Figure - available from: Nature Communications
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Season-specific plastic exposure risk scores a Scores during breeding (grey circles) and non-breeding seasons (black circles) for the 20 populations with the greatest differences between seasons (grey lines). b Non-breeding season plastic exposure risk for Scopoli’s shearwaters (non-breeding score = 30.0, breeding season score = 496.24) and c yelkouan shearwaters (non-breeding = 937.7, breeding =517.5) for tracked from Malta, and for Cook’s petrels breeding either at d Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island (non-breeding = 159.3, breeding = 5.5) or e Whenua Hou/Codfish Island (non-breeding = 0.8, breeding = 2.1). Black lines indicate the outline of the most used area in the non-breeding season (top 25% of the utilisation distribution). Land polygons from Natural Earth. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
Source publication
Plastic pollution is distributed patchily around the world’s oceans. Likewise, marine organisms that are vulnerable to plastic ingestion or entanglement have uneven distributions. Understanding where wildlife encounters plastic is crucial for targeting research and mitigation. Oceanic seabirds, particularly petrels, frequently ingest plastic, are h...
Similar publications
RESUMEN Las aves pelágicas tienen registros ocasionales en Venezuela, pues generalmente se encuentran fuera de la plataforma continental en aguas abiertas, alejadas de la costa. El Petrel Ceniciento Calonectris diomedea es una de ellas, con escasos registros visuales en el país. En el presente trabajo reportamos la presencia de esta especie con bas...
Las aves pelágicas tienen registros ocasionales en Venezuela, pues generalmente se encuentran fuera de la plataforma continental en aguas abiertas, alejadas de la costa. El Petrel Ceniciento Calonectris diomedea es una de ellas, con escasos registros visuales en el país. En el presente trabajo reportamos la presencia de esta especie con base en la...
Citations
... Estimates indicate that by 2050, 99 % of all seabird species and 95 % of individuals within these species may have plastic in their digestive tracts . Not only are seabirds one of the most endangered groups of birds , but they are also one of the most vulnerable taxa to marine plastic pollution, with Procellariiformes being especially at risk (Clark et al., 2023;Kühn et al., 2015;Provencher et al., 2019). This is mainly due to their feeding strategy, as most Procellariiformes feed on the surface or dive a few metres where plastics accumulate at higher densities (Blight and Burger, 1997;Provencher et al., 2019;Wilcox et al., 2015), and the long retention periods because of their constricted gizzard anatomy (Furness, 1985;Ryan, 2016). ...
... To determine foraging areas, we adapted from Ramos et al. (2013) the foraging areas of birds from Gran Canaria and Lanzarote and added our own GPS data of the feeding areas of breeders from Tenerife in 2015-2017 seasons . We created the distribution kernel using the same parameters than Ramos et al. 2023 (50 % distribution kernel) using QGIS (QGIS Development Team, 2023) for Tenerife birds (Fig. 1). For better accuracy we took out the inland locations and only kept one per feeding trip when they were located closer than 1 km from the coast. ...
... In general, the Procellariforms (albatrosses, shearwaters, petrels, fulmars, and prions) are considered among the most endangered seabird groups (Croxall et al., 2012;Dias et al., 2019), with 59% divided between near-threatened, vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered (IUCN, 2024). Among the various human pressures affecting them, many Procellariform species have been documented to ingesting plastic litter, a threat that has been growing over time (Wilcox et al., 2015;Clark et al., 2023). To date, extensive research has provided valuable insights into this issue in many seabirds (e.g., Ryan, 1987;Auman et al., 1997;Colabuono et al., 2009;Van Franeker et al., 2011;Acampora et al., 2014;Rodríguez et al., 2018;Baak et al., 2020;Clark et al., 2023), with recent studies promoting new species as bioindicators (e.g., Cartraud et al., 2019;Franco et al., 2019;Baes et al., 2024;Rodríguez et al., 2024). ...
... Among the various human pressures affecting them, many Procellariform species have been documented to ingesting plastic litter, a threat that has been growing over time (Wilcox et al., 2015;Clark et al., 2023). To date, extensive research has provided valuable insights into this issue in many seabirds (e.g., Ryan, 1987;Auman et al., 1997;Colabuono et al., 2009;Van Franeker et al., 2011;Acampora et al., 2014;Rodríguez et al., 2018;Baak et al., 2020;Clark et al., 2023), with recent studies promoting new species as bioindicators (e.g., Cartraud et al., 2019;Franco et al., 2019;Baes et al., 2024;Rodríguez et al., 2024). However, significant gaps remain in our understanding of plastic retention times. ...
... 7 The economic value of high seas fisheries is approximately $7.6 billion per year. 8 However, the expanding of longline and deep-sea fisheries, 9 international shipping, 10 marine plastic pollution, 11,12 and ocean acidification caused by anthropogenic climate change, 13 have led to threats to marine biodiversity. 14 The conservation and management of high seas is a collective responsibility of all countries. ...
... Climate change 35 and marine plastic pollution 36,37 are also stressors for high-seas biodiversity. The entanglement and ingestion of plastic harms marine species 11,38,39 ; the amount of marine plastic floating is increasing annually. 40,41 Anthropogenic climate change also poses a major threat, 42 resulting in declines of marine biomass and fishery production. ...
... 36 Plastic waste in the high seas is influenced by ocean circulation, and waste discharged into the ocean is concentrated in several areas forming garbage patches that are relatively fixed. 59 Considering that the annual increase in plastic discharge into the sea is approximately 4%, in this work, we estimated that the distribution of global marine plastic pollution increased equally from 2016 to 2022 at a growth rate of 4% per year, 36 and used the density grids of marine plastic distribution in 2014 from the study of Clark et al. 11 as a baseline. ...
Objectives: Marine biodiversity and ecosystem services in the high seas are threatened by numerous stress factors caused by human activities, including global shipping, high-sea fishing, marine plastic pollution, and anthropogenic climate change. Socioeconomic factors are one of the criteria for the establishment of area-based management tools in the high seas for marine biodiversity conservation beyond national jurisdiction. The aim of the work is to propose a spatiotemporal approach to identify risks from marine human activities and recommendations for high seas governance. Methods: Data related to human activities from 2014 to 2022 were used to calculate the distribution and changes of human-related stressors, and the risk to marine biodiversity in the high seas caused by human activities. Results: The North Atlantic, Philippine Sea, Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, and East Central Atlantic show high and increasing intensities of human-related stressors, and are therefore particularly at need for the protection and conservation of marine biodiversity. Risks from human activities vary within the marine areas that are prioritized for biodiversity protection. The study recommends that the designation of high seas protected areas should take into account the types of risks to which the different marine areas are exposed, and that the high seas protected areas should be established gradually. At the same time, appropriate management measures should be formulated according to the intensity of human activities in the different marine areas. Conclusions: Quantifying and classifying the risk from human-related stressors could help identify solution for the protection and conservation and facilitate the marine spatial planning, establishment area based management tools, including marine protected areas in the high seas.
... However, scaling up from individual-level movement data to infer population-level spatial patterns is challenging, particularly for wide-ranging pelagic species, which often show high individual variability in space use Phillips et al., 2017). To address this in practical conservation terms, the STDB enabled collaborations which facilitated analyses at several spatial scales, depending on the geographic and temporal scope of the threat (Beal et al., 2021b;Carneiro et al., 2020;Clark et al., 2023;Davies et al., 2021b;Lascelles et al., 2016). Management options to address the threats to seabirds across scales can range from local scale actions, including the protection of breeding colonies, marine areas around colonies, and areas further offshore where substantial seabird concentrations occur, to large-scale or global actions that regulate detrimental human activities. ...
... arneiro/DensityMaps). This framework has since been adapted for populations lacking phenological data, using distance from the colony to categorise months into breeding or non-breeding seasons, and applied to map risk to marine plastic pollution (Clark et al., 2023). ...
The BirdLife Seabird Tracking Database (STDB) was established in 2004 to collate tracking data to address the incidental mortality of seabirds in fisheries and to contribute to identification of sites at sea relevant to establishment of Marine Protected Areas. After 20 years, the STDB has grown to hold ca. 39 million locations for 168 species from >450 breeding sites. The STDB has become a powerful tool to support marine conservation by facilitating the compilation of robust multi-species data to address broad-scale questions, made possible by continuous collaboration with the scientific community. The STDB has facilitated major marine conservation outcomes, including the designation of the first marine protected area to be identified solely using tracking data. Advocacy based on analyses demonstrating overlaps between seabirds and fisheries have led to the adoption of seabird-bycatch mitigation measures by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. The STDB has also provided compelling evidence for migratory connectivity in the ocean, and been crucial in informing many policy instruments at scales from national (e.g. protection and management of important sites identified from tracking data), to regional (e.g. working with Regional Conventions), to global (e.g. the identification of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas). This review presents an overview of 1) how the STDB started and gained traction, 2) its current status in terms of data coverage and gaps, 3) methodological developments, 4) conservation successes, 5) the opportunities and challenges experienced in managing this global database, and 6) research priorities and future directions for seabird tracking studies.
... Plastics have contaminated soil, sediments, surface waters, drinking water, agricultural food (salt, sugar, honey, milk, rice, fruit, beer and tea), seafood (fish, sharks, shrimps, mussels, clams, oysters and squids), seaweeds, the air, and human organs. It also contaminated wildlife including birds (Wilcox et al., 2015;Richard et al., 2021;Wang et al., 2021;Klopertanz et al., 2022;Kühn and van Franeker, 2020;Clark et al., 2023), cetaceans (whales) (Fossi et al., 2012), turtles (Laist, 1997) and pinnipeds (seals) (Rebolledo et al., 2013). ...
This review article provides an account of coastal and marine bird species contaminated with plastics in light of
ingestion, taxonomy, feeding clusters, types, shapes, colours and lethal and sublethal effects. Bird species were
found contaminated with plastics in 39 locations/countries across the seven continents. Global analysis shows
that low, medium and high plastic ingestion occurred in bird species across the globe. Fulmars, shearwaters,
petrels, albatrosses, gulls, and kittiwakes (all marine/seabirds) were found contaminated with plastics in several
locations in the world. Bird species belonging to the Procellariidae, Laridae, Diomedeidae (by taxonomy),
piscivorous, molluscivorous, and cancrivorous (by feeding habits) were most contaminated with plastics.
Microplastic, mesoplastic and macroplastic (by sizes), PP, PE, PS, PET, PAN and PVC (by types), fragments,
pellets, fibres, foams, sheets, threads, fishing lines and films (by shapes) and white, blue, green, black, clear, red
and yellow (by colours) were the most common plastics ingested by birds. Several bird species contaminated
with plastics fall within the critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable categories. The ingestion of
plastics can cause direct harm to birds resulting in death. In addition, plastic-derived toxic chemical additives
and plastic-adsorbed toxic chemicals would be an additional stressor causing both lethal and sublethal effects
that can cause greater harm to the health of birds. Several measures are suggested to reduce plastic pollution in
the environment to safeguard birds and the environment
... The identification of high-risk areas, where marine fauna have an increased exposure to litter, is the first step for prioritising conservation measures to address the highest-risk settings (UNEP-MAP 2016). Unlike the 'traditional' risk assessment, where exposure is mostly given as ascertained, a fundamental part of the assessment of risk for highly mobile marine fauna from ML is focused on the identification of the pathways by which exposure might occur and the organisms that are more likely to be impacted by the threat (e.g., Darmon et al. 2017, Matiddi et al. 2017, Compa et al. 2019, Soto-Navarro et al. 2021, Clark et al. 2023. The focus on spatial exposure risk is also in line with the precautionary principle and is therefore considered to be adequate for wildlife conservation purposes. ...
... Some examples are also available of studies that accounted for biological features, which increase species vulnerability, such as integrating species sensitivity scores based on biological (e.g., Campana et al. 2022) or functional (e.g., Jones et al. 2021) traits. The inclusion of vulnerability and trait analyses (e.g., integrating information on life history, morphological and behavioural characteristics of species present in assemblages to indicate aspects of their ecological functioning) into the conservation frameworks would enable predictions to be made regarding organism responses to future environmental changes and allows broader conservation actions to be selected (Miatta et al. 2021, Clark et al. 2023. Ideally, the exposure risk index equation should include data on amounts of litter and species density, and parameters that account for species vulnerability (e.g., biological trait, species richness and presence of juvenile) and information on litter characterisation correlated with the probability of impact (e.g., type, size, material and shape). ...
Marine litter is a main threat for marine life, although the assessment of the associated risks has not yet been fully incorporated into area‑based management tools. Floating litter is detrimental to cetaceans and sea turtles, and thus, these organisms are considered an effective indicator of areas where litter accumulates. Increasing our ability to predict high‑exposure risk locations, i.e., where and when marine megafauna is exposed to the potential negative impacts of litter, is important for prioritising smart‑conservation planning and is an essential first step in characterising the risk of real injury/damage. However, Risk Exposure Assessment (REA) is still underrepresented as a standardised procedure. Here, a literature review framed the state‑of‑the‑art of REA approaches for cetaceans and sea turtles from floating litter supporting the standardisation of metrics and procedures. Of the 415 papers resulting from the literature search, the 23 selected (2011–2022) showed that 57% of the studies were conducted in the Western‑Mediterranean Sea, evidencing inconsistent geographical applications. While a variety of REA methodological approaches revealed high informational heterogeneity, main limits and future recommendations were identified regarding raw data availability, information bias, geographical gaps, target species selection and lack of standard protocol needed to assess trends to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Ultimately, the study showed that a spatial‑contextual approach (possibly functional trait‑based) is needed to effectively support long‑term year‑round monitoring programmes, especially in still un‑surveyed regions.
... Among seabirds, procellariids (petrels and shearwaters) are the most at risk species of plastic ingestion (Berr et al., 2020;Cartraud et al., 2019;Clark et al., 2023;Ryan, 2008;Ryan, 2015;Van Franeker and Bell, 1988; . Petrels and shearwaters forage over large oceanic areas, many of them feed opportunistically at the surface, and some are scavengers. ...
... Petrels and shearwaters forage over large oceanic areas, many of them feed opportunistically at the surface, and some are scavengers. These characteristic increase their risk of ingesting plastic incidentally (Clark et al., 2023;. Indeed, like many other marine predators, seabirds mistake plastic debris for prey. ...
... Indeed, like many other marine predators, seabirds mistake plastic debris for prey. Several studies have combined GPS tracking of seabirds to identify their foraging areas and assess the relative risk of plastic ingestion (Clark et al., 2023;De Pascalis et al., 2022;Nishizawa et al., 2021). The research of Clark et al. (2023) adopts a more global perspective by including all subtropical convergence zones and analyzing 77 species of petrels. ...
Marine plastic pollution is well described by bioindicator species in temperate and polar regions but remains understudied in tropical oceans. We addressed this gap by evaluating the seabird Barau’s petrel as bioindicator of plastic pollution in the South-West Indian Ocean. We conducted a multifaceted approach including necropsies of birds to quantify plastic ingestion; GPS tracking of breeding adults to identify their foraging areas; manta trawling of plastic debris to measure plastic pollution at sea and modelling of plastic dispersal. We developed a spatial risk index of seabird exposure to plastic ingestion. Seventy-one percent of the analysed birds had ingested plastic. GPS tracking coupled with manta trawling and dispersal modelling show that adults consistently foraged at places with high level of plastic concentration. The highest ingestion risk occurred in the northwest of Reunion Island and at latitude 30°S. Our findings confirm that Barau’s petrel is a reliable bioindicator of plastic pollution in the region.
... A potentially more powerful approach to detect changes in floating plastic is to track changes in plastic loads in biota (both the proportion of individuals containing plastic and the number/mass of items per individual) as they collect plastic over large areas and can be sampled at relatively little cost Provencher et al., 2017). Seabirds, especially petrels (order Procellariiformes), accumulate ingested plastic items in their stomachs, thereby integrating plastic loads over their large foraging ranges at a temporal scale of weeks to months (van Franeker et al., 2011;Ryan, 2015;Ryan, 2016;Perold et al., 2020;Clark et al., 2023). As a result, some seabirds have been proposed as indicators of floating plastics (van Franeker and Law, 2015;Avery-Gomm et al., 2018;Baes et al., 2024;Perold et al., 2024;Rodríguez et al., 2024), and plastic loads in northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis have been adopted as an indicator of environmental quality in the northeast Atlantic Ocean (OSPAR, 2010). ...
... White-faced storm petrels contained four times more plastic than Fregetta storm petrels, even though they are similar in terms of size, diet and behaviour (Harrison, 1983;Ryan, 2007). White-faced storm petrels mostly forage north of the Tristan archipelago where they are likely exposed to greater litter densities associated with the South Atlantic Gyre (Eriksen et al., 2014;Ryan et al., 2014;Clark et al., 2023;Ryan, 2023b; Fig. 1), whereas Fregetta storm petrels most likely forage south of the Sub-tropical Front (Fig. 1), in areas with lower litter densities and plastic exposure risk (Ryan, 1988;Eriksen et al., 2014;Ryan et al., 2014;Ryan, 2023b;Clark et al., 2023). White-faced storm petrels sampled from gull pellets at colonies in the northeast Atlantic Ocean between 2013 and 2015 had a slightly higher incidence of ingested plastic (79 %) and larger mean plastic loads (5.3-5.7 items per bird; Furtado et al., 2016) than this species in our study (69 %, 3.8 items per bird), suggesting that the northeastern Atlantic waters may be more polluted than the South Atlantic. ...
... White-faced storm petrels contained four times more plastic than Fregetta storm petrels, even though they are similar in terms of size, diet and behaviour (Harrison, 1983;Ryan, 2007). White-faced storm petrels mostly forage north of the Tristan archipelago where they are likely exposed to greater litter densities associated with the South Atlantic Gyre (Eriksen et al., 2014;Ryan et al., 2014;Clark et al., 2023;Ryan, 2023b; Fig. 1), whereas Fregetta storm petrels most likely forage south of the Sub-tropical Front (Fig. 1), in areas with lower litter densities and plastic exposure risk (Ryan, 1988;Eriksen et al., 2014;Ryan et al., 2014;Ryan, 2023b;Clark et al., 2023). White-faced storm petrels sampled from gull pellets at colonies in the northeast Atlantic Ocean between 2013 and 2015 had a slightly higher incidence of ingested plastic (79 %) and larger mean plastic loads (5.3-5.7 items per bird; Furtado et al., 2016) than this species in our study (69 %, 3.8 items per bird), suggesting that the northeastern Atlantic waters may be more polluted than the South Atlantic. ...
Despite growing concern about the large amounts of waste plastic in marine ecosystems, evidence of an increase
in the amount of floating plastic at sea has been mixed. Both at-sea surveys and ingested plastic loads in seabirds
show inconsistent evidence of significant increases in the amount of plastic since the 1980s. We use 3727 brown
skua Catharacta antarctica regurgitations, each containing the remains of a single seabird, to monitor changes in
plastic loads in four seabird taxa breeding at Inaccessible Island, Tristan da Cunha in nine years from 1987 to
2018. Frequency of occurrence in plastic ingestion and types were compared across four near-decadal time
periods (1987–1989; 1999–2004; 2009–2014 and 2018) while loads were compared among years. The number
and proportions of industrial pellets among ingested plastic decreased consistently over the study period in all
four taxa, suggesting that industry initiatives to reduce pellet leakage have reduced the numbers of pellets at sea.
Despite global plastic production increasing more than four-fold over the study period, there was no consistent
increase in the total amount of ingested plastic in any species. Plastic loads in great shearwaters Ardenna gravis,
which spend the austral winter in the North Atlantic Ocean, increased in 2018, but the proportion of shearwaters
containing plastic decreased. We conclude that the density of plastic floating at sea has not increased in line with
global production over the last 30 years.
... Examples of emerging threats to seabirds globally include plastic pollution, offshore wind farms, hybridisation, discards and fisheries for mesopelagic species (the latter until now has not been performed extensively in Europe). In a recently published paper, 65 the Mediterranean and the Black Sea were identified as critical areas with the highest likelihood of seabirds encountering plastics, highlighting the urgency for policies to be created or updated in order to keep abreast of new information and emerging threats, and in this specific case, reduce the accumulation of plastics in the ocean. ...
In this report, we provide an overview of the most recent Red List data, and pinpoint
solutions and recommendations for decisionmakers to tackle threats and enhance seabird conservation. Over one in three species are threatened with extinction according to the latest EU and European IUCN Red List assessments (2020 and 2021 respectively). The main threats in the region are bycatch, overfishing, invasive alien species, hunting/trapping, pollution, climate change, energy infrastructure, recreational activities, and avian influenza. Solutions to such hazards are mostly known and should be scaled up, tackling the cumulative effects of these perils throughout seabird life cycles. Regulations already in place, especially in the EU, can help populations to recover, but higher levels of implementation and enforcement as well as more robust international cooperation are urgently needed.
... The majority of the species range is well offshore in the Southern Hemisphere, well away from most global shipping routes and in areas where fishing pressure is relatively low (Kroodsma et al., 2018). As surface-feeding skim feeders, pygmy right whales are particularly vulnerable to ingestion of small particles of floating plastic (e.g., Kahane-Rapport et al., 2022;Zantis et al., 2022), and the northern part of the species range, especially the areas north of 40S are predicted to be areas with a high density of floating plastics and of high concern for seabirds (Clark et al., 2023). The impacts of a changed Sub Antarctic environment which has suffered from the massive impacts of whaling and, more recently, fishing effort and climate change are unknown. ...
