507
1 INTRODUCTION
Mangrovesandtheassociatedshoalforestknownas
‘restingaʹareecosystemsofgreatecologicalrelevance
thatalsoplayasignificantroleintheprotectionofthe
coastal line in tropical regions, reducing the erosive
effectsofmarine processesas wellas decreasingthe
depositionoffluvialsiltationin
estuaries[1,2].They
are also highly productive and capable of storing
large amounts of carbon, serving as sinkholes [3].
Brazil features the third largest extension of
mangroves in the world, covering approximately
9,900 km2, only surpassed by Indonesia and
Australia. The total area of Brazilian mangroves
remained relatively stable
between 1985 and 2018,
despitetheurbanandreal‐estatedevelopersʹpressure
to occupy these ecosystems [4], which are legally
protectedbytheBrazilianForestCodeandlabelledas
‘Permanent Protection Areas’ (APP). During this
period, around 75% of Brazilian mangroves forests
remained unchanged for two decades or more [4].
This
trendisinoppositiontothoseobservedinmost
tropicalcountries. For instance, Ecuador lostaround
50% of its mangrove forests to aquaculture between
1980 and 2000. The Philippines converted nearly
279,000hafrom1951to1988[5].Thedataconcerning
these2countriesiscomparabletoBrazilbecauseall
of
them present similar social and environmental
characteristics, as well as similar sources of
deforestationpressures[5].
InBrazil,mangrovesarefoundbetween latitudes
04o30’Nand28o30’S,rangingfromtheAmazonian
stateofAmapátoSantaCatarina,beyondtheTropic
ofCapricorn.OfthecoastalBrazilianstates,only
Rio
Grande do Sul doesn’t feature mangroves. The
distribution of the Brazilian population along the
coastline isn’t homogeneous, therefore the risks to
whichmangrovesandtheassociatedshoalforestare
exposeddifferfromregiontoregionconsideringthat
Potential Use of Mangroves as Nature-Based Solutions
to Improve Navigation Conditions in a Port in Southern
Brazil
L.S.Previti&P.Alfredini
PolytechnicSchooloftheUniversityofSãoPaulo,SãoPaulo,Brazil
ABSTRACT:Mangrovesandtheassociatedshoalforestknownas‘restingaʹareecosystemsofgreatecological
relevancethatplayasignificantroleintheprotectionofthecoastlineintropicalregions.InBrazil,thecoastal
regionhasbeenseverelyaffectedby
urbanexpansion.TheParanaguáPort,locatedinParanáState(Brazil),is
thefourthmostimportantBrazilianportinthroughput,andislocatedinanestuarineregionwhichfeatures
largemangroveforests.Anhistoricalassessmentofitsinneraccesschanneldredgingrateswasmadetoassess
the impacts that the expansion
of the Port in the last 30 years may have caused to the ecosystem. In the
following,thehistoricaldataconcerningthedredgedvolumeintheinneraccesschannelwascomparedtothe
mangrove and the shoal forest associated variation, aiming to establish a potential correlation between
vegetation and siltation in
the inner access channel to show as the preservation or restoration of specific
ecosystemshaspotentialtoNature‐BasedSolutions.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.01
508
the primary driver of land conversion is
anthropogenicactivities.Theproportionofmangrove
loss due to climate causes, however, has been
increasing worldwide in the last 20 years in
comparison to human‐driven causes [6]. Figure 1
illustratesatypicalmangroveenvironmentinBrazil.
Figure1.Atypicalhealthymangrovevegetation.Thetrees
are submitted to the periodical tidal flood conditions in
which their roots act like riparian structures, entrapping
sedimentsandreducingthesiltupofwaterbodies.
Additionally,itisimportanttohighlightthat,even
though in the grand scale Brazilian mangroves are
stable,locallytheyaresubjectedtodynamicsthatare
not well measured in monitoring reports that rely
onlyonremotesensing[7].
The usage of mangroves, the ‘restingaʹ and other
coastal ecosystems as Nature‐Based
Solutions can
provetobeareliablemechanismto both promoting
climate adaptations to vulnerable regions and
restoring natural areas that provide ecosystem
serviceswhichimpactdirectlyinthemaintenanceof
biodiversity,whichalreadyhasaninherentvalue[8].
In the case of wetland replacement, however, it is
indicated that
the ‘green infrastructure’ be used
alongside conventional engineering structures, such
asdykes,toprotectthenewly placedsedimentsand
vegetation so they have enough time to consolidate
[9].
Themainpurposeofthisresearchistodelimitate
the importance of mangroves and the shoal forest
around Paranaguá and Antonina Ports (PAP)
inner
access channel to evidence how the preservation or
restorationofspecificecosystemshasthepotentialto
beusedasNature‐BasedSolutions.
2 CHARACTERIZATIONOFTHEAREAOF
INTEREST
In the Southern Brazilian state of Paraná lies one of
the largest harbour areas in the country, the
Paranaguá Port
and, further upstream the channel,
liesthesmallerAntoninaPort.TheParanaguáPortis
the fourth largest port in throughput in Brazil
(58,399,109 t in 2022), and the third in container
shipping (607,070 TEUs in 2022). It is also the most
important Brazilian port for exporting agricultural
products such as soybean
and soybean meal. The
Antonina Port, on the other hand, is much smaller
andmostlyusedforcabotageanditcanbeconsidered
asanauxiliarystructuretotheParanaguáPort.Both
are in the Paranaguá Estuarine Complex (PEC). The
area is part of one of the largest continuous Mata
Atlântica (Atlantic Rainforest) remainings, especially
duetothepresenceoftheSerradoMar(SeaChain),a
system of mountain ranges and escarpments that
stretches for approximately 1,500 km neighbouring
the Brazilian coastline that has hampered human
settlements.Figure2showsthelocationofthePEC.
Figure2.ThePECintheBrazilianStateofParaná[10].The
regionisoneofthemostecologicallyimportantestuariesin
the Brazilian subtropical region,which isencompassed by
five municipalities (Guaraqueçaba, Antonina, Morretes,
ParanaguáandPontaldoParaná).
The Mata Atlântica has been severely deforested
elsewhere and is considered a biodiversity hotspot
duetothepresenceofseveralthreatenedandendemic
species.TheParanaguáandAntoninaPortareasand
their activities are, thus,insertedin this context and
arepartofadelicatebalancethatinvolveseconomical
activities, social
improvement, sustainable
development,andnaturemaintenance.Inthecurrent
study, it was analysed the correlation between the
mangroveandtheshoalforestassociatedareaandthe
dredged volume in the inner access channel to the
Paranaguá and Antonina Ports (PAP), thus
establishingapotentialsynergiceffectbetweennature
conservancyand
infrastructureperformance.Figure3
presentstheareaofinterest.
Figure3. Depiction of the area of interest in the Southern
portionofthePEC. Theaccesschannelcorrespondstothe
centraltalweg,rightsouthernthe island known asIlhado
Mel,depictedintheeasternportionofthefigure.
Theareaofinterestcomprisesonlytheinneraccess
channel,thus,althoughtheareaaswholeisrelatively
well preserved, the Southern portion of the Bay,
wherethechannelislocated,aswellasthemaincities
509
andcoastalinfrastructure,ismoreseverelyimpacted
byurbansettlementsandthepollutionandsiltingup
ofwaterbodies.
Theinneraccesschanneldrainsseveralwatersheds
whose flow rates and sedimentary inputs are
fundamental parameters to comprehend the
sedimentationprocessesintheinternalportionofthe
Bay. The watersheds that
drain towards the area of
interest are identified by the following main rivers:
Cachoeira, Nunes, Nhundiaquara, Pinto, Marumbi
and Sagrado. All of the aforementioned rivers have
hydrologichistoricaldataseriesprovidedbyAgência
NacionaldeÁguas–ANA(NationalWatersAgency)
that enable the calculation of suspended fine
sedimentsdischarge.
Thesectorofthe channelbetweenthe Paranaguá
and Antonina Port, known as Delta 1 and which
corresponds to the Zone of Maximum Turbidity
(ZMT),hasbeen continuouslypresenting, in thelast
decades,aproblemrelatedtothepresenceofafluid
mudlayernearthebottom(layersupto0.5
m),which
is associated to the concentration of fine cohesive
sedimentsthatfeaturecolloidalbehaviourandahigh
percentageofclayparticles[9].Therapidformationof
fluid mud deposits reduces channel depths and
negatively impacts the navigation of vessels, silting
up water bodies and increasing the costs associated
with
dredging the channel to navigable depths [11].
Figure 4 illustrates the internal divisions of the
channel.
Figure4.InternaldivisionsoftheaccesschanneltothePAP.
The Delta 1 region, between the Antonina and Paranaguá
Ports, is where the fluid mud is concentrated and,
consequently,wheresiltingupismorefrequent.
Table 1 indicatesthe nautical dimensions of each
segmentoftheinneraccesschannel.
Table1.Dimensionsofeachsegmentoftheinneraccess
channelinthePECasof2015.
________________________________________________
SegmentDepth(m) Length(m) Width(m)
________________________________________________
Alfa15.008,600 200.00
Bravo113.506,052 200.00
Bravo213.5014,448 200.00
Charlie112.003,000 600.00
Charlie212.003,300 50.00
Charlie312.002,500 400.00
Charlie‐Internal 11.00900 135.00
Delta18.0012,300 110.00
Delta28.00980 400.00
Surdinho13.00900 220.00
________________________________________________
3 MATERIAL
Inthefollowing,itispresentedthedatausedinthis
research to assess potential variables that could
impactthedredgedvolumeinthechannel.
3.1 SoilUseandOccupationintheSouthernPortionof
thePEC
Thedatausedtodeterminethelong‐termsoiluseand
occupation in the Southern Portion of the PEC
(Paranaguá,AntoninaandMorretes)wastakenfrom
the MapBiomas v.7.0, a collaborative network that
produces yearly mapping of soil use, water surface
and fire scars, starting from 1985 until the current
date.TheplatformusesLandsatimages,whichhave
anaverageresolutionof
30m.Thecalibrationofthe
systemmadebyagroupofexpertsandthereliability
of the platform is such that MapBiomas is used
extensively by a wide range of political and social
agentstosubstantiatepublicpolicies.
3.2 HydrologicData
The data used to determine the flow rate
and
sedimentaryinputfromallofthewatershedsthatare
drained to the area of interest were obtained in the
Hidroweb website maintained by the Agência
NacionaldeÁguas–ANA(NationalWatersAgency).
Basedontheprovidedinformation,itwaspossibleto
calculate the rating curve of liquidand sedimentary
flowsoftheriversCachoeira,downstreamtotheUHE
Governador Parigot de Souza‐ANA Station
82121003, Nunes‐ANA Station 82140700,
Nhundiaquara‐ANA Station 82170000, Marumbi‐
ANAStation82195002,Pinto‐ANAStation82198000
andSagrado‐ANAStation82198300.
3.3 PluviometryData
The pluviomety data for the Paranaguá region was
obtainedin
theInstituto NacionaldeMeteorologia–
INMET (National Meteorologic Institute) database.
Thehistoricalseriesrangesfrom1961to2021.
4 RESULTS
Inthegraphdepictedin Figure 5itispresented the
yearlydeforestationrateofprimaryvegetationinthe
Southernportionofthe PEC from 1987 to2020.The
surface
ofthevegetationlossismeasuredinhectares.
Figure5.Deforestationrateofprimaryvegetationfrom1987
to 2020. Except for some years, shoal vegetation (in blue)
wasthemostdeforestedecosystemintheSouthernPEC.
510
Theresultsindicatethatthedeforestationratesof
primary vegetation in the Southern PEC have
experienced a sharpened decrease since its historic
seriespeakin1988.Incomparisontoforestformations
and shoal vegetations, mangrove is the least
deforested ecosysteminthe region. Except for some
specific years during the
historic series, shoal
vegetationwasthemostdeforestedecosysteminthe
region, whose suppression represented more than
50% of most yearly deforestation rates, especially
whentheywerehigher.Thatisexpected,sincemost
urbansettlementsandinfrastructureareinthecoastal
plain,whereshoalvegetationprevails,suchastheone
illustratedbyFigure6.
Figure6.AtypicalshoalvegetationintheSouthernAtlantic
coastofBrazil.Thesetreesarelowerandbushierthanthe
foreststhatcovertheSerradoMarslopesandareadapted
tosandyenvironments.
Forestformations,ontheotherhand,dominatethe
hilly terrain of the Serra do Mar, improper for land
occupation,whichisalsoprotectedbyitslegalstatus
as a Conservation Unit. It is also important to note
that,after1995,mangrovedeforestationintheregion
wasmostlyirrelevant,smallerthan1
hectare.
In the graphdepictedin Figure 7, itis presented
theyearlydeforestationrateofsecondaryvegetation,
thereforeregrown,intheSouthernportionofthePEC
from1987to2020.Thesurfaceofthevegetationlossis
measuredinhectares.
Figure7. Deforestation rate of secondary vegetation from
1987to2020.
Figure8. Historicaltransitionmap oftheSouthern portion
ofthePEC,between1987and2020.Inreditisrepresented
the secondary vegetation suppression and, in green,
vegetationgrowth.TheSerradoMarrangeislocatedinthe
outerbordersofthehighlightedregion.
The deforestation rate for secondary vegetation
follows a significantly different trend than that
observedforprimaryvegetation.Inthefirstperiodof
the historic series, from 1987 through the mid‐
nineties, secondary vegetation deforestation was
mostlyirrelevant.Sincethen,however,therehasbeen
a continuous increase in the vegetation suppression,
mostly
in forested environments. It is important to
note that the deforestation of secondary vegetation
was predominantly made for urban expansion and
agricultural activities near water bodies, as depicted
inredinFigure8.
The graph depicted in Figure 9 presents the
averageyearlypluviosityfortheregionfrom1961to
2021.
Figure9.AverageyearlypluviosityintheParanaguáregion
from1961to2021.TheParanaguárainfallstationislocated
near the Port, thus it is more representative of the
phenomenathataretakingplaceinthelowlands,nearthe
estuary.
The pluviosity trend between 1961 and 2021
indicates an increase in the average rainfall in the
Paranaguá region. This may be related to climate
change since the Southeastern South America sub‐
region is expected to experience a surge in mean
precipitation, as already observed in some other
511
regions,suchasSãoPauloandRiodeJaneiro[12].An
increase in the precipitation is likely to affect the
salinityofthe estuary, which may be detrimental to
the mangrove ecosystem that lies in the coastal
interface. These effects, however, will also be
influenced by the expected sea‐level
rise in the
internalregionsofthePEC[13].
Besides the increase in the yearly average
pluviosity, there has also been a surge in the
maximum daily precipitation, indicating that more
intenseclimatephenomenaarehappeninginthePEC.
The current situation already poses a risk to the
populationexposed
tovulnerableconditions,suchas
peoplelivingnearwaterbodies,andanintensification
oftheseeventswilllikelyaffectalargerpercentageof
the population. It is expected that the current
infrastructure will also be severely affected by
damageandfloods.
Figure 10 presents the location where bottom
sedimentsampleswere
collectedintheaccesschannel
from2014to2020.
ThegraphpresentedinFigure11showstheresults
ofd50(mm)foreachsample.
Figure10. Location where bottom sediment samples were
collectedintheaccesschannelbetween2014and2020.
Figure11. Results of sample diameter size d50 (mm)
collectedintheaccesschannelfrom2014to2020.Theresults
clearly indicate that the smallest sediment particles were
obtained in samples #086 and #088, both collected in the
Delta1sector.
Table2indicatesthesedimentationinputandthe
dredged volume in the sectors Delta 1 and Delta
2/Echo between 2000 and 2017, based on the data
provided by the Hidroweb website and information
disclosedbytheadministrationofthePAP.
Table2.Sedimentationinputanddredgedvolumeinthe
sectorsDelta1andDelta2/Echofrom2000to2017.
________________________________________________
Delta1Delta2/Echo
________________________________________________
Year Sedimentation Dredged Sedimentation Dredged
InputVolume InputVolume
(m³)(m³) (m³)(m³)
________________________________________________
2000 558,33352,485.3 497,88316,098.7
2001 321,505149,516.0 278,10845,860.8
2002 410,78699,677.4 420,03130,573.8
2003 389,074‐349,487‐
2004 328,9133,136.1 304,617961.9
2005 470,878‐395,935‐
2006 426,961‐377,548‐
2007 181,29892,542.6 342,82228,385.4
2008 85,976‐313,064‐
2009 824,975‐367,304‐
2010 327,697‐353,150‐
2011 1,121,519‐783,257‐
2012 1,682,242‐401,531‐
2013 213,440
675,240.0 326,618417,789.0
2014 381,626886,416.0 297,735105,384.0
2015 99,809‐291,307‐
2016 94,7792,677,317.0284,969777,039.0
2017 83,676‐372,590‐
________________________________________________
Figure12presentsacomparisonintrendbetween
the yearly sedimentation input given to the main
Delta 1 sector by the affluent watersheds, the
deforestationratesintheParanaguámunicipalityand
thevolumedredgedfromthesector.Thedatausedto
compiletheyearlysedimentationinputwasobtained
fromtheANA
databaseintheHidrowebwebsite.The
deforestation rates are limited to the Paranaguá
municipality due to its participation in the
sedimentation input to the Delta 1 sector, mostly
affectedbytheriverswithinitsborders.
Figure12.Comparisonintrendbetweenthesedimentation
input(inblack),deforestationratesinParanaguá(ingreen)
andthevolumedredgedintheDelta1sector(inorange).It
is observable that the sedimentationinput is correlated to
thedeforestationratesinthewatershedencompassedbythe
Paranaguá municipality and also
with the dredging rate
(withatimelag).
Figure13presentsacomparisonintrendbetween
the yearly sedimentation input given to the main
Delta2andEchosectorsbytheaffluentwatersheds,
thedeforestationratesintheMorretesandAntonina
municipalities and the volume dredged from both
sectors. The data used to compile the yearly
sedimentation input was
taken from the ANA
databaseintheHidrowebwebsite.Thedeforestation
rates were limitedtoMorretes andAntonina due to
the participation of the watersheds encompassed by
bothmunicipalitiesinthesedimentationinputtothe
Delta2andEchosectors.
512
Figure13.Comparisonintrendbetweenthesedimentation
input (in black), deforestation rates in Antonina and
Morretes(ingreen)andthevolumedredgedintheDelta2
and Echo sectors (in orange). As observed in the Delta 1
sector, the sedimentation input is correlated to the
deforestationrates inthe watershed
encompassed byboth
citiesandwiththedredgingrate(also withadelay).
5 CONCLUSIONS
TheresultssummarisedinFigures12and13showthe
correlation of deforestation increase in the
hydrographicbasinsandmaintenancedredgingover
agiventhreshold.Thatisevidencedbytheincreasein
maintenance dredging in the sectors of the main
accesschannelwheremostriversdischarge.Thelags
between
thepeaksoccurringwithbothparametersare
related to the administrative efficiency of the Port
Authorityʹsconcerningtheresponsetimerequiredto
scheduledredging.
Itcanalsobeinferredthatthementionedthreshold
depends on the natural cleaning capacity of tidal
currents inthebay versus the siltingrate
associated
withdeforestation.
Theimportanceofmangrovesandtheshoalforest
indicatethattheirpreservationorrestorationmaybe
considered a Nature‐Based Solution to improve the
managementoftheport’sinfrastructure.
The deforestation rates of primary vegetation in
thePEChavebeenconstantlydroppingsincethestart
of the historic
series, in 1987. The major drivers for
these changes are probably associated with the
creationofseveralConservationUnitsintheSerrado
Mar hills and bordering the estuary. The trend of
secondary forest loss, on the other hand, has
dramaticallyincreasedinthelast25years.Thistype
of
vegetationstemsfromtheshallowcutofaformer
primary forest and is not as nearly complex as the
original vegetation. Considering the transition map
presentedonFigure7,mostofthedeforestationwas
madeforurbanexpansionoragriculturalactivitiesin
the lowlands of the PEC. Considering that
deforestation was
concentrated in areas near water
bodies, combined with the high pluviosity that is
characteristic of the region, it may have led to an
increaseinsedimentationinputtotheestuary,which,
in the long term, is detrimental to the navigation in
the inner access channel, especially in the Delta 1
sector, majorly dependent on the watershed
encompassedbyParanaguácity.
Thesiltingupoftheinneraccesschannelrequires
much more maintenance dredging to provide the
design depth of navigation, which is a costly
operation that also impacts directly in the
maintenanceoftheportanditsrelatedactivities.
It is
noteworthy that, despite the contrary trends
observed for primary and secondary vegetation,
mangroveforestshaveneverbeenmajorlydeforested
intheregionduringthe historicseries.This maybe
related to the protection imposed by the Brazilian
Forest Code to this type of ecosystem. Even the
expansionoftheParanaguá
Porthasnʹtdirectlyledto
mangrovelossbecause,since1997,nodeforestationof
this vegetation was observed in the historic series.
Shoal vegetation, however, has been continuously
affectedbydeforestation,whichledtoimpactsinthe
sedimentation input to the estuary. It is possible to
assume that there is an
interaction between both
estuarine ecosystems and, when one of these
vegetation is destroyed, there is a decline in the
ecosystemservicesprovidedbythem.
The data concerning the pluviosity in the
Paranaguáestuaryindicatethatthemeanrainfallhas
been constantly increasing in the last 50 years, a
phenomenon that
is probably closely related to
climatechange.Theprognosticelaboratedbythelast
IPCC report states that the Southeastern South
Americasub‐regionwillexperienceadramaticsurge
in the average pluviosity and in the intensity of
extremeclimaticevents,whichwillbeharmfulbothto
infrastructure and to populations exposed
to
vulnerableconditions.Furthermore,itisexpectedthat
the increase in pluviosity may have a significant
impactinthevolumeofsedimententrainment,thus,
again, impacting the navigation of the inner access
channel.
The results point out to the importance of
preservingtheriparianforestsintheshoallowlands,
where
ConservationUnitsarelacking,incomparison
totheslopesoftheSerradoMar,and,ifneeded,the
recomposition of areas that are currently deforested
and occupied by shrubs, agricultural activities or
exposedsoil,especiallyinviewofclimatechange.In
addition to the interrelation between deforestation
andsedimentationinput,which
negativelyaffectsthe
design depth of navigation in the estuary, requiring
the employment of costly dredging activities, the
recomposition of vegetation may prove to be a
dynamicagriculturalactivityinitself,consideringthe
opportunities that are arising from the
implementation of the Nationally Determination
Contributions(NDC)oftheParisAgreement
andthe
discussionsrelatedtocarbonmarketing.
REFERENCES
1.SCHAEFFER‐NOVELLI, Y.; CINTRÓN‐MOLERO, G.;
SOARES, M.L.G.; DE‐ROSA, T. Brazilian mangroves.
Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, v. 3, pp.
561‐570,2000;
2.BARBIER, E.B.; HACKER, S.D.; KENNEDY,C.; KOCH,
E.W.; STIER, A.C.; SILLIMAN, B.R. The value of
estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological
Monographs,i.81,
pp.169–193,2011.
3.MURDIYARSO,D.;PURBOPUSPITO,J.;KAUFFMAN,J.
B.;WARREN,M.W.;SASMITO,S.D.etal.Thepotential
of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate
change mitigation. Nature: Climate Change, v. 5, pp.
1089‐1092,2015;
513
4.DINIZ,C.;CORTINHAS,L.;NERINO,G.;RODRIGUES,
J. et al. Brazilian mangrove status: three decades of
satellitedataanalysis.RemoteSensing,v.11,i.808,2019;
5.FERREIRA, A. C.; LACERDA, L. D. Degradation and
conservation of Brazilian mangroves, status and
perspectives.Ocean&CoastalManagement,v.125,pp.
38
‐46,2016;
6.YANCHO, J.M.M.; JONES, T.G.; GANDHI, S.R.;
FERSTER, C.; LIN, A.; GLASS, L. The Google Earth
Engine Mangrove Mapping Methodology (GEEMMM).
RemoteSensing,v.12,i.3758,2020;
7.REGUERO, B. G.; BECK, M. B.; LOSADA, I. J.;
NARAYAN, S. Uniendo ingeniería y ecología: la
protección costera basada
en ecosistemas. Revista
IberoamericanadelAgua,v.4,i.1,pp.41‐58,2017;
8.KRAFFT, D.; BAIN, R.; CADIGAN, J. A.; STYLES, R. A
reviewoftidalembaymentshoalingmechanismsinthe
context of future wetland placement. Coastal Inlets
ResearchProgram,2022;
9.CATTANI, P. E.; LAMOUR, M. R.; Considerations
regardingthesedimentationratesalongtheE‐WAxisof
the Paranaguá Estuarine Complex: a bathymetric
approach.JournalofCoastalResearch,v.32,i.3,2016;
10.PASSOS,A.C.,CONTENTE,R.F.,VILAR,C.C.,DAROS,
F.A., SPACH, H.L., ABILHÔA, V. & FÁVARO, L.F.
Fishes of Paranaguá Estuarine Complex, South West
Atlantic.BiotaNeotropica,vol.12,i.3,2012;
11.WU, H.; WANG, Y. P.; GAO, S.; XING, F.; TANG, J.;
CHEN, D. Fluid mud dynamics in a tide‐dominated
estuary: A case study from the Yangtze River.
ContinentalShelfResearch,v.232,2022;
12.INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE
CHANGE‐IPCC. Climate Change
2022: Impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability. Summary for
Policymakers.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,
2022;
13.POLLI, B. A.; CUNHA, C. L. N.; ALMEIDA, R. C.;
GOBBI, M. Evaluation of the impacts caused by wind
field and freshwater flow variations due to climate
change on the circulation of the Paranaguá Estuarine
Complex,
Brazil.RegionalStudiesinMarineScience,v.
47,2021.
