Advertisement

Consideration of carbon dioxide release during shell production in LCA of bivalves

  • Nicholas E. Ray
  • Teri O’Meara
  • Timothy Wiliamson
  • Jose-Luis Izursa
  • Patrick C. Kangas
CHALLENGES AND BEST PRACTICE IN LCAS OF SEAFOOD AND OTHER AQUATIC PRODUCTS

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used to understand the environmental impacts of the shellfish aquaculture and wild harvest industries. To date, LCA of shellfish exclude carbon dioxide (CO2) release from bivalve shell production when quantifying global warming potential per functional unit. In this study, we explain the rationale for including CO2 released during shell production in LCA of bivalves, demonstrate a method for estimating this CO2 release, and apply the method to previous studies to demonstrate the importance of including CO2 from shell production in LCA.

Methods

A simple approach for calculating CO2 from bivalve shell production was developed utilizing the seacarb package in R statistical software. The approach developed allows for inclusion of site-specific environmental parameters such as water temperature, salinity, pH, and pCO2 when calculating CO2 release from shell production. We applied the method to previously published LCA of bivalve production systems to assess the impact of including this CO2 source in the LCA. The past studies include aquaculture and wild harvest production strategies and multiple bivalve species.

Results and discussion

When we recalculated the total kg CO2 released in past studies including CO2 release from shell production, the additional CO2 release increased the total global warming impact category (CO2 equivalents) in cradle-to-gate studies by approximately 250% of the original reported value. Discussion of our results focuses on the importance of different components of our calculations and site-specific environmental parameters. We make predictions on how the magnitude and importance of CO2 released during shell production could change due to climate change and ocean acidification, and provide suggestions on how CO2 release from shell production can be reduced through careful selection of aquaculture facility location and aquaculture practices.

Conclusions

We provide a method for including CO2 from shell release in LCA of bivalves and recommend that future LCA of bivalves include this CO2 as part of the global warming impact category.

Keywords

Aquaculture Bivalve Calcium carbonate Fisheries Shell 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Robinson “Wally” Fulweiler, who provided constructive and helpful suggestions that improved the quality of this manuscript, as did feedback from several anonymous reviewers. Kevin McLaren, Johnny Shockley, and Tal Petty provided tours of their oyster farms and provided guidance on the daily operation and needs of shellfish culture operations. N. Ray was supported on a Teaching Fellowship from Boston University and a Warren-McLeod Graduate Fellowship from the Boston University Marine Program during preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. Aubin J, Fontaine C (2014) Environmental impacts of producing bouchot mussels in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay (France) using LCA with emphasis on potential climate change and eutrophication. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA food 2014), 8–10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, VashonGoogle Scholar
  2. de Alvarenga RAF, Galindro BM, de Fátima HC, Soares SR (2012) The recycling of oyster shells: an environmental analysis using life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 106:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Durack PJ, Wijffels SE, Matear RJ (2012) Ocean salinities reveal strong global water cycle intensification during 1950 to 2000. Sci 336:455–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. FAO (2002) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2002. RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO (2016) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2016. RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. Filgueira R, Byron CJ, Comeau LA, Costa-Pierce B, Cranford PJ, Ferreira JG, Grant J, Guyondet T, Jansen HM, Landry T, McKindsey CW, Petersen JK, Reid GK, Robinson SMC, Smaal A, Sonier R, Strand O, Strohmeier T (2015) An integrated ecosystem approach for assessing the potential role of cultivated bivalve shells as part of the carbon trading system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 518:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frankignoulle M, Canon C, Gattuso JP (1994) Marine calcification as a source of carbon dioxide: positive feedback of increasing atmospheric CO2. Limnol Oceanogr 39:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frankignoulle M, Pichon M, Gattuso JP (1995) Aquatic calcification as a source of carbon dioxide. In: Beran MA (ed) Carbon sequestration in the biosphere, NATO ASI series, vol 133. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fry JM (2012) Carbon footprint of Scottish suspended mussels and intertidal oysters. Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum. http://www.sarf.org.uk/cms-assets/documents/84294-350790.sarf078-final-report---revised-oct2012. Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
  10. Gattuso JP, Epitalon JM, Lavigne H, Orr J (2016) Seacarb: seawater carbonate chemistry. R package version 3.1.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=seacarb
  11. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment: methodology annex. Accessed online: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/EI99_annexe_v3.pdf
  12. Goulletquer P, Wolowicz M (1989) The shell of Cardium edule, Cardium glaucum, and Ruditapes philippinarum: organic content, composition, and energy value, as determined by different methods. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 69:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammen CS (1968) Aminotransferase activities and amino acid excretion of bivalve mollusks and brachiopods. Comp Biochem Physiol 26:697–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Lo K, Lea DW, Medina-Elizade M (2006) Global temperature change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:14288–14293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins CB, Stephenson K, Brown BL (2011) Nutrient bioassimilation capacity of aquacultured oysters: quantification of an ecosystem service. J Environ Qual 40:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinga KR (1992) Co-occurrence of dinoflagellate blooms and high pH in marine enclosures. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 86:181–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M and Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010a) Life cycle assessment of fresh and canned mussel processing and consumption in Galicia (NW Spain). Resour Conserv Recycl 55:106–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010b) Implementing by-product management into the life cycle assessment of the mussel sector. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karayücel S, Karayücel İ (1999) Growth and mortality of mussels (Mytilus edulis) reared in lantern nets in Loch Kishorn, Scotland. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 23:397–402Google Scholar
  21. Melrose DC, Berman MS, Smith LM, Oviatt CA (2009) The ecological effects of climate change on the Narragansett Bay estuary. ICES Conference Manuscript, 2009Google Scholar
  22. Munari C, Rossetti E, Mistri M (2013) Shell formation in cultivated bivalves cannot be part of carbon trading systems: a study case with Mytilus galloprovincialis. Mar Environ Res 92:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newell RIE, Fisher TR, Holyoke RR, Cornwell JC (2005) Influence of eastern oysters on nitrogen and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. In: Dame R, Olenin S (ed) The comparative roles of suspension feeders in ecosystems. Vol. 47, NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. Nixon SW, Oviatt CA, Garber J, Lee V (1976) Diel metabolism and nutrient dynamics in a salt marsh embayment. Ecol 57:740–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oyster Recovery Partnership (2016) 2016 Impact Report. Accessed online: https://oysterrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ORP_2016_ImpactReport.pdf
  26. Schau EM, Ellingsen H, Endal A, Aanondsen SA (2009) Energy consumption in the Norwegian fisheries. J Clean Prod 17:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thrane M (2004) Energy consumption in the Danish fishery: identification of key factors. J Ind Ecol 8:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vázquez-Rowe I, Iribarren D, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2011) Computation of operational and environmental benchmarks within selected Galician fishing fleets. J Ind Ecol 15:776–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wallace RB, Baumann H, Grear JS, Aller RC, Gobler CJ (2014) Coastal ocean acidification: the other eutrophication problem. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 148:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ware JR, Smith SV, Reaka-Kudla ML (1992) Coral reefs: sources or sinks of atmospheric CO2? Coral Reefs 11:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yoon GL, Kim BT, Kim BO, Han SH (2003) Chemical-mechanical characteristics of crushed oyster-shell. Waste Manag 23:825–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yoon H, Park S, Lee K, Park J (2004) Oyster shell as substitute for aggregate in mortar. Waste Manag Res 22:158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and TechnologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Marine ScienceUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations