Debris ingestion by juvenile marine turtles: An underestimated problem

Santos, Robson G.; Andrades, Ryan; Boldrini, Marcillo Altoé; Martins, Agnaldo Silva

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.02.022

Cited by 140 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, the Ascension MPA is exposed to a significant pollution risk via ocean circulation. This is a particular threat to the islands important rookery for the endangered green turtle [ Petit and Prudent , ], as the juveniles can perish by ingesting less than 1 g of marine debris [ Santos et al ., ]. Finally, the BIOT MPA is the most vulnerable to coastal pollution via ocean circulation of all the MPAs in this study, as it has both the highest coastal connectivity, at 71%, and population density encountered, at 6,720 person/km 2 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Far‐field connectivity of the UK's four largest marine protected areas: Four of a kind?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are established to conserve important ecosystems and protect marine species threatened in the wider ocean. However, even MPAs in remote areas are not wholly isolated from anthropogenic impacts. "Upstream" activities, possibly thousands of kilometers away, can influence MPAs through ocean currents that determine their connectivity. Persistent pollutants, such as plastics, can be transported from neighboring shelf regions to MPAs, or an ecosystem may be affected if larval dispersal is reduced from a seemingly remote upstream area. Thus, improved understanding of exactly where upstream is, and on what timescale it is connected, is important for protecting and monitoring MPAs. Here, we use a high-resolution (1/12 ∘ ) ocean general circulation model and Lagrangian particle tracking to diagnose the connectivity of four of the UK's largest MPAs: Pitcairn; South Georgia and Sandwich Islands; Ascension; and the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). We introduce the idea of a circulation "connectivity footprint", by which MPAs are connected to upstream areas. Annual connectivity footprints were calculated for the four MPAs, taking into account seasonal and inter-annual variability. These footprints showed that, on annual timescales, Pitcairn was not connected with land, whereas there was increasing connectivity for waters reaching South Georgia, Ascension, and, especially, BIOT. BIOT also had a high degree of both seasonal and inter-annual variability, which drastically changed its footprint, year-to-year. We advocate that such connectivity footprints are an inherent property of all MPAs, and need to be considered when MPAs are first proposed or their viability as refuges evaluated.Plain Language Summary Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are typically established to conserve important ecosystems and protect marine species. However, even remote MPAs are not wholly isolated from impacts elsewhere, and can be connected via energetic ocean currents to impacts in "upstream areas" hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away. For instance, separate populations of marine species can be connected through larval dispersal by ocean currents, such that negative ecosystem impacts-overfishing or pollution-in a seemingly remote location may drastically affect a MPA. Here, we present "connectivity footprints" of four UK MPAs using a Lagrangian particle-tracking technique within a high-resolution ocean model, and evaluate their connectivity with land. At the 1-year timescale, Pitcairn is essentially unconnected with land, whereas the South Georgia, Ascension and BIOT MPAs are increasingly connected with remote land, with variability (seasonal and interannual) notably high for BIOT. In terms of exposure to pollution, we also consider the population density of connected coastlines, and identify this as an important risk factor in the management of MPAs. We advocate connectivity footprints of MPAs as a tool to improve future MPA designation, and in spatial planning of current MPA networks, and we suggest...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Far‐field connectivity of the UK's four largest marine protected areas: Four of a kind?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here we have estimated the probability that turtles ingest marine debris, but what happens as a result of that ingestion is of critical importance. Even as little as 0.5 g of ingested debris can cause mortality (Santos et al ., ), but turtles are also subject to a number of sublethal impacts such as dietary dilution, reduced fitness and absorption of toxic compounds (Ryan & Jackson, ; McCauley & Bjorndal, ; Talsness et al ., ). Unfortunately, there were not sufficient data to model the impacts from plastic ingestion in this analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk analysis reveals global hotspots for marine debris ingestion by sea turtles

Schuyler

Wilcox

Townsend

et al. 2015

Global Change Biology

161

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

30Plastic marine debris pollution is rapidly becoming one of the critical environmental 31 concerns facing wildlife in the 21 st century. Here we present a risk analysis for plastic 32 ingestion by sea turtles on a global scale. We combined global debris distributions 33 based on ocean drifter data with sea turtle habitat maps to predict exposure levels to 34 debris. Empirical data from necropsies of deceased animals were then utilised to 35 assess the consequence of exposure to plastics. We modelled the risk (probability of 36 debris ingestion) by incorporating exposure and consequence, and included life 37 history stage, species of turtle, and date of stranding observation as possible additional 38 explanatory factors. Life history stage is the best predictor of debris ingestion, but the 39 best-fit model also incorporates encounter rates within a limited distance from 40 stranding location, debris predictions specific to the date of the stranding study, and 41 species. There was no difference in ingestion rates between stranded animals vs.

show abstract

“…Therefore, here we consider animals caught in passive ghost fishing gear as entangled, not bycaught. Secondly, there have also been reports of entanglement in litter from land-based sources (Chatto 1995, Bentivegna 1995, Santos et al 2015. In this review we do not include bycaught turtles -only those that have become entangled in passive anthropogenic debris such as ghost gear or land-based debris.…”

Section: Types Of Marine Debris Causing Entanglementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action

Duncan¹,

Botterell²,

Broderick³

et al. 2017

Endang. Species. Res.

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debris ingestion by juvenile marine turtles: An underestimated problem

Cited by 140 publications

References 49 publications

Far‐field connectivity of the UK's four largest marine protected areas: Four of a kind?

Far‐field connectivity of the UK's four largest marine protected areas: Four of a kind?

Risk analysis reveals global hotspots for marine debris ingestion by sea turtles

A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About