Application of a Multidisciplinary Weight of Evidence Approach as a Tool for Monitoring the Ecological Risk of Dredging Activities

Abstract

The use of multidisciplinary investigations for the evaluation of aquatic ecosystems status is recommended by the European Directives, but it is still a challenging practice. In this study, we apply a quantitative weight of evidence (WOE) approach (Sediqualsoft) for the integration of extensive data obtained from different typologies of investigations, obtained over a 4-year monitoring study of dredging activities in the harbor of Leghorn (Italy). During different phases of such operations, selected sites have been characterized in terms of levels of trace metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments, bioaccumulation of contaminants, and a wide battery of biomarkers in transplanted mussels, ecotoxicological effects of sediments through a battery of bioassays (algal growth inhibition, bioluminescence inhibition, and embryotoxicity tests), and the status of benthic communities. Each typology of data, line of evidence (LOE), has been initially elaborated through dedicated logical flowcharts and algorithms providing specific hazard indices, followed by their overall integration based on different weights assigned to each LOE. This approach allowed to summarize more than 10,000 results, reaching robust conclusions on environmental impact during various phases of dredging operations. This approach was confirmed as a useful tool for monitoring the risk, supporting a “site-oriented” decision making process by providing stakeholders simple interpretation of complex data.

10-year time course of Hg and organic compounds in Augusta Bay: Bioavailability and biological effects in marine organisms

“…The importance of an ecotoxicological approach and early and sensitive biomarkers is widely recognized for monitoring the adverse effects caused by acute and chronic pollution ( 15 , 16 , 18 , 56 ). The cytochrome P450 is of central importance to the metabolisms of many xenobiotics, and the induction of EROD activity is considered a specific biomarker of fish exposure to organic pollutants, including HCB ( 57 ).…”

“…In this context, useful information on the environmental status and pollution effects can be provided by the study of the native and transplanted organisms such as fish ( 13 ) and filter feeders ( 14 ) through a multidisciplinary, ecotoxicological approach that integrates the results on pollutants bioavailability and bioaccumulation with the onset of biological effects at molecular, biochemical, cellular levels ( 15 , 16 ). Such biomarkers are strongly recommended in environmental monitoring programs due to their quick response and predictive value, and their use has already been applied in several contaminated sites, including harbor areas, offshore platforms, and petrochemical plants ( 16 – 18 ).…”

Biomarkers for pollution in caged mussels from three reservoirs in Bulgaria: A pilot study

“…Integrative indices are widely used to summarizing biomarker responses and simplifying their interpretation in biomonitoring programs [28,29]. Beliaeff and Burgeot [85] created the integrated biomarker response (IBR) especially for biomonitoring purposes with mussels.…”

“…Thus, in the "Mussel Watch" monitoring programs, resident and/or caged mussels can be used as bioindicators of chemical pollutants [24]. Recently, Avio et al, Catarino et al, d'Ericco et al, Manfra et al, and Railo et al used caged mussels in specific areas to investigate pollution effects related to different anthropogenic activity, such as plastic pollution, wastewater discharge, wreck removal, gas production and dredging activities [25,26,27,28,29]. Furthermore, according to Schøyen et al, mussel caging is particularly valuable when the indigenous mussels are absent in the study sites [30].…”

The EU Interreg Project “GEREMIA” on waste management for the improvement of port waters: results on monitoring the health status of fish as bioindicator

“…Scientific interest in monitoring the marine environment has increased in the last decades, being this considered as one of the main sinks of anthropogenic pollutants (Vikas and Dwarakish 2015). In this context, port areas are severely affected by contaminants reflecting the high levels of anthropization (Bonsignore et al 2018;Wooldridge 1999): indeed, ports are characterized by a strong presence of commercial and industrial activities and are strictly connected with cities nearby and with the hinterland and therefore gather different types of discharging inputs, both urban and industrial, and accidental loss of pollutants and solid waste is likely to occur (d 'Errico et al 2021;Homsombat et al 2013). Port authorities' policies are therefore improving the aspects related to the management of environmental issues, enhancing green solutions and intensifying prevention and monitoring activities.…”