# Finding the best match: a ranking procedure of fish species combinations for polyculture development

Nellya Amoussou, Marielle Thomas, Alain Pasquet, Thomas Lecocq

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Nellya Amoussou, Marielle Thomas, Alain Pasquet, Thomas Lecocq. Finding the best match: a ranking procedure of fish species combinations for polyculture development. Life, 2022, 12 (9), pp.1315. 10.3390/life12091315. [https://hal.science/hal-04126384](https://hal.science/hal-04126384)

HAL Id: hal-04126384

https://hal.science/hal-04126384

Submitted on 13 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Article

# Finding the Best Match: A Ranking Procedure of Fish Species Combinations for Polyculture Development

Nellya Amoussou <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Marielle Thomas <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />✉, Alain Pasquet <fnref n="1" />✉ and Thomas Lecocq <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,*✉

**Abstract:** Polyculture is a potentially interesting rearing practice for future aquaculture developments. Nevertheless, it may result in beneficial as well as detrimental consequences for fish production. One way to maximize the benefits of polyculture is to combine species with high levels of compatibility and complementarity. This requires the development of a ranking procedure, based on a multi-trait assessment, that highlights the most suitable species combinations for polyculture. Moreover, in order to ensure the relevance of such a procedure, it is important to integrate the socio-economic expectations by assigning relative weights to each trait according to the stakeholder priorities. Here, we proposed a ranking procedure of candidate fish polycultures (i.e., species combinations that could be potentially interesting for aquaculture) based on a multi-trait assessment approach and the stakeholder priorities. This procedure aims at successively (i) weighting evaluation results obtained for each candidate polyculture according to stakeholder priorities; (ii) assessing differentiation between candidate species combinations based on these weighted results; and (iii) ranking differentiated candidate polycultures. We applied our procedure on three test cases of fish polycultures in recirculated aquaculture systems. These test cases each focused on a target species (two on *Sander lucioperca* and one on *Carassius auratus*), which were reared in two or three different alternative candidate fish polycultures. For each test case, our procedure aimed at ranking alternative combinations according to their benefits for production and/or welfare of the target species. These benefits were evaluated based on survival rate as well as morphology, behavioral, and physiological traits. Three scenarios of stakeholder priorities were considered for weighting evaluation results: placing a premium on production, welfare, or both for the target species. A comparison of our procedure results between these scenarios showed that the ranking changed for candidate polycultures in two test cases. This highlights the need to carefully consider stakeholder priorities when choosing fish polycultures.

**Keywords:** polyculture; stakeholder priorities; multivariate analysis; recirculated aquaculture systems

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

**Citation:** Amoussou, N.; Thomas, M.; Pasquet, A.; Lecocq, T. Finding the Best Match: A Ranking Procedure of Fish Species Combinations for Polyculture Development. *Life* 2022, 12, 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12091315

Academic Editors: Mi Zhao and
Mingwei Lu

Received: 21 July 2022

Accepted: 24 August 2022

Published: 26 August 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

## 1. Introduction

In the coming decades, the human demand for food products is expected to double, due to world population growth [1]. Human nutrition partially relies on aquatic organisms [2]. Until the early 2010's, the global supply of aquatic products was mainly provided by fisheries [3]. However, in recent years, aquaculture has become an increasingly important sector for this supply because wild fisheries are no longer able to meet the demand for aquatic products [3]. In Western countries, intensive monoculture (i.e., production of a single species in cages, recirculated aquaculture systems [RASs], or ponds) has been favored in aquaculture development [4]. However, monoculture may have several limitations. First, it can limit the food conversion ratio [5], which compromises the water quality of the system by increasing nutrient concentration (generated by non-digested feed) in the effluents [6]. Second, monoculture has also been criticized from human food security and

<footnote n="1">¹ Unit Research Animal and Functionality of Animal Products (UR AFPA), University of Lorraine (UL), Institut National de la Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (INRAE), 54000 Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Zone Atelier Moselle (LTER), 54506 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: thomas.lecocq@univ-lorraine.fr</footnote>
economic viewpoints, as it might have a low resilience [7] and a low adaptative potential to face changes in environmental and socio-economic contexts [8]. Third, there is now a strong societal expectation to ensure animal welfare, which may be negatively impacted by intensive production [9].

Fish polyculture is the production of two or more species in the same physical space at the same time [10]. Recent studies have revived interest in this ancient rearing practice because it may improve current aquaculture developments and partially overcome fish-intensive monoculture limitations [5,11]. Indeed, polyculture can enhance farming efficiency by improving the use of resources that are naturally present or added in the fish-rearing environment [12] and by recycling nutrients from farmed biomass [13,14] in extensive and intensive aquaculture [15]. This can decrease environmental impacts and improve the sustainability of production systems [8,16,17], and it can even increase the fish production [18]. Nevertheless, polycultures are complex aquaculture systems because co-farming can impact the survival [19,20], biological functions (e.g., nutrition [21] and relationships [22,23] and thus production performances of the farmed species [15]). Moreover, it can also result in animal welfare issues [15]. Actually, polyculture can be beneficial for rearing, provided that species compatibility (i.e., ability of species to live in the same production system while minimizing detrimental interactions or competition for trophic or spatial available resources) and, even more, complementarity (i.e., co-farmed species can use different portions of resources or display commensal/mutualistic interactions) occur between the combined species [15]. Therefore, one way to maximize the benefits of polyculture is to integrate fish species diversity by comparing several possible fish combinations (i.e., candidate polycultures) for a particular purpose (i.e., developing polyculture around a target species and/or in a particular rearing system), and eventually, highlighting the combination(s) with the highest level of compatibility and/or complementarity [15]. This places a premium on a standardized assessment procedure to rank fish species combinations in order to select valuable polycultures.

Such a procedure must be built by considering four important aspects. First, since polyculture can impact many components of fish biology and aquaculture, assessment of candidate fish species combinations must be based on traits related to different biological functions, reflecting species compatibility and beyond those involved in socio-economical concerns [15]. Overall, these traits include features related to zootechnical performances, such as morphology and growth traits [24–26], and responses to stress, such as behavioral [27] and physiological traits [28]. Second, each of these traits can be polarized according to the sought expression of the trait for aquaculture purposes (e.g., highest growth rate and lowest stress response). These sought expressions must be integrated into the multi-trait framework. Third, the polarized traits are not all equally important. Thus, they can be weighed in the multi-trait framework based on their relative importance in the priorities (e.g., production and/or welfare [29–31]) of stakeholders (i.e., fish farmers, consumers, scholars, policy makers, and non-governmental organizations). The importance of integrating these priorities in decision-making approaches for aquaculture development has already been underlined in several studies e.g., [32,33]. Fourth, it is worth noting that multi-trait assessment may provide conflicting results between equally important traits (e.g., a polyculture can have a positive impact on growth but negative consequences on fish welfare). This can complicate decision-making for production development (see such an issue in the multi-trait evaluation of monoculture in [33]). This requires making a synthesis of potentially conflicting results by integrating them into a score to facilitate the ranking (see similar solution in [34]).

To our knowledge, no standardized assessment procedure, based on stakeholder priorities to rank candidate polycultures, has been proposed to date. Therefore, we propose such a procedure for fish polycultures, which is a multi-trait assessment based on four steps: (i) the selection of biological traits to assess candidate polycultures; (ii) the dataset treatment (e.g., polarization); (iii) the consideration of stakeholder priorities in the assessment by a weighting approach; and (iv) the integration of the results with a multivariate analysis and
a ranking of the candidate polycultures. We applied our ranking procedure on three test cases of fish polycultures in RAS.

## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. A Four-Step of the Ranking Procedure

Since polyculture is considered a potentially more advantageous solution compared to monoculture, we developed a procedure to assess candidate polycultures that has been thought of as a way to improve the rearing of a target species by combining it with other species. Thus, the monoculture of the target species was used as the baseline information to quantify the potential benefits of polyculture compared to traditional monoculture.

#### 2.1.1. The First Step: Biological Trait Selection

In order to assess and rank candidate polycultures, the procedure considered several categories of traits related to (i) survival and morphology and (ii) behavior and physiology.

##### 1. Survival and morphological traits

Producing a lot of fish with good growth is of paramount importance in aquaculture. Therefore, measuring the survival rate (SR), the final weight (Wf), and the specific growth rate (SGR) is an important insight to assess fish production [5,11,35]. The disparity in growth among individuals (i.e., size variation within a stock of fish specimens with similar age) is another piece of important information for aquaculture. Indeed, it is seen as a proxy of competition occurring among individuals for food; the more restricted or defensible the food supply, the greater the competition and the more pronounced the disparity in food acquisition among individuals [36,37]. It can be assessed by examining the weight heterogeneity (CV) [37] between fish species. The Fulton condition index (FCF) is also an important piece of information for aquaculture, as it reflects the potential fitness for fish [38]. The fitness of a fish is an important insight to assess the welfare of fish: a decline of FCF is directly equivalent to a decrease in the energetic reserves of fish [39].

##### 2. Behavioral and physiological traits

Nowadays, it is of utmost importance to integrate animal welfare concerns in animal production [40,41]. Traits related to stress responses are regarded as relevant proxies for welfare assessment. Such traits include behavioral (i.e., agonistic [Agr] and flight [Flg]) and physiological traits (i.e., hematocrit [Hct], glucose [Glu], cortisol [Cort], serotonin [Ser], and dopamine [Dop]). While Hct, Glu, Cort, Ser, and Dop are considered key markers of the physiological responses of fish, Agr and Flg can act as indicators of competition between species [23,42–44] and thus identify potential compatibility issues.

#### 2.1.2. The Second Step: Dataset Treatment

First, we computed the “delta value” (ΔVal) for all pair-wise between the replicates of each polyculture and the replicates of the monoculture. For each pair-wise, we subtracted the values of traits from each monoculture from those of polyculture. This allowed the highlighting of the potential benefits of polyculture compared to the monoculture of the target species. Second, each ΔVal was polarized according to the sought expression of the corresponding trait for the aquaculture purpose (i.e., multiplying by +1 the ΔVal related to the traits for which a higher expression level was sought and by −1 those for which a lower expression level was sought; see Table 1 for more information). Third, we standardized the ΔVal. Standardization is a technique for comparing data that are measured with different units (e.g., SR is expressed in “%”, Wf and Cort were respectively expressed in “g” and “ng.mL⁻¹”). The standardized values corresponded to the centered scaled value (i.e., ranged between 0 and 1: R-package [scales]) and were attributed to the ΔVal for each trait. Fourth, we selected relevant and the least-correlated ΔVal of the traits (R² < 0.9) by means of Ward D2 linkage cluster analysis (cor: method = Pearson, from R-package ape [45] in R [46]).
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Polarization of delta values of traits (SR = survival rate, Wf = final weight, SGR = specific growth rate, CV = coefficient of variation, FCF = Fulton condition factor, Agr = agonistic, Flg = flight, Hct = hematocrit, Glu = glucose, Cort = cortisol, Ser = serotonin and Dop = dopamine). The polarization considered the sought expression in aquaculture for each trait.</caption><thead><tr><th>Categories</th><th>Traits</th><th>Polarized Delta Values (ΔVal)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Survival</td><td>SR</td><td>+SR</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Morphological</td><td>Wf</td><td>+Wf</td></tr><tr><td>SGR</td><td>+SGR</td></tr><tr><td>CV</td><td>-CV</td></tr><tr><td>FCF</td><td>+FCF</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Behavioral</td><td>Agr</td><td>-Agr</td></tr><tr><td>Flg</td><td>-Flg</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Physiological</td><td>Hct</td><td>-Hct</td></tr><tr><td>Glu</td><td>-Glu</td></tr><tr><td>Cort</td><td>-Cort</td></tr><tr><td>Ser</td><td>-Ser</td></tr><tr><td>Dop</td><td>-Dop</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 2.1.3. The Third Step: Weighting the Traits

To exemplify the consequences of different stakeholder priorities, we applied three alternative frameworks (arbitrarily defined) of weighting coefficients (Wc) on the ΔVal corresponding to three types of priorities: (i) one in which all trait categories are regarded as equally important, called “neutral-weighting;” (ii) one in which priority is given to the SR and morphological traits (except the FCF), called “production-weighting;” or (iii) one in which priority is given to SR, FCF, behavioral, and physiological traits, called “welfare-weighting.” According to “neutral-weighting,” all ΔVals were multiplied by Wc = 1. When assuming “production-weighting,” the ΔVals related to SR, CV, Wf, and SGR were multiplied, respectively, by Wc > 1 (three levels of weighting were applied in three independent assessments: 2, 5 or 10), while the others remained unchanged (Wc = 1). When assuming “welfare-weighting,” the ΔVals related to SR, FCF, Agr, Flg, Hct, Glu, Cort, Ser, and Dop were multiplied, respectively, by Wc > 1 (2, 5, or 10), while the others remained unchanged (Wc = 1). See Table 2 for more information.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Application of the weighting coefficients (Wc) on each delta value (ΔVal), according to the traits considered in this study (SR = survival rate, Wf = final weight, SGR = specific growth rate, CV = coefficient of variation, FCF = Fulton condition factor, Agr = agonistic, Flg = flight, Hct = hematocrit, Glu = glucose, Cort = cortisol, Ser = serotonin, and Dop = dopamine).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Priorities</th><th colspan="12">Delta Values (ΔVal)</th></tr><tr><th>SR</th><th>Wf</th><th>SGR</th><th>CV</th><th>FCF</th><th>Agr</th><th>Flg</th><th>Hct</th><th>Glu</th><th>Cort</th><th>Ser</th><th>Dop</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Neutral-weighting</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Production-weighting</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Welfare-weighting</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td><td>2, 5 or 10</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 2.1.4. The Fourth Step: Integrating the Results

We highlighted significant differences between the polycultures (*p*-value < 0.05) through a multivariate permutation test (MRPP: Euclidean distance matrix method; permutations = 10,000; R-package vegan [47]; R software [46]). Global MRPP was applied first, and then, when a significant differentiation between candidate polycultures was returned, the pair-wise comparison MRPPs with a Bonferroni correction were performed. We used
a MRPP because parametric test assumptions for the normality of a multivariate dataset (mshapiro.test from R-package mvnormtest [48]; R software [46]) were not met. When a candidate polyculture was significantly divergent from other polycultures, we calculated the weighted sum of its ΔVals (*ws*: Formula (1)), the rank of the *ws*, and the sum of the ranks (*rs*), and divided by the number of replicates of the candidate polycultures. The rank of each polyculture was defined through the *rs* values. The candidate polyculture with the lowest *rs* was considered the best candidate for polyculture.

$$ws = \sum_{i=1}^{i=n} \left[ \frac{\Delta Val (i)}{nR} \times Wc \right] \quad (1)$$

where *n*, *nR*, ΔVal, and Wc corresponded, respectively, to the number of considered traits, the number of replicates of the candidate polycultures, the delta value, and the weighting coefficients. (That could correspond to 1, 2, 5, or 10, according to the priorities.)

## 2.2. Test Cases

As test cases for our procedure, we used three datasets of traits obtained from the polyculture trials (see Table 3 and [49] for more information about the trials), and we analyzed them [50,51]).

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Main information related to the three test cases in recirculated aquaculture systems. “Poly-cultures” shows compared fish combinations for each test case; underlined species are the target species of each test case. “Rearing volume” displays the volume of the experimental system in which the test cases were studied. “Trial duration” provides the duration of the experiment for each test case. “Traits” lists studied traits for each test case (SR = survival rate, Wf = final weight, SGR = specific growth rate, CV = coefficient of variation, FCF = Fulton condition factor, Agr = agonistic, Flg = flight, Hct = hematocrit, Glu = glucose, Cort = cortisol, Ser = serotonin, and Dop = dopamine); for test cases 1 and 3, all traits were evaluated based on three replicates, except for those marked with *, for which two replicates were used; for test case 2, all traits were evaluated based on five replicates, except for those marked with **, for which four replicates were used. “Measurement time” shows when or over which time period the traits were measured.</caption><thead><tr><th>Test Cases</th><th>Polycultures</th><th>Rearing Volume (m³)</th><th>Trial Duration (Days)</th><th>Traits</th><th>Measurement Time (Days)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td><u>Pikeperch</u>, common carp [SC]</td><td rowspan="3">2</td><td rowspan="3">90</td><td rowspan="3">SR, SGR<br>Wf, CV, FCF, Hct,<br>Glu, Cort, Ser, Dop<br>Agr *, Flg *</td><td>Between 0-90</td></tr><tr><td><u>Pikeperch</u>, black-bass [SM]</td><td>At 90</td></tr><tr><td><u>Pikeperch</u>, common carp,<br><u>European-perch</u> [SCP]</td><td>At 48</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2</td><td><u>Goldfish</u>, roach, ruffe [CRG]</td><td rowspan="2">0.3</td><td rowspan="2">90</td><td rowspan="2">SR, SGR<br>Wf, CV, FCF, Hct,<br>Glu, Cort<br>Agr **, Flg **</td><td>Between 0-90</td></tr><tr><td><u>Goldfish</u>, roach, European-perch [CRP]</td><td>At 90</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">3</td><td><u>Pikeperch</u>, tench [PT]</td><td rowspan="3">0.3</td><td rowspan="3">60</td><td rowspan="3">SR, SGR<br>Wf, CV, FCF, Ser<br>Agr *</td><td>Between 0-60</td></tr><tr><td><u>Pikeperch</u>, sterlet [PS]</td><td>At 60</td></tr><tr><td><u>Pikeperch</u>, sterlet, tench [PST]</td><td>At 32</td></tr></tbody></table>
For each test case, all species combinations were centered on a target species (i.e., pikeperch [*Sander lucioperca*] or goldfish [*Carassius auratus*]) (currently produced in monoculture) for which we aimed at improving the production and welfare through polyculture. Pikeperch and goldfish were chosen as target species for their high economic importance: pikeperch is an increasingly important species for European aquaculture [52] and goldfish is an ornamental species highly requested by the aquariology industry [53,54]. These target species were combined with other species that are also commercially interesting, either for a large (common carp [*Cyprinus carpio*], black-bass [*Micropterus salmoides*], and sterlet [*Acipenser ruthenus*]) or niche market (European-perch [*Perca fluviatilis*] and tench [*Tinca tinca*]), or of a potential economic interest (ruffe [*Gymnocephalus cernua*]) [55–62].

### 3. Results

#### 3.1. *The Test Case 1*

**Step 1.** 12 traits (Table 3) were considered. **Step 2.** Since we detected a strong correlation between the ΔVals of Wf and SGR ($R^2 = 1$, *p*-value < 0.01) and the ΔVals of Ser and Dop ($R^2 = 0.99$, *p*-value < 0.01), the ΔVals of SGR and Dop were retained for the analysis. (A random selection between correlated ΔVal of traits was applied to select which one was retained.) Finally, the ΔVals of 10 traits were used for the analysis (for more information, see [63]). **Step 3.** The ΔVals were kept unchanged with the neutral-weighting. For the production-weighting, the ΔVals of SR, CV, and SGR were multiplied by $Wc > 1$ and the ΔVals of the other traits were not changed ($Wc = 1$). For the welfare-weighting, the ΔVals of SR, FCF, Hct, Glu, Cort, Dop, Agr, and Flg were multiplied by $Wc > 1$, and the ΔVals of the other traits were not changed ($Wc = 1$) (see Table 2 for more information). **Step 4.** For all weightings, a global MRPP and the pair-wise MRPP (see Table 4A,B) showed significant differences between polycultures (*p*-value < 0.05). The ranking of candidate polycultures was then performed. This ranking changed according to the types of priority and relative weight put on them (Table 4C).

#### 3.2. *The Test Case 2*

**Step 1.** 10 traits (Table 3) were considered. **Step 2.** Since we detected a strong correlation between the ΔVals of SGR and FCF ($R^2 = 1$, *p*-value < 0.01) and the ΔVals of Glu and Cort ($R^2 = 1$, *p*-value < 0.01), the ΔVals of SGR and Cort were retained for the analysis. (A random selection between correlated ΔVals of traits was applied to select which one was retained.) Finally, the ΔVals of 8 traits were used for the analysis (for more information, see [63]). **Step 3.** The ΔVals were kept unchanged with the neutral-weighting. For the production-weighting, the ΔVals of SR, Wf, and CV were multiplied by $Wc > 1$, and the ΔVals of the other traits were not changed ($Wc = 1$). For the welfare-weighting, the ΔVals of SR, FCF, Hct, Cort, Agr, and Flg were multiplied by $Wc > 1$, and the ΔVals of the other traits were not changed ($Wc = 1$) (see Table 2 for more information). **Step 4.** For all weightings, a global MRPP (see Table 5A) showed significant differences between polycultures (*p*-value < 0.05). The ranking of candidate polycultures was then performed. This ranking did not change, according to the types of priority and relative weight put on them (Table 4B).
<table><caption>**Table 4.** (A) Global, (B) Pair-wise results of multivariate permutation tests and (C) ranking results. The candidate polycultures corresponded to SM (pikeperch, black-bass), SC (pikeperch, common carp), and SCP (pikeperch, common-carp, European-perch). *rs* corresponds to the sum of the ranks. The numbers in brackets corresponds to the level of weighting. Significance = *p* < 0.05.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Priorities</th><th colspan="4">Weighting Coefficients</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Neutral-weighting</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.197</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Production-weighting</td><td>-</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.324</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.381</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.396</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Welfare-weighting</td><td>-</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.213</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.199</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.197</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Priorities</th><th colspan="2">SC</th><th colspan="2">SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Neutral-weighting</td><td>SM</td><td colspan="2">df = 1<br>A = 0.224</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>SCP</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.197</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.198</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Production-weighting</td><td>SM</td><td colspan="2">df = 1<br>A = 0.245[2],<br>0.273[5],<br>0.282[10]</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>SCP</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.250[2],<br>0.325[5],<br>0.350[10]</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.316[2],<br>0.424[5],<br>0.452[10]</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Neutral-weighting</td><td>SM</td><td colspan="2">df = 1<br>A = 0.222[2],<br>0.222[5],<br>0.222[10]</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>SCP</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.171[2],<br>0.162[5],<br>0.161[10]</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.119[2],<br>0.088[5],<br>0.082[10]</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Polycultures</th><th colspan="7">Weighting coefficients</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">SC</td><td>rs</td><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>10</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>1st</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>3rd</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">SCP</td><td>rs</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>2nd</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">SM</td><td>rs</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>20</td><td>21</td><td>16</td><td>16</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 5.** (A) Global results of multivariate permutation tests and (B) ranking results. The candidate polycultures corresponded to CRP (goldfish, common roach, European perch) and CRG (goldfish, common roach, ruffe). *rs* corresponds to the sum of the ranks. The numbers in brackets corresponds to the level of weighting. Significance = *p* < 0.05.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">(A)</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Priorities</th><th colspan="4">Weighting Coefficients</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2"></th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Neutral-weighting</td><td>df = 1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A = 0.103</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Production-weighting-</td><td>df = 1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A = 0.104</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Welfare-weighting</td><td>df = 1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A = 0.094</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="8">(B)</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Polycultures</th><th colspan="2">Neutral</th><th colspan="2">Production</th><th colspan="2">Welfare</th><th colspan="2">Weighting coefficients</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2"></th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th><th>2</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">CRG</td><td>rs</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>21</td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">CRP</td><td>rs</td><td>34</td><td>33</td><td>30</td><td>29</td><td>34</td><td>34</td><td>34</td><td>34</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.3. The Test Case 3

**Step 1.** Seven traits (Table 3) were considered. **Step 2.** No correlation was detected between the ΔVals of the traits (for more information, see [63]). Consequently, all ΔVals of the seven traits were used for the analysis. **Step 3.** The ΔVals were kept unchanged with the neutral-weighting. For the production-weighting, the ΔVals of SR, CV, Wf, and SGR were multiplied by Wc > 1, and the ΔVals of other traits were not changed (Wc = 1). For the welfare-weighting, the ΔVals of SR, FCF, Ser, and Agr were multiplied by Wc > 1, and the ΔVals of other traits were not changed (Wc = 1) (see Table 2 for more information). **Step 4.** For all weightings, a global MRPP and the pair-wise MRPP (see Table 6A,B) showed significant differences between polycultures (*p*-value < 0.05). The ranking of candidate polycultures was then performed. This ranking changed according to the types of priority and relative weight put on them (Table 6C).
<table><caption>**Table 6.** (A) Global, (B) Pair-wise results of multivariate permutation tests and (C) ranking results. The candidate polycultures correspond to PS (pikeperch, sterlet), PT (pikeperch, tench), and PST (pikeperch, sterlet, tench). *rs* corresponds to the sum of the ranks. The numbers in brackets correspond to the level of weighting. Significance = *p* < 0.05.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5" style="text-align:center;">(A)</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">Priorities</th><th colspan="4">Weighting Coefficients</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Neutral-weighting</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.148<sup>-</sup></td><td></td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Production-weighting</td><td>-</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.139</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.136</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.135</td></tr><tr><td>Welfare-weighting</td><td>-</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.161</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.170</td><td>df = 2<br>A = 0.172</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="5" style="text-align:center;">(B)</th></tr><tr><th>Priorities</th><th>Polycultures</th><th>PS</th><th>PT</th><th>PT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Neutral-weighting</td><td>PT</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.871</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PST</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.072</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.196</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Production-weighting</td><td>PT</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.099[2],<br>0.103[5],<br>0.103[10]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PST</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.050[2],<br>0.040[5],<br>0.039[10]</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.191[2],<br>0.191[5],<br>0.192[10]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Welfare-weighting</td><td>PT</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.079[2],<br>0.074[5],<br>0.074[10]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PST</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.104[2],<br>0.121[5],<br>0.124[10]</td><td>df = 1<br>A = 0.104[2],<br>0.121[5],<br>0.124[10]</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="9" style="text-align:center;">(C)</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Polycultures</th><th colspan="2">Neutral</th><th colspan="3">Production</th><th colspan="4">Welfare</th></tr><tr><th colspan="9" style="text-align:center;">Weighting coefficients</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">PS</td><td>rs</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>1st</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td><td>1st</td><td>2nd</td><td>2nd</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">PST</td><td>rs</td><td>13</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>2nd</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">PT</td><td>rs</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>14</td><td>11</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>rank</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>3rd</td><td>2nd</td><td>1st</td><td>1st</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 4. Discussion

## 4.1. *The Importance of Considering Stakeholder Priorities to Rank Polycultures*

Our procedure allows the ranking of candidate polycultures for the development of aquaculture. In our test cases, it is worth noting that the ranking changed according to the applied weighting, reflecting different types of stakeholder priorities (Tables 4–6). Such an impact of stakeholder priorities on the ranking/decision-making process has already been highlighted in aquaculture (e.g., to find best candidate species or population for aquaculture [34,64]), as well as in terrestrial production [65–67] or applied ecology (e.g., adaptation strategy to climate change [68]). In our analyses, the ranks of some candidate polycultures also changed, depending on the Wc (2, 5, or 10) in two test cases (see a similar observation in [69] for renewable energy sources).

This raises the question of the relevance of advising a given polyculture over another when the ranking seems to be not very robust. The user of the procedure must then consider the result of the evaluation with caution and consider other criteria (economic value or availability of species) to decide between two candidate polycultures whose rankings are swapped, according to the applied Wc. Conversely, when the ranking of a polyculture remains the same, regardless of the Wc applied on the delta values (the test case 2), the user may consider having a robust result to choose from or to discard a candidate polyculture over the others.

## 4.2. *Ranking Procedure Limitations*

In the procedure, users should be aware of three main limitations.

First, the ranking of polycultures is only relevant for future applications if it is applied in a farming context similar to the experimental conditions used to establish this ranking. This environmental dependence is due to the fact that the physico-chemical characteristics, biomass, densities, or ratios among fish species can potentially impact fish performances and behavior and thus polyculture consequences [70–72].

Second, the procedure can also be challenging because the measurement of some traits can be hard to achieve in some rearing environments. For instance, while morphological traits are easily measurable on fish in most rearing systems [11,73], the measurement of behavioral traits (i.e., interspecific interactions) depends on the technics and parameters, which are more complex to set up and obtain. Indeed, the collection of interspecific interaction data requires an experimental facility, favorable to the observation [11,23], which are more difficult to obtain, for instance, in a pond. This means the list of relevant traits might need to be adapted for some fish-rearing systems.

Third, this procedure can be viewed as heavy-going, since it is based on a multi-trait assessment, which requires costly and potentially time-consuming experiments and analyses (e.g., behavioral and physiological traits) and potentially invasive measurements (e.g., physiological traits). One solution to facilitate the multi-trait assessment is to use traits or proxies of relevant traits that are easy to measure to increase the feasibility of the procedure (see similar rationalization for another multi-trait assessment in [74]).

## 4.3. *What Is Next?*

We argue that the current version of the ranking procedure is already usable for aquaculture purposes, but further improvements are needed to ensure its efficiency and operationality for future users.

First, our ranking procedure focused on a target species (i.e., pikeperch and goldfish), disregarding the polyculture consequences for all the associated fish species. However, polyculture can be beneficial for some species at the detriment of others [22,75]. This highlights the need for a global ranking (i.e., considering the monocultures for the associated fish species for each candidate polyculture). The global ranking might be considered a mean of the *ws* (i.e., sum of *ws* of the traits related to each combined species divided by the number of combined species). The future users of the global ranking should be aware that its application allows for finding the best polyculture among those compared
by considering all the combined species, but it does not exclude the possibility that all
the tested polycultures can lead to negative consequences on all or some of the combined
species compared to the reference monocultures.

Second, in this study, the Wcs have been arbitrarily assigned to the ΔVals of the traits,
since we aimed to demonstrate that, depending on the priorities of the stakeholder, this
coefficient could modify the rank of the polycultures. However, this procedure must be
applied through a co-construction with stakeholders, by involving them using a survey
e.g., [76,77]. Indeed, stakeholder involvement in the development stages of aquaculture
is particularly useful [33,78]. This allows the defining of a relevant Wc for a particular
polyculture purpose. Moreover, stakeholder inclusion in the ranking procedure means
social acceptability [79–81]. The co-construction with stakeholders could also provide an
opportunity to extend our procedure to other factors (i.e., economic considerations) in
order to increase the relevance of the resulting rankings.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.A., M.T., A.P. and T.L.; software, N.A., M.T., A.P. and T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A. and T.L.; funding acquisition, M.T., A.P. and T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** N.A. is supported by a grant from the French *Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche* and the *Zone Atelier du bassin versant de la Moselle* (*Centre national de la recherche scientifique*, France). This research was funded by the research programs SEPURE (funded by the European Fund for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, FEAMP, UAEE-FEAMP-47-SEPURE) and Perciponie (funded by EU INTERREG Grande Région Program).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The test cases were conducted at the Aquaculture Experimental Platform (registration number for animal experimentation D54-547-18) of the University of Lorraine (Nancy, France). They were carried out in accordance with the national and international guidelines for the protection of animal welfare (Directive 2010/63/EU). The protocols of the test cases 1 and 2 have received a favorable opinion from the Ethics Committee for Animal Experimentation and has obtained the approval number APAFIS29317-2021012516289687 V3 from the French *Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche*.

**Data Availability Statement:** The detailed trial protocols of each test case and all datasets, as well as R-script for polyculture assessment, are available on FigShare (see [49–51,63]).

**Acknowledgments:** The authors are grateful to (i) Sylvain Milla and Camille Fourrier (University of Lorraine, Animal and Functionality of Animal Products), Carole Rougeot and Renaud Nivelle (University of Liège, Aquaculture Research and Education Center, Tihange, Belgium) for their expertise and recommendations for the physiological analyses and (ii) Colin Lutz, Ayoub Mohammed El Manfaloti, Clémentine Fleck, Grégoire Butruille, Jésabel Laithier, Alana Tailliez, Guerric Barriere, Axel Rosenberg, Alexandre Forban, Dominique Chardard, Tiphaine Guionnet, and Yannick Ledoré for their technical assistance throughout the bioassays and sampling at the Aquaculture Experimental Platform of the University of Lorraine (Nancy, France).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

**References**

1. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O'Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. *Nature* **2011**, *478*, 337–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. Naylor, R.L.; Hardy, R.W.; Buschmann, A.H.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; Klinger, D.H.; Little, D.C.; Lubchenco, J.; Shumway, S.E.; Troell, M. A 20-Year Retrospective Review of Global Aquaculture. *Nature* **2021**, *591*, 551–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. FAO. *The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action*; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [CrossRef]

4. Bostock, J.; McAndrew, B.; Richards, R.; Jauncey, K.; Telfer, T.; Lorenzen, K.; Little, D.; Ross, L.; Handisyde, N.; Gatward, I.; et al. Aquaculture: Global Status and Trends. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* **2010**, *365*, 2897–2912. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. Kozłowski, M.; Szczepkowski, M.; Wunderlich, K.; Szczepkowska, B.; Piotrowska, I. Polyculture of Juvenile Pikeperch (*Sander lucioperca* (L.)) and Sterlet (*Acipenser ruthenus* L.) in a Recirculating System. *Arch. Polish Fish. Sci.* **2014**, *22*, 237–242. [CrossRef]

6. Tacon, A.G.J.; Metian, M.; Turchini, G.M.; de Silva, S.S. Responsible Aquaculture and Trophic Level Implications to Global Fish Supply. *Rev. Fish. Sci.* **2010**, *18*, 94–105. [CrossRef]

7. Dahlberg, K.A. *Beyond the Green Revolution. The Ecology and Politics of Global Agricultural Developments*; Western Michigan University: Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 1979.
8. Medeiros, M.V.; Aubin, J.; Camargo, A.F.M. Life Cycle Assessment of Fish and Prawn Production: Comparison of Monoculture and Polyculture Freshwater Systems in Brazil. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2017**, *156*, 528–537. [CrossRef]

9. Ashley, P.J. Fish Welfare: Current Issues in Aquaculture. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **2007**, *104*, 199–235. [CrossRef]

10. Stickney, R.R. Polyculture in Aquaculture. In *Sustainable Food Production*; Christou, P., Savin, R., Costa-Pierce, B.A., Misztal, I., Whitelaw, C.B.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]

11. Thomas, M.; Lecocq, T.; Abregal, C.; Nahon, S.; Aubin, J.; Jaeger, C.; Wilfart, A.; Schae, L.; Ledoré, Y.; Puillet, L.; et al. The Effects of Polyculture on Behaviour and Production of Pikeperch in Recirculation Systems. *Aquac. Rep.* **2020**, *17*, 100333. [CrossRef]

12. Nhan, D.K.; Bosma, R.H.; Little, D.C. Integrated Freshwater Aquaculture, Crop and Livestock Production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: Determinants and the Role of the Pond. *Agric. Syst.* **2007**, *94*, 445–458. [CrossRef]

13. Chopin, T.; Buschmann, A.H.; Halling, C.; Troell, M.; Kautsky, N.; Neori, A.; Kraemer, G.P.; Zertuche-Gonzales, J.A.; Yarish, C.; Neefus, C. Integrating Seaweeds into Marine Aquaculture Systems: A Key toward Sustainability. *J. Phycol.* **2001**, *37*, 975–986. [CrossRef]

14. Flickinger, D.L.; Dantas, D.P.; Proença, D.C.; David, F.S.; Valenti, W.C. Phosphorus in the Culture of the Amazon River Prawn (*Macrobrachium amazonicum*) and Tambaqui (*Colossoma macropomum*) Farmed in Monoculture and in Integrated Multitrophic Systems. *J. World Aquac. Soc.* **2020**, *51*, 1002–1023. [CrossRef]

15. Thomas, M.; Pasquet, A.; Aubin, J.; Nahon, S.; Lecocq, T. When More Is More: Taking Advantage of Species Diversity to Move towards Sustainable Aquaculture. *Biol. Rev.* **2021**, *96*, 767–784. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16. Boyd, C.E.; D'Abramo, L.R.; Glencross, B.D.; Huyben, D.C.; Juarez, L.M.; Lockwood, G.S.; McNevin, A.A.; Tacon, A.G.J.; Teletchea, F.; Tomasso, J.R.; et al. Achieving Sustainable Aquaculture: Historical and Current Perspectives and Future Needs and Challenges. *J. World Aquac. Soc.* **2020**, *51*, 578–633. [CrossRef]

17. Dumont, B.; Puillet, L.; Martin, G.; Savietto, D.; Aubin, J.; Ingrand, S.; Niderkorn, V.; Steinmetz, L.; Thomas, M. Incorporating Diversity into Animal Production Systems Can Increase Their Performance and Strengthen Their Resilience. *Front. Sustain. Food Syst.* **2020**, *4*, 109. [CrossRef]

18. Ulikowski, D.; Szczepkowski, M.; Szczepkowska, B. Preliminary Studies of Intensive Wels Catfish (*Silurus glanis* L.) and Sturgeon (*Acipenser* sp.) Pond Cultivation. *Arch. Polish Fish.* **2003**, *2*, 295–300.

19. Goodwin, A.E. Massive *Lernaea cyprinacea* Infestations Damaging the Gills of Channel Catfish Polycultured with Bighead Carp. *J. Aquat. Anim. Health* **1999**, *11*, 406–408. [CrossRef]

20. Abbas, S.; Ashraf, M.; Ahmed, I. Effect of Fertilization and Supplementary Feeding on Growth Performance of *Labeo rohita*, *Catla* *catla* and *Cyprinus carpio*. *J. Anim. Plant Sci.* **2014**, *24*, 142–148.

21. Papoutsoglou, S.E.; Miliou, H.; Karakatsouli, N.P.; Tzitzinakis, M.; Chadio, S. Growth and Physiological Changes in Scaled Carp and Blue Tilapia under Behavioral Stress in Mono- and Polyculture Rearing Using a Recirculated Water System. *Aquac. Int.* **2001**, *9*, 509–518. [CrossRef]

22. Gibbard, G.L.; Strawn, K.; Aldrich, D.V. Feeding and Aggressive Behavior of Atlantic Croaker, Black Drum, and Striped Mullet in Monoculture and Polyculture. *Proc. World Maric. Soc.* **2009**, *10*, 241–248. [CrossRef]

23. Oladi, M.; Badri, S.; Shahrokni, S.A.N.; Ghazilou, A. Observation of the Eye-Attacking Behaviour of Koi *Cyprinus carpio* Var. Koi in a Koi-Goldfish Polyculture System. *J. Appl. Anim. Res.* **2017**, *45*, 215–216. [CrossRef]

24. Frimpong, E.A.; Angermeier, P.L. Fish Traits: A Database of Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater Fishes of the United States. *Fisheries* **2009**, *34*, 487–495. [CrossRef]

25. Brosse, S.; Charpin, N.; Su, G.; Toussaint, A.; Herrera-R, G.A.; Tedesco, P.A.; Villéger, S. FISHMORPH: A Global Database on Morphological Traits of Freshwater Fishes. *Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.* **2021**, *30*, 2330–2336. [CrossRef]

26. Lecocq, T.; Benard, A.; Pasquet, A.; Nahon, S.; Ducret, A.; Dupont-Marin, K.; Lang, I.; Thomas, M. TOFF, a Database of Traits of Fish to Promote Advances in Fish Aquaculture. *Sci. Data* **2019**, *6*, 301. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. Huntingford, F.; Jobling, M.; Kadri, S.; Wiley InterScience (Online service). *Aquaculture and Behavior*; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.

28. Milla, S.; Mathieu, C.; Wang, N.; Lambert, S.; Nadzialek, S.; Massart, S.; Henrotte, E.; Douxfils, J.; Mélard, C.; Mandiki, S.N.M.; et al. Spleen Immune Status Is Affected after Acute Handling Stress but Not Regulated by Cortisol in Eurasian Perch, *Perca fluviatilis*. *Fish Shellfish Immunol.* **2010**, *28*, 931–941. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

29. Brummett, R.E. Production Priorities. Overshadow Genetic Quality at African Fish Hatcheries. *Glob. Aquac.* **2004**, *42–43*.

30. Frewer, L.J.; Kole, A.; van de Kroon, S.M.; de Lauwere, C. Consumer Attitudes towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems. *J. Agric. Environ. Ethics* **2005**, *18*, 345–367. [CrossRef]

31. Osmundsen, T.C.; Almklov, P.; Tveterås, R. Fish Farmers and Regulators Coping with the Wickedness of Aquaculture. *Aquac. Econ. Manag.* **2017**, *21*, 163–183. [CrossRef]

32. Quéméner, L.; Suquet, M.; Mero, D.; Gaignon, J. Selection Method of New Candidates for Finfish Aquaculture: The Case of the French Atlantic, the Channel and the North Sea Coasts. *Aquat. Living Resourc.* **2002**, *15*, 293–302. [CrossRef]

33. Toomey, L.; Fontaine, P.; Lecocq, T. Unlocking the Intraspecific Aquaculture Potential from the Wild Biodiversity to Facilitate Aquaculture Development. *Rev. Aquac.* **2020**, *12*, 2212–2227. [CrossRef]

34. Toomey, L.; Lecocq, T.; Pasquet, A.; Fontaine, P. Finding a Rare Gem: Identification of a Wild Biological Unit with High Potential for European Perch Larviculture. *Aquaculture* **2021**, *530*, 735–807. [CrossRef]
35. Habte-Tsion, H.M.; Riche, M.; Mejri, S.; Bradshaw, D.; Wills, P.S.; Myers, J.J.; Perricone, C.S. The Effects of Fish Meal Substitution by Clam Meal on the Growth and Health of Florida Pompano (*Trachinotus carolinus*). *Sci. Rep.* **2022**, *12*, 2–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

36. Mccarthy, I.D.; Carter, C.G.; Houlihan, D.F. The Effect of Feeding Hierarchy on Individual Variability in Daily Feeding of Rainbow Trout, *Oncorhynchus mykiss* (Walbaum). *J. Fish Biol.* **1992**, *41*, 257–263. [CrossRef]

37. Jobling, M. Simple Indices for the Assessment of the Influences of Social Environment on Growth Performance, Exemplified by Studies on Arctic Charr. *Aquac. Int.* **1995**, *3*, 60–65. [CrossRef]

38. Bolger, T.; Connolly, P.L. The Selection of Suitable Indices for the Measuremnet and Analyses of Fish Condition. *J. Fish Biol.* **1989**, *34*, 171–182. [CrossRef]

39. Smolders, R.; Bervoets, L.; De Boeck, G.; Blust, R. Integrated Condition Indices as a Measure of Whole Effluent Toxicity in Zebrafish (*Danio rerio*). *Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* **2002**, *21*, 87–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

40. Lund, V. Natural Living: A Precondition for Animal Welfare in Organic Farming. *Livest. Sci.* **2006**, *100*, 71–83. [CrossRef]

41. Berckmans, D. Precision Livestock Farming Technologies for Welfare Management in Intensive Livestock Systems. *Rev. Sci. Tech.* **2014**, *33*, 189–196. [CrossRef]

42. Rowland, W.J. The Effects of Body Size, Aggression and Nuptial Coloration on Competition for Territories in Male Threespine Sticklebacks, *Gasterosteus aculeatus*. *Anim. Behav.* **1989**, *37* Pt 2, 282–289. [CrossRef]

43. Huntingford, F.A. Implications of Domestication and Rearing Conditions for the Behaviour of Cultivated Fishes. *J. Fish Biol.* **2004**, *65*, 122–142. [CrossRef]

44. Macaulay, G. Challenges and Benefits of Applying Fish Behaviour to Improve Production and Welfare in Industrial Aquaculture. *Rev. Aquac.* **2021**, *13*, 934–948. [CrossRef]

45. Paradis, E.; Schliep, K. Ape 5.0: An Environment for Modern Phylogenetics and Evolutionary Analyses in R. *Bioinformatics* **2019**, *35*, 526–528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

46. R Core Team. *R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing*; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021.

47. Oksanen, J.; Simpson, G.L.; Blanchet, F.G. *Vegan: Community Ecology Package*; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020.

48. Jarek, S. *Mvnormtest: Normality Test for Multivariate Variables*; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2012.

49. Amoussou, N.; Thomas, M.; Pasquet, A.; Lecocq, T. *The Trial Protocols of the Test Cases Used in Amoussou et al. "Finding the Best Match: A Ranking Procedure of Fish Species Combinations for Polyculture Development."*; FigShare: London, UK, 2022. [CrossRef]

50. Amoussou, N.; Thomas, M.; Pasquet, A.; Lecocq, T. *Datasets from Amoussou et al. "Finding the Best Match: A Ranking Procedure of Fish Species Combinations for Polyculture Development."*; FigShare: London, UK, 2022. [CrossRef]

51. Amoussou, N.; Thomas, M.; Pasquet, A.; Lecocq, T. *R-Scripts Used in Amoussou et al. "Finding the Best Match: A Ranking Procedure of Fish Species Combinations for Polyculture Development."*; FigShare: London, UK, 2022. [CrossRef]

52. Kestemont, P.; Dabrowski, K.; Summerfelt, R.C. Biology and Culture of Percid Fishes: Principles and Practices. In *Biology and Culture of Percid Fishes: Principles and Practices*; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–901. [CrossRef]

53. Chanda, M.; Paul, M.; Maity, J.; Dash, G.; Gupta, S.; Patra, B. Ornamental Fish Goldfish, *Carassius auratus* and Related Parasites in Three Districts of West Bengal, India. *Chron. Young Sci.* **2011**, *2*, 51. [CrossRef]

54. Trujillo-González, A.; Becker, J.A.; Hutson, K.S. Parasite Dispersal from the Ornamental Goldfish Trade. *Adv. Parasitol.* **2018**, *100*, 239–281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

55. Alsaquifi, A.S.; Gomelsky, B.; Schneider, K.J.; Pomper, K.W. Using Microsatellite DNA Markers. *Aquac. Res.* **2014**, *45*, 410–416. [CrossRef]

56. Engle, C.R.; Stone, N.; Xie, L. Feasibility of Pond Production of Largemouth Bass, *Micropterus salmoides*, for a Filet Market. *J. World Aquac. Soc.* **2013**, *44*, 805–813. [CrossRef]

57. Fontaine, P.; Teletchea, F. Domestication of the Eurasian Perch (*Perca fluviatilis*). In *Animal Domestication*; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85132.fluviatilis). In *Animal Domestication*; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [CrossRef]

58. Shivaramu, S.; Lebeda, I.; Kašpar, V.; Flajšhans, M. Intraspecific Hybrids versus Purebred: A Study of Hatchery-Reared Populations of Sterlet *Acipenser ruthenus*. *Animals* **2020**, *10*, 1149. [CrossRef]

59. Başkurt, S.; Emiroglu, Ö.; Tarkan, A.S.; Vilizzi, L. The Life-History Traits of Widespread Freshwater Fish Species: The Case of Roach *Rutilus rutilus* (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pisces: Teleostei) in Water Bodies at the Southern Limits of Distribution. *Zool. Middle East* **2015**, *61*, 339–348. [CrossRef]

60. Gonzales Serrano, J.L. FAO 2022. Espagne. In *The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture*; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022.

61. Mamcarz, A.; Skrzypczak, A. Changes in Commercially Exploited Populations of Tench, *Tinca tinca* (L.), in Littoral Zones of Lakes of Northeastern Poland. *Aquac. Int.* **2006**, *14*, 171–177. [CrossRef]

62. Svanberg, I.; Locker, A. Caviar, Soup and Other Dishes Made of Eurasian Ruffe, *Gymnocephalus cernua* (Linnaeus, 1758): Forgotten Foodstuff in Central, North and West Europe and Its Possible Revival. *J. Ethn. Foods* **2020**, *7*, 3. [CrossRef]

63. Amoussou, N.; Thomas, M.; Pasquet, A.; Lecocq, T. *The Results of the Correlation Tests Performed in Amoussou et al. "Finding the Best Match: A Ranking Procedure of Fish Species Combinations for Polyculture Development."*; FigShare: London, UK, 2022. [CrossRef]

64. Moroni, F.T.; Moroni, R.B.; Mayag, B.; de Jesus, R.S.; Lessi, E. Limitations in Decision Context for Selection of Amazonian Armoured Catfish Acari-Bod (*Pterygoplichthys pardalis*) as Candidate Species for Aquaculture. *Int. J. Fish. Aquac.* **2015**, *7*, 142–150. [CrossRef]
65. Castellini, C.; Mugnai, C.; Cortina, C.; Bosco, A.; Mugnai, C.; Novelli, E.; Mugnai, C. A Multicriteria Approach for Measuring the Sustainability of Different Poultry Production Systems. *J. Clean. Prod. J.* **2012**, *37*, 192–201. [CrossRef]

66. Rocchi, L.; Paolotti, L.; Rosati, A.; Boggia, A.; Castellini, C. Assessing the Sustainability of Different Poultry Production Systems: A Multicriteria Approach. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2019**, *211*, 103–114. [CrossRef]

67. Cap, S.; Bots, P.; Scherer, L. Environmental, Nutritional and Social Assessment of Nuts. *Sustain. Sci.* **2022**. [CrossRef]

68. Kim, Y.; Eisenberg, D.A.; Bondank, E.N.; Chester, M.V.; Mascaro, G.; Underwood, B.S. Fail-Safe and Safe-to-Fail Adaptation: Decision-Making for Urban Flooding under Climate Change. *Clim. Chang.* **2017**, *145*, 397–412. [CrossRef]

69. Lee, H.C.; Chang, C. Ter. Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for Ranking Renewable Energy Sources in Taiwan. *Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.* **2018**, *92*, 883–896. [CrossRef]

70. Sae-Lim, P.; Gjerde, B.; Nielsen, H.M.; Mulder, H.; Kause, A. A Review of Genotype-by-Environment Interaction and Micro-Environmental Sensitivity in Aquaculture Species. *Rev. Aquac.* **2016**, *8*, 369–393. [CrossRef]

71. Shoko, A.P.; Limbu, S.M.; Mrosso, H.D.J.; Mkenda, A.F.; Mgaya, Y.D. Effect of Stocking Density on Growth, Production and Economic Benefits of Mixed Sex Nile Tilapia (*Oreochromis niloticus*) and African Sharptooth Catfish (*Clarias gariepinus*) in Polyculture and Monoculture. *Aquac. Res.* **2016**, *47*, 36–50. [CrossRef]

72. Hossain, M.D.A.; Nabi, S.M.N.; Alam, M.M.; Rashid, M.H.; Hossain, M.A.; Sikendar, M.A. Optimum Stocking Density of Stinging Catfish (*Heteropneustes fossilis*) Based Carp Polyculture in Homestead Ponds in a Drought Prone Area of Bangladesh. *Bangladesh J. Fish.* **2022**, *33*, 177–186. [CrossRef]

73. Milstein, A.; Wahab, M.A.; Rahman, M.M. Environmental Effects of Common Carp *Cyprinus carpio* (L.) and Mrigal *Cirrhinus mrigala* (Hamilton) as Bottom Feeders in Major Indian Carp Polycultures. *Aquac. Res.* **2002**, *33*, 1103–1117. [CrossRef]

74. Toomey, L.; Dellicour, S.; Kapusta, A.; Žarski, D.; Buhrke, F.; Milla, S.; Fontaine, P.; Lecocq, T. Split It up and See: Using Proxies to Highlight Divergent Inter-Populational Performances in Aquaculture Standardised Conditions. *BMC Ecol. Evol.* **2021**, *21*, 2–14. [CrossRef]

75. Kohinoor, A.H.M.; Islam, M.L.; Wahab, M.A.; Thilsted, S.H. Effect of Mola (*Amblypharyngodon mola* Ham.) on the Growth and Production of Carps in Polyculture. *Bangladesh J. Fish. Res* **1998**, *2*, 119–126.

76. Bouyssou, D. Décision Multicritère Ou Aide Multicritère? *Newsl. Eur. Work. Gr.* **1993**, 1–2.

77. Gan, X.; Fernandez, I.C.; Guo, J.; Wilson, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, B.; Wu, J. When to Use What: Methods for Weighting and Aggregating Sustainability Indicators. *Ecol. Indic.* **2017**, *81*, 491–502. [CrossRef]

78. Sen, S. Involving Stakeholders in Aquaculture Policy-Making, Planning and Management. In Proceedings of the Aquaculture in the Third Millennium Echnical Proceedings, Bangkok, Thailand, 20–25 February 2000; pp. 83–93.

79. Chu, J.; Anderson, J.L.; Asche, F.; Tudur, L. Stakeholders' Perceptions of Aquaculture and Implications for Its Future: A Comparison of the U.S.A. and Norway. *Mar. Resour. Econ.* **2010**, *25*, 61–76. [CrossRef]

80. Jennings, S.; Stentiford, G.D.; Leocadio, A.M.; Jeffery, K.R.; Metcalfe, J.D.; Auchterlonie, N.A.; Mangi, S.C.; Pinnegar, J.K.; Ellis, T. Peeler, E.J.; et al. Aquatic Food Security: Insights into Challenges and Solutions from an Analysis of Interactions between Fi Sheries, Aquaculture, Food Safety, Human Health, Fish and Human Welfare, Economy and Environment. *Fish Fish.* **2016**, *17*, 893–938. [CrossRef]

81. Galparsoro, I.; Murillas, A.; Pinarbasi, K.; Sequeira, A.M.M.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Borja, Á.; O'Hagan, A.M.; Boyd, A.; Bricker, S.; Garmendia, J.M.; et al. Global Stakeholder Vision for Ecosystem-Based Marine Aquaculture Expansion from Coastal to Offshore Areas. *Rev. Aquac.* **2020**, *12*, 2061–2079. [CrossRef]