It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Predicting the magnitude of herbicide impacts on marine primary productivity remains challenging because the extent of worldwide herbicide pollution in coastal waters and the concentration-response relationships of phytoplankton communities to multiple herbicides are unclear. By analyzing the spatiotemporal distribution of herbicides at 661 bay and gulf stations worldwide from 1990 to 2022, we determined median, third quartile and maximum concentrations of 12 triazine herbicides of 0.18 nmol L−1, 1.27 nmol L−1 and 29.50 nmol L−1 (95%Confidence Interval: CI 1.06, 1.47), respectively. Under current herbicide stress, phytoplankton primary productivity was inhibited by more than 5% at 25% of the sites and by more than 10% at 10% of the sites (95%CI 3.67, 4.34), due to the inhibition of highly abundant sensitive species, community structure/particle size succession (from Bacillariophyta to Dinophyceae and from nano-phytoplankton to micro-phytoplankton), and resulting growth rate reduction. Concurrently, due to food chain cascade effects, the dominant micro-zooplankton population shifted from larger copepod larvae to smaller unicellular ciliates, which might prolong the transmission process in marine food chain and reduce the primary productivity transmission efficiency. As herbicide application rates on farmlands worldwide are correlated with residues in their adjacent seas, a continued future increase in herbicide input may seriously affect the stability of coastal waters.
Herbicides used in terrestrial environments pollute coastal ecosystems. Here, the authors analyse the presence of 32 herbicides at 661 bays and gulfs worldwide from 1990 to 2022, showing how under current herbicide stress, phytoplankton primary productivity was inhibited by more than 5% at 25%.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; He, Xiaotong 2
; Ru, Shaoguo 2
; Zhang, Yongyu 3
1 Ocean University of China, College of Marine Life Sciences, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.4422.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2152 3263); Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 189 Songling Road, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309)
2 Ocean University of China, College of Marine Life Sciences, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.4422.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2152 3263)
3 Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 189 Songling Road, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309); Shandong Energy Institute, No. 189 Songling Road, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.458500.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1806 7609); Qingdao New Energy Shandong Laboratory, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.458500.c)




