Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development

Role of Microplastics in Aquatic Environments and its Consequences for Fish Feeding and Health

Watanabe Nihei^* Department of Marine Sciences, University of North Texas, Texas, United States of America
^*Correspondence: Watanabe Nihei, Department of Marine Sciences, University of North Texas, Texas, United States of America, Email:

Received: 15-Apr-2024, Manuscript No. JARD-24-25837; Editor assigned: 18-Apr-2024, Pre QC No. JARD-24-25837 (PQ); Reviewed: 02-May-2024, QC No. JARD-24-25837; Revised: 09-May-2024, Manuscript No. JARD-24-25837 (R); Published: 16-May-2024, DOI: 10.35248/2155-9546.24.15.876

Descripition

Microplastic pollution is a growing environmental concern that has infiltrated almost every corner of the globe, including the depths of our oceans and freshwater bodies. Defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter, microplastics originate from various sources, including the breakdown of larger plastic debris, microbeads from personal care products, and synthetic fibers from clothing. These tiny particles pose significant threats to marine and freshwater ecosystems, primarily due to their persistence, pervasiveness, and potential to cause harm to aquatic life. One of the vital issues arising from microplastic pollution is its impact on fish, particularly concerning the phenomenon of misfeeding, where fish ingest microplastics mistaking them for food [1-3].

Microplastics enter aquatic environments through multiple pathways. Primary microplastics are intentionally manufactured small particles used in products like cosmetics, industrial abrasives, and synthetic textiles. Secondary microplastics result from the fragmentation of larger plastic items such as bottles, bags, and fishing gear due to environmental degradation processes like UV radiation, physical abrasion, and biological activity. These particles are ubiquitous in aquatic environments, from surface waters to deep-sea sediments. Ocean currents, wind, and river flows distribute microplastics, often transporting them far from their original sources. As a result, microplastics have been found in remote regions, including the Arctic and Antarctic, demonstrating their widespread distribution and persistence. The ingestion of microplastics by aquatic organisms is a significant concern. Microplastics can be ingested by a wide range of marine and freshwater species, including plankton, invertebrates, fish, and even large mammals. This ingestion can occur either directly, when animals mistake microplastics for food, or indirectly, through the consumption of prey that has ingested microplastics. Fish are particularly susceptible to misfeeding on microplastics. The visual and chemical cues that fish use to identify their food can lead them to mistake microplastics for prey. For instance, many fish species rely on size, shape, and color to recognize potential food items. Unfortunately, microplastics often resemble the physical characteristics of plankton and other natural food sources, leading to accidental ingestion. One prominent example is the ingestion of microplastic fibers by juvenile fish. Studies have shown that these fibers, which often originate from synthetic textiles, can resemble the appearance and movement of small prey items like worms or larvae. As a result, fish may consume these fibers in large quantities, mistaking them for nutritious food. Ingested microplastics can cause physical harm to fish. Sharp-edged particles may damage the digestive tract, leading to internal injuries and inflammation. Additionally, the accumulation of microplastics in the stomach can create a false sense of satiety, reducing food intake and leading to malnutrition and stunted growth [4-7].

Microplastics can act as carriers for harmful chemicals. They can adsorb Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) from the surrounding water, including pesticides, heavy metals, and other toxic substances. When fish ingest microplastics, these chemicals can leach into their bodies, leading to bioaccumulation and potential toxicity. This can affect the fish's health, reproductive success, and overall survival. The ingestion of microplastics can disrupt normal biological functions in fish. Studies have shown that exposure to microplastics can impair immune responses, reduce energy reserves, and alter behavior. For example, fish that consume microplastics may exhibit reduced activity levels, making them more susceptible to predators and less effective at foraging. The ecological implications of fish misfeeding on microplastics extend beyond individual fish to entire aquatic ecosystems. Fish play a critical role in the food web, acting as both predators and prey. When fish populations are adversely affected by microplastic ingestion, it can have cascading effects throughout the ecosystem. Fish are a key component of aquatic food webs, and their decline due to microplastic ingestion can disrupt trophic dynamics. For example, smaller fish species that consume microplastics may become less available as prey for larger predatory fish, birds, and mammals. This can lead to a decrease in the abundance of these predators and alter the balance of the ecosystem [8-10].

Conclusion

The health and survival of fish populations are significant for maintaining biodiversity in aquatic environments. Microplastic pollution poses a threat to the diversity of fish species, particularly those that are already vulnerable due to overfishing, habitat loss, and climate change. The combined stressors can lead to declines in fish populations and potentially even local extinctions, reducing the overall biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems. Addressing the issue of microplastic pollution requires a multifaceted approach involving research, regulation, and public awareness. Efforts to mitigate the impacts of microplastics on fish and aquatic ecosystems must focus on reducing the sources of microplastics, improving waste management practices, and enhancing our understanding of the ecological consequences.

References

1. Ragias V, Tontis D, Athanassopoulou F. Incidence of an intense Caligus minimus Otto 1821, C. pageti Russel, 1925, C. mugilis Brian, 1935 and C. apodus Brian, 1924 infection in lagoon cultured sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) in Greece. Aquaculture. 2004;242(1-4):727-733.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Muringai RT, Mafongoya P, Lottering RT. Sub-Saharan Africa freshwater fisheries under climate change: A review of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation measures. Fishes. 2022;7(3):131.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Kim SK, Lee DS, Oh JR. Characteristics of trophic transfer of polychlorinated biphenyls in marine organisms in Incheon North Harbor, Korea. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002;21(4):834-841.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Ngueguim DF, Kouam MK, Tiogue CT, Miegoue E, Feumba AK, Zebaze LB, et al. Prevalence and associated risk factors of ectoparasite infections of cultured fish species in the west region of Cameroon. Int j fish aquat sci. 2020;8(3):310-320.

   [Google Scholar]

5. De Silva SS, Shim KF, Ong AK. An evaluation of the method used in digestibility estimations of a dietary ingredient and comparisons on external and internal markers, and time of faeces collection in digestibility studies in the fish Oreochromis aureus (Steindachner). Reprod Nutr Dev. 1990;30(2):215-226.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

6. Eissa AE, Hussein HA, Zaki MM. Detection of avian influenza (H5N1) In some fish and shellfish from different aquatic habitats across some Egyptian provinces. Life Sci. 2012;9(3):2702-2712.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Carter CG, Lewis TE, Nichols PD. Comparison of cholestane and yttrium oxide as digestibility markers for lipid components in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) diets. Aquaculture. 2003;225(1-4):341-351.

   [Google Scholar]

8. De Silva SS. Digestibility evaluations of natural and artificial diets. Spec Publ Asian Fish Soc. 1989;4:36-45.

   [Google Scholar]

9. Umalatha H, Gangadhar B, Hegde G, Sridhar N. Digestibility of three feed ingredients by Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822). Oceanogr Fish Open Access J. 2018;5(5):99-104.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

10. Jimoh WA. Dietary replacement of soybean meal by toasted sunflower seedmeal in the diet of Clarias gariepinus: Effect on growth, body composition, digestibility, haematology and histopathology of the liver. Iraqi J Agric Sci. 2020;51(4):1088-1103.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]