175
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Marine Litter Distribution and Density in European Seas, from the Shelves to Deep Basins

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Anthropogenic litter is present in all marine habitats, from beaches to the most remote points in the oceans. On the seafloor, marine litter, particularly plastic, can accumulate in high densities with deleterious consequences for its inhabitants. Yet, because of the high cost involved with sampling the seafloor, no large-scale assessment of distribution patterns was available to date. Here, we present data on litter distribution and density collected during 588 video and trawl surveys across 32 sites in European waters. We found litter to be present in the deepest areas and at locations as remote from land as the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone across the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The highest litter density occurs in submarine canyons, whilst the lowest density can be found on continental shelves and on ocean ridges. Plastic was the most prevalent litter item found on the seafloor. Litter from fishing activities (derelict fishing lines and nets) was particularly common on seamounts, banks, mounds and ocean ridges. Our results highlight the extent of the problem and the need for action to prevent increasing accumulation of litter in marine environments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758).

          The aim of this study was to determine the extent Nephrops consumes plastics in the Clyde Sea and if this intake occurs through their diet. Plastic contamination was found to be high in Nephrops, 83% of the animals sampled contained plastics (predominately filaments) in their stomachs. Tightly tangled balls of plastic strands were found in 62% of the animals studied but were least prevalent in animals which had recently moulted. No significant difference in plastic load was observed between males and females. Raman spectroscopy indicated that some of the microfilaments identified from gut contents could be sourced to fishing waste. Nephrops fed fish seeded with strands of polypropylene rope were found to ingest but not to excrete the strands. The fishery for Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus, is the most valuable in Scotland and the high prevalence of plastics in Nephrops may have implications for the health of the stock. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats.

            Marine ecosystems are threatened by a suite of anthropogenic stressors. Mitigating multiple threats is a daunting task, particularly when funding constraints limit the number of threats that can be addressed. Threats are typically assessed and prioritized via expert opinion workshops that often leave no record of the rationale for decisions, making it difficult to update recommendations with new information. We devised a transparent, repeatable, and modifiable method for collecting expert opinion that describes and documents how threats affect marine ecosystems. Experts were asked to assess the functional impact, scale, and frequency of a threat to an ecosystem; the resistance and recovery time of an ecosystem to a threat; and the certainty of these estimates. To quantify impacts of 38 distinct anthropogenic threats on 23 marine ecosystems, we surveyed 135 experts from 19 different countries. Survey results showed that all ecosystems are threatened by at least nine threats and that nine ecosystems are threatened by >90% of existing threats. The greatest threats (highest impact scores) were increasing sea temperature, demersal destructive fishing, and point-source organic pollution. Rocky reef, coral reef, hard-shelf, mangrove, and offshore epipelagic ecosystems were identified as the most threatened. These general results, however, may be partly influenced by the specific expertise and geography of respondents, and should be interpreted with caution. This approach to threat analysis can identify the greatest threats (globally or locally), most widespread threats, most (or least) sensitive ecosystems, most (or least) threatened ecosystems, and other metrics of conservation value. Additionally, it can be easily modified, updated as new data become available, and scaled to local or regional settings, which would facilitate informed and transparent conservation priority setting.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Man and the Last Great Wilderness: Human Impact on the Deep Sea

              The deep sea, the largest ecosystem on Earth and one of the least studied, harbours high biodiversity and provides a wealth of resources. Although humans have used the oceans for millennia, technological developments now allow exploitation of fisheries resources, hydrocarbons and minerals below 2000 m depth. The remoteness of the deep seafloor has promoted the disposal of residues and litter. Ocean acidification and climate change now bring a new dimension of global effects. Thus the challenges facing the deep sea are large and accelerating, providing a new imperative for the science community, industry and national and international organizations to work together to develop successful exploitation management and conservation of the deep-sea ecosystem. This paper provides scientific expert judgement and a semi-quantitative analysis of past, present and future impacts of human-related activities on global deep-sea habitats within three categories: disposal, exploitation and climate change. The analysis is the result of a Census of Marine Life – SYNDEEP workshop (September 2008). A detailed review of known impacts and their effects is provided. The analysis shows how, in recent decades, the most significant anthropogenic activities that affect the deep sea have evolved from mainly disposal (past) to exploitation (present). We predict that from now and into the future, increases in atmospheric CO2 and facets and consequences of climate change will have the most impact on deep-sea habitats and their fauna. Synergies between different anthropogenic pressures and associated effects are discussed, indicating that most synergies are related to increased atmospheric CO2 and climate change effects. We identify deep-sea ecosystems we believe are at higher risk from human impacts in the near future: benthic communities on sedimentary upper slopes, cold-water corals, canyon benthic communities and seamount pelagic and benthic communities. We finalise this review with a short discussion on protection and management methods.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                30 April 2014
                : 9
                : 4
                : e95839
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center of the Institute of Marine Research (IMAR) and Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal
                [2 ]Laboratory of Robotics and Systems in Engineering and Science (LARSyS), Lisbon, Portugal
                [3 ]Institut de Ciències del Mar (ICM-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Marine Biology section, Oslo, Norway
                [5 ]Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Bergen, Norway
                [7 ]Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany
                [8 ]GRC Geociències Marines, Departament d′Estratigrafia, Paleontologia i Geociències Marines, Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Campus de Pedralbes, Barcelona, Spain
                [9 ]Marine Biology & Ecology Research Centre, Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom
                [10 ]Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), Texel, The Netherlands
                [11 ]Institut Français de Recherche pour l′Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Bastia, France
                [12 ]National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, Southampton, United Kingdom
                [13 ]OceanLab, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany
                [14 ]British Geological Survey, Murchison House, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [15 ]Portuguese Task Group for the Extension of the Continental Shelf (EMEPC), Paço de Arcos, Portugal
                [16 ]Renard Centre of Marine Geology (RCMG), Department of Geology and Soil Science, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
                Bangor University, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: CKP ERL CHSA TA MB MC JBC JD GD FG KLH VAIH EI DOBJ GL TM JNGP AP HS IT XT DVR PT. Performed the experiments: CKP ERL CHSA TA MB MC JBC JD GD FG KLH VAIH EI DOBJ GL TM JNGP AP HS IT XT DVR PT. Analyzed the data: CKP. Wrote the paper: CKP.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-34901
                10.1371/journal.pone.0095839
                4005782
                24788771
                2bbf7cee-a929-4336-9e0f-8c057f6e309a
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 23 August 2013
                : 31 March 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funding
                This research was supported by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007∧2013) under the HERMIONE project, Grant agreement (GA) no. 226354. The authors would like to acknowledge further funds from the Condor project (supported by a grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway through the EEA Financial Mechanism (PT0040/2008)), Corazon (FCT/PTDC/MAR/72169/2006; COMPETE/QREN), CoralFISH (FP7 ENV/2007/1/21314 4), EC funded PERSEUS project (GA no. 287600), the ESF project BIOFUN (CTM2007-28739-E), the Spanish projects PROMETEO (CTM2007-66316-C02/MAR) and DOS MARES (CTM2010-21810-C03-01), la Caixa grant "Oasis del Mar", the Generalitat de Catalunya grant to excellence research group number 2009 SGR 1305, UK's Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) as part of the Ecosystems of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the Sub-Polar Front and Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone (ECOMAR) project, the Marine Environmental Mapping Programme (MAREMAP), the ERC (Starting Grant project CODEMAP, no 258482), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the Lenfest Ocean Program (PEW Foundation), the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform through Strategic Environmental Assessment 7 (formerly the Department for Trade and Industry) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through their advisors, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the offshore Special Areas for Conservation programme, BELSPO and RBINS-OD Nature (Belgian Federal Government) for R/V Belgica shiptime. The footage from the HAUSGARTEN observatory was taken during expeditions ARK XVIII/1, ARK XX/1, ARK XXII/1, ARK XXIII/2 and ARK XXVI/2 of the German research icebreaker “Polarstern”. The authors also acknowledge funds provided by FCT-IP/MEC to LARSyS Associated Laboratory and IMAR-University of the Azores (R&DU #531), Thematic Area E, through the Strategic Project (PEst-OE/EEI/LA0009/2011∧2014, COMPETE, QREN) and by the Government of Azores FRCT multiannual funding. CKP was supported by the doctoral grant from the Portuguese Science Foundation (SFRH/BD/66404/2009; COMPETE/QREN). AP was supported by Statoil as part of the CORAMM project. MB would like to thank Antje Boetius for financial support through the DFG Leibniz programme. JNGP was supported by the doctoral grant (M3.1.2/F/062/2011) from the Regional Directorate for Science, Technology and Communications (DRCTC) of the Regional Government of the Azores. ERLL was supported by a CSIC-JAE-postdocotral grant with co-funding from the European Social Fund. Publication fees for this open access publication were supported by IFREMER. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Marine Ecology
                Marine Biology
                Marine Conservation
                Marine Monitoring
                Earth Sciences
                Marine and Aquatic Sciences
                Oceanography
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Conservation Science
                Environmental Protection
                Engineering and Technology
                Environmental Engineering
                Pollution

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log