and climate change. Climate change can affect the aquaculture industry through flooding (too much water), drought (too little water) and changes in water quality. Decline in pH due to ocean acidification could seriously affect aquaculture, especially those in the coastal areas (Guo et al., Reference Guo, Huang, Luo, You and Ke2023). Hassan et al. (Reference Hassan, Rashid, Muhaimeed, Madlul, Al-Katib and Sulaiman2022) noted that improving water quality, maintaining stable environmental factors and controlling water exchange would reduce the occurrence of fish diseases in aquaculture production systems.

Untreated or improperly treated aquaculture discharges with high nutrient concentrations can cause eutrophication and water quality deterioration, hypoxia and HABs in adjacent water bodies (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhu, Mo, Liu, Wang and Zhang2018; Purnomo et al., Reference Purnomo, Patria, Takarina and Karuniasa2022). HABs can be a serious concern in coastal and inland waters (rivers, lakes and reservoirs) that receive aquaculture effluents. Lukassen et al. (Reference Lukassen, de Jonge, Bjerregaard, Podduturi, Jørgensen, Petersen, David, da Silva and Nielsen2019a) reported that the off-flavor compounds produced by the HABs especially geosmin in tilapia produced in cage aquaculture increased the risk of decreasing fish quality and value. Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Li, Ye, Chen, Xu, Dong, Liu and Li2022) reported that Lake Datong, a shallow lake in China, became eutrophic and its water quality deteriorated after the introduction of aquaculture.

Extraction of ground water for aquaculture can cause saltwater intrusion and salinization in coastal areas (Gopaiah et al., Reference Gopaiah, Chandra and Vazeer2023). All these environmental changes could affect the livelihoods of the local communities (da Silva et al., Reference da Silva, Rotta, Fornari and Streit2022; Nagaraju et al., Reference Nagaraju, Malegole, Chaudhary and Ravindran2022; Menon et al., Reference Menon, Arunkumar, Nithya and Shakila2023). Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Kim, Lee and Lee2022a) reported that an increasing number of farms in the coastal area resulted in the release of organic wastes derived from excess feed and fish metabolites. Yang et al. (Reference Yang, Zhao, Tong, Tang, Lai, Li and Tang2021) and Chiquito-Contreras et al. (Reference Chiquito-Contreras, Hernandez-Adame, Alvarado-Castillo, de J. Martínez-Hernández, Sánchez-Viveros, Chiquito-Contreras and Hernandez-Montiel2022) reported that approximately 27% to 49% of the feeds supplied to aquaculture production ponds are converted to fish products while the rest goes to wastes that are usually discharged into the nearby water bodies, and eventually form one of the factors that negatively affect the aquaculture value chain.

Water treatment technologies that are technically feasible, environmentally promising and financially profitable can be integrated into different aquaculture systems to make aquaculture industry a sustainable sector and contributes to the circular economy. Aquaculture wastes can be recovered and recycled using various technologies such as bioremediation, aeration, biocoagulation and biofiltration applied in various production systems such as recirculating aquaculture system (RAS), integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) and aquaponics (aquaculture and hydroponics). In these circular economic activities, aquaculture wastes can generate additional products such as seaweeds, herbs, vegetables, mollusks and other by-products, while generating a clean water source that can be recycled and used for the fed culture (Figure 2). Legal instruments and authoritative interventions are also necessary for regulating aquaculture waste discharge and ensuring producers consider environmental impact and water quality management in their operations and practices. This review assessed the impacts of different production systems on the water quality and suggested possible approaches such as the use of environmentally friendly technological innovations and good governance in improving water quality management for a sustainable aquaculture industry.

Figure 2. Recycling of aquaculture wastes to create various economically important outputs and maintain good water quality for aquaculture production.

Pollution and threats to water quality in aquaculture systems

Most aquaculture systems require a thorough understanding of water quality and waste management for accurate treatment decisions to ensure healthy cultured organisms with high yields (Davidson et al., Reference Davidson, Redman, Crouse and Vinci2022). Ssekyanzi et al. (Reference Ssekyanzi, Nevejan, Kabbiri, Wesana and Stappen2022) reported that in Sub-Saharan Africa, limited knowledge of water quality is one of the main factors contributing to low production (<1% of global production) and slow growth of the aquaculture sector.

Major factors contributing to the deteriorating environment and water quality in the aquaculture industry include nutrients (17%), other pollutants, including emerging pollutants (12%), habitat loss (16%), HABs (9%), lack of treatment technologies (8%) and socioeconomic factors (38%) (Theuerkauf et al., Reference Theuerkauf, Morris, Waters, Wickliffe, Alleway and Jones2019). Nutrients play a major role in eutrophication, resulting in massive proliferation of HABs, such as cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates and high mortality of cultured organisms in cultured systems (Table 1). Cyanobacterial blooms are also commonly associated with toxic–odor compounds such as geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (2-MIB) which impart an unpleasant taste to water and cultured organisms. Marques et al. (Reference Marques, da Silva, de Oliveira, Cunha and Sobral2018) and Ryan et al. (Reference Ryan, Palacios, Encina, Graeber, Osorio, Stubbins, Woelfl and Nimptsch2022) noted the negative impacts of an intensive aquaculture farm on effluent water quality due to excessive nutrients, especially phosphorus and nitrogen.

Table 1. Major problems and mitigating measures in water quality management in aquaculture production systems

Emerging pollutants such as microplastics (Table 1) can cause health implications such as reduced feeding rate, gill malfunction, reduced reproductive capacity and immune suppression of cultured animals (Mallik et al., Reference Mallik, Xavier, Naidu and Nayak2021). In aquaculture, plastic debris from aquaculture farms, rafts, cages, nets and other related production structures are sources of microplastics (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Jin, Tao, Wang, Xie, Yu and Wang2018; Krüger et al., Reference Krüger, Casado-Coy, Valle, Ramos, Sánchez-Jerez, Gago, Carretero, Beltran-Sanahuja and Sanz-Lazaro2020). In addition, biofilms formed on microplastic particles are sources of pathogenic bacteria that can negatively affect aquaculture (Cholewińska et al., Reference Cholewińska, Moniuszko, Wojnarowski, Pokorny, Szeligowska, Dobicki, Polechonski and Górniak2022).

Contamination in water sources for aquaculture production

Availability of clean water for aquaculture is an important consideration in site selection for aquaculture operation. In fact, suitable site selection for aquaculture activities is vital to alleviate potential problems associated with pollution and conflicting activities, and to ensure that the selected water body would be a conducive growing environment without jeopardizing the existing ecosystems (Table 1). Brigolin et al. (Reference Brigolin, Lourguioui, Taji, Venier, Mangin and Pastres2015) and Jayanthi et al. (Reference Jayanthi, Thirumurthy, Samynathan, Kumararaja, Muralidhar and Vijayan2021) used remote sensing, geospatial tools and mathematical models in combination with water quality factors, environmental characteristics and socioeconomic data to identify suitable areas for cage aquaculture in estuaries and coastal areas. Vaz et al. (Reference Vaz, Sousa, Gómez-Gesteira and Dias2021) and Arega et al. (Reference Arega, Lee and Choi2022) developed a habitat suitability model based on water quality, hydrodynamics and biogeochemistry for aquaculture site selection.

In aquaculture systems, pollutants can originate from both allochthonous sources (such as feeds, fertilizers and/or polluted water sources) and autochthonous sources (phytoplankton biomass, metabolites). Polluted water from rivers and coastal waters can seriously affect the health and growth of the culture species, resulting in high mortality and low yields. In closed culture systems such as ponds and tanks, the quality of the intake water can be controlled. Under limited circumstances, low-quality water can be first treated before use, although the production would still be lower compared to those with clean water intake. In aquaculture systems located in open waters such as lakes and coastal waters (Figure 1), yields are highly dependent on the in situ water quality. In these, natural waters where cage aquaculture or extractive aquaculture is common, pollutants are mainly associated with anthropogenic activities in the catchment and upstream areas. Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Kim, Lee and Lee2022a) used 15-N isotopic signatures to show that organic pollutants in estuaries and coastal areas were mainly contributed by sources related to anthropogenic activities, including organic fertilizers and aquaculture discharges exported through rivers.

To ensure the sustainability of aquaculture production through sound water quality management of open waters, Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Chen, Wang, Wang, Zhang, Li, Lin, Xiong, Zhu, Liu, Zhu and Shen2023a) proposed a watershed management framework using economic-based and water quality-based protection strategies to manage catchment areas for sustainable development. To prevent nonpoint source pollution, interactions between land cover, landscape pattern and design and pollution loading should be assessed and optimized (Ouyang et al., Reference Ouyang, Song, Wang and Hao2014; Falconer et al., Reference Falconer, Telfer and Ross2018; Rong et al., Reference Rong, Zeng, Su, Yue, Xu and Cai2021).

Factors affecting water quality in aquaculture production systems

Water quality in aquaculture systems is influenced by various physical, chemical and biological factors such as temperature, light, pH, dissolved oxygen, organic matter/nutrients, microorganisms and various biological interactions (Table 2). Climate change could exert drastic fluctuations in these physical chemical factors that would affect water quality, increase the incidence of fish diseases and cause high fish mortality and production (Lusiastuti et al., Reference Lusiastuti, Prayitno, Sugiani and Caruso2020). Alam et al. (Reference Alam, Sarkar, Miah and Rashid2021) reported that Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, produced fewer eggs under high temperatures associated with climate change, and suggested effective management strategies to overcome the low egg production in commercial fish hatcheries. Ocean acidification and decrease in pH caused problems in shellfish aquaculture, such as oysters (Abisha et al., Reference Abisha, Krishnani, Sukhdhane, Verma, Brahmane and Chadha2022; Mayrand and Benhafid, Reference Mayrand and Benhafid2023). Higher sea levels could cause positive consequences such as the creation of new habitats in the coastal waters or negative impacts like saltwater intrusion. Increased wind speed and waves caused sediment suspension and high turbidity that affected water quality and aquaculture activities (Shen et al., Reference Shen, Lin, Ye, Ren, Zhao and Duan2023). Mitigating measures to overcome impacts of physicochemical changes include adaptations in production systems, good culture strategies such as species diversification, and use of predictive models (Table 2). Abisha et al. (Reference Abisha, Krishnani, Sukhdhane, Verma, Brahmane and Chadha2022) suggested the development of climate-resilient aquaculture through adaptations to environmental factors that have negative impacts on organisms to minimize the impacts of climate change. Shen et al. (Reference Shen, Lin, Ye, Ren, Zhao and Duan2023) used satellite remote sensing to assess the impacts of the environment and improve the ecological and environmental regulations to support the sustainable development of the coastal area.

Table 2. Factors affecting water quality in aquaculture production systems and mitigation measures

High organic wastes in aquaculture systems, mainly from excess feeds and metabolites, caused water quality degradation characterized by high ammonia, nitrate and soluble reactive phosphorus, high biological oxygen demand (BOD), high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and low dissolved oxygen (Table 2). Phosphorus (P) can be a source of environmental contamination and eutrophication in aquaculture systems if not adequately removed from the wastewater. In terms of nitrogen, the proportion of toxic unionized ammonia (NH3) depends on the total ammonia concentration (ionized ammonium ion) and NH3 in the water column, which is in turn governed by water temperature and pH. Once ammonia concentrations in the water are high, fish are less able to excrete ammonia through gill diffusion resulting in the accumulation of ammonia in fish tissues, which would finally affect fish health and growth. Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Wang, Sun, Jiang, Qian, Wang and Li2022a) reported that toxic ammonia can reduce the quality and yield of Japanese sea perch (Lateolabrax japonicus). Due to its adverse effects on aquaculture species, ammonia concentrations in production systems should be closely monitored. Yu et al. (Reference Yu, Yang, Li and Chen2021) used a hybrid soft computing method to accurately predict ammonia concentrations in aquaculture water in real time. Temperature, dissolved organic carbon and redox potential are the primary drivers of chemical fluxes in freshwater aquaculture ponds (Yuan et al., Reference Yuan, Liu, Xiang, He, Kang and Ding2021).

Accumulation of organic matter in the pond bottom can be the main cause of hypoxic conditions in enriched aquaculture ponds (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Zhao, Tong, Tang, Lai, Li and Tang2021). Under anaerobic conditions, high organic matter accumulation can produce methane (CH4), hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which could adversely affect water quality (Table 2). Toxic H2S, commonly found in production systems with low oxygen, could cause sudden fish/shrimp mass mortality. Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Hu, Hu, Chen, Yu, Zou and Liu2018b) reported that CH4 and N2O fluxes in inland aquaculture ponds were positively correlated to temperature and sediment organic carbon, and negatively correlated to dissolved oxygen concentration. Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Dong, Wang, Gao and Tian2016) and Yang et al. (Reference Yang, Zhang, Lai, Tan, Jin and Tong2018) noted that substantial amounts of CH4 and carbon dioxide were released from mariculture ponds. In freshwater aquaculture ponds, Zhao et al. (Reference Zhao, Zhang, Xiao, Jia, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, Xie, Pu, Liu, Feng and Lee2021) reported that high concentrations of CH4 were released and showed that dredging of the pond bottom as part of pond preparation was more effective in reducing CH4 compared to aeration. Thus, there is a need for immediate and continuous removal of toxic compounds such as ammonia, nitrite, H2S and CH4 in aquaculture systems.

Nutrient-rich waters are also associated with cyanobacterial blooms that could produce toxic–odor compounds such as geosmin and 2-MIB, causing an unpleasant taste to water and cultured organisms. Although a variety of bacteria and fungi produce geosmin, cyanobacteria including planktonic and benthic species belonging to Nostocales, Oscillatoriales and Synechococcales are major producers of geosmin (Watson et al., Reference Watson, Monis, Baker and Giglio2016; John et al., Reference John, Koehler, Ansell, Baker, Crosbie and Jex2018). Cyanobacterial toxins pose threats and risks to human and animal health. Cyanobacteria proliferate rapidly in eutrophic waters due to their ability to float and overcome light limitations (Table 2). Geosmin has been found to cause off-flavor in a wide range of environments including RAS (Azaria and van Rijn, Reference Azaria and van Rijn2018; Lukassen et al., Reference Lukassen, Podduturi, Rohaan, Jørgensen and Nielsen2019b). Lukassen et al. (Reference Lukassen, de Jonge, Bjerregaard, Podduturi, Jørgensen, Petersen, David, da Silva and Nielsen2019a) reported that higher densities of geosmin-producing bacteria were found in the intestinal mucous layer and digestive system of tilapia (O. niloticus) compared to the water column, indicating that probiotics can be used to manage intestinal microflora to improve fish quality. Due to the detrimental impacts of HABs on aquaculture production systems, environmental and human health, and socioeconomics, microalgal toxic species distribution and abundance should be closely monitored for early detection and preventive action. In fact, reduction of the external nutrient load is the most fundamental aspect of cyanobacterial control (Kibuye et al., Reference Kibuye, Zamyadi and Wert2021). Derot et al. (Reference Derot, Yajima and Jacquet2020) used two machine learning models with a long-term base to forecast HABs. Pal et al. (Reference Pal, Yesankar, Dwivedi and Qureshi2020) suggested biological options such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and zooplankton for controlling HABs. John et al. (Reference John, Koehler, Ansell, Baker, Crosbie and Jex2018) developed a novel polymerase chain reaction method targeting the geosmin synthase gene (geoA) to assess all important sources of geosmin, while Ma et al. (Reference Ma, Wang, Li, Peng and Yang2018) showed that chlorine aqueous solution under ultraviolet light could effectively remove geosmin and 2-MIB in acidic conditions.

In addition to nutrients, aquaculture systems can also be subjected to other pollutants such as antibiotics and heavy metals that could eventually affect the quality of the produce (Table 2). Le et al. (Reference Le, Hoang, Phung, Nguyen, Rochelle-Newall, Duong, Pham, Phung, Nguyen, Le, Pham, Nguyen and Le2022) noted heavy metal pollution in the aquaculture coastal area and emphasized the need for good management practices if sustainable aquaculture is to persist in the coastal area. The use of antibiotics and chemicals in aquaculture can also have far-reaching effects on ecological food pyramids. Fernanda et al. (Reference Fernanda, Liu, Yuan, Ramalingam, Lu and Sekar2022) showed that water quality parameters in aquaculture ponds were significantly correlated with the abundance of antibiotic-resistant (AR) genes which were brought down by a river polluted by various sources from the cultivated and industrial lands. In the environment, the partitioning and distribution of antibiotics are positively correlated to salinity, suspended solids, pH, ammonia and zinc, and negatively correlated to temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphate, COD, oil, copper and cadmium (Li et al., Reference Li, Wen, Bao, Huang, Mu and Chen2022a). Ecological and biological risks of antibiotics are high and can be detrimental to aquaculture products. Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Wu, Li, Wang, Song, Wang and Yan2022) developed a biomarker using cyanobacterial carbonic anhydrase for monitoring antibiotics. Chemicals used in aquaculture should also be removed before discharging wastewater into the surrounding environment. Sulfonamides from aquaculture wastewater can be degraded using laccase-syringaldehyde mediator system through response surface optimization, degradation kinetics and degradation pathways (Lou et al., Reference Lou, Wu, Ding, Zhang, Zhang, Zhang, Han, Liu, He and Zhong2022). Pandey et al. (Reference Pandey, Daverey, Dutta and Arunachalam2022) suggested the removal of malachite green, which is commonly used for disease treatment in aquaculture ponds, using laccase immobilized biochar. Yanuhar et al. (Reference Yanuhar, Musa, Evanuarini, Wuragil and Permata2022) reported that water quality in concrete ponds can be improved by aeration, filtration and reduction of organic matter by optimizing the feed.

In addition to physical and chemical parameters, disease agents such as bacteria, fungi and other pathogenic organisms can also affect water quality and aquaculture performance (Table 2). Microbial communities in aquaculture systems are shaped by the environmental conditions which are in turn influenced by inland discharges, climate changes and anthropogenic pressures. Swathi et al. (Reference Swathi, Shekhar and Karthic2021) reported that water quality parameters were closely related to the outbreak of white spot disease in shrimp culture ponds. Thus, regular monitoring and estimating microbial diversity would allow farmers to link water quality parameters to subsequent fish performance and assess the environmental health of the aquaculture systems and the vicinity for early detection of microbial conditions that could lead to impaired fish health.

Water quality management in aquaculture production systems and methods to enhance it

Water quality in aquaculture production systems

Aquaculture production systems including RAS, IMTA, aquaponics (aquaculture and hydroponics) and ecosystem-based approaches were designed and constantly improved to enhance water quality and production (Table 3). These integrated production systems which have zero-water exchange and produce microorganisms as food sources, can be integrated with different types of biofiltration, biocoagulation, bioflocculation and biological interactions including bioflocs and bioremediation (Xu et al., Reference Xu, Du, Qiu, Zhou, Li, Chen and Sun2021; Igwegbe et al., Reference Igwegbe, Ovuoraye, Białowiec, Okpala, Onukwuli and Dehghani2022) to enhance their wastewater treatment performance (Table 4).

Table 3. Aquaculture production systems for improving water quality in aquaculture

Table 4. Technologies and processes for improving water quality in aquaculture systems

Aquaponics

Aquaponics, the integration of aquaculture and hydroponics, is conceptually based on the efficient use of water and recycling of accumulated organic nutrients using plants, as one of the effective approaches in addressing the problems of aquaculture wastewater treatment, pollution in public waters, improved water quality in culture systems and sustainable aquaculture development (Yep and Zheng, Reference Yep and Zheng2019; Chiquito-Contreras et al., Reference Chiquito-Contreras, Hernandez-Adame, Alvarado-Castillo, de J. Martínez-Hernández, Sánchez-Viveros, Chiquito-Contreras and Hernandez-Montiel2022); Okomoda et al., Reference Okomoda, Oladimeji, Solomon, Olufeagba, Ogah and Ikhwanuddin2023). Essentially, aquaponics uses bacterial processes and enhances plant nutrient uptake to recover and recycle nutrients from aquaculture systems (Kalayci Kara et al., Reference Kalayci Kara, Fakıoğlu, Kotan, Atamanal and Alak2021; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Kim, Thatcher, Hamilton, Alva, Zhou (George) and Brown2023). Sopawong et al. (Reference Sopawong, Yusoff, Zakaria, Khaw, Monir and Amalia2023) showed that integrating fish culture and plants in a bio-green floating system significantly improved water quality, fish health and aquaculture production. In addition, aquaponics overcomes the land scarcity for aquaculture as the system can be constructed and designed to fit any area available, such as in urban areas and water-scarce areas. Palm et al. (Reference Palm, Knaus, Appelbaum, Goddek, Strauch, Vermeulen, Jijakli and Kotzen2018) and Obirikorang et al. (Reference Obirikorang, Sekey, Gyampoh, Ashiagbor and Asante2021) demonstrated the increased efficiency of aquaculture production in aquaponics improvised for commercial aquaculture production and food security. To make the aquaponics more effective, Calone et al. (Reference Calone, Pennisi, Morgenstern, Sanyé-Mengual, Lorleberg, Dapprich, Winkler, Orsini and Gianquinto2019) and Ekawati et al. (Reference Ekawati, Ulfa, Dewi, Amin, Salamah, Yanuar and Kurniawan2021) combined it with RAS as aquaponic-RAS (A-RAS), which proved to be effective in improving water quality, survival rate, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and yield in catfish aquaculture (Table 3). Based on the same principle, Goddek and Körner (Reference Goddek and Körner2019) designed RAS-hydroponic multi-loop aquaponic system for better fish and plant production with flexible sizing. Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Hu, Song, Chen and Zhu2019) introduced crayfish integrated system for efficient use of waste for rice production. There are different combinations of fed and extractive species in different systems to improve water quality, such as catfish, plants and bacteria in hydroponic-biofilm and NFT systems (Mohapatra et al., Reference Mohapatra, Chandan, Panda, Majhi and Pillai2020; Li et al., Reference Li, Wang, Liu, Luo, Rauan, Zhang, Li, Yu, Dong and Gao2022b) to improve biofilter and ammonia removal efficiencies. Addy et al. (Reference Addy, Kabir, Zhang, Lu, Deng, Current, Griffith, Ma, Zhou, Chen and Ruan2017) showed that microalgae were more efficient in ammonia removal compared to plants in aquaponic co-cultivation. Other technologies such as biochar-supplemented planting panel system, polylactic acid addition and smart sensing systems have been integrated into the design of aquaponics to improve water quality (Table 3).

Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture

The concept of IMTA utilizes complementary aquaculture species along the food chain in the process of eating and being eaten such that wastes are fully recycled and minimal pollutants are released to the adjacent waters (Figure 3). In IMTA system, commercially important fed species (the main fish or invertebrates that consume given feeds) are cultured together with commercially important extractive species (aquatic species such as seaweeds or mollusks that feed/use the waste of other species) so that ecological balance and water quality in the system could be maintained (Figure 3). Since feeding is an important factor in an IMTA system, Flickinger et al. (Reference Flickinger, Costa, Dantas, Proença, David, Durborow, Moraes-Valenti and Valenti2020) showed that feed management is important to determine the water quality that translates into prawn and fish production in IMTA.

Figure 3. Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems; in tanks (A), in ponds (B) and in coastal waters (C).

The selection of the species from various trophic is based on their physiological and ecology functions to ensure a complete recycling of organic matter in the system with minimal wastes and good water quality, which contributes to the sustainability of the aquaculture industry (Table 3). Largo et al. (Reference Largo, Diola and Marababol2016) reported the use of abalone (donkey’s ear, Haliotis asinina) as fed species and seaweeds (Gracilaria heteroclada and Eucheuma denticulatum) as the inorganic nutrient extractive species. Seaweeds functioned effectively in sequestering nutrients in various fish and shellfish cultures to minimize the impacts of pollution and improve water quality not only in aquaculture systems, but also in the related water bodies (Table 3). Kelp (Macrocystis pyifera) farms in a macroalgae-based IMTA were used to sequester nitrogenous compounds from salmon aquaculture effluents resulting in low chlorophyll concentrations and improved water quality (Hadley et al., Reference Hadley, Wild-Allen, Johnson and Macleod2018). In freshwater IMTA, Paolacci et al. (Reference Paolacci, Stejskal, Toner and Jansen2022) showed that duckweed, Lemna spp., could substantially remove total nitrogen and total phosphorus, maintain good water quality and increase aquaculture yields. In addition to macroalgae, microalgae can be introduced in IMTA in the form of periphyton and/or microalgae–bacterial consortia to reduce nutrients and other pollutants, improve water quality and produce algal biomass for enhancement of culture yields in the system (Milhazes-Cunha and Otero, Reference Milhazes-Cunha and Otero2017).

Recirculating aquaculture system

The RAS is a closed-circuit high-density aquatic animal farming where water from fish tanks is recirculated to remove solid and liquid wastes, and the purified water is returned to the aquaculture tanks (Figure 4). It is designed to provide a more controlled aquaculture system to reduce water usage and produce less wastes (both liquid and solid wastes), and thus it is more efficient and economical compared to the conventional flow-through and cage aquaculture systems (Table 3). In RAS, the relative water renewal rate can be optimized, the fish FCR decreased and the growth rate increased (Pulkkinen et al., Reference Pulkkinen, Kiuru, Aalto, Koskela and Vielma2018). As excess and poor-quality feeds can cause water quality problems in RAS, Kamali et al. (Reference Kamali, Ward and Ricardez-Sandoval2022) took into account the effects of feeding regimes on the accumulation of ammonia and dissolved oxygen in designing a new RAS to enhance the sustainability of aquaculture.

Figure 4. A recycling aquaculture system with an additional algae/plant culture compartment.

The efficiency of RAS in water quality management could be enhanced by combining the system with other functional components such as depuration system to eliminate off-flavor, microalgae system to enhance nutrient removal and bacterial communities as in simultaneous partial nitrification, anammox and denitrification system to enhance organic–inorganic matter recycling (Table 3). Biofiltration in RAS functions to convert ammonia to the less toxic form, nitrate. According to Santos et al. (Reference Santos, Ortiz-Gándara, Del Castillo, Arruti, Gómez, Ibáñez, Urtiaga and Ortiz2022), nitrate is about 100–200 folds less toxic.

Other alternative methods of nutrient removal such as direct or indirect oxidation, adsorption by zeolites and activated carbon, air stripping and reverse osmosis have their own drawbacks in terms of low efficiency and high energy costs (Díaz et al., Reference Díaz, Ibáñez, Gómez, Urtiaga and Ortiz2012; Gendel and Lahav, Reference Gendel and Lahav2013). Yogev et al. (Reference Yogev, Vogler, Nir, Londong and Gross2020) showed that P from RAS can be efficiently (>99%) removed through biomineralization in an anaerobic reactor and reused as fertilizer. For other toxic compounds, Bergstedt et al. (Reference Bergstedt, Skov and Letelier-Gordo2022) proposed the use of hydrogen peroxide to remove H2S from a saltwater RAS. RAS is advantageous in areas with limited land and water. In countries with severe water shortages, such as Gulf Cooperation Council countries, RAS is useful for recycling wastewater to overcome water scarcity for aquaculture (Qureshi, Reference Qureshi2022).

Integration of production systems using ecosystem-based approaches for water quality improvement

In most aquaculture systems, toxic compounds such as ammonia, nitrite and H2S can deteriorate water quality, increase mortality and reduce yields. Although Aquaponics, IMTA and RAS have been designed individually to improve water quality and increase yields, integration of these production system could increase the efficiencies and performances of aquaculture systems. Integration of A-RAS (Aquaponics and RAS), and I-RAS (IMTA and RAS), supported by a variety of functional biological components such as bacteria and microalgae can make aquaculture production systems more productive, cost-effective and efficient with less water consumption and lower disease risks (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Integrated recycling aquaculture system (I-RAS) combining different systems and technologies (integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA), biofloc, bioremediation, bacteria-microalgae consortium, water quality monitoring, and artificial intelligence-internet-of-things (AI-IoT)), to make the I-RAS more efficient and effective in recycling the waste, while enhancing water quality and aquaculture production.

Essentially aquaponics, IMTA, RAS and their combinations (A-RAS, I-RAS) are conceptually based on ecosystem-based approaches, where holistic integration and management of different ecosystem components are essential to maintain its ecological resilience and stability to ensure optimum production in closed aquaculture systems. However, ecosystem-based aquaculture system can also be carried out in the open system such as the integration of aquaculture and mangrove forest management in eco-green approach (Racine et al., Reference Racine, Marley, Froehlich, Gaines, Ladner, MacAdam-Somer and Bradley2021; Musa et al., Reference Musa, Mahmudi, Arsad, Lusiana, Wardana, Ompusunggu and Damayanti2023). Ecosystem model with the co-culture of bivalves (as the grazers) and seaweeds (as nutrient consumers) would drive the nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton-detrital food web, increase the efficiency of waste recycling, improve water quality and enhance aquaculture yields (Cabral et al., Reference Cabral, Levrel, Viard, Frangoudes, Girard and Scemama2016; Park et al., Reference Park, Shin, Do, Yarish and Kim2018). Fan et al. (Reference Fan, Meirong, Hui, Jianguang, Lars and Zengjie2020) reported increased production of kelp (Saccharina japonica – seaweed) and oysters (Crassostrea gigas – a mollusk) with improved water quality, making the ecosystem resilient and stable (Table 3).

Methods for water quality enhancement

Different technologies (such as bioremediation, bio-floc and internet-of-things [IoT]) and processes (chemical reactions, filtrations, coagulations and flocculations) can be imbedded in closed aquaculture systems such as aquaponics and RAS, or open systems such as coastal waters to make the wastewater treatment and recycling more efficient, which in turns, improve water quality and enhance aquaculture yields (Table 4, Figure 5). Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Du, Tan, Xie, Luo and Sun2021b) integrated heterotrophic biofloc and nitrifying biofloc filters to simultaneously control ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, soluble reactive phosphorus and alkalinity with relevant functional microbes such as ammonia and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria, denitrifying bacteria, phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs), denitrifying PAOs and glycogen accumulating bacteria.

Bioremediation

Bioremediation involves the use of environmentally friendly microorganisms to mitigate pollution, improve water quality and maintain ecological health in aquaculture systems (Devaraja et al., Reference Devaraja, Yusoff and Shariff2002; Sun et al., Reference Sun, Li, Tang, Lin, Zhao and Chen2022). These bioremediation bacteria function to decompose organic wastes into useful inorganic compounds that are recycled to maintain a healthy nutrient cycle in various culture systems (Table 4). Bioremediation minimizes the use of antibiotics and drugs and thus, decreases the detrimental consequences of routinely used chemotherapeutic agents and produces safe aquatic products for human consumption (Sha et al., Reference Sha, Dong, Gao, Hashim, Lee and Li2022). In addition, these environmentally friendly bacteria help to improve the health conditions of cultured organisms by protecting them against infectious diseases, delivering antigens and providing several other health benefits in aquaculture.

Several bioremediation bacteria have been used in aquaculture and the most common and popular ones are Bacillus species. Geng et al. (Reference Geng, Li, Liu, Ye and Guo2022) used bacteria (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis) and microalgae (Chlorella vulgaris) to bioremediate aquaculture wastes, and these organisms, in turn, became foods for the filtering triangle sail mussel (Hyriopsis cumingii). In addition, Bacillus species enhanced the digestive enzymes activities of the mussel. Gao et al. (Reference Gao, Gao, Liu, Cai, Zhang and Qi2018) reported that an efficient aerobic denitrifier Bacillus megaterium has a high capacity to remove toxic nitrite and improve water quality. John et al. (Reference John, Krishnapriya and Sankar2020) reported that ammonia, nitrite and nitrate concentrations in tilapia culture wastewater microbial consortium were significantly reduced by using microbial consortium of Bacillus cereus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Pseudomonas stutzeri as bioremediators.

Phytoremediation using plants such as macrophytes and microalgae, for sequestering nutrients, is another form of bioremediation that is useful treatment to improve water quality aquaculture systems (Table 4). Tejido-Nuñez et al. (Reference Tejido-Nuñez, Aymerich, Sancho and Refardt2019) showed improved water quality when the aquaculture effluent was treated with C. vulgaris and Tetraselmis obliquus, indicating that the microalgae were effective in nutrient removal. Nie et al. (Reference Nie, Mubashar, Zhang, Qin and Zhang2020) suggested a few options for the integration of microalgae culture with the aquaculture system such as permeable floating photobioreactors, bacteria–microalgae consortia, mixotrophic microalgae cultivation and biofilm production. Bioflocculation of microalgae and bacteria can enhance nutrient removal and facilitate microalgae harvesting (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Le, Show, Nguyen, Tran, TNT and Lee2019a). Kumar et al. (Reference Kumar, Santhanam, Park and Kim2016) showed that agar–alginate algal blocks, known as immobilized marine microalgae biofilter systems, were effective for nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater. Microalgae can be introduced not only in the biofiltration system but also as a component to utilize inorganic N and P for their enhanced growth, and the resulting biomass can be valorized as feed for other aquatic organisms (Milhazes-Cunha and Otero, Reference Milhazes-Cunha and Otero2017). Li et al. (Reference Li, Zhang, Duan and Wang2019) and Nguyen et al. (Reference Nguyen, Tran, Le, Phan, Show and Chia2019b) reported that C. vulgaris produced higher biomass with a significant decrease in total N, total P, BOD and COD when recycled aquaculture wastewater was used as the culture medium. Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Qi, Bo, Zhou, Yan, Wang and Cheng2021) showed that microalgae produced higher biomass and nutritional contents when cultured in fishery wastes. When cultured with bioremediation bacteria (binary microalgae culture), microalgae exhibited a high growth rate, enhanced bio-flocculation, high-value metabolites and high removal efficiencies of total organic carbon, ammonium nitrogen and total phosphorus (Rashid et al., Reference Rashid, Park and Selvaratnam2018; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Wu, Jiang, Yu, Liu, Min, Li and Ruan2019). An increased number of degrading bacteria causes the integration of microalgae bacteria more effective in the degradation of organic pollutants in aquaculture wastewater, which promotes fish health (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Yang, Lai, Li, Zhan, Zhang, Jiang and Shu2022b).

Biofloc technology

Bioflocs are aggregates of mixed biological communities consisting of bacteria, algae, fungi and zooplankton that function not only to degrade the organic matter, reduce contaminants and improve water quality, but also to form an important source of food and immunostimulants to the cultured organisms (Table 4). The microbial community enhances the nutrient recycling of metabolites through in situ bioremediation, generating nutrients for the development of microalgae and zooplankton which serve as natural foods, and maintains the water quality in the system (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Kim, Thatcher, Hamilton, Alva, Zhou (George) and Brown2023). In the biofloc technology (BFT), bacterial communities dominated by heterotrophic bacteria can be developed in aquaculture systems using appropriate carbon sources in suitable C:N ratios (Gaona et al., Reference Gaona, da Paz Serra, Furtado, Poersch and Wasielesky2016). Ríos et al. (Reference Ríos, Monteagudo, Barrios, González, Vaillant, Bossier and Arenal2023) reported that C:N ratio of 10 significantly enhanced the immune stimulation in shrimp. Heterotrophic bacteria use organic carbon such as starch and sugar to generate energy and to grow into micro-biomass. Putra et al. (Reference Putra, Effendi, Lukistyowati, Tang, Fauzi, Suharman and Muchlisin2020) observed that molasses was the best biofloc starter for a tilapia culture system. Luo et al. (Reference Luo, Zhang, Cai, Tan and Liu2017) suggested the use of external carbohydrates (poly-β-hydroxybutyric and polycaprolactone) to improve the bacterial community, nitrogen dynamic and biofloc quality in tilapia (O. niloticus) culture system. Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Song, Rajeev, Kim, Kang, Jang and Cho2022b) reported that environmentally friendly microbial groups in a biofloc system of Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, include Rhodobacteraceae, Flavobacteriaceae and Actinobacteria. In general, in BFT, heterotrophs were better compared to autotrophic bacteria for the treatment of the wastewater (Kim et al. Reference Kim, Hur, Kim, Jung and Han2020).

Physical–chemical methods

Physical and chemical methods such as filtrations, coagulation, flocculation and adsorption function to remove contaminants from the aquaculture wastewater, while electrochemical oxidation breakdown persistent organic compounds and aeration increased the dissolved oxygen in the water (Santos et al., Reference Santos, Ortiz-Gándara, Del Castillo, Arruti, Gómez, Ibáñez, Urtiaga and Ortiz2022). These methods can be applied singly or in combination in various aquaculture systems to further increase the efficiency of water quality improvement and enhance aquaculture production (Table 4). Biofilters (media with attached microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, algae and protozoans) and membrane filters remove contaminants as the wastewater flows through them (Ng et al., Reference Ng, Ng, Mahmoudi, Ong and Mohammad2018; Hassan et al., Reference Hassan, Rashid, Muhaimeed, Madlul, Al-Katib and Sulaiman2022; Jin et al., Reference Jin, Sun, Ren and Huang2023). Coagulation (clumping of particles), flocculation (settling of coagulated materials) and adsorption (adhering of substances) can effectively remove suspended and dissolved solids from the aquaculture wastewater (Letelier-Gordo and Fernandes, Reference Letelier-Gordo and Fernandes2021; Igwegbe et al., Reference Igwegbe, Ovuoraye, Białowiec, Okpala, Onukwuli and Dehghani2022). Yanuhar et al. (Reference Yanuhar, Musa, Evanuarini, Wuragil and Permata2022) reported that water quality in concrete ponds can be improved by aeration, filtration and reduction of organic matter by optimizing the feed. Different types of biofiltration, biocoagulation, bioflocculation and biological interactions can be selected to enhance wastewater treatment and performance in aquaculture systems depending on their functionality and costs (Table 4).

Santos et al. (Reference Santos, Ortiz-Gándara, Del Castillo, Arruti, Gómez, Ibáñez, Urtiaga and Ortiz2022) introduced electrochemical oxidation as an alternative to biofiltration in RAS and reported several advantages including the decrease of toxic compounds and harmful by-products, water disinfection, reduced water use, easy adaptation to different production scales and an increase in fish health and yields. In addition, aquaculture effluents can be treated by coagulation of phosphorus and organic matter using FeCl3 and AlSO4 (Letelier-Gordo and Fernandes, Reference Letelier-Gordo and Fernandes2021). Kujala et al. (Reference Kujala, Pulkkinen and Vielma2020) and Lindholm-Lehto et al. (Reference Lindholm-Lehto, Pulkkinen, Kiuru, Koskela and Vielma2020) used a woodchip reactor, organic flocculants and slow sand filtration to efficiently remove nitrogen, phosphorus, geosmin and heavy metal, from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) culture.

IoT technologies and models

Traditionally, water quality monitoring in aquaculture systems needs manual sampling that requires a lot of time and cost. With the advent of technologies, real-time monitoring and early warning systems based on the IoT and intelligent monitoring system (IMS) can be designed and developed to make water quality monitoring and management more efficient and effective. IoT, consisting of collective network of communication devices integrated with artificial intelligence (AI) and modeling, can improve the monitoring and management of essential water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH values, turbidity and temperature in an aquaculture system (Figure 5). Wireless sensor network has been used widely for water quality monitoring (Shi et al., Reference Shi, Sreeram, Zhao, Duan and Jiang2018; Wei et al., Reference Wei, Tindik, Fui, Haviluddin and Hijazi2023). Rana et al. (Reference Rana, Rahman, Dabrowski, Arnold, McCulloch and Pais2021) used the machine learning approach to assess the influence of water quality parameters on the growth performance of freshwater aquaculture. Rahman et al. (Reference Rahman, Xi, Dabrowski, McCulloch, Arnold, Rana, George and Adcock2021) developed an integrated framework for aquaculture prawn farm management using sensors, machine learning and augmented reality-based visualization methods through real-time interactive interfaces. Thus, models for accurate predictions of water quality parameters, such as the hybrid prediction model (Eze et al., Reference Eze, Halse and Ajmal2021; Ranjan et al., Reference Ranjan, Tsukuda and Good2023) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method (You et al., Reference You, Xu, Su, Zhang, Pan, Hou, Li and Ding2021), can be developed for improved water quality management. Caballero and Navarro (Reference Caballero and Navarro2021) and Oiry and Barillé (Reference Oiry and Barillé2021) used the sentinel-2 satellite to monitor water quality, cyanoHAB and microphytobenthos. Xiang et al. (Reference Xiang, Cui, Li, Zhang, Mu, Liu and Zhao2023) used satellite remote sensing to monitor water color and water transparency, in relation to land-based activities that cause water turbidity and an increase of pollutants in aquatic ecosystems.

Precision feeding with minimal food waste is essential to maintain good water quality in aquaculture systems since excess feed is one of the major reasons for water quality deterioration in aquaculture systems. Fiordelmondo et al. (Reference Fiordelmondo, Magi, Mariotti, Bakiu and Roncarati2020) reported that feeding type and management could improve water quality in rainbow trout farming. Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Du, Zhang, Luo, Sha and Wang2023b) developed a precision feeding system on a software platform by integrating feeding management, a water quality monitoring system, a fish feeding activity sensor and an automatic feeding machine on a software platform. For convenience, efficiency and precision, Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Duan, Wei, An and Liu2022) applied intelligent and unmanned equipment for water quality management, underwater inspection, precision feeding and biomass estimation in deep-sea aquaculture. Ubina and Cheng (Reference Ubina and Cheng2022) noted unmanned systems are necessary for locations that are difficult to access due to risks associated with extreme climate and long distances from the shore.

The IoT can be used to develop automatic fish feeding with precise amounts and timing. Gao et al. (Reference Gao, Xiao and Chen2019) developed IoT-based intelligent fish farming system that includes a forecasting method for water quality management. The overall framework and constructs of the IoT and IMS-based aquaculture environment should integrate the control circuit, information collection, culture observation, data transmission and early warning system. IoT in aquaculture water quality monitoring involved the development of a cloud-based dashboard for data acquisition. Several cameras installed in the aquaculture farm are used to upload information wirelessly to the dashboard. Water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen and light intensity can be downloaded from a wireless sensing module. Islam et al. (Reference Islam, Pal, Chowdhuri, Salam, Islam, Rahman, Zahid and Idris2021) proposed a cost-effective long-range multistep predictor to improve the forecasting for water quality monitoring. Sampaio et al. (Reference Sampaio, Araújo, Dallago, Stech, Lorenzzetti, Alcântara, Losekann, Marin, Leao and Bueno2021) used low-to-high frequency data for water quality monitoring and fish production.

Bai et al. (Reference Bai, Fu, Li, Stankovski, Zhang and Li2021) proposed a risk assessment approach using bio-reaction kinetic models to evaluate pollutant accumulation in fish tissue as the index for environmental quality and safety in aquaculture. Various models for predicting and managing HABs have been established to reduce the impacts of algal toxins and water quality deterioration associated with eutrophication in aquaculture (Derot et al., Reference Derot, Yajima and Jacquet2020). Water quality modeling can also be based on disease agents. Jampani et al. (Reference Jampani, Gothwal, Mateo-Sagasta and Langan2022) suggested a water quality modeling framework to model and evaluate AR bacteria and AR genes in aquaculture systems.

AI techniques are useful and convenient for water quality management in aquaculture operations that are subjected to harsh environments and extreme climate such as offshore cage aquaculture. Chang et al. (Reference Chang, Wang, Wu, Hsieh, Wu, Cheng, Chang, Juang, Liou, Hsu, Huang, Huang, Lin, Peng, Huang, Jhang, Liou and Lin2021) developed an AI-IoT smart cage culture management system to solve problems related to physical inaccessibility to large coastal and off-shore aquaculture operations. In fact, intelligent and unmanned equipment provide convenient and efficient applications for water quality management, precision feeding and biomass estimation in aquaculture (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Duan, Wei, An and Liu2022). AI-IoT methods supported by sensors, wireless networks, automation and cloud data approaches are also applied for water quality monitoring in coastal waters, estuaries and land-based aquaculture systems (Danh et al., Reference Danh, Dung, Danh and Ngon2020; Huan et al., Reference Huan, Li, Wu and Cao2020; Pasika and Gandla, Reference Pasika and Gandla2020).

Policy and regulation

Policies and regulations are important in ensuring the implementation of aquaculture effluent management strategies as rapid expansion in the aquaculture industry not only provides economic opportunities but also presents risks to the environment and human society. In their assessment of sustainable global aquaculture Davies et al. (Reference Davies, Carranza, Froehlich, Gentry, Kareiva and Halpern2019) noted that many countries with active aquaculture sectors have some level of governance but lack clear frameworks for sustainable aquaculture development. Bohnes et al. (Reference Bohnes, Hauschild, Schlundt, Nielsen and Laurent2022) proposed a stepwise framework to assess the environmental impacts of aquaculture industries taking into account the existing national policy coupled with economic equilibrium models and life cycle assessment of aquaculture activities, especially those related to aquaculture feed production and usage.

Aquaculture farmers in many countries in Asia, where 90% of aquaculture activities are located, have difficulties in adopting environmental governance due to their small farms with limited physical and financial resources. For large farms, access to global markets via certification could be the major driver for adopting environmental governance. Quyen et al. (Reference Quyen, Hien, Khoi, Yagi and Karia Lerøy Riple2020) reported that Vietnamese shrimp farmers followed specific certification guidelines and conducted good aquaculture practices to produce quality and safe products as required by the importing countries, avoiding rejections and economic losses. However, most aquaculture smallholders are experiencing environmental and water quality problems that extend beyond the boundary of their farms. To mitigate environmental risk due to non-sustainable aquaculture practices, Bush et al. (Reference Bush, Oosterveer, Bottema, Meuwissen, de Mey, Chamsai, Ho and Chadag2019) suggested implementing environmental governance for water quality management such as certification, finance and insurance on a wider landscape instead of focusing on each farm. Bohnes et al. (Reference Bohnes, Hauschild, Schlundt, Nielsen and Laurent2022) proposed a stepwise framework to assess the environmental impacts of aquaculture industries taking into account the existing national policy coupled with economic equilibrium models and life cycle assessment of aquaculture activities, especially those related to aquaculture feed production and usage. Wood et al. (Reference Wood, Capuzzo, Kirby, Mooney-McAuley and Kerrison2017) also showed that a small farm on its own is unlikely to have a significant effect on water quality and environmental conservation compared to a very large farm or a conglomerate of small farms. Thus, environmental policies and regulations that consider all elements of farm-to-market operation including production systems (cost-effectiveness and sustainable supply); water quality (sources and effluents); ecosystem health (ecosystem services) and socioeconomics (human health, economy and livelihoods) are needed to make the aquaculture industry a viable food producer.

Conclusions

Water quality is one of the critical factors to be considered in aquaculture as it has significant effects on fish growth, health and yields. A lack of knowledge and practices in water quality management could severely impede the growth of the aquaculture sector and jeopardize the utilization of the available water resources for a sustainable aquaculture industry.

Aquaculture requires a significant understanding of the factors and problems affecting production systems, in addition to improvements of approaches and technologies in water quality management. Water quality enhancement in production systems such as RAS, IMTA and aquaponics through efficient integration with physical, chemical and biological factors would boost the FCR and improve the health of cultured animals. The recycling of nutrients using different organisms along the aquatic food chain, such as bacteria, microalgae, seaweeds and fish, can enhance the growth, survival and production of the cultured species as well as accumulate the biomass of the supporting organisms. In addition, microalgae-based technologies are a promising solution for aquaculture wastewater treatment and the resulting microalgal biomass can be valorized. The use of these technologies in the forms of biofloc, bioremediation, coagulation-flocculation-biofiltration technologies and various ecosystem-based approaches provide options for aquaculture best practices that could improve water quality, resulting in improved aquaculture production.

The application of AI and IoT in aquaculture production systems supported by sensors, wireless transmission systems, unmanned equipment, automation and big data would enable intelligent water quality monitoring, precision feeding systems, fish activity monitoring and early problem detection. The integration of smart production systems and advanced processes would result in precision feeding, improved water quality, increased survival rates and increased growth of the cultured species. Overall, the use of these technologies in water quality management supported by relevant policy and regulation would facilitate the approach to sustainable aquaculture production via effective management of the environment and fish health.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2024.6.

Author contribution

F.M.Y.: Conceptualization, writing the original draft, graphics, reviewing and editing. U.W.A.D.: Reviewing, editing and graphics, N.M.R.: Reviewing, editing and graphics. R.H.: Reviewing and editing.

Competing interest

The authors declare no competing interest exists.

References

Abisha, R, Krishnani, KK, Sukhdhane, K, Verma, AK, Brahmane, M and Chadha, NK (2022) Sustainable development of climate-resilient aquaculture and culture-based fisheries through adaptation of abiotic stresses: A review. Journal of Water and Climate Change 13, 26712689. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.045Google Scholar
Addy, MM, Kabir, F, Zhang, R, Lu, Q, Deng, X, Current, D, Griffith, R, Ma, Y, Zhou, W, Chen, P and Ruan, R (2017) Co-cultivation of microalgae in aquaponic systems. Bioresource Technology 245, 2734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.151Google Scholar
Alam, SMA, Sarkar, SI, Miah, MA and Rashid, H (2021) Management strategies for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) hatchery in the face of climate change induced rising temperature. Aquaculture Studies 21, 5562. https://doi.org/10.4194/2618-6381-v21_2_02Google Scholar
Arega, F, Lee, JH and Choi, DK (2022) Uncertainty evaluation and performance assessment of water quality model for mariculture management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 184, 114172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114172Google Scholar
Ashkanani, A, Almomani, F, Khraisheh, M, Bhosale, R, Tawalbeh, M and AlJaml, K (2019) Bio-carrier and operating temperature effect on ammonia removal from secondary wastewater effluents using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR). Science of the Total Environment 693, 133425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.231Google Scholar
Azaria, S and van Rijn, J (2018) Off-flavor compounds in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS): Production and removal processes. Aquacultural Engineering 83, 5764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.09.004Google Scholar
Bai, X, Fu, Z, Li, N, Stankovski, S, Zhang, X and Li, X (2021) Water environmental nexus-based quality and safety risk assessment for fish (Carassius auratus) in aquaculture. Journal of Cleaner Production 288, 125633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125633Google Scholar
Bergstedt, JH, Skov, PV and Letelier-Gordo, CO (2022) Efficacy of H2O2 on the removal kinetics of H2S in saltwater aquaculture systems, and the role of O2 and NO3. Water Research 222, 118892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118892Google Scholar
Bhatia, SK, Ahuja, V, Chandel, N, Mehariya, S, Kumar, P, Vinayak, V, Saratale, GD, Raj, T and Yang, YH (2022) An overview on microalgal-bacterial granular consortia for resource recovery and wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology 351, 127028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127028Google Scholar
Bohnes, FA, Hauschild, MZ, Schlundt, J, Nielsen, M and Laurent, A (2022) Environmental sustainability of future aquaculture production: Analysis of Singaporean and Norwegian policies. Aquaculture 549, 737717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737717Google Scholar
Boyd, CE, McNevin, AA and Davis, RP (2022) The contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to the global protein supply. Food Security 14, 805827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01246-9Google Scholar
Brigolin, D, Lourguioui, H, Taji, MA, Venier, C, Mangin, A and Pastres, R (2015) Space allocation for coastal aquaculture in North Africa: Data constraints, industry requirements and conservation issues. Ocean and Coastal Management 116, 8997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.010Google Scholar
Bull, EG, Cunha, CDLDN and Scudelari, AC (2021) Water quality impact from shrimp farming effluents in a tropical estuary. Water Science and Technology 83, 123136. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.559Google Scholar
Bush, SR, Oosterveer, P, Bottema, M, Meuwissen, M, de Mey, Y, Chamsai, S, Ho, LH and Chadag, M (2019) Inclusive environmental performance through ‘beyond-farm’ aquaculture governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 41, 4955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.013Google Scholar
Caballero, I and Navarro, G (2021) Monitoring cyanoHABs and water quality in Laguna Lake (Philippines) with Sentinel-2 satellites during the 2020 Pacific typhoon season. Science of the Total Environment 788, 147700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147700Google Scholar
Cabral, P, Levrel, H, Viard, F, Frangoudes, K, Girard, S and Scemama, P (2016) Ecosystem services assessment and compensation costs for installing seaweed farms. Marine Policy 71, 157165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.031Google Scholar
Calone, R, Pennisi, G, Morgenstern, R, Sanyé-Mengual, E, Lorleberg, W, Dapprich, P, Winkler, P, Orsini, F and Gianquinto, G (2019) Improving water management in European catfish recirculating aquaculture systems through catfish-lettuce aquaponics. Science of the Total Environment 687, 759767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.167Google Scholar
Cardoso-Mohedano, J, Lima-Rego, J, Sánchez-Cabeza, J, Ruiz-Fernández, A, Canales-Delgadillo, J, Sánchez-Flores, E and Paez-Osuna, F (2018) Sub-tropical coastal lagoon salinization associated to shrimp ponds effluents. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 203, 7279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.01.022Google Scholar
Chang, CC, Wang, JH, Wu, JL, Hsieh, YZ, Wu, TD, Cheng, SC, Chang, CC, Juang, JG, Liou, CH, Hsu, TH, Huang, YS, Huang, CT, Lin, CC, Peng, YT, Huang, RJ, Jhang, JY, Liou, YH and Lin, CY (2021) Applying artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to implement a practical smart cage aquaculture management system. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering 41, 652658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-021-00621-3Google Scholar
Chen, H, Wu, X, Li, L, Wang, M, Song, C, Wang, S and Yan, Z (2022) In vitro and in vivo roles of cyanobacterial carbonic anhydrase as a biomarker for monitoring antibiotics. Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters 3, 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2022.100055Google Scholar
Chen, M, Jin, M, Tao, P, Wang, Z, Xie, W, Yu, X and Wang, K (2018) Assessment of microplastics derived from mariculture in Xiangshan Bay, China. Environmental Pollution 242, 11461156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.133Google Scholar
Chen, P, Kim, HJ, Thatcher, LR, Hamilton, JM, Alva, ML, Zhou (George), Z and Brown, PB (2023) Maximizing nutrient recovery from aquaponics wastewater with autotrophic or heterotrophic management strategies. Bioresource Technology Reports 21, 101360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2023.101360.Google Scholar
Chen, S, Yu, J, Wang, H, Yu, H and Quan, X (2015) A pilot-scale coupling catalytic ozonation–membrane filtration system for recirculating aquaculture wastewater treatment. Desalination 363, 3743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.09.006Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Dong, S, Wang, F, Gao, Q and Tian, X (2016) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes from feeding and no-feeding mariculture ponds. Environmental Pollution 212, 489497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.02.039Google Scholar
Chen, Z, Chang, Z, Zhang, L, Jiang, Y, Ge, H, Song, X, Chen, S, Zhao, F and Li, J (2019) Effects of water recirculation rate on the microbial community and water quality in relation to the growth and survival of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). BMC Microbiology 19, 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-019-1564-xGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z, Chang, Z, Zhang, L, Wang, J, Qiao, L, Song, X and Li, J (2020) Effects of carbon source addition on microbial community and water quality in recirculating aquaculture systems for Litopenaeus vannamei. Fisheries Science 86, 507517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-020-01423-3Google Scholar
Chiquito-Contreras, RG, Hernandez-Adame, L, Alvarado-Castillo, G, de J. Martínez-Hernández, M, Sánchez-Viveros, G, Chiquito-Contreras, CJ and Hernandez-Montiel, LG (2022) Aquaculture—Production system and waste management for agriculture fertilization—A review. Sustainability 14, 7257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127257.Google Scholar
Cholewińska, P, Moniuszko, H, Wojnarowski, K, Pokorny, P, Szeligowska, N, Dobicki, W, Polechonski, R and Górniak, W (2022) The occurrence of microplastics and the formation of biofilms by pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria as threats in aquaculture. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, 8137. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138137Google Scholar
Chun, SJ, Cui, Y, Ahn, CY and Oh, HM (2018) Improving water quality using settleable microalga Ettlia sp. and the bacterial community in freshwater recirculating aquaculture system of Danio rerio. Water Research 135, 112121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.02.007Google Scholar
da Silva, MU, Rotta, MA, Fornari, DC and Streit, DP (2022) Aquaculture sustainability assessed by emergy synthesis: The importance of water accounting. Agriculture 12, 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111947Google Scholar
Danh, LVQ, Dung, DVM, Danh, TH and Ngon, NC (2020) Design and deployment of an IoT-based water quality monitoring system for aquaculture in Mekong Delta. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research 9, 11701175. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmerr.9.8.1170-1175Google Scholar
Davidson, J, Redman, N, Crouse, C and Vinci, B (2022) Water quality, waste production, and off‐flavor characterization in a depuration system stocked with market‐size Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 54, 96112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12920Google Scholar
Davies, IP, Carranza, V, Froehlich, HE, Gentry, RR, Kareiva, P and Halpern, BS (2019) Governance of marine aquaculture: Pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Marine Policy 104, 2936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.054Google Scholar
Dayıoğlu, MA (2022) Experimental study on design and operational performance of solar-powered venturi aeration system developed for aquaculture–a semi-floating prototype. Aquacultural Engineering 98, 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2022.102255Google Scholar
de Alva, MS and Pabello, VML (2021) Phycoremediation by simulating marine aquaculture effluent using Tetraselmis sp. and the potential use of the resulting biomass. Journal of Water Process Engineering 41, 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102071Google Scholar
Derot, J, Yajima, H and Jacquet, S (2020) Advances in forecasting harmful algal blooms using machine learning models: A case study with Planktothrix rubescens in Lake Geneva. Harmful Algae 99, 101906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2020.101906Google Scholar
Devaraja, TN, Yusoff, FM and Shariff, M (2002) Changes in bacterial populations and shrimp production in ponds treated with commercial microbial products. Aquaculture 206, 245256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00721-9Google Scholar
Díaz, V, Ibáñez, R, Gómez, P, Urtiaga, AM and Ortiz, I (2012) Kinetics of nitrogen compounds in a commercial marine recirculating aquaculture system. Aquacultural Engineering 50, 2027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.03.004Google Scholar
Ekawati, AW, Ulfa, SM, Dewi, CSU, Amin, AA, Salamah, LNM, Yanuar, AT and Kurniawan, A (2021) Analysis of aquaponic-recirculation aquaculture system (A-Ras) application in the catfish (Clarias gariepinus) aquaculture in Indonesia. Aquaculture Studies 21, 93100. https://doi.org/10.4194/2618-6381-v21_3_01Google Scholar
Elizondo-González, R, Quiroz-Guzmán, E, Escobedo-Fregoso, C, Magallón-Servín, P and Peña-Rodríguez, A (2018) Use of seaweed Ulva lactuca for water bioremediation and as feed additive for white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. PeerJ 6, e4459. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4459Google Scholar
Emparan, Q, Jye, YS, Danquah, MK and Harun, R (2020) Cultivation of Nannochloropsis sp. microalgae in palm oil mill effluent (POME) media for phycoremediation and biomass production: Effect of microalgae cells with and without beads. Journal of Water Process Engineering 33, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.101043Google Scholar
Eze, E and Ajmal, T (2020) Dissolved oxygen forecasting in aquaculture: A hybrid model approach. Applied Sciences 10, 7079. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207079Google Scholar
Eze, E, Halse, S and Ajmal, T (2021) Developing a novel water quality prediction model for a South African aquaculture farm. Water 13, 1782. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131782Google Scholar
Falconer, L, Telfer, TC and Ross, LG (2018) Modelling seasonal nutrient inputs from non-point sources across large catchments of importance to aquaculture. Aquaculture 495, 682692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.06.054Google Scholar
Fan, LIN, Meirong, DU, Hui, LIU, Jianguang, FANG, Lars, A and Zengjie, JIANG (2020) A physical-biological coupled ecosystem model for integrated aquaculture of bivalve and seaweed in Sanggou Bay. Ecological Modelling 431, 109181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109181Google Scholar
Farradia, Y, Sunarno, MTD and Syamsunarno, MB (2022) Developing green feed toward environment sustainability in freshwater aquaculture in Indonesia. WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control 17, 177185. https://doi.org/10.37394/23203.2022.17.20Google Scholar
Fernanda, PA, Liu, S, Yuan, T, Ramalingam, B, Lu, J and Sekar, R (2022) Diversity and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes and their relationship with nutrients and land use of the inflow rivers of Taihu Lake. Frontiers in Microbiology 13, 1009297. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1009297Google Scholar
Fiordelmondo, E, Magi, GE, Mariotti, F, Bakiu, R and Roncarati, A (2020) Improvement of the water quality in rainbow trout farming by means of the feeding type and management over 10 years (2009–2019). Animals 10, 1541. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091541Google Scholar
Flickinger, DL, Costa, GA, Dantas, DP, Proença, DC, David, FS, Durborow, RM, Moraes-Valenti, P and Valenti, WC (2020) The budget of carbon in the farming of the Amazon river prawn and Tambaqui fish in earthen pond monoculture and integrated multitrophic systems. Aquaculture Reports 17, 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100340Google Scholar
Gamperl, AK, Ajiboye, OO, Zanuzzo, FS, Sandrelli, RM, de Fátima, CP E and Beemelmanns, A (2020) The impacts of increasing temperature and moderate hypoxia on the production characteristics, cardiac morphology and haematology of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 519, 734874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734874Google Scholar
Gao, G, Xiao, K and Chen, M (2019) An intelligent IoT-based control and traceability system to forecast and maintain water quality in freshwater fish farms. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166, 105013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.105013Google Scholar
Gao, J, Gao, D, Liu, H, Cai, J, Zhang, J and Qi, Z (2018) Biopotentiality of high efficient aerobic denitrifier bacillus megaterium S379 for intensive aquaculture water quality management. Journal of Environmental Management 222, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.073Google Scholar
Gaona, CAP, da Paz Serra, F, Furtado, PS, Poersch, LH and Wasielesky, W (2016) Effect of different total suspended solids concentrations on the growth performance of Litopenaeus vannamei in a BFT system. Aquacultural Engineering 72, 6569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2016.03.004Google Scholar
Gendel, Y and Lahav, O (2013) A novel approach for ammonia removal from fresh-water recirculated aquaculture systems, comprising ion exchange and electrochemical regeneration. Aquacultural Engineering 52, 2738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.07.005Google Scholar
Geng, B, Li, Y, Liu, X, Ye, J and Guo, W (2022) Effective treatment of aquaculture wastewater with mussel/microalgae/bacteria complex ecosystem: A pilot study. Scientific Reports 12, 2263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04499-8Google Scholar
Goddek, S and Körner, O (2019) A fully integrated simulation model of multi-loop aquaponics: A case study for system sizing in different environments. Agricultural Systems 171, 143154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.010Google Scholar
Gopaiah, M, Chandra, DI and Vazeer, M (2023) Modelling the spatial distribution and future trends of seawater intrusion due to aquaculture activities in coastal aquifers of Nizampatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Disaster Advances 16, 110. https://doi.org/10.25303/1610da01010Google Scholar
Guo, X, Huang, M, Luo, X, You, W and Ke, C (2023) Impact of ocean acidification on shells of the abalone species Haliotis diversicolor and Haliotis discus hannai. Marine Environmental Research 192, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106183Google Scholar
Hadley, S, Wild-Allen, K, Johnson, C and Macleod, C (2018) Investigation of broad scale implementation of integrated multitrophic aquaculture using a 3D model of an estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133, 448459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.045Google Scholar
Han, QF, Zhao, S, Zhang, XR, Wang, XL, Song, C and Wang, SG (2020) Distribution, combined pollution and risk assessment of antibiotics in typical marine aquaculture farms surrounding the Yellow Sea, North China. Environment International 138, 105551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105551Google Scholar
Hasibuan, S, Syafriadiman, S, Aryani, N, Fadhli, M and Hasibuan, M (2023) The age and quality of pond bottom soil affect water quality and production of Pangasius hypophthalmus in the tropical environment. Aquaculture and Fisheries 8, 296304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.11.006Google Scholar
Hassan, SM, Rashid, MS, Muhaimeed, AR, Madlul, NS, Al-Katib, MU and Sulaiman, MA (2022) Effect of new filtration medias on water quality, biomass, blood parameters and plasma biochemistry of common carp (Cyprinus Carpio) in RAS. Aquaculture 548, 737630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737630Google Scholar
Heddam, S and Kisi, O (2018) Modelling daily dissolved oxygen concentration using least square support vector machine, multivariate adaptive regression splines and M5 model tree. Journal of Hydrology 559, 499509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.061Google Scholar
Herbeck, L, Unger, D, Wu, Y and Jennerjahn, TC (2013) Effluent, nutrient and organic matter export from shrimp and fish ponds causing eutrophication in coastal and back-reef waters of NE Hainan, tropical China. Continental Shelf Research 57, 92104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.05.006Google Scholar
Hu, W, Li, CH, Ye, C, Chen, HS, Xu, J, Dong, XH, Liu, XS and Li, D (2022) Effects of aquaculture on the shallow lake aquatic ecological environment of Lake Datong, China. Environmental Sciences Europe 34, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00595-2Google Scholar
Huan, J, Li, H, Wu, F and Cao, W (2020) Design of water quality monitoring system for aquaculture ponds based on NB-IoT. Aquacultural Engineering 90, 102088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102088Google Scholar
Igwegbe, CA, Ovuoraye, PE, Białowiec, A, Okpala, COR, Onukwuli, OD and Dehghani, MH (2022) Purification of aquaculture effluent using Picralima nitida seeds. Scientific Reports 12, 21594. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26044-xGoogle Scholar
Islam, ARMT, Pal, SC, Chowdhuri, I, Salam, R, Islam, MS, Rahman, MM, Zahid, A and Idris, AM (2021) Application of novel framework approach for prediction of nitrate concentration susceptibility in coastal multi-aquifers, Bangladesh. Science of the Total Environment 801, 149811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149811Google Scholar
Jampani, M, Gothwal, R, Mateo-Sagasta, J and Langan, S (2022) Water quality modelling framework for evaluating antibiotic resistance in aquatic environments. Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters 3, 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2022.100056Google Scholar
Jayanthi, M, Thirumurthy, S, Samynathan, M, Kumararaja, P, Muralidhar, M and Vijayan, KK (2021) Multi-criteria based geospatial assessment to utilize brackishwater resources to enhance fish production. Aquaculture 537, 736528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736528Google Scholar
Jiang, W, Tian, X, Li, L, Dong, S, Zhao, K, Li, H and Cai, Y (2019) Temporal bacterial community succession during the start-up process of biofilters in a cold-freshwater recirculating aquaculture system. Bioresource Technology 287, 121441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121441Google Scholar
Jin, L, Sun, X, Ren, H and Huang, H (2023) Biological filtration for wastewater treatment in the 21st century: A data-driven analysis of hotspots, challenges and prospects. Science of the Total Environment 855, 158951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158951Google Scholar
John, EM, Krishnapriya, K and Sankar, TV (2020) Treatment of ammonia and nitrite in aquaculture wastewater by an assembled bacterial consortium. Aquaculture 526, 735390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735390Google Scholar
John, N, Koehler, AV, Ansell, BR, Baker, L, Crosbie, ND and Jex, AR (2018) An improved method for PCR-based detection and routine monitoring of geosmin-producing cyanobacterial blooms. Water Research 136, 3440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.02.041Google Scholar
Kalayci Kara, A, Fakıoğlu, O, Kotan, R, Atamanal, P and Alak, G (2021) The investigation of bioremediation potential of Bacillus subtilis and B. Thuringiensis isolates under controlled conditions in freshwater. Archives of Microbiology 203, 20752085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-021-02187-9Google Scholar
Kamali, S, Ward, VC and Ricardez-Sandoval, L (2022) Dynamic modeling of recirculating aquaculture systems: Effect of management strategies and water quality parameters on fish performance. Aquacultural Engineering 99, 102294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2022.102294Google Scholar
Kawasaki, N, Kushairi, MRM, Nagao, N, Yusoff, F, Imai, A and Kohzu, A (2016) Release of nitrogen and phosphorus from aquaculture farms to Selangor River, Malaysia. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development 7, 113. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJESD.2016.V7.751Google Scholar
Khatoon, H, Penz, KP, Banerjee, S, Rahman, MR, Minhaz, TM, Islam, Z, Mukta, FA, Nayma, Z, Sultana, R and Amira, KI (2021) Immobilized Tetraselmis sp. for reducing nitrogenous and phosphorous compounds from aquaculture wastewater. Bioresource Technology 338, 125529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125529Google Scholar
Kibuye, FA, Zamyadi, A and Wert, EC (2021) A critical review on operation and performance of source water control strategies for cyanobacterial blooms: Part I: Chemical control methods. Harmful Algae 109, 102099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2021.102099Google Scholar
Kim, CS, Kim, SH, Lee, WC and Lee, DH (2022a) Spatial variability of water quality and sedimentary organic matter during winter season in coastal aquaculture zone of Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 182, 113991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113991Google Scholar
Kim, K, Hur, JW, Kim, S, Jung, JY and Han, HS (2020) Biological wastewater treatment: Comparison of heterotrophs (BFT) with autotrophs (ABFT) in aquaculture systems. Bioresource Technology 296, 122293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122293Google Scholar
Kim, SK, Song, J, Rajeev, M, Kim, SK, Kang, I, Jang, IK and Cho, JC (2022b) Exploring bacterioplankton communities and their temporal dynamics in the rearing water of a biofloc-based shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) aquaculture system. Frontiers in Microbiology 13, 995699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.995699Google Scholar
Klootwijk, AT, Alve, E, Hess, S, Renaud, PE, Sørlie, C and Dolven, JK (2021) Monitoring environmental impacts of fish farms: Comparing reference conditions of sediment geochemistry and benthic foraminifera with the present. Ecological Indicators 120, 106818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106818Google Scholar
Krüger, L, Casado-Coy, N, Valle, C, Ramos, M, Sánchez-Jerez, P, Gago, J, Carretero, O, Beltran-Sanahuja, A and Sanz-Lazaro, C (2020) Plastic debris accumulation in the seabed derived from coastal fish farming. Environmental Pollution 257, 113336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113336Google Scholar
Kujala, K, Pulkkinen, J and Vielma, J (2020) Discharge management in fresh and brackish water RAS: Combined phosphorus removal by organic flocculants and nitrogen removal in woodchip reactors. Aquacultural Engineering 90, 102095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102095Google Scholar
Kumar, SD, Santhanam, P, Park, MS and Kim, MK (2016) Development and application of a novel immobilized marine microalgae biofilter system for the treatment of shrimp culture effluent. Journal of Water Process Engineering 13, 137142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.08.014Google Scholar
Largo, DB, Diola, AG and Marababol, MS (2016) Development of an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) system for tropical marine species in Southern Cebu, Central Philippines. Aquaculture Reports 3, 6776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2015.12.006Google Scholar
Le, ND, Hoang, TTH, Phung, VP, Nguyen, TL, Rochelle-Newall, E, Duong, TT, Pham, TMH, Phung, TXB, Nguyen, TD, Le, PT, Pham, LA, Nguyen, TAH and Le, TPQ (2022) Evaluation of heavy metal contamination in the coastal aquaculture zone of the red River Delta (Vietnam). Chemosphere 303, 134952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134952Google Scholar
Lee, C and Wang, YJ (2020) Development of a cloud-based IoT monitoring system for fish metabolism and activity in aquaponics. Aquacultural Engineering 90, 102067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102067Google Scholar
Letelier-Gordo, CO and Fernandes, PM (2021) Coagulation of phosphorous and organic matter from marine, land-based recirculating aquaculture system effluents. Aquacultural Engineering 92, 102144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102144Google Scholar
Li, F, Wen, D, Bao, Y, Huang, B, Mu, Q and Chen, L (2022a) Insights into the distribution, partitioning and influencing factors of antibiotics concentration and ecological risk in typical bays of the East China Sea. Chemosphere 288, 132566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132566Google Scholar
Li, P, Wang, C, Liu, G, Luo, X, Rauan, A, Zhang, C, Li, T, Yu, H, Dong, S and Gao, Q (2022b) A hydroponic plants and biofilm combined treatment system efficiently purified wastewater from cold flowing water aquaculture. Science of the Total Environment 821, 153534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153534Google Scholar
Li, Y, Zhang, Z, Duan, Y and Wang, H (2019) The effect of recycling culture medium after harvesting of Chlorella vulgaris biomass by flocculating bacteria on microalgal growth and the functionary mechanism. Bioresource Technology 280, 188198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.149Google Scholar
Lindholm-Lehto, P, Pulkkinen, J, Kiuru, T, Koskela, J and Vielma, J (2020) Water quality in recirculating aquaculture system using woodchip denitrification and slow sand filtration. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27, 1731417328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08196-3Google Scholar
Liu, C, Hu, N, Song, W, Chen, Q and Zhu, L (2019) Aquaculture feeds can be outlaws for eutrophication when hidden in rice fields? A case study in Qianjiang, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 4471. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224471Google Scholar
Liu, G, Chen, L, Wang, W, Wang, M, Zhang, Y, Li, J, Lin, C, Xiong, J, Zhu, Q, Liu, Y, Zhu, H and Shen, Z (2023a) Balancing water quality impacts and cost-effectiveness for sustainable watershed management. Journal of Hydrology 621, 129645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129645Google Scholar
Liu, H, Yang, R, Duan, Z and Wu, H (2021a) A hybrid neural network model for marine dissolved oxygen concentrations time-series forecasting based on multi-factor analysis and a multi-model ensemble. Engineering 7, 17511765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.10.023Google Scholar
Liu, W, Du, X, Tan, H, Xie, J, Luo, G and Sun, D (2021b) Performance of a recirculating aquaculture system using biofloc biofilters with convertible water-treatment efficiencies. Science of the Total Environment 754, 141918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141918Google Scholar
Liu, X, Du, K, Zhang, C, Luo, Y, Sha, Z and Wang, C (2023b) Precision feeding system for largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) based on multi-factor comprehensive control. Biosystems Engineering 227, 195216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.02.005Google Scholar
Lou, Q, Wu, Y, Ding, H, Zhang, B, Zhang, W, Zhang, Y, Han, L, Liu, M, He, T and Zhong, J (2022) Degradation of sulfonamides in aquaculture wastewater by laccase–syringaldehyde mediator system: Response surface optimization, degradation kinetics, and degradation pathway. Journal of Hazardous Materials 432, 128647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128647Google Scholar
Lu, J, Zhang, Y, Wu, J and Wang, J (2020) Nitrogen removal in recirculating aquaculture water with high dissolved oxygen conditions using the simultaneous partial nitrification, anammox and denitrification system. Bioresource Technology 305, 123037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123037Google Scholar
Lukassen, MB, de Jonge, N, Bjerregaard, SM, Podduturi, R, Jørgensen, NO, Petersen, MA, David, GS, da Silva, RJ and Nielsen, JL (2019a) Microbial production of the off-flavor geosmin in tilapia production in Brazilian water reservoirs: Importance of bacteria in the intestine and other fish-associated environments. Frontiers in Microbiology 10, 2447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02447Google Scholar
Lukassen, MB, Podduturi, R, Rohaan, B, Jørgensen, NO and Nielsen, JL (2019b) Dynamics of geosmin-producing bacteria in a full-scale saltwater recirculated aquaculture system. Aquaculture 500, 170177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.10.008Google Scholar
Luo, G, Zhang, N, Cai, S, Tan, H and Liu, Z (2017) Nitrogen dynamics, bacterial community composition and biofloc quality in biofloc-based systems cultured Oreochromis niloticus with poly-β-hydroxybutyric and polycaprolactone as external carbohydrates. Aquaculture 479, 732741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.07.017Google Scholar
Luo, S, Wu, X, Jiang, H, Yu, M, Liu, Y, Min, A, Li, W and Ruan, R (2019) Edible fungi-assisted harvesting system for efficient microalgae bio-flocculation. Bioresource Technology 282, 325330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.033Google Scholar
Lusiastuti, AM, Prayitno, SB, Sugiani, D and Caruso, D (2020) Building and improving the capacity of fish and environmental health management strategy in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 521, 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/521/1/012016Google Scholar
Ma, L, Wang, C, Li, H, Peng, F and Yang, Z (2018) Degradation of geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol in water with UV/chlorine: Influencing factors, reactive species, and possible pathways. Chemosphere 211, 11661175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.08.029Google Scholar
Mallik, A, Xavier, KM, Naidu, BC and Nayak, BB (2021) Ecotoxicological and physiological risks of microplastics on fish and their possible mitigation measures. Science of the Total Environment 779, 146433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146433Google Scholar
Marques, ÉAT, da Silva, GMN, de Oliveira, CR, Cunha, MCC and Sobral, MDC (2018) Assessing the negative impact of an aquaculture farm on effluent water quality in Itacuruba, Pernambuco, Brazilian semiarid region. Water Science and Technology 78, 14381447. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2018.417Google Scholar
Mayrand, E and Benhafid, Z (2023) Spatiotemporal variability of pH in coastal waters of New Brunswick (Canada) and potential consequences for oyster aquaculture. Anthropocene Coasts 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44218-023-00029-3Google Scholar
Menon, A, Arunkumar, AS, Nithya, K and Shakila, H (2023) Salinizing livelihoods: The political ecology of brackish water shrimp aquaculture in South India. Maritime Studies 22, 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00294-5Google Scholar
Milhazes-Cunha, H and Otero, A (2017) Valorisation of aquaculture effluents with microalgae: The integrated multi-trophic aquaculture concept. Algal Research 24, 416424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.12.011Google Scholar
Mohapatra, BC, Chandan, NK, Panda, SK, Majhi, D and Pillai, BR (2020) Design and development of a portable and streamlined nutrient film technique (NFT) aquaponic system. Aquacultural Engineering 90, 102100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102100Google Scholar
Mopoung, S, Udeye, V, Viruhpintu, S, Yimtragool, N and Unhong, V (2020) Water treatment for fish aquaculture system by biochar-supplemented planting panel system. The Scientific World Journal 2020, 7901362. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7901362Google Scholar
Musa, M, Mahmudi, M, Arsad, S, Lusiana, ED, Wardana, WA, Ompusunggu, MF and Damayanti, DN (2023) Interrelationship and determining factors of water quality dynamics in whiteleg shrimp ponds in tropical eco-green aquaculture system. Journal of Ecological Engineering 24, 1927. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/156003Google Scholar
Nagaraju, TV, Malegole, SB, Chaudhary, B and Ravindran, G (2022) Assessment of environmental impact of aquaculture ponds in the western delta region of Andhra Pradesh. Sustainability 14, 13035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013035Google Scholar
Ng, LY, Ng, CY, Mahmoudi, E, Ong, CB and Mohammad, AW (2018) A review of the management of inflow water, wastewater and water reuse by membrane technology for a sustainable production in shrimp farming. Journal of Water Process Engineering 23, 2744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.02.020Google Scholar
Nguyen, TDP, Le, TVA, Show, PL, Nguyen, TT, Tran, MH, TNT, T and Lee, SY (2019a) Bioflocculation formation of microalgae-bacteria in enhancing microalgae harvesting and nutrient removal from wastewater effluent. Bioresource Technology 272, 3439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.146Google Scholar
Nguyen, TDP, Tran, TNT, Le, TVA, Phan, TXN, Show, PL and Chia, SR (2019b) Auto-flocculation through cultivation of Chlorella vulgaris in seafood wastewater discharge: Influence of culture conditions on microalgae growth and nutrient removal. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 127, 492498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2018.09.004Google Scholar
Nie, X, Mubashar, M, Zhang, S, Qin, Y and Zhang, X (2020) Current progress, challenges and perspectives in microalgae-based nutrient removal for aquaculture waste: A comprehensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production 277, 124209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124209Google Scholar
O’Neill, EA and Rowan, NJ (2022) Microalgae as a natural ecological bioindicator for the simple real-time monitoring of aquaculture wastewater quality including provision for assessing impact of extremes in climate variance–A comparative case study from the Republic of Ireland. Science of the Total Environment 802, 149800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149800Google Scholar
Obirikorang, KA, Sekey, W, Gyampoh, BA, Ashiagbor, G and Asante, W (2021) Aquaponics for improved food security in Africa: A review. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 705549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.705549Google Scholar
Oiry, S and Barillé, L (2021) Using sentinel-2 satellite imagery to develop microphytobenthos-based water quality indices in estuaries. Ecological Indicators 121, 107184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107184Google Scholar
Okomoda, VT, Oladimeji, SA, Solomon, SG, Olufeagba, SO, Ogah, SI and Ikhwanuddin, M (2023) Aquaponics production system: A review of historical perspective, opportunities, and challenges of its adoption. Food Science & Nutrition 11, 11571165. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3154Google Scholar
Ouyang, W, Song, K, Wang, X and Hao, F (2014) Non-point source pollution dynamics under long-term agricultural development and relationship with landscape dynamics. Ecological Indicators 45, 579589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.025Google Scholar
Pal, M, Yesankar, PJ, Dwivedi, A and Qureshi, A (2020) Biotic control of harmful algal blooms (HABs): A brief review. Journal of Environmental Management 268, 110687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110687Google Scholar
Palm, HW, Knaus, U, Appelbaum, S, Goddek, S, Strauch, SM, Vermeulen, T, Jijakli, MH and Kotzen, B (2018) Towards commercial aquaponics: A review of systems, designs, scales and nomenclature. Aquaculture International 26, 813842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0249-zGoogle Scholar
Pandey, D, Daverey, A, Dutta, K and Arunachalam, K (2022) Bioremoval of toxic malachite green from water through simultaneous decolorization and degradation using laccase immobilized biochar. Chemosphere 297, 134126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134126Google Scholar
Paolacci, S, Stejskal, V, Toner, D and Jansen, MA (2022) Wastewater valorisation in an integrated multitrophic aquaculture system; Assessing nutrient removal and biomass production by duckweed species. Environmental Pollution 302, 119059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119059Google Scholar
Park, M, Shin, SK, Do, YH, Yarish, C and Kim, JK (2018) Application of open water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture to intensive monoculture: A review of the current status and challenges in Korea. Aquaculture 497, 174183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.07.051Google Scholar
Pasika, S and Gandla, ST (2020) Smart water quality monitoring system with cost-effective using IoT. Heliyon 6, e04096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04096Google Scholar
Patil, PK, Geetha, R, Bhuvaneswari, T, Saraswathi, R, Raja, RA, Avunje, S, Solanki, HG, Alavandi, SV and Vijayan, KK (2022) Use of chemicals and veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) in Pacific whiteleg shrimp, P. Vannamei farming in India, Aquaculture 546, 737285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737285Google Scholar
Polidoro, BA, Carpenter, KE, Collins, L, Duke, NC, Ellison, AM, Ellison, JC, Farnsworth, EJ, Fernando, ES, Kathiresan, K, Koedam, NE, Livingstone, SR, Miyagi, T, Moore, GE, Nam, VN, Ong, JE, Primavera, JH, Salmo, SG III, Sanciangco, JC, Sukardjo, S, Wang, Y and Yong, JWH (2010) The loss of species: Mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS One 5, 10095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010095Google Scholar
Pu, J, Wang, S, Ni, Z, Wu, Y, Liu, X, Wu, T and Wu, H (2021) Implications of phosphorus partitioning at the suspended particle-water interface for lake eutrophication in China’s largest freshwater Lake, Poyang Lake. Chemosphere 263, 128334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128334Google Scholar
Pulkkinen, JT, Kiuru, T, Aalto, SL, Koskela, J and Vielma, J (2018) Startup and effects of relative water renewal rate on water quality and growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a unique RAS research platform. Aquacultural Engineering 82, 3845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.06.003Google Scholar
Purnomo, AR, Patria, MP, Takarina, ND and Karuniasa, M (2022) Environmental impact of the intensive system of Vannamei shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) farming on the Karimunjawa–Jepara–Muria biosphere reserve, Indonesia. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 12, 873880.Google Scholar
Putra, I, Effendi, I, Lukistyowati, I, Tang, UM, Fauzi, M, Suharman, I and Muchlisin, ZA (2020) Effect of different biofloc starters on ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite concentrations in the cultured tilapia Oreochromis niloticus system. F1000Research 9, 293. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22977.3Google Scholar
Qureshi, AS (2022) Challenges and prospects of using treated wastewater to manage water scarcity crises in the Gulf cooperation council countries. Desalination and Water Treatment 263, 125126. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12071971Google Scholar
Quyen, NTK, Hien, HV, Khoi, LND, Yagi, N and Karia Lerøy Riple, A (2020) Quality management practices of intensive whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) farming: A study of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Sustainability 12, 4520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114520Google Scholar
Racine, P, Marley, A, Froehlich, HE, Gaines, SD, Ladner, I, MacAdam-Somer, I and Bradley, D (2021) A case for seaweed aquaculture inclusion in US nutrient pollution management. Marine Policy 129, 104506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104506Google Scholar
Rahman, A, Xi, M, Dabrowski, JJ, McCulloch, J, Arnold, S, Rana, M, George, A and Adcock, M (2021) An integrated framework of sensing, machine learning, and augmented reality for aquaculture prawn farm management. Aquacultural Engineering 95, 102192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2021.102192Google Scholar
Ramli, NM, Verdegem, MCJ, Yusoff, FM, Zulkifely, MK and Verreth, JAJ (2017) Removal of ammonium and nitrate in recirculating aquaculture systems by the epiphyte Stigeoclonium nanum immobilized in alginate beads. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 9, 213222. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00225Google Scholar
Rana, M, Rahman, A, Dabrowski, J, Arnold, S, McCulloch, J and Pais, B (2021) Machine learning approach to investigate the influence of water quality on aquatic livestock in freshwater ponds. Biosystems Engineering 208, 164175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.05.017Google Scholar
Ranjan, R, Tsukuda, S and Good, C (2023) Effects of image data quality on a convolutional neural network trained in-tank fish detection model for recirculating aquaculture systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 205, 107644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2023.107644Google Scholar
Rashid, N, Park, WK and Selvaratnam, T (2018) Binary culture of microalgae as an integrated approach for enhanced biomass and metabolites productivity, wastewater treatment, and bioflocculation. Chemosphere 194, 6775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.108Google Scholar
Ren, Q, Wang, X, Li, W, Wei, Y and An, D (2020) Research of dissolved oxygen prediction in recirculating aquaculture systems based on deep belief network. Aquacultural Engineering 90, 102085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102085Google Scholar
Reyimu, Z and Özçimen, D (2017) Batch cultivation of marine microalgae Nannochloropsis oculata and Tetraselmis suecica in treated municipal wastewater toward bioethanol production. Journal of Cleaner Production 150, 4046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.189Google Scholar
Ríos, LDM, Monteagudo, EB, Barrios, YC, González, LL, Vaillant, YDLCV, Bossier, P and Arenal, A (2023) Biofloc technology and immune response of penaeid shrimp: A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 138, 108805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2023.108805Google Scholar
Rong, Q, Zeng, J, Su, M, Yue, W, Xu, C and Cai, Y (2021) Management optimization of nonpoint source pollution considering the risk of exceeding criteria under uncertainty. Science of the Total Environment 758, 143659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143659Google Scholar
Ryan, KA, Palacios, LC, Encina, F, Graeber, D, Osorio, S, Stubbins, A, Woelfl, S and Nimptsch, J (2022) Assessing inputs of aquaculture-derived nutrients to streams using dissolved organic matter fluorescence. Science of the Total Environment 807, 150785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150785Google Scholar
Sampaio, FG, Araújo, CA, Dallago, BSL, Stech, JL, Lorenzzetti, JA, Alcântara, E, Losekann, ME, Marin, DB, Leao, JAD and Bueno, GW (2021) Unveiling low-to-high-frequency data sampling caveats for aquaculture environmental monitoring and management. Aquaculture Reports 20, 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100764Google Scholar
Santos, G, Ortiz-Gándara, I, Del Castillo, A, Arruti, A, Gómez, P, Ibáñez, R, Urtiaga, A and Ortiz, I (2022) Intensified fish farming. Performance of electrochemical remediation of marine RAS waters. Science of the Total Environment 847, 157368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157368Google Scholar
Sha, S, Dong, Z, Gao, Y, Hashim, H, Lee, CT and Li, C (2022) In-situ removal of residual antibiotics (enrofloxacin) in recirculating aquaculture system: Effect of ultraviolet photolysis plus biodegradation using immobilized microbial granules. Journal of Cleaner Production 333, 130190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130190Google Scholar
Shen, M, Lin, J, Ye, Y, Ren, Y, Zhao, J and Duan, H (2023) Increasing global oceanic wind speed partly counteracted water clarity management effectiveness: A case study of Hainan Island coastal waters. Journal of Environmental Management 339, 117865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117865Google Scholar
Shi, B, Sreeram, V, Zhao, D, Duan, S and Jiang, J (2018) A wireless sensor network-based monitoring system for freshwater fishpond aquaculture. Biosystems Engineering 172, 5766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.05.016Google Scholar
Sopawong, A, Yusoff, FM, Zakaria, MH, Khaw, YS, Monir, MS and Amalia, MH (2023) Development of a bio-green floating system (BFAS) for the improvement of water quality, fish health, and aquaculture production. Aquaculture International 32, 11011118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-023-01207-3.Google Scholar
Ssekyanzi, A, Nevejan, N, Kabbiri, R, Wesana, J and Stappen, GV (2022) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of fish farmers regarding water quality and its management in the Rwenzori region of Uganda. Water 15, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010042Google Scholar
Suhr, KI, Pedersen, LF and Nielsen, JL (2014) End-of-pipe single-sludge denitrification in pilot-scale recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering 62, 2835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2014.06.002Google Scholar
Sun, X, Li, X, Tang, S, Lin, K, Zhao, T and Chen, X (2022) A review on algal-bacterial symbiosis system for aquaculture tail water treatment. Science of the Total Environment 847, 157620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157620Google Scholar
Swathi, A, Shekhar, MS and Karthic, K (2021) Variation in biotic and abiotic factors associated with white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) outbreak in shrimp culture ponds. Indian Journal of Fisheries 68, 127136. https://doi.org/10.21077/ijf.2021.68.1.89356-18Google Scholar
Taha, MF, ElMasry, G, Gouda, M, Zhou, L, Liang, N, Abdalla, A, Rousseau, D and Qiu, Z (2022) Recent advances of smart systems and internet of things (IoT) for aquaponics automation: A comprehensive overview. Chem 10, 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors10080303Google Scholar
Tejido-Nuñez, Y, Aymerich, E, Sancho, L and Refardt, D (2019) Treatment of aquaculture effluent with Chlorella vulgaris and Tetradesmus obliquus: The effect of pretreatment on microalgae growth and nutrient removal efficiency. Ecological Engineering 136, 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.05.021Google Scholar
Theuerkauf, SJ, Morris, JA, Waters, TJ, Wickliffe, LC, Alleway, HK and Jones, RC (2019) A global spatial analysis reveals where marine aquaculture can benefit nature and people. PLoS One 14, e0222282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222282Google Scholar
Troell, M, Costa‐Pierce, B, Stead, S, Cottrell, RS, Brugere, C, Farmery, AK, Little, DC, Strand, A, Pullin, R, Soto, D, Beveridge, M, Salie, K, Dresdner, J, Moraes-Valenti, P, Blanchard, J, James, P, Yossa, R, Allison, E, Devaney, C and Barg, U (2023) Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the sustainable development goals for improved human and planetary health. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 54, 251342. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12946Google Scholar
Ubina, NA and Cheng, SC (2022) A review of unmanned system technologies with its application to aquaculture farm monitoring and management. Drones 6, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010012Google Scholar
Valiela, I, Bowen, JL and York, JK (2001) Mangrove forests: One of the world’s threatened major tropical environments: At least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well-known threatened environments. Bioscience 51, 807815. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Vaz, L, Sousa, MC, Gómez-Gesteira, M and Dias, JM (2021) A habitat suitability model for aquaculture site selection: Ria de Aveiro and rias Baixas. Science of the Total Environment 801, 149687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149687Google Scholar
Wang, H, Deng, L, Qi, Z and Wang, W (2022) Constructed microalgal-bacterial symbiotic (MBS) system: Classification, performance, partnerships and perspectives. Science of the Total Environment 803, 150082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150082Google Scholar
Wang, H, Qi, M, Bo, Y, Zhou, C, Yan, X, Wang, G and Cheng, P (2021) Treatment of fishery wastewater by co-culture of Thalassiosira pseudonana with Isochrysis galbana and evaluation of their active components. Algal Research 60, 102498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102498Google Scholar
Watson, SB, Monis, P, Baker, P and Giglio, S (2016) Biochemistry and genetics of taste and odor-producing cyanobacteria. Harmful Algae 54, 112127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2015.11.008Google Scholar
Wei, TY, Tindik, ES, Fui, CF, Haviluddin, H and Hijazi, MHA (2023) Automated water quality monitoring and regression-based forecasting system for aquaculture. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics 12, 570579. https://doi.org/10.11591/eei.v12i1.4464Google Scholar
Wood, D, Capuzzo, E, Kirby, D, Mooney-McAuley, K and Kerrison, P (2017) UK macroalgae aquaculture: What are the key environmental and licensing considerations? Marine Policy 83, 2939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.021Google Scholar
Wu, H, Zou, Y, Lv, J and Hu, Z (2018a) Impacts of aeration management and polylactic acid addition on dissolved organic matter characteristics in intensified aquaponic systems. Chemosphere 205, 579586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.04.089Google Scholar
Wu, S, Hu, Z, Hu, T, Chen, J, Yu, K, Zou, J and Liu, S (2018b) Annual methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice paddies and inland fish aquaculture wetlands in Southeast China. Atmospheric Environment 175, 135144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.12.008Google Scholar
Wu, Y, Duan, Y, Wei, Y, An, D and Liu, J (2022) Application of intelligent and unmanned equipment in aquaculture: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 199, 107201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107201Google Scholar
Xiang, J, Cui, T, Li, X, Zhang, Q, Mu, B, Liu, R and Zhao, W (2023) Evaluating the effectiveness of coastal environmental management policies in China: The case of Bohai Sea. Journal of Environmental Management 338, 117812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117812Google Scholar
Xu, G, Zhang, Y, Yang, T, Wu, H, Lorke, A, Pan, M, Xiao, B and Wu, X (2023) Effect of light-mediated variations of colony morphology on the buoyancy regulation of Microcystis colonies. Water Research 235, 119839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.119839Google Scholar
Xu, J, Du, Y, Qiu, T, Zhou, L, Li, Y, Chen, F and Sun, J (2021) Application of hybrid electrocoagulation–filtration methods in the pretreatment of marine aquaculture wastewater. Water Science and Technology 83, 13151326. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2021.044Google Scholar
Xu, Z, Dai, X and Chai, X (2019) Biological denitrification using PHBV polymer as solid carbon source and biofilm carrier. Biochemical Engineering Journal 146, 186193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.03.019Google Scholar
Xue, Q, Xie, L, Cheng, C, Su, X and Zhao, Y (2023) Different environmental factors drive the concentrations of microcystin in particulates, dissolved water, and sediments peaked at different times in a large shallow lake. Journal of Environmental Management 326, 116833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116833Google Scholar
Yang, P, Zhang, Y, Lai, DY, Tan, L, Jin, B and Tong, C (2018) Fluxes of carbon dioxide and methane across the water–atmosphere interface of aquaculture shrimp ponds in two subtropical estuaries: The effect of temperature, substrate, salinity and nitrate. Science of the Total Environment 635, 10251035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.102Google Scholar
Yang, P, Zhao, G, Tong, C, Tang, KW, Lai, DY, Li, L and Tang, C (2021) Assessing nutrient budgets and environmental impacts of coastal land-based aquaculture system in Southeastern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 322, 107662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107662Google Scholar
Yanuhar, U, Musa, M, Evanuarini, H, Wuragil, DK and Permata, FS (2022) Water quality in koi fish (Cyprinus carpio) concrete ponds with filtration in Nglegok District, Blitar regency. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 814820. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujar.2022.100619Google Scholar
Yep, B and Zheng, Y (2019) Aquaponic trends and challenges–A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 228, 15861599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290Google Scholar
Yñiguez, AT, Lim, PT, Leaw, CP, Jipanin, SJ, Iwataki, M, Benico, G and Azanza, RV (2021) Over 30 years of HABs in the Philippines and Malaysia: What have we learned? Harmful Algae 102, 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2020.101776Google Scholar
Yñiguez, AT and Ottong, ZJ (2020) Predicting fish kills and toxic blooms in an intensive mariculture site in the Philippines using a machine learning model. Science of the Total Environment 707, 136173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136173Google Scholar
Yogev, U, Vogler, M, Nir, O, Londong, J and Gross, A (2020) Phosphorous recovery from a novel recirculating aquaculture system followed by its sustainable reuse as a fertilizer. Science of the Total Environment 722, 137949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137949Google Scholar
You, G, Xu, B, Su, H, Zhang, S, Pan, J, Hou, X, Li, J and Ding, R (2021) Evaluation of aquaculture water quality based on improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Water 13, 1019. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081019Google Scholar
Yu, H, Yang, L, Li, D and Chen, Y (2021) A hybrid intelligent soft computing method for ammonia nitrogen prediction in aquaculture. Information Processing in Agriculture 8, 6474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2020.04.002Google Scholar
Yuan, J, Liu, D, Xiang, J, He, T, Kang, H and Ding, W (2021) Methane and nitrous oxide have separated production zones and distinct emission pathways in freshwater aquaculture ponds. Water Research 190, 116739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116739Google Scholar
Zhang, F, Ma, C, Huang, X, Liu, J, Lu, L, Peng, K and Li, S (2021) Research progress in solid carbon source–based denitrification technologies for different target water bodies. Science of the Total Environment 782, 146669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146669Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Zhu, Z, Mo, WY, Liu, SM, Wang, DR and Zhang, GS (2018) Hypoxia and nutrient dynamics affected by marine aquaculture in a monsoon-regulated tropical coastal lagoon. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 190, 656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-7001-zGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M, Wang, S, Sun, Z, Jiang, H, Qian, Y, Wang, R and Li, M (2022a) The effects of acute and chronic ammonia exposure on growth, survival, and free amino acid abundance in juvenile Japanese sea perch Lateolabrax japonicus. Aquaculture 560, 738512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738512Google Scholar
Zhang, MQ, Yang, JL, Lai, XX, Li, W, Zhan, MJ, Zhang, CP, Jiang, JZ and Shu, H (2022b) Effects of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture on microbial communities, antibiotic resistance genes, and cultured species: A case study of four mariculture systems. Aquaculture 557, 738322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738322Google Scholar
Zhao, J, Zhang, M, Xiao, W, Jia, L, Zhang, X, Wang, J, Zhang, Z, Xie, Y, Pu, Y, Liu, S, Feng, Z and Lee, X (2021) Large methane emission from freshwater aquaculture ponds revealed by long-term eddy covariance observation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 308, 108600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108600Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Different aquaculture production systems in closed (tanks, ponds, and raceways) and open ecosystems (cages and extractive culture systems in lakes, rivers, and coastal waters).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Recycling of aquaculture wastes to create various economically important outputs and maintain good water quality for aquaculture production.

Figure 2

Table 1. Major problems and mitigating measures in water quality management in aquaculture production systems

Figure 3

Table 2. Factors affecting water quality in aquaculture production systems and mitigation measures

Figure 4

Table 3. Aquaculture production systems for improving water quality in aquaculture

Figure 5

Table 4. Technologies and processes for improving water quality in aquaculture systems

Figure 6

Figure 3. Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems; in tanks (A), in ponds (B) and in coastal waters (C).

Figure 7

Figure 4. A recycling aquaculture system with an additional algae/plant culture compartment.

Figure 8

Figure 5. Integrated recycling aquaculture system (I-RAS) combining different systems and technologies (integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA), biofloc, bioremediation, bacteria-microalgae consortium, water quality monitoring, and artificial intelligence-internet-of-things (AI-IoT)), to make the I-RAS more efficient and effective in recycling the waste, while enhancing water quality and aquaculture production.

Author comment: Water quality management in aquaculture — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Dr. Elaine Halls

Editorial Office, Cambridge Prisms: Water

Thank you very much for inviting me to contribute a manuscript to the `Water‘. Thanks also for giving me many months to complete this manuscript. My sincere apologies for the long delay. I have uploaded an article on `Water Quality Management in Aquaculture’. Hope it meets your requirements for the journal. Since I am behind time in submitting this manuscript, I haven’t uploaded the graphics abstract. yet. I will submit it upon acceptance of the manuscript. Please send me additional forms that I need to submit.

Best regards

Fatimah

Recommendation: Water quality management in aquaculture — R0/PR2

Comments

Both the reviewers have significant concerns about the manuscript. Both say that it is far too long, but they have other concerns as well. Given that both reviewers think this is an important topic and that the authors have collected some interesting literature, I have decided to recommend Major Revision. I hope the authors feel able to revise the manuscript as there is an important contribution to be made, but they must recognise that this will require considerable work to reduce the length and develop greater critique.

Decision: Water quality management in aquaculture — R0/PR3

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Water quality management in aquaculture — R1/PR4

Comments

04 Jan 2024

Dear Chief Editor,

Thank you for allowing us to revise the manuscript on `Water Quality Management in Aquaculture'. We thank all the reviewers for their great efforts in providing useful comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. We hope the revised version meets the expectations of the Editor and reviewers. We also thank the editorial office for extending deadline for the submission due to unavoidable circumstances.

Thank you again and Happy New Year.

Sincerely yours,

Fatimah Md Yusoff on behalf of all authors

Recommendation: Water quality management in aquaculture — R1/PR5

Comments

The reviewers appreciated the revision the authors have made, but came back with different recommendations. Considering these I am recommending a decision of “Minor Corrections” which I as Handling Editor will review. The authors should cover all points made by the reviewers in their revision and am particularly keen to seem them reflect on the points for discussion raised by reviewer 2.

Decision: Water quality management in aquaculture — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Water quality management in aquaculture — R2/PR7

Comments

Prof. Dragan Savic

Editor-in-Chief, Cambridge Prisms: Water

Dear Prof. Savic,

Thank you for giving us another opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have responded to all comments as best as we could. Of course, there are some suggestions that we could not completely fulfill in this revision. We sincerely thank both reviewers who have spent lots of time and effort helping us improve the manuscript.

Thanks again and best regards.

Fatimah Md Yusoff

Recommendation: Water quality management in aquaculture — R2/PR8

Comments

The authors have addressed the minor corrections requested and the paper is ready for publication.

Decision: Water quality management in aquaculture — R2/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.