Recent advancements in sustainable aquaculture: innovative techniques and future prospects

Abstract

Aquaculture is the world’s fastest-growing industry for food production and serves as a key component in meeting the growing need for animal protein and ensuring food and nutritional security. However, its rapid growth has also led to significant sustainability challenges, such as water scarcity, depletion of feed resources, disease outbreaks, and environmental degradation. To address these issues, numerous management techniques and technological advances are currently underway to make aquaculture more sustainable. Among these, biofloc technology (BFT), recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), aquaponics, and Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) has emerged as a cost-effective approach for intensive production with low water consumption and effective waste control. With the help of automation, IoT-based sensors, and artificial intelligence, precision aquaculture is transforming real-time monitoring and decision- making, increasing resource efficiency and lowering risks. Disease resistance and enhanced stock performance have also been facilitated by developments in genetics and biotechnology. Furthermore, the discovery of sustainable dietary alternatives reducing dependence on limited marine resources. Global case studies show that adopting these technologies not only increases profitability and production, but also maintains ecological balance. In the future, it is anticipated that aquaculture practices will be redefined to be more resilient and climate-friendly due to the confluence of digital technologies, renewable energy, and circular bioeconomy concepts. The article examines these new developments and highlights how they will help provide aquaculture with a sustainable future. By adopting cutting-edge methods, aquaculture could become a major sector in the future.

1 Introduction

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production industry globally, defined as the cultivation of aquatic organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants under controlled or semi-controlled conditions with intervention in stocking, feeding and other management activities; it also refers to the ownership of the stock. Aquaculture production has increased significantly worldwide over the past several decades due to the increasing need for high-protein foods and technological advances in farming systems (Gephart et al., 2021; FAO, 2024; Serra et al., 2024). Global aquaculture production now reaches approximately 130.9 million tons (94.4 million tonnes from aquatic animals and 36.5 million tons from algae), playing a vital role in food security, nutrition and livelihoods (FAO, 2024). The sector is seen as a sustainable substitute for capture fisheries, with enormous potential to boost economic growth and reduce poverty, especially in developing countries (Béné et al., 2016; Araujo et al., 2022). Despite its significant contributions, aquaculture faces several sustainability challenges, including poor water quality, dependence on fishmeal and fish oil, and high susceptibility to diseases under intensive farming conditions. Furthermore, traditional practices often result in environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and nutrient pollution (Tom et al., 2021; Føre et al., 2018). Addressing these challenges requires the development and implementation of innovative strategies that effectively balance environmental sustainability and production efficiency (Henriksson et al., 2021). Recent years have seen significant progress in developing cutting-edge methods and technologies aimed at improving the sustainability of aquaculture. Water management and wastewater recycling issues have been addressed by innovations such as recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and biofloc technology (BFT) (Verdegem et al., 2006; De Schryver et al., 2008; Ranjan et al., 2023; Ramiro et al., 2024). Aquaponics and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) are ecological methods that mimic natural food webs to maximize resource use (Kamleshbhai et al., 2023; Stoyanova et al., 2024). Similarly, farmers can now optimize feeding, track water quality in real time in aquaculture using artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and automated systems (Føre et al., 2018). The resilience and efficiency of aquaculture systems are further improved by biotechnology, genetic improvement initiatives, and the investigation of substitute feed ingredients (Lakra and Ayyappan, 2003; Bayir et al., 2025).There are several new technological, ecological and socio-economic strategies including water management, nutrient recycling, digital monitoring, and ecosystem-based farming practices have been adopted to address the sustainability challenges associated with advancements in aquaculture (Figure 1). The aim of this article is to summarize innovative and modern methods that contribute to sustainable aquaculture production, and to demonstrate how these methods can address current challenges while maintaining ecological balance, economic viability and long-term sustainability, as well as to highlight their key concepts, applications and advantages.

Figure 1

2 Aquaculture development (1950 onwards)

Over the past seven decades, aquaculture has experienced a remarkable transformation, moving from small-scale traditional techniques to highly sophisticated technological- driven systems for greater production with fewer natural resources and the growing demand for seafood worldwide have influenced all this development that prioritize augmenting production efficiency and fulfill the global demand for nutritional security. This evolutionary process can be divided into major distinct phases which are summarized ahead in this chapter:

2.1 1950s-1970s: Foundation and early intensification

During the 1950s and 1970s, with improvements in early hatchery technology and simple mechanization, aquaculture relied primarily on traditional pond and shore farming. The development of managed ponds and advances in seed production made higher stocking densities possible, while net-pen farming for yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata) spread rapidly throughout Japan, laying the foundation for contemporary cage-farming systems (Milne, 1972). In 1953, botanist and zoologist J.H.S. Blaxter reported the first successful attempt at cryopreservation in fish, in which he used cryopreserved sperm to fertilize herring eggs (Blaxter, 1953). The induced breeding technology for carps was developed in 1957 (Chaudhari and Alikunhi, 1957) and popularized for ensuring the quality of seed. The commercial cage farming of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) began in Norway in 1960, and similar system was soon adopted by other countries (Grøttum and Beveridge, 2007). At the same time, the scientific foundations of biofloc technology (BFT) were being established and practical studies on microbial flocs began in the early 1970s at Ifremer (France) and the Waddell Mariculture Center in the United States, although the idea was first proposed in the 1960s. These fundamental developments laid the foundation for more complex, technology-based systems developed in subsequent decades.

2.2 1971-1990s: Rapid expansion and environmental challenges

Aquaculture for shrimp and finfish expanded rapidly in this era, particularly in Asia and Latin America. Hatchery development, technological advances, and global market demand led to rapid production growth. However, this boom was also accompanied by serious environmental problems, such as eutrophication, mangrove destruction, and frequent disease outbreaks due to uncontrolled growth. To address these problems, scientists began investigating closed water circulation and recirculation systems. This led to the development of contemporary recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), which subsequently revolutionized intensive farming methods (Ghosh, 2022; Mugwanya et al., 2022). In 1988, the first commercial application of BFT was realized in Tahiti (Emerenciano et al., 2013). Early aquaponics experiments also emerged during this period (Lennard, 2017). These programs were the first major steps toward more biosecure and sustainable aquaculture practices.

2.3 1991-2000: Technological formalization and system integration

During this period, aquaculture development focused primarily on improving integrated farming methods. The development of recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) significantly formalized the technology. RAS was made possible by advances in biofiltration, pumping efficiency, water treatment, and automation, leading to the transformation from experimental models to pilot-scale commercial operations (Ali et al., 2025; Lindholm-Lehto, 2023; Gupta et al., 2024). At the same time, studies on the integration of microalgae into RAS gained momentum, emphasizing their functions in nutrient absorption, CO₂ sequestration, and oxygen production, facilitating the development of more closed-loop and efficient production systems (Ende et al., 2024). This decade also saw the development of the concept of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA), which encourages the ecological engineering of farms by co-culturing host species with extractive species such as seaweeds and bivalves to improve environmental performance and utilize waste nutrients (Chopin, 2011). The ecological and technological basis for the precise and sustainable production model that would be developed over the next ten years was established at this time.

2.4 2001-2010: Commercial expansion

This period marked a major shift, with cutting-edge sustainable technologies rapidly being adopted commercially. Established over the past decades, biofloc technology (BFT) has rapidly expanded commercially as a low-water exchange, high-efficiency production system, especially for tilapia and shrimp. BFT improves feed utilization and water quality by converting nitrogenous wastes into microbial biomass, which has attracted intensive aquaculture (Avnimelech, 2009; Yu et al., 2023). In parallel, governments and academic organizations promoted IMTA and aquaponics as sustainable nutrient recycling methods, and recent advancements have focused on incorporating innovative system designs and digital tools to enhance sustainability and efficiency. By combining multi-trophic species with hydroponic techniques (such as NFT and floating raft systems), modern IMTA-aquaponics research demonstrates improved nutrient and water use efficiency and reduced effluent discharge, enabling greater nutrient retention and total biomass production compared to monoculture (Goda et al., 2024; Ghosh et al., 2025). Furthermore, IoT sensors, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are now being integrated into smart aquaponics systems for automated control and real-time monitoring of water quality and nutrient cycling, increasing yields and resource efficiency while reducing labor input (Niranjan et al., 2020; Gayam et al., 2024; Nair et al., 2025). The development of open sea cage culture has provided a new dimension to the mariculture in India and in the year 2007, the first open sea cage was launched in Bay of Bengal off Visakhapatnam coast (Philipose et al., 2012).

2.5 2011-2020: Precision aquaculture, and policy uptake

Technology has been rapidly integrated into the industry, moving from traditional to data-driven smart farming. The use of automated sensors and real-time monitoring systems for variables such as pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen has significantly improved decision-making and system management. Automation, IoT-based monitoring, artificial intelligence, and analytics have led to the development of precision aquaculture, which reduces risk and increases production (Lindholm-Lehto, 2023). Meanwhile, ecological farming methods such as aquaponics, BFT, and IMTA gained greater use and support from both research and policy frameworks. Throughout this decade, the combination of ecological sustainability and innovative technology made climate-resilient, resource-efficient aquaculture systems possible.

2.6 2020-2025: Digitalization, climate resilience, and circular bioeconomy

The aquaculture industry has recently entered a new era characterized by digital transformation, climate resilience, and circular bioeconomy models. Since 2020, AI and digitalization technologies have been widely adopted, especially in large-scale operations for high-value species such as shrimp and salmon. By combining predictive analytics, real-time control, and automated monitoring, these systems improve environmental performance and biosecurity (Gupta et al., 2024). To complement nutrient cycling and reduce energy costs, more research is being conducted on integrating microalgae-based systems into RAS (Ende et al., 2024). In addition to enhancing water quality and reducing feed inputs, BFT applications have also expanded to include shellfish production (Manan et al., 2024; Minaz et al., 2024). With the help of machine learning, precision aquaculture based on IoT and AI is improving water quality control and feeding schedules (Lindholm-Lehto, 2023). Significant progress has also been made in sustainable alternative feeds such as single-cell protein, algae oil, and insect meal, which significantly reduce dependence on fishmeal and fish oil and support circular production models (Yu et al., 2023). Taken together, these advances represent an advanced stage in aquaculture development that combines ecological sustainability and technological complexity.

3 Sustainability challenges in aquaculture

The rapid growth of aquaculture has helped meet the world’s aquatic food supply needs; it has also raised serious sustainability challenges. These challenges arise from the need to balance long-term socio-economic sustainability, resource efficiency, environmental protection, and high productivity. The main sustainability issues facing aquaculture are discussed below:

3.1 Water quality and resource management

Aquaculture inherently requires a lot of water, and improper water resource management can have detrimental ecological impacts. Intensive farming practices generate large amounts of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)-rich metabolic waste and unused feed. These nutrients, when released into the open water bodies, can accumulate and cause eutrophication, increase algal blooms, create hypoxic condition, deteriorate water quality and cause disease (Li et al., 2025; Khalili and Moridi, 2025; Chakraborty et al., 2025). Climate change exacerbates these problems by altering water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen levels, further stressing cultivated species and weakening system resilience. Furthermore, water scarcity in many regions is hampering fisheries development, highlighting the need for efficient water-use technologies. Saltwater is another problem for freshwater species, causing physiological stress that hinders growth and survival. It affects the traditional farming system, raising the expense of water management and forcing a shift towards less suited species or techniques (Alam et al., 2017).

3.2 Feed resource scarcity

Fishmeal and fish oil from wild fisheries have historically been the main sources of protein used in aquaculture production. Because overfishing reduces biodiversity and disrupts aquatic food webs, this dependence places significant pressure on marine ecosystems (Tacon and Metian, 2015). Since global fishmeal production is limited and confined to a few regions, its supply is vulnerable to regulatory changes, overfishing, and climate variability (Naylor et al., 2009). The economic viability of aquaculture enterprises is impacted by rising feed costs, which in turn increase production costs. Demand for protein-rich feed is increasing alongside the rapid growth of aquaculture, further intensifying competition with the livestock and poultry industries. Furthermore, conventional feed ingredients may contain anti-nutritional ingredients, pollutants, or environmental impacts that exacerbate ecological constraints (Gatlin et al., 2007). The industry must provide sufficient quantities of high-quality feed that meet the nutritional requirements for healthy growth, while avoiding over-reliance on wild fisheries and minimizing adverse environmental impacts.

3.3 Disease outbreaks and biosecurity risks

One of the biggest obstacles to the viability of aquaculture is aquatic animal diseases. Cultured species are more susceptible to bacterial, viral, fungal and parasitic diseases due to high stocking densities, poor animal husbandry techniques, and environmental stresses (Bondad-Reantaso et al., 2005; Li, 2024). The high stocking densities of fish in aquaculture experience chronic physiological stress due to overcrowding and intense competition for food, oxygen, and space (North et al., 2006; Lupatsch et al., 2010). This stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-interrenal (HPI) axis, leading to prolonged release of cortisol (Flik et al., 2006; Mbiydzenyuy and Qulu, 2024). High cortisol level suppresses immunological activities by reducing leukocyte activity, antibody synthesis, and phagocytic function (Gonzalez Herrero and Kuehn, 2021). In addition to the effects mediated by cortisol, high stocking density also alters other stress-related physiological parameters such as high blood glucose and lactate levels, increased metabolic demand, oxidative stress, and impaired osmoregulatory balance (David, 1997; Elnady et al., 2017; Gyamfi et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2024). Frequent physical contact and aggressive interactions in crowded condition also weaken the primary defense barriers (Dash et al., 2018). All these factors collectively increase the pathogen load and accelerate the spread of infections within the culture system. Consequently, the fish become more susceptible to opportunistic infections, which can lead to disease outbreaks and increased mortality rates (Mishra et al., 2017). Disease outbreaks can have a detrimental impact on global trade, disrupting production cycles and causing significant financial losses (Kumar et al., 2022; Maezono et al., 2025). The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE) lists serious diseases of fish, crustaceans and molluscs that commonly affect trade and health. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a major threat to aquaculture systems and public health, also results from the excessive use of antibiotics and chemical treatments for disease control (Schmidt et al., 2000; Preena et al., 2020). Climate change, declining water quality, and the movement of living aquatic organisms all contribute to the establishment and spread of diseases.

3.4 Environmental impacts and biodiversity loss

Aquaculture, if not properly managed, it can severely harm the environment. According to Primavera (2000), coastal aquaculture development often leads to the destruction of fragile habitats essential for biodiversity and ecosystem services, such as mangroves, wetlands, and estuarine ecosystems. Ecological concerns include genetic inbreeding with wild populations, competition for resources, and disruption of local food webs when farmed animals escape into natural habitats (Atalah and Sanchez-Jerez, 2020). Furthermore, water quality, sediment chemistry, and surrounding biodiversity can all be affected by pesticides, antibiotics, and nutrient-rich wastewater from aquaculture operations (Boyd and McNevin, 2015).

3.5 Socio-economic and governance issues

Sustainability in aquaculture encompasses socio-economic and administrative aspects, in addition to environmental ones. In India, small-scale farmers often face significant barriers that prevent them from implementing cutting-edge sustainable technologies, such as limited access to markets, capital, and technology. For example, a study by Haryanto (2023) emphasizes the importance of financial support for small-scale farmers, demonstrating how access to finance from both formal and informal sources impacts food production and technical efficiency. Sustainable development is further hampered by unequal distribution of resources, weak policy frameworks, and ineffective regulation. The challenges faced by small-scale fisheries, such as poor infrastructure and limited space for investment and innovation, are recognized in the National Fisheries Policy, 2020. Concerns regarding food safety, product quality, and environmental impacts also influence societal acceptance of aquaculture operations. According to a FSN, 2025 survey, over 80% of Indians are concerned about food security, highlighting a serious public perception problem that could impact the expansion and long-term viability of the aquaculture industry.

4 Recent advanced techniques in sustainable aquaculture

Sustainability issues in aquaculture require the implementation of innovative technologies that optimize resource utilization, minimize environmental impacts, and increase production efficiency. To address these issues, several cutting-edge technologies have been developed and implemented globally in recent years (Table 1).

4.1 Recirculating aquaculture systems

One of the most innovative and environment friendly developments in modern aquaculture is recirculating aquaculture system (RAS). Compared to traditional techniques, these closed-loop production systems typically use 90-95% less freshwater because they reuse water (Timmons et al., 2002). RAS significantly reduces waste emissions and environmental impacts, while also providing a high level of environmental control that allows for efficient use of labor and space (Yogev et al., 2021). Mechanical filters, biological filters and UV radiation are some of the essential elements in a RAS system for water treatment and reuse (Xiao et al., 2019; Ranjan et al., 2023). While biological filtration uses nitrifying bacteria to convert toxic ammonia and nitrite into less dangerous nitrate, mechanical filtration removes suspended matter, including uneaten feed and feces (Martins et al., 2005). Additional equipment’s such as temperature regulator and oxygenation unit promise ideal for culture conditions. Due to controlled conditions and minimal water usage, these techniques are suitable for a wide variety of aquatic organisms (Table 2).

To enhance the efficiency of water reuse, modern disinfection and oxidation technologies, including ultraviolet (UV) irradiation and ozonation, are being increasingly employed in addition to conventional mechanical and biological filtration. The UV treatment in culture system efficiently inactivates pathogenic microorganisms without leaving harmful residues, while ozonation oxidizes dissolved organic matter, reduces color and odor, and improves biofilter performance by reducing the organic load before nitrification (Badiola et al., 2012; Malone and Pfeiffer, 2006). Recently discovered ammonia oxidizers, such as ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and complete ammonia oxidizers (comammox Nitrospira), which can directly oxidize ammonia to nitrate within a single organism, have also been incorporated into recent advancements in RAS biofiltration, surpassing traditional ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter). These microbial groups are now considered significant contributors to stable nitrification under low-ammonia and low-oxygen conditions, which are often present in intensive RAS operations (Daims et al., 2015; Van Kessel et al., 2015; Bartelme et al., 2017).

4.2 Biofloc technology

Biofloc technology (BFT), based on microbial activity to recycle nutrients within the culture unit, has become another innovative and environment friendly aquaculture technique. Bacteria, algae, protozoa, and organic matter are all part of the diverse microbial community generated by this system (Hargreaves, 2013; Robles-Porchas et al., 2020). BFT reduces the need for water exchange and the discharge of nutrient-rich waste into natural water bodies by encouraging water reuse over multiple cycles (Krummenauer et al., 2014). In this system, host bacteria produce microbial protein aggregates called “bioflocs” from leftover feed and excreta. Cultured species such as fish and shrimp (Table 2) can consume these flocs, increasing feed efficiency and providing an additional source of protein. Studies have shown that BFT enhances environmental control and promotes optimal yields at high stocking densities (Da Silveira et al., 2020; Schveitzer et al., 2024).

The addition of external carbon sources to control the carbon-nitrogen (C:N) ratio and promote the growth of beneficial heterotrophic microbial communities is a crucial management strategy in biofloc system. There are several carbon sources like molasses, wheat flour, rice bran, tapioca flour, cassava powder, jaggery and other agro-industrial by-products have been effectively used to maintain C:N ratio (Wei et al., 2016; Ezhilarasi et al., 2019; Rind et al., 2023). These carbon sources are considered ecological and economical options because they are often derived from locally available agricultural waste and help the system recycle nutrients by converting inorganic nitrogenous waste into microbial biomass (Avnimelech, 1999; Crab et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2016). In addition to improving water quality, the resulting microbial flocs provide an additional source of protein-rich feed for the cultured organisms, increasing feed utilization efficiency and system sustainability (Emerenciano et al., 2013; Hargreaves, 2013). However, there are serious risks associated with poor C:N ratio control in BFT systems, such as disease outbreaks and system instability. If the carbon-nitrogen (C:N) ratio is not properly maintained, the excessive growth of heterotrophic bacteria can lead to oxygen depletion, accumulation of suspended solids, and inhibition of the autotrophic nitrifying bacteria responsible for ammonia oxidation (Michaud et al., 2006). Such imbalances in the culture system can lead to increased levels of ammonia or nitrite, as well as an increased risk of opportunistic infections in the organisms (Avnimelech, 2009; Martins et al., 2010). Therefore, regular monitoring and control of carbon inputs are essential to maintain microbial balance, prevent harmful microbial communities from becoming dominant, and guarantee the health and biosecurity of BFT-based aquaculture systems (De Schryver et al., 2008; Ekasari et al., 2014).

4.3 Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture

Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) is a sustainable farming approach that combines fed species with extractive species (Table 2) that utilize organic and inorganic wastes for growth (Barrington et al., 2009; Khanjani et al., 2022). In many traditional monoculture systems, species are cultivated independently, leading to nutrient accumulation and environmental damage. By bringing together organisms from different trophic levels, IMTA facilitates the movement of nutrients and energy through the water. By producing a variety of products and reducing production risks, this integrated system not only increases economic sustainability but also improves environmental sustainability by preventing eutrophication and recycling nutrients (biomimetics). Additionally, it improves social acceptance of aquaculture by demonstrating better farm management and ecologically conscious techniques (Sasikumar and Viji, 2016). IMTA is not the same as finfish polyculture, which can disrupt ecosystems because co-cultured species share similar biological and chemical processes. IMTA, on the other hand, deliberately mixes species with complementary ecological roles; inorganic extractive species (seaweeds) collect liquid nutrients, organic extractive species consume particulate organic compounds, and feeder species supply waste nutrients. This technique is a potential strategy for sustainable aquaculture because it allows for more intensive farming while maintaining ecological balance (Choudhary et al., 2025).

Modern IMTA systems are incorporating IoT-based real-time water quality monitoring to continuously track dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH, and temperature to effectively manage multiple trophic levels and mitigate environmental concerns (Ruiz-Vanoye et al., 2025). In advanced IMTA setups, artificial intelligence and data-driven decision-support technologies are already being used to predict nutrient flows, optimize species combinations, and improve feeding efficiency (Peres da Silva, 2021; Ruiz-Vanoye et al., 2025). Integrating biofloc systems with soilless plant production (FLOCponics), which improves nutrient recycling through microbial biomass and simultaneously producing fish and plants, is another emerging technology (Pinho et al., 2022). The advancements in system design including modular and recirculating IMTA units further enhance resource use efficiency (Biswas et al., 2020).

4.4 Aquaponics

Aquaponics is an integration of hydroponic and aquaculture methods in a single system that create a closed-loop structure by fertilizing plants with nutrient-rich water from fish tanks and then recirculating the treated water back into the fish tanks (Roosta and Mohsenian, 2015; Thomas et al., 2019; Baganz et al., 2022; Stoyanova et al., 2024). Aquaponics achieves water reuse rates of 95-99%, while requiring very little water exchange, effectively recycling nutrients, and significantly reducing wastewater emissions (Goddek et al., 2019; Baganz et al., 2022; Manan et al., 2025). This system has many benefits, such as reduced dependence on external fertilizers, improved water quality, elimination of the need for additional filter systems, and the ability to produce suitable fish and plants species simultaneously (Table 2), thereby increasing sustainability and profitability (Shafahi and Woolston, 2014; Eck et al., 2019). Additionally, aquaponics supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, specifically Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) and Goal 14 (Life Below Water), and helps ensure food security (Goddek et al., 2019; An et al., 2021).

However, recent developments in new system designs, algal co-cultivation, micro-nanobubble technology, biofilter media, and system automation with robotics, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things can improve real-time control of water quality parameters, feeding efficiency, freshwater replenishment rates, and nutrient balance in aquaponics (Alselek et al., 2022; Gayam et al., 2024; Chandramenon et al., 2024). Improvements in modular, scalable, and vertical aquaponics systems have enhanced space and resource utilization efficiency, particularly in urban farming settings (Birdawade et al., 2025). These technological advancements strengthen aquaponics as an essential component of integrated multitrophic aquaculture and circular food production systems.

4.5 Precision aquaculture

The approach to increasing aquaculture productivity through the focused application of technology and automation principles is known as precision aquaculture (Føre et al., 2018). The primary goal of precision aquaculture is to transform the industry from current production patterns, which are primarily manual and experience-based, to a more automated and knowledge-based one (Figure 2). As a result, farmers are able to better monitor and exercise greater control over their fish and surroundings. For aquaculture applications, more advanced and reliable sensors are available that measure water quality parameters such as temperature, oxygen, nitrogen, salinity, and turbidity. With the development of computer vision technology, studies have increased using cameras and imaging-based systems, along with algorithms to extract and analyze the data, as a non-invasive, inexpensive way to track and monitor fish in aquaculture (Zion, 2012; Qian et al., 2016; An et al., 2021; Barreto et al., 2022; Georgopoulou et al., 2021). Low-cost sensor systems and regression techniques have achieved 76-97% accuracy in measuring key water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH in Asian seabass fisheries (Jais et al., 2024). Automated classification of shrimp health using image datasets has helped in early disease detection with deep neural networks (Islam et al., 2025; Zakaria et al., 2025). Improved feeding precision demonstrated by YOLOv8-based computer vision models in tilapia farming has enabled biomass estimation with 94% accuracy and combined with IoT sensors optimized feed use (Hossam et al., 2024). Predictive modeling integrating GIS and machine learning has further aided disease forecasting in shrimp farms, facilitating preventative management of diseases (Khiem et al., 2022). Despite challenges related to sensor reliance, investment costs, and data interoperability, evidence confirms the important role of precision aquaculture in reducing feed costs, preventing disease outbreaks, and promoting environmental sustainability (Su et al., 2020; Rastegari et al., 2023; Future Market Insights, 2025).

Figure 2

4.6 Genetic improvement and biotechnology

Biotechnology and genetic enhancement are increasingly being used to increase sustainability, resilience, and productivity in aquaculture. In species such as carp, tilapia, and salmon selective breeding techniques improving feed efficiency, growth performance and disease resistant (Gedrem and Robinson, 2014). To address production problems and accelerate genetic gain, genomic tools such as marker-assisted and genomic selection are increasingly being used (Houston et al., 2020). In addition to genetic improvement, health management techniques such as probiotics, immunostimulants, and oral vaccinations have helped reduce antibiotic dependence and mitigate the impact of bacterial infections in farmed fish (Farooqi and Qureshi, 2018). Additionally, CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene-editing technologies are becoming effective tools for targeting specific traits (Table 3). Taken together, these developments reduce disease risk, enhance production efficiency, and promote product quality.

4.7 Alternative sustainable feeds

One of the most significant developments in aquaculture is the use of alternative sustainable feeds, which address the financial and environmental problems posed by excessive reliance on fishmeal and fish oil. Aquatic feeds are being produced using sustainable feed ingredients such as single-cell proteins, microalgae, yeast, insect meal and agricultural byproducts. By reducing reliance on wild fisheries, these alternatives save marine resources and help conserve biodiversity (Turchini et al., 2019). In addition to promoting a circular bioeconomy by valuing food and agricultural waste streams, they also reduce the environmental impact of aquatic feed production by using less land and emitting fewer greenhouse gases than conventional ingredients (Henry et al., 2015). Some of these ingredients have already been incorporated into practical diets by commercial aquatic feed enterprises. For example, salmonid and shrimp aquaculture has effectively utilized black soldier fly larva meal as a protein source, demonstrating growth rates comparable to traditional fishmeal-based diets (Nogales-Merida et al., 2019). Similarly, microalgae-derived oils rich in omega-3 fatty acids have been incorporated into salmon diets, successfully replacing fish oil without compromising fillet health or quality (Zatti et al., 2023). Single-cell proteins derived from bacteria and yeast are also becoming increasingly popular as scalable solutions because they contain high protein content and useful bioactive that support immune and gut health (Koukoumaki et al., 2024). When these sustainable diet options are used together, they reduce environmental pressure, improve resource efficiency, and promote the long-term expansion of the aquaculture industry (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Chakraborty (2026)], (G) Sunflower meal (Jolio, 2026), (H) Soybean oil [Bansal (2026)], (I) Groundnut oil [OnlyHydroponics (2026)] to reduce economic and environmental impacts of fishmeal and fish oil.

4.7.1 Probiotics and prebiotics application

Probiotics and prebiotics are rapidly gaining recognition as sustainable alternative feed additives in aquaculture, as they enhance growth performance, feed utilization, immune response, disease resistance and reduce reliance on antibiotics and chemotherapy (Dawood et al., 2018). Probiotics are defined as live, beneficial microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host, while prebiotics are non-digestible feed ingredients that selectively stimulate the growth and activity of beneficial gut microbiota (Gatesoupe, 1999; Ringø et al., 2010). Probiotic microorganisms such as Bacillus sp., Lactobacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Enterococcus sp., and Saccharomyces sp. are commonly used in aquaculture. These microorganisms have been shown to enhance digestive enzyme activity, inhibit pathogenic bacteria, and improve water quality by breaking down organic matter (Verschuere et al., 2000; Nayak, 2010). To improve nutrient absorption and immune modulation, prebiotics such as mannan oligosaccharides (MOS), fructooligosaccharides (FOS), galactooligosaccharides (GOS), and inulin are incorporated into aquafeeds to support beneficial microbial populations in the gastrointestinal tract (Ringø et al., 2010; Dawood et al., 2018). In fish and shrimp farming systems, the combined use of probiotics and prebiotics often referred to as synbiotics has demonstrated synergistic effects on growth performance, stress tolerance, and resistance to bacterial infections (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995; Hoseinifar et al., 2018). Probiotics and prebiotics are interesting alternative feed solutions for sustainable aquaculture development because they are environmentally friendly and compatible with intensive systems such as RAS and biofloc technology.

4.8 Limitations of advanced technologies

Despite the sustainability benefits of modern aquaculture technologies, they also have several drawbacks. Recirculating aquaculture systems require initial high capital investment, trained labor, and a continuous energy supply for aeration and bio-filtration to maintain stocks (Badiola et al., 2012; Malone and Pfeiffer, 2006). Biofloc technology requires continuous aeration and the adequate amount of carbon-nitrogen ratio for oxygen management and to control high levels of suspended solids and disease outbreaks (Avnimelech, 2009; Schveitzer et al., 2024). The widespread adoption of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems is hindered by site-specificity, species compatibility, system complexity, and regulatory issues (Barrington et al., 2009; Khanjani et al., 2022). Aquaponics systems sometimes face nutrient deficiencies, high setup costs, and limited crop options. They also require a careful balance of fish, plant, and microbial populations (Goddek et al., 2019; Baganz et al., 2022). In developing countries high sensor costs, data reliability issues, poor interoperability, and dependence on stable electricity and internet connectivity limit precision aquaculture technologies (Su et al., 2020; Flores-Iwasaki et al., 2025). Genetic improvement and gene-editing techniques also face challenges such as off-target mutations, ethical and biosecurity concerns, high costs, patent-related obstacles, low public acceptance and long-term environmental and health risks (Gutási et al., 2023). Despite the benefits of sustainability, alternative feeds present challenges such as higher costs, inconsistent nutrient composition, antinutritional factors, deficiencies in amino acids and phosphorus, low omega-3 content, palatability issues, and the potential for contaminants like mycotoxins, heavy metals, and pesticide residues (Zlaugotne et al., 2022). Insects, microalgae, and single-cell proteins face additional difficulties due to high nucleic acid concentrations, digestibility issues, sensory quality concerns, and the need for advanced processing techniques (Xu et al., 2025).

5 Future perspectives

The combination of pioneering technologies, biotechnology, and ecologically conscious methods will influence the direction of sustainable aquaculture production. As artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, the Internet of Things (IoT), and robotics become more widely used for enabling farms to function as fully data-driven systems. According to Føre et al. (2018), these technologies will improve real-time decision-making, mitigate production risks, boost efficiency, and reduce environmental impacts. In developing countries, due to higher costs and management limitations, AI-based monitoring, automation, and precision management can be adopted in a phased and context-specific manner. Without the need for fully automated infrastructure, smart technologies can be gradually integrated using affordable digital tools such as mobile-based water quality monitoring, cloud-enabled decision support systems, and simple sensor networks (Joffre et al., 2018). Cluster-based aquaculture systems and cooperative farming models can improve access to cutting-edge technology and share facilities to reduce the financial burden of an individual (Kassam et al., 2011; Troell et al., 2014). In developing countries, the promotion and adoption of innovative technologies requires strengthening public-private partnerships, capacity building through farmer training programs and extension services (Nouatin et al., 2025). Furthermore, government subsidies and microcredit programs can ease initial investments and mitigate the financial risks associated with technology adoption (Tietze and Villareal, 2003). Combining contemporary digital technologies with locally available materials, renewable energy sources, and traditional farming knowledge can further enhance affordability and long-term sustainability. Therefore, pioneering technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), when implemented through scalable, inclusive, and policy-supported frameworks, can significantly boost aquaculture production and resilience in developing countries without exacerbating socio-economic inequalities. The use of genomic selection and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing will be crucial in creating disease-resistant and fast-transmitting strains, and genetic improvement and biotechnology will also continue to advance. In addition to increasing production efficiency, these technologies will reduce dependence on chemical inputs and antibiotics, improving food safety and animal welfare (Houston et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2024). Their successful implementation will require a robust regulatory framework, ethical governance, and public acceptance, as well as continuous research to mitigate off-target effects and ecological risks. Aquaculture is striving to reduce its reliance on fish oil and fishmeal by exploring alternative, sustainable sources. Improving processing technologies and nutritional value can enhance the development and utilization of insect-based feeds, single-cell proteins, and algal oils, thereby lowering feed costs, increasing sustainability, and promoting the principles of a circular bioeconomy (Henry et al., 2015; Zatti et al., 2023). Climate-friendly aquaculture techniques, such as recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) can significantly reduce operating costs and carbon footprint by integrating renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power with energy-efficient pumps and intelligent sensor-based monitoring. Promising approaches for nutrient removal and reducing waste discharge include the use of low-energy denitrification units, microbial consortia engineering, and nature-based biofilters (Martins et al., 2010; Van Kessel et al., 2015). Future sustainable approaches for biofloc technology (BFT) include selective microbial control, probiotic-assisted floc management, and the use of locally available agro-industrial by-products as carbon sources to maintain stable C:N ratios and prevent disease outbreaks (Avnimelech, 2009; Emerenciano et al., 2017). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) presents significant potential for circular bioeconomy models by increasing the use of extractive species such as bivalves, seaweed, and deposit feeders to recover nutrients and create new revenue streams while minimizing environmental impacts (Troell et al., 2009; Chopin et al., 2012). Similarly, the use of low-input plant species, modular system designs, and urban-based vertical farming can further optimize aquaponics systems to improve food security and reduce water and land use (Goddek et al., 2019; Love et al., 2015). To meet consumer and market demands, future research will likely focus on increasing sustainability certification, improving disease surveillance through big data analysis, and making aquaculture systems more resilient to environmental changes. Cooperative strategies involving farmers, researchers, legislators, and technology providers will be essential to ensure equitable access to innovations, especially for marginal and small fish farmers in developing countries. In general, the integration of sustainable alternatives with modern technologies, genetic tools and ecosystem-based management will change aquaculture sector from traditional to modern era.

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, sustainable aquaculture is a continuous process that requires a combination of environmental protection, technological innovation, and socio-economic inclusiveness. Innovative technologies such as aquaponics, precision aquaculture, integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA), biofloc technology (BFT), recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), and alternative sustainable diets have shown promising results in increasing production, reducing environmental impacts, and improving resource efficiency. The future success of aquaculture will depend on climate-resilient practices, efficient disease management, genetic enhancement and circular bioeconomy initiatives. The strong government support, capacity building and appropriate access to technologies for aquaculture may continue to produce nutritious food, generate livelihoods, and contribute to global food security and maintaining ecological balance for future generations.

References

• 1

  AbahoI.KwikirizaG.AtukwatseF.IzaaraA. A.EkwanguJ.BagumaS. D.et al. (2025). Selective breeding for genetic improvement of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus 1758) in Uganda: current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Animals15, 142. doi: 10.3390/ani15020142

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AlamM. Z.Carpenter-BoggsL.MitraS.HaqueM. M.HalseyJ.RokonuzzamanM.et al. (2017). Effect of salinity intrusion on food crops, livestock, and fish species at Kalapara Coastal Belt in Bangladesh. J. Food Qual.2017, 2045157. doi: 10.1155/2017/2045157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AlamM. M.JørgensenN. O.BassD.SantiM.NielsenM.RahmanM. A.et al. (2024). Potential of integrated multitrophic aquaculture to make prawn farming sustainable in Bangladesh. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.8, 1412919. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1412919

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AlbadwawiM. A.AhmedZ. F.KurupS. S.AlyafeiM. A.JaleelA. (2022). A comparative evaluation of aquaponic and soil systems on yield and antioxidant levels in basil, an important food plant in Lamiaceae. Agronomy12, 3007. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12123007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AliA. A.IorhemenO. T.ThringR. W. (2025). Climate adaptation and resilience of biofiltration as a low-cost technological solution for water treatment–A critical review. Clean. Water3, 100062. doi: 10.1016/j.clwat.2024.100062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AlselekM.Alcaraz-CaleroJ. M.Segura-GarciaJ.WangQ. (2022). Water IoT monitoring system for aquaponics health and fishery applications. Sensors22, 7679. doi: 10.3390/s22197679

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AnD.HaoJ.WeiY.WangY.YuX. (2021). Application of computer vision in fish intelligent feeding system-A review. Aquac. Res.52, 423–437. doi: 10.1111/are.14907

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  AnandP. S.KohliM. P. S.RoyS. D.SundarayJ. K.KumarS.SinhaA.et al. (2013). Effect of dietary supplementation of periphyton on growth performance and digestive enzyme activities in Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture392, 59–68. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.01.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  Apper-BossardE.FeneuilA.WagnerA.RespondekF. (2013). Use of vital wheat gluten in aquaculture feeds. Aquat. Biosyst.9, 21. doi: 10.1186/2046-9063-9-21

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  AraujoG. S.SilvaJ. W. A. D.CotasJ.PereiraL. (2022). Fish farming techniques: Current situation and trends. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.10, 1598. doi: 10.3390/jmse10111598

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  ArgueB. J.ArceS. M.LotzJ. M.MossS. M. (2002). Selective breeding of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) for growth and resistance to Taura Syndrome Virus. Aquaculture204, 447–460. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00830-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  ArriesgadoE. M.Dela PeñaM. A.PinasoR. D.Jr.TeringJ. D.NavarroV. R.EballeR. C.et al. (2022). Identifying the suitable integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) species combination for Penaeus monodon (Fabricius 1798) for a sustainable pond aquaculture. Philippine J. Sci.151, 2497–2507. doi: 10.56899/151.6B.14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  AsaduzzamanM.RahmanM. M.AzimM. E.IslamM. A.WahabM. A.VerdegemM. C. J.et al. (2010). Effects of C/N ratio and substrate addition on natural food communities in freshwater prawn monoculture ponds. Aquaculture306, 127–136. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.05.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  AshkenaziD. Y.IsraelA.AbelsonA. (2019). A novel two-stage seaweed integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Rev. Aquac.11, 246–262. doi: 10.1111/raq.12238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  AtalahJ.Sanchez-JerezP. (2020). Global assessment of ecological risks associated with farmed fish escapes. Global Ecol. Conserv.21, e00842. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00842

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  AvnimelechY. (1999). Carbon/nitrogen ratio as a control element in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture176, 227–235. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00085-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  AvnimelechY. (2009). Biofloc technology: a practical guide book (Baton Rouge, LA, USA: CAVI Digital). x+–182.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  AzimM. E.LittleD. C. (2008). The biofloc technology (BFT) in indoor tanks: water quality, biofloc composition, and growth and welfare of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture283, 29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.06.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  BableeA. L.BasharA.AlamM. M.HasanN. A.HaqueM. M.HansenL. H.et al. (2024). Identification of aquatic plant species suitable for growing in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems in southwest Bangladesh. Sustainability16, 11113. doi: 10.3390/su162411113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  BadiolaM.MendiolaD.BostockJ. (2012). Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) analysis: Main issues on management and future challenges. Aquacultural Eng.51, 26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  BaganzD.GoddekS.KeesmanK. J.VermeulenT. (2022). The aquaponic principle—It is all about coupling. Rev. Aquac.14, 1–14. doi: 10.1111/raq.12596

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  BaiC.QiX.WangZ.WangJ.QiuL.LiH.et al. (2024). Effect of density stress on the physiological, biochemical, and immunological parameters of juvenile Pelteobagrus fulvidraco during simulated transportation. Aquac. Rep.34, 101911. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2023.101911

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  BallesterE. L. C.MarzarottoS. A.Silva de CastroC.FrozzaA.PastoreI.AbreuP. C. (2017). Productive performance of juvenile freshwater prawns Macrobrachium rosenbergii in biofloc system. Aquac. Res.48, 4748–4755. doi: 10.1111/are.13296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  Bansal (2026). What makes soybean oil as the most widely used edible oil worldwide? Available online at: https://bansaloilandfoods.com/soybean-oil-widely-used-edible-oilworldwide/ (Accessed January 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  BarretoM. O.Rey PlanellasS.YangY.PhillipsC.DescovichK. (2022). Emerging indicators of fish welfare in aquaculture. Rev. Aquac.14, 343–361. doi: 10.1111/raq.12601

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  BarringtonK.ChopinT.RobinsonS. (2009). “ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine temperate waters,” in Integrated mariculture: A global review (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 529). Ed. SotoD. ( FAO, Rome), 7–46.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  BartelmeR. P.McLellanS. L.NewtonR. J. (2017). Freshwater recirculating aquaculture system operations drive biofilter bacterial community shifts around a stable nitrifying consortium of ammonia-oxidizing archaea and comammox Nitrospira. Front. Microbiol.8, 101. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00101

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  BayirA.SaoulaS.AlmansourA.WangD.BayirM.UzunB. N.et al. (2025). CRISPR-based genetic improvement of aquaculture species. Fishes10, 84. doi: 10.3390/fishes10020084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  BénéC.ArthurR.NorburyH.AllisonE. H.BeveridgeM.BushS.et al. (2016). Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence. World Dev.79, 177–196. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  BirdawadeR. S.BhosaleS. S.KhaladkarD. S.DhumalS. S.PatilS. B. (2025). A review of IoT-enhanced sustainable farming: integrating aquaponics, hydroponics, and poultry for future agriculture. Int. J. Recent Adv. Eng. Technol.14, 66–81.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  BiswasG.KumarP.GhoshalT. K.KailasamM.DeD.BeraA.et al. (2020). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) outperforms conventional polyculture with respect to environmental remediation, productivity and economic return in brackishwater ponds. Aquaculture516, 734626. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  BiswasG.KumarP.KailasamM.GhoshalT. K.BeraA.VijayanK. K. (2019). Application of Integrated Multi Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) concept in brackishwater ecosystem: the first exploratory trial in the Sundarban, India. J. Coast. Res.86, 49–55. doi: 10.2112/SI86-007.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  BiswasS.MuduliD.IslamM. A.KanadeA. S.ZamaniA. T.KanadeS. P.et al. (2024). Empirical evaluation of deep learning techniques for fish disease detection in aquaculture systems: A transfer learning and fusion-based approach. IEEE Access12, 176136–176154. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3504283

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  BlankG. S.ChesserB.MortonC.CinelliM.McIntoshD. (2016). Culture of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in a small scale, deepwater, airlift driven aquaponics system. Department Agric. Natural Resour.2016, 1.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  BlaxterJ. H. S. (1953). Sperm storage and cross-fertilization of spring and autumn spawning herring. Nature172, 1189–1190. doi: 10.1038/1721189b0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  BöhmeM. H.DewenterM.GohlkeA. (2018). “ August. Aquaponics using Asian leafy vegetables-Potential and challenge,” in XXX International Horticultural Congress IHC2018: II International Symposium on Soilless Culture and VIII International, Vol. 1273. (Istanbul, Turkey: ISHS) 115–122.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  Bondad-ReantasoM. G.SubasingheR. P.ArthurJ. R.OgawaK.ChinabutS.AdlardR.et al. (2005). Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture. Vet. Parasitol.132, 249–272. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.07.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  BooncherdK.SreebunS.PasomboonP.BoonanuntanasarnS. (2024). Effects of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated dnd1 knockout impairs gonadal development in striped catfish. Animal18, 101039. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.101039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  BoydC. E.McNevinA. A. (2015). Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  BrownA. R.WilsonR. W.TylerC. R. (2025). Assessing the benefits and challenges of recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) for Atlantic salmon production. Rev. Fisheries Sci. Aquac.33, 380–401. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2024.2433581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  BuschmannA. H.VarelaD. A.Hernández-GonzálezM. C.HuovinenP. (2008). Opportunities and challenges for the development of an integrated seaweed-based aquaculture activity in Chile: determining the physiological capabilities of Macrocystis and Gracilaria as biofilters. J. Appl. Phycolo.20, 571–577. doi: 10.1007/s10811-007-9297-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  ChakrabortyS.AhmedS.GhoshR.BiswasP.ZamanS.MitraA. (2025). Eco-friendly nutrient management in fish ponds: the role of Azolla in nitrate and phosphate reduction. Discov. Plants2, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s44372-025-00213-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  ChandramenonP.GascoyneA.Tchuenbou-MagaiaF. (2024). IoT and machine learning approach for the determination of optimal freshwater replenishment rate in aquaponics system. Front. Sustain. Resour. Manage.3, 1363914. doi: 10.3389/fsrma.2024.1363914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  ChakrabortyM. (2026). Bio-composting by using agricultural by-products. WIKIFARMER. Available online at: https://wikifarmer.com/library/en/article/bio-composting-by-using-agricultural-by-products (Accessed January 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  ChaudhariH.AlikunhiK. H. (1957). Observations on the spawning in Indian carps by hormone injection. Curr. Sci.26, 381–382.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  ChopinT. (2011). Progression of the integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) concept and upscaling of IMTA systems towards commercialization. Aquac. Europe36, 5–12.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  ChopinT.CooperJ. A.ReidG.CrossS.MooreC. (2012). Open-water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Rev. Aquac.4, 209–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01074.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  ChopinT.RobinsonS. (2004). Defining the appropriate regulatory and policy framework for the development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture practices: introduction to the workshop and positioning of the issues. Bull. Aquac. Assoc. Canada104, 4–10.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  ChopinT.TroellM.ReidG. K.KnowlerD.RobinsonS. M. C.NeoriA.et al. (2010). “ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture,” in Advancing the Aquaculture Agenda: Workshop Proceedings (Paris: OECD Publishing) pp. 195–217. doi: 10.1787/9789264088726-15-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  ChoudharyB.DebS.ChouhanN.AzmeeraS.ChoudharyV. (2025). “ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) for wastewater treatment and resource recovery: A sustainable approach,” in Nature-Based Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and Bioenergy Production (London, UK: IWA Publishing), pp. 77–95. doi: 10.2166/9781789064100_0077P

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  CooganM.KhalilK.YeZ.DunhamR. A.ElaswadA. (2022). CRISPR/Cas9 induced knockout of myostatin gene improves growth and disease resistance in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Aquaculture557, 738341. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738290

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  CrabR.DefoirdtT.BossierP.VerstraeteW. (2012). Biofloc technology in aquaculture: beneficial effects and future challenges. Aquaculture356, 351–356. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  CrouseC.DavidsonJ.GoodC. (2022). The effects of two water temperature regimes on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) growth performance and maturation in freshwater recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquaculture553, 738063. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  CrouseC.KnightA.MayT.DavidsonJ.GoodC. (2023). Performance, processing yields, and fillet composition of specific United States diploid and triploid rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) lines reared in a semi-commercial scale freshwater recirculating aquaculture system. Aquac. Rep.33, 101794. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2023.101794

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  CutajarK.FalconerL.Massa-GallucciA.CoxR. E.SchenkeL.BardóczT.et al. (2022). Culturing the sea cucumber Holothuria poli in open-water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture at a coastal Mediterranean fish farm. Aquaculture550, 737881. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737881

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DaimsH.LebedevaE. V.PjevacP.HanP.HerboldC.AlbertsenM.et al. (2015). Complete nitrification by Nitrospira bacteria. Nature528, 504–509. doi: 10.1038/nature16461

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  DashS.DasS. K.SamalJ.ThatoiH. N. (2018). Epidermal mucus, a major determinant in fish health: a review. Iranian J. Vet. Res.19, 72.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Da SilveiraL. G. P.KrummenauerD.PoerschL. H.RosasV. T.WasieleskyW. (2020). Hyperintensive stocking densities for Litopenaeus vannamei grow-out in biofloc technology culture system. J. World Aquac. Soc.51, 1290–1300. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12718

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  DavidE. B. (1997). Water quality dynamics as the basis for aquaculture (Netherland: Elsevier science B.V), 99–126.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  DawoodM. A.KoshioS.EstebanM. Á. (2018). Beneficial roles of feed additives as immunostimulants in aquaculture: a review. Rev. Aquac.10, 950–974. doi: 10.1111/raq.12209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  DawoodM. A.MadkourK.SewilamH. (2025). Polyculture of European seabass and Nile tilapia in the recirculating aquaculture system with brackish water: Effects on the growth performance, feed utilization, and health status. Aquac. Fisheries10, 298–304. doi: 10.1016/j.aaf.2023.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  DebS.NooriM. T.RaoP. S. (2020). Application of biofloc technology for Indian major carp culture (polyculture) along with water quality management. Aquacultural Eng.91, 102106. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  de MoraisA. P. M.SantosI. L.CarneiroR. F. S.RoutledgeE. A. B.HayashiL.de LorenzoM. A.et al. (2023). Integrated multitrophic aquaculture system applied to shrimp, tilapia, and seaweed (Ulva ohnoi) using biofloc technology. Aquaculture572, 739492. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  De SchryverP.CrabR.DefoirdtT.BoonN.VerstraeteW. (2008). The basics of bio-flocs technology: The added value for aquaculture. Aquaculture277, 125–137. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.02.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  EckM.KörnerO.JijakliM. H. (2019). “ Nutrient cycling in aquaponics systems,” in Aquaponics food production systems: Combined aquaculture and hydroponic production Technologies for the Future ( Springer International Publishing, Cham), 231–246.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  EideL. H.Morales-LangeB.KuiperR. V.DaleO. B.RochaS. D.DjordjevicB.et al. (2025). Fermented sunflower meal in diets for Atlantic salmon under commercial-like farming conditions promotes gut lactic acid bacteria and controls inflammation in the distal intestine. Aquaculture595, 741517. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741517

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  EkasariJ.AzharM. H.SurawidjajaE. H.NuryatiS.De SchryverP.BossierP. (2014). Immune response and disease resistance of shrimp fed biofloc grown on different carbon sources. Fish Shellfish Immunol.41, 332–339. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2014.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ElaswadA.KhalilK.ClineD.Page-McCawP.ChenW.MichelM.et al. (2018). Microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 protein into channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, embryos for gene editing. Journal of Visualized Experiments20, 56275. doi: 10.3791/56275

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  ElayarajaS.MabrokM.AlgammalA.SabithaE.RajeswariM. V.ZágoršekK.et al. (2020). Potential influence of jaggery-based biofloc technology at different C:N ratios on water quality, growth performance, innate immunity, immune-related genes expression profiles, and disease resistance against Aeromonas hydrophila in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Shellfish Immunol.107, 118–128. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2020.09.023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  ElnadyM. A.Abd ElwahedR. K.GadG. H. (2017). Evaluating oxygen dynamics, water quality parameters and growth performance of Nile tilapia by applying different dietary nitrogen levels. J. Am. Sci.13, 107–115. doi: 10.7537/marsjas130117.15

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  EmerencianoM.GaxiolaG.CuzonG. (2013). Biofloc technology (BFT): A review for aquaculture application and animal food industry (London, UK: IntechOpen). doi: 10.5772/53902

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  EmerencianoM. G. C.Martínez-CórdovaL. R.Martínez-PorchasM.Miranda-BaezaA. (2017). Biofloc technology (BFT): a tool for water quality management in aquaculture. Water Quality5, 92–109. doi: 10.5772//66416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  EndeS.HenjesJ.SpillerM.ElshobaryM.HaneltD.AbomohraA. (2024). Recent advances in recirculating aquaculture systems and role of microalgae to close system loop. Bioresource Technol.407, 131107. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2024.131107

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Espinosa-MoyaA.Álvarez-GonzálezA.Albertos-AlpucheP.Guzmán-MendozaR.Martínez-YáñezR. (2018). Growth and development of herbaceous plants in aquaponic systems. Acta Universitaria28, 1–8. doi: 10.15174/au.2018.1387

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  EzhilarasiV.VermaA. K.RaniA. B.HarikrishnaV.ChandrakantM. H.AhmadI.et al. (2019). Effect of different carbon sources on growth, non-specific immunity and digestive enzyme activity of amur carp (Cyprinus rubrofuscus Lacepede 1803) fingerlings in biofloc based rearing system using inland saline groundwater. Indian J. Fisheries66, 87–94. doi: 10.21077/ijf.2019.66.3.86206-11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  EzhilmathiS.AhilanB.UmaA.FelixN.CherylA.LingamR. S. S.et al. (2023). Physiological response of asian seabass reared in recirculating aquaculture system under different stocking densities. Indian J. Anim. Res.1, 6. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-4955

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  FaizullahM.RajagopalsamyC. B. T.AhilanB.FrancisT. (2015). Impact of biofloc technology on the growth of goldfish young ones. Indian J. Sci. Technol.8, 1–8. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i13/54060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  FarooqiF. S.QureshiW. U. H. (2018). Immunostimulants for aquaculture health management. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem.7, 1441–1447.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  FlikG.KlarenP. H.Van den BurgE. H.MetzJ. R.HuisingM. O. (2006). CRF and stress in fish. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol.146, 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2005.11.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Flores-IwasakiM.GuadalupeG. A.Pachas-CaychoM.Chapa-GonzaS.Mori-ZabarburúR. C.Guerrero-AbadJ. C. (2025). Internet of Things (IoT) sensors for water quality monitoring in aquaculture systems: A Systematic review and bibliometric analysis. AgriEngineering7, 78. doi: 10.3390/agriengineering7030078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Food and Agriculture Organization (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 (Rome: FAO).

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  FøreM.FrankK.NortonT.SvendsenE.AlfredsenJ. A.DempsterT.et al. (2018). Precision fish farming: A new framework to improve production in aquaculture. Biosyst. Eng.173, 176–193. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.10.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Future Market Insights (2025). Precision aquaculture market outlook (Newark, Delaware, USA: Market Research Report).

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  YanM.LiB.WangJ.BaiY.KeQ.ZhouT.et al. (2022). Disruption of mstn gene by CRISPR/Cas9 in large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea). Marine Biotechnology24, 681–689. doi: 10.1007/s10126-022-10135-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  GatesoupeF. J. (1999). The use of probiotics in aquaculture. Aquaculture180, 147–165. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00187-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  GatlinD. M.BarrowsF. T.BrownP.DabrowskiK.GaylordT. G.HardyR. W.et al. (2007). Expanding the utilization of sustainable plant products in aquafeeds: A review. Aquac. Res.38, 551–579. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01704.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  GayamK. K.JainA.SinghR.GehlotA.AkramS. V. (2024). Smart aquaponics with integration of AI and IoT for yield enhancement through real-time monitoring and decision support. Int. J. Recent Innovation Trends Comput. Commun. (IJRITCC)11, 2039–2049. doi: 10.17762/ijritcc.v11i10.8887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  GjedremT.RobinsonN. (2014). Advances by Selective Breeding for Aquatic Species: A Review. Agricultural Sciences5, 1152–1158. doi: 10.4236/as.2014.512125

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  GeorgopoulouD. G.Stavrakidis-ZachouO.MitrizakisN.PapandroulakisN. (2021). Tracking and analysis of the movement behavior of European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in aquaculture systems. Front. Anim. Sci.2, 754520. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.754520

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  GephartJ. A.GoldenC. D.AscheF.BeltonB.BrugereC.FroehlichH. E.et al. (2021). Scenarios for global aquaculture and its role in human nutrition. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture29, 122–138. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  GharbiK.MatthewsL.BronJ.RobertsR.TinchA.StearM. (2015). The control of sea lice in Atlantic salmon by selective breeding. J. R. Soc. Interface12, 20150574. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0574

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  GhoshS. (2022). “ Introduction to recirculating aquaculture system,” in Training Manual on Nursery Rearing of Indian pompano in RAS (Kochi, Kerala: CMFRI), 1–5.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  GhoshA. K.HasanuzzamanA. F. M.IslamS. S.SarowerM. G.MistryS. K.ArafatS. T.et al. (2025). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA): enhancing growth, production, immunological responses, and environmental management in aquaculture. Aquac. Int.33, 336. doi: 10.1007/s10499-025-02021-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  GibsonG. R.RoberfroidM. B. (1995). Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr.125, 1401–1412. doi: 10.1093/jn/125.6.1401

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  GodaA. M. S.AboseifA. M.TahaM. K.MohammadyE. Y.AboushabanaN. M.NazmiH. M.et al. (2024). Optimizing nutrient utilization, hydraulic loading rate, and feed conversion ratios through freshwater IMTA-aquaponic and hydroponic systems as an environmentally sustainable aquaculture concept. Sci. Rep.14, 14878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63919-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  GoddekS.JoyceA.KeesmanK. J.DalsgaardT.VermeulenT.van der HeijdenR. (2019). Aquaponics: Closing the cycle on limited water, land and nutrients. Water Res.143, 357–368. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Godoy-OlmosS.JauraldeI.Monge-OrtizR.Milián-SorribesM. C.Jover-CerdáM.Tomás-VidalA.et al. (2022). Influence of diet and feeding strategy on the performance of nitrifying trickling filter, oxygen consumption and ammonia excretion of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) raised in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquac. Int.30, 581–606. doi: 10.1007/s10499-021-00821-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  Gonzalez HerreroM. E.KuehnC. (2021). A qualitative mathematical model of the immune response under the effect of stress. Chaos: Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci.31, 061104. doi: 10.1063/5.0055784

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  GrøttumJ. A.BeveridgeM. (2007). A review of cage aquaculture: Northern Europe. In: HalwartM.SotoD.ArthurJ. R. (eds), Cage aquaculture: regional reviews and global overview (Rome, Italy: FAO) pp. 126–154. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 498, 241 p.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  GuptaS.MakridisP.HenryI.Velle-GeorgeM.RibicicD.BhatnagarA.et al. (2024). Recent developments in recirculating aquaculture systems: a review. Aquac. Res.2024, 6096671. doi: 10.1155/are/6096671

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  GutásiA.HammerS. E.El-MatbouliM.SalehM. (2023). Review: recent applications of gene editing in fish species and aquatic medicine. Animals13, 1250. doi: 10.3390/ani13071250

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  GyamfiS.EdziyieR. E.ObirikorangK. A.Adjei-BoatengD.SkovP. V. (2022). Water quality dynamics in earthen ponds with and without fish. Int. Aquat. Res.14, 169–180. doi: 10.22034/IAR.2022.1962583.1297

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  HagerJ.BrightL. A.TidwellJ. H.DusciJ. (2021). A Practical Handbook for Growers AQUAPONICS Production Manual (Kentucky, USA: Kentucky State University).

  • Google Scholar

• 104

  HanifI. M.EffendiI.BudiardiT.DiatinI. (2021). The recirculated aquaculture system (RAS) development with nanobubble application to improve growth performance of grouper fish fry culture. J. Akuakultur Indonesia20, 181–190. doi: 10.19027/jai.20.2.181-190

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  HargreavesJ. A. (2013). Biofloc production systems for aquaculture southern regional aquaculture center; SRAC Publication No. 4503 (Washington, DC, USA: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture).

  • Google Scholar

• 106

  HariB.KurupB. M.VargheseJ. T.SchramaJ. W.VerdegemM. C. J. (2004). Effects of carbohydrate addition on production in extensive shrimp culture systems. Aquaculture241, 179–194. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.07.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  HariniC.RajagopalasamyC. B. T.KumarJ. S. S.SanthakumarR. (2016). Role of biofloc in the growth and survival of blue morph, Pseudotropheus saulosi. Indian J. Sci. Technol.9, 1–7. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i8/75237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  HaryantoT. (2023). Impact of credit access on farm performance: Does source matter? Heliyon9, e17645. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19720

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  HayashidaT.SomaS.NakamuraY.HiguchiK.KazetoY.GenK. (2023). Transcriptome characterization of gonadal sex differentiation in Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis (Temminck et Schlegel). Sci. Rep.13, 13867. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40914-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  HenrikssonP. J. G.TroellM.BanksL. K.BeltonB.BeveridgeM. C. M.KlingerD. H.et al. (2021). Interventions for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture for future food security. One Earth4, 1220–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  HenryM.GascoL.PiccoloG.FountoulakiE. (2015). Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: Past and future. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.203, 1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.03.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  HeuzéV.TranG.Giger-ReverdinS.LebasF. (2017). Silkworm pupae meal. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. Available online at: https://feedipedia.org/node/199 (Accessed January 4, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  HolandaM.SantanaG.FurtadoP.RodriguesR. V.CerqueiraV. R.SampaioL. A.et al. (2020). Evidence of total suspended solids control by Mugil liza reared in an integrated system with pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei using biofloc technology. Aquac. Rep.18, 100479. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100479

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  HoseinifarS. H.SunY. Z.WangA.ZhouZ. (2018). Probiotics as means of diseases control in aquaculture, a review of current knowledge and future perspectives. Front. Microbiol.9, 2429. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02429

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  HossamR.HeaklA.GomaaW. (2024). Precision aquaculture: An integrated computer vision and IoT approach for optimized tilapia feeding. 21th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation, and Robotics, Porto, Portugal. 3, 1–8. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08695

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  HoustonR. D.BeanT. P.MacqueenD. J.GundappaM. K.JinY. H.JenkinsT. L.et al. (2020). Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nat. Rev. Genet.21, 389–409. doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0227-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  IndriastutiC. E.RatnawatiB.BudihartoI. W. (2022). “ Survival and growth performance the catfish Clarias gariepinus in high density nurseries using recirculating aquaculture system (RAS),” in E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 348. (Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences), 00013).

  • Google Scholar

• 118

  IslamM. M.SarkerA.ChoudhuryA.AhmedN.ShafiA. A.NiloyN. T.et al. (2025). ShrimpDiseaseBD: An image dataset for detecting shrimp diseases in the aquaculture sector of Bangladesh. Data Brief60, 111553. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2025.111553

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  JaisN. A. M.AbdullahA. F.KassimM. S. M.Abd KarimM. M.MuhadiN. A. (2024). Improved accuracy in IoT-Based water quality monitoring for aquaculture tanks using low-cost sensors: Asian seabass fish farming. Heliyon10, e29022.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  JeyaprakashsabariS.AanandS. (2021). Silkworm pupae meal-a promising fish meal substitute in aqua feed. AgriCos e-Newsletter2, 17.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  JiangK.ChenC.JiangG.ChiY.XuC.KongL.et al. (2024). Genetic improvement of oysters: Current status, challenges, and prospects. Rev. Aquac.16, 796–817. doi: 10.1111/raq.12868

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  Jolio (2026). Sunflower Meal. Available online at: https://jolio.ge/en/produqti/3 (Accessed January 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  JoffreO.KlerkxL.KhoaT. N. (2018). Aquaculture innovation system analysis of transition to sustainable intensification in shrimp farming. Agron. Sustain. Dev.38, 34. doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0511-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  JosephS.IgnatiusB.ImeldaJ.RajeshN. (2023). “ Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA): a successful diversified farming system,” in Winter School on Mariculture Technologies for Income Multiplication, Employment, Livelihood and Empowerment (Kochi, India: CMFRI), 53–61.

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  JunaidA. A.KamarudinM. S.JunaidQ. O.EdaroyatiW. P.IsyakaM. S.DaudaA. B.et al. (2023). Nutrient uptake and recovery potentials of Ocimum basilicum and Corchorus olitorius in a polyculture aquaponic system. Sci. Afr.20, e01645. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01645

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  KamleshbhaiB. P.IqbalG.BambhaniyaI. (2023). “ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture system (IMTA),” in Traditional & recent aquaculture practices (New Delhi, India: AkiNik Publications), 109–125.

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  KariZ. A.MatK. H. A. I. R. I. Y. A. H.KabirM. A.ZalW. A.MunirM. B.WeiL. S.et al. (2023). Soybean by-product: As an alternative to fish meal as protein source for aquaculture industry. J. Sustain. Sci. Manage.18, 179–202. doi: 10.46754/jssm.2023.05.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  KassamL.SubasingheR.PhillipsM. (2011). “ Aquaculture farmer organizations and cluster management: concepts and experiences,” in FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 563 ( Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome).

  • Google Scholar

• 129

  KhalilK.ElayatM.KhalifaE.DaghashS. M.ElaswadA.MillerM.et al. (2017). Generation of myostatin gene-edited channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) via zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci. Rep.7, 7301. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07223-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  KhaliliR.MoridiA. (2025). A comprehensive review of eutrophication in water resources: from identifying contributing factors to proposing management strategies. Interdiscip. J. Civil Eng.1, 38–52. doi: 10.48308/ijce.2025.240047.1003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  KhanjaniM. H.SharifiniaM.HajirezaeeS. (2023). Biofloc: a sustainable alternative for improving the production of farmed cyprinid species. Aquac. Rep.33, 101748. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2023.101748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  KhanjaniM. H.ZahediS.MohammadiA. (2022). Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) as an environmentally friendly system for sustainable aquaculture. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.29, 67513–67531. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22371-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  KhiemN. M.TakahashiY.YasumaH.OanhD. T. H.HaiT. N.UtV. N.et al. (2022). Use of GIS and machine learning to predict disease in shrimp farmed on the east coast of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Fisheries Sci.88, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s12562-021-01577-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  KibriaA. S. M.HaqueM. M. (2018). Potentials of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in freshwater ponds in Bangladesh. Aquac. Rep.11, 8–16. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2018.05.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  KoukoumakiD. I.TsoukoE.PapanikolaouS.IoannouZ.DiamantopoulouP.SarrisD. (2024). Recent advances in the production of single cell protein from renewable resources and applications. Carbon Resour. Conversion7, 100195. doi: 10.1016/j.crcon.2023.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  KrummenauerD.SamochaT.PoerschL.LaraG.WasieleskyW. (2014). The reuse of water on the culture of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei in BFT system. J. World Aquac. Soc.45, 3–14. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  KumarR.AhmadN.VermaD. K.KantharajanG.KumarC. B.PariaA.et al. (2022). Mortalities in cultured Pangasianodon hypophthalmus due to oomycete Saprolegnia parasitica infection in Uttar Pradesh, India. Aquac. Rep.23, 101047. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  LakraW. S.AyyappanS. (2003). Recent advances in biotechnology applications to aquaculture. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci.16, 455–462. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2003.455

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  LennardW. (2017). Commercial aquaponic systems: Integrating recirculating fish culture with hydroponic plant production (Adelaide, Australia: Wilson Lennard), 375.

  • Google Scholar

• 140

  LiZ. (2024). Disease management in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture560, 739123.

  • Google Scholar

• 141

  LiX.DongX.YueF.LangY.DingH.LiX.et al. (2025). Nitrous oxide emissions at aquaculture ponds in the coastal zone of the Bohai Rim Region of China: Impacts of eutrophication and feeding practice. Environ. pollut.371, 125959. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125959

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  LiM.YangH.ZhaoJ.FangL.ShiH.LiM.et al. (2014). Efficient and heritable gene targeting in tilapia by CRISPR/Cas9. Genetics197, 591–599. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.163667

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  LiangX.ZhangM.XieZ.WuR.MaZ.GuanG.et al. (2020). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated precise genome modification by a long ssDNA template in zebrafish. BMC Genomics21, 67. doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-6493-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  Lindholm-LehtoP. (2023). Water quality monitoring in recirculating aquaculture systems: A review. Aquac. Fish Fisheries3, 1–15. doi: 10.1002/aff2.102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  LiuC. X.LiC. Y.HuC. C.WangY.LinJ.JiangY. H.et al. (2018). CRISPR/Cas9-induced shank3b mutant zebrafish display autism-like behaviors. Mol. Autism9, 23. doi: 10.1186/s13229-018-0204-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  LiuY.RenX.FanC.WuW.ZhangW.WangY. (2022). Health benefits, food applications, and sustainability of microalgae-derived N-3 PUFA. Foods11, 1883. doi: 10.3390/foods11131883

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  LiutkusM.RobinsonS.MacDonaldB.ReidG. (2012). Quantifying the effects of diet and mussel size on the biophysical properties of the blue mussel, Mytilus spp., feces egested under simulated imta conditions. J. Shellfish Res.31, 69–77. doi: 10.2983/035.031.0109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  LoveD. C.FryJ. P.LiX.HillE. S.GenelloL.SemmensK.et al. (2015). Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture435, 67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  LupatschI.SantosG. A.SchramaJ. W.VerrethJ. A. J. (2010). Effect of stocking density and feeding level on energy expenditure and stress responsiveness in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax. Aquaculture298, 245–250. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.11.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  MaJ.FanY.ZhouY.LiuW.JiangN.ZhangJ.et al. (2018). Efficient resistance to grass carp reovirus infection in JAM-A knockout cells using CRISPR/Cas9. Fish Shellfish Immunol.76, 206–215. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2018.02.039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  MacDonaldB. A.RobinsonS. M.BarringtonK. A. (2011). Feeding activity of mussels (Mytilus edulis) held in the field at an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) site (Salmo salar) and exposed to fish food in the laboratory. Aquaculture314, 244–251. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.01.045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  MaezonoM.NielsenR.BuchmannK.NielsenM. (2025). The current state of knowledge of the economic impact of diseases in global aquaculture. Rev. Aquac.17, 70039. doi: 10.1111/raq.70039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  MagarS. T. (2023). Single Cell Protein (SCP): Microbes, Production, Uses. Microbe Notes. Available online at: https://microbenotes.com/single-cell-protein/ (Accessed 4 January 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 154

  MaloneR. F.PfeifferT. J. (2006). Rating fixed film nitrifying biofilters used in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Eng.34, 389–402. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2005.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  MananH.KasanN. A.IkhwanuddinM.KamaruzzanA. S.JalilahM.FauzanF.et al. (2024). Biofloc technology in improving shellfish aquaculture production – A review. Ann. Anim. Sci.24, 983–993. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2023-0093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  MananN. A.MohamadS. J.KamaruzzanA. S.RazmanM. M. A.KasanN. A.AbdullahM. I. (2025). Aquaponics: a sustainable technology for aquaculture and agriculture food security. Planet. Sustain.3, 33–44. doi: 10.46754/ps.2025.01.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  MartinsC. I.EdingE. H.SchneiderO.RasmussenR.OlesenB.PlesnerL.et al. (2005). “ Recirculation aquaculture systems in Europe,” in Position Paper; CONSENSUS Working Group 3 (Oostende, Belgium: Wageningen University & Research).

  • Google Scholar

• 158

  MartinsC. I. M.EdingE. H.VerdegemM. C.HeinsbroekL. T.SchneiderO.BlanchetonJ. P.et al. (2010). New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental sustainability. Aquacultural Eng.43, 83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2010.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  MbiydzenyuyN. E.QuluL. A. (2024). Stress, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, and aggression. Metab. Brain Dis.39, 1613–1636. doi: 10.1007/s11011-024-01393-w

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  McLeanE. (2023). “ Feed ingredients for sustainable aquaculture,” in Sustainable Food Science: A Comprehensive Approach. Ed. FerrantiP. ( Elsevier Inc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 392–423.

  • Google Scholar

• 161

  MichaudL.BlanchetonJ. P.BruniV.PiedrahitaR. (2006). Effect of particulate organic carbon on heterotrophic bacterial populations and nitrification efficiency in biological filters. Aquacultural Eng.34, 224–233. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2005.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  Mihály-KarnaiL.FehérM.BársonyP.SzűcsI.MihályT.FrónaD.et al. (2025). Sustainability in intensive aquaculture-profitability of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) production in recirculating aquaculture systems based on a hungarian case study. Animals15, 1055. doi: 10.3390/ani15071055

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  MilneP. H. (1972). Fish and shellfish farming in coastal waters (London: Fishing News Books).

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  MinazM.Yazıcıİ. S.SevgiliH.Aydınİ. (2024). Biofloc technology in aquaculture: Advantages and disadvantages from social and applicability perspectives – A review. Ann. Anim. Sci.24, 307–319. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2023-0043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  MishraS. S.RakeshD.DhimanM.ChoudharyP.DebbarmaJ.SahooS. N.et al. (2017). Present status of fish disease management in freshwater aquaculture in India: state-of-the-art-review. J. Aquac. Fisheries1, 14. doi: 10.24966/AAF-5523/100003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  MohanK.RajanD. K.MuralisankarT.GanesanA. R.SathishkumarP.RevathiN. (2022). Use of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens L.) larvae meal in aquafeeds for a sustainable aquaculture industry: A review of past and future needs. Aquaculture553, 738095. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  MugwanyaM.DawoodM. A.KimeraF.SewilamH. (2022). A review on recirculating aquaculture system: Influence of stocking density on fish and crustacean behavior, growth performance, and immunity. Ann. Anim. Sci.22, 873. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2022-0014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  NairC. S.ManoharanR.NishanthD.SubramanianR.NeumannE.JaleelA. (2025). Recent advancements in aquaponics with special emphasis on its sustainability. J. World Aquac. Soc.56, 13116. doi: 10.1111/jwas.13116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  Nasr-EldahanS.DawoodM. A.MugwanyaM.KimeraF.SewilamH. (2025). Impact of dietary protein levels and feeding regimes on growth performance and biochemical profile of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) reared in a brackish water recirculating aquaculture system. Aquac. Rep.44, 103034. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.103034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  NayakS. K. (2010). Probiotics and immunity: a fish perspective. Fish Shellfish Immunol.29, 2–14. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2010.02.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  NaylorR. L.HardyR.BureauD. P.CaoL.ElliottM.FarrellA. P.et al. (2009). Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.106, 15103–15110. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905235106

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  NgocP. T. A.MeuwissenM. P.LeT. C.BosmaR. H.VerrethJ.Oude LansinkA. (2016). Adoption of recirculating aquaculture systems in large pangasius farms: A choice experiment. Aquaculture460, 90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.03.055

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  NiranjanL.SunithaH.NithuS.PranathiV.AravindhA. (2020). Design and implementation of real-time monitoring of aquaponic system using Atmega328p IoT and proteus design tool. IJRR7, 616. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23983.36002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  NishanthD. (2023). Standardizing sustainable aquaponic production of leafy greens and fish: a comparison with conventional systems in the United Arab Emirates. Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: United Arab Emirates University Master Thesis.

  • Google Scholar

• 175

  Nogales-MeridaS.GobbiP.JózefiakD.MazurkiewiczJ.RawskiM.KierończykB.et al. (2019). Insect meal in fish nutrition–A review. Animals9, 201. doi: 10.1111/raq.12281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  NorthB. P.TurnbullJ. F.EllisT.PorterM. J.MigaudH.BronJ.et al. (2006). The impact of stocking density on the welfare of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture255, 466–479. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.01.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  NouatinF.GourouberaM. W.Moumouni-MoussaI. (2025). Fostering farmers’ innovativeness through training and extension approaches: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Innovation Stud.9, 284–300. doi: 10.1016/j.ijis.2025.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  ØdegårdJ.SommerA. I.PræbelA. K. (2010). Heritability of resistance to viral nervous necrosis in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.). Aquaculture300, 59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.01.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  OnlyHydroponics (2026). Cold Pressed Groundnut / Peanut Oil (500ml). Available online at: https://onlyhydroponics.in/products/cold-pressed-groundnut-peanut-oil-500ml (Accessed January 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 180

  OrellanaJ.WallerU.WeckerB. (2014). Culture of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) in a marine recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with artificial seawater. Aquacultural Eng.58, 20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2013.09.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  Peres da SilvaC. (2021). Smart marine sensing systems for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). MRes Thesis. Cork, Ireland: University College Cork.

  • Google Scholar

• 182

  PhiliposeK. K.LokaJ.SharmaS. R. K.DamodaranD. (2012). Handbook on open sea cage culture (Kochi: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute).

  • Google Scholar

• 183

  PinhoS. M.DavidL. H.GarciaF.KeesmanK. J.PortellaM. C.GoddekS. (2021). South American fish species suitable for aquaponics: a review. Aquac. Int.29, 1427–1449. doi: 10.1007/s10499-021-00674-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  PinhoS. M.de LimaJ. P.DavidL. H.EmerencianoM. G.GoddekS.VerdegemM. C.et al. (2022). FLOCponics: The integration of biofloc technology with plant production. Rev. Aquac.14, 647–675. doi: 10.1111/raq.12617

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  PrasadP. A.ShivanandamuthyH.ReddyD. R. K.NaikM. G.GowdaG.NaikK. M.et al. (2018). Effect of biofloc on water quality parameters in Rohu, Labeo rohita (Hamilton) Culture Tanks. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.7, 3167–3173. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2018.708.338

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  PreenaP. G.SwaminathanT. R.KumarV. J. R.SinghI. S. B. (2020). Antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture: A crisis for concern. Biologia75, 1497–1517. doi: 10.2478/s11756-020-00456-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  FSN (2025). Indian survey reveals concern about food safety. Food Saf. News. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2025/09/indian-survey-reveals-concern-about-food-safety/ (Accessed January 02, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 188

  PrimaveraJ. H. (2000). Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: Institutional issues. Ecol. Econ35, 91–106. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00170-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  PutraI.EffendiI.LukistyowatiI.TangU. M. (2019). “ December. Growth and survival rate of red tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) cultivated in the brackish water tank under biofloc system,” in International Conference of CELSciTech 2019-Science and Technology track (ICCELST-ST 2019) (Pekanbaru, Indonesia: Atlantis Press), 96–99. doi: 10.2991/iccelst-st-19.2019.19

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  QianZ. M.WangS. H.ChengX. E.ChenY. Q. (2016). An effective and robust method for tracking multiple fish in video image based on fish head detection. BMC Bioinf.17, 251. doi: 10.1186/s12859-016-1138-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  RagabS.HoseinifarS. H.Van DoanH.RossiW.DaviesS.AshourM.et al. (2025). Overview of aquaculture Artificial Intelligence (AAI) applications: Enhance sustainability and productivity, reduce labor costs, and increase the quality of aquatic products. Ann. Anim. Sci.25, 441–453. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2024-0075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  RahimnejadS.HuS.SongK.WangL.LuK.WuR.et al. (2019). Replacement of fish meal with defatted silkworm (Bombyx mori L.) pupae meal in diets for Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Aquaculture510, 150–159. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.05.054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  RahmanM. R.IslamS. R.NaymaZ.SultanaR.SarkerJ. (2020). Bio-economic evolution of snakeheads and Indian major carps culture in IMTA system. Bangladesh J. Vet. Anim. Sci.8, 117–127. doi: 10.60015/bjvas/V08I1A14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  RaizadaS.RawatA.SrivastavaP. P. (2023). Performance of hatchery-produced and feed-weaned fingerlings of striped murrel Channa striata (Bloch 1793) in biofloc system in the subtropical climate. Indian J. Fisheries70, 41–50. doi: 10.21077/ijf.2023.70.2.117759-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  RakocyJ. E.MasserM. P.LosordoT. M. (2006). Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems: Aquaponics-Integrating Fish and Plant Culture (Stoneville, Mississippi: Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC) Publication No. 454).

  • Google Scholar

• 196

  RamiroB. D. O.WasieleskyW.Jr.PimentelO. A. L. F.SunT.McAlhaneyE.UrickS.et al. (2024). Assessment of water quality, growth of Penaeus vannamei, and partial budget in super-intensive BFT and RAS. Sustainability16, 11005. doi: 10.3390/su162411005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  RanjanD.VermaP.MauryaP.RaghunathSinghM. B.KanaujiyaS.et al. (2023). “ Re-circulatory aquaculture system (RAS),” in Traditional and Recent Aquaculture Practices, 1st. Eds. RanjanD.VermaP.SinghM. B.KanaujiyaS.PathakA. ( Akinik Publications, New Delhi), 55–65.

  • Google Scholar

• 198

  RastegariH.NadiF.LamS. S.IkhwanuddinM.KasanN. A.RahmatR. F.et al. (2023). Internet of Things in aquaculture: A review of the challenges and potential solutions based on current and future trends. Smart Agric. Technol.4, 100187. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2023.100187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  RayA. J.LotzJ. M. (2017). Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) production and stable isotope dynamics in clear-water recirculating aquaculture systems versus biofloc systems. Aquac. Res.48, 4390–4398. doi: 10.1111/are.13262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  RindK. H.HabibS. S.UjanJ. A.FazioF.NazS.BatoolA. I.et al. (2023). The effects of different carbon sources on water quality, growth performance, hematology, immune, and antioxidant status in cultured Nile Tilapia with biofloc technology. Fishes8, 512. doi: 10.3390/fishes8100512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  RingøE.OlsenR. E.GifstadT. Ø.DalmoR. A.AmlundH.HemreG. I.et al. (2010). Prebiotics in aquaculture: a review. Aquac. Nutr.16, 117–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2095.2009.00731.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  Robles-PorchasG. R.Gollas-GalvánT.Martínez-PorchasM.Martínez-CórdovaL. R.Miranda-BaezaA.Vargas-AlboresF. (2020). The nitrification process for nitrogen removal in biofloc system aquaculture. Rev. Aquac.12, 2228–2249. doi: 10.1111/raq.12431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  RoostaH. R.MohsenianY. (2015). Alleviation of alkalinity-induced Fe deficiency in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) by foliar application of different Fe sources in recirculating system. Journal of Plant Nutrition38, 1768–1786. doi: 10.1007/s11099-012-0054-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  RoseG. A. (2018). Atlantic Cod: A Bio-Ecology (Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: Wiley-Blackwell).

  • Google Scholar

• 205

  Ruiz-VanoyeJ. A.Diaz-ParraO.Márquez VeraM. A.Fuentes-PennaA.Barrera-CámaraR. A.Ruiz-JaimesM. A.et al. (2025). A comprehensive review of quality of aquaculture services in integrated multi-trophic systems. Fishes10, 54. doi: 10.3390/fishes10020054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  SalinK. R.ArunV. V.Mohanakumaran NairC.TidwellJ. H. (2018). “ Sustainable aquafeed,” in Sustainable Aquaculture ( Springer International Publishing, Cham), 123–151.

  • Google Scholar

• 207

  SasikumarG.VijiC. S. (2016). “ Integrated multitrophic aquaculture systems (IMTA),” in Winter School on Technological Advances in Mariculture for Production Enhancement and Sustainability: Course Manual (Kochi, India: ICAR), 47–55.

  • Google Scholar

• 208

  SchmidtA. S.BruunM. S.DalsgaardI.PedersenK.LarsenJ. L. (2000). Occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in fish-pathogenic and environmental bacteria from rainbow trout farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.66, 4908–4915. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.11.4908-4915.2000

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  SchveitzerR.BaccaratR. F. C.GaonaC. A. P.WasieleskyW.ArantesR. (2024). Concentration of suspended solids in superintensive culture of Litopenaeus vannamei with biofloc technology (BFT): A review. Rev. Aquac.16, 785–795. doi: 10.1111/raq.12867

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  SerraV.PastorelliG.TedescoD. E. A.TurinL.GuerriniA. (2024). Alternative protein sources in aquafeed: Current scenario and future perspectives. Vet. Anim. Sci.25, 100381. doi: 10.1016/j.vas.2024.100381

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  ShafahiM.WoolstonD. (2014). “ Aquaponics: a sustainable food production system,” in ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, vol. 46469. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), V003T03A073. doi: 10.1115/IMECE2014-39441

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  ShamsuddinM.HossainM. B.RahmanM.KawlaM. S.ShufolM. B. A.RashidM. M.et al. (2022). Application of Biofloc Technology for the culture of Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) in Bangladesh: stocking density, floc volume, growth performance, and profitability. Aquac. Int.30, 1047–1070. doi: 10.1007/s10499-022-00849-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  ShpigelM.ShauliL.OdintsovV.Ben-EzraD.NeoriA.GuttmanL. (2018). The sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus, in an Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) system with fish (Sparus aurata) and seaweed (Ulva lactuca): Nitrogen partitioning and proportional configurations. Aquaculture490, 260–269. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.02.051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  SkjølstrupJ.McLeanE.NielsenP. H.FrierJ. O. (2000). The influence of dietary oxolinic acid on fluidised bed biofilter performance in a recirculation system for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture183, 255–268. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00298-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  Sri-uamP.DonnueaS.PowtongsookS.PavasantP. (2016). Integrated multi-trophic recirculating aquaculture system for nile tilapia (Oreochlomis niloticus). Sustainability8, 592. doi: 10.3390/su8070592

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  StoyanovaS.SirakovI.VelichkovaK. (2024). Sustainable production: Integrating medicinal plants with fish farming in aquaponics-A mini review. Sustainability16, 6337. doi: 10.3390/su16156337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  StrandØ.JansenH. M.JiangZ.RobinsonS. M. (2018). “ Perspectives on bivalves providing regulating services in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture,” in Goods and services of marine bivalves ( Springer International Publishing, Cham), 209–230.

  • Google Scholar

• 218

  RaudsteinM.Kjærner-SembE.BarvikM.BrollS.StraumeA. H.EdvardsenR. B. (2023). In vivo CRISPR/LbCas12a-mediated knock-in and knock-out in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Transgenic Res.32, 513–521. doi: 10.1007/s11248-023-00368-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  SuX.SutarlieL.LohX. J. (2020). Sensors, biosensors, and analytical technologies for aquaculture water quality. Research2022, 8272705. doi: 10.34133/2020/8272705

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  SzczepańskiA.Adamek-UrbańskaD.KasprzakR.SzudrowiczH.ŚliwińskiJ.KamaszewskiM. (2022). Lupin: A promising alternative protein source for aquaculture feeds? Aquac. Rep.26, 101281. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  TaconA. G. J.MetianM. (2015). Feed matters: Satisfying the feed demand of aquaculture. Rev. Fisheries Sci. Aquac.23, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2014.987209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  ThomasL.GoddekS.ScottB. (2019). Aquaponics in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities. Aquaculture516, 734–745.

  • Google Scholar

• 223

  TietzeU.VillarealL. V. (2003). “ Microfinance in fisheries and aquaculture. Guidelines and case studies,” in FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 440 (Rome, Italy: FAO).

  • Google Scholar

• 224

  TimmonsM. B.EbelingJ. M.WheatonF. W.SummerfeltS. T.VinciB. J. (2002). Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. 2nd ed (Ithaca, NY: Cayuga Aqua Ventures).

  • Google Scholar

• 225

  TomA. P.JayakumarJ. S.BijuM.SomarajanJ.IbrahimM. A. (2021). Aquaculture wastewater treatment technologies and their sustainability: A review. Energy Nexus4, 100022. doi: 10.1016/j.nexus.2021.100022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  TroellM.JoyceA.ChopinT.NeoriA.BuschmannA. H.FangJ. G. (2009). Ecological engineering in aquaculture-potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture297, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.09.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  TroellM.NaylorR. L.MetianM.BeveridgeM.TyedmersP. H.FolkeC.et al. (2014). Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 13257–13263. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404067111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  TsengK. F.SuH. M.SuM. S. (1998). Culture of Penaeus monodon in a recirculating system. Aquacultural Eng.17, 138–147. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8609(98)00011-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  TurchiniG. M.TrushenskiJ. T.GlencrossB. D. (2019). Thoughts for the future of aquaculture nutrition: Realigning perspectives to reflect contemporary issues related to judicious use of marine resources. Aquac. Res.50, 3–17. doi: 10.1002/naaq.10067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  MartinG. (2020). Could microalgae be the next food trend? ( The University of Melbourne). Available online at: https://eng.unimelb.edu.au/ingenium/food-agribusiness/could-microalgae-be-the-next-food-trend (Accessed February 02, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 231

  Van KesselM. A.SpethD. R.AlbertsenM.NielsenP. H.Op den CampH. J.KartalB.et al. (2015). Complete nitrification by a single microorganism. Nature528, 555–559. doi: 10.1038/nature16459

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  VarshneyG. K.PeiW.LaFaveM. C.IdolJ.XuL.GallardoV.et al. (2015). High-throughput gene targeting and phenotyping in zebrafish using CRISPR/Cas9. Genome Res.25, 1030–1042. doi: 10.1101/gr.186379.114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  VerdegemM. C. J.BosmaR. H.VerrethJ. A. J. (2006). Reducing water use for animal production through aquaculture. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.22, 101–113. doi: 10.1080/07900620500405544

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  VerschuereL.RombautG.SorgeloosP.VerstraeteW. (2000). Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in aquaculture. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.64, 655–671. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.64.4.655-671.2000

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  WankanapolA.TongsiriS.ChaibuP. (2020). Growth performance of climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) in biofloc culture system using different sources of organic carbon. Burapha Sci. J.25, 1015–1025.

  • Google Scholar

• 236

  WashioY.KanekoH.NakagawaH. (2021). Growth performance and edible ratio of myostatin-knockout young red sea bream Pagrus major by CRISPR/Cas9. Aquac. Sci.69, 101–110. doi: 10.11233/aquaculturesci.69.101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  WatakabeI.HashimotoH.KimuraY.YokoiS.NaruseK.HigashijimaS.-I. (2018). Highly efficient generation of knock-in transgenic medaka by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome engineering. Zool. Lett.4, 3. doi: 10.1186/s40851-017-0086-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  WeiY.LiaoS. A.WangA. L. (2016). The effect of different carbon sources on the nutritional composition, microbial community and structure of bioflocs. Aquaculture465, 88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.08.040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239

  XiaoR.WeiY.AnD.LiD.TaX.WuY.et al. (2019). A review on the research status and development trend of equipment in water treatment processes of recirculating aquaculture systems. Rev. Aquac.11, 863–895. doi: 10.1111/raq.12270

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  XieJ. (2023). Everything you need to know about yeast (New York: Delish). Available online at: https://www.delish.com/kitchen-tools/a31956082/what-is-yeast/.

  • Google Scholar

• 241

  XuW.XuY.SuH.HuX.XuY.LiZ.et al. (2021). Production performance, inorganic nitrogen control and bacterial community characteristics in a controlled biofloc-based system for indoor and outdoor super-intensive culture of Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture531, 735749. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735749

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 242

  XuF.ZhaoY.HanZ.ZhangX.ChenB.ZhuX.et al. (2025). Sustainable emerging proteins: allergenic proteins in edible insects, microalgae, and microorganisms, and desensitization processing technologies. Foods15, 69. doi: 10.3390/foods15010069

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 243

  XYINSECT. (2026). Available online at: https://www.xyinsect.com/Defatted-Black-Soldier-Fly-Larvae-Meal-BSFL-Protein-Powder-p.html (Accessed January 02, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 244

  YapQ. C.TeoS. S. (2019). Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) growth performance in saltwater, soil and aquaponic system. Agric. Food Sci. Res.6, 203–210.

  • Google Scholar

• 245

  YinX.HaoJ.YaoY. (2021). CRISPR/Cas9 in zebrafish: An attractive model for FBN1 genetic defects in humans. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med.9, 1775. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.1775

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  YogevU.BarnesA.GrossA. (2021). Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS): Environmental solution and climate change adaptation. J. Clean. Prod.285, 124805.

  • Google Scholar

• 247

  YuY.-B.ChoiJ.-H.LeeJ.-H.JoA.-H.LeeK. M.KimJ.-H. (2023). Biofloc technology in fish aquaculture: A review. Antioxidants12, p.398. doi: 10.3390/antiox12020398

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  YuT.ZhongF.XuD.ZhouQ. H.LiangW.HeF.et al. (2012). Water quality and growth simulation of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, in a recirculating aquaculture system combined with subsurface flow wetland. Advanced Mater. Res.343, 1109–1116. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.343-344.1109

  • Google Scholar

• 249

  ZakariaM.FranciscoM. E.SanyalS. K.HossainA.MandalS. C.HaqueM. I. M. (2025). A review on modulation of gut microbiome interaction for the management of shrimp aquaculture and proposal of the introduction of deep learning-based approach for shrimp disease detection. Microbe7, 100299. doi: 10.1016/j.microb.2025.100299

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  ZattiK. M.CeballosM. J.VegaV. V.DenstadliV. (2023). Full replacement of fish oil with algae oil in farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)–Debottlenecking omega 3. Aquaculture574, 739653. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  ZhongZ.NiuP.WangM.HuangG.XuS.SunY.et al. (2016). Targeted disruption of sp7 and myostatin with CRISPR/Cas9 results in severe bone defects and more muscular cells in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Sci. Rep.6, 22953. doi: 10.1038/srep22953

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  ZhuM.SumanaS. L.AbdullateefM. M.FalayiO. C.ShuiY.ZhangC.et al. (2024). CRISPR/Cas9 technology for enhancing desirable traits of fish species in aquaculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci.25, 9299. doi: 10.3390/ijms25179299

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253

  ZionB. (2012). The use of computer vision technologies in aquaculture-a review. Comput. Electron. Agric.88, 125–132. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2012.07.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  ZlaugotneB.PubuleJ.BlumbergaD. (2022). Advantages and disadvantages of using more sustainable ingredients in fish feed. Heliyon8, e10527. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10527

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar