ReviewJournal of phycology2025
A historical review of giant kelp harvesting in Tasmania.
Review in Journal of phycology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two Australian genome assemblies expand the genomic blueprint of giant kelp.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- A historical review of giant kelp harvesting in Tasmania.Journal of phycology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kelps have a long history of human use and exploitation. Knowledge of past harvesting practices offers insights into environmental baselines and the contemporary management and conservation of these critically important ecosystems. In Tasmania, Australia, giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) was commercially harvested for alginate production from 1964 to 1973, but those forests have since undergone precipitous declines due primarily to climate change. We reviewed a collection of archival data and sources to describe the history, methods, and scale of this understudied and largely forgotten industry. We calculated that >65,000 tonnes (wet weight) of Macrocystis were harvested from eastern Tasmania over a decade (mean annual harvest = 6531 t), making it one of the largest wild harvest industries to ever exist in the region. However, the industry had challenges finding sufficient biomass to sustain operations, ultimately driving its closure in less than a decade. Feasibility surveys prior to harvesting suggested much greater kelp availability than was ultimately realized, perhaps motivating overexpansion. Against a backdrop of climate change in this ocean warming hotspot, harvest efforts grew wider and more intensive, and during summer months when stocks were lowest, almost all exploitable biomass was harvested. It remains unclear whether harvesting contributed to the decline of Tasmanian Macrocystis forests, but it may have reduced their resilience and exacerbated other stressors, particularly in heavily harvested areas. This historical review provides a rare opportunity to examine the past scale and use of now-endangered Macrocystis forests and also to help inform the contemporary management and conservation of seaweed resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.