Which Of The Following Is Not A Possible Consequence Of Animals Ingesting Marine Debris?

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Jul 27; 364(1526): 2013–2025.

Ecology implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and conflicting invasions

Abstract

Over the by v or six decades, contagion and pollution of the earth's enclosed seas, littoral waters and the wider open oceans by plastics and other synthetic, non-biodegradable materials (mostly known as 'marine droppings') has been an ever-increasing phenomenon. The sources of these polluting materials are both state- and marine-based, their origins may be local or distant, and the environmental consequences are many and varied. The more widely recognized problems are typically associated with entanglement, ingestion, suffocation and full general debilitation, and are oft related to stranding events and public perception. Amid the less oft recognized and recorded bug are global hazards to shipping, fisheries and other maritime activities. Today, in that location are rapidly developing research interests in the biota attracted to freely floating (i.due east. pelagic) marine debris, commonly known equally 'hangers-on and hitch-hikers' also every bit material sinking to the sea floor despite being buoyant. Dispersal of ambitious alien and invasive species past these mechanisms leads one to reverberate on the possibilities that ensuing invasions could endanger sensitive, or at-take a chance littoral environments (both marine and terrestrial) far from their native habitats.

Keywords: pelagic plastics, marine debris, entanglement and ingestion, hitch-hiking, alien invasions

one. Introduction

The environmental and other problems arising from indiscriminate disposal of plastics and other persistent synthetic materials (marine debris) into the global oceans and seas are chronic in nature rather than astute, and are long-recognized international problems (due east.g. Mattlin & Cawthorn 1986; Thompson et al. 2009b). The endangering impacts of these materials on marine environments are many and are succinctly reviewed by Derraik (2002). These undesirable contaminants may accept either land- or marine-based sources, although the latter is more often than not considered to be the more meaning. Direction, and preferably prevention, or at least reducing the issues created by marine debris are difficult to address. Bachelor prove suggests that the quantities involved are ever increasing and hence so is the magnitude of the resulting bug (meet Barnes et al. 2009; Ryan et al. 2009). Information technology has recently been estimated that the 1982 report of eight million marine debris items entering the world's oceans and seas each mean solar day now needs to be updated by being multiplied several fold (Barnes 2005). Fifty-fifty the well-nigh remote of localities of both Northern and Southern hemispheres are no longer immune from littering by marine debris: e.g. Antarctica and sub-Antarctic Islands of the Southern ocean (Gregory et al. 1984; Eriksson & Burton 2003; Barnes & Milner 2005); Northward Pacific coil (Moore 2003; Ebbesmeyer et al. 2007) and Southward Pacific Islands (Gregory 1999a). Nevertheless, and in contrast to the higher up comments, censuses at crudely x year intervals (mid-1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and mid-2000s in progress) of virgin plastic granules (pellets or nibs) suggest the quantities are slowly and steadily, but somewhat irregularly, declining on the shores of New Zealand, eastern Canada and mayhap Bermuda (Thou. R. Gregory, unpublished). This may be a reflection of changes in treatment and transport procedures rather than careful or focused efforts addressing the problem. Similar decreases in the composition of plastic litter in surface waters of the Atlantic and southwestern Indian oceans, and reductions in amounts ingested past several seabirds, have been reported recently (Ryan 2008; Ryan et al. 2009).

Many of the problems associated with marine debris attract considerable media and public attention. Foremost of these are the visual barb of unsightly discarded plastic and artful values in general (figure 1). There are also tourist perceptions and emotive bug arising from widely published images of seabirds, marine mammals and fish entangled in abandoned or lost netting; furthermore, entanglement (figure 2) and ingestion (figure three) may lead to death from starvation and debilitation, with a reduced quality of life and lowered reproductive performance (Laist 1987). Other impacts to receive limited attention are of no less importance, e.g. impairment to subsistence fisheries (Nash 1992); hazards to recreational boating and larger commercial vessels; bear on of plastic sheeting that blankets the biota of soft sediment, reef and rocky substrata (Uneputty & Evans 1997) as well equally anoxia and hypoxia induced by inhibition of gas exchange betwixt pore waters and overlying bounding main h2o (Goldberg 1997; Gregory & Andrady 2003).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is rstb20080265-g1.jpg

Debris (mainly plastic) nerveless during an annual beach clean at Mason Bay, South Island, New Zealand.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is rstb20080265-g2.jpg

Examples of entanglement from New Zealand that draw immediate public sympathy and anger: (a) Karoro (southern black-backed gull, Larus dominicanus) defenseless and hooked in nylon filament fishing line; (b) a New Zealand fur seal trapped in discarded netting and (c) Ghost fishing—derelict line-fishing gear dredged from >100 m on the Otago shelf.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is rstb20080265-g3.jpg

Examples of ingestion: (a) Laysan Albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis, at Kure Atoll, Courtesy of AMRF); (b) plastic from the stomach of a young Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) that had been washed ashore expressionless in France (Courtesy of G. Mauger & F. Kerleau, Groupe d'Études de Cétacés du Cotentin GECC) and (c) stranded bounding main turtle disgorging an inflated plastic bag. One infers that it has been mistaken for an edible jellyfish (medusoid).

2. Artful values, entanglement, ingestion, smothering, ghost fishing, the wrack and beach cleaning

(a) Aesthetic values

Many of the litter bug associated with marine droppings attract considerable media and public attention. Foremost of these is the visual affront of unsightly, discarded and/or accidentally lost plastic and other manufactured materials that tend to strand and concentrate along shorelines and sandy beaches (figure ane)—ones often of considerable recreational importance. There are also strongly emotive issues associated with both local embankment users and tourist perceptions. Financial concerns over company numbers may also exist a pregnant factor. Harshly critical public responses are common and may reflect personal observations or widely published and often harrowing images of seabirds, marine mammals and fish entangled in abandoned and beach-cast or lost netting (figure 2). Terrestrial vertebrates may also be snared or trapped in wrack droppings. Where tidal range is moderate, and peculiarly during periods of consecutive leap loftier tides, cruddy littering fabric may be buried and hidden from view. Exhumation of litter may occur during later on periods of college wave activeness (Williams & Tudor 2001a) and may besides be cyclic in character. In addition to those factors identified previously (higher up) and later (below), concerns are ordinarily expressed about economical losses, health problems and harm to local biota, and otherwise general impressions of longer term deterioration in embankment aesthetic values (e.one thousand. Gabrielides 1995).

(b) Entanglement and ghost fishing

Laist (1997) has compiled a comprehensive list of marine species known to be impacted by entanglement (E) and ingestion (I). He identifies over 250 species, how impacted (Eastward or I), the cloth involved, as well as location and source. The identified taxa include: turtles; penguins; albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters; shorebirds, skuas, gulls and auks; littoral birds other than seabirds; baleen whales, toothed whales and dolphins; earless or true seals, sea lions and fur seals; manatees and dugong; ocean otters; fish and crustaceans.

Prior to the 1950s, rope and cordage used in all marine activities, including fisheries, was made of natural fibres—typically Indian or Manila hemp and cotton wool, and information technology was frequently strengthened with a coating of tar or strips of worn sheet. These materials lose their resilience in usage and if lost or discarded at sea tend to disintegrate quickly. For reasons summarized and simplified in tabular array one, over the by l+ years these natural fibres have been replaced past nylon and other synthetic materials that are generally buoyant and far more endurable. The very properties that humankind find so desirable in plastic materials are as well those responsible for the plethora of issues they are creating (globally) in marine environments.

Tabular array 1.

Summary of factors complicating and compromising analyses of marine entanglement (taken and adapted from Laist, D.W. 1996, p. 106). (Entanglement records are biased towards shoreline surveys. They may remain unpublished and/or be anecdotal in graphic symbol: local and regional, every bit well every bit geographic and temporal comparisons will be difficult to evaluate.)

detection and discovery	sampling and reporting biases
entanglements are isolated events scattered over broad areas	limited at-ocean sampling and few long-term surveys
entangling droppings often difficult to identify on active animals at bounding main; readily recognized when stranded	inconsistent sampling methodologies; strandings are an unknown portion of local and regional entanglements
dead animals difficult to run into if floating just below sea surface and if concealed inside matted debris mass	shore counts of live entangled animals are biased towards survivors sporting minor amounts of droppings
entangled dead animals may disappear from view quickly through sinking and/or predation	some entanglements may involve interactions with active rather than derelict line-fishing gear

Many marine animals (sea turtles, mammals, seabirds, fish and crustaceans) are either drawn to or accidentally entangled in netting, rope and monofilament lines that have their sources in discards and losses from commercial angling activities. Set and drift nets are especially hazardous. Many animals, if non near and then caught, find it hard to escape entanglement and are doomed to drown or die from injury, starvation and general debilitation. There are numerous reports of packing loops (cut and uncut) attracting the involvement of seals and sea lions (e.thousand. Hanni & Pyle 2000, Southeast Farallon Island, California; Henderson 2001, Monk seals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; Folio et al. 2004, Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals, Kangaroo Isle, Australia; Boren et al. 2006, New Zealand fur seals, Kaikoura, NZ; Hofmeyr et al. 2006, Antarctic fur seals, Bouvetøya Island). Sharks also are ofttimes caught by 'debris collars' (e.thou. Sazima et al. 2002). Recorded changing rates of entanglement in these studies are difficult to decipher, but information technology is evident that with intervention, individuals with severe wounds take a skilful run a risk of survival (encounter Page et al. 2004; Boren et al. 2006). Plastic packing loops may tighten and cut into flesh equally animals grow, creating 'lethal necklaces' (effigy ii b) ultimately leading to strangulation. Carelessly discarded plastic six-pack carriers may similarly capture fish and other wildlife; paperboard is not and so endangering (Thompson & Côtė 1997). Other biologically harmful factors can include suppurating pare lesions, ulcerating body wounds, interruption of feeding activity and failed predator avoidance (Gregory 1991).

In recent years, sightings have regularly been made of pods of the endangered humpback whales travelling northwards along the east coast of the South Island of New Zealand and on their almanac passage between Antarctic waters and tropical waters to the due north. Over the concluding 7 or 8 years at least seven whales have had in tow a mass of tangled rope and other droppings. In at least two instances the mass has included a crayfish (i.e. lobster) pot and a buoy with marker pole and flag. Attempts to free entanglements were successful in at to the lowest degree one case and failed in others (D. Hayes, personal communication).

Tangled masses of relatively intact, merely lost and abandoned or derelict, trawl net, gillnet, webbing and monofilament line can retain the power to continue to capture target fish and other species for lengthy periods of time (Laist 1996; Carr & Harris 1997). This may lead to ghost fishing, with conspicuous mortality and catch losses. Comparable waste matter problems were associated with 'migrate-net' fisheries in the South Pacific in the 1980s (Wright & Doulman 1991; Richards 1994). Ghost-net fishing is not restricted to surface or shallow waters. Over the past 20+ years, important seamount fisheries have developed around New Zealand and Tasmania and are known from elsewhere effectually the region (eastward.g. Koslow 1997; de Forges et al. 2000; O'Driscoll & Clark 2005). It is widely accepted that seamounts are fragile habitats. Trawl gear is today being deployed across steeply irregular, and often bedrock-strewn, sea floor surfaces at depths typically lying between 500 and g/2000 k. Netting defenseless during passage beyond the seabed tin can cause considerable harm to seabed environments (e.thousand. deep water coral reefs), and if not recovered may remain in that location, out of sight, and continue ghost line-fishing almost indefinitely. The potential magnitude of disturbance to seabed environments tin be likened to 'forest articulate cutting' (Watling & Norse 1998).

(c) Ingestion

The literature on ingestion (and entanglement) of plastic items in marine debris is voluminous and often repetitive, and the widely reported environmental issues identified are global in character. These include: wounds (internal and external), suppurating skin lesions and ulcerating sores; blockage of digestive tract followed by satiation, starvation and general debilitation often leading to death; reduction in quality of life and reproductive capacity; drowning and express predator abstention; impairment of feeding capacity; and the possibility that plastic resin pellets may adsorb and concentrate potentially damaging toxic compounds from sea water (east.grand. Gregory 1978, 1991; Laist 1997; Mato et al. 2001; come across as well the discussions in Oehlmann et al. 2009; Teuten et al. 2009).

Over 100 species of seabirds are known to ingest plastic artefacts and/or become entangled with them (Laist 1997). Outset local New Zealand recognition of high virgin plastic pellet concentrations on Auckland Metropolis beaches was made in the astral summer of 1971–1972 (Gregory 1977). Subsequent observations on remote beaches northward of Auckland over the astral summers of 1972/1973/1974 and 1975 and examination of wrack along strandlines revealed a surprising abundance of plastic pellets and other marine debris. Observers quickly became aware of a developing environmental problem. Recording pellet quantities was a diversion during coastal studies along the extensive sandy beaches and dune fields of northern New Zealand. In subsequent years, 'plastic pellet' expeditions were fabricated to beaches effectually the rest of the country (Gregory 1978). Occasionally, one came across beach-cast birds and attention was drawn to plastic pellets associated with disintegrating carcasses and also entangling monofilament line, often with attached fishhook. Over a 21-year menstruum (1958–1977), observations were made of five prion species (Pachyptila) cast ashore on exposed beaches near Wellington (southern N Island). Gizzards and proventriculi were removed and examined. Harper & Fowler (1987) noted that the lightest birds carried the most pellets and ended that the proportion of starved beach-cast prions suggested these birds would eat anything resembling nutrient before they died. They too suggested that prions began ingesting plastic pellets by the early on 1960s, and an accompanying graphical presentation shows irregular but rapid increases in the percentages of plastic carried in iii prion species which grew significantly (from <5 to 25%) between 1960 and 1977 (Harper & Fowler 1987; table ii).

Tabular array 2.

Occurrence of plastic pellets in 5 prion species nerveless from New Zealand beaches, betwixt 1958 and 1977 (from Harper & Fowler 1987; p. 66).

	historic period class			number with plastic pellets		% total pellets
species	Imm	adult	gizzards examined	Imm	developed	Imm	developed	species status
broad-billed prion Pachyptila vittata	170	140	310	18	33	ten.half-dozen	23.6	NZ resident
Salvin's prion Pachyptila salvani	651	12	663	133	0	20.four	0	Indian Ocean migrant
Antarctic prion Pachyptila desolata	29	6	35	iv	ane	13.eight	xvi.vii	NZ sub-Antarctic migrant
thin-billed prion Pachyptila belcheri	147	v	152	10	0	half dozen.eight	0	Indian Ocean migrant
fairy prion Pachyptila tutur	714	105	819	88	13	12.4	2.4	NZ resident
totals	1711	266	1979	253	47

Plastic materials of varying kinds had spread to all oceans and adjacent seas by the tardily 1970s or early on 1980s and wide business organization was beingness expressed over the amounts of cylindrical, virgin plastic pellets that are industrial feedstock, together with fragmented plastic particles of varying size and shape that were being ingested by pelagic seabirds (due east.g. Shomura & Yoshida 1985). Over the by four or v decades, at that place have been numerous accounts of marine droppings ingestion by a bully variety of seabirds (come across Appendix 2 in Laist 1997). Some representative examples typifying the global spread of plastic ingestion behaviour include red phalaropes (Connors & Smith 1982); 15 species of sea birds, Gough Isle, S Atlantic Bounding main (Furness 1985); Wilsons storm-petrels, Antarctica (Van Franeker & Bong 1988); storm-petrels, etc. (Blight & Burger 1997); brusk-tailed shearwaters, Bering Bounding main (Vlietstra & Parga 2002); southern giant petrels, Southern Atlantic Body of water (Copello & Quintana 2003); northern fulmars, Nunavut, Davis Strait (Mallory et al. 2006). Cadee (2002) has drawn attending to conspicuous bird pecking marks (possibly made by Northern Fulmars) in cuttlebones cast aground on the Dutch coast near Texel. It was also noted that like peck marks were common locally on beach-cast styrofoam and spongy plastic and information technology was suggested that fulmars were mistaking plastic artefacts for cuttlebone.

Likewise every bit beingness entangled in discarded fishing gear, many marine vertebrate species have a record of regularly ingesting discarded plastic materials (see Laist 1996; Appendices one and 3). Several, if not nigh, sea turtle species are seriously threatened by 'feeding on' plastic and other marine debris (e.g. Hawaiian Islands, Balazs 1985; coastal Florida, Bjorndal et al. 1994; Western Mediterranean, Tomás et al. 2002; Paraíba, Brazil, Mascarenhas et al. 2004). Particular hazards are discarded and semi-inflated, floating plastic bags that are ofttimes mistaken for jelly fish (medusoids), which block the oesophagus (figure iii c). Manatee likewise have felt the undesirable impact of marine debris (e.g. Florida, Beck & Barros 1991). An unusual accumulation of small plastic particles recovered in the scats of fur seals from Macquarie Island has been recorded by Eriksson & Burton (2003). These were modest, often angular in shape and buoyant, with surface striations, and could non be related to plastic pellet feedstock. It is suggested that the breakdown of larger, user plastic fragments was a response to beingness washed aground and basis down by abrasion on high energy cobble beaches. Eriksson & Burton (2003, p. 380) furthermore hypothesized that the plastic particles were initially washed out to ocean, before being size-selected and consumed past pelagic fish, and that the latter were the prey of fur seals.

(d) Smothering

Near plastic materials inbound the marine environment are buoyant and bladder on the bounding main surface. Information technology is therefore perhaps surprising to find that at that place are numerous reports of sunken marine droppings of all kinds settling to the body of water floor at all depths—from inter-tidal to abyssal environments; e.g. the Skagerrak (Hollström 1975); Tokyo Bay, Japan (Kanehiro et al. 1995); tidal flats, Ambon Bay, Republic of indonesia (Uneputty & Evans 1997); Bristol Channel (Williams & Simmons 1997); European and Mediterranean waters (Galil et al. 1995; Stefatos et al. 1999; Galgani et al. 2000); Kodiak Isle, Alaska (Hess et al. 1999); southern California Bight (Moore & Allen 2000); Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand (Backhurst & Cole 2000); Saronikos Gulf, Hellenic republic (Katsanevakis et al. 2007). Once these items accomplish the body of water floor, specially in deeper and still waters, they are doomed to a slow and yet permanent entombment.

Several authorities at present consider that the sea floor is the ultimate sink for much marine debris (east.g. Williams et al. 1993; Goldberg 1997). The mechanisms by which these materials may accomplish the deep sea floor are poorly understood. Land-sourced materials are mutual on coulee floors of the western Mediterranean Body of water. These can be tracked from the coast in their progressive passage to deep-sea depths and at considerable distance offshore (Galgani et al. 2000). The pattern is strongly suggestive of rapid send through most-shore zones and entrainment in bottom hugging currents (Williams et al. 2005). There is also prove from the Rio de la Plata that bottom salinity fronts in estuarine environments may act as debris-accumulating barriers (Acha et al. 2003), similar to those associated with surface waters along convergence zones, oceanic fronts and eddies (e.thou. Gregory 1999b). Furthermore, rapid and heavy fouling of floating plastic (and other objects) may and so increase density that they sink to the ocean floor. Notwithstanding, grazing organisms may episodically clean fouled surfaces leading to yo-yoing periods of submergence and resurfacing until permanent settlement to the ocean floor occurs (Ye & Andrady 1991).

Sediment settling on pelagic plastic materials may as well take them to the body of water floor. Observations fabricated in shallow, near-shore waters, past Backhurst & Cole (2000) and Katsanevakis et al. (2007), have confirmed that once there, gradual changes may occur in customs construction and that the environment tin can no longer be considered pristine. Goldberg (1997) has suggested that the blanketing furnishings of plastic sheeting on the sea floor could lead to anoxia and hypoxia induced by inhibition of gas exchange betwixt pore water and sea water. Furthermore, sediment settling on pelagic plastic materials and taking them to the ocean floor tin can lead to the cosmos of bogus hardgrounds (e.grand. Harms 1990). Post-obit in a somewhat similar vein, Williams et al. (2005, p. 627), maybe with a caste of irony, have claimed that benthic marine debris once settled on the sea floor could '… enhance or enrich local biodiversity in the short term, for in the long term it is doomed to permanent interment in a slowly accumulating sediment cover'. An interesting and disturbing aside that relates to settling rates of plastic items is Oshima's (2000, p. 73) report of numerous white plastic shopping bags suspended upside downwardly and freely drifting in the sea at water depths of 2000 m—and looking similar an assembly of ghosts.

(due east) The wrack and embankment cleaning

Natural flotsam, of both marine and terrestrial origin (seaweeds and plants) together with jetsam of indeterminate sources, tends to accumulate along loftier-tide strandlines, where it is commonly known as 'the wrack'. These areas are often ephemeral, dynamic and seasonal environments and also tend to accrue pregnant quantities of manufactured materials, in detail those fabricated of plastic and other non-destructibles. As a consequence, wrack environments are commonly unsightly and the demands of local government to 'clean upwards the mess' are frequent and can be expensive (e.k. Ryan & Swanepoel 1996; Ballance et al. 2000). Often, and increasingly, the demands are for mechanical and complete removal of the strandline and any debris that is concentrated there. Llewellyn & Shackley (1996) demonstrated that a consequence of this may be the destruction of ecologically meaning habitats. These habitats support rich and diverse marginal marine-to-terrestrial invertebrate biota and may also be visited by vertebrates, by and large birds—in New Zealand, and in many oceanic islands, it may typically be birds (and rats) but elsewhere information technology may include a number of scavenging small mammals (eastward.1000. Llewellyn & Shackley 1996). Many local and managing authorities appear to accept blindly that damage from mechanical beach cleansing is cosmetic in character and that the strandline readily returns to its natural state. However, a recent and limited, minor-scale cleaning experiment has concluded that while the near-surface meiofauna can chop-chop recover, repeated cleanings or deeper excavations '… may certainly result in much slower recolonization rates' (Gheskiere et al. 2006). Commonly held opinions suggest beach make clean-ups are short sighted, and a temporary cure at best, although with some educational values (Williams & Tudor 2001b). In part, the problems are existence addressed through local activities of the Marine Conservation Society (a United Kingdom charity) and the European Blue Flag Scheme of beach evaluations and awards (e.g. Williams & Morgan 1995; Tudor & Williams 2006). A New Zealand example of bug with marine droppings is informative (Gregory 1999b). At about 47°S, Stewart Isle's Bricklayer Bay is a spectacular, remote and isolated, c.10 km sandy beach that is open to the Southern Body of water and also faces into the Roaring Forties. The immediately close and offshore waters are intensely fished. The beach has been heavily fouled with marine debris dominated by fisheries-related items, near of which were from New Zealand sources. A pocket-sized, but significant, component came from Korea and Japan; rarer sources included Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, French republic, Norway, Poland, Russian federation, Espana, Due south Africa and Great britain. Annual clean-ups take been organized since 1989 and it has been estimated that some two–3 tonnes of debris was cleared each yr. Disposal of the vast quantities nerveless is difficult (figure 1). Afterward the 1989 practice, a pyre was built on the beach and set alight with the aid of diesel and driftwood—this reduced the bulk to a quarter. Clinker and burnt remains were removed and placed in a pit set in dunes behind the embankment. Since that fourth dimension the collected marine debris has been placed at designated sites behind the fore-dunes. Local scarfing of fore-dunes has exposed one time-buried plastic and other marine debris at several places. Strong on-shore winds blow shredded plastic bags and sheeting far inland to cruddy beautify and blanket the sparse coastal vegetation and may also be a contributor to ecology degradation of dune fields backside the beach. While burying may remove the cruddy droppings from view in coastal settings of this kind, it cannot be considered a cure—in many instances it is at best a palliative.

3. Hangers-on and hitch-hiking aliens—invasive species

For untold millennia, floating, terrestrial plant matter, whether large and alone tree trunks or smaller shrubs and stems with soil nonetheless attached, too every bit matted masses of these materials, have freely voyaged, traversed and dispersed across the open oceans only as 'bounding main beans' (encounter Gunn & Dennis 1999, p. 3); logs, pumice and other natural flotsam continue then to do to this 24-hour interval. 'Floating Islands' with cargoes that include exotic plants and vertebrate animals have been recognized since medieval times (see Van Duzer 2004). Through the distant by to modern times, these materials take also attracted a diverse biota of sessile and motile marine organisms—freedom travellers (hitch-hikers and hangers-on if one likes). This process has been a mechanism in the slow trans-oceanic dispersal of marine and some terrestrial organisms; e.g. Wheeler'southward (1916) report of ants carried in a floating log from the mainland of Brazil to offshore San Sebastian Island. Similarly, Ingólfsson (2000) has demonstrated that rafting on floating clumps of seaweed around Iceland may see inter-tidal species dispersed for considerable distances offshore. The hard surfaces of pelagic plastics provide an attractive and alternative substrate for a number of opportunistic colonizers. With the quantities of these synthetic and non-biodegradable materials in marine debris increasing manifold over the last five decades, dispersal will be accelerated and prospects for invasions past alien and possibly aggressive invasive species could be enhanced (eastward.g. Gregory 1978, 2004; Winston et al. 1997; Barnes 2002a,b) (examples illustrating some of the possibilities are provided in appendix A).

Pelagic plastic items are commonly colonized by a diversity of encrusting and fouling epibionts (eastward.g. effigy 4). Virtually of these are sessile, hard-shelled or crustose organisms and dominated past bryozoans. Besides included are barnacles, tube worms, foraminifera, coralline algae, hydroids and bivalve molluscs. Furthermore, they are likewise bonny substrates for a varied motile biota. The pseudo-planktic community that develops is comparable to that associated with Sargassum and other globe-trotting seaweed, although with reduced species richness and variety (Stevens et al. 1996; Winston et al. 1997). Flexible rope may also attract hangers-on (figure 4; encounter appendix A(ii)). Aggregations of marine debris can provide habitats suiting the larval and juvenile stages of numerous marine organisms. They may also attract free-living, ocean-roaming predators that oft assemble nether fish accumulation devices, and where others simply sought a protective haven (run into Winston et al. 1997, fig. 7.10). Aspects of floating substrata and colonizing biota are comprehensively reviewed in Theil & Gutow (2004).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is rstb20080265-g4.jpg

Example of colonization and encrustation on plastic debris from the New Zealand coastline: (a) heavy and varied colonization of a plastic slab recovered (note the difficult bodied encrustations and soft fleshy epibionts; (b) cuttings from a tangled mass of constructed rope, carrying a cargo of the warm-water Indo-Pacific oyster, Lopha cristagalli, a species that is alien to New Zealand waters (appendix A(ii)); (c) plastic pellet (raw material for manufacture of plastic products) encrusted by the bryozoan Membranipora taberculata, see appendix A(i); (d) small bryozoan colony (Galeopsis mimicus) attached to a frayed plastic bit (arrowed) recovered from a depth of 393 one thousand off the east coast shelf off the South Island (appendix A(xii)); calibration bar 200 µm. Recently a tropical hermatypic coral has also been reported on a remote Due south Island shoreline (J. Lindqvist, personal communication).

4. New Zealand and the pacific sector of the Southern Ocean

In the Southern Hemisphere, a latitudinal slope has been recognized in the extent to which globe-trotting plastics are colonized by epibionts. Surface cover, specially by bryozoans, as well as species richness and diversity is greatest at low latitudes (tropical and subtropical), decreasing through temperate mid latitudes and least in loftier (polar) latitudes (Barnes & Sanderson 2000; Barnes et al. 2006). Across the S Pacific Ocean and the Antarctic sector of the Antarctic ocean, there are several important oceanic fronts along which marine debris tends to concentrate, e.g. Humbolt Forepart off Valparaiso, Chile (Bourne & Clark 1984). The southwards flowing Eastward Australian Current rises in the Coral Sea. Eddies from it swing eastwards across Tasman Sea periodically bringing exotic tropical 'bounding main beans' to the shores of Aupouri Peninsula (northern New Zealand). These eddies also behave significant quantities of marine debris that originates from eastern Australia. The sources may be country-based or fisheries and other maritime activities and the cargo carried may include taxa conflicting to New Zealand.

Over 150 marine species are known from plastic debris stranding on the shores of northern New Zealand or equally colonizers in experiments with moored plastic bottles suspended at from the surface at varying depths to 10 m (50. Chiliad. Stevens 1992, unpublished information). Most of the identified biota are difficult-shelled or crustose organisms and are dominated by bryozoans (Stevens et al. in training). Around northern-most New Zealand, at least 60 bryozoan species have been identified. Of these, 28 had not been recorded previously—at commencement glance this suggests contempo introductions. In truth information technology reflects lack of local research, equally well-nigh of these taxa are known from eastern Australia and the Kermadec Ridge to the northeast of New Zealand (Gregory 1998). The cosmopolitan, warm-h2o, low-latitude bryozoan, Membranipora tuberculata (effigy 4 c) that now dominates beach-cast plastic items around northern New Zealand is a relatively contempo inflow—perhaps from eastern Australia (Gregory 1978, 1998). The biota recorded from beached marine debris are strongly biased towards those taxa with hard and resistant parts. Recovery of freely drifting items in open waters as well equally study over a nine-calendar month menstruation of moored panels has revealed the importance of colonization by a soft fleshy biota. This included a representative suite of well-known, northern New Zealand marine biota (eastward.g. brown and filamentous algae, hydroids, ascidians, body of water anemones and sponges equally well equally motile organisms including venereal, amphipods, isopods, errant polychaetes, gastropods, limpets, chitons, echinoderms, body of water slugs and sea cucumbers) (Winston et al. 1997; Stevens et al. in preparation). Soft and fleshy organisms atomize chop-chop once out of h2o and left stranded and exposed to the harshness of beach environments. They are seldom recorded in beach surveys. Ye & Andrady (1991) accept also recognized the importance of an adhering soft and fleshy biota.

Weakening eddies from the East Australian Electric current pass downwards the due east declension of northern New Zealand, and off E Cape merge into the Subtropical Convergence zone. Remote Chatham Island, lying 850 km to the e of mainland New Zealand, sits virtually astride this zone. Marine debris is arable on the isle's north- and west-facing shores (Gregory 1999b). Much of this comes from the local fishery and is generally clean of whatsoever attached biota. Nevertheless, some debris items support a varied suite of hitch-hikers and hangers-on. The degradation and weathering state of these materials as well every bit labelling suggests that these items have been adrift for some time and that they may accept come from distant. Virgin plastic nibs, and for which there is no local (i.e. Chatham Island) source, are also common on these shores. The show for long-altitude send is irrefutable and the possibility of conflicting introductions must be acknowledged.

Following the separation of Antarctica from Gondwanaland, initiation in the Southern ocean of the strong easterly-flowing Antarctic Circumpolar Current and evolution of the Polar Front some 30 million years ago, the Antarctic Continent has been finer isolated (figure 5). As a outcome, the biota of shallow marine environments effectually the continent are highly endemic (Knox 1994). The Polar Frontal Zone (PFZ) (Antarctic Convergence) encircles the Antarctic Continent. Although noting records of pumice, dunnage and tree trunks escaping its clasp, Gregory et al. (1984), Gregory (1990) and Gregory & Ryan (1997) suggested that oceanic fronts, such as the Subtropical Convergence and Polar Front, were obstructions along which marine debris tended to collect and concentrate, and which would be difficult for it to cross. It is at present appreciated that these obstructions are in reality somewhat 'leaky barriers' (encounter Barnes & Fraser 2003; Barnes et al. 2006, 2009; appendix A(vii)). Nonetheless, the quantities of plastic trash and other debris here are many magnitudes less than the concentrations recorded by Moore (2003) in the North Pacific subtropical coil.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is rstb20080265-g5.jpg

The Subtropical Convergence and strong easterly flowing Antarctic Circumpolar Polar Current are frontal zones and are 'leaky barriers' which some organisms are at present traversing.

For marine debris with hitch-hiking aliens aboard, the possibilities of north–south (incursions) and southward–north (excursions) transfers are probably greatest through disturbances and eddying equally waters of the PFZ are forced through Drake Passage, as well as gyral circulation patterns that develop off the Weddell and Ross Seas. The recent written report of 10 invertebrate species fastened to plastic strapping that stranded on the water ice-strewn shore of Adelaide Island (68°S) west of the Antarctic Peninsula exemplifies a developing problem (appendix A(viii)) (Barnes & Fraser 2003). Predicted climate changes and surface h2o warming of the Southern Ocean will only enhance the possibilities of this two-fashion latitudinal traffic. This is unlikely to be of benefit for endemic species that accept been long isolated and are adjusted and restricted to local common cold-water environments.

five. Discussion

The environmental, cultural, artful, commercial and other problems arising from pelagic plastics in item and varied marine debris items in full general are manifold, widely best-selling and oft difficult to address (see discussion in Thompson et al. 2009a,b). For instance, in today'south world, 'embankment make clean-ups', whether by mechanical means and managed past local government, or following responses organized through public interest groups, have become phenomena of global proportions (see Ryan et al. 2009). The latter ofttimes involve tedious 'hand picking' and in some situations may endanger the wellness of participants. While recovery and/or collection of marine debris through 'herding' and use of barriers in harbour, port, estuary and near-shore settings is not uncommon, it is a difficult, if not near-on impossible, task for dispersed textile adrift on the high seas. These approaches are not a panacea, for to engagement they do not seem to have led to any great reduction of marine debris materials afloat in the global oceans and enclosed seas or being cast aground. I am of the opinion that attacking the source(s) at their varied places of origin may be the but feasible arroyo in the longer term (see discussion in Thompson et al. 2009b). The possibility of long-distance slow dispersal of common 'fouling organisms' (marine and non-marine) through hitch-hiking, hanging-on and/or rafting has been recognized for some fourth dimension (e.g. Wheeler 1916; WHOI 1952; Gregory 1978; Jokiel 1990) and the environmental importance of this process is now widely acknowledged (east.g. Barnes 2002a,b; Barnes et al. 2006). The possibility that pelagic plastics may be potential vectors in the dispersal of ambitious and invasive marine (and terrestrial) organisms that could endanger owned biota at present warrants serious consideration. The dangers are probably greatest where endemism is meaning, such as in the remote tropical and mid-latitude islands of Oceania, and isolated sub-Antarctic islands. In a forthcoming era of global warming, shallow marine waters effectually Antarctica could be similarly threatened. Mechanisms for the evaluation of biosecurity and direction of aggressive alien marine bioinvasions in the Antarctic ocean are important recent developments (east.g. Lewis et al. 2004; Hewitt & Campbell 2007).

Despite numerous informal gatherings and beach clean-upwards exercises, local authorisation concerns, regional and international meetings, together with more than formal briefing settings, an e'er-expanding volume of research literature (oft repetitive), likewise as alluring the interest of UNEP's Regional Seas Plan since 1974, the ecology and multiple other bug associated with plastic-dominated marine debris appear to exist ever expanding! For the present there seem to be no satisfactory and/or practical answers to the varied problems plastic debris creates in marine settings. Longer term successes of beach clean-ups and prescribed action plans are questionable. There are clearly needs for new approaches—foremost amid these will probably exist farther development of biodegradable plastics with significantly reduced and tightly managed disintegration times (see Song et al. 2009; Thompson et al. 2009b).

Acknowledgements

My interest since the early on 1970s in the varied problems associated with 'marine debris' was funded initially through University of Auckland'southward research grants and afterwards past the New Zealand Ministry of Environment research agenda, equally well as the Marine Mammal Commission, Washington. I too acknowledge technical and other support over many years from R. Harris, K. Johnston, B. Curram and L. Cotterall. I have valued Allan Williams' commentaries on the topic of marine debris for many years and also appreciate the conscientious attention given to the manuscript by two bearding referees.

Appendix A: A catalogue with examples of some invading species, not all are necessarily aggressive aliens (expanded from Gregory 2004)

(i) Membranipora tuberculata: This common bryozoan was not identified in New Zealand waters until the early 1970s when identifications effectually northern New Zealand were made. Specimens were constitute on plastic substrates including virgin plastic pellets (or nibs) and rarely on some larger artefacts. It was inferred that there had been eastwards dispersal from Australia across the northern Tasman ocean by fashion of eddies in the Eastward Australian Current (Gregory 1978). Afterward, L. Chiliad. Stevens (1992, unpublished data) was to report that it was arable on both eastern and western shores around northernmost New Zealand. Several specimens were subsequently noted (Grand. R. Gregory, unpublished) on occasional nibs establish in concentrations on northern shores of Chatham Isle. This island lies virtually astride the Subtropical Convergence where marine debris tends to gather and it is probably driven ashore by northerly winds (Gregory 1999a).

(ii) Lopha cristagalli: Numerous specimens of this common tropical water, Indo-Pacific oyster have been found attached to a tangled mass of constructed rope stranded on a remote and isolated beach of Fiordland, southwestern New Zealand (Winston et al. 1997). The only previous local record of this taxon was in 1971 when a length of synthetic rope, hauled up from shallow water off Parengarenga Harbour in the far due north, carried several recently dead specimens. It was suggested that their presence was due to an overseas fishing vessel (Gardner 1971). Recently, a similarly entangled mass of rope encrusted with a hermatypic coral has stranded at the same Fiordland locality (J. Lindqvist, personal communication).

(iii) Plastic toy boats: W'south (1981) written report of a child's small (<30 cm) plastic toy boat stranded on a minor island (Tiritiri matangi) lying c. 4 km offshore in the Hauraki gulf near Auckland, New Zealand, is about informative. It was carrying a cargo with soil and the seeds of eight plant species. Of these, five were native and three exotic; one was of a species not known from the island and at least 3 were feasible.

(iv) Thalamoporella evelinae: Bryozoans resembling this taxon, which is known from Brazil, arrived in significant quantities on Florida shores through attachment to pelagic plastic artefacts and afterward stranding on beaches where it had not been previously identified (Winston et al. 1997).

(v) Pinctata spp. A large blue fish crate with prominent Venezuelan markings stranding on Bermuda beaches with several unmarried fastened valves of this taxon suggests long-distance send past way of the Gulf Stream (personal observation).

(vi) Diadumene lineata: In November 2000, numerous individuals of this widely recognized, ambitious and invasive inter-tidal sea anenome were discovered on derelict trawl netting in the lagoon of Pearl and Hermes Reef, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This is a cosmopolitan taxon that is native to Japan and had non been previously identified in Hawaiian waters. It was suggested that the net with its hitch-hiking cargo of D. lineata could take drifted from afar—possibly Japan (Zabin et al. 2004).

(vii) Mytilis galloprovincialis: This exotic smooth-shelled blueish mussel arrived in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (June 1998) equally a component of the fouling community carried by USS Missouri. Apte et al. (2000) reported that spawning took place before long thereafter and were later recruited to some other 'shipping vector'. They infer that a 'stepping rock' model between temperate latitudes could lead to dispersal and/or range expansion.

(viii) Adelaide Island, Antarctic Peninsula: Barnes & Fraser (2003) reported a plastic strapping band washing ashore, and on which were attached x species belonging to five phylla, including bryozoa, porifera, annelida, cnidaria and mollusca. Information technology was suggested that this plastic artefact could have been afloat for at least 1 yr.

(ix) Harmful microalgae: Masó et al.'s (2003) observations along the Catalan coast (northwestern Mediterranean) and suggestions that pelagic plastic debris could be a vector in the dispersal of harmful microalgae.

(x) Elminius modestus: This barnacle is endemic to Australasian waters. It arrived in southern England during the Second World State of war—maybe through zipper to convoyed vessels. Afterward, this aggressive and alien invasive taxon avant-garde northwards, colonizing rocky inter-tidal shores effectually the British Isles and also side by side coasts of Europe. By 1978 information technology had reached the Shetland Islands. There are suggestions that in after years plastic substrates could have been implicated in this dispersal (Barnes & Milner 2005).

(xi) Macrobenthos, Ligurian Sea: In these waters, Aliani & Molcard (2003) have documented macrobenthic species colonizing plastic artefacts and occasional pieces of wood. Of the 14 stations sampled, the barnacle Lepas pectinata was nowadays at 12 and the isopod Idotea metallica at 9. Hydroids and bryozoa were also common. They also noted that no alien species had been identified.

(xii) Galeopsis mimicus: This bryozoan was previously known from two sampling stations off the west coast of the Southward Island of New Zealand at h2o depths of 297 and 520 m. It is also known from >2000 km to the north and in water depths of 470–825 thou. Information technology has recently been identified on a small piece of frayed plastic substrate recovered from the top of a core taken c. threescore km off the Canterbury e declension at a depth of 393 m (effigy 4 d) (Carter & Gregory 2005).

(xiii) Giamardia trapesina: Long-altitude dispersal in the sub-Antarctic and Antarctic ocean waters through kelp rafting of heart-searching bivalves (Helmuth et al. 1994).

Footnotes

References

Acha E. K., Mianzan H. W., Iribarne O., Gagliardini D. A., Lasta C., Daleo P.2003The role of the Rio de la Plata bottom salinity front in accumulating droppings. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46, 197–202 (doi:ten.1016/S0025-326X(02)00356-9) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Aliani S., Molcard A.2003Hitch-hiking on floating marine droppings: macrobenthic species in the Western Mediterranean Ocean. Hydrobiologia 503, 59–67 (doi:x.1023/B:HYDR.0000008480.95045.26) [Google Scholar]
Apte S., Kingdom of the netherlands B. S., Godwin L. Due south., Gardner J. P. A.2000Jumping ship: a stepping rock result mediating transfer of a not-ethnic species via a potentially unsuitable environs. Biol. Inv. ii, 75–79 (doi:x.1023/A:1010024818644) [Google Scholar]
Backhurst M. G., Cole R. Chiliad.2000Subtidal benthic marine litter at Kawau Island, north-eastern New Zealand. J. Environ. Manage. lx, 227–237 (doi:ten.1006/jema.2000.0381) [Google Scholar]
Balazs G. H.1985Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In Proc. of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Droppings, 27–29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii (eds Shomura R. South., Yoshida) H. O., pp. 387–429 US Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo; NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54 [Google Scholar]
Ballance A., Tyan P. Chiliad., Turpie J. K.2000How much is a make clean beach worth? The touch of litter on beach users in the Greatcoat Peninsula, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 96, 210–213 [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. K. A.2002aInvasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416, 808–809 (doi:10.1038/416808a) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. K. A.2002bHuman rubbish assists alien invasions. Dir. Sci. 1, 107–112 (doi:ten.1100/tsw.2002.879) [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. 1000. A.2005Remote Islands reveal rapid ascension of Southern Hemisphere, sea debris. Sci. World J. v, 915–921 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. K. A., Fraser Thou. P. P.2003Rafting by five phyla on man-fabricated flotsam in the Antarctic ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 262, 281–289 (doi:10.3354/meps262289) [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. K. A., Milner P.2005Globe-trotting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Bounding main. Mar. Biol. 146, 815–825 (doi:10.1007/s00227-004-1474-8) [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. K. A., Sanderson W. Thousand.2000Latitudinal patterns of colonization of marine debris. In Proc. of the 11th Int. Bryozoology Assoc. Conf., Chicago (eds Herrera-Cubilla A., Jackson J. B. C.), pp. 154–160 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. 1000. A., Hodgson D. A., Convey P., Allen C. Due south., Clarke A.2006Incursion and excursion of Antarctic Biota: by, nowadays and future. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 121–142 (doi:10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00216.x) [Google Scholar]
Barnes D. Chiliad. A., Galgani F., Thompson R. C., Barlaz G.2009Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1985–1998 (doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205) [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Beck C. A., Barros N. B.1991The impact of debris on the Florida Manatee. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22, 508–510 (doi:ten.1016/0025-326X(91)90406-I) [Google Scholar]
Bjorndal Chiliad. A., Bolten A. B., Laguex C. J.1994Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 28, 154–158 (doi:x.1016/0025-326X(94)90391-three) [Google Scholar]
Blight 50. Yard., Burger A. E.1997Occurrence of plastic particles in sea-birds from the eastern North Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 323–325 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(96)00095-1) [Google Scholar]
Boren L. J., Morrissey M., Muller C. G., Gemmell N. J.2006Entanglement of New Zealand fur seals in man-made debris at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52, 442–446 (doi:ten.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.12.003) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bourne West. R. P., Clark G. C.1984The occurrence of birds and garbage at the Humboldt Front off Valparaiso, Chile. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 15, 343–344 (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(84)90493-4) [Google Scholar]
Cadee M. C.2002Seabirds and floating plastic debris. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 44, 1294–1299 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00264-3) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Carr H. A., Harris J.1997Ghost-fishing gear: have fishing practices during the past few years reduced the impact? In Marine droppings, sources, impacts, and solutions (eds Coe J. Yard., Rogers D. B.), pp. 141–151 New York, NY: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
Carter R., Gregory Thou. R.2005Bryozoan encrusted plastic from the continental slope: eastern South Island, New Zealand. N. Z. Nat. Sci. 30, 49–55 [Google Scholar]
Connors P. J., Smith K. M.1982Oceanic plastic particle pollution: suspected event on fatty deposition in Red Phalropes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. xiii, 18–xx (doi:x.1016/0025-326X(82)90490-eight) [Google Scholar]
Copello S., Quintana F.2003Marine debris ingestion by Southern Behemothic Petrels and its potential relationships with fisheries in the Southern Atlantic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 46, 1513–1515 (doi:ten.1016/S0025-326X(03)00312-6) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
de Forges B. D., Koslow J. A., Poore G. C. B.2000Diversity and endemism of the benthic seamount brute in the southwest Pacific. Nature 405, 944–947 (doi:10.1038/35016066) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Derraik J. G. B.2002The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 44, 842–852 (doi:x.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ebbesmeyer C. C., Ingraham West. J., Jr, Royer T. C., Grosch C. E.2007Tub toys orbit the Pacific Subarctic gyre. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 88, 1&4 [Google Scholar]
Eriksson C., Burton H.2003Origins and biological aggregating of minor plastic particles in Fur Seals from Macquarie Island. Ambio 32, 380–385 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Furness R. Westward.1985Ingestion of plastic particles by seabirds at Gough Isle, South Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Pollut. Ser A 38, 261–272 (doi:10.1016/0143-1471(85)90131-X) [Google Scholar]
Gabrielides G. P.1995Pollution of the Mediterranean Body of water. Water Sci. Technol. 32, 9–10 (doi:10.1016/0273-1223(96)00070-4) [Google Scholar]
Galgani F., et al. 2000Litter on the ocean flooring along the European coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. xl, 516–527 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00234-9) [Google Scholar]
Galil B. S., Golik A., Turkay G.1995Litter at the lesser of the sea: a body of water bed survey in the Eastern Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30, 22–24 (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(94)00103-One thousand) [Google Scholar]
Gardner N. N.1971Lopha cristagali (Linne). Poirieria 5, 104 [Google Scholar]
Gheskiere T., Madda V., Greet P., Steven D.2006Are strandline meiofaunal assemblages affected past a in one case-but mechanical; beach cleaning? Experimental findings. Mar. Environ. Res. 61, 245–264 (doi:x.1016/j.marenvres.2005.10.003) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Goldberg E. D.1997Plasticizing the seafloor: an overview. Environ. Technol. 18, 195–202 (doi:10.1080/09593331808616527) [Google Scholar]
Gregory K. R.1977Plastic pellets on New Zealand beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. ix, 82–84 (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(77)90193-X) [Google Scholar]
Gregory Grand. R.1978Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on New Zealand beaches. Northward. Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 12, 399–414 [Google Scholar]
Gregory One thousand. R.1990Environmental and pollution aspects. In Antarctic sector of the Pacific. (ed. Glasby 1000. P.). Elsevier Oceanography Series, 51, pp. 291–324 [Google Scholar]
Gregory M. R.1991The hazards of persistent marine pollution: drift plastics and conservation islands. J. R. Soc. Due north. Z. 21, 83–100 [Google Scholar]
Gregory G. R.1998Pelagic plastics and marine invaders. Aliens, 7, vi–7 [Google Scholar]
Gregory Thousand. R.1999aPlastics and South Pacific island shores. Ocean Littoral Manage. 42, 603–615 (doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(99)00036-8) [Google Scholar]
Gregory M. R.1999bMarine debris: notes from Chatham Isle, and Stonemason and Doughboy Bays, Stewart Island. Tane 37, 201–210 [Google Scholar]
Gregory M. R.2004Marine debris: hangers-on and hitch-hiking aliens. In Derelict fishing gear and related marine debris: an educational outreach seminar amidst APEC partners. Seminar Proc., 13–xvi January 2004, Honolulu, Hawaii pp. 40–44 [Google Scholar]
Gregory M. R., Andrady A. L.2003Plastics in the marine surroundings. In Plastics and the environs (ed. Andrady A. L.), pp. 379–401 Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc [Google Scholar]
Gregory K. R., Ryan P. G.1997Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a revue of Southern Hemisphere perspectives. In Marine Debris, sources, impacts, and solutions (eds Coe J. One thousand., Rogers D. B.), pp. 49–66 New York, NY: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
Gregory M. R., Kirk R. M., Mabin 1000. C. G.1984Plastics and other litter in surface waters of the New Zealand sector of the Southern ocean and on Ross Dependency shores. N. Z. Antarct. Rec. 7, 12–28 [Google Scholar]
Gunn C. R., Dennis J. V.1999. Globe guide to tropical drift seeds and fruits Malabar, FL: Kreiger Publishing Visitor, 240 p [Google Scholar]
Hanni K. D., Pyle P.2000Entanglement of Pinnipeds in constructed materials at South-east Farallon Isle, California, 1976–1998. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 1076–1081 (doi:x.1016/S0025-326X(00)00050-3) [Google Scholar]
Harms J.1990Marine plastic litter as an artificial hard bottom fouling ground. Helgoläender Meersuntersuchungen 44, 503 (doi:10.1007/BF02365483) [Google Scholar]
Harper P. C., Fowler J. A.1987Plastic pellets in New Zealand storm-killed prions (Pachyptila spp.) 1958–1977. Notornis 34, 65–seventy [Google Scholar]
Helmuth B. R., Veit R., Holberton R.1994Long-distance dispersal of a SubAntarctic brooding bivalve (Gaimardia trapesina) by kelp rafting. Mar. Biol. 120, 421–426 (doi:10.1007/BF00680216) [Google Scholar]
Henderson J. R.2001A pre- and mail-MARPOL Addendum Five summary of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements and marine debris aggregating in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1982–1998. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 584–589 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00204-6) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hess N. A., Ribic C. A., Vining I.1999Benthic marine droppings with an emphasis on fisheries-related items, surrounding Kodiak Island, Alaska, 1994–1996. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38, 885–890 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00087-9) [Google Scholar]
Hewitt C. L., Campbell M. L.2007Mechanisms for the prevention of marine bioinvasions for meliorate biosecurity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 55, 395–401 (doi:ten.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.005) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hofmeyr G. J. Thou., Bester M. N., Kirkman South. P., Lydersen C., Kovacs K. M.2006Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bouvetóya, Southern Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52, 1077–1080 (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.05.003) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hollström A.1975Plastic films on the bottom of the Skagerrak. Nature 255, 622–623 (doi:10.1038/255622a0) [Google Scholar]
Ingólfsson A.2000Colonization of floating seaweed by pelagic and subtidal benthic animals in s-western Iceland. Hydrobiologia 440, 181–189 (doi:ten.1023/A:1004119126869) [Google Scholar]
Jokiel P. 50.1990Long-altitude dispersal past rafting: reemergence of an quondam hypothesis. Attempt 14, 66–73 (doi:10.1016/0160-9327(90)90074-ii) [Google Scholar]
Kanehiro H., Tokai T., Matuda K.1995Marine litter composition and distribution on the sea-bed of Tokyo Bay, Nippon. Fish. Eng. 31, 195–199 [Google Scholar]
Katsanevakis S., Verriopoulos Grand., Nicolaidou A., Thessalou-Legaki Chiliad.2007Issue of marine litter on the benthic megafauna of coastal soft bottoms: a manipulative field experiment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 771–778 (doi:ten.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.016) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Knox G. A.1994The biology of the Southern Sea Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 444 p. [Google Scholar]
Koslow J. A.1997Seamounts and the environmental of deep-sea fisheries. Am. Sci. 85, 168–175 [Google Scholar]
Laist D. W.1987Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic droppings in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18, 319–326 (doi:x.1016/S0025-326X(87)80019-X) [Google Scholar]
Laist D. W.1996Marine debris entanglement and ghost angling: a cryptic and pregnant blazon of bycatch. Alaska Ocean Grant College Progarm Written report no. 96-03. pp. 33–39, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK [Google Scholar]
Laist D. W.1997Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In Marine debris, sources, impacts, and solutions (eds Coe J. M., Rogers D. B.), pp. 99–139 New York, NY: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
Lewis P. N., Riddle 1000. J., Smith Southward. D. A.2005Assisted passage or passive drift: a comparing of alternative transport mechanisms for non-indigenous coastal species into the Southern ocean. Antarct. Sci. 17, 183–191 (doi:10.1017/S0954102005002580) [Google Scholar]
Llewellyn P. J., Shackley S. East.1996The effects of mechanical embankment-cleaning on invertebrate populations. Br. Wildl. 7, 147–155 [Google Scholar]
Mallory Thousand. L., Robertson G. J., Moenting A.2006Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from Davis Strait, Nanavut. Can. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52, 800–815 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mascarenhas A., Santos R., Zeppelini D.2004Plastic debris by sea turtle in Paraíba. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 49, 354–355 (doi:ten.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.05.006) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Masó M., Garcés Due east., Pagès F., Camp J.2003Drifting plastic droppings as a potential vector for dispersing harmful algal bloom (HAB) species. Sci. Mar. 67, 107–111 [Google Scholar]
Mato Y., Isobe T., Takada H., Kahnehiro H., Ohtake C., Kaminuma O.2001Plastic resin pellets equally a send medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35, 318–324 (doi:10.1021/es0010498) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mattlin R. H., Cawthorn Chiliad. W.1986Marine droppings—an international problem. N. Z. Environ. 51, iii–6 [Google Scholar]
Moore C.2003Trashed: across the Pacific Bounding main, plastics, plastics, everywhere. Nat. Hist. 112, 46–51 [Google Scholar]
Moore S. L., Allen G. J.2000Distribution of anthropogenic and natural debris on the mainland shelf of the southern California Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull. forty, 83–88 (doi:x.1016/S0025-326X(99)00175-7) [Google Scholar]
Nash A.1992Impacts of marine debris on subsistence fishermen—an exploratory study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24, 150–156 (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(92)90243-Y) [Google Scholar]
O'Driscoll R. L., Clark M. R.2005Quantifying the relative intensity of line-fishing on New Zealand Seamounts. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 39, 839–850 [Google Scholar]
Oehlmann J., et al. 2009A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2047–2062 (doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0242) [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Oshima S.2000Towards a 'Visual Body of water'. Hydro Int. 4, 73 [Google Scholar]
Page B., et al. 2004Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after Regime and manufacture attempts to reduce the trouble. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 33–42 (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.006) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Richards A. H.1994Issues of migrate-net fisheries in the Due south Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 29, 106–111 (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(94)90433-2) [Google Scholar]
Ryan P. Grand.2008Seabirds signal changes in the composition of plastic litter in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1406–1409 (doi:x.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.05.004) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ryan P. M., Swanepoel D.1996Cleaning beaches; sweeping the rubbish under the carpet. S. Afr. J. Sci. 92, 163–165 [Google Scholar]
Ryan P. K., Moore C. J., van Franeker J. A., Moloney C. L.2009Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1999–2012 (doi:x.1098/rstb.2008.0207) [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sazima I., Gadig O. B. F., Namora R. C., Motta F. S.2002Plastic debris collars on juvenile carcharhinid sharks (Rhizoprionodon lalandii) in southwest Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 1147–1149 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00141-8) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Shomura R. S., Yoshida H. O. (eds) 1985Proc. of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26–29 Nov 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA. Tech. Memo; NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54 [Google Scholar]
Song J. H., Murphy R. J., Narayan R., Davies G. B. H.2009Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2127–2139 (doi:ten.1098/rstb.2008.0289) [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stefatos A., Chararampakis 1000., Papatheodorou M., Ferentinos G.1999Marine debris on the bounding main flooring of the Mediterranean body of water: examples from two enclosed Gulfs in Western Greece. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 36, 389–393 (doi:ten.1016/S0025-326X(98)00141-6) [Google Scholar]
Stevens 50. M., Gregory K. R., Foster B. A.1996Fouling bryozoa on pelagic and moored plastics from northern New Zealand. In Bryzoans in space and time. Proc. of the 10th Int. Bryozoology Conf. (eds Gordon D. P., Smith A. Thou., Grant-Mackie J. A.), pp. 321–340 Wellington, New Zealand: National Institute of H2o & Atmospheric Inquiry Ltd [Google Scholar]
Stevens L. Yard., Gregory M. R., Foster B. A.In training The epibionts and associated biota of pelagic plastic droppings from northern New Zealand. [Google Scholar]
Teuten Eastward. L., et al. 2009Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2027–2045 (doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0284) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Theil Thou., Guto L.2005The ecology of rafting in the marine environment. 1. The floating substrata. In Oceanography and marine biological science (eds Gibson R. Northward., Atkinson R. J. A., Gordon J. D. Grand.), vol. 42, pp. 181–264 [Google Scholar]
Tomás J., Guitart R., Mateo R., Raga J. A.2002Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead body of water turtles, Caretta carettahe, from the western Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 211–216 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00236-3) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Thompson M. E., Cóté W. A.1997Potential effects of discarded Triton paperboard six-pack carriers on fish. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 135–137 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(96)00128-2) [Google Scholar]
Thompson R. C., Swan Due south. H., Moore C. J., vom Saal F. S.2009aOur plastic age. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1973–1976 (doi:ten.1098/rstb.2009.0054) [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Thompson R. C., Moore C. J., vom Saal F. South., Swan Southward. H.2009bPlastics, the environment and man wellness: current consensus and time to come trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2153–2166 (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tudor D. T., Williams A. T.2006A rationale for embankment selection by the public on the coast of Wales, U.k.. Area 38, 153–164 (doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00684.x) [Google Scholar]
Uneputty P., Evans S. K.1997The impact of plastic debris on the biota of tidal flats in Ambon Bay (Eastern Indonesia). Mar. Environ. Res. 44, 233–242 (doi:10.1016/S0141-1136(97)00002-0) [Google Scholar]
Van Duzer C.2004Floating islands: a global bibliography. pp. 204p, Los Altos Hills, CA: Cantor Printing , 204 p.(12 plates) [Google Scholar]
Van Franeker J. A., Bell P. J.1988Plastic ingestion by petrels breeding in Antarctica. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19, 672–674 (doi:x.1016/0025-326X(88)90388-8) [Google Scholar]
Vlietstra L. S., Parga J. A.2002Long-term changes in the type, but not corporeality, of ingested plastic particles in curt-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern Bering Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 945–955 (doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00130-3) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Watling L., Norse Eastward. A.1998Disturbance of seabed by mobile angling gear: a comparison to forest clearcutting. Conserv. Biol. 12, 1180–1197 (doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.0120061180.x) [Google Scholar]
West C. J.1981The significance of minor plastic boats equally seed dispersal agents. Tane 27, 175 [Google Scholar]
Wheeler Due west. Thou.1916Ants carried in a floating log from the Brazilian mainland to San Sabastian Island. Psyche 23, 180–183 (doi:x.1155/1916/59414) [Google Scholar]
WHOI (Forest Hole Oceanographic Institution) 1952Marine fouling and its prevention, pp. 338 Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute [Google Scholar]
Williams A. T., Morgan R.1995Embankment awards and rating systems. Shore Embankment 63, 29–33 [Google Scholar]
Williams A. T., Simmons Due south. 50.1997Estuarine litter at the river/beach interface in the Bristol Channel, UK. J. Littoral Res. thirteen, 1159–1165 [Google Scholar]
Williams A. T., Simmons S. L., Fricker A.1993Off-shore sinks of marine litter: a new problem. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 26, 404–405 (doi:10.1016/0025-326X(93)90192-K) [Google Scholar]
Williams A. T., Tudor D. T.2001aLitter burial and exhumation: spatial and temporal distribution on a cobble pocket beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1031–1039 (doi:x.1016/S0025-326X(01)00058-iii) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Williams A. T., Tudor D. T.2001bTemporal trends in litter dynamics at a pebble pocket beach. J. Coastal Res. 17, 137–145 [Google Scholar]
Williams A. T., Tudor D. T., Gregory One thousand. R.2005Marine debris—onshore, offshore, seafloor litter. In Encylopedia of Coastal Science (Encyclopedia of World Sciences Series) (ed. Schwartz M. L.), pp. 623–628 Berlin, Deutschland: Springer [Google Scholar]
Winston J. E., Gregory G. R., Stevens 50. M.1997Encrusters, epibionts, and other biota associated with pelagic plastics: a review. In Marine droppings, sources, impacts, and solutions (eds Coe J. G., Rogers D. B.), pp. 81–97 New York, NY: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
Wright A., Doulman D. J.1991Migrate-net line-fishing in the S Pacific: from controversy to management. Mar. Policy 15, 303–337 (doi:10.1016/0308-597X(91)90081-L) [Google Scholar]
Ye South., Andrady A. Fifty.1991Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne Bay exposure conditions. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 22, 608–613 (doi:x.1016/0025-326X(91)90249-R) [Google Scholar]
Zabin C. J., Carlton J. T., Goodwin L. Southward.2004First report of the Asian sea anenome Diadumene lineata from the Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Paper no. 79, 56–61 [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Imperial Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Social club

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873013/

Posted by: jacobssquill1950.blogspot.com