Factors influencing the detection of beach plastic debris

Lavers, Jennifer L.; Oppel, Steffen; Bond, Alexander L.

doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.06.009

Cited by 81 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although comparisons of abundance between different locations, observers, and studies with different approaches (regarding for example transect size, choice of strand lines and/or ground between strand lines sampled, minimum size of items counted, biological material present in the sampled area etc.) are rather difficult [ 7 , 65 , 81 ], the abundance of beach litter found in this study falls within the same range as reported for many other sampling sites around the globe. As this study focuses on stranded litter which had already been at sea, the litter counts were conducted in transects targeting tidelines, where natural and anthropogenic litter is deposited by the sea.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Anthropogenic marine litter composition in coastal areas may be a predictor of potentially invasive rafting fauna

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic plastic pollution is a global problem. In the marine environment, one of its less studied effects is the transport of attached biota, which might lead to introductions of non-native species in new areas or aid in habitat expansions of invasive species. The goal of the present work was to assess if the material composition of beached anthropogenic litter is indicative of the rafting fauna in a coastal area and could thus be used as a simple and cost-efficient tool for risk assessment in the future. Beached anthropogenic litter and attached biota along the 200 km coastline of Asturias, central Bay of Biscay, Spain, were analysed. The macrobiotic community attached to fouled litter items was identified using genetic barcoding combined with visual taxonomic analysis, and compared between hard plastics, foams, other plastics and non-plastic items. On the other hand, the material composition of beached litter was analysed in a standardized area on each beach. From these two datasets, the expected frequency of several rafting taxa was calculated for the coastal area and compared to the actually observed frequencies. The results showed that plastics were the most abundant type of beached litter. Litter accumulation was likely driven by coastal sources (industry, ports) and river/sewage inputs and transported by near-shore currents. Rafting vectors were almost exclusively made up of plastics and could mainly be attributed to fishing activity and leisure/ household. We identified a variety of rafting biota, including species of goose barnacles, acorn barnacles, bivalves, gastropods, polychaetes and bryozoan, and hydrozoan colonies attached to stranded litter. Several of these species were non-native and invasive, such as the giant Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and the Australian barnacle (Austrominius modestus). The composition of attached fauna varied strongly between litter items of different materials. Plastics, except for foam, had a much more diverse attached community than non-plastic materials. The predicted frequency of several taxa attached to beached litter significantly correlated with the actually observed frequencies. Therefore we suggest that the composition of stranded litter on a beach or an area could allow for predictions about the corresponding attached biotic community, including invasive species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Anthropogenic marine litter composition in coastal areas may be a predictor of potentially invasive rafting fauna

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Understanding the world around us requires observation and collection of data, yet we know observers to be imperfect in detecting events or patterns where they occur. Issues related to observer bias are common across a number of disciplines including medicine, manufacturing, and ecology (Bruno, Walker, & Abujudeh, ; Lavers, Oppel, & Bond, ; Poulton, ). In ecological applications, understanding species’ occurrence, abundance, and population dynamics requires that species are consistently detected in surveys (MacKenzie et al., ), yet imperfect detection exists and must be accounted for.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detectability of species of Carex varies with abundance, morphology, and site complexity

Dennett

Nielsen

2019

J Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions: Are graminoids more poorly detected than other life forms of vascular plants in surveys? How well do observer-, species-, and site-specific variables explain variation in detection of Carex species across forests of different structure? Location: Northeastern Alberta, Canada. Methods: Species inventories were assessed within 50 belt transects, each 100 m in length and 2 m in width. Pseudoturnover was estimated for four life forms and all encountered species. Site-specific factors were then compared with pseudoturnover of all vascular plants and graminoids using generalized linear regression. Carex detection probabilities were compared based on morphological groups. Detection success at a site and delays in detection within a site were assessed using logistic regression with AIC used to rank a-priori hypotheses and standardized variables used to determine effect sizes of parameters related to plant detectability.Results: Pseudoturnover for graminoids was similar to that for other life forms and best related to ground layer cover. Morphological groups related to differences in detection, with short, small-inflorescence Carex most poorly detected. Detection failure was best explained by species abundance and morphology, but delays were more tied to a site's vegetation structure and species abundance than to species morphology.Conclusions: Surveys targeting graminoids, including species of Carex, can achieve high detection rates with high survey effort over small areas, but should consider species-and site-specific biases in detection success. Abundance is likely the most influential factor in determining detection success, and this must be accounted for when searching for low-density species. We recommend that increased effort (time, repeat observations) be applied when searching for morphologically small graminoids. K E Y W O R D S

show abstract

“…For instance, Lavers et al's research indicated that the detection probability of microplastics EDITOR'S CHOICE-REVIEW with different types is between 60% and 100%. Microplastics may be confused with biomaterials (such as dried algae, seeds, charcoal, and leaves), and they will be overestimated (Lavers, Oppel, & Bond, 2016). (b) Microplastics cannot be distinguished or classified from other materials by visual identification as the size below 500 μm.…”

Section: Visual Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenge for the detection of microplastics in the environment

Liu

Yan

Feng

et al. 2019

Water Environment Research

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an emerging contaminant in the environment, microplastics have attracted worldwide attention. Although research methods on microplastics in the environment have been reported extensively, the data on microplastics obtained cannot be comparable due to different methods. In this work, we critically reviewed the analytical methods of microplastics, including sample collection, separation, identification, and quantification. Manta trawl and tweezers or cassette corers are used to collect water samples and sediments, respectively. For biota sample, internal organs need to be dissected and separated to obtain microplastics. Density differences are often used to separate microplastics from the sample matrix. Visual classification is one of the most common methods for identifying microplastics, and it can be better detected by combining it with other instruments. However, they are not suitable for detection nanoplastics, which may lead to underestimation of risk. The abundance of microplastics varies with the detection method. Thus, the analytical methods for microplastics need to be standardized as soon as possible. Meanwhile, new methods for analyzing nanoplastics are urgently needed. © 2019 Water Environment Federation • Practitioner points • Sampling, separation, identification, and quantification are important procedures. • The sampling and separation methods for microplastics need to be standardized. • The organic matter can be removed by digestion to facilitate identification. • Combine microscope with analytical instruments to better identify microplastics. • There is still a challenge to quantification of smaller-sized plastic particles.

show abstract

Factors influencing the detection of beach plastic debris

Cited by 81 publications

References 50 publications

Anthropogenic marine litter composition in coastal areas may be a predictor of potentially invasive rafting fauna

Anthropogenic marine litter composition in coastal areas may be a predictor of potentially invasive rafting fauna

Detectability of species of Carex varies with abundance, morphology, and site complexity

Challenge for the detection of microplastics in the environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About