Queen conch aquaculture 707
traditional wild capture would promote its practicality for re- sponsible stock enhancement. Furthermore, such an example would increase confidence in restoration aquaculture as a so- lution to prevent extinction should the conch population plummet and fisheries close. This has been recognized, and for as long as conchs have been cultured, attempts have been made to replenish wild populations. Overcoming nat- ural mortality rates remains a challenge. Four decades ago in Puerto Rico, Appeldoorn & Ballantine (1983) suggested that fisheries enhancement through aquaculture was unten- able without reducing juvenile mortality rates. In 1998,after more than a decade of experimental hatchery releases in the Florida Keys and The Bahamas, Stoner&Glazer (1998)came to the same conclusion. The Florida Keys hatchery was the only well-documented attempt to assess the feasibility of using hatchery-raised juveniles to replenish wild stocks. When the Florida hatchery closed, a cost–benefit analysis showed that it was not economically feasible to replenish wild stocks with hatchery-raised juveniles because of high mortality rates and the exorbitantmonetary costs of compen- sating for mortality (Glazer & Delgado, 2003). The largest and most well-funded aquaculture facility for the queen conch was the Caicos Conch Farm. This commercial endeav- our closed because of poor profitability (Trade Wind Industries, 2018) compounded by a hurricane strike (Wida, 2018), highlighting the financial challenge of stock enhance- ment. Although progress continues, poor conch survival (Figs. 1–3) and the history of past attempts (reviewed by Stoner, 2019) suggest a cautionary approach for presenting culture as a viable tool for queen conch repopulation without further advances. The creation and implementation of agree- ments for speciesmanagement and restoration can be fraught with challenges, as illustrated by those for migratory fish (Cullis-Suzuki & Pauly, 2010), yet the best hope for species recovery remains better management of remaining wild stocks at national and international levels, informed by fish- eries science and emphasizing protected area management and sustainable fishing approaches (Froese, 2004). The idea that the conservation aquaculture of the queen
conch is an option to replenish populations provides an ap- pealing excuse to avoid the difficult tasks of managing local capture fisheries and addressing the causes of degraded eco- systems. An inclusive and interdisciplinary approach to res- toration is needed to ensure the conservation of healthy habitats. Depending on repopulation through aquaculture in lieu of the robust management of natural resources is not in the best interest of the future of the species nor the people and industries that rely upon it.
Author contributions Writing and revision: all authors; data for ex- amples: RA, NE; illustrations: SM; media review: KG; coordination: AK, AS.
Acknowledgements This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, or commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The
text benefited from comments from C. Knapp, J. Sigwart and two anonymous reviewers.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards No specific approval was required to assemble this work, which abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
Data availability This study combines previously published data from reviews and industry.
References ANDERS, P.J. (1998) Conservation aquaculture and endangered species: can objective science prevail over risk anxiety? Fisheries, 23, 28–31.
APPELDOORN, R.S. (1993) Reproduction, Spawning Potential Ratio and Larval Abundance of Queen Conch Off La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Technical Report. Caribbean Fisheries Management Council, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
APPELDOORN, R.S. & BALLANTINE, D.L. (1983) Field release of cultured queen conch in Puerto Rico: implications for stock restoration. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 35, 89–98.
BERG,JR., C.J. & GLAZER, R.A. (1995) Stock assessment of a large marine gastropod (Strombus gigas) using randomized and stratified towed-diver censusing. ICES Marine Science Symposium, 199, 247–258.
BLANKENSHIP, H.L. & LEBER, K.M. (1995) A responsible approach to marine stock enhancement. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 15, 167–175.
BLYTHE-MALLETT, A., AIKEN, K.A., SEGURA-GARCIA, I., TRUELOVE, N.K.,WEBBER, M.K., ROYE, M.E. et al. (2021) Genetic composition of queen conch (Lobatus gigas) population on Pedro Bank, Jamaica and its use in fisheries management. PLOS One, 16,e0245703.
BOMAN, E.M., GRAAF, M.D., NAGELKERKE, L.A.J., STONER, A.W., BISSADA, C.E., AVILA-POVEDA, O.H. et al. (2018) Variability in size at maturity and reproductive season of queen conch Lobatus gigas (Gastropoda: Strombidae) in the wider Caribbean region. Fisheries Research, 201, 18–25.
CARSON, H.S.,MORIN, D.J., BOUMA, J.V.,ULRICH,M.&SIZEMORE,R. (2019) The survival of hatchery-origin pinto abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana released intoWashington waters. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29, 424–441.
COSTELLO, C., OVANDO, D., CLAVELLE, T., STRAUSS, C.K., HILBORN, R., MELNYCHUK, M.C. et al. (2016) Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 5125–5129.
COSTELLO, C., CAO, L., GELCICH, S., CISNEROS-MATA, MÁ, FREE, C.M., FROEHLICH, H.E. et al. (2020) The future of food from the sea. Nature, 588, 95–100.
CULLIS-SUZUKI,S. & PAULY,D.(2010) Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine Policy, 34, 1036–1042.
DAVIS, M., CASSAR,V.(2020) Queen conch aquaculture: hatchery and nursery phases. Journal of Shellfish Research, 39, 731–810.
DELGADO, G.A. & GLAZER, R.A. (2007) Interactions between translocated and native queen conch (Strombus gigas): evaluating a restoration strategy. Endangered Species Research, 3, 259–266.
DELGADO, G.A. & GLAZER, R.A. (2020) Demographics influence reproductive output in queen conch (Lobatus gigas): implications for fishery management. Bulletin of Marine Science, 96, 707–722.
Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 700–709 © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324001443
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
