Monitoring litter and microplastics in Arctic mammals and birds

Abstract

Plastic pollution has been reported to affect Arctic mammals and birds. There are strengths and limitations to monitoring litter and microplastics using Arctic mammals and birds. One strength is the direct use of these data to understand the potential impacts on Arctic biodiversity as well as effects on human health, if selected species are consumed. Monitoring programs must be practically designed with all purposes in mind, and a spectrum of approaches and species will be required. Spatial and temporal trends of plastic pollution can be built on the information obtained from studies on northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), a species that is an environmental indicator. To increase our understanding of the potential implications for human health, the species and locations chosen for monitoring should be selected based on the priorities of local communities. Monitoring programs under development should examine species for population level impacts in Arctic mammals and birds. Mammals and birds can be useful in source and surveillance monitoring via locally designed monitoring programs. We recommend future programs consider a range of monitoring objectives with mammals and birds as part of the suite of tools for monitoring litter and microplastics, plastic chemical additives and effects, and for understanding sources.

Animal migration in the Anthropocene: threats and mitigation options

“…In a particularly incredible example, Fjelldal et al (2021) found wild Atlantic salmon and sea-run brown trout smolts had entered experimental fish farms during their seaward migration and become trapped, growing up in the farm until it was emptied. Similarly, Losey, Rayor & Carter (1999) showed that genetically modified maize plants expressing crystalloproteins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis increased mortality of monarch butterfly larvae by 44%.…”

“…Garbage dumps can serve as ecological traps for migratory vultures (Buechley et al ., 2018) and alter natural feeding regimes for a variety of birds (Tortosa, Caballero & Reyes‐López, 2002). Plastic debris such as lost fishing gear has been observed to entangle migratory wildlife such as humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ; Gregory, 2009) and the Critically Endangered North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ; Knowlton et al ., 2022), while plastics (micro and macro) may be ingested by a variety of taxa creating bezoars that impact nutrition and eventually can result in inability to migrate (or death; Lusher et al ., 2022). Compared to the obvious negative effects of macroplastics (de Stephanis et al ., 2013; Cartarud et al ., 2019), the consequences of microplastics on migratory birds are unclear despite evidence that they are common (Hoang & Mitten, 2022).…”

Plastics as a carrier of chemical additives to the Arctic: possibilities for strategic monitoring across the circumpolar North

“…The transport of plastic additives with migratory species can take place via ingestion of plastic particles on migratory routes. The ingestion of plastics (and consequently, plastic chemical additives) has been studied in the Arctic in a variety of wildlife species, including whales and a number of seabird species which can migrate over long distances (Lusher et al 2022). Independent of migratory behaviour, numerous free-ranging Arctic vertebrates are likely regularly exposed to plastic additives upon ingestion of plastic particles.…”

Application of Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision Tools to Improve the Morphological Analysis of Microplastic Items in Biological Samples

“…Microplastics have been reported in freshwater [ 5 , 6 ], groundwater [ 7 , 8 ], soil [ 9 , 10 ], sediment [ 11 , 12 ], snow [ 13 , 14 ], ice [ 15 , 16 ], and air [ 17 , 18 ]. Many studies have shown that microplastics are ingested by various organisms [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], invertebrates [ 22 , 23 ], mammals [ 24 , 25 ], and birds [ 26 , 27 ].…”