2016 Plastic coasts: Trash “décor” in coastal areas of Cyprus
Ioannis Savva Young Cyprus Greens Athalassas Avenue 169 (Flat 301), Strovolos 2024, Nicosia, Cyprus
Abstract
Marine debris is currently a potential hazard to the biodiversity, the world’s marine ecosystems and the coastal environments. Large quantities accumulate at coastal areas in accelerating pace, with humans being the primary cause. Nowadays, large organizations and campaigns aim for the cleaning of oceans and coastal areas, but to do so, estimation of the marine debris and coastal litter must be reached for future monitoring. Information on marine and coastal litter in the Mediterranean Sea is limited and absent in its eastern limits such as in Cyprus. Through litter recording and beach cleaning surveys, this study aimed to attain a preliminary present status of plastic debris and other recyclable trash at coastal areas of Cyprus across different districts. Across the 4 investigated sites, plastic debris was the most common material ranging from 58 to 83% and on an average, fragmented litter had the highest proportion in the sample, followed by beverage packaging and smoking related items. Dasoudi area and Agioi Anargyroi exhibited the highest density in litter, whereas Meneou and Gulf of Yeronisos had the highest litter weight per unit effort. All four areas demonstrated human induced littering either by locals, beachgoers, cargo ships and boats or being transported from overseas through currents. Encouraging recycling to the community, improvement of legislations and their application as well as education, raising awareness and addressing the issue at local scales may confer effective reduction of environmental coastal littering and the consequent effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Key words: Marine/Coastal debris, plastic litter, Eastern Mediterranean Sea, Cyprus
1
Introduction The effects of anthropogenic disturbance in the natural environment are well documented in highly and rare bio-diverse regions (Bianchi and Morri 2000; Rudd 2011). Species richness is steeply declining, and unique habitats known for their ecosystem provisions to humanity, are gradually regressing (Brooks et al. 2002; Bradley J. Cardinale et al. 2012). Human destructive activities range from deforestation, wildlife hunting and bush-meat trade, pollution, anthropogenic global climate change, habitat degradation and desertification, and overexploitation (Bradley J Cardinale et al. 2012). In marine systems, most of the above are considered critical factors for the decrease of biological richness and complex biogenic substrata in world’s coastal systems (Bianchi and Morri 2000; Coll et al. 2010). Pollution is one of the top three detrimental causes regarding the loss of biological integrity, species richness and, therefore, the ecosystem services, functions and goods (Coll et al. 2010). In fact, marine related-pollution arises in several deleterious forms such as oil spills, runoff of fertilizers and toxic pollutants from coastal-adjacent areas, waste and brine discharge derived from waste treatment and desalination plants respectively, and the increasing phenomenon of trash dumping along coastlines and subsequently into the sea (Islam and Tanaka 2004). The latter is a key factor where each person contributes through a continuous cycle of purchase, storage and disposal, as well as via their daily habits e.g. littering the environment or recycling. The exponential incline of human population, the advance of technology, the prevention of microbe transmission through consumable products, the economic materialism and the subsequent people’s lifestyles were main drivers for the present deleterious effects on the environment through littering. Nowadays, human litter substantially dominates the marine settings within kilometres of coastlines at a global scale (Derraik 2002; Islam and Tanaka 2004). Major inputs of marine debris and beach litter occur mainly via merchant ships, recreational and commercial fishing and leftovers by beachgoers as well as through landbased sources i.e. trash carriage by adjacent municipality or industrial areas through drainage systems, wind, rain-wash and land-centred recreational activities. According to the literature, plastic is the most common litter material – ranging 60-80% of the total trash per survey compared to other types e.g. glass, paper, and aluminium (Derraik 2002). The plastic material is made of synthetic organic polymers, and its invention dates back to 1869 by John Wesley Hyatt (Brydson 1999). Plastic industry expanded in a rapid pace during the World War II in the United States and further increased its production since then. 2
Indeed, plastic was considered a great innovative step as it substituted many animal-derived materials (Brydson 1999). Plastic is a light-weighted, cheap, robust material with a great lifespan that could take any shape based on the manufacturer’s design (Laist 1985). For the past few decades, the usage of plastic material was incorporated and became more frequent in each person’s everyday life and consequently increased in the environment correspondingly (Derraik 2002). The input of plastic litter into world’s oceans was largely ignored for decades along with its potential hazard into the environment (Derraik 2002). After years of littering the oceans, the hazardous effects of plastics have been gradually revealed and recently recognized. The deleterious impacts of plastics range from introduction of alien species through rafting, entanglement of megafauna, ingestion of plastic by marine biota, inhibition of physicochemical processes of sediment, bioaccumulation in the food webs and fouling of bio-accumulative and toxic substances (Laist 1987; Derraik 2002; Wright et al. 2013) . Large plastic debris (e.g. plastic loops & collars, packaging bands, fishing nets, ropes etc.), were responsible for high mortalities in seals, cetaceans, seabirds and sea turtles due to entanglement, resulting to drowning, movement impairment and successively to predator exposure or starvation (Laist 1985; Derraik 2002; Gregory 2009). In addition, floating plastics that disperse through currents serve as rafts where organisms attach on them and get transported from their regional range to another (Derraik 2002), and thus become invasive to the native marine biota. Native biota could be susceptible against non-indigenous species and most of the times get outcompeted, resulting to homogenization and shifts in interspecific interactions, hence ecosystem functioning (McKinney and Lockwood 1999). Although plastics cannot decompose, they eventually break down into small fragments by wave action and UV light, known as microplastics (Wright et al. 2013). These float on surface waters until they get heavy due to bio-fouling (Wright et al. 2013). Once reach the bottom, they get mixed with sediment. A seabed rich in plastic debris becomes limited in processes such as gas exchange from water into the sediment and vice versa (Goldberg 1994). Should physicochemical processes are inhibited the sea-floor becomes hypoxic or anoxic, therefore altering the ecosystem functioning of the benthos (Goldberg 1994). Plastic litter including both macro- and micro-plastics could become less conspicuous to marine fauna. Some animals confuse them for their prey according to the shape, colour (e.g. sea turtles with white plastic bags) and size of the plastic debris or passively go through the intestinal tract of the animal while is foraging (Derraik 2002). Death is brought upon the animal post accumulation of large quantities of plastic material and successively by blockage of the 3
intestinal tract, internal injuries and haemorrhage or starvation (Zitko and Hanlon 1991; Derraik 2002; Wright et al. 2013). Although not much evidence exists yet regarding the transfer of microplastics to the food chain (Wright et al. 2013), there is an increasing concern that microplastics could potentially bio-accumulate and bio-magnify through the food web (Eriksson and Burton 2003; Boerger et al. 2010; Wright et al. 2013), and eventually enter in humans’ diet. Trophic transfer of the associated persistent organic pollutants (POPs; (e.g. Polychlorinated biphenyls) also generates concern. These toxicants concentrate on the pre-ingested microplastics up to six orders of magnitude greater than the ambient seawater (Hirai et al. 2011; Gouin et al. 2011). Their impacts on marine fauna have been proven detrimental as they decrease their fitness; increase the risk of disease outbreaks and mortality rates (Derraik 2002). Undoubtedly plastic is a tremendous hazard to marine systems, and there is an increasing awareness to that, although is considered inadequate. Currently, organized campaigns aim to clean the world’s oceans to a plastic-free state, raising awareness concerning the deleterious effects of marine debris, while large organizations aim for data collection concerning beach rubbish, sea surface plastic debris and seafloor litter across the globe. Actions such as these would allow the estimation of their abundance, and monitor/minimize their levels in time and space. Data collection on marine debris and beach litter is limited in the Mediterranean Sea and absent in its eastern limits such as in Cyprus. Even though beach cleans in Cyprus are organized at yearly basis through different campaigns, organizations and Municipalities, non-of those initiated a detailed recording of the collected litter. Consequently, people’s perception ignores the true quantity of trash found along the coastline and the authorities are not fully convinced or do not respond accordingly to this issue when information is absent. This then leads to an endless ineffective cyclic pattern composed by two stages: rubbish accumulation followed by clean ups. Therefore the aim of this study is to demonstrate preliminary information on beach litter collected from four different bays in 2014 and 2015 (of which the two were the same for both years) and propose a list of suggestions concerning the findings. Finally, it aims to identify similarities between the sites regarding the litter-material, litter-species and abundance.
4
Materials and Methods Surveyed areas The areas of the study occurred in four different districts of Cyprus: Famagusta, Larnaka, Limassol and Paphos during 2014-1015. Three out of the four bays (Agioi Anargyroi, Meneou, and Gulf of Yeronisos) are considered areas of habitat, flora, and bird protection under the European coordinated network Natura 2000 (Figure 1). The Agioi Anargyroi coast, located in the Cavo Grego region (34°58'32.4" N, 34°04'34.7" E; Figure 1), has cliffy characteristics and rocky substratum and hosts a local chapel. The Meneou bay, borders with the national airport of Cyprus in Larnaka and a salt lake (34°52'08.5"N, 33°38'16.4"E; Figure 1). The site features xerophytic flora, dark fine sand characteristics and accommodates a desalination plant. The gulf of Yeronisos bay in Paphos district is adjacent to the Lara bay (34°57'46.4"N, 32°18'49.8"E; Figure 1), where both bays are strictly protected as they are utilized by sea turtles (Chelonia mydas and Carreta carreta) for egg lay at yearly basis. Both areas are part of a marine protected area and the Akamas peninsula, a region that is fully protected under the EU’s coordinated network Natura 2000. Lastly, Dasoudi area in Limassol (34°41'34.5"N, 33°05'08.5"E; Figure 1) is a touristic area with available services in close proximity to the sea, and brings dark fine sand characteristics. Survey Before initiating a beach clean, all volunteers were fully informed on how to fill up the form, which was acquired from the Ocean Conservancy. Volunteers were then divided into groups and randomly dispersed within the area and each group kept a distance from one another. All the garbage that was visually available were collected, counted and recorded to the closest detail, a sampling method known as individual-based approach. During the collection process, plastic items were separated from non-plastic ones. At the end of the survey, items within the plastic bags were weighted. Data sorting and statistical analysis The acquired data were separated into three categories (Table 1): species-litter, material (compound composition), usage (items classified according to their use). These categories were then used for further statistical analysis. For comparative purposes, the litter density for each site were standardised to a common unit: a unit of effort (litter or kg per volunteer per hour per Km2). 5
Non-parametric pairwise test (Kruskal-Wallis), 1- and 2-proportion tests and 1-way ANOVA were carried out via R-studio (tests referenced in the text). Data were normalized when needed via Log transformations and tested for equal variances. Multivariate analysis (e.g. Bray-Curtis Similarity, Cluster Analysis, SIMPROF test, SIMPER dissimilarity and Simple Correspondence Analysis) was conducted by applying standardised data in Primer 6 and Rstudio.
A
C D B
A
C
B
D
Figure 1. The clean-up sites located in three different districts of Cyprus, Famagusta district (A – Agioi Anargyroi), Limassol district (B – Dasoudi beach), Paphos district (C – Gulf of Yeronisos) and Larnaka district (D – Meneou beach). Note: Top map colorations specify zonation of specific declaration. Green colorations indicate sites of biotic community importance (SCI), fauna and flora excluding birds; yellow coloration indicates special protection areas (SPA) for avian fauna; red coloration indicates both types (SCI & SPA). The map was adapted by: http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/environment/environment.nsf/CB3E054EF7EB8804C22579F3001EDE27/$file/Natura2000_Hell.pdf . The maps on panels A-D were generated in QGIS via Google map satellite layer. Red colorations designate the clean-up coverage area.
6
Table 1. The litter grouping into two distinct categories: Material and based on their use from humans.
Results Litter typology Each site varied in litter quantity and weight primarily due to the different number of volunteers, area covered and effort (Table 2). The plastic proportion in relation to the rest of the litter material was similar to the proportion described in the literature (60-80%; Derraik 2002) for all sites (Figure 2; 1-Proportion test, p > 0.05). In addition, as expected the plastic proportion for each site was much higher than any other type of material (Figure 2; 2Proportion test, p < 0.05), whilst the quantity between the materials excluding plastic was variable within each site (Figure 2).
Table 2. The sites of the study including the area covered, the number of volunteers, quantity of litter collected and the total weight of plastic and non-plastic trash. Note: The Num. of volunteers in parenthesis indicates the total number of volunteers while the outer number indicates the number of volunteers that recorded the litter.
7
*
*
*
a
a
a
b c d d,e e
f
f
b c d e
f
*
e d f
c b d e
b b b
f
g h
a
a f
c c d e
*
*
a
b
e
b c
d
e e,d f
f
f
b c d e
f
g h g
Figure 2. The quantity of litter expressed as percentage based on their material for each site. Note: Red lines indicate the range percentage of plastic found in other studies in relation to other materials. Asterisk indicates not significant differences of the plastic proportion found in each site at p > 0.05 (1-Proportion Test) to the red reference points. Additionally, letters that are not shared within each panel designates significant differences in proportion between the materials (2-Proportions Test) at p < 0.05.
Several groups of litter based on their usage showed to be present in higher proportions than other types for each of the sites. For instance, fragmented items, beverage litter, smoking-related objects and food packaging trash exhibited the highest proportions on an average from the remaining types of litter (Figure 3) with fragmented items being the highest of all (2-Proportions test, p < 0.05). This was followed by beverage packaging items (2-Proportions test, p < 0.05), smoking related items (2-Proportions test, p < 0.05) and food packaging litter (2-Proportions test, p < 0.05) (Figure 3). Construction items, parts and appliances were found in a quite unexpected proportion (2.3%) in relation to other most likely to find litter (2-Proportions test, p < 0.05) such as clothing (1%), general packaging (1.5%) and fishing equipment (1.6%), considering that construction items and appliances are large and heavy objects.
8
a b c
e d d h i g g f f,e
Figure 3. The litter (%) based on the usage by humans across all sites. Note: Average total specifies the total average of litter (%) from all sites for each litter category. Groups that do not share the same letter are significant different at p < 0.05, 2-Proportions test.
Site characteristics As also shown above the plastic litter density was found in much higher quantities than nonplastic, but the weight was much less (Figure 4). The total density of litter per unit effort (per volunteer per hour per Km2) was found the highest at Dasoudi beach and being different than Gulf of Yeronisos 2014/15 and Meneou 2014 (1-way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test, p < 0.05) (Figure 4) but similar to Meneou’s 2015 and Agioi Anargyroi (1-way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test, p > 0.05). A similar pattern was followed by the plastic litter density amongst the sites, but this time Dasoudi being only similar to Agioi Anargyroi (1-way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test, p > 0.05). On the other hand, the density of non-plastic litter was at its lowest at Gulf of Yeronisos 2014/15 and was statistically lower than Agioi Anargyroi and Meneou 2015 (1-way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test, p < 0.05). Noteworthy is the increase of litter in Meneou from 2014 to 2015 and the decrease of litter density in Gulf of Yeronisos 2014 to 2015, although in both cases the trend was not significant (1-way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test, p > 0.05) (Figure 4). Based on weight, Meneou 2014/15 exhibited the highest weight density from the rest of the sites (1-way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test, p < 0.05), followed
9
by Agioi Anargyroi. In this case, non-plastic trash contributed the most to the total weight per unit effort compared to the litter density (Figure 4).
a
a a a,b b
a,b a
a
b
b
b,c
b,c
b
b
c a,b
b,c a
c d
a,c
a a,b
b,d
b
b
a,c
a,b
c b
b
b
c b
a
a
2
Figure 4. The density of litter per unit effort (volunteer per hour per Km ) and 2 the Kg per unit effort (volunteer per hour per Km ) for plastic, non-plastic and the total throughout the sites. Note: Sites with unshared letters (for each category) are significant different at p < 0.05 (1-Way ANOVA, Fisherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grouping test).
Several sites reflected areas of few dominant species-litter (Figure 5). This was more pronounced in Dasoudi bay, where one species-litter was found in greater abundance than other species-litter (Figure 5). This was less evident in Agioi Anargyroi and Gulf of Yeronisos 2014. The Gulf of Yeronisos at 2015 and Meneou beach for both years reflected areas of the absence of exceptional dominant abundant trash. This was also confirmed with the biodiversity adapted index (Shannon index), where Dasoudi had the lowest value and being different from Gulf of Yeronisos 2015 and Meneou 2014/15 (1-Way ANOVA, Fisherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grouping test, p < 0.05) (Figure 5).
10
b,c c
a,b,c
a,b
a,b
a
Figure 5. The dominance % of litter for each site specifying the abundance of each species-litter in relation to the others. The internal plot demonstrates the biodiversity Shannon Index (H’) (Loge) adapted for species-litter for each site. Note: Letters that are not shared among sites designate significant different at p < 0.05, 1-Way ANOVA, Fisher’s grouping test.
According to the litter usage, Dasoudi and Agioi Anargyroi were more clustered together and closely associated with smoking-related items (Figure 6). Agioi Anargyroi also showed a relationship with Party items -To drink/eat items (plastic and non-plastic), fragmented items (non-plastic), food packaging (plastic and non-plastic) (Figure 6). Gulf of Yeronisos (2014 & 2015) showed close distance with plastic fragmented items, plastic beverage packaging, fishing equipment, general packaging litter, dead animals/bones, clothe objects, and miscellaneous items (Figure 6). On the other hand, Meneou – both years – reflected a strong association with personal hygiene items. Litter such as non-plastic beverage packaging, was closely related with Gulf of Yeronisos 2014 and Agioi Anargyroi (Figure 6), while construction items, parts and appliances category was equally associated with Gulf of Yeronisos and Meneou (Figure 6).
11
Figure 6. Simple correspondence analysis demonstrating the relationship of litter based on their usage by humans to the sites. Note: Component 1 contrasts the litter categories and component 2 contrasts the sites based on the quantity of litter category. Litter category codes are explained as follow: PH = Personal Hygiene, C/P/A = Construction items/Parts/Appliances, SMOKE= Smoking related items, PARTY = Party items/To Drink/eat items, DA/B = Dead animals/bones, BEV (P/NP) = Beverage Package (Plastic or Non-Plastic), GP(P) = General Packaging (Plastic), FP (P/NP) = Food Packaging (Plastic or Non-Plastic), FR (P/NP) = Fragmented Items (Plastic or Non-Plastic), FE = Fishing equipment, MISC = Miscellaneous.
Correspondingly, according to the cluster analysis of similarity, Dasoudi and Agioi Anargyroi clustered together with a 64% similarity, whereas Meneou and Gulf of Yeronisos showed a temporal clustering with themselves at 70.44% and 66.6% similarity respectively (Figure 7). These were also tested statistically, where Agioi Anargyroi were not so different from Dasoudi and Meneou for both years (SIMPROF test, p > 0.05) (Figure 7). Gulf of Yeronisos was not significantly different from one year to the other (SIMPROF test, p > 0.05), but their dissimilarity to the rest of the sites was strong (SIMPROF test, p < 0.05).
12
Figure 7. The dendrogram visualizes the cluster analysis of similarity between the sites based on the species-litter and their abundance. The cluster analysis divided the dendrogram into three sub-clusters at 60% of similarity. Note: The clusters were also tested for significant differences, where red clusters with no black line separating them indicate not significant different at p > 0.05, SIMPROF test.
The average dissimilarity between the sites was estimated via SIMPER analysis of dissimilarity (Table 3). This indicates which species-litter contributed the most to the dissimilarity. For instance, cigarette butts were a considerable contributor to the dissimilarity between the site pairs, whereas some other litter such as plastic pieces were highly contributing to the dissimilarity of sites that are paired with Gulf of Yeronisos 2014/15 (Table 3). Each of these litter types showed to be variable among sites.
Table 3. The SIMPER analysis of dissimilarity between sites demonstrating the average dissimilarity % between the pairwise sites according to the species-litter as well as the species-litter dissimilarity contribution above 5% for each site pair. Note: AA = Agioi Anargyroi, D = Dasoudi, GY = Gulf of Yeronisos, M = Meneou.
13
For example, baby wipes were found in similar quantities in Meneou for both years but much higher than Dasoudi beach (Figure 8). Cigarette butts density was greater in Dasoudi, and Agioi Anargyroi compared to the rest, whilst foam pieces density was more abundant in Gulf of Yeronisos 2014/15 followed by Dasoudi and Meneou 2014 (Figure 8). The density of paper pieces was higher in Dasoudi, whereas, plastic bottle caps were very abundant in Gulf of Yeronisos 2014 (Figure 8). Plastic bottles and plastic were found in great quantities in Gulf of Yeronisos 2014/15 (Figure 8).
Cigarette butts
30
Foam pieces 3.0
2 15
1.5
1 0
Plastic bottle caps
10
0
Plastic pieces
20
AA
0
D M1 4 M 15 GY 14 GY 15
10
Plastic bottles
5.0
5
2.5
0
0.0 D M1 4 M 15 GY 14 GY 15
1
0.0
D M1 4 M 15 GY 14 GY 15
Paper pieces
AA
0 2
AA
Litter per unit effort
Baby Wipes
AA - Ag. Anargyroi D - Dasoudi M14 - Meneou 2014 M15 - Menou 2015 GY14 - Yeronisos 2014 GY15 - Yeronisos 2015
Figure 8. The density of species-litter referenced in SIMPER analysis across the sites.
14
Discussion This study attempted to demonstrate the litter pollution status of four different coastal areas of Cyprus from four different districts of which, two of these are on temporal scale from 2014 to 2015 and three of them are under the EU’s coordinated network Natura 2000 for the protection of threatened habitats and species; to identify the main causes of the documented condition, as well as provide reasonable propositions and effective strategic plan for the improvement and consequently elimination of the current on-going litter issue. As expected, plastic litter was the most abundant type of material across all four sites for both years, ranging from 59% to 82% while other types of material were always found in low proportions. Such ranges are consistent in the literature (Derraik 2002) and are not surprising since plastic is being incorporated in human’s everyday life for almost any available product. On an average, fragmented items were the most dominant litter which agrees with the data derived from Marine Conservation Society (2015) concerning British coasts. The presence of fragmented unidentified items indicates long-term exposure of the pre-decomposed litter to the different physical pressures of the environment, such as UVlight, wind, rain, wave action and collision with other items (Wright et al. 2013). Sometimes, fragmented plastic or microplastics, as well as other plastic trash, can be brought from adjacent areas through currents and wind and being accumulated on the coast in enormous proportions (Wright et al. 2013). The occurrence of beverage packaging could be linked to the currents –transportation from adjacent areas – but also from beach visitors, transient cargo ships and boats. Food packaging items, smoking related litter and party/to eat and drink objects are commonly left behind by beachgoers including tourists, campers but also comprise leftovers after beach parties. The personal hygiene litter is also speculated to be derived by campers and visitors. The fishing equipment might have been washed out from the sea, which was initially lost or thrown from commercial or recreational fishing vessels. Other items such as miscellaneous, construction parts and clothes are believed to be dumped directly by the users to the area, especially appliances that are heavy to be carried out by natural means. Each site expressed some unique characteristics based on the type of litter and species litter composition. For instance, Meneou in 2014 was very similar to the following year (2015), reflecting high proportions of personal hygiene litter, primarily baby wipes. According to local information, this beach is commonly used for camping and beach parties, hence the presence of barbecues, personal hygiene items and the diversity in litter types. Based on 15
Marine Conservation Society (2015) sea turtles often mistaken plastic bags for their natural jellyfish prey and similarly wet/baby wipes washed at British coasts from sewage also pose the same danger. Additionally, the presence of other heavy objects e.g. toilet seat etc., explains the high weight litter density and highlights a possible direct transportation of these to the site by locals. Therefore, Meneou area may be treated as a dumbing site with a gradual accumulation of litter, implying that no other beach cleaning has occurred between the study’s survey events. Smoking items and specifically cigarette butts were the dominating litter type in Dasoudi and Agioi Anargyroi. Dasoudi beach represents an exceptional model area where most beach moderately/big-sized-litter is removed by the municipality at daily basis, especially in the summer. However, small litter such as cigarette butts are largely ignored by the beach cleaning services or due to the lack of cleaning facilities with the ability of filtering in the small litter. Dasoudi beach hosts hundreds of tourists and visitors at daily basis throughout the summer season and consequently, cigarette butts accumulate over time. According to the literature, cigarette butts are the most common litter worldwide, and are found in enormous quantities along shorelines – 30% of the total litter in US shorelines – where 2,189,252 cigarette butts were collected during the 2009 Ocean Conservancy’s yearly International Coastal clean-up (Slaughter et al. 2011). Although cigarette butt is considered small litter, it is highly toxic since chemical pollutants leachate into the environment. According to Slaughter et al. (2011), toxic leachate from unsmoked cigarette butt increases to smoked cigarette butt without tobacco to the smoked cigarette with tobacco leftovers. Experiments on Atherinops affinis (marine water species) and Pimephales promelas (freshwater species) showed that 1 cigarette butt with tobacco/L is enough to kill half of the fish (Slaughter et al. 2011). Smoked cigarette butts with no tobacco were less toxic with LC50 (lethal concentration at 50 % of population) reaching at 1.8 cigarette butts/L for A. affinis and 4.3 for P. promelas (Slaughter et al. 2011). Unsmoked cigarette butts had LC50 values of 5.1 and 13.5 cigarette butts L-1 respectively (Slaughter et al. 2011). The litter composition characteristics in Agioi Anargyroi are mostly explained by the geological characteristics of the site and the presence of the chapel in the area. Many tourists may visit the area for the view, cliff jumping and swimming, while other people are simply attendees in wedding and baptise ceremonies. Trash such as beverage and food packaging were common in almost inaccessible areas such as the edge of the cliffs,
16
suspecting group gatherings during the sunset and onwards, hence upon departure the trash are left behind. Finally, Gulf of Yeronisos exhibited numerous plastic pieces, decomposing beverage packaging items, animal carcasses and lost fishing nets. Based on local authorities and personal observations, most of the plastic litter is being transported via currents from other countries such as Turkey and Lebanon and washed ashore on the surrounding region. Due to the long-term exposure to wave action, UV light and microbial processes, litter undergo a slow decomposing process and become fragmented unidentified items. Consequently, these become potential objects for ingestion by macro and mega fauna (Wright et al. 2013). The occurrence of fishing equipment also becomes an alarming issue due to the presence of the Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) and sea turtles (C. carreta and C. mydas) around the region. Furthermore, sea turtles utilize that area for nesting, where younglings eventually hatch during the August. As also mentioned above, drifting plastic and fishing equipment are hazardous to marine fauna. Lost fishing gear is capable of entanglement or continuous capture of animals while drifting through currents, a phenomenon called ghost fishing. For instance, off the coast of Japan about 533 fur seals were entangled in ghost nets and drowned (Laist 1987). Entanglement also affects the survival of the sea turtles (Carr 1987) and about 13-29% of the mortality observed in Gannets (Sula bassana) at Helgoland is due to entanglement (Schrey and Vauk 1987). The continuous occurrence of animal carcasses was explained by the local authorities as a stranding phenomenon. These animals are transported by cargo ships from one place to another and when there is a disease outbreak, the ill animals are burnt and thrown into the sea. Despite the attempts at national level to reduce and control the environmental littering and plastic debris either because of peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s habits, the lack of recycling and/or the lack of an efficient garbage management system; coastal areas are heavily polluted with plastic debris and many other hazardous materials at yearly basis. National legislations could be one measure of effectiveness, where it could encourage further recycling. This may include the deposit of plastic litter into recycling banks or companies and as a return a small financial provision. The addition of more and bigger rubbish bins (especially for plastic trash) across the beaches and remote areas could provide a further step to the reduction of plastic littering. Installation of information kiosks with signs regarding the detrimental effects of plastic pollution may also address the importance and the scale of this issue as well as raise awareness to both local communities and tourists. In addition, existing legislations also seem
17
to be ineffective. For instance the legislation “Ε.Ε. Παρ.Ι(I), Αρ. 4214, 24/7/2009, 94(I)/2009”, indicates the penalization of anyone who litters public areas and streets with a fine of 1,8003,000 euros, and 1-year imprisonment. Such legislations however are largely ignored and people usually are left unpunished. Education also plays a major role to such issue. Rising awareness to children can occur with ease and may benefit the environment in the long term in the future. Young people could become more sensitive to this matter and could also transmit their knowledge to their families, friends and the rest of the community. Sometimes, education is even considered a more powerful tool than strict legislations that involve penalties and fines (Derraik 2002). It is of our knowledge however, that this study confronted several sampling issues. For instance, volunteers varied each survey including the age composition. This might have affected slightly the results since older people may pick up only obvious big litter and filter out small ones such as plastic pieces and cigarette butts. This may have occurred mostly in Gulf of Yeronisos since the site was not cleared thoroughly due to the enormous quantities of plastic pieces. Moreover, in areas with a lot of litter, volunteers may have not counted accurately or recorded a litter especially when working under increasing temperatures. In conclusion, the study shows that across 4 sites plastic debris was the most common material ranging from 58 to 83%. On an average, fragmented litter had the highest proportion in the sample, followed by beverage packaging and smoking related items. Dasoudi beach and Agioi Anargyroi exhibited higher litter density per unit effort than Meneou and Gulf of Yeronisos, but they comprised only a few dominant litter-species with light and small in size characteristics such as cigarette butts, non-plastic fragmented unidentified litter and party items (e.g. confetti). Dasoudi could become a future model of a frequently cleaned beach and reveal which type of litter are filtered out from the cleaning services and being used as reference point to be compared with remote areas. On the other hand, Meneou exhibited heavier litter such as home appliances, as well as litter related to personal hygiene usage (e.g. baby wipes). Finally, Gulf of Yeronisos was mostly characterized by fragmented unidentified plastics, lost fishing equipment, plastic beverage packaging and animal corpses of which are possibly derived from the sea either from transposing cargo ships or via other countries through currents. The site specific litter typology observed in this study poses different hazards to the surrounding environment especially to regions that are under a coordinated network for the protection of Europe’s most valuable and threatened habitats and species. Nonetheless, all litter are potential biodiversity loss agents at coastal
18
areas. Encouraging recycling to the community, improvement of legislations and their application as well as education, raising awareness and addressing the issue at local scales may confer effective reduction of environmental coastal littering and the consequent effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank Cyprus Tourism Organisation, Youth Board of Cyprus, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, and CYTA for their great contribution in financial support for both year surveys 2014 and 2015, as well as Pokka Coffee and Photos Photiades Foundation in regards to the coffee and water donation. I would also like to thank the former office administrator of Young Cyprus Greens Nikoletta Kyprianou for the organization of these surveys, the Emergency Rescue Unit of Cyprus (ETEA), the Cyprus Youth Council, the office administrator of Cyprus Greens Party Alexia Sakadaki, and the Young Cyprus Greens council: Maria Kola, Natasa Ioannou, Stavriana Ioannou and all the volunteers for their contribution to this project.
19
References Bianchi, N. and Morri, C. (2000). Marine biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: situation, problems and prospects for future research. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:367–376. Boerger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L. and Moore, C.J. (2010). Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Online] 60:2275–2278. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.007. Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R. a, Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G. a B., Rylands, A.B., Konstant, W.R., Flick, P., et al. (2002). Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity\rPérdida de Hábitat y Extinciones en Áreas Críticas para la Biodiversidad. Conservation Biology [Online] 16:909–923. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x. Brydson, J.A. (1999). Plastics Materials. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=el&lr=&id=OlgSAEZYmmoC&pgis=1 [Accessed: 8 August 2015]. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature [Online] 486:59–67. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., et al. (2012). Corrigendum: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature [Online] 489:326–326. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148. Carr, A. (1987). Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:352–356. Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Lasram, F.B.R., Aguzzi, J., Ballesteros, E., et al. (2010). The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 5. Derraik, J.G.B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842–852. Eriksson, C. and Burton, H. (2003). Origins and Biological Accumulation of Small Plastic Particles in Fur Seals from Macquarie Island. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment [Online] 32:380–384. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.380 [Accessed: 8 August 2015]. Goldberg, E.D. (1994). Diamonds and plastics are forever? Marine Pollution Bulletin [Online] 28:466. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248462356_Diamonds_and_plastics_are_forever [Accessed: 8 August 2015]. Gouin, T., Roche, N., Lohmann, R. and Hodges, G. (2011). A thermodynamic approach for assessing the environmental exposure of chemicals absorbed to microplastic. Environmental science & technology [Online] 45:1466–72. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268630. Gregory, M.R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings--entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 364:2013–2025. Hirai, H., Takada, H., Ogata, Y., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Saha, M., Kwan, C., et al. (2011). Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1683–1692. Islam, M.S. and Tanaka, M. (2004). Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems including coastal and marine fisheries and approach for management: A review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48:624–649.
20
Laist, D.W. (1985). Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris Including a Comprehensive List of Species with Entanglement and Ingestion Records. pp. 99-413 Available Online: http://mmc.gov/reports/publications/pdf/Laist_impact_marinedebris_1997.pdf. Laist, D.W. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:319–326. McKinney, M.L. and Lockwood, J.L. (1999). Biotic homogenization: A few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:450–453. Rudd, M. a. (2011). Scientists’ Opinions on the Global Status and Management of Biological Diversity. Conservation Biology 25:1165–1175. Schrey, E. and Vauk, G.J.M. (1987). Records of entangled gannets (Sula bassana) at Helgoland, German Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:350–352. Slaughter, E., Gersberg, R.M., Watanabe, K., Rudolph, J., Stransky, C. and Novotny, T.E. (2011). Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and freshwater fish. Tobacco control 20 Suppl 1:i25– i29. Society, M.C. (2015). 2014 Report [Online]. Available at: http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/pollution/beachwatch/latest2015/MCS_GBBC_2014_Report.pdf. Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C. and Galloway, T.S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution:1–10. Zitko, V. and Hanlon, M. (1991). Another source of pollution by plastics: Skin cleaners with plastic scrubbers. Marine Pollution Bulletin [Online] 22:41–42. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248462747_Another_source_of_pollution_by_plastics_Skin_cleaners_ with_plastic_scrubbers [Accessed: 23 March 2015].
21