| Literature DB >> 31858173 |
Sara Hornborg1, Anton Främberg2.
Abstract
The role of aquatic resources to food security is both promising and constrained since the global seafood consumption is increasing while marine fisheries approach the limit of what it can produce. In Sweden, the seafood consumption per capita is higher than the European and world average but the current dietary advice is to increase consumption. Freshwater fisheries have in general been paid less attention in food security discussions. Carp fishes (Cyprinidae) in Sweden have lost their historical value and are currently, both understudied and underutilized. Here we use a combined environmental assessment approach to examine the environmental sustainability of current and potential cyprinid fisheries. We found that current commercial fisheries for Swedish cyprinids in lakes have an average carbon footprint of 0.77 kg CO2e per kg of edible product, substantially smaller than most of the popular marine and terrestrial protein sources consumed in Sweden today. This could be even lower if cyprinid resources were better utilized than currently. The cyprinids however exhibited different vulnerability to fishing pressure and are today associated with data deficiencies. Hence, it is currently uncertain how much food for human consumption they can contribute to. Improved consumer interest and management attention is needed, but to the Swedish diet, cyprinids offer a promising opportunity for future more sustainable and nutritious food systems.Entities:
Keywords: Cyprinidae; Environmental assessment; Food security; Freshwater fisheries; Life cycle assessment; Productivity susceptibility analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31858173 PMCID: PMC7007883 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-019-01241-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Manage ISSN: 0364-152X Impact factor: 3.266
Life history attributes and productivity cut-offs used based on Swedish freshwater fishes
| Productivity attribute | Low productivity (high risk) | Medium productivity (medium risk) | High productivity (low risk) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at maturity (years) | >6 | 4–5 | <4 |
| Maximum age (years) | >21 | 12–20 | <10 |
| Fecundity (eggs per year) | <8000 | 8000–80,000 | >100,000 |
| Maximum size (cm) | >60 | 30–60 | <30 |
| Size at maturity (cm) | >30 | 14–30 | <14 |
| Trophic level | >3.7 | 3.2–3.7 | <3.2 |
| Reproductive strategy | Live bearer, sex change | Demersal egg layer | Broadcast spawner |
Susceptibility attributes and cut-offs for low-medium-high-risk based on Hobday et al. (2011) and assumptions made in this study
| Attribute | Options | This study | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High susceptibility | Medium susceptibility | Low susceptibility | ||
| Availability | Two alternatives, (1) overlap of species range with fishery (in %) or (2) global distribution | Endemic/sub-population | North hemisphere | Global |
| Encounterability | Two alternatives, (1) habitat- or (2) depth overlap with fishery (%) | High overlap with fishing gear | Medium overlap with fishing gear | Low overlap with fishing gear |
| Selectivity | Vary by gear type, based on size (at maturity/maximum) | Species > 2 times mesh size | Species 1–2 times mesh size | Species < mesh size |
| Post-capture mortality | Vary by gear and species | Retained species, or majority dead when released | Released alive | Evidence of post-capture release and survival |
Native cyprinids in Sweden, IUCN Red List status and commercial utilization globally
| Common name | Species | Maximum size | IUCN status | Commercial use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asp | 120 cm | NT | Yes | |
| Belica | 12 cm | LC | No | |
| Bleak | 16 cm | LC | Minor | |
| Bream | 80 cm | LC | Highly | |
| Chub | 45 cm | LC | Minor | |
| Common dace | 35 cm | LC | No | |
| Crucian carp | 64 cm | LC | Highly | |
| Eurasian minnow | 12 cm | LC | Minor | |
| Gudeon | 13 cm | LC | No | |
| Ide | 24 cm | LC | Yes | |
| Roach | 50 cm | LC | Yes | |
| Rudd | 35 cm | LC | Minor | |
| Tench | 60 cm | LC | Yes | |
| Vimba bream | 50 cm | NT | Minor | |
| White bream | 45 cm | LC | Minor | |
| Zope | 45 cm | LC | Minor |
Inventory results from the commercial fishery with standard deviation, separated by lake
| Lake | % Cyprinids in landings | Total landing per fisher (tonnes) | Cyprinid landing per fisher (tonnes) | Potential cyprinid landing per fisher (tonnes) | Fuel use per fisher (m3) | Fuel efficiency (liter/live-weight) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vänern | 19.0 | 18.2 ± 12.6 | 3.5 ± 6.0 | 18.8 ± 14.6 | 2.2 ± 1.2 | 0.13 ± 0.07 |
| Mälaren | 0.8 | 20.7 ± 6.7 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 8.0 ± 6.2 | 3.5 ± 1. 4 | 0.18 ± 0.06 |
| Bolmen | 57.5 | 40 | 23 | 32 | 2.2 | 0.06 |
| Average | 14.1 | 21.2 ± 10.2 | 3.0 ± 6.9 | 13.5 ± 11.9 | 3.0 ± 1. 4 | 0.15 ± 0.07 |
Inventory results from the reduction fisheries with standard deviations, divided into groups based on gear type
| Gear | % Cyprinids in landings | Total landing per lake (tonnes) | Cyprinid landing per lake (tonnes) | Fuel use per lake (m3) | Fuel efficiency (liter/live-weight) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pound nets | 98% | 16.3 ± 15.6 | 15.9 ± 15.4 | 0.22 ± 0.14 | 0.02 ± 0.01 |
| Seine | 99% | 23.7 ± 19.1 | 23.4 ± 19.2 | 0.10 ± 0.06 | 0.005 ± 0.004 |
| Trawl | 100% | 65.5 ± 22.3 | 65.5 ± 22.3 | 7.58 ± 3.01 | 0.12 ± 0.05 |
| Average | 99% | 28.8 ± 25.9 | 28.5 ± 25.9 | 1.65 ± 3.27 | 0.04 ± 0.05 |
Fig. 1Average carbon footprint of commercial and reduction fisheries (separated by gear) with contribution of fuel combustion and production to the total calculated average carbon footprint
Fig. 2Average carbon footprints for the cyprinids based on this study in relation to other more popular protein sources consumed in Sweden today (based on data from RISE Climate Database 2018)
Fig. 3Average carbon footprint for one kg of live-weight fish, including theoretical estimations for upstream production of boats, gear etc., for the Swedish freshwater fisheries examined in this study (labeled as Freshwater fish), relative to marine seafood categories presented by Parker et al. (2018)
PSA results for the sixteen Swedish cyprinids and three target species in the current commercial fishery and a potential land-all scenario
| Group | Species | Productivity | Susceptibility, current | Vulnerability, current | Risk category, current | Susceptibility, potential | Vulnerability, potential | Risk category, potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carps | Asp | 2.43 | 2.33 | 3.36 | High | 3.00 | 3.86 | High |
| White bream | 1.86 | 2.33 | 2.98 | Med | 3.00 | 3.53 | High | |
| Eurasian minnow | 1.43 | 1.43 | 2.02 | Low | 1.65 | 2.18 | Low | |
| Zope | 2.00 | 2.33 | 3.07 | Med | 3.00 | 3.61 | High | |
| Chub | 2.14 | 2.33 | 3.16 | Med | 3.00 | 3.69 | High | |
| Belica | 1.57 | 2.33 | 2.81 | Med | 3.00 | 3.39 | High | |
| Ide | 2.71 | 2.33 | 3.57 | High | 3.00 | 4.05 | High | |
| Bleak | 1.29 | 1.88 | 2.27 | Low | 2.33 | 2.66 | Med | |
| Roach | 2.00 | 2.33 | 3.07 | Med | 3.00 | 3.61 | High | |
| Gudeon | 1.29 | 1.88 | 2.27 | Low | 2.33 | 2.66 | Med | |
| Rudd | 1.71 | 1.88 | 2.54 | Low | 2.33 | 2.89 | Med | |
| Vimba bream | 2.14 | 2.33 | 3.16 | Med | 3.00 | 3.69 | High | |
| Bream | 2.29 | 3.00 | 3.77 | High | 3.00 | 3.77 | High | |
| Crucian carp | 2.29 | 2.33 | 3.26 | High | 3.00 | 3.77 | High | |
| Common dace | 1.71 | 2.33 | 2.89 | Med | 3.00 | 3.46 | High | |
| Tench | 2.00 | 2.33 | 3.07 | Med | 3.00 | 3.61 | High | |
| Target | Perch | 2.71 | 3.00 | 4.05 | High | 3.00 | 4.05 | High |
| Pike | 2.86 | 3.00 | 4.14 | High | 3.00 | 4.14 | High | |
| Pikeperch | 2.86 | 3.00 | 4.14 | High | 3.00 | 4.14 | High |