Impacts of Discarded Plastic Bags on Marine Assemblages and

Mar 30, 2015 - The accumulation of plastic debris is a global environmental problem due to its durability, persistence, and abundance. Although effect...
3 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF NEBRASKA - LINCOLN

Article

Impacts of discarded plastic bags on marine assemblages and ecosystem functioning Dannielle Senga Green, Bas Boots, David James Blockley, Carlos Rocha, and Richard C. Thompson Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00277 • Publication Date (Web): 30 Mar 2015 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 5, 2015

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Impacts of discarded plastic bags on marine assemblages and ecosystem functioning

2 3

Dannielle Senga Green1,2*, Bas Boots3, David James Blockley4, Carlos Rocha1 and Richard

4

Thompson5

5 6

1

7

Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

8

2

9

Kingdom.

Biogeochemistry Research Group, Geography Department, School of Natural Sciences,

Queens University Belfast Marine Laboratory, Portaferry, Northern Ireland, United

10

3

11

Ireland.

12

4

South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute, Stanley Cottage, Falkland Islands

13

5

School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, Plymouth, Devon, United

14

Kingdom PL4 8AA.

UCD School of Biosystems Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin,

15 16

Keywords: contamination, pollution, polyethylene, biogeochemistry, nutrient cycling,

17

aquatic, biodegradable

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 2 of 37

18

Abstract

19

The accumulation of plastic debris is a global environmental problem due to its durability,

20

persistence and abundance. Although effects of plastic debris on individual marine organisms,

21

particularly mammals and birds have been extensively documented (e.g. entanglement,

22

choking), very little is known about effects on assemblages, and consequences for ecosystem

23

functioning. In Europe, around 40% of plastic items produced are utilised as single-use

24

packaging, which rapidly accumulate in waste management facilities and as litter in the

25

environment. A range of biodegradable plastics have been developed with the aspiration of

26

reducing the persistence of litter, however their impacts on marine assemblages or ecosystem

27

functioning have never been evaluated. A field experiment was conducted to assess the

28

impact of conventional and biodegradable plastic carrier bags as litter on benthic macro- and

29

meio-faunal assemblages and biogeochemical processes (primary productivity, redox

30

condition, organic matter content and pore-water nutrients) on an intertidal shore near Dublin,

31

Ireland. After nine weeks, the presence of either type of bag created anoxic conditions within

32

the sediment along with reduced primary productivity and organic matter and significantly

33

lower abundances of infaunal invertebrates. This indicates that both conventional and

34

biodegradable bags can rapidly alter marine assemblages and the ecosystem services they

35

provide.

36 37

1. Introduction

38

Plastic items have become an integral part of daily life in many societies, and use is

39

increasing, with an estimated annual global production of 299 million tonnes in 2013.1 Of

40

this, single-use packaging items account for the majority, almost 40%, of total production.1,2 It

41

is estimated that almost 5% of the plastic produced is transported via wastewater flows, inland

42

waterways, wind or tides and ends up in the marine environment as litter3-7. Indeed, plastic 2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

43

waste accounts for up to 80% of all litter found in marine habtiats.4 Of this litter, plastic bags

44

are one of the most common items8 especially on intertidal9,10 and subtidal11 benthos.

45

Biodegradable plastics have been proposed as an alternative to conventional plastics such as

46

polyethylene. Biodegradable plastic bags are intended to break down more rapidly than

47

conventional plastic bags and are, therefore, believed to be less persistent as litter. Yet there

48

have been few studies evaluating their degradation in natural habitats and the extent to which

49

any enhanced degradation might reduce marine litter is not clear.12,13 Indeed some degradable

50

polyethylene formulations have been shown to persist in the environment for years after their

51

disposal.14 Given their relative recalcitrance to decomposition under natural conditions,

52

conventional and biodegradable plastic bags pose a potential threat to organisms in coastal

53

ecosystems when present as litter.

54

Contamination of marine habitats by plastic litter can be aesthetically detrimental, leading to

55

negative socio-economic consequences.15 There is also considerable evidence relating to

56

consequences for wildlife. Over 660 species are known to encounter marine debris and

57

negative consequences including physical damage from entanglement and choking, and

58

mortality are reported for individuals from a wide range of species,4 including birds16

59

mammals4 and invertebrates.17 While information on effects at the individual level is of

60

considerable value, evidence of effects at higher levels of biological organisation, i.e. species

61

assemblages, communities and populations, is often of critical importance to decision makers

62

since it can be used to inform policy measures. Providing this information is necessary, for

63

example, to inform decisions about legislation to reduce the quantity of single use, disposable

64

items including plastic bags and / or about the efficacy of alternative materials with enhanced

65

degradability.

66

It has been estimated that up to 70% of all plastic debris settles onto the benthos18 with

67

considerable accumulations in intertidal habitats worldwide19; yet to date, there have been few 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 4 of 37

68

studies assessing the effect of plastic debris on these habitats and no work on the ecosystem

69

services they provide, such as primary productivity and nutrient cycling. Coastal ecosystems

70

are extremely diverse and productive, supplying vital ecosystem services such as the

71

production of food, stabilisation of shorelines, removal of pollutants, and nutrient turnover.20

72

Within these, sedimentary habitats are of particular importance, recycling nutrients that

73

support economically important benthic and pelagic food-webs through a myriad of

74

biogeochemical processes.21 It is possible that plastic debris might decrease the biomass of

75

microphytobenthos (important primary producers) in sedimentary habitats by blocking light.

76

Consequently this could alter biogeochemical processes such as decomposition of organic

77

matter, which is essential for the release of inorganic nutrients (such as nitrogen as

78

ammonium). This, in turn, supports primary production and therefore, food-webs. To date,

79

two studies have examined the effects of plastic debris at ecologically relevant scales; one

80

mensurative study on infauna22 and one manipulative subtidal experiment on epibiota and

81

infauna.23,24 It has been suggested that when on the surface, plastic debris might physically

82

asphyxiate the underlying sediment, potentially impeding nutrient exchange processes at the

83

sediment-water interface, leading to anoxia and decreasing the abundance of infaunal

84

organisms,6 but neither this nor the effects of plastic debris on infaunal assemblages in

85

intertidal habitats have ever been experimentally evaluated.

86

To assess the impact of plastic bags as litter within a coastal habitat, a manipulative field

87

experiment was done to test the following hypotheses: the addition of plastic carrier bags

88

locally alters (i) invertebrate assemblage structure and composition and (ii) biogeochemical

89

processes within the sediment and iii) carrier bags made of different types of material

90

(biodegradable or conventional non-biodegradable plastic) have different effects on biological

91

assemblages and biogeochemical processes within the sediment.

92 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 5 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

93

2. Materials and Methods

94

2.1. Site description and experimental design.

95

Booterstown Marsh (Booterstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 53°18.65' N, 6°11.9' W) is a nature

96

reserve, sheltered from the open sea, managed by An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland

97

(An Taisce 2013) and has been proposed to be a Natural Heritage Area. Permission to execute

98

the experiment at this nature reserve was granted by An Taisce. It is a designated bird

99

sanctuary with hydrologically low energy depositional areas consisting of very fine clay and

100

silt forming mud-flats overlain with brackish water. As the marsh receives freshwater input

101

from a stream, salinity fluctuates with the tidal cycle. At the time of sampling, the salinity of

102

the surface water was 20 ppt during falling to low tide and during rising to high tide it was 35

103

ppt. It is in close vicinity to a highly urbanised area and is prone to accumulate waste litter,

104

including plastic items.

105

White plastic carrier bags made of either conventional high density polyethylene (HDPE) or

106

biodegradable plastic manufactured from corn starch were used. Both bags were of a single-

107

use disposable nature rather than of a more substantial ‘bags for life’ thickness. The

108

biodegradable bags were labelled as “biodegradable” and “compostable” and claimed to

109

completely disintegrate into carbon dioxide, water and biomass within 10-12 weeks in

110

standard composting conditions and are certified "OK COMPOST" by EU standard EN 13432

111

& International standard ASTM D6400-99. The dimensions of both types of bag were

112

approximately 38 x 46 cm and 65 µm thick. On 13 March 2014, conventional and

113

biodegradable plastic bags and control plots without bags (n = 10 for each treatment) were

114

randomly interspersed on the surface in an area (10 m by 25 m) of pristine mud-flat, i.e. free

115

of observable plastic debris on the surface. Each plot was separated by at least 2 m to avoid

116

potential edge effects crossing over between treatments and was assumed to be similar at the

117

beginning of the experiment. Each bag was securely positioned flat using metal pins inserted 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 6 of 37

118

into each corner to simulate the manner in which plastic bags had been observed to become

119

trapped at the surface of the sediment elsewhere in the marsh (Personal Observation). Control

120

plots (n = 10) were also marked out with metal pegs at the corners to identify dedicated plots

121

of the same size as the bags. Prior to deployment of the bags, each plot including the controls,

122

received a custom made, in situ profiler to allow for pore water measurements (see section

123

2.2.1 for details). Compared to the typical persistence of plastic debris in the environment our

124

experiment was short term and was destructively sampled to assess impacts on infaunal

125

assemblages (section 2.2) and ecosystem functioning (section 2.3) after 9 weeks (i.e. after

126

75% of the time stated for complete disintegration of biodegradable plastic bags under

127

composting conditions). Weather conditions (daily temperature and hours of sunshine) during

128

the experimental period are displayed in Supplementary Figure S1.

129 130

2.2. Assessing infaunal diversity.

131

A 10 cm diameter corer was inserted down to 5 cm depth as much to the centre of each plot as

132

possible. The core sample (~393 cm3) was transferred to sealable bags, stored at 4°C and upon

133

arrival in the laboratory immediately sieved through a 125 µm mesh sieve pan to retain

134

macrofauna and large meiofauna. All material recovered from the sieves was preserved

135

separately for each sample in 70% methylated ethanol for enumeration and identification to

136

the lowest discernible clade possible using a dissecting microscope.

137 138

2.3. Assessing ecosystem functioning.

139

2.3.1. Redox and pore-water nutrient concentrations.

140

Prior to any other measurements being taken, five plots from each treatment were randomly

141

selected to determine the redox potential of the surface sediment (~0.5 cm) using a redox

142

electrode (Elit 31 C ORP). Next, pore-water was sampled prior to any disturbance created by 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

143

the other sampling procedures. Pore-water samples were collected using purpose-built in situ

144

profilers based on the design in Seeberg-Elverfeldt et al.2 and as described in Rocha et al.26

145

and Green et al.27 Briefly, the profilers, made of polymethylmethacrylate sheets, had grooves

146

cut at intervals to attach RhizonTM membranes (Rhizosphere Research Products B.V., The

147

Netherlands) on a vertical sequence, allowing sampling at 0 (sediment-water interface) 2 and

148

4 cm depths. The profilers were inserted vertically into the sediment, secured by metal pins,

149

and a single biodegradable or conventional bag was placed centred on top. Control plots had a

150

profiler inserted and secured with pins only. At the end of the experiment, pore-water was

151

sampled by attaching a needle to each RhizonTM membrane and water was collected directly

152

into sterile vacuum tubes (according to Ibanhez and Rocha.28 Within 24 h, ammonium (NH4+)

153

and biogenic silicate (Si(OH)4) were measured from the water samples using a Lachat

154

QuickChem 8000 flow injection autoanalyser (Lachat Instruments, USA) following Lachat

155

methods 31-107-06-1-B (NH4+) and 31-114-27-1-A (Si(OH)4). All concentrations of pore-

156

water were corrected for sediment porosity and were standardised to dry bulk density

157

following Eleftheriou and McIntyre.29 NH4+ and Si(OH)4 inventories were calculated within

158

the depth profile by integration of linear pore-water concentration gradients, corrected for

159

porosity, down to 4 cm depth.

160 161

2.3.2. Chlorophyll content and light measurements.

162

Chlorophyll measurements were done colourimetrically. The oxic surface layer of sediment

163

(approximately the top 0.5 cm) was sampled using clean spatulas, immediately wrapped in tin

164

foil to protect from light and stored at 4°C. Within 24 h of collection, 10 ml of 90% acetone

165

was added to ~1 g of field-moist, homogenised sediment, left to extract total chlorophyll for 1

166

h at room temperature under constant shaking in the dark and centrifuged at 3000 g for 5 min

167

to settle sediment.30 Chlorophyll-a, -b and -c concentrations were measured from the 7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 8 of 37

168

supernatant using a spectrophotometer (at λ = 430 & 664, 460 & 647, and 630 nm

169

respectively) and concentrations of chlorophyll were calculated according to equations by

170

Jeffrey and Humphrey31 and expressed as µg chlorophyll g-1 dry sediment.

171

The plastic bags became colonised with algae during the experiment, therefore, chlorophyll-a,

172

-b and -c were also measured from the surfaces of the bags. Bags were kept in the dark and

173

stored at 4°C for 24 hours before being processed for analysis in order to preserve chlorophyll

174

at levels similar to field conditions. Total chlorophyll contents of microalgae that had

175

colonised the surfaces of the bags were estimated by cutting 4 cm2 squares from each corner

176

(leaving 5 cm margins at all sides) and one from the centre, representing a surface area of 20

177

cm2. From each bag the five squares were placed together into 10 ml of 90% acetone, left to

178

extract for 1 h at room temperature in the dark under constant shaking with intermittent

179

vortexing to thoroughly mix the plastic fragments. After centrifuging at 3000 g for 5 min to

180

settle the plastic fragments, 1 ml of supernatant was used for measuring on a

181

spectrophotometer in a similar fashion as was done with the sediment samples.

182

In addition, the percentage of light blocked by the plastic bags (transparency) was measured

183

using a LI-COR LI-250A light meter (LI-COR Inc., USA). On average, the conventional bags

184

blocked 51.1 (± 0.6) and biodegradable bags blocked 50.3 (± 1.6) % of photosynthetically

185

active radiation.

186 187

2.3.3. Organic matter content of the sediment and grain size.

188

Surface (top ~0.5 cm) sediment samples were collected by scraping using a clean spatula

189

while the underlying sediment (approximately 4 cm depth) was sampled using a mini-corer

190

adapted from a 60 ml syringe (26.7 mm diameter). Two samples were randomly taken from

191

each plot to account for within-plot heterogeneity. Organic matter content was determined by

192

loss on ignition (LoI) following Eleftheriou and McIntyre.29 Briefly, ~2.5 g of oven-dried 8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 9 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

193

(80°C, 12 h) sediment was placed in a muffle furnace at 450°C for 24 h. The difference in

194

weight is expressed as a percentage of ash-free dry weight.

195

Grain size distribution of the sediment was estimated by laser diffraction using a Mastersizer

196

2000 (Malvern Instruments) from three plots randomly selected from each treatment. Briefly,

197

1 g of dry sediment was digested in hydrogen peroxide to remove organics prior to analysis

198

according to Gray et al.32

199 200

2.4. Statistical analyses.

201

All data were analysed using R v3.1.1.33 The data were checked for normality (normal

202

quantile plots and Shapiro-Wilk tests) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s tests) and no

203

transformations were deemed necessary. All response variables from the sediment samples

204

(total amount of individuals (N), number of species (S), Shannon-Wiener index (H’),

205

chlorophyll contents in sediments, loss-on ignition (LoI), nutrient concentrations at each depth

206

and nutrient pools and fluxes) were individually analysed using a one-way ANOVA with

207

”Treatment” as a factor having three levels (Control, Conventional and Biodegradable).

208

Redox potential was measured from only five randomly selected replicates from each

209

treatment in the field due to time restrictions posed by the tide. The redox data were analysed

210

using the same model as before. When the main test was significant, a post-hoc pair-wise

211

comparison of the means was computed (Tukey HSD test, at α = 0.05) to ascertain the a

212

priori hypotheses. Chlorophyll-a, -b and -c contents on the bags (two levels: Conventional

213

and Biodegradable) were compared using separate two-tailed Welch’s t-tests.

214

Multivariate data were analysed using the vegan package v2.2-0.34 Assemblage structures

215

were computed using species count data (4th-root transformed abundance data to account for

216

highly dominant observations), whereas assemblage compositions were computed based on

217

presence/absence of species. Bray-Curtis similarity indices were calculated between samples 9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 10 of 37

218

and differences are shown using two-dimensional non-metric multidimensional scaling

219

(nMDS) ordinations. The nMDS were calculated using 250 iterations or until the lowest 2D

220

stress was reached using the metaMDS function in vegan employing the monoMDS engine.

221

Before calculating permutational analyses of variance (PERMANOVA), multivariate

222

homogeneity of variances were checked (betadisp function in the vegan package). Differences

223

between assemblage structure and composition within the sediment were analysed with

224

“Treatment” as a single factor with three levels (Control, Conventional and Biodegradable) by

225

computing a one-way PERMANOVA using the adonis function in vegan, with probabilities

226

calculated based on 9999 permutations of the raw data. To assess which identified groups

227

contributed most to dissimilarities between treatments, similarity percentages were computed

228

using the simper routine in the vegan package.

229 230

3. Results

231

3.1. Effects of plastic bags on infaunal diversity, assemblage composition and structure.

232

All bags were still in situ when collected and no immediate signs of degradation nor

233

fragmentation were observed. A total of 14 different groups of infaunal invertebrates were

234

identified within the top 5 cm sediment layer. The total numbers of individuals (N) were

235

significantly lower beneath plastic bags compared to in control plots (One-way ANOVA, F

236

2,27

237

and conventional bags (Table 1). Sediment beneath biodegradable and conventional bags had

238

on average 6.2 and 6.4 times fewer individuals compared to that of control plots, but species

239

richness (number of species - S) and Shannon-Wiener diversity (H’) was not significantly

240

different from that found in control plots (Table 1). The most abundant taxa were Nematoda

241

(potworms), Capitella capitata (gallery worm), Hydrobia ulvae (mudsnails) and

242

Chironomidae (midge) larvae which, although numerically dominant in all treatments, were

= 48.97, P