IntechOpen

Home > Books > Marine Ecosystems - Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Impacts

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Marine Bivalves’ Ecological Roles and Humans-Environmental Interactions to Achieve Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems

Written By

Andreia Filipa Mesquita, Fernando José Mendes Gonçalves and Ana Marta Mendes Gonçalves

Submitted: 20 January 2023 Reviewed: 20 March 2023 Published: 27 December 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.111386

Marine Ecosystems IntechOpen
Marine Ecosystems Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Im... Edited by Ana Marta Gonçalves

From the Edited Volume

Marine Ecosystems - Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Impacts

Edited by Ana Marta Gonçalves

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

39 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

Bivalve species have a key role at the ecosystem level and a very interesting economic value. Globally, bivalve production is higher than 15 million tons. Thus, this work intends to highlight the economic value of these organisms, but mostly highlights the potential of this resource for water management and water quality improvement, and thus to the sustainability of aquatic systems, which gives them a particular interest. These organisms are under anthropogenic pressures becoming crucial to preserve aquatic systems and their communities, namely bivalve communities, and water quality by reducing pollution. UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight the main actions to reduce humans’ footprint and to create globally a model to guarantee human security, to protect the environment and water quality and to combat climate changes. To achieve the UN SDGs, bivalves may have a high importance for sustainability and preservation of freshwater and marine systems (SDG 14), and for water management (SDG 6), due to their ability to improve the water quality by reduction of pollution. This work aims to highlight the main ecological roles of marine bivalves and the human actions that will contribute to achieve sustainable aquatic systems, and so the SDG 6 and SDG 14 by 2030.

Keywords

  • bivalves
  • food resources
  • water quality and management
  • sustainability
  • ecological roles

1. Introduction

Water is a valuable resource to human beings; however nowadays, 2.2 billion people continue without access to safe drinking water [1].

Freshwater ecosystems provide us several services, such as transport, natural purification, protection against floods, irrigation, and they are characterized by a high biodiversity of habitats. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between developing and developed countries is considerable. In developed countries, 3.5% of the land is covered by freshwater, compared to just 1.4% in developing countries [1]. Despite the importance of freshwater, this only includes less than 3% of all water in the world. By other side, oceans comprise about 97% of all water in the planet [2] and have an important ecological role, as habitat to many animal and plant species, of all sizes, being essential efforts to the conservation and preservation of these systems. In addition to the ecological importance, these ecosystems have a great value to the human development, since they provide many resources, including economic activities as fishing, communications, tourism, and recreation activities. Marine vegetation is responsible for the production of about 50% of atmospheric oxygen; mangroves, saltmarshes, and seagrasses have a key role as natural sinks of carbon; coastal habitats present high importance to the protection of habitats, communities and businesses against storm, and wave damage; and humans ascribe great esthetic, cultural and spiritual values from ocean ecosystems [3]. So, due to the great potential of these ecosystems, human populations have developed their activities and inhabited near the sea, with 67% of human population living less than 400 km from the sea [4].

Notwithstanding the great value of the aquatic systems to many species and to human well-being, these environments have been neglected and subjected to many pressures, such as resource overexploitation (e.g., overfishing) and input of pollutants from human activities (e.g., industrial and agricultural practices, shipping, beach activities). Therefore, these pressures result in dangerous effects to the entire ecosystems, including consequences to the biotic (e.g., changes in the structure and function of the communities) and to the abiotic (e.g., effects on water quality and sediment composition) elements. Considering the importance of each species and the ecosystem as a whole, it is essential to work for the preservation and conservation of these ecosystems, reducing the impacts of anthropogenic activities and improving water quality. So this work attempts to highlight the human role in the sustainable management of freshwater and marine aquatic systems, focusing on bivalve communities, due to their ecological and economic importance.

Advertisement

2. SDG 6 and SDG 14

Sustainable Development Goal 6 intends to achieve an equitable access to drinking water and sanitation for all people, through several targets. It includes the elimination or reduction of the pollutant inputs to aquatic systems, encouragement of the cooperation between countries for the implementation of integrated water resource management, and assurance of the protection and recovery of water related ecosystems (e.g., wetlands, lakes, and rivers). SDG 14 is focused on marine ecosystems’ preservation and conservation. This is achieved through measures to prevent and reduce marine pollution, including land activities, to minimize ocean acidification and its consequences (e.g., decreased carbonate ions’ interference with shell formation, affecting the survival of bivalves, plankton, and coral reefs) and by promoting the sustainable use of marine resources through economic benefit assessment.

Considering these two SDGs and their targets, it is crucial human beings and different sectors take actions to achieve the 2030 Agenda main goals. Several efforts are essential, such as effective policies to control the impact on aquatic systems, both from contaminant discharges and from resource overexploitation. Moreover, spreading the knowledge of environmental issues and involving people in environmental activities may also be fundamental to the awareness of the non-scientific communities, making easier the implementation of policies and the achievement of the goals. Ocean Literacy and Environmental Education programs for school students and the public in general may contribute to promote knowledge, awareness, and governmental action.

The critical position of bivalve species in the ecosystems, acting as a link between primary producers and secondary consumers, and their ability in filtering and cleaning the water and in accumulating great amounts of nutrients and contaminants is well known. Their role in carbon and nutrient cycles is fundamental to achieve clean water and ecosystem health. Thus, a compilation of bivalves’ importance and the role of anthropogenic impacts on aquatic systems, for achieving SDGs 6 and 14 are provided in the section below.

Advertisement

3. Ecological and economical role of bivalves species

Bivalves (Bivalvia) are a large class, with almost 15,000 species (MolluscaBase 2021). These organisms are found worldwide in marine and freshwater ecosystems and they are reported as playing a key role at the ecological level, due to their large filtration ability. These organisms are filter feeders and filter plankton and other suspension particulates, contributing to the water cleaning and light penetration. They also have an essential part in the ecosystem hydrodynamics as well as in nutrient and carbon cycles [5]. Their high filtration ability and potential for use in bioremediation processes [6] make them potential key elements for the improvement and restoration of water quality. Moreover, they are a food source to many species, from invertebrates to fishes, birds, and mammals [7], acting as a link between primary producers and secondary consumers. Briefly, they can establish and change habitats and affect the trophic webs, directly and indirectly [8]. By this, bivalve species preservation is an important contribution to the ecosystem’s equilibrium and resource sustainability, being a key element to achieve SDGs 14 and 6.

Despite the great ecological importance of these organisms, bivalve species also have a great economic value to humans, since they are used not only as ornamental objects but also as a food and protein source. For instance, in 2017, 40,000 tons of global oyster were imported, and about 170,000 tons of clams were exported and 180,000 tons imported, with China as the main exporter whereas Japan and Republic of Korea as the main importers [9]. Scallop import prices in the French market were US$15/kg for frozen scallop and US$20/kg for live scallop in 2019 [10]. Many species also have an esthetic value, providing ornamental objects such as pearls and decorative shells. Worldwide production of unworked pearls reached US$412 million and that of worked pearls was US$ 787 million in 2004 [11], promoting the fishing industry in coastal zones [11, 12]. In Europe, bivalve production in aquaculture systems is reported to be about 598 thousand tons per year, and global production exceeds 15 million tons, translating to about 20.6 billion dollars per year worldwide [13]. Bivalves’ application for the human wellness are many, such as the ornamental and food resources, including the extraction of bioactive molecules with medical use, due to its antiviral [14] and antibacterial (e.g., the lectin MytiLec-1 extracted from Mytilus galloprovincialis and with the ability to inhibit the growth of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria) [15] properties. They are also able to cause the apoptosis of cancer cells [16, 17, 18] and have the potential to the development of novel food products, due to antioxidant extracts from the bivalves shell [19, 20, 21]. Considering the important ecological and economic value of these organisms, the growing deterioration of bivalves’ communities should also be a major concern to all and thus to the achievement of the goals of Agenda 2030.

Advertisement

4. Anthropogenic pressures

Anthropogenic activities, particularly the industrial and urban development, agricultural practices, tourism, and recreational aquatic activities [22, 23, 24] contribute to the aquatic ecosystems’ pollution, as well as the exponential increase of the human population. Consequently, the food need leads to organisms’ overexploitation. These pressures, pairwise the introduction of alien species, accidental or per esthetic and economic reasons, are leading to the habitats’ degradation, affecting the aquatic ecosystems [25, 26] and interact by complex and unpredictable ways, with dangerous consequences to the systems, affecting their stability and resilience [27], resulting in bivalves communities’ decline. Several researchers [24, 28, 29, 30] have dedicated their studies to understand the effects of environmental contaminants on aquatic ecosystems and consequently on the species.

Despite the pressures resulting directly from human activities, aquatic ecosystems are also very susceptible to climatic changes. Nowadays, global changes comprise a main concern to scientific, political, and social communities. IPCC [31] predicts a temperature increase of the Earth’s surface of about 4°C until the end of twenty-first century, with dangerous impacts to the aquatic systems and organisms, being particularly aggravated by bivalves’ species [32].

The main reasons and effects of the above-mentioned stressors are detailed in the further subsections, considering its impacts on the aquatic systems and particularly to the bivalves’ populations. The selection of stressors was based on its increase and harmful effects, and comprises the: i) chemical contamination (including pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and metals) and microplastics, highly used in daily activities by human beings (e.g., pesticides used worldwide increased 1 million tons in the last 30 years) [33]; ii) overexploitation of resources, resulting from the increasing of the food requirements [34]; and iii) the climatic changes (Figure 1)[31, 35].

Figure 1.

Bivalves ecological roles and the impacts and pressures of human activities.

4.1 Contaminants

Many effects have been reported at the individual level (e.g., inhibition of the growth, reproduction, behavior, and survival) [22, 24, 30, 36], being usually associated with causes at a molecular level, such as changes in detoxication, neurological, immunological, metabolic and antioxidant processes, biomolecules, and DNA [29, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

4.1.1 Pharmaceuticals

Chemicals designed to act on specific molecular and metabolic pathways of animals and humans, nevertheless, may affect non-target species [29]. These contaminants enter on the aquatic systems mostly by industrial effluents, livestock wastes, human excretions, hospital wastes, and incorrect discarding of pharmaceuticals, incomplete drugs removal of many medicines, by wastewater treatment plants, and release of contaminated effluents and sludge containing drugs [48, 49].

4.1.2 Pesticides

Chemical formulations, mostly from agricultural use for pest control (including insects, weeds, parasites, fungi and rodents) [50], may affect the organisms directly, by their toxic effects, or indirectly, by the elimination of other species [51].

4.1.3 Metals

Metals can be from industrial and mining activity, metal plating, rainwater runoff, and sewage [52, 53, 54], or released by natural sources [55]. These compounds can be classified into two categories—essential metals and non-essential metals. Essential metals have a biological role in the organisms (e.g., copper, iron, magnesium and zinc) [56, 57], but still they may be toxic at high concentrations. Non-essential metals have no role in organic processes (e.g., mercury, lead, cadmium, and arsenic) [58, 59], being toxic even at very low concentrations [60].

4.1.4 Microplastics

These emerging contaminants are a worldwide concern among political and scientific communities, but also to the general public [61, 62]. These particulates may be from the degradation of bigger plastic elements or plastic initially produced with a little dimension for commercial application [8]. They are easily ingested by organisms from various trophic levels [63, 64, 65, 66] and have the ability to accumulate in bivalves [28], with potential consequences to human health. Fang et al. [67] reported an ingestion of 2565 microplastics items by volunteers, after consumption of 225 g of mussels, an exposure classified as considerable [68, 69]. Moreover, studies estimate an annual ingestion of microplastics per person, as consequence of the shellfish consumption, of about 87 to 11,970 items [70]. The interest in microplastics studies is increasing, and some researchers have observed dangerous effects on bivalves, as a consequence of the exposure to these particles. Browne et al. [71] demonstrated microplastics translocation to hemolymph and to hemocytes. Structural and morphological changes on tissues and effects to the gills and digestive gland were shown by Alnajar et al. [28]. Other authors also stated reactive oxygen species production, oxidative stress generation, and DNA chain breaks [72, 73].

The above-mentioned contaminants have dangerous effects on bivalves’ species and the remaining aquatic communities, and on water quality and consequently on human beings. Considering the 2.2 billion of people without safe access to drinking water and the resources provided by aquatic systems, the preservation of these ecosystems is essential. Some policy measures, such as fines, have been implemented to control contaminant discharges to aquatic systems; however, this problem remains. Therefore, aggravation of fines for those who do not comply, more intensive supervision, and more restrictive laws are necessary to ensure availability and sustainable management of water, and also to achieve a sustainable use of the oceans and the marine resources. Moreover, measures like attribution of economic benefits for the safe disposal of pollutants could be implemented, helping to restore an appropriate water quality. Another measure to reduce pollution is the application of natural fertilizers in agriculture fields, which are healthier for soils, cultivated products (also increasing their quality), human health, and the surrounding aquatic systems [74]. Improved irrigation techniques, like those already used in some countries where water resources availability is a problem, can help to reduce agricultural water use. These are some of the measures to achieve some of the targets of the SDGs 6 and 14 of Agenda 2030.

4.2 Overexploitation of resources

During the past century, the development and usage of resources to improve living standards proceeded rapidly, in some cases without concern for the sustainability of the systems and resources. The management and implementation of mitigating measures in threatened aquatic ecosystems were also conducted to restore ecological health, mainly in those surrounded by agriculture fields with intensive practice. The overexploitation of agriculture fields hasted to a depletion of land resources, which poses a new challenge to develop new food sources focused in marine resources [75]. Contrary to land systems, in the ocean the access to resources outside of national jurisdiction is practically unregulated. Furthermore, in territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, where there is regulation, it is often ineffective. Several consequences are frequently associated with non-regulation, such as overfishing, blocking of maritime shipping ways, coastal habitats destruction, introduction of dangerous alien species, and occasional and pollution above the resource assimilation ability [76].

Some researchers have reported population changes associated with overexploitation, namely the decrease of demographic, temporal, and spatial diversity [77], changes in population age and size, decrease of genetic diversity, and changes in growth rate and reproduction [78]. Moreover, variations in trophic structure as consequence of overexploitation are reported [79, 80, 81, 82], as well as, biomass decline [83].

Among the many methods of overexploitation of resources, many research studies have been focused on fisheries using equipment that damage benthic habitats and pose risks to the administration, balanced use, and preservation of live resources [84, 85, 86, 87]. Hand collection of mollusks (mussels, clams and oysters) is among the most susceptible of artisanal fisheries, due to its distribution and economic value in the coastal zones [88, 89, 90].

To achieve SDG 14, some measures (e.g., attribution of economic benefits to the sustainable use of marine resources, prohibition of subsidies that contribute to the overfishing, determination of fishing quotes) [91] should be applied to support sustainable fishing that ensures the continuation of the species and protect aquatic communities. However, fishing is the livelihood of many people, who often lack access to basic information, and therefore knowledge-sharing programs highlighting the importance of the ecosystems and resources preservation are badly needed.

4.3 Climatic changes

Nowadays, climatic changes are the main concern among political and scientific communities, with SDG 13 focusing on urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. It is recognized that climatic changes affect all life forms, and marine ecosystems are not an exception. So several studies have showed the climatic change impacts on these systems [92, 93], namely warming and acidification of the oceans [94], changes in the nutrient dynamics, increase of CO2 levels, and alterations in wind and flow patterns [95]. Consequently, the survival, growth, reproduction, and distribution of species are affected, and the impacts also may be observed at higher levels such as population, community, and ecosystem [96]. Some studies have linked climatic changes with dangerous biological effects on bivalve species, such as shell formation [94], abundance [97], development [98], larval stage [99], recruitment [100, 101, 102], and spawning [103].

Ecosystem monitoring is fundamental to understand the long-term evolution of ecosystems, allowing the detection of changes in biotic and abiotic parameters and intervention to restore ecosystem balance. Some efforts have been done by scientific research groups to monitoring these ecosystems, such as determining and quantification of metals [104, 105, 106], organic pollutants [107, 108, 109], and microplastics [110, 111]. The ocean acidification impact [112, 113], the development of technology [114], or even creation of marine sanctuaries [115] are other contributions to the monitoring programs. However, these programs are poorly funded by governments and are mainly dependent on the scientific research efforts, being crucial a more effective and higher financial support.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

Anthropogenic pressures on aquatic systems are increasingly intense and need better understanding of their impacts on ecosystems and communities. This review highlights the dangerous effects of pressures from human activities, with a focus on contaminant inputs, resource overexploitation, and climatic changes. Moreover, this work intends to be an alert to the importance of aquatic ecosystems’ recovery and preservation, and thus water quality, with a focus on the ecological role of bivalve species. This work also calls attention to the decline of these communities and the impacts on the ecosystem structure and functioning, not only in marine systems but also in freshwater environments, where bivalves may have a great potential for water cleaning and purification. Human beings have a key role in the preservation and conservation of aquatic systems, species, and water quality through the application of mitigation measurements and strategies. It is crucial to act to achieve the goals and targets proposed in Agenda 2030 for a better and a more sustainable future. The future depends on us!

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the strategic projects LA/P/0069/2020 granted to the Associate Laboratory ARNET, UIDB/04292/2020 granted to the Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE) and UIDP/50017/2020 + UIDB/50017/2020+ LA/P/0094/2020 granted to CESAM. A. F. Mesquita thanks FCT for the financial support provided through doctoral grant SFRH/BD/139831/2018, co-funded by the Human Potential Operational Programme (National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–2013), European Social Fund (EU), and the program POPH/FSE. A. M. M. Gonçalves acknowledges the University of Coimbra for contract IT057-18-7253.

Advertisement

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the idea, A.F.M. and A.M.M.G.; organization of the team, A.M.M.G.; writing and bibliographic research, A.F.M.; supervision and manuscript revision, F.J.M.G. and A.M.M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1. Schwan G. Sustainable development goals. Gaia. 2019;28(2):73. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.2.1
  2. 2. NOAA. National Ocean Service Website. Where is all of the Earth’s Water? 2020. Available from: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/wherewater.html
  3. 3. Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF, Katona SK, et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature. 2012;488(7413):615-620. DOI: 10.1038/nature11397
  4. 4. Harris P, Tuhumwire J. Part II - Chapter I: Introduction - Planet, oceans and life. In: The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment World Ocean Assessment I. United Nations. 2016. Available from: https://www.un.org/depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/WOACompilation.pdf
  5. 5. Vaughn CC, Hoellein TJ. Bivalve impacts in freshwater and marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2018;49:183-208. doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ECOLSYS-110617-062703. [accessed 2021 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062703
  6. 6. Sicuro B, Castelar B, Mugetti D, Pastorino P, Chiarandon A, Menconi V, et al. Bioremediation with freshwater bivalves: A sustainable approach to reducing the environmental impact of inland trout farms. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;276:111327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111327
  7. 7. Waser AM, Deuzeman S, Kangeri AKW, van Winden E, Postma J, de Boer P, et al. Impact on bird fauna of a non-native oyster expanding into blue mussel beds in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Biological Conservation. 2016;202:39-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.007
  8. 8. Zhang F, Man YB, Mo WY, Man KY, Wong MH. Direct and indirect effects of microplastics on bivalves, with a focus on edible species: A mini-review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2020;50(20):2109-2143. DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2019.1700752. [accessed 2020 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643389.2019.1700752
  9. 9. FAO. Bivalve Trade is Growing. 2018. Available from: http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/market-reports/resource-detail/en/c/1107016/ [Accessed: May 24, 2021]
  10. 10. FAO. World Bivalve Market Heavily Impacted by COVID-19. 2021. Available from: http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/market-reports/resource-detail/en/c/1296658/ [Accessed: May 24, 2021]
  11. 11. Tisdell CA, Poirine B. Economics of Pearl Farming - HAL-SHS - Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société. 2008. Available from: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01141429 [Accessed: October 20, 2020]
  12. 12. Gopalakrishnan S, Vijayavel K. Nutritional composition of three estuarine bivalve mussels, Perna viridis, Donax cuneatus and Meretrix meretrix. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 2009;60(6):458-463. DOI: 10.1080/09637480701830412. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09637480701830412
  13. 13. Smaal AC, Ferreira JG, Grant J, Petersen JK, Strand O. Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Open; 2019
  14. 14. Lin-Rui C, Qing L, Zhen-Xing S, Yu-Chao Y, Lin S. Antioxidant and antibacterial activities of polysaccharides from Chinese surf clam (Mactra chinensis). Food Science. 2012;33(7):101-104. [accessed 2023 Feb 18]. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84969330898&origin=inward&txGid=3606bbeed410890a7afd7ae8a5dce601
  15. 15. Hasan I, Gerdol M, Fujii Y, Rajia S, Koide Y, Yamamoto D, et al. cDNA and gene structure of MytiLec-1, a bacteriostatic R-type lectin from the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis). Marine Drugs. 2016;14(5):92. DOI: 10.3390/MD14050092. [accessed 2023 Feb 18]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27187419/
  16. 16. Chernikov O, Kuzmich A, Chikalovets I, Molchanova V, Hua KF. Lectin CGL from the sea mussel Crenomytilus grayanus induces Burkitt’s lymphoma cells death via interaction with surface glycan. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2017;104(Pt A):508-514. DOI: 10.1016/J.IJBIOMAC.2017.06.074. [accessed 2023 Feb 18]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28636877/
  17. 17. Hasan I, Sugawara S, Fujii Y, Koide Y, Terada D, Iimura N, et al. MytiLec, a mussel R-type lectin, interacts with surface glycan Gb3 on Burkitt’s lymphoma cells to trigger apoptosis through multiple pathways. Marine Drugs. 2015;13(12):7377-7389. DOI: 10.3390/MD13127071. [accessed 2023 Feb 18]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26694420/
  18. 18. Liao JH, Chien CTH, Wu HY, Huang KF, Wang I, Ho MR, et al. A multivalent marine lectin from Crenomytilus grayanus possesses anti-cancer activity through recognizing Globotriose Gb3. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2016;138(14):4787-4795. DOI: 10.1021/JACS.6B00111/SUPPL_FILE/JA6B00111_SI_001.PDF. [accessed 2023 Feb 18]. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00111
  19. 19. Chai TT, Law YC, Wong FC, Kim SK. Enzyme-assisted discovery of antioxidant peptides from edible marine invertebrates: A review. Marine Drugs. 2017;15(2):42. DOI: 10.3390/MD15020042. [accessed 2023 Feb 18]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28212329/
  20. 20. Odeleye T, Li Y, White WL, Nie S, Chen S, Wang J, et al. The antioxidant potential of the New Zealand surf clams. Food Chemistry. 2016;204:141-149. DOI: 10.1016/J.FOODCHEM.2016.02.120
  21. 21. Wu S, Huang X. Preparation and antioxidant activities of oligosaccharides from Crassostrea gigas. Food Chemistry. 2017;216:243-246. DOI: 10.1016/J.FOODCHEM.2016.08.043
  22. 22. Gonçalves AMM, Mesquita AF, Verdelhos T, Coutinho JAP, Marques JC, Gonçalves F. Fatty acids’ profiles as indicators of stress induced by of a common herbicide on two marine bivalves species: Cerastoderma edule (Linnaeus, 1758) and Scrobicularia plana (da costa, 1778). Ecological Indicators. 2016;63:209-218. DOI: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.12.006. [accessed 2019 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15007086
  23. 23. Maria VL, Bebianno MJ. Antioxidant and lipid peroxidation responses in Mytilus galloprovincialis exposed to mixtures of benzo(a)pyrene and copper. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology. 2011;154(1):56-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2011.02.004
  24. 24. Mesquita AF, Gonçalves F, Verdelhos T, Marques JC, Gonçalves AMM. Fatty acids profiles modifications in the bivalves Cerastoderma edule and Scrobicularia plana in response to copper sulphate. Ecological Indicators. 2018;85(October 2017):318-328. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.007
  25. 25. Halpern BS, McLeod KL, Rosenberg AA, Crowder LB. Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2008;51(3):203-211. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.08.002
  26. 26. Schwarzenbach RP, Egli T, Hofstetter TB, von Gunten U, Wehrli B. Global water pollution and human health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2010;35(1):109-136. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-100809-125342. [accessed 2019 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-100809-125342
  27. 27. Beaugrand G, Edwards M, Legendre L. Marine biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and carbon cycles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;107(22):10120-10124. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0913855107. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/22/10120
  28. 28. Alnajar N, Jha AN, Turner A. Impacts of microplastic fibres on the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovinciallis. Chemosphere. 2021;262:128290. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128290
  29. 29. Munari M, Matozzo V, Chemello G, Riedl V, Pastore P, Badocco D, et al. Seawater acidification and emerging contaminants: A dangerous marriage for haemocytes of marine bivalves. Environmental Research. 2019;175:11-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.04.032
  30. 30. Solé M, Shaw JP, Frickers PE, Readman JW, Hutchinson TH. Effects on feeding rate and biomarker responses of marine mussels experimentally exposed to propranolol and acetaminophen. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2010;396:649-656. [accessed 2020 Oct 25]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-009-3182-1
  31. 31. IPCC. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. In: Contribution of Working Groups I, IIand III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Geneva: Cambridge University Press; 2014
  32. 32. IPCC. Global warming of 1.5° C. In: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C. Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change. Paris; 2018
  33. 33. FAO. Pesticides Use. 2020. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP/visualize [Accessed: January 16, 2023]
  34. 34. United Nations. World Population Prospects. 2022. Available from: https://population.un.org/wpp/ [Accessed: January 24, 2023]
  35. 35. Tollefson J. How hot will Earth get by 2100? Nature. 2020;580(7804):443-445. DOI: 10.1038/D41586-020-01125-X
  36. 36. Neves M, Castro BB, Vidal T, Vieira R, Marques JC, Coutinho JAP, et al. Biochemical and populational responses of an aquatic bioindicator species, Daphnia longispina, to a commercial formulation of a herbicide (Primextra® gold TZ) and its active ingredient (S-metolachlor). Ecological Indicators. 2015;53:220-230. DOI: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.01.031. [accessed 2019 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15000552
  37. 37. Brahma N, Gupta A. Acute toxicity of lead in fresh water bivalves Lamellidens jenkinsianus obesa and Parreysia (Parreysia) corrugata with evaluation of sublethal effects on acetylcholinesterase and catalase activity, lipid peroxidation, and behavior. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2020;189:109939. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109939
  38. 38. Carregosa V, Velez C, Soares AMVM, Figueira E, Freitas R. Physiological and biochemical responses of three Veneridae clams exposed to salinity changes. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - B Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2014;177-178:1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2014.08.001. [accessed 2017 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25132624
  39. 39. Cossu C, Doyotte A, Babut M, Exinger A, Vasseur P. Antioxidant biomarkers in freshwater bivalves, Unio tumidus, in response to different contamination profiles of aquatic sediments. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2000;45(2):106-121. DOI: 10.1006/eesa.1999.1842
  40. 40. Fabbri E, Franzellitti S. Human pharmaceuticals in the marine environment: Focus on exposure and biological effects in animal species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2016;35(4):799-812. DOI: 10.1002/etc.3131. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26111460/
  41. 41. Gonzalez-Rey M, Bebianno MJ. Effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac exposure in mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Aquatic Toxicology. 2014;148:818-831. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.01.011
  42. 42. Gutiérrez IB, Mesquita AF, Gonçalves FJM, Marques JC, Gonçalves AMM. Biomarkers’ responses of the benthic clam Scrobicularia plana to the main active ingredients (S-metolachlor and Terbuthylazine) of a common herbicide. Ecological Indicators. 2019;96:611-619. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.044
  43. 43. Martin-Diaz L, Franzellitti S, Buratti S, Valbonesi P, Capuzzo A, Fabbri E. Effects of environmental concentrations of the antiepilectic drug carbamazepine on biomarkers and cAMP-mediated cell signaling in the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Aquatic Toxicology. 2009;94(3):177-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2009.06.015
  44. 44. Mesquita AF, Marques SM, Marques JC, Gonçalves FJM, Gonçalves AMM. Copper sulphate impact on the antioxidant defence system of the marine bivalves Cerastoderma edule and Scrobicularia plana. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52925-9
  45. 45. Mezzelani M, Gorbi S, Regoli F. Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environments: Evidence of emerged threat and future challenges for marine organisms. Marine Environmental Research. 2018;140:41-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.05.001
  46. 46. Patil PB, Mahajan AY. Acute toxicity of PROFENOFOS for freshwater mussel bivalve Lammellidens corrianus. Advances in Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2012;13(3):41-45. [accessed 2020 Nov 14]. Available from: https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=1c53f985-4f69-4e29-bff5-5733306b3850%40pdc-v-sessmgr05
  47. 47. Sheir SK. Histological responses of the freshwater clam, Caelatura nilotica. Different environmental degrees of mixed pollution. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences. 2020;12(2):49-66
  48. 48. Monteiro SC, Boxall ABA. Occurrence and fate of human Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Vol. 202. New York, NY: Springer; 2010. pp. 53-154. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-1157-5_2
  49. 49. Rzymski P, Drewek A, Klimaszyk P. Pharmaceutical pollution of aquatic environment: An emerging and enormous challenge. Limnology Review. 2017;17(2):97-107. DOI: 10.1515/limre-2017-0010. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/limre/17/2/article-p97.xml
  50. 50. World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011
  51. 51. Renault T. Immunotoxicological effects of environmental contaminants on marine bivalves. Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2015;46(1):88-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2015.04.011
  52. 52. El-Rayis OA, Abouldahab O, Halim Y, Riley JP. Levels of trace metals in some food chain organisms from el-mex bay, west of alexandria, egypt. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference: Environment Protection is a Must. 1997. pp. 20-22. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84865766244&origin=inward. [Accessed: February 21, 2019]
  53. 53. Mance G. Introduction. In: Pollution Threat of Heavy Metals in Aquatic Environments. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1987. pp. 1-8. [accessed 2019 Feb 21]. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-94-009-3421-4_1
  54. 54. Soualili D, Dubois P, Gosselin P, Pernet P, Guillou M. Assessment of seawater pollution by heavy metals in the neighbourhood of Algiers: Use of the sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus, as a bioindicator. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2008;65(2):132-139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm183. [accessed 2019 Feb 21]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsm183
  55. 55. Nekoubin H, Gharedaashi E, Hatefi S, Sudagar M, Shahriari R, Asgharimoghadam A. Determination of LC 50 of copper Sulfate and Lead (II) nitrate and Behavioral responses of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Walailak Journal of Science and Technology (WJST). 2012;9(Ii):333-340
  56. 56. Simkiss K. Cellular discrimination processes in metal accumulating cells. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 1981;94(1):317-327
  57. 57. Williams RJP, Coombs TL, Tinker PB. Physico-chemical aspects of inorganic element transfer through membranes [and discussion]. Philosophical Trans actions of the Royal Society B Biology Science. 1981;294(1071):57-74. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1981.0089. [accessed 2019 Feb 21]. Available from: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rstb.1981.0089
  58. 58. Dallinger R. Metabolism an toxicity of metals: Metallothionines and metal elimination. In: Cajaraville MP, editor. Cell Biology in Environment Toxicology. Bilbao: Universidade del Pais Vasco; 1995. pp. 171-190
  59. 59. Suzuki KT, Suzuki T. An introduction to clinical aspects of toxicity. In: Chang W, editor. Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton: LCRC Lewis Publishers; 1996. pp. 333-335
  60. 60. Bae JH, Lim SY. Heavy metals and biochemical composition of four sea bream species (Acanthopagrus schlegelii Bleeker, Pagrus major Temminck & Schlegel, Oplegnathus fasciatus Krøyer and Girella punctata Gray). Philippines Agricultureal Science. 2012;95(2):185-191
  61. 61. Lusher A, Hollman P, Mendonza-Hill J. Microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture status of knowledge on their occurrence and implications for aquatic organisms and food safety. Food Agriculture Organic United Nations. 2017;615:1-4
  62. 62. Seltenrich N. New link in the food chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2015;123(2):A34–A41. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.123-A34. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314237/
  63. 63. Fang C, Zheng R, Zhang Y, Hong F, Mu J, Chen M, et al. Microplastic contamination in benthic organisms from the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Chemosphere. 2018;209:298-306. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.101
  64. 64. Li HX, Ma LS, Lin L, Ni ZX, Xu XR, Shi HH, et al. Microplastics in oysters Saccostrea cucullata along the Pearl River estuary, China, Environment Pollution. 2018;236:619-625. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.083. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29433102/
  65. 65. Morgana S, Ghigliotti L, Estévez-Calvar N, Stifanese R, Wieckzorek A, Doyle T, et al. Microplastics in the Arctic: A case study with sub-surface water and fish samples off Northeast Greenland. Environmental Pollution. 2018;242:1078-1086. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.001
  66. 66. Rezania S, Park J, Md Din MF, Mat Taib S, Talaiekhozani A, Kumar Yadav K, et al. Microplastics pollution in different aquatic environments and biota: A review of recent studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2018;133:191-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.022
  67. 67. Fang C, Zheng R, Chen H, Hong F, Lin L, Lin H, et al. Comparison of microplastic contamination in fish and bivalves from two major cities in Fujian province, China and the implications for human health. Aquaculture. 2019;512:734322. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734322
  68. 68. Barboza LGA, Dick Vethaak A, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2018;133:336-348. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.047
  69. 69. EFSA. Presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA Journal. 2016;14(6):4501. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4501. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4501
  70. 70. Cho Y, Shim WJ, Jang M, Han GM, Hong SH. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in market bivalves from South Korea. Environmental Pollution. 2019;245:1107-1116. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.091
  71. 71. Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science & Technology. 2008;42(13):5026-5031. DOI: 10.1021/es800249a. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines
  72. 72. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Milan M, Benedetti M, Fattorini D, D’Errico G, et al. Pollutants bioavailability and toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environmental Pollution. 2015;198:211-222. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.021
  73. 73. Ribeiro F, Garcia AR, Pereira BP, Fonseca M, Mestre NC, Fonseca TG, et al. Microplastics effects in Scrobicularia plana. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2017;122(1-2):379-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.078. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28684108/
  74. 74. de Melo PC, Collela CF, Sousa T, Pacheco D, Cotas J, Gonçalves AMM, et al. Seaweed-based products and mushroom β-glucan as tomato plant immunological inducers. Vaccine. 2020;8(3):1-13. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines8030524
  75. 75. Zhang S, Zhou H. Evaluation of the influence of various factors on project performance under the EPC general contracting mode in the development of marine resources on JSTOR. Journal of Coastal Research. 2019;93:762-767. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26853350?seq=1
  76. 76. Berkes F, Mahon R, Mcconney P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R. Key concepts in fisheries management. In: Managing Small-Scale Fisheries Alternative Directions and Methods Contents. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre; 2010
  77. 77. Perry RI, Cury P, Brander K, Jennings S, Möllmann C, Planque B. Sensitivity of marine systems to climate and fishing: Concepts, issues and management responses. Journal of Marine Systems. 2010;79(3-4):427-435. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.12.017
  78. 78. Goñi R. Ecosystem effects of marine fisheries: An overview. Ocean and Coastal Management. 1998;40(1):37-64. DOI: 10.1016/S0964-5691(98)00037-4
  79. 79. Blanchard JL, Dulvy NK, Jennings S, Ellis JR, Pinnegar JK, Tidd A, et al. Do climate and fishing influence size-based indicators of Celtic Sea fish community structure? ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2005;62(3):405-411. DOI: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.006. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/62/3/405/661410
  80. 80. Gascuel D, Coll M, Fox C, Guénette S, Guitton J, Kenny A, et al. Fishing impact and environmental status in European seas: A diagnosis from stock assessments and ecosystem indicators. Fish and Fisheries. 2016;17(1):31-55. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12090. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/faf.12090
  81. 81. Pinnegar JK, Jennings S, O’Brien CM, Polunin NVC. Long-term changes in the trophic level of the Celtic Sea fish community and fish market price distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2002;39(3):377-390. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00723.x
  82. 82. Shephard S, Fung T, Houle JE, Farnsworth KD, Reid DG, Rossberg AG. Size-selective fishing drives species composition in the Celtic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2012;69(2):223-234. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr200. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: http://www.fishbase.org
  83. 83. Hernvann PY, Gascuel D. Exploring the impacts of fishing and environment on the Celtic Sea ecosystem since 1950. Fisheries Research. 2020;225:105472. DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2019.105472
  84. 84. Dayton PK, Thrush SF, Tundi Agardy M, Hofman RJ. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 1995;5:205-232
  85. 85. Jennings S, Kaiser MJ. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology. 1998;34(34):201-212. DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2881(08)60212-6
  86. 86. Kappel CV. Losing pieces of the puzzle: Threats to marine, estuarine, and diadromous species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2005;3(5):275-282. DOI: 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0275:LPOTPT]2.0.CO;2. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/1540-9295%282005%29003%5B0275%3ALPOTPT%5D2.0.CO%3B2
  87. 87. Shester GG, Micheli F. Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries: Bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biological Conservation. 2011;144(5):1673-1681. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.023
  88. 88. Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R. Managing Small-Scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods | IDRC - International Development Research Centre. 2001. Available from: https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/managing-small-scale-fisheries-alternative-directions-and-methods [Accessed: October 22, 2020]
  89. 89. Berthou P, Poutiers J, Goulletquer P, Dao J. Shelled molluscs. In: FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE, from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO. Oxford, UK: Eolss Publishers; 2009. Available from: http://www.eolss.net
  90. 90. Toral-Granda V, Lovatelli A, Vasconcellos M. Sea cucumbers - a global review of fisheries and trade. Fish and Aquaculture Technical Papers. 2008;516:1-7. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281566572
  91. 91. ODSlocal. 2020. Available from: https://odslocal.pt/ [Accessed: November 14, 2020]
  92. 92. Brander K. Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems. 2009;79:389-402. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.12.015. www.acia.uaf.edu
  93. 93. Philippart CJM, Anadón R, Danovaro R, Dippner JW, Drinkwater KF, Hawkins SJ, et al. Impacts of climate change on European marine ecosystems: Observations, expectations and indicators. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2011;400:52-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.023
  94. 94. Ullah H, Nagelkerken I, Goldenberg SU, Fordham DA. Climate change could drive marine food web collapse through altered trophic flows and cyanobacterial proliferation. PLoS Biology. 2018;16(1):e2003446. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003446. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29315309/
  95. 95. Harley CDG, Hughes AR, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJB, Thornber CS, et al. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters. 2006;9(2):228-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16958887/
  96. 96. Brander KM. Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2007;104(50):19709-19714. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0702059104. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0702059104
  97. 97. Philippart CJM, Van Aken HM, Beukema JJ, Bos OG, Cadée GC, Dekker R. Climate-related changes in recruitment of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Limnology and Oceanography. 2003;48(6):2171-2185
  98. 98. Witbaard R, Duineveld GCA, Amaro T, Bergman MJN. Growth trends in three bivalve species indicate climate forcing on the benthic ecosystem in the southeastern North Sea. Climate Research. 2005;30:29-38 www.int-res.com
  99. 99. Chícharo L, Chícharo MA. Effects of environmental conditions on planktonic abundances, benthic recruitment and growth rates of the bivalve mollusc Ruditapes decussatus in a Portuguese coastal lagoon. Fisheries Research. 2001;53(3):235-250. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-7836(00)00290-3
  100. 100. Beukema J, Dekker R. Decline of recruitment success in cockles and other bivalves in the Wadden Sea: Possible role of climate change, predation on postlarvae and fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2005;287:149-167. DOI: 10.3354/meps287149. [accessed 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v287/p149-167/
  101. 101. Beukema JJ, Dekker R, Essink K, Michaelis H. Synchronized reproductive success of the main bivalve species in the Wadden Sea: Causes and consequences. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2001;211(143):143-155
  102. 102. Strasser M, Hertlein A, Reise K. Differential recruitment of bivalve species in the northern Wadden Sea after severe winter of 1995/96 and of subsequent milder winters. Helgoland Marine Research. 2001;55(3):182-189. DOI: 10.1007/s101520100080. [accessed 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s101520100080
  103. 103. Baba K, Tada M, Kawajiri T, Kuwahara Y. Effects of temperature and salinity on spawning of the brackish water bivalve Corbicula japonica. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1999;180:213-221
  104. 104. Ali AYA, Idris AM, Ebrahim AM, Eltayeb MAH. Brown algae (Phaeophyta) for monitoring heavy metals at the Sudanese Red Sea coast. Applied Water Science. 2017;7(7):3817-3824. DOI: 10.1007/S13201-017-0529-1/TABLES/6. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-017-0529-1
  105. 105. Chandía C, Salamanca M. Long-term monitoring of heavy metals in Chilean coastal sediments in the eastern South Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2012;64(10):2254-2260. DOI: 10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2012.06.030
  106. 106. Mirzajani A, Hamidian AH, Hassan J. Metal concentrations in the coastal Fauna of the Caspian Sea. Ocean Science Journal. 2021;56(3):256-265. DOI: 10.1007/S12601-021-00023-1/TABLES/3. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12601-021-00023-1
  107. 107. Idriss AA, Gao Y-Z, Zhu N-Z, Bizimana A, Meng X-Z. Persistent organic pollutants in polar ecosystems: Current situation and future challenges under climate change. International Journal of Science and Advances. 2021;2:295-307. DOI: 10.51542/ijscia.v2i3.12. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. www.ijscia.com
  108. 108. Miraji H, Ripanda A, Moto E. A review on the occurrences of persistent organic pollutants in corals, sediments, fish and waters of the Western Indian Ocean. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research. 2021;47(4):373-379. DOI: 10.1016/J.EJAR.2021.08.003
  109. 109. Sanganyado E, Chingono KE, Gwenzi W, Chaukura N, Liu W. Organic pollutants in deep sea: Occurrence, fate, and ecological implications. Water Research. 2021;205:117658. DOI: 10.1016/J.WATRES.2021.117658
  110. 110. Bagaev A, Esiukova E, Litvinyuk D, Chubarenko I, Veerasingam S, Venkatachalapathy R, et al. Investigations of plastic contamination of seawater, marine and coastal sediments in the Russian seas: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;28(25):32264-32281. DOI: 10.1007/S11356-021-14183-Z
  111. 111. da Rocha FOC, Martinez ST, Campos VP, da Rocha GO, de Andrade JB. Microplastic pollution in southern Atlantic marine waters: Review of current trends, sources, and perspectives. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;782:146541. DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.146541
  112. 112. Gassett PR, O’Brien-Clayton K, Bastidas C, Rheuban JE, Hunt CW, Turner E, et al. Community science for coastal acidification monitoring and research. Coastal Management. 2021;49(5):510-531. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1947131. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08920753.2021.1947131
  113. 113. Gonski SF, Horwith MJ, Albertson S, Bos J, Brownlee AS, Coleman N, et al. Monitoring ocean acidification within state Borders: Lessons from Washington state (USA). Coastal Management. 2021;49(5):487-509. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1947130/SUPPL_FILE/UCMG_A_1947130_SM5128.DOCX. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08920753.2021.1947130
  114. 114. Pashaei R, Loiselle SA, Leone G, Tamasi G, Dzingelevičienė R, Kowalkowski T, et al. Determination of nano and microplastic particles in hypersaline lakes by multiple methods. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2021;193(10):1-15. DOI: 10.1007/S10661-021-09470-8/TABLES/1. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-021-09470-8
  115. 115. Shea R, Schwarzmann D. Proposed Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary Study Area Profile. 2021. Available from: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/29627 [Accessed: November 26, 2021]

Written By

Andreia Filipa Mesquita, Fernando José Mendes Gonçalves and Ana Marta Mendes Gonçalves

Submitted: 20 January 2023 Reviewed: 20 March 2023 Published: 27 December 2023

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 5 Non-Indigenous Marine Fish in Syria: Past, Present...

By Adib Saad and Lana Khrema

47 downloads

Chapter 6 Fish Otolith Microchemistry as a Biomarker of Meta...

By Abhijit Mallik, Suchismita Prusty, Puja Chakrabort...

53 downloads

Chapter 1 Evaluation of the Water Quality and the Eutrophica...

By Neila Annabi-Trabelsi, Mohammad Ali, Genuario Belm...

43 downloads