Next Article in Journal
Effects of Fulvic Acid on Growth and Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency in M9T337 Seedlings
Previous Article in Journal
The Type Specimens of Plectocolea and Solenostoma (Marchantiophyta) in Some Japanese and European Herbaria
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Perspective for Macroalgae-Based Animal Feeding in the Context of Challenging Sustainable Food Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 23
10.3390/plants12233936
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Causing Marine Fish Kills: Toxicity and Mitigation

by
Jae-Wook Oh
1,
Suraj Shiv Charan Pushparaj
2,*,
Manikandan Muthu
2 and
Judy Gopal
2,*
1
Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biotechnology, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Research and Innovation, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Thandalam, Chennai 602105, Tamil Nadu, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(23), 3936; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233936
Submission received: 23 June 2023 / Revised: 7 October 2023 / Accepted: 18 November 2023 / Published: 22 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Compounds from Marine Plants and Related Sources)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Extensive growth of microscopic algae and cyanobacteria results in harmful algal blooms (HABs) in marine, brackish, and freshwater environments. HABs can harm humans and animals through their toxicity or by producing ecological conditions such as oxygen depletion, which can kill fish and other economically or ecologically important organisms. This review summarizes the reports on various HABs that are able to bring about marine fish kills. The predominant HABs, their toxins, and their effects on fishes spread across various parts of the globe are discussed. The mechanism of HAB-driven fish kills is discussed based on the available reports, and existing mitigation methods are presented. Lapses in the large-scale implementation of mitigation methods demonstrated under laboratory conditions are projected. Clay-related technologies and nano-sorption-based nanotechnologies, although proven to make significant contributions, have not been put to use in real-world conditions. The gaps in the technology transfer of the accomplished mitigation prototypes are highlighted. Further uses of remote sensing and machine learning state-of-the-art techniques for the detection and identification of HABs are recommended.

1. Introduction

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) occur when toxin-producing algae grow excessively in a water body. Depending on the water body, they can be classified as marine or freshwater HABs. HABs have been reported since the 1500s [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Excessive algal growth, or algal bloom, can be green, blue–green, red, or brown, depending on the type of algae. HABs result from the rapid proliferation of cyanobacteria, marine microalgae, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and raphidophytes, endangering people, animals, or the local ecology. To date, around 300 hundred species of microalgae occasionally trigger massive events known as blooms, of which about 75 have been known to generate toxins (https://hab.ioc-unesco.org/what-are-harmful-algae/, accessed on 28 September 2023).
The influence of climate change effects such as rising sea levels, saltier freshwater, nutrient pollution, and ocean acidification are factors that are correlated with HAB spikes [9,10,11]. These conditions enable the invasion of HABs, thereby compromising ecological integrity and wreaking havoc on marine communities and the local economy of people who depend on them [12,13]. The economic and public health impacts of HABs can be manifold. Millions of dollars have been invested annually to address the known HAB-related impacts on public health, commercial fisheries, recreation, tourism, environmental monitoring, and bloom management. Public health impacts account for the largest economic impacts, followed by commercial fisheries and tourism. Even a single HAB can be extremely costly. The corresponding issues, such as impacts on secondary industries (e.g., aquaculture suppliers) and decline in consumer confidence (e.g., failure to purchase seafood in restaurants or reserve fishing charter trips), are unassessed. The environmental impacts can be huge, with HABs affecting marine fauna and flora as well as human health and welfare. The dinoflagellates have the greatest number of harmful species, some of which produce potent toxins. The dinoflagellate toxins directly affect the ecosystem and are suspected to cause mass fish kills [14,15]. Moreover, it has been reported that toxins from dinoflagellates bio magnify up the food chain and cause mass mortality of finfish [16]. The issue of toxic dinoflagellate algal blooms has been more frequent in recent times [11,17]. In humans, toxicity results from the ingestion of contaminated seafood products (fish or shellfish), skin contact with toxin-contaminated water, or the inhalation of aerosolized toxins or noxious compounds. In the case of food-borne poisonings, HAB toxins are bio-concentrated, most often without harming the vector marine organism; this is then transferred up through the food web to humans [18]. In addition to the direct impacts on human health, these toxic outbreaks have associated consequences on other components of human well-being in terms of their socio-economic impacts, as well as associated costs.
Each year, HABs are responsible for thousands of incidents all over the globe, with symptoms that include vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, or, in extreme cases, even death, as well as respiratory issues in people who breathe in toxic aerosols. HAB outbreaks can have a big impact on local economies and lead to the closure of fisheries, aquaculture, and recreational areas, the loss of fishery products, with subsequent declines in businesses, tourism, and associated services [19]. In fact, the National Centres for Coastal Ocean Science proposed an economic loss of USD 10–100 million per year resulting from HAB events in the USA. In the temperate latitudes of South Africa, Europe, Asia, North America, Australia, and South America, HABs have been reported to cause amnesic (ASP), azaspiracid (AZP), diarrhetic (DSP), neurotoxic (NSP), and paralytic (PSP) shellfish poisonings [20]. Algal blooms can also impact aquatic animals indirectly. When algal cells die and sink to the bottom, they provide a rich food source for bacteria, which, during decomposition, consume dissolved oxygen. This is a major cause of the low-oxygen dead zones that plague coastal waters worldwide. According to scientists, there was roughly a three-fold increase in harmful algal blooms reported from 2000 to 2020 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/rise-in-harmful-algal-blooms-in-arabian-sea-posing-health-risk-to-fish-consumers-say-scientists/article66536326.ece, accessed on 21 February 2023). Figure 1 gives an overview of the various categories of HABs that are involved in marine fish kills. As shown in the figure, the associated impacts of HABs have been listed.
Understanding the means of fish kills can contribute to mitigation strategies to reduce the risks resulting from HAB events. The current mitigation methods being practiced fall within broad categories of physical, chemical, and biological methods. HAB toxicity has been elaborately dealt with on individual or population levels as well as in cellular and ecosystem studies. Additionally, the mechanisms for those toxic effects, such as hypoxia, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and toxins (shellfish toxins, haemotoxins, or cytotoxins), have been previously described.
In the following survey, we present a comprehensive overview of up-to-date reports on HABs affecting marine fish, resulting in fish kills. The predominant HAB species involved and the potential toxins that mediate fish kills are discussed. The mechanism behind HAB toxicity leading to fish kills is presented. The need to expand and fill in the gaps in existing knowledge is suggested. Mitigation measures and lapses in the implementation of mitigation methods are presented.

2. Algal Bloom-Associated Toxicity

HABs, as their name implies, are able to trigger a cascade of harmful effects on marine ecology, marine fauna and flora, and human welfare. Table 1 summarizes the HAB events that have occurred in the recent past (2018 onwards up to date), mapping the location and the time duration of each HAB event.
HABs restrict light penetration, which is potentially fatal to macrophytes such as water lilies. In addition, HABs consume dissolved oxygen in the water, triggering adverse metabolic reactions in fish. The situation is further aggravated when the algae die, leading to the consumption of more dissolved oxygen. Such oxygen-deficient water bodies are known as “dead-zones” [10]. It is to be noted that dead zones across the coastal and open oceans have increased ten-fold since 1950 (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/dead-zones-in-our-oceans-have-increased-dramatically-since-1950-and-we-re-to-blame/, accessed on 18 January 2023). The recurrence of dead zones in large water bodies such as Lake Erie, Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico, poses challenges that call for immediate attention [10,21]. In most cases, dead zone formation has been associated with the growth of toxic, dense algal blooms. Further, the increased rate of photosynthesis due to eutrophication limits the availability of inorganic carbon and increases the alkalinity of the water [22]. Sudden changes in pH could result in loss of eye sight in aquatic organisms, affecting their survivability [23]. The existence of dead zones has been found in over 400 marine systems, particularly at the zone where nutrient-rich river water meets the sea/ocean, i.e., near estuaries, lagoons, and coastal areas, such as the juncture of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico [24]. Thus, the presence of algal blooms causes major hindrances to economies that depend on water resources such as commercial fishing and recreational activities. The case for HABs is even worse, as the toxins have the potential to cause either morbidity or mortality in living beings [25].
Toxins such as domoic acid, saxitoxin, brevetoxin, okadaic acid, and ciguatoxin trigger many illnesses such as Ciguatera Fish Poisoning (CFP), Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP), Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP), and Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) [26,27,28]. Thus, addressing and understanding algal blooms have become an objective of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), primarily Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation) and Goal 14 (life below water).
In some instances, toxins are not actively excreted; the toxin is released when a HAB ruptures or is eaten by another creature [29]. Some HABs generate one specific type of toxin only, whereas others produce several. Skin contact, ingesting infected seafood, swallowing water while swimming, and, in the case of animals, lapping the contaminated water or algae off their fur after swimming through an algal bloom are the most typical ways that the HAB toxins enter the animal/human systems. Some people experience immediate allergic reactions; direct exposures can irritate the skin, nose, throat, and eyes, as well as cause respiratory system inflammation [30]. That includes the effects of ingestion, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. HAB toxins have been connected to neurological issues and liver illness in humans [30,31]. It has been confirmed that marine blooms not only pose a serious risk to public health but also reduce the efficiency of zooplankton (water supply energy efficiency) to consume algae, which can indirectly restrict algal growth [27,32]. All these have huge repercussions in affecting the socio-economic conditions of local people and their regional economy.

3. Surveying Specific Reports of HAB Fish Kills

Fish deaths have been linked to a variety of toxic algae, although in many cases, it is difficult to identify the specific toxins or poisoning mechanism [27]. Nevertheless, several toxin types, many of which are ichthyotoxic, have been discovered in several types of algae. Disorientation, loss of balance, and occasional hyperactivity are some of the clinical indications of algal neurotoxicity. Hypoxia is brought on by other algae that mechanically block or harm the gills [33,34]. The global algal bloom status report noted a rise in the incidence, severity, and geographic spread of HABs in estuarine and fresh waters [35]. Consequently, HABs have been linked with both wild and farmed fish deaths. In the sections that follow, we will feature the predominant HAB species and their effects on fish based on the reports published thus far.

3.1. Prymnesium Parvum

Significant HABs that compromise the stability of aquatic ecosystems can be caused by Prymnesium parvum [36]. This mixotrophic haptophyte has been reported to orchestrate significant ecological effects, including enormous fish fatalities, in many environments because of its ichthyotoxicity. This organism is said to be mostly of marine origin but also tends to live in inland water with high mineral content [37]. P. parvum, sometimes known as “golden alga”, has been reported to cause huge fish kills. For instance, they have been linked to approximately 135 tons of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway that were killed during a bloom in 2007 [38]. The chemical composition of the toxins of P. parvum, collectively referred to as prymnesins, has been found to contain biomolecules like glycolipids, galactolipids, proteolipids, and lipid–carbohydrate molecules [36], and the way they elicit toxicity are being investigated. Clinton et al. examined the gill transcriptome sensitivity of juvenile rainbow trout as a function of toxin dosage and fish phenotype [39]. Typically, the fish were exposed to prymnesins for 4–5 h. The study demonstrated the activation of acute pro-inflammatory cytokines that cause severe gill malfunction after exposure to the toxins, and these responses are independent of toxin dosage and fish phenotype. P. parvum excretes toxins to catch prey; however, it is hypothesized that Prymnesium toxins are released again after cell-to-cell contact in a process known as “toxin-mediated micropredation” [39,40]. In fact, reports of direct physical contact with animals have been reported [41]. That could explain why finfish are more prone to being injured by toxins compared to shelled species like prawns [36]. According to Qin et al., other parameters, such as water temperature, salinity, and nutritional status, particularly the levels of N and P, play a role in the cytotoxicity effect of P. parvum toxins [36]. Prymnesins have hemolytic and cytotoxic qualities that may affect the integrity of cell membranes, resulting in an impairment in cell permeability [42]. Though there is no consensus on the number of cells that could be lethal to fish, a dosage of 10,000–20,000 cells/mL has been reported to cause fish kill [43]. The research to disclose other secondary metabolites responsible for P. parvum’s toxicity is still in progress [44]. Many species of Prymnesium are recognized to produce toxic compounds that impact erythrocytes and gill-respiring organisms [45]. P. parvum causes periodical HABs, whose cell densities grow quickly and are able to release powerful ichthyotoxins [44].
Local fauna may be significantly threatened by persistent Prymnesium HABs, which impart enormous damage to the ecosystem and the local economy [46]. A majority of investigations have linked P. parvum and P. parvum f. patelliferum (belonging to the same species), which are alternate phases in a haploid–diploid life cycle, owing to the extent of their spread and the frequency of their toxic occurrences [46,47]. The reported case of P. parvum and its bloom’s connection with sick and dead fish was documented in 1938 around the brackish waters of Northern Europe [48]. Since then, the algae’s connection to seasonal toxic blooms and large fatalities in fish ponds and in native gill-respiring animals has been well-documented [49].

3.2. Karenia Mikimotoi

Karenia mikimotoi is a dinoflagellate species from the genus Karenia. It was first reported in Japan in 1935, and since then, it has appeared in other parts of the world, such as the east coast of the United States, Norway, and the English Channel [50]. K. mikimotoi has yellow–brown chloroplasts and, like other species in its genus, is able to activate photosynthetically [51]. HABs of K. mikimotoi have been affecting large numbers of marine species around the world for more than 80 years. Large-scale fish kills have been documented along the coastal seas of Europe and Asia, resulting in significant economic losses [50,52]. Three main mechanisms by which K. mikimotoi may cause fish deaths include [53]: (1) the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage fish respiratory systems and destabilize their antioxidant defenses; (2) fish suffocation due to lack of dissolved oxygen; and (3) the release of cytotoxic toxins like gymnocins, hemolysins, and specific polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another evolving neurotoxin known as gymnodimines has also been reported in fish kills and is produced by Karenia selliformis [54].
To identify differentially expressed proteins, entire proteomes of medaka (the Japanese rice fish) were studied using 2-DE (two-dimensional electrophoresis) by varying the toxin dosage of K. mikimotoi (LT25, LT50, and LT90) [53]. A total of 35 differential protein locations with at least two-fold variations were confirmed with mass spectrometric analysis. Typically, these regions cover some 19 proteins that are correlated with strong inflammatory and oxidative stress responses. Several unfavorable symptoms that emerged during the exposure time, such as asphyxiation, losing balance, and body jerking, which are all symptoms of muscle injury, were observed. Kwok et al. [53] reported a novel approach employing molecular analysis to study ichthyotoxicity processes; the exact toxicity pathways of fish kills are still at the infant stage, as inferred by these authors.
Previous studies have established the hemolytic and cytotoxic nature of K. mikimotoi, as well as its lethality and the cytotoxic mechanisms operating against marine organisms [50]. K. mikimotoi has had numerous names over its lengthy and intricate categorization history. Though first identified as Gymnodinium mikimotoi, it was finally named by Dr. Shoichi Miyake and Konan Kiyo from sample waters of Gokasho Bay, Honshu, Japan [50]. A snapshot of the various records of this dinoflagellate bloom is presented in detail by Li, Xiaodong, et al. [50], leading to mortalities of Pacific abalone (Haliotis discus hannai), Japanese common squid (Todarodes pacificus) and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) [55], trout, cod, and eels [56,57], Pacific salmon, and Atlantic salmon [50,58]. Ironically, these blooms in Chile were reported to have occurred only once, whereas, in the case of countries like China, these blooms have recurred periodically since 2002, causing havoc to the ecological balance and local economy [59]. Valuable marine edible fish along the East China Sea and its related areas have been documented to be vastly affected. In fact, an economic loss of USD 50.8 million was reported in the area around Hong Kong [58]. With over 100 blooms documented from 2006 to 2018, K. mikimotoi blooms are now a frequent and regular yearly environmental calamity in China [59,60]. It is predicted that blooms will continue to be often observed along China’s coastlines for a very long time.
According to the majority of field reports and laboratory testing, K. mikimotoi can be poisonous to fish, particularly harming fish gills. Prior to death, the fish exhibit abnormal behavioral activities and elevated opercular rates [50]. In these dead fish, gill abnormalities, excessive mucus secretion, and knotted filaments were perceived to cause fish suffocation [61]. Salmon appeared agitated and stuck to the surface before they sank down as soon as the blooms reached their tanks [62]. Sloughing and oedematous epithelia were observed in the dead fish, along with excess mucus secretion and gill blemishes [50]. In fact, in a pilot test, the deceased fish’s gills did not exhibit mechanical obstruction by the alga, but they did exhibit histological alterations, such as necrotic atrophy and breakdown of the lamellar epithelium [63,64]. Reports confirmed a rheological stickiness of water—caused by both the algae and the fish mucus, which may play a role in the cytotoxicity of K. mikimotoi [65]. Severe gill damage was noted in farmed fish amidst algal blooms in Hong Kong waters [66]. Clinical examination of salmon livers by Mitchell and Rodger in 2007 revealed widespread coagulative necrosis in addition to tissue destruction in the gills [67]. Even in waters with high dissolved oxygen (DO), Li et al. (2017) [60] observed that K. mikimotoi may be fatal to turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) and that the death rate rose when the DO content was not regulated. However, no additional harmful consequences have been observed besides mortality, behavioral issues, and gill damage. It is yet unknown if K. mikimotoi has sublethal effects on fish, such as immunotoxicity effects or developmental toxicity.

3.3. Karenia Brevis

Florida’s west coast experiences blooms of the toxic alga Karenia brevis, sometimes infamously known as “Florida red tides”, every year, which results in significant fish mortality. However, there is little quantitative data available on the ecological consequences of K. brevis on finfish communities. Stumpf et al. [68] evaluated the intensity of K. brevis blooms across time from 1953 to 2019 over the shorelines of southwest Florida and developed a Bloom Severity Index (BSI). In their study, they demonstrated that the effects of blooms on the respiratory system are not uniform in time and space. While some areas may experience effects for several months in a row during major blooms, the entire coast does not experience effects continuously from start to finish due to other factors, including the strength of offshore/onshore winds. K. brevis brevetoxins (PbTx) have been detected in the tissues of the dead fish [69].
Gannon et al. [70] investigated variations in fish densities and fish diversities in connection with K. brevis in five habitats around Sarasota Bay (close to the Gulf of Mexico) during the 2004 to 2007 summers. Physical parameters such as salinity, water temperature, and turbidity were recorded. Red tides resulted in considerably decreased species richness and fish density in terms of catch per unit effort (CPUE) across all environments. In 4 out of 5 habitats, Shannon–Wiener diversity indices (which reflect species evenness and richness) were considerably lower during red tides. This was supported by a regression tree and canonical correspondence analysis, which revealed that the K. brevis density had a significant influence on the fish population and distribution. In fact, Florida’s database on fish kills relates to 96% of fish mortality from the 2003 to 2007 red tides [70]. It is inferred that these brevetoxins have the potential to alter the ecosystem by impacting the fish larvae survival rate, altering phytoplankton composition, and varying the population within an ecosystem [71]. However, it is inconclusive whether the change in community structure and fish density is either through mass mortality (of fish) or mass emigration. The episode of massive fish deaths and high PbTx concentrations in fish tissues, however, imply that brevetoxin-induced mortality was a key contributor, leading to alterations at the community level [72]. Brevetoxins, which are fatal to fish, have lately been shown to accumulate in tissues of higher trophic animals like birds, bottlenose dolphins, manatees, and humans [72,73,74,75]. Brevetoxins may be identified in fish tissues up to a year after red tides [76], and they were discovered in Sarasota Bay fish tissues many months after these specific red-tide occurrences, showing that they persist in the food chain for a long time. From the Florida red tide observations, it can be hypothesized that, besides mass mortality, brevetoxins modify the fish abundance, species diversity, and community diversity (population) of local habitats.

3.4. Heterosigma Akashiwo

Over the past few decades, the frequency of HABs of Heterosigma akashiwo (Hada) along coastal areas has increased. H. akashiwo is a species of microscopic algae of the class Raphidophyceae [77], which is a marine alga that leads to HABs. The species name akashiwo is from the Japanese for “red tide”; other synonyms include Olisthodiscus luteus [78] and Entomosigma akashiwo [79]. H. akashiwo recently caused a fish-killing bloom event in 2021 that sparked a scientific investigation, but the ichthyotoxic pathway and environmental factors that support its proliferation are yet unknown [80]. According to the RT gill-W1 bioassay study, the H. akashiwo strain is only cytotoxic at higher cell concentrations (>47,000 cells mL−1) and after cell breakage. It was proposed that high levels of long-chain PUFA synthesis from high cell densities caused salmon mortality [80].
The devastating consequences of these algae toxins on fish and other species have been a high concern [81]. H. akashiwo blooms have been reported throughout major continents, from the USA–Canada, Bermuda, Europe, Asia, and New Zealand [81]. In a study, this bloom was reported to cause losses on the scale of USD 4–5 million dollars [82]. It has been a mystery how H. akashiwo and other similarly related raphidophytes, such as Chattonella spp. and Fibrocapsa spp., kill fish [83]. However, compared to the other HABs, in the case of this genera, some knowledge has been gathered about the potential toxicity mechanism of this alga’s ichthyotoxic effects. Three theories have emerged amid debates and controversies. The first is the presence of mucus or other polysaccharides that resemble lectins, which may cover fish gills, asphyxiating them [84,85,86]. It is, however, unknown whether this mucus represents a fish’s defensive mechanism or an exfoliated material from the algal surface. The creation of organic toxins is the subject of the second theory, where these HABs have been shown to possess a potential neurotoxin, both in situ and in vitro [87,88]. McNabb et al. (2006) [89] used liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LCMS) as a diagnostic tool to validate the toxicity of brevetoxin by testing 34 microalgal isolates that are brevetoxin producers. Their results confirmed that only K. brevis strains, imported from the USA, produced brevetoxin. All isolates cultured in New Zealand proved non-toxic by LCMS testing, down to very low levels (0.003 pg cell−1). The third theory is that this raphidophyte species produces too many reactive oxygen species (ROS), including superoxide (O), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxy radicals (OH•), and that these ROSs are the ichthyotoxic agents [81,90]. Fish gill tissue is likely to be destroyed if ROS concentrations are high enough, which reduces oxygen intake and causes asphyxiation.

3.5. Karlodinium

Numerous fish-killing incidents have been linked to the dinoflagellate genus Karlodinium in continents throughout the world, including North America, Europe, Southwest Africa, East Asia, and Australia [91,92]. It was previously categorized as Gymnodinium or Gyrodinium until the now-famous genus was identified. This genus has 15 recognized species as of 2020, of which 6 species have been proven to be toxic (K. armiger, K. azanzae, K. conicum, K. corsicum, K. digitatum, and K. veneficum) [93]. Notably, K. veneficum has been linked to innumerable HAB events and mass fish kills [94,95,96]. Karlotoxins, a class of ichthyotoxins that can enhance the ionic susceptibility of cell membranes and ultimately cause osmotic cell expansion and lysis by creating membrane holes with desmethyl sterols, are ideally produced by the two species K. veneficum and K. conicum [97,98]. Karlotoxins have anti-grazing qualities and are fatal to predators [91,99]. According to different strains of K. veneficum as well as different physical properties of water, the toxicity fluctuates and eventually decreases throughout laboratory-based culturing [91,100]. The species K. armiger generates karmitoxin, a powerful nanomolar cytotoxin with an -NH2 (amino) group, which is distinct from K. veneficum and K. conicum and was the primary contributor to fish fatalities from K. armiger [101,102]. None of these mixoplankton species, K. veneficum [103,104], K. armiger [105], and K. azanzae [106], have been adequately studied in terms of phagotrophy. Although dangerous dinoflagellates and haptophytes frequently exhibit phagotrophy, its relevance with respect to HABs is not yet fully understood [98,107]. The harmful strains of K. veneficum and K. armiger paralyze their victims with biomolecules before ingesting them [101,108,109]. Of the Karlodinium group, only K. armiger, K. conicum, and K. veneficum have been studied. While the former produces karmitoxin, the latter two are known to produce karlotoxins [101]. Both compounds are large polyethers and have identical chemical structures. Chemically, Karmitoxin has a longer C-C backbone (about 60–64 carbon) and a functional amino group than karlotoxins [101]. Karlotoxins are thought to work by creating pores in cell membranes, which cause the target cells to lyse and cause the target animals to die [97]. In fish cell membranes where cholesterol is the predominant sterol, it has been demonstrated that karlotoxins engage with 4-desmethyl sterols to create pores [110]. Given the similar chemical structure of these toxins, it is anticipated that the mode of action of karmitoxin will be comparable to that of karlotoxins. Binzer et al. [102], while analyzing the impact of these algal toxins on fish, inferred that the fish’s life stage is also crucial. Larger fish are much more susceptible than fish larvae, and in a bloom situation, they will perish sooner. They also postulated that additional toxins are perhaps involved or that there may be more than a single pathway for the toxin to exert its effect on fish.
De Salas et al. [111] initially described K. australe, another species of Karlodinium; however, it was not until 2014 that this species was linked to fish death [112]. K. australe has been witnessed in the coastal waters of southeast Asian nations stretching along Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines to the East China Sea, Japan, and Australia [106,113,114]. This species bloomed in the West Johor Strait in February 2014, killing a significant number of fish in the wild and in cages [112]. The West Johor Strait was also filled with blooms of this particular species again the following year, which resulted in the death of hundreds of tons of fish kept in cages [113]. The chemistry of the ichthyotoxic substances produced by the fish-eating K. veneficum was not yet understood when they were identified in 2002 [115]. In fish necropsy, Lim et al. [112] noted protruding eyeballs, reddened iris, discolored and peeling skin, reddening at the bottom of fins, and scarred gills with a brownish cast, which are symptoms comparable to those brought on by karlotoxins. K. australe was also shown to be a phagotroph capable of eating the cryptophyte Rhodomonas salina [111], although the precise mechanism and method of feeding were still unknown [91]. According to Lim et al. (2014) [112], fish deaths seen during these low-cell density blooms indicate that K. australe is a very effective fish killer. Based on this survey, it was reported that fish death incidents connected to K. australe low-cell density blooms were brought on by the combined effects of toxicity and phagotrophy. In fact, it was reported that micropredation played a more important role than the K. australe toxicity on aquatic organisms [98]. This explains why K. australe demonstrated fish lethality even at modest blooms at cell densities <2.34 × 106 cells L−1, in comparison with K. veneficum, which has been shown to cause significant fish kills for the cell density >107 cells L−1 [98].

3.6. Miscellaneous Reports

Scattered reports of HAB fish kills have also been reported. Although it is unknown, reports of marine animal deaths have been attributed to a powerful exotoxin released by Pfiesteria species [116], while other research has shown that P. shumwayae killed fish by micropredation rather than exotoxin [117,118]. Those involving other species of HABs, such as Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765) and Melichthys niger, have been reported repeatedly [119,120]. This impacted thousands of triggerfish and 2200 fry of Trachinotus ovatus [121]. Prymnesium polylepis, Phaeocystis spp., Chattonella antiqua, and Chattonella marina are known for their exotoxin and/or endotoxin production, resulting in fish kills [122,123,124] or suffocates finfish and shellfish in some cases, by producing copious mucilage [125,126,127,128]. Therefore, fishes suffocate due to excess mucus secretion. Chaetoceros concavicornis and C. convolutus have extremely sharp cellular extensions that result in capillary hemorrhage, disruption of gas exchange at the gills, excessive mucus production, and suffocation of cultured and wild salmonids [129] and red king crabs and Paralithodes camtschatica [130]. Margalefidinium polykrikoides, one of the toxic dinoflagellates, was reported to cause fish kills around coastal geographies [131]. According to a study, exposure to M. polykrikoides probably impairs gill function and decreases oxygen and food intake as a consequence of lowered metabolic activity of fish [131]. Factors such as phases of life and ontologies of individual species seem to play a role in understanding the toxicity mechanisms of these HABs [131,132]. For instance, M. polyrikoides toxins sub-lethal effect was found to cause fish larvae to starve, making them more susceptible to toxin-producing HABs than fed conspecifics [133]. Acute toxicity, sublethal behavioral impacts, and perhaps the decreased nutritional value of the water all contribute to the severity of fish kills [131].
Around the world, paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) has been linked to the dinoflagellate genus Alexandrium [134]. However, it has been demonstrated that a number of species that do not produce PSP toxins are harmful to finfish [135]. There are more than 40 dinoflagellate species in the genus Alexandrium, many of which, like A. tamarense, A. andersonii, A. minutum, and A. catenella, have been thoroughly established to be poisonous, primarily because of PSTs [135,136]. However, other Alexandrium species, including A. leei and A. ostenfeldii, have been proven to be ichthyotoxic without generating PSP toxins [135].
Fish fatalities can also happen from direct parasitism by harmless marine dinoflagellate algal blooms [137]. They have been identified to lead to mass mortalities in finfish and shellfish. As an illustration, the parasite Ichthyodinium chabelsrdi led to widespread sardine mortality in the Mediterranean [138]. Amyloodinium ocellatum is a virulent pathogen in estuaries affecting striped bass [139]. Table 2 enlists the marine fishes killed/affected by HABs.

4. Mitigation Methods

The procedure for HAB mitigation involves prevention, management, and control. In case of HAB formation, the goal is to decrease its negative consequences by preventing interaction between marine organisms and the bloom while simultaneously working to restore the natural habitat. The currently practiced mitigation strategies can be categorized into physical, chemical, and biological. Some of the methods that have been employed in fields are categorized and discussed below.

4.1. Physical

In marine fish farms, aeration (such as bubble curtains and airlift upwelling) is frequently used to mitigate the harmful effects of HABs that cause water hypoxia or anoxia [160]. The goal of airlift upwelling is to replace surface water that contains a lot of microalgae with deep water. The bottom water functions as a dilution mechanism since it often lacks photosynthetic cells. Results are better when employed with perimeter skirts. The Pseudochattonella bloom in Chilean salmon facilities in 2016 could not be controlled using this strategy [161]. The traditional techniques of top and bottom strata mixing of water using hydraulic pumps or hypolimnetic removal and flushing using powerful motors, as employed in North America, were not successful owing to huge costs and the logistic constraints of moving heavy equipment [160].

4.2. Chemical

Conventionally, clays were employed to flocculate harmful algal cells [162], but Sengco et al. [163] and Seger et al. highlighted the ability of clay minerals to target the adsorption of ichthyotoxins produced by the haptophyte P. parvum [164], the dinoflagellates Margalefidinium polykrikoides [165], and K. brevis [166] as well as freshwater blooms [167,168]. The idea behind using clay to reduce HAB is based on the flocculation abilities of clay to absorb HABs and drag them to bottom waters so they stop growing or die as a consequence of inhibiting the growth factors responsible for their growth [169]. It was found that clay plays a role in impacting HAB cells in terms of growth rate, antioxidant enzyme activity, and photosynthetic rate. Although HAB cells were not eliminated by flocculation, it may be deduced that surface interaction between modified clay and remaining HAB cells could stimulate those cells and produce a lot of reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to a significant rise in cell SOD (superoxide dismutase) and CAT (catalase) activity. Therefore, the key mechanism behind inhibiting residual cell growth was probably the augmentation of ROS generation caused by functionalized clays. However, factors such as the huge quantity requirement (110–400 tons/km2 of clay), logistical feasibility, and heavy deposition load are some of the challenges that need to be considered when opting for a clay-based mitigation strategy [162,170,171].

4.3. Biological

The use of biological agents such as bacteria and viruses has become a novel means to control and manage HABs [172]. The inter-kingdom relationship between bacteria and algae is both complex and dynamic in freshwater and marine environments. They operate in a variety of ways [173]. Usually, the interaction between the bacteria and algae takes place around the “phycosphere”, which is a layer enriched with dissolved organic exudate from algae cells [174]. The mode of algicidal interactions can be both direct, where bacteria lyse algae by physical contact, or indirect approaches, where the chemicals from the bacteria induce algae death [174]. Perhaps the most typical result of algicidal interactions is the lysis, or rupture, of the algal cells [175,176]. Typically, bacteria-triggered algal death occurs without the algal cells experiencing any metabolic or physiological effects [177]. For instance, benzoic acid generated by algicidal Thalassospira sp. causes cell lysis of K. mikimotoi [178]. The likely mechanism of benzoic acid penetration through the cell membrane and resultant acidification of algal cytoplasm was proposed. Some algae can escape or, at the very least, postpone cell death by producing a protective cyst [174]. When K. brevis was grown with algicidal bacteria from the Cytophaga/Flavobacterium/Bacteroidetes (CFB) group, Roth et al. [179] observed the existence of cyst-like cells, indicating that algicidal bacteria may promote a transition to the cyst stage in dinoflagellates. However, this characteristic may not be directly linked to the action of certain bacteria; rather, it is more likely to be a dinoflagellate defense mechanism. After being exposed to bacterial algicides, algae frequently produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) like hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), the superoxide anion (O2−), singlet oxygen (1O2), and the hydroxyl radical (HO) [174]. Oxidative stress brought on by an excess of ROS causes cell damage and even death [180]. Another interesting field of study that is being explored is to use certain classes of bacteria like Proteobacteria (α, β, and γ), Actinobacteria, and Bacilli to degrade HAB toxins such as microcystin [181]. Microcystins are cyclic heptapeptide liver toxins that are predominantly found in freshwater and marine environments and are chemically stable in water even in both extremes of high and low temperature and pH range without sunlight [181]. The standard water treatment methods have failed to entirely eliminate this potentially carcinogenic toxin. The pathway of toxicity caused by this toxin is through inhibition of protein phosphatases (PP1 and PP2A). Consequently, key biological proteins may become hyperphosphorylated and trigger cellular necrosis, apoptosis, and inflammation, eventually resulting in liver bleeding and DNA damage [182,183]. As an alternative, the HcRNAV virus has been employed in the first field trial to control Heterocapsa circularisquama bloom [184]. There are reports on the use of seaweeds to prevent (via nutrient competition/allelochemicals) the development of high biomass HABs [185,186]. Rhodophytes are the most potent group that can inhibit HABs [186]. A few other rhodophytes (red algae) are also able to inhibit HABs by raising the competition for nutrients and by secreting allelopathic compounds [187]. For instance, it has been confirmed that some species of Gracilaria native to Asian seas limit the formation of numerous HABs by allelopathy [186,188,189]. Dasysiphonia japonica grows faster than other red macroalgae, which helps it compete with other types of algae in nutrient-rich estuaries [190]. No research has been conducted on the possible impacts of D. japonica on HABs phytoplankton, including A. anophagefferens [191]. Another novel method is the use of algal-lysing substance prodigiosin to target H. akashiwo’s cellular shape, antioxidant defenses, molecular gene expression, and finally, cause the death of algal cells [192]. A variety of bacteria, such as Serratia, Streptomyces Zooshikella, and Pseudoalteromonas, can create the red pigment prodigiosin (PG) [193]. However, the limitations of using biological agents include evaluation of cost, geographical location, viability, social acceptance, and proven on-field specificity of biological agents with target HAB management techniques [194,195]. It is important that we emphasize here that, despite such mitigation options being readily available, they have never been tested in the field but only under laboratory conditions.

5. Current Gaps in Our Knowledge and Direction for Future Perspective

Numerous harmful algal blooms have been identified to rise from eutrophication or nutrient enrichment [196]. The issue of HABs and their effects on fish and marine ecosystems is a powerful reminder of how critically important a healthy, balanced natural environment is to marine development and how aquaculturists have a stake in preventing environmental degradation. The reports are considerably large in number. However, to date, the mechanism behind fish kills from HABs has not been systematically worked out. Doing so will help us to understand the seriousness of the problem and aid in raising awareness, leading to proper caution. The mechanism that leads to fish kills is different for different HABs (Figure 2); this needs to be meticulously evaluated, also. The primary process appears to vary depending on the HAB species, and additional research is required to determine the mechanism of several notorious algae, such as K. mikimotoi. The standard method of using isolated toxins and measuring their toxicity for HAB species may not be useful for examining toxicity mechanisms [197,198]. Moreover, many ichthyotoxic toxins produced by dinoflagellates have not yet been fully identified or characterized, such as those produced by Margalefidinium polykrikoides, M. fulvescens, Akashiwo sanguinea, and Amphidinium carterae [135].
Increase and decrease of elemental concentration and pH of water is depicted through upper and lower arrow mark respectively in yellow color in Figure 2. Yan et al. recommended a biotechnology approach of comparing gene expression of both algae and test species to unravel the mechanism [198]. Although, in most cases, it is well-established that HABs kill fish, the exact mechanism that varies with respect to each algal species has yet to be systematically and authoritatively worked out. This review highlights the need for mechanistic studies to be conducted in order to obtain a clear perspective on the mechanism behind the fish kills. There are gaps in the current understanding that need to be addressed in order to gain a clear and holistic perspective of the underlying issues. One such gap is the lack of a fundamental understanding of the toxicity mechanism at work in HABs. Figure 3 gives the results of the PubMed search using the search terms ‘harmful algal blooms and fish kills’; as observed from the graph, the search returned a meager 215 hits. Because the devastation is enormous, it is strange to see limited research enthusiasm for HAB-related fish kills. Most of the reports on fish kills by HABs appear as online news reports or blogs; there are a mere 215 publications represented as scientific publications. This is an evident lack, and this review prompts research attention in this direction.
Yñiguez and Ottong [199] used random forest, a machine learning model for the prediction of fish kills by HABs by employing physical data such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, water pH, salinity, and chlorophyll from 2015 to 2017 in Bolinao-Anda, Philippines. Their model suggested that higher salinity and temperatures increased the likelihood of fish deaths, but lower salinity and higher chlorophyll levels increased the likelihood of hazardous blooms. Another recent study involving a satellite system in the SW Iberian Peninsula [200] was found to be promising for control of HAB.
More such simulation studies are required in this direction. With various sophisticated remote sensing technologies becoming available, prediction models encompassing earth- and satellite-based observations in combination with computer models and regular field sampling can help identify HABs in their infancy so that protective measures and appropriate steps can be taken. The fact that we emphasize here is that the application of advanced technologies in the detection, prevention, and mitigation of HABs is far from implementation. Proper utilization of the available resources could help in addressing HABs appropriately. Most of the mitigation methods have not been attempted on-site but have been confined to laboratory-scale experiments; this is another gap that needs to be addressed. Despite the laboratory-scale success reported using biological mitigation, the question is why this technology has not been implemented. Our PubMed search using the search terms ‘harmful algal blooms’ displayed 2537 hits, yet the search on HAB mitigation received only 105 hits (Figure 4A,B). This indicates the low response from mitigation research groups for voluminous reports on HABs; this review urges accelerated research and implementation of mitigation methods.
There are ample studies that report HAB-based toxicity in fish, but nothing much has been aimed at neutralizing these HAB toxins. Algal blooms, to a certain extent, are inevitable; hence, efforts to neutralize or degrade the toxins they release need to be devised. Microorganism-mediated degradation of HAB toxins, nanomaterial-mediated sorption of HAB toxins, and nanoclay/nanosponge-mediated nanosorption of HAB toxins are a few futuristic directions that may prove beneficial. Additionally, methods to inhibit the proliferation of HABs could also prove useful.
Rules and regulations play a vital role, and the Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) carefully monitors commercial fisheries for signs of toxins. The issue is that most of these regulatory bodies focus on the prevalent, well-reported contaminants and ignore the ones that are infamous for their toxicity. This is yet another gap identified during the course of this review preparation. This review emphasizes that stringent regulations to monitor HABs are lacking and need to be reinforced.

6. Conclusions

In this study, the predominant HABs involved in marine fish kills are reported, the various toxins that are responsible, and the speculated toxicity mechanisms behind the fish kills, as well as the mitigation measures available, are discussed. The review highlights the lapses in the implementation of the biological mitigation methods as well as the engagement of nanosorption-based nanotechnological advancements for the resolution of HAB fish kills. The gaps in the proper understanding of the toxicity mechanisms of the various HAB toxins and the lack of involving satellite and remote sensing techniques and machine learning methods for early detection and resolution of HAB issues are projected. Lack of awareness of the new generation of resources is pointed out, and the need to exploit these is prompted.

Author Contributions

S.S.C.P., M.M. and J.G.: preparation of the original draft and revisions; J.-W.O. participated in review and revisions and funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Okaichi, T. Red Tides in the Seto Inland Sea. In Sustainable Development in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan—From the Viewpoint of Fisheries; Okaichi, T., Yanagi, T., Eds.; Terra Scientific Publishing Company: Tokyo, Japan, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  2. Steidinger, K.A. Historical Perspective on Karenia brevis Red Tide Research in the Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae 2009, 8, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vancouver, G. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World in the Years 1790–95; G.G. and J. Robinson: London, UK, 1798. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, W. An Account of Some Poisonous Fish in The South Seas. In a Letter to Sir John Pringle, Bart. P.R.S. from Mr. William Anderson, Late Surgeon’s Mate on Board His Majesty’s Ship the Resolution, Now Surgeon of That Ship. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1776, 66, 544–552. [Google Scholar]
  5. Francis, G. Poisonous Australian Lake. Nature 1878, 18, 11–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yasumoto, T.; Oshima, Y.; Sugawara, W.; Fukuyo, Y.; Oguri, H.; Igarashi, T.; Fujita, N. Identification of Dinophysis fortii as the Causative Organism of Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 1980, 46, 1405–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bates, S.S.; Bird, C.J.; de Freitas, A.S.W.; Foxall, R.; Gilgan, M.; Hanic, L.A.; Johnson, G.R.; McCulloch, A.W.; Odense, P.; Pocklington, R.; et al. Pennate Diatom Nitzschia pungens as the Primary Source of Domoic Acid, a Toxin in Shellfish from Eastern Prince Edward Island, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1989, 46, 1203–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McMahon, T. Winter Toxicity of Unknown Aetiology in Mussels. Harmful Algae News 1996, 14, 2. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gobler, C.J. Climate Change and Harmful Algal Blooms: Insights and Perspective. Harmful Algae 2020, 91, 101731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Wurtsbaugh, W.A.; Paerl, H.W.; Dodds, W.K. Nutrients, Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms along the Freshwater to Marine Continuum. WIREs Water 2019, 6, e1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Furuya, K.; Iwataki, M.; Lim, P.T.; Lu, S.; Leaw, C.-P.; Azanza, R.V.; Kim, H.-G.; Fukuyo, Y. Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms in Asia. In Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms; Glibert, P.M., Berdalet, E., Burford, M.A., Pitcher, G.C., Zhou, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 289–308. ISBN 9783319700694. [Google Scholar]
  12. Weir, M.J.; Kourantidou, M.; Jin, D. Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms on Fishery-Dependent Communities. Harmful Algae 2022, 118, 102321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kourantidou, M.; Jin, D.; Schumacker, E.J. Socioeconomic Disruptions of Harmful Algal Blooms in Indigenous Communities: The Case of Quinault Indian Nation. Harmful Algae 2022, 118, 102316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Griffin, L.P.; Friess, C.; Bakenhaster, M.D.; Bassos-Hull, K.; Burnsed, S.W.; Brownscombe, J.W.; Cooke, S.J.; Ellis, R.D.; Gardiner, J.M.; Locascio, J.; et al. Assessing the Potential for Red Tide (Karenia brevis) Algal Bloom Impacts on Atlantic Tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) along the Southwestern Coast of Florida. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2023, 106, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Turley, B.D.; Karnauskas, M.; Campbell, M.D.; Hanisko, D.S.; Kelble, C.R. Relationships between Blooms of Karenia brevis and Hypoxia across the West Florida Shelf. Harmful Algae 2022, 114, 102223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sha, J.; Xiong, H.; Li, C.; Lu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhong, H.; Zhang, W.; Yan, B. Harmful Algal Blooms and Their Eco-Environmental Indication. Chemosphere 2021, 274, 129912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Glibert, P.M.; Berdalet, E.; Burford, M.A.; Pitcher, G.C.; Zhou, M. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hoagland, P.; Anderson, D.M.; Kaoru, Y.; White, A.W. The Economic Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms in the United States: Estimates, Assessment Issues, and Information Needs. Estuaries 2002, 25, 819–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Court, C.; Ferreira, J.; Ropicki, A.; Qiao, X.; Saha, B. Quantifying the Socio-Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms in Southwest Florida; Project Sponsored by the West Coast Inland Navigation District and The Marine Industries Association of Southwest Florida and Tampa Bay; University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS): Gainesville, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  20. Berdalet, E.; Fleming, L.E.; Gowen, R.; Davidson, K.; Hess, P.; Backer, L.C.; Moore, S.K.; Hoagland, P.; Enevoldsen, H. Marine Harmful Algal Blooms, Human Health and Wellbeing: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 2015, 2015, 61–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ribaudo, M.; Shortle, J. Reflections on 40 Years of Applied Economics Research on Agriculture and Water Quality. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2019, 48, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sun, H.; Han, C.; Liu, Z.; Wei, Y.; Ma, S.; Bao, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, H. Nutrient Limitations on Primary Productivity and Phosphorus Removal by Biological Carbon Pumps in Dammed Karst Rivers: Implications for Eutrophication Control. J. Hydrol. 2022, 607, 127480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nagelkerken, I.; Doney, S.C. Consequences of Anthropogenic Changes in the Sensory Landscape of Marine Animals. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 2019, 57, 229–263. [Google Scholar]
  24. Diaz, R.J.; Rosenberg, R. Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems. Science 2008, 321, 926–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Anderson, D.M.; Fensin, E.; Gobler, C.J.; Hoeglund, A.E.; Hubbard, K.A.; Kulis, D.M.; Landsberg, J.H.; Lefebvre, K.A.; Provoost, P.; Richlen, M.L.; et al. Marine Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States: History, Current Status and Future Trends. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Young, N.; Sharpe, R.A.; Barciela, R.; Nichols, G.; Davidson, K.; Berdalet, E.; Fleming, L.E. Marine Harmful Algal Blooms and Human Health: A Systematic Scoping Review. Harmful Algae 2020, 98, 101901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lopes, V.M.; Costa, P.R.; Rosa, R. Effects of Harmful Algal Bloom Toxins on Marine Organisms; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pradhan, B.; Kim, H.; Abassi, S.; Ki, J.-S. Toxic Effects and Tumor Promotion Activity of Marine Phytoplankton Toxins: A Review. Toxins 2022, 14, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Dorantes-Aranda, J.J.; Seger, A.; Mardones, J.I.; Nichols, P.D.; Hallegraeff, G.M. Progress in Understanding Algal Bloom-Mediated Fish Kills: The Role of Superoxide Radicals, Phycotoxins and Fatty Acids. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Lim, C.C.; Yoon, J.; Reynolds, K.; Gerald, L.B.; Ault, A.P.; Heo, S.; Bell, M.L. Harmful Algal Bloom Aerosols and Human Health. EBioMedicine 2023, 93, 104604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lad, A.; Breidenbach, J.D.; Su, R.C.; Murray, J.; Kuang, R.; Mascarenhas, A.; Najjar, J.; Patel, S.; Hegde, P.; Youssef, M.; et al. As We Drink and Breathe: Adverse Health Effects of Microcystins and Other Harmful Algal Bloom Toxins in the Liver, Gut, Lungs and Beyond. Life 2022, 12, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Witt, B.A.; Beyer, J.E.; Hallidayschult, T.C.; Hambright, K.D. Short-Term Toxicity Effects of P. parvum on Zooplankton Community Composition. Aquat. Sci. 2019, 81, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mardones, J.I.; Shabala, L.; Shabala, S.; Dorantes-Aranda, J.J.; Seger, A.; Hallegraeff, G.M. Fish Gill Damage by Harmful Microalgae Newly Explored by Microelectrode Ion Flux Estimation Techniques. Harmful Algae 2018, 80, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Svendsen, M.B.S.; Andersen, N.R.; Hansen, P.J.; Steffensen, J.F. Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms on Fish: Insights from P. parvum. Fishes 2018, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hallegraeff, G.; Enevoldsen, H.; Zingone, A. Global Harmful Algal Bloom Status Reporting. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Qin, J.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, N.; Yang, Y. Toxic Effects and Mechanisms of P. parvum (Haptophyta) Isolated from the Pearl River Estuary, China. Harmful Algae 2020, 96, 101844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Luo, N.; Huang, H.; Jiang, H. Establishment of Methods for Rapid Detection of P. parvum by Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Combined with a Lateral Flow Dipstick. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 1032847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Johnsen, T.M.; Eikrem, W.; Olseng, C.D.; Tollefsen, K.E.; Bjerknes, V. Prymnesium parvum: The Norwegian Experience. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Clinton, M.; Król, E.; Sepúlveda, D.; Andersen, N.R.; Brierley, A.S.; Ferrier, D.E.K.; Hansen, P.J.; Lorenzen, N.; Martin, S.A.M. Gill Transcriptomic Responses to Toxin-Producing Alga P. parvum in Rainbow Trout. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 794593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Anestis, K.; Wohlrab, S.; Varga, E.; Hansen, P.J. The Relationship between Toxicity and Mixotrophy in Bloom Dynamics of the Ichthyotoxic Prymnesium parvum. Authorea 2022, preprints. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Driscoll, W.W.; Wisecaver, J.H.; Hackett, J.D.; Espinosa, N.J.; Padway, J.; Engers, J.E.; Bower, J.A. Behavioural Differences Underlie Toxicity and Predation Variation in Blooms of P. parvum. Ecol. Lett. 2023, 26, 677–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Sundaravadivelu, D.; Sanan, T.T.; Venkatapathy, R.; Mash, H.; Tettenhorst, D.; DAnglada, L.; Frey, S.; Tatters, A.O.; Lazorchak, J. Determination of Cyanotoxins and Prymnesins in Water, Fish Tissue, and Other Matrices: A Review. Toxins 2022, 14, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hartman, K.J.; Wellman, D.I.; Kingsbury, J.W.; Cincotta, D.A.; Clayton, J.L.; Eliason, K.M.; Jernejcic, F.A.; Owens, N.V.; Smith, D.M. A Case Study of a P. parvum Harmful Algae Bloom in the Ohio River Drainage: Impact, Recovery and Potential for Future Invasions/Range Expansion. Water 2021, 13, 3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wagstaff, B.A.; Pratscher, J.; Rivera, P.P.L.; Hems, E.S.; Brooks, E.; Rejzek, M.; Todd, J.D.; Murrell, J.C.; Field, R.A. Assessing the Toxicity and Mitigating the Impact of Harmful Prymnesium Blooms in Eutrophic Waters of the Norfolk Broads. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 16538–16551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gaillard, S.; Réveillon, D.; Mason, P.L.; Ayache, N.; Sanderson, M.; Smith, J.L.; Giddings, S.; McCarron, P.; Séchet, V.; Hégaret, H.; et al. Mortality and Histopathology in Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Larvae Exposed to Pectenotoxin-2 and Dinophysis Acuminata. Aquat. Toxicol. 2023, 257, 106456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sobieraj, J.; Metelski, D. Insights into Toxic P. parvum Blooms as a Cause of the Ecological Disaster on the Odra River. Toxins 2023, 15, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wisecaver, J.H.; Auber, R.P.; Pendleton, A.L.; Watervoort, N.F.; Fallon, T.R.; Riedling, O.L.; Manning, S.R.; Moore, B.S.; Driscoll, W.W. Extreme Genome Diversity and Cryptic Speciation in a Harmful Algal-Bloom-Forming Eukaryote. Curr. Biol. 2023, 33, 2246–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Karlson, B.; Andersen, P.; Arneborg, L.; Cembella, A.; Eikrem, W.; John, U.; West, J.J.; Klemm, K.; Kobos, J.; Lehtinen, S.; et al. Harmful Algal Blooms and Their Effects in Coastal Seas of Northern Europe. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Manning, S.R.; La Claire, J.W. Prymnesins: Toxic Metabolites of the Golden Alga, P. parvum carter (Haptophyta). Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 678–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Li, X.; Yan, T.; Yu, R.; Zhou, M. A Review of K. mikimotoi: Bloom Events, Physiology, Toxicity and Toxic Mechanism. Harmful Algae 2019, 90, 101702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cen, J.; Wang, J.; Huang, L.; Ding, G.; Qi, Y.; Cao, R.; Cui, L.; Lü, S. Who Is the “Murderer” of the Bloom in Coastal Waters of Fujian, China, in 2019? J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2020, 38, 722–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aoki, K.; Kuroda, H.; Setou, T.; Okazaki, M.; Yamatogi, T.; Hirae, S.; Ishida, N.; Yoshida, K.; Mitoya, Y. Exceptional Red-Tide of Fish-Killing Dinoflagellate K. mikimotoi Promoted by Typhoon-Induced Upwelling. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2019, 219, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kwok, C.S.-N.; Lai, K.K.-Y.; Lam, W.; Xu, S.J.-L.; Lam, S.-W.; Lee, F.W.-F. Proteome Analysis of Whole-Body Responses in Medaka Experimentally Exposed to Fish-Killing Dinoflagellate K. mikimotoi. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mardones, J.I.; Norambuena, L.; Paredes, J.; Fuenzalida, G.; Dorantes-Aranda, J.J.; Chang, K.J.L.; Guzmán, L.; Krock, B.; Hallegraeff, G. Unraveling the Karenia selliformis Complex with the Description of a Non-Gymnodimine Producing Patagonian Phylotype. Harmful Algae 2020, 98, 101892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shimada, H.; Kanamori, M.; Yoshida, H.; Imai, I. First Record of Red Tide Due to the Harmful Dinoflagellate K. mikimotoi in Hakodate Bay, Southern Hokkaido, in Autumn 2015. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 2016, 82, 934–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Braarud, T. Brown Water on the Norwegian Coast in Autumn 1966. Nytt Mag. Bot. 1970, 17, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tangen, K. Blooms of Gyrodinium aureolum (Dinophygeae) in North European Waters, Accompanied by Mortality in Marine Organisms. Sarsia 1977, 63, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sakamoto, S.; Lim, W.A.; Lu, D.; Dai, X.; Orlova, T.; Iwataki, M. Harmful Algal Blooms and Associated Fisheries Damage in East Asia: Current Status and Trends in China, Japan, Korea and Russia. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Baohong, C.; Kang, W.; Huige, G.; Hui, L. Karenia mikimotoi Blooms in Coastal Waters of China from 1998 to 2017. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2021, 249, 107034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, X.; Yan, T.; Lin, J.; Yu, R.; Zhou, M. Detrimental Impacts of the Dinoflagellate K. mikimotoi in Fujian Coastal Waters on Typical Marine Organisms. Harmful Algae 2017, 61, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhang, P.; Song, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Shen, H.; Yu, Z. Assessing the Effect of Modified Clay on the Toxicity of K. mikimotoi Using Marine Medaka (Oryzias melastigma) as a Model Organism. Toxics 2022, 10, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jones, K.J.; Ayres, P.; Bullock, A.M.; Roberts, R.J.; Tett, P. A Red Tide of Gyrod Inium Aurelum in Sea Lochs of the Firth of Clyde and Associated Mortality of Pond-Reared Salmon. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 1982, 62, 771–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Roberts, R.J.; Bullock, A.M.; Turners, M.; Jones, K.; Tett, P. Mortalities of Salmo Gairdneri Exposed to Cultures of Gyrodinium aureolum. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 1983, 63, 741–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jenkinson, I.R.; Arzul, G. Mitigation by Cysteine Compounds of Rheotoxicity, Cytotoxicity and Fish Mortality Caused by the Dinoflagellates, Gymnodinium mikimotoi and G.cf. Maguelonnense. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hobart, TAS, Australia, 7–11 February 2000; IOC: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jenkinson, I.R.; Sun, J. Rheological Properties of Natural Waters with Regard to Plankton Thin Layers. A Short Review. J. Mar. Syst. 2010, 83, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, Z.H.; Yin, Y.W.; Qi, Y.Z.; Xie, L.C.; Jiang, T.J. Histopathological Changes in Fish Gills during Gymnodinium mikimotoi Red Tide in Guishan Island Area, the South China Sea. Hai Yang Xue Bao 2001, 23, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mitchell, S.; Rodger, H. Pathology of Wild and Cultured Fish Affected by a K. mikimotoi Bloom in Ireland, 2005. Bull.-Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 2007, 27, 39. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stumpf, R.P.; Li, Y.; Kirkpatrick, B.; Litaker, R.W.; Hubbard, K.A.; Currier, R.D.; Harrison, K.K.; Tomlinson, M.C. Quantifying K. brevis Bloom Severity and Respiratory Irritation Impact along the Shoreline of Southwest Florida. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0260755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Colon, R.; Wheater, M.; Joyce, E.J.; Ste Marie, E.J.; Hondal, R.J.; Rein, K.S. The Marine Neurotoxin Brevetoxin (PbTx-2) Inhibits K. brevis and Mammalian Thioredoxin Reductases by Targeting Different Residues. J. Nat. Prod. 2021, 84, 2961–2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gannon, D.P.; Berens McCabe, E.J.; Camilleri, S.A.; Gannon, J.G.; Brueggen, M.K.; Barleycorn, A.A.; Palubok, V.I.; Kirkpatrick, G.J.; Wells, R.S. Effects of K. brevis Harmful Algal Blooms on Nearshore Fish Communities in Southwest Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2009, 378, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Berens McCabe, E.J.; Wells, R.S.; Toms, C.N.; Barleycorn, A.A.; Wilkinson, K.A.; Palubok, V.I. Effects of Multiple K. brevis Red Tide Blooms on a Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Prey Fish Assemblage: Patterns of Resistance and Resilience in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 711114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fire, S.E.; Flewelling, L.J.; Naar, J.; Twiner, M.J.; Henry, M.S.; Pierce, R.H.; Gannon, D.P.; Wang, Z.; Davidson, L.; Wells, R.S. Prevalence of Brevetoxins in Prey Fish of Bottlenose Dolphins in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2008, 368, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Steidinger, K.A.; Burklew, M.A.; Ingle, R.M. The Effects of Gymnodinium Breve Toxin on Estuarine Animals. In Marine Pharmacognosy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1973; pp. 179–202. [Google Scholar]
  74. Baden, D.G.; Mende, T.J. Toxicity of Two Toxins from the Florida Red Tide Marine Dinoflagellate, Ptychodiscus brevis. Toxicon 1982, 20, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Landsberg, J.H. The Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms on Aquatic Organisms. Rev. Fish. Sci. 2002, 10, 113–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Naar, J.P.; Flewelling, L.J.; Lenzi, A.; Abbott, J.P.; Granholm, A.; Jacocks, H.M.; Gannon, D.; Henry, M.; Pierce, R.; Baden, D.G.; et al. Brevetoxins, like Ciguatoxins, Are Potent Ichthyotoxic Neurotoxins That Accumulate in Fish. Toxicon 2007, 50, 707–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hara, Y.; Chihara, M. Morphology, Ultrastructure and Taxonomy of the Raphidophycean Alga H. akashiwo. Bot. Mag. Shokubutsu-Gaku-Zasshi 1987, 100, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hulburt, E.M. Flagellates from Brackish Waters in the Vicinity of Woods Hole, Massachusetts. J. Phycol. 1965, 1, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hada, Y. Protozoan Plankton of the Inland Sea, Setonaikai. I: The Mastigophora. Bull. Suzugamine Woman’s Coll. Nat. Sci. 1967, 13, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  80. Flores-Leñero, A.; Vargas-Torres, V.; Paredes-Mella, J.; Norambuena, L.; Fuenzalida, G.; Lee-Chang, K.; Mardones, J.I. H. akashiwo in Patagonian Fjords: Genetics, Growth, Pigment Signature and Role of PUFA and ROS in Ichthyotoxicity. Toxins 2022, 14, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Mehdizadeh Allaf, H. H. akashiwo, a Fish-Killing Flagellate. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 14, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Horner, R.A.; Postel, J.R.; Rensel, J.E. Noxious Phytoplankton Blooms and Marine Salmon Culture in Puget Sound, Washington. Pac. Coast Res. Toxic Mar. Algae 1991, 135, 59–61. [Google Scholar]
  83. Twiner, M.J.; Dixon, S.J.; Trick, C.G. Toxic Effects of H. akashiwo Do Not Appear to Be Mediated by Hydrogen Peroxide. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2001, 46, 1400–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Nakamura, A.; Okamoto, T.; Komatsu, N.; Ooka, S. Fish Mucus Stimurates the Generation of Superoxide Anion by Chattonella Marina and H. akashiwo. Fisheries 1998, 64, 866–869. [Google Scholar]
  85. Oda, T.; Nakamura, A.; Shikayama, M. Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species by Raphidophycean Phytoplankton. Bioscience 1997, 61, 1658–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Smayda, T.J.; Shimizu, Y. Toxic Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, Newport, Rhode Island, USA, 28 October–1 November 1991; Elsevier Science Limited: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  87. Khan, S.; Arakawa, O.; Onoue, Y. Neurotoxins in a Toxic Red Tide of H. akashiwo (Raphidophyceae) in Kagoshima Bay, Japan. Aquac. Res. 1997, 28, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Khan, S.; Arakawa, O.; Onoue, Y. A Toxicological Study of the Marine Phytoflagellate, Chattonella Antiqua (Raphidophyceae). Phycologia 1996, 35, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. McNabb, P.; Rhodes, L.; Adamson, J.; Holland, P. Brevetoxin—An Elusive Toxin in New Zealand Waters. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2006, 28, 375–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mehdizadeh Allaf, M.; Trick, C.G. Insights into Cellular Localization and Environmental Influences on the Toxicity of Marine Fish-Killing Flagellate, H. akashiwo. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Place, A.R.; Bowers, H.A.; Bachvaroff, T.R.; Adolf, J.E.; Deeds, J.R.; Sheng, J. Karlodinium veneficum—The Little Dinoflagellate with a Big Bite. Harmful Algae 2012, 14, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Toldrà, A.; Andree, K.B.; Fernández-Tejedor, M.; Diogène, J.; Campàs, M. Dual Quantitative PCR Assay for Identification and Enumeration of K. veneficum and K. armiger Combined with a Simple and Rapid DNA Extraction Method. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 2435–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yang, H.; Hu, Z.; Tang, Y.Z. Plasticity and Multiplicity of Trophic Modes in the Dinoflagellate Karlodinium and Their Pertinence to Population Maintenance and Bloom Dynamics. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Deng, Y.; Wang, K.; Hu, Z.; Hu, Q.; Tang, Y.Z. Identification and Implications of a Core Bacterial Microbiome in 19 Clonal Cultures Laboratory-Reared for Months to Years of the Cosmopolitan Dinoflagellate K. veneficum. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 967610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Liu, Y.; Hu, Z.; Deng, Y.; Tang, Y.Z. Evidence for Resting Cyst Production in the Cosmopolitan Toxic Dinoflagellate K. veneficum and the Cyst Distribution in the China Seas. Harmful Algae 2020, 93, 101788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Seger, A.; Hallegraeff, G. Application of Clay Minerals to Remove Extracellular Ichthyotoxins Produced by the Dinoflagellates K. veneficum and K. mikimotoi. Harmful Algae 2022, 111, 102151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Llanos-Rivera, A.; Álvarez-Muñoz, K.; Astuya-Villalón, A.; López-Rosales, L.; García-Camacho, F.; Sánchez-Mirón, A.; Krock, B.; Rodriguez, J.J.G. Sublethal Effects of the Toxic Alga K. veneficum on Fish. Res. Sq. 2021, preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Song, X.; Hu, Z.; Shang, L.; Leaw, C.P.; Lim, P.T.; Tang, Y.Z. Contact Micropredation May Play a More Important Role than Exotoxicity Does in the Lethal Effects of Karlodinium Australe Blooms: Evidence from Laboratory Bioassays. Harmful Algae 2020, 99, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Waggett, R.J.; Tester, P.A.; Place, A.R. Anti-Grazing Properties of the Toxic Dinoflagellate K. veneficum during Predator–Prey Interactions with the Copepod Acartia Tonsa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2008, 366, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Adolf, J.E.; Bachvaroff, T.R.; Place, A.R. Environmental Modulation of Karlotoxin Levels in Strains of the Cosmopolitan Dinoflagellate K. veneficum (dinophyceae). J. Phycol. 2009, 45, 176–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Rasmussen, S.A.; Binzer, S.B.; Hoeck, C.; Meier, S.; de Medeiros, L.S.; Andersen, N.G.; Place, A.; Nielsen, K.F.; Hansen, P.J.; Larsen, T.O. Karmitoxin: An Amine-Containing Polyhydroxy-Polyene Toxin from the Marine Dinoflagellate K. armiger. J. Nat. Prod. 2017, 80, 1287–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Binzer, S.B.; Varga, E.; Andersen, A.J.C.; Svenssen, D.K.; de Medeiros, L.S.; Rasmussen, S.A.; Larsen, T.O.; Hansen, P.J. Karmitoxin Production by K. armiger and the Effects of K. Armiger and Karmitoxin towards Fish. Harmful Algae 2020, 99, 101905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Li, A.; Stoecker, D.K.; Coats, D.W. Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Gyrodinium galatheanum in Chesapeake Bay: Distribution and Mixotrophy. J. Plankton Res. 2000, 22, 2105–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Li, A.; Stoecker, D.K.; Coats, D.W. Use of the “Food Vacuole Content” Method to Estimate Grazing by the Mixotrophic Dinoflagellate G. galatheanum on Cryptophytes. J. Plankton Res. 2001, 23, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Berge, T.; Hansen, P.J.; Moestrup, Ø. Feeding Mechanism, Prey Specificity and Growth in Light and Dark of the Plastidic Dinoflagellate K. armiger. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 2008, 50, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Benico, G.; Takahashi, K.; Lum, W.M.; Yñiguez, A.T.; Iwataki, M. The Harmful Unarmored Dinoflagellate Karlodinium in Japan and Philippines, with Reference to Ultrastructure and Micropredation of Karlodinium azanzae sp. Nov. (Kareniaceae, Dinophyceae). J. Phycol. 2020, 56, 1264–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Edwards, K.F.; Li, Q.; Steward, G.F. Ingestion Kinetics of Mixotrophic and Heterotrophic Flagellates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2023, 68, 917–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sheng, J.; Malkiel, E.; Katz, J.; Adolf, J.E.; Place, A.R. A Dinoflagellate Exploits Toxins to Immobilize Prey Prior to Ingestion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 2082–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Berge, T.; Poulsen, L.K.; Moldrup, M.; Daugbjerg, N.; Juel Hansen, P. Marine Microalgae Attack and Feed on Metazoans. ISME J. 2012, 6, 1926–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Broemsen, E. The Role of the Cell Cycle in K. veneficum Toxicity: Tools and Predictions from the Laboratory. Available online: http://search.proquest.com (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  111. de Salas, M.F.; Bolch, C.J.S.; Hallegraeff, G.M. K. australe Sp. Nov. (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae), a New Potentially Ichthyotoxic Unarmoured Dinoflagellate from Lagoonal Habitats of South-Eastern Australia. Phycologia 2005, 44, 640–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lim, H.C.; Leaw, C.P.; Tan, T.H.; Kon, N.F.; Yek, L.H.; Hii, K.S.; Teng, S.T.; Razali, R.M.; Usup, G.; Iwataki, M.; et al. A Bloom of K. australe (Gymnodiniales, dinophyceae) Associated with Mass Mortality of Cage-Cultured Fishes in West Johor Strait, Malaysia. Harmful Algae 2014, 40, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Teng, S.T.; Leaw, C.P.; Lau, W.L.; Law, I.K.; Lim, P.T. Recurrence of the Harmful Dinoflagellate K. australe along the Johor Strait. Harmful Algae News. January 2016 No. 52. p. 5. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246502 (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  114. Luo, Z.; Wang, L.; Chan, L.; Lu, S.; Gu, H. Karlodinium zhouanum, a New Dinoflagellate Species from China, and Molecular Phylogeny of Karenia digitata and Karenia longicanalis (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae). Phycologia 2018, 57, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kempton, J.W.; Lewitus, A.J.; Deeds, J.R.; Law, J.M.; Place, A.R. Toxicity of Karlodinium micrum (Dinophyceae) Associated with a Fish Kill in a South Carolina Brackish Retention Pond. Harmful Algae 2002, 1, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Xianbiao, J.; Baohong, C.; Kang, W.; Conghui, P.; Yahui, G.; Hui, L. A New Microalgae Community—Epimicroplastic Microalgae (EMP-MA). Algal Res. 2023, 71, 103059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Berry, J.P.; Reece, K.S.; Rein, K.S.; Baden, D.G.; Haas, L.W.; Ribeiro, W.L.; Shields, J.D.; Snyder, R.V.; Vogelbein, W.K.; Gawley, R.E. Are Pfiesteria Species Toxicogenic? Evidence against Production of Ichthyotoxins by Pfiesteria shumwayae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 10970–10975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Vogelbein, W.K.; Lovko, V.J.; Shields, J.D.; Reece, K.S.; Mason, P.L.; Haas, L.W.; Walker, C.C. P. shumwayae Kills Fish by Micropredation Not Exotoxin Secretion. Nature 2002, 418, 967–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mosse, J.W.; Hutubessy, B.G.; Pailin, J.B.; Rumbouw, B. Bycatch Assessment for Fusilier Gillnet to Support Ecosystem Approach Fisheries Management. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 339, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Fricke, R.; Randall, Z.S.; Maclaine, J.S. Western Atlantic Spotted Groupers (Teleostei: Serranidae: Epinephelinae): Stabilisation of Currently Used Scientific Names by Neotype Designations. FishTaxa J. Fish Taxon. 2021, 21, 28–59. [Google Scholar]
  121. Pinheiro, H.T.; Gasparini, J.L.; Joyeux, J.-C. Reef Fish Mass Mortality Event in an Isolated Island off Brazil, with Notes on Recent Similar Events at Ascension, St Helena and Maldives. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2010, 3, e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sivonen, K.; Kononen, K.; Carmichael, W.W.; Dahlem, A.M.; Rinehart, K.L.; Kiviranta, J.; Niemela, S.I. Occurrence of the Hepatotoxic Cyanobacterium Nodularia spumigena in the Baltic Sea and Structure of the Toxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 1990–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Maestrini, S.Y.; Graneli, E. Environmental-Conditions and Ecophysiological Mechanisms Which Led to the 1988 Chrysochromulina-Polylepis Bloom-an Hypothesis. Oceanol. Acta 1991, 14, 397–413. [Google Scholar]
  124. Steidinger, K.A.; Baden, D.G. Toxic Marine Dinoflagellates. In Dinoflagellates; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984; pp. 201–206. ISBN 9780323138130. [Google Scholar]
  125. Savage, R.E. Phaeocystis and Herring Shoals. J. Ecol. 1932, 20, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Humm, H.J.; Wicks, S.R. Introduction and Guide to the Marine Bluegreen Algae; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1980; ISBN 9780471052173. [Google Scholar]
  127. Kenneth, W. Taxonomy, Life Cycle, Distribution and Dasmotrophy of Chrysochromulina: A Theory Accounting for Scales, Haptonema, Muciferous Bodies and Toxicity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1989, 57, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  128. Chang, F.H. The Mucilage-producing Phaeocystis pouchetii (Prymnesiophyceae), Cultured from the 1981 “Tasman Bay Slime”. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1983, 17, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hallegraeff, G.M. A Review of Harmful Algal Blooms and Their Apparent Global Increase. Phycologia 1993, 32, 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Tester, P.A.; Mahoney, B. Implication of the Diatom, Chaetoceros convolutus, in the Death of Red King Crabs, Paralithodes Camtschatica, Captains Bay, Unalaska Island. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, Alaska Harmful Marine Algal Blooms, Nantes, France, 18–22 October 1993; Lavoisier: Paris, France, 1993. ISBN 2-85206-972-5. [Google Scholar]
  131. Pascucci, D.; Gobler, C.J.; Rountos, K.J. Harmful Dinoflagellate Cochlodinium polykrikoides Impairs the Feeding Behavior of Larval Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus). J. Fish Biol. 2021, 99, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Belanger, S.E.; Balon, E.K.; Rawlings, J.M. Saltatory Ontogeny of Fishes and Sensitive Early Life Stages for Ecotoxicology Tests. Aquat. Toxicol. 2010, 97, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Rountos, K.J.; Kim, J.J.; Hattenrath-Lehmann, T.K. Effects of the Harmful Algae, Alexandrium catenella and Dinophysis acuminata, on the Survival, Growth, and Swimming Activity of Early Life Stages of Forage Fish. Mar. Environ. 2019, 148, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zingone, A.; Escalera, L.; Aligizaki, K.; Fernández-Tejedor, M.; Ismael, A.; Montresor, M.; Mozetič, P.; Taş, S.; Totti, C. Toxic Marine Microalgae and Noxious Blooms in the Mediterranean Sea: A Contribution to the Global HAB Status Report. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Shang, L.; Xu, Y.; Leaw, C.P.; Lim, P.T.; Wang, J. Potent Allelopathy and Non-PSTs, Non-Spirolides Toxicity of the Dinoflagellate Alexandrium leei to Phytoplankton, Finfish and Zooplankton Observed from Laboratory bioassays. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Moestrup, Ø.; Akselmann-Cardella, R.; Churro, C.; Fraga, S.; Hoppenrath, M.; Iwataki, M.; Larsen, J.; Lundholm, N.; Zingone, A. IOC-UNESCO Taxonomic Reference List of Harmful Micro Algae. 2009. Available online: http://www.marinespecies.org/hab (accessed on 28 May 2023).
  137. Vos, T.S. The Consequences of Harmful Algal Blooms on Farm Fish Mortality and Industry in Coastal Seas of Northern Europe. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, 2023. Available online: https://fse.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/29702/ (accessed on 8 August 2023).
  138. Gleason, F.H.; Nagarkar, M.; Chambouvet, A.; Guillou, L. A Review of the Characteristics of the Dinoflagellate Parasite Ichthyodinium chabelardi and Its Potential Effect on Fin Fish Populations. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2019, 70, 1307–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Smith, S.A. Common Diseases of Cultured Striped Bass, Morone Saxatilis, and Its Hybrid (M. saxitilis × M. chrysops). 2020. Available online: https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/600/600-080/VM-001.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2023).
  140. Shutler, J.D.; Warren, M.A.; Miller, P.I.; Barciela, R.; Mahdon, R.; Land, P.E.; Edwards, K.; Wither, A.; Jonas, P.; Murdoch, N.; et al. Operational Monitoring and Forecasting of Bathing Water Quality through Exploiting Satellite Earth Observation and Models: The Alga Risk Demonstration Service. Comput. Geosci. 2015, 77, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Carreto, J.I. Pigment Profile of the Ichthyotoxic Dinoflagellate Gymnodinium sp. from a Massive Bloom in Southern Chile. J. Plankton Res. 2001, 23, 1171–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. de Salas, M.F.; Bolch, C.J.S.; Hallegraeff, G.M. Karenia Umbella Sp. Nov. (Gymnodiniales, dinophyceae), a New Potentially Ichthyotoxic Dinoflagellate Species from Tasmania, Australia. Phycologia 2004, 43, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Qi, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, Z.; Xu, N.; Wang, Y.; Shen, P.; Lu, S.; Hodgkiss, I.J. Some Observations on Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Events along the Coast of Guangdong, Southern China in 1998. In Asian Pacific Phycology in the 21st Century: Prospects and Challenges; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 209–214. ISBN 9789401037488. [Google Scholar]
  144. Heil, C.A.; Glibert, P.M.; Al-Sarawi, M.A.; Faraj, M.; Behbehani, M.; Husain, M. First Record of a Fish-Killing Gymnodinium sp. Bloom in Kuwait Bay, Arabian Sea: Chronology and Potential Causes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2001, 214, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Chang, F.H. Algal Blooms Wreak Havoc in Hauraki Gulf. Aquat. Biodivers. Biosecurity 2003, 3, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  146. Ulitzur, S. The Amphiphatic Nature of P. parvum Hemolysin. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1973, 298, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Ulitzur, S.; Shilo, M. Mode of Action of P. parvum Ichthyotoxin. J. Protozool. 1966, 13, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Ulitzur, S.; Shilo, M. Procedure for Purification and Separation of P. parvum Toxins. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1970, 201, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Bergsson, H.; Reducha Andersen, N.; Søndergaard Svendsen, M.B.; Juel Hansen, P.; Fleng Steffensen, J. Respiratory Physiology of European Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) Exposed to P. parvum. Fishes 2019, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Southard, G.M.; Fries, L.T.; Barkoh, A. Prymnesium parvum: The Texas Experience. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Kaartvedt, S.; Johnsen, T.M.; Aksnes, D.L.; Lie, U.; Svendsen, H. Occurrence of the Toxic Phytoflagellate P. parvum and Associated Fish Mortality in a Norwegian Fjord System. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1991, 48, 2316–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Fernández, A.; Sierra, E.; Arbelo, M.; Gago-Martínez, A.; Leao Martins, J.M.; García-Álvarez, N.; Bernaldo de Quiros, Y.; Arregui, M.; Vela, A.I.; Díaz-Delgado, J. First Case of Brevetoxicosis Linked to Rough-Toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis) Mass-Mortality Event in Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean: A Climate Change Effect? Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Hort, V.; Abadie, E.; Arnich, N.; Dechraoui Bottein, M.-Y.; Amzil, Z. Chemodiversity of Brevetoxins and Other Potentially Toxic Metabolites Produced by Karenia Spp. and Their Metabolic Products in Marine Organisms. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Rensel, J.E.J. Fish Kills from the Harmful Alga Heterosigma akashiwo in Puget Sound: Recent Blooms and Review; Technical Report by Rensel Associates Aquatic Sciences for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research; Rensel Associates Aquatic Sciences: Arlington, WA, USA, 2007; Available online: https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=39383&pt=2&p=29109 (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  155. Adolf, J.E.; Bachvaroff, T.R.; Deeds, J.R.; Place, A.R. Ichthyotoxic K. veneficum (Ballantine) J Larsen in the Upper Swan River Estuary (Western Australia): Ecological Conditions Leading to a Fish Kill. Harmful Algae 2015, 48, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Yang, H.; Hu, Z.; Xu, N.; Tang, Y.Z. A Comparative Study on the Allelopathy and Toxicity of Four Strains of K. veneficum with Different Culturing Histories. J. Plankton Res. 2019, 41, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Peng, J.; Place, A.R.; Yoshida, W.; Anklin, C.; Hamann, M.T. Structure and Absolute Configuration of Karlotoxin-2, an Ichthyotoxin from the Marine Dinoflagellate K. veneficum. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 3277–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Mardones, J.I.; Paredes, J.; Godoy, M.; Suarez, R.; Norambuena, L.; Vargas, V.; Fuenzalida, G.; Pinilla, E.; Artal, O.; Rojas, X.; et al. Disentangling the Environmental Processes Responsible for the World’s Largest Farmed Fish-Killing Harmful Algal Bloom: Chile, 2016. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 766, 144383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Burkholder, J.M.; Mallin, M.A.; Glasgow, H.B. Fish Kills, Bottom-Water Hypoxia, and the Toxic Pfiesteria Complex in the Neuse River and Estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1999, 179, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Gallardo-Rodríguez, J.J.; Astuya-Villalón, A.; Llanos-Rivera, A.; Avello-Fontalba, V.; Ulloa-Jofré, V. A Critical Review on Control Methods for Harmful Algal Blooms. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 11, 661–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Clement, A.; Lincoqueo, L.; Saldivia, M.; Brito, C.G.; Muñoz, F.; Fernández, C.; Pérez, F.; Maluje, C.P.; Correa, N.; Moncada, V.; et al. Exceptional Summer Conditions and HABs of Pseudochattonella in Southern Chile Create Record Impacts on Salmon Farms. Harmful Algae News 2016, 53, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  162. Shirota, A. Red Tide Problem and Countermeasures II. Int. J. Aqua. Fish. Technol. 1989, 1, 195–223. [Google Scholar]
  163. Sengco, M.R. Prevention and Control of K. brevis Blooms. Harmful Algae 2009, 8, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Seger, A.; Dorantes-Aranda, J.J.; Müller, M.N.; Body, A.; Peristyy, A.; Place, A.R.; Park, T.G.; Hallegraeff, G. Mitigating Fish-Killing P. parvum Algal Blooms in Aquaculture Ponds with Clay: The Importance of PH and Clay Type. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2015, 3, 154–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Seger, A.; Park, T.-G.; Hallegraeff, G. Assessment of the Efficacy of Clay Flocculation in Korean Fish Farm Waters: Cochlodinium Cell Removal and Mitigation of Ichthyotoxicity. Harmful Algae 2017, 61, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Pierce, R.H.; Henry, M.S.; Higham, C.J.; Blum, P.; Sengco, M.R.; Anderson, D.M. Removal of Harmful Algal Cells (K. brevis) and Toxins from Seawater Culture by Clay Flocculation. Harmful Algae 2004, 3, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Tucker, S.; Orrego, J. Effects of Salinity on Clay Flocculation in the Context of Mitigating K. brevis Blooms in the Tampa Bay. J Stud. Res. 2022, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Song, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, Z. An Eco-Environmental Assessment of Harmful Algal Bloom Mitigation Using Modified Clay. Harmful Algae 2021, 107, 102067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Thomas, D.N.; Judd, S.J.; Fawcett, N. Flocculation Modelling: A Review. Water Res. 1999, 33, 1579–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Balaji-Prasath, B.; Wang, Y.; Su, Y.P.; Hamilton, D.P.; Lin, H.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, Y. Methods to Control Harmful Algal Blooms: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 3133–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ibrahim, N.H.; Iqbal, A.; Mohammad-Noor, N.; Roziawati; Yuli Yanto, D.H.; Wilson, L.D.; Mahadi, A.H. A Review on the Biological, Physical and Chemical Mitigation of Harmful Algal Bloom. Squalen Bull. Mar. Fish. Postharvest Biotechnol. 2022, 17, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Pal, M.; Yesankar, P.J.; Dwivedi, A.; Qureshi, A. Biotic Control of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs): A Brief Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 268, 110687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Cooper, M.B.; Smith, A.G. Exploring Mutualistic Interactions between Microalgae and Bacteria in the Omics Age. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 26, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Coyne, K.J.; Wang, Y.; Johnson, G. Algicidal Bacteria: A Review of Current Knowledge and Applications to Control Harmful Algal Blooms. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 871177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Zhang, H.; Wang, H.; Zheng, W.; Yao, Z.; Peng, Y.; Zhang, S.; Hu, Z.; Tao, Z.; Zheng, T. Toxic Effects of Prodigiosin Secreted by Hahella Sp. KA22 on Harmful Alga Phaeocystis globosa. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Jeong, S.-Y.; Son, H.-J. Effects of Mycosubtilin Homolog Algicides from a Marine Bacterium, Bacillus Sp. SY-1, against the Harmful Algal Bloom Species Cochlodinium polykrikoides. J. Microbiol. 2021, 59, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Franklin, D.J.; Brussaard, C.P.D.; Berges, J.A. What Is the Role and Nature of Programmed Cell Death in Phytoplankton Ecology? Eur. J. Phycol. 2006, 41, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Lu, X.; Zhou, B.; Xu, L.; Liu, L.; Wang, G.; Liu, X.; Tang, X. A Marine Algicidal Thalassospira and Its Active Substance against the Harmful Algal Bloom Species K. mikimotoi. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 5131–5139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Roth, P.B.; Twiner, M.J.; Mikulski, C.M.; Barnhorst, A.B.; Doucette, G.J. Comparative Analysis of Two Algicidal Bacteria Active against the Red Tide Dinoflagellate K. brevis. Harmful Algae 2008, 7, 682–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Khorobrykh, S.; Havurinne, V.; Mattila, H.; Tyystjärvi, E. Oxygen and ROS in Photosynthesis. Plants 2020, 9, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Massey, I.Y.; Yang, F. A Mini Review on Microcystins and Bacterial Degradation. Toxins 2020, 12, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Bourne, D.G.; Jones, G.J.; Blakeley, R.L.; Jones, A.; Negri, A.P.; Riddles, P. Enzymatic Pathway for the Bacterial Degradation of the Cyanobacterial Cyclic Peptide Toxin Microcystin LR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 4086–4094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Yang, F.; Huang, F.; Feng, H.; Wei, J.; Massey, I.Y.; Liang, G.; Zhang, F.; Yin, L.; Kacew, S.; Zhang, X.; et al. A Complete Route for Biodegradation of Potentially Carcinogenic Cyanotoxin Microcystin-LR in a Novel Indigenous Bacterium. Water Res. 2020, 174, 115638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Nakayama, N.; Hamaguchi, M.; Yamaguchi, H.; Masuda, K.; Fujiwara, M. Evaluation of a Virus-Based Control Method to Protect Cultured Oysters from the Harmful Dinoflagellate Heterocapsa circularisquama. Aquaculture 2020, 529, 735625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Xu, S. Analysis of Phenomena for Frequent Occurrence of Red Tides and Bioremediation by Seaweed Cultivation. J Fish China 2006, 30, 554–561. [Google Scholar]
  186. Yang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Chai, Z.; Tang, Y. Inhibition of Marine Coastal Bloom-Forming Phytoplankton by Commercially Cultivated Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Rhodophyta). J. Appl. Phycol. 2015, 27, 2341–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Tang, Y.Z.; Kang, Y.; Berry, D.; Gobler, C.J. The Ability of the Red Macroalga, Porphyra purpurea (Rhodophyceae) to Inhibit the Proliferation of Seven Common Harmful Microalgae. J. Appl. Phycol. 2015, 27, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Ye, C.; Zhang, M.; Yang, Y. Inhibition of Photosynthesis in the Microalga Chaetoceros curvisetus (Bacillariophyta) by Macroalga Gracilaria Lemaneiformis (Rhodophyta). Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2013, 31, 1174–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Ye, C.; Liao, H.; Yang, Y. Allelopathic Inhibition of Photosynthesis in the Red Tide-Causing Marine Alga, Scrippsiella trochoidea (Pyrrophyta), by the Dried Macroalga, Gracilaria Lemaneiformis (Rhodophyta). J. Sea Res. 2014, 90, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Young, C.S.; Gobler, C.J. Coastal Ocean Acidification and Nitrogen Loading Facilitate Invasions of the Non-Indigenous Red Macroalga, Dasysiphonia japonica. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 1367–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Benitt, C.; Young, C.S.; Sylvers, L.H.; Gobler, C.J. Inhibition of Harmful Algal Blooms Caused by Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae) Using Native (Gracilaria tikvahiae) and Invasive (D. japonica) Red Seaweeds from North America. J. Appl. Phycol. 2022, 34, 965–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Zhang, S.; Zheng, W.; Wang, H. Physiological Response and Morphological Changes of H. akashiwo to an Algicidal Compound Prodigiosin. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 385, 121530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Darshan, N.; Manonmani, H.K. Prodigiosin Inhibits Motility and Activates Bacterial Cell Death Revealing Molecular Biomarkers of Programmed Cell Death. AMB Express 2016, 6, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Hudnell, H.K. The State of U.S. Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms Assessments, Policy and Legislation. Toxicon 2010, 55, 1024–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Brooks, B.W.; Lazorchak, J.M.; Howard, M.D.A.; Johnson, M.-V.V.; Morton, S.L.; Perkins, D.A.K.; Reavie, E.D.; Scott, G.I.; Smith, S.A.; Steevens, J.A. Are Harmful Algal Blooms Becoming the Greatest Inland Water Quality Threat to Public Health and Aquatic Ecosystems? Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Smayda, T. Global Epidemic of Noxious Phytoplankton Blooms and Food Chain Consequences in Large Ecosystems. In Food Chains, Yields, Models, and Management of Large Marine Ecosoystems; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Pitcher, G.C.; Louw, D.C. Harmful Algal Blooms of the Benguela Eastern Boundary Upwelling System. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Yan, T.; Li, X.D.; Tan, Z.J.; Yu, R.C.; Zou, J.Z. Toxic Effects, Mechanisms, and Ecological Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms in China. Harmful Algae 2022, 111, 102148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Yñiguez, A.T.; Ottong, Z.J. Predicting Fish Kills and Toxic Blooms in an Intensive Mariculture Site in the Philippines Using a Machine Learning Model. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 136173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Caballero, I.; Fernández, R.; Escalante, O.M.; Mamán, L.; Navarro, G. New Capabilities of Sentinel-2A/B Satellites Combined with in Situ Data for Monitoring Small Harmful Algal Blooms in Complex Coastal Waters. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 03936 g001
Figure 1. Snapshot of the various algal members that contribute to HABs and their classified impacts of HAB.
Figure 1. Snapshot of the various algal members that contribute to HABs and their classified impacts of HAB.
Plants 12 03936 g001
Plants 12 03936 g002
Figure 2. The various mechanisms of HABs involved in fish kills. The up arrows signify ‘increased’ and the down arrow signify ‘decreased’.
Figure 2. The various mechanisms of HABs involved in fish kills. The up arrows signify ‘increased’ and the down arrow signify ‘decreased’.
Plants 12 03936 g002
Plants 12 03936 g003
Figure 3. HAB fish kills PubMed search results.
Figure 3. HAB fish kills PubMed search results.
Plants 12 03936 g003
Plants 12 03936 g004
Figure 4. Results of the PubMed search using the search terms: (A) ‘harmful algal blooms’ and (B) ‘harmful algal bloom mitigation’.
Figure 4. Results of the PubMed search using the search terms: (A) ‘harmful algal blooms’ and (B) ‘harmful algal bloom mitigation’.
Plants 12 03936 g004
Table 1. Consolidated list of the predominant HAB events recorded since 2018.
Table 1. Consolidated list of the predominant HAB events recorded since 2018.
SpeciesLocationStart DateEnd DateAffected Species Due to Bloom Events
Karenia mikimotoi (34,400 cells/L)Saga, Imari Sea, Northern Kyushu12 June 201811 September 2018NA
Karenia mikimotoi (31,400 cells/L)Kuzyuukutou, Kusudomari, Western Kyushu25 June 20181 Juky 2018NA
Karenia mikimotoi (1600 cells/L)Arounndo nobeokasi kitauramati, Eastern Kyushu11 July 201825 July 2018NA
Karenia mikimotoi (84,000,000 cells/L)Uwajima Bay, Bungo Channel14 June 201821 August 2018Aquaculture Fish
Karenia mikimotoi (22,000,000 cells/L)Bisan Seto and Hiuchi-nada, Seto Inland Sea1 August 201814 August 2018Natural Fish, Aquaculture Fish
Karenia mikimotoi (66,000,000 cells/L)Imari Bay, Coast of Saga Prefecture,11 June 201920 August 2019Aquaculture Fish, Shellfish
Karenia mikimotoi (210,500,000 cells/L)Imari Bay, Coast of Nagasaki Prefecture11 June 20197 August 2019Aquaculture Fish
Karenia mikimotoi (1,250,000 cells/L) (with other blooms)Yatsushiro Sea, Nagashima~Fukunoura25 June 20196 July 2019Aquaculture Fish
Karenia mikimotoi (37,000,000 cells/L)Saeki Bay, Bungo Channel11 June 201816 August 2018Natural Fish, Aquaculture Fish, Shellfish
Heterosigma akashiwo (2057 cells/L)-causative, Karenia mikimotoi (131 cells/L)-co-occurringWakayama, Kiisuidou, Japan6 August 201811 August 2018NA
Karenia brevis (250,000 cells/L)Coastal Alabama, USA5 November 20183 December 2018Natural Fish, Shellfish
Karenia brevis (11,000,000 cells/L)Florida east coast29 September 201818 November 2018Natural Fish, Humans
Karenia brevis (90,000,000 cells/L)Florida west coast1 January 201831 December 2018Natural Fish, Birds, Aquatic Mammals, Humans
Karenia brevis (340,000 cells/L)Texas Gulf Coast11 September 20188 October 2018Natural Fish, Humans
Karenia brevis (77,295,560 cells/L)Southwest Florida (Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, and Monroe counties), west coast of Florida30 September 20197 December 2019Natural Fish, Birds, Aquatic Mammals, Humans
Karenia brevis (38,000 cells/L)Fort Morgan Beach, USA12 October 202110 November 2021Shellfish, Humans
Karenia brevis (1,000,000 cells/L)Tampa Bay, USA1 January 20211 July 2021Natural Fish, Shellfish, Aquatic Mammals, Humans
Karenia brevis (388,400,000 cells/L)Gulf of Mexico, southwest Florida17 October 2022Bloom is ongoing as of 4 May 2023Planktonic life, Natural Fish, Birds, Other Terrestrial, Shellfish, Aquatic Mammals
Heterosigma akashiwo-co-occuring speciesThe eastern sea area of Liaodong Bay, Liaoning Province20 July 202122 July 2021NA
NA—Not Available. All data are gathered from the Harmful Algae Event database, a component of the Harmful Algae Information System within the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO—http://haedat.iode.org/index.php, accessed on 28 September 2023.
Table 2. The predominant HABs and their related toxins affecting marine fish/aquatic mammals. * Cetaceans.
Table 2. The predominant HABs and their related toxins affecting marine fish/aquatic mammals. * Cetaceans.
SpeciesToxin TypeFin-Fish Species Killed/AffectedReferences
K. mikimotoiIchthyotoxic—contact sensitiveParore, Flounder, Yellow-eyed Mullet, Eel, Goby and spotty (New Zealand), Atlantic Salmon, Sardine, Liza Macrolepis, Sobaity Seabream, Dover sole, Dogfish, Turbot, Sea trout, Rainbow trout, Cod, Coalfish, Black goby, Sprat, Seriola sp., Pagrosomus major[56,57,62,140,141,142,143,144,145]
Prymnesium parvumIchthyotoxin, cytotoxin, and hemolysin, collectively known as “Prymnesins” [146,147,148]European plaice, Salmon, Yellow tail, American gizzard shad, African Tilapia, Atlantic Salmon, Rainbow trout[149,150,151]
Karenia brevisBrevetoxins (neurotoxin)Ladyfish, Mullet, Pigfish, Spotted Seatrout, Sheepshead, Snook, Rough-toothed Dolphin *, Manatees *, Prey fish, Sharks, Rays[71,152,153]
Heterosigma akashiwoIchthyotoxin, neurotoxin, ROS productionAtlantic salmon, Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, Sockeye salmon, Chum salmon, Forage fish[154]
Karlodinium (K. veneficum, K. conicum) K. armigerKarlotoxins, ichthyotoxic, hemolytic, cytotoxic, algicidalKarmitoxin, ichthyotoxinBlack bream, Perth herring, estuary cod (Epinephelus coioides), Lates calcarifer, Paddletail snapper, Four-finger threadfin, Oryzia melastigma, Sheepshead minnowLarvae of sheepshead minnow, Rainbow trout, Zebra fish (laboratory study)[101,102,112,155,156,157]
PfiesteriaEndotoxinAtlantic Menhaden, Sheepshead minnow larvae[158,159]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oh, J.-W.; Pushparaj, S.S.C.; Muthu, M.; Gopal, J. Review of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Causing Marine Fish Kills: Toxicity and Mitigation. Plants 2023, 12, 3936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233936

AMA Style

Oh J-W, Pushparaj SSC, Muthu M, Gopal J. Review of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Causing Marine Fish Kills: Toxicity and Mitigation. Plants. 2023; 12(23):3936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233936

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oh, Jae-Wook, Suraj Shiv Charan Pushparaj, Manikandan Muthu, and Judy Gopal. 2023. "Review of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Causing Marine Fish Kills: Toxicity and Mitigation" Plants 12, no. 23: 3936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233936

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop