2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT © HIHWNMS (NOAA MMHSRP, permit #932-1489 2/7/2007

Habitat

Marine Debris Impacts on Coastal 

and Benthic Habitats

2016 NOAA Marine Debris Program Report
June 2016

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science – Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research

219 Ft. Johnson Rd.

Charleston, South Carolina 29412

Office of Response and Restoration

Marine Debris Program

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Cover photograph courtesy of NOAA

For citation purposes, please use: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2016). Report on Marine Debris Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. Silver Spring, 

MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program.

For more information, please contact: 

NOAA Marine Debris Program

Office of Response and Restoration

National Ocean Service

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

301-713-2989

https://MarineDebris.noaa.gov
Acknowledgements

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program would like to acknowledge Pete Key (NOAA National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science) and Shawn Mclaughlin (NOAA National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science) for conducting this 

research, and Jason Paul Landrum, Courtney Arthur, Kim Albins, and Carlie Herring for providing guidance and support throughout this process from the NOAA 

National Ocean Service, Marine Debris Program. Special thanks go to Randy Clark (NOAA National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science), 

Laurie Bauer (NOAA National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science), Kim Albins, Sherry Lippiatt, and Amy V. Uhrin (NOAA National Ocean 

Service, Marine Debris Program) for reviewing this paper and providing helpful comments. Special thanks also go to John Hayes (NOAA National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science) and Krista Stegemann (NOAA National Ocean Service, Marine Debris Program) for a copy/edit review, and Asma Mahdi 

(NOAA National Ocean Service, Marine Debris Program) for design and layout. Funding for this project was provided by the NOAA Marine Debris Program.

This publication does not constitute an endorsement of any commercial product or intend to be an opinion beyond scientific or other results obtained by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). No reference shall be made to NOAA, or this publication furnished by NOAA, to any advertising or sales 

promotion which would indicate or imply that NOAA recommends or endorses any proprietary product mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an interest 

to cause the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this publication.
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2

Coastal Habitats 4

Salt Marsh 4

Sandy Beach 5

Mangroves 7

Benthic Habitats 9

Seagrass 9

Oyster Reefs 10

Coral-Dominated Habitats 11

Shallow Coral Reefs 13

Deep Sea Coral Reefs 14

Hard bottom Coral Reefs 14

Benthic Sediment 15

Conclusion 16

State of the Science 16

References 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Marine debris produces a wide variety of environmental, 

economic, safety, health, and cultural impacts and is rapidly 

achieving recognition as a key anthropogenic threat to global 

oceanic ecosystems. A central theme of research on habitat 

degradation via marine debris is determining the impact of specific 

types of debris (abandoned or derelict fishing gear and plastics 

in particular) on sensitive habitats. In this paper, the impacts of 

marine debris are discussed as they affect coastal and ocean 

habitats, including sandy beaches, salt marshes, mangrove forests, 

coral reefs and hard bottom, seagrass, benthic sediments, and 

oyster reefs. Other important habitats—such as areas with kelp 

and macroalgae, rocky intertidal areas, and freshwater systems 

such as the Great Lakes region—are lacking research on the effects 

of marine debris and are in need of more attention regarding 

habitat impacts.

The accumulation of marine debris can alter and degrade marine 

habitats through physical damage caused by abrasion, shearing, 

or smothering, and can change the physical and chemical 

composition of sediments. Physical damage often impairs critical 

nurseries and refuges used by many different organisms that 

occupy these habitats and may reduce the quality of habitat for 

organisms whose daily activities (e.g., feeding, reproduction) 

require the use of specific environments. Degraded marine 

habitats reduce the resilience of marine life and their ability to 

survive in open waters and on the ocean floor. In addition, changes 

in marine habitats can alter complex marine ecosystems and 

ultimately affect yields of important commercial fisheries resources 

and reduce local biodiversity. 

Although marine debris has been documented to cause physical 

damage to marine ecosystems, the damage to habitat-forming 

foundation species and other organisms utilizing marine 

habitats has not yet been fully characterized. Marine organisms 

and their habitats can become contaminated by potentially 

harmful chemical compounds leaching from debris items such 

as abandoned vessels or plastics. Additionally, the accumulation 

of microplastics in benthic and beach sediments may alter the 

quality of marine habitats for many animals by imposing uncertain 

physiological and toxicological risks on these inhabitants, 

ultimately including humans. The abundance of microplastics 

found in all marine habitats and their potential impacts to both the 

habitats and foundation species warrant continued investigation. 

The accumulation and dispersal of marine debris can be caused 

by both natural disasters and anthropogenic sources. Storms, 

currents, and tides play a role in the movement of debris, which 

can lead to recurrent damage to marine species and habitats. 

Marine debris removal programs have been instrumental in 

reducing acute and historical accumulations and harmful impacts 

to sensitive marine habitats; however, removal work may also have 

unintended impacts on habitats, such as eliminating cover and 

creating open patches which may serve as substrate for colonizing 

organisms.

To date, very few large-scale studies have attempted to 

quantitatively and qualitatively assess the occurrence and 

magnitude of habitat impacts incurred by marine debris. Since 

marine habitats are exposed to multiple anthropogenic stressors, 

assessing the risks associated solely with the presence of marine 

debris presents considerable challenges. There is also a need for 

research evaluating the long-term impacts of marine debris on 

those organisms and communities living within, or associated 

with, these marine habitats. Overall, the consequences for 

ecosystem-wide impacts caused by marine debris, including the 

loss of ecosystem goods and services due to larger-scale effects of 

marine debris pollution, are multifaceted and remain to be fully 

understood. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 2

Marine debris is rapidly 

achieving universal recognition 

as a key anthropogenic threat to 

global oceanic ecosystems and 

produces a wide variety of negative 

environmental, economic, safety, 

health, and cultural impacts 

(UNEP, 2009). Coastal and ocean 

habitats impacted by marine 

debris have been observed from 

the Earth’s equator to the poles, 

and from shorelines, estuaries, 

and the sea surface to the ocean 

floor (Figure 1). The Marine 

Debris Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et 

seq.) defines marine debris as any 

persistent solid material that is 

manufactured or processed and 

directly or indirectly, intentionally 

or unintentionally, disposed of 

or abandoned into the marine 

environment. This may include 

man-made products composed 

of materials such as plastic, glass, 

metals, or rubber, as well as 

derelict fishing gear and derelict 

vessels, and may range in size 

from micrometers (plastic pellets) 

to meters (shipwrecks) (UNEP, 

2009; Lippiatt, Opfer, & Arthur, 

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. This graphic depicts coastal habitats (salt marshes, seagrass beds, oyster reefs, sandy beaches, and benthic sediments) and 

many sources of how marine debris may be introduced into these habitats through human activities (urban areas, recreational and 

commercial fishers, recreational boaters, beachgoers, etc.). Graphic created by Catherine Polk (NOAA, National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science).
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 3

2013; Bergmann, Gutow, & Klages, 

2015). 

Marine debris can enter 

rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, 

and the ocean from land-based 

sources such as waste, run off, 

and sewage effluent. Debris also 

enters the marine environment 

through ocean-based sources, 

such as maritime and cruise 

industries, commercial fisheries, 

and recreational fishing and 

boating activities. Marine debris 

is transported throughout the 

world’s ocean and water bodies, 

accumulating on beaches and 

within oceanic convergence 

zones and gyres. It can threaten 

marine and human life, transport 

chemical pollutants, interfere 

with navigation, and degrade 

habitats. The harmful effects of 

marine debris on wildlife are often 

evidenced by directly observing 

animals ingesting and becoming 

entangled in debris (Laist, 1987; 

Derraik, 2002; Katsanevakis, 2008; 

Gregory, 2009; Ryan, Moore, 

Van Franeker, & Moloney, 2009; 

Thompson, Moore, Vom Saal, & 

Swan, 2009; NOAA MDP, 2014a, b; 

Gall & Thompson, 2015). 

Accurate estimates of 

how much marine debris is in the 

global ocean remain elusive, but 

the presence of debris is generally 

agreed to be ubiquitous (Ivar do 

Sul & Costa, 2007; Ribic, Sheavly, 

& Rugg, 2011; Woodall, Robinson, 

Rogers, Narayanaswamy, & 

Paterson, 2015). It has been 

estimated that 4.8 to 12.7 million 

metric tons of plastic waste 

entered the ocean in 2010 from 

192 coastal countries (Jambeck 

et al., 2015). This is expected to 

increase by an order of magnitude 

by 2025 if no improvements in 

waste management infrastructure 

occur (Jambeck et al., 2015). 

The abundance and spatial 

distribution of marine debris is 

dependent on several factors, 

including the point of origin, 

ocean currents, wind patterns, 

and physiographic characteristics 

(Galgani et al., 2000; Donohue, 

Boland, Sramek, & Antonelis, 

2001). Pelagic marine debris 

can be found near the water’s 

surface or suspended vertically 

in the upper water column, while 

benthic marine debris is found 

near or on the seabed. When 

marine debris accumulates in 

ocean basins, beaches, estuaries, 

and other submerged benthic 

habitats, it can cause reduced 

light levels in underlying waters, 

low oxygen levels, and other 

physical changes or degradation 

of these habitats (Goldberg, 

1994; Uneputty & Evans, 1997). 

Although coastal habitats are 

closer to primary debris sources, 

open-ocean habitats found beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf 

are also impacted by marine 

debris, especially within surface 

convergence zones located north 

and south of the equator (Pichel et 

al., 2007; Law et al., 2010; Leichter, 

2011; Cózar et al., 2014). 

The localized accumulation 

of marine debris in a habitat can be 

influenced by wind, current, geography, and the proximity of human activity, such as urban areas 

and trade routes (Barnes, Galgani, 

Thompson, & Barlaz, 2009). SubAntarctic beaches have seen debris 

accumulation rates dependent on 

tides and onshore winds that can 

also remove debris or bury it and 

cause it to reappear later (Eriksson, 

Burton, Fitch, Schulz, & van den 

Hoff, 2013). Although the large 

scale Hawaiian commercial fishing industry uses longline fishing 

methods, there is a high presence 

of derelict trawl nets in Hawaiian 

coral reef habitats resulting from 

the seasonal oscillations of the 

convergence zone that allow trawl 

nets to be transported far from 

their point of entry, ending up in 

Hawaiian waters (Boland & Donohue, 2003). 

Habitat degradation due 

to marine debris has far-reaching 

impacts on ocean biodiversity 

since many critical areas, such 

as coral reefs, mangroves, salt 

marshes, seagrass beds, and 

macroalgae serve as breeding 

grounds or nurseries for nearly 

all marine species. The movement 

of marine debris by tides, 

currents, and storms can result 

in recurrent damage to marine 

animals and habitats, either 

through repeated damage in situ 

or when transported any distance 

(Sheridan, Hill, Matthews, & 

Appledoorn, 2003; Lewis, Slade, 

Maxwell, & Matthews, 2009; Good, 

June, Etnier, & Broadhurst, 2010). 

In the wake of severe weather 

events, such as Hurricane Katrina 

“It has been 

estimated that 

4.8 to 12.7 million 

metric tons of 

plastic waste 

entered the ocean 

in 2010 from 192 

coastal countries.”
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 4

in the Gulf of Mexico, immediate 

marine debris response efforts 

were directed toward field surveys, 

mapping hotspots of debris, 

and debris removal operations, 

all of which collected data that 

could later inform studies to 

directly assess associated habitat 

degradation (Munasinghe, 2007). 

Accelerated species extinctions and 

declines in global biodiversity are 

associated with habitat loss, thus 

making it critical to unravel the 

ecological consequences of marine 

debris (Myers et al., 2013; Pimm et 

al., 2014). 

Larger-scale effects of 

marine debris pollution are 

multifaceted and remain to be 

fully understood, including 

cumulative impacts to ecosystem 

goods and services. The effects of 

marine debris on species at the 

population and community level 

are also largely unknown (Browne 

et al., 2015). Fortunately, marine 

debris research and monitoring 

assessments are increasing in scope 

and complexity and garnering 

support as local, national, and 

international communities 

recognize the magnitude of global 

marine debris and its risk to 

critical and fragile aquatic habitats. 

Since many marine habitats 

experience multiple environmental 

and anthropogenic stressors, 

separating the risks associated with 

marine debris from those of other 

stressors is difficult (Derraik, 2002; 

Halpern et al., 2009; Koelmans, 

Gouin, Thompson, Wallace, & 

Arthur, 2014). There is also the 

COASTAL HABITATS

Salt Marsh

Coastal salt marshes are 

considered a type of wetland that 

links land and saline water bodies 

(Adam, 1993). While a variety 

of grasses, herbs, and low shrubs 

can populate a salt marsh, in 

temperate zones, marsh grasses 

such as Spartina species can be the 

dominant plant. These areas are 

closely linked with the terrestrial 

environment; for instance, 

saltwater marshes can receive 

significant pulses of freshwater 

inflow (Barnette, 2001; Figure 1). 

Salt marshes differ from seagrass 

beds by being submerged only 

periodically and are not dominated 

by trees as mangrove habitats 

are (Adam, 1993). However, 

similar to seagrass beds and 

mangrove forests, salt marshes 

support extremely high primary 

and secondary productivity, 

with abundant and diverse fish 

and invertebrate species (Beck 

et al., 2001). The importance of 

salt marshes was emphasized 

by Barbier . (2010), who stated 

that salt marshes “provide a high 

number of valuable benefits ... 

including raw materials and food, 

coastal protection, erosion control, 

water purification, maintenance of 

fisheries, carbon sequestration, and 

tourism, recreation, education, and 

research.” 

When marine debris comes 

into contact with salt marshes, 

the marsh vegetation can entrap 

debris, keeping it within and 

sometimes deep into the marsh, 

especially after storms (Viehman, 

Vander Pluym, & Schellinger, 

2011). In Argentina, even crab 

burrows have been shown to 

work as passive traps for debris 

(Iribarne, Botto, Martinetto, 

& Gutierrez, 2000). One study 

observed that these burrows 

retained a significantly larger 

amount of plastic debris on the 

“When marine 

debris comes 

into contact with 

salt marshes, the 

marsh vegetation 

can entrap debris, 

keeping it within 

and sometimes 

deep into the marsh, 

especially after 

storms.”

problem of assuming that all 

marine debris causes an impact on 

the organism or the habitat at all 

(Browne et al., 2015). 

This report synthesizes the 

state of science regarding marine 

debris impacts to coastal and 

marine habitats, highlights where 

knowledge is currently lacking, 

and recommends future research 

and assessment priorities.
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 5

focation and complete plant loss. 

Derelict crab pots did not pose an 

immediate direct threat to marsh 

grass, as the grass recovered a few 

weeks after pot removal (Uhrin & 

Schellinger, 2011).

As with other habitats, 

debris in salt marshes damages 

the vegetation, which serves a 

crucial role for organisms that rely 

on marsh habitats. Heavy debris 

may even denude the marsh and 

pose entrapment hazards for fish, 

marine mammals, and birds, 

while small debris items can be 

ingested by birds, turtles, fish, and 

mussels (Viehman et al., 2011). 

Solid plastic debris, due to its 

smothering ability, may also alter 

such components of the marsh as 

primary productivity, invertebrate 

biomass, and nutrient exchange 

(Green, Boots, Blockley, Rocha, & 

Thompson, 2015). While removing 

such smothering debris as plastics, 

tires, and processed wood can 

help basic ecosystem functions, it 

is debatable if removing derelict 

crab traps that no longer pose an 

surface, and had larger amounts 

of buried debris in the sediment, 

than areas without crabs (Iribarne 

et al., 2000). Most debris in 

marshes, however, is concentrated 

in natural wrack lines (Viehman et 

al., 2011) and these accumulations 

don’t just occur in locations close 

to populated areas. In Georgia, 

accumulation of debris in more 

remote marshes was attributed 

to strong currents and storms 

rather than direct littering from 

visitors accessing these sites (Lee & 

Sanders, 2015). 

In a North Carolina marsh, 

Uhrin & Schellinger (2011) studied the damage to the dominant 

marsh vegetation, Spartina alterniflora, from marine debris. Wire 

crab pots and vehicle tires were 

secured in marsh plots for up to 

13 weeks and then removed, after 

which the plots were monitored for 

recovery (Figure 2). Both the tires 

and crab pots caused broken or 

abraded grass stems, with the tires 

causing plant stems to be buried 

into the sediment leading to sufSandy Beach

Sandy beaches, defined by 

sand, waves, and tides, provide 

habitat for a diversity of wildlife 

(Defeo et al., 2009). This fauna 

ranges from microorganisms that 

live between sand grains to birds 

and turtles using the beach for 

nesting (Defeo et al., 2009). Most 

of these species are not found in 

any other habitats, as they are 

uniquely adapted to the sandy 

beach environment (Defeo et al., 

2009). 

Marine debris 

accumulation associated with 

shorelines is well documented 

(Ribic, Johnson, & Cole, 1994; 

Silva-Iniguez & Fischer, 2003; 

entrapment hazard to wildlife is 

in the best interest of the marsh, 

especially if the traps have been 

incorporated in the surrounding 

vegetation (Uhrin & Schellinger, 

2011). 

Figure 2. A researcher monitors a vehicle tire and blue crab trap that were experimentally deployed on a fringing salt marsh as part 

of an impact study in Beaufort, North Carolina (left). The impact footprint of a vehicle tire in a fringing salt marsh in Beaufort, 

North Carolina (right). Photo Credit: NOAA.
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

funded by the NOAA Marine 

Debris Program (Leggett et al., 

2014), Orange County residents 

were found to lose millions of 

dollars each year from beachgoers 

avoiding littered, local beaches 

in favor of choosing cleaner 

beaches that were farther away 

and that may cost more to reach. 

Not only are there lost revenue 

from decreased tourism and 

direct costs for beach-cleaning 

activities, but beach litter can also 

cause landscape deterioration 

and contamination of inland and 

coastal waters (Newman et al., 

2015). 

The debris found on 

beaches can be washed up from 

the sea or be of terrestrial origin. 

The amount of litter that strands 

on beaches varies widely due to 

topography and prevailing winds, 

with the most litter on individual 

beaches found at the high-tide 

(or storm-level) line (Galgani, 

Hanke, & Maes, 2015). Eriksson 

et al. (2013) summarized several 

studies that showed how debris 

can wash up on beaches from the 

sea. These included wind factors 

interacting with the orientation 

of the beach, the proximity of 

tidal currents to fishing grounds, 

and even high wave energies that 

expose previously buried debris on 

the shore (Eriksson et al., 2013). 

Other researchers add causes 

such as climate, the proximity to 

urban, industrial, and recreational 

areas, and shipping lanes to the 

list of covariates that influence 

debris accumulation (Galgani et 

al., 2015). This creates a problem 

in which beach litter is not just 

confined to highly populated areas. 

Ribic, Sheavly, & Klavitter (2012) 

documented the findings from 23 

surveys of marine debris found on 

Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, 

far from high population densities. 

Beaches oriented toward the North 

Pacific Gyre and the Subtropical 

Convergence Zone contained the 

highest amount of debris (Ribic et 

al., 2012).

Figure 3. Microplastic debris found on Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (left; Photo Credit: NOAA). Plastic 

pellets, also called nurdles, used in the plastic manufacturing process (right; Photo Credit: Seba Sheavly, Sheavly Consultants, Inc.).

Debrot, Meesters, Bron, & de 

León, 2013; Davis & Murphy, 2015; 

Lee & Sanders, 2015), since such 

areas are easy to access and littered 

beaches are not well tolerated due 

to aesthetic reasons. In Australia, 

the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife 

Service found that fishing debris 

made up 20 percent of the total 

debris and 40 percent of the plastic 

debris found on its beaches (Jones, 

1995). They concluded that marine 

debris on a beach can reduce the 

recreational and aesthetic value of 

the beach and can be hazardous 

to beachgoers and coastal wildlife 

(Jones, 1995; Leggett, Scherer, 

Curry, Bailey, & Haab, 2014). 

Economic consequences of beach 

litter have been recognized in 

many regions, including Great 

Britain (Newman, Watkins, 

Farmer, Brink, & Schweitzer, 

2015), South Africa (Ballance, 

Ryan, & Turpie, 2000), Chile and 

Peru (Thiel, Hinojosa, Joschko, & 

Gutow, 2011), to reference a few. 

In a study in Southern California 

6
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 7

An abundance of published 

literature exists on the amounts 

of litter found on sandy beaches 

and along shorelines as referenced 

above. However, much less is 

known about its impact on 

the habitat. Changes in sandy 

sediments in the intertidal zone 

due to the impacts of microplastics 

and plastic fragments have been 

reported (Carson, Colbert, Kaylor, 

& McDermid, 2011; Figure 3). 

The examination of sediment 

cores from Hawaiian beaches 

revealed that the presence of 

plastic pellets and fragments 

changed the physical properties of 

beaches, which showed increased 

permeability and lowered 

subsurface temperatures and were 

hypothesized to have potentially 

adverse effects on a variety 

of beach organisms (Carson 

et al., 2011). Even relatively 

modest decreases in subsurface 

temperatures could impact beach 

organisms, including those with 

temperature-dependent sexdetermination such as sea turtles 

“The amount of 

litter that strands 

on beaches varies 

widely due to 

topography and 

prevailing winds, 

with the most 

litter on individual 

beaches found at the 

high-tide (or stormlevel) line.”

(Yntema & Mrosovsky 1982; 

Carson et al., 2011). 

Plastic pellets, used 

in industry, have been found 

on beaches in 17 countries 

(Stevenson, 2011). These pellets 

can adsorb contaminants, such as 

PCBs, PAHs, and organochlorine 

pesticides, when in high 

concentrations (Stevenson, 2011; 

Antunes, Frias, Micaelo, & Sobral, 

2013). When the pellets degrade, 

these contaminants can then be 

released back into the sediment 

(Nakashima, Isobe, Kako, Itai, & 

Takahashi, 2012). In Japan, toxic 

metals leaching from plastic beach 

litter were found to potentially 

lead to accumulations in beach 

sediments over time (Nakashima 

et al., 2012). This was illustrated 

by the high amount of lead found 

in polyvinyl chloride fishing floats 

that washed ashore in Japan; it was 

estimated that up to 0.6 grams of 

lead a year could be leached onto 

one particular beach from these 

floats (Nakashima et al., 2012). 

Sandy beaches are 

popular tourist and recreational 

destinations, resulting in much 

attention given to the presence of 

marine debris, especially when 

such debris causes economic 

impacts (Newman et al., 2015). 

Marine debris removal programs 

have been instrumental in 

reducing historical accumulations 

and harmful impacts to habitats 

such as sandy beaches, but 

removal can have consequences 

for those organisms that live 

there (Defeo et al., 2009). Wrack 

removal can disturb community 

structures, and sand grooming 

can remove plants and other 

organisms, leaving such areas 

open to wind erosion (Defeo et al., 

2009). Through the years, plastic 

litter has become ubiquitous, 

even in remote island locations, 

posing risks from leaching toxic 

chemicals into the surrounding 

sand and sediment (Nakashima 

et al., 2012), and causing changes 

in substrate composition and 

parameters such as temperature 

(Carson et al., 2011). How this is 

affecting the long-term survival 

of native organisms is unknown. 

Ultimately, as discussed, marine 

debris may end up on beaches due 

to a number of factors and sources, 

but debris will continue to wash 

ashore unless it is prevented from 

entering the watershed in the first 

place.

Mangroves

Inhabiting the shores 

of protected coastal lagoons 

and estuaries in tropical and 

subtropical latitudes are several 

species of mangrove trees. 

Mangroves are important 

ecologically since they protect and 

stabilize coastlines in addition 

to enriching coastal waters 

(Kathiresan & Bingham, 2001). 

This habitat is structurally complex 

and diverse with terrestrial 

animals occupying the upper leafy 

canopy and a variety of aquatic 

animals living on or around the 

distinctive prop roots, making 

mangroves among the world’s most 

productive ecosystems (Kathiresan 

& Bingham, 2001; Cordeiro & 

Costa, 2010). Mangrove forests are 

also popular for human activity 

as a source of food (hunting, 

fishing, and harvesting mollusks) 

and wood (Cordeiro & Costa, 

2010). Because of their proximity 

to urban areas and the rapid 

advance of urbanization toward 
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

the coast in tropical regions, 

mangroves encounter a range of 

environmental stresses among 

which is marine debris (Kathiresan 

& Bingham, 2001; Cordeiro & 

Costa, 2010). 

Whether directly littered in 

mangrove habitats or transported 

by wind and water, marine debris 

becomes trapped among mangrove 

trees and their aerial roots, 

which may block mangrove tidal 

channels and prove detrimental 

to nearshore habitats and their 

associated species (UNEP, 2009; 

Figure 4). In Brazil, Cordeiro & 

Costa (2010) surveyed mangrove 

stands and found the predominant 

litter type in terms of density was 

plastic (62.81 percent) and, by 

weight, wood (55.53 percent). The 

problems associated with debris 

accumulation like this include 

costs to the ecosystem by direct 

mortality of animal species and 

habitat suppression, as well as 

direct costs to the local economy 

by tourist avoidance (Cordeiro & 

Costa, 2010). 

An island off the coast 

of Papua New Guinea showed 

unusually high loads of litter in 

its mangrove forests, with one 50 

m section containing a combined 

weight of 889 kg of marine debris 

(90 percent plastic)(Smith, 2012). 

Though sparsely populated, the 

island was in close proximity 

to highly-populated regions 

and within prevailing currents, 

illustrating the problem of wind 

and wave transport (Smith, 2012). 

This high debris load was seen as a 

setback in rehabilitating depleted 

mangrove forests, as it smothered 

seedlings and created water quality 

issues in the surrounding bay 

(Smith, 2012). Mangrove forests 

act as both a trap and filter for 

debris, with larger debris like 

plastic bags, rope, and wooden 

flotsam trapped up front, and 

smaller debris penetrating deeper 

into the forest (Debrot et al., 

2013). Abandoned and derelict 

boats are another source of injury 

to mangrove habitats, causing 

damage to trees and prop roots, 

especially when remobilized 

during storms (Lord-Boring, Zelo, 

& Nixon, 2004). 

Plastic debris can interfere 

directly with the ecological role of 

mangrove forests in the estuarine 

ecosystem, particularly since 

it can be retained for months, 

resisting extreme tidal events and 

seasonal riverine flushes. This was 

realized in a controlled study with 

tagged plastic debris in a Brazilian 

mangrove forest (Ivar do Sul, 

Costa, Silva-Cavalcanti, & Araújo, 

2014). The investigators concluded 

that mangrove conservation is 

dependent on solving the plastic 

pollution issue, with source control 

a priority target (Ivar do Sul et 

al., 2014). However, large plastic 

debris is not the only issue, as 

microplastics have recently been 

identified in the sediment of 

seven intertidal mangrove habitats 

studied in Singapore. Their effects 

on this habitat are still largely 

speculative, so further studies are 

planned to measure the presence 

of microplastics in mangrove 

biota and assess any toxicological 

impacts (Mohamed Nor & 

Obbard, 2014).

As with many of the other 

habitats discussed in this paper, 

there is research on the presence of 

marine debris in mangroves, but 

little research on actual impacts 

to the trees and their habitat. 

While abandoned boats can cause 

obvious physical damage, other 

marine debris effects are less 

Figure 4. Mangrove trees 

with debris caught in 

the prop roots in Florida 

(left; Photo Credit: 

NOAA) and large debris 

in a mangrove forest in 

Puerto Rico (right; Photo 

Credit: NOAA). 

8
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

BENTHIC HABITATS

apparent. Removal of debris items 

from mangrove habitats is seen as a 

solution for recovery from impacts 

caused by the debris (Lord-Boring 

et al., 2004; Ivar do Sul et al., 2014). 

Seagrass

Seagrass ecosystems exist 

worldwide and are one of the 

most productive and economically 

important habitats in the coastal 

ocean. Seagrasses can be sensitive 

indicators of environmental 

quality in terms of water clarity 

and nutrient levels (Dennison et 

al., 1993), can provide valuable 

ecosystem services (Orth et al., 

2006), and can support a diverse 

assemblage of fauna, many with 

important commercial value (Beck 

et al., 2001). Seagrass beds may 

also be located near other coastal 

habitats, such as salt marshes (in 

temperate regions) (Figure 1) or 

mangroves and coral reefs (in 

tropical regions), which encourages 

cross-habitat use by fishes and 

invertebrates (Beck et al., 2001). 

Seagrasses are vulnerable to debris 

found in runoff from land or 

generated from coastal activities 

(i.e., boating, beach use) due to 

their location along coastlines and 

nearshore environments (Orth et 

al., 2006). 

Because seagrasses support 

a number of recreational and 

commercial fishery species, they 

are susceptible to impacts not 

only from the active use of fishing 

gear but from derelict gear as 

well. Fishing gear has the ability 

to resuspend sediment, disturb 

the rhizome, and impact the root 

structure of seagrasses (Barnette, 

2001). Disturbance to seagrass 

habitats from derelict spiny lobster 

traps was well-documented by 

Sheridan et al. (2003) in the 

Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands, where commercial 

trap fisheries exist. Not only were 

these traps found to flatten the 

plants, but the trap lines could also 

shear and abrade them (Sheridan 

et al., 2003). In the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary, it was 

recently estimated that over 85,000 

derelict traps like these were 

present on the seafloor, along with 

over 1,000,000 remnants of traps 

(Uhrin, Matthews, & Lewis, 2014), 

all with the potential to damage 

sensitive seagrasses. 

Lost traps also cause 

continuous damage when moved 

by storms and wave action. In 

Biscayne Bay, Florida, traps 

caused a seven percent loss of 

turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) 

after one week and a 26 percent 

loss of turtlegrass after one month 

(Sheridan et al., 2003). In the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, the placement of 

lobster traps on seagrass caused 

matted or discolored patches 

(Sheridan et al., 2005). The 

severity of damage to seagrass 

from abandoned lobster traps is 

also dependent upon the grass 

species and the length of time the 

trap is in contact with the grass. 

After six weeks of trap contact 

time, T. testudinum was able to 

recover within four months, while 

Syringodium filiforme densities 

remained depressed six months 

after injury (Uhrin, Fonseca, & 

DiDomenico, 2005)(Figure 5). 

There has also been documented 

evidence of damage to seagrass 

Figure 5. A derelict 

spiny lobster trap on 

seagrass (manatee grass, 

Syringodium filiforme) 

in the Florida Keys (left). 

A trap impact footprint 

after six months of 

experimental deployment 

on seagrass (manatee 

grass, Syringodium 

filiforme,) (right). Photo 

Credit: NOAA.

9
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 10

beds due to abandoned or derelict 

fishing vessels. A study of U.S. 

territories in the Caribbean and 

the Pacific Ocean saw active 

erosion to seagrass beds caused by 

abandoned vessels (Lord-Boring 

et al., 2004). Damage to seagrass 

habitats varied widely, but the 

most damage to seagrass occurred 

from vessels moved during storms 

(Lord-Boring et al., 2004).

The most obvious effect of marine 

debris on seagrass habitats is 

the damage to vegetation by 

breaking and abrading stems and 

even denuding whole sections of 

seagrass beds (Sheridan et al., 

2003; Uhrin et al., 2014). Other 

researchers have found that habitat 

damage from derelict traps is 

often assumed, but that it greatly 

depends on trap placement and 

the strength of wave action (Clark, 

Pittman, Battista, & Caldow, 

2012). Removing the debris from 

impacted areas does allow for 

the vegetation to return, but the 

time to recolonize depends on the 

species of grass affected (Uhrin 

et al., 2005). As in salt marshes, 

debris such as derelict traps may 

become part of the surrounding 

Oyster Reefs

Oyster (Family: Ostreidae) 

reef habitats are located in the 

benthic zone of estuarine areas 

where hard bottoms exist with 

sufficient currents (Barnette, 2001). 

The reefs can be variable, ranging 

from small scattered clumps of 

oysters to massive mounds of 

living oysters and dead shells 

(Bahr & Lanier, 1981). Oyster reefs 

can be subtidal or intertidal along 

marsh peripheries or in open bays 

(Bahr & Lanier, 1981; Figure 1). 

Research has shown that human 

activity has made oyster reefs one 

of the most impacted of marine 

habitats (Halpern et al., 2009). 

Impacts from marine debris, one 

of the top human threats to marine 

ecosystems, can affect more than 

just the oysters, as over 300 species 

of macrofauna have been found 

associated with oyster reef habitat 

(Bahr & Lanier, 1981). 

As in other marine habitats, 

plastic litter can negatively affect 

oyster reefs. When plastics rest 

on the seafloor in these habitats, 

smothering, ingestion, and 

exposure to toxicants can occur. 

Plastic litter may also inhibit gas 

exchange between the sediment 

and water rendering areas 

devoid of oxygen (Wurpel, Van 

den Akker, Pors, & Ten Wolde, 

2011). Microplastic debris is also 

a concern with oysters. Particles 

may be ingested and accumulated 

by oysters, leading to physical 

effects (Davidson 2012). Ward & 

Kach (2009) conducted laboratory 

tests with oysters and mussels 

(Mytilus edulis) on their ability 

to uptake polystyrene beads. 

The beads were ingested when 

incorporated into aggregates 

composed of their normal food 

sources. After ingestion, the beads 

were transported to their digestive 

glands, creating possibilities 

for toxicological effects and the 

potential to transfer microparticles 

to higher trophic levels (Ward & 

Kach, 2009). This potential for 

transference was seen by Van 

Figure 6. A Virginia commercial waterman retrieving derelict blue crab pots with extensive biofouling, 

including oysters. Photo Credit: CCRM/VIMS.

habitat and recruit fish and other 

organisms. Removal of debris in 

these instances should be carefully 

assessed (Battista, Clark, & 

Murphy, 2012).
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 11

Cauwenberghe & Janssen (2014) 

after purchasing farm-raised 

mussels and oysters in Germany 

and France. Both bivalve species 

contained microplastics, subjecting 

shellfish consumers to an annual 

dietary exposure of approximately 

11,000 microplastics per year (Van 

Cauwenberghe & Janssen, 2014). 

Apart from these damaging 

impacts, marine debris has also 

been shown to provide substrate 

for larval settlement in areas 

where hard structure is lacking. 

Derelict crab pots and fishing traps 

have been revealed to provide 

oyster habitat in several areas 

of the U.S. East Coast (Havens, 

Bilkovic, Stanhope, & Angstadt, 

2011), with high numbers of live 

oysters found on derelict pots in 

the Chesapeake Bay (Havens et al., 

2011; Figure 6). Of fishing traps 

retrieved from North Carolina 

marshes, 17 percent had recruited 

oysters, and a number of traps 

collected in Virginia contained 

over 100 attached oysters (Voss, 

Wood, Browder, & Michaelis, 

2012; Bilkovic, Havens, Stanhope, 

“Impacts from 

marine debris, one 

of the top human 

threats to marine 

ecosystems, can 

affect more than 

just the oysters, as 

over 300 species 

of macrofauna 

have been found 

associated with 

oyster reef habitat.” 

Coral-Dominated 

Habitats

Coral reefs, geologic 

formations that provide coastal 

protection from the ocean’s 

destructive forces, have the highest 

biological diversity in the marine 

environment (Yap, 2012). They 

provide habitat to one-third of 

all marine fish species and tens 

of thousands of other organisms, 

yet only cover 0.2% of the ocean’s 

area (Barnette, 2001). They have 

also served as a basis of human 

sustenance in many coastal areas 

in the tropics and subtropics (Yap, 

2012). Living coral reef growth 

is dependent on environmental 

conditions such as wave energy, 

water quality, turbidity, salinity, 

tidal regime, and light (Pandolfi, 

2011). As these encrusting and 

structure-forming species produce 

their complex and delicate 

skeletons, the fragile nature of 

these structures leads them to 

be vulnerable to fishery-related 

impacts (Barnette, 2001). 

The high biological 

diversity of coral reefs also makes 

them popular commercial and 

recreational fishing grounds, 

which often results in the presence 

of derelict fishing gear (DFG)

(Figure 7). DFG is known to cause 

significant and persistent threats 

to the coral reef ecosystems in 

many well-studied areas, such 

as the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands (NWHI), main Hawaiian 

Islands, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary, and Gray’s 

Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

(Donohue et al., 2001; Chiappone, 

White, Swanson, & Miller, 2002; 

Asoh, Yoshikawa, Kosaki, & 

Marschall, 2004; Chiappone, 

Dienes, Swanson, & Miller, 

2005; Dameron, Parke, Albins, 

& Brainard, 2007; Morishige, 

Donohue, Flint, Swenson, & 

Woolaway, 2007; Bauer, Kendall, 

& Jeffrey, 2008; Lewis et al., 2009; 

Cooper & Corcoran, 2010; Good 

et al., 2010). Though much of the 

DFG found in these areas may be 

of local fisheries origin, floating 

DFG (such as fishing ropes, 

nets, and lines) may circulate 

in ocean gyres to convergence 

zones, causing impacts to habitats 

far from their point of origin 

(Kubota, 1994). For example, DFG 

originating around the Pacific Rim 

(Japan to Alaska to California) 

may become snagged on the 

coral reefs of the NWHI due to 

its bathymetry and geography 

(Kubota, 1994; Donohue, Brainard, 

Parke, & Foley, 2000; Donohue et 

al., 2001). Reef geography can also 

influence the amount of DFG that 

can become snagged on the reef 

structure. For example, DFG may 

be forced over the outlying coral 

& Angstadt, 2014).

While in some situations 

the presence of marine debris 

has been observed to provide 

new habitat for oysters (Havens 

et al., 2011), marine debris has 

also caused harmful smothering, 

entanglement, changes in 

substrate, and anoxic conditions 

(Wurpel et al., 2011). Ingestion of 

microplastics by bivalves has led 

to concerns about the potential of 

transference to human consumers 

(Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen, 

2014). Further investigation of the 

long-term effects of microplastics 

on oyster habitats would be a next 

logical step.
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Figure 7. Impacts of debris to coral reef habitats. Large rope 

covering coral in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (top 

left; Photo Credit: NOAA). Researchers analyzing derelict 

lobster traps in the Florida Keys (top right; Photo Credit: 

NOAA). Divers removing a derelict net entangled on coral 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (middle left; Photo 

Credit: NOAA). Derelict lobster trap on coral in the Florida 

Keys (middle right; Photo Credit: NOAA). Fragmented coral 

entangled in a net that washed ashore on Midway Atoll in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (bottom left; Photo Credit: 

NOAA).

12
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

structure of some North Pacific 

Ocean barrier reefs to reside in 

the calmer interior waters of their 

lagoons (Donohue et al., 2001). 

This DFG often remains in these 

shallow reefs due to the protected 

and low-energy conditions created 

by the barrier reefs (Dameron et al., 

2007). 

Damage to reef-forming 

or hard corals (i.e., scleractinian 

corals) can reduce the integrity 

of coral reef ecosystems, since 

hard corals provide the substrate 

from which the reef structure is 

formed. As debris accumulates, 

it can entangle branching species 

of hard corals, resulting in 

fragmentation and abrasion (Figure 

7) and potentially reducing habitat 

heterogeneity and providing 

open substrate for macroalgal 

colonization (UNEP, 2009). Live 

coral polyps can be abraded 

and scoured by DFG, which can 

potentially lead to major alterations 

in reef structure and destruction 

of the reef ’s skeleton (Pichel, 2003; 

Heifetz, Stone, & Shotwell, 2009). 

In the NWHI, for example, lost 

trawl gear damaged or destroyed 

fragile coral reef systems (Donohue 

et al., 2001) with an estimated 

accumulation rate of 52 metric 

tons per year (Dameron et al., 

2007). Below are some examples of 

damage caused by marine debris in 

three types of reef habitats (Figure 

7).

SHALLOW CORAL REEFS

Abandoned or derelict traps 

and pots pose multiple threats to 

coral reef habitats. Derelict lobster 

traps in the coral reefs of Puerto 

Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and the Florida Keys damage 

hard and soft corals by abrading, 

shearing, and flattening organisms 

(Figure 7)(Sheridan et al., 2003; 

Marshak, Hill, Sheridan, Sharer, & 

Appeldoorn, 2008). While direct 

damage or destruction of hard 

coral and other sensitive habitats is 

caused by DFG such as nets, traps, 

anchors, or boat strikes, further 

damage may be inflicted when the 

debris is moved around by tides, 

currents, and storms. 

Although destructive 

fishing practices and DFG such as 

gill nets, traps, and anchors have 

been implicated in the decline of 

hard coral reef ecosystems, the 

adverse impacts of hook and line 

fishing have also been recognized 

(Asoh et al., 2004). Hook and 

line gear (e.g., monofilament 

line) is used by both commercial 

and recreational fishermen and 

contributes significantly to marine 

debris, especially in shallow waters. 

Intensive fishing can be a major 

cause of death for corals due to the 

abrasion or destruction of fragile 

coral polyps from fishing line, 

hooks, and weights (Yoshikawa & 

Asoh, 2004). Derelict hook and 

line gear can also entangle corals, 

causing significant damage or death 

(Asoh et al., 2004; Yoshikawa & 

Asoh, 2004). 

Abandoned and derelict 

vessels are another means of 

degrading coral reef habitats, via 

physical contact during initial 

impact and from subsequent 

movement by storms, currents, 

and tides. The release of fuel, antifouling paints, and other chemicals 

from these vessels can also occur. 

The potential for the continual 

slow-release of biocides aimed 

to inhibit settlement of marine 

organisms, and the transport 

of such contaminated particles 

around reef systems, constitutes a 

significant ecological risk (Jones, 

2007). Further, iron or other metal 

components in a fishing vessel 

shipwrecked on an isolated atoll 

in the central Pacific Ocean were 

hypothesized to play a role in the 

shift from hard coral to macroalgal 

species at the impact site, which 

led to a severe loss of coral reef 

habitat (Work, Aeby, & Maragos, 

2008). A ship grounding on a coral 

reef at Rose Atoll in American 

Samoa changed the habitat there, 

leading to rapid overgrowth of 

cyanobacteria and an abundance 

of herbivorous fishes near the 

impact site (Schroeder, Green, 

DeMartini, & Kenyon, 2008). 

For this study, the investigators 

hypothesized that corroding 

metal debris from the shipwreck 

stimulated and maintained blooms 

of opportunistic algae species and 

associated herbivorous fishes for at 

least 13 years after the initial impact 

(Schroeder et al., 2008). Similar 

shifts from coral habitat to algaldominated communities have been 

reported in other coral reefs where 

ship groundings or anchor damage 

occurred (Rogers & Garrison, 2001; 

Work et al., 2008). Such long-term 

changes result from the impacts 

on the reef-building community 

and influence reef function and 

structure (Schroeder et al., 2008). 

The direct threats from 

fishing debris and their byproducts are not the only marine 

debris issues concerning coral 

reef habitats. Diverse debris 

items such as building materials, 

plastics, aluminum cans, tires, 

and even disposable diapers 

were documented by Richards & 

Beger (2011) in the coral habitat 

of Majuro Atoll in the Marshall 

Islands. A significant relationship 

between coral cover and debris was 

found, with coral cover decreasing 

as macro-debris cover increased. 

13
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

This high density of macro-debris 

also impacted the coral habitat 

by reducing the diversity of the 

coral community (Richards & 

Beger, 2011). More recently, Hall, 

Berry, Rintoul, and Hoogenboom 

(2015) discovered the ability of 

scleractinian corals off the coast of 

Australia to ingest microplastics. 

High concentrations of microplastic 

debris could thus potentially 

impair the health of corals. It was 

found that corals may mistake 

microplastics for prey and can 

consume up to 50 μg of plastic at a 

rate similar to their consumption of 

plankton. It is uncertain how this 

ingestion affects coral energetics 

and growth, or if reef growth in 

general is threatened (Hall et al., 

2015).

DEEP SEA CORAL REEFS

Research on the effects of 

marine debris on deep sea coral 

reefs is important, as this habitat 

also comes into contact with debris 

in a variety of ways. For instance, 

plastic litter can sink to the 

seafloor and become concentrated 

(Engler, 2012). As with shallow 

coral reefs, deep sea corals also 

encounter microplastics. Deep 

sea corals from the Indian Ocean 

were sampled from several sites, 

with all samples containing plastic 

microfibers (Woodall et al., 2014). 

A wide variety of polymer types 

were detected, showing complex 

accumulation and deposition of 

microfibers in the deep sea arising 

from a variety of domestic and 

industrial sources. The actual 

physical effects of the microplastics 

are unknown, but substantial 

quantities were also found in the 

surrounding deep-sea sediments 

(Woodall et al., 2014). Plastic 

debris, including monofilament 

fishing line, was observed off 

the California coast in deep 

benthic habitats populated with 

gorgonian corals, but disturbance 

was low and some debris was 

even used for shelter by fish and 

invertebrates (Watters, Yoklavich, 

Love, & Schroeder, 2010). In cold 

water corals on the seafloor of the 

Aleutian Islands, disturbances from 

bottom fishing gear were observed 

in each of twenty-five transects, 

with derelict longline gear found 

in five of the transects (Stone, 

2006). In the Tyrrhenian Sea, 

fishing gear debris was observed 

covering, abrading, and hanging 

from deep rocky habitats, with over 

half of the recorded debris directly 

impacting benthic organisms such 

as gorgonians, black coral, and 

sponges (Angiolillo et al., 2015). 

Anthropogenic debris in the deep 

sea is much less widely investigated 

than more shallow areas due to 

sampling difficulties, inaccessibility, 

and high costs, even though this 

area accounts for almost half of 

the planet’s surface (Lippiatt et al., 

2013; Galgani et al., 2015). 

HARD BOTTOM CORAL

Hard bottoms are 

submerged rock formations often 

colonized by reef species (SAFMC, 

n.d.). As with shallow and deep 

sea reef habitats, species important 

to commercial and recreational 

fisheries reside in these areas along 

with sessile invertebrates (Wahl, 

2009). In the Florida Keys, annual 

trap losses reported by fishers were 

typically 10 to 20 percent of their 

total traps fished—about 50,000 

to 100,000 traps—and this many 

abandoned and derelict traps can 

have a significant effect on the reef 

environment over an extended 

period of time (Lewis et al., 2009). 

In the study by Lewis et al. (2009), 

lobster traps were placed on hard 

bottom and reef sites off the coast 

of Florida to determine the extent 

of damage to the habitats from trap 

movement. Trap movement due 

to sustained winds caused sessile 

fauna to be scraped, fragmented, 

and dislodged. It was thus 

hypothesized “that trap fishing is 

a significant anthropogenic factor 

shaping the structure of coral reefs 

and hard bottom communities in 

the Florida Keys” due to the large 

number of traps deployed and lost 

each season (Lewis et al., 2009).

Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary (GRNMS) in the South 

Atlantic Bight has a well-known 

hard bottom habitat; Bauer et al. 

(2008) observed an abundance of 

fishing debris in this area, with 

most debris occurring in regions of 

high boat density. Derelict fishing 

gear, especially hook and line, was 

observed more often in the crevices, 

changes in elevation, and overhangs 

of ledges targeted by fishermen 

than in sand and sparse live bottom 

sites. Despite their limited area, 

the ledges were considered highly 

vulnerable to debris accumulation, 

which was important since 

they support diverse benthic 

communities (Bauer et al., 2008). 

These ledges boast complex 

communities of large sponges, 

gorgonians, and branching hard 

corals that can snag, trap, and 

entangle debris (Bauer, Kendall, 

& McFall, 2010). An earlier study 

at GRNMS (Kendall, Bauer, & 

Jeffrey, 2007) discovered that the 

majority of debris was on these 

densely colonized ledge habitats 

and urged that ledges be given 

14
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

priority for debris mitigation and 

removal. Another study of a hard 

bottom area found an intermodal 

shipping container had fallen into 

the deep sea area of Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary (Taylor 

et al., 2014). The container was 

dominated by megafauna markedly 

dissimilar from the surrounding 

natural hard substrata. It was 

hypothesized that the faunal 

assemblage on the container was 

still at an early successional stage 

or that those species present 

represented ones tolerant of the 

container’s potentially toxic surface 

paint (Taylor et al., 2014).

A wide variety of debris, 

including derelict fishing gear, 

abandoned vessels, plastics, and 

lobster traps, have caused coral reef 

habitats to suffer from abrasion, 

fragmentation, and alteration of 

their structure; entanglement of 

the coral organisms and other 

organisms that inhabit the reefs; 

smothering; and the ingestion 

of microplastics and chemical 

contaminants. Viehman, Thur, & 

Piniak (2009), in summarizing 

several research studies, stated 

that recovery of damaged coral 

reef habitats, such as that from 

abandoned vessels, can take 

years. This recovery may then be 

only temporary or the damaged 

reef may convert permanently 

to another habitat type (i.e., 

hard bottom, macroalgae, sand) 

rather than to the pre-injury 

coral reef habitat (Viehman et 

al., 2009). The capacity of coral 

reefs to absorb injury and retain 

the same basic identity may be 

reduced, however, by human 

actions such as overfishing and 

coastal eutrophication (Folke et 

al., 2004). Thus the resilience of 

Benthic Sediment 

Benthic sediment can 

be comprised of a wide variety 

of coarse sands, shell hash, 

fine silts, and muds (Barnette, 

2001). This habitat can support a 

relatively sedentary macrofaunal 

community, among other 

organisms, that can have an 

important role in cycling nutrients 

between the sediments and the 

water column (Dauer, 1993). 

While some researchers suggest 

that sand and mud bottom habitats 

may be less affected by marine 

debris than more sensitive bottom 

habitats, such as seagrass or coral 

(Barnette, 2001), impacts from this 

debris can affect the complexity 

of benthic sediments available for 

a diverse set of animal, plant, and 

algal communities (Gilardi et al., 

2010). 

As with the other habitats 

discussed in this paper, abandoned 

and derelict fishing nets can 

impact benthic environments 

by smothering, abrading, and 

changing the sea bottom structure 

(Gilardi et al., 2010). Derelict 

nets can modify the sea floor by 

scouring the seabed and trapping 

fine sediment, which can suffocate 

plants and animals (Gilardi et al., 

2010). Visual documentation of 

nets observed in the Puget Sound 

and the Northwest Straits suggests 

that scouring and sedimentation 

under derelict nets is greater than 

in areas devoid of debris (Good 

et al., 2010). The presence of 

these nets can lead to suffocation 

and elimination of sessile fauna 

and can also prevent fish and 

invertebrates from accessing their 

habitat (Good et al., 2010). 

Plastic debris, including 

monofilament fishing line, was 

observed in one long-term study 

off the California coast in deep 

benthic habitats, but disturbance 

was low and some debris was 

even used for shelter by fish and 

invertebrates. The highest debris 

densities occurred close to ports 

and increased significantly over 

the 15 years of the study (Watters 

et al., 2010). In a controlled study 

in the Aegean Sea, plastic bottles 

and glass jars were placed on 

soft bottom habitats for a year. 

The debris provided refuge and 

reproduction sites for many 

mobile species, but the change 

from soft bottom to hard bottom 

displaced indigenous fauna due 

to predation or competition from 

invading species (Katsanevakis, 

Verriopoulos, Nicolaidou, & 

Thessalou-Legaki, 2007). In 

another controlled study with both 

conventional and biodegradable 

plastic bags, marine assemblages 

were rapidly altered after nine 

weeks of the bags making contact 

with the sediment. Plastic bags 

on the sediment caused anoxic 

conditions, reduced primary 

productivity and organic matter, 

and lowered infaunal invertebrate 

abundance (Green et al., 2015). A 

review by Moore (2008) stated that 

the accumulation of plastics on 

benthic sediments can inhibit gas 

exchange between overlying waters 

15

coral reef and hard bottom habitats 

to marine debris disturbances 

may not be apparent for years to 

come (Viehman et al., 2009). The 

damage to these habitats may also 

jeopardize future tourism and can 

hurt fisheries development, leading 

to revenue losses (UNEP, 2009). 
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

CONCLUSION

and sediment pore waters while 

smothering benthic inhabitants.

The discovery of 

microplastics in benthic habitats 

is added concern for the 

consequences of marine debris, 

as they can be ingested by filterfeeding invertebrates, potentially 

producing deleterious effects to 

the organisms as well as their 

predators (Browne, Dissanayake, 

Galloway, Lowe, & Thompson, 

2008; von Moos, Burkhardt-Holm, 

& Köhler, 2012; Fisner, Taniguchi, 

Moreira, Bícego, & Turra, 2013). 

Currently, there is no direct 

evidence of population-level effects 

from microplastics, but the impact 

on benthic habitats could be 

significant given that microplastics 

also have the ability to adsorb 

contaminants (Thompson et al., 

2004; Teuten, Rowland, Galloway, 

& Thompson, 2007; Arthur, Baker, 

& Bamford, 2009; Ryan et al., 

2009; Law et al., 2010; Ivar do Sul 

& Costa, 2014).The few studies 

on the effects of marine debris 

on benthic sediment habitats 

point to similarities with impacts 

discussed within the other habitat 

sections. The rising importance 

of microplastic research will 

shed further light on any benthic 

sediment effects.

State of the Science

The degradation of aquatic 

habitats due to marine debris 

poses potentially serious threats 

to the health of ocean and coastal 

ecosystems and living marine 

resources. Habitat degradation 

due to marine debris has farreaching impacts on biodiversity 

since many critical areas, such as 

coral reefs, mangroves, marshes, 

and seagrass, serve as breeding 

grounds or nurseries for nearly all 

marine species. Marine debris not 

only damages habitats directly via 

physical and chemical impacts, 

but it can also lead to reduced 

recruitment and reproduction 

for certain species, which may 

indirectly alter or degrade critical 

nurseries and other fragile 

ecosystems (Laist, 1987; Derraik, 

2002; Katsanevakis, 2008; Gregory, 

2009; Ryan et al., 2009; Thompson 

et al., 2009; NOAA MDP, 2014a, 

b; Gall & Thompson, 2015). 

Accelerated species extinctions and 

declines in global biodiversity are 

associated with habitat loss, thus 

making it critical to unravel the 

ecological consequences associated 

with marine debris (Myers et al., 

2013; Pimm et al., 2014; Browne et 

al., 2015). 

The impacts of debris on 

marine habitats vary in scope 

depending on the type, quantity, 

and location of the debris, as 

well as the vulnerability of the 

habitat. Although direct physical 

damage to marine habitats such as 

coral reefs, benthic zones, sandy 

beaches, and mangroves has been 

discussed, all habitats in this 

paper are in need of additional 

research. For instance, while 

damage to shallow marine habitats 

has been documented, the extent 

and range of habitat impacts still 

remain to be fully characterized 

and measured. Monitoring and 

assessment studies are needed 

that examine multiple habitats 

simultaneously (e.g., coral reefs 

and mangroves) and focus on the 

abundance, source, distribution, 

and composition of marine debris 

in sensitive or critical habitats. 

Marine debris can also alter 

habitat below the ocean’s surface 

on the deep sea bed. However, due 

to the technical challenges and 

prohibitive costs of conducting 

research in the deep sea, little 

is known about the abundance, 

extent, and types of marine debris 

present and the impacts on this 

vast habitat (Schlining et al., 

2013). In the open ocean, debris 

concentrations, especially plastics, 

have been reported in all major 

subtropical oceanic gyres (Cózar et 

al., 2014). Animals are more likely 

to encounter debris in convergence 

zones within the gyres, but 

comprehensive impact assessments 

of marine debris on these vital and 

productive floating habitats are 

lacking (Cózar et al., 2014). 

Other coastal and ocean 

habitats are also lacking basic 

information on the effects of 

marine debris, and so were not 

described in detail in this report. 

This includes floating macroalgae 

(i.e., Sargassum) and rocky 

intertidal zones. The abundance 

of native and invasive organisms 

16
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

associated with floating marine 

debris and macroalgae has been 

detailed (Carpenter & Smith, 1972; 

Lewis, Riddle, & Smith, 2005; Wei, 

Rowe, Nunnally, & Wicksten, 2012; 

Kiessling, Gutow, & Thiel, 2015), 

but the actual effect of marine 

debris on this habitat has not. 

Likewise, marine debris effects on 

rocky intertidal habitats have been 

little-studied, perhaps due to the 

difficulty of accessing this habitat. 

These areas have the disadvantage 

of easily accumulating and trapping 

debris due to the very nature of 

their structure (Moore, Gregorio, 

Carreon, Weisberg, & Leecaster, 

2001; Eriksson & Burton, 2003; 

Thiel et al., 2013), highlighting the 

importance of further research in 

this area.

The Great Lakes are another 

area that lacks comprehensive 

research on the effects of marine 

debris on habitats. The Great Lakes 

constitute the largest freshwater 

ecosystem in the world, but they 

have suffered years of degradation 

from toxic contamination, 

destruction of coastal wetlands, 

nonpoint source pollution, and 

invasive species (NOAA, 2016). 

Currently, most research on Great 

Lakes debris is about enumerating 

plastic debris (Eriksen et al., 

2013; Zbyszewski, Corcoran, & 

Hockin, 2014; Driedger, Dürr, 

Mitchell, & Van Cappellen, 2015) 

and not about the effects of 

marine debris on various Great 

Lakes habitats. Sources of plastic 

debris to the Great Lakes include 

microplastic beads from consumer 

products, pellets from the plastic 

manufacturing industry, and waste 

from beachgoers, shipping, and 

fishing activities (Driedger et al., 

2015). How this plastic debris 

impacts Great Lakes habitats 

(marshes, benthic sediments, etc.) 

requires investigation.

The size of debris items in 

all habitats is also an issue. Large 

debris items are less mobile and 

have a greater potential to disturb 

marine habitats, but effects can 

be easier to assess (Lippiatt et al., 

2013). Derelict fishing gear and 

other large, blanketing debris have 

been known to damage coral reefs 

by smothering, breaking apart, 

or abrading corals, modifying 

reef structure, injuring or killing 

associated plants and organisms, 

and impairing critical nurseries 

and refuges of many marine 

organisms (Donohue et al., 

2001; Chiappone et al., 2002; 

Asoh et al., 2004; Chiappone et 

al., 2005; Dameron et al., 2007; 

Morishige et al., 2007; Bauer 

et al., 2008; Lewis et al., 2009; 

Cooper & Corcoran, 2010; Good 

et al., 2010). Conversely, some 

debris is actually seen as helpful 

or beneficial by providing extra 

habitat and cover for sessile and 

benthic organisms (Havens et al., 

2011; Voss et al., 2012; Bilkovic et 

al., 2014); however, most debris, 

like derelict nets and plastics, can 

impact benthic environments 

by smothering, abrading, and 

changing the sea bottom structure 

(Wurpel et al., 2011; Green et al., 

2015). 

Smaller debris items, 

particularly microplastics, can be 

present in many habitats, such as 

benthic zones and coral reefs, but 

the challenge occurs in trying to 

determine their extent (Lippiatt 

et al., 2013). The abundance of 

microplastics in marine habitats 

suggests their impact could be 

significant. Microplastics often 

arrive in these locations when 

larger pieces of plastic debris 

degrade into smaller pieces by the 

actions of wind, waves, and sun, 

causing them to break into small 

(<5 mm) microplastic particles 

(Thompson et al., 2004; Arthur et 

al., 2009; Barnes et al., 2009; Law et 

al., 2010; Andrady, 2011). Much of 

the anthropogenic debris collected 

during surface water trawls 

consists of microplastics, which 

present new threats to the marine 

environment when ingested by 

marine organisms or when particles 

sink and become integrated into 

sediments (Thompson et al., 2004; 

Arthur et al., 2009; Barnes et al., 

2009; Law et al., 2010; Thiel et 

al., 2013). Microplastics can thus 

directly impact marine habitats by 

altering the natural components of 

sediments and ultimately affecting 

local diversity and ecological 

processes (Wright, Thompson, 

& Galloway, 2013; Browne et al., 

2015). 

While many programs have 

removed vast amounts of marine 

debris from beaches, watersheds, 

and the marine environment (i.e., 

UNEP, 2009; Jung, Sung, Chun, & 

Keel, 2010; Van Cauwenberghe, 

Vanreusel, Mees, & Janssen, 2013), 

it is the lasting impacts on these 

habitats that are important. Marine 

debris removal programs, following 

best management practices, 

have reduced potential damage 

to marine species and habitats, 

engaged commercial fisherman and 

local communities in the removal 

process, and recycled or repurposed 

fishing gear and other debris 

(Guillory, Perry, & VanderKooy, 

2001; Lippiatt et al., 2013; Arthur, 

Sutton-Grier, Murphy, & Bamford, 

2014; Bilkovic et al., 2014). An 

evaluation of the habitat benefits 

due to debris removal will be 

important to secure support for 

future debris removal efforts. 

It is crucial to develop accurate 

estimates of the impacts of marine 

17
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

debris on habitats and community 

structure in order to identify and 

prioritize actions that governments, 

researchers, and other stakeholders 

can take to reduce those impacts. 

As demonstrated in this 

discussion of marine debris 

on coastal and ocean habitats, 

much research is still needed. 

Recommendations for addressing 

key gaps in knowledge regarding 

marine debris impacts to the 

habitats discussed in this report 

and others yet to be studied include 

the following: 

complete targeted assessments 

in specific geographic locations 

and habitat types where data are 

minimal or lacking (i.e., Great 

Lakes, floating macroalgae);

identify or create better tools 

for detecting and quantifying 

marine debris impacts in less 

accessible habitats (i.e., rocky 

intertidal zones, deep sea);

assess shifts in the physical 

habitats, and in the organisms 

that live in those habitats, 

caused by the introduction of 

marine debris;

incorporate monitoring of 

habitat recovery after any debris 

removal to estimate habitat 

recovery rates;

determine estimates of 

residence times of marine 

debris and the length of time to 

see noticeable impacts; and

conduct assessments of the 

population- and communitylevel effects of marine debris on 

foundation (habitat-forming) 

species.

Evaluating the cradleto-grave (or cradle-to-cradle) 

process for plastics and other 

consumables could reduce our 

overall consumption of resources 

and the amount of material that 

enters habitats as marine debris 

(CA OPC, 2008; Ivar do Sul & 

Costa, 2014). To achieve this goal, 

it is imperative to educate local and 

global communities about marine 

debris prevention and to promote 

the development of universal 

management strategies to restore, 

protect, and conserve ocean health 

worldwide. 

18
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

REFERENCES

Adam, P. (1993). Saltmarsh ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1596–1605. 

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030

Angiolillo, M., Lorenzo, B. D., Farcomeni, A., Bo, M., Bavestrello, G., Santangelo, G., Cau, A., Mastascusa,

V., Cau, A., Sacco, F., & Canese, S. (2015). Distribution and assessment of marine debris in the deep 

Tyrrhenian Sea (NW Mediterranean Sea, Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1–2), 149–159. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.044

Antunes, J. C., Frias, J. G. L., Micaelo, A. C., & Sobral, P. (2013). Resin pellets from beaches of the Portuguese 

coast and adsorbed persistent organic pollutants. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 130(0), 62–69. doi: 

10.1016/j.ecss.2013.06.016

Arthur, C., Baker, J., & Bamford, H. (2009). Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the 

occurrence, effects, and fate of microplastic marine debris. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOSOR&R-30). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Arthur, C., Sutton-Grier, A. E., Murphy, P., & Bamford, H. (2014). Out of sight but not out of mind: Harmful 

effects of derelict traps in selected U.S. coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86(1–2), 19–28. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.050

Asoh, K., Yoshikawa, T., Kosaki, R., & Marschall, E. (2004). Damage to cauliflower coral by monofilament fishing 

lines in Hawaii. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1645–1650. 

Bahr, L. M., & Lanier, W. P. (1981). The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic Coast: A 

community profile (FWS/OBS 81/15). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Ballance, A., Ryan, P., & Turpie, J. (2000). How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter on beach users 

in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 96, 210–213. 

Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Silliman, B. R. (2010). The value of estuarine 

and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2), 169–193. doi: 10.1890/10-1510.1

Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic 

debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 364, 1985–1998. 

Barnette, M. C. (2001). A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential 

impacts on essential fish habitat. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-449).

Battista, T. A., Clark, R., & Murphy, P. (2012). Detecting and mapping the distribution of derelict traps. In R. 

Clark, S. J. Pittman, T. A. Battista & C. Caldow (Eds.), Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps in St. 

Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands (pp. 51). Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Technical Memorandum, 

NOS NCCOS 147.

Bauer, L. J., Kendall, M. S., & Jeffrey, C. F. G. (2008). Incidence of marine debris and its relationships with benthic 

features in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Southeast USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(3), 

402–413. 

Bauer, L. J., Kendall, M. S., & McFall, G. (2010). Assessment and Monitoring of Marine Debris in Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-NCCOS-113).

Beck, M. W., Heck, K. L., Able, K. W., Childers, D. L., Eggleston, D. B., Gillanders, B. M., Halpern, B., 

Hays, C. G., Hoshino, K., Minello, T. J., Orth, R. J., Sheridan, P. F., & Weinstein, M. P. (2001). The 

identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and 

invertebrates. BioScience, 51(8), 633–641. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2

Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., & Klages, M. (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer.

Bilkovic, D. M., Havens, K., Stanhope, D., & Angstadt, K. (2014). Derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay, 

Virginia: Spatial patterns and implications for marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 80(1–2), 114–

123. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.034

19
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Boland, R. C., & Donohue, M. J. (2003). Marine debris accumulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the 

endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi 1999–2001. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(11), 

1385–1394. 

Browne, M. A., Dissanayake, A., Galloway, T. S., Lowe, D. M., & Thompson, R. C. (2008). Ingested Microscopic 

Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus edulis (L). Environmental Science 

and Technology, 42, 5026–5031. 

Browne, M. A., Underwood, A. J., Chapman, M. G., Williams, R., Thompson, R. C., & van Franeker, J. A. (2015). 

Linking effects of anthropogenic debris to ecological impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 

282(1807), 20142929. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2929

California Ocean Protection Council (California OPC). (2008). An Implementation Strategy for the California 

Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter (pp. 28).

Carpenter, E. J., & Smith, K. L. J. (1972). Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science, 175(4027), 1240–1241. 

Carson, H. S., Colbert, S. L., Kaylor, M. J., & McDermid, K. J. (2011). Small plastic debris changes water 

movement and heat transfer through beach sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1708–1713. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.032

Chiappone, M., Dienes, H., Swanson, D. W., & Miller, S. L. (2005). Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reef 

sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Biological Conservation, 121(2), 

221–230. 

Chiappone, M., White, A., Swanson, D. W., & Miller, S. L. (2002). Occurrence and biological impacts of fishing 

gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(7), 597–604. 

Clark, R., Pittman, S. J., Battista, T. A., & Caldow, C. (2012). Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps 

in St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Cooper, D. A., & Corcoran, P. L. (2010). Effects of mechanical and chemical processes on the degradation of 

plastic beach debris on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5), 650–654. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.12.026

Cordeiro, C., & Costa, T. M. (2010). Evaluation of solid residues removed from a mangrove swamp in the Sao 

Vicente Estuary, SP, Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(10), 1762–1767. doi: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2010.06.010

Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González-Gordillo, J. I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., Hernández-León, S., Palma, Á. T., 

Navarro, S., García-de-Lomas, J., Ruiz, A., Fernández-de-Puelles, M. L., & Duarte, C. M. (2014). Plastic 

debris in the open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28), 10239–10244. doi: 

10.1073/pnas.1314705111

Dameron, O. J., Parke, M., Albins, M. A., & Brainard, R. (2007). Marine debris accumulation in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: An examination of rates and processes. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 

423-433. 

Dauer, D. M. (1993). Biological criteria, environmental health and estuarine macrobenthic community structure. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 26(5), 249–257. doi: 10.1016/0025-326X(93)90063-P

Davidson, T. M. (2012). Boring crustaceans damage polystyrene floats under docks polluting marine waters with 

microplastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(9), 1821–1828. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.06.005

Davis, W., III, & Murphy, A. G. (2015). Plastic in surface waters of the Inside Passage and beaches of the Salish 

Sea in Washington State. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 97, 169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.019

Debrot, A. O., Meesters, H. W. G., Bron, P. S., & de León, R. (2013). Marine debris in mangroves and 

on the seabed: Largely-neglected litter problems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(1), 1. doi: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2013.03.023

Defeo, O., McLachlan, A., Schoeman, D. S., Schlacher, T. A., Dugan, J., Jones, A., Lastra, M., & Scapini, F. (2009). 

Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 81(1), 1–12. 

Dennison, W. C., Orth, R. J., Moore, K. A., Stevenson, J. C., Carter, V., Kollar, S., Bergstrom, P. W., & Batiuk, 

R. A. (1993). Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. BioScience, 43(2), 86–94. doi: 

10.2307/1311969

Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine 

20
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Pollution Bulletin, 44(9), 842–852. 

Donohue, M. J., Boland, R. C., Sramek, C. M., & Antonelis, G. A. (2001). Derelict fishing gear in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Diving surveys and debris removal in 1999 confirm threat to coral reef 

ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(12), 1301–1312. 

Donohue, M. J., Brainard, R., Parke, M., & Foley, D. (2000). Mitigation of environmental impacts of derelict 

fishing gear through debris removal and environmental monitoring. Paper presented at the 4th 

International Marine Debris Conference on Derelict Fishing Gear and the Marine Environment. 

Honolulu: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Driedger, A. G. J., Dürr, H. H., Mitchell, K., & Van Cappellen, P. (2015). Plastic debris in the Laurentian Great 

Lakes: A review. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41(1), 9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2014.12.020

Engler, R. E. (2012). The complex interaction between marine debris and toxic chemicals in the ocean. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 46(22), 12302–12315. doi: 10.1021/es3027105

Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H., & Amato, S. (2013). Microplastic 

pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 77(1–2), 177–

182. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007

Eriksson, C., & Burton, H. (2003). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from 

Macquarie Island. Ambio, 32(6), 380–384. 

Eriksson, C., Burton, H., Fitch, S., Schulz, M., & van den Hoff, J. (2013). Daily accumulation rates of 

marine debris on sub-Antarctic island beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 66(1–2), 199–208. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.08.026

Fisner, M., Taniguchi, S., Moreira, F., Bícego, M. C., & Turra, A. (2013). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) in plastic pellets: Variability in the concentration and composition at different sediment depths in 

a sandy beach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 70(1–2), 219–226. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.03.008

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime 

shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and 

Systematics, 35, 557–581. 

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., & Maes, T. (2015). Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter. In M. 

Bergmann, L. Gutow & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter (pp. 29–56). Cham, Switzerland: 

Springer International Publishing.

Galgani, F., Leaute, J. P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H., Latrouite, D., Andral, 

B., & Cadiou, Y. (2000). Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(6), 

516–527. 

Gall, S. C., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1–2), 

170–179. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041

Gilardi, K. V. K., Carlson-Bremer, D., June, J. A., Antonelis, K., Broadhurst, G., & Cowan, T. (2010). Marine 

species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net 

removal. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(3), 376–382. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.10.016

Goldberg, E. D. (1994). Diamonds and plastics are forever? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 28(8), 466.

Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M. A., & Broadhurst, G. (2010). Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the 

Northwest Straits: Patterns and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(1), 39–50. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.005

Green, D. S., Boots, B., Blockley, D. J., Rocha, C., & Thompson, R. (2015). Impacts of discarded plastic bags 

on marine assemblages and ecosystem functioning. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(9), 5380–

5389. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00277

Gregory, M. R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings - entanglement, ingestion, 

smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal 

Society B, 364, 2013–2025. 

Guillory, V., Perry, H. M., & VanderKooy, S. (2001). The blue crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A 

regional management plan. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Hall, N. M., Berry, K. L. E., Rintoul, L., & Hoogenboom, M. O. (2015). Microplastic ingestion by 

21
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

scleractinian corals. Marine Biology, 162(3), 725–732. doi: 10.1007/s00227-015-2619-7

Halpern, B. S., Kappel, C. V., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F., Ebert, C. M., Kontgis, C., Crain, C. M., Martone, R. G., 

Shearer, C., & Teck, S. J. (2009). Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current marine 

ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 2(3), 138–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00058.x

Havens, K., Bilkovic, D. M., Stanhope, D., & Angstadt, K. (2011). Fishery failure, unemployed commercial 

fishers, and lost blue crab pots: An unexpected success story. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(4), 

445–450. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.002

Heifetz, J., Stone, R. P., & Shotwell, S. K. (2009). Damage and disturbance to coral and sponge habitat of the 

Aleutian Archipelago. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397, 295–303. doi: 10.3354/meps08304

Iribarne, O., Botto, F., Martinetto, P., & Gutierrez, J. L. (2000). The role of burrows of the SW Atlantic intertidal 

crab Chasmagnathus granulata in trapping debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(11), 1057–1062. 

Ivar do Sul, J. A., & Costa, M. F. (2007). Marine debris review for Latin America and the Wider Caribbean 

Region: From the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(8), 

1087–1104. 

Ivar do Sul, J. A., & Costa, M. F. (2014). The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine 

environment. Environmental Pollution, 185, 352–364. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036

Ivar do Sul, J. A., Costa, M. F., Silva-Cavalcanti, J. S., & Araújo, M. C. B. (2014). Plastic debris retention 

and exportation by a mangrove forest patch. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 78(1–2), 252–257. doi: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2013.11.011

Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., & Law, K. L. (2015). 

Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768–771. doi: 10.1126/science.1260352

Jones, M. M. (1995). Fishing debris in the Australian marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 30(1), 

25–33. 

Jones, R. J. (2007). Chemical contamination of a coral reef by the grounding of a cruise ship in Bermuda. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 54, 905–911. 

Jung, R. T., Sung, H. G., Chun, T. B., & Keel, S. I. (2010). Practical engineering approaches and infrastructure 

to address the problem of marine debris in Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(9), 1523–1532. doi: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.04.016

Kathiresan, K., & Bingham, B. L. (2001). Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems. In Advances in 

Marine Biology (Vol. 40, pp. 81–251). Academic Press.

Katsanevakis, S. (2008). Marine debris, a growing problem: Sources, distribution, composition, and impacts. In 

T. Hofer (Ed.), Marine Pollution: New Research. (pp. 53-100). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Katsanevakis, S., Verriopoulos, G., Nicolaidou, A., & Thessalou-Legaki, M. (2007). Effect of marine litter on the 

benthic megafauna of coastal soft bottoms: A manipulative field experiment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 

54(6), 771–778. 

Kendall, M. S., Bauer, L. J., & Jeffrey, C. F. G. (2007). Characterization of the benthos, marine debris and bottom 

fish at Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 50).

Kiessling, T., Gutow, L., & Thiel, M. (2015). Marine litter as habitat and dispersal vector. In M. Bergmann, 

L. Gutow & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter (pp. 141–181). Cham, Switzerland: Springer 

International Publishing.

Koelmans, A. A., Gouin, T., Thompson, R., Wallace, N., & Arthur, C. (2014). Plastics in the marine environment. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(1), 5–10. 

Kubota, M. (1994). A mechanism for the accumulation of floating marine debris north of Hawaii. Journal of 

Physical Oceanography, 24(5), 1059–1064. 

Laist, D. W. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine 

environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6, Supplement 2), 319–326. 

Law, K. L., Moret-Ferguson, S., Maximenko, N. A., Proskurowski, G., Peacock, E. E., Hafner, J., & Reddy, C. 

M. (2010). Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science, 329(5996), 1185–1188. 

doi: 10.1126/science.1192321

Lee, R. F., & Sanders, D. P. (2015). The amount and accumulation rate of plastic debris on marshes and beaches 

22
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

on the Georgia coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 91(1), 113–119. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.019

Leggett, C., Scherer, N., Curry, M., Bailey, R., & Haab, T. (2014). Assessing the economic benefits of reductions in 

marine debris: A pilot study of beach recreation in Orange County, California (Final report, pp. 45). 

Cambridge, MA.

Leichter, J. J. (2011). Investigating the accumulation of plastic debris in the North Pacific Gyre. In K. Omori, X. 

Guo, N. Yoshie, N. Fujii, I. C. Handoh, A. Isobe & S. Tanabe (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on 

environmental chemistry: Modeling and analysis of marine environmental problems (Vol. 5, pp. 251–

259). Tokyo: TERRAPUB.

Lewis, C. F., Slade, S. L., Maxwell, K. E., & Matthews, T. R. (2009). Lobster trap impact on coral reefs: Effects of 

wind-driven trap movement. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43(1), 271–282. 

Lewis, P. N., Riddle, M., & Smith, S. (2005). Assisted passage or passive drift: A comparison of alternative 

transport mechanisms for non-indigenous coastal species into the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science, 

17(2), 183–191. doi: 10.1017/S0954102005002580

Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., & Arthur, C. (2013). Marine debris monitoring and assessment: Recommendations for 

monitoring debris trends in the marine environment. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46).

Lord-Boring, C., Zelo, I. J., & Nixon, Z. J. (2004). Abandoned vessels: Impacts to coral reefs, seagrass, and 

mangroves in the U.S. Caribbean and Pacific territories with implications for removal. Marine 

Technology Society Journal, 38(3), 26–35. 

Marshak, A. R., Hill, R. L., Sheridan, P., Sharer, M. T., & Appeldoorn, R. S. (2008). In-situ observations of 

antillean fish trap contents in Southwest Puerto Rico: Relating catch to habitat and damage potential. 

Paper presented at the 60th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Punta Cana, Dominican Republica. 

Mohamed Nor, N. H., & Obbard, J. P. (2014). Microplastics in Singapore’s coastal mangrove ecosystems. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 79(1–2), 278–283. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.11.025

Moore, C. J. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term threat. 

Environmental Research, 108(2), 131–139. 

Moore, S. L., Gregorio, D., Carreon, M., Weisberg, S. B., & Leecaster, M. K. (2001). Composition and distribution 

of beach debris in Orange County, California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(3), 241–245. 

Morishige, C., Donohue, M. J., Flint, E., Swenson, C., & Woolaway, C. (2007). Factors affecting marine debris 

deposition at French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, 1990–

2006. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(8), 1162–1169. 

Munasinghe, M. (2007). The importance of social capital: Comparing the impacts of the 2004 Asian Tsunami 

on Sri Lanka, and Hurricane Katrina 2005 on New Orleans. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 9–11. doi: 

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.003

Myers, S. S., Gaffikin, L., Golden, C. D., Ostfeld, R. S., Redford, K. H., Ricketts, T. H., Turner, W. R., & Osofsky, 

S. A. (2013). Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, 110(47), 18753–18760. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218656110

Nakashima, E., Isobe, A., Kako, S. I., Itai, T., & Takahashi, S. (2012). Quantification of toxic metals derived from 

macroplastic litter on Ookushi Beach, Japan. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(18), 10099–10105. 

doi: 10.1021/es301362g

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program (NOAA MDP). (2014a). Report on 

the entanglement of marine species in marine debris with an emphasis on species in the United States 

(pp. 28). Silver Spring, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program (NOAA MDP). (2014b). Report on 

the occurrence and health effects of anthropogenic debris ingested by marine organisms (pp. 19). Silver 

Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. (2016). Great Lakes region: Regional snapshot. Retrieved from 

http://www.regions.noaa.gov/great-lakes/index.php/regional-statistics/ 

Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., Brink, P. T., & Schweitzer, J. P. (2015). The economics of marine litter. In 

M. Bergmann, L. Gutow & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter (pp. 367–394). Springer 

International Publishing.

23
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Orth, R. J., Carruthers, T. J. B., Dennison, W. C., Duarte, C. M., Fourqurean, J. W., Heck, K. L., Hughes, A. R., 

Kendrick, G. A., Kenworthy, W. J., Olyarnik, S., Short, F. T., Waycott, M., & Williams, 

S. L. (2006). A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience, 56(12), 987–996. doi: 

10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[987:agcfse]2.0.co;2

Pandolfi, J. (2011). The paleoecology of coral reefs. In Z. Dubinsky & N. Stambler (Eds.), Coral reefs: An 

ecosystem in transition (pp. 13–24). Netherlands: Springer.

Pichel, W. G. (2003). Ghost net: Derelict net detection in the North Pacific and Alaska waters using satellite and 

airborne remote sensing and surface drifters. Paper presented at the 30th International Symposium on 

Remote Sensing of the Environment. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Pichel, W. G., Churnside, J. H., Veenstra, T. S., Foley, D. G., Friedman, K. S., Brainard, R. E., Nicoll, J. B., Zheng, 

Q., & Clemente-Colon, P. (2007). Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical 

Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(8), 1207–1211. 

Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., 

& Sexton, J. O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and 

protection. Science, 344(6187). doi: 10.1126/science.1246752

Ribic, C. A., Johnson, S. W., & Cole, C. A. (1994). Distribution, type, accumulation, and source of marine debris 

in the United States, 1989–93 (pp. 48). Environmental Protection Agency.

Ribic, C. A., Sheavly, S. B., & Klavitter, J. (2012). Baseline for beached marine debris on Sand Island, Midway 

Atoll. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(8), 1726–1729. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.04.001

Ribic, C. A., Sheavly, S. B., & Rugg, D. J. (2011). Trends in marine debris in the U.S. Caribbean and the Gulf of 

Mexico 1996–2003. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 11(1), 7–19. 

Richards, Z. T., & Beger, M. (2011). A quantification of the standing stock of macro-debris in Majuro lagoon 

and its effect on hard coral communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1693–1701. doi: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2011.06.003

Rogers, C. S., & Garrison, V. H. (2001). Ten years after the crime: Lasting effects of damage from a cruise ship 

anchor on a coral reef in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science, 69(2), 793–803. 

Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., Van Franeker, J. A., & Moloney, C. L. (2009). Monitoring the abundance of plastic 

debris in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 364, 1999–2012. 

Schlining, K., von Thun, S., Kuhnz, L., Schlining, B., Lundsten, L., Jacobsen Stout, N., Chaney, L., & Connor, 

J. (2013). Debris in the deep: Using a 22-year video annotation database to survey marine litter in 

Monterey Canyon, Central California, USA. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 

79, 96–105. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2013.05.006

Schroeder, R. E., Green, A. L., DeMartini, E. E., & Kenyon, J. C. (2008). Long-term effects of a ship-grounding on 

coral reef fish assemblages at Rose Atoll, American Samoa. Bulletin of Marine Science, 82(3), 345–364. 

Sheridan, P., Hill, R., Matthews, G., & Appledoorn, R. (2003). The effects of trap fishing in coralline habitats: 

What do we know? How do we learn more? Paper presented at the 54th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries 

Institute. 

Sheridan, P., Hill, R. L., Matthews, G., Appledoorn, R., Kojis, B. J., & Matthews, T. (2005). Does trap fishing 

impact coral reef ecosystems? An update. Paper presented at the 56th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries 

Institute. 

Silva-Iniguez, L., & Fischer, D. W. (2003). Quantification and classification of marine litter on the municipal 

beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(1), 132–138. 

Smith, S. D. A. (2012). Marine debris: A proximate threat to marine sustainability in Bootless Bay, Papua New 

Guinea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(9), 1880–1883. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.06.013

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). (n.d.). Coral & live/hard bottom habitat. Retrieved from 

http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem-management/coral-livehard-bottom-habitat 

Stevenson, C. (2011). Plastic debris in the California marine ecosystem: A summary of current research, solution 

strategies and data gaps (Synthetic Report). Oakland, CA: California Ocean Science Trust.

Stone, R. P. (2006). Coral habitat in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska: Depth distribution, fine-scale species 

associations, and fisheries interactions. Coral Reefs, 25, 229–238. 

24
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Taylor, J. R., DeVogelaere, A. P., Burton, E. J., Frey, O., Lundsten, L., Kuhnz, L. A., Whaling, P. J., Lovera, C., 

Buck, K. R., & Barry, J. P. (2014). Deep-sea faunal communities associated with a lost intermodal 

shipping container in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CA. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 

83(1), 92–106. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.04.014

Teuten, E. L., Rowland, S. J., Galloway, T. S., & Thompson, R. C. (2007). Potential for plastics to transport 

hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(22), 7759–7764. 

Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I. A., Joschko, T., & Gutow, L. (2011). Spatio-temporal distribution of floating objects in the 

German Bight (North Sea). Journal of Sea Research, 65(3), 368–379. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2011.03.002

Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I. A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, J. F., Rivadeneira, M. M., & Vásquez, N. (2013). Anthropogenic 

marine debris in the coastal environment: A multi-year comparison between coastal waters 

and local shores. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 71(1–2), 307–316. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2013.01.005

Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., Vom Saal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics, the environment and human 

health: Current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 364, 

2153–2166. 

Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A., Rowland, S. J., John, A. W. G., McGonigle, D., & Russell, A. 

E. (2004). Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science, 304(5672), 838. doi: 10.1126/science.1094559

Uhrin, A. V., & Schellinger, J. (2011). Marine debris impacts to a tidal fringing-marsh in North Carolina. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2605–2610. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.006

Uhrin, A. V., Fonseca, M. S., & DiDomenico, G. P. (2005). Effect of Caribbean spiny lobster traps on seagrass 

beds of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Damage assessment and evaluation of recovery. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium, 41, 579–588. 

Uhrin, A. V., Matthews, T. R., & Lewis, C. (2014). Lobster trap debris in the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary: Distribution, abundance, density, and patterns of accumulation. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 

6(1), 20–32. doi: 10.1080/19425120.2013.852638

Uneputty, P., & Evans, S. M. (1997). The impact of plastic debris on the biota of tidal flats in Ambon Bay (eastern 

Indonesia). Marine Environmental Research, 44(3), 233–242.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009). Marine litter: A global challenge (pp. 232). Nairobi: 

UNEP.

Van Cauwenberghe, L., & Janssen, C. R. (2014). Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. 

Environmental Pollution, 193, 65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010

Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vanreusel, A., Mees, J., & Janssen, C. R. (2013). Microplastic pollution in deep-sea 

sediments. Environmental Pollution, 182, 495–499. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013

Viehman, S., Thur, S. M., & Piniak, G. A. (2009). Coral reef metrics and habitat equivalency analysis. Ocean & 

Coastal Management, 52(3-4), 181–188. 

Viehman, S., Vander Pluym, J. L., & Schellinger, J. (2011). Characterization of marine debris in North Carolina 

salt marshes. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2771–2779. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.010

von Moos, N., Burkhardt-Holm, P., & Köhler, A. (2012). Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and tissue of 

the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an experimental exposure. Environmental Science & Technology, 

46(20), 11327–11335. doi: 10.1021/es302332w

Voss, C. M., Wood, A., Browder, J. A., & Michaelis, A. (2012). Estimating derelict crab pot density and bycatch in 

North Carolina (Final Report, pp. 37). Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Marine Debris Program.

Wahl, M. (2009). Habitat characteristics and typical functional groups. In M. Wahl (Ed.), Marine Hard Bottom 

Communities (Vol. 206, pp. 7–17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ward, J. E., & Kach, D. J. (2009). Marine aggregates facilitate ingestion of nanoparticles by suspension-feeding 

bivalves. Marine Environmental Research, 68(3), 137–142. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.05.002

Watters, D. L., Yoklavich, M. M., Love, M. S., & Schroeder, D. M. (2010). Assessing marine debris in deep 

seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(1), 131–138. doi: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2009.08.019

Wei, C. L., Rowe, G. T., Nunnally, C. C., & Wicksten, M. K. (2012). Anthropogenic “litter” and 

25
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

macrophyte detritus in the deep Northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(5), 966–973. 

doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.02.015

Woodall, L. C., Robinson, L. F., Rogers, A. D., Narayanaswamy, B. E., & Paterson, G. L. J. (2015). Deep 

sea litter: A comparison of seamounts, banks and a ridge in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans reveals 

both environmental and anthropogenic factors impact accumulation and composition. Frontiers in 

Marine Science, 2(3). doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00003

Woodall, L. C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G. L. J., Coppock, R., Sleight, V., Calafat, A., Rogers, 

A. D., Narayanaswamy, B. E., & Thompson, R. C. (2014). The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic 

debris. Royal Society Open Science, 1(4). doi: 10.1098/rsos.140317

Work, T. M., Aeby, G. S., & Maragos, J. E. (2008). Phase shift from a coral to a corallimorph-dominated reef 

associated with a shipwreck on Palmyra Atoll. PLoS ONE, 3(8). 

Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on 

marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

envpol.2013.02.031

Wurpel, G., Van den Akker, J., Pors, J., & Ten Wolde, A. (2011). Plastics do not belong in the ocean: Towards a 

roadmap for a clean North Sea (pp. 104). IMSA Amsterdam.

Yap, H. (2012). Coral reef ecosystems. In R. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability science and 

technology (pp. 2489–2509). New York: Springer.

Yntema, C. L., & Mrosovsky, N. (1982). Critical periods and pivotal temperatures for sexual differentiation in 

loggerhead sea turtles. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60(5), 1012–1016. doi: 10.1139/z82-141

Yoshikawa, T., & Asoh, K. (2004). Entanglement of monofilament fishing lines and coral death. Biological 

Conservation, 117(5), 557–560. 

Zbyszewski, M., Corcoran, P. L., & Hockin, A. (2014). Comparison of the distribution and degradation of 

plastic debris along shorelines of the Great Lakes, North America. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 

40(2), 288–299. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2014.02.012

26
2016 MARINE DEBRIS HABITAT REPORT 

Penny Pritzker

United States Secretary of Commerce

Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

Dr. Russell Callender

Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service