Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing
Edited by James A. Estes, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, and approved July 2, 2015 (received for review January 31, 2015)
Commentary
September 1, 2015
Significance
Plastic pollution in the ocean is a rapidly emerging global environmental concern, with high concentrations (up to 580,000 pieces per km2) and a global distribution, driven by exponentially increasing production. Seabirds are particularly vulnerable to this type of pollution and are widely observed to ingest floating plastic. We used a mixture of literature surveys, oceanographic modeling, and ecological models to predict the risk of plastic ingestion to 186 seabird species globally. Impacts are greatest at the southern boundary of the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, a region thought to be relatively pristine. Although evidence of population level impacts from plastic pollution is still emerging, our results suggest that this threat is geographically widespread, pervasive, and rapidly increasing.
Abstract
Plastic pollution in the ocean is a global concern; concentrations reach 580,000 pieces per km2 and production is increasing exponentially. Although a large number of empirical studies provide emerging evidence of impacts to wildlife, there has been little systematic assessment of risk. We performed a spatial risk analysis using predicted debris distributions and ranges for 186 seabird species to model debris exposure. We adjusted the model using published data on plastic ingestion by seabirds. Eighty of 135 (59%) species with studies reported in the literature between 1962 and 2012 had ingested plastic, and, within those studies, on average 29% of individuals had plastic in their gut. Standardizing the data for time and species, we estimate the ingestion rate would reach 90% of individuals if these studies were conducted today. Using these results from the literature, we tuned our risk model and were able to capture 71% of the variation in plastic ingestion based on a model including exposure, time, study method, and body size. We used this tuned model to predict risk across seabird species at the global scale. The highest area of expected impact occurs at the Southern Ocean boundary in the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, which contrasts with previous work identifying this area as having low anthropogenic pressures and concentrations of marine debris. We predict that plastics ingestion is increasing in seabirds, that it will reach 99% of all species by 2050, and that effective waste management can reduce this threat.
Acknowledgments
We thank T. J. Lawson for assisting with figures, M. Lansdell for helping compile seabird data, and BirdLife International for making seabird distribution information available. Constructive comments from R. Crawford, M. England, J. van Franeker, and Q. Schuyler improved this manuscript. C.W. and B.D.H. acknowledge Commonwealth Scientific and Industry Research Organisation's Oceans and Atmosphere Business Unit and Shell’s Social Investment Program for support. E.V.S. was supported by Australian Research Council Grant DE130101336. This work was conducted within the Marine Debris Working Group at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, with support from the Ocean Conservancy.
Supporting Information
Appendix (PDF)
Supporting Information
- Download
- 833.76 KB
References
1
; Plastics Europe Plastics—The Facts 2013: An Analysis of European Latest Plastics Production, Demand, and Waste Data (Plastics Europe, Brussels, 2013).
2
DK Barnes, F Galgani, RC Thompson, M Barlaz, Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364, 1985–1998 (2009).
3
A Cózar, et al., Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 10239–10244 (2014).
4
RC Thompson, et al., Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 304, 838 (2004).
5
S Lambert, C Sinclair, A Boxall, Occurrence, degradation, and effect of polymer-based materials in the environment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 227, 1–53 (2014).
6
KL Law, et al., Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Science 329, 1185–1188 (2010).
7
E van Sebille, MH England, G Froyland, Origin, dynamics and evolution of ocean garbage patches from observed surface drifters. Environ Res Lett 7, 044040 (2012).
8
JGB Derraik, The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Mar Pollut Bull 44, 842–852 (2002).
9
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel–GEF (2012) Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal), CBD Technical Series No. 67.
10
PG Ryan, The effects of ingested plastic on seabirds: Correlations between plastic load and body condition. Environ Pollut 46, 119–125 (1987).
11
CM Rochman, E Hoh, T Kurobe, SJ Teh, Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep 3, 3263 (2013).
12
CE Talsness, AJM Andrade, SN Kuriyama, JA Taylor, FS vom Saal, Components of plastic: Experimental studies in animals and relevance for human health. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364, 2079–2096 (2009).
13
EL Teuten, et al., Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364, 2027–2045 (2009).
14
Day RH, Wehle DHS, Coleman FC, eds (1985) Ingestion of Plastic Pollutants by Marine Birds (US Department of Commerce, La Jolla, CA), NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-54.
15
JL Lavers, AL Bond, I Hutton, Plastic ingestion by Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals. Environ Pollut 187, 124–129 (2014).
16
K Tanaka, et al., Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 69, 219–222 (2013).
17
JP Croxall, et al., Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird Conserv Int 22, 1–34 (2012).
18
R Lumpkin, N Maximenko, M Pazos, Evaluating where and why drifters die. J Atmos Ocean Technol 29, 300–308 (2012).
19
KL Law, et al., Distribution of surface plastic debris in the eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-year data set. Environ Sci Technol 48, 4732–4738 (2014).
20
Q Schuyler, BD Hardesty, C Wilcox, K Townsend, Global analysis of anthropogenic debris ingestion by sea turtles. Conserv Biol 28, 129–139 (2014).
21
KE Pierce, RJ Harris, LS Larned, MA Pokras, Obstruction and starvation associated with plastic ingestion in a Northern Gannet Morus bassanus and a Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis. Mar Ornithol 32, 187–189 (2004).
22
PG Ryan, Effects of ingested plastic on seabird feeding: Evidence from chickens. Mar Pollut Bull 19, 125–128 (1988).
23
A Braasch, C Schauroth, PH Becker, Post-fledging body mass as a determinant of subadult survival in Common Terns Sterna hirundo. J Ornithol 150, 401–407 (2009).
24
KW Morrison, JM Hipfner, C Gjerdrum, DJ Green, Wing length and mass at fledging predict local juvenile survival and age at first return in tufted puffins. Condor 111, 433–441 (2009).
25
PM Sagar, DS Horning, Mass-related survival of fledgling Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus at The Snares, New Zealand. Ibis 140, 329–331 (1998).
26
R Yamashita, H Takada, MA Fukuwaka, Y Watanuki, Physical and chemical effects of ingested plastic debris on short-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus tenuirostris, in the North Pacific Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull 62, 2845–2849 (2011).
27
A Bakir, SJ Rowland, RC Thompson, Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated physiological conditions. Environ Pollut 185, 16–23 (2014).
28
Y Mato, et al., Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ Sci Technol 35, 318–324 (2001).
29
BS Halpern, et al., A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).
30
NC Ban, et al., Systematic conservation planning: A better recipe for managing the high seas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Conserv Lett 7, 41–54 (2014).
31
JA van Franeker, et al., Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environ Pollut 159, 2609–2615 (2011).
32
; Birdlife International and NatureServe Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World (Birdlife International, Cambridge, UK, 2011).
33
A Agresti Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley, 3rd Ed, Hoboken, NJ, 2013).
34
KP Burnham, DR Anderson Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2nd Ed, New York, 2002).
35
AF Zuur, EN Ieno, N Walker, AA Saveliev, GM Smith Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, New York, 2009).
Information & Authors
Information
Published in
Cover image: Pictured is a cane toad, which produces cardiac glycoside toxins for defense and is responsible for decimating many native predators after its introduction to Australia in 1935. Beata Ujvari et al. found that diverse animal lineages, including snakes, lizards, frogs, toads, insects, rodents, and hedgehogs, independently evolved resistance to cardiac glycosides via the same molecular mechanism. The findings suggest that evolution can follow highly predictable pathways, given sufficient constraints. See the article by Ujvari et al. on pages 11911–11916. Image courtesy of Timothy Jackson (University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia).
Classifications
Copyright
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Submission history
Published online: August 31, 2015
Published in issue: September 22, 2015
Keywords
Acknowledgments
We thank T. J. Lawson for assisting with figures, M. Lansdell for helping compile seabird data, and BirdLife International for making seabird distribution information available. Constructive comments from R. Crawford, M. England, J. van Franeker, and Q. Schuyler improved this manuscript. C.W. and B.D.H. acknowledge Commonwealth Scientific and Industry Research Organisation's Oceans and Atmosphere Business Unit and Shell’s Social Investment Program for support. E.V.S. was supported by Australian Research Council Grant DE130101336. This work was conducted within the Marine Debris Working Group at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, with support from the Ocean Conservancy.
Notes
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
See Commentary on page 11752.
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citation statements
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite this article
112 (38) 11899-11904,
Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.
Cited by
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
DOWNLOAD PDFLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginRecommend to a librarian
Recommend PNAS to a LibrarianPurchase options
Purchase this article to access the full text.