Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Arctic climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. What consequences this may have on the Arctic marine ecosystem depends to a large degree on how its species will respond both directly to elevated temperatures and more indirectly through ecological interactions. But despite an alarming recent warming of the Arctic with accompanying sea ice loss, reports evaluating ecological impacts of climate change in the Arctic remain sparse. Here, based upon a large-scale field study, we present basic new knowledge regarding the life history traits for one of the most important species in the entire Arctic, the polar cod (Boreogadus saida). Furthermore, by comparing regions of contrasting climatic influence (domains), we present evidence as to how its growth and reproductive success is impaired in the warmer of the two domains. As the future Arctic is predicted to resemble today's Atlantic domains, we forecast changes in growth and life history characteristics of polar cod that will lead to alteration of its role as an Arctic keystone species. This will in turn affect community dynamics and energy transfer in the entire Arctic food chain.

The atmosphere and cryosphere have recently garnered considerable attention due to their role in transporting microplastics to and within the Arctic, and between freshwater, marine, and terrestrial environments. While investigating either in isolation provides valuable insight on the fate of microplastics in the Arctic, monitoring both provides a more holistic view. Nonetheless, despite the recent scientific interest, fundamental knowledge on microplastic abundance and consistent monitoring efforts are lacking for these compartments. Here, we build upon the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme's Monitoring Guidelines for Litter and Microplastic to provide a roadmap for multicompartment monitoring of the atmosphere and cryosphere to support our understanding of the sources, pathways, and sinks of plastic pollution across the Arctic. Overall, we recommend the use of existing standard techniques for ice and atmospheric sampling and to build upon existing monitoring efforts in the Arctic to obtain a more comprehensive pan-Arctic view of microplastic pollution in these two compartments.

Litter and microplastic assessments are being carried out worldwide. Arctic ecosystems are no exception and plastic pollution is high on the Arctic Council's agenda. Water and sediment have been identified as two of the priority compartments for monitoring plastics under the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Recommendations for monitoring both compartments are presented in this publication. Alone, such samples can provide information on presence, fate, and potential impacts to ecosystems. Together, the quantification of microplastics in sediment and water from the same region produce a three-dimensional picture of plastics, not only a snapshot of floating or buoyant plastics in the surface water or water column but also a picture of the plastics reaching the shoreline or benthic sediments, in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Assessment methodologies must be adapted to the ecosystems of interest to generate reliable data. In its current form, published data on plastic pollution in the Arctic is sporadic and collected using a wide spectrum of methods which limits the extent to which data can be compared. A harmonised and coordinated effort is needed to gather data on plastic pollution for the Pan-Arctic. Such information will aid in identifying priority regions and focusing mitigation efforts.

Despite their apparent remoteness from human activities, polar regions and glaciers worldwide are becoming silent witnesses to the dramatic global impact of plastic pollution (Bergmann et al., 2022; De-la-Torre et al., 2024; Jones-Williams et al., 2025; Rosso et al., 2024). As a matter of fact, plastic pollution has no borders and reaches even these most remote places; it is emerging as a major environmental threat with potential consequences for the environment and in particular for fragile ecosystems such as the polar areas. However, several gaps of knowledge about the occurrence, the transport pathways and fate of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in polar areas and on glaciers still need to be filled. MNPs form through the breakdown of larger plastic materials; in relation with their sizes, these particles can be transported over long distances via atmospheric and oceanic pathways (Bucci et al., 2024; Rosso et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024).Additionally, MNPs can release toxic additives into the environment, being able to cause significant impacts on biota, impacting organisms throughout the food chain (Corami et al., 2022; Da Costa et al., 2023), and endangering the ecosystems . Besides, MNPs can interfere with sea ice formation, contribute to glacier melting and amplify climate change effects such as permafrost thaw. Therefore, understanding the pathways and impacts of MNPs in polar regions is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate their effects and protect these vulnerable ecosystems. From this perspective, identifying bioindicators is crucial for evaluating the ecological and biological impacts of plastic pollution, particularly in fragile polar ecosystems (Iannilli et al., 2019; Lusher et al., 2022). A deeper understanding of this escalating threat is essential to fully assess its global implications and implement effective solutions. The Research Topic “Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Polar Areas: Arctic, Antarctica, and the World’s Glaciers” focuses on the pollution caused by MNPs in these peculiar ecosystems, aiming at a better understanding of the occurrence, distribution and transport pathways, including ocean currents, local rivers, and atmospheric transport, emphasizing the global nature of microplastic pollution, and potential biological implications. The studies focus on MNPs pollution in both Arctic and Antarctic polar regions, increasingly exposed to plastic contamination, albeit in different ways. Marine currents can significantly contribute to the transport of MNPs in the Arctic, as observed in the study on the Barents Sea (Emberson-Marl et al., 2023) and in that on Kara Sea (Berezina et al., 2023). However, Arctic rivers can be a relevant transport pathway for MNPs (Pakhomova et al., 2024) towards the sea, taking into account that glacier melting and atmospheric transport can greatly enrich the plastic load of rivers and, consequently, of the sea. Besides, it should be underlined that multiple factors, including shipping traffic from fishing and the growing tourism ship, can greatly contribute to the transport pathways of MNPs in the Arctic. Multiple transportation processes can deeply affect the plastic load in Antarctica, as well (Cunnigham et al., 2022). In particular, synthetic fibers in the Antartic air and seawater samples were predominant, highlighting that MNPs can originate from diffuse sources. Besides, the atmospheric transport can also play a key role in introducing synthetic fibers and other MNPs to Antarctica, further complicating pollution management.Bioindicators allow in-depth understanding of the changes of organism’s physiological responses and/or population dynamics due to presence of pollutants, e.g., MNPs. Among the various bioindicators are seabirds that primarily feed at sea, which can be employed as bioindicators for MNPs pollution (Taurozzi et al., 2024) in view of the urge to both quantify and monitor MP ingestion by marine wildlife. Due to their role of top predators in the polar food webs, birds can be considered early indicators of plastic pollution. By studying their ingestion of MNPs it is possible to assess the broader ecological impact of plastic pollution in these remote regions. All the studies stress the need a) for systematic monitoring of microplastic pollution to assess its ecological impact, and b) of standardized protocols in order to plan appropriate actions and strategies to mitigate the effects of microplastics on marine and terrestrial organisms in polar regions. Perspectives The studies collected in this research topic reveal that MNPs’ pollution is already endangering these fragile environments, with several concerns about its origins, pathways, fate and ecological impact. This growing research effort emphasizes the need for a monitoring network at a global scale, standardized methods and a stronger focus on the ecological impacts of microplastics using bioindicator species, which can provide useful information on the contamination of the food web and biological effects. In conclusion, although polar regions are often regarded as pristine environments, there is ever increasing evidence of microplastic contamination, highlighting the need for a global approach to address this pollution. Further studies are also needed to gain an in-depth understanding of how plastic pollution can enhance and hasten the processes of ongoing global climate change. Therefore, expanding research, standardizing methods, and integrating local and global knowledge are essential to mitigate the impacts of microplastics, requiring collective action to protect these vulnerable ecosystems for future generations.

The atmosphere and cryosphere have recently garnered considerable attention due to their role in transporting microplastics to and within the Arctic, and between freshwater, marine, and terrestrial environments. While investigating either in isolation provides valuable insight on the fate of microplastics in the Arctic, monitoring both provides a more holistic view. Nonetheless, despite the recent scientific interest, fundamental knowledge on microplastic abundance, and consistent monitoring efforts, are lacking for these compartments. Here, we build upon the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s Monitoring Guidelines for Litter and Microplastic to provide a roadmap for multi-compartment monitoring of the atmosphere and cryosphere to support our understanding of the sources, pathways, and sinks of plastic pollution across the Arctic. Overall, we recommend the use of existing standard techniques for ice and atmospheric sampling and to build upon existing monitoring efforts in the Arctic to obtain a more comprehensive pan-Arctic view of microplastic pollution in these two compartments.

Despite the exclusion of the Southern Ocean from assessments of progress towards achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has taken on the mantle of progressing efforts to achieve it. Within the CBD, Aichi Target 11 represents an agreed commitment to protect 10% of the global coastal and marine environment. Adopting an ethos of presenting the best available scientific evidence to support policy makers, CCAMLR has progressed this by designating two Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean, with three others under consideration. The region of Antarctica known as Dronning Maud Land (DML; 20°W to 40°E) and the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean that abuts it conveniently spans one region under consideration for spatial protection. To facilitate both an open and transparent process to provide the vest available scientific evidence for policy makers to formulate management options, we review the body of physical, geochemical and biological knowledge of the marine environment of this region. The level of scientific knowledge throughout the seascape abutting DML is polarized, with a clear lack of data in its eastern part which is presumably related to differing levels of research effort dedicated by national Antarctic programmes in the region. The lack of basic data on fundamental aspects of the physical, geological and biological nature of eastern DML make predictions of future trends difficult to impossible, with implications for the provision of management advice including spatial management. Finally, by highlighting key knowledge gaps across the scientific disciplines our review also serves to provide guidance to future research across this important region.

Litter and microplastic assessments are being carried out worldwide. Arctic ecosystems are no exception and plastic pollution is high on the Arctic Council's agenda. Water and sediment have been identified as two of the priority compartments for monitoring plastics under the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Recommendations for monitoring both compartments are presented in this publication. Alone, such samples can provide information on presence, fate, and potential impacts to ecosystems. Together, the quantification of microplastics in sediment and water from the same region produce a three-dimensional picture of plastics, not only a snapshot of floating or buoyant plastics in the surface water or water column but also a picture of the plastics reaching the shoreline or benthic sediments, in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Assessment methodologies must be adapted to the ecosystems of interest to generate reliable data. In its current form, published data on plastic pollution in the Arctic is sporadic and collected using a wide spectrum of methods which limits the extent to which data can be compared. A harmonised and coordinated effort is needed to gather data on plastic pollution for the Pan-Arctic. Such information will aid in identifying priority regions and focusing mitigation efforts.

Plastic pollution has been reported to affect Arctic mammals and birds. There are strengths and limitations to monitoring litter and microplastics using Arctic mammals and birds. One strength is the direct use of these data to understand the potential impacts on Arctic biodiversity as well as effects on human health, if selected species are consumed. Monitoring programs must be practically designed with all purposes in mind, and a spectrum of approaches and species will be required. Spatial and temporal trends of plastic pollution can be built on the information obtained from studies on northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), a species that is an environmental indicator. To increase our understanding of the potential implications for human health, the species and locations chosen for monitoring should be selected based on the priorities of local communities. Monitoring programs under development should examine species for population level impacts in Arctic mammals and birds. Mammals and birds can be useful in source and surveillance monitoring via locally designed monitoring programs. We recommend future programs consider a range of monitoring objectives with mammals and birds as part of the suite of tools for monitoring litter and microplastics, plastic chemical additives and effects, and for understanding sources.

Litter and microplastic assessments are being carried out worldwide. Arctic ecosystems are no exception and plastic pollution is high on the Arctic Council's agenda. Water and sediment have been identified as two of the priority compartments for monitoring plastics under the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Recommendations for monitoring both compartments are presented in this publication. Alone, such samples can provide information on presence, fate, and potential impacts to ecosystems. Together, the quantification of microplastics in sediment and water from the same region produce a three-dimensional picture of plastics, not only a snapshot of floating or buoyant plastics in the surface water or water column but also a picture of the plastics reaching the shoreline or benthic sediments, in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Assessment methodologies must be adapted to the ecosystems of interest to generate reliable data. In its current form, published data on plastic pollution in the Arctic is sporadic and collected using a wide spectrum of methods which limits the extent to which data can be compared. A harmonised and coordinated effort is needed to gather data on plastic pollution for the Pan-Arctic. Such information will aid in identifying priority regions and focusing mitigation efforts.

Plastic pollution has been reported to affect Arctic mammals and birds. There are strengths and limitations to monitoring litter and microplastics using Arctic mammals and birds. One strength is the direct use of these data to understand the potential impacts on Arctic biodiversity as well as effects on human health, if selected species are consumed. Monitoring programs must be practically designed with all purposes in mind, and a spectrum of approaches and species will be required. Spatial and temporal trends of plastic pollution can be built on the information obtained from studies on northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), a species that is an environmental indicator. To increase our understanding of the potential implications for human health, the species and locations chosen for monitoring should be selected based on the priorities of local communities. Monitoring programs under development should examine species for population level impacts in Arctic mammals and birds. Mammals and birds can be useful in source and surveillance monitoring via locally designed monitoring programs. We recommend future programs consider a range of monitoring objectives with mammals and birds as part of the suite of tools for monitoring litter and microplastics, plastic chemical additives and effects, and for understanding sources.