A system-based analysis of carbon fluxes shows that bivalve aquaculture cannot be considered a marine carbon dioxide removal strategy
システムベースの炭素フラックス解析は、二枚貝養殖を海洋CO2除去戦略とみなせないことを示す (AI 翻訳)
Fabrice Pernet, Phillip Williamson, Frédéric Gazeau
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
二枚貝養殖は海洋CO2除去（mCDR）戦略として認められるか、科学的・政策的基準から批判的に検討。生物レベルでは呼吸と石灰化によりCO2を放出し、生態系レベルでの炭素隔離の証拠は不確実。追加性・永続性・MRVの要件を満たさず、カーボンクレジット取得は不可能であり、持続可能な食料生産として評価すべきと結論。
English
This paper critically examines whether bivalve aquaculture qualifies as marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR). It demonstrates that at the organism level, bivalves are CO2 sources, not sinks, and evidence for ecosystem-scale carbon sequestration is highly uncertain. The authors conclude that bivalve farming cannot generate carbon credits and should be valued solely as sustainable food production.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではブルーカーボンや養殖による炭素吸収が注目されるが、本論文は過大評価への警告となる。オフセット市場で厳格なMRVが求められる中、重要な指摘。
In the global GX context
As global carbon credit markets expand, this paper clarifies that bivalve aquaculture does not meet mCDR criteria. It underscores the necessity of additionality, permanence, and robust MRV in climate mitigation, informing frameworks like CORSIA and voluntary standards.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Highlights methodological flaws in carbon sink assessments, guiding future carbon cycle research.
🏢実務担当者:Prevents overclaiming carbon credits from bivalve farming, ensuring accurate sustainability reporting.
🏛政策担当者:Provides evidence against including bivalve aquaculture in carbon credit schemes, supporting regulatory integrity.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is gaining momentum as part of the global climate mitigation portfolio. Yet as enthusiasm grows, so does the risk of overstating the carbon removal potential of marine activities that were never designed as climate interventions. Among these, bivalve aquaculture is increasingly framed as a nature-based carbon sink. We critically examine whether bivalve farming meets the scientific and policy criteria to qualify as a valid method of mCDR, emphasizing additionality, permanence, accountability, and the obligation for robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), including life-cycle assessment and certification frameworks. We demonstrate why bivalve farming does not currently qualify as an mCDR pathway. At the organism level, bivalves are not CO₂ sinks: as heterotrophic and calcifying organisms, they release CO₂ through respiration and calcification. Claims that shell inorganic carbon incorporation constitutes net atmospheric CO2 removal have been critically examined and refuted. At the ecosystem scale, hypotheses that bivalve aquaculture enhances the biological carbon pump or stimulates organic carbon sequestration in sediments remain highly uncertain. Empirical evidence is sparse, often methodologically limited, and lacking appropriate baselines, temporal resolution, and ecological realism. Critically, questions of scalability, long-term sequestration, and carbon accountability remain unresolved. Given the urgent need to prioritize reliable, scalable and cost-effective mCDR solutions, we argue that it is highly unlikely—and scientifically unjustified—that bivalve aquaculture can ever be used to obtain carbon credits. Bivalve aquaculture remains a model of sustainable food production that should not be distorted by attributing to it unverified virtues of atmospheric CO₂ removal.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsag073first seen 2026-05-24 04:34:12 · last seen 2026-05-27 04:31:39
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。