History of Aquaculture: From Neolithic Ponds to 103 Million Tons

Key Points

• Ancient origins of aquaculture: The “first blue revolution” emerged roughly 10,000 years ago (8000 BCE) during the Early Holocene as a strategy for survival and climate adaptation, rather than an industrial activity.
• Ecosystem engineering: From Indigenous “clam gardens” in North America to Aboriginal channels in Australia, ancient civilizations transformed entire landscapes to create resilient, low-footprint agroecosystems.
• Inspiration from polyculture: The ban on common carp during China’s Tang Dynasty spurred the development of polyculture—an ecological integration principle now rediscovered and formalized through Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA).
• The role of convents and monasteries: During the European Middle Ages, monastic orders served as hubs for aquaculture development, constructing pond networks to secure fish supplies during fasting periods.
• From science to industrial decline: Although the 18th and 19th centuries introduced artificial fertilization and incubation in Europe, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of distant-water fishing temporarily sidelined pond farming.
• 20th-century milestones: Hatching Artemia cysts in the 1930s resolved the live-feed bottleneck for larvae, while the development of net-pen cages in Norway laid the structural foundation for the modern marine industry.
• The Blue Revolution: Since 1970, the sector has expanded commercially to surpass capture fisheries; however, reliance on intensive monocultures and fishmeal-rich diets poses serious sustainability and biosecurity challenges.
• Lessons for the modern producer: History demonstrates that the industry’s future resilience will not depend on expanding land area or capital, but rather on solving biological bottlenecks, diversifying into lower trophic species, adopting closed-loop systems (biofloc, aquaponics), and strengthening “social license” through community engagement.

The history of aquaculture does not begin in a modern salmon farm in Norway nor in a shrimp pond in Ecuador. Its true origins date back to 8000 BCE in the wetlands of central China and the lava flows of southeastern Australia. Long before the invention of extruded feeds, biofilters, or oxygen sensors, early human communities understood a fundamental principle: raising fish is safer and more reliable than relying on the uncertainty of wild capture.

This premise—security over chance—is the thread connecting millennia of aquatic farming evolution. Today, this approach has reached an unprecedented milestone: for the first time in human history, global aquaculture production surpassed 100 million metric tons of animals in 2024, according to the FAO’s SOFIA 2026 report. Humanity now farms more fish, mollusks, and crustaceans than it extracts from the wild, a trend poised to further consolidate aquaculture as our primary source of animal protein.

From this backdrop, this article explores the comprehensive trajectory of the sector. We will analyze its journey from archaeological remains and medieval monastic practices to the rise of science-based aquaculture in the 18th century, the 20th-century hormonal revolution, and the recent industrial explosion of salmon and shrimp farming. Beyond a simple timeline, we will break down key historical milestones, contrast ancient methods with modern practices, and uncover vital lessons. Ultimately, the defining characteristic of this industry is that its ancestral systems have not disappeared; rather, they are being reborn, powered by new technologies.

Why does knowing the history of aquaculture matter?

Controlled farming of aquatic organisms is the decisive factor separating aquaculture from capture fisheries, where humans merely harvest what the ecosystem produced on its own.

However, the boundary between both activities is far more porous than it appears, and therein lies the first key to understanding its trajectory. Between “fishing” and “farming” lies a continuous spectrum of human intervention: trapping wild fish in a lagoon is intervention; stocking fry in a pond represents greater intervention; and controlling reproduction in a laboratory constitutes total intervention. Because many ancestral practices operated precisely in the middle zones of this spectrum, pinpointing the “exact origin” of aquaculture remains a subject of legitimate academic debate.

Understanding this historical evolution is vital today for fundamental reasons, spanning environmental sustainability, cultural heritage preservation, and the study of human evolution itself. Below, we explore the primary reasons why this historical journey is more relevant now than ever:

Lessons for Sustainability and Ecology

The history of aquaculture serves as a wake-up call in the face of contemporary environmental challenges (Smith, 2014). While modern production frequently relies on intensive monocultures that can lead to pollution, disease, and pressure on local ecosystems, ancestral systems managed to operate in balance for centuries or even millennia (Rogers, 2024).

In this regard, Rogers (2024) highlights that these ancient practices—grounded in ecosystem engineering and integrated polycultures where different species mutually benefit—offer key insights for redesigning today’s industry. Adopting these principles is essential to transitioning toward more resilient, ecological, and clean models. As Smith (2014) concludes, learning from this historical trajectory is indispensable to consolidating a genuinely sustainable “blue revolution,” thereby avoiding the negative impacts of industrial agriculture or overfishing.

Guide for Innovation and Future Policies

Tracking the evolution of aquaculture helps us understand how diverse production systems transformed over time. Furthermore, this historical approach is essential for anticipating future scenarios, such as the impact of climate change on aquatic species farming (Stickney & Treece, 2012).

By integrating ancestral knowledge with modern technologies, researchers and decision-makers can design alternative development strategies for the sector. This intersection of knowledge will help strengthen global food security sustainably, without compromising the planet’s ecological balance.

Preservation of Biocultural Heritage

According to Costa-Pierce (2022), history demonstrates that aquaculture is not a mere 20th-century technological innovation, but a practice deeply rooted in the identity of ancient and Indigenous civilizations worldwide. Notable among these are Australia’s Aboriginal communities, South American pre-Columbian cultures, traditional Hawaiian societies, and European monastic communities.

Along these same lines, Vivancos et al. (2025) emphasize that recovering and studying these systems not only safeguards intangible cultural heritage but also vindicates the rights, ancestral wisdom, and identity of these communities.

Understanding Aquaculture Development

Malindine (2019) highlights that aquaculture is often overlooked in academic debates surrounding the origins of agriculture; however, its trajectory is key to understanding how prehistoric human groups transitioned from hunter-gatherer nomadism to organized food production.

Furthermore, scientific evidence demonstrates that when the demand for aquatic resources surpassed local ecosystem fishing capacities, societies developed ingenious solutions to rear, store, and breed species—a technological advancement that became a fundamental catalyst for early human settlement and civilizational growth (Costa-Pierce, 2022).

Improving Public Perception

Criticism of modern aquaculture often broadly labels it as harmful to the environment. In light of this, understanding the historical evolution of the practice helps demystify it for the public and environmental groups.

Analyzing its trajectory highlights the immense diversity of existing systems—some thousands of years old—and demonstrates that proper farming techniques, such as bivalve mollusk culture, can actually purify and regenerate the environment rather than degrade it (Costa-Pierce, 2022).

In summary, understanding the history of aquaculture provides a strategic framework for transforming and refining modern food production systems. This journey guides us toward practices that respect ecological balance while valuing ancestral knowledge (Vivancos et al., 2025; Costa-Pierce, 2022). Ultimately, this will strengthen the social acceptance of aquaculture, positioning it not only as a primary global food source, but also as a key engine for employment and regional development.

Timeline of Aquaculture History

Before examining the distinct stages of global aquaculture development in detail, the following timeline synthesizes key milestones best documented in scientific literature. Note that archaeological dates represent estimated ranges based on available academic evidence.

Table 1. Timeline of aquaculture history.

Origins: The First Blue Revolution

Today, the term “Blue Revolution” commonly refers to the massive expansion of commercial aquaculture that began in the mid-20th century to offset overfishing. However, Rogers (2024) points out that the true “first blue revolution” is a concept coined by archaeology to describe the original emergence of aquaculture during the Early Holocene, around 8000 BCE. Below, we explore the fundamental characteristics of each stage in the historical evolution of this activity:

Neolithic and Mesolithic Periods (8000 BCE – 5000 BCE): The Ecosystem Engineers

In prehistory, aquaculture did not emerge as an industry, but rather as an adaptation and survival strategy in response to demographic pressure and climate change.

According to Edwards (2025), approximately 10,000 years ago in China, communities transitioning toward agriculture developed agricultural wetlands where rice cultivation and common carp farming co-evolved. Other studies support this antiquity, finding evidence of carp farming in the same region dating back to 6200 BCE (Nakajima et al., 2019). During the same period, the Gunditjmara Aboriginal people in Australia took advantage of geomorphological alterations caused by a lava flow at Mount Eccles to design a vast system of channels, dams, and ponds (Rose et al., 2016). This infrastructure, spanning over 75 km², allowed them to channel and trap short-finned eels (Anguilla australis), securing a year-round food supply for their permanent settlements.

Equally remarkable is the case of Scandinavian hunter-gatherer groups. A study by Mjærum et al. (2026) revealed that around 5000 BCE, following glacial retreat, high-mountain Norwegian lakes—such as Lake Tesse—lacked fish due to natural topographic barriers. To overcome this obstacle, these populations intentionally introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta) and installed sophisticated fixed wooden traps. The construction and maintenance of these structures demonstrate that planned production and environmental management were not achievements exclusive to later agricultural societies.

Antiquity and Early Systems (4875 BCE – 1st Century CE)

As human societies expanded, intervention in aquatic ecosystems became more intentional and complex. According to Rogers (2024), Indigenous communities along the Pacific coast of North America transformed the intertidal zone by creating “clam gardens.” By building terraces supported by stone walls, these populations not only facilitated food harvesting but directly expanded and optimized bivalve habitat, thereby mitigating demographic pressure.

Control over water resources also acquired a clear sense of social status. Nash (2011) notes that in Ancient Egypt, bas-reliefs document how nobility designed private garden ponds dedicated to tilapia culture. However, Costa-Pierce (2022) highlights that this systematization reached its peak sophistication in China around 475 BCE with Fan Li, author of the Classic of Fish Farming, the earliest known work that formalized pond design and controlled fish breeding. During the same period, prolific chinampas—raised agricultural fields integrated with aquaculture channels—flourished in the Valley of Mexico, while the Roman elite invested in sophisticated vivariae piscinae, exclusive coastal facilities designed for maintaining oysters and luxury marine species (Costa-Pierce, 2022).

The Middle Ages: Polyculture, Monasteries, and Local Adaptation (5th – 15th Century CE)

During the Middle Ages, aquaculture underwent profound adaptations driven by cultural, geographical, and religious factors. According to Edwards (2025), a unique event occurred in China during the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE): the character for the common carp shared its pronunciation with “Li,” the imperial surname, leading to a strict ban on its farming and consumption. However, this unforeseen obstacle prompted fish farmers to innovate, resulting in the invention of polyculture—the integration of diverse carp species that utilized different ecological niches within the pond without competing with one another.

In Europe, the Christian faith became the primary catalyst for inland aquaculture. Nash (2011) and Hufthammer and Moe (2014) highlight that monastic orders, such as the Benedictines and Cistercians, expanded complex networks of vivaria and servatoria (breeding and holding ponds) to secure fish supplies during Lent and fasting days. Furthermore, Hufthammer and Moe (2014) note that in Scandinavia’s harsh climate, where common carp could not survive frigid winters, monks and nobles adapted their production toward the Crucian carp (Carassius carassius), a species remarkably suited for Northern Europe due to its extraordinary capacity to survive for months under ice in near-anoxic conditions. Meanwhile, Costa-Pierce (2022) reports that in Southeast Asia (Java) around 1200 CE, the first tambaks—coastal brackishwater ponds—emerged for farming milkfish.

The Scientific Awakening (approx. 1400 – 1900)

During this period, aquaculture began its transition toward scientific formalization. Nash (2011) reports that, in the 1420s, the French monk Dom Pinchon successfully achieved the artificial incubation of trout eggs using wooden boxes. However, it was the German naturalist Ludwig Jacobi in 1763 who consolidated and disseminated the technique of artificial fertilization and incubation for this salmonid. By the mid-19th century, Frenchmen Remy and Géhin rediscovered this method, securing state backing to construct the Huningue fish hatchery (France) in 1852—a pioneering complex that mass-produced fish culture across Europe.

Meanwhile, Sterckx (2025) concludes that fish farming in premodern China evolved beyond simple gathering and survival toward sophisticated systems of landscape domestication and ecosystem resource management, supported by a body of technical and ecological knowledge transmitted and refined over centuries.

Paradoxically, the Industrial Revolution triggered a sharp productive decline in European and American aquaculture (Smith, 2014). The rise of steamships, bottom trawling, industrial ice, and railway networks conferred overwhelming profitability upon distant-water marine capture fisheries, relegating ancient pond farming systems to economic abandonment (Nash, 2011; Smith, 2014).

The Resurgence and Technological Foundation (1900 – 1960)

The first half of the 20th century was characterized not by massive commercial growth, but by the intensive development of infrastructure and laboratory breakthroughs that laid the foundation for contemporary aquaculture (Nash, 2011). In the 1930s, one of the most consequential biological milestones occurred when researchers such as Alvin Seale and Gunnar Rollefson discovered that nauplii of the crustacean Artemia could hatch from storable dry cysts. This finding provided high-quality, on-demand live feed, resolving the critical nutritional bottleneck for delicate marine fish and shrimp larvae (Nash, 2011).

During the post-war period, Japan led decisive advances in seaweed cultivation and shrimp incubation, while a structural transformation took shape in Europe and North America. Leveraging the natural shelter of its fjords, Norway began successfully farming rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon in floating sea-cages, establishing the technical blueprint for the modern marine industry (Stickney & Treece, 2012).

The Blue Revolution and the “Anthropogenic Climax” (1970 – Present)

Driven by the stagnation and decline of marine capture fisheries, aquaculture experienced a massive commercial takeoff starting in the 1970s, consolidating itself as the world’s fastest-growing food production industry (Nash, 2011). To sustain this expansion, the private sector introduced major technological advances: dry, extruded lipid-rich diets, sensor-automated feeding, genetic selection programs, and giant offshore cages (Carrera, 2020).

This intensive farming model was rapidly exported globally. In South America, multinational companies and Fundación Chile promoted massive salmon farming (Coho and Atlantic) in southern Chile due to its privileged geographical conditions; backed by agro-export policies, Chile became—alongside Ecuador’s shrimp industry—the continent’s main aquaculture engine (Nash, 2011). Analyzing the evolution of aquaculture in South America between 1950 and 2017, Sicuro et al. (2024) conclude that the sector has experienced extraordinary, near-exponential growth, surging from barely 40 metric tons to over 2.5 million metric tons, far outpacing the global trend.

From a modern evolutionary and economic perspective, Sicuro (2024) notes that aquaculture in regions such as the Mediterranean or the Pacific coast has transitioned into a scenario termed the “anthropogenic climax.” The researcher highlights that this contemporary phase is ecologically dominated by the high profitability of intensive monoculture involving a handful of high-performing species (such as Nile tilapia, Atlantic salmon, and white leg shrimp), relegating to the background the traditional extensive and polyculture practices that prevailed for millennia.

Ancient vs. Modern Aquaculture: The Key Comparison

Despite the technological sophistication of contemporary aquaculture, ancestral models offer valuable lessons for sector sustainability. Below is a comparative matrix based on scientific literature synthesizing the fundamental differences between ancient aquaculture (from prehistoric origins to the pre-industrial era) and modern aquaculture (from the mid-20th century to the present):

Table 2. Comparison between ancient and modern aquaculture.

In conclusion, while ancient aquaculture transformed entire landscapes to create resilient, integrated, and diverse agroecosystems that mimicked nature to ensure long-term local food security (Rogers, 2024), modern aquaculture—driven by global market dynamics—has prioritized technological intensification and monoculture (Smith, 2014).

Although the contemporary industry is extraordinarily productive and decisive for global aquatic protein supply, the historical perspective demonstrates that reincorporating ancestral ecological principles—such as polyculture, trophic integration, and the utilization of local species—is essential to mitigate environmental impacts and consolidate a genuinely sustainable “Blue Revolution.”

What This History Teaches Aquaculture Producers (Lessons Learned)

Beyond reconstructing the chronology of aquaculture, the primary purpose of this analysis is to extract strategic lessons that enable current producers to optimize their production models. Along this path, the famous adage rings particularly true: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Below, we synthesize the key learnings bequeathed by ancient fish farmers for the contemporary industry:

Transition from Monoculture to Polyculture and Integrated Systems

History demonstrates the remarkable efficacy and resilience of integrated systems, such as China’s co-culture of rice and fish. In this model, fish control pests and insects while fertilizing the crop with their effluents; in turn, the rice provides shade and optimizes water quality (Hoaglin, 2022; Rogers, 2024). This ancestral technique remains relevant today, allowing producers to diversify their harvests.

Similarly, Rogers (2024) reports that the ancient Chinese system combining mulberry trees, silkworms, and fish ponds achieved an ecological synergy capable of recycling nutrients and minimizing waste. Inspired by this principle, modern producers should transition from intensive monocultures toward Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). This practice pairs fed species (such as fish) with organic and inorganic extractive species (bivalves, sea cucumbers, and seaweeds) that act as natural biofilters, cleansing the water, mitigating pollution, and generating supplementary income.

Acting as “Ecosystem Engineers” and Adopting Ecological Aquaculture

Ancient civilizations did not merely farm fish; they “domesticated entire landscapes” to model productive and resilient ecosystems (Rogers, 2024). A prime example is the Indigenous peoples of North America, who constructed “clam gardens” using intertidal stone terraces. These structures not only quadrupled bivalve biomass but also boosted local marine biodiversity and buffered coastal temperature fluctuations and acidification (Costa-Pierce, 2022).

Faced with this legacy, modern producers must decisively implement an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA). This entails designing production units that deliver positive ecosystem services to their surroundings rather than degrading them, mimicking natural cycles to maximize resource efficiency (Rogers, 2024).

Reducing Ocean Dependency by Prioritizing Resilient, Low-Trophic Species

In ancient times, aquaculture thrived through the farming of highly hardy, adaptable omnivorous and herbivorous species—such as carp, tilapia, mullets, catfish, and oysters—capable of enduring wide environmental fluctuations and low oxygen levels (Rogers, 2024). In contrast, contemporary aquaculture relies excessively on carnivorous fish (like salmon) that demand high-fishmeal and fish-oil diets, heightening pressure on wild pelagic fisheries. The lesson from the past is conclusive: to achieve true long-term sustainability, the industry must prioritize farming lower trophic-level species or develop diets based on alternative plant protein sources and byproducts.

Turning Waste into Resources Through Closed-Loop Technologies

To manage ecosystem waste-assimilation limits, modern aquaculture has developed innovations that emulate the natural recycling of ancestral systems. In this regard, producers can implement Biofloc Technology (BFT), which stimulates a dense community of heterotrophic bacteria in the water column to assimilate toxic nitrogenous effluents and transform them into protein-rich microbial biomass. This “biofloc” serves as a direct supplementary feed for species like shrimp and tilapia, optimizing feed costs and drastically reducing water exchange rates. Another efficient alternative is aquaponics, which utilizes fish effluents to fertilize high-value hydroponic crops.

Enhancing Biosecurity to Prevent Devastating Epidemics

Overcrowding and water quality fluctuations in intensive monocultures have triggered catastrophic epidemics—such as Taura Syndrome Virus in shrimp or Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA)—causing multimillion-dollar losses across the industry (Smith, 2014; Hoaglin, 2022). In light of this scenario, proper microbiome management and animal stress mitigation play a crucial role. Systems like biofloc technology not only optimize water quality but also reinforce biosecurity through competitive exclusion, where beneficial microbial communities prevent pathogen proliferation. Likewise, respecting ecosystem carrying capacity and implementing polyculture reduce physiological stress in organisms, lowering their disease susceptibility (Stickney & Treece, 2012).

Securing “Social License” Through Community Integration

Historically, aquaculture was deeply embedded in the needs, beliefs, and social structures of local populations, securing a predictable food supply and employment for millennia (Stickney & Treece, 2012; Costa-Pierce, 2022; Rogers, 2023). Conversely, industrial aquaculture often faces strong public backlash—a lack of “social license”—due to visual impact, pollution, escapes, and conflicts over coastal space and water resource usage.

According to Stickney and Treece (2012), to overcome future regulatory and commercial challenges, producers must actively engage local communities and adopt certification and eco-labeling schemes. Transparently integrating production units into rural development and coastal management plans will not only help mitigate local poverty but also solidify the industry’s social and environmental commitment.

Conclusion

The history of aquaculture describes an economic activity that for eight millennia maintained low intensity, integrated into the agricultural landscape and oriented toward resilience. However, in just seven decades, it transformed into an industrial sector capable of producing 103 million metric tons annually, eventually surpassing capture fisheries as the primary source of aquatic protein. Over the last two decades, however, the sector has begun to trace its steps back: polyculture, trophic integration, circular economy, and the reduction of external inputs.

This return is driven not by nostalgia, but by innovation. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) is not a Neolithic pond, nor is a Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) a Hawaiian loko iʻa. Yet both solutions answer the same core question posed by Gunditjmara communities and Jiahu farmers: how to reliably obtain aquatic protein without depleting the supporting ecosystem. The difference is that today, the answer must satisfy 9 billion people under the strict scrutiny of markets, regulators, and consumers.

Understanding the historical trajectory of aquaculture transcends an academic exercise. Three practical reasons justify its relevance:

• Ancestral systems were polycultures: Integrated rice-fish farming in China and Hawaiian fishponds combined species across multiple trophic levels. IMTA, presented today as cutting-edge technology, is a scientific reformulation of that same logic.
• Health crises repeat themselves: Epidemiological emergencies in shrimp farming during the 1990s and in the salmon industry this century replicated a pattern well-known in agricultural history: high-density monocultures combined with global movement of broodstock equal epidemics.
• Regulation is often reactive: Every technological leap—marine cages, hormonal induction, or transgenesis—was adopted commercially years before regulatory frameworks existed. Anticipating this lag allows us to foresee the impact of today’s genomics and automation.

If this journey demonstrates anything, it is that the sector’s breakthroughs stemmed not from increased capital or land area, but from solving specific biological bottlenecks: artificial fertilization, induced spawning, and formulated nutrition. The next chapter in this history is being written today, led by genomics and novel alternative ingredients.

Frequently Asked Questions About the History of Aquaculture

References

Beveridge, M. C., & Little, D. C. (2002). The history of aquaculture in traditional societies. Ecological aquaculture. The evolution of the Blue Revolution, 3-29.

Carrera, N. I. (2020). Breve historia de la acuicultura y salmonicultura en el sur de Chile (1856-2000). Revista Territorios y Regionalismos, (3), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.29393/RTR3-3NCBH10003

Costa-Pierce, B. A. (2022). The Anthropology of Aquaculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 843743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.843743

Edwards, P. (2025). Co-evolution of fish and rice farming by Austroasiatic communities in the Neolithic Era and early documentation of aquaculture in China. Frontiers in Aquaculture, 3, 1437833. https://doi.org/10.3389/faquc.2024.1437833

Escobedo-Bonilla, C. M., Colula-Ocampo, J. I., Hernández-Herrera, R. I., Gracia-Valenzuela, M. H., & San Martín del Ángel, P. (2025). History of Shrimp Farming and the Main Viral and Bacterial Diseases in Mexico. Microorganisms, 13(11), 2631. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13112631

FAO. 2026. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026 – Blue Transformation: turning vision into impact. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd8357en

Gui, J. (2024). Chinese wisdom and modern innovation of aquaculture. Water Biology and Security, 3(3), 100271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watbs.2024.100271

Hoaglin, V. (2022). Fish through the Scales of Time: Diving into the Origins of Aquaculture. Veterinary Heritage: Bulletin of the American Veterinary Medical History Society, 45(2).

Hufthammer, A. K., & Moe, D. (2014). Fishponds and Aquaculture in Historical Times in Norway. Historical Aquaculture in Northern Europe, 121.

Malindine, J. (2019). Prehistoric Aquaculture: Origins, Implications, and an Argument for Inclusion. Culture, Agriculture, Food & Environment, 41(1).

Mjærum, A., Friis, E. K., Hesthagen, T., & Kirchhefer, A. J. (2026). The introduction of fish to the Scandinavian mountains by hunter-fisher-gatherers 5000 BC. Antiquity, 1–17. doi:10.15184/aqy.2026.10392

Nakajima, T., Hudson, M. J., Uchiyama, J., Makibayashi, K., & Zhang, J. (2019). Common carp aquaculture in Neolithic China dates back 8,000 years. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(10), 1415-1418. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0974-3

Nash, C. E. (2011). The History of Aquaculture. Wiley-Blackwell.

Ren, S., Yáñez, J. M., Perez-Enriquez, R., Rye, M., Houston, R. D., Hurwood, D. A., … Jerry, D. R. (2025). 100 Years of Penaeid Domestication and Meta-Analysis of Breeding Traits. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 33(4), 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2025.2497273

Rogers, A.J. Aquaculture in the Ancient World: Ecosystem Engineering, Domesticated Landscapes, and the First Blue Revolution. J Archaeol Res 32, 427–491 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-023-09191-1

Rose, D., Bell, D. & Crook, D.A. Restoring habitat and cultural practice in Australia’s oldest and largest traditional aquaculture system. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 26, 589–600 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9426-1

Sicuro B (2024) The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: An anthropogenic climax stage? PLoS ONE 19(8): e0290870. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290870

Sicuro, Benedetto and Fabio, Dr. Bozzeda and Castelar, Beatriz and Akther, Kazi Rabeya and Pinna, Prof Maurizio, The Raise of Aquaculture in South America from 1950 to 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4961459 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4961459

Smith, T. (2014). Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement.

Sterckx, R. (2025). Fish farming in pre-modern China: A study and translation of two texts. T’oung Pao, 111, 353–396. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685322-11103003

Stickney, R.R. and Treece, G.D. (2012). History of Aquaculture. In Aquaculture Production Systems, J.H. Tidwell (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118250105.ch2

VIVANCOS RAMÓN, M. V., LEHMANN GRAVIER, PRISCILA., & NAVARRO MORENO, VALERIA. (2025). Aquaculture: Millenary Practice, Cultural Heritage, and Sustainable Future. Dwelling on Earth/Abitare la Terra, 46.

Milthon Lujan

Editor at the digital magazine AquaHoy. He holds a degree in Aquaculture Biology from the National University of Santa (UNS) and a Master’s degree in Science and Innovation Management from the Polytechnic University of Valencia, with postgraduate diplomas in Business Innovation and Innovation Management. He possesses extensive experience in the aquaculture and fisheries sector, having led the Fisheries Innovation Unit of the National Program for Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture (PNIPA). He has served as a senior consultant in technology watch, an innovation project formulator and advisor, and a lecturer at UNS. He is a member of the Peruvian College of Biologists and was recognized by the World Aquaculture Society (WAS) in 2016 for his contribution to aquaculture.