0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Detection Methods Marine & Wildlife Sign in to save

The challenges of opportunistic sampling when comparing prevalence of plastics in diving seabirds: A multi-species example from Norway

Marine Pollution Bulletin 2024 8 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count.
Stine Charlotte Benjaminsen, Nina Dehnhard, Dorte Herzke, Arild Johnsen, Tycho Anker‐Nilssen, Sophie Bourgeon, France Collard, Magdalene Langset, Signe Christensen‐Dalsgaard, Geir Wing Gabrielsen

Summary

Researchers analyzed the frequency of plastic ingestion in five pursuit-diving seabird species collected opportunistically, finding variability across species and discussing the methodological challenges of comparing prevalence data from opportunistically sampled wildlife. The study highlighted the importance of standardized sampling protocols for meaningful comparison of plastic ingestion rates across species.

There is a need for baseline information about how much plastics are ingested by wildlife and potential negative consequences thereof. We analysed the frequency of occurrence (FO) of plastics >1 mm in the stomachs of five pursuit-diving seabird species collected opportunistically. Atlantic puffins (Fratercula arctica) found emaciated on beaches in SW Norway had the highest FO of plastics (58.8 %), followed by emaciated common guillemots (Uria aalge; 9.1 %) also found beached in either SW or SE Norway. No plastics were detected in razorbills (Alca torda), great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo), and European shags (Gulosus aristotelis) taken as bycatch in northern Norway. This is the first study to report on plastic ingestion of these five species in northern Europe, and it highlights both the usefulness and limitations of opportunistic sampling. Small sample sizes, as well as an unbalanced sample design, complicated the interpretation of the results.

Share this paper