Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 9;17(11):e0275463.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275463. eCollection 2022.

Land cover type modulates the distribution of litter in a Nordic cultural landscape

Sara K K Eide  1 , Linn N Leh  1 , Katinka S Eines  1 , Ingunn Hovland  1 , Marit By  1 , Elise W Ingvaldsen  1 , Marthe Tinlund  1 , Evan Emerita  1 , Luciano A Machado  1 , Stian Brønner  1 , Erlend B Nilsen  1   2 , Sam M J G Steyaert  1
Affiliations

Land cover type modulates the distribution of litter in a Nordic cultural landscape

Sara K K Eide et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Litter pollution is a global environmental problem that occurs in virtually all ecosystems. Scientific research on anthropogenic litter and its environmental impacts focusses predominantly on plastics and the marine environment. Little empirical knowledge exists about the distribution and ecological impacts of litter in terrestrial environments, where most litter is produced. To start closing that knowledge gap, we investigated the distribution of litter in a cultural landscape in central Norway and in relation to land cover types. We registered and collected litter in 110 survey plots that were randomly stratified across various land cover types. Our results show that land cover type modulates the occurrence, abundance, fragments size, and that litter is most present and abundant in or near land cover types associated with high human activities. Plastic was by far the most common litter material type, although the litter community (in terms of materials type) was not independent from land cover type. This knowledge can help to inform and optimize litter management and clean-up activities in terrestrial landscapes. How and to what extent the spatial structure of the litter community mediates ecological effects across various land cover types remains unknown to a large extent and warrants further study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. A map of the study area.
In the upper left corner is a map of Norway with the study area in Steinkjer is marked in black. Underneath is an overview map of the different land cover types in our study area as categorized in this study.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Predicted litter detection probability (H1a, upper panel), abundance (H1b, mid panel), and fragment size (H1d, lower panel) in 100 m2 sampling transects (50 x 2 m) in relation to land cover classes in the cultural landscape of Steinkjer municipality, central Norway. Fieldwork was carried out during autumn 2020. Blue dots indicate predicted means, and whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Predicted litter detection probability in 100 m2 sampling transects (50 x 2 m) in relation to distance to the nearest road (m) and according to land cover classes in the cultural landscape of Steinkjer municipality, central Norway (H1c).
Fieldwork was carried out during autumn 2020. The grey polygons indicate the 95% confidence region around the predicted means (blue lines).
Fig 4
Fig 4. Wordcloud the material type of all registered litter items distributed by land cover type and in total.
Litter items were registered in 110 sampling transects (50 x 2 m) distributed in a cultural landscape of central Norway during autumn 2020. Material types in the wordcloud are scaled in size relative to their abundance per land cover type and in total. Note that relatively rare material types were condensed into class ‘other’ to perform the formal chi-square test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2009;364(1526):1985–98. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Browne MA, Underwood AJ, Chapman MG, Williams R, Thompson RC, Franeker vJA. Linking effects of anthropogenic debris to ecological impacts. Proc Biol Sci. 2015;282(1807):20142929-. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2929 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Horton AA, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E, Svendsen C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci Total Environ. 2017;586:127–41. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Windsor FM, Durance I, Horton AA, Thompson RC, Tyler CR, Ormerod SJ. A catchment‐scale perspective of plastic pollution. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25(4):1207–21. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14572 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Francesco MC, Carranza ML, Varricchione M, Tozzi FP, Stanisci A. Natural protected areas as special sentinels of littering on coastal dune vegetation. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland). 2019;11(19):5446. doi: 10.3390/su11195446 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources