Search

Plant invasions pose a major threat to terrestrial biodiversity, and microplastic pollution in soil could exacerbate this problem. Seed germination, a crucial stage for plants, can be affected by microplastics through both physical interference of plastic particles and chemical leaching from plastic additives. We conducted a greenhouse experiment using native and invasive plant species of European grasslands, and evaluated individual and combined effects of plastic particles and additives on germination parameters. We found that plastic particles primarily affected seed germination as physical agents, while additives from these particles exerted a comparatively lesser impact. Particles negatively affected seed germination of all native species. Germination velocity, synchrony and total germination decreased by ~30%, ~11% and ~11%, respectively, in soils containing plastic particles compared to those without. Certain species were negatively affected by plastic additives. For Achillea millefolium and Dactylis glomerata, germination velocity and total germination decreased by ~26% and ~7%, respectively, while germination synchrony of Dactylis glomerata decreased by ~21% in soils with additives than without them. Plastic particles may have blocked seed pores and inhibited hypocotyl and radicle growth, while toxic compounds from additives may have disrupted key germination processes. By contrast, particles and additives generally did not affect invasive species, suggesting that the negative effects of plastic experienced by natives, whether physical or chemical, were counteracted by effects resulting from the novel conditions created by microplastics, which may include the amelioration of soil physical properties such as increased soil porosity and aeration, and potential positive plant–soil feedbacks. Invasive species may profit from windows of variable resource availability, with positive effects on seed germination. Synthesis. Plastic particles and additives may promote plant invasion by negatively affecting seed germination of native species while having neutral effects on invasive species. The delayed germination of natives due to microplastics poses a potential threat, leading to competitive disadvantages, reduced reproductive success and increased vulnerability to invasive species. Microplastic pollution appears to favour invasive species over natives during the early stages of seed germination, highlighting that the negative effect of microplastics on terrestrial ecosystems may be more severe than previously thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Microplastics enter the soil in a variety of shapes and polymer types altering soil properties with known consequences for plant growth. However, the effects of a range of different microplastic shapes and types on seed germination are mostly unknown. Here, we established a glasshouse experiment that included 12 microplastic types representing different shapes (fibers, films, foams and fragments) and polymers, and mixed each of them with soil at a concentration of 0.4% (w/w). Fifty seeds of Daucus carota were sown and monitored for 49 days to evaluate different germination parameters. Our results showed that microplastic films and fibers decrease seed germination velocity as they may affect soil water status, likely interfering with different phases of seed germination: Seeds may imbibe toxic microplastic leachates, and be affected by a physical blockage; testa rupturing may be delayed as this also depends on water uptake. Microplastic toxic leachates may affect activity of enzymes key for seed germination, and delay embryo growth and radicle emergence. Microplastics, irrespective of their shape and polymer type, increase synchrony of seed germination, which might be linked with microplastics exerting a mild stress on seeds. The final percentage of germination was not affected by microplastics in soil, implying that microplastics did not affect seed viability. Our results showed that microplastics affect seed germination mainly as a function of their shape.

The article explores the potential benefits that invasive plant species may derive from pollution with synthetic organic chemicals. It discusses how certain traits, such as rapid growth, root development, antioxidant systems, and phenotypic plasticity, may enable invasive plants to thrive in polluted environments. The study emphasizes the need for further research to understand the complex interactions between invasive species and chemical pollution, suggesting that invasive plants could play a role in the recovery of heavily polluted areas. Collaboration across disciplines is recommended to address the combined challenges of plant invasion and soil pollution effectively. [Extracted from the article]

Microplastics affect plants and soil biota and the processes they drive. However, the legacy effect of microplastics on plant–soil feedbacks is still unknown. To address this, we used soil conditioned from a previous experiment, where Daucus carota grew with 12 different microplastic types (conditioning phase). Here, we extracted soil inoculum from those 12 soils and grew during 4 weeks a native D. carota and a range-expanding plant species Calamagrostis epigejos in soils amended with this inoculum (feedback phase). At harvest, plant biomass and root morphological traits were measured. Films led to positive feedback on shoot mass (higher mass with inoculum from soil conditioned with microplastics than with inoculum from control soil). Films may decrease soil water content in the conditioning phase, potentially reducing the abundance of harmful soil biota, which, with films also promoting mutualist abundance, microbial activity and carbon mineralization, would positively affect plant growth in the feedback phase. Foams and fragments caused positive feedback on shoot mass likely via positive effects on soil aeration in the conditioning phase, which could have increased mutualistic biota and soil enzymatic activity, promoting plant growth. By contrast, fibers caused negative feedback on root mass as this microplastic may have increased soil water content in the conditioning phase, promoting the abundance of soil pathogens with negative consequences for root mass. Microplastics had a legacy effect on root traits: D. carota had thicker roots probably for promoting mycorrhizal associations, while C. epigejos had reduced root diameter probably for diminishing pathogenic infection. Microplastic legacy on soil can be positive or negative depending on the plant species identity and may affect plant biomass primarily via root traits. This legacy may contribute to the competitive success of range-expanding species via positive effects on root mass (foams) and on shoot mass (PET films). Overall, microplastics depending on their shape and polymer type, affect plant–soil feedbacks.

Microplastics and plant litter are ubiquitous in the soil environment, and both materials can influence soil properties and biota. Plant litter releases secondary metabolites (e.g., phenolic compounds) during the decomposition process, including chemical compounds active in plant defense. Effects of microplastics and plant litter on soil biota have been studied independently but we have limited information about the combined effects of both sources of chemicals. Here, we specifically focused on the interaction between plant litter and microplastics, as well as their potential effects on soil biota (i.e., nematodes). We used soils from a previous experiment that included three different types of microplastic fibers (MFs) and four different types of plant litter, which were incubated in the soil in all combinations of materials. After soil incubation (42 days) in the previous experiment, we here tested for effects on nematodes (Caenorhabditis elegans). Plant litter treatments negatively affected the reproduction of nematodes, but these effects were reduced when the soils were incubated along with MFs. We measured the phenolic concentrations in plant litter extracts in a kinetic experiment and found that phenolic concentrations significantly decreased with some of the MF additions. Our results suggest that microplastics can affect the potential effects of natural chemicals such as plant phenolic compounds. We urge future studies to consider this possibility as a key explanatory process underpinning effects of microplastic in the soil environment.

Microplastic pollution is a topic of increasing concern, especially since this issue was first addressed in soils. Results have so far been variable in terms of effects, suggesting that there is substantial context-dependency in microplastic effects in soil. To better define conditions that may affect microplastic-related impacts, we here examined effects as a function of microplastic shape and polymer type, and we tested if effects on soil properties and soil microbial activities change with incubation time. In our laboratory study, we evaluated twelve different secondary microplastics representing four microplastic shapes: fibers, films, foams and fragments; and eight polymer types: polyamide (PA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene (PE), polyester (PES), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyurethane (PU). We mixed the microplastics with a sandy soil (0.4% w/w) and incubated at 25°C for 31 days. Then, we collected soil samples on the 3rd, 11th, and 31st day, and measured soil pH, respiration and four enzyme activities (soil enzymatic activities). Our results showed that microplastics could affect soil pH, respiration and enzymatic activities depending on microplastic shape and polymer type, effects that were altered with incubation time. Soil pH increased with foams and fragments and overall decreased in the first days of incubation and then increased. Soil respiration increased with PE foams and was affected by the incubation time, declining over time. Overall, acid phosphatase activity was not affected by shape or polymer type. β-D-glucosidase activity decreased with foams, cellobiosidase activity decreased with fibers, films and foams while N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase activities decreased with fibers and fragments. Enzymatic activities fluctuated during the incubation time, except N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, which showed a declining trend with incubation time. Enzymatic activities were negatively correlated with soil pH and this relationship was less strong when microplastics were added to the soil. Our study adds to the evidence that research should embrace the complexity and diversity of microplastics, highlighting the role of microplastic shape and polymer type in influencing effects; additionally, we show that incubation time is also a parameter to consider, as effects are dynamic even in the short term.

Microplastics may enter the soil in a wide range of shapes and polymers. However, little is known about the effects that microplastics of different shapes, polymers, and concentration may have on soil properties and plant performance. To address this, we selected 12 microplastics representing different shapes (fibers, films, foams, and fragments) and polymers, and mixed them each with soil at a concentration of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4%. A phytometer (Daucus carota) grew in each pot during 4 weeks. Shoot, root mass, soil aggregation, and microbial activity were measured. All shapes increased plant biomass. Shoot mass increased by ∼27% with fibers, ∼60% with films, ∼45% with foams, and by ∼54% with fragments, as fibers hold water in the soil for longer, films decrease soil bulk density, and foams and fragments can increase soil aeration and macroporosity, which overall promote plant performance. By contrast, all shapes decreased soil aggregation by ∼25% as microplastics may introduce fracture points into aggregates and due to potential negative effects on soil biota. The latter may also explain the decrease in microbial activity with, for example, polyethylene films. Our findings show that shape, polymer type, and concentration are key properties when studying microplastic effects on terrestrial systems.