Next Article in Journal
Does Regional Development Policy Promote Industrial Structure Upgrading? Evidence from the Yangtze River Delta in China
Next Article in Special Issue
Blue Nitrogen: A Nature-Based Solution in the Blue Economy as a Tool to Manage Terrestrial Nutrient Neutrality
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Controllers and Configurations of 100% PV and Energy Storage Systems for a Microgrid: The Case Study of a Small Town in Jordan
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of Provisioning and Cultural Ecosystem Services in Estuaries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/su14138126
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental Concerns for Sustainable Mariculture in Coastal Waters of South-Central Vietnam

by
Le Hung Phu
1,
Phan Thi Kim-Hong
1,
Tran Van Chung
1,
Tran Van Binh
1,
Le Trong Dung
1,
Pham Hong Ngoc
1,
Nguyen Hong Thu
1,
Nguyen Thi Toan Thu
2,
Nguyen Thai Hai Anh
3,
Anh Lam Nguyen
4 and
Phan Minh-Thu
1,*
1
Institute of Oceanography, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Nha Trang 650000, Vietnam
2
Sub-Department of Fisheries, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Khanh Hoa Province, Nha Trang 650000, Vietnam
3
Economic Department of Song Cau Town, Song Cau, Phu Yen 621900, Vietnam
4
Institute of Marine Science and Fishing Technology, Nha Trang University, 09 Nguyen Dinh Chieu, Nha Trang 650000, Vietnam
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 8126; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138126
Submission received: 23 May 2022 / Revised: 30 June 2022 / Accepted: 1 July 2022 / Published: 3 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Blue Economy and Marine Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mariculture provides an increasing seafood supply to a growing population. It also brings unintended consequences for the environment, resources, and sustainable development. In an attempt to evaluate the impacts of intensive mariculture of lobster in cages, the water quality and sediment quality in three South-Central regions of Vietnam, Xuan Dai Bay, Van Phong Bay, and Cam Ranh Bay, were monitored from April 2019 to May 2020. In each bay, two stations in the farming areas were compared to a non-farming reference station. The result showed no significant differences in the water quality parameters among the stations within each bay and between the bays. However, sediment quality noticeably differed between sites within each bay and between the bays. The accumulation of the observed parameters of sediment in farming areas was higher than in non-farming areas. In the Cam Ranh Bay, the concentration of organic carbon, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus in the sediment in farming areas was approximately 1.4 times higher compared to non-farming areas. Similar results were found in Van Phong Bay and Xuan Dai Bay with different magnitudes. Additionally, the difference in the sulfide concentration in the sediment of Van Phong Bay was notable for its better environmental quality than the other two. The findings indicated that mariculture wastes would accumulate in the sediment, and decompose over time, causing sediment degradation, which may affect the benthic biota in coastal waters.

1. Introduction

Aquaculture plays a vital role in the world’s food security as a result of the rapid growth of its production. For the first two decades of the 21st century, aquaculture production increased at an average rate of more than 5% year−1 due to rising food demands [1]. According to FAO [1], the world’s fishery production reached 179 million tonnes, in which total aquaculture production accounted for 46%, and contributed to 52% of human demand for fish. In addition, mariculture production accounted for 37.5% of aquaculture production in 2018. Total aquaculture products are forecasted to experience an increase of 53% in aquatic production by 2030 [1]. Aquaculture production accounted for 52% of fish for human demands [1]. Fish consumption per capita rose from 9.0 kg in 1961 to 20.3 kg in 2017, with an average rate of about 1.5% year−1, which is higher than the increase in total meat consumption which grew by 1.1% year−1 [1].
In Vietnam, aquaculture has experienced significant development with an increase in cultured species, spatial regions, and farming systems [2]. In 1995, the total aquatic production was 890.6 thousand tonnes, to which aquaculture contributed 162.1 thousand tonnes, whereas the total aquatic production reached 8497 thousand tonnes in 2020, of which aquaculture accounted for about 54% [3].
Lobster cage culture occurs from Quang Binh to Binh Thuan provinces with major production in Phu Yen and Khanh Hoa. The two provinces are located in South-Central Vietnam with many enclosed bays that are suitable for the development of shellfish, fish and lobster cage farming. The total number of cages in Phu Yen and Khanh Hoa provinces was 185,166 in 2019, accounting for 97.8% of the lobster cages in Vietnam; production reached 2273 tons, accounting for 95% of the country’s lobster aquaculture production [3]. Information on the cage culture in Xuan Dai Bay, Van Phong Bay and Cam Ranh Bay is presented in Table 1.
However, aquaculture, similarly to many other agricultural sectors, is known to have several negative impacts on the environment and natural resources [4,5,6,7,8], especially in coastal waters [4,5,6,7,8]. These impacts could be chemical accumulations (e.g., heavy metals, antifouling biocides, aquaculture medicinal products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and warfare agents by anthropogenic inputs) [9,10,11,12,13,14,15], nutrient loads [8,11,12,16,17], organic matter deposited in sediment [11,12,18], and habitat destruction [8,19,20] as well as negative interaction of invasive species with wild fish [21,22]. Aquaculture is also known to cause an increase in eutrophication [23,24,25,26,27] and algal blooms [28,29,30,31] in coastal waters, a reduction in dissolved oxygen in seawater [32], and expanded dead zones for coastal waters [33,34]. In addition, the increased culture in coastal waters could overload the environmental carrying capacity [35] and cause outbreaks of diseases [36,37,38].
Furthermore, mariculture might cause unwanted socio-economic issues in coastal waters. It might lead to changes in the morphology and land(sea)scape in mariculture and adjacent regions that could impact properties, settlements, transport routes and viewpoints, thereby detracting the value of those places [39,40,41,42]. Using chemicals such as antibiotics, pesticides, genetically modified organisms, antiparasitic and artificial colorings could indirectly impact on consumers’ health due their accumulation in cultured fish [43,44,45]. In addition, mariculture development could cause competition over natural resources [42,46,47]. Barnaby and Adams [48] noted fishermen had to face the loss of fishing ground due to aquaculture development, which led to resource conflict [49]. Such disease outbreaks, food safety recalls, or natural disasters could lead to boom and bust cycles or collapses of the aquaculture sector [49]. The development of aquaculture also means an increase in debt affecting traditional society [49]. Lobster cage culture farmers using low valued fish as traditional feed [36,50] has led to potential impacts on marine resources. As a result, the lives of local communities, such as fisherman and fishing farmers may be affected directly or indirectly by environmental degradation, chemical use in aquaculture and resource depletion.
The above arguments led us to conduct the present study, which aimed to elucidate the influence of marine cage culture on environmental quality. The environmental concerns in the South-Central region of Vietnam were also explored.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

This study investigated the following three coastal waters in South-Central Vietnam: Xuan Dai Bay, Van Phong Bay, and Cam Ranh Bay (Figure 1). Xuan Dai Bay is a 9000 ha semi-enclosed bay in Phu Yen province reaching its greatest depth at 12 m. Van Phong Bay is a 150,000 ha semi-opened bay in the northern part of Khanh Hoa province with a maximum depth, at the Co Co area, of over 34 m. Cam Ranh Bay is a body of enclosed water in the southern part of Khanh Hoa province. The bay has an area of 11,900 hectares and is up to approximately 16 m in depth.

2.2. Sampling Collection

Environmental data of seawater and sediment in the mariculture regions were surveyed at nine stations (three stations per region, coded XD for Xuan Dai Bay, VP for Van Phong Bay, and CR for Cam Ranh Bay) by five visits in the dry season (four visits at CR) and two visits in the rainy season from May 2019 to May 2020 (Table 2 and Figure 1). Two stations (1 and 2) were located inside of the lobster cage culture areas and one reference station was from a non-farming area (3). At each sampling station, seawater temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration (DO), and the redox potential (Eh) of sediments were measured by the YSI ProDSS meter (USA) and HANNA pH meter 8424 (USA). Seawater samples were collected at a water depth of −1 m with a 5-L Niskin bottle, whereas sediment samples were collected on the bottom substrate surface using a grab sampler of 0.25 m2. Samples were kept in the dark and on ice until transferred to the laboratory during daytime.

2.3. Sample Analyses

At the laboratory in the Institute of Oceanography, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, the biological oxygen demand (BOD5) was analyzed immediately, whereas samples for other environmental factors were stored at −20 °C until analysis within a week. Seawater and sediment samples were analyzed in the laboratory using procedures described in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and WasteWater 23rd edition [51]. Water samples were measured for BOD5 (method 5210-B), Nitrite (method 4500-NO2−), Nitrate (method 4500-NO3−), organic nitrogen Kjeldahl (method 4500-Norg), total nitrogen (TN) (sum of organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen) and total phosphorus (method 4500-P).
For sediment samples, organic carbon was measured using Walkley–Black titration. Sediment samples were treated with a mixture of potassium dichromate solution (K2Cr2O7) and concentrated sulfuric acid. Then, the excess dichromate was back-titrated with the ferrous ammonium sulfate (Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2·6H2O) solution [51]. Total nitrogen was measured using the Kjeldahl method, in which ammonium, digested from all of the nitrogen types, was determined using the titration method with a NaOH solution [51]. Total phosphorus was measured by sulfuric-nitric acid digestion and orthophosphate was measured by the ascorbic method [51]. Free sulfide was identified using a colorimetric procedure [51]. Sulfide was released using hydrochloric acid and trapped with a sodium hydroxide solution. The concentration of sulfide was then determined spectrophotometrically as methylene blue.

2.4. Data Analyses

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22 with Bonferroni correction and a two-tail Student-T test. Data were also compared with the environmental standard for aquaculture in the National technical regulation on marine water quality (QCVN 10-MT:2015/BTNMT) and the National technical regulation on sediment quality (QCVN 43:2017/BTNMT). Nevertheless, the sediment environmental factors in this study were not included in the QCVN 43:2017/BTNMT. Thus, the sediment factors were compared to other standards of international countries, such as the USA [52] and Norway [53].

3. Results

3.1. Water Environment

For water quality, a variation of the observed parameters (Table 3) showed that in general, most of the values of environmental parameters met the requirements of QCVN 10-MT:2015/BTNMT of Vietnam. However, the lowest DO values were below the standard in July 2019 (Xuan Dai Bay and Van Phong Bay) and in March 2020 (Cam Ranh Bay), but these were instantaneous values, and the average seasonal value in each region met the minimum requirements of the environmental standards of Vietnam.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD5) values measured within the farming areas varied from 0.32 to 5.42 mg/L, whereas those values at the reference stations ranged from 0.27 to 4.35 mg/L (Table 3 and Figure 2). Variations of BOD5 values in the farming areas showed a similar pattern to the reference waters and there were no significant differences within and outside the farming areas, but they fluctuated during the studied period. The highest BOD5 value in the farming areas (5.42 mg/L) and reference station (4.35 mg/L) occurred in March 2020 in Van Phong Bay. Furthermore, the lowest BOD5 values were found in March 2020 at Cam Ranh Bay (0.27 mg/L at reference stations, 0.32 mg/L at farming areas).
Variations in nitrate concentrations within farming areas were similar to the pattern in the reference stations (Figure 3). Nitrate concentrations in Cam Ranh and Xuan Dai increased from a minimum in June 2019 to a peak in November. Differences in nitrate concentrations between farming areas and reference stations were insignificant (Figure 3).
Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations were in the range of 596.3–985.2 mg N m−3 in farming areas and 580.5–945.6 mg N m−3 in the reference stations. The nitrate concentrations in Xuan Dai Bay and Cam Ranh Bay declined over the study period, whereas in Van Phong Bay the concentration declined to the lowest values in Nov 2019 and then increased (Figure 4). The total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in the farming areas and reference stations varied from 42.4 to 89.9 mg P m−3 and from 47.8 to 80.5 mg P m−3, respectively. TN and TP concentrations in the farming areas and reference stations were not significantly different from each other (Figure 5).

3.2. Sediment Environment

For sediment quality, there were only significant changes in sulfide concentrations between Van Phong Bay with Xuan Dai Bay and Cam Ranh Bay, whereas the changes had a significant variation seasonally (Table 4).
The redox potential (Eh) showed the sediments of the studied areas in an anoxic condition. The sulfide concentrations in Van Phong Bay were significantly lower than in Cam Ranh Bay and Xuan Dai Bay (p < 0.05). Those values fluctuated strongly within a studied area (Figure 6). The ranges were 0.15–3.89 mg S kg−1 in Van Phong Bay; 5.08–78.03 mg S kg−1 in Cam Ranh Bay; and 7.40–53.90 mg S kg−1 in Xuan Dai Bay. According to the results of the two-tail Student-T test, sulfide concentrations of farming areas at Van Phong and Xuan Dai Bays were significantly higher than the corresponding reference stations (p < 0.05).
Organic carbon (Org C) contents in sediment were similar among the areas studied. These values varied in the range of 0.96–2.11% in Van Phong Bay; 0.88–2.21% in Cam Ranh Bay; and 0.66–1.95% in Xuan Dai Bay (Figure 7). The results showed that all Org C contents in the sediment of the areas studied were lower than 10% (the threshold level of Org C contents for the risks of reduced species richness [54]).
Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in sediment were in the range of 281.8–836.2 mg/kg in Van Phong Bay; 246.4–838.4 mg/kg in Cam Ranh Bay; and 356.4–894.6 mg/kg in Xuan Dai Bay (Figure 8). Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations varied in the range of 132.0–427.2 mg/kg in Van Phong Bay; 128.8–446.9 mg/kg in Cam Ranh Bay; and 165.8–498.2 mg/kg in Xuan Dai Bay (Figure 9). The results showed that TN and TP concentrations of the farming areas of Cam Ranh Bay were significantly higher than those values in the reference station (p < 0.05), whereas in Van Phong Bay and Xuan Dai Bay, differences in TN and TP concentrations between farming areas and corresponding reference stations were insignificant (p > 0.05) (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

4. Discussion

The South-Central region of Vietnam has remained the center of mariculture, in which the majority of locations are ponds on coastal lands and cages in the coastal waters [55], such as shrimp pond culture [56], lobster cages culture [36], and finfish culture [57]. Mariculture has brought about many benefits for local people and seafood production for domestic and export demands. The mariculture sector also faces numerous issues including its impacts on the environment [55], such as reducing water quality and biodiversity in coastal waters [35,37].
In this study, environmental water quality was monitored in three bays (Xuan Dai, Van Phong, and Cam Ranh bays) over a 14-month period. The parameters of nutrients and BOD5 had a variation in seasonal and annual cycles with the pattern of the lowest value in April and the highest value in November, whereas the TN and TP fluctuated. The changes might be related to the phytoplankton cycles. The concentration of phytoplankton declined from January to April and increased from August to the end of the year with the peak in November and December [58]. Our observation was similar to that of previous studies [59,60]. No significant difference in water quality was observed between the farming areas and the reference (non-farming) stations. This could be attributed to dissolved components being diluted and assimilated by the pelagic ecosystem [61]. The distribution of water quality parameters in coastal waters was influenced by tidal and hydrodynamic regimes, the geomorphology of the coastline, infrastructures inside the waters, and changes following by the natural biological cycles, for example, phytoplankton growth cycles.
Xuan Dai, Van Phong, and Cam Ranh bays were semi-closed and/or enclosed [62] and lacked freshwater resources from inland [60] (Table 5). Therefore, the water exchange times fluctuated in the range of 5–67 days [63,64,65]. These bays are located in the regions of mixed and mainly diurnal tide [66] with tidal amplitudes of 68–263 cm (average of 124 cm). The tidal current was supported by water exchange in Van Phong Bay of 34.7% per day [67] and Cam Ranh Bay of 16.64% per day [65]. The tidal current velocity reached 59.8 cm/s at ebb tide and 71.9 cm/s at flood tide in Van Phong Bay [68] and 81.6 cm/s at ebb tide and 57.9 cm/s at flood tide in Cam Ranh Bay [65], whereas current velocity in Xuan Dai Bay’s velocity was in the range of 8.8–45.0 cm/s, with an average of 26.1 cm/s in March 2022 (Chung, 2022, personal data). The high tidal amplitudes and current support water exchanges as well as material balance (environmental parameters) in and out of the bays. As a result, water environmental quality in these bays was found to still be suitable for aquaculture.
Bouwman et al. [25] revealed that mariculture could release nutrients with an increase of up to sixfold by 2050, with an increase in marine eutrophication [26]. The accumulation of waste from mariculture in water bodies over time, especially from using low-valued fish in lobster culture with a feed conversion ratio of 28–42 [37,55] and the feed waste discharged directly into the sea [59], could increase nutrients of nitrogen and phosphorus [69] and cause algal blooms [28,29,30,31]. Doan-Nhu et al. [30] reported an algal bloom event in Van Phong Bay with cell densities reaching 3.9 × 106 cells·L−1, contributing greatly to the mortality of fish or other marine fauna.
The input of organic matter to sediment originates from natural or artificial sources, causing changes in chemical and physical characteristics [70]. The environmental impact on the sediment from aquaculture depends on local environmental conditions (bottom depth, topography, and wave height) and management methods (stocking density, feeding rates) [69]. Redox potential values of −100 mV to −150 mV indicate that the sediments are polluted with organic matter [71]. The results in the present study were higher than those values in the other studies [71,72]. This suggests that the redox conditions of sediments were favorable for oxidation, leading to the low total sulfide contents in sediments. The total sulfide concentrations in the present study were lower than those in the studies of Tsutsumi et al. [73] and Hamoutene [74]. However, the average sulfide concentration in Cam Ranh Bay was over the value of the USA’s standard for sediment [52].
At Cam Ranh Bay, a significant difference in sediment quality (Org C, TN, TP) was observed between farming areas and the reference station (p < 0.05), whereas the same pattern was not detected in the sediments of the Van Phong and Xuan Dai bays (p > 0.05). It could be explained by the physical characteristics of the bays. Cam Ranh Bay has an enclosed water structure, whereas the Van Phong and Xuan Dai bays are semi-enclosed (Table 4). Therefore, the wave energy of Cam Ranh Bay is weaker, so the wave height is usually lower than the other bays. In Cam Ranh Bay, with weak wave energy, solid waste from cage farming is more likely to reach the bottom near the waste sources, leading to the local accumulation of waste materials on the seabed. On the other hand, in the Van Phong and Xuan Dai bays, which are more open, the effluent from area for farming may be dispersed over a larger area. This view is supported by studies by Cromey et al. [75]. The types of culture methods may also account for the difference in sediment quality. However, data on fish stocks, types of food, and feeding rates were not collected in the present study. These data would help to further understand the environmental impact of aquaculture activities in these bays.
The capacity for natural self-purification processes in coastal waters could help to recover the balance of water and sediment factors. However, if the volume of waste is excessive, these balances could change following an unfavorable trend. Due to hydrodynamic systems, the environmental parameters could also cause impacts on the adjacent waters. According to Pérez et al. [34], cage culture feed waste could impact a region of 20.6–22.6 ha with the fluxes of 1.9–2.8 kg m−2 year−1, whereas the total waste could impact a region of 21.8–27.5 ha with fluxes of 3.0–3.4 kg m−2 year−1. However, the accumulation and impacts of waste from mariculture are dependent on the water exchanges of shallow waters, and close, semi-open, and open water [8]. Organic matter accumulated over a relatively small surface of sediment could possibly generate hypoxic/anoxic conditions [8], likely increasing the sulfide concentration in this study. All of these factors could negatively impact the surrounding waters.
Furthermore, the change in environmental quality in lobster farming areas also depends on the socio-economic conditions in the farming area and the techniques applied to cage lobster farming. Although farmers could perceive that the increased practical and technique efficiency, and expanding regions of lobster cage farming put pressure on environmental quality [76], no or little improvements are being implemented. Ton Nu Hai and Speelman [77] identified risks for cage lobster farming such as unstable seeds, unstable feed, recent frequent disease and increased mortality, underdeveloped farming technology, and threats including decreased coastal resources, reliance on the Chinese market, less access to credit, lack of sanctions, and the complex development of diseases. Even if commercial feed was applied to cage lobster farming [50], the growing supply of low-valued fish from local fisheries was also important for the expansion of farming areas [77]. As a result, environmental quality is degraded due to released nutrients from unused feed and waste from cage lobster farming. Thus, Nguyen [35] noted the overload of mariculture capacity in coastal waters due to the development of lobster cage culture. Thus, the increase in the number of cages in lobster culture caused the outbreak of disease and mass mortality in cultured lobster [78,79]. As a result, water and sediment quality could be reduced over time if mariculture expands in terms of environmental capacity in coastal waters [69,80].

5. Conclusions

This paper examined the changes in water and sediment environmental quality in lobster cage farming regions in Xuan Dai Bay, Van Phong Bay, and Cam Ranh Bay in South-Central Vietnam. Despite a difference in the development history of lobster cage farming in these regions, changes in water environmental quality are insignificant within farming areas, but nutrients and BOD5 change seasonally and depend on organism cycles and the hydrological and dynamical regimes in each region. In general, in areas with good water exchange (as in the case of Van Phong Bay), cage lobster farming may not cause serious changes in the aquatic environment within the bay. However, material, mainly organic matter, accumulated from caged lobster farming on bottom sediments could have a major impact on the environment (such as the sulfide concentration in Cam Ranh Bay). Normally, the mineralization process of organic matter accumulated on the bottom occurs gradually, but as the bed was disturbed, the rate of material mineralization increased, resulting from the sources of nutrients for the water bodies. The aquatic environment could lead to eutrophication. Combined with favorable natural conditions, algae would grow and bloom. On the other hand, if the number of lobster cages/rafts increased over the environmental carrying capacity of the waters, several environmental problems would occur continuously and simultaneously. Environmental degradation in the mariculture area and their consequences might affect the outcomes and livelihoods of local farmers directly, or indirectly with regard to other local communities such as fishermen. Moreover, mariculture could also be the cause of conflicts in the development of economic sectors due to the limitation of marine resources and marine space.
In order to ensure sustainable lobster cage farming in the South-Central marine regions of Vietnam, it is important to continue monitoring the changes in water and sediment quality. A set of better management practices needs to be developed based on the monitoring data, and deployed to farmers to facilitate changes in farming practices to ensure minimal impacts on the environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M.-T. and P.T.K.-H.; methodology, L.H.P., P.T.K.-H., T.V.C. and T.V.B.; software T.V.B.; validation, P.T.K.-H., A.L.N. and P.M.-T.; formal analysis, L.H.P., L.T.D., N.H.T. and P.H.N.; investigation, L.H.P., L.T.D., A.L.N., N.T.T.T. and N.T.H.A.; resources, P.T.K.-H.; data curation, P.T.K.-H., P.M.-T., L.H.P., P.H.N., N.T.T.T. and N.T.H.A.; writing—original draft preparation, L.H.P., P.T.K.-H., A.L.N. and P.M.-T.; writing—review and editing, P.T.K.-H., A.L.N. and P.M.-T.; visualization, P.M.-T.; project administration, P.T.K.-H.; funding acquisition, P.T.K.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by VAST project of “Using biological indicators to assess environmental impacts of coastal cage aquaculture in South Central Vietnam”, grand number: VAST06.03/19-20.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Thuy Nguyen, DataGene Ltd., Melbourne, Australia and Brett Ingram, Victorian Fisheries Authority, Australia for improving the English and editing the manuscript. We would like to thank the project “Upgrading station for marine environment monitoring and analyzing in southern region of Vietnam” for providing their equipment. This paper is a contribution to celebrate the 100 years Anniversary of the Institute of Oceanography, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action; The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tri, N.N.; Tu, N.P.C.; Nhan, D.T.; Tu, N.V. An overview of aquaculture development in Viet Nam. Proc. Int. Conf. Fish. Aquac. 2022, 7, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. GSO. Statistics Year Book. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/ (accessed on 22 August 2021).
  4. Cao, L.; Wang, W.; Yang, Y.; Yang, C.; Yuan, Z.; Xiong, S.; Diana, J. Environmental impact of aquaculture and countermeasures to aquaculture pollution in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2007, 14, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dosdat, A. Environmental impact of aquaculture. In Fisheries and Aquaculture; Safran, P., Ed.; Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) Publishers Co. Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 208–229. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pérez, Ó.; Almansa, E.; Riera, R.; Rodriguez, M.; Ramos, E.; Costa, J.; Monterroso, Ó. Food and faeces settling velocities of meagre (Argyrosomus regius) and its application for modelling waste dispersion from sea cage aquaculture. Aquaculture 2014, 420, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tičina, V.; Katavić, I.; Grubišić, L. Marine Aquaculture impacts on marine biota in oligotrophic environments of the mediterranean sea–A review. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Casadevall, M.; Rodríguez-Prieto, C.; Torres, J.; Eira, C.; Marengo, M.; Lejeune, P.; Merciai, R.; Richir, J. Editorial: Marine aquaculture impacts on marine biota. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 615267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chua Thia, E.; Paw, J.N.; Guarin, F.Y. The environmental impact of aquaculture and the effects of pollution on coastal aquaculture development in Southeast Asia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1989, 20, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Frankic, A.; Hershner, C. Sustainable aquaculture: Developing the promise of aquaculture. Aquac. Int. 2003, 11, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buschmann, A.H.; Riquelme, V.A.; Hernandez-Gonzalez, M.C.; Varela, D.; Jimenez, J.E.; Henrıquez, L.A.; Vergara, P.A.; Guınez, R.; Filun, L. A review of the impacts of salmonid farming on marine coastal ecosystems in the southeast Pacific. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2006, 63, 1338–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Grigorakis, K.; Rigos, G. Aquaculture effects on environmental and public welfare–The case of mediterranean mariculture. Chemosphere 2011, 85, 899–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Faruk, M.A.R.; Ali, M.M.; Patwary, Z.P. Evaluation of the status of use of chemicals and antibiotics in freshwater aquaculture activities with special emphasis to fish health management. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2010, 6, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hall, P.O.J.; Anderson, L.G.; Holby, O.; Kollberg, S.; Samuelsson, M.-O. Chemical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish cage farm. I Carbon. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1990, 61, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hall, P.O.J.; Holby, O.; Kollberg, S.; Samuelsson, M.O. Chemical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish cage farm. IV. Nitrogen. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1992, 89, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aslam, S.N.; Venzi, M.S.; Venkatraman, V.; Mikkelsen, Ø. Chemical assessment of marine sediments in vicinity of norwegian fish farms–A pilot study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tornero, V.; Hanke, G. Chemical contaminants entering the marine environment from sea-based sources: A review with a focus on European seas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hedberg, N.; Stenson, I.; Nitz Pettersson, M.; Warshan, D.; Nguyen-Kim, H.; Tedengren, M.; Kautsky, N. Antibiotic use in Vietnamese fish and lobster sea cage farms; implications for coral reefs and human health. Aquaculture 2018, 495, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Iwama, G.K. Interactions between aquaculture and the environment. Crit. Rev. Environ. Control 1991, 21, 177–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sarà, G.; Lo Martire, M.; Sanfilippo, M.; Pulicanò, G.; Cortese, G.; Mazzola, A.; Manganaro, A.; Pusceddu, A. Impacts of marine aquaculture at large spatial scales: Evidences from N and P catchment loading and phytoplankton biomass. Mar. Environ. Res. 2011, 71, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kalantzi, I.; Karakassis, I. Benthic impacts of fish farming: Meta-analysis of community and geochemical data. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006, 52, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stickney, R.R.; McVey, J.P. Responsible Marine Aquaculture; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; p. 391. [Google Scholar]
  23. Havel, J.E.; Kovalenko, K.E.; Thomaz, S.M.; Amalfitano, S.; Kats, L.B. Aquatic invasive species: Challenges for the future. Hydrobiologia 2015, 750, 147–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ruykys, L.; Ta, K.A.T.; Bui, T.D.; Vilizzi, L.; Copp, G.H. Risk screening of the potential invasiveness of non-native aquatic species in Vietnam. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 2047–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gowen, R.J. Managing eutrophication associated with aquaculture development. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 1994, 10, 242–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Talbot, C.; Hole, R. Fish diets and the control of eutrophication resulting from aquaculture. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 1994, 10, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bouwman, L.; Beusen, A.; Glibert, P.M.; Overbeek, C.; Pawlowski, M.; Herrera, J.; Mulsow, S.; Yu, R.; Zhou, M. Mariculture: Significant and expanding cause of coastal nutrient enrichment. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 044026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mungkung, R.; Phillips, M.; Castine, S.; Beveridge, M.; Chaiyawannakarn, N.; Nawapakpilai, S.; Waite, R. Exploratory Analysis of Resource Demand and the Environmental Footprint of Future Aquaculture Development Using Life Cycle Assessment; White Paper; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ahmed, N.; Thompson, S.; Glaser, M. Global aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and climate change adaptability. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Lum, W.M.; Benico, G.; Doan-Nhu, H.; Furio, E.; Leaw, C.P.; Leong, S.C.Y.; Lim, P.T.; Lim, W.A.; Lirdwitayaprasit, T.; Lu, S.; et al. The harmful raphidophyte Chattonella (Raphidophyceae) in Western Pacific: Its red tides and associated fisheries damage over the past 50 years (1969–2019). Harmful Algae 2021, 107, 102070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Luom, P.T.; Hai, D.N.; Lam, N.N. Dinoflagellate cysts in surface sediments at Van Phong Bay, Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam: Distribution, abundance and potentially harmful algal blooms. Acad. J. Biol. 2021, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Doan-Nhu, H.; Nguyen-Ngoc, L.; Son, B.M. Unusual fish killing blooms of Tripos furca in Van Phong Bay, South Viet Nam. Harmful Algae News IOC Newsl. Toxic Algae Algal Bloom. 2017, 57, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  33. Brown, A.R.; Lilley, M.; Shutler, J.; Lowe, C.; Artioli, Y.; Torres, R.; Berdalet, E.; Tyler, C.R. Assessing risks and mitigating impacts of harmful algal blooms on mariculture and marine fisheries. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 1663–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Ferreira, J.G.; Taylor, N.G.H.; Cubillo, A.; Lencart-Silva, J.; Pastres, R.; Bergh, Ø.; Guilder, J. An integrated model for aquaculture production, pathogen interaction, and environmental effects. Aquaculture 2021, 536, 736438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nguyen, T.A. Evaluation of the oceanographical conditions and environmental capacity for mariculture development in coastal waters of Khanh Hoa Province. Collect. Mar. Res. Work. 2002, XII, 67–82. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones, C.M.; Le Anh, T.; Priyambodo, B. Lobster aquaculture development in Vietnam and Indonesia. In Lobsters: Biology, Fisheries and Aquaculture; Radhakrishnan, E.V., Phillips, B.F., Achamveetil, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 541–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tuan, L.A. Status of Aquaculture and Associated Environmental Management Issues in Vietnam. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d01ed915d3cfd001764/RLAquaVietnamaquacultureR8094.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  38. Jones, C. Summary of disease status affecting tropical spiny lobster aquaculture in Vietnam and Indonesia. In Chapter 5.4. Spiny Lobster Aquaculture Development in Indonesia, Vietnam and Australia, Proceedings of the International Lobster Aquaculture Symposium, Lombok, Indonesia, 22–25 April 2014; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shafer, C.S.; Inglis, G.J.; Martin, V. Examining residents’ proximity, recreational use, and perceptions regarding proposed aquaculture development. Coast. Manag. 2010, 38, 559–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Murray, G.; D’Anna, L. Seeing shellfish from the seashore: The importance of values and place in perceptions of aquaculture and marine social–ecological system interactions. Mar. Policy 2015, 62, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dalton, T.; Jin, D.; Thompson, R.; Katzanek, A. Using normative evaluations to plan for and manage shellfish aquaculture development in Rhode Island coastal waters. Mar. Policy 2017, 83, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cavallo, M.; Pérez Agúndez, J.A.; Raux, P.; Frangoudes, K. Is existing legislation supporting socially acceptable aquaculture in the European Union? A transversal analysis of France, Italy and Spain. Rev. Aquac. 2021, 13, 1683–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schlag, A.K. Aquaculture: An emerging issue for public concern. J. Risk Res. 2010, 13, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Burgess, M.; Tansey, J. Complexity of public interest in ethical analysis of genomics: Ethical reflections on salmon genomics/aquaculture. In Electronic Working Papers Series. Vancouver: W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics; The University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  45. Boyd, C.E.; McNevin, A.A. Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; p. 349. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Karakassis, I.; Massa, F.; Fezzardi, D.; Aguilar-Manjarrez, J.; Soto, D.; Chapela, R.; Avila, P.; Macias, J.C.; Tomassetti, P.; et al. Aquaculture’s struggle for space: The need for coastal spatial planning and the potential benefits of Allocated Zones for Aquaculture (AZAs) to avoid conflict and promote sustainability. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2016, 8, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Porporato, E.M.D.; Pastres, R.; Brigolin, D. Site suitability for finfish marine aquaculture in the central mediterranean sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 6, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Barnaby, R.; Adams, S. Chapter 5: Aquaculture: Opportunity or threat to traditional capture fishermen. In Responsible Marine Aquaculture; Stickney, R.R., McVey, J.P., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  49. Orchard, S.E.; Stringer, L.C.; Quinn, C.H. Impacts of aquaculture on social networks in the mangrove systems of northern Vietnam. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 114, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Huong, L.L.; Thi, V.L.; Thai, T.H.; Jones, C.; Sang, H.M.; Kien, N.T.; Bich, N.T.K.; Kim, H.P.T.; An, K.N.; Trung, D.H.; et al. Comparative assessment of manufactured pellet feed and traditional trash fish feed on production of tropical rock lobster (Panulirus ornatus) and environmental effects in sea-cage culture in Vietnam. In Spiny Lobster Aquaculture Development in Indonesia, Vietnam and Australia, Proceedings of the International Lobster Aquaculture Symposium, Lombok, Indonesia, 22–25 April 2014; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 68–81. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rice, E.W.; Baird, R.B.; Eaton, A.D. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and WasteWater, 23rd ed.; American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  52. DEP. Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sysytem Permit Marine Waste Discharge License; Maine Department of Environmental Protection: Augusta, ME, USA, 2014.
  53. Maroni, K. Monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture in Norway. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2000, 16, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hyland, J.; Balthis, L.; Karakassis, I.; Magni, P.; Petrov, A.; Shine, J.; Vestergaard, O.; Warwick, R. Organic carbon content of sediments as an indicator of stress in the marine benthos. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2005, 295, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Minh-Thu, P.; Minh Sang, H.; Thai An, H. Mariculture in southern central region, Vietnam: Status and orientation toward sustainable development. J. Agric. Ecol. Res. Int. 2021, 22, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. IUCN; IISD. Expanding Shrimp Aquaculture on Sandy Land in Vietnam: Challenges and Opportunities; World Conservation Union (IUCN) & International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): Hanoi, Vietnam, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dung, T.V.; Hung, P.Q.; Thong, N.T. Marine finfish farming in Vietnam: Status and direction. J. Fish. Sci. Technol. 2016, 2016, 104–110. [Google Scholar]
  58. Minh-Thu, P.; Thao, N.T.; Duan, H.D. Estimating chlorophyll-a variations with temporal MODIS data time series. In Proceedings of the 10th International GIS-IDEAS 2021 Conference, Phitsanulok, Thailand, 2–4 September 2021; pp. 102–108. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hoang, T.M.H.; Tran, T.K.N.; Ton, T.K.; Le, Q.H.; Nguyen, P.H. Investigating the status of centralised lobster cage cultureand water environment quality at Xuan Dai bay, Phu Yen province. J. Sci. Technol. Vietnam Part B 2018, 60, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Long, B.H.; Tuan, V.S.; An, N.T.; Minh-Thu, P. Characteristics of Nature, Environment, Resources and Orientation to Exploit for Sustainable Development of Coastal Waters of the South-Central Region; Publishing House for Science and Technology: Ha Noi, Vietnam, 2016; p. 293. [Google Scholar]
  61. Black, K.D. Environmental aspects of aquaculture. In Aquaculture, Innovation and Social Transformation; Culver, K., Castle, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thanh, T.D.; Cu, N.H.; Thung, D.C.; Thanh, D.N. Coastal Bays in Vietnam and Potential Use; Publishing House for Science and Technology: Ha Noi, Vietnam, 2008; p. 295. [Google Scholar]
  63. Huan, N.H.; Long, B.H. Material balance in Xuan Dai Bay, Vietnam. Vietnam J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2004, 4, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  64. Smith, S.V.; Dupra, V.; Crossland, J.I.M.; Crossland, C.J. Estuarine Systems of the East Asia Region: Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fluxes; LOICZ Reports and Studie 16; International Biosphere-Geosphere Programme (IGBP); LOICZ: Texel, The Netherlands, 2000; p. 127. [Google Scholar]
  65. Minh-Thu, P.; Chung, T.V.; Long, B.H.; An, N.T.; Thao, P.T.P.; Duan, H.D. Estimation of residence time in coastal waters of Vietnam: A comparison of radioactivity, hydrodynamics, and LOICZ approach. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2020, 28, 131–139. [Google Scholar]
  66. Phan, H.M.; Ye, Q.; Reniers, A.J.H.M.; Stive, M.J.F. Tidal wave propagation along the Mekong deltaic coast. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2019, 220, 73–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chung, T.V.; Huan, N.H.; Chien, T.N. Water exchange in Van Phong bay, Khanh Hoa province by hydrodynamic model. Vietnam J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2021, 21, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Long, B.H.; Chung, T.V. Calculations of tidal currents in VanPhong bay using the finite element method. Adv. Nat. Sci. 2010, 10, 478–495. [Google Scholar]
  69. Dauda, A.B.; Ajadi, A.; Tola-Fabunmi, A.S.; Akinwole, A.O. Waste production in aquaculture: Sources, components and managements in different culture systems. Aquac. Fish. 2019, 4, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schaanning, M.T. Distribution of Sediment Properties in Coastal Areas Adjacent to Fish Farms and Environmental Evaluation of Five Locations Surveyed in October 1993; Report No. O-93205, O-93062; Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA): Oslo, Norway, 1994; p. 29. [Google Scholar]
  71. Pearson, T.H.; Stanley, S.O. Comparative measurement of the redox potential of marine sediments as a rapid means of assessing the effect of organic pollution. Mar. Biol. 1979, 53, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kristensen, E.; Anderson, F. Determination of organic carbon in marine sediments: A comparison of two CHN-analyzer methods. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1987, 109, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tsutsumi, H.; Kikuchi, T.; Tanaka, M.; Higashi, T.; Imasaka, K.; Miyazaki, M. Benthic faunal succession in a cove organically polluted by fish farming. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1991, 23, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hamoutene, D. Sediment sulphides and redox potential associated with spatial coverage of Beggiatoa spp. at finfish aquaculture sites in Newfoundland, Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2014, 71, 1153–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Cromey, C.J.; Nickell, T.D.; Black, K.D. DEPOMOD—Modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 2002, 214, 211–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ton Nu Hai, A.; Speelman, S. Economic-environmental trade-offs in marine aquaculture: The case of lobster farming in Vietnam. Aquaculture 2020, 516, 734593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ton Nu Hai, A.; Speelman, S. Involving stakeholders to support sustainable development of the marine lobster aquaculture sector in Vietnam. Mar. Policy 2020, 113, 103799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Minh, M.D. Lobster Culture Zoning Plan for 2020 and Toward 2030 in Vietnam. Khanh Hoa, Vietnam; Research Institute of Aquaculture III: Khanh Hoa, Vietnam, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  79. People’s Committee of Phu Yen Province. Announcement on the Causes of Dead Lobster in Xuan Phuong and Xuan Yen Commune, Song Cau Town; Local Report: Phu Yen, Vietnam, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  80. d’Orbcastel, E.R.; Blancheton, J.-P.; Aubin, J. Towards environmentally sustainable aquaculture: Comparison between two trout farming systems using life cycle assessment. Aquacult. Eng. 2009, 40, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 08126 g001 550
Figure 1. Coastal waters sampled in South-Central Vietnam (★ in red denotes the study station). 1. Xuan Dai Bay (XD) presented the regions of lobster cage culture for 20 years; 2. Van Phong Bay (VP) for 10 years; 3. Cam Ranh Bay (CR) in recent years. For each region, two stations (1 and 2) were located inside lobster cage culture areas and one reference (non-farming) station (3) was located outside of culture areas.
Figure 1. Coastal waters sampled in South-Central Vietnam (★ in red denotes the study station). 1. Xuan Dai Bay (XD) presented the regions of lobster cage culture for 20 years; 2. Van Phong Bay (VP) for 10 years; 3. Cam Ranh Bay (CR) in recent years. For each region, two stations (1 and 2) were located inside lobster cage culture areas and one reference (non-farming) station (3) was located outside of culture areas.
Sustainability 14 08126 g001
Sustainability 14 08126 g002 550
Figure 2. Variation of BOD5 (mg O2 L−1) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 2. Variation of BOD5 (mg O2 L−1) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g002
Sustainability 14 08126 g003 550
Figure 3. Variation of nitrate (mg N m−3) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 3. Variation of nitrate (mg N m−3) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g003
Sustainability 14 08126 g004 550
Figure 4. Variation of nitrate (mg N m−3) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 4. Variation of nitrate (mg N m−3) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g004
Sustainability 14 08126 g005 550
Figure 5. Variation of phosphorus (mg P m−3) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 5. Variation of phosphorus (mg P m−3) in seawater in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g005
Sustainability 14 08126 g006 550
Figure 6. Variation of sulfide (mg S kg−1) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference one.
Figure 6. Variation of sulfide (mg S kg−1) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference one.
Sustainability 14 08126 g006
Sustainability 14 08126 g007 550
Figure 7. Variation of organic carbon (%) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 7. Variation of organic carbon (%) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g007
Sustainability 14 08126 g008 550
Figure 8. Variation of total nitrogen (mg N kg−1) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 8. Variation of total nitrogen (mg N kg−1) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g008
Sustainability 14 08126 g009 550
Figure 9. Variation of total phosphorus (mg P kg−1) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Figure 9. Variation of total phosphorus (mg P kg−1) in sediment in each studied bay. Stations 1 and 2 within farming areas, and Station 3 as reference.
Sustainability 14 08126 g009
Table
Table 1. Situation of lobster cage farming in some locations of Phu Yen and Khanh Hoa provinces in 2020 (Song Cau Department of Economics, 2020, unpublished report; Khanh Hoa Sub-Department of Fisheries, 2020, unpublished report).
Table 1. Situation of lobster cage farming in some locations of Phu Yen and Khanh Hoa provinces in 2020 (Song Cau Department of Economics, 2020, unpublished report; Khanh Hoa Sub-Department of Fisheries, 2020, unpublished report).
ProvincesLocationType of FarmingNumber of CagesProducts (tonnes)
Phu YenTotalLobster cages79,073732
Xuan Dai BayLobster cages79,073732
Finfish cages72165.5
Khánh HòaTotalLobster cages60,6471540.4
Finfish cages90728288.4
Van Phong BayLobster cages33,167-
Cam Ranh BayLobster cages34,914-
Table
Table 2. Times of sampling in each study bay.
Table 2. Times of sampling in each study bay.
RegionsDistrictStation Code in Figure 1Dry SeasonsRainy Seasons
Xuan Dai BaySong Cau TownXD_#April, June, August 2019
March & May 2020		November 2019
& Januray 2020
Van Phong BayVan Ninh DistrictVP_#April, June, August 2019
March & May 2020		November 2019
& Januray 2020
Cam Ranh BayCam Ranh CityCR_#April, June, August 2019
March 2020		November 2019
& Januray 2020
Table
Table 3. Mean and range of environmental water factors in each study bay for different seasons.
Table 3. Mean and range of environmental water factors in each study bay for different seasons.
FactorRainy SeasonDry SeasonQCVN
10:2015
Xuan DaiVan PhongCam RanhXuan DaiVan PhongCam Ranh
pHMinimum8.02a8.01a8.01a7.80a7.78a7.71a6.5–8.5
Maximum8.09a8.09a8.05a8.14a8.31a8.32a
Mean8.05a8.04a8.02a8.01a8.10a8.07a
SE0.01a0.01a0.01a0.03a0.05a0.07a
Temperature
(°C)		Minimum24.3a,b24.4a24.1b27.0a28.0a28.6a
Maximum24.7a,b24.9a24.5b31.3a30.6a31.6a
Mean24.4a,b24.7a24.2b29.4a29.3a30.0a
SE0.1a,b0.1a0.1b0.4a0.2a0.2a
Salinity
(‰)		Minimum30.90a32.20b32.10b30.64a32.35a30.90a
Maximum31.80a32.50b32.60b34.30a33.50a33.70a
Mean31.43a32.30b32.30b32.61a32.81a32.65a
SE0.15a0.05b0.09b0.29a0.12a0.29a
DO
(mg O2/L)		Minimum5.76a6.56a5.06b3.94a4.65a4.16a≥5
Maximum6.99a6.93a5.80b7.11a7.12a7.45a
Mean6.52a6.81a5.53b5.61a6.27a5.61a
SE0.21a0.05a0.14b0.30a0.19a0.29a
BOD5
(mg O2/L)		Minimum0.84a0.67a0.45a0.59a0.97a0.27a
Maximum3.06a2.61a2.10a3.28a5.42a3.11a
Mean1.94a1.59a1.24a2.29a2.77a1.93a
SE0.38a0.35a0.29a0.21a0.31a0.34a
NO2
(mg N/m3)		Minimum3.9a4.9a3.6a2.7a1.9a1.8a
Maximum5.7a6.1a8.3a8.8a6.9a12.7a
Mean4.8a5.5a5.5a5.0a3.7a6.4a
SE0.3a0.2a0.6a0.5a0.5a1.1a
NO3
(mg N/m3)		Minimum65.0a62.0b79.0a42.0a43.0a39.0a
Maximum126.0a85.0b125.0a85.0a92.0a81.0a
Mean106.0a75.3b106.7a65.2a67.1a64.6a
SE8.6a3.1b7.6a4.3a4.4a4.5a
Total nitrogen
(mg N/m3)		Minimum624.9a618.7a663.7a580.5a651.5a596.3a
Maximum710.3a726.5a790.6a985.2a925.7a956.8a
Mean659.0a672.3a720.2a721.7a808.3a738.6a
SE14.5a20.3a16.9a33.9a19.7a29.7a
Total phosphorus
(mg P/m3)		Minimum57.9a42.4b55.9a45.6a43.8a45.7a≤200
Maximum77.1a69.2b85.2a80.2a74.5a89.9a
Mean68.3a54.4b71.1a59.6a58.6a65.6a
SE2.7a3.7b4.5a2.6a2.3a4.4a
Note: Values in the same row and sub-table not sharing the same subscript were significantly different at p < 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Tests assumed equal variances. Tests were adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost sub-table using Bonferroni correction. SE: Standard Error of Mean.
Table
Table 4. Mean and range of sediment environmental factors in each study bay for different seasons.
Table 4. Mean and range of sediment environmental factors in each study bay for different seasons.
FactorRainy seasonDry seasonSediment Standards
Xuan DaiVan PhongCam RanhXuan DaiVan PhongCam Ranh
Eh
mV		Minimum−53.6a−59.3a−58.2a−61.6a−66.3a−51.2a
Maximum−38.3a−35.0a−35.0a−26.4a−28.0a−17.6a
Mean−47.2a−49.5a−47.6a−46.0a−41.9a−37.8a
SE2.7a3.7a3.3a2.9a3.2a3.2a
Sulfide
mg S kg−1		Minimum18.204a0.274b19.834a7.396a0.149b5.085a≤1500 µM [52]
(≤ 48.097 mg S kg−1)
Maximum53.898a3.888b78.031a50.115a3.680b53.559a
Mean36.546a1.358b48.214a30.264a1.002b24.638a
SE5.111a0.644b11.679a3.072a0.268b5.305a
Organic Carbon
%		Minimum0.66a0.96a0.94a0.76a0.96a0.88a≤20 mg/g [53]
(≤ 2%)
Maximum1.41a1.78a2.21a1.95a2.11a1.85a
Mean1.10a1.37a1.37a1.44a1.40a1.29a
SE0.11a0.12a0.20a0.09a0.07a0.10a
Total Phosphorus
mg P kg−1		Minimum197.2a225.4a265.7a165.8a132.0a128.8a
Maximum350.7a427.2a412.5a498.2a395.8a446.9a
Mean271.9a325.7a317.6a332.4a286.6a274.8a
SE26.0a31.4a23.2a23.6a21.6a26.8a
Total Nitrogen
mg N kg−1		Minimum374.60a552.23a482.60a356.41a281.82a246.40a
Maximum648.80a836.24a838.38a894.60a782.70a786.30a
Mean500.89a644.86a605.48a622.09a570.60a522.74a
SE48.98a41.13a55.80a36.52a37.68a46.12a
Note: Values in the same row and sub-table not sharing the same subscript were significantly different at p < 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Tests were adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost sub-table using Bonferroni correction. SE: Standard Error of Mean.
Table
Table 5. Hydrodynamic features in Xuan Dai Bay, Van Phong Bay and Cam Ranh Bay.
Table 5. Hydrodynamic features in Xuan Dai Bay, Van Phong Bay and Cam Ranh Bay.
FactorsUnitXuan Dai BayVan Phong BayCam Ranh BayReferences
Areakm260.842571.1[62]
Ave./Max. depth 1m/m11/1816/3210/24[62]
Type of bay Semi-closedSemi-closedEnclosed[62]
Size of gate:
Width/Max. depth 2		km/m4.5/1817/30
0.25/32		3/24[60]
Water exchange times Day5-2943-6115–67[63,65]
Note: 1: Ave./Max. depth—11/18: Average depth of bay: 11 m, and Maximum Depth of bay: 18 m; 2: Size of gate: Width/Max. depth—4.5/18: Width of gate: 4.5 km, and Maximum Depth of gate: 18 m.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Phu, L.H.; Kim-Hong, P.T.; Chung, T.V.; Binh, T.V.; Dung, L.T.; Ngoc, P.H.; Thu, N.H.; Thu, N.T.T.; Anh, N.T.H.; Nguyen, A.L.; et al. Environmental Concerns for Sustainable Mariculture in Coastal Waters of South-Central Vietnam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138126

AMA Style

Phu LH, Kim-Hong PT, Chung TV, Binh TV, Dung LT, Ngoc PH, Thu NH, Thu NTT, Anh NTH, Nguyen AL, et al. Environmental Concerns for Sustainable Mariculture in Coastal Waters of South-Central Vietnam. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):8126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138126

Chicago/Turabian Style

Phu, Le Hung, Phan Thi Kim-Hong, Tran Van Chung, Tran Van Binh, Le Trong Dung, Pham Hong Ngoc, Nguyen Hong Thu, Nguyen Thi Toan Thu, Nguyen Thai Hai Anh, Anh Lam Nguyen, and et al. 2022. "Environmental Concerns for Sustainable Mariculture in Coastal Waters of South-Central Vietnam" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 8126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138126

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop