Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39801954›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2025

Global potential for seaweed aquaculture on existing offshore infrastructure.

Finnley W R Ross, Martino E Malerba, Peter I Macreadie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Finnley W R RossCentre for Marine Science, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood Campus, Burwood VIC, Australia.
Martino E MalerbaCentre for Nature Positive Solutions, School of Science, STEM College, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter I MacreadieCentre for Nature Positive Solutions, School of Science, STEM College, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Seaweed aquaculture is growing 8.9 % annually to a forecast US$ 22.13 billion in 2024 and has several environmental, economic and social co-benefits. A proposed approach to expanding seaweed aquaculture is to develop offshore aquaculture. However, the costs of the infrastructure remain a key barrier. Reducing costs by growing seaweed on obsolete oil and gas infrastructure and offshore wind farms may make offshore seaweed cultivation economically viable, but the scale of opportunity needs to be clarified. We estimate an area of 53,387-106,774 ha is currently available to cultivate seaweed on offshore wind farms, which could yield 736,831-4,441,116 tonnes of dry seaweed annually. Existing offshore oil and gas infrastructure could create 1,357,530-5,430,120 ha for growing seaweed. Using 2019 seaweed prices, seaweed production on offshore wind farms and oil and gas infrastructure could return USD $3356 - $50,320 Million, sequester 687,784-8,616,449 tonnes of CO₂, and subsequent low carbon seaweed products could displace 987,642-33,221,364 tonnes of CO₂ emissions. While the scale of opportunity is significant, we caution that the regulatory and engineering costs of 'keeping the lights on' for decommissioned oil and gas infrastructure may make costs prohibitively high for seaweed cultivation. Even with existing infrastructure, the cost of cultivating seaweed offshore remains the largest barrier to implementation. A significant increase in market value for seaweed products is required to make offshore infrastructure economically viable. Similarly, many ecological and regulatory risks to offshore seaweed cultivation need to be further understood and minimised.

Indexed as

AquacultureOffshoreOil and gasSeaweedWindfarms

Identifiers

PMID39801954
PMCPMC11720895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.