Next Article in Journal
International Tourists’ Loyalty to Ho Chi Minh City Destination—A Mediation Analysis of Perceived Service Quality and Perceived Value
Previous Article in Journal
Farmers’ Perception and Drivers of Membership in Rice Production Community Enterprises: Evidence from the Central Region, Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 19
10.3390/su11195446
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Natural Protected Areas as Special Sentinels of Littering on Coastal Dune Vegetation

by
Maria Carla de Francesco
,
Maria Laura Carranza
*,
Marco Varricchione
,
Francesco Pio Tozzi
and
Angela Stanisci
EnvixLab, Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, C. da Fonte Lappone, 86090 Pesche, and Via Duca degli Abruzzi, 86039 Termoli, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(19), 5446; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195446
Submission received: 1 August 2019 / Revised: 8 September 2019 / Accepted: 27 September 2019 / Published: 1 October 2019
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Beach litter threatens coastal dunes integrity across the world. European countries are committed to improving the environmental status of the marine and coastal environment by 2020, and to do this, they need to reduce the gap of knowledge about litter accumulation patterns in coastal environments. We analyzed the distribution pattern of waste, differentiated by material and origin, in the coastal dune vegetation mosaic along protected natural areas in the Adriatic seashore (central Italy). Litter data were collected following a random stratified procedure. We registered litter occurrence on 180 (2 × 2 m) sampling plots randomly distributed in the different habitats of European conservation concern mapped for the analyzed protected areas. Litter was classified by origin and material, and their abundance on different habitats was explored by multivariate ordination techniques and tested by nonparametric ANOVA followed by Mann-Whitney pairwise post-hoc tests. Most of the plots included at least one waste element being plastic. Plastic was the most abundant material, and fishing and touristic the most polluting activities. Waste distribution varies across coastal dune vegetation types and involves the back dune zone too. Our results stress the need for (a) specific cleaning tasks able to preserve the ecological value of coastal dune habitats and (b) actions aimed at preventing litter production and accumulation.

1. Introduction

The presence of macro litter on sandy beaches and dunes represents a widespread and very serious environmental stress impinging coastal areas of the world [1,2]. Macro beach litter is made up of accumulated debris between 2.5 cm and 100 cm long [3], is non-biodegradable and highly fragmentable waste, accidentally or intentionally abandoned in coastal dunes. The origin of marine and beach litter is heterogeneous as it comes from several sources [4,5] involving both the emerged land and marine realms [6]. Land wastes on coastal areas may derive from recreational activities (e.g., bathing, sunbathing, picnics) [7], as well as from polluted rivers, municipal drainage systems, ephemeral streams and sewage [8], from domestic, agricultural or industrial activities, and from refuse dumps located near beaches [9]. On the other hand, marine sources of debris include commercial and recreational fisheries [10], as well as navigation activities (merchant ships, passenger ferries, and recreational boats) [11]. Concerning the material that constitutes coastal accumulated waste, plastic is the most abundant [12,13,14]. A recent review based on litter data extracted existing reports (Regional Sea Conventions) and an ad hoc analysis of a beach litter data set from the year 2016 underline that plastic waste represents over 80% of marine litter items accumulated on European beaches [15]. Specifically, single-use plastic waste represents a large part of marine beach litter, and for this reason, they have been recently targeted in the EU Strategy for Plastics in the Circular Economy promulgated in the year 2018 [15].
The global trend of sandy beach pollution due to litter accumulation has detrimental effects on the coastal blue economy [8]. Besides reducing the aesthetic value of coastal dunes with the consequent failure of touristic activities [16,17], litter adds economic cost for waste removal that must be carried out by specialized personnel and machinery [1,13]. Besides, macro litter can put public safety at risk, as sharp objects, such as broken glass and rusted metals, can cause injuries to beach users, and the fishing nets and abandoned peaks can trap divers. Finally, contaminating litter, such as sanitary waste, can compromise public health through the transmission and spread of diseases [18].
Beach litter has also negative consequences on coastal biodiversity and ecosystem functioning [19,20,21]. Macro litter can injure the fauna by trapping terrestrial Gastropods and non-flying Coleoptera [22] or can alter the diet of several coastal species such as turtles, sea mammals, sea birds [20,23], filter feeders, invertebrates, and fishes [24,25]. The ingestion of plastic waste may kill individuals by suffocation [26,27,28], expose them to toxic substances contained or absorbed by the plastic [29,30], and promote malnutrition and/or starvation [31], since a stomach full of litter gives an animal a sense of satiety.
Despite the number of studies analyzing the impact of litter on animal species, there are still few studies dealing with the incidence and consequences of beach litter on plant communities and species [21,32]. A seminal work evidenced the detrimental effects of litter on germination rates and seedlings growth of some coastal dune vascular plants [32] and how the accumulation of chemical substances in the soil could create favorable conditions for the settlement and spread of alien plant species [33]. The incidence of beach litter accumulation on the Caribbean [34] and Antarctic [35] coasts have been recently addressed. Recent local studies also depicted a variety of trends of litter accumulation in the coastal dunes [32,36], but new research efforts are still necessary to better understand this phenomenon in wider sectors and geographic areas. As far as we know, the accumulation of beach litter on the Mediterranean coastal dunes, specifically in the Adriatic basin, has not yet been sufficiently studied, and updated information about the trend of accumulation along the coastal dune gradient is still incomplete [37].
Reducing this gap of knowledge is crucial for the fulfillment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC; European Commission, 2008) that commits the European states to take actions aimed at improving or maintaining the good environmental status (GES) of the marine environment by 2020 [38]. GES assessment is based on 11 qualitative descriptors (listed in Annex I of the MSFD), and descriptor 10 (D 10) is particularly focused on marine litter. To assure the correct implementation of the MSFD, the EC Directorate-General for the Environment established a Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG ML) with a role of supporting Member States by providing scientific and technical background for the fulfillment of the requirements stated by the D 10. The work of TSG ML focused on summarizing the information on monitoring protocols and evaluated the relation among GES assessment and environmental targets in order to identify strategies for preventing further inputs of litter and reducing its total amount. From the beginning of the TSG ML, much has been achieved, and new efforts should be addresses to customize the monitoring methods to the different marine and coastal compartments and biota [15,37], to increase the knowledge and information by extending studies to new areas, and to better understand the sources of marine/beach litter [38].
In this context, the present work sets out to explore how the different coastal dune ecosystems are affected by the accumulation of macro litter. Specifically, using a random stratified sampling protocol, we analyze the distribution pattern of waste differentiated by material and source across the coastal dune vegetation mosaic inside seven Protected Natural Areas in the Adriatic seashore (central Italy). We aim to investigate if the accumulation pattern, the composition, and the origin of litter on the mosaic of natural dune habitats is homogeneous or varies between the seashore and the back dunes.
Besides offering a sound baseline for monitoring and comparisons with other coasts, by linking the coastal habitats to litter accumulation patterns, we contribute to the prioritization of conservation actions in this highly vulnerable ecosystem. Knowing the abundances and types of beach litter across the different habitat types should contribute to the identification of effective strategies for litter removal and should support the search for specific solutions claimed by the MSFD directive.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Coastal Dune Ecosystems and Study Site

Coastal dunes are particularly dynamic ecosystems that are characterized by a steep environmental gradient, host a highly specialized flora and fauna [39,40], and provide essential benefits to society [41,42,43]. Most of the ecosystem services assured by coastal dunes rely on the integrity of eco-morphodynamic processes between dune vegetation and sand [40,44]. Indeed, being adapted to sand burial, psammophilous plants are able to retain sediments, determining dune morphology and stabilization over time [45,46].
In order to preserve coastal ecosystems, the European Union included most of them in the Council Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (HD, hereafter). The HD claimed the conservation, continuous monitoring, and reporting of the habitats of conservation concern [47], and the protected areas are privileged situations for implementing HD aims. The protected areas along the Italian coast host good examples of well-preserved dune ecosystems [43]. As the mechanical cleaning of beaches compromises the integrity of natural dune eco-morphology [1], the removal of beach litter in protected areas is done with low frequency. The good levels of biodiversity and the paucity of cleaning activities make the natural protected areas excellent candidates for analyzing beach litter composition, origin, and consistency and its relationship with coastal dune natural habitats.
The study was carried out inside a network of natural protected areas (Figure 1, Table 1) along 88 km of the Adriatic coastlines in central Italy (Abruzzo and Molise regions). The analyzed coasts are representative of Mediterranean holocenic dunes and include long continuous sandy beaches that alternate with rocky cliffs and pebble bays [48,49]. Recent dunes (Holocene) generally occupy a narrow strip along the sea-shore and are relatively simple in structure. They are not very high and are characterized by a geo-morphologic gradient where the deposition of sand, pebbles, or organogenic materials, such as fragments of shells, occurs by wave motion and wind [50]. The analyzed Natural Protected Areas host considerable levels of biodiversity, including several species of flora and fauna [51,52,53,54,55] and ecosystems of European conservation concern [51,56,57] (Figure 1, Table 2). Touristic pressure concentrates in the summer months, and the presence of walkways on most of the analyzed protected areas allows tourist to reach the seashore preserving the natural dune habitats. In Figure 2, we report some pictures of the dune fields to give an idea of their width, height, and degree of vegetation coverage. The presence of Natura 2000 sites [43] and Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) observation areas ([40,58], LTER IT20, www.lteritalia.it), together with the low frequency of beach cleaning, make the analyzed coast an excellent training ground to develop methodologies for assessing beach litter composition, origin, and accumulation patterns and their relation to natural habitats.

2.2. Sampling Beach Litter across Coastal Dune Habitats

Litter was sampled across the different EU habitat types on 2 × 2 m plots [13,36] using a stratified random protocol. The spatial distribution of sampled litter plots in the different habitat types was supported by a georeferenced vegetation database available for the study area (RanVegDunes) [59] and habitat maps accessible from Natura 2000 Standard data forms (ftp://ftp.dpn.minambiente.it/Natura2000/TrasmissionECE_2013/schede_mappe). We visited 180 plots and recorded all the litter elements > 2.5 cm (macro-litter) [3]. We sampled each plot only once, and beach litter was registered by the same team of researchers. Sampling was carried out in the vegetative period (April–May 2018), and the list of the main plant species was also recorded in order to further check the correspondence between the litter plots and the EU habitat types. Litter was collected, visually inspected, and registered following the OSPAR protocol (2010; Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic). Then, we catalogued beach litter into macro categories of material type and of origin following two basic reports—the OSPAR protocol, developed for the North-Atlantic region and the successive integrations proposed by the UNEP/MAP for the Mediterranean area [60]. Specifically, we classified the recorded items into material types (plastic, polystyrene, glass, paper, aluminum, mixed waste) and into origin categories referring to the source of waste (containers, fishing and boating, food and beverage, packaging, other; see for details UNEP/MAP report [60]). The categories adopted for classifying waste according to the type of material and the origin (source), along with the detailed list of sampled items assigned to each class, are reported in Table 3.

2.3. Data Analysis

The main trends of litter data collected in the 180 plots across habitat types were first analyzed by multivariate ordination techniques. We ran two Principal Components Analysis (PCA), one on the matrix of plots by material type (180 plots by six material categories: plastic, polystyrene, paper, glass, aluminum, and mixed material) and another on the matrix of plots by origin categories (180 plots by six origin categories: containers, fishing and boating, food and beverage, packaging, and other), and we built the respective bi-plots [61]. PCA finds hypothetical variables (components) summarizing the variance of the original multivariate data [61,62]. These new variables are linear combinations of the original ones. Using PCA, we reduced each data set (plots by material and plots by origin) into two variables (PCAI and PCAII) for plotting purposes and for exploring how these two first components are related with the underlying sea–inland environmental gradient. We projected litter plots into the coordinate system given by the two first components (one PCA diagram for each database) and represented them with different symbols according to the habitat type. We then projected the original variables onto the scatter diagram and built two bi-plots that showed how litter material and litter origin are related with the PCA components and with the different habitat types. Then, in order to test the existence of significant differences in the accumulation rates of litter material and origin categories across the coastal zonation, we compared the frequencies of classified items on the different habitat types using a Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA followed by the Mann-Whitney pairwise post-hoc test [62]. We represented the results denoting significant differences by boxplots.

3. Results

3.1. Litter Material and Origin

The occurrence of litter elements is quite widespread, as evidenced by the presence of polluting elements on more than four fifths of the inspected plots (Table 3) and by the density of litter items per square meter, which in the sampled plots has a mean value of 2.21 items/m2 and reaches a maximum of 20 items/m2 in an exceptionally polluted site. After analyzing litter density per habitat type, it is interesting to note that the mean values per plot is always above one. The upper beach (EC 1210: annual vegetation of the drift lines) with 3.37 items/m2 registered the higher mean litter density values, followed by the transition dunes (EC 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands) with 2.25 items/m2. Litter density on the other habitats of the zonation ranges between 1 and 2 items/m2.
Most of the plots contain plastic elements and polystyrene, one 10th contains glass, and one third contains mixed materials. Very few plots contain paper or aluminum (Table 3). Concerning the origin of litter (origin categories), containers occurs on about half of the sampled plots, fishing and boating and packaging on more than half, food and beverage on one third, and other elements (e.g., clothes, tableware, toys, tires, building materials, cigarette packaging, sanitary elements) on about two fifths (Table 3).
As regards the number of elements, we found 1492 litter items. Most of them are made of plastic (44%%), followed by polystyrene (40%). We also found a good amount of mixed waste (9.32%), including toys, clothes, shoes, generic sanitary material, wood, various chairs, and so on, with different weights and dimensions. Glass, mainly represented by broken bottles, is less represented (4.76%). Small quantity of aluminum litter (~1%) and paper (0.5%) are found—14 and eight elements, respectively. Most of the recorded litter derives from fishing and boating activities (50.5%), followed by containers (16%), packaging (9%), and food and beverage (7.7%). An interesting amount of litter has other origin (17.1%) and includes fluorescent light tubes, light globes, processed timber, rags, clothing, shoes, hats, tableware, toys, tires and inner tubes, rubber/chewing gums, wires, and building materials (Table 3).

3.2. Litter Accumulation in EU Habitat Types

The projection of plots, drawn with different symbols according to the habitat type, in the ordination space denotes a gradient referable to the sea–inland gradient (Figure 3). Furthermore, the bi-plot created by projecting in the same PCA space of the original variables suggested that the gradient on litter material accumulation ranges from shifting dunes on the shoreline (EU 1210), with higher presence of plastic elements, to wooded dunes, typical of the inner sectors of the zonation (EU 2250*, EU 2260, EU 2270*), in which polystyrene items predominate. The PCAI axis is highly correlated with plastic elements accumulation (0.887) and secondarily with polystyrene (0.442); the PCAII is positively correlated with polystyrene accumulation (0.896) and negatively with plastic (−0.437). The first two PCs’ axes summarize the 90.6% of total variability (Figure 3a).
The PCA analysis of plots accounting of litter origin categories confirms the presence of a sea–inland gradient. The bi-plot evidences a specific pattern of litter accumulation across the habitat zonation, with containers, food and beverage, and packaging most associated with the shoreline habitats (EU 1210) and fishing and boating elements accumulated on both the shoreline habitats (1210) and the woody vegetation of the inner dune sectors (EU 2250*, EU 2260, EU 2270*). The PCAI axis, which explains most of the variability, is highly correlated elements used for fishing and boating activities (0.98693), as the PCAII is correlated with the accumulation of containers (0.89744). The first two PCs summarize the 92.2% of total variability (Figure 3b).
The gradient observed with the PCA analysis is confirmed by the presence of significant differences in waste accumulation patterns across the coastal dune habitats zonation. Significant differences in litter occurrence are evident for plastic and glass (Kruskal-Wallis p = 9.45E − 05 and p=0.04346 respectively; Figure 4). Plastic waste, the more abundant litter found, presents a decreasing distribution from the shoreline to the inner-dune habitats. Plastic concentrates in the habitat EU 1210 (annual vegetation of drift lines) with the 68% of elements and median (M) = 4, decreases on habitat 2110 (embryonic shifting dunes) (M = 2), and is less present on inner woody habitats (EU 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs, EU 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp, EU 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster) with M~0.5 (Figure 4).
Glass material is less frequent but presents a clear stratification across habitats, with higher presences in the habitat EU 1210 (annual vegetation of drift lines) close to the shoreline (~58% of the observed glass elements), and is particularly rare in some habitats of the inner sectors in correspondence with EU 2250* (coastal dunes with Juniperus spp.) and EU 2260 scrubs (Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs). Glass shows two peaks of presence in the EU 1210 (annual vegetation of drift lines; 58%) and EU 2230 (Malcolmietalia dune grasslands; 38%) habitats, respectively, and a low but homogeneous distribution in the other habitats. The first peak, correspondent to habitat EU 1210 (annual vegetation of drift lines), is due to the large stratification of glass elements along the shoreline for their weight that does not allow them to be transported by the wind away from the seashore. Moreover, the peak in correspondence to EU 2230 habitat (Malcolmietalia dune grasslands) is probably due to glass waste that arrives not from sea but from other kinds of touristic activities developed inside to Naturalistic Protected Areas (Figure 4). Polystyrene and the rare waste materials, such as aluminum and paper, do not present a significant stratification of accumulation in correspondence of habitat zonation (for paper, this is probably due to the its natural decomposition).
The accumulated waste categorized by origin types also vary across the coastal habitat zonation, with significant differences for containers and for food and beverages litter (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.009537 and p = 0.003817 respectively). Containers are abundant on all the habitats except for the inner dune woody formations (EU 2250*, coastal dunes with Juniperus spp.; EU 2270*, wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster). On the other hand, waste derived from food and beverage use tends to concentrate close to the seashore (EU 2110, annual vegetation of drift lines; EU 2120, shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria) (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

The analysis of washed-up litter on the network of natural protected areas in the central Adriatic coast provided an accurate description of the type of material and the origin categories of macro-litter accumulated in dune habitats of European conservation concern using an accurate and replicable procedure.
The results derived from random sampling of dune habitats in the Adriatic coast underline the widespread presence of litter, with over the 80% of the inspected plots being polluted. As observed in the marine habitats of other areas of the world such as the Caribbean [34] and the Mediterranean sea, and in the beach and natural sand dunes [22,63], the presence of litter is very consistent.

4.1. Litter Material and Origin

The majority of the plots with washed up waste contains plastic (~70%) and polystyrene (~52%) elements. A high incidence of plastic waste on coastal ecosystems was also observed in other Italian and European areas [15,64], as well as on other coasts across the globe [34,65,66], and such abundance should be due to both the diffuse utilization of plastic [67,68] and the specific characteristics of hard and soft plastic items, such as flotation and high persistence in the environment [24].
On the Adriatic seashore, recreational activities (e.g., bathing, sunbathing, water and beach sports) appeared to be the major source of litter, affecting ~50% of the surveyed plots, results that confirms previous observations on other study coastal areas in Europe [13,15]. Activities connected with recreation were found to pollute the studied beaches with plastic tableware, bottles and bags, glass and aluminum containers, and other litter items.
On the other hand, as in other ecological compartments as the seafloor of the Mediterranean Sea [11], another important marine source of litter that washes up along the sand dunes is navigation and fishing (e.g., shipping, fishery and fish farming), with ~30% of the plots containing buoys, fishing nets, ropes, and polystyrene boxes. Similar values were observed in remote oceanic areas [69,70] and are reported to be higher on other Mediterranean coasts [68]. The relative high abundance of fishery litter in the analyzed area should be due to the protection status and moderate touristic facilities that balance the contributions from other sources in some tracts.
Building materials and metals, except for aluminum, appeared to come from land activities not connected with recreational ones, due to malfunctioning or illegal dumping sites placed along rivers. The examined areas show a stratification of plastic, glass, and polystyrene waste on the habitats along the sea–inland gradient.

4.2. Zonation Patterns

The areas closer to the seashore are mainly polluted by plastic litter (68% of the elements) and glass (58%) coming from both sea (e.g., fishing) and land (e.g., tourist) sources. Several waste items, being heavy, rest into the sand in correspondence of the annual vegetation of drift lines (EU 1210) and tend to be buried [67]. Also, light litter should accumulate on the beach because they are trapped by organic waste as woody posts and dead marsh reeds [21]. In the immediate inner sectors in correspondence with annual vegetation of drift lines (EU 1210), embryonic shifting dunes (EU 2110), shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (EU 2120), Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (EU 2230), plastic litter tends to remain entangled on herbaceous psammophilous vegetation. Indeed, the root structure of dune vegetation has a crucial role on fixing and stabilizing sediments [41,45], and in our case, it also contributes to waste retention and burial.
The deposition of plastic and polystyrene waste coming from marine sources is not limited to the beach and mobile dunes but reaches the inner fixed dunes with woody vegetation such as Juniperus macrocarpa scrub (EU 2250*), Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs (EU 2260), and wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (EU 2270*). The observed abundance of polystyrene waste in these inner dune habitats is most likely due to the volatility of this material, which is transported by the wind and deposited and fragmented in the fixed and back-dune areas [71].
On the other hand, waste derived from food and beverage tends to concentrate close to the seashore (EU habitats 2110, 2120). Containers are abundant in all the habitats except for the inner woody dune formations (EU habitats 2250*, 2270*). The presence of waste derived from food and beverage in protected areas is most likely related with seaside tourism and the throwaway economy [8], and their littering is mainly due to the long distances that visitors need to walk in protected natural areas before reaching dumpsters and tourists’ lack of ecological awareness.

4.3. Recommendations and Implications

The presence of macro litter makes coastal dunes touristic and esthetic value drop [17,43] and alters dune substrate characteristics, promoting the invasion of alien species [33,67,72]. Specifically in the Mediterranean, the polystyrene and plastic fragments accumulation inside the fixed dunes scrub represents a persistent pollution that remains in environments of particular naturalistic value, where residual populations of species of European community interest live, such as Testudo hermanni and plant communities of conservation and biogeographic interest [47,52,57,73].
In order to prevent or mitigate the negative effects of litter accumulation on natural habitats, it is essential to identify good management practices, such as reducing plastic and promoting a circular plastics economy [71,74] aimed at reducing the marine and beach litter [68,75]. Concerning the analyzed protected areas, periodical manual removal of litter (e.g., every 2–3 months) is advisable [1,22,76]. Litter collection should be implemented along the entire zonation, as removing large or medium waste items prevents the fragmentation of big pieces into smaller ones and the formation of micro litter, which is the most dangerous form when included in the food chain [74]. Furthermore, the periodical manual collection of litter is compatible with the conservation of dune biodiversity [77] and at the same time avoids the accumulation of macro litter that breaks down into smaller pieces that are transported by the wind into the inner dune sectors, where manual removal is very difficult and threatens vertebrate biodiversity [78].
Mechanical cleaning of beach litter should be restricted only to the authorized bathing establishments and on periods that do not alter the nesting period of the fauna present in the analyzed coasts, such as the plover (Charadrius alexandrines) [53,55], the Crested lark (Galerida cristata), and the Caretta caretta [79]. Notice that the utilization of clearing machinery generates a vicious circle due to the systematic removal of both the psammophilous species that are essential for fixing dunes and tons of sand [1]. Indeed, beach cleaning, in addition to litter removal, clears away dune vegetation and levels dune morphology, stripping coastal dunes of its natural capital and the related benefits for the society [43].
Furthermore, in order to prevent the washing up of waste coming from the sea, cleaning activities must be also implemented to remove floating litter and litter accumulated in the seabed (e.g., “fishing for litter” good practice) [75], work that requires of the involvement of the fishermen.
To conclude, it should be useful to improve environmental policy and orient it toward the avoidance or reduction of the utilization of disposable plastic items [17,68] both during terrestrial activities (e.g., picnic, food and beverage containers) and marine ones (avoidance of deposable polystyrene containers for fish stocking), favoring the utilization of biodegradable materials and a proper disposal chain [77].

5. Conclusions

The present study, providing an assessment of beach litter accumulation of a network of protected areas along the central Adriatic coast, contributes to increase the knowledge necessary to implement the MSFD (2008/56/EC; European Commission, 2008) and in particular to define adequate strategies aimed at maintaining or improving their good environmental status (GES) at different administrative levels (the local, national, and entire Mediterranean region). Our results also contribute to the activities of the national technological cluster “Blue Italian Growth” (CTN-BIG). Most of the insights and conclusions obtained in this study have been facilitated by the utilization of a sound georeferenced sampling procedures, the collection of litter data according with international protocols (OSPAR and UNEP/MAP), and the utilization of EU habitats maps for defining the sampling strata. The application of those random stratified procedures (a) depicts a representative scenario of the accumulation trends occurring in wide areas, (b) allows the statistical comparison of accumulation patterns among the sampled habitats, (c) offers robust data for multi-temporal comparisons and monitoring, and (d) allows the evaluation of conservation status of habitats and coastal tracts claimed by the TSG ML.
Our results give evidence for the dominance of plastic and polystyrene material and depict that both marine and terrestrial proveniences of litter are very important on the Adriatic coast. Litter tends to be deposited heterogeneously across the sea–inland gradient, impinging dune eco-morphology in a variety of ways, which suggests the need for dedicated cleaning procedures. Among the possible cleaning strategies, the manual picking of litter seems to be the most advisable approach because it is able to extract almost all the materials types deposited on coastal dune ecosystems while respecting dune morphology and avoiding the inevitable loss of sand derived from the utilization of cleaning machinery. Still, measures to prevent litter accumulation on natural habitats are needed. Some examples of these measures include the promotion a circular plastics economy, the implementation of actions aimed at raising the awareness of people that unknowingly contribute to the litter accumulation, the launch of a specific education campaign to fishers and shellfish farmers in relation to marine litter, and the promotion of cleaning activities to remove floating litter and litter accumulated in the seabeds.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C.d.F., M.L.C., and A.S.; methodology, M.C.d.F., M.L.C., and A.S.; data analysis, M.C.d.F., M.L.C; F.P.T., and M.V.; data curation, M.C.d.F., F.P.T., and M.V.; writing, M.C.d.F., M.L.C., F.P.T., M.V., and A.S.; writing—review and editing, M.C.d.F., M.L.C., F.P.T., M.V., and A.S.; supervision, M.L.C. and A.S.

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out in the context of LTER (Long term Ecological Research Network; https://www.lter-europe.net/), LifeWatch (www.lifewatchitaly.eu), and CoNISMa-BlueGrowth (http://www.conisma.it/it/) research programs. It was implemented thanks to the partial support of LIFE CALLIOPE project (LIFE17-NAT/IT/000565). We want to thank Beatrice Petti for her support during field data collection. Our sincere thanks to the editor and the two anonymous reviewers that, with their smart suggestions, contributed to improving the original version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Battisti, C.; Poeta, G.; Pietrelli, L.; Acosta, A.T.R. An unexpected consequence of plastic litter clean-up on beaches: Too much sand might be removed. Environ. Pr. 2016, 18, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tabuenca, B.; Kalz, M.; Löhr, A. Massive Open Online Education for Environmental Activism: The Worldwide Problem of Marine Litter. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lippiatt, S.; Opfer, S.; Arthur, C. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment; NOAA Technical Memorandum; NOS-OR&R: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Amato, E.; Birkun, A.; Fleet, D.; Galgani, F.; Hanke, G.; Janssen, C.; Katsanevakis, S.; Maes, T.; Mouat, J.; Oosterbaan, L.; et al. Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Task Group 10 Report Marine litter, Scientific and Technical Research series; Zampoukas, N., Ed.; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxemburg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergmann, M.; Gutow, L.; Klages, M. Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Springer Open: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Koutsodendris, A.; Papatheodorou, G.; Kougiourouki, O.; Georgiadi, M. Benthic marine litter in four Gulfs in Greece, Eastern Mediterranean; abundance, composition and source identification. Estuar Coast. Shelf. Sci. 2008, 77, 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Katsanevakis, S.; Katsarou, A. Influences on the distribution of marine debris on the seafloor of shallow coastal areas in Greece (Eastern Mediterranean). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2004, 159, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shen, M.; Mao, D.; Xie, H.; Li, C. The Social Costs of Marine Litter along the East China Sea: Evidence from Ten Coastal Scenic Spots of Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sheavly, S.B.; Register, K.M. Marine debris and plastics: Environmental Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions. J. Polym. Environ. 2007, 15, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hess, N.A.; Ribic, C.A.; Vining, I. Benthic Marine Litter, with an Emphasis on Fishery-Related Items, Surrounding Kodiak Island, Alaska, 1994–1996. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1999, 38, 885–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stefatos, A.; Charalampakis, M.; Papatheodorou, G.; Ferentinos, G. Marine Debris on the Seafloor of the Mediterranean Sea: Examples from Two Enclosed Gulfs in Western Greece. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1999, 36, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Defeo, O.; McLachlan, A.; Schoeman, D.S.; Schlacher, T.A.; Dugan, J.; Lastra, M.; Scapini, F. Threats to Sandy Beach Ecosystems: A Review. Estuar Coast. Shelf. Sci. 2012, 81, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Poeta, G.; Battisti, C.; Acosta, A.T.R. Marine litter in Mediterranean sandy littorals: Spatial distribution patterns along central Italy coastal dunes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 89, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schulz, M.; Clemens, T.; Förster, H.; Harder, T.; Fleet, D.; Gaus, S.; Grave, C.; Flegel, I.; Schrey, E.; Hartwig, E. Statistical Analyses of the Results of 25 Years of Beach Litter Surveys on the South-Eastern North Sea Coast. Mar. Environ. Res. 2015, 109, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Addamo, A.M.; Laroche, P.; Hanke, G. Top Marine Beach Litter Items. A review and synthesis based on beach litter data. Eur. Joint Res. Centre (JRC) European Union 2017, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Araújo, M.C.B.; Costa, M.F. An analysis of the riverine contribution to the solid wastes contamination of an isolated beach at the Brazilian Northeast. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2007, 18, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mooser, A.; Anfuso, G.; Mestanza, C.; Williams, A.T. Management Implications for the Most Attractive Scenic Sites along the Andalusia Coast (SW Spain). Sustainability 2018, 10, 1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barboza, L.G.A.; Vethaak, A.D.; Lavorante, B.R.B.O.; Lundeby, A.K.; Guilhermino, L. Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Good, T.P.; June, J.A.; Etnier, M.A.; Broadhurst, G. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: Patterns and threats to marine fauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gall, S.C.; Thompson, R.C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Poeta, G.; Fanelli, G.; Pietrelli, L.; Acosta, A.; Battisti, C. Plastisphere in action: Evidence for an interaction between expanded polystyrene and dunal plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 11856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Poeta, G.; Romiti, F.; Battisti, C. Discarded bottles in sandy coastal dunes as threat for macro-invertebrate populations: First evidence of a trap effect. Vie et Milieu Life Environ. 2015, 65, 125–127. [Google Scholar]
  23. Campana, I.; Angeletti, D.; Crosti, R.; Arcangeli, A. Seasonal patterns of floating macro-litter across the Western Mediterranean Sea: A potential threat for cetacean species. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 2018, 29, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Derraik, J.G.B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 842–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Booth, D.J.; Gribben, P.; Parkinson, K. Impact of cigarette butt leachate on tidepool snails. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95, 362–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Andersen, M.S.; Forney, K.A.; Cole, T.V.N.; Eagle, T.; Angliss, R.; Long, K.; Barre, L.; Van Atta, L.; Borggaard, D.; Rowles, T.; et al. Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals: Report of the Serious Injury; NMFS-OPR-39; NOAA Technical Memorandum: Seattle, WA, USA, 2008.
  27. Jacobsen, J.K.; Massey, L.; Gulland, F. Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 765–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Butterworth, A. A review of the welfare impact on Pinnipeds of plastic marine debris. Front. Mar. Sci. 2016, 3, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fossi, M.C.; Panti, C.; Guerranti, C.; Coppola, D.; Giannetti, M.; Marsili, L.; Minutoli, R. Are baleen whales exposed to the threat of microplastics? A case study of the Mediterranean fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 2374–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Fossi, M.C.; Coppola, D.; Baini, M.; Giannetti, M.; Guerranti, C.; Marsili, L.; Clò, S. Large filter feeding marine organisms as indicators of microplastic in the pelagic environment: The case studies of the Mediterranean basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Mar. Environ. Res. 2014, 100, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Di Beneditto, A.P.M.; Ramos, R.M.A. Marine debris ingestion by coastal dolphins: What drives differences between sympatric species? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 83, 298–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Menicagli, V.; Balestri, E.; Vallerini, F.; Castelli, A.; Lardicci, C. Adverse effects of non-biodegradable and compostable plastic bags on the establishment of coastal dune vegetation: First experimental evidences. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Malavasi, M.; Carboni, M.; Cutini, M.; Carranza, M.L.; Acosta, A.T.R. Landscape fragmentation, land-use legacy and propagule pressure promote plant invasion on coastal dunes. A patch based approach. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1541–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ivar do Sul, J.A.; Costa, M.F. Marine Debris in the Wider Caribbean Region: From the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 54, 1087–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eriksson, C.; Burton, H.; Fitch, S.; Schulz, M.; van den Hoff, J. Daily accumulation rates of marine debris on sub-Antarctic island beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 66, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. De Francesco, M.C.; Cappiello, S.; Carranza, M.L.; Stanisci, A. Beach litter ed ecosistemi dunali nell’Adriatico centrale. Energ. Ambiente E Innov. 2018, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Munari, C.; Corbau, C.; Simeoni, U.; Mistri, M. Marine litter on Mediterranea shores: Analysis of composition, spatial distribution and sources in north-western Adriatic beaches. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Galgani, F.; Hanke, G.; Werner, S.; De Vrees, L. Marine litter within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2013, 70, 1055–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Acosta, A.; Blasi, C.; Carranza, M.L.; Ricotta, C.; Stanisci, A. Quantifying ecological mosaic connectivity and with a new topoecological index. Phytocoenologia 2003, 33, 623–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Drius, M.; Malavasi, M.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Ricotta, C.; Carranza, M.L. Boundary-based analysis for the assessment of coastal dune landscape integrity over time. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 45, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barbier, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Drius, M.; Jones, L.; Marzialetti, F.; De Francesco, M.C.; Stanisci, A.; Carranza, M.L. Not just a sandy beach. The multi-service value of Mediterranean coastal dunes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1139–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Durán, O.; Moore, L.J. Vegetation controls on the maximum size of coastal dunes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 17217–17222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Maun, M.A. Burial of plants as a selective force in sand dunes. In Coastal Dunes Ecology and Conservation; Martínez, M.L., Psuty, N.P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 119–135. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bazzichetto, M.; Malavasi, M.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Carranza, M.L. How does dune morphology shape coastal EC-habitat occurrence? A remote sensing approach using Airborne LiDAR on the Mediterranean coast. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Feola, S.; Carranza, M.L.; Schaminée, J.; Janssen, J.A.M.; Acosta, A.T.R. EU habitats of interest: An insight into Atlantic and Mediterranean beach and foredunes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 20, 1457–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aucelli, P.P.C.; Iannantuono, E.; Rosskopf, C.M. Evoluzione recente e rischio di erosione della costa molisana (Italia meridionale). Ital. J. Geosci. 2009, 128, 759–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Miccadei, E.; Mascioli, F.; Piacentini, T.; Ricci, F. Geomorphological features of coastal dunes along the central Adriatic coast (Abruzzo, Italy). J. Coast. Res. 2011, 27, 1122–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aucelli, P.P.C.; Faillace, P.I.; Rosskopf, C.M. Evoluzione geomorfologica del tratto finale del fondovalle del fiume Biferno (Molise) dal 1800 ad oggi. Mem. Della Soc. Geogr. Ital. 2010, 87, 367–378. [Google Scholar]
  51. Carranza, M.L.; Acosta, A.; Stanisci, A.; Pirone, G.; Ciaschetti, G. Ecosystem classification for EU habitat distribution assessment in sandy coastal environments: An application in Central Italy. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 140, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Pirone, G.; Ciaschetti, G.; Di Martino, L.; Cianfaglione, K.; Giallonardo, T.; Frattaroli, A.R. Contribution to the knowledge of the coastal vegetation of Abruzzo (central Adriatic). Plant. Sociol. 2014, 51, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Berardo, F.; Carranza, M.L.; Frate, L.; Stanisci, A.; Loy, A. Seasonal habitat preference by the flagship species Testudo hermanni: Implications for the conservation of coastal dunes. CR Biol. 2015, 338, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Del Vecchio, S.; Prisco, I.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Stanisci, A. Changes in plant species composition of coastal dune habitats over a 20-year period. AOB Plants 2015, 7, plv018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Foresta, M.; Carranza, M.L.; Garfì, V.; Di Febbraro, M.; Marchetti, M.; Loy, A. A systematic conservation planning approach to fire risk management in Natura 2000 sites. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Izzi, C.F.; Acosta, A.; Carranza, M.L.; Ciaschetti, G.; Conti, F.; Di Martino, L.; D’orazio, G.; Frattaroli, A.; Pirone, G.; Stanisci, A. Sampling the vascular flora in coastal dune ecosystems of Central Italy. Fitosociologia 2007, 44, 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stanisci, A.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Carranza, M.L.; de Chiro, M.; Del Vecchio, S.; Di Martino, L.; Frattaroli, A.R.; Fusco, S.; Izzi, C.F.; Pirone, G.; et al. EU habitats monitoring along the coastal dunes of the LTER sites of Abruzzo and Molise (Italy). Plant. Sociol. 2014, 51, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Prisco, I.; Stanisci, A.; Acosta, A.T.R. Mediterranean dunes on the go: Evidence from a short term study on coastal herbaceous vegetation. Estuar Coast. Shelf. Sci. 2016, 182, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sperandii, M.G.; Prisco, I.; Stanisci, A.; Acosta, A.T.R. RanVegDunes—A random plot database of Italian coastal dunes. Phytocoenologia 2017, 47, 231–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. UNEP/MAP. Marine Litter Assessment in the Mediterranean; United Nations Environment Program: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  61. Peres-Neto, P.R.; Jackson, D.A.; Somers, K.M. Giving meaningful interpretation to ordination axes: Assessing loading significance in principal component analysis. Ecology 2003, 84, 2347–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Introduction to Biostatistics, 2nd ed.; Dover Publications: Mineola, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  63. Arcangeli, A.; Campana, I.; Angeletti, I.; Carosso, L. Amount, composition, and spatial distribution of floating macro litter along fixed transborder transects in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 129, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Legambiente. Beach Litter 2018—Indagine sui Rifiuti nelle Spiagge Italiane; Legambiente: Roma, Italy, 2018; 15p. [Google Scholar]
  65. Silva-Iñiguez, L.; Fischer, D.W. Quantification and classification of marine litter on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2003, 46, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Topcu, E.N.; Tonay, A.M.; Dede, A.; Ozturk, A.A.; Ozturk, B. Origin and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea Coast. Mar. Environ. Res. 2013, 85, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Menicagli, V.; Balestri, E.; Lardicci, C. Exposure of coastal dune vegetation to plastic bag leachates: A neglected impact of plastic litter. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 683, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. PNUE/PAM/MEDPOL. Results of the Assessment of the Status of Marine Litter in the Mediterranean 2009; Meeting of MED POL Focal Points No. 334; Unemap: Athens, Greece, 2009; 91p. [Google Scholar]
  69. Walker, T.R.; Reid, K.; Arnould, J.P.Y.; Croxall, J.P. Marine debris surveys at Bird 530 Island, South Georgia 1990–1995. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1997, 34, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Convey, P.; Barnes, D.; Morton, A. Debris accumulation on oceanic island shores of the Scotia Arc, Antarctica. Polar Biol. 2002, 25, 612–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ten Brink, P.; Schweitzer, J.-P.; Watkins, E.; Howe, M. Plastics Marine Litter and the Circular Economy 2017. A briefing by IEEP for the MAVA Foundation. Available online: https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/15301621-5286-43e3-88bd-bd9a3f4b849a/IEEP_ACES_Plastics_Marine_Litter_Circular_Economy_briefing_final_April_2017.pdf?v=63664509972 (accessed on 29 September 2019).
  72. Santoro, R.; Carboni, M.; Carranza, M.L.; Acosta, A.T.R. Focal species diversity patterns can provide diagnostic information on plant invasions. J. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 20, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Acosta, A.T.R.; Carranza, M.L.; Izzi, C.F. Are there habitats that contribute best to plant species diversity in coastal dunes? Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 1087–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Poeta, G.; Staffieri, E.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Battisti, C. Ecological effects of anthropogenic litter on marine mammals: A global review with a “black-list” of impacted taxa. Hystrix 2017, 28, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Basurko, O.C.; Gabiña, G.; Andrés, M.; Rubio, A.; Uriarte, A.; Krug, I. Fishing for floating marine litter in SE Bay of Biscay: Review and feasibility study. Mar. Policy 2015, 61, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Storrier, K.L.; McGlashan, D.J. Development and management of a coastal litter campaign: The voluntary coastal partnership approach. Mar. Policy 2006, 30, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pietrelli, L.; Poeta, G.; Battisti, C.; Sighicelli, M. Characterization of plastic beach debris finalized to its removal: A proposal for a recycling scheme. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 16536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. De Francesco, M.C.; Carranza, M.L.; Stanisci, A. Beach litter in Mediterraean coastal dunes: An insight on the Adriatic coast (central Italy). Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 2018, 29, 825–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Berardo, F.; Capula, M.; Carranza, M.L.; Loy, A. Identification via suitability model of potential nesting areas for the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta along the Adriatic coast of Molise. Nat. Rerum. 2012, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 11 05446 g001 550
Figure 1. Localization of the analyzed Natural Protected Areas along with a schematic profile (redrawn form Drius et al. 2016) describing the typical Mediterranean coastal dune vegetation zonation and the analyzed EU habitat types (HD 92/43/EEC). Numbers in the map refers to ID reported in Table 1. Numbers reported above the profile refers to EU codes. 1210: annual vegetation of drift lines, 2110: embryonic shifting dunes, 2120: shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria, 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands, 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp., 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs, 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster.
Figure 1. Localization of the analyzed Natural Protected Areas along with a schematic profile (redrawn form Drius et al. 2016) describing the typical Mediterranean coastal dune vegetation zonation and the analyzed EU habitat types (HD 92/43/EEC). Numbers in the map refers to ID reported in Table 1. Numbers reported above the profile refers to EU codes. 1210: annual vegetation of drift lines, 2110: embryonic shifting dunes, 2120: shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria, 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands, 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp., 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs, 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster.
Sustainability 11 05446 g001
Sustainability 11 05446 g002 550
Figure 2. Photographs of the dune fields. (a) Embryo dune (EC2110: embryonic shifting dunes), (b) mobile dunes (EC2120: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria), (c) boardwalks that allow tourist to reach the seashore preserving the natural dune habitats, EC2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs.
Figure 2. Photographs of the dune fields. (a) Embryo dune (EC2110: embryonic shifting dunes), (b) mobile dunes (EC2120: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria), (c) boardwalks that allow tourist to reach the seashore preserving the natural dune habitats, EC2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs.
Sustainability 11 05446 g002
Sustainability 11 05446 g003 550
Figure 3. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) bi plots reporting plots per habitat type (symbols) and litter elements classified by material (a) and origin categories (b). EU codes correspond to 1210: annual vegetation of drift lines (upper beach), 2110: embryonic shifting dunes (embryo dunes), 2120: shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (mobile dunes), 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (transition dunes), 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. (fixed dunes), 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs (fixed dunes), 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (back dunes). For schematic profile representing the sea–inland environmental gradient, see Figure 1.
Figure 3. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) bi plots reporting plots per habitat type (symbols) and litter elements classified by material (a) and origin categories (b). EU codes correspond to 1210: annual vegetation of drift lines (upper beach), 2110: embryonic shifting dunes (embryo dunes), 2120: shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (mobile dunes), 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (transition dunes), 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. (fixed dunes), 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs (fixed dunes), 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (back dunes). For schematic profile representing the sea–inland environmental gradient, see Figure 1.
Sustainability 11 05446 g003
Sustainability 11 05446 g004 550
Figure 4. Boxplots reporting the number of elements (y axes) per habitat type (x axes) of the different litter categories (only significant differences according with Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA are drawn). Letters correspond to significant differences according with Mann-Whitney pairwise post-hoc test. EU codes correspond to 1210: annual vegetation of drift lines (upper beach), 2110: embryonic shifting dunes (embryo dunes), 2120: shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (mobile dunes), 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (transition dunes), 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. (fixed dunes), 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs (fixed dunes), 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (back dunes). For schematic profile representing the sea-inland environmental gradient see Figure 1. For a complete description of habitats see Table 2.
Figure 4. Boxplots reporting the number of elements (y axes) per habitat type (x axes) of the different litter categories (only significant differences according with Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA are drawn). Letters correspond to significant differences according with Mann-Whitney pairwise post-hoc test. EU codes correspond to 1210: annual vegetation of drift lines (upper beach), 2110: embryonic shifting dunes (embryo dunes), 2120: shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (mobile dunes), 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (transition dunes), 2250*: coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. (fixed dunes), 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs (fixed dunes), 2270*: wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (back dunes). For schematic profile representing the sea-inland environmental gradient see Figure 1. For a complete description of habitats see Table 2.
Sustainability 11 05446 g004
Table
Table 1. List of Protected Areas, with the list of EU habitats (Annex 1 of HD 92/43/EEC, see Table 2) they host, and the number of sampled litter plots collected per EU habitat. ID: refers to protected areas reported in Figure 1. RNR: Regional Natural Reserve; ZSC: Special Area of Conservation.
Table 1. List of Protected Areas, with the list of EU habitats (Annex 1 of HD 92/43/EEC, see Table 2) they host, and the number of sampled litter plots collected per EU habitat. ID: refers to protected areas reported in Figure 1. RNR: Regional Natural Reserve; ZSC: Special Area of Conservation.
RegionIDProtected AreaEU Habitat CodePlots
Abruzzo1RNR Punta dell’Acquabella 121013
2RNR Ripari di Giobbe12108
3ZSC IT7140107 Lecceta di Torino di Sangro-foce del fiume Sangro 121010
4ZSC IT7140108 Punta Aderci-Punta della Penna121015
5ZSC IT7140109 Marina di Vasto 1210, 2110, 2120, 223037
Molise6ZSC IT7228221 Foce fiume Trigno-Marina di Petacciato 1210, 2110, 2120, 2230, 2260, 2270*43
7ZSC IT7222217 Foce fiume Saccione-Bonifica Ramitelli 1210, 2110, 2120, 2230, 2250*, 2260, 2270*54
Table
Table 2. Habitat-types (sensu 92/43/EEC) present in the study area along the sea-inland vegetation zonation. Cod: EU code, Hab: EU habitat name, Zone: Zone of along the dune profile, Sp. Main diagnostic or characteristic species. For a representation of the analyzed EU habitat types (HD 92/43/EEC) and the underlying sea-inland environmental gradient, see the schematic profile reported on Figure 1.
Table 2. Habitat-types (sensu 92/43/EEC) present in the study area along the sea-inland vegetation zonation. Cod: EU code, Hab: EU habitat name, Zone: Zone of along the dune profile, Sp. Main diagnostic or characteristic species. For a representation of the analyzed EU habitat types (HD 92/43/EEC) and the underlying sea-inland environmental gradient, see the schematic profile reported on Figure 1.
Upper BeachEmbryo DunesMobile DunesTransition DunesFixed DunesBack Dunes
Cod12102110212022302250*22602270*
HabAnnual vegetation of the drift linesEmbryonic shifting dunesShifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenariaMalcolmietalia dune grasslandsCoastal dunes with Juniperus sppCisto-
Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs		Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster
SpCakile maritima, Salsola kali, Chamaesyce peplisElymus farctus, Sporobolus virginicus, Othantus maritimusAmmophila arenaria, Echinophora spinosa, Eryngium maritimumPancratium maritimum, Silene colorata, Vulpia fasciculataJuniperus oxycedrus, subsp macrocarpaPistacia lentiscus, Rhamnus alaternusPinus pinea, P. pinaster, P. halepensis
Table
Table 3. Litter categories adopted for waste material and origin classification [60] along with the list of items we have recorded for each class. The abundance of polluted plots (N plots: total number of plots polluted per category of material and origin, % plot: percent of polluted plots) and the number of items per class (N items: number of items, % items: percent of items) are also reported.
Table 3. Litter categories adopted for waste material and origin classification [60] along with the list of items we have recorded for each class. The abundance of polluted plots (N plots: total number of plots polluted per category of material and origin, % plot: percent of polluted plots) and the number of items per class (N items: number of items, % items: percent of items) are also reported.
CategoryItemsN. Plot% PlotN Items% Items
MATERIALPlasticBottles cups, pull tabs plastic, plastic bottles, plastic drums, fishing nets plastic, plastic plates, plastic forks, plastic bags, plastic sheets, soap containers, snack cards, straws, food trays, packaging of medicines, monofilament lines.11338.065744.0
PolystirenePolystyrene boxes, polystyrene cups.8829.660340.4
PaperPaper and cardboard.51.780.5
GlassGlass bottles.196.4714.8
AluminumDrink cans.134.4140.9
Mixed materialsCigarette butts, lighters, fluorescent light tubes, light globes, processed timber, rags, clothing, shoes, hats, tableware, toys, tires and inner tubes, rubber/chewing gum, wires, building materials, nappies, cotton buds, syringes, plasters, sanitary pads, foams, strapping bands, buoys, fishing nets not plastic, fishing related, ropes.5919.91399.3
ORIGINContainersBottle cups, pull tabs plastic, plastic bottles <= 2 l, plastic bottles >2 l, plastic drums>2 l, glass bottles.7822.123515.8
Fishing and boatingBuoys, fishing nets not plastic, fishing nets plastic, fishing related, monofilament lines, ropes, polystyrene boxes.10028.375350.5
Food and beverageDrink and food packages, cups, food trays, drink cans, ice c. sticks, chip forks, plastic plates, straws, snack cards, chips bags.4813.61157.71
PackagingFoams, papers and cardboards, plastic bags, plastic sheets, strapping bends, soap containers.5014.21348.98
OtherFluorescent light tubes, light globes, processed timber, rags, clothing, shoes, hats, tableware, toys, tires and inner tubes, rubber/chewing gums, wires, building materials. Cigarette packaging, cigarette butts, cigarettes lighters. Sanitary packaging, nappies, cotton buds, syringes, plasters, packaging of medicines, sanitary pads.7721.825517.1

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Francesco, M.C.; Carranza, M.L.; Varricchione, M.; Tozzi, F.P.; Stanisci, A. Natural Protected Areas as Special Sentinels of Littering on Coastal Dune Vegetation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195446

AMA Style

de Francesco MC, Carranza ML, Varricchione M, Tozzi FP, Stanisci A. Natural Protected Areas as Special Sentinels of Littering on Coastal Dune Vegetation. Sustainability. 2019; 11(19):5446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195446

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Francesco, Maria Carla, Maria Laura Carranza, Marco Varricchione, Francesco Pio Tozzi, and Angela Stanisci. 2019. "Natural Protected Areas as Special Sentinels of Littering on Coastal Dune Vegetation" Sustainability 11, no. 19: 5446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195446

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop