Cited by 614Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyTurtle Biology and Conservation

The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived

Open access
Rochman, Chelsea M., Browne, Mark Anthony, Underwood, A. J., van Franeker, Jan A., Thompson, Richard C., Amaral‐Zettler, Linda A.·2016·Ecology

Abstract

Anthropogenic debris contaminates marine habitats globally, leading to several perceived ecological impacts. Here, we critically and systematically review the literature regarding impacts of debris from several scientific fields to understand the weight of evidence regarding the ecological impacts of marine debris. We quantified perceived and demonstrated impacts across several levels of biological organization that make up the ecosystem and found 366 perceived threats of debris across all levels. Two hundred and ninety‐six of these perceived threats were tested, 83% of which were demonstrated. The majority (82%) of demonstrated impacts were due to plastic, relative to other materials (e.g., metals, glass) and largely (89%) at suborganismal levels (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue). The remaining impacts, demonstrated at higher levels of organization (i.e., death to individual organisms, changes in assemblages), were largely due to plastic marine debris (>1 mm; e.g., rope, straws, and fragments). Thus, we show evidence of ecological impacts from marine debris, but conclude that the quantity and quality of research requires improvement to allow the risk of ecological impacts of marine debris to be determined with precision. Still, our systematic review suggests that sufficient evidence exists for decision makers to begin to mitigate problematic plastic debris now, to avoid risk of irreversible harm.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/14-2070.1

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PMD is ingested by several marine organisms, including commercially important species.

    “PMD is also ingested by several marine organisms, including commercially important species.18,19,[87][88][89][90]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M. Klages, editors. Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer, Berlin.
  2. Özdilek, H. G., S. Yalçin-Özdilek, F. S. Ozaner, and B. Soenmez. 2006. Impact of accumulated beach litter on Chelonia mydas L. 1758 (Green turtle) hatchlings of the Samandag Coast, Hatay, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 15:95-103.
  3. Sunstein, C. R. 2005. Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  4. sUppoRting inFoRMation Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1890/14-2070.1/suppinfo · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Underwood, A. J., van Franeker, J. A., Thompson, R. C., & Amaral‐Zettler, L. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Institute for Marine Research and Ecosystem Studies IMARES 1797SH Texel, 1780 AB Den Helder The Netherlands
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Rochman, Chelsea M.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02
Volume
97
Issue
2
Pages
302-312
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2293139927
Cited by
614
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Access Server of the Woods Hole Scientific Community (Woods Hole Scientific Community) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Turtle Biology and Conservation
Keywords
marine litter, plastic pollution, ecological impacts, threat perception, evidence base, levels of biological organization, marine plastic debris, debris mitigation, anthropogenic debris
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Environment, Environmental Monitoring, Oceans and Seas, Plastics, Water Pollutants

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review