Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Policy implications of wild seaweeds used in organic crop fertilizers

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Applied Phycology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Certain seaweeds are widely used in organic crop production as fertilizers. Fertilizers used in certified organic agriculture in the United States are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in conjunction with an advisory National Organic Standards Board. After receiving testimony from stakeholders concerned about the environmental impact of cutting and processing wild seaweed populations into organic crop fertilizers, this board developed a proposal in the fall of 2020 to add harvest criteria for marine macroalgae used on crops. Much of organic agriculture is founded on the precautionary principle, and the board’s recommendation was based on the position that the potential for a negative environmental impact was sufficient to warrant a cautionary approach in the organic regulations. The proposal added wording to the U.S. organic standards to protect conservation areas from wild seaweed removal, prohibit bottom trawling as an extraction method, protect reproduction of the population and ecosystem functions, consider species architecture as well as biomass, and limit bycatch. Although the board voted to approve the proposal and it became a formal recommendation to USDA, the USDA declined to put the recommendation through rulemaking as a result of opposition to the recommendation from some industry stakeholders. Nevertheless, it remains an active recommendation from the NOSB that the USDA Secretary could choose to move through rulemaking in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aquaculture Stewardship Council-Marine Stewardship Council (ASC-MSC) (2020) “The ASC-MSC Seaweed Standard” [brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.asc-aqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/BC2146_ASC-MSC_A4_6pp_ARTWORK_LRES.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2020

  • Barbera C, Bordehore C, Borg JA, Glémarec M, Grall J, Hall-Spencer JM, de la Huz C, Lanfranco E, Lastra M, Moore PG, Mora J, Ramos-Esplá AA, Rizzo M, Sánchez-Mata A, Seva A, Schembri PJ, Valle C (2003) Conservation and management of northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean maerl beds. Aquat Conservat: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13:65–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaden PJS, Dring MT (1980) A quantitative evaluation of the effects of Ascophyllum harvesting on the littoral ecosystem. Helgol Meeresunters 33:700–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Buschmann AH, Prescott S, Potin P, Faugeron S, Vasquez JA, Camus C, Infante J, Hernandez-Gonzalez MC, Gutierrez A, Varela DA (2014) The status of kelp exploitation and marine agronomy, with emphasis on Macrocystis pyrifera, in Chile. Adv Bot Res 71:161–188

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (2023) 2023 California Commercial Fishing Regulations Digest: for all commercial fishing in California effective April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024. Retrieved from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=191712&inline. Accessed 10 Oct 2023

  • Capuzzo E, McKie T (2016) Seaweed in the UK and abroad – status, products, limitations, gaps and Cefas role. Cefas Contract Report FC002I. Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science. Suffolk, UK

  • Dailianis T, Smith CJ, Papadopoulou N, Gerovasileiou V, Sevastou K, Bekkby T, Bilan M, Billett D, Boström C, Carreiro-Silva M, Danovaro R, Fraschetti S, Gagnon K, Gambi C, Grehan A, Kipson S, Kotta J, McOwen CJ, Morato T, Ojaveer H, Pham CK, Scrimgeour R (2018) Human activities and resultant pressures on key European marine habitats: An analysis of mapped resources. Mar Policy 98:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment and Heritage Service (2007) Environmentally Sustainable Seaweed Harvesting in Northern Ireland. Environment and Heritage Service, Department of the Environment. Belfast

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster MS, Barilotti DC (1990) An approach to determining the ecological effects of seaweed harvesting: a summary. Hydrobiologia 204:15–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Garbary DJ, Galway ME, Halat L (2017) Response to Ugarte et al.: Ascophyllum (Phaeophyceae) annually contributes over 100% of its vegetative biomass to detritus. Phycologia 5:116–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Halat L, Galway ME, Gitto S, Garbary D (2015) Epidermal shedding in Ascophyllum nodosum (Phaeophyceae): seasonality, productivity and relationship to harvesting. Phycologia 54:599–608

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ingólfsson A (2010) The conservation value of the Icelandic intertidal, and major concerns. Natturufroeingurinn 79:19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingólfsson A, Hawkins SJ (2008) Slow recovery from disturbance: a 20 year study of Ascophyllum canopy clearances. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 88:689–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery NW, Heaslip SG, Stevens LA, Stanley RRE (2020) Biophysical and Ecological Overview of the Eastern Shore Islands Area of Interest (AOI). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2019/025. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa

  • Johnston EM, Mittelstaedt HN, Braun LA, Muhlin JF, Olsen BJ, Webber HM, Klemmer AJ (2023) Bed-scale impact and recovery of a commercially important intertidal seaweed. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 561:151869

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay L, Eddy TD, Schmidt AL, Lotze HK (2016) Regional differences and linkage between canopy structure and community composition of rockweed habitats in Atlantic Canada. Mar Biol 163:251

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly L, Collier L, Costello MJ, Diver M, McGarvey S, Kraan S, Morrissey J, Guiry MD (2001) Impact assessment of hand and mechanical harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum on regeneration and biodiversity. Marine Resource Series 19. Retrieved from http://oar.marine.ie/bitstream/10793/207/1/No19 Marine Resources Series.pdf. Accessed 30 Jun 2020

  • Krumhansl KA, Scheibling RE (2012) Production and fate of kelp detritus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 467:281–302

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Krumhansl KA, Okamoto DK, Rassweiler A, Novak M, Bolton JJ et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proc Nal Acad Sci USA 113:13785–13790

    CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Krumhansl KA, Bergman JN, Salomon AK (2017) Assessing the ecosystem-level consequences of a small-scale artisanal kelp fishery within the context of climate change. Ecol Appl 27:799–813

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kvamsdal S, Hopland AO, Li Y, Selle S (2023) Expert opinions on threats and impacts in the marine environment. Mar Pol 147:105382

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauzon-Guay JS, Feibel AI, Morse BL, Ugarte RA (2023) Morphology of Ascophyllum nodosum in relation to commercial harvesting in New Brunswick, Canada. J Appl Phycol 35:2371–2381

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauzon-Guay JS, Ugarte RA, Morse BL, Robertson CA (2021) Biomass and height of Ascophyllum nodosum after two decades of continuous commercial harvesting in eastern Canada. J Appl Phycol 33:1695–1708

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt GJ, Anderson RJ, Boothroyd CJT, Kemp FA (2002) The effects of kelp harvesting on its regrowth and the understorey benthic community at Danger Point, South Africa, and a new method of harvesting kelp fronds. S Afr J Mar Sci 24:71–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorentsen SH, Sjøtun K, Grémillet D (2010) Multitrophic consequences of kelp harvest. Biol Conserv 143:2054–2062

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotze HK, Milewski I, Fast J, Kay L, Worm B (2019) Ecosystem-based management of seaweed harvesting. Bot Mar 62:395–409

  • Mac Monagail M, Cornish L, Morrison L, Araújo R, Critchley AT (2017) Sustainable harvesting of wild seaweed resources. Euro J Phycol 52:371–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Maine Department of Marine Resources (2014) Fishery Management Plan for Rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum). Maine.

  • Migné A, Golléty C, Davoult D (2014) Effect of canopy removal on a rocky shore community metabolism and structure. Mar Biol 162:449–457

    Google Scholar 

  • National Organic Program (2023) Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapterI/subchapter-M/part-205/subpart-C. Accessed 15 Aug 2023

  • Pérez-Matus A, Carrasco SA, Gelcich S, Fernandez M, Wieters EA (2017) Exploring the effects of fishing pressure and upwelling intensity over subtidal kelp forest communities in central Chile. Ecosphere 8:e01808

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillippi A, Tran K, Perna A (2014) Does intertidal canopy removal of Ascophyllum nodosum alter the community structure beneath? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 461:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebours C, Marinho-Soriano E, Zertuche-Gonzalez JA, Hayashi L, Vásquez JA, Kradolfer P, Soriano G, Ugarte R, Abreu MH, Bay-Larsen I, Hovelsrud G, Rodven R, Robledo D (2014) Seaweeds: an opportunity for wealth and sustainable livelihood for coastal communities. J Appl Phycol 26:1939–1951

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rinde E, Christie H, Bekkby T, Bakkestuen V (2006) Økologiske effekter av taretråling. Analyser basert på GIS-modellering og empiriske data. Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning, Oslo, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock Weed Harvesting Regulations made under Section 71 of the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act, S.N.S. 1996, c. 25. (1996) Province of Nova Scotia. Retrieved from https://novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/fcrweed.htm. Accessed 29 Jun 2020

  • Schmidt AL, Coll M, Romanuk T, Lotze HK (2011) Ecosystem structure and services in eelgrass (Zostera marina) and rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 437:51–68

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Government (2016) Wild Seaweed Harvesting: Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh

  • Seeley RH, Schlesinger WH (2012) Sustainable seaweed cutting? The rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) industry of Maine and the Maritime Provinces. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1249:84–103

    PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp GJ, Pringle JD (1990) Ecological impact of marine plant harvesting in the northwest Atlantic: a review. Hydrobiologia 204:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp GJ, Ugarte R, Semple R (2006) The ecological impact of marine plant harvesting in the Canadian Maritimes, implications for coastal zone management. ScienceAsia 32:77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Stagnol D, Renaud M, Davoult D (2013) Effects of commercial harvesting of intertidal macroalgae on ecosystem biodiversity and functioning. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 130:99–110

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Stagnol D, Michel R, Davoult D (2016) Unravelling the impact of harvesting pressure on canopy-forming macroalgae. Mar Freshw Res 67:153–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen H, Moy FE, Bodvin T, Husa V (2016) Regrowth after kelp harvesting in Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. ICES J Mar Sci 73:2708–2720

    Google Scholar 

  • The Marine Resources Act: Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources (2008) Directorate of Fisheries, Norway

  • Theuerkauf SJ, Morris JA Jr, Waters TJ, Wickliffe LC, Alleway HK, Jones RC (2019) A global spatial analysis reveals where marine aquaculture can benefit nature and people. PLoS One 14:e0222282

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ugarte R (2010) An evaluation of the mortality of the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jol. produced by cutter rake harvests in southern New Brunswick, Canada. J Appl Phycol 23:401–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugarte RA, Sharp G (2001) A new approach to seaweed management in Eastern Canada: the case of Ascophyllum nodosum. Cah Biol Mar 42:63–70

  • Ugarte R, Sharp G (2012) Management and production of the brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum in the Canadian Maritimes. J Appl Phycol 24:409–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadas RL, Wright WA, Beal BF (2004) Biomass and productivity of intertidal rockweeds (Ascophyllum nodosum Le Jolis) in Cobscook Bay. Northeast Nat 11:123–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez JA (1995) Ecological effects of brown seaweed harvesting. Bot Mar 38:251–258

  • Vasquez JA, Santelices B (1990) Ecological effects of harvesting Lessonia (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) in central Chile. Hydrobiologia 204:41–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage-Nielsen E, Christie H, Rinde E (2003) Short-term dispersal of kelp fauna to cleared (kelp-harvested) areas. Hydrobiologia 503:77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt CA, Scrosati RA (2013) Bioengineer effects on understory species richness, diversity, and composition change along an environmental stress gradient: Experimental and mensurative evidence. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 123:10–18

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wernberg T, Krumhansl K, Filbee-Dexter K, Pedersen MF (2019) Status and trends for the world’s kelp forests. In: Sheppard C (ed) World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, vol III. Ecological Issues and Environmental Impacts. Elsevier, London, pp 57–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner A, Kraan S (2004) Review of the Potential Mechanisation of Kelp Harvesting in Ireland. Marine Environment and Health Series No. 17. Marine Institute. https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/261

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is taken from a proposal the author helped write while serving as a member of the National Organic Standards Board from 2016-2021, with important contributions from board members Steve Ela and Dr. David Mortensen. The author has written this article as an individual and after her service on the board concluded. This article is not submitted on behalf of the NOSB and is the sole responsibility of the author. The author wishes to thank the many marine scientists, harvesters and processors, certifiers, farmers, consumers, non-profit coalitions, and interest groups who provided feedback throughout the development of the board’s work, particularly Expert Panel scientists Dr. Allison Schmidt and Dr. Nichole Price.

Funding

This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors and was carried out on a voluntary basis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Three Springs Farm, P.O. Box 13, Oaks, OK, 74359, USA

    Emily Oakley

Authors
  1. Emily Oakley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author drafted and revised this work, approved the version submitted, and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Oakley.

Ethics declarations

The author has no financial nor any non-financial interests to disclose.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oakley, E. Policy implications of wild seaweeds used in organic crop fertilizers. J Appl Phycol 36, 371–383 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-023-03116-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-023-03116-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation