We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Integrative evidence on microplastics and heavy metals in vulnerable, threatened, and endangered species in natural environments: knowledge gaps, research priorities, and impacts
Summary
This review pulled together 20 years of research and found that we know surprisingly little about how much plastic pollution and heavy metals are building up inside endangered animals—the data that exists is scattered and focused on just a few species, like vultures and marine animals. This matters for us too: these same pollutants accumulate up the food chain, and gaps in monitoring wildlife mean we're likely missing warning signs about contamination that could eventually affect the food and water humans rely on.
Global biodiversity is facing unprecedented declines, with vulnerable, threatened, endangered, and critically endangered (VTEC) species at disproportionate risk. Among emerging threats, microplastics (MPs, <5 mm) and heavy metals (HMs) are persistent contaminants with high potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnification across ecosystems. This review is the first to synthesize the scarce and fragmented field-based evidence documenting MPs and HMs in VTEC species, highlighting critical gaps in taxonomic, habitat, trophic, and conservation-level coverage. The review evaluates field evidence on microplastics (MPs) and heavy metals (HMs) in vulnerable, threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. From 2005 to 2024, only 21 eligible field studies were identified, exposing a serious research deficit relative to conservation urgency. MP studies are dominated by marine taxa while amphibians and freshwater organisms are largely neglected. In contrast, HM research is biased toward terrestrial birds, particularly vultures, with minimal coverage of marine and reptilian species. Overall, contaminant monitoring in high-risk species is fragmented, taxonomically biased, and poorly aligned with proactive conservation planning. Despite extremely limited data, this review underscores the urgent need for integrative, cross-taxa field studies, long-term ecotoxicological monitoring, and conservation strategies.