4.7 Article

Anthropogenic particles ingestion in fish species from two areas of the western Mediterranean Sea

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 325-333

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.064

关键词

Marine litter; Microplastics; Microflbers; Feeding; Bioindicators

资金

  1. FPI Fellowship from Conselleria d'Innovacio, Recerca I Turisme of the regional Government of the Balearic Islands - European Social Fund as part of the FSE 2014-2020 operational program
  2. Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO)
  3. European Union through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
  4. EU
  5. European Regional Development Fund
  6. Project Evaluacion de los Efectos de los Contaminantes Emergentes en Organismos Acuaticos y sobre la Salud Humana with acronym RIESCOS from the Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnologia para el Desarrollo (CYTED) [419RT0578]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Mediterranean Sea is one of the most polluted seas in terms of marine debris. To analyze the ingestion of anthropogenic particles in two areas, 197 gastrointestinal tracts from four fish species - Trychurus mediterraneus, Sardina pilchardus, Engraulis encrasicolus and Boops boops - were studied. 127 anthropogenic particles were identified in the gastrointestinal tract of 28% of the samples using visual sorting methods, Individuals from the peninsular coast showed higher ingestion occurrence (36%) than those from the Balearic Islands (12%). Significant differences in the ingestion of anthropogenic particles were found between species with Trachurus mediterraneus identified as the most affected species (43% of the individuals with mean values of 1.13 +/- 0.16 particles/individual), and Engraulis encrasicolus, the least affected (2.56% and 0.03 +/- 0.16 particles/individual). Moreover, the proportion of ingestion amongst species was similar in both areas, highlighting the importance of studying the same species at different locations as marine debris bioindicators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据