Environmental Impacts of Seaweed Farming in the

Tropics

W. Lindsey Zemke-White
[email protected]
Report commissioned by Conservation International

DRAFT ONLY – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Executive summary
Seaweeds are multicellular algae that occur in marine and brackish-water and that, at
some stage in their lives, are attached to a substrate. World-wide there are
approximately 10,000 species of seaweeds and at least 221 species of seaweed are
utilised by humans. 145 species are used for food while 101 species are used for
phycocolloid production (i.e. alginates, agar and carrageenan). Each year around 2
million tonnes dry weight (approximately 13 million tonnes fresh weight) of seaweed
is collected at a value of in excess of US$6.2 billion. 50% of this seaweed (by volume)
is cultured and approximately 10% of cultured seaweed comes originates in the tropics.

In the tropics the vast majority of seaweed farmed is of the genera Eucheuma or
Kappaphycus. Approximately 120,000 tonnes dry weight (t dw) of
Eucheuma/Kappaphycus are produced annually compared with approximately 15,500 t
dw of Gracilaria and 800 t dw of Caulerpa (Zemke-White and Ohno 1999). Most of
the Eucheuma/Kappaphucus is farmed in the Philippines (~95,000 t dw), followed by
Indonesia (22,000 t dw), Zanzibar (4,000 t dw), Malaysia (800 t dw), Kiribati and
Madagascar (both around 400 t dw). Most of the Gracilaria is farmed in Indonesia
(~13,500 t dw) and almost all of the Caulerpa is farmed in the Philippines.

Uses
Eucheuma and Kappaphycus are both used to produce carrageenan, a gel-forming
polysaccharide that forms part of the seaweed cell walls and which has a variety of
applications, primarily in the food industry. Carrageenans bind with proteins which
makes them ideal for stabilising milk products and suspending fat globules and flavour
particles. When added to hot milk and cooled, bonds form between carrageenan and
the proteins in the milk to give a creamy thick texture. As it is resistant to high
temperatures, carrageenan is used extensively in ultra-high temperature (UHT)
processed goods.

Carrageenan is a sulphated galactan consisting of alternating units of β-1,3 and α-1,4

linked D-galactopyranose. There are three forms commercially available: lambda, iota
and kappa. Lambda carrageenan does not form a gel and is used for viscosity control:
thickening, bodying and suspending applications such as milkshakes, flavoured milk,
syrups and sauces. Iota and kappa types form thermoreversible gels and are used in
both water and milk gelling systems. Eucheuma contains only iota carrageenan while
Kappaphycus contains only kappa carrageenan and as there are applications for which
only one form of carrageenan is required, these two genera are in demand as they
require no extra stage of separating the carrageenans after extraction.

1
There is a growing demand for carrageenan, which means an increasing demand for
carrageenan producing seaweeds. To meet this demand, seaweed farming will have to
expand, both within the countries where it is currently farmed, and also into new
locations in the tropics.

Farming techniques
The main method used for culturing Eucheuma and Kappaphycus is the monoline
method (Trono 1997) in which cuttings of seaweed are tied at to lines at 25-30 cm
intervals and the lines are suspended around 0.5 m off the bottom between two stakes.
Additional rows are added about 1 m apart. In areas where there is little water
movement or problems with benthic grazers, the monolines can be kept floating on the
surface with “rafts”. In this case the monolines are stretched between two floating
poles (usually bamboo), which are in turn anchored to the bottom. Plants are grown to
approximately 1 kg wet weight before harvesting, which involves complete removal of
the plants. The fixed type monoline farms are generally located inshore of coral reefs
over sandy substrates and can cover extensive areas of these reef flats. The raft
monoline farms need not be placed over sand and are sometimes located over coral
heads.

Net bags are also used to farm Eucheuma/Kappaphycus in the Philippines. A piece of
fish net with a mesh size of approximately 1 cm is cut to measure 90 cm by 75 cm.
This is folded in half and the 75 cm sides are sewn together to form a tube. One end of
this tube is bundled and tied to form the bottom of the bag. The top is also tied, but in a
manner which allows for repeated opening and closing for loading and harvesting. One
kg of seaweed is loaded into the net bag and the bag is then either suspended from
staked out monolines (in which case floats are added to the bags to keep them off of
the substrate), or the bags are tied to floating longlines.

This method of farming has been found to be more productive and require less capital
input per kilogram of seaweed produced than monoline methods. It is also effective
against typhoons; in certain areas of the Philippines whole monoline seaweed farms
can be lost to typhoons and nets bags eliminate losses during these weather conditions.
Net bags can also significantly decrease losses resulting from both epiphytes and
herbivores. However, net bag farming is more labour intensive as the bags must be
shaken every day or two to disturb any epiphytes or sediment which has collected on
the outside of the bag. For this reason, net bag farming is not popular with farmers and
is so far limited to areas which experience typhoons.

2
Environmental Impacts
Impacts of species introductions
While the adverse impacts of accidental algal introductions are quite well documented,
there have been few studies on the intentional introduction of seaweeds for culture.
This is surprising as Kappaphycus has been introduced to 19 countries and Eucheuma
has been introduced to 13. While quarantine procedures have been researched, they
have been implemented in only one case before introducing Kappaphycus to a new
location. Research indicates that introduced Kappaphycus eventually “escapes” from
farms and sets up free living populations. The impacts of these populations upon the
local flora and fauna may differ between locations, but there is evidence from Hawaii
that Kappaphycus is overgrowing and killing endemic corals.

Impacts of farming practices

Seaweed farming changes the environment in and around farms. It seems that there are
three main causes of this alteration: 1) The farmers remove the macro benthic
organisms and cut or remove seagrasses; this alters the community structure, the lower
number of herbivores allows more non farmed seaweeds to grow and the lower density
of seagrasses seems to encourage tubeworms. 2) The seaweed abrades the surface of
the substrate, altering the sediment structure and eliminating the microalgal mats that
are prevalent coral reef lagoons; this effects the community structure of the
mieobenthic organisms under the farms. 3) The farm provides an increase in habitat for
invertebrates and juvenile fishes. There is actually a higher diversity index on the
seaweed in farms compared with surrounding areas, but as many of these organisms
are harvested along with the seaweed, this may have no net positive effects on the
wider community. The increase in juvenile fishes may also contribute to the change in
community structure of the mieobenthic organisms under the farms by eating particular
species. It is not clear whether these changes in community structure as a result of
farms can be categorised as positive or negative as some organisms increase in
abundance while others decrease. More research is needed to fully understand the
effect of these changes on the whole community.

There are farming practices that definitely have negative impacts on the local
environment; a) refuse from farms left to litter the beach and sea floor and b) tying raft
anchoring lines to live corals, both fall into this category. In addition to what is known
about the impacts of seaweed farming, there are a number of impacts (both positive
and negative) which have been suggested but which, as yet, have no research to
support them.

Possible negative impacts include: 1) shading of both underlying coral and the
microalgae growing in the top layer of the sediment, 2) drying structures and other

3
buildings associated with farming being built on coral reefs, 3) changes in
sedimentation, and 4) improper treatment of waste water from carrageenan production
facilities.

Possible positive impacts could include: 1) increases in fish numbers, 2) destructive

activities replaced by farming, and 3) farmers gaining sense of “stewardship” over the
coastal area.

Impacts which could have either positive or negative effects are: 1) changes in primary
production caused by farms, and 2) farms acting as nitrogen sinks, changing the
nitrogen regime of the reef community. Whether these are positive or negative would
depend on a) the normal primary production from the area covered by the farm and
how much of the seaweed was lost to herbivores and/or breakage and b) whether the
water was characterised by pollution or nitrogen limitation.

4
Recommendations
• Seaweed farming will increase in the tropics, not only within current locations but
also to new areas and countries. There is enough evidence of negative
environmental impacts, as well as the tenets of the Precautionary Principle, to
argue strongly for undertaking a comprehensive impact study of the farming of
Eucheuma and Kappaphycus. These two species are farmed in the tropics where
highly biodiverse and threatened coastal marine ecosystems - such as coral reefs -
occur. As shown above, the impact of farming operations can be direct or indirect,
and needs to be studied to ensure an environmental catastrophe such as the
invasion of the Mediterranean by Caulerpa taxifolia, is avoided. To this end, if CI
is to promote seaweed farming it should also make a commitment to initiating
and/or supporting comprehensive, ongoing research into the environmental impacts
of seaweed farming

• Criteria for project entry and participation should include target beneficiaries’
involvement in sound coastal management activities. An agency seeking to begin
or support development of seaweed farming should make a commitment to
educating the seaweed farmers about the possible environmental impacts of
farming activities. Specifically, prospective farmers should be encouraged to take
into account the following guidelines to mitigate the impact of farming activities.
§ Farms should be located over sandy area and not over live coral
§ Anchor lines should not be tied to live coral
§ Seagrasses should not be removed from the area to be farmed as they
will actually provide nutrients to the farms
§ If herbivores are to be removed, they should not be killed, but simply
shifted outside the farm boundaries
§ Plastic waste from the farms should be disposed of in an appropriate
manner

• If CI is to support seaweed farming in a location which requires the introduction of

seaweed to a new location they should ensure that the appropriate quarantine
measures are undertaken and should ensure that funding is available for rigorous
ongoing monitoring of the immediate environment to look for independent
populations of the seaweed and the effects these populations might have on local
flora and/or fauna.

5
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................1
Uses .............................................................................................................................................1
Farming techniques ......................................................................................................................2
Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................................3
Recommendations.........................................................................................................................5
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................6

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................7

1. GLOBAL SEAWEED FARMING.................................................................................................8

1.1 WHAT SPECIES ARE CULTURED AND WHERE? ................................................................................8
1.2 FARMING TECHNIQUES .............................................................................................................. 13
1.2.1 Tanks ................................................................................................................................. 13
1.2.2 Pond farming ..................................................................................................................... 13
1.2.3 Bottom stocking.................................................................................................................. 13
1.2.4 Cage culture ...................................................................................................................... 14
1.2.5 Monoline............................................................................................................................ 14
1.2.6 Longlines ........................................................................................................................... 14
1.2.7 Nets ................................................................................................................................... 16
1.2.8 Net bags............................................................................................................................. 17
2. TROPICAL SEAWEED FARMING ........................................................................................... 18
2.1 BIOLOGY OF SEAWEED SPECIES FARMED IN THE TROPICS ............................................................. 18
2.1.1 Caulerpa lentillifera........................................................................................................... 18
2.1.2 Eucheuma spp. and Kappaphycus spp................................................................................. 20
2.1.3 Gracilaria spp.................................................................................................................... 22
2.2 USES OF TROPICAL SEAWEEDS.................................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Phycocolloids – an introduction ......................................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Carrageenan production .................................................................................................... 26
3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF SEAWEED FARMING .......................................................... 28
3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1 St. Lucia............................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.2 Tanzania............................................................................................................................ 30
3.1.3 Philippines......................................................................................................................... 37
3.2 IMPACTS OF SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS ......................................................................................... 37
3.2.1 Accidental introductions of seaweeds.................................................................................. 38
3.2.2 Species introduced for culture in the tropics ....................................................................... 41
3.3 IMPACTS OF FARMING ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 47
3.3.1 Location choice.................................................................................................................. 47
3.3.2 Site clearance .................................................................................................................... 47
3.3.3 Increases in habitat area and food supply........................................................................... 48
3.3.4 Benthic environment........................................................................................................... 49
3.3.5 Refuse from farms .............................................................................................................. 52
3.3.6 Farming structures............................................................................................................. 53
3.4 IMPACTS OF ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES – CARRAGEENAN EXTRACTION ........................................... 56
3.5 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. 56
Effects of introducted species ...................................................................................................... 56
Other Effects of farming activities ............................................................................................... 57
3.6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 58
3.6.1 Education of farmers.......................................................................................................... 59
3.6.2 Quarantine measures ......................................................................................................... 59
3.6.3 Need for comprehensive impact study ................................................................................. 59
3.7 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 60
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... 61

6
5. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................ 62

6. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 78
6.1 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ 78
6.2 CONTACTS/SOURCES OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATION ................................................................. 79
5.2.1 Seaweed Industry ............................................................................................................... 79
5.2.2 Government Departments................................................................................................... 80
5.2.3 NGO’s and Consultancies involved with farming ................................................................ 81
5.2.4 Academics.......................................................................................................................... 82
6.3 ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCES ....................................................................................... 85

List of Figures
Figure 1. Global chart of seaweed farming and experimental ventures...................................................9
Figure 2. Caulerpa lentillifera, Mactan Is. Philippines. ....................................................................... 19
Figure 3. Eucheuma isiforme, Savannes Bay, St. Lucia ....................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar ............................................................................... 21
Figure 5. Kappaphycus alvarezii, Unguju Ukuu, Zanzibar................................................................... 21
Figure 6. Monoline farming of Eucheuma isiforme, Savannes Bay, St. Lucia....................................... 32
Figure 7. Dried seaweed, ready for baling, Paje, Zanzibar ................................................................... 32
Figure 8. Baling equipment, Zanzibar Agro Seaweed Company Ltd., Zanzibar.................................... 33
Figure 9. Baled seaweed, ready for shipment, Zanzibar Agro Seaweed Company Ltd., Zanzibar.......... 33
Figure 10. Monoline farming of Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar. ........................................... 34
Figure 11. Monoline farming of Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar. ........................................... 34
Figure 12. Monoline farming of Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar. ........................................... 35
Figure 13. Monolines farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii with floats, Uguju Ukuu, Zanzibar................ 35
Figure 14. Tying Kappaphycus alvarezii seedlings to monolines, Unguju Ukuu, Zanzibar. .................. 36
Figure 15. Tying Eucheuma denticulatum seedlings to monolines, Paje, Zanzibar. .............................. 36
Figure 16. Ponds for farming Caulerpa lentillifera, Mactan Is., Philippines. ........................................ 54
Figure 17. Laying out Eucheuma denticulatum on the ground to dry, Unguju Ukuu, Zanzibar.............. 54
Figure 18. Laying out Eucheuma denticulatum on the ground to dry, Unguju Ukuu, Zanzibar.............. 55
Figure 19. Purpose built structure for drying seaweed, Paje, Zanzibar.................................................. 55

7
1. Global Seaweed Farming
Seaweeds can be described as multicellular algae that occur in marine and brackish-
water and that, at some stage in their lives, are attached to a substrate. There are
approximately 10,000 species of seaweeds and they come in three colours: red
(rhodophytes), brown (phaeophytes) and green (chlorophytes). They are found on
rocky shores in the band between the highest reach of tidal waters to the deepest depth
that light can penetrate. In some areas of the world, the sea is so murky that seaweeds
can only grow a few meters below low water, in others places they can be found to
depths of 250 meters.

The first cultivation of seaweed began in the 17th century concurrently in Japan, Korea
and China. As the story goes, a fisherman noticed that Porphrya attached itself to, and
grew on floating twigs and consequently he began his own seaweed farm by planting
bamboo sticks along the seashore (Sohn, 1998).

A recent review of world seaweed utilisation (Zemke-White and Ohno 1999) found
that at least 221 species of seaweed are utilised world wide. 145 species are used for
food while 101 species are used for phycocolloid production (i.e. alginates, agar and
carrageenan). In 1995 a total of 2 million tonnes dry weight (approximately 13 million
tonnes fresh weight) of seaweed was collected at a value of in excess of US$6.2
billion. 50% of this seaweed (by volume) was cultured with 90% of the cultured
seaweed was produced in China, Korea and Japan. Just four genera made up 93% of
the cultured seaweed: Laminaria, Porphyra, Undaria and Gracilaria. Approximately
10% of all seaweed cultured is done so in the tropics. Since 1984 the utilisation of
seaweeds worldwide has grown by 119%.

1.1 What species are cultured and where?

Figure 1 gives a graphical account of the countries in which seaweed is farmed as well
as countries where research has been undertaken into seaweed farming, but has not yet
led to commercial ventures. Some 39 species from 15 genera are cultured in 22
countries. Table 1 shows the farming locations within each country for each species
(where this information was available) and the references used to compile the
information in both Figure 1 and Table 1. In Table 1, the countries are divided into
tropical and non tropical categories. Parts of both China and Chile lie inside the
tropics, but they have been categorised as temperate as the majority of the seaweed
grown in them is in the temperate regions).

8
Figure 1. Global chart of seaweed farming and experimental ventures

9
 In the tropics the vast majority of seaweed farmed is of the genera Eucheuma and
Kappaphycus. Approximately 120,000 tonnes dry weight of Eucheuma/Kappaphycus
are produced annually compared with approximately 15,500 tonnes dry weight of
Gracilaria and 5,600 tonnes fresh weight of Caulerpa (Zemke-White and Ohno 1999).

Table 1. Location within each country where seaweed is farmed.

Countries Algal Species Location Reference

Tropical
Antigua Eucheuma isiforme Allan Smith pers. comm.
Barbados E. isiforme Allan Smith pers. comm.
Cuba Kappaphycus alvarezii Smith 1998
K appaphycus striatum Smith 1998
Hawaii Gracilaria spp.
Indonesia Eucheuma denticulatum Focused in east Indonesia, Luxton 1993
particularly in Bali and Lombok
Gracilaria lichenoides
K. alvarezii East Indonesia, but also in Java, Luxton 1993
Seribu Is., Cilicap, and Sumatra,
Banka Is.
Israel Gracilaria spp. Lipkin and Friedlander
1998
Jamaica E. isiforme Allan Smith pers. comm.
Kiribati K. alvarezii Kiritimati and Tabaeuran Luxton and Luxton 1999
Malaysia Gracilaria changii Ban Merbok, Perak, on the west Moi 1998
coast of Penninsular Malaysia
K. alvarezii Semporna, east coast of Sabah
Mozambique E. denticulatum Salomao Bandeira pers.
comm.
K. alvarezii Salomao Bandeira pers.
comm.
Namibia Gracilaria gracilis Luderitz Lagoon Molloy 1998
Philippines Caulerpa lentillifera Centered around Mactan, Cebu Trono 1998
E. denticulatum and Centered on SW Mindanao, Sulu and Trono 1998
K. alvarezii Tawi-Tawi archipeligoes and
southern Palawan. Minor farming
areas are found in Cuyo Is. Group in
the northern part of the Sulu sea,
Batangas and Sorsogon in Luzon and
Bohol and Leyte in Visayas
St. Lucia E. isiforme Savannes Bay, Laborie and Praslin Allan Smith pers. comm.
Tanzania E. denticulatum Zanzibar, Pemba, Tanga Mshigeni 1998
Thailand Gracilaria fisheri Southern provinces of Songkhla and Lewmanomont 1998
Pattani
Gracilaria tenuistipitata Southern provinces of Songkhla and Lewmanomont 1998
Pattani

10
 Table 1. Cont.
Countries Algal Species Location Reference

Tropical cont.
Venezuela K. alvarezii Araya Peninsula Raul Rincones pers.
E. denticulatum comm.
Vietnam Gracilaria asiatica Throughout Huynh and Nguyen 1998
G. heteroclada Phu Yen (central Vietnam) and Ba- Huynh and Nguyen 1998
Vung Tau (southern Vietnam)
G. tenuistipitata Throughout Huynh and Nguyen 1998
K. alvarezii Central and southern Huynh and Nguyen 1998

Temperate
Japan Caulerpa lentillifera Okinawa Trono and Toma 1997
Cladosiphon okamuranus Okinawa and Kagoshima Toma 1997
Enteromorpha compressa Ohno and Largo 1998
E. prolifera Ohno and Largo 1998
E. intestinalis Ohno and Largo 1998
Laminaria japonica Japan – Hokkaido (Oshima Prov. Ohno and Largo 1998
55% of all), Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi,
also Tokyo Bay, the Inland Sea,
Ariake Bay, Tosa Bay
Monostroma latissimum Mie, Aichi, Ehime, Kochi, Ohno and Largo 1998
Kagoshima, Okinawa
Nemacystus decipiens Okinawa and Kagoshima Ohno and Largo 1998
Porphyra tenera Ohno and Largo 1998
P. yezoensis Ohno and Largo 1998
Ulva spp. Inner bays and estuaries, recently Ohno and Largo 1998
expanded to the south
Undaria pinnatifida Iwate in the north and Tokushima in Yamanaka and Akiyama
the south (Sanriko and Naruto) 1993
South Korea Enteromorpha spp. Wando and Pusan Sohn 1998
Hizikia fusiformis Wando (south west coast) Sohn 1998
Laminaria japonica Southern coast Sohn 1998
Porphyra yezoensis Central western to south eastern Sohn 1998
coast
U. pinnatifida Wando and Pusan Yamanaka and Akiyama
1993
Chile G. chilensis Entire coast Alveal 1998
US P. yezoensis Maine Merrill and Waaland
1998
Canada Chondrus crispus Nova Scotia Chopin 1998
Laminaria groenlandica Barkley Sound, SW of Vancouver Is. Lindstrom 1998
L. saccharina Barkley Sound, SW of Vancouver Is. Lindstrom 1998
Macrocystus integrifolia Barkley Sound, SW of Vancouver Is. Lindstrom 1998
Taiwan Gracilaria verrucosa Chiang 1981
G. gigas Chiang 1981
G. lichenoides Chiang 1981
Eucheuma gelatinae Chaoyuan 1998
China E. gelatinae Hainan Island Chaoyuan 1998
G. asiatica Hainan Is. and Guangxi Province Chaoyuan 1998
G. articulata Hainan Is. Chaoyuan 1998

11
 Table 1. Cont.
Countries Algal Species Location Reference

Temperate cont.
China cont. G. eucheumoides Hainan Is. Chaoyuan 1998
G. hainanensis Hainan Is. and Guangxi Province Chaoyuan 1998
G. verrucosa Shandong and Fujian Chaoyuan 1998
Laminaria japonica from Dialan in the north to Fujian in Chaoyuan 1998
the south.
Porphyra yezoensis primarily in the north Chaoyuan 1998
P. haitanensis Hainan Chaoyuan 1998
Undaria pinnatifida Concentrated on Liaoning and Chaoyuan and Jianxin
Shandong in the north 1997

Locations where intiial introduciton and/or research has taken place, but as yet no continued commercial
harvesting
Argentina Gracilaria verrucosa Golfo Nuevo Boraso de Zaixso et
al.1997
Fiji K. alvarezii Luxton et al.1987
Djibouti E. denticulatum Braud and Perez 1974
Brazil Gracilaria spp. Rio Grande do Norte Oliveira 1998
Hypnea musciformis São Paulo, Rio Grande do Norte Berchez et al.1993
Agardhiella subulata Oliveira 1998
Pterocladia capillacea Yokoya and Oliveira
1992
K. alvarezii São Paulo Oliveira 1998
Laminaria abyssalis Sao Paulo Yoneshigue and de
Oliveira 1987
L. brasiliensis Sao Paulo Yoneshigue and de
Oliveira 1987
Monostroma spp. Oliveira 1998
India Sargassum swartzii Mandapam and Okha Marih et al.1998
Cystoseira indica Mandapam and Okha Marih et al.1998
Enteromorpha flexuosa Okha Marih et al.1998
Ulva fasciata Okha Marih et al.1998
Gracilaria edulis Gulf of Mannar Marih et al.1998
Gelidiella acerosa Krusadi Island Marih et al.1998
K. alvarezii Okha Marih et al.1998
Mexico Eucheuma uncinatum Gulf of California Robledo 1998
E. isiforme Yucatan Robledo 1998
Gracilaria pacifica Baja California Robledo 1998
G. cornea Yucatan Robledo 1998
South Africa G. gracilis Saldanha Bay Critchley et al.1998
Madagascar E. denticulatum Tulear Mollion 1998
E. striatum Tulear
Italy Gracilaria verrucosa Lagoon of Grado, Gulf of Trieste, Cecere 1998
Lagoon of Orbetello, Sacca of
Scardovari, Mar Piccola of Taranto,
Saline of Trapani
Spain Undaria pinnitifida Galicia Juanes and Sosa 1998
New Zealand U. pinnitifida Nelson Zemke-White et al.1999

12
1.2 Farming techniques
There are 8 main methods of farming seaweed.

1.2.1 Tanks
Growing seaweed in tanks is undertaken on dry land. Although several species have
been grown experimentally in this manner, the only seaweed currently cultured in
tanks is Chondrus crispus, in Nova Scotia, Canada (Chopin 1998). Of all the methods
for growing seaweeds, tank culture is the most productive (per unit area) (Critchley
1997) as it allows control over the biotic and abiotic parameters that regulate
productivity (de Oliveira et al. 1989). However, it is also the most expensive technique
and is therefore usually restricted to high value end products or polyculture (de
Oliveira et al. 1989). In New Zealand attempts have been made to grow Gracilaria
spp. in tanks as food for abalone, which are cultured in the same tanks.

1.2.2 Pond farming

Gracilaria is grown in specially constructed ponds in China, Israel and Indonesia. It is
also polycultured in ponds with shrimp in Malaysia (Moi 1998), and fish in Taiwan
(Friedlander and Levy 1995). Caulerpa lentillifera is grown in ponds in the Philippines
(Trono and Toma 1997).

For C. lentillifera the pond water is kept at a depth of 0.5-0.8 m and sub-divided into
0.5-1.0 hectare areas. This type of culture requires constant water , and complete water
replacement at least every two days. Seed stock is planted uniformly on the bottom of
the pond by burying one end of handful of seedstock at approximately 1 m intervals.
The seaweed is harvested after two or more months (Trono 1998).

Both Gracilaria and Caulerpa can be cultured either by planting the cuttings directly
into the substrate of the pond, or by broadcasting, in which the seedstock is not
anchored to the bottom. Planting the algae into the substrate is generally preferable, as
the seed stock, when broadcast, can concentrate in one part of the pond, resulting in
patchy growth.

1.2.3 Bottom stocking

Bottom stocking is an attempt to duplicate the natural field conditions of the algae. In
Chile, Gracilaria chilensis plants may be pushed into the sediments with a forked
instrument, tied to rocks with rubber bands or kept in place with nylon laced over
rocks (Santelices and Doty 1989). Alternatively, it can be kept in place with tube-

13
shaped plastic bags filled with sand . Bags are laid out in parallel rows 1 m apart. The
bags are manufactured to disintegrate, by which time the plants have developed
underground anchors (Critchley 1997). In Hainan Island, China, cuttings of Eucheuma
gelatinae are tied with rubber bands to small pieces of dead coral, which are then
distributed by divers in the subtidal regions of coral reefs (Chaoyuan 1998). In
sheltered lagoons in the Philippines, bottom stocking is used to culture Caulerpa
lentillifera. Using this method the seaweed thallus is pushed into the substrate in much
the same way as in pond culture. (Trono and Toma 1997).

1.2.4 Cage culture

In Okinawa Caulerpa lentillifera is cultured in multi-layered, cylindrical cages (Trono
and Toma 1997). Small bundles of seed stock are tied to the center of each level of the
cage, and the cage is suspended under water. C. lentillifera is harvested about once per
month by cutting the seaweed that protrude from the cage.

1.2.5 Monoline
This the main method used for culturing Eucheuma and Kappaphycus (Trono 1997). In
the fixed type monoline farm, stakes are driven into the substratum approximately 10
m apart and a thin line (up to 5 mm diameter) is stretched between them approximately
0.5 m above the bottom. Additional rows are added about 1 m apart and cuttings are
tied to the monoline at 25-30 cm intervals using a soft plastic material. In areas where
there is little water movement or problems with grazers, the monolines can be kept
floating on the surface with “rafts”. In this case the monolines are stretched between
two floating poles (usually bamboo), which are in turn anchored to the bottom. In the
floating raft monoline farms, more intensive seeding is applied, with monolines being
only 30 cm apart and cuttings arranged on the monolines at 15 cm intervals. Plants are
grown to approximately 1 kg wet weight before harvesting, which involves complete
removal of the plants. This allows for selection of fast growing plants as subsequent
seedlings.

1.2.6 Longlines
Longlines are used for the culture of Hizikia (Sohn 1998), Undaria (Ohno and
Matsuoka 1997), Laminaria (Kawashima 1997), Macrocystis (Lindstrom 1998),
Gracilaria (Santelices and Doty 1989) and Eucheuma (pers. obs.). The longline is a
thick rope which is kept at a particular depth or at the water’s surface with buoys, and
anchored to the bottom to keep it place. Drop lines to which seaweed is attached are
strung off of the long line at a range of intervals depending on the species being
cultured.

14
For Eucheuma, cuttings are either threaded directly through the long line, or inserted
into tube shaped mesh bags which are tied to or wound around the longlines. For
Gracilaria, either cuttings or spore seeded rope (Alveal et al.1997) are wound around
or through long lines. The lines are either staked out, or stretched between buoys, or
rafts of bamboo.

For the rest of the algae farmed in this way, spores are first collected on a thin line
(usually around 1 mm diameter) which is then cultured separately until the plants are
large enough to be transplanted to the drop lines. The spore collector line is then cut
into small pieces and threaded through the drop lines. The drop lines can be arranged
on the longline in a number of ways. They can be weighted to hang straight down, tied
parallel along the long line or hung parallel but below the longline. If they are hung
straight down, they may be inverted mid-season to ensure even growth.

1.2.6.1. Laminaria japonica

Two-year-old plants are used for seeding. Maintaining the seaweed in the dark for a
proscribed period of time causes the release of zoospores. Seeding string (3mm
diameter), wound onto triangular frames, is placed in the zoospore solution for
approximately 24 hours. After 45 days in culture, they are ready for provisional out-
planting where they are hung from longlines for 7-10 days. The seeding strings are
then cut into approximately 5 cm lengths and inserted at 30 cm intervals into the main
cultivation ropes (approximately 5 m in length). The cultivation ropes are either hung
vertically from the main line at 2m intervals (vertical hanging method) or the ropes are
stretched parallel to the long line (long line method). The main line is suspended
approximately 2m below the surface. After six months the lower ends in the vertical
hanging method are tied up level with the main line. Laminaria is harvested in mid-
summer

1.2.6.2 Undaria pinnitifida

Zoospores are collected on absorbent synthetic fiber wound on rectangular frames
(spore collector). Zoospores attach themselves to the fibre and develop into male and
female gametophytes and sexual reproduction takes place after maturation. The spore
collector can be outplanted after about three weeks. The seed ropes can then be cut into
sections and attached to the main cultivation rope (1-3 cm diameter). In rough seas the
cultivation rope can be suspended below and parallel to the main rope , attached every
few meters. In a variation on the long line method, the cultivation ropes can be
suspended vertically from individual bamboo poles which are separated by ropes. U.
pinnitifida is harvested around three months after outplanting (February/April)

15
1.2.7 Nets
Nets are used to culture Monostroma and Enteromorpha (Ohno 1997), Porphyra
(Oohusa 1997), Cladosiphon and Nemacystus (Toma 1997). Spores are settled onto the
nets by one of two methods. The nets are either placed in collection grounds where and
when the particular species is about to sporulate, or spores are collected in the
laboratory and the nets are immersed n the spore solution.

1.2.7.1 Cladosiphon okamuanus

The nets are seeded from either mature sporophytes or from apotheca which have been
stored over summer. The nets are placed in the spore solution for 2-10 days. In October
seeded nets are transferred and placed in layers (up to 12 in a stack) to an intermediate
nursery, in seagrass beds at less than 1m depth with moderate currents. These nets are
then staked out loosely about 40 cm from the bottom in single layers. Plants are
harvested at about 30cm length (80-90 days cultivation).

Monostroma, Enteromorpha and Porphyra are cultured by either “pole” or “floating”

methods. In the former, the nets are placed in the intertidal zone at a height which
ensures an optimal time out of the water at low tide. The latter method is used in
locations where there is not adequate areas for pole farms (e.g in deep water). Nets are
suspended at a particular depth with floats and anchor ropes.

1.2.7.2 Monostroma and Enteromorpha

Two types of seeding are used, either the nets are spread in sets of about five in spore-
collection grounds (in the open ocean), or the maturation of zygotes is promoted
during September and culture nets are submersed overnight in large tanks containing
the collected zoospores. Monostroma is harvested 3-4 times during growing period,
Enteromorpha 2-3 times.

1.2.7.3 Porphyra spp.

Between January and March oyster shells are spread in a carpospore solution, the
carpospores germinate and penetrate the oyster shells. The resulting conchospores are
then seeded onto nets. The nets are usually 1.5 m by 18 m, and are suspended by either
the pole system or floating system. As Porphyra growth is inhibited by high water
temperatures in dark conditions (high temperatures at night) and these conditions are
prevalent in Japan in mid-late November, the nets can be removed from the water,
partially dried and stored frozen. The nets can be reintroduced to the water at any time.

16
This technique has aided the stabilisation of Japanese Nori production.

The pole system provides a higher quality product as the Porphyra is periodically out
of the water. In Korea buoys are attached to floating nets at intervals of ~2m which
allows the nets to be inverted to allow air contact. This has provided increases of up to
150% in Porphyra production (and a 400% increase in income for farmers).

1.2.8 Net bags

Net bags have recently been employed in the farming of Eucheuma/Kappaphycus in
the Philippines. A piece of fish net with a mesh size of approximately 1 cm is cut to
measure 90 cm by 75 cm. This is folded in half and the 75 cm sides are sewn together
to form a tube. One end of this tube is bundled and tied to form the bottom of the bag.
The top is also tied, but in a manner which allows for repeated opening and closing for
loading and harvesting. One kg of seaweed is loaded into the net bag and the bag is
then either suspended from staked out monolines (in which case floats are added to the
bags to keep them off of the substrate), or the bags are tied to floating longlines.

This method of farming has been found to be more productive and require less capital
input per kilogram of seaweed produced than monoline methods. It is also effective
against typhoons; in certain areas of the Philippines whole monoline seaweed farms
can be lost to typhoons and nets bags eliminate losses during these weather conditions.
Net bags can also significantly decrease losses resulting from both epiphytes and
herbivores. However, net bag farming is more labour intensive as the bags must be
shaken every day or two to disturb any epiphytes or sediment which has collected on
the outside of the bag. For this reason, net bag farming is not popular with farmers and
is so far limited to areas which experience typhoons.

17
2. Tropical Seaweed Farming

This section will focus specifically on the seaweed farmed in the tropics, i.e. the genera
Eucheuma and Kappaphycus and to a lesser extent Caulerpa and Gracilaria. First is a
description of the biological features of these seaweeds which is followed by an outline
of their uses, focusing on a description of phycocolloids (the major product of
seaweeds farmed in the tropics) and phycocolloid manufacturing.

It is difficult to find data on the amount of area covered by seaweed farms in the
tropics, however, extrapolation from production projections may provide a rough
guide. In the Philippines, a one hectare farm can be expected to generate 35-38 tonnes
of dried seaweed per year (Barraca 1999). With the Philippine production of dried
seaweed at around 93,000 tonnes per year, this equates to around 2,500 hectares of
farms. However, Trono (1996) estimated that up to 7,000 hectares was being used in
the Philippines (the equivalent of 13 tonnes per hectare per year). This may be the
case, as the 35-38 tonnes per hectare estimate is based on a well maintained farm,
probably in optimal growing conditions. It also does not take into account the areas
between farm plots which are not actually farmed, but are likely to be as effected by
farming as the actual farm sites. Allowing for poorly maintained farms and farms in
less than optimal growing conditions, and based on a worldwide production of 120,000
tonnes of Euchuema and Kappaphycus, some 9,000 hectares of shallow coastal areas,
which are closely associated with coral reefs, are being used for the cultivation of
seaweed in the tropics.

Carrageenan demand has been predicted to grow by 5 - 7 % annually over the next ten
years (Mojica et al 1997). If the supply is to meet the demand this would effectively
double the area farmed over a ten year period.

2.1 Biology of seaweed species farmed in the tropics

2.1.1 Caulerpa lentillifera

2.1.1.1 Native distribution

Caulerpa lentillifera (Figure 2) is found from the Indian to the Western Pacific Ocean.

18
Figure 2. Caulerpa lentillifera, Mactan Is. Philippines.

Figure 3. Eucheuma isiforme, Savannes Bay, St. Lucia

19
2.1.1.2 Habit
Found on sandy to muddy substrates in protected areas of shallow reef flats and bays,
it also can be found on coarse sandy-coral substrata on seaward parts of reef flats. It
forms either thick beds or patchy growth.

2.1.1.3 Life cycle

A diplontic alga, sexual reproduction takes place in warmer months (spring to
summer). The protoptasts of the ramuli transform into flagellated gametes of both
sexes. The gametes are released and conjugate to form the gametes. These settle to the
bottom to germinate and then grow into the adult form (Trono and Tomo 1997)

2.1.2 Eucheuma spp. and Kappaphycus spp.

2.1.2.1 Native Distribution

These genera have recently been revised. What was historically the genus Eucheuma
has been split into Eucheuma, Kappaphycus and Betaphycus on the basis of the type of
carrageenan found in the algae (see section 2.2.1). This makes it difficult to determine
the native range of these algae as they have been called different names over the years.
Doty (1987) reported that the two major commercial forms of Eucheuma, E. spinosum
and E. cottonii, are native to the Old World tropics and westward to the eastern coast
of Africa. Since that publication E. spinosum has become E. denticulatum, while E.
cottonii has become Kappaphycus cottonii. Even armed with this knowledge it is
difficult to ascertain the native distribution of these two genera as the terms
“spinosum” and “cottonii” has been used in the industry to describe many species of
both Eucheuma and Kappaphycus.

Currently there are only four species of these genera commercially cultivated:
Eucheuma isiforme, E. denticulatum, Kappaphycis alvarezii and (to a lesser extent) K.
striatum. Eucheuma isiforme (Figure 3) is native to the entire Carribean and is farmed
in St. Lucia, Barbados, Antigua and Jamaica. However, the strain being farmed in
these locations was transferred from Belize in 1997 (Allan Smith pers comm.) E.
denticulatum (Figure 4), known in the industry as “spinosum” and Kappaphycus
alvarezii (Figure 5) and, K. striatum, both known in the industry as “cottonii” are
native to the Indian and the Western Pacific Oceans. They are native at many of the
tropical locations where they are being farmed, but the strains being farmed were
almost all imported from original stocks in the Philippines. See Table 3 for details of
these introductions. There is still common confusion between K. striatum and K.
alvarezii both in the literature and in the farming industry, consequently these two
species are virtually interchangable in this report.

20
Figure 4. Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar

Figure 5. Kappaphycus alvarezii, Unguju Ukuu, Zanzibar.

21
2.1.2.2 Habitat
Eucheuma denticulatum thrives on coarse, sandy to rocky substrata in areas with
moderate to strong water currents. Kappaphycus alvarezii and K. striatum grow from
just below the low tide mark on sandy to rocky substrata, in slow water currents
(Trono 1997).

2.1.2.2 Life cycle

Eucheuma and Kappaphycus exhibit the triphasic “polysiphionia” life history (outlined
by Doty 1987). The first two phases are isomorphic (they look identical). Phase 1 is
the tetrasporophyte, which is diploid; phase 2 is the gametophyte, which is haploid and
dioecious (male and female reproductive organs are on different individuals). Stage 3
is the microscopic carposporophyte, which lives parasitically on the female
gametophyte. The tetrasporophyte produces structures called tetrasporangia which
undergo meiotic division and release tetraspores. These develop into the mature male
and female gametophytes. The male gametophyte produces gametes (spermatia), and
the female forms carpogonial branches, within which are formed the carpogonium
(female gametangium). The male gametes are passively transmitted to the female
carpogoium, resulting in fertilisation within the tissue of the female gametophyte,
creating the carposporophyte. The carposporophyte produces carpospores which, when
released, develop into the mature tetrasporophyte.

2.1.3 Gracilaria spp.

2.1.3.1 Native Distribution

Gracilaria is widely distributed throughout the world (Santelices and Doty 1989) and
more than 16 species of this genus are cultured. It occupies a variety of habitats in both
the tropical and temperate waters and can form either monospecific stands or
multispecific assemblages. Gracilaria is generally farmed in its native location and
there is little indication in the literature that species of this genera have been
introduced to, or transferred between, countries in the tropics for the purposes of
aquaculture.

22
2.1.3.2 Habitat
Large commercial crops of Gracilaria are generally found in intertidal or shallow sub-
tidal, wave sheltered, horizontal or only slightly inclined surfaces. The substrate is
generally sandy to muddy, unconsolidated and non-carbonate in composition.
Gracilaria often withstands frequent fresh-water dilutions, high fertilizer yields, low
water motion, high temperatures and burial by sediments. Gracilaria beds in Chile
have been found to contain surviving fragments of Gracilaria even after being buried
in sediment for up to 6 months (Santelices et al. 1984). Gracilaria can also exist as
large free-floating populations.

2.1.3.3 Life history

Triphasic lifestyle identical to that of Eucheuma.

2.2 Uses of tropical seaweeds

Seaweeds are used in a variety of ways: for food, medicines and agricultural products
(Chapman and Chapman 1980), paper (Cecere 1998), production of biogases (Beavis
and Charlier 1987), as biofilters (Bushmann 1996; Jimenez del Rio et al. 1996), in
polyculture with other species (Petrell and Alie 1996; Troell et al.1997) and for the
phycocolloids found in their cell walls. Of the four genera farmed in the tropics
Caulerpa lentillifera is farmed exclusively for food. Similarly, Gracilaria, Eucheuma
and Kappaphycus are also used for food but they are primarily farmed for phycocolloid
extraction. The following section reviews the origin and uses of these important
seaweed components.

2.2.1 Phycocolloids – an introduction

Generally, the cell walls of marine seaweeds are composites of at least two main
components, microfibrills and “matrix” polysaccharides (Mackie and Preston 1974).
The microfibrils encircle the cell in varying patterns (spirals, helices, etc.) and are the
most inert and resistant part of the cell wall. In various algal species this “skeletal”
component can be: cellulose, a 1,4 linked β-D-glucose polymer; mannan a polymer of
a 1,4, linked β-D-mannose (Mackie and Preston 1968); or xylan, a polymer of 1,3
linked β-D-xylose (Preston 1974). The matrix is generally a gel-forming
(mucilagenous) polysaccharide in which the microfibrillar phase is embedded. In some
cases the microfibrills and these gels occur in alternating layers like a sandwich (Hanic
and Craigie 1969). It is these mucilagenous polysaccharides that are called
phycocolloids, and which have commercial value, especially agar and carrageenan
from the red algae (Rhodophyta) and alginic acid from the brown algae (Phaeophyta).

23
Only seaweeds containing agar (Gracilaria) and carrageenan (Eucheuma and
Kappaphycus) are farmed in the tropics.

2.2.1.1 Agar
This sulphated galactan is commercially extracted from algae of the genera Gelidium,
Gracilaria and Pterocladia (Glicksman 1987). It is composed of 1,3 linked β-D-
galactose and 1,4 linked anhydro-α-L-galactose (Margulis et al. 1993). Agarose, the
portion of agar which forms a gel, has a double helical structure. The double helices
join together and form a three dimensional structure which holds water molecules, thus
forming thermoreversible gels (Arnott et al. 1974). Agar is soluble in boiling water and
sets to a firm gel on cooling to about 350C. This gel will not melt at temperatures less
than about 850C.

Agar is mostly used in foods and as a microbiological culture media. Its unique
properties make it useful for a variety of food applications (Glicksman 1987). As it can
hold large amounts of soluble solids (e.g. sugar) without losing its adhesive qualities or
crystallising, it is widely used in bakery glazes, icings etc. Its resistance to high
temperatures without breaking down make it ideal in the canning industry, where
products are autoclaved during the canning process.

2.2.1.2 Carrageenan
Carrageenan is commercially extracted from the genera Chondrus, Gigartina,
Eucheuma, Kappaphycus, Hypnea, Iridaea, Gymnogongrus, Ahnfeltia and Furcellaria
(Glicksman 1987). Like agar, it is a sulphated galactan but consists of alternating units
of β-1,3 and α-1,4 linked D-galactopyranose (Margulis et al. 1993). There are three
forms available commercially (Mackie and Preston 1974):

• kappa - alternating 1,3 linked β-D-galactose 4-sulphate and 1,4 linked 3,6-anhydro
α-D-galactose
• lambda - alternating 1,3 linked β-D-galactose and 1,4 linked α-D-galactose 2,6
disulphate
• iota - alternating 1,3 linked β-D-galactose 4-sulphate and 1,4 linked 3,6-anhydro α-
D-galactose 2-sulphate.

Carrageenans bind with proteins which makes them ideal for stabilising milk products
and suspending fat globules and flavour particles. When added to hot milk and cooled,
bonds form between carrageenan and the proteins in the milk to give a creamy thick
texture. As it is resistant to high temperatures, carrageenan is used extensively in ultra-
high temperature (UHT) processed goods. Lambda carrageenan does not form a gel

24
and is used for viscosity control: thickening, bodying and suspending applications such
as milkshakes, flavoured milk, syrups and sauces (Glicksman 1987). Iota and kappa
types form thermoreversible gels and are used in both water and milk gelling systems
(Nussinovitch 1997).

Eucheuma contains only iota carrageenan while Kappaphycus contains only kappa
carrageenan (Chapman and Chapman 1980). As there are applications for which only
one form of carrageenan is required, these two genera are useful as they require no
extra stage of separating the carrageenans after extraction.

The market for iota carrageenan is static while the market for kappa carrageenan
continues to increase (Eric Ask pers. comm.). One of the persons interviewed from the
processing industry stated that while there is currently around 100,000 tonnes of
Eucheuma and Kappaphycus produced annually, if another 30,000 tonnes was
available it would be purchased immediately. There is high demand for this
phycocolloid.

2.2.1.3 Alginic acid and its salts (alginates)

Alginic acid is commercially extracted from the genera Macrocystis, Laminaria,
Ascophyllum, Ecklonia, Eisenia, and Sargassum (Glicksman 1987). It is made up of
1,4 linked β-D-mannuronic acid and 1,4 linked α-L-guluronic acids in varying ratios
(Margulis et al.1993).

Alginates are used in many food applications: their water-holding capacity make them
ideal for maintaining the texture of frozen foods during the freeze-thaw cycle, their
stabilising and emulsifying capabilities are used in salad dressings, beer, fruit juices,
sauces and gravies (Nussinovitch 1997). One of the useful properties of alginates are
their reactivity with calcium to form a rigid skin. This enables the construction of
“fabricated foods”. Food pulp is mixed with the alginate and dropped into a soluble-
calcium-salt solution where a skin is formed around the surface of the droplet. This
method has been used to create of imitation cherries, apples and berries, and to
fabricate pimento strips and onion rings (Glicksman 1987).

25
Table 2. Functional properties of phycocolloids used in foods (from Glicksman 1982)

Function Example

Binding agent pet foods

Bodying agent diabetic drinks
Crystalisation inhibitor ice cream, frozen foods
Clarifying agent beer and wine
Clouding agent fruit drinks
Coating agent Fabricated onion rings
Dietary fibre Cereals, breads
Emulsifier salad dressing
Encapsulating agent Powdered flavours
Film-former Sausage casings
Flocculating agent Wine
Foam stabiliser Beer
Gelling agent Deserts, confectionery
Molding agent jelly candies
Protective colloid Flavour emulsions
Stabiliser salad dressing, ice cream
Suspending agent Chocolate milk
Swelling agent Processed meat products
Syneresis inhibitor Cheese, frozen foods
Thickening agent jams, pie fillings
Whipping agent Marshmallows

2.2.2 Carrageenan production

There are two main grades of carrageenan, refined and semi-refined. Semi-refined
carrageenan (SRC) is produced without the carrageenan ever going into solution.
There at two types of SRC, pet food and (human) food grades. While semi-refined
carrageenan is usually abbreviated as SRC it may also be called (from McHugh 1996):
• Alkali treated cottonii – ATC
• Alternatively refined carrageenan – ARC
• Natural washed carrageenan – NWC
• Philippines natural grade – PNG
• Processed Eucheuma seaweed – PES
• Seaweed flour – SF

26
To produce SRC the seaweed is sorted, washed in fresh water (to remove sand and
other debris) then treated in a hot alkali solution of potassium hydroxide. This removes
water soluble carbohydrates, protein and salts. The residue (carrageenan and cellulose),
which still resembles the seaweed in morphology, is then washed in fresh water,
bleached (food grade only), dried and milled. The product is then sterilised (food grade
only) and blended with SRC product of known qualities (gel strength, carrageenan %)
to give the desired finished product.

There are two main types of refined carrageenan, KCL precipitated and Alcohol
precipitated.They have different applications, but the processing is similar for both.
The initial product is SRC; the carrageenan is solubilised in alkali, filtered to remove
the cellulose and then precipitated in KCL or alcohol. The precipitated carrageenan is
then pressed to remove much of the water, pelletised, dried and sterilised, dried further,
and blended to yield the end product with the desired gel strength.

The manufacturing of carrageenan produces waste water with high pH, chemical
oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The proper treatment
of this waste water is an important factor in relation to the effects of seaweed farming
on the environment and are discussed below in section 3.4.3.

27
3. Biodiversity Impacts of seaweed farming
3.1 Introduction
To assess the environmental impacts of seaweed farming in the tropics a literature
review was carried out and experts were interviewed from the seaweed industry,
Government departments and agencies, non-governmental organisations, and academia
(see appendix 5.2 for a list of contacts). In addition, three locations were visited to
view farm sites first-hand: St. Lucia in the Caribbean, Zanzibar in the Indian Ocean,
and the Philippines in the Pacific Ocean. These three locations were chosen as they
represent different biogeographic areas and because each has existing seaweed farming
operations.

The results of the literature search revealed only four studies on the impacts of
seaweed farming. Unfortunately all of these studies employed sub-optimal designs
(Green 1979) as farming was already established before the studies were carried out. In
this type of study reference sites are used for comparison, rather than true controls.

Johnstone and Olafsson (1995) compared benthic microbial processes between both
farmed and reference sites.They measured benthic and water column primary
production, bacterial production in the sediment and water column, nutrient flux, and
sediment total organic carbon and total nitrogen. Olafsson et al. (1995) compared farm
sites with two types of reference site, “close” (5 m from farm) and “away” (50 m from
farm). They sampled the sediment for major mieofaunal taxa as well as measuring
sediment grain size, chlorophyll a, salinity and temperature. Msuya et al. (1997)
examined differences between farmed and reference sites in terms of sediment
composition and macro benthic organisms. Hindely (1999) examined fish and
macrobenthic invertebrate numbers at farm and reference sites and surveyed farmers to
determine diversity of fishes found in farms. These studies are discussed in detail
below.

When experts interviewed for this study were asked why there is a paucity of literature
on the impacts of seaweed farming, two answers were the most often given: 1) that
there were not the funds available for what would need to be an extensive study (see
section 4.0 below), and 2) that, from an environmental impact perspective, seaweed
farming has generally been thought to be a relatively benign or even positive form of
marine agronomy. This second point is typified by Ask (1999) which lists the ways
Eucheuma/Kappaphycus can play a “positive role” in coastal management:

28
1. Farms act as nutrient sinks
2. As farms are a site of both primary production and herbivory, they can act to
enhance fish stocks.
3. Farms can increase the available habitat for certain fish and invertebrates
4. Farming can provide a sustainable livelihood which may take people away from
more destructive activities (e.g. dynamite or cyanide fishing).
5. As farms require a certain standard of water quality, the farmers will develop a sense
of stewardship toward the coastal area and will influence people whose activities are a
threat to water quality.

These factors are both intuitively appealing and are widely cited by proponents of
seaweed farming. The first three of these points are discussed in section 3.3.
Unfortunately there has been no empirical examination of the last two points at all.
Farming is very seldom a full time activity for any single farmer. This is evidenced by
the lack of interest shown for using the net bag farming method for Kappaphycus
(Barracca pers. comm.), which provides greater productivity but which requires daily
attention. With either the monoline or longline type of farm, farmers need not spend
every day engaged in farming and so it would not be necessary for a farmer to abandon
other more destructive activities (except within the farm site itself). Without empirical
evidence, one could just as easily conclude that seaweed farming is one of several
economic activities that occupies a farmer’s time, who may supplement this income by
a number of environmentally destructive and non-destructive activities. If seaweed
farmers persist in destructive activites in addition to tending there farms, this would
also belie the 5th point of Ask et al. Farmers can hardly be said to be developing a
“sense of stewardship” over the coastal area if they are willing to dynamite or cyanide
fish in locations on the basis that they are not near their own farms.

This section begins with an introduction to the seaweed farming activities in each of
the three locations visited for this report and is then followed by a discussion of what is
currently known about the environmental impacts of seaweed farming in the tropics.
This discussion utilises the ideas and comments of the experts interviewed for this
report, the literature on the impacts of farming and also incorporates an examination of
the possibly positive impacts listed above. This discussion has been broken into the
impacts of introduced species for aquaculture, farming activities and associated human
activities.

3.1.1 St. Lucia

Until the 1980s all of the seaweeds used in the Caribbean were harvested from wild
stocks. In 1981 the Government of St. Lucia began a research program to develop
methods for farming seaweeds. By 1985 a small group of farmers had begun farming
Gracilaria spp. in St. Lucia (Smith 1997). The methods learned in St. Lucia were

29
transferred to Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, Barbados, Antigua, Jamaica and Haiti.
However, there is currently only commercial farming of seaweed in St. Lucia,
Barbados, Antigua, and Jamaica (Allan Smith pers. comm.) and Venezuela (Rail
Rincones pers. comm.).

In the Caribbean there are approximately ten species of seaweed that have historically
been harvested locally for food, especially in the preparation of drinks and desserts
(Smith 1997). The most popular of these are species from the genera Gracilaria and
Eucheuma. The agar and carrageenan, from Gracilaria and Eucheuma respectively, is
extracted by boiling the seaweed in water and straining the mixture to separate the
extracted phycocolloid from the seaweed. This extracted carrageenan is then added to a
variety of desserts and drinks, or bottled and sold in a liquid form for home use.

All of the seaweed currently being farmed in the West Indies was intentionally
transferred from Beize. While Gracilaria was originally used in farming ventures in
the West Indies, there were problems with epiphytism on this genus. In 1997
Eucheuma isiforme was transferred from Belize to St. Lucia, Barbados, Antigua and
Jamaica and it is this species currently being farmed in these locations (Allan Smith
pers. comm.). The implications of species introductions are discussed in section 3.2.

The seaweed is farmed using a longline type method. Seaweed cuttings are either
threaded through the weave of the longline or placed into long mesh bags which are
then attached to the longlines. The lines are anchored at each end and floats (generally
discarded drink and oil containers) are attached at approximately 1 m intervals to
maintain the lines just below the surface of the water (see Figure 6).

By world standards, there is little seaweed produced on St. Lucia. While they have
mastered the farming techniques in St. Lucia, the main limitation to the industry is the
lack of a market. The seaweed produced in St. Lucia is used within the West Indies in
various food and drink applications and as the farmers can locally receive up to
US$3.50 per kg of dry seaweed, they are not interested in selling their product to FMC
or Copenhagen Pectin for a much lower price (Marie-Louise Felix pers. comm.).

3.1.2 Tanzania
In 1989, following extensive field trials, commercial scale farming of Kappaphycus
alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum began in villages on mainland Tanzania as well
as on Unguja and Pemba Islands, Zanzibar. Since that time, the farming of these two
species has spread to involve over 30,000 villagers generating in excess of US$10
million in foreign exchange annually (Mshigeni 1998) and comprises approximately
3.3 % of the world production of carrageenan producing seaweeds.

30
Although both K. alvarezii and E. denticulatum are native to Tanzania, all of the
farmed seaweed orginated from cuttings introduced from the Philippines. In Zanzibar
the majority of the seaweed farmed is E. denticulatum, which has been shown in many
villages to grow faster and with less problems of epiphytism than K. alvarezii. As
mentioned above the world market for E. denticulatum is currently quite small and
there are efforts being made by at least one carrageenan manufacturer which sources
seaweeds from Zanzibar to encourage seaweed farmers to change to K. alvarezii.

The industry in Tanzania is well regulated. A small number of locally owned seaweed
purchasing companies obtain permission from the government to develop seaweed
farming in a specified area. These companies supply the villagers in that area with the
education and materials necessary to undertake seaweed farming, provide storage for
the dried seaweed (Figure 7), and press the seaweed into 100 kg bales for export
(Figures 8 and 9). These companies also commit to buying the seaweed from the
farmers at least twice per week. In return for the services offered by these companies,
the farmers agree to only sell the resulting seaweed to the company doing the
development in a given area. In this way the success of farming in a given area rests
not only on the existing biophysical conditions but on the quality of the ongoing
technical input provided by the seaweed purchasing company.

The off-bottom farming technique is the only method currently used in Tanzania
(Figures 10, 11 and 12). However, in order facilitate a shift to growing K. alvarezii in
locations where it does not grow well with the off-bottom technique, experiments are
being carried out with a floating longline type method (Figure 13).

On Zanzibar’s Unguja Island the distance between the shore and the reef is generally
quite large (1-2 kms). Every second week there is a week of very low tides and it is
during this time that the seaweed farms are tended. The farms are planted in areas of
the lagoon in which there is a water depth of between 30-60 cm at the lowest tide. In
this way the seaweed remains submerged but the farmers are able to sit in the water to
tend to the farms at low tide (Figures 14 and 15). In Zanzibar the part of the lagoon
which conforms to these water levels at low tide is generally a strip lying parallel to
the beach some 100-400m wide, and in villages where seaweed is farmed, this strip is
almost entirely covered by seaweed farms along the beach for several kilometers either
side of the village (pers. obs.).

31
Figure 6. Monoline farming of Eucheuma isiforme, Savannes Bay, St. Lucia.

Figure 7. Dried seaweed, ready for baling, Paje, Zanzibar

32
Figure 8. Baling equipment, Zanzibar Agro Seaweed Company Ltd., Zanzibar

Figure 9. Baled seaweed, ready for shipment, Zanzibar Agro Seaweed Company Ltd.,
Zanzibar.

33
Figure 10. Monoline farming of Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar.

Figure 11. Monoline farming of Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar.

34
Figure 12. Monoline farming of Eucheuma denticulatum, Paje, Zanzibar.

Figure 13. Monolines farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii with floats, Uguju Ukuu,
Zanzibar.

35
Figure 14. Tying Kappaphycus alvarezii seedlings to monolines, Unguju Ukuu,
Zanzibar.

Figure 15. Tying Eucheuma denticulatum seedlings to monolines, Paje, Zanzibar.

36
3.1.3 Philippines
In the Philippines Caulerpa lentillifera, Eucheuma denticulatum, Kappaphycus
alvarezii and K. striatum are farmed. C. lentillifera farming is on quite a small scale
compared to the other species. Approximately 5,600 tonnes fresh weight of C.
lentillifera is cultivated each year compared with over 100,000 tonnes dry weight (in
excess of 300,000 fresh weight) of the other algae.

C. lentillifera has been farmed since the 1950s in ponds created out of mangroves on
Mactan Island (Figure 16 –page 54) and currently involves approximately 400 hectares
in total (Trono 1998). The seaweed is harvested and sent fresh to Japan for food. There
are currently no plans to expand this sector of farming.

The vast majority of the seaweed farmed in the Philippines is Eucheuma denticulatum
Kappaphycus alvarezii and K. striatum. Farming of Eucheuma/Kappaphycus was
pioneered in the late 1960’s in a collaborative effort between researchers at the
University of Hawaii and Marine Colloids Inc, a subsidiary of FMC Corporation,
USA. Since the early 1970’s the industry has grown considerably; more than 7000
hectares of shallow coastal waters are now devoted to farming these species (Trono
1996). The largest concentrations are in Sulu, Tawi Tawi, Palawan, Zamboanga el
Norte and Bohol and it is estimated that up to 100,000 families are involved in farming
these seaweeds (Mojica et al. 1997). The Philippines cultivates approximately 78 % of
the worlds carrageenan producing seaweeds.

Unlike the situation in Tanzania, various methods are employed to cultivate

Eucheuma/Kappaphycus in the Philippines. While most of it is farmed with the off
bottom monoline method, net bags, longlines and rafts are also used (Rueben Barracca
pers. comm.).

3.2 Impacts of species introductions

Anthropogenic introduction of species, whether by accident or design, is having a
homogenising effect on the world’s biota (Lodge 1993; Walker and Kendrick 1998),
and marine algal species are no exception. Over 150 species of marine algae have been
introduced or transferred throughout the world (Eldredge 1994). While many of these
were transported by ships, nearly half have been transplanted with aquaculture
experiments, some have been carried along with other introduced aquaculture species
(e.g. oysters), and some transferred through canals or by un-known mechanisms
(Russell 1987).

Many cultured seaweed species have been introduced around the globe in the hopes of

37
creating more farming sites. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any studies were
undertaken prior to introduction. There is also little literature on the effects these
introductions have had after the fact, on either community structure or function.

3.2.1 Accidental introductions of seaweeds

It may be difficult or impossible to predict the impact of a given species introduction,
but sometimes aspects of a species biology which enable it to spread widely and
(sometimes) adversely effect new habitat can be identified. While there have been few
studies on the impact of algal species introduced for the purposes of aquaculture, these
are numerous examples of the adverse effects of accidental introductions of seaweeds.
This section 1) outlines the accidental introductions of Sargassum muticum, Caulerpa
taxifolia and Undaria pinnitifida; 2) discusses the effects of these introductions, and 3)
suggests some of the possible reasons underlying their success in spreading and
colonising new locations.

3.2.1.1 Sargassum muticum

Originally just a minor component of the Japanese marine flora, Sargassum muticum is
now a well established member of the marine community on the Atlantic coast of north
America and the south-western coast of Europe.

Introduced to British Columbia with Crassostrea gigas (oysters) in the early 1940’s, it
subsequently spread along the Pacific coast of North America. By 1971 it was as far
south as Baja California. Critchely et al. (1983) give a chronology of the spread of S.
muticum to European waters. While it was first recorded in 1973 at Bembridge, Isle of
Wight on the south coast of England, the site of infestation was most likely the French
oyster beds at Normandy. Populations around the Isle of Wight continued to grow
despite an attempted clearance program (Critchley et al. 1983). By 1981 it had spread
north along both coasts of the English Channel, to Belgium and the Netherlands, and
had established a population on the Mediterranean coast of France. By 1989 S.
muticum had spread as far north as Sweden, Denmark and Norway (Rueness 1989),
and south to the Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal (Critchley et al. 1990).

Andrew and Viejo (1998) found that invasion of S. muticum in northern Spain was
inhibited by the density of local species, observing the greatest recruitment in cleared
patches. They concluded that lack of free space and differences in wave exposure
played important roles in limiting the invasion of S. muticum. While this is a hopeful
sign, there is evidence that once S. muticum does gain a foothold, it can effect
recruitment of local species. This was the case in southern California, where, following
a natural disappearance of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera populations, S. muticum

38
was found to inhibit the recruitment of M. pyrifera such that this species did not
reinvade disturbed locations (Ambrose and Nelson 1982). The means of inhibition was
most likely shading. There is intense competition between S. muticum and M. pyrifera,
as they utilise the same resource and both form canopies. As kelp forests are regularly
exposed to both natural and human-made disturbances (North and Pearse 1970; North
1971; Rosenthal et al. 1974), S. muticum may continue to have an impact on the
distribution of M. pyrifera (Ambrose and Nelson 1982), and possibly on populations of
other kelp species.

There are many features of S. muticum biology which make it an effective “weed”
(Paula and Eston 1987, Andrew and Viejo 1998).

• It is monoecious
• It is highly fecund (produces massive numbers of gametes)
• It has a perennial holdfast which may regenerate shoots
• The fronds detach from the holdfast towards the end of its growth cycle and can
float for long distances (unlike most seaweeds which would sink) due to air filled
vesicles on the fronds. This floating material can not reattach but is fertile, so can
inoculate new areas
• It has rapid growth - up to 4 cm/day (Nicholson et al. 1981)
• It is tolerant of a wide range of temperatures and salinities.

These features, with the added ability to quickly infect disturbed areas, make S.
muticum an ideal weed and has ensured the spread of this species.

3.2.1.2 Caulerpa taxifolia

Caulerpa taxifolia, a species native to the Pacific (Garrigue 1995) was first found in
1984 in Mediterranean waters on the shore at Monaco, outside the Oceanographic
Museum where it had been on display (Meinesz et al. 1993). Once established, it
spread very rapidly, with an estimated cover of 30 ha in 1991, 430 ha in 1992 and
1300 ha by late 1993 (de Villele and Verlaque 1995). Since its introduction in Monaco
it has spread along the Mediterranean coasts of Italy, France and Spain (Ferrer et al.
1997).

39
C. taxifolia represents a biological pollution which threatens the biodiversity of the
marine ecosystem as it is altering the appearance of benthic communities in the
western Mediterranean sea. Much research had been carried out on the adverse effects
of C. taxifolia upon local species. It has been shown to have an apoptotic effect in the
marine sponge Geodia cydonium (Schroeder et al. 1998), and cause regression in the
seagrasses Cystoseira barbata (Ferrer et al. 1997), Posidonia oceanica (de Villele and
Verlaque 1995) and Cymodocea nodosa (Ceccherelli and Cinelli 1998). It lowers
productivity in the macroalgae Gracilaria bursa-pastoris (Ferrer et al.1997) and it has
been shown to inhibit or delay the proliferation of several phytoplankton strains
(Lemee et al. 1997). In addition, when compared to native conditions, there are lower
fish densities on stands of C. taxifolia (Relini et al. 1998).

There are several biological factors which may be contributing to C. taxifolia’s

successful invasion of the Mediterranean.

• It grows much larger and is more tolerant to changes in temperature and turbidity
than in its native tropical seas (de Villele and Verlaque 1995)
• It is able to invade all kinds of substrata including mud, sand and rock (Ceccherelli
and Cinelli 1998)
• Once established it persists throughout the year (Hill et al. 1998)
• It possesses a high capacity for vegetative spreading (de Villele and Verlaque
1995),
• There is weak pressure from grazers which is at least partially attributed to the
presence of repulsive secondary metabolites (Lemee et al. 1997)
• Like other Caulerpales it is possibly able to uptake nutrients directly from the
sediment through its rhizomes (Williams 1984)
• It is favored by high nutrient loads in the water (Ceccherelli and Cinelli 1997),
assisting its grow in eutrophic waters.

3.2.1.3 Undaria pinnatifida

Native to Japan and Korea Undaria pinnatifida is farmed extensively in these countries
and northern China. Found in the subtidal zone from 2-12 m in depth, U. pinnatifida is
an annual seaweed with maximum growth in spring and early summer. In late summer
the sporophylls, located on the stipe of the sporophyte, release spores and the
sporophyte dies back. Between 100,000 and 1,000,000 spores are produced per gram
of sporophyll per day (Sanderson and Barret 1989). The microscopic gameteophytes
develop from the spores and lay dormant over winter. In spring, sexual reproduction
takes place between gametes produced by the gametophyte, and the macroscopic stage
begins again.

40
In 1971 U. pinnatifida was accidentally introduced to the Mediterranean coast of
France (Perez et al. 1981), probably with imported oyster spat. In 1983 the French
Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER) transplanted U. pinnatifida
to the Atlantic coast of France at Brittany. It has since spread to Spain and Italy (Floc’h
et al.1996) and the south coast of England (Fletcher and Manfredi 1995). U.
pinnatifida has also been introduced to New Zealand (Hay and Luckens 1987),
Tasmania (Sanderson 1990), mainland Australia (Campbell and Burridge 1998) and
Argentina (Casa and Piriz 1996).

In Europe, New Zealand and Argentina U. pinnatifida mainly occurs on artificial

structures and Castric-Fey et al. (1993) claim that this alga is typified by its non-
aggressive behaviour against other flora. This is borne out by the interaction of U.
pinnatifida with the native Saccorhiza polyschides, another opportunistic kelp and U.
pinnatifida’s main competition in Brittany. Floc’h et al. (1996) found that U.
pinnatifida preferred to settle on artificial structures and that S. polyschides was
dominant at the sites experimentally denuded.

Hay (1990) identified three features of U. pinnatifida that make it an effective weed.

• As with S. muticum, it quickly colonises disturbed substrates, or new substrates

such as wharf piles and retaining walls
• There are U. pinnatifida propagules in the water column for most of the year
(March to December in NZ) and in some locations (unlike in its native habitat) it
may have two generations per year
• It has a propensity for colonising artificial structures, a trait selected for by Asian
aquaculturists. In fact U. pinnatifida is readily spread from one harbour to another
on the hulls of ships. In New Zealand sporophytes were shown to survive a four
week oceanic voyage in this manner.

3.2.2 Species introduced for culture in the tropics

3.2.2.1 Kappaphycus alvarezii

There have been many cases where seaweed has been introduced to new locations for
the purpose of farming and none more extensively than Kappaphycus and Eucheuma.
Table 3 lists introductions made in the tropics and shows that algae of the genera
Kappaphycus were introduced to 19 tropical countries versus Eucheuma to at least 13
tropical countries. Despite the rapid and widespread introduction of these algae there
have only been a few studies that have investigated the effects of these introductions.
The introductions to Hawaii have been the most studied and a number of adverse
effects have been reported.

41
The results of these studies are far from conclusive. Lodge’s (1993) conclusion that
different locations will react differently to the same invader appears to be true. To date
five studies have been carried out on the impacts of Kappaphycus introductions: Three
in Hawaii, one in Fiji and one in Venezuela.

Russell (1983) investigated the ecology of K. striatum (previously Eucheuma striatum)

two years after it was introduced to Coconut Is. (Moko o Loe Is.), Kanehoe Bay,
Oahu, Hawaii in 1974. Russell found that from the reef flat (where it was first
introduced) the algae drifted across to the reef edge where it established a small, non-
self sustaining population that was maintained by the influx of more seaweed
fragments. He concluded that the reef edge was merely acting as a sieve before the
alga would move into deeper water where it could not survive. K. striatum in Hawaii
does not produce spores, therefore reproduction was purely by fragmentation. Small
fragments were capable of disseminating short distances and regenerating into full
sized plants but Russell found that fragments did not cross deep channels. He found
large numbers of fish (mostly juvenile scarids and acanthurids) grazing on the algae,
and an increased invertebrate diversity (the section of the reef with algae had a higher
index of diversity than the control site).He concluded that K. striatum did not
compete with native algae, as it inhabited barren sand-covered grooves on the reef
edge not inhabited by native algae. He did find one negative effect; when the algae was
allowed to drift onto the reef edge, it covered a few small Porites compresa coral
heads. After 74 days the corals were dead, which Russell attributed to shading. This
was an isolated incident and Russell found it more common to find damaged algae
than coral when the two came into contact.

While Russell found that the K. striatum had not spread to neighboring reefs in two
years, after 22 years it was a different story. Rodgers and Cox (1999) determined that
it had spread 5.7 km (throughout Kanehoe Bay) from 1974 to 1996. Abundances of
this species were highest at sites with shallow depth and moderate water motion. They
predicted that Kappaphycus will continue to expand its range at 260 m/yr. While
Russell (1983) had predicted that physical barriers would stop the effective spread of
Kappaphycus, Rodgers and Cox (1999) found that this has not been the case; in fact
they suggest that this introduced alga has the ability to spread throughout Hawaii.

Woo (1999) further investigated the spread of K. striatum in Kanehoe Bay, examining
the effects of herbivory upon its spread, seasonal patterns of growth, the effects upon
local coral, and the minimum fragment size which could regenerate whole plants. She
found that the ability of K. striatum to spread was enhanced by its capability to
regenerate whole plants from fragments weighing as little as 0.05 g, and its ability to
alter morphologically in response to environmental conditions, such as high wave

42
energy and grazing pressure. While Russell (1983) only found one case of K. striatum
overgrowing and killing coral, Woo (1999) found this to be a common ocurrence. Woo
also found that grazing plays an important role in determining its distribution and
limiting its spread. This last point is significant as a) Hawaii does not have rabbitfish
(siganids), which have been cited as one of the main problem herbivores on
Kappaphycus farms elsewhere, and b) there are few herbiovrous urchins in Kanehoe
Bay (David Gulko pers. comm.). So over a 25 year period Kappaphycus has spread
throughout Kanehoe Bay, and there may be nothing stopping it from spreading further
in the Hawaiian islands, where it may slowy but steadily overgrow and kill live coral.

In Zanzibar there is anecdotal evidence that fragments of both Kappaphycus alvarezii

and Eucheuma denticulatum are washed from farms to neighboring reefs, where free
living populations seem to subsequently flourish. While there has been no attempt to
assess the extent or impacts of these populations, locals assert that they are kept in
check by fishermen who collect the seaweed to sell (Haruna Juma pers. comm.).

Two other studies have examined the spread of K. alvarezii from farms sites. Ask et al.
(in press) monitored the movement of K. alvarezii for one year from test-farm sites in
Ono-I-Lau Island, Fiji. In Venezuela Rincones (in press) monitored the movement of
K. alvarezii from farms sites over 3 years. In Fiji no independent populations of K.
alvarezii were found outside the farms while in Venezuela small populations were
found but Rincones concluded that these could only be maintained by the influx of
thallus fragments from the farms. Russell (1983) came to a similar conclusion two
years after the introduction of K. alvarezii to Kanehoe Bay, Hawaii, but the later,
longer term studies identified adverse effects and determined that independant
populations did eventuate, so Russell’s conclusion is questionable.

It seems that, given enough time Kappaphycus used in commercial cultivation has the
ability to spread from farm sites and establish independent populations. Both the extent
of this spread and the effects upon local species may differ between locations, but
following introduction, these effects should be determined before large scale farming
is undertaken.

3.2.2.2 Quarantine procedures

As was evidenced by the accidental introduction of Sargassum muticum to the Pacific
north west with oyster spat, one of the byproducts of species introductions can be the
accidental introduction of non-target species; an introduced alga may have spores of
other species attached to its thallus. This highlights the importance of using adequate
quarantine procedures when introducing a new species.

43
Ask et al. (in press) report that of all the introductions of Eucheuma/Kappaphycus
seaweed throughout the tropics, in only two cases were quarantine procedures
undertaken. To combat this problem, Ask et al. (in press) outline quarantine procedures
for the introduction of K. alvarezii. These procedures were created by taking into
consideration the guidelines proposed by the FAO-Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries (1995) and the FAO-Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (1996).

The quarantine facility should:

• Be isolated from other aquaculture facilities
• Include structures that stop the entrance of other aquatic organisms
• Have an independant supply of good quality water
• Have a discharge system that allows for the treatment of the discharged water, not
allowing organisms to escape

Plants should be maintained in this facility for at least two weeks. During that time the
plants should be visually examined several times each week to check for the growth of
microalgae or animals on the thalli. The water should be changed twice per week and
the changed water treated or poured on the ground at least 500 m from the coastline to
ensure that no aquatic organisms escape into the local waterways. There should also be
a program in place to monitor the area after introduction.

44
Table 3 Introduction of algal species for the purposes of aquaculture.
Country Location Species Date of Source Commercial Reference
introduction farming

Antigua Eucheuma isiforme 1997 Belize Just beginning Allan Smith pers
comm.
Barbados E. isiforme 1997 Belize Just beginning Allan Smith pers
comm.
Brazil Kappaphycus alvarezii 1995 Philippines No De Paula et al.
1998
Cook Islands Aitutaki K. alvarezii late 1980s Fiji No Eldredge 1994
Cuba K. striatum 1991 Philippines Unknown Smith 1998
K. alvarezii
Djibouti Eucheuma denticulatum 1973 Singapore No Braud and Perez
1978
Fiji Suva and Mana Island K. striatum 1976 Philippines No Eldredge 1994
Telau Island, Bau, east of Suva K. striatum 1976 Hawaii No Eldredge 1994
four sites north of Rakiraki K. alvarezii 1984 Tonga No Eldredge 1994
Hawaii Honolulu Harbor, Kaneohe Bay, etc. E. denticulatum 1970 - 1976 Philippines No Eldredge 1994
Kaneohe Bay Gracilaria eucheumoides rnid-1970s Philippines No Eldredge 1994
Kaneohe Bay and Kahuku G. tikvahiae rnid-1970s Florida No Eldredge 1994
Honolulu Harbor, Kaneohe Bay, etc K. striatum 1970 – 1976 Pohnpei and No Eldredge 1994
Philippines
Waikiki and Kaneohe Bay Gracilaria epihippisora 1971 and 1978 Hilo, Hawaii No Eldredge 1994
G. salicornia
Honolulu Harbor Gracilaria sp. 1971 Philippines No Eldredge 1994
Makapuu and Keahole Point Macrocystis pyrifera 1972 and California No Eldredge 1994
1980s
Kaneohe Bay Hypnea musciformis 1974 Florida No Eldredge 1994
Oahu Porphyra sp ??? Japan No Eldredge 1994
India Saurashtra region (west coast) K. alvarezii 1989 Japan No Mairh et al. 1995
Indonesia E. denticulatum 1984 Philppines Yes Adnan and Porse
K. cottonii 1987
Jamaica E. isiforme 1997 Belize Just beginning Allan Smith pers
comm.

45
Table 3 Cont..
Country Location Species Date of Source Commercial Reference
introduction farming

Kenya K. alvarezii 1996 No Ask et al.in press

Kiribati Fanning Island K. alvarezii 1977 Hawaii Yes Eldredge 1994

E. denticulatum
Christmas Island (Kiritimati) K. cottonii 1977 Philippines Yes Eldredge 1994
E. denticulatum
Madagascar K. alvarezii 1998 Tanzania Just beginning Ask et al.in press
Malaysia K. alvarezii 1978 Philippines Yes Doty 1980
Maldives Kappaphycus alvarezii 1986 Philippines No de Reviers 1989
Marshall Is. Majuro lagoon E. denticulatum 1990 Pohnpei No Eldredge 1994
Mili and Lildep K. alvarezii 1990 Majuro No Eldredge 1994
Micronesia Pohnpei Kosrae E. denticulatum Hawaii No Eldredge 1994
K. alvarezii
Solomon Vonavona, Munda, Gizo, and Ontong K. alvarezii 1987 Fiji No Eldredge 1994
Islands Java
St. Lucia E. isiforme 1997 Belize Yes Allan Smith pers
comm.
Tanzania E. denticulatum 1989 Philippines Yes Mshigeni 1998
K. alvarezii
Tonga Vava'u K. alvarezii 1982 Tarawa No Eldredge 1994
Vava'u (reintroduced) 1989
Tuvalu K. alvarezii 1977 Kiribati No Eldredge 1994
Venezuela K. alvarezii 1996 Philippines Yes Rincones and
E. denticulatum Rubio 1999
Vietnam K. alvarezii 1993 Philippines No Ohno et al.1996
Western Samoa Upolo K. alvarezii 1975 No Eldredge 1994
E. denticulatum

46
3.3 Impacts of farming activities

3.3.1 Location choice

The site chosen for seaweed farming can effect the environmental impact of the farm.
Generally farmers have been encouraged to place farms over sandy areas with little or
no underlying coral and/or seagrasses. For the off bottom farming technique this
advice is usually followed as farmers are unlikely to undertake clearance of a site if a
location which needs a minimum of clearance is available. In addition, herbivorous
fishes are found around coral reefs more than on sandy reef flats and as they can
virtually destroy seaweed farms, it makes good sense to farm away from these agents
of farm destruction. However, when long lines or rafts of monolines are employed,
the farmers have greater freedom in choosing farm sites as they are not limited by the
substrate. In these cases the anchoring lines may be tied to live coral resulting in
damage or death of the coral (Rueben Barraca pers. comm.) and the seaweed could be
located directly above live coral. Shading has been found to have adverse effects on
corals (Stimson 1985), but the extent to which shading from farmed seaweed effects
underlying corals has not been investigated.

3.3.2 Site clearance

Compared with other forms of marine agronomy such as shrimp farming, seaweed
farming requires very little in the way of habitat modification. However, in various
guidelines to prospective farmers it has been suggested that other organisms
(seaweeds, seagrasses, urchins) be removed from the area before laying out the farm.
While this information has been modified over the years and now suggests cutting
long seagrasses rather than removing them, there is no doubt that this sort of activity
has had an effect on the environment. Hindley (1999) reports that only 8 out of 22
farmers interviewed from various villages in Bohol, Philippines admitted to either
cutting or completely removing seagrasses from their farms.

The removal of seagrasses could have adverse effects on the local environment. The
importance of seagrasses as sites of nitrogen fixation and as nurseries for juvenile
invertebrates has been well established in the literature (Johnson and Johnson 1995)
and the effect of removing seagrasses prior to farming upon the productivity of the
farmed seaweed has also been examined (Mtolera in press, see section 3.3.4.4 for
further discussion).

As well as clearance of urchins and starfish prior to farming there is also ongoing
clearance of these organisms after farming has begun. Hindley (1999) reports that out

47
of 29 farmers interviewed from the Bohol region in the Philippines 80% admitted to
removing urchins and starfish while tending their farms. They reportedly throw these
organisms back into the water outside their farms, but whether the organisms are alive
or dead when put back into the water was not investigated.

Gomez et al. (1983) found that the urchins Diadema setosum and Tripneustes gratilla
were the most common herbivores on farms in the Philippines. They experimented
with the application of a pesticide in farms and found that quicklime (CaO) applied at
slack tide at 0.25 kg/m2 resulted in death of all urchins in the immediate area. The
collateral damage upon other invertebrates was not investigated.

3.3.3 Increases in habitat area and food supply

In the tropics most native seaweeds tend to be more widely dispersed and form stands
that are less dense that those in temperate waters (Dawes 1987). Dawes suggests that
this dispersal may be as a result of, or and adaptation to, grazing pressure. He also
suggests that the abundance of epiphytic life in the tropics indicates substrate
limitation. The creation of seaweed farms can thus provide a three dimensional habitat
for epiphytic organisms, as well as fishes and invertebrates. In fact, epiphytism is one
of the main problems of seaweed farming, and lines and seaweed must be cleared of
epiphytes on a regular basis to ensure good growth of the farmed species (Ask 1999;
Barracca 1999).

A number of other organisms use seaweed farms either as substrate or shelter. In

Kanehoe Bay, Hawaii Russell (1983) recorded a higher biodiversity index on K.
alvarezii stands than those from surrounding areas. In Coche Island, Venezuela K.
alvarezii was found to shelter 22 species of (juvenile) fishes and 35 invertebrate
species, including larval stages of crustacean, mollusks, solitary and colonial
ascidians, sponges, sea urchins and holothurians (Rincones in press). In St. Lucia
there are studies underway to investigate the numbers of lobster larvae (generally
Panularus argus) which have been observed settling onto seaweed in quite high
numbers. These larvae measure 2-3 cm by the time the seaweed is harvested at which
time the farmers pick them off and release them (Allan Smith pers. comm.). From
these examples it is clear that K. alvarezii is providing habitat for marine organisms.
What is missing from these studies is what happens to these organisms once the
seaweed is harvested. While there may be an increase in invertebrate diversity on the
farms, if all of these invertebrates are then harvested along with the seaweed, the
increase to the local community at large may not eventuate.

48
In addition to an increase in habitat, it has been suggested that seaweed farms may
increase fish stocks, either directly by increasing food supply for herbivorous fishes,
or indirectly by adding increased herbivore biomass to the food web. In tropical
environments, an increase in algal cover can increase herbivorous fishes numbers
(Carpenter 1990b; Robertson 1991). This was clearly demonstrated in the Caribbean
when a massive increase in algal cover followed the mass mortalities of the sea urchin
Diadema (Lessios 1988; Carpenter 1990; Hughes et al. 1987). While it may be
assumed that a similar increase in herbivorous fish numbers would result from an
increase in algal cover due to farms, no research has yet been carried out to confirm
this.

If seaweed farms do increase fish stocks there may be downstream effects upon other
species. Many herbivorous fishes have omnivorous juvenile stages, so increased
numbers of these species may place increased feeding pressure on invertebrates (see
section 3.3.4.2 below). In addition, higher numbers of adult herbivorous fishes could
increase bioerosion of coral reefs (Sammarco et al. 1986). However, any negative
effects of increased herbivorous fishes are likely to be mitigated by the intense fishing
pressure from villagers in the areas where seaweed is farmed.

3.3.4 Benthic environment

3.3.4.1 Sedimentation
Farmed seaweeds in Chile have been shown to alter the bottom composition by acting
as sediment traps (Buschman et al. 1996). In Zanzibar it has been noticed that the
beach structure in some of the villages where farming takes place has changed since
the inception of farming; there has been an increase in the width of intertidal flats as a
result of increased sand accretion (Mtolera pers. comm.). Unfortunately, in the
absence of empirical research, it is not possible to assign a cause to this change. It
could have been caused by the seaweed farms, but could also be either a natural
change or caused by factors other than the seaweed farms.

Impact studies on Zanzibar are made difficult by the inability to find appropriate
controls. As noted previously, the farms generally form a contiguous strip (100 – 300
m wide) at a particular level along the beach, so reference sites for impact studies
must either be at different beaches, or at the same beach but at a different height from
the farm site. Msuya et al. (1997) found differences in the sediment composition
between farm and reference sites by visually inspecting the substrate and “feeling the
substrate between fingers”. They found more sand under farms and more mud in
reference sites. However, it is not clear from that study whether this was a result of
farming or due to conditions influencing the selection of farming sites. Olafsson et al.

49
(1995) found a significant difference in medium grain size between “away” reference
sites (50 m from farm) and farm sites. There was also a tendency for the samples from
the “close” sites (5 m from farm) to exhibit a higher percentage of smaller particles (<
63 µm) than the farm sites. This was not statistically significant but the authors
suggest this was due to averaging the samples and a low number of replicates. While
it is possible that the difference in medium grain size simply reflects a location effect,
it does seem that there was a trend away from fine sediments under the farms.

3.3.4.2 Meiofauna
Meiofauna has been found to serve as a better indicator of environmental perturbation
than larger macrofauna (Hicks 1991). Olafsson et al. (1995) examined the variation in
population density of the major meiofaunal taxa and community composition of free
living nematodes in both farm and reference sites. They found that the benthos under
Eucheuma denticulatum farms in Zanzibar exhibited altered meiofaunal assemblage
structures and lower density of meiofauna, but no difference in overall diversity. The
authors experimentally ruled out toxic substances from the algae as a causal factor
and suggest that the differences could be due to a) increased predation due to juvenile
fish sheltering under farms, b) mechanical alteration of the sediment from seaweeds
brushing against the substratum, or c) the difference in abundance of two species of
nematode (found to be most abundant in the farms sites) could be due to an affinity to
the algae.

3.3.4.3 Macro benthic organisms

Msuya et al. (1997) found that farms had a negative effect on several organisms
examined examined (seagrasses, urchins, ophiroides, gastropods and bivalves), except
for non-farmed seaweeds and tubeworms. Hindely (1999) compared farm and
reference sites and found fewer starfish, sea cucumbers and sea urchins in farmed
sites, but observed no effect on the height or density of the seagrasses Thalassia
hemprichii, Cymodacea rotundata, Enhalus acoroides or Halophila ovalis. As
mentioned above, there is evidence that farmers remove urchins from their farms.
Certainly the removal of these herbivores and the consequent lack of feeding pressure
on seaweeds could account for the increase in un-farmed seaweeds within the farm
sites. The lower volume of seagrasses in farmed sites found by Msuya et al. (1997)
could be a result of: trampling, active removal by farmers, or shading by the farmed
seaweeds. Alternatively, there may have been a lack of seagrasses in the first place,
influencing farmers to select these sites for seaweed farming.

50
3.3.4.4 Microbial processes and productivity
Johnstone and Olafsson (1995) found that Eucheuma denticulatum farms have a
significant effect with lower total nitrogen and bacterial production and higher benthic
ammonium fluxes in farm site sediments than in reference site sediments. The authors
suggest that these differences could be due to the seaweed brushing the surface of the
substrate and thus preventing formation of micro-algal assemblages, which are
widespread in sediments outside of farms.
The productivity of the microalgae that live on and in the upper 5 cm of the sediment
is substantial (Hatcher 1988). The sediments in sandy reef flat areas could contribute
significantly to reef biogeochemistry as carbon sinks, because they are sites of organic
matter storage and bacterial activity (Boucher et al. 1998). Therefore disturbances to
the sediment and the associated microalgae reduction could have downstream effects
on the reef community, and may be at least partially responsible for the observed
difference in meiofaunal assemblages as microalgae are a source of food for many
meiofaunal taxa (Hatcher 1988).
In addition to seaweed farms possibly lowering primary productivity by inhibiting the
growth of microalgal mats, the productivity of the seaweed in farms is removed
through harvesting and not cycled through the reef energy web. So while primary
productivity per m2 is probably increased as a result of farmed seaweed, this
productivity does not contribute to the reef energy web. Of course there are losses to
the seaweed grown on the farms, through both breakage and herbivory. Ruben
Barracca (pers. comm.) estimates that between 30-50% of the farmed seaweed is lost
before harvest, either by drifting away after breakage, or to herbivores. Any of this
“lost” seaweed could be decomposed or digested and add to the nutrient pool of the
local environment and so these losses would contribute to the carbon budget of the
reef. In this way the decrease in benthic microalgal primary production could be offset
by the losses of seaweed from the farms. Unfortunately there is no empirical evidence
one way or another.

While it has been suggested that a positive benefit of seaweed farms is as a nutrient
sink, this may actually have negative effects in some reef environments. In eutrophic
waters this nitrogen removal would have positive repercussions, but coral reef
systems, as with most marine environments, are generally nitrogen limited (Carpenter
and Capone 1983). Consequently the nitrogen being removed from the area by the
seaweed is not available to other organisms on the reef. The effects of this have not
been investigated, but it is possible that some species are adversely effected by this
nitrogen removal. As noted above, not all of the seaweed is harvested and so some of
the nitrogen would make it back into the food web of the reef through losses of
seaweed from the farms.

51
There is anecdotal evidence that seaweed farms deplete nutrients from the
surrounding environment. Farmers in various parts of the Philippines have noticed
that areas become non productive after being farmed for a period of 4-5 years
(Monette Flores pers. comm.). If the area is left in “fallow” for a year or two, it again
becomes productive. This is particularly noticable in Tawi Tawi, where farmers were
encouraged to remove all seagrasses from sites before commencing farming
operations (Monette Flores pers. comm.). As seagrasses fix nitrogen, it is possible that
the removal of these plants decreases the available nitrogen of a given area, which
could lead to nitrogen depletion following intensive seaweed farming. No research
has been conducted to investigate this phenomenon, so the impacts, if any, on other
organisms in the “non-productive” area is not known.

The effects of seagrass removal on seaweed productivity have been investigated in

Zanzibar (Mtolera in press). It was found that while seaweed productivity increased
immediately following seagrass removal, over a 4 year period seaweed productivity
decreased. This evidence certainly seems to suggest that as nutrient sinks seaweed
farms may not be having as much of a positive effect as previously assumed. Given
that a lot of seaweed is farmed in areas of low population and low industrialisation,
there would be less nitrogenous waste in the seawater and consequently the seaweed
farm acting as a nutrient sink may have detrimental rather than positive effects on the
local environment.

Coral reefs communities have stocks of nutrients (such as nitrogen) which are kept in
pools of living biomass, detritus and sediments. As a consequence they do not
generally suffer from nutrient limitation, even when flushed with depleted,
oligotrophic (nutrient poor) oceanic waters (Sorokin 1993). However, nitrogen taken
up by seaweeds which are then removed is not available to “recharge” these pools.
Over long periods of time this nitrogen loss may cause negative downstream effects
on the reef community.

3.3.5 Refuse from farms

The main refuse resulting from seaweed farms in the tropics is the plastic “straws” or
“tie-ties” used to tie the seaweed to the monolines as well as styrofoam pieces and
plastic bottles used as floats. This refuse can be found strewn above the high water
mark in many of the seaweed farming villages in Zanzibar (pers. obs.). In the
Philippines the situation is worse, as some farmers have abandoned reusable
monolines in favor of the plastic “straw” material. The plastic straw is used as both
monoline and to tie the seaweed seedlings (Barraca pers. comm.). Using this

52
technique both the monoline and the ties are disposed of after each harvest, adding to
the tonnes of this material littering the shoreline and seafloor around seaweed farms.

In the Philippines, farming has also been introduced to areas where people were not
living. The farmers constructed buildings for farm operations, as well as drying
structures on the beach. In these areas, farmers produce both human and farming
waste.

3.3.6 Farming structures

In some areas of the Philippines there is a lack of space for structures on land, so the
community has built seaweed drying platforms on stilts out on the reef. This is
common in northern Bohol and southern Leyte (Monette Flores pers. comm.) and has
negative impacts as parts of the reef are destroyed or damaged in the process of
building the platforms.

In Zanzibar the seaweed farmers simply lay the harvested seaweed out on the ground
to dry (Figures 17 and 18). As this results in sand and other debris collecting in the
seaweed as it dries, the carrageenan production companies prefer that seaweed be
dried off the ground on specially built structures (Figure 19).

In the Philippines and elsewhere, mangrove stakes are prefered by farmers to stake
out the monolines, because they do not rot as quickly as other woods. This has caused
serious depletion of mangroves in some areas, and this practice is discouraged by all
agencies involved with seaweed farming. In Tanzania, serious fines have been
imposed for cutting mangroves. These regulations are actively enforced which has
largely stopped the cutting of mangroves for seaweed farming stakes (Haruna Juma
pers. comm.).

53
Figure 16. Ponds for farming Caulerpa lentillifera, Mactan Is., Philippines.

Figure 17. Laying out Eucheuma denticulatum on the ground to dry, Unguju Ukuu,
Zanzibar.

54
Figure 18. Laying out Eucheuma denticulatum on the ground to dry, Unguju Ukuu,
Zanzibar

Figure 19. Purpose built structure for drying seaweed, Paje, Zanzibar.

55
3.4 Impacts of associated activities – carrageenan extraction
The production of carrageenan from Eucheuma/ Kappaphycus is carried out in several
locations around the world. While the largest carrageenan manufacturers (FMC and
Copenhagen Pectin) have plants in the US and Europe respectively, there are also
several plants of various sizes in the Philippines and Indonesia (McHugh 1996).

The largest plant outside of the US or Europe is the Shemberg plant in Mandaue City,
Cebu, Philippines. This plant creates 2361 m3 waste water per day with a pH of 12-13
and a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load of 1539 kg. Given this high pH and
BOD, it is important that the effluent be properly treated before discharge into the
local marine environment. In the Philippines the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) is responsible for enforcing the legislation regarding
discharge of industrial effluent. Both the FMC and Shemberg plants were visited in
Cebu and both state that they have waste water treatment facilities but admit that they
are not operating at levels which ensure that the standards of effluent required by the
DENR are met. Other plants in the Philippines do nothing to treat their waste water
finding it cheaper to pay the fines imposed by DENR rather than pay for an expensive
water treatment plant.

3.5 Summary

Effects of introducted species

Introducing seaweed to a new location can have adverse effects on the local flora and
fauna. Many seaweed species have been introduced in the tropics but none more so
than Kappaphycus, the genus that underpins the world industry for kappa
carrageenan. So far the only location to report adverse effects resulting from the
introduction of this genera is Hawaii. However, it is significant that Hawaii is the
location where the most research on the impacts of introducing Kappaphycus has been
carried out. It is also significant that it has taken some 25 years for adverse effects to
be reported.

In the literature on alien introductions, the species receiving the most attention are the
ones that invade and cause problems very quickly. Following introduction, Sargassum
muticum, Caulerpa taxifolia and Undaria pinnitifida all invade new areas quickly and
as a consequence there has been much research carried out on the effects of these
invasions. Slow spreading seaweeds such as Kappaphycus do not seem to receive the
same amount of research attention as do faster spreading species. There is a danger in
this as there is no a priori reason to assume that just because a species is slow

56
spreading, it will have no adverse effects on local organisms. Kappaphycus is a case
in point; although it has taken 22 years, the species has spread over 5.7 kms of
Hawaii and has been shown to have killed an endemic coral.

Some suggest that this introduced seaweed in Hawaii is only a problem because
unlike in other countries, individual plants are not rapidly collected and sold the way
they would be in seaweed farming countries and areas. However, in Tanzania
seaweed escapes from farms and sets up independent populations even where it is
harvested. Perhaps no adverse effects have been reported as a result of these
populations in Zanzibar simply because nobody has looked yet.

Impact studies are generally carried out over a relatively short period of time
(generally just a few years). This means that species introductions that take decades or
longer to pose a threat to local species may go unnoticed.

Other Effects of farming activities

The environmental impacts of seaweed farming in the tropics can be placed into three
categories.

1) Impacts proven by empirical research (in some but not all areas)
• lower numbers of macro benthic organisms (urchins, starfish, sea cucumbers)
under farms
• higher density of non-farmed seaweeds and tubeworms
• changes in the meiofanual assemblages and microbial processes in the benthic
sediments under farms
• a higher biodiversity index on farmed seaweed compared to surrounding areas

2) Impacts with no empirical support, but that are self evident

• plastic refuse from farms littering the environment both in and out of the water
• tying anchoring lines for longlines or rafts to coral heads damaging or killing coral

3) Impacts that can be (or have been) assumed, but have no research with which to
support or reject them.
• shading
• drying structures
• waste water disposal
• changes in primary production of whole reef area – not likely to be positive
• changes in nitrogen regime
• sedimentation

57
• increase in fish numbers
• destructive activities replaced by farming
• farmers gaining sense of “stewardship” over the coastal area

Refuse from farms, anchor lines tied to coral, shading of corals, drying structures built
on the reefs and improper waste water disposal are all negative impacts. Increases in
fish stocks, destructive activities being replaced by farming and farmers gaining a
sense of stewardship in coastal areas would all constitute positive impacts. However,
for some of the impacts it is not so clear.

The first category of impacts, those shown by research, indicate that seaweed farming
changes the environment in and around farms. It seems that there are three main
causes of this alteration: 1) The farmers remove the macro benthic organisms and cut
or remove seagrasses; this alters the community structure, the lower number of
herbivores allows more non farmed seaweeds to grow and the lower density of
seagrasses seems to encourage tubeworms. 2) The seaweed abrades the surface of the
substrate, altering the sediment structure and eliminating the microalgal mats that are
prevalent coral reef lagoons; this effects the community structure of the mieobenthic
organisms under the farms. 3) The farm provides an increase in habitat for
invertebrates and juvenile fishes. The increase in fishes also contribute to the change
in community structure of the mieobenthic organisms under the farms. It is not clear
whether this change in community structure as a result of farms can be categorised as
either positive or negative as some organisms increase in abundance while others
decrease.

The other impacts which could have either positive or negative effects are changes in
primary production caused by farms and the farms acting as nitrogen sinks. Whether
these are positive or negative would depend on a) the normal primary production from
the area covered by the farm and how much of the seaweed was lost to herbivores
and/or breakage and b) whether the water was characterised by pollution or nitrogen
limitation.

3.6 Recommendations
If Conservation International is to support or initiate seaweed farming projects in the
tropics, there three main areas where they can act to minmise the threats to coral reef
biodiversity.

58
3.6.1 Education of farmers
Criteria for project entry and participation should include target beneficiaries’
involvement in sound coastal management activities. CI should make a commitment
to educating prospective seaweed farmers about the possible environmental impacts
of farming activities. Specifically, farmers should be encouraged to take into account
the following guidelines to mitigate the impact of farming activities.

• Farms should be located over sandy area and not over live coral
• Anchor lines should not be tied to live coral
• Seagrasses should not be removed from the area to be farmed as they will actually
provide nutrients to the farms
• If herbivores are to be removed, they should not be killed, but simply shifted
outside the farm boundaries
• Plastic waste from the farms should be disposed of in an appropriate manner

3.6.2 Quarantine measures

As the longterm impacts of Kappaphycus introductions are largely unstudied, CI
discourage introduction of this seaweed to new locations. If introduction is going to
take place anyway, CI should ensure that the appropriate quarantine measures are
undertaken and should ensure that funding is available for rigorous ongoing
monitoring of the immediate environment to look for independent populations of the
seaweed and the effects that these populations might have on local flora and/or fauna.
In addition, contingency plans (and funds) should be put into place to deal with
problems if they arise as a result of the introductions.

3.6.3 Need for comprehensive impact study

Finally, if CI is to promote seaweed farming it should also make a commitment to
initiating and/or supporting comprehensive, ongoing research into the environmental
impacts of seaweed farming.

In sharp contrast to the uncertainty regarding the environmental impact of seaweed

farming is the certainty that seaweed farming will increase in the tropics, not only
within current locations but also to new areas and countries. There is enough evidence
of negative environmental impacts, as well as the tenets of the Precautionary
Principle, to argue strongly for undertaking a comprehensive impact study of the
farming of Eucheuma and Kappaphycus. These two species are farmed in the tropics
where highly biodiverse and threatened coastal marine ecosystems - such as coral
reefs - occur. As shown above, the impact of farming operations can be direct or

59
indirect, and needs to be studied to ensure an environmental catastrophe such as the
invasion of the Mediterranean by Caulerpa taxifolia, is avoided.

This study should be undertaken in more than one location in the tropics to enable
generalisation of the results. It should include an ongoing monitoring program of the
local flora and fauna associated with farming areas. Historically there have been many
international and national agencies that have funded the development of seaweed
farming in the tropics. Many of these agencies have a commitment to funding
environmentally sustainable activities, and yet there has as yet been no commitment
to funding research on the impacts of the seaweed farming that they have helped to
develop. While seaweed farming has always been thought of as a fairly benign form
of agronomy, the long time taken for adverse effects of Kappaphycus introduction
into Hawaii and the apparent nutrient depletion in heavily farmed areas may indicate
that this is not the case and that monitoring the long term impacts of seaweed farming
would be prudent.

3.7 Conclusion
The cultivation of seaweed worldwide is a growing industry. In the tropics the vast
majority of farmed seaweeds are either Eucheuma and Kappaphycus which are both
used in the production of carrageenan. The current supply of this carrageenan is not
enough to meet the growing demand and so the farming of these genera, in particular
Kappaphycus, is likely to undergo extensive expansion both within countries where it
is currently farmed, as well as into new locations.

Given the extensive scope of existing farming operations, surprising little is known
about the impacts of tropical seaweed farming on the environment. From published
studies it is clear that there are changes to the organismal community structure in and
under farmed sites, but the effects of these changes on the wider coral reef community
have not been investigated.

Impacts on biodiversity are ambiguous at best; the seaweed thallus within farms has a
higher diversity index when compared with surrounding areas, but many of these
organisms are likely to be harvested along with the seaweed, so the net effect of this
increased diversity is uncertain. Introduced seaweeds may have a negative impact on
biodiversity if they are able overgrow and kill organisms as is the case for some corals
in Hawaii.

There are also some assumed or possible effects of farms that are in need of empirical
examination (e.g. the effects of nitrogen uptake by farms, or farming replacing
destructive activities) before they can be proved as either positive or negative impacts.

60
It is unfortunate that a comprehensive, controlled study of the impacts of seaweed
farming has yet to be carried out and it is hoped that one of the outcomes of this report
is to generate interest in undertaking such a study.

4. Acknowledgements

I would like to give thanks for the input of countless experts from academia, the
seaweed industry, non-governmental organisations and government departments. THe
members of the ALGAE-L email list were especially helpful in providing both
literature citations and contacts. I would like to particularly thank Erick Ask from
FMC Corportaion for his frank discussion and support, Ravindra Kothari of the
Zanzibar Agro Seaweed Company, for allowing his staff to drive me all over Zanzibar
during my visit there, and Dr. Danny Largo, University of San Carlos, for looking
after me during my stay in Cebu, Philippines.

61
5. Literature cited

Acleto, C. O., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Peru. In: Seaweed Resources of the
World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation
Agency, Yokosuka: 343-346.

Adnan, H. and Porse, H., (1987). Culture of Eucheuma cottonii and Eucheuma
spinosum in Indonesia. Hydrobiologia, 151 (152) : 355-358.

Alveal, K., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Chile. In: Seaweed Resources of the
World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation
Agency, Yokosuka: 1-11.

Alveal, K., Romo, H., Werlinger, C. and Olivera, E. C., (1997). Mass cultivation of
the agar-producing alga Gracilaria chilensis (Rhodophyta) from spores.
Aquaculture, 148 : 77-83.

Ambrose, R. F. and Nelson, B. V., (1982). Inhibition of giant kelp recrutiment by an

introduced brown alga. Botanica Marina, 25 : 265-267.

Andrew, N. L. and Viejo, R. M., (1998). Ecological limits to the invasion of

Sargassum muticum in northern Spain. Aquatic Botany, 60 (3) : 251-263.

Armisen, R., (1995). World-wide use and importance of Gracilaria. Journal of

Applied Phycology, 7 (3) : 231-243.

Arnott, S., Fulmer, A., Scott, W. E., Dea, I. C. M., Moorehouse, R. and Rees, D. A.,
(1974). The agarose double helix and its function in agarose gel strength.
Journal of Molecular Biology, 90 : 269-284.

Ask, E. I., (1999). Cottonii and Spinosum cultivation handbook. Food Ingredients
Division, FMC Corporation, .

Ask, E. I., Batibasaga, A., Zertuche-Gonzales, J. A. and de San, M., (in press).
Introducing cultivated varieties of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) to non-
endemic locations: suggested quarantine and introduction procedures plus a
study of the impact of introduction to a Fiji Islands' lagoon. Journal of
Applied Phycology, .

62
Azanza-Corrales, R., (1990). The farmed Euchema species in Danajon Reef,
Philippines: Vegetative and reproductive structures. Journal of Applied
Phycology, 2 (1) : 57-62.

Bandeira, S. O., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Mozambique. In: Seaweed

Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 403-408.

Beavis, A. and Charlier, R. H., (1987). An economic appraisal for the onshore
cultivation of Laminaria spp. Hydrobiologia, 151/152 : 387-398.

Berchez, E. A. S., Pereira, R. T. L. and Kamiya, N. F., (1993). Culture of Hypnea

musciformis (Rhodophyta, Gigartinales) on artificial substrates attached to
linear ropes. Hydrobiologia, 260 (261) : 415-420.

Boraso de Zaixso, A., Ciancia, M. and Cerezo, A. S., (1998). The Seaweed Resources
of Argentina. In: Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and
Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 372-
384.

Boucher, G., Clavier, J., Hily, C. and Gattuso, J. P., (1998). Contribution of soft-
bottoms to the community metabolism (primary production and calcification)
of a barrier reef flat (Moorea, French Polynesia). Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology & Ecology, 225 (2) : 269-283.

Braud, J. and Perez, R., (1978). Farming on pilot scale of Eucheuma spinosum
(Florideophyceae) in Djibouti waters. Proceedings of the Ninth International
Seaweed Symposium, : 533-539.

Brown, M. T., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of New Zealand. In: Seaweed
Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 127-137.

Buschmann, A. H., (1996). An introduction to integrated farming and the use of

seaweeds as biofilters. Hydrobiologia, 326 (327) : 59-60.

63
Buschmann, A. H., Kuschel, F. A., Vergara, P. A. and Schulz, J., (1992). Intertidal
Gracilaria farming in southern Chile: differences of the algal proveniance.
Aquatic Botany, 42 : 327-337.

Buschmann, A. H., Lopez, D. A. and Medina, A., (1996). A review of the

environmental effects and alternative production strategies of marine
aquaculture in Chile. Aquacultural Engineering, 15 (6) : 397-421.

Buschmann, A. H., Westermeier, R. and Retamales, C. A., (1995). Cultivation of

Gracilaria on the sea-bottom in southern Chile: A review. Journal of Applied
Phycology, 7 (3) : 291-301.

Camara Neto, C., (1987). Seaweed culture in Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Hydrobiologia, 151 (152) : 363-367.

Campbell, S. J. and Burridge, T. R., (1998). Occurrence of Undaria pinnatifida

(Phaeophyta: Laminariales) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Marine
& Freshwater Research, 49 (5) : 379-381.

Carpenter, R. C., (1990). Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum . 1. Long-term effects

on sea urchin population-dynamics and coral reef algal communities. Marine
Biology, 104 (1) : 67-77.

Carpenter, R. C., (1990). Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum . 2. Effects on

population densities and grazing intensity of parrotfishes and surgeonfishes.
Marine Biology, 104 (1) : 79-86.

Casas, G. N. and Piriz, M. L., (1996). Surveys of Undaria pinnatifida (Laminariales,

Phaeophyta) in Golfo Nuevo, Argentina. Hydrobiologia, 326 (327) : 213-
215.

Castric-Fey, A., Girard, A. and L'Hardy-Halos, M. T., (1993). The distribution of

Undaria pinnatifida (Phaeophyceae, Laminariales) on the coast of St. Malo
(Brittany, France). Botanica Marina, 36 (4) : 351-358.

64
Ceccherelli, G. and Cinelli, F., (1997). Short-term effects of nutrient enrichment of
the sediment and interactions between the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa and
the introduced green alga Caulerpa taxifolia in a Mediterranean bay. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 217 (2) : 165-177.

Ceccherelli, G. and Cinelli, F., (1998). Habitat effect on spatio-temporal variability in

size and density of the introduced alga Caulerpa taxifolia. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 163 : 289-294.

Cecere, E., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Italy. In: Seaweed Resources of the
World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation
Agency, Yokosuka: 245-257.

Chaoyuan, W., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of China. In: Seaweed Resources of
the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 34-46.

Chaoyuan, W. and Jianxin, M., (1997). Translocation of assimilates in Undaria and its
cultivation in China. Hydrobiologia, 352 : 1-3.

Chapman, V. J. and Chapman, D. J., (1980). Seaweeds and their uses. Chapman and
Hall, London.

Chiang, Y.-M., (1981). Cultivation of Gracilaria (Rhodophycophyta, Gigartinales) in

Taiwan. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Seaweed Symposium,
Levring, T. (ed.) Walter de Gruyter, Berlin: 569-564.

Chopin, T., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Eastern Canada. In: Seaweed
Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 273-302.
Cognetti, G. and Curini-Galletti, M., (1993). Biodiversity conservation problems in
the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 26 (4) : 179-183.
Collen, J., Mtoletra, M., Abrahamsson, K., Semesi, A. and Pederson, M., (1995).
Framing and physiology of the red algae Eucheuma: growing commercial
importance in East Africa. Ambio, 24 (7) : 497-501.

Critchely, A. T., (1997). Gracilaria Gracilariales Rhodophyta: An economically

important agarophyte. In: Seaweed Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno,
M. and Critchley, A. T. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency,
Yokosuka: 89-112.

65
Critchely, A. T., Farnham, W. F. and Morell, S. L., (1983). A chronology of new
European sites of attachment for the invasive brown alga, Sargassum
muticum (Yendo) Fensholt, 1973-1981. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association U.K., 63 : 799-811.

Critchley, A. T., Farnham, W. F., Yoshida, T. and Norton, T. A., (1990). A

bibliography of the invasive algae Sargassum muticum (Yendo) Fensholt
(Fucales; Sargassaceae). Botanica Marina, 33 : 551-562.

Critchley, A. T., Gillespie, R. D. and Rotmann, K. W. G., (1998). The Seaweed

Resources of South Africa. In: Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley,
A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency,
Yokosuka: 413-431.

Dawes, C. J., (1987). The biology of commercially important marine algae. In:
Seaweed Cultivation for Renewable Resources, Bird, K. T. and Benson, P. H.
(eds.), Elsivier, Amsterdam: 155-190.

Dawes, C. J. and Koch, E. W., (1991). Branch, micropropagule and tissue culture of
the red algae Eucheuma denticulatum and Kappaphycus alvarezii farmed in
the Philippines. Journal of Applied Phycology, 3 (3) : 247-257.

Dawes, C. P., (1995). Suspended cultivation of Gracilaria in the sea. Journal of

Applied Phycology, 7 (3) : 303-313.

de Oliveira, E. C., de Paula, E. J. and de S. Berchez, F. A., (1989). Essays on the

cultivation of tropical red seaweeds in tanks. In: Cultivation of Seaweeds in
Latin Amercia, Kautsky, E. C. d. O. a. N. (ed.) University of Sao Paulo, : 79-
87.

de Paula, E. J., Pereira, R. T. L. and Ostini, S., (1998). Introducao de especies

exoticas de Eucheuma e Kappaphycus (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta) para fins
de maricultura no litoral brasileiro: abordagem teorica e experimental. In: IV
Congresso latino Americano de Ficologia, II Reuniao Ibero-Americana de
Ficologiae VII Reuniao Brasileiro de Ficologia, Paula, E. J. d., Cordeiro-
Marino, M., Santos, D. P., Fuji, M., Plastino, E. M. and Yokoya, N. (eds.), :
340-357.

66
de Reviers, B., (1989). Realisation d'Une Ferme de Culture Industrielle de Eucheuma
aux Maldives. Oceanis, 15 : 749-752.

de Villele, X. and Verlaque, M., (1995). Changes and degradation in a Posidonia

oceanica bed invaded by the introduced tropical alga Caulerpa taxifolia in
the north western Mediterranean. Botanica Marina, 38 : 79-87.

Doty, M. S., (1980). Outplanting Eucheuma species and Gracilaria species in the
Tropics. In: Pacific Seaweed Aquaculture(Eds, Abbott, I. A., Foster, M. S.
and Eklund, L. F.) California Sea Grant, , pp. 19-22.

Eldredge, L. G., (1994). Perspectives in aquatic exotic species management in the

Pacific Islands. Vol I: Introductions of commercially significant aquatic
organisms to the Pacific Islands. Inshore Fisheries Research Project, South
Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, .

Ferrer, E., Gomez Garreta, A. and Ribera, M. A., (1997). Effect of Caulerpa taxifolia
on the productivity of two Mediterranean macrophytes. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 149 (1-3) : 279-287.

Fletcher, R. L. and Manfredi, C., (1995). The occurence of Undaria pinnitifida

(Phaeophyceae, Laminariales) on the south coast of England. Botanica
Marina, 38 : 355-358.

Floc'h, J. Y., Pajot, R. and Mouret, V., (1996). Undaria pinnatifida (Laminariales,
Phaeophyta) 12 years after its introduction into the Atlantic Ocean.
Hydrobiologia, 326 (327) : 217-222.

Friedlander, M. and Levy, I., (1995). Cultivation of Gracilaria in outdoor tanks and
ponds. Journal of Applied Phycology, 7 (3) : 315-324.

Gabrielson, P. W., (1983). Vegetative and reproductive morphology of Eucheuma

isiforme (Solieriaceae, Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). Journal of Phycology, 19 :
45-52.

Garrigue, C., (1995). Biomass and distribution of Caulerpa taxifolia in the lagoons of
New Caledonia. Oceanologica Acta, 17 (5) : 563-569.
Glenn, E. P. and Doty, M., (1992). Water motion affects the growth rates of
Kappaphycus alvarezii and related red seaweeds. Aquaculture, 108 : 233-
246.

67
Glicksman, M., (1982). Origins and classification of hydrocolloids. In: Food
Hydrocolloids,, Glicksman, M. (ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton: 3-18.

Glicksman, M., (1987). Utilisation of seaweed hydrocolloids in the food industry.

Hydrobiologia, 151/152 : 31-47.

Gomez, E. D., Buieb, R. A. and Arc, E., (1983). Studies on the predators of
commercially important seaweeds. Fish. Res. J. Philippines, 8 : 1-17.

Green, R. H., (1979). Sampling design and statisical methods for environmental
biologists. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hanic, L. A. and Craigie, J. S., (1969). Studies on the algal cuticle. Journal of
Phycology, 5 : 89-102.

Hatcher, B. G., (1988). Coral reef primary productivity: A beggar's banquet. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 3 (5) : 106-111.

Hatcher, B. G., (1990). Coral reef primary productivity: A hierarchy of pattern and
process. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 5 (5) : 149-155.

Hay, C. H., (1990). The dispersal of sporophytes of Undaria pinnatifida by coastal

shipping in New Zealand, and implications for further dispersal of Undaria in
France. British Phycological Journal, 25 (4) : 301-313.

Hay, C. H. and Luckens, P. A., (1987). The Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida
(Phaeophyta: Laminariales) found in a New Zealand harbour. New Zealand
Journal of Botany, 25 (2) : 329-332.

Hill, D., Coquillard, P., De Vaugelas, J. and Meinesz, A., (1998). An algorithmic
model for invasive species: Application to Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C.
Agardh development in the North-Western Mediterranean Sea. Ecological
Modelling, 109 (3) : 251-265.

Hindley, F., (1999). The environmental impacts of seaweed farming (genus

Eucheuma) in the Philippines with a particular reference to seagrass. In:
Imperial College of Science, Technology and MedicineUniversity of London,
London.

68
Hughes, T. P., Reed, D. C. and Boyle, M. J., (1987). Herbivory on coral reefs:
Community structure following mass mortalities of sea urchins. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology, 113 (1) : 39-59.

Huynh, Q. N. and Nguyen, H. D., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Vietnam. In:
Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 62-69.

Istini, S., Zaitnika, A. and Sujatmiko, W., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of
Indonesia. In: Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno,
M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 92-98.

Jimenez del Rio, M., Ramazanov, Z. and Garcia-Reina, G., (1996). Ulva rigida
(Ulvales, Chlorophyta) tank culture as biofilters for dissolved inorganic
nitrogen from fish farm effluents. Hydrobiologia, 326/327 : 61-66.

Johnson, P. and Johnson, R., (1995). Productivity and nutrient dynamics of tropical
sea-grass communities in Puttalm Lagoon, Sri Lanka. Ambio, 24 (7-8) : 411-
417.

Johnstone, R. W. and Olafsson, E., (1995). Some environmental aspects of open water
algal cultivation: Zanzibar, Tanzania. Ambio, 24 (7-8) : 465-469.

Juanes, J. J. and Sosa, P. A., (1998). The seaweed resources of Spain. In: Seaweed
Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 164-175.

Kawashima, S., (1997). Cultivation of the brown alga, Laminaria "Kombu". In:
Seaweed Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and Critchley, A. T.
(eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 25-41.

Kida, W., (1990). Culture of Seaweeds Monostroma. Marine Behaviour and

Physiology, 16 : 109-131.

Lemee, R., Pesando, D., Issanchou, C. and Amade, P., (1997). Microalgae: a model to
investigate the ecotoxicology of the green alga Caulerpa taxifolia from the
Mediterranean Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 44 (1) : 13-25.

Lessios, H. A., (1988). Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum in the Caribbean: What
have we learned. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 19 : 371-393.

69
Lewmanomont, K., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Thailand. In: Seaweed
Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 70-78.

Lindstrom, S., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of British Columbia, Canada. In:
Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 266-272.

Lipkin, Y. and Freidlander, M., (1998). The seaweed resources of Israel and other
eastern Mediterranean countries. In: Seaweed Resources of the World,
Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation
Agency, Yokosuka: 156-163.

Lirasan, T. and Twide, P., (1993). Farming Euchuema in Zanzibar, Tanzania.

Hydrobiologia, 261 : 353-355.

Lodge, D. M., (1993). Biological invasions: Lessons of ecology. Trends in Ecology

and Evolution, 8 : 133-137.

Luxton, D. M., (1993). Aspects of the farming and processing of Kappaphucus and
Eucheuma in Indonesia. Hydrobiologia, 260/261 : 365-371.

Luxton, D. M. and Luxton, P. M., (1999). Development of commercial Kappaphycus

production in the Line Islands, Central Pacific. Hydrobiologia, ?? : ??

Luxton, D. M., Robertson, M. and Kindley, M. J., (1987). Farming of Eucheuma in

the south Pacific islands of Fiji. Hydrobiologia, 151/152 : 359-362.

Mackie, W. and Preston, R. D., (1974). Cell wall and intercellular region
polysaccharides. In: Algal Physiology and Biochemistry, Stewart, W. D. P.
(ed.) Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: .

Margulis, L., McKhann, H. I. and Olendzenski, L. (Eds.), (1993). Illustrated Glossary

of the Protoctista. Jones and Bartlett, Boston.

Marih, O. P., Reddy, C. R. K. and Kumar, G. R. K., (1998). The Seaweed Resources
of India. In: Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M.
(eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 110-126.

70
McHugh, D. J., (1996). Seaweed Production and Marketing. In:
GLOBEFISHFisheries Industries Division, FAO, Rome.

Meinesz, A., Vaugelas, J. d., Hesse, B. and Mari, X., (1993). Spread of the introduced
tropical green alga Caulerpa taxifolia in northern Mediterranean waters.
Journal of Applied Phycology, 5 (2) : 141-147.

Merrill, J. E. and Waaland, R. J., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of the United States
of America. In: Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno,
M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 303-323.

Moi, P. S., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Malaysia. In: Seaweed Resources of
the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 79-91.

Mojica, F. E., Dy, R. T. and Reyes, S. U., (1997). Philippine Eucheuma

Seaweeds/Carrageenan Industry: Industry analysis and strategic directions.
Center for Food and Agri Business, University of Asia and the Pacific, .

Mollion, J., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Madagascar and Reunion Islands. In:
Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 398-402.

Molloy, F. J., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Namibia. In: Seaweed Resources of
the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 401-412.

Molloy, F. J. and Bolton, J. J., (1995). Distribution, biomass and production of

Gracilaria in Luederitz Bay, Namibia. Journal of Applied Phycology, 7 (4) :
381-392.

Mshigeni, K. E., (1989). Seaweed faming in tropical seas: the case of Eucheuma in
the western Indian Ocean region. In: Cultivation of Seaweeds in Latin
America, de Oliveira, E. C. and Kautsky, N. (eds.), S. Sebastiao, Sao Paulo:
389-397.

Mshigeni, K. E., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Tanzania. In: Seaweed Resources
of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 389-397.

71
Msuya, F., Ngoile, M. A. and Shunula, J. P., (1997). The impact of seaweed farming
on the macrobenthos of the east coast of Unguja Island, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
University of Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar.

Nicholson, N. L., Hosmer, H. M., Bird, K., Hart, L., Sandlin, W., Shoemaker, C. and
Sloan, C., (1981). The biology of Sargassum muticum (wireweed) at Santa
Catalina (Claifornia, U.S.A.). Proceedings of the Eighth International
Seaweed Symposium, : 416-424.

North, W. J., (1971). Introduction and background. In: Giant Kelp Beds (Marcocystis)
in California, Cramer, J. (ed.) Lehre, Germany: .

North, W. J. and Pearse, J. S., (1970). Sea Urchin population explosion in soutern
California coastal waters. Science, 167 : 209.

Nurul Islam, A. K. M., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Bangladesh. In: Seaweed
Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 106-109.

Nussinovitch, A., (1997). Hydrocolloid Applications: Gum technology in the food and
other industries. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.

Ogawa, H. and Fujita, M., (1997). The effect of fertilizer application on farming of
the seaweed Undaria pinnatifida (Laminariales, Phaeophyta). Phycological
Research, 45 (2) : 113-116.

Ohno, M., (1997). Cultivation of the green alga, Monostroma and Enteromorpha
"Anori". In: Seaweed Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and
Critchley, A. T. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka:
7-16.

Ohno, M. and Largo, D. D., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Japan. In: Seaweed
Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 1-14.

Ohno, M. and Matsuoka, M., (1997). Undaria cultivation "Wakame". In: Seaweed
Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and Critchley, A. T. (eds.),
Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 41-50.

72
Ohno, M., Nang, H. Q. and Hirase, S., (1996). Cultivation and carrageenan yield and
quality of Kappaphycus alvarezii in the waters of Vietnam. Journal of
Applied Phycology, 8 : 431-437.

Olafsson, E., Johnstone Ron, W. and Ndaro Simon, G. M., (1995). Effects of
intensive seaweed farming on the meiobenthos in a tropical lagoon. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology, 191 (1) : 101-117.

Oliveira, E. C., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Brazil. In: Seaweed Resources of
the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 366-371.

Oohusa, T., (1997). Cultivation of Porphyra "Nori". In: Seaweed Cultivation and
Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and Critchley, A. T. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 57-74.

Paula, E. J. and Eston, V. R., (1987). Are there other Sagassum species potentially as
invasive as S. muticum? Botanica Marina, 30 : 405-410.

Perez, R., Lee, J. Y. and Juge, C., (1981). Observations sur la biologie de l'algue
japonaise Undaria pinnitifida (Harvey) Suringar introduite accidentellment
dans l'Etang de Thau. Sci. Peche, 315 : 1-12.

Petrell, R. J. and Alie, S. Y., (1996). Integrated cultivation of slamonids and seaweeds
in open systems. Hydrobiologia, 326/327 : 67-73.

Pettersson-Lofquist, P., (1995). The development of open-water algae farming in

Zanibar: reflections on the socioeconomic impact. Ambio, 24 (7) : 487-491.

Preston, R. D., (1974). The Physical Biology of Plant Cell Walls. Chapman and Hall,
London.

Preston, R. D., (1974). The Physical Biology of Plant Cell Walls. Chapman and Hall,
London.

Relini, G., Relini, M. and Torchia, G., (1998). Fish biodiversity in a Caulerpa taxifolia
meadow in the Ligurian Sea. Italian Journal of Zoology, 65 : 465-470.

Rincones, R. E., (in press). Marine Agronomy: An alternative for the sustainable
development of the coastal communities in Venezuela. Global Aquaculture,

73
 .

Robertson, D. R., (1991). Increase in surgeonfish populations after mass mortality of

the sea urchin Diadema antillarum in Panama indicate food limitation.
Marine Biology, 111 (3) : 437-444.

Robledo, D., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Mexico. In: Seaweed Resources of
the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 331-342.

Rodgers, S. K. and Cox, E. F., (1999). Rate of spread of introduced rhodophytes

Kappaphycus alvarezii, Kappaphycus striatum and Gracilaria salicornia and
their current distributions in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Pacific Science, 53
: 232-241.

Rosenthal, R. J., Clarke, W. D. and Dayton, P. K., (1974). Ecology and natural history
of a stand of giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, off Del Mar, Claifornia. Fish
Bulletin, 72 : 670-684.

Rueness, J., (1989). Sargassum muticum and other Japanese introduced macroalgae:
biological pollution of European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20 : 173-
175.

Russell, D. J., (1983). Ecology of the imported red seaweed Eucheuma striatum
Schmitz on Coconut Island, Oahu, Hawaii. Pacific Science, 37 (2) : 87-108.

Russell, D. J., (1987). Introduction and establishment of alien marine algae. Bulletin
of Marine Science, 41 (2) : 641-642.

Russell, D. J. and Balazs, G. H., (1994). Colonization by the alien marine alga
Hypnea musciformis (Wulfen) J. Ag. (Rhodophyta: Gigartinales) in the
Hawaiian Islands and its utilization by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas L.
Aquatic Botany, 47 (1) : 53-60.

Sammarco, P. W., Carleton, J. H. and Risk, M. J., (1986). Effects of grazing and
damselfish territoriality on bioerosion of dead corals: direct effects. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology, 98 : 1-19.
Sanderson, J. C., (1990). A preliminary survey of the distribution of the introduced
macroalga, Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringer on the east coast of
Tasmania, Australia. Botanica Marina, 33 (2) : 153-157.

74
Sanderson, J. C. and Barett, N., (1989). A survey of thedistribution of the introduced
macroalga Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringer in Tasmania, December
1988. Department of Sea Fisheries Technical Report 28, : 1-35.

Santelices, B. and Doty, M. S., (1989). A review of Gracilaria farming. Aquaculture,

76 : 95-133.

Santelices, B., Vasquez, J., Ohme, U. and Fonck, E., (1984). Managing wild crops of
Gracilaria in Central Chile. Hydrobiologia, 116/117 : 77-89.

Schroeder, H. C., Badria, F. A. and al., e., (1998). Inhibitory effects of extracts from
the marine alga Caulerpa taxifolia and of toxin from Caulerpa racemosa on
multixenobiotic resistance in the marine sponge Geodia cydonium.
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 5 (2) : 119-126.

Smith, A., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of the Caribbean. In: Seaweed Resources
of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 324-330.

Smith, A. H., (1990). Commercial cultivation of Gracilaria spp. used for food in the
West Indies. Cultivation Of Seaweeds In Latin America, : 75-78.

Smith, A. H., (1997). Seamoss cultivation in the West Indies. Caribbean Natural
Resources Institute (CANARI), Fort Vieux.

Sohn, C. H., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of Korea. In: Seaweed Resources of the
World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation
Agency, Yokosuka: 15-33.

South, R. G., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of the South Pacific Islands. In:
Seaweed Resources of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 146-155.

Stewart, J. E., (1997). Environmental impacts of aquaculture. World Aquaculture, 28

(1) : 47-52.

Stimson, J., (1985). The effect of shading by the table coral Acropora hyacinthus on
understory corals. Ecology, 66 (1) : 40-53.

Toma, T., (1997). Cultivation of the brown alga, Cladosiphon okamuranus "Okinawa-

75
 mozuku". In: Seaweed Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and
Critchley, A. T. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka:
51-58.

Troell, M., Halling, C., Nilsson, A., Buschmann, A. H., Kautsky, N. and Kautsky, L.,
(1997). Integrated marine cultivation of Gracilaria chilensis (Gracilariales,
Bangiophyceae) and salmon cages for reduced environmental impact and
increased economic output. Aquaculture, 156 : 45-61.

Trono, G., (1998). The Seaweed Resources of the Philippines. In: Seaweed Resources
of the World, Critchley, A. T. and Ohno, M. (eds.), Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 47-61.

Trono, G. C., (1993). Environmental effects of seaweed farming. SICEN Newsletter, 4

(1):1.

Trono, G. C., (1997). Eucheuma and Kappaphycus: Taxonomy and cultivation. In:
Seaweed Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and Critchley, A. T.
(eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka: 75-88.

Trono, G. C. and Toma, T., (1997). Cultivation of the green alga, Caulerpa
lentillifera. In: Seaweed Cultivation and Marine Ranching, Ohno, M. and
Critchley, A. T. (eds.), Japan International Cooperation Agency, Yokosuka:
17-24.

Walker, D. I. and Kendrick, G. A., (1998). Threats to macroalgal diversity: Marine

habitat destruction and fragmentation, pollution and introduced species.
Botanica Marina, 41 (1) : 105-112.

Welcomme, R., (1988). Proposed international regulations to reduce therisks

associated with transfers and introductions of aquatic organisms. In: Third
International Conference of quafarming "Aquacultura 86"(Eds, Grimaldi, E.
and Rosenthal, H.) Verona, Italy, pp. 65-74.

Williams, S. L., (1984). Uptake of sediment ammonium and translocation in a marine

green macroalgae Caulerpa cupressoides. Limnology and Oceanography, 29
(2) : 374-379.

76
Woo, M., (1999). Ecological impacts and interactions of the introduced red alga,
Kappaphycus striatum, to Kane'ohe Bay, O'ahu. In: Department of Botany
University of Hawaii, .

Yamanaka, R. and Akiyama, K., (1993). Cultivation and utilization of Undaria

pinnitifida (wakame) as food. Journal of Applied Phycology, 5 : 249-253.

Yokoya, N. S. and Oliveira, E. C., (1992). Temperature responses of economically

important red algae and their potential for mariculture in Brazilian waters.
Journal of Applied Phycology, 4 (4) : 339-345.

Yoneshigue, Y. and de Oliveira, E. C., (1987). Preliminary experiments on the

cultivation of the brown alga Laminaria (Phaeophyta) Lamouroux in Brazil.
Hydrobiologia, 151 (152) : 381-385.

Zemke-White, W. L., Bremner, G. and Hurd, C. L., (1999). The status of commercial
algal utilization in New Zealand. Hydrobiolgia, 398/399 : 487-494.

Zemke-White, W. L. and Ohno, M., (1999). World seaweed utilisation: an end of

century summary. Journal of Applied Phycology, 11 : 369-376.

77
6. Appendices
6.1 Glossary
Carpospores Alpha spore. Spore of rhodophytes, typically dipliod, released from
a carposporangium
Commensalism Living in close relationship with another organism but not parasitic
Conchocelis Microscopic, branched, filamentous, endolithic, sporophytic phase
of conchospores
Conjugate Fusion of two one celled organisms for reproduction where
fertilisation occurs
Dioecious Organisms that have male and female reproductive structures on
different individual members of the species
Diplontic A life cycle in which individual cells are diploid throughout their
life history
Eutrophic Waters rich in dissolved nutrients
Gamete Mature haploid reproductive cell capable of fusion with another
gamete, to form a diploid nucleus
Gametophyte Life cycle stage in many plants and algae, individual plant or alga
composed of haploid cells which produce gametes
Germinate To begin to grow or develop
Monoecious Referring to organisms that have both male and female reproductive
structures on the same individual
Phenotype A character or individual defined by its appearance and not by its
genetic makeup
Phycocolloids Complex polysaccharides produced by algae (e.g. agar, alginates
and carrageenan)
Protoplast Actively metabolising membrane-bound part of a cell as distinct
from the cell wall
Ramuli Branches
Spore Type of propagule, small or microscopic agent of reproduction
Sporophyll Structure which produces reproductive cells
Sporophyte Life cycle stage in plants and algae, individual plant or alga
composed of diploid cells. This generation terminates in meiosis to
produce spores

78
6.2 Contacts/Sources of personal communication

5.2.1 Seaweed Industry

Erick Ingvald Ask
Raw materials Development
Food Ingredients Division
FMC Biopolymer
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia PA 19103
Phone: (1-215) 2996017
Fax: (1-215) 2996821
Cellular: (1-215) 4390300
Email: [email protected]

Farley L. Baricuatro
Process Development/Environment, Helath and Saftey Manager
Marine Colloinds Philippines Inc.
Food Ingredients Division
FMC Corporation
Ouano Compound
Looc, Mandaue City 6014
Cebu, Philippines
Phone: (63-32) 3450199/3450193 to 195
Fax: (63-32) 3461182
Cellular: (63-918) 7732241
Email: [email protected]

Marcial C. Solante Jr.

VP Operations
Shemberg Corporation
Head Office and Factory Center
Pakna-an, Mandaue City 6014
Cebu
Philippines
Phone: (63-32) 3460866
Fax: (63-32) 3451036
Cellular: (63-918) 9022757
Email: [email protected]

79
Arsenio Cesista
Pollution Control Officer (Shemberg Corporation)

Brian Rudolph
Marine Biologist
Copenhagen Pectin
[email protected]

Ravindra Kothari
Owner
Zanzibar Agro Seaweed Co. Ltd. (ZASCOL)
Box 3767, Zanzibar
Tanzania
Phone: (255-51)110048
Email: [email protected]

Haruna Juma
Purhasing and Development Officer (ZASCOL)

5.2.2 Government Departments

Dr. Marie Louise Felix
Aquaculturist/Fisheries Biologist/Fresh Water Biologist
Ministry of Agriculture
Department of Fisheries
N.I.S. Building, The Waterfront
Castries
St. Lucia, W. I.
Phone: (1-758) 4523987 or Hatcheries 4549097
Fax: (1-758) 4523853
Email: [email protected]

Dr. David Gulko

Coral Reef Biologist
Division of Aquatic Resources
Department of Land and Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 330
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
Phone: (1-808) 5870318
Fax: (1-808) 587-0115

80
Cellular: (1-808) 2719254
Email: [email protected]

Isdiro Vilayo
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources (BFAR)
4F 880 Eslia Bldg.
Quezon Blvd.
Quezon City
Philippines
Phone: (63-2) 410 9981

5.2.3 NGO’s and Consultancies involved with farming

Dr. Catherine A. Courtney
Chief of Party
The Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP)
5th Floor, Cebu International Finance Corporation Towers
J. Luna cor. Humabon Sts.
North Reclamation Area
6000 Cebu City
Ph: (63-32) 2321821/ 2321822/ 4121487 to 489
Fax: (63-32) 2321825
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website: www.oneocean.org

Rueben T. Barraca
Seaweed Specialist (CRMP)
Cellular: (63- 918) 7731065
Email: [email protected]

Allan Smith
Research Scientist
Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)
Clarke Street, Vieux Fort
St. Lucia, W. I.
Phone: (1-758) 4546060
Fax: (1-758) 4545188
Email: [email protected]

81
Dr. David Luxton
David Luxton & Associates
70 Hamurana Road
Omokoroa, Tauranga
New Zealand
Ph/Fax: (64-7) 548 0523
Email: [email protected]

5.2.4 Academics
Dr. Greg M. Wagner
Marine and Freshwater Biology, Biostatistics/Environmental Science
Department of Zoology and Marine Biology
University of Dar es Salaam
P.O. Box 35064
Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Phone: (255-51) 410500 ext. 2479
Email: [email protected]

Associate Professor Matern Mtolera

Institute of Marine Science
P. O. Box 668
Zanzibar, Tanzania
Phone: (255-54) 32128/30741
Fax: (255-54) 33050
Email: [email protected]

Professor Keto Mshigeni

University of Namibia
Private Bag 13301
Windhoek
Namibia
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Salomao O. Bandeira

Department of Biological Sciences
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
P. O.Box 257
Maputo 00100

82
Mozambique
Email: [email protected]

Professor Gavino Trono

Marine Science Institute
College of Science
University of the Philippines
Diliman, 1101
Quezon City
Philippines
Phone: (63-2) 9223959
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Rhodora Azanza

Marine Science Institute
College of Science
University of the Philippines
Diliman, 1101
Quezon City
Philippines
Phone: (632) 9223959
Email: [email protected]

Professor Miguel D. Fortes

Marine Science Institute
College of Science
University of the Philippines
Diliman, 1101
Quezon City
Philippines
Phone: (632) 9223959
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Wendy Nelson

Curator of Botany
Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa
PO Box 467
Wellington
New Zealand.
Ph: (04) 381 7000

83
Email [email protected]

Dr. Danilo Largo

Chairman
Dept. of Biology
University of San Carlos
[email protected]
Ph: 3461128 (Cebu)
Fax: 2460351 (Cebu)
Cebu City

Raul Rincones
Marine Biologist
Fundación Agromarina
P.O. Box 377
Porlamar Isla de Margarita 6301
Venezuela
e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

84
6.3 Additional bibliographic sources
Anonymous, (1999). Code of Conduct for the Development of Algoculture (Final
report). Ministry of Fishing and fishing-related resources MPRH/ FED/
ARPL Project, Madagascar.

Areces, A. J., (1990). Mariculture of agarophytes in Cuba: Present status, trends and
perspectives. In: Cultivation of seaweeds in Latin America, Oliveira, E. C.
and Kautsky, N. (eds.): 105-109.

Barraca, R. T., (1998). Seaweed assessment report (SAR) Malalag Bay Enterprise
Development Zone. Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), Cebu
City, Philippines.

Barraca, R. T., (1998). Seaweed assessment report (SAR) Negros Oriental Enterprise
Development Zone. Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), Cebu
City, Philippines.

Barraca, R. T., (1998). Seaweed assessment report (SAR) San Vincente Bay
Enterprise Development Zone. Coastal Resource Management Project
(CRMP), Cebu City, Philippines.

Barraca, R. T., (1998). Seaweed assessment report (SAR) Sarangani Bay Enterprise
Development Zone. Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), Cebu
City, Philippines.

Barraca, R. T., (1999). Guided Training Manual: Development of seaweed farming

enterprise. Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), Cebu City,
Philippines.

Bixler, H. J., (1996). Recent developments in manufacturing and marketing

carrageenan. Hydrobiologia, 326/327: 35-57.
Chambers, P. A., Barko, J. W. and Smith, C. S., (1993). Evaluation of invasions and
declines of submersed aquatic macrophytes. Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management, 31: 218-220.
Delmendo, M. N., Alvarez, V. and Rabanal, H. R., (1992). The evolution of seaweed
farming development and its relevance to rural agro-industrial development
of caostal communities in the Philippines. Department of Fisheries, Bureau
of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Manila, Philippines.

85
Eklund, S. and Pettersson, P., (1992). Mwani is money: The development of seaweed
farming on Zanzibar and its socio-economic effects in the village of Paje.
Development Studies Unit, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

Fa'anunu, U., (1990). Tonga. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Seaweed
culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development Project,
Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 25-31.

FMC, Information for policy makers of Eucheuma farming development. Internal

report, FMC Food Ingredients Division, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA.

FMC, Zones, checks and balances: a proposed national management plan for a
sustainable and transparent Eucheuma seaweed cultivation industry. Internal
report, FMC Food Ingredients Division, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA.

Garcia, R. P., (1998). An assessment report on the feasibility of seafarming in San

Vincente, Palawan. Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), Cebu
City, Philippines.

Garcia, R. P., (1998). A report on the feasibility of seafarming in Sarannani Bay,

Saranggani. Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), Cebu City,
Philippines.

Garrigue, C., (1990). New Caledonia. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on
Seaweed culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development
Project, Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 16-18.

Gentle, T., (1990). Tuvalu. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Seaweed
culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development Project,
Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 32-33.

Hammer, M., Jansson, A. M. and Jansson, B.-O., (1993). Diversity change and
sustainability: Implications for fisheries. Ambio, 22 (2-3) : 97-105.

Jompa, J. and McCook, L., (1998). Seaweeds save the reef?! Sargassum canopy
decreases coral bleaching on inshore islands. Reef Research, June : 5-11.

86
Largo, D. B., Fukami, K., Adachi, M. and Nishijima, T., (1998). Immunofluorescent
detection of ice-ice disease-promoting bacterial strain Vibrio sp. P11 of the
farmed macroalga, Kappaphycus alvarezii (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta).
Journal of Marine Biotechnology, 6 (3) : 178-182.

Largo, D. B., Fukami, K. and Nishijima, T., (1995). Occasional pathogenic bacteria
promoting ice-ice disease in the carrageenan-producing red algae
Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum (Solieriaceae,
Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). Journal of Applied Phycology, 7 (6) : 545-554.

Largo, D. B., Fukami, K. and Nishijima, T., (1999). Time-dependent attachment

mechanism of bacterial pathogen during ice-ice infection in Kappaphycus
alvarezii (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). Journal of Applied Phycology, 11 (1) :
129-136.

McManus, J. W., (1995). Coastal fisheries and mollusk and seaweed culture in
Southeast Asia: Integrated planning and precautions. In: Towards
Sustainable Aquaculture in Southeast Asia and Japan, Bararinao, T. U. and
Flores, E. E. C. (eds.), : 13-22.

Paulis, T., (1990). Palau. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Seaweed
culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development Project,
Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 19-20.

Pineda, C. V., (1997). The Commercial Feasibility of three marine products: marine
aquarium fish, trochus buttons, and carrageenan. Enterprise Dept.,
Conservation International, Washington DC.

Piriz, M. L., (1990). Cultivation of Porphyra in Argentina, possibilities and

perspectives. In: Cultivation of seaweeds in Latin America, Oliveira, E. C.
and Kautsky, N. (eds.), : 47-49.

Prakash, J., (1990). Fiji. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Seaweed
culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development Project,
Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 1-9.

Radmer, R. J., (1996). Algal diversity and commercial products. Bioscience, 46 (40) :
263-270.

87
Russell, D. J., (1992). The ecological invasion of Hawaiian reefs by two marine red
algae, Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl) Boerg. and Hypnea musciformis
(Wulfen) J. Ag., and their association with two native species, Laurencia
nidifica J. Ag. and Hypnea cervicornis J. Ag. ICES Marine Science
Symposia, 194 : 12-13.

Smith, A. H., (1990). Annotated bibliography of the seaweeds used for food in the
West Indies. Organisiation of Eastern Caribbean States, Fisheries Unit,
Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Smith, M. T., (1990). Solomon Islands. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on
Seaweed culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development
Project, Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 21-24.

Taniera, T., Tabee, T. and Tebano, T., (1994). Socio-economic of Eucheuma seaweed
farming in Kiribati. University of the South Pacific, Tarawa, Kiribati.

Tighe, L., (1998). Strong alien seaweed may be killing Kaneohe Bay coral. In: Star
BulletinHonolulu, Hawaii.

Uan, J., (1990). Kiribati. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Seaweed
culture and Marketing. South Pacific Aquaculture Development Project,
Adams, T. and Foscarini, R. (eds.), FAO, Rome: 10-15.

88