Next Article in Journal
First Genomic Survey of Pleurocryptella fimbriata Provides Preliminary Insights into Genome Characteristics and Evolution of a Deep-Sea Parasitic Isopod
Previous Article in Journal
Patterns of Insect Distribution in Fruit Trees of South Romania and Their Role as Bacterial Vectors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/d17040296
diversity-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Introduction of Non-Native Fish Species in Red Sea Aquaculture: Implications for Marine Ecosystem Integrity

by
Seemab Zehra
1,*,
Pranav Pulukkayi
1,
Mahalakshmi Boopathi
1,
Fadiyah Baalkhuyur
1,
Mohammed Alghamdi
1,
Ali Al Shaikhi
2,
Youssef S. Alhafedh
2 and
Asaad H. Mohamed
1
1
KAUST Beacon Development, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Jeddah 23955, Saudi Arabia
2
Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, King Abdul Aziz Rd., Riyadh 11195, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(4), 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040296
Submission received: 20 February 2025 / Revised: 16 April 2025 / Accepted: 16 April 2025 / Published: 20 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Marine Diversity)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Aquaculture is a rapidly expanding industry that holds significant potential to meet growing seafood demands and it is expected to alleviate pressures on wild stocks. The use of non-native fishes has been practiced worldwide as a strategy to enhance production and to promote financial sustainability in aquaculture. However, the introduction and cultivation of non-native species (hereafter, NNS) in aquaculture can pose severe risks to marine ecosystems, particularly in biodiverse regions like the Red Sea. This review explores insights about commercially produced species, the rationale of introducing NNS, and the potential associated risks, focusing on escapees, genetic pollution, and competition with native species, disease transmission, and habitat modification. The review also highlights the ecological consequences of such risks and proposes strategies to mitigate their impacts, emphasizing the need for comprehensive monitoring, regulatory frameworks, and sustainable aquaculture practices to safeguard marine ecosystem integrity in the region.

1. Introduction

Global fisheries and aquaculture production rank among the fastest-growing food production sectors globally [1]. Aquaculture has been actively promoted to meet the ever-increasing global population’s protein needs [2]. This rapid expansion often involves the introduction of non-native species (NNS) into aquatic ecosystems to satisfy rising demand and increase aquaculture production [3], thereby enhancing food security and supporting economic growth [2]. NNS, also known as introduced, exotic, or alien species, refers to those species that have been moved outside their natural habitats due to human activities. This movement can occur intentionally, as seen in agriculture, aquaculture, or pest control, or accidentally through trade, transport, or climate change, as noted by Beck et al. [4] and Jeschke et al. [5]. The use of non-native fish species in global aquaculture production is substantial, with approximately one-third of the 544 species used in aquaculture being farmed outside their native ranges since 1950, totaling 539 million metric tons of production valued at USD 1.1 trillion by providing nutrition, jobs, and supporting economic development [6]. This trend is especially noticeable in developing countries, where nations like the Philippines, India, and Brazil depend heavily on NNS species for their aquaculture production [7].
Another advantage of NNS is its adaptability to diverse environments. Some NNS are better suited to specific aquatic conditions than native species [3]. Sustainability is also another critical aspect of introducing NNS into aquaculture. Farming NNS reduces pressure on wild fish populations, promoting sustainable marine conservation [8]. For instance, introducing Pacific oysters (Magallana gigas) has led to self-sustaining aquaculture systems, minimizing reliance on native oyster populations [9]. NNS also offers environmental and ecological benefits; numerous filter-feeding species, such as oysters and mussels, enhance water quality by removing excess nutrients from aquatic ecosystems [10,11]. Furthermore, herbivorous species like grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) help control aquatic vegetation and might reduce algal overgrowth [12].
Despite their advantages, NNS can present significant ecological, economic, and social risks if not managed effectively. Introducing these species may lead to biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and interruptions in native ecosystems [13,14]. Globally, the introduction of NNS or invasive species has contributed to the decline of native populations and resulted in outcompeting, preying, and altering habitat structures [15,16,17]. If left unchecked, the introduced NNS can become invasive and could contribute to long-term ecological shifts that compromise the health and productivity of the marine environment, ultimately affecting both biodiversity conservation and the livelihoods of local communities dependent on fisheries and tourism [18,19].
Overall, this paper offers an in-depth analysis of the implications of NNS in both regional and global contexts, with a focus on their ecological, economic, and management dimensions. A thorough literature review was conducted by referring to several articles from peer-reviewed journals, theses, reports, and websites providing information about the native and non-native species distribution and aquaculture production. The Google search engine, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were mostly used for searching related articles using keywords like “native or non-native species in aquaculture production”, “commercial species of interest in aquaculture production”, “Aquaculture status”, etc.
Databases like “Global Invasive Species Database”, the “FishBase” FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) website, and Animal Diversity Web, were used to gather information about the global commercial production of aquaculture species, their distribution status, and its importance in the aquaculture industry. As the invasion of NAS species has a significant impact on the marine ecosystem, more preference has been given to marine species production than freshwater species. Additionally, few important case studies that have a major impact on regional and global scenarios have been elaborated in the sections below.

2. Global Scenario

Introducing NNS in aquaculture has significantly increased global seafood production, providing economic benefits while posing a threat to biodiversity [20]. For instance, several species, including Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and Pacific oysters (M. gigas), have become dominant in global aquaculture due to their rapid growth, adaptability, and high market demand [20].
Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) refers to a group of tropical freshwater fish in the family Cichlidae (Oreochromis, tilapia, and Sarotherodon spp.). Since the 1930s, tilapias have been intentionally spread worldwide for the biological control of aquatic weeds and insects, used as baitfish for specific capture fisheries, maintained in aquaria, and consumed as food fish [21,22,23]. It is the most commonly farmed non-native fish, originally from Africa; however, it has been successfully introduced to Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America due to its rapid growth rate, disease resistance, and ability to thrive in diverse environmental conditions [24]. Furthermore, this species carries significant economic and social value, generating a billion-dollar industry through aquafeed and export trades [25]. It tolerates a wide range of salinities, allowing it to be farmed in freshwater, brackish water, and even saline environments while resisting stress and disease [26]. This fish provides a vital source of affordable protein in various developing countries and is also an export commodity for nations like Egypt, China, Indonesia, and Brazil, where production exceeds 4.5 million metric tons annually [24].
Despite this, the uncontrolled introduction of Nile tilapia into non-native ecosystems might lead to its classification as an invasive species in several regions. In areas like Australia, Mozambique tilapia (O. mossambicus) was first recorded in the wild in Australia during the early 1980s in two reservoirs (North Pine Dam and Leslie Harrison Dam) in Brisbane, Queensland, and their downstream streams [27]. The species has since spread to other water bodies, including Lake Wivenhoe and the Brisbane River, raising concerns about potential inter-basin transfers via water pipelines. Such transfers threaten native fish species, including the vulnerable Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri). The potential impacts of O. mossambicus are reviewed by Arthington and Blühdorn [28]. Due to its invasive nature and potential ecological impacts, O. mossambicus has been declared a “noxious species” in Queensland, with strict penalties for catching, holding, or transporting it [29].
Likewise, several species of tilapiine fishes, including O. mossambicus, O. niloticus, O. macrochir, Coptodon melanopleura, Coptodon rendalli, and Coptodon zillii, have been introduced to support a commercial fishing industry that began in the late 1950s in Madagascar [30,31]. However, there is a strong correlation between the introduction of exotic fish and the decline of native fish in Madagascar [30,31,32]. Additionally, the study by Peterson et al. [33] investigated the impact of O. niloticus (Nile tilapia) escapees from aquaculture on native freshwater fish in Mississippi. Researchers discovered that tilapia exhibited broad dietary adaptability, consuming various food sources, including small insects, microcrustaceans, and bottom sediments. This study highlights the ecological risks posed by aquaculture escapees and the necessity for effective management to prevent disruptions to native fish communities.
Similarly, the whiteleg shrimp (L. vannamei), which originates from the Pacific coast of the Americas, has become the dominant species in aquaculture due to its rapid growth, high survival rates, and resistance to certain diseases. This shrimp species can tolerate low-salinity environments, enabling its cultivation in inland ponds far from coastal regions [34]. Moreover, countries such as China, India, Ecuador, Vietnam, and Thailand are leading producers, contributing to over 70% of global shrimp production [24]. Despite its economic benefits, introducing whiteleg shrimp into non-native environments has raised biosecurity concerns, as escaped populations may compete with native shrimp species and potentially spread diseases [35]. Similar cases of non-native shrimp farming impacting local biodiversity have been reported with the Giant Tiger Prawn (Penaeus monodon), which originates from Asia, and has established wild populations in parts of Africa and the Gulf of Mexico, affecting local shrimp stocks and ecosystem dynamics [24].
Another major non-native aquaculture species is the common carp (C. carpio), which originates from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It has been introduced and successfully established across Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South and Central America, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and some islands in Oceania [36]. Its hardiness and adaptability allow it to survive in low-oxygen environments, polluted waters, and a wide range of temperatures [37]. Due to its ability to consume plant and animal matter, it is an efficient aquaculture species requiring minimal external feed inputs, making it an economically viable option for many farmers [24]. Nevertheless, the common carp has become highly invasive in many parts of the world, particularly in Australia and North America, where it has disrupted freshwater ecosystems by uprooting aquatic plants, increasing water turbidity, and outcompeting native fish species [38]. Similarly, Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) and Silver Carp (H. molitrix), native to China, were introduced for algae control in aquaculture ponds but have now established wild populations in the Mississippi River Basin, where they threaten native fish populations and local fisheries [39].
Beyond fish and shrimp, Pacific oysters (M. gigas) are another example of NNS widely used in aquaculture, particularly in Europe, North America, and Australia. Originally from Asia, this oyster species was introduced to replace declining native oyster populations and has contributed to self-sustaining aquaculture systems [9]. However, in some areas, wild populations of Pacific oysters (M. gigas) have expanded wildly, forming dense reefs that displace native species and alter coastal habitats, as noted by [40] regarding the invasion of Magallana gigas in Scandinavian coastal waters. Similarly, lessepsian migration, the movement of marine species from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal, has further contributed to shifts in biodiversity, with several NNS establishing themselves in new habitats. This phenomenon has resulted in the successful introduction of species like Siganus spp. (rabbitfish) and Lagocephalus sceleratus (silver-cheeked toadfish), thereby altering fisheries and ecosystem dynamics. A high abundance of Siganus species in fish catch has been reported from Libya, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean coast of Egypt [41]. Lagocephalus sceleratus, the most abundant and harmful invasive species known for its neurotoxins, has been expanding in Mediterranean waters and also has positive ecological traits due to its predation helping in controlling other invasive species such as lionfish, Red Sea goat fish, and long spine sea urchins [42]. Likewise, some lessepsian migrants have been integrated into local fisheries, while others pose ecological threats by outcompeting native species and disrupting trophic structures. The introduction of NNS through both aquaculture and lessepsian migration underscores the need for stringent biosecurity measures and sustainable management strategies to mitigate their potential ecological impacts [43].

3. Red Sea Scenario NNS

The Red Sea is renowned for its unique and diverse marine biodiversity, which hosts 1207 fish species with 14.7% endemic to the Red Sea [44,45,46]. As per Fisheries statistics, 2023 [47], annual capture fisheries recorded between 2016 and 2021 ranged between 50,000 and 75,000 tons, while the aquaculture production reached ~114,500 tons by 2021, which records an increase of over 19.817 tons over the past two decades [24]. Since aquaculture has dominated Saudi Arabia’s fisheries production, it has increasingly adopted exotic species to enhance productivity and economic returns. The Red Sea coastline provides suitable environmental and climatic conditions to support aquaculture development, especially suitable depths (20–50 m), low wave height (0.5–1 m), preferred oxygen levels (7.04 mg/L), temperature (18 °C in the north and 38 °C in the south), and salinity (35–41 g/kg), as well as a lack of riverine inputs and limited water exchange [48,49].
In Red Sea aquaculture, the selection of feed ingredients is influenced by the region’s unique marine environment and the availability of sustainable resources. Traditionally, fishmeal and fish oil derived from locally and internationally sourced pelagic fish have been the primary protein and lipid sources in aquafeeds. However, with increasing concerns about the sustainability and cost of these ingredients, alternative protein sources such as plant-based meals (soybean meal, corn gluten, and lupin meal), insect meal, and single-cell proteins are being explored [50,51]. Additionally, locally available marine by-products, including shrimp and squid meal, contribute to the protein content of feeds. Macroalgae and microalgae, which are abundant in the Red Sea, are also being investigated as valuable sources of essential fatty acids, pigments, and bioactive compounds to enhance fish health and growth. Understanding the origin and composition of these feed ingredients is crucial for optimizing diet formulations and improving the sustainability of Red Sea aquaculture.
As far as Saudi Arabian aquaculture is concerned, gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata), barramundi (Lates calcarifer), and marine tilapia (O. spilurus) are commercially important mariculture species [52], as mentioned in Table 1. Aquaculture practices date back to the 1980s, with the introduction of freshwater species Nile tilapia (O. niloticus), and then shifted towards prawn culture L. vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), which has proven adaptability to the region’s saline and warm water conditions. These species have become staples in aquaculture due to their resilience to the harsh Red Sea conditions and high economic returns resulting from their quick growth cycles and strong consumer demand. In particular, Nile tilapia is favored for its ability to thrive in both freshwater and brackish environments, while Pacific white shrimp has been extensively farmed along the coast regions [53].
NNS offer significant economic benefits; however, their use often occurs with insufficient ecological evaluation. For instance, the barramundi (L. calcarifer) was introduced into the open sea cage farming in the Red Sea in 2008, and studies by Stern and Rothman [54] reported the presence of barramundi in local marinas along the northern Red Sea. These escapees, reaching a weight of up to 10 kg over eight years, exhibit strong ecological adaptability. Being hermaphrodites, they are able to sustain their population even under a low population rate, since they initially mature as males and then transform into females. Similarly, three escapees S. aurata, Dicentrarchus labrax, and tilapia have been reported along the Gulf of Aqaba [55].
The main cause of fish escapees are operational failures, attacks by caged fish or other predators, abrasion, wear and tear, oceanic conditions, etc. [56]. Their persistence is due to multiple factors, including adaptability, reproductive success, and interactions with native populations. Unlike other seas, such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Mediterranean, the Red Sea’s limited water exchange and high salinity levels make it particularly vulnerable to the introduction of invasive species, which may outcompete native organisms or alter local food webs. Therefore, there is an urgent need for comprehensive environmental impact assessments (EIAs) to ensure that these species do not disrupt the delicate balance of the Red Sea’s marine ecosystems. In addition, aquaculture facilities must be designed with enhanced safeguards to prevent escapes, thereby minimizing the risk of non-native species influencing the local environment and biodiversity.
Table 1. List of non-native fish species in the Red Sea based on the National Center of Wildlife (NCW) and geographical locations.
Table 1. List of non-native fish species in the Red Sea based on the National Center of Wildlife (NCW) and geographical locations.
Fish SpeciesNative DistributionImpact in the Red SeaReferences
Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758)Along European coastsCompetition with native species, and carrier of parasites.[57,58,59]
Lates calcarifer (Bloch, 1790)Indo-West Pacific RegionPredatory in nature; susceptible to a range of diseases, pathogens, and parasites; and risk of hybridization. [60,61]
Oreochromis spilurus (Günther, 1894)East Africa (Native to coastal rivers of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia)High adaptability and poses potential risks to wild populations and commercially exploited species. [62]
Seriola lalandi (Valenciennes, 1833)Western and Eastern Pacific Ocean, and Atlantic Ocean High invasiveness rate. The potential of hybridization with local species poses a genetic risk.[63,64]
Sparidentex hasta (Valenciennes, 1830)Western Indian Ocean and Persian GulfHighly predatory species that may disrupt the food web structure. Susceptible to specific bacterial infections and toxic dinoflagellates.[65]
Sparus aurata (Linnaeus, 1758)Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean Carrier of several pathogens and parasites.
May compete for food resources with native population. 		[66]

4. Ecological Risks and Challenges

The introduction of non-native fish species into the Red Sea poses significant ecological risks, including biodiversity loss, competition with native species, habitat degradation, and the potential spread of diseases and parasites, which are detailed as follows:

4.1. Competition with Native Species

Invasive species, such as tilapia that escape from aquaculture facilities, can significantly disrupt local ecosystems, particularly in sensitive environments like the Red Sea. These species often outcompete native species for critical resources, including food and habitat, due to their fast growth rates, broad diet preferences, and ability to adapt to different environmental conditions. This can result in the displacement of native species, which may lack the same competitive edge or resilience. For instance, tilapia, being omnivorous, frequently consume a wide range of food, including algae, seagrasses, and small invertebrates. This feeding behavior can create direct competition with native species for the same resources [67].
Furthermore, the introduction of non-native tilapia can alter trophic dynamics—the structure of the food web in an ecosystem. Native fish species that perform crucial roles in maintaining balance, such as controlling algae growth or supporting prey populations, may struggle to thrive in the face of this competition. This shift in species composition can lead to a decline in species richness, as some native species might struggle to cope with the altered conditions. Over time, the stability of the ecosystem is threatened, potentially leading to cascading effects throughout the food web, where changes in one part of the ecosystem affect multiple levels, from primary producers to top predators [68,69].
In the context of the Red Sea, which is known for its high levels of endemism (species found nowhere else on Earth), the arrival of invasive species poses an even greater risk. If tilapia and other non-native species continue to dominate, the unique marine species of the Red Sea could face local extinctions, disrupting not only the local ecosystem but also impacting the economy, which heavily relies on marine resources. The invasion of these species could lead to shifts in ecosystem functions, altering food webs and competition dynamics, with long-term consequences for the region’s biodiversity and economic stability. The introduction of invasive species can lead to functional extinctions, where species lose their ecological roles even if they are not completely eradicated [70]. Similarly, local extinctions can occur when invasive species outcompete or displace native species, disrupting local biodiversity [70]. Protecting such ecosystems requires the rigorous management of aquaculture practices and stronger controls on the introduction of NNS into vulnerable marine environments [67,69].

4.2. Genetic Pollution

Genetic pollution occurs when escapees from aquaculture facilities interbreed with native fish species, leading to hybridization that dilutes the unique genetic traits of wild populations [71,72]. For instance, the Oreochromis species is a well-known aquatic species in the aquaculture industry. They were initially freshwater species; later, their deep cichlid ancestor adapted to the brackish water environment, and their sister of cichlids adapted to marine environments over 100 million years ago. Additionally, sex reversals perhaps help in increasing their large-scale production, as they can modify species into homo-sexes [73]. Consequently, the species establishes itself in new environments, reproduces locally, and can disrupt the ecosystem. This process reduces the genetic diversity of native fish, impairing their resilience to environmental stressors such as temperature fluctuations, diseases, and habitat changes. Farmed fish, selectively bred for traits like rapid growth rather than adaptability to the wild, introduce maladaptive genetic traits, which can decrease the fitness of the wild population. Over time, this loss of genetic integrity not only weakens native species’ survival and reproduction abilities but can also disrupt local ecosystems by allowing farmed fish traits to dominate, potentially outcompeting or displacing wild populations. The consequences of genetic pollution highlight the need for improved aquaculture management to prevent escapees, and preserve the genetic health of native fish species [74].

4.3. Pathogens and Parasites

NNS introduced into the Red Sea can serve as carriers for various pathogens and parasites, potentially endangering native marine life. One significant example is the introduction of L. vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), a species of commercial value in aquaculture. While L. vannamei is widely farmed due to its fast growth and high market demand, it has also been associated with the inadvertent spread of harmful pathogens, such as the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) [75,76,77]. The WSSV is a highly virulent and contagious virus that affects shrimp, leading to mass mortality in both farmed and wild populations. The introduction of infected L. vannamei into the Red Sea region, either through aquaculture activities or accidental escapes, increases the risk of transmitting the WSSV to native shrimp species that have no prior exposure or resistance to the virus [77,78]. Gas bubble disease outbreaks have been reported in the cultures O. spilurus, O. niloticus, and Epinephelus fuscoguttatus in Saudi Arabia, resulting in severe mortality. It is caused by the supersaturation of gases, which leads to heavy infection by monogenetic trematodes [79]; Streptococcus iniae infections [80]; and mycobacteriosis in wild rabbitfish, which is associated with caged farmed fish from the Gulf of Eilat, Israel [81]. This could result in serious ecological and economic consequences, including population declines, disruption of local fisheries, and financial losses for shrimp farmers reliant on native species [78]. Effective biosecurity measures, including rigorous disease screening, quarantine protocols, and responsible aquaculture practices, are essential for minimizing the risk of pathogen transmission and protecting the Red Sea’s native biodiversity.

4.4. Disruption of Ecosystem Balance

Introducing non-native fish species can significantly disrupt the balance of the ecosystems by altering predator–prey links, competing with native species for resources, and impacting nutrient cycling [82]. These disruptions can lead to cascading effects, such as the decline or extinction of native species, shifts in aquatic vegetation, and imbalances in food web dynamics [83]. Additionally, NNS may introduce diseases or parasites that native populations cannot handle, further exacerbating ecological harm [84]. These changes can reduce biodiversity and ecosystem resilience over time, making it more difficult for the system to recover from environmental stresses. Implementing strict biosecurity measures, conducting thorough ecological risk assessments, and promoting sustainable aquaculture practices are crucial in mitigating these risks [85]. For instance, the gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) had established its population in the northern sandy beach of Saudi Arabia. A long-term study of the sandy shore ichthyofauna in this region noted the presence of this species, suggesting that its occurrence may be linked to nearby fish farming operations [55]. In addition, introducing the Nile perch into Lake Victoria led to the extinction or near-extinction of several hundred native species, drastically altering the lake’s ecosystem [86]. These examples emphasize the importance of careful consideration and management when introducing species into new environments.

5. Economic and Social Implications

The introduction of NNS in aquaculture comes with a diversifying and new market for the growing sector. However, it presents a complex trade-off between economic benefits and long-term ecological and social consequences [87]. Notably, the interaction between the farmed fishes and wild populations will impose risk on the host organisms in the environment. On the one hand, species like L. vannamei and O. niloticus (Nile tilapia) are widely cultivated due to their fast growth, high market value, and adaptability to different environmental conditions. These species have contributed to increased seafood production, employment opportunities, and economic growth in regions investing in aquaculture [88]. However, these short-term economic gains often come at the cost of long-term environmental sustainability and social stability [89].
Some critics argue that aquaculture does not necessarily increase seafood availability but rather redirects marine resources from local consumption to commercial fish farms. Many high-value farmed species rely on fishmeal and fish oil derived from wild-caught fish, such as Sardinella, which are a staple for local communities. This practice raises ethical concerns as it prioritizes luxury fish for export over local food security, exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities. This dynamic has been described as “the aquatic equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul”, where resources are extracted from developing regions to support the seafood demands of wealthier consumers. Studies have highlighted that for certain species, the conversion ratio of wild fish to farmed fish biomass is inefficient, leading to concerns over resource depletion and ecosystem disruptions [90,91,92,93].
Some of the major concerns about introducing NNS rather than a high abundance of introduced species are space competition, habitat loss, and substantial economic loss; there is the loss of biodiversity as well, which directly affects fisheries that depend on healthy, functioning ecosystems. Many local fishers rely on traditional fishing practices that target native species, which may be displaced, outcompeted, or impacted by introduced species [94]. For instance, invasive fish may alter food web structures by preying on or competing with native fish populations, leading to declines in commercially important species. This reduction in fish stock not only affects local food security but also threatens the economic stability of fishing communities [95].
Furthermore, NNS can contribute to habitat degradation, particularly in fragile ecosystems like the Red Sea’s coral reefs and mangroves, which serve as critical breeding and nursery grounds for many fish species [96]. If invasive species disrupt these ecosystems, fishery productivity can decline, leading to reduced catches and financial losses for small-scale fishers [97]. In regions where aquaculture and traditional fisheries coexist, conflicts may arise between fish farmers and local fishers over resource allocation, access to fishing grounds, and the ecological impacts of escaped farmed species [98]. Dunne et al.’s [99] studies highlighted the enrichment of nutrients, bacterial count, and suspended matter in the water column during feeding, and increased the concentration in the water that flows from the farm and the detection of variables even 1 km away from the farms.
In addition to ecological concerns, disease outbreaks associated with non-native aquaculture species present further economic and social risks. The costs related to these outbreaks—such as mass mortalities, increased biosecurity measures, and decreased exports due to trade restrictions—can significantly impact national economies dependent on aquaculture [100].
Ultimately, while aquaculture provides a means to meet the rising demand for seafood and boost economic growth, it is essential to balance these benefits with proactive environmental management [101]. Sustainable aquaculture practices, strict biosecurity measures, and policies that protect native biodiversity are crucial to mitigate the long-term ecological and social costs associated with NNS introductions. Without such measures, the economic reliance on aquaculture could lead to resource depletion and social instability, undermining the very benefits it aims to provide [102].

6. Conclusions

This review outlined that introducing NNS in Red Sea aquaculture poses significant risks to the integrity of the marine ecosystem. The growth of the aquaculture sector heavily relies on the NNS, and this review highlights their advantages and impacts in the introduced region. While these NNS can boost aquaculture production, their ecological, economic, and social impacts must not be overlooked. A precautionary approach that emphasizes sustainable practices and effective management is essential to balance economic development with environmental conservation. Adhering to national standards in Saudi Arabia, such as the Saudi Arabian Code for Responsible Aquaculture Practices and the National Fish Biosecurity Manual, can also reduce the impacts of NNS in the Red Sea.
Additionally, it is necessary to critically evaluate the broader implications of aquaculture on global seafood availability and local food security. The reliance on wild fish to feed farmed species raises ethical and economic concerns, particularly when local fish resources are diverted from low-income populations to supply high-end markets. Addressing these challenges requires a transition towards alternative feed sources, such as plant-based proteins, single-cell proteins, and insect meal, to reduce dependence on wild fish stocks. Ensuring that aquaculture contributes to equitable food distribution rather than exacerbating disparities will be crucial in achieving sustainable and socially responsible seafood production [90,92].

6.1. Risk-Based Management of NNS

The effective management of NNS can boost aquaculture production while addressing related risks and challenges. A combination of risk assessment followed by risk monitoring programs and linked management policies is highly recommended for managing NNS [103]. Among the various strategies and methods available, some of the most effective strategies being implemented worldwide, including the Best Management Practices (BMPs), which apply to the Red Sea based on the risks posed by NNS, are the following:

6.2. Risk Monitoring

Risk monitoring involves identifying hazards as well as assessing their likelihood and the severity of impacts in a particular environment [104]. Liu et al. [105] recommended a meta-coupled human and natural systems approach, as it provides a holistic approach to understanding NNS’s socioeconomic and ecological impacts in focal and distant areas. New tools such as remote sensing, artificial intelligence (AI), and novel molecular tools to detect NNS escapes and their hitchhikers are low-cost systems that identify and contain NNS [14].
Electronic decision support (DS) tools, such as the Integrated Biosecurity Risk Assessment Model (IBRAM) [106], ISEIA, a Belgian non-native species assessment protocol [107], Great Britain Non-native Species Risk Assessment (GBNNRA) [108], Ecological Risk Screening Summary (ERSS), Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) [109], and Aquatic Species Invasiveness Screening Kit (AS-ISK) [110], help gauge the severity and extent of the impact that the NNS can produce. AS-ISK has been employed globally in approximately 120 countries and has been proven to be an effective tool for identifying the invasiveness of NNS in current and future climate scenarios [111].

6.3. Genetic Diversity Conservation

Planned genetic breeding programs are essential for conserving the native species, and intra and inter-specific hybridizations are widely practiced for obtaining the hybrid vigor or positive heterosis, which has improved the growth rate, disease resistance harvest ability, and environmental tolerance [112,113]. The escape of NNS to the wild causes genetic mixing among NNS in the natural population. Hence, the mandatory reporting of all escape events, reporting of “large scale” escapes, improving the technical standards of sea cage equipment, monitoring cages for any breakages, and providing required staff training could be standard solutions to prevent escapes from marine cages [114]. Additionally, smart ultrasonic systems can be used to avoid biofouling and improve the quality of productivity [115]

6.4. Disease and Pathogen Management

Aquatic animals require significantly more attention, as they live in complex and dynamic environmental conditions. The most advisable disease management strategies include exclusion or eradication, resistance, and improved management practices [116]. Disease management in Asian non-native shrimp populations emphasizes eliminating diseases by applying strict quarantine rules and importation protocols [116]. Implementing strict controls on the import and farming of NNS can prevent escapes and disease outbreaks [117].

6.5. Stakeholder Engagement and Education

Stakeholder engagement could be one of the significant grassroots initiatives to standardize and regulate the use of NNS in aquaculture. Stakeholders possess various rights in managing marine aquaculture, including developing the scope for aquaculture spaces, selecting species, and establishing standardization for aquaculture products [118]. Providing ecological education for the aquaculture stakeholder community, facilitating the rapid transfer of knowledge to the public, and including translational scientists could also benefit stakeholders in managing NNS [14]. The participation of multi-stakeholder groups in the aquaculture policy process can also ensure that policy solutions are contextual and appropriate [119].

6.6. Policy Recommendations

Developing a robust policy framework is critical for ensuring the sustainability of aquaculture in the Red Sea. Policymakers should prioritize environmental impact assessments, establish monitoring programs, and engage stakeholders in decision-making. International cooperation is also essential, as invasive species and pathogens can spread across borders [120]. Policies should be crafted in the regions where NNS introduction is permissible only when the risk of invasiveness is satisfactorily low [103]. The ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfer of Marine Organisms adopted from the FAO principles advises effective procedures and practices to ease the potential risk associated with NNS [103]. By fostering collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders, the Red Sea aquaculture sector can achieve long-term sustainability without compromising its unique marine biodiversity.

Author Contributions

S.Z. was involved in writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, and preparing and publishing the manuscript. P.P., M.B. and F.B. were involved in collecting the literature, writing, and editing the final draft. A.A.S. and Y.S.A. were part of MEWA, fully financed the project, and were involved in writing—review and editing. M.A. and A.H.M. were responsible for writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Ministry of Environment Water and Agriculture, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Applied Research Support for Enhancing Fisheries Production, Initiative No. 368).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in the outcomes of this research are included in this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful for the research support from the Ministry of Environment Water and Agriculture, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Applied Research Support for Enhancing Fisheries Production, Initiative No. 368), awarded to KAUST Beacon Development, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. During the preparation of this review, the authors used Chat GPT (March 2025 Version), OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA, free version, for the purposes of some guidelines for titles. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. FAO. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; FAO, Ed.; The state of food and agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; ISBN 978-92-5-109374-0. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kang, B.; Vitule, J.R.S.; Li, S.; Shuai, F.; Huang, L.; Huang, X.; Fang, J.; Shi, X.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, D.; et al. Introduction of Non-Native Fish for Aquaculture in China: A Systematic Review. Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 676–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hill, J.E. Non-Native Species in Aquaculture: Terminology, Potential Impacts, and the Invasion Process; Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Stoneville: Stoneville, MS, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck, K.; Zimmerman, K.; Schardt, J.; Lukens, R.; Reichard, S.; Randall, J.; Cangelosi, A.; Cooper, D.; Thompson, J. Invasive Species Defined in a Policy Context: Recommendations from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invas. Plant Sci. Mana 2008, 1, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jeschke, J.M.; Bacher, S.; Blackburn, T.M.; Dick, J.T.A.; Essl, F.; Evans, T.; Gaertner, M.; Hulme, P.E.; Kühn, I.; Mrugała, A.; et al. Defining the Impact of Non-Native Species. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 1188–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Oficialdegui, F.; Soto, I.; Balzani, P.; Cuthbert, R.; Haubrock, P.; Kourantidou, M.; Manfrini, E.; Tarkan, A.S.; Kurtul, I.; Macêdo, R.; et al. Burgeoning Non-Native Species Production Hinders Sustainable Aquaculture. Res. Sq. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shelton, W.L.; Rothbard, S. Exotic Species in Global Aquaculture—A Review. Isr. J. Aquac.—Bamidgeh 2006, 58, 3–28. [Google Scholar]
  8. Troost, K. Causes and Effects of a Highly Successful Marine Invasion: Case-Study of the Introduced Pacific Oyster Crassostrea Gigas in Continental NW European Estuaries. J. Sea Res. 2010, 64, 145–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herbert, R.J.H.; Humphreys, J.; Davies, C.J.; Roberts, C.; Fletcher, S.; Crowe, T.P. Ecological Impacts of Non-Native Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea Gigas) and Management Measures for Protected Areas in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 25, 2835–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rong, Y.; Tang, Y.; Ren, L.; Taylor, W.D.; Razlutskij, V.; Naselli-Flores, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, X. Effects of the Filter-Feeding Benthic Bivalve Corbicula Fluminea on Plankton Community and Water Quality in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Mesocosm Study. Water 2021, 13, 1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ruesink, J.; Lenihan, H.; Trimble, A.; Heiman, K.; Micheli, F.; Byers, J.; Kay, M. Introduction of Non-Native Oysters: Ecosystem Effects and Restoration Implications. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36, 643–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bonar, S.A.; Bolding, B.; Divens, M. Effects of Triploid Grass Carp on Aquatic Plants, Water Quality, and Public Satisfaction in Washington State. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2002, 22, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Simberloff, D.; Martin, J.-L.; Genovesi, P.; Maris, V.; Wardle, D.; Aronson, J.; Courchamp, F.; Galil, B.; García-Berthou, E.; Pascal, M.; et al. Impacts of Biological Invasions: What’s What and the Way Forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ju, R.-T.; Li, X.; Jiang, J.-J.; Wu, J.; Liu, J.; Strong, D.R.; Li, B. Emerging Risks of Non-Native Species Escapes from Aquaculture: Call for Policy Improvements in China and Other Developing Countries. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lima, L.B.; Oliveira, F.J.M.; Giacomini, H.C.; Lima-Junior, D.P. Expansion of Aquaculture Parks and the Increasing Risk of Non-Native Species Invasions in Brazil. Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Britton, J.R. Contemporary Perspectives on the Ecological Impacts of Invasive Freshwater Fishes. J. Fish Biol. 2023, 103, 752–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boudouresque, C.-F.; Blanfuné, A.; Pergent, G.; Pergent-Martini, C.; Perret-Boudouresque, M.; Thibaut, T. Impacts of Marine and Lagoon Aquaculture on Macrophytes in Mediterranean Benthic Ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Diez, S.M.; Patil, P.G.; Morton, J.; Rodriguez, D.J.; Vanzella, A.; Robin, D.; Maes, T.; Corbin, C. Marine Pollution in the Caribbean: Not a Minute to Waste; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gross, J.; Watson, J.; Woodley, S.; Welling, L.; Harmon, D. Responding to Climate Change: Guidance for Protected Area Managers and Planners; Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines series No. xx; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  20. FAO. Analysis of Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia: A Policy; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; ISBN 978-92-5-106339-2. [Google Scholar]
  21. Costa-Pierce, B.A. Rapid Evolution of an Established Feral Tilapia (Oreochromis Spp.): The Need to Incorporate Invasion Science into Regulatory Structures. Biol. Invasions 2003, 5, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hasan, V.; Pratama, F.S.; Malonga, W.A.M.; Cahyanurani, A.B. First Record of the Mozambique Tilapia, Oreochromis Mossambicus Peters, 1852 (Perciformes, Cichlidae), on Kangean Island, Indonesia. Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 14, 207–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Courtenay, W.R.; Williams, J.D. Dispersal of Exotic Species from Aquaculture Sources, with Emphasis on freshwater fishes. In Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems; Rosenfield, A., Mann, R., Eds.; University of Maryland Sea Grant Program: College Park, MD, USA, 1992; pp. 49–81. [Google Scholar]
  24. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation; The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-136364-5. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zongli, Z.; Yanan, Z.; Feifan, L.; Hui, Y.; Yongming, Y.; Xinhua, Y. Economic Efficiency of Small-Scale Tilapia Farms in Guangxi, China. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2017, 21, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mahmoud, S.; Sabry, A.; Abdelaziz, A.; Shukry, M. Deleterious Impacts of Heat Stress on Steroidogenesis Markers, Immunity Status and Ovarian Tissue of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). J. Therm. Biol. 2020, 91, 102578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. McNee, A. The Status of Australian Streams and Rivers; Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Confederation: Canberra, Australia, 1990; 108p. [Google Scholar]
  28. Arthington, A.H.; Blühdorn, D.R. Distribution, Genetics, Ecology and Status of the Introduced Cichlid, Oreochromis Mossambicus, in Australia. Int. Ver. Theor. Und Angew. Limnol. Mitteilungen 1994, 24, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Biosecurity Act. 2014. Available online: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ba2014156/ (accessed on 13 February 2025).
  30. Benstead, J.P.; De Rham, P.H.; Gattolliat, J.-L.; Gibon, F.-M.; Loiselle, P.V.; Sartori, M.; Sparks, J.S.; Stiassny, M.L.J. Conserving Madagascar’s Freshwater Biodiversity. Biosci. 2003, 53, 1101–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Reinthal, P.N.; Stiassny, M.L.J. The Freshwater Fishes of Madagascar: A Study of an Endangered Fauna with Recommendations for a Conservation Strategy. Conserv. Biol. 1991, 5, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Goodman, S.M.; Benstead, J.P. The Natural History of Madagascar; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-226-30306-2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Peterson, M.; Slack, W.; Woodley, C. The Influence of Invasive, Nonnative Tilapiine Fishes on Freshwater Recreational Fishes in South Mississippi: Spatial/Temporal Distribution, Species Associations, and Trophic Interactions; Fisheries and Parks: Jackson, MI, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Roy, L.A.; Davis, D.A.; Saoud, I.P.; Boyd, C.A.; Pine, H.J.; Boyd, C.E. Shrimp Culture in Inland Low Salinity Waters. Rev. Aquac. 2010, 2, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Senanan, W.; Panutrakul, S.; Barnette, P.; Manthachitra, V.; Chavanich, S.; Kapuscinski, A.R.; Tangkrock-Olan, N.; Intacharoen, P.; Viyakarn, V.; Wongwiwatanawute, C.; et al. Ecological Risk Assessment of an Alien Aquatic Species: A Case Study of Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific Whiteleg Shrimp) Aquaculture in the Bangpakong River, Thailand. In Tropical Deltas and Coastal Zones: Food Production, Communities and Environment at the Land and Water Interface; Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2010; pp. 64–79. ISBN 978-1-84593-618-1. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lever, C. Naturalized Fishes of the World; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996; ISBN 978-0-12-444745-5. [Google Scholar]
  37. Koehn, J.D. Carp (Cyprinus Carpio) as a Powerful Invader in Australian Waterways. Freshw. Biol. 2004, 49, 882–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lintermans, M. Fishes of the Murray-Darling Basin. An Introductory Guide; Murray-Darling Basin Authority: Canberra, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kolar, C.S.; Chapman, D.; Courtenay, W.R., Jr.; Housel, C.M.; Williams, J.D.; Jennings, D.P. Bigheaded Carps: A Biological Synopsis and Environmental Risk Assessment; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  40. Laugen, A.; Hollander, J.; Obst, M.; Strand, Å. The Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea Gigas) Invasion in Scandinavian Coastal Waters: Impact on Local Ecosystem Services. In Biological Invasions in Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems: Biogeography, Ecological Impacts, Predictions, and Management; De Gruyter Open: Berlin, Germany, 2015; ISBN 978-3-11-043866-6. [Google Scholar]
  41. Dikou, A. Depletion Fishing of the Alien Fish Species Siganus luridus, S. rivulatus, Pterois miles, and Etrumeus golanii in the Mediterranean Sea-Gear, Ecosystem Impacts, and Resolution. Fish. Res. 2024, 278, 107095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ulman, A.; Yildiz, T.; Demirel, N.; Canak, O.; Yemişken, E.; Pauly, D. The Biology and Ecology of the Invasive Silver-Cheeked Toadfish (Lagocephalus Sceleratus), with Emphasis on the Eastern Mediterranean. NeoBiota 2021, 68, 145–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mehanna, S.F.; Hassanien, E.M. Lessepsian Migration with the First Record of the Red Sea Goatfish, Parupeneus Forsskali (Fourmanoir & Guézé, 1976) in the Coastal Waters of Egyptian Mediterranean Sea. In Advances in Agriculture and Fisheries Research; BP International: West Bengal, India, 2020; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  44. DiBattista, J.D.; Howard Choat, J.; Gaither, M.R.; Hobbs, J.A.; Lozano-Cortés, D.F.; Myers, R.F.; Paulay, G.; Rocha, L.A.; Toonen, R.J.; Westneat, M.W.; et al. On the Origin of Endemic Species in the Red Sea. J. Biogeogr. 2016, 43, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Santanumurti, M.B.; Nugraha, M.A.R.; Dewi, N.R.; Awaluddin, M.; Tang, P.W.; Pardede, H.I.; Al Solami, L.; Sulmartiwi, L.; Abu El-Regal, M.A. Fish Diversity Assessment through Conventional Morphological Identification and Recent Advances in Saudi Arabia: A Review. Vet. World 2024, 17, 2267–2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Golani, D.; Fricke, R.; Appelbaum-Golani, B. Zoogeographic Patterns of Red Sea Fishes—Are They Correlated to Success in Colonization of the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal? Mar. Biol. Res. 2020, 16, 774–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. FAO. Fisheries Statistics: Saudi Arabia 2016–2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  48. MEWA Website. Available online: https://www.mewa.gov.sa/en/Ministry/Agencies/AgencyforEconomicAffairsandInvestment/topics/Pages/topc232020.aspx (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  49. Carvalho, S.; Kürten, B.; Krokos, G.; Hoteit, I.; Ellis, J. The Red Sea. In World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 49–74. ISBN 978-0-08-100853-9. [Google Scholar]
  50. Luthada-Raswiswi, R.; Mukaratirwa, S.; O’Brien, G. Animal Protein Sources as a Substitute for Fishmeal in Aquaculture Diets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Serra, V.; Pastorelli, G.; Tedesco, D.E.A.; Turin, L.; Guerrini, A. Alternative Protein Sources in Aquafeed: Current Scenario and Future Perspectives. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2024, 25, 100381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Young, B.C.; Alfaggeh, R.H.; AlMoutiri, I. Status and Cost Analysis of Sabaki Tilapia Farming in Saudi Arabia. Aquacult Int. 2021, 29, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shyla, G. Characterization of Different Stocks of Macrobrachium rosenbergii and Development of Genetically Improved Strain Through Selective Breeding. Ph.D. Thesis, Kerala Agricultural University, Kerala, India, 2010. Available online: https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/assets/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fkrishikosh.egranth.ac.in%2Fserver%2Fapi%2Fcore%2Fbitstreams%2F1180da31-7533-4cb0-991b-e31449867f12%2Fcontent (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  54. Stern, N.; Rothman, S.B. An Alarming Mariculture Breach in a Coral Reef: Alien Barramundi Lates Calcarifer (Bloch, 1790) at the Northern Red Sea. Bioinvasions Rec. 2021, 10, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khalaf, M. Fish Fauna of the Jordanian Coast, Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Mar. Sci. 2004, 15, 23–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Atalah, J.; Sanchez-Jerez, P. Global Assessment of Ecological Risks Associated with Farmed Fish Escapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 21, e00842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Henry, M.A.; Alexis, M.N.; Fountoulaki, E.; Nengas, I.; Rigos, G. Effects of a Natural Parasitical Infection (Lernanthropus Kroyeri) on the Immune System of European Sea Bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L. Parasite Immunol. 2009, 31, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Toledo Guedes, K.; Sánchez-Jerez, P.; González-Lorenzo, G.; Brito Hernández, A. Detecting the Degree of Establishment of a Non-Indigenous Species in Coastal Ecosystems: Sea Bass Dicentrarchus Labrax Escapes from Sea Cages in Canary Islands (Northeastern Central Atlantic). Hydrobiologia 2009, 623, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Abou Zaid, A.A.; Bazh, E.K.; Desouky, A.Y.; Abo-Rawash, A.A. Metazoan Parasite Fauna of Wild Sea Bass; Dicentrarchus Labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) in Egypt. Life Sci. J. 2018, 15, 48–60. [Google Scholar]
  60. Partridge, G.J.; Lymbery, A.J.; Bourke, D.K. Larval Rearing of Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) in Saline Groundwater. Aquaculture 2008, 278, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Collins, G.M.; Clark, T.D.; Carton, A.G. Physiological Plasticity v. Inter-Population Variability: Understanding Drivers of Hypoxia Tolerance in a Tropical Estuarine Fish. Mar. Freshwater Res. 2015, 67, 1575–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gu, D.E.; Ma, G.M.; Zhu, Y.J.; Xu, M.; Luo, D.; Li, Y.Y.; Wei, H.; Mu, X.D.; Luo, J.R.; Hu, Y.C. The Impacts of Invasive Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus) on the Fisheries in the Main Rivers of Guangdong Province, China. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2015, 59, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shakman, E.A.; Abdalha, A.B.; Talha, F.; Al-Faturi, A.; Bariche, M. First Records of Seven Marine Organisms of Different Origins from Libya (Mediterranean Sea). BioInvasions Rec. 2017, 6, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Takahashi, H.; Kurogoushi, T.; Shimoyama, R.; Yoshikawa, H. First Report of Natural Hybridization between Two Yellowtails, Seriola Quinqueradiata and S. Lalandi. Ichthyol. Res. 2021, 68, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ranjbar, H.R.; Khoramian, S. First Report of Amyloodinium Ocellatum (E. Brown) E. Brown & Hovasse, 1946 (Dinoflagellate, Blastodiniales, Oodiniaceae) from Sobaity Seabream, Sparidentex Hasta (Valenciennes, 1830) Cultured in Persian Gulf of Iran. Aquac. Stud. 2019, 19, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Balart, E.F.; Pérez-Urbiola, J.C.; Campos-Dávila, L.; Monteforte, M.; Ortega-Rubio, A. On the First Record of a Potentially Harmful Fish, Sparus Aurata in the Gulf of California. Biol. Invasions 2009, 11, 547–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bezerra, L.; Angelini, R.; Vitule, J.; Coll, M.; Sánchez-Botero, J. Food Web Changes Associated with Drought and Invasive Species in a Tropical Semiarid Reservoir. Hydrobiologia 2018, 817, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Martin, C.; Valentine, M.; Valentine, J. Competitive Interactions between Invasive Nile Tilapia and Native Fish: The Potential for Altered Trophic Exchange and Modification of Food Webs. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e14395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shuai, F.; Li, J.; Lek, S. Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus) Invasion Impacts Trophic Position and Resource Use of Commercially Harvested Piscivorous Fishes in a Large Subtropical River. Ecol. Process. 2023, 12, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lean, C.H. Invasive Species Increase Biodiversity and, Therefore, Services: An Argument of Equivocations. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021, 3, e553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sonesson, A.; Hallerman, E.; Humphries, F.; Hilsdorf, A.; Leskien, D.; Rosendal, G.K.; Bartley, D.; Hu, X.; Gomez, R.; Mair, G. Sustainable Management and Improvement of Genetic Resources for Aquaculture. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2023, 54, 364–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Waples, R.; Hindar, K.; Hard, J. Genetic Risks Associated with Marine Aquaculture; U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2012; p. 149.
  73. Aljahdali, M.O.; Molla, M.H.R.; Filfilan, W.M. Whole Genome Sequence of the Newly Prescribed Subspecies Oreochromis Spilurus Saudii: A Valuable Genetic Resource for Aquaculture in Saudi Arabia. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sanda, M.K.; Metcalfe, N.B.; Mable, B.K. The Potential Impact of Aquaculture on the Genetic Diversity and Conservation of Wild Fish in Sub-Saharan Africa. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2024, 34, e4105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fernández de Alaiza García Madrigal, R.; da Silva, U.D.A.T.; Tavares, C.P.d.S.; Ballester, E.L.C. Use of Native and Non-Native Shrimp (Penaeidae, Dendrobranchiata) in World Shrimp Farming. Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 899–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Minchin, D.; Gollasch, S.; Wallentinus, I. Vector Pathways and the Spread of Exotic Species in the Sea; ICES Cooperative Research Reports (CRR); ICES: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tang, K.F.J.; Le Groumellec, M.; Lightner, D.V. Novel, Closely Related, White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) Genotypes from Madagascar, Mozambique and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2013, 106, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bateman, K.S.; Tew, I.; French, C.; Hicks, R.J.; Martin, P.; Munro, J.; Stentiford, G.D. Susceptibility to Infection and Pathogenicity of White Spot Disease (WSD) in Non-Model Crustacean Host Taxa from Temperate Regions. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2012, 110, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Saeed, M.O.; Al-Thobaiti, S.A. Gas Bubble Disease in Farmed Fish in Saudi Arabia. Vet. Rec. 1997, 140, 682–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Colorni, A.; Diamant, A.; Eldar, A.; Kvitt, H.; Zlotkin, A. Streptococcus Iniae Infections in Red Sea Cage-Cultured and Wild Fishes. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2002, 49, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Diamant, A.; Banet, A.; Ucko, M.; Colorni, A.; Knibb, W.; Kvitt, H. Mycobacteriosis in Wild Rabbitfish Siganus Rivulatus Associated with Cage Farming in the Gulf of Eilat, Red Sea. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2000, 39, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Roemer, G.W.; Donlan, C.J.; Courchamp, F. Golden Eagles, Feral Pigs, and Insular Carnivores: How Exotic Species Turn Native Predators into Prey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 791–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jackson, M.C.; Wasserman, R.J.; Grey, J.; Ricciardi, A.; Dick, J.T.A.; Alexander, M.E. Chapter Two—Novel and Disrupted Trophic Links Following Invasion in Freshwater Ecosystems. In Advances in Ecological Research; Bohan, D.A., Dumbrell, A.J., Massol, F., Eds.; Networks of Invasion: Empirical Evidence and Case Studies; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; Volume 57, pp. 55–97. [Google Scholar]
  84. Foster, R.; Peeler, E.; Bojko, J.; Clark, P.F.; Morritt, D.; Roy, H.E.; Stebbing, P.; Tidbury, H.J.; Wood, L.E.; Bass, D. Pathogens Co-Transported with Invasive Non-Native Aquatic Species: Implications for Risk Analysis and Legislation. NeoBiota 2021, 69, 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Makwana, K.; Parmar, H.; Sikotariya, H.; Biswas, S.; Alwinpeter, M. Upgrade Biosecurity Measures: A Key Component for the Sustainability of Aquaculture. In Sustainable Aquaculture: A Step Towards a Green Future in Fish Farming; Satish Serial Publishing House: Delhi, India, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  86. Witte, F.; Goldschmidt, T.; Wanink, J.; van Oijen, M.; Goudswaard, K.; Witte-Maas, E.; Bouton, N. The Destruction of an Endemic Species Flock: Quantitative Data on the Decline of the Haplochromine Cichlids of Lake Victoria. Environ. Biol. Fish 1992, 34, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Islami, M.M. Are They Always Bad? Assessing Benefits of Non-Indigenous Species in Aquatic Environment and Their Implications. Mar. Res. Indones. 2020, 45, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Barrett, L.T.; Theuerkauf, S.J.; Rose, J.M.; Alleway, H.K.; Bricker, S.B.; Parker, M.; Petrolia, D.R.; Jones, R.C. Sustainable Growth of Non-Fed Aquaculture Can Generate Valuable Ecosystem Benefits. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Little, D.C.; Young, J.A.; Zhang, W.; Newton, R.W.; Al Mamun, A.; Murray, F.J. Sustainable Intensification of Aquaculture Value Chains between Asia and Europe: A Framework for Understanding Impacts and Challenges. Aquaculture 2018, 493, 338–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pauly, D.; Christensen, V.; Guénette, S.; Pitcher, T.J.; Sumaila, U.R.; Walters, C.J.; Watson, R.; Zeller, D. Towards Sustainability in World Fisheries. Nature 2002, 418, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pauly, D.; Alder, J.; Bennett, E.; Christensen, V.; Tyedmers, P.; Watson, R. The Future for Fisheries. Science 2003, 302, 1359–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pauly, D.; Watson, R.; Alder, J. Global Trends in World Fisheries: Impacts on Marine Ecosystems and Food Security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Goldburg, R.; Naylor, R. Future Seascapes, Fishing, and Fish Farming. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Spear, D.; Chown, S.L. Non-Indigenous Ungulates as a Threat to Biodiversity. J. Zool. 2009, 279, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tidd, A.N.; Rousseau, Y.; Ojea, E.; Watson, R.A.; Blanchard, J.L. Food Security Challenged by Declining Efficiencies of Artisanal Fishing Fleets: A Global Country-Level Analysis. Glob. Food. Sec. 2022, 32, 100598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rogers, A.D.; Aburto-Oropeza, O.; Appeltans, W.; Assis, J.; Ballance, L.T.; Cury, P.; Duarte, C.; Favoretto, F.; Kumagai, J.; Lovelock, C.; et al. Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance. In The Blue Compendium: From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy; Lubchenco, J., Haugan, P.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 333–392. ISBN 978-3-031-16277-0. [Google Scholar]
  97. Lloret, J.; Cowx, I.G.; Cabral, H.; Castro, M.; Font, T.; Gonçalves, J.M.S.; Gordoa, A.; Hoefnagel, E.; Matić-Skoko, S.; Mikkelsen, E.; et al. Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in European Seas Are Not What They Were: Ecological, Social and Economic Changes. Mar. Policy 2018, 98, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Karakassis, I.; Massa, F.; Fezzardi, D.; Aguilar-Manjarrez, J.; Soto, D.; Chapela, R.; Avila, P.; Rivero, 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]
  99. Dunne, A.; Carvalho, S.; Morán, X.A.G.; Calleja, M.L.; Jones, B. Localized Effects of Offshore Aquaculture on Water Quality in a Tropical Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 171, 112732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Mishra, S.S.; Das, R.; Dhiman, M.; Choudhary, P.; Debbarma, J.; Sahoo, S.N.; Baura, A.; Giri, B.S.; Ramesh, R.; Ananda, K.; et al. Present Status of Fish Disease Management in Freshwater Aquaculture in India: State-of-the-Art-Review. J. Aquac. Fish. 2017, 1, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Frankic, A.; Hershner, C. Sustainable Aquaculture: Developing the Promise of Aquaculture. Aquac. Int. 2003, 11, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Harikrishnan, M.; Syanya, F.J.; Khanna, A.R.N.; Mumina, P.; Mathia, W.M. Ecological Implications of Unintentional Aquaculture Escapees: An Overview of Risks, Remediation Strategies and Knowledge Gaps in the Aquaculture Sector of India and Riparian East African Countries. Mar. Fish. Sci. (MAFIS) 2024, 37, 633–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lin, Y.; Gao, Z.; Zhan, A. Introduction and Use of Non-native Species for Aquaculture in C Hina: Status, Risks and Management Solutions. Rev. Aquac. 2015, 7, 28–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Copp, G.H.; Garthwaite, R.; Gozlan, R.E. Risk Identification and Assessment of Non-Native Freshwater Fishes: A Summary of Concepts and Perspectives on Protocols for the UK. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2005, 21, 371–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Liu, J. Integration across a Metacoupled World. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Jamieson, L.E.; Woodberry, O.; Mascaro, S.; Meurisse, N.; Jaksons, R.; Brown, S.D.J.; Ormsby, M. An Integrated Biosecurity Risk Assessment Model (IBRAM) For Evaluating the Risk of Import Pathways for the Establishment of Invasive Species. Risk Anal. 2022, 42, 1325–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Branquart, E.; Verreyken, H.; Vanderhoeven, S.; Van Rossum, F. ISEIA, a Belgian Non-Native Species Assessment Protocol. In Science Facing Aliens: Proceedings of a Scientific Meeting on Invasive Aliens Species; Segers, H., Ed.; Belgian Biodiversity Platform: Brussels, Belgium, 2009; pp. 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  108. Mumford, J.D.; Booy, O.; Baker, R.H.A.; Rees, M.; Copp, G.H.; Black, K.; Holt, J.; Leach, A.W.; Hartley, M. Invasive Non-Native Species Risk Assessment in Great Britain. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2010, 104, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  109. Vilizzi, L.; Hill, J.E.; Piria, M.; Copp, G.H. A Protocol for Screening Potentially Invasive Non-Native Species Using Weed Risk Assessment-Type Decision-Support Tools. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 832, 154966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Vilizzi, L.; Copp, G.H.; Adamovich, B.; Almeida, D.; Chan, J.; Davison, P.I.; Dembski, S.; Ekmekçi, F.G.; Ferincz, Á.; Forneck, S.C.; et al. A Global Review and Meta-Analysis of Applications of the Freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 2019, 29, 529–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Vilizzi, L.; Copp, G.H.; Hill, J.E.; Adamovich, B.; Aislabie, L.; Akin, D.; Al-Faisal, A.J.; Almeida, D.; Azmai, M.A.; Bakiu, R. A Global-Scale Screening of Non-Native Aquatic Organisms to Identify Potentially Invasive Species under Current and Future Climate Conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bartley, D.; Rana, K.; Immink, A. The Use of Inter-Specific Hybrids in Aquaculture and Fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2000, 10, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hulata, G. Genetic manipulations in aquaculture: A review of stock improvement by classical and modern technologies. Genetica 2001, 111, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Jensen, Ø.; Dempster, T.; Thorstad, E.B.; Uglem, I.; Fredheim, A. Escapes of Fishes from Norwegian Sea-Cage Aquaculture: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2010, 1, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bögner, D.; Zeytin-Schüning, S.; Slater, M.J.; Mathes, M.; Gündogdu, H.T.; Gündogdu, E.; Jost, J.; Jost, P.-O.; Blanc, C. The Application of Ultrasound as Cage Antifouling Method and its Impact on European Sea Bass, Dicentrarchus Labrax. In Proceedings of the EAS Aquaculture Europe 2021, International Conference and Exposition, Madeira, Portugal, 4–7 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  116. Cock, J.; Salazar, M.; Rye, M. Strategies for Managing Diseases in Non-native Shrimp Populations. Rev. Aquac. 2017, 9, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Auliya, M.; Altherr, S.; Nithart, C.; Hughes, A.; Bickford, D. Numerous Uncertainties in the Multifaceted Global Trade in Frogs’ Legs with the EU as the Major Consumer. Nat. Conserv. 2023, 51, 71–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yu, J.; Yin, W. Exploring Stakeholder Engagement in Mariculture Development: Challenges and Prospects for China. Mar. Policy 2019, 103, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Siddiki, S.; Goel, S. A Stakeholder Analysis of U.S. Marine Aquaculture Partnerships. Mar. Policy 2015, 57, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Abdelzaher, M.A.; Farahat, E.M.; Abdel-Ghafar, H.M.; Balboul, B.A.A.; Awad, M.M. Environmental Policy to Develop a Conceptual Design for the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: A Case Study in Wadi-Dara on the Red Sea Coast, Egypt. Water 2023, 15, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zehra, S.; Pulukkayi, P.; Boopathi, M.; Baalkhuyur, F.; Alghamdi, M.; Al Shaikhi, A.; Alhafedh, Y.S.; Mohamed, A.H. Introduction of Non-Native Fish Species in Red Sea Aquaculture: Implications for Marine Ecosystem Integrity. Diversity 2025, 17, 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040296

AMA Style

Zehra S, Pulukkayi P, Boopathi M, Baalkhuyur F, Alghamdi M, Al Shaikhi A, Alhafedh YS, Mohamed AH. Introduction of Non-Native Fish Species in Red Sea Aquaculture: Implications for Marine Ecosystem Integrity. Diversity. 2025; 17(4):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040296

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zehra, Seemab, Pranav Pulukkayi, Mahalakshmi Boopathi, Fadiyah Baalkhuyur, Mohammed Alghamdi, Ali Al Shaikhi, Youssef S. Alhafedh, and Asaad H. Mohamed. 2025. "Introduction of Non-Native Fish Species in Red Sea Aquaculture: Implications for Marine Ecosystem Integrity" Diversity 17, no. 4: 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040296

APA Style

Zehra, S., Pulukkayi, P., Boopathi, M., Baalkhuyur, F., Alghamdi, M., Al Shaikhi, A., Alhafedh, Y. S., & Mohamed, A. H. (2025). Introduction of Non-Native Fish Species in Red Sea Aquaculture: Implications for Marine Ecosystem Integrity. Diversity, 17(4), 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040296

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