4.3 Article

Abundance and environmental drivers of anthropogenic litter on 5 Lake Michigan beaches: A study facilitated by citizen science data collection

期刊

JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 78-86

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2014.12.015

关键词

Marine debris; Garbage; Trash; Land use; Great Lakes

资金

  1. Loyola University Chicago Department of Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The abundance and environmental drivers of anthropogenic litter (i.e., trash; AL) in marine habitats is well studied, but less AL research has been conducted in freshwaters. The long-running Adopt-a-Beach (TM) (MB) program, administered by the Alliance for the Great Lakes, has directed volunteer litter collection on Great Lakes beaches since 2003. We analyzed all AAB records for 5 Lake Michigan beaches that span a population gradient to quantify total AL density, infer primary sources of AL, characterize seasonal patterns, and compare data to marine beaches. Human population density was positively related to AL density across the 5 sites, and >72% of AL was smoking and food-related. Results indicated that most AL originated from activities occurring on or near the beaches, while other potential sources were minor (i.e., fishing, illicit dumping, sewage, or waterway activities). At all sites, AL was more abundant in the fall, which suggested that municipal beach cleaning might be effective at reducing abundance in summer. Finally, AL density was low relative to marine beaches, which we attributed to lack of AL from offshore, removal via beach cleaning, and the methodological artifacts and inherent variation within the large, citizen science data set. Future studies of AL dynamics on Great Lakes beaches will benefit from quantifying AL removal via cleaning, AL movement and decomposition, its effects on beach organisms, and additional comparisons to well-studied habitats worldwide. (C) 2014 International Association for Great Lakes Research. 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

4.3
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