Search

The creation and deployment of plastic structures made out of pipes and panels in freshwater ecosystems to enhance fish habitat or restore freshwater systems have become popularized in some regions. Here, we outline concerns with these activities, examine the associated evidence base for using plastic materials for restoration, and provide some suggestions for a path forward. The evidence base supporting the use of plastic structures in freshwater systems is limited in terms of ecological benefit and assurances that the use of plastics does not contribute to pollution via plastic degradation or leaching. Rarely was a cradle-to-grave approach (i.e. the full life cycle of restoration as well as the full suite of environmental consequences arising from plastic creation to disposal) considered nor were decommissioning plans required for deployment of plastic habitats. We suggest that there is a need to embrace natural materials when engaging in habitat restoration and provide more opportunities for relevant actors to have a voice regarding the types of materials used. It is clear that restoration of freshwater ecosystems is critically important, but those efforts need to be guided by science and not result in potential long-term harm. We conclude that based on the current evidence base, the use of plastic for habitat enhancement or restoration in freshwater systems is nothing short of littering.

Plastic pollution has been reported to affect Arctic mammals and birds. There are strengths and limitations to monitoring litter and microplastics using Arctic mammals and birds. One strength is the direct use of these data to understand the potential impacts on Arctic biodiversity as well as effects on human health, if selected species are consumed. Monitoring programs must be practically designed with all purposes in mind, and a spectrum of approaches and species will be required. Spatial and temporal trends of plastic pollution can be built on the information obtained from studies on northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis (Linnaeus, 1761)), a species that is an environmental indicator. To increase our understanding of the potential implications for human health, the species and locations chosen for monitoring should be selected based on the priorities of local communities. Monitoring programs under development should examine species for population level impacts in Arctic mammals and birds. Mammals and birds can be useful in source and surveillance monitoring via locally designed monitoring programs. We recommend future programs consider a range of monitoring objectives with mammals and birds as part of the suite of tools for monitoring litter and microplastics, plastic chemical additives, and effects, and for understanding sources.