4.7 Article

Garbage in guano? Microplastic debris found in faecal precursors of seabirds known to ingest plastics

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 644, 期 -, 页码 1477-1484

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.101

关键词

Accumulation; Anthropocene; Arctic; Debris; Excretion; Microplastics; Retention

资金

  1. Environmental Studies Research Fund (ESRF)
  2. Northern Contaminants Program under Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) [NCP C-11]
  3. Weston Foundation through a Post-doctoral Fellowship in Northern Research
  4. NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plastic pollution is global environmental contaminant. Plastic particulates break down into smaller fragments in the environment, and these small pieces are now commonly found to be ingested by animals. To date, most plastic ingestion studies have focused on assessing retained plastics or regurgitated plastics, but it is likely that animals also excrete plastic and other debris items. We examined the terminal portion of the gastrointestinal tract of a seabird known to commonly ingest plastics, the Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), to determine if seabirds excrete microplastics and other debris via their guano. We also examine how guano collections may be used as an indicator of retained plastics. The frequency of occurrence of microplastics did not correlate between the gut and faecal precursor samples, but there was a positive relationship between the number of pieces of plastics in the gut and the number of microplastics in the guano. Our findings suggest that seabirds are acting as vectors of microplastics and debris in the marine environment where their guano accumulates around their colonies. This transport of microplastics and debris by colonial seabirds needs to be further examined, and considered when designing environmental monitoring for microplastics in regions where seabird colonies are found. Crown Copyright (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据