Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sea use impact category in life cycle assessment: characterization factors for life support functions

  • LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The impact of human activities on marine environments is poorly addressed by the scope of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The aim of this study is to provide characterization factors to assess impacts of sea use such as fishing activities or seafloor destruction and transformation on the life support functions of marine ecosystems.

Methods

The consensual framework of land use for ecosystem services damage potential assessment was applied, according to the recent United Nations Environment Programme-Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC) guidelines, using the free net primary production as a quality index of life support functions.

Results and discussion

The impact of shading, biomass removal, seafloor destruction, and artificial habitat creation on the available quantity of organic biomass for the ecosystem functioning was quantified at the midpoint level with a common unit (kg of organic carbon equivalent). It included effects of human interventions on both the ecosystem production potential and the stock of biomass present within the ecosystem. Characterization factors (CF) for biomass removal vary from 0.1 kgCeq kg−1 for seaweed to 111.1 kgCeq kg−1 for tunas, bonitos, and billfishes. CF for seafloor destruction range from 0.164 kgCeq m−2 for a temperate seagrass ecosystem to 0.342 kgCeq m−2 for an intertidal tropical rocky habitat.

Conclusions

This study provides an operational method in order to compute sea use impact assessment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In most papers, TL is expressed as a percentage and, following Pauly and Christensen (1995), the numerator of the equation is equal to \( {\mathrm{TE}}^{\mathrm{TL}-1} \). But this equation is only valid in the special case where TE = 10 %.

References

  • Agardy T, Alder J, Dayton P, Curran S, Kitchingman, et al (2005) Coastal systems. In: Hassan RM, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: current status and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 513–549

  • Avadi A, Fréon P (2013) Life cycle assessment of fisheries: a review for fisheries scientists and managers. Fish Res 143:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrenfeld MJ, Falkowski PG (1997) Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bortone SA, Brandini FP, Otake S (2011) Artificial reefs in fisheries management. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahoon LB (1999) The role of benthic microalgae in neritic ecosystems. In: Ansell AD, Gibson RN, Barnes M (eds) Oceanography and marine biology, an annual review, vol. 37. Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, p 47–86

  • Charpy-Roubaud C, Sournia A (1990) The comparative estimation of phytoplanktonic, microphytobenthic and macrophytobenthic primary production in the oceans. Mar Microb Food Webs 4:31–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll M, Libralato S, Tudela S, Palomera I, Pranovi F (2008) Ecosystem Overfishing in the Ocean. PLoS ONE 3(12):e3881. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003881

  • Collie JS, Hall SJ, Kaiser MJ, Poiner IR (2000) A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf‐sea benthos. J Anim Ecol 69:785–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusson M, Bourget E (2005) Global patterns of macroinvertebrate production in marine benthic habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 297:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dernie KM, Kaiser MJ, Warwick RM (2003) Recovery rates of benthic communities following physical disturbance. J Anim Ecol 72:1043–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz S, Tilman D, Fargione J, Chapin FI, Dirzo R, et al (2005) Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends: Findings of the condition and trends working group. Island Press, Washington, p 297–329

  • Duarte CM, Chiscano CL (1999) Seagrass biomass and production: a reassessment. Aquat Bot 65:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efole Ewoukem T, Aubin J, Mikolasek O et al (2012) Environmental impacts of farms integrating aquaculture and agriculture in Cameroon. J Clean Prod 28:208–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuelson A, Ziegler F, Pihl L et al (2012) Overfishing, overfishedness and wasted potential yield: new impact categories for biotic resources in LCA. Saint-Malo, France, pp 511–516

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2010) Part 1: World review of fisheries and aquaculture. State World Fish. Aquac. 2010. FAO, Rome, pp 3–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2012) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/

  • Frontier S, Pichod-Viale D (1991) Ecosystèmes: structure, fonctionnement, évolution. Collection d’écologie 21. Masson, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattuso J-P, Gentili B, Duarte CM et al (2006) Light availability in the coastal ocean: impact on the distribution of benthic photosynthetic organisms and their contribution to primary production. Biogeosciences 3:489–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham M (1935) Modern theory of exploiting a fishery, and application to North Sea trawling. ICES J Mar Sci 10:264–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green EP, Short FT (2003) World atlas of seagrasses. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman GD, Jones GP, Seaman WJ (1997) Do artificial reefs increase regional fish production? A review of existing data. Fisheries 22:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, De Koning A, Van Oers L, Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, De Bruijn H, Van Duin R, Huijbregts M (2001) Life cycle assessment—an operational guide to the ISO standards; part 1: LCA in perspective. CML, Bureau B&G, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, p 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA et al (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–952

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Kleijn R, de Snoo GR (2012) Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems—a review of methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:304–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiddink JG, Jennings S, Kaiser MJ et al (2006) Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, and species richness in different habitats. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:721–736

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock K, Jackson A, Lear D (1999) Assessing seabed species and ecosystems sensitivities. Existing approaches and development. Report to the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK. (MarLIN Report No.1). October 1999 edition. http://www.marlin.ac.uk/PDF/MarLINReport1.PDF

  • Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S et al (2009) Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. J Appl Ecol 46:1145–1153

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerbi MA, Aubin J, Garnaoui K et al (2011) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of two rearing techniques of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquac Eng 46:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson MR, Boelke C, Chiarella LA, Colosi PD, Greene K, Lellis K, Ludemann H, Ludwig M, McDermott S, Ortiz J, Rusanowsky D, Scott M, Smith J (2008) Impacts to marine fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209. http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm209/

  • Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T et al (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois J, Fréon P, Steyer J-P et al (2014a) Sea use impact category in life cycle assessment: state of the art and perspectives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:994–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois J, Fréon P, Delgenes JP et al (2014b) New methods for impact assessment of biotic-resource depletion in LCA of fisheries: theory and application. J Clean Prod 73:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libralato S, Coll M, Tudela S et al (2008) Novel index for quantification of ecosystem effects of fishing as removal of secondary production. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 355:107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longhurst AR (2007) Ecological geography of the sea. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre HL, Geider RJ, Miller DC (1996) Microphytobenthos: the ecological role of the “secret garden” of unvegetated, shallow-water marine habitats. I. Distribution, abundance and primary production. Estuaries 19:186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateo MA, Cebrián J, Dunton K, Mutchler T (2006) Carbon flux in seagrass ecosystems. Seagrasses Biol. Ecol. Conserv. Springer, Netherlands, pp 159–192

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, EM (2004) International regulation of underwater sound - establishing rules and standards to address ocean noise pollution. Springer US. doi:10.1007/b118284

  • Michelsen O (2007) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Mila i Canals (2003) Contributions to LCA methodology for agricultural systems. Site-dependency and soil degradation impact assessment. University of Barcelona

  • Mila i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J et al (2007a) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mila i Canals L, Romanya J, Cowell S (2007b) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of “fertile land” in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moura A (2010) Experimental study of the macrobenthic colonisation and secondary production in the artificial reefs of Algarve coast. PhD thesis Universidade do Algarve. p 161

  • Nilsson P, Ziegler F (2007) Spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to seafloor habitats in the Kattegat, a GIS analysis. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 17:421–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez M, Antón A, Muñoz P, Rieradevall J (2013) Inclusion of soil erosion impacts in LCA on a global scale: application to energy crops in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:755–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon State University (2010) Ocean productivity. http://www.science.oregonstate.edu/ocean.productivity/custom.php. Accessed 1 Feb 2012

  • Pauly D, Christensen V (1995) Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly D, Alder J, Bakun A, Heileman S, Kock k-H (2005) Marine fisheries systems In: Hassan RM, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: current status and trends. Island Press, Washington, p 513–549

  • Pelletier NL, Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH et al (2007) Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: review and prospectus. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:414–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering H, Whitmarsh D (1997) Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the “attraction versus production” debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fish Res 31:39–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A, Bourget E (1999) Global patterns of macroinvertebrate biomass in marine intertidal communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 185:21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer MB (1954) Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Bull IATTC 1:27–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez‐Rowe I, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2012) Best practices in life cycle assessment implementation in fisheries. Improving and broadening environmental assessment for seafood production systems. Trends Food Sci Technol 28(2):116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, p 52

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work benefited from the support of the French National Research Agency (WinSeaFuel ANR-09-BIOE-05). The authors also thank O. Negri, N. Devaux, and E. Crochelet for their advice on GIS data analysis and L. Duc Anh for his remark on the trophic transfer equation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montpellier SupAgro, 2 place Pierre Viala, 34060, Montpellier Cedex 2, France

    Juliette Langlois & Arnaud Hélias

  2. INRA, UR0050, Laboratoire de Biotechnologie de l’Environnement, Avenue des Etangs, 11100, Narbonne, France

    Juliette Langlois, Jean-Philippe Steyer, Jean-Philippe Delgenès & Arnaud Hélias

  3. ELSA, Research Group for Environmental Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, 2 Place Pierre Viala, 34060, Montpellier Cedex 2, France

    Juliette Langlois & Arnaud Hélias

  4. IRD, EME R212, Centre de Recherche Halieutique Méditerranéenne et Tropicale, Avenue Jean Monnet, BP171, 34203, Sète Cedex, France

    Pierre Fréon

Authors
  1. Juliette Langlois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre Fréon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Philippe Steyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Philippe Delgenès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arnaud Hélias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnaud Hélias.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Shabbir Gheewala

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11367_2015_886_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Additional information on the values used to calculate values of NPP and standing biomass, the accuracy of these values, maps of pelagic NPP by type of marine provinces, tables summarizing the characterization factors. (DOCX 128 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Langlois, J., Fréon, P., Steyer, JP. et al. Sea use impact category in life cycle assessment: characterization factors for life support functions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 970–981 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0886-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0886-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation