Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39413184›Full record

SynthesisScience advances2024

How mariculture expansion is dewilding the ocean and its inhabitants.

Laurie Sellars, Becca Franks

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laurie SellarsThe Law, Ethics & Animals Program, Yale University, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9662-072X
Becca FranksDepartment of Environmental Studies, New York University, 285 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10003, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7558-6718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The world's oceans are largely free from intensive farming, but momentum to intensify and expand mariculture-the cultivation of aquatic organisms in the ocean-is growing. Despite optimism that mariculture will create economic and nutritional benefits for humans, it can also generate a host of risks, including environmental degradation, harms to wildlife integrity and welfare, captivity effects, and shifts in how humans view the nonhuman world. Collectively, we refer to these four types of risks as "dewilding." In this systematic review, we searched Scopus and Web of Science for recent literature documenting mariculture's dewilding impacts to organize and collate this evidence under one unified framework. We find that mariculture's dewilding impacts are consistently documented, though often in isolation, and that captivity and conceptual dewilding impacts are recognized as potential harms far less than impacts on the environment and wildlife. Future work examining mariculture's dewilding impacts will be paramount to guiding human decision-making and activity going forward.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesOceans and SeasAnimalsAquacultureAquatic OrganismsEcosystemHumans

Identifiers

PMID39413184
PMCPMC11482328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.