2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118410
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Riparian vegetation as a trap for plastic litter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
34
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
2
34
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Litter density at S3 was higher in the zone with trees and shrubs farther from the river. This is in accordance to other riverbanks and on tidal zones were macroplastic abundance on the surface of vegetated areas is higher in comparison to the adjacent unvegetated areas (Cozzolino et al, 2020;Cesarini and Scalici, 2022). Macroplastic debris stored on the surface of alluvium, in riparian vegetation, and in river sediments can fragment and constitute the main source of secondary microplastics in river (see review in Liro et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Litter density at S3 was higher in the zone with trees and shrubs farther from the river. This is in accordance to other riverbanks and on tidal zones were macroplastic abundance on the surface of vegetated areas is higher in comparison to the adjacent unvegetated areas (Cozzolino et al, 2020;Cesarini and Scalici, 2022). Macroplastic debris stored on the surface of alluvium, in riparian vegetation, and in river sediments can fragment and constitute the main source of secondary microplastics in river (see review in Liro et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…A study of 42 rivers and streams in 11 EU and non-EU countries confirmed that plastic litter items are the major fraction (82%) of floating macrolitter and showed the importance of smaller streams in contributing plastic litter items from the whole catchment of a river to the sea (González-Fernández et al, 2021). Measurements on riverbanks showed that plastic litter items represent 94% of macrolitter on the Adour River in France (Bruge et al, 2018), 81% on the Rhine-Meuse River delta in the Netherlands (van Emmerik et al, 2020a), between 87.5 and 100% on the Ems, Weser and Elbe rivers (Schöneich-Argent et al, 2020), 31% on many large and small rivers in Germany (Kiessling et al, 2019) and 81% in 8 rivers in central Italy (Cesarini and Scalici, 2022). Plastic debris were 150% heavier in mass than organic debris on Seine riverbank, in France (Tramoy et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, although abiotic factors might have a central role for the downstream MA transport, biotic factors are also fundamental for understanding MA distribution (see Figure 6). Indeed, as mangroves and psammophilous plants block macroplastic litter in transitional and coastal habitats (Martin et al, 2019;Gallitelli et al, 2021b), aquatic and riparian vegetation may play a role in riverine macroplastic transport (Liro et al, 2020;Schreyers et al, 2021;Cesarini and Scalici 2022;.…”
Section: Main Factor Affecting Ma Distribution and Accumulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is also in line with the percentage of waste by finding that these two types of waste materials are the most found. Wood, twig, leaves, and plastic usually come from wood that drifts from upstream rivers, and is carried to the sea, then thrown again by waves to the beach because of its low density [33,34]. Plastic waste is more dominant when compared to other types of waste, this is caused by certain factors, which according to Jambeck et al [15] that plastic is the dominant marine waste because plastic is a pollutant material that has been globally distributed in all waters.…”
Section: Composition Of Marine Debrismentioning
confidence: 99%