4.7 Article

Litter Content of Colombian Beaches and Mangrove Forests: Results from the Caribbean and Pacific Coasts

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse11020250

关键词

Clean Coast Index (CCI); 3S tourism; coastal contamination; plastic pollution; Magdalena River; department of Atlantico; Tumaco municipality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated litter abundance and typology in beaches and mangrove forests on the Colombian Caribbean and Pacific coasts. The average litter abundance was higher in the Caribbean Sea beaches (1.42 items/m(2)-12.21 g/m(2)) and mangrove forests (1.29 items/m(2)-28.72 g/m(2)) compared to the Pacific Ocean beaches (0 items/m(2)-0 g/m(2)) and mangrove forests (1.13 items/m(2)-79.41 g/m(2)). Plastic was the most abundant litter material, accounting for 93.61% of the total litter content. The study provides baseline data for the protection, restoration, and conservation of beaches and mangrove forests.
Litter abundance and typology were investigated at different beaches and mangrove forests at nine sites on the Colombian Caribbean and Pacific coasts. Average litter abundance on the Caribbean Sea beaches (1.42 items/m(2)-12.21 g/m(2)) and in mangrove forests (1.29 items/m(2)-28.72 g/m(2)) were greater than that of the Pacific Ocean beaches (0 items/m(2)-0 g/m(2)) and mangrove forests (1.13 items/m(2)-79.41 g/m(2)). The most abundant litter material was plastic, which represented 93.61% of the total litter content. According to the Clean Coast Index, the sites analyzed in the Caribbean Sea were Moderate to Extremely Dirty, while those in the Pacific Ocean were Clean to Moderate Dirty. The Magdalena River is considered the main source of litter on the Caribbean Sea coast, while on the Pacific Ocean coast, litter is essentially associated with the mismanagement of solid wastes. This study constitutes a baseline on the litter content of beaches and mangrove forests, and is useful for establishing sound strategies for their protection, restoration and conservation.

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