3 How Seabirds and Indigenous Science Illustrate the Legacies of Plastics Pollution

Ingestion of plastics by fish was first documented in the scientific literature in 1949 by Edgard Gudger. Now more than 700 species are affected by the ubiquitous contamination of the environment by plastics (Gall and Thompson 2015; Provencher et al. 2017). Although plastics pollution poses a threat to all marine biota, the most examined group has been seabirds (Provencher et al. 2017), perhaps because they are conspicuous, abundant, and present in all of the oceans and seas of the world (Schreiber and Burger 2002). Seabirds are particularly susceptible to ingestion of plastics because they feed at the surface of the ocean, often mistaking plastics debris for food (Cadée 2002). Ingestion of plastics by seabirds has been documented from the Arctic (Provencher et al. 2010; Trevail et al. 2015), to the Antarctic (Van Franeker and Bell 1988), to the oceans in between (Avery-Gomm et al. 2013; Ryan 2008). Seabirds are also the taxa used in the only established plastics monitoring program developed to date (Provencher et al. 2017; Van Franeker et al. 2011), and they have been used to study changes in plastics pollution at different temporal and spatial scales (Ryan 2008; Van Franeker et al. 2011).

The physiological effects on seabirds from ingestion of plastics debris include internal and external wounds, skin lesions and ulcerating sores, diminished body weights and fledgling success, reduced reproductive capacity, starvation, dehydration, drowning, and impairment of predator avoidance (Auman et al. 1998; Lavers, Bond, and Hutton 2014). Chicks and fledglings are often the most visible victims of ingestion of plastics because of large loads of plastics debris regurgitated by their parents, reducing fledgling success rates (Gregory 2009; Hutton, Carlile, and Priddel 2008).

Concerningly, there is growing evidence of acute and chronic poisoning of seabirds from adsorption of toxic compounds found in marine plastics (Lavers and Bond 2013; Tanaka et al. 2013; Tanaka et al. 2015). The “sponge”-like properties of plastics can concentrate contaminants from the water column, which can be transferred to the tissues of marine animals via ingestion (Lavers and Bond 2013; Rochman 2015; Tanaka et al. 2015). Indeed, there are strong links among marine plastics, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and other contaminants. For example, Kosuke Tanaka and colleagues (2013) found polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) in the tissues of short-tailed shearwaters (P. tenuirostris). PBDE is a flame-retardant used in the manufacturing of plastic and transferred to an animal’s tissues through ingestion (Tanaka et al. 2015). High concentrations of POPs, heavy metals, and chemical additives, such as PBDE, have been shown to cause a litany of adverse effects, including cancer, metabolic disorder, cardiovascular and immune system disease, and endocrine and central nervous system disruption, leading to developmental and behavioural impairment (Jones and De Voogt 1999; Perkins et al. 2016).

Although the plastics themselves are thought to stay mostly in the guts of the seabirds, the contaminants that plastics carry into birds’ stomachs unfortunately might not (Lavers, Bond, and Hutton 2014; Tanaka et al. 2013; Tanaka et al. 2015). The adsorption and desorption of POPs and chemical additives by marine plastics pollution, and the subsequent transfer through the food chain, are only beginning to be understood, and the degree to which they affect animal and human health is a matter of debate (Rochman et al. 2016). The research to date indicates that internal organs likely concentrate microplastics and their associated contaminants differently (Clukey et al. 2018; Ding et al. 2018; Tanaka et al. 2015). There is also evidence that plastics-derived contaminants can be passed to the eggs of seabirds, indicating that maternal transfer can also occur (Lu et al. 2019). As more is learned about contaminant transfers from plastics to biota, there is growing concern that toxins might be transferred through the food chain to people who consume marine resources, which has human health implications (Rochman et al. 2015; Seltenrich 2015; UNEP 2018; see also Chapter 12 of this volume). Therefore, it is imperative that plastics ingestion researchers engage a wide variety of disciplines and partners as work is undertaken to evaluate the potential health impacts of this ubiquitous environmental pollutant.

As illustrated above, chemists and eco-toxicologists have added to our understanding of the effects of plastics pollution via detailed examinations of how plastics and contaminants might interact in the ocean and within biota (Clukey et al. 2018; Tanaka et al. 2015; Yamashita et al. 2011). Understanding how plastics pollution can be a vector for contaminants is a critical part of understanding how plastics pollution can affect biota and human health. However, the variety of plastic polymers and how numerous contaminants interact in different concentrations, distributions, and environmental conditions (Rochman et al. 2019) present complex challenges in answering basic questions about the population-level impacts of ingestion of plastics and the associated transfer of toxins in marine life (Rochman et al. 2016). To understand the extent and severity of plastics as conduits of hazardous chemicals via ingestion to marine life and human health, cross-disciplinary and collaborative approaches are required.

Coastal Indigenous communities are often disproportionately exposed to high levels of POPs and contaminants in the oceans because of their consumption of marine top predators (Mallory 2006; Schæbel et al. 2017; Selin and Selin 2008). As researchers and communities learn more about plastics pollution in the environment, local and national research organizations are pushing for closer examinations of how plastics pollution might be affecting species regularly consumed by local Indigenous communities (Lavers and Bond 2013; Provencher et al. 2013). Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of how plastics pollution is distributed through ecosystems, and its potential to carry contaminants through the marine food web, requires an Indigenous context in the research and communication of studies of plastics ingestion. Indigenous communities regard the health of local ecosystems, land management, and resource extraction as critical issues for their health and well-being (both spiritual and physical), and they have routinely advocated for improved environmental governance on these issues (Dahl, Hicks, and Jull 2000; Selin and Selin 2008).

The inclusion of Indigenous science—often referred to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) or Indigenous Knowledge (IK)—is increasing in research, particularly in the ecological and environmental sciences (Simpson 2004). Although the acceptance of Indigenous science might be well intentioned, it can be used along a gradient of inclusion, from the simplistic practical baseline that ignores spiritual, communal, and holistic aspects of Indigenous science to a more fulsome inclusion of all aspects (Simpson 2004). Indeed, the Western scientific academy is founded upon racially based epistemologies (Rigney 1999). Therefore, for a respectful collaboration to occur, there is a need to acknowledge and understand how colonial history has affected the relationships of Indigenous peoples with their lands and eroded trust between Indigenous peoples and the Western academy (Rigney 1999). Furthermore, an expansion of the often narrow interpretation of Indigenous science, and an acknowledgement that Indigenous science concepts encompass social and spiritual components of the world, not just biophysical aspects, are warranted (Tester and Irniq 2008). Indigenous philosophers have advocated for this recognition and recovery of Indigenous science in society, arguing that it is an important component of decolonization (Ngata 2018; Rigney 1999; Simpson 2004).

Below we discuss two examples of beneficial collaboration among Indigenous scientists and seabird and plastics pollution researchers, one in Nunavut, Canada, the other in Aotearoa New Zealand, where the foundation has been laid for research collaborations that can expand our understanding of the legacies of plastics pollution.

Reports of ingestion of plastics by seabirds in the Arctic date back to 2002 (Mallory, Robertson, and Moenting 2006). Although the original report was about seabirds caught in a long-line fishery, almost all of the reports on plastics ingestion since that time have been collaborations with local Inuit hunters or from areas co-managed with Inuit communities (Mallory 2006, 192; Provencher et al. 2013, 237–41). More than a decade into plastics research in Arctic Canada, most seabird species consumed by Inuit have been assessed for plastics ingestion since communities are interested in knowing which hunted species are exposed to this emerging contaminant (Provencher et al. 2014). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) can be translated as “that which has long been known by Inuit” (Tester and Irniq 2008, 49). IQ includes many concepts, which can be considered as communal laws, centred on how to live one’s life as an Inuk. Pertaining directly to plastics pollution is Avatimik Kamattiarniq—the concept of guardianship—which stresses the strong relationship between Inuit and their environment and their role as environmental stewards (Arnakak n.d.; Government of Nunavut 2013, 4).

Moving beyond identifying which species might be vulnerable to plastics ingestion, Indigenous science is shaping research questions aimed at understanding the movement and fate of plastics in species and the environment. For example, the Inuit community of Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut, is working with researchers to examine how seabirds might be vectors and concentrators of microplastics in the Arctic. This is of particular concern where communities are co-managing national wildlife areas that protect habitat for migratory birds. To date, four of the most common and abundant marine bird species have been shown to ingest plastics in the Arctic (Poon et al. 2017; Provencher et al. 2013, 238), and a recent study has demonstrated that seabirds can shed ingested plastics in the form of microplastics in their guano (Provencher et al. 2018). This suggests that seabirds can act as vectors for microplastics movement in the marine environment and potentially the terrestrial environment. To test whether seabird excretion of microplastics is contributing to an accumulation of microplastics around seabird colonies, Inuit hunters from Qikiqtarjuaq are working with researchers to collect biotic and environmental samples, using standard laboratory methods, from around two local seabird colonies known to be breeding sites of birds with high rates of plastics ingestion. Importantly, Indigenous science will direct where samples around these colonies are taken in relation to where flotsam and jetsam normally wash ashore using longitudinal knowledge of seasonally variable hydrology. This coalescence of Indigenous and non-Indigenous science will inform decisions about where samples should be taken to detect microplastics in the environment to further our understanding of the fate of plastics in the food chain in these co-managed protected areas.

In a broader sense, in response to the desire to understand the local impacts of plastics and associated contaminants, the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) are two funding bodies focused on northern Canada and co-managed by Indigenous partners (NCP 2018; NWMB 2017). This attests to Indigenous voices being heard in relation to plastics pollution and its associated contaminants, indicates that the communities of northern Canada are concerned about microplastics, and shows that they have a desire to understand how long-range contaminants might be affecting their local ecosystems. Both groups have funded community-based research that examines how plastics are ingested by wildlife and the effects of plastics pollution in the North (NCP 2018). This important research contributes to our understanding of how the chemical burden of plastics pollution can transfer to the Indigenous communities that consume the species sampled. Sampling from local bird populations within a protected region co-managed by the federal government and the local community of Resolute Bay is done in collaboration with Inuit communities. Furthermore, the birds sampled for chemical contaminants in Nunavut are used as a teaching tool as part of the Wildlife Contaminants Workshop of the Environmental Technology Program delivered each year and funded by NCP (Provencher et al. 2013). This research and community education—developed by local hunters and communities and researchers connected to the international science community—have led to a broader understanding of plastics pollution in Arctic seabirds and how it compares with that in other regions (Mallory 2006; Poon et al. 2017; Provencher et al. 2017).

The Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) also demonstrates a growing understanding of the potential health impacts on Indigenous communities, and most recently plastics pollution has been listed as a chemical of emerging concern at the international level (AMAP 2017). The Arctic Council itself recognizes the permanent participants (Indigenous groups) as integral partners in all of its working groups, and in the spring of 2019 AMAP formed a Marine Litter and Microplastics Expert Working Group that specifically includes the development of community-based tools with Indigenous partners.

Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand have a concept similar to Avatimik Kamattiarniq within their Indigenous science or mātauranga Māori (Pihama, Tiakiwai, and Southey 2015, 138). The concept of kaitiakitanga is an expression of the interconnection between people and the environment and their role as guardians (kaitiaki) of taonga (natural treasures) (Pihama, Tiakiwai, and Southey 2015, 138). Kaitiakitanga is the way of managing and interacting with the environment based on the Māori worldview. The sustainability of wild harvests and the maintenance of food resources were and continue to be managed through kaitiakitanga principles, using mechanisms such as rāhui, temporary bans on harvesting certain species or fishing in specific areas. The traditional harvest of tītī or seabirds (e.g., sooty shearwaters, Ardenna grisea), known as “muttonbirding,” is an important cultural resource beyond simple nourishment. Providing food is a reflection of mana (prestige/charisma), which demonstrates skill, kaitiaki in the form of ensuring the sustainability of resources, and a source of ahi kaa: that is, the “sustained fires of occupation” (Ngata 2018). Ahi kaa is a way of maintaining connections to whakapapa, or the genealogical fabric of Māori, ancestral knowledge that includes ancestors in the form of people but also the non-human forms of Atua (the gods). Plastics pollution in the environment and in food resources is part of the colonial history of disconnecting Māori from their whakapapa. Therefore, the role of kaitiakitanga for Māori can be fulfilled only when the connection to place is returned or maintained and with the continuation of cultural practices such as muttonbirding (Ngata 2018). Looking forward, knowledge of how plastics pollution affects harvested populations, and the potential transfer of contaminant burdens to Māori who consume seabirds, will be important to allow Māori to make informed decisions about the management of culturally harvested marine resources.

To our knowledge, there is currently no research on or monitoring of the potential for POPs or other plastics-related toxins to be transferred through the consumption of harvested seabirds in Aotearoa. However, research partnerships to do this are being forged with Rakiura Māori (the southernmost Māori tribe) (Tāne Davis, personal communication 2018). The foundations of these current and future collaborations have been laid with the partnerships among Indigenous scientists to understand cultural resources better. Muttonbirding by Māori represents an iconic example of customary use and kaitiakitanga of natural resources. The muttonbird harvest is culturally and economically valuable, and its management is retained almost entirely by Māori (Moller 2009; Moller et al. 2009). In recent decades, a partnership, Kia Mau Te Tītī Mo Ake Tōnu Atu (Keep the Tītī Forever), was formed between scientists and Rakiura Māori. The aim of this partnership is to evaluate the sustainability of the tītī harvest in their region by drawing on mātauranga Māori to determine population changes and tītī body condition over time. Such partnerships have resulted in heightened awareness of the conservation issues facing harvested species and facilitated dialogue on options for mitigating threats (Moller et al. 2009), including from plastics pollution.

Plastics have been recognized as an environmental issue for more than fifty years. However, there has been little to no international action on assessing or reducing the main sources of plastics pollution (Borrelle et al. 2017). Tackling the issue requires local and international collaboration at the community-science-policy interface. Indigenous groups have had, and are increasingly having, considerable influence on the discourse and policy on global environmental issues at multiple levels of governance, explicating how non-state stakeholders’ interests can direct political processes. The integration of Indigenous science into political processes has occurred through the participation of Indigenous communities in scientific assessments, lobbying of national governments, and direct advocacy in public and political forums (Selin and Selin 2008). For example, Indigenous communities in the Arctic, who are particularly vulnerable to exposure to contaminants through the consumption of marine top predators, have expressed a strong interest in local and international pollution issues that relate directly to individual and collective human rights (Selin and Selin 2008). Such engagement of these Indigenous communities on environmental issues has shaped circumpolar consciousness and catalyzed political activism among different Indigenous groups (Semenova 2007; Watt-Cloutier 2015).

A notable example of Indigenous science and advocacy on contaminant issues is the Stockholm Convention, an international agreement to outlaw the “dirty dozen”: twelve persistent organic pollutants. These contaminants bioaccumulate through the food web, thereby posing a risk to human health, wildlife, and the environment (Selin and Selin 2008). In 1998, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuk woman from Quebec, Canada, was president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council of Canada. She gave a face and name to those who argued for global action on POPs. Her testimony at the Inter-Government Negotiating Committee toward a Global Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants during the Stockholm Convention negotiations was the catalyst for parties to take urgent action on controlling the release of the dirty dozen at the international level (Johnson 2014). Watt-Cloutier humanized the issue, providing evidence that Indigenous peoples were experiencing the disproportionate burden of these chemicals in their home territories far from where the chemicals were produced or used (Watt-Cloutier 2015).

Involvement of Indigenous groups in the establishment of the Stockholm Protocol and concern about additional contaminant exposure in the Arctic have resulted in the continued engagement of Indigenous groups in the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program and the Arctic Council on hazardous substances (Selin and Selin 2008). AMAP has set an important international precedent for collaboration between Indigenous groups and state agencies in addressing the impacts on Indigenous peoples from harmful contaminants in the marine environment.

Indigenous science has been incorporated into monitoring programs for seabird species in Aotearoa New Zealand, the United States, and Canada, where customary resource use occurs (Mallory 2006; Mallory et al. 2003; Moller et al. 2004), and has an important role in plastics research. The knowledge of species movements, population sizes, and body conditions, and the provision of tissue samples by Indigenous communities, can provide insights into the legacies of plastics pollution that might otherwise not be collected. For example, records kept of the annual tītī harvests by the Rakiura Māori, in southern New Zealand, showed a decline in catch rates and changes in body condition of the harvested birds, indicating that extrinsic influences during migration were affecting the populations (Moller et al. 2004). Similarly, Indigenous science—including longitudinal and intergenerational knowledge from observations over time—can reveal if there is a seasonal or temporal nature to plastics pollution ingestion in a region or species or whether some areas might be more sensitive to such pollution based on knowledge about local tides and currents. Thus, Indigenous science, such as Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Mātauranga Māori, can facilitate a comprehensive approach to understanding the legacies of plastics pollution ingestion and the potential toxicological ramifications for communities that consume contaminated marine resources.

The partnership between Rakiura Māori and science to evaluate the sustainability of tītī harvests was successful largely because of the trust between parties, equitable decision making, scientific and financial support, and, importantly, effective communication (Moller 2009; Moller et al. 2009). Although this partnership did not come without challenges, once a respectful dialogue was established, Rakiura Māori expressed that the partnership and outcomes expanded their knowledge and allowed for the continuation of their muttonbirding heritage (Moller et al. 2009). Conversely, in northern Canada, poor communication about PCB levels in harvested species and breast milk resulted in Inuit mothers choosing not to breastfeed; however, now the public health messaging about contaminants in traditionally harvested food is balanced with messages about the benefits of a balanced diet and breastfeeding, allowing for informed choices by community members (Watt-Cloutier 2015).

Past experiences, such as in northern Canada, emphasize the need for meaningful partnerships. Piliriqatigiingniq—the IQ concept of collaborative relationships—epitomizes the approach needed to expand our collective understanding of the legacies of plastics pollution. Our collective knowledge needs to be built upon respect, reciprocity, responsibility, and relatedness (Kimmerer 2011). These concepts are fundamental principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, Māori, and other Indigenous communities around the world. Indeed, Inuuqatigiitsiarniq is the concept of respect, Tunnganarniq is the concept of openness, and Aajiiqatigiingniq is the concept of consensus decision making. Indigenous science concepts are not mutually exclusive; rather, there is overlap among them, and it is a living technology, meaning that the concepts are not static but build in new knowledge (Arnakak n.d.). Likewise, the collective philosophy and research practices of Māori in Aotearoa, known as kaupapa Māori, include the principles of Āta, the principle of growing respectful relationships, and ako Māori, the principle of acknowledging learning and teaching practices unique to Māori (Pihama, Tiakiwai, and Southey 2015). Importantly, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scientists have a role in communicating any information related to contaminants and harvested species to community members, ensuring that findings are communicated within a local context. It is crucial that there is mutual respect for each other’s knowledge, that trust is built between parties, that decision making is equitable, that scientific and financial support is provided, and that there is effective communication between parties (Kimmerer 2011; Moller et al. 2009; Selin and Selin 2008). Hard work must be done to develop authentic reciprocal relationships beneficial to all parties involved (Shackeroff and Campbell 2007).

Importantly, there is a need to re-evaluate how different modes of science interact and to adjust accordingly. For example, when the nuances in Indigenous science vary, important knowledge might be lost when it is filtered through non-Indigenous data management and statistical methods (Simpson 2004). Therefore, viewing research through an Indigenous lens might be a more effective way of translating new knowledge of the legacies of plastics pollution. This means being careful to avoid appropriating Indigenous science to fit contrarily within a non-Indigenous science framework (Tester and Irniq 2008).

Finally, though we have discussed two case studies in which Indigenous knowledge and Western science have collaborated to increase our understanding of plastics pollution as an emerging contaminant, there is still much work to be done on examining the extent, benefits, and challenges of this work within a formal critical analysis. As we discuss above, many lessons have been learned from past experiences; the more a critical lens in the context of truth and reconciliation can be applied to these relationships and documented, the more we can learn collectively from these case studies and use these lessons in other applications.

Unlike many POPs created in the 1970s and addressed within decades of their first use through the Stockholm Convention, the toxicological threats from plastics pollution remain understudied. Moreover, plastic pollution itself has yet to be addressed within international policy frameworks (Borrelle et al. 2017). Many branches of science are contributing to our understanding of the legacies of plastics pollution, and Indigenous scientists have a critical role to play. Indigenous peoples who have lived on coastlines for millennia and continue to harvest marine resources, such as seabirds, are uniquely positioned to shape research related to plastics pollution.

Here we have focused on the examples of beneficial collaborations that have led to greater understanding not only of the legacies of plastics pollution but also of the value of letting Indigenous science share the discourse on working to solve seemingly intractable ecological challenges. The voices of Arctic Indigenous peoples were woven into the Stockholm Convention, with the acknowledgement that Arctic ecosystems and Indigenous communities are disproportionately at risk from the dirty dozen, serving to strengthen the impact of the convention (Selin and Selin 2008). Although not without challenges, the cross-disciplinary, collaborative approach of Indigenous groups working alongside policy makers and non-Indigenous scientists generated the understanding needed to facilitate purposeful legislative action at the international scale. This collaboration resulted in a meaningful response to a burgeoning environmental and human health crisis. Western science approaches do not have to be exclusive or in conflict with Indigenous science approaches. When they coalesce well, they can be a powerful way to improve the collective understanding of the legacies of plastics pollution and to encourage action to address this global problem.

Writing this chapter as descendants of settlers, Stephanie Borrelle and Jennifer Provencher want to acknowledge the privileges and benefits afforded to us by our ethnicity and the occupation of Indigenous lands. With respect for and in solidarity with Indigenous peoples around the world, this chapter is part of an attempt to articulate the possibilities and benefits for everyone from promoting and amplifying the voices, knowledge, and perspectives of Indigenous scientists within the scientific community and beyond. Thanks to Tāne Davis and Renata Davis for discussions that contributed to the framing of this chapter, and Suzanne Greenlaw for further insights into the interplay between Indigenous science and non-Indigenous science. Thanks to the Environmental Technology program at the Nunavut Arctic College in Iqaluit and the communities of Resolute Bay and Qikiqtarjuaq for the ongoing collaborative approaches to plastics pollution research in northern Canada.

• AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program). 2017. “AMAP Assessment 2016: Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).” Oslo: Arctic Council.
• Arnakak, Jaypetee. N.d. “Principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.” https://leapintothevoidwithme.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/principles-of-inuit-qaujimajatuqangit/.
• Auman, Heidi, James Ludwig, John Giesy, and Theo Colborn. 1998. “Plastic Ingestion by Laysan Albatross Chicks on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995.” In Albatross Biology and Conservation, edited by Graham Robinson and Rosemary Gales, 239–44. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
• Avery-Gomm, Stephanie, Jennifer Provencher, Ken Morgan, and Doug Bertram. 2013. “Plastic Ingestion in Marine-Associated Bird Species from the Eastern North Pacific.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 72, no. 1: 257–59.
• Borrelle, Stephanie, Chelsea Rochman, Max Liboiron, Alexander Bond, Amy Lusher, Hillary Bradshaw, and Jennifer Provencher. 2017. “Opinion: Why We Need an International Agreement on Marine Plastic Pollution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 38: 9994–97.
• Cadée, Gerhard. 2002. “Seabirds and Floating Plastic Debris.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, no. 11: 1294–95.
• Clukey, Katharine, Christopher Lepczyk, George Balazs, Thierry Work, Qing Li, Melannie Bachman, and Jennifer Lynch. 2018. “Persistent Organic Pollutants in Fat of Three Species of Pacific Pelagic Longline Caught Sea Turtles: Accumulation in Relation to Ingested Plastic Marine Debris.” Science of the Total Environment 610: 402–11.
• Dahl, Jens, Jack Hicks, and Peter Jull. 2000. Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of Their Lands and Their Lives. Copenhagen: Iwgia.
• Ding, Jiannan, Shanshan Zhang, Roger Mamitiana Razanajatovo, Hua Zou, and Wenbin Zhu. 2018. “Accumulation, Tissue Distribution, and Biochemical Effects of Polystyrene Microplastics in the Freshwater Fish Red Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus).” Environmental Pollution 238: 1–9.
• Gall, Sarah, and Richard Thompson. 2015. “The Impact of Debris on Marine Life.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 92, nos. 1–2: 170–79.
• Government of Nunavut. 2013. “Incorporating Inuit Societal Values.” Government of Nunavut. http://www.ch.gov.nu.ca/en/Incorporating%20Inuit%20Societal%20Values%20Report.pdf.
• Gregory, Murray. 2009. “Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings—Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers-On, Hitch-Hiking and Alien Invasions.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2013–25.
• Gudger, Edgard. 1949. “Natural History Notes on Tiger Sharks, Galeocerdo Tigrinus, Caught at Key West, Florida, with Emphasis on Food and Feeding Habits.” Copeia 1: 39–47.
• Hutton, Ian, Nicholas Carlile, and David Priddel. 2008. “Plastic Ingestion by Flesh-Footed (Puffinus Carneipes) and Wedge-Tailed (P. Pacificus) Shearwaters.” Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 142, no. 1: 67–72.
• Johnson, Noor. 2014. “Thinking through Affect: Inuit Knowledge on the Tundra and in Global Environmental Politics.” Journal of Political Ecology 21, no. 1: 161–77.
• Jones, Kevin, and Pim De Voogt. 1999. “Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): State of the Science.” Environmental Pollution 100, nos. 1–3: 209–21.
• Kimmerer, Robin. 2011. “Restoration and Reciprocity: The Contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge.” In Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration, edited by Dave Egan, Evan E. Hjerpe, and Jesse Abrams, 257–76. Washington, DC: Springer.
• Lavers, Jennifer, and Alexander Bond. 2013. “Contaminants in Indigenous Harvests of Apex Predators: The Tasmanian Short-Tailed Shearwater as a Case Study.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 95: 78–82.
• Lavers, Jennifer, Alexander Bond, and Ian Hutton. 2014. “Plastic Ingestion by Flesh-Footed Shearwaters (Puffinus Carneipes): Implications for Fledgling Body Condition and the Accumulation of Plastic-Derived Chemicals.” Environmental Pollution 187: 124–29.
• Lu, Zhe, Amila O. De Silva, Jennifer F. Provencher, Mark L. Mallory, Jane L. Kirk, Magali Houde, Connor Stewart, Birgit M. Braune, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, and Derek C.G. Muir. 2019. “Occurrence of Substituted Diphenylamine Antioxidants and Benzotriazole UV Stabilizers in Arctic Seabirds and Seals.” Science of the Total Environment 663: 950–57.
• Mallory, Mark. 2006. “The Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus Glacialis) in Arctic Canada: Ecology, Threats, and What It Tells Us about Marine Environmental Conditions.” Environmental Reviews 14, no. 3: 187–216.
• Mallory, Mark, Grant Gilchrist, Alaine Fontaine, and Jason Akearok. 2003. “Local Ecological Knowledge of Ivory Gull Declines in Arctic Canada.” Arctic 56, no. 3: 293–98.
• Mallory, Mark, Grant Robertson, and Alice Moenting. 2006. “Marine Plastic Debris in Northern Fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, no. 7: 813–15.
• Moller, Henrik. 2009. “Mātauranga Maori, Science and Seabirds in New Zealand.” New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36: 203–10.
• Moller, Henrik, Fikret Berkes, Philip Lyver, and Mina Kislalioglu. 2004. “Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management.” Ecology and Society 9, no. 3: 2–17.
• Moller, Henrik, Philip Lyver, Corey Bragg, Jamie Newman, Rosemary Clucas, David Fletcher, Jane Kitson, Sam McKechnie, Darren Scott, and Rakiura Titi Islands Administering Body. 2009. “Guidelines for Cross-Cultural Participatory Action Research Partnerships: A Case Study of a Customary Seabird Harvest in New Zealand.” New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36, no. 3: 211–41.
• NCP (Northern Contaminants Program). 2018. “Northern Contaminants Program Call for Proposals 2017–2018.” Ottawa: Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.
• Ngata, Tina. 2018. “Wai Māori.” In Mountains to the Sea: Solving New Zealand’s Freshwater Crisis, edited by Mike Joy, 6–12. Wellington: BWB Publishers.
• NWMB (Nunavut Wildlife Management Board). 2017. “The Nunavut Wildlife Studies Fund (NWSF).” Nunavut Settlement Area, Nunavut: NWMB.
• Perkins, Jordan, Michael Petriello, Bradley Newsome, and Bernhard Hennig. 2016. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Links to Cardiovascular Disease.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, no. 3: 2160–72.
• Pihama, Leonie, Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai, and Kim Southey. 2015. Kaupapa Rangahau: A Reader. A Collection of Readings from the Kaupapa Rangahau Workshops Series. https://www.waikato.ac.nz/_data/assets/pdf_file/0009/339885/Kaupapa-Rangahau-A-Reader_2nd-Edition.pdf.
• Poon, Florence, Jennifer Provencher, Mark Mallory, Bruce Braune, and P.A. Smith. 2017. “Levels of Ingested Debris Vary across Species in Canadian Arctic Seabirds.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 116, nos. 1–2: 517–520.
• Provencher, Jennifer, Alexander Bond, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Stephanie Borrelle, Elisa Bravo Rebolledo, Sjurdur Hammer, Susanne Kühn, et al. 2017. “Quantifying Ingested Debris in Marine Megafauna: A Review and Recommendations for Standardization.” Analytical Methods 9, no. 9: 1454–69.
• Provencher, Jennifer, Alexander Bond, April Hedd, William Montevecchi, Sabir Bin Muzaffar, Sarah Courchesne, Grant Gilchrist, et al. 2014. “Prevalence of Marine Debris in Marine Birds from the North Atlantic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 84, nos. 1–2: 411–17.
• Provencher, Jennifer, Anthony Gaston, Mark Mallory, Patrick O’Hara, and Grant Gilchrist. 2010. “Ingested Plastic in a Living Seabird, the Thick-Billed Murre (Uria Lomvia), in the Eastern Canadian Arctic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, no. 9: 1406–11.
• Provencher, Jennifer, Mark McEwan, Mark Mallory, Bruce Braune, James Carpenter, Nikki Harms, Guy Savard, and Grant Gilchrist. 2013. “How Wildlife Research Can Be Used to Promote Wider Community Participation in the North.” Arctic 66, no. 2: 237–43.
• Provencher, Jennifer, Jesse Vermaire, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Bruce Braune, and Mark Mallory. 2018. “Garbage in Guano? Microplastics Found in Faecal Precursors of Seabirds Known to Ingest Plastics.” Science of the Total Environment 644: 1477–84.
• Rigney, Lester-Irabinna. 1999. “Internationalization of an Indigenous Anticolonial Cultural Critique of Research Methodologies: A Guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and Its Principles.” Wicazo sa Review 14, no. 2: 109–21.
• Rochman, Chelsea. 2015. “The Complex Mixture, Fate and Toxicity of Chemicals Associated with Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment.” In Marine Anthropogenic Litter edited by Melanie Bergman, Lars Gutow, and Michael Klages, 117–40. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Rochman, Chelsea, Cole Brookson, Jacqueline Bikker, Natasha Djuric, Arielle Earn, Kennedy Bucci, Samantha Athey, et al. 2019. “Rethinking Microplastics as a Diverse Contaminant Suite.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 38: 703–11.
• Rochman, Chelsea, Mark Browne, Antony Underwood, Jan Andries van Franeker, Richard Thompson, and Linda Amaral-Zettler. 2016. “The Ecological Impacts of Marine Debris: Unraveling the Demonstrated Evidence from What Is Perceived.” Ecology 97, no. 2: 302–12.
• Rochman, Chelsea, Akbar Tahir, Susan Williams, Dolores Baxa, Rosalyn Lam, Jeffrey Miller, Foo-Ching Teh, Shinta Werorilangi, and Swee Teh. 2015. “Anthropogenic Debris in Seafood: Plastic Debris and Fibers from Textiles in Fish and Bivalves Sold for Human Consumption.” Scientific Reports 5: 1–10.
• Ryan, Peter. 2008. “Seabirds Indicate Changes in the Composition of Plastic Litter in the Atlantic and South-Western Indian Oceans.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, no. 8: 1406–09.
• Schæbel, Lars, Eva Bonefeld-Jørgensen, Hans Vestergaard, and Stig Andersen. 2017. “The Influence of Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Traditional Inuit Diet on Markers of Inflammation.” PLOS One 12, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177781.
• Schreiber, Elizabeth, and Joanna Burger. 2002. Biology of Marine Birds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Selin, Henrik, and Noelle Eckley Selin. 2008. “Indigenous Peoples in International Environmental Cooperation: Arctic Management of Hazardous Substances.” Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 17, no. 1: 72–83.
• Seltenrich, Nate. 2015. “New Link in the Food Chain? Marine Plastic Pollution and Seafood Safety.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 2: 34–41.
• Semenova, Tamara. 2007. “Political Mobilisation of Northern Indigenous Peoples in Russia.” Polar Record 43, no. 1: 23–32.
• Shackeroff, Janna, and Lisa Campbell. 2007. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Conservation Research: Problems and Prospects for Their Constructive Engagement.” Conservation and Society 5, no. 3: 343–360.
• Simpson, Leanne. 2004. “Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge.” American Indian Quarterly 28, nos. 3–4: 373–84.
• Switlo, Janice. 2002. “Modern Day Colonialism: Canada’s Continuing Attempts to Conquer Aboriginal Peoples.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 9, no. 2: 103–41.
• Tanaka, Kosuke, Hideshige Takada, Rei Yamashita, Kaoruko Mizukawa, Masa-aki Fukuwaka, and Yutaka Watanuki. 2013. “Accumulation of Plastic-Derived Chemicals in Tissues of Seabirds Ingesting Marine Plastics.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 69, no. 1: 219–22.
• Tanaka, Kosuke, Hideshige Takada, Rei Yamashita, Kaoruko Mizukawa, Masa-aki Fukuwaka, and Yutaka Watanuki. 2015. “Facilitated Leaching of Additive-Derived PBDEs from Plastic by Seabirds’ Stomach Oil and Accumulation in Tissues.” Environmental Science and Technology, 49, no. 19: 11799–11807.
• Tester, Frank J., and Peter Irniq. 2008. “Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: Social History, Politics and the Practice of Resistance.” Arctic, 61, no. 1: 48–61.
• Trevail, Alice, Geir Gabrielsen, Susanne Kühn, and Jan Andries van Franeker. 2015. “Elevated Levels of Ingested Plastic in a High Arctic Seabird, the Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus Glacialis).” Polar Biology, 38, no.7: 975–981.
• UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2016. “Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change.” Nairobi: UNEP.
• ———. 2018. “Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability.” UNEP, https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability.
• van Franeker, Jan Andries, and Phil Bell. 1988. “Plastic Ingestion by Petrels Breeding in Antarctica.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 19, no. 12: 672–74.
• van Franeker, Jan Andries, Christine Blaize, Johannis Danielsen, Keith Fairclough, Jane Gollan, Nils Guse, Poul-Lindhard Hansen, et al. 2011. “Monitoring Plastic Ingestion by the Northern Fulmar Fulmarus Glacialis in the North Sea.” Environmental Pollution 159, no. 10: 2609–15.
• Watt-Cloutier, Sheila. 2015. The Right to Be Cold: One Woman’s Story of Protecting Her Culture, the Arctic, and the Whole Planet. Toronto: Allen Lane.
• Yamashita, Rei, Hideshige Takada, Masa-aki Fukuwaka, and Yutaka Watanuki. 2011. “Physical and Chemical Effects of Ingested Plastic Debris on Short-Tailed Shearwaters, Puffinus Tenuirostris, in the North Pacific Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, no. 12: 2845–49.