ISSN: 2455-8400

International Journal of Aquaculture and Fishery Sciences

Research Article       Open Access      Peer-Reviewed

Ecological Impacts of Cage Fish Farming in Lake Victoria, Kenya

Mercy Chepkirui1*, Paul Sagwe Orina1, Jonathan Munguti2, George Morara1, Tonny Sagwe Orina3 and Jared Ochingo1

1Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Kegati Aquaculture Centre, P. O. Box 3259-40200, Kisii, KenyaG
2Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), National Aquaculture Research Development and Training Center (NARDTC), Sagana, Kenya
3Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Sciences, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya

Author and article information

*Corresponding author: Mercy Chepkirui, Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Kegati Aquaculture Centre, P. O. Box 3259-40200, Kisii, Kenya, E-mail: [email protected]
doi : 10.17352/2455-8400.000102
Submitted: 28 March, 2026 | Accepted: 06 April, 2026 | Published: 07 April, 2026
Keywords: Aquaculture; Cage farming; Ecology; Lake Victoria; Nutrients

Cite this as

Chepkirui M, et al. Ecological Impacts of Cage Fish Farming in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Int J Aquac Fish Sci. 2026; 12(1): 001-009. Available from: 10.17352/2455-8400.000102

Copyright License

© 2026 Chepkirui M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

The decline in capture fisheries globally as a result of growing population and increasing awareness on nutritional benefits of white meat has led to the development of aquaculture. This is anticipated to meet the increasing call for more food for the human population, which is likely to increase further by 2050. Statistics show that more than 50% of the global fish diet will come from aquaculture. This is attributed to technological advancement from traditional culture systems to modern culture systems, including cage farming.

Cage farming technology has been rapidly growing since its inception in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Since then, cage farming has witnessed remarkable growth due to technology adoption, swift monetary growth, urbanization, and infrastructural development, increasing demand for food for an ever-increasing population, increasing markets.

Cage farming in Lake Victoria, Kenya, offers an excellent opportunity towards recognition of the government’s tactic to eliminate food insecurity, malnutrition, create employment, and promote the Blue Economy. However, being an open farming enterprise is likely to emit a large amount of fish waste into the ecosystem. Therefore, cage fish farming technology has been put into question due to increasing rates of environmental concerns. Hence, this paper review possible ecological impacts of cage fish farming towards sustainable utilization of aquatic resources in Lake Victoria, Kenya.

Indexing and Abstracting

Introduction

Background information

The decline in capture fisheries globally as a result of growing population and increasing awareness on nutritional benefits of white meat [1-3] has led to the development of aquaculture. This is anticipated to meet the increasing call for more food [4] for the human population, which is likely to increase further by 2050. Statistics show that more than 50% of the global fish diet will come from aquaculture [5]. Aquaculture began commercializing some decades ago, resulting in the current contribution of 87.5 million tonnes worth USD 281.5 billion in 2020 [1]. This is attributed to technological advancement from traditional culture systems to modern culture systems, including cage farming [6,7].

Cage farming technology is rapidly growing since its inception in Lake Victoria, Kenya [8-10]. Lake Bain Development Authority (LBDA) conducted the first pilot trials in 1988 at Dunga Beach, Lake Victoria, but they bore no fruit [9]. In 2005, Dominion Farms Limited, Siaya County, fruitfully installed cages to bridge the rapid decline in fish landings from the lake. In 2007, the European Union (EU) also sponsored some trials in Small Water Bodies (SWB) within Lake Victoria Basin [11]. Success in cage farming through a participatory approach with Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) and Dunga Beach Management led to the installation of cages at Dunga Beach by Dunga Fishermen Co-operative in 2009 [9]. Since then, cage farming has witnessed remarkable growth due to technology adoption, swift monetary growth, urbanization, and infrastructural development, increasing demand for food for an ever-increasing population, increasing markets, government, and agrarian strategies [8,12].

Cage farming has attracted many investors in Kenya despite being a recent concept in aquaculture [10,13,14]. Currently, over 6,000 cages have been set up in Kenyan waters [15], signifying an increase compared to 3,696 cages in 2021 [8]. Among the five riparian counties embracing cage technology along Lake Victoria shores, Siaya County has the highest number of cages [8]. The average stocking density is 350 fish/m3 with cage size ranging between 8 and 125 m3 [16]. In L. Victoria, Kenya, Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) is the most cultivated fish species, producing 12 million kg of fish per production cycle (approximately 8 months per annum) [8,9]. By 2018, over 3 million O. niloticus were stocked in cages [16]. The use of locally invented galvanized metal cages measuring 2 x 2 x 2 m is the most common cage design and material used by cage investors. Currently, cage farmers are embracing the use of more commercially oriented High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), with the majority being spherical in shape [8].

Cage farming in Lake Victoria, Kenya, offers an excellent opportunity towards recognition of the government’s tactic to eliminate food insecurity, malnutrition, create employment, and promote the Blue Economy [9]. However, being an open farming enterprise is likely to emit a large amount of fish waste and uneaten feed into the ecosystem. Further, the ecological changes in the lake are likely to cause conflict between cage investors and wild fisheries if no action is taken [17]. Studies indicated that total production, area under cage farming, depth of the lake, and water exchange rate primarily influence the extent of ecological health of the lake [18,19]. Despite Lake Victoria having huge potential to attract investors, cage farming is still illegal in some countries due to fear of environmental pollution, e.g., Lake Victoria, part of Tanzania [20]. Therefore, cage fish farming technology has been put into question due to increasing rates of environmental concerns. Hence, this paper review possible ecological impacts of cage fish farming for sustainable utilization of blue resources in Lake Victoria, Kenya.

Methodology

This study was a result of desktop data collection and in-depth analysis of information from secondary and tertiary sources. To accomplish the proposed objectives, a range of keywords related to “aquaculture”, “cage farming”, “ecological impacts of cage farming”, Lake Victoria ecosystems, and “nutrients” were searched on Google Scholar. Significant information was obtained from peer-reviewed papers published from 2010 to 2025. The results were analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview to inform sustainable practices in Lake Victoria, Kenya.

Eutrophication

Eutrophication refer to as gradual increase in nutrient loads in the aquatic bionetworks. Although discharge of untreated waste, runoff and anthropogenic influence etc. alters ecosystem integrity, waste from cage farming also is likely to emit matter rich in nitrogen and phosphorous concentration [21-25]. However, its impacts depends on cage residence time, water depth, annual fish production and coverage area [18]. Although N and P are responsible for primary production, excess concentration affects the ecosystem integrity of the lake. Studies indicated that, cage farming increases nutrient load especially Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP) into the ecosystem [26,27]. Approximately 80% and 87% of N and P, respectively, emanated from cage farming in Lake Malawi [28]. Aura et al., [9] and Kashindye, et al. [20] document increasing cases of TN and TP at the shores along the cages. Similar scenarios were also reported for marine cage farming [29]. Discharge of particulate and dissolved substances in the form of uneaten feeds, fecal waste and metabolites escalate the levels of TP and TN [4,21,26,30]. Feeds consumption in cages is not 100%, thus there is probability of feeds descending into the bottom water thus increases the eutrophication rate. Gichana, et al. [31,32] and Gichana, et al. [33] reported that less than 30% of the feeds are breakdown and absorbed by fish. The residual are evacuated as non-fecal or fecal losses into the ecosystem [31,34]. Non-fecal losses consist of digested food that are excreted as ammonia and urea whereas fecal losses are mainly solid wastes. They act as major source of nutrients in aquatic ecosystem through leaching and mineralization. Poor Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) reported from caged fish also contributes significantly towards increasing TP and TN in ecosystem [13]. The amount of nutrients discharged from cages is determined by feeding proficiency of fish, type of feeds and the species reared. Further, the reduction of water velocity mainly due to the physical obstruction of water by fish in cages and any other organism attached is likely to increase nutrients load in water column [35]. This has raised alarm on need for eco-friendly technologies [20,36].

Both marine [29] and freshwater cage culture noticeably affect water quality parameters [20,37]. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a critical aspect in fish farming as it affects growth rate, survival, and feeding efficiency [38,39]. The increasing decomposition rate of fecal waste and uneaten feeds in the water column considerably affects DO concentration [4,29]. This is as a result of NH4+ and NO2- accumulation in the water column [37,40], thus proliferates menace of algal blooms [9,41]. Algal decomposition by bacteria in the water column results in hypoxic and anoxic condition leading to massive fish kills. Further, high oxygen demand occurs in benthic sediments during late spring through summer, and stratification of the water column due to changes in water temperature. Recent fish kills in Lake Victoria, Kenya is attributed to lake mixing in addition to organic matter and nutrient load from cage farming and anthropogenic activities. However, some studies reported no significant effect of fish cage farming on DO [20,42]. Occasionally, high concentrations of nutrients from decomposing matter stimulate phytoplankton development, hence increasing DO as a result of photosynthesis. Further, cages located in deep waters with low production volume, high current speed, and low stocking density result in minimal variations in DO levels [37].  pH is critical in determining the levels of converting ammonia (NH3) to ammonium (NH4+). It also influences the physiological functions of aquatic organisms, including fish [39]. Studies reported that cage farming significantly lowers the pH values of water [26]. These ecological changes may affect cage and wild fish production, as well as create conflicts between cage investors and wild fisheries [16].

Further, uneaten feeds, fecal waste, and dust from feeds significantly increase TSS in water [37]. Past research on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) indicated that cage farming releases approximately 27.50 kg to 92.23 kg of fresh sediments [43]. Further, Mente, et al.  [40] reported fluctuations in TSS levels at the bottom of cages as a result of uneaten feed and fecal matter. High TSS level limits light permeation, thus hindering phytoplankton production [44] as well as the photosynthetic activity of benthic aquatic life. High flushing rate from water currents helps in reducing turbidity levels at the cage sites and vice versa [45,46]. Despite some researchers reporting no significant effect of cage farming on water quality parameters [47,48], it is highly recommended that the proper positioning of cage farming is ideal to encourage flushing and improve feeding efficiency to reduce feed waste, thus reducing turbidity problems in water bodies. Further, cage investors should consider ideal cage stocking density, feeds with fewer fines, feeding fish to satiation, and sticking to feeding charts to minimize feed surpluses as well as maintain the ecological integrity of water bodies.

Phytoplankton have the ability to accumulate and store heavy metals, thus used in bio-monitoring of aquatic ecosystems [49]. They are found at the base of the food pyramid and act as a source of food for invertebrates and fish, thus playing a key role in the production of organic matter. They display wide distribution with high sensitivity to fluctuations in ecological factors such as increased pollutants and nutrient loads [50]. Several scientists cited differences in phytoplankton richness, species, and bio-volume with respect to pollution levels, water mixing and nutrients variations. Eutrophication from cage farming largely affects phytoplankton abundance, composition, and diversity [13,51,52]. Increased eutrophication significantly promotes excessive growth of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs), thus shifting phytoplankton structure from dominant diatom to cyanobacteria, resulting in the production of Microcystins (MC) that pose both aquatic and human health syndromes [53,54]. Past studies on eutrophic bays such as Nyanza Gulf, Kenya [55], Tanzania Bays [56], and Murchison Bay, Uganda [57] reported cyanobacteria to be the most dominant group. Further, the chlorophytes community declines in numbers after the stocking of cages [20].  However, some groups are tolerant to high eutrophication load, e.g., cyanophytes. Kashindye, et al. [20] reported no change in the abundance of cyanophytes before and after the stocking of fish cages. The tendency of fewer taxa growing faster and abundantly depends on the eutrophic status of aquatic ecosystems.

Plant cells have chlorophyll, a pigment in the chloroplast, which helps in oxygenic photosynthesis by trapping energy from sunlight. Cage farming significantly increases the concentration of chlorophyll a [26,58]. Same results were also cited by Tiburcio, et al. 2021 from Rosana Reservoir in Brazil; Baguma, et al. [37] in Lake Kivu and Sitoki, et al. [58] in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Further, excessive blooms of phytoplankton in Lake Kivu resulted in an increase in the concentration of chlorophyll ain water column [59]. Other studies on the discharge of socio-economic activities into the littoral zone of bays in the Bukavu basin reported a positive and strong relationship between chlorophyll aand nutrient concentration [60]. Therefore, chlorophyll ais directly proportional to nutrient enrichment in the ecosystem. Cage farming increases the concentration of chlorophyll a due to the discharge of high quantity nutrient rich fish feeds and fecal matter from the cages.

Zooplankton community

Plankton communities are bioindicators of aquatic ecosystems. Increased phytoplankton community favors the growth of zooplankton [61]. Musa, et al. [13] reported an increase in rotifers community during the production cycle in cages, while copepods and cladocera were reduced significantly. Increased nutrients leaching from cage activities promote phytoplankton blooms, thus a high abundance of rotifers. This is because increased eutrophication rate stimulates rapid growth of rotifers compared to other zooplanktons [61,62]. However, cladocera and copepods are very sensitive to deterioration in water quality [62,63]. Further, the growing fish biomass may also shift the composition of the zooplankton community. This is due to predation of rotifers as a result of their small sizes compare to other groups [64,65].

Bottom sediments

Accumulation of uneaten fish feeds and fecal matter from the cages results in deposition of high organic sediments at the cage sites, which favors the growth of some organisms [26,37,40]. As a result of decomposition processes, biological oxygen demand (BOD) increases, resulting in a reduction in DO levels [26,66]. Further, Musa, et al. [26] reported a gradual negative ORP in the sediments at cages site during the production cycle. This indicates anaerobic decomposition leading to the accumulation of hydrogen sulphide and methane in the sediments. Production of these gases, along with low DO levels, significantly contributes to mass fish kills in the cages [10]. This therefore raises an alarm on the need to install modern technologies in aquatic ecosystems to monitor and regulate the real time emission of harmful substances.

Benthic macroinvertebrates

Generally, macroinvertebrates are indicators of water quality in an aquatic ecosystem because they are usually abundant, able to withstand a wide range of pollution, and are sessile. However, deposition of large quantities of organic matter in the bottom of the lake is likely to cause a shift in the abundance and decomposition of benthic macroinvertebrates [67]. High deposition of silt acts as food for some macroinvertebrates [47]. Moreover, metallic cages used in fish farming release copper and zinc, which accumulate in the sediments, affecting benthos below fish cages over time [68].

Benthic macroinvertebrates are known to have less biomass and diversity with a high proportion of deposit feeders with respect to an increase in organic matter [69]. This is because decreasing concentration of DO in the sediments leads to a shift in its composition and diversity [70].

As a result of organic enhancement at the cage site, a transition from arthropods to molluscs and annelids was reported [47,71,72]. Musa, et al. [26] also reported a high abundance of the aforementioned species at the beginning and vice versa at the end of the cage culture period. Chironomus sp. were reported to have high abundance at cage culture sites. This shows that they are tolerant to high pollution loads [73].

Other studies in Uganda, Napoleon Gulf reported changes in composition and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in the cage sites [74]. Some benthic organisms are known to be opportunistic, thus can withstand high pollution levels; e.g., Physella spp and Tubifex spp [75]. Oligochaetes and chaoborids thrive well in freshwater receiving organic waste [76,77]. Thus, high abundance indicate negative ecological effect on the Lake Ecosystem. However, some studies reported a lower abundance of oligochaetes and chaoborids at cage sites [78]. This is perhaps due to the influence of predation pressure, substrate type, natural or anthropogenic influence, and hydrological characteristics in an ecosystem.

Fish diseases

Cage farming is an intensive system with high stocking density and limited movement of fish. The overpopulation of fish increases host proximity and prevalence of infections [79]. Further, the adjacent nutrient-rich environment favors the development of diseases and infections if not well-maintained. Caged fish have a high probability of infections from the already infected fish [80]. Morton, et al. [79] alluded that infections can be transmitted from wild to caged fish and vice versa. Fishing gears, ocean currents, and escape accelerate the spread of infection within the ecosystem. However, little information exists on the transfer of infection between wild and farmed fish and vice versa. Past studies cited the spread of infectious salmon anemia virus from caged salmon to wild fish in Chile [81]. Further, cage structures act as substrate for algae; clogging of nets stimulates the evolution of other organisms, resulting in pathogenic infections in caged fish [82]. For instance, more than 50% of fish cage farmers in Lake Victoria reported outbreaks of fish diseases and parasitic infections. Fin rot was the most common due to poor water quality, high stocking density, and management practices [9,10,83]. Therefore, noble fish husbandry is essential in cage farming [84]. Disease is a major threat, and fish health management is an important aspect in planning [43].

Genetic pollution

In the late 1920s, L. Victoria fisheries involved bony and small species of haplochromine cichlids of no economic value in commercial fisheries [85].  Other native fish species include Labeo victorianus, Bagrus docmac, Barbus spp, Protopterus aethiopicus, Synodontis spp, Alestes spp, Clarias. However, due to low fisheries production, Lates niloticus, Tilapia zillii, Cyprinus carpio, Oreochromis leucosticus, and O. niloticus were introduced to convert small fish into bigger biomass [86]. Further, O. melanopleura was accidentally introduced from the fish ponds. Consequently, an ecological shift was reported due to hybridization between native and introduced species, and currently the lake is dominated by O. niloticus, L. niloticus, and R. argentea [10].  Further, expansion of fish cage farming has resulted in the introduction of fish species from unknown sources, leading to the disappearance of native fish species due to hybridization [87,88]. Inbreeding between farmed and wild fish has resulted in individuals with lower reproductive viability and survival rate. Escapees from cages can breed with wild fish stock, leading to pollution of genetic pools in the lake [89]. However, scarce information is documented on the effects of cage culture on genetic pollution in L. Victoria. Earlier studies in L. Victoria reported geometric, morphometric, and molecular variation in O. niloticus due to inbreeding of wild stock [90,91]. Loss of indigenous fish species in Lake Victoria, e.g., O. esculentus, has been documented as a result of hybridization [92]. Hence, cage farming may deteriorate the genetic purity and viability of the wild fish population. Therefore, there is a need for standard operating procedures to ensure authentic and qualified suppliers of fingerlings to cage investors in L. Victoria, as well as maintaining the genetic purity of the wild stock.

Wild fish biomass

Fish cage culture supplies resources to aquatic trophic food webs in matter and energy form, hence attracting many organisms [93]. Uneaten food and fecal matter are primary sources of nutrients contributing to the development of algae. However, the time of release, dispersal capacity, amount, and dilution rate dictate the degree of impact on the aquatic ecosystem [94]. Cage fish farming positively impact wild fish community by providing refugia and food [95]. High fish biomass at the cage sites was reported despite its eutrophic state [27,96]. This shows the positive effect of cage farming on the wild fish population. The abundance of squeaker catfish (S. victoriae and S. afrofischeri) was reported at the cage site.  The supply of dissolved nutrients in the cages increases primary production. This is attributed to the formation of periphyton around submerged cage structures and net thus provide foraging grounds, shelter, and protection against predation.

Feeds from cages also boost the reproductive potential of wild fish populations by enhancing fecundity through increased energy reserves for growth and development. Further, a high energy reserve might reduce the sexual maturation age of fish [97]. Studies reported high relative gonad mass in farmed fish compared to wild fish [98]. However, farmed fish have diverse levels of fatty acids in the gonads, thus lowering reproduction viability compared to wild fish [99].

Also, dropping feeds from cage farming acts as food for wild stock. Benthic fish feeders reported high abundance as they scrap sub-merged materials and substrates on cage structures. However, haplochromines community is intolerant to poor water quality, thus recorded low biomass at the cage site [27]. Currently, fishing pressure is very high at L. Victoria [100]. Cage investors restrict any kind of fishing activity around the cages. Therefore, cage sites act as refuge and foraging grounds for some fishes leading to high fish biomass and diversity in these areas [27]. Hence affects the population dynamics of wild fish stocks as well as the trophic ecology of ecosystems. Therefore, cage farming has the potential to restore and sustain some parts of wild fish biodiversity while supporting food security and nutrition.

Antibiotics and other drugs

Cage farming experience wide variety of bacterial and parasitic infections, which affect its production. Cage investors rely on chemicals, mainly antibiotics, for the prevention and treatment of infections [101]. However, scarce information exists on the amount of antibiotics used in the aquaculture industry globally [102]. Past studies on cage farming of Salmon reported that a large percentage of antimicrobials utilized through medicated feeds enter the ecosystem through fecal and urinary excreta and uneaten feeds [103]. In Asia, residual antibiotics were reported in the downstream of aquaculture production zones within the aquatic ecosystem [104]. This leads to deposition of persistent sediment rich-antibiotics favoring resistant microorganism hence affecting natural biogeochemical processes and microbial activity in the ecosystem. Further, these drugs can modify resistance by selecting Antibiotic Resistant Genes (ARGs) and accelerate transmission of horizontal genes, hence increase possibility of antibiotic resistance gene transfer from environs to human pathogenic bacteria [105,106]. However, scarce information is documented on the use of antibiotics and other drugs in fish cage farming in Lake Victoria.

Conclusions and recommendations

Currently, Lake Victoria is experiencing sequence of ecological transformation. Cage farming provides a significant opportunity towards the realization of Sustainable Development Goals of 2030, especially the achievement of food security and nutrition. However, studies have demonstrated that fish cage culture negatively impacts the aquatic ecosystem and aquatic life, which threatens the ecological balance of Lake Victoria.

Therefore, to fully harness the potential of fish cage farming as a sustainable strategy, there is need for installation of digital sensors in water bodies is vital to monitor the extent of damage from all the investors. Further, as a result of genetic pollution establishment of gene banks will aid in the determination of genetic purity for the L. Victoria fish species. Also, a multi-sectoral approach will help in achieving sustainable use as well as maintaining ecosystem integrity of Lake Victoria. This will not only contribute to economic growth but also a long term sustainability of Lake Victoria resources.

References
  1. Food and Agriculture Organization. The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture: contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome: FAO; 2022. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/11a4abd8-4e09-4bef-9c12-900fb4605a02
  2. Anderson JL, Asche F, Garlock T, Chu J. Aquaculture: its role in the future of food. In: Schmitz A, Kennedy PL, Schmitz TG, editors. Frontiers of economics and globalization. Vol. 17. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2017;159–173.
  3. Akintola SL, Brown A, Bakare A, Osowo OD, Omolola B. Effects of hot smoking and sun drying processes on nutritional composition of giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon, Fabricius, 1798). Pol J Food Nutr Sci. 2013;63(4):227–237. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10222-012-0093-1
  4. Njiru JM, Aura CM, Okechi JK. Cage fish culture in Lake Victoria: a boon or a disaster in waiting? Fish Manag Ecol. 2019;26(5):426–434. Available from: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2019FisME..26..426N/doi:10.1111/fme.12283
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization. The state of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture: contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome: FAO; 2012. Available from: https://www.fao.org/4/i2727e/i2727e.pdf
  6. Brown WT, Chappell AJ, Hanson RT. In-pond raceway system demonstrates economic benefits for catfish production. Auburn (AL): Auburn University; 2010. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297759471_In-Pond_Raceway_System_Demonstrates_Economic_Benefits_For_Catfish_Production
  7. Cardia F, Lovatelli A. Aquaculture operations in floating HDPE cages: a field handbook. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 593. Rome: FAO; 2015. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9137802b-e883-4da6-a04f-918647bd4199/content
  8. Orina P, Ogello E, Kembenya E, Muthoni C, Musa S, Ombwa V, et al. The state of cage culture in Lake Victoria: a focus on sustainability, rural economic empowerment, and food security. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 2021;24(1):56–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14321/aehm.024.01.09
  9. Aura CM, Musa S, Yongo E, Okechi JK, Njiru JM, Ogari Z, et al. Integration of mapping and socio-economic status of cage culture: towards balancing lake-use and culture fisheries in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Aquac Res. 2018;49(1):532–545. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/are.13484
  10. Njiru JM, Aura CM, Okechi JK. Cage fish culture in Lake Victoria: a boon or disaster in waiting? Fish Manag Ecol. 2018;26(5):426–434. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12283
  11. Munguti JM, Kim JD, Ogello EO. An overview of Kenyan aquaculture: current status, challenges, and opportunities for future development. J Fish Aquat Sci. 2014;17(1):1–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5657/FAS.2014.0001
  12. Kassam L, Dorward A. Comparative assessment of the poverty impacts of pond and cage aquaculture in Ghana. Aquaculture. 2017;470:110–122. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.12.017
  13. Musa S, Aura CM, Okechi JK. Economic analysis of tilapia cage culture in Lake Victoria using different cage volumes. J Appl Aquac. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2021.1884632
  14. Hamilton SE, Gallo SM, Krach N, Nyamwea CS, Okechi JK, Aura CM, et al. The use of unmanned aircraft systems and high resolution satellite imagery to monitor tilapia fish cage aquaculture expansion in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Bull Mar Sci. 2020;96:71–93. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/Bulletin-of-Marine-Science-0007-4977
  15. Kobingi N, Masese FO, Gichana Z, Nyamora JM, Getabu A, Onchieku J, et al. Cage farming in the environmental mix of Lake Victoria: an analysis of its status, potential environmental and ecological effects, and a call for sustainability. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14321/aehm.025.04.37
  16. Njiru J, Aura CM. Cage farming can protect Lake Victoria’s fish, but regulations need tightening. The Conversation. 2019. Available from: https://theconversation.com/cage-farming-can-protect-lake-victorias-fish-but-regulations-need-tightening-112641
  17. Karikari AY, Asmah R, Anku WW, Amisah S, Trevor TC, Lindsay RG. Assessment of cage fish farm impacts on physico-chemical parameters of the Volta Lake in Ghana. J Fish Coast Manag. 2021;3(2):22–35. Available from: https://www.jfcomonline.com/fulltext/37-1614782296.pdf?1775474042
  18. Huang CH. Aquaculture and the endogenous damage cost of water pollution: the case of Taiwan. Aquac Econ Manag. 1997. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13657309709380206
  19. Phillips MJ, Beveridge MCM, Ross LG. The environmental impact of salmonid cage culture on inland fisheries: present status and future trends. J Fish Biol. 1985;27(Suppl A):123–127. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1985.tb03236.x
  20. Kashindye BB, Nsinda P, Kayanda R, Ngupula GW, Mashafi CA, Ezekiel CN. Environmental impacts of cage culture in Lake Victoria: the case of Shirati Bay Sota, Tanzania. 2015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1241-y
  21. Dauda AB, Ajadi A, Tola-Fabunmi AS, Akinwole AO. Waste production in aquaculture: sources, components, and management in different culture systems. Aquac Fish. 2019;4(3):81–88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2018.10.002
  22. Beveridge MCM, Thilsted SH, Phillips MJ, Metian M, Troell M, Hall SJ. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. J Fish Biol. 2013;83(4):1067–1084. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4283757/
  23. Guo L, Li Z, Xie P, Ni L. Assessment effects of cage culture on nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in relation to fallowing in a shallow lake in China. Aquac Int. 2009;17:229–241. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-008-9195-5
  24. Neofitou N, Klaoudatos S. Effect of fish farming on the water column nutrient concentration in a semi-enclosed gulf of the Eastern Mediterranean. Aquac Res. 2008;39:482–490. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01900.x
  25. Alabaster JS. Report of the EIFAC workshop on fish-farm effluents, 26–28 May 1981, Silkeborg, Denmark. 1982. Available from: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122535/records/65dde941b766d82b18fb0567
  26. Musa S, Aura CM, Tómasson T, Sigurgeirsson ÓI, Thorarensen H. Impacts of Nile tilapia cage culture on water and bottom sediment quality: the ability of an eutrophic lake to absorb and dilute perturbations. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12413
  27. Okechi JK, Peoples N, Nyamweya CS, Glaser S, Kaufman L. The ecological health of Lake Victoria (Kenya) in the face of growing cage aquaculture. Conserv Sci Pract. 2022. Available from: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.12826
  28. Gondwe MJ, Guildford SJ, Hecky RE. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus loadings from tilapia fish cages in Lake Malawi and factors influencing their magnitude. J Great Lakes Res. 2011;37(1):93–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2010.11.014
  29. Price C, Kenneth DB, Hargrave BT, James AM. Marine cage culture and the environment: effects on water quality and primary production. Aquac Environ Interact. 2015;6:151–174. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272021218_Marine_cage_culture_and_the_environment_effects_on_water_quality_and_primary_production
  30. Garcia de Souza JR, Solimano PJ, Maiztegui T, Baigun CRM, Colautti DC. Effects of stocking density and natural food availability on the extensive cage culture of pejerrey (Odontesthes bonariensis) in a shallow Pampean lake in Argentina. Aquac Res. 2015;46:1332–1344. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12286
  31. Gichana Z, Liti D, Wakibia J, Ogello E, Drexler S, Meulenbroek P, et al. Efficiency of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo), sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua) and amaranth (Amaranthus dubius) in removing nutrients from a small-scale recirculating aquaponic system. Aquac Int. 2019;27:1767–1786. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10499-019-00442-x
  32. Gichana Z, Liti D, Drexler S, Zollitsch W, Meulenbroek P, Wakibia J, et al. Effects of aerated and non-aerated biofilters on effluent water treatment from a small-scale recirculating aquaculture system for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.). Die Bodenkultur. 2019;70(4):209–219. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2478/boku-2019-0019
  33. Gichana ZM, Liti D, Waidbacher H, Zollitsch W, Drexler S, Wakibia J. Waste management in recirculating aquaculture system through bacteria dissimilation and plant assimilation. Aquac Int. 2018;26(6):1541–1572. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0303-x
  34. Schram E, Jonathan ACR, Wout A, Yanick Y, Tom S, De Vries P, et al. The impact of elevated water nitrate concentration on physiology, growth and feed intake of African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822). Aquac Res. 2014;45(9):1499–1511. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/are.12098
  35. Iwama GI. Interactions between aquaculture and the environment. Crit Rev Environ Control. 1991;21:177–216. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389109388413
  36. Boyd CE, Lim C, Queiroz J, Salie K, De Wet L. Best management practices for responsible aquaculture. 2008. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/19532669/Best_management_practices_for_responsible_aquaculture
  37. Buguma G, Cocquyt C, Kabagale AC, Nshombo VM, Mudogo BA, Nakangu J, et al. Effects of cage fish (Oreochromis niloticus L. 1758) farming on the water quality in selected bays of the Bukavu basin, Lake Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2586686/v1
  38. Mbalassa M, Bagalwa JM, Nshombo M, Kateyo EM. Assessment of physicochemical parameters in relation with fish ecology in Ishasha River and Lake Edward, Albertine Rift Valley, East Africa. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2014;3(6):230–244. Available from: https://media.rufford.org/media/project_reports/Int.J.Curr_.Microbiol.App_.Sci%20(2014)%203(6)%20230-244.pdf
  39. Boyd CE, Tucker CS. Water quality and pond soil analyses for aquaculture. Auburn (AL): Auburn University; 1992. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2035202
  40. Mente E, Pierce GJ, Santos MB, Neofitou C. Effect of feed and feeding in the culture of salmonids on the marine aquatic environment: a synthesis for European aquaculture. Aquac Int. 2006;14:499–522. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-006-9051-4
  41. Mwamburi J, Basweti G, Owili M, Babu J, Wawiye P. Spatio-temporal trends of nutrients and physicochemical parameters on lake ecosystem and fisheries prior to onset of cage farming and re-opening of the Mbita passage in the Nyanza Gulf of Lake Victoria. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2020;25:292–313. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lre.12329
  42. Klaoudatos SD. Environmental impacts of aquaculture in Greece: practical experiences. In: Uriarte A, Basurco B, editors. Environmental impact assessment of Mediterranean aquaculture farms. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes. Vol. 55. Zaragoza: CIHEAM; 2000;109–127. Available from: https://om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/c55/01600226.pdf
  43. Food and Agriculture Organization. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018. Rome: FAO; 2018. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6fb91ab9-6cb2-4d43-8a34-a680f65e82bd/content
  44. Harrison WG, Perry T, Li WKW. Ecosystem indicators of water quality: part I. plankton biomass, primary production and nutrient demand. In: Hargrave BT, editor. Environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture. Handbook of environmental chemistry. Vol. 5M. Berlin: Springer; 2005;59–82. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/b136004
  45. McKinnon D, Trott L, Duggan S, Brinkman R, Alongi D, Castine S, Patel F, et al. Environmental impacts of sea cage aquaculture in a Queensland context—Hinchinbrook Channel case study (SD576/06) final report. Townsville: Australian Institute of Marine Science; 2008. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242491478_Environmental_Impacts_of_Sea_Cage_Aquaculture_in_a_Queensland_Context_-_Hinchinbrook_Channel_Case_Study_SD57606
  46. Tanaka K, Kodama M. Effects of resuspended sediments on the environmental changes in the inner part of Ariake Bay, Japan. Bull Fish Res Agency. 2007;19:9–15. Available from: https://www.fra.go.jp/home/kenkyushokai/book/bulletin/files/bull19_02.pdf
  47. Nabirye H, Mwebaza-Ndawula L, Bugenyi FWB, Jones F. The evaluation of cage fish farming effects on water quality using selected benthic macro-invertebrate community parameters in the Napoleon Gulf, northern Lake Victoria. Int J Fish Aquat Sci. 2016;4(1):42–50. Available from: https://www.fisheriesjournal.com/archives/2016/vol4issue1/PartA/3-2-69.pdf
  48. Jihani N, Nbavi SNB, Dehghan MS, Mortezaie SRS, Fazeli N. The effect of marine fish cage culture on benthic communities using BOPA index in Ghazale Creek (Persian Gulf). Iran J Fish Sci. 2012;11(1):78–88. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277037012_The_effect_of_marine_fish_cage_culture_on_benthic_communities_using_BOPA_index_in_Ghazale_Creek_Persian_Gulf
  49. Kundu R, Aura MC, Nyamweya C, Agembe S, Sitoki L, Lung’ayia H, et al. Changes in pollution indicators in Lake Victoria, Kenya and their implications for lake and catchment management. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2017;22:199–214. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lre.12187
  50. Olokotum M, Troussellier M, Escalas C, Hamlaouid S, Okello W, Semyalo R, et al. High nutrient loading and climatic parameters influence the dominance and dissimilarity of toxigenic cyanobacteria in northern bays of Lake Victoria. J Great Lakes Res. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2021.04.021
  51. Simoes NR, Nunes AH, Dias JD, Lansac-Toha FA, Velho LFM, Bonecker CC. Impact of reservoirs on zooplankton diversity and implications for the conservation of natural aquatic environments. Hydrobiologia. 2015;758:3–17. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impact-of-reservoirs-on-zooplankton-diversity-and-Sim%C3%B5es-Nunes/374b5ecef0c9217e2477cc98a2b081b5c88aae91
  52. Borges P, Trans S, Dias JD, Bonecker CC. Effects of fish farming on plankton structure in a Brazilian tropical reservoir. Hydrobiologia. 2010;649:279–291. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10750-010-0271-2
  53. Aura CM, Nyamweya CS, Njiru JM, Omondi R, Manyala J, Musa S, et al. Using the multi-metric index of biotic integrity methodological approach to determine the major river catchment that most pollutes a lake. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 2021;24(1):12–20. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Using-the-Multi-metric-Index-of-Biotic-Integrity-to-Aura-Nyamweya/b64bc94834d3ec0c6ba793cc025ee38977f54517
  54. Olokotum M, Mitroi V, Troussellier M, Semyalo R, Bernard C, Montuelle B, et al. A review of the socio-ecological causes and consequences of cyanobacterial blooms in Lake Victoria. Harmful Algae. 2020;96:101829. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2020.101829
  55. Onyango DM, Orina PS, Ramkat RC, Kowenje C, Githukia CM, Lusweti D, et al. Review of current state of knowledge of microcystin and its impacts on fish in Lake Victoria. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2020;25:350–361. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342667856_Riew_of_current_state_of_knowledge_of_microcystin_and_its_impacts_on_fish_in_Lake_Victoria
  56. Mbonde AS, Sitoki L, Kurmayer R. Phytoplankton composition and microcystin concentrations in open and closed bays of Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 2015;18:212–220. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5221727/
  57. Okello W, Kurmayer R. Seasonal development of cyanobacteria and microcystin production in Ugandan freshwater lakes. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2011;16:123–135. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227665591_Seasonal_development_of_cyanobacteria_and_microcystin_production_in_Ugandan_freshwater_lakes
  58. Sitoki L, Gichuki J, Ezekiel C, Wanda F, Mkumbo OC, Marshall E. The environment of Lake Victoria (East Africa): current status and historical changes. Int Rev Hydrobiol. 2010;95(3):209–223. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230069015_The_Environment_of_Lake_Victoria_East_Africa_Current_Status_and_Historical_Changes
  59. Loka J, Vaidya NG, Philipose KK. Site and species selection criteria for cage culture. In: Handbook on sea cage culture. Karwar: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute; 2012;27–34. Available from: https://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9167/
  60. Lina AA. Evaluation des charges polluantes (domestiques et industriels) arrivant au lac Kivu dans la ville de Bukavu, RD Congo [dissertation]. Liège: Université de Liège; 2016. Available from: https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/193019
  61. Tasevska O, Kostoski G, Guseska D. Rotifers based assessment of the Lake Dojran water quality. 2010. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228560125_Rotifers_Based_Assessment_of_the_Lake_Dojran_Water_Quality
  62. Vincent K, Mwebaza-Ndawula L, Makanga B, Nachuha S. Variations in zooplankton community structure and water quality conditions in three habitat types in northern Lake Victoria. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2012;17:83–95. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263558042_Variations_in_zooplankton_community_structure_and_water_quality_conditions_in_three_habitat_types_in_northern_Lake_Victoria
  63. Dias JD, Simoes NR, Bonecker CC. Net cages in fish farming: a scientometric analysis. Acta Limnol Bras. 2012;24(1):12–17. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235743464_Net_cages_in_fish_farming_a_scientometric_analysis
  64. Hansson LA, Gyllstrom M, Stahl-Delbanco A, Svensson M. Responses to fish predation and nutrients by plankton at different levels of taxonomic resolution. Freshw Biol. 2004;49:1538–1550. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Responses-to-fish-predation-and-nutrients-by-at-of-Hansson-Gyllstr%C3%B6m/331e1dcdd3969cb7af6d4bdceba87d33b3dc7140
  65. Mwebaza-Ndawula L, Kiggundu V, Pabire GW, Balirwa JS, Mugidde R, Ogutu-Ohwayo R. The status and significance of invertebrate communities. Fisheries Resources Research Institute; 2004. Available from: https://www.aquadocs.org/items/e86ed909-1476-4122-b60b-a1b1b147a2ed/full
  66. Nickell LA, Kenneth DB, Hughes D, Overnell J, Brand T, Nickell TD, et al. Bioturbation, sediment fluxes and benthic community structure around a salmon cage farm in Loch Creran, Scotland. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2003;285–286:221–233. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098102005294
  67. Schmidlin S, Baur B. Distribution and substrate preference of the invasive clam Corbicula fluminea in the River Rhine in the region of Basel (Switzerland, Germany, France). Aquat Sci. 2007;69(1):153–161. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Distribution-and-substrate-preference-of-the-clam-Schmidlin-Baur/b02ea148df8ea4fd2520fa071f951b2ac00a1241
  68. Kalantzi I, Black KD, Pergantis SA, Shimmield TM, Papageorgiou N, Sevastou K. Metals and other elements in tissues of wild fish from fish farms and comparison with farmed species in sites with oxic and anoxic sediments. Food Chem. 2023;141(2):680–694. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23790835/
  69. Pearson TH, Rosenberg R. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 1978;16:229–311. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243785865_Pearson_TH_Rosenberg_R_Macrobenthic_succession_in_relation_to_organic_enrichment_and_pollution_of_the_marine_environment_Oceanogr_Mar_Biol_Ann_Rev_16_229-311
  70. Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R. Marine benthic hypoxia: a review of its ecological effects and the behavioral responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 1995;33:245–303. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236628341_Marine_benthic_hypoxia_A_review_of_its_ecological_effects_and_the_behavioural_response_of_benthic_macrofauna
  71. Mwebaza-Ndawula L, Kiggundu V, Magezi G, Naluwayiro J, Gandhi-Pabire W, Ocaya H. Effects of cage fish culture on water quality and selected biological communities in northern Lake Victoria, Uganda. National Agricultural Research Organisation; 2013. Available from: https://aquadocs.org/items/38f09038-ea3a-4669-a57f-797c022d5ae3
  72. Ngupula GW. How does increased eutrophication and pollution in the Lake Victoria waters impact zooplankton? J Environ Ecol. 2013;4(2):151. Available from: https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jee/article/download/4397/4031
  73. Mandaville LM. Benthic macroinvertebrates in freshwaters: taxa tolerance values, metrics and protocols. Halifax: Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax; 2002. Available from: https://lakes.chebucto.org/H-1/tolerance.pdf
  74. Egessa R, Pabire GW, Ocaya H. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in Napoleon Gulf, Lake Victoria: effects of cage aquaculture in a eutrophic lake. Environ Monit Assess. 2018;190:112. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-018-6498-5
  75. Buss DF, Silva MM, Nessimian JL. Influence of water chemistry and environmental degradation on macroinvertebrate assemblages in a river basin in south-east Brazil. Hydrobiologia. 2002;481:125–136. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297219355_Erratum_Influence_of_water_chemistry_and_environmental_degradation_on_macroinvertebrate_assemblages_in_a_river_basin_in_south-east_Brazil_Hydrobiologia_2002_481_125-136
  76. Camargo JA. Temporal and spatial variations in dominance, diversity and biotic indices along a limestone stream receiving a trout farm effluent. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1992;63:343–359. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00475501
  77. Miserendino ML, Pizzolon LA. Macroinvertebrates of a fluvial system in Patagonia: altitudinal zonation and functional structure. Hydrobiologia. 2000;150:55–83. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280901342_Macroinvertebrates_of_a_fluvial_system_in_Patagonia_Altitudinal_zonation_and_functional_structure
  78. Doughty CR, McPhail CD. Monitoring the environmental impacts and consent compliance of freshwater fish farms. Aquac Res. 1995;26(8):557–565. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1995.tb00946.x
  79. Morton A, Routledge RD, Williams R. Temporal patterns of sea louse infestation on wild Pacific salmon in relation to fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms. N Am J Fish Manag. 2005;25:811–821. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1577/M04-149.1
  80. Barber I, Hoare D, Krause J. Effects of parasites on fish behavior: a review and evolutionary perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2000;10:131–165. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016658224470
  81. Mardones FO, Jansen PA, Valdes-Donoso P, Jarpa M, Lyngstad TM, Jimenez D, et al. Within-farm spread of infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar farms in Chile. Dis Aquat Organ. 2013;106(1):7–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao02639
  82. Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO; 2015. Available from: https://www.fao.org/publications/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-world-fisheries-and-aquaculture/en
  83. Orinda M, Okuto E, Abwao M. Cage fish culture in the Lake Victoria region: adoption determinants, challenges and opportunities. Int J Fish Aquac. 2021;13(2):45–55. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5897/IJFA2020.0798
  84. Ofori JK, Dankwa HR, Brummett R, Abban EK. Producing tilapia in small cage in West Africa. WorldFish Center Technical Manual No. 1952. Penang: WorldFish Center; 2009. Available from: https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/8293a1aa-161b-46e6-bed5-87297940b06d/content
  85. Graham M. The Victoria Nyanza and its fisheries: a report of the fisheries survey of Lake Victoria, 1927–1929. London: Crown Agents; 1929. Available from: https://www.econbiz.de/Record/the-victoria-nyanza-and-its-fisheries-a-report-on-the-fishing-survey-of-lake-victoria-1927-1928-and-appendices-graham-michael/10000567269
  86. Ogutu-Ohwayo R. Management of the Nile perch, Lates niloticus fishery in Lake Victoria in light of the changes in its life history characteristics. Afr J Ecol. 2004;42:306–314. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00527.x
  87. Kang B, Vitule JR, Li S, Shuai F, Huang L, Huang X, et al. Introduction of non-native fish for aquaculture in China: a systematic review. Rev Aquac. 2023;15(2):676–703. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12751
  88. Lowe-McConnell R. Fisheries and cichlid evolution in the African Great Lakes: progress and problems. Freshw Rev. 2009;2(2):131–151. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1608/FRJ-2.2.2
  89. Rothuis A, Turenhout M, Van Duijn A, Roem A, Rurangwa E, Katunzi E. Aquaculture in East Africa: a regional approach. IMARES/LEI; 2014. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283274207_Aquaculture_in_East_Africa_a_regional_approach
  90. Wasonga AG, Daniel WA, Brian O. Interspecific hybridization of tilapiines in Lake Victoria, Kenya. J Fish Livest Prod. 2017;5(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2608.1000235
  91. Tibihika PD, Curto MA, Negash E, Waidbacher H, Masembe C, Akoll P, Meimberg H. Molecular genetic diversity and differentiation of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, L. 1758) in East African natural and stocked populations. Evol Biol. 2020;20(16):1–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.11849/v1
  92. Angienda PO, Lee HJ, Elmer KR, Abila R, Waindi EN, Meyer A. Genetic structure and gene flow in an endangered native tilapia fish (Oreochromis esculentus) compared to invasive Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Yala swamp, East Africa. Conserv Genet. 2014;12(1):243–255. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-010-0136-2
  93. Zambrano L, Valiente EM, Zanden JV. Food web overlap among native axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) and two exotic fishes: carp (Cyprinus carpio) and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Xochimilco, Mexico City. Biol Invasions. 2010;12:3061–3069. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-010-9697-8
  94. Brandao H, Lobon-Cervia J, Ramos IP, Souto AC, Nobile AB, Zica EDO, et al. Influence of cage farming on the population of the fish species Apareiodon affinis (Steindachner, 1879) in the Chavantes reservoir, Paranapanema River SP/PR, Brazil. Acta Limnol Bras. 2012;24:438–448. Available from: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/29113/1/Brandao_Influence.pdf
  95. Oakes CT, Pondella DJ II. The value of a net-cage as a fish aggregating device in Southern California. J World Aquac Soc. 2009;40(1):1–21. Available from: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/value-net-cage-fish-aggregating-device-southern-california
  96. Machias A, Karakassis I, Somarakis S, Giannoulaki M, Papadopoulou KN, Smith C. The response of demersal fish communities to the presence of fish farms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;288:241–250. Available from: https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2005/288/m288p241.pdf
  97. Taranger GL, Carrillo M, Schulz RW, Fontaine P. Control of puberty in farmed fish. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2010;165:483–515. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2009.05.004
  98. Dempster T, Sanchez-Jerez P, Fernandez-Jover D, Bayle Sempere J, Nilsen R, Bjorn PA. Proxy measures of fitness suggest coastal fish farms can act as population sources and not ecological traps for wild gadoid fish. PLoS One. 2011;6:e15646. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015646
  99. Lanes CFC, Bizuayehu TT, Bolla S, Martins C. Biochemical composition and performance of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) eggs and larvae obtained from farmed and wild broodstock. Aquaculture. 2012;324–325:267–275. Available from: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/items/839a9fe7-ccac-4545-886e-6bffa6e59dcf
  100. Van der Knaap M. Comparative analysis of fisheries restoration and public participation in Lake Victoria and Lake Tanganyika. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 2013;16(3):279–287. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2013.816618
  101. Miranda CD. Antimicrobial resistance associated with salmonid farming. In: Keen PL, Montforts MHHM, editors. Antimicrobial Resistance in the Environment. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Blackwell; 2012;423–451. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118156247.ch22
  102. Romero J, Feijoó CG, Navarrete P. Antibiotics in aquaculture-use, abuse and alternatives. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2012. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/35141
  103. Kemper N. Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Ecol Indic. 2008;8:1–13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.06.002
  104. Shimizu A, Takada H, Koike T, Takeshita A, Saha M, Nakada N, Murata A, Suzuki T, Suzuki S, Chiem NH, Tuyen BC. Ubiquitous occurrence of sulfonamides in tropical Asian waters. Sci Total Environ. 2013;452:108–115. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.027
  105. Hollis A, Ahmed Z. The path of least resistance: paying for antibiotics in non-human uses. Health Policy. 2014;118:264–270. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.08.013
  106. Orina PS, Ogello E, Kembenya E, Githukia C, Musa S, Ombwa V, et al. State of cage culture in Lake Victoria, Kenya. 2018. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333805185_State_of_Cage_Culture_in_Lake_Victoria_Kenya 
 

Download as

Article Alerts

Subscribe to our articles alerts and stay tuned.


Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Help ?

Submit your next article Peertechz Publications, also join of our fulfilled creators. Submit a Manuscript

© Peertechz Publications Inc., 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101, Los Angeles, California, 90024, USA