- Email: [email protected]
Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast)
MPB-07750; No of Pages 7 Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
Review
Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast) Juan Figueroa-Pico a,⁎, David Mero-Del Valle a,b, Ricardo Castillo-Ruperti a,b, Dayanara Macías-Mayorga a,b a b
Departamento Central de Investigación (DCI), Ecuadorian Aquatic Ecotoxicology (ECUACTOX) group, Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM), Manta, Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM), Manta, Ecuador
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 16 November 2015 Received in revised form 25 May 2016 Accepted 26 May 2016 Available online xxxx Key words: Plastic pollution Fishing impact Reef conservation
a b s t r a c t Marine debris (MD) pollution is a problem of global concern because of its impact on marine ecosystems. The current extent of this problem and its implications concerning reef conservation are unknown in Ecuador. The composition and distribution of submerged MD was assessed on two reefs using underwater surveys of geomorphological areas: crest, slope and bottom. MD items were classified according to source and use. Plastic-derived debris represents N90% of total MD found on the reefs, principally composed by plastic containers and nets. 63% of the MD was associated to fishing activities. The composition showed differences between sites and geomorphological areas, monofilament nets were found on the crests, multifilament lines on the slopes and plastic containers on the bottom. MD disposal might be a result of the influx of visitors and fishing activities. Distribution is related to bottom type, level of boating/fishing activity and benthic features. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Contents 1. 2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Survey method and marine debris characterization 2.3. Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction Marine debris (MD) pollution is, together with overfishing and habitat degradation, one of the greatest perceived threats to the conservation of marine biodiversity (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2007; SCBD STAP—GEF, 2012; Gall and Thompson, 2015). The most abundant form of MD is made of plastic (Sheavly and Register, 2007; Moore, 2008), plastic pollution has been spread throughout the entire world's oceans due to the action of winds and sea currents (Eriksen et al., 2014) that influence its distribution and concentration in gyre areas (Galgani et al., 2015).
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: alberto.fi[email protected] (J. Figueroa-Pico).
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Only a small part of these plastic items floats on the sea surface. It is estimated that two thirds of the plastic sinks to the sea bottom, the product of accidental loss or careless handling during human activities (Galgani et al., 1996, 2000, 2015; Ioakeimidis et al., 2014). Despite this, there is a lack of studies about plastic pollution on the SE Pacific Coast and the current study is the first evaluation of this kind of pollution along the continental coast of Ecuador. Accumulation of MD on the seabed is higher than on the surface, the existence of large dumps of MD on the sea floor has the potential to exert negative impacts on marine life and benthic ecosystems (Derraik, 2002; Dameron et al., 2007; Katsanevakis, 2008; Galgani et al., 2015; Kühn et al., 2015). Such impacts on marine life and ecosystems include: 1) entanglement and ingestion (cetaceans, marine turtles, seabirds, fish and crustaceans) (Gregory, 2009; Williams et al., 2011; Baulch and Perry, 2014; Gall and Thompson, 2015), 2) assisting the invasion of alien species
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070 0025-326X/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
2
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
(Molnar et al., 2008), 3) alteration of the structure of the benthic community (Chiappone et al., 2002; Chiappone et al., 2005; Richards and Beger, 2011), 4) habitat disruption and damage to coral and rocky reefs (Al-Jufaili et al., 1999; Donohue et al., 2001; Katsanevakis, 2008; Lewis et al., 2009). The accumulation of such MD (plastic on the seabed) can inhibit the gas exchange between the overlying waters and the pore waters of the sediments, and the resulting hypoxia or anoxia in the benthos can interfere with the normal functioning of the ecosystem, and alter the make-up of life on the seafloor (Goldberg, 1994). Moreover, it is necessary to take into consideration that plastics have been manufactured to be durable, which means they may remain for many years in the environment (Barboza and García-Gimenez, 2015) and, in this way, the residence time of this kind of MD on rocky reefs increases the risk exposure for the marine biota. Oliveira et al. (2013) has suggested that the intake of plastic particles by the marine biota can cause direct physical injuries and also facilitate the transfer of chemicals to the organisms, including absorption of contaminants from the surface of the plastic. This may, therefore, increase the potential risk for the health of animals, including humans, by the incorporation of the contaminants into superior trophic webs (Teuten et al., 2009; Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Oliveira et al., 2013). For this reason, it is imperative that effective measures are taken to address the problem at both international and national levels, since even if the production and disposal of plastics suddenly stopped, the existing debris would continue to harm marine life for decades (Derraik, 2002). According to Thiel et al. (2011), information about MD on the seafloor of the SE Pacific coasts is unavailable. However, Coello and Macías (2005) and CPPS (2007) affirm that the question of MD is an issue of particular concern in South America and Ecuador. Unfortunately, important aspects such as: quantitative information about the abundance and distribution of persistent materials (general plastic and fishing items), the action of physical factors affecting the dynamics (disposal and movement) of non-floating materials and the impacts on local marine ecosystems and microhabitats are still unknown and are much less widely researched topics than surface patterns (Barnes et al., 2009; Galgani et al., 2015). Only a few initiatives stemming from the
Regional Program for Integral Management of Marine Litter (a CPPS intergovernmental agency) and national government agencies, such as the Secretary for the Sea and the Undersecretary for Fishery Resources (SETEMAR, SRP), have been developed for the continental coast of Ecuador in the last five years. Most of these initiatives have concentrated their efforts on campaigns for the removal of underwater litter and have focused on removing abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG). However, all these campaigns lacked a standardized methodology, which is an important factor in quantifying, analyzing and comparing the accumulation rates and spatial distribution of MD over time within benthic marine ecosystems and microhabitats (Spengler and Costa, 2008; Katsanevakis, 2008; Cheshire et al., 2009; Lippiatt et al., 2013). The main objective of the present study was to characterize the current status of MD pollution on the rocky reefs of Manabi (Ecuador). The analysis of physical factors influencing changes in accumulation rates and patterns of spatial distribution of MD were assessed, in order to support the implementation of effective conservation and recovery programs for the marine ecosystems affected. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area Two study sites were chosen: 1) Perpetuo Socorro (PS) (00° 55.637 S 80° 44.353 W), located 2.3 km off the coast of Manta and oriented from West to East and 2) Ureles (UR) (00° 54.113 S 80° 38.863 W), located 4.6 km from the nearest port in Jaramijo, and oriented from North to South (Fig. 1). Both sites share structural similarities: submerged rocky reefs at depths of between 6 and 13 m, and distinct geomorphological areas (crest, slope and bottom). The sites described also share similarities in diversity in the fish and marine invertebrate patterns and have a high biological productivity; they are traditional areas of artisanal fishing activities throughout the year (line and net fishing, autonomous and semiautonomous diving) and tourism (autonomous diving) (Figueroa et al., 2013). Thus, these two sites were chosen as a model of the rocky reef ecosystem of the SE Pacific Coast. PS is a rocky
Fig. 1. Map of study sites represented as PS (Perpetuo Socorro) in Manta and UR (Ureles) in Jaramijo.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
3
reef next to a major urban center and UR is a rocky reef further from the coast, which therefore seems to suffer less impact from human activities. 2.2. Survey method and marine debris characterization Monthly surveys were carried out from September to December 2014 at each study site. Characterization and quantification of MD was performed by diurnal visual surveys with scuba diving equipment (Katsanevakis and Katsarou, 2004; Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar, 2008). In situ monitoring was carried out by three divers, involving unidirectional samplings with time belt transects (Yimin et al., 2005). Diving time was standardized to 20 min with a constant speed of 0.15 m s−1. Belt transect areas are estimated with the following dimensions: 180 m long and 1.80 m wide (the width of the visual survey was calculated in relation to the mean distance from the surveyor to the bottom and the visibility) for a total area of 324 m2 per diver. The total survey area was estimated at approximately 972 m2 per month considering independent sampling over defined geomorphological zones (crest, slope and bottom) at each study site. MD densities were scaled and expressed as items of MD per 1000 m−2. Observed items of MD were classified in 8 categories according to their source and use in fishing related or as household items. Identification of MD was performed by direct observation and counting as items of MD the following categories: 1) monofilament lines; 2) multifilament lines; 3) monofilament nets; 4) multifilament nets; 5) plastic containers; 6) glassware; 7) textile fibers and 8) plastic bags. 2.3. Statistical Analysis MD density (mean ± standard error) was expressed as items of MD per 1000 m−2. Differences in the composition of MD categories by geomorphological zone, site and month (factors) were evaluated using a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA, 10,000 runs). MD densities were transformed using the fourth root of the proportions of density in order to meet the assumption of homoscedastic variances. Differences were visualized using a 2D non-metric multidimensional scaling. The relative contribution of each particular MD category to differences in composition was evaluated using a similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER). Analyses were carried out using the software PRIMER v. 6.0. 3. Results A total amount of 141 and 143 items of MD were observed within an area of 3888 m2 per site (972 m2 per month, during 4 months of surveys) in the PS and UR sites respectively. Plastic-derived items represent 95% and 94% of total MD found in the PS and UR sites. 63% of the MD items found at both sites were associated with fishing activities while the remaining 37% were household items.
Fig. 3. Relative frequency of marine debris (MD) categories observed over the geomorphological zones of study sites: crest (black columns); slope (dashed columns) and bottom (white columns). Monofilament lines (ML), multifilament line (MFL), monofilament nets (MN), multifilament nets (MFN), plastic containers (PLC), glassware (GLW), textile fibers (TXF) and plastic bags (PLB).
The PS site exhibited an average density of 36.26 ± 8.43 items of MD per 1000 m−2, and high frequency of occurrence of plastic containers (32%), multifilament lines (22%) and monofilament nets (14%) (Fig. 2). The Ureles (UR) site had an average density of 36.78 ± 7.69 items of MD per 1000 m−2, with a high frequency of monofilament nets (38%), plastic containers (23%), multifilament lines (14%) and plastic bags (7%) (Fig. 2). Regarding the distribution of MD in the geomorphological zones of the reefs studied, 19% of the total amount of items was found in the crest zone while 33% and 47% were found in the slope and bottom zones of the sites, respectively. The crest zone is characterized by the predominance of fishing-related categories of MD, such as monofilament nets (82%), monofilament lines (9%) and multifilament lines (9%). The slope zone showed a uniform distribution of MD categories with high percentages for multifilament lines (26%), plastic containers (26%), and monofilament lines (21%). The bottom zone showed a high diversity of MD categories and a predominance of plastic containers (41%), multifilament lines (30%), and plastic bags (10%) (Fig. 3). The PERMANOVA analysis revealed significant differences (p b 0.05) in the composition of MD categories across the geomorphological zones and study sites (Table 1). No interactions between factors were found. The differences in composition between geomorphological zones were mostly driven by: monofilament net items on the crest (SIMPER N71%), multifilament line items on the slope (SIMPER N22%), and plastic container items in the bottom zone (SIMPER N32%). However, plastic containers was the MD category that contributed most to the dissimilarities between the study sites (SIMPER N18%). Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) analysis showed clustering differences in composition and distribution of MD categories across the geomorphological zones (Fig. 4).
Table 1 Permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) comparing type composition of MD across geomorphological zones (GMZ), site (SI) and month (MO). Significant values (p b 0.05) are in bold.
Fig. 2. Relative frequency for categories of marine debris at the study sites: Perpetuo Socorro (black columns) and Ureles (white columns). Monofilament lines (ML), multifilament line (MFL), monofilament nets (MN), multifilament nets (MFN), plastic containers (PLC), glassware (GLW), textile fibers (TXF) and plastic bags (PLB).
Source
df
SS
MS
Pseudo-F
P (perm)
GMZ SI MO GMZ × SI GMZ × MO SI × MO Res Total
2 1 3 2 6 3 6 23
19,269 2042.7 1179.9 813.03 2173.5 1720.2 1503.7 28,702
9634.6 2042.7 393.29 406.51 362.25 573.4 250.62
38.443 8.1506 1.5692 1.622 1.4454 2.2879
0.0004 0.0097 0.2266 0.2427 0.2513 0.1282
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
4
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4. Ordination analysis, showing 2D non-parametric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) comparing the composition type of the MD between geomorphological zones (crest, slope and bottom).
4. Discussion This is the first study determining plastic pollution on the seafloor of the SE Pacific Coast, and it was observed that the presence of plasticderived items is high (94–95%) in the surveyed sites, compared with global reports and reviews (60–80%) (Gregory and Ryan, 1997; Moore, 2008; Todd et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2015; Vikas and Dwarakishb, 2015). Thus, we can infer that plastic pollution on rocky reefs could be a serious problem for the conservation of this ecosystem in the region. The study sites did not show differences in density of MD, the average density was, for PS and UR, (36.26 ± 8.43 items per 1000 m− 2 and 36.78 ± 7.69 items per 1000 m− 2, respectively) (Fig. 2). These findings could be related to the accessibility and particular human activities at each study site and the geographical proximity to urban centers. Smith and Edgar (2014) suggested that an increase in the number of visitors and fishing activities are factors that have a strong impact on the accumulation rate of MD in marine ecosystems. The PS site is located only a short distance from the coast and is easily accessible. This condition could increase the influx of visitors with diverse activities (artisanal and sport fishing, coastal tourism, snorkel and SCUBA diving), and thus increase the disposal of MD categories and its accumulation rate at the site. Thus, in PS a higher relative frequency of debris from coastal and fishing activities, such as plastic containers, monofilament lines and multifilament lines, is observed, while there are no differences for the rest of the categories, except monofilament nets (Fig. 2). Conversely, the UR site is located at a further distance from the coast, and is a base of fishing activities involving the use of gillnets (mono and multifilament nets) and semi-autonomous diving systems, which leads to an increase in accumulation rates. Therefore, we observed a high relative frequency of monofilament nets at this site with respect to PS (Fig. 2). Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar (2008) found no significant difference when comparing MD abundances between surveyed sites from Jordan, while Smith and Edgar (2014) in Australia, report differences in abundance and diversity of MD items related to habitat type and the lowest values of abundance of MD for coral reef habitats. In this study, 63% of MD items observed during underwater sampling were directly related to fishing activities at both sites. Oigman-Pszczol and Creed (2007), Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar (2008);
Watters et al. (2010), and Smith and Edgar (2014) reported from 31 to 46% of MD items associated to fishing activities in subtidal benthic environments and coral reefs from Brazil, Jordan, USA and Australia, respectively, while in China and Korea, Lee et al. (2006) reported over 72% of items related to fishing activities. The present finding could be an indicator of the high fishing pressure at the study sites that have open access the whole year round, with a consequent constant disposal rate of fishing related items. The remaining 37% of MD items found could have an indirect relation to fishing or touristic activities (e.g. textile fibers, plastic containers for food or beverages) (Backhurst and Cole, 2000; Bauer et al., 2008). Due to the lack of a standard methodology for determining the MD pollution on the seabed, the data from all around the world are not comparable. In spite of this, it seems that the densities of MD found (36.26 ± 8.43 items per 1000 m−2 and 36.78 ± 7.69 items per 1000 m−2 of PS and UR respectively) were similar to data obtained in Greece: 15 items per 1000 m−2 (Katsanevakis and Katsarou, 2004). The mean densities found in the current work are comparable with data obtained in Greece, as the methodology used was very similar in both studies. However, in other parts of the world there are different data, for example: Jordan: 2800 items per km− 2 (Abu-Hilal and AlNajjar, 2008), the US West Coast: 78 items per km−2 (Keller et al., 2010) and Portugal: 918 items per km− 2 (Pham et al., 2013), which highlights the differences. It is likely that these differences might also be related to the methodology used in the quantification of items (area and depth of transects, equipment involved: scuba units, bottom trawl, remotely operated vehicles) and the number of sites surveyed. The anthropogenic impacts on geomorphological areas of the reefs are poorly documented and focus primarily on the effects of anchoring intensity on coral species and the marine debris and bombing effects on macro invertebrates and fish (Dinsdale and Harriott, 2004; Bauer et al., 2008; Fuchs, 2013). In our study, the spatial distribution of the MD items over geomorphological areas showed particular patterns (Fig. 4). 19% of the total amount of MD was found in the crest zone, with a low diversity of MD categories and was predominantly represented by fishing-related items (Bauer et al., 2008), such as monofilament nets (Fig. 3). This type of fishing gear is placed in the areas surrounding the reefs studied by artisanal fishermen and temporal changes of speed and the direction of the currents at low and high
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
tide could be the factors that cause their entanglement on the reef crests, making it impossible to remove them (Macfadyen et al., 2009). This may break branched coral forms (Pocillopora spp.), common in this particular area (Fig. 5A & B) or such nets may become fatal traps for fish (surgeon fish: Acanthuridae, angelfish: Pomacanthidae, gruntfish: Haemulidae, groupers: Serranidae) (Kaiser et al., 1996; Erzini et al., 1997; Pawson, 2003; Bauer et al., 2008; Macfadyen et al., 2009). Similarly, small segments of monofilament netting, which are the product of net repairing activities, are common and persistent elements on the crest of the reefs. Due to their low weight, these structures are easily carried by ocean currents and end up entangled in rocks and coral heads (Bauer et al., 2008) (Fig. 5B). Al-Jufaili et al. (1999), Donohue et al. (2001), Richards and Beger (2011) and Macfadyen et al. (2009) have suggested that an increase in the abundance of MD and the presence of ghost nets on reefs for long periods of time can produce the gradual decrease in hard coral cover due to the competitive advantages of algae species that grow successfully on MD. However, according to Gall and Thompson (2015), there is only a limited evidence of the effects at the assemblage level due to the difficulty in quantifying
5
them. The presence and persistence of MD may have implications for the continuity and conservation of microhabitats on the reef crest used by species of diurnal and nocturnal activity such as: shelter, food and/or reproduction places (Pitcher, 1993; Wynne and Côté, 2007). Bottom zones of the study reefs denoted high diversity of MD categories and represent 47% of the total amount of items observed. Plastic containers: bottles, glassware and containers used to remove water from the artisanal boats are common items in this zone (Fig. 5C). These structures provide additional hard surfaces that are colonized by microorganisms and then macrobiota (Whal, 1989; Ye and Andrady, 1991; Harrison et al., 2011) and, due to the action of currents, tend to gradually accumulate at the bottom of reefs with high structural complexity (lots of crevices and depressions) (Kendall et al., 2007; Bauer et al., 2008; Schlining et al., 2013). Mono and multifilament line segments are common in this zone and are mostly associated to species of massive coral, genus Pavona, which form colonies on the bottom (Fig. 5D & E). These categories of MD are used in fishing activities such as, rod and reel gear, trolling and boat anchoring. Chiappone et al. (2002) and Macfadyen et al. (2009) suggested that these materials
Fig. 5. Categories of marine debris found in underwater surveys. A) Monofilament net over crest zone in UR site, Jaramijo. B) Segment of monofilament net over colony of branched coral Pocillopora spp. C) Plastic items of MD observed in the bottom zones of studied sites. D) Monofilament lines tangled over coral heads of Pavona clavus in the bottom zone of PS site, Manta. E) Multifilament lines observed in the bottom zone of PS site, Manta.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
6
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
might be causative agents of abrasion, tissue damage and even death of sessile invertebrates. This study provides a general overview of the spatial density of MD at the study sites of Perpetuo Socorro and Ureles on the Manabi coast (Ecuador) and provides some important initial data concerning measuring accumulation rates and determining spatial and temporal dynamics of MD on the coast of the province of Manabi (Ecuador). The MD disposal pattern is mainly determined by the influx of visitors and fishing activities at the study sites, while its distribution is related to the bottom type, level of boating/fishing activity, and local characteristics of benthic features. The search for mechanisms that analyze the spatial and temporal variability of the MD in marine ecosystems is of great importance. However, it requires joint efforts, standardized methods of sampling and analysis of data so that the information obtained may be comparable (Spengler and Costa, 2008; Cheshire et al., 2009; Lippiatt et al., 2013). These aspects would provide the basis for the proper management of MD and guidelines for future recovery and conservation programs for the marine ecosystems of Ecuador.
Acknowledgements Secretaria Técnica del Mar, Subsecretaria de Recursos Pesqueros, Cristiano Araujo, Soraya Silva, Mireia Valle and Fernando Rey Diz. Sebastian Ribadeneira, Leiner Pinoargote for the logistic support in sampling activities. The authors thank Jon Nesbit for his revision of the English text.
References Abu-Hilal, A., Al-Najjar, T., 2008. Marine litter in coral reef areas along the Jordan Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (2), 1043–1049. Al-Jufaili, S., Al-Jabri, M., Al-Baluchi, A., Baldwin, R., Wilson, S., West, F., Matthews, A., 1999. Human impacts on coral reefs in the Sultanate of Oman. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 49, 65–74. Backhurst, M.K., Cole, R.G., 2000. Subtidal benthic marine litter at Kawau Island, northeastern New Zealand. J. Environ. Manag. 60, 227–237. Barboza, L.G.A., García-Gimenez, B.C., 2015. Microplastics in the marine environment: current trends and future perspectives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2015.06.008. Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 364, 1985–1998. Bauer, L.J., Kendall, M.S., Jeffrey, C.F., 2008. Incidence of marine debris and its relationships with benthic features in Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Southeast USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56 (3), 402–413. Baulch, S., Perry, C., 2014. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 80, 210–221. Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G., 2009. UNEP/IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83: xii+ p.p. 120. Chiappone, M., White, A., Swanson, D., Miller, S.L., 2002. Occurrence and biological impacts of fishing gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 597–604. Chiappone, M., Dienes, H., Swanson, D., Miller, S.L., 2005. Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reefs sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Biol. Conserv. 121, 221–230. Coello, S., Macías, R., 2005. Situación de la Basura Marina en el Ecuador. Plan de acción para la protección del medio marino y áreas costeras del Pacífico Sudeste. Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur. p.p. 63. CPPS, 2007. Marine Litter in the Southeast Pacific Region: A Review of the Problem. Permanent Commission for the South Pacific. Guayaquil, Ecuador (29p.). Dameron, O.J., Parke, M., Albins, M.A., Brainard, R., 2007. Marine debris accumulation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: an examination of rates and processes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 423–433. Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of marine environment by plastic debris: a re-view. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852. Dinsdale, E.A., Harriott, V.J., 2004. Assessing anchor damage on coral reefs: a case study in selection of environmental indicators. Environ. Manag. 33 (1), 126–139. Donohue, M.J., Boland, R.C., Sramek, C.M., Antonelis, G.A., 2001. Derelict fishing gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: diving survey and debris removal in 1999 confirm threat to coral ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1301–1312.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., et al., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One 9 (12), e111913. Erzini, K., Monteiro, C., Ribeiro, J., Santos, M., Gaspar, M., Monteiro, P., Borges, T., 1997. An experimental study of gill net and trammel net ghost fishing off the Algarve (southern Portugal). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 158, 257–265. Figueroa, J., Mero, D., Castillo, R., Flores, M., 2013. Langosta verde Panulirus gracilis: Un recurso que debemos estudiar para preservar. Hippocampus Revista Científica, Colección Recursos Marinos No. 1. Alma Mater, Manta, Ecuador. Fuchs, T., 2013. Effects of habitat complexity on invertebrate biodiversity. Immediate Sci. Ecol. 2, 1–10. Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y., 1996. Accumulation of debris on the deep sea floor off the French Mediterranean coast. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 142, 225–234. Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., et al., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 516–527. Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., 2015. Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Berlin, pp. 75–116. Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92 (1), 170–179. Goldberg, E.D., 1994. Diamonds and plastics are forever? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 28, 466. Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364, 2013–2025. Gregory, M.R., Ryan, P.G., 1997. Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a review of Southern Hemisphere perspectives. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris–Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 49–66. Harrison, J.P., Sapp, M., Schratzberger, M., Osborn, A.M., 2011. Interactions between microorganisms and marine microplastics: a call for research. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 45, 12–20. Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075. Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N., Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G., 2014. A comparative study of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Seas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89, 296–304. Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine debris review for Latin America and the wider Caribbean region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 1087–1104. Kaiser, M.J., Bullimore, B., Newman, P., Lock, K., Gilbert, S., 1996. Catches in 'ghost fishing' set nets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 145, 11–16. Katsanevakis, S., 2008. Marine debris, a growing problem: sources, distribution, composition, and impacts. In: Marine Pollution a New Research. pp. 53–100. Ed. by Tobias N. Hofer. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York. Katsanevakis, S., Katsarou, A., 2004. Influences on the distribution of marine debris on the seafloor of shallow coastal areas in Greece (Eastern Mediterranean). Water Air Soil Pollut. 159, 325–337. Keller, A.A., Fruh, E.L., Johnson, M.M., Simon, V., McGourty, C., 2010. Distribution and abundance of anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the US West Coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 692–700. Kendall, M.S., Bauer, L.J., Jeffrey, C.F.G., 2007. Characterization of the benthos, marine debris and bottom fish at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Prepared by National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) Biogeography Team in cooperation With the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 50, p. 82. Kühn, S., Bravo Rebolledo, E.L., van Franeker, J.A., 2015. Deleterious effects of litter on marine life. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Berlin, pp. 75–116. Lee, D.I., Cho, H.S., Jeong, S.B., 2006. Distribution characteristics of marine litter on the sea bed of the East China Sea and the South Sea of Korea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 70, 187–194. Lewis, C.F., Slade, S.L., Maxwell, K.E., Matthews, T.R., 2009. Lobster trap impact on coral reefs: effects of wind‐driven trap movement. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43 (1), 271–282. Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., Arthur, C., 2013. Marine debris monitoring and assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46, p. 82. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R., 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. UNEP/FAO, Rome (115p.). Molnar, J., Gamboa, R., Revenga, C., Spalding, M., 2008. Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 485–492. Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108, 131–139. Oigman-Pszczol, S.S., Creed, J.C., 2007. Quantification and classification of marine litter on beaches along Armaçaõ dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Coast. Res. 23, 421–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/1551-5036(2007. Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, A., Hylland, K., Guilhermino, L., 2013. Single and combined effects of microplastics and pyrene on juveniles (0+ group) of the common goby Pomatoschistus microps (Teleostei, Gobiidae). Ecol. Indic. 34, 641–647. Pawson, M.G., 2003. The catching capacity of lost static fishing gears. Fish. Res. 64, 101–105. Pham, C.K., Gomes-Pereira, J.N., Isidro, E.J., Santos, R.S., Morato, T., 2013. Abundance of litter on Condor seamount (Azores, Portugal, Northeast Atlantic). Deep-Sea Res. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 98, 204–208.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Pitcher, C. R., 1993. Spiny lobsters. In: Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific. pp. 539–607. Ed. by A. Wright, and L. Hill. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara. Richards, Z., Beger, M., 2011. A quantification of the standing stock of macro-debris in Majuro lagoon and its effect on hard coral communities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1693–1701. Schlining, K., von Thun, S., Kuhnz, L., Schlining, B., Lundsten, L., Jacobsen Stout, N., Chaney, L., Connor, J., 2013. Debris in the deep: using a 22-year video annotation database to survey marine litter in Monterey Canyon, central California, USA. Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 79, 96–105. Schulz, M., Krone, R., Dederer, G., Watjen, K., Matthies, M., 2015. Comparative analysis of time series of marine litter surveyed on beaches and the seafloor in the southeastern North Sea. Mar. Environ. Res. 106, 61–67. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel—GEF, 2012t. Impacts of marine debris on biodiversity: current status and potential solutions. Montreal, Technical Series No. 67 (61 pages). Sheavly, S.B., Register, K.M., 2007. Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J. Polym. Environ. 15 (4), 301–305. Smith, S.D.A., Edgar, R.J., 2014. Documenting the density of subtidal marine debris across multiple marine and coastal habitats. PLoS One 9 (4), e94593. Spengler, A., Costa, M., 2008. Methods applied in studies of benthic marine debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 226–230. Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore, C., Prudente, M., Boonyatumanond, R., Zakaria, M.P., Akkhavong, K., Ogata, Y., Hirai, H.,
7
Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura, A., Saha, M., Takada, H., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 364, 2027–2045. Thiel, M., Bravo, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Luna, G., Miranda, L., Núñez, P., Pacheco, A.S., Vásquez, N., 2011. Anthropogenic litter in the SE Pacific: an overview of the problem and possible solutions. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 11 (1), 115–134. Todd, P.A., Ong, X., Chou, L.M., 2010. Impacts of pollution on marine life in Southeast Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 1063–1082. Vikas, M., Dwarakishb, G.S., 2015. Coastal pollution: a review. Aquatic Procedia 4, 381–388. Watters, D.L., Yoklavich, M.M., Love, M.S., Schroeder, D.M., 2010. Assessing marine debris in deep seafloor habitats off California. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (1), 131–138. Whal, M., 1989. Marine epibiosis. Fouling and antifouling: some basic aspects. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 58, 175–205. Williams, R., Ashe, E., O'Hara, P.D., 2011. Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British Columbia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1303–1316. Wynne, S., Côté, I., 2007. Effects of habitat quality and fishing on Caribbean spotted spiny lobster populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 488–494. Ye, S., Andrady, A., 1991. Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne Bay exposure conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22, 608–613. Yimin, Y., Pitcher, R., Dennis, D., Skewes, T., 2005. Constructing abundance indices from scientific surveys of different designs for the Torres Strait ornate rock lobster (Panulirus ornatus) fishery, Australia. Fish. Res. 73, 187–200.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
Review
Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast) Juan Figueroa-Pico a,⁎, David Mero-Del Valle a,b, Ricardo Castillo-Ruperti a,b, Dayanara Macías-Mayorga a,b a b
Departamento Central de Investigación (DCI), Ecuadorian Aquatic Ecotoxicology (ECUACTOX) group, Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM), Manta, Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM), Manta, Ecuador
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 16 November 2015 Received in revised form 25 May 2016 Accepted 26 May 2016 Available online xxxx Key words: Plastic pollution Fishing impact Reef conservation
a b s t r a c t Marine debris (MD) pollution is a problem of global concern because of its impact on marine ecosystems. The current extent of this problem and its implications concerning reef conservation are unknown in Ecuador. The composition and distribution of submerged MD was assessed on two reefs using underwater surveys of geomorphological areas: crest, slope and bottom. MD items were classified according to source and use. Plastic-derived debris represents N90% of total MD found on the reefs, principally composed by plastic containers and nets. 63% of the MD was associated to fishing activities. The composition showed differences between sites and geomorphological areas, monofilament nets were found on the crests, multifilament lines on the slopes and plastic containers on the bottom. MD disposal might be a result of the influx of visitors and fishing activities. Distribution is related to bottom type, level of boating/fishing activity and benthic features. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Contents 1. 2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Survey method and marine debris characterization 2.3. Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction Marine debris (MD) pollution is, together with overfishing and habitat degradation, one of the greatest perceived threats to the conservation of marine biodiversity (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2007; SCBD STAP—GEF, 2012; Gall and Thompson, 2015). The most abundant form of MD is made of plastic (Sheavly and Register, 2007; Moore, 2008), plastic pollution has been spread throughout the entire world's oceans due to the action of winds and sea currents (Eriksen et al., 2014) that influence its distribution and concentration in gyre areas (Galgani et al., 2015).
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: alberto.fi[email protected] (J. Figueroa-Pico).
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Only a small part of these plastic items floats on the sea surface. It is estimated that two thirds of the plastic sinks to the sea bottom, the product of accidental loss or careless handling during human activities (Galgani et al., 1996, 2000, 2015; Ioakeimidis et al., 2014). Despite this, there is a lack of studies about plastic pollution on the SE Pacific Coast and the current study is the first evaluation of this kind of pollution along the continental coast of Ecuador. Accumulation of MD on the seabed is higher than on the surface, the existence of large dumps of MD on the sea floor has the potential to exert negative impacts on marine life and benthic ecosystems (Derraik, 2002; Dameron et al., 2007; Katsanevakis, 2008; Galgani et al., 2015; Kühn et al., 2015). Such impacts on marine life and ecosystems include: 1) entanglement and ingestion (cetaceans, marine turtles, seabirds, fish and crustaceans) (Gregory, 2009; Williams et al., 2011; Baulch and Perry, 2014; Gall and Thompson, 2015), 2) assisting the invasion of alien species
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070 0025-326X/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
2
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
(Molnar et al., 2008), 3) alteration of the structure of the benthic community (Chiappone et al., 2002; Chiappone et al., 2005; Richards and Beger, 2011), 4) habitat disruption and damage to coral and rocky reefs (Al-Jufaili et al., 1999; Donohue et al., 2001; Katsanevakis, 2008; Lewis et al., 2009). The accumulation of such MD (plastic on the seabed) can inhibit the gas exchange between the overlying waters and the pore waters of the sediments, and the resulting hypoxia or anoxia in the benthos can interfere with the normal functioning of the ecosystem, and alter the make-up of life on the seafloor (Goldberg, 1994). Moreover, it is necessary to take into consideration that plastics have been manufactured to be durable, which means they may remain for many years in the environment (Barboza and García-Gimenez, 2015) and, in this way, the residence time of this kind of MD on rocky reefs increases the risk exposure for the marine biota. Oliveira et al. (2013) has suggested that the intake of plastic particles by the marine biota can cause direct physical injuries and also facilitate the transfer of chemicals to the organisms, including absorption of contaminants from the surface of the plastic. This may, therefore, increase the potential risk for the health of animals, including humans, by the incorporation of the contaminants into superior trophic webs (Teuten et al., 2009; Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Oliveira et al., 2013). For this reason, it is imperative that effective measures are taken to address the problem at both international and national levels, since even if the production and disposal of plastics suddenly stopped, the existing debris would continue to harm marine life for decades (Derraik, 2002). According to Thiel et al. (2011), information about MD on the seafloor of the SE Pacific coasts is unavailable. However, Coello and Macías (2005) and CPPS (2007) affirm that the question of MD is an issue of particular concern in South America and Ecuador. Unfortunately, important aspects such as: quantitative information about the abundance and distribution of persistent materials (general plastic and fishing items), the action of physical factors affecting the dynamics (disposal and movement) of non-floating materials and the impacts on local marine ecosystems and microhabitats are still unknown and are much less widely researched topics than surface patterns (Barnes et al., 2009; Galgani et al., 2015). Only a few initiatives stemming from the
Regional Program for Integral Management of Marine Litter (a CPPS intergovernmental agency) and national government agencies, such as the Secretary for the Sea and the Undersecretary for Fishery Resources (SETEMAR, SRP), have been developed for the continental coast of Ecuador in the last five years. Most of these initiatives have concentrated their efforts on campaigns for the removal of underwater litter and have focused on removing abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG). However, all these campaigns lacked a standardized methodology, which is an important factor in quantifying, analyzing and comparing the accumulation rates and spatial distribution of MD over time within benthic marine ecosystems and microhabitats (Spengler and Costa, 2008; Katsanevakis, 2008; Cheshire et al., 2009; Lippiatt et al., 2013). The main objective of the present study was to characterize the current status of MD pollution on the rocky reefs of Manabi (Ecuador). The analysis of physical factors influencing changes in accumulation rates and patterns of spatial distribution of MD were assessed, in order to support the implementation of effective conservation and recovery programs for the marine ecosystems affected. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area Two study sites were chosen: 1) Perpetuo Socorro (PS) (00° 55.637 S 80° 44.353 W), located 2.3 km off the coast of Manta and oriented from West to East and 2) Ureles (UR) (00° 54.113 S 80° 38.863 W), located 4.6 km from the nearest port in Jaramijo, and oriented from North to South (Fig. 1). Both sites share structural similarities: submerged rocky reefs at depths of between 6 and 13 m, and distinct geomorphological areas (crest, slope and bottom). The sites described also share similarities in diversity in the fish and marine invertebrate patterns and have a high biological productivity; they are traditional areas of artisanal fishing activities throughout the year (line and net fishing, autonomous and semiautonomous diving) and tourism (autonomous diving) (Figueroa et al., 2013). Thus, these two sites were chosen as a model of the rocky reef ecosystem of the SE Pacific Coast. PS is a rocky
Fig. 1. Map of study sites represented as PS (Perpetuo Socorro) in Manta and UR (Ureles) in Jaramijo.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
3
reef next to a major urban center and UR is a rocky reef further from the coast, which therefore seems to suffer less impact from human activities. 2.2. Survey method and marine debris characterization Monthly surveys were carried out from September to December 2014 at each study site. Characterization and quantification of MD was performed by diurnal visual surveys with scuba diving equipment (Katsanevakis and Katsarou, 2004; Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar, 2008). In situ monitoring was carried out by three divers, involving unidirectional samplings with time belt transects (Yimin et al., 2005). Diving time was standardized to 20 min with a constant speed of 0.15 m s−1. Belt transect areas are estimated with the following dimensions: 180 m long and 1.80 m wide (the width of the visual survey was calculated in relation to the mean distance from the surveyor to the bottom and the visibility) for a total area of 324 m2 per diver. The total survey area was estimated at approximately 972 m2 per month considering independent sampling over defined geomorphological zones (crest, slope and bottom) at each study site. MD densities were scaled and expressed as items of MD per 1000 m−2. Observed items of MD were classified in 8 categories according to their source and use in fishing related or as household items. Identification of MD was performed by direct observation and counting as items of MD the following categories: 1) monofilament lines; 2) multifilament lines; 3) monofilament nets; 4) multifilament nets; 5) plastic containers; 6) glassware; 7) textile fibers and 8) plastic bags. 2.3. Statistical Analysis MD density (mean ± standard error) was expressed as items of MD per 1000 m−2. Differences in the composition of MD categories by geomorphological zone, site and month (factors) were evaluated using a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA, 10,000 runs). MD densities were transformed using the fourth root of the proportions of density in order to meet the assumption of homoscedastic variances. Differences were visualized using a 2D non-metric multidimensional scaling. The relative contribution of each particular MD category to differences in composition was evaluated using a similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER). Analyses were carried out using the software PRIMER v. 6.0. 3. Results A total amount of 141 and 143 items of MD were observed within an area of 3888 m2 per site (972 m2 per month, during 4 months of surveys) in the PS and UR sites respectively. Plastic-derived items represent 95% and 94% of total MD found in the PS and UR sites. 63% of the MD items found at both sites were associated with fishing activities while the remaining 37% were household items.
Fig. 3. Relative frequency of marine debris (MD) categories observed over the geomorphological zones of study sites: crest (black columns); slope (dashed columns) and bottom (white columns). Monofilament lines (ML), multifilament line (MFL), monofilament nets (MN), multifilament nets (MFN), plastic containers (PLC), glassware (GLW), textile fibers (TXF) and plastic bags (PLB).
The PS site exhibited an average density of 36.26 ± 8.43 items of MD per 1000 m−2, and high frequency of occurrence of plastic containers (32%), multifilament lines (22%) and monofilament nets (14%) (Fig. 2). The Ureles (UR) site had an average density of 36.78 ± 7.69 items of MD per 1000 m−2, with a high frequency of monofilament nets (38%), plastic containers (23%), multifilament lines (14%) and plastic bags (7%) (Fig. 2). Regarding the distribution of MD in the geomorphological zones of the reefs studied, 19% of the total amount of items was found in the crest zone while 33% and 47% were found in the slope and bottom zones of the sites, respectively. The crest zone is characterized by the predominance of fishing-related categories of MD, such as monofilament nets (82%), monofilament lines (9%) and multifilament lines (9%). The slope zone showed a uniform distribution of MD categories with high percentages for multifilament lines (26%), plastic containers (26%), and monofilament lines (21%). The bottom zone showed a high diversity of MD categories and a predominance of plastic containers (41%), multifilament lines (30%), and plastic bags (10%) (Fig. 3). The PERMANOVA analysis revealed significant differences (p b 0.05) in the composition of MD categories across the geomorphological zones and study sites (Table 1). No interactions between factors were found. The differences in composition between geomorphological zones were mostly driven by: monofilament net items on the crest (SIMPER N71%), multifilament line items on the slope (SIMPER N22%), and plastic container items in the bottom zone (SIMPER N32%). However, plastic containers was the MD category that contributed most to the dissimilarities between the study sites (SIMPER N18%). Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) analysis showed clustering differences in composition and distribution of MD categories across the geomorphological zones (Fig. 4).
Table 1 Permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) comparing type composition of MD across geomorphological zones (GMZ), site (SI) and month (MO). Significant values (p b 0.05) are in bold.
Fig. 2. Relative frequency for categories of marine debris at the study sites: Perpetuo Socorro (black columns) and Ureles (white columns). Monofilament lines (ML), multifilament line (MFL), monofilament nets (MN), multifilament nets (MFN), plastic containers (PLC), glassware (GLW), textile fibers (TXF) and plastic bags (PLB).
Source
df
SS
MS
Pseudo-F
P (perm)
GMZ SI MO GMZ × SI GMZ × MO SI × MO Res Total
2 1 3 2 6 3 6 23
19,269 2042.7 1179.9 813.03 2173.5 1720.2 1503.7 28,702
9634.6 2042.7 393.29 406.51 362.25 573.4 250.62
38.443 8.1506 1.5692 1.622 1.4454 2.2879
0.0004 0.0097 0.2266 0.2427 0.2513 0.1282
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
4
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4. Ordination analysis, showing 2D non-parametric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) comparing the composition type of the MD between geomorphological zones (crest, slope and bottom).
4. Discussion This is the first study determining plastic pollution on the seafloor of the SE Pacific Coast, and it was observed that the presence of plasticderived items is high (94–95%) in the surveyed sites, compared with global reports and reviews (60–80%) (Gregory and Ryan, 1997; Moore, 2008; Todd et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2015; Vikas and Dwarakishb, 2015). Thus, we can infer that plastic pollution on rocky reefs could be a serious problem for the conservation of this ecosystem in the region. The study sites did not show differences in density of MD, the average density was, for PS and UR, (36.26 ± 8.43 items per 1000 m− 2 and 36.78 ± 7.69 items per 1000 m− 2, respectively) (Fig. 2). These findings could be related to the accessibility and particular human activities at each study site and the geographical proximity to urban centers. Smith and Edgar (2014) suggested that an increase in the number of visitors and fishing activities are factors that have a strong impact on the accumulation rate of MD in marine ecosystems. The PS site is located only a short distance from the coast and is easily accessible. This condition could increase the influx of visitors with diverse activities (artisanal and sport fishing, coastal tourism, snorkel and SCUBA diving), and thus increase the disposal of MD categories and its accumulation rate at the site. Thus, in PS a higher relative frequency of debris from coastal and fishing activities, such as plastic containers, monofilament lines and multifilament lines, is observed, while there are no differences for the rest of the categories, except monofilament nets (Fig. 2). Conversely, the UR site is located at a further distance from the coast, and is a base of fishing activities involving the use of gillnets (mono and multifilament nets) and semi-autonomous diving systems, which leads to an increase in accumulation rates. Therefore, we observed a high relative frequency of monofilament nets at this site with respect to PS (Fig. 2). Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar (2008) found no significant difference when comparing MD abundances between surveyed sites from Jordan, while Smith and Edgar (2014) in Australia, report differences in abundance and diversity of MD items related to habitat type and the lowest values of abundance of MD for coral reef habitats. In this study, 63% of MD items observed during underwater sampling were directly related to fishing activities at both sites. Oigman-Pszczol and Creed (2007), Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar (2008);
Watters et al. (2010), and Smith and Edgar (2014) reported from 31 to 46% of MD items associated to fishing activities in subtidal benthic environments and coral reefs from Brazil, Jordan, USA and Australia, respectively, while in China and Korea, Lee et al. (2006) reported over 72% of items related to fishing activities. The present finding could be an indicator of the high fishing pressure at the study sites that have open access the whole year round, with a consequent constant disposal rate of fishing related items. The remaining 37% of MD items found could have an indirect relation to fishing or touristic activities (e.g. textile fibers, plastic containers for food or beverages) (Backhurst and Cole, 2000; Bauer et al., 2008). Due to the lack of a standard methodology for determining the MD pollution on the seabed, the data from all around the world are not comparable. In spite of this, it seems that the densities of MD found (36.26 ± 8.43 items per 1000 m−2 and 36.78 ± 7.69 items per 1000 m−2 of PS and UR respectively) were similar to data obtained in Greece: 15 items per 1000 m−2 (Katsanevakis and Katsarou, 2004). The mean densities found in the current work are comparable with data obtained in Greece, as the methodology used was very similar in both studies. However, in other parts of the world there are different data, for example: Jordan: 2800 items per km− 2 (Abu-Hilal and AlNajjar, 2008), the US West Coast: 78 items per km−2 (Keller et al., 2010) and Portugal: 918 items per km− 2 (Pham et al., 2013), which highlights the differences. It is likely that these differences might also be related to the methodology used in the quantification of items (area and depth of transects, equipment involved: scuba units, bottom trawl, remotely operated vehicles) and the number of sites surveyed. The anthropogenic impacts on geomorphological areas of the reefs are poorly documented and focus primarily on the effects of anchoring intensity on coral species and the marine debris and bombing effects on macro invertebrates and fish (Dinsdale and Harriott, 2004; Bauer et al., 2008; Fuchs, 2013). In our study, the spatial distribution of the MD items over geomorphological areas showed particular patterns (Fig. 4). 19% of the total amount of MD was found in the crest zone, with a low diversity of MD categories and was predominantly represented by fishing-related items (Bauer et al., 2008), such as monofilament nets (Fig. 3). This type of fishing gear is placed in the areas surrounding the reefs studied by artisanal fishermen and temporal changes of speed and the direction of the currents at low and high
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
tide could be the factors that cause their entanglement on the reef crests, making it impossible to remove them (Macfadyen et al., 2009). This may break branched coral forms (Pocillopora spp.), common in this particular area (Fig. 5A & B) or such nets may become fatal traps for fish (surgeon fish: Acanthuridae, angelfish: Pomacanthidae, gruntfish: Haemulidae, groupers: Serranidae) (Kaiser et al., 1996; Erzini et al., 1997; Pawson, 2003; Bauer et al., 2008; Macfadyen et al., 2009). Similarly, small segments of monofilament netting, which are the product of net repairing activities, are common and persistent elements on the crest of the reefs. Due to their low weight, these structures are easily carried by ocean currents and end up entangled in rocks and coral heads (Bauer et al., 2008) (Fig. 5B). Al-Jufaili et al. (1999), Donohue et al. (2001), Richards and Beger (2011) and Macfadyen et al. (2009) have suggested that an increase in the abundance of MD and the presence of ghost nets on reefs for long periods of time can produce the gradual decrease in hard coral cover due to the competitive advantages of algae species that grow successfully on MD. However, according to Gall and Thompson (2015), there is only a limited evidence of the effects at the assemblage level due to the difficulty in quantifying
5
them. The presence and persistence of MD may have implications for the continuity and conservation of microhabitats on the reef crest used by species of diurnal and nocturnal activity such as: shelter, food and/or reproduction places (Pitcher, 1993; Wynne and Côté, 2007). Bottom zones of the study reefs denoted high diversity of MD categories and represent 47% of the total amount of items observed. Plastic containers: bottles, glassware and containers used to remove water from the artisanal boats are common items in this zone (Fig. 5C). These structures provide additional hard surfaces that are colonized by microorganisms and then macrobiota (Whal, 1989; Ye and Andrady, 1991; Harrison et al., 2011) and, due to the action of currents, tend to gradually accumulate at the bottom of reefs with high structural complexity (lots of crevices and depressions) (Kendall et al., 2007; Bauer et al., 2008; Schlining et al., 2013). Mono and multifilament line segments are common in this zone and are mostly associated to species of massive coral, genus Pavona, which form colonies on the bottom (Fig. 5D & E). These categories of MD are used in fishing activities such as, rod and reel gear, trolling and boat anchoring. Chiappone et al. (2002) and Macfadyen et al. (2009) suggested that these materials
Fig. 5. Categories of marine debris found in underwater surveys. A) Monofilament net over crest zone in UR site, Jaramijo. B) Segment of monofilament net over colony of branched coral Pocillopora spp. C) Plastic items of MD observed in the bottom zones of studied sites. D) Monofilament lines tangled over coral heads of Pavona clavus in the bottom zone of PS site, Manta. E) Multifilament lines observed in the bottom zone of PS site, Manta.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
6
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
might be causative agents of abrasion, tissue damage and even death of sessile invertebrates. This study provides a general overview of the spatial density of MD at the study sites of Perpetuo Socorro and Ureles on the Manabi coast (Ecuador) and provides some important initial data concerning measuring accumulation rates and determining spatial and temporal dynamics of MD on the coast of the province of Manabi (Ecuador). The MD disposal pattern is mainly determined by the influx of visitors and fishing activities at the study sites, while its distribution is related to the bottom type, level of boating/fishing activity, and local characteristics of benthic features. The search for mechanisms that analyze the spatial and temporal variability of the MD in marine ecosystems is of great importance. However, it requires joint efforts, standardized methods of sampling and analysis of data so that the information obtained may be comparable (Spengler and Costa, 2008; Cheshire et al., 2009; Lippiatt et al., 2013). These aspects would provide the basis for the proper management of MD and guidelines for future recovery and conservation programs for the marine ecosystems of Ecuador.
Acknowledgements Secretaria Técnica del Mar, Subsecretaria de Recursos Pesqueros, Cristiano Araujo, Soraya Silva, Mireia Valle and Fernando Rey Diz. Sebastian Ribadeneira, Leiner Pinoargote for the logistic support in sampling activities. The authors thank Jon Nesbit for his revision of the English text.
References Abu-Hilal, A., Al-Najjar, T., 2008. Marine litter in coral reef areas along the Jordan Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (2), 1043–1049. Al-Jufaili, S., Al-Jabri, M., Al-Baluchi, A., Baldwin, R., Wilson, S., West, F., Matthews, A., 1999. Human impacts on coral reefs in the Sultanate of Oman. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 49, 65–74. Backhurst, M.K., Cole, R.G., 2000. Subtidal benthic marine litter at Kawau Island, northeastern New Zealand. J. Environ. Manag. 60, 227–237. Barboza, L.G.A., García-Gimenez, B.C., 2015. Microplastics in the marine environment: current trends and future perspectives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2015.06.008. Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 364, 1985–1998. Bauer, L.J., Kendall, M.S., Jeffrey, C.F., 2008. Incidence of marine debris and its relationships with benthic features in Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Southeast USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56 (3), 402–413. Baulch, S., Perry, C., 2014. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 80, 210–221. Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G., 2009. UNEP/IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83: xii+ p.p. 120. Chiappone, M., White, A., Swanson, D., Miller, S.L., 2002. Occurrence and biological impacts of fishing gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 597–604. Chiappone, M., Dienes, H., Swanson, D., Miller, S.L., 2005. Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reefs sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Biol. Conserv. 121, 221–230. Coello, S., Macías, R., 2005. Situación de la Basura Marina en el Ecuador. Plan de acción para la protección del medio marino y áreas costeras del Pacífico Sudeste. Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur. p.p. 63. CPPS, 2007. Marine Litter in the Southeast Pacific Region: A Review of the Problem. Permanent Commission for the South Pacific. Guayaquil, Ecuador (29p.). Dameron, O.J., Parke, M., Albins, M.A., Brainard, R., 2007. Marine debris accumulation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: an examination of rates and processes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 423–433. Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of marine environment by plastic debris: a re-view. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852. Dinsdale, E.A., Harriott, V.J., 2004. Assessing anchor damage on coral reefs: a case study in selection of environmental indicators. Environ. Manag. 33 (1), 126–139. Donohue, M.J., Boland, R.C., Sramek, C.M., Antonelis, G.A., 2001. Derelict fishing gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: diving survey and debris removal in 1999 confirm threat to coral ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1301–1312.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., et al., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One 9 (12), e111913. Erzini, K., Monteiro, C., Ribeiro, J., Santos, M., Gaspar, M., Monteiro, P., Borges, T., 1997. An experimental study of gill net and trammel net ghost fishing off the Algarve (southern Portugal). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 158, 257–265. Figueroa, J., Mero, D., Castillo, R., Flores, M., 2013. Langosta verde Panulirus gracilis: Un recurso que debemos estudiar para preservar. Hippocampus Revista Científica, Colección Recursos Marinos No. 1. Alma Mater, Manta, Ecuador. Fuchs, T., 2013. Effects of habitat complexity on invertebrate biodiversity. Immediate Sci. Ecol. 2, 1–10. Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y., 1996. Accumulation of debris on the deep sea floor off the French Mediterranean coast. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 142, 225–234. Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., et al., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 516–527. Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., 2015. Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Berlin, pp. 75–116. Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92 (1), 170–179. Goldberg, E.D., 1994. Diamonds and plastics are forever? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 28, 466. Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364, 2013–2025. Gregory, M.R., Ryan, P.G., 1997. Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a review of Southern Hemisphere perspectives. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris–Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 49–66. Harrison, J.P., Sapp, M., Schratzberger, M., Osborn, A.M., 2011. Interactions between microorganisms and marine microplastics: a call for research. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 45, 12–20. Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075. Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N., Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G., 2014. A comparative study of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Seas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89, 296–304. Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine debris review for Latin America and the wider Caribbean region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 1087–1104. Kaiser, M.J., Bullimore, B., Newman, P., Lock, K., Gilbert, S., 1996. Catches in 'ghost fishing' set nets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 145, 11–16. Katsanevakis, S., 2008. Marine debris, a growing problem: sources, distribution, composition, and impacts. In: Marine Pollution a New Research. pp. 53–100. Ed. by Tobias N. Hofer. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York. Katsanevakis, S., Katsarou, A., 2004. Influences on the distribution of marine debris on the seafloor of shallow coastal areas in Greece (Eastern Mediterranean). Water Air Soil Pollut. 159, 325–337. Keller, A.A., Fruh, E.L., Johnson, M.M., Simon, V., McGourty, C., 2010. Distribution and abundance of anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the US West Coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 692–700. Kendall, M.S., Bauer, L.J., Jeffrey, C.F.G., 2007. Characterization of the benthos, marine debris and bottom fish at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Prepared by National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) Biogeography Team in cooperation With the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 50, p. 82. Kühn, S., Bravo Rebolledo, E.L., van Franeker, J.A., 2015. Deleterious effects of litter on marine life. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Berlin, pp. 75–116. Lee, D.I., Cho, H.S., Jeong, S.B., 2006. Distribution characteristics of marine litter on the sea bed of the East China Sea and the South Sea of Korea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 70, 187–194. Lewis, C.F., Slade, S.L., Maxwell, K.E., Matthews, T.R., 2009. Lobster trap impact on coral reefs: effects of wind‐driven trap movement. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43 (1), 271–282. Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., Arthur, C., 2013. Marine debris monitoring and assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46, p. 82. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R., 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. UNEP/FAO, Rome (115p.). Molnar, J., Gamboa, R., Revenga, C., Spalding, M., 2008. Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 485–492. Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108, 131–139. Oigman-Pszczol, S.S., Creed, J.C., 2007. Quantification and classification of marine litter on beaches along Armaçaõ dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Coast. Res. 23, 421–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/1551-5036(2007. Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, A., Hylland, K., Guilhermino, L., 2013. Single and combined effects of microplastics and pyrene on juveniles (0+ group) of the common goby Pomatoschistus microps (Teleostei, Gobiidae). Ecol. Indic. 34, 641–647. Pawson, M.G., 2003. The catching capacity of lost static fishing gears. Fish. Res. 64, 101–105. Pham, C.K., Gomes-Pereira, J.N., Isidro, E.J., Santos, R.S., Morato, T., 2013. Abundance of litter on Condor seamount (Azores, Portugal, Northeast Atlantic). Deep-Sea Res. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 98, 204–208.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070
J. Figueroa-Pico et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Pitcher, C. R., 1993. Spiny lobsters. In: Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific. pp. 539–607. Ed. by A. Wright, and L. Hill. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara. Richards, Z., Beger, M., 2011. A quantification of the standing stock of macro-debris in Majuro lagoon and its effect on hard coral communities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1693–1701. Schlining, K., von Thun, S., Kuhnz, L., Schlining, B., Lundsten, L., Jacobsen Stout, N., Chaney, L., Connor, J., 2013. Debris in the deep: using a 22-year video annotation database to survey marine litter in Monterey Canyon, central California, USA. Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 79, 96–105. Schulz, M., Krone, R., Dederer, G., Watjen, K., Matthies, M., 2015. Comparative analysis of time series of marine litter surveyed on beaches and the seafloor in the southeastern North Sea. Mar. Environ. Res. 106, 61–67. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel—GEF, 2012t. Impacts of marine debris on biodiversity: current status and potential solutions. Montreal, Technical Series No. 67 (61 pages). Sheavly, S.B., Register, K.M., 2007. Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J. Polym. Environ. 15 (4), 301–305. Smith, S.D.A., Edgar, R.J., 2014. Documenting the density of subtidal marine debris across multiple marine and coastal habitats. PLoS One 9 (4), e94593. Spengler, A., Costa, M., 2008. Methods applied in studies of benthic marine debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 226–230. Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore, C., Prudente, M., Boonyatumanond, R., Zakaria, M.P., Akkhavong, K., Ogata, Y., Hirai, H.,
7
Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura, A., Saha, M., Takada, H., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 364, 2027–2045. Thiel, M., Bravo, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Luna, G., Miranda, L., Núñez, P., Pacheco, A.S., Vásquez, N., 2011. Anthropogenic litter in the SE Pacific: an overview of the problem and possible solutions. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 11 (1), 115–134. Todd, P.A., Ong, X., Chou, L.M., 2010. Impacts of pollution on marine life in Southeast Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 1063–1082. Vikas, M., Dwarakishb, G.S., 2015. Coastal pollution: a review. Aquatic Procedia 4, 381–388. Watters, D.L., Yoklavich, M.M., Love, M.S., Schroeder, D.M., 2010. Assessing marine debris in deep seafloor habitats off California. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (1), 131–138. Whal, M., 1989. Marine epibiosis. Fouling and antifouling: some basic aspects. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 58, 175–205. Williams, R., Ashe, E., O'Hara, P.D., 2011. Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British Columbia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1303–1316. Wynne, S., Côté, I., 2007. Effects of habitat quality and fishing on Caribbean spotted spiny lobster populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 488–494. Ye, S., Andrady, A., 1991. Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne Bay exposure conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22, 608–613. Yimin, Y., Pitcher, R., Dennis, D., Skewes, T., 2005. Constructing abundance indices from scientific surveys of different designs for the Torres Strait ornate rock lobster (Panulirus ornatus) fishery, Australia. Fish. Res. 73, 187–200.
Please cite this article as: Figueroa-Pico, J., et al., Marine debris: Implications for conservation of rocky reefs in Manabi, Ecuador (Se Pacific Coast), Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.070