The aquaculture supply chain in the time of covid-19 pandemic: vulnerability, resilience, solutions and priorities at the global scale

The COVID-19 global pandemic has had severe, unpredictable and synchronous impacts on all levels of perishable food supply chains (PFSC), across multiple sectors and spatial scales. Aquaculture plays a vital and rapidly expanding role in food security, in some cases overtaking wild caught fisheries in the production of high-quality animal protein in this PFSC. We performed a rapid global assessment to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related emerging control measures on the aquaculture supply chain. Socio-economic effects of the pandemic were analysed by surveying the perceptions of stakeholders, who were asked to describe potential supply-side disruption, vulnerabilities and resilience patterns along the production pipeline with four main supply chain components: a) hatchery, b) production/processing, c) distribution/logistics and d) market. We also assessed different farming strategies, comparing land- vs. sea-based systems; extensive vs. intensive methods; and with and without integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, IMTA. In addition to evaluating levels and sources of economic distress, interviewees were asked to identify mitigation solutions adopted at local / internal (i.e., farm-site) scales, and to express their preference on national / external scale mitigation measures among a set of a priori options. Survey responses identified the potential causes of disruption, ripple effects, sources of food insecurity, and socio-economic conflicts. They also pointed to various levels of mitigation strategies. The collated evidence represents a first baseline useful to address future disaster-driven responses, to reinforce the resilience of the sector and to facilitate the design reconstruction plans and mitigation measures, such as financial aid strategies.publishe

The synergistic impacts of anthropogenic stressors and COVID-19 on aquaculture: a current global perspective

The rapid, global spread of COVID-19, and the measures intended to limit or slow its propagation, are having major impacts on diverse sectors of society. Notably, these impacts are occurring in the context of other anthropogenic-driven threats including global climate change. Both anthropogenic stressors and the COVID-19 pandemic represent significant economic challenges to aquaculture systems across the globe, threatening the supply chain of one of the most important sources of animal protein, with potential disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities. A web survey was conducted in 47 countries in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to assess how aquaculture activities have been affected by the pandemic, and to explore how these impacts compare to those from climate change. A positive correlation between the effects of the two categories of drivers was detected, but analysis suggests that the pandemic and the anthropogenic stressors affect different parts of the supply chain. The immediate measurable reported losses varied with aquaculture typology (land vs. marine, and intensive vs. extensive). A comparably lower impact on farmers reporting the use of integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) methods suggests that IMTA might enhance resilience to multiple stressors by providing different market options under the COVID-19 pandemic. Results emphasize the importance of assessing detrimental effects of COVID-19 under a multiple stressor lens, focusing on areas that have already locally experienced economic loss due to anthropogenic stressors in the last decade. Holistic policies that simultaneously address other ongoing anthropogenic stressors, rather than focusing solely on the acute impacts of COVID-19, are needed to maximize the long-term resilience of the aquaculture sector.publishe

Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home:a systematic review

Background Home-based models of hospice and palliative care are promoted with the argument that most people prefer to die at home. We examined the heterogeneity in preferences for home death and explored, for the first time, changes of preference with illness progression. Methods We searched for studies on adult preferences for place of care at the end of life or place of death in MEDLINE (1966-2011), EMBASE (1980-2011), psycINFO (1967-2011), CINAHL (1982-2011), six palliative care journals (2006-11) and reference lists. Standard criteria were used to grade study quality and evidence strength. Scatter plots showed the percentage preferring home death amongst patients, lay caregivers and general public, by study quality, year, weighted by sample size. Results 210 studies reported preferences of just over 100,000 people from 33 countries, including 34,021 patients, 19,514 caregivers and 29,926 general public members. 68% of studies with quantitative data were of low quality; only 76 provided the question used to elicit preferences. There was moderate evidence that most people prefer a home death-this was found in 75% of studies, 9/14 of those of high quality. Amongst the latter and excluding outliers, home preference estimates ranged 31% to 87% for patients (9 studies), 25% to 64% for caregivers (5 studies), 49% to 70% for the public (4 studies). 20% of 1395 patients in 10 studies (2 of high quality) changed their preference, but statistical significance was untested. Conclusions Controlling for methodological weaknesses, we found evidence that most people prefer to die at home. Around four fifths of patients did not change preference as their illness progressed. This supports focusing on home-based care for patients with advanced illness yet urges policy-makers to secure hospice and palliative care elsewhere for those who think differently or change their mind. Research must be clear on how preferences are elicited. There is an urgent need for studies examining change of preferences towards death

The killer within: Endogenous bacteria accelerate oyster mortality during sustained anoxia

16 pages, 5 figures, 2 tablesSustained periods of anoxia, driven by eutrophication, threaten coastal marine systems and can lead to mass mortalities of even resilient animals such as bivalves. While mortality rates under anoxia are well-studied, the specific mechanism(s) of mortality are less clear. We used a suite of complementary techniques (LT50, histology, 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, and valvometry) to show that the proliferation of anaerobic bacteria within eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) accelerates mortality rate under anoxic conditions. Manipulative laboratory experiments revealed that oyster survival under anoxic conditions was halved when bacteria were present compared to when they were excluded by the broad-spectrum antibiotic chloramphenicol. Histological assessments supported this mechanism and showed infiltration of bacteria in oysters that were not treated with antibiotics compared to a general lack of bacteria when oysters were treated with antibiotics. 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing failed to identify any particular genera of bacteria responsible for mortality, rather a diversity of endogenous anaerobic and/or sulfate-reducing bacteria were common among oysters. In addition, monitoring of oyster valve gaping behavior in the field revealed that oysters showed remarkable valve closure synchrony when first exposed to anoxia. However, oysters periodically opened throughout anoxia/hypoxia in both the lab and field, suggesting that the infiltration of exogenous bacteria from the environment may also influence mortality rates under natural settings. Coupled with previous studies, we posit that mass mortality events in a wide range of coastal bivalves are likely the result of co-morbidity from asphyxiation and bacterial processesThis study was funded by L'Étang Ruisseau Bar Ltd. in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada (Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, project 17-G-02 led by M.R.S.C.), a NSERC Discovery Grant to R.F. (RGPIN-2017-04294), and a Total Development Fund from the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries to R.F.Peer reviewe