marine litter in mediterranean sandy littorals: spatial distribution patterns along central italy...

Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /marpolbul

Marine litter in Mediterranean sandy littorals: Spatial distributionpatterns along central Italy coastal dunes

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.0110025-326X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Poeta).

Please cite this article in press as: Poeta, G., et al. Marine litter in Mediterranean sandy littorals: Spatial distribution patterns along central Italydunes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.011

Gianluca Poeta a,⇑, Corrado Battisti b, Alicia T.R. Acosta a

a Department of Sciences, University of Rome III, viale Marconi, 446, 00146 Rome, Italyb ‘‘Torre Flavia Natural Monument’’ LTER (Long Term Environmental Research) Research Site, Servizio Aree protette – parchi regionali, Province of Rome, via Tiburtina,691, 00159 Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxxx

Key words:Marine debrisPlastic litterEU habitat directiveCoastal dune vegetationLitter distribution

a b s t r a c t

Sandy shores are generally considered important sinks for marine litter and the presence of this littermay represent a serious threat to biotic communities and dune integrity mostly due to cleaning activitiescarried out through mechanical equipment. In spring (April–May) 2012 we sampled 153 2 � 2 m randomplots to assess the spatial distribution patterns of litter on Central Italy sandy shores. We analysed therelationship between the presence of litter and coastal dune habitats along the sea-inland gradient.Our results showed that the most frequent litter items were plastic and polystyrene. Differences of mar-ine litter spatial distribution were found between upper beach and fore dune habitats and fixed dunehabitats: embryo dune and mobile dune habitats show the highest frequency of litter, but, surprisingly,marine litter did not impact fixed dune habitats, these possibly acting as a natural barrier protecting theinner part of the coast from marine litter dispersion.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Coastal dunes are unique transitional ecosystems. They are dis-tributed worldwide and they are usually narrow, long and runalong the coastline. Despite this narrow width, a complex sea-to-inland environmental gradient develops following environmentalfactors such as the coherence and the salinity of sandy sediments,wind, salt spray and wave inundation (Acosta et al., 2013). The sea-inland gradient determines the different vegetation types thatoccur along coastal dunes and the typical vegetation zonation, usu-ally associated with plant tolerance to this gradient (Hesp, 1991;Gallego-Fernández and Martínez, 2011). In fact, the complex zona-tion of habitats along the sea-inland gradient is one of the mostinteresting features of Mediterranean sandy shores (Acosta et al.,2003) and gives rise to a unique biodiversity in terms of both dif-ferent habitats and species composition (Van der Maarel, 2003).The typical vegetation zonation in Central Italy coastal dunes isshown in Fig. 1.

Although Italian coastal dune systems remained relatively wellpreserved from a morphological, hydrological and naturalisticstandpoint until the 19th century (Garbari, 1984), from the 20th

century onwards human activities became strongly intensified(Acosta et al., 2005).

Nowadays coastal ecosystems are among the most threatenedecosystems in the world and their ecological functionality is highlyendangered due to several human activities. Sandy coasts areincreasingly threatened by direct and indirect human pressures(Martinez et al., 2006; Schlacher et al., 2008). In particular, duringthe last decades, beach use by tourists, the expansion of urbanareas and the spread of agriculture and afforestation activities havestrongly shaped coastal landscapes (Alados et al., 2004; Hesp andMartınez, 2007; Malavasi et al., 2013), significantly modifying theirspatial pattern and land use (Carboni et al., 2009; Drius et al., 2013;Ciccarelli, 2014). Human population density is three times higheralong the coasts than inland at global level; thus environmentalimpacts of human activities are greater in magnitude on coastalecosystems such as beaches and dunes (Martinez et al., 2006). Inaddition, coastal areas attract the greatest number of tourists(Davenport and Davenport, 2006). According to the UNEP (2009)the greatest growth in tourism is occurring in the sub-sector ofcoastal and marine tourism while the Mediterranean region playshost to ca. 33% of the world’s tourism industry (Curr et al., 2000).

Human activities, or their consequences, with a negative impacton coastal systems could be defined as ‘‘direct threats’’ in compli-ance with Salafsky et al. (2008). There are many threats that can berecorded on sandy coastline ecosystems; the consequences ofthese threats are habitat loss, fragmentation and erosion of the

coastal

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.011

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0025326X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul


2 G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

coastline while the final outcome is the complete and sometimesirreversible destruction of the coastal dune systems (Carboniet al., 2010; Malavasi et al., 2013).

Among these various threats marine litter seems to be one ofthose with a global distribution range and currently has becomeone of the most recognized pollution problems in the world’soceans (Lippiatt and Arthur, 2013). In fact, the pollution of the mar-ine and coastal habitats has been frequently reported in the scien-tific literature over the last decades (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2007).The range of impacts from marine litter may include environmen-tal, social and economic impact (Cheshire et al., 2009).

Marine litter is defined as ‘‘any persistent, manufactured or pro-cessed solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in themarine and coastal environment’’ (CBD Technical Series, 2012) or‘‘any manufactured or processed solid waste material that entersthe marine environment from any source’’ (Coe and Rogers,1997). Sandy shores are generally considered important sinks forfloating debris, which after stranding generally becomes trappedin/under sand or might be blown farther inland (Merrell, 1980;Williams and Tudor, 2001; Kusui and Noda, 2003).

Marine litter accumulation on beaches (hereafter called beachlitter), are closely related to both human intervention and naturalvariables (Rees and Pond, 1995). The factors that determine theamount, type, and distribution of beach litter are complex andprobably interdependent; there are both environmental determi-nants, such as winds, currents, tides, river flows and beach mor-phology and socioeconomic variables such as municipalinfrastructure (e.g. collection and destination of solid wastes; con-trolled urban drainage), beach use, social behavior, and level ofenvironmental education among the local and visiting populations(Thiel et al., 2013; Araùjo and Costa, 2006). The accumulation oflarge amount of beach litter, with the exception of those comingfrom hospitals and health services, although not presenting animmediate health risk for beach users and marine biota, representa significant loss aesthetically to the coastal environment andadversely affect potential tourist activities (Araùjo and Costa,2007). For this reason, one of the most important issues concerningcoastal management is the cleaning of beaches, usually carried outmainly using mechanical equipment. Mechanical techniques doallow no distinction between beach litter and biological resourcesuch as plants, animals, and organic debris that naturally depositon shoreline causing their complete removal. These techniquesmay also cause the levelling of dune system. Therefore, the pres-ence of beach litter indirectly produces the alteration of bioticcommunities and could be related to modifications in the dunesystem and to erosion processes. This is more evident in thosecoastal areas characterized by an intense tourist activity such asthe Mediterranean region.

Even though many studies on beach litter have been conductedfor oceanic coasts (Merrell, 1980; Kusui and Noda, 2003; Ivar do

Fig. 1. Typical vegetation zonation in Central Italy coastal dunes. Up. b.: upper beach, c2110) and mobile dune (habitat 2120). Tr. d.: transition dunes, habitat 2210, 2230. Fi. d

Please cite this article in press as: Poeta, G., et al. Marine litter in Mediterranedunes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10

Sul and Costa, 2007; Eriksson et al., 2013), we still know very littlefor the western Mediterranean area. Anyway, as far as we know,none of the studies reported in the scientific literature analysethe relationship between the presence of beach litter and coastaldune habitats. In this sense, dune vegetation could influence theaccumulation of beach litter acting as natural trap (Araùjo andCosta, 2006, 2007).

On these basis, in this work we propose to analyse the spatialdistribution patterns of marine litter on Mediterranean sandyshores (Lazio Region, Central Italy). In particular, we focus on thefollowing questions: (i) Which are the most frequent beach litteritems and materials on sandy coasts? (ii) How are beach litter dis-tributed in the different coastal dune habitats along the sea-inlandgradient?

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area and vegetation database

We studied recent (Holocene) coastal dunes of central Italy(Lazio Region) at 5 sites (21 km total) distributed along the lengthof the coastline (Fig. 2). The area is characterized by a Mediterra-nean climate, with recent dunes generally occupying a narrowstrip along the seashore. The dunes are not high (<10 m) and arerelatively simple in structure, with beaches varying in breadthfrom a few meters to around 40 m, followed by a section of lowembryo-dunes, generally only one mobile dune ridge, and lastly astabilized dune zone (Acosta et al., 2003; Carboni et al., 2011).The vegetation on the dune profile follows a zonation along thesea–inland environmental gradient: from the pioneer communities(first vascular plants colonizing the sandy substrate) of the upperbeach to the woody communities (Mediterranean maquis andever-green forests) of the inland fixed dunes (Acosta et al., 2003)(Fig. 1). These distinct coastal dune plant communities (or habi-tats) are reasonably homogeneous in composition along the entireCentral Italian coast (Acosta et al., 2003). Most of the remainingcontiguous dune systems in this region are distributed within fivesites along the coast of Latium and separated by rocky promonto-ries, silty river outlets and totally urbanized littorals. Inside thesesites there are no headlands or bays that could change the patternof distribution and accumulation of beach litter. All beaches of thestudy area shared the common characteristics of being touristbeach; thus all five sites studied are characterized by cleaningactivities carried out before the start of the swimming season(end of May). In most sites of the study area, this managementactivity is usually carried out mainly by using mechanical equip-ment, this causing the complete removal of the growing plants.

In this work, to associate litter with habitat type, we used a veg-etation database available for the study area (Carboni et al., 2011;Santoro et al., 2012). This georeferenced vegetation database

orresponds to habitat 1210. Fo. d.: fore dunes, correspond to embryo dune (habitat.: fixed dunes: habitat 2250, 2260, 9340.

an sandy littorals: Spatial distribution patterns along central Italy coastal.011


Fig. 2. Study area (Latium, central Italy) and location of the studied sites.

G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

includes most of the best conserved remnant dune systems of theregion. The database contains randomly sampled plots of 2 � 2 min size collected in spring (April–June) between 2004 and 2009.In each plot all vascular plant species were recorded and the coverof all species was visually estimated using a 10%–interval scale.Based on the plant species assemblage recorded, each plot couldbe assigned to an habitat of the coastal dune zonation describedfor these areas (coding scheme follows that of the European Habi-tats Directive; European Commission 1992; Table 1) (for furtherdetails on vegetation sampling and nomenclature see Carboniet al., 2011 and Carboni et al., 2013).

Table 2List of all marine litter items subdivided in four categories according to material type.

Plastic Polystyrene Glass Other materials

2.2. Litter sampling

With the help of a high precision GPS and ortho-photographswe visited the same plots registered in the database. The litter

Table 1Habitat types (European Habitats Directive; European Commission, 1992).

EU habitat type

Upper beach Coastal and halophytic habitats1210 Annual vegetation on drift lines(Cakilitea maritimae)

Fore dunes Sea dunes2110 Embryonic shifting dunes2120 Shifting dunes along the shorelinewith Ammophila arenaria

Transition dunes 2210 Crucianellion maritimae fixed beach dunes2230 Malcomietalia dune grasslands(Malcolmia ramosissima)

Fixed dunes ⁄2250 Coastal dune with Juniperus sp.(J. macrocarpa e turbinata)2260 Cisto-Lavanduletea dune sclerophyllous scrubsMediterranean sclerophyllous forests9340 Quercus ilex and Q. rotundifolia forests


sampling method adopted was similar to the vegetation sampling(Carboni et al., 2011). In each plot (2 � 2 m random plot) all litteritems (Table 2) were recorded and the cover of litter visuallyestimated using a 10% interval rank scale. In order to analyse therelationship between vegetation and litter distribution, samplingwas carried out in April and May 2012: in this period it is possibleto observe most of the plant species present, clean-up actions hav-ing not yet started. Each plot was sampled only once and beach lit-ter cover was visually estimated by the same person. A total of 244plots were visited, although only 153 were actually sampled due tocoastal erosion or habitat loss.

Fragment Fragment Fragment PaperBottle < 1 l Box Bottle Fishing netBottle 1.5 l Bait box Nylon stringBottle cap Nylon ropeBowl BuoyCan lid SpongeDrinking glass Iron fragmentPlate Wire meshTrash bag, shopping bag Insulating materialNet Wood boardBelt Foot wear, clothes

Rubber fragmentRubber hoseTetrapakPack of cigarettesCementSyringeLighterSprayPenCartridge




2.3. Data analysis

In order to analyse frequency (considering presence/absence oflitter in each plot) or abundance (considering cover of litter in eachplot) of beach litter along the sandy littoral, we classified litteraccording to material (Table 2). We used Shapiro–Wilk test to testnormality and it shows that the data are non-parametric (Shapiro–Wilk W = 0.4163, pnormal < 0.001). A preliminary analysis (v2, Krus-kal–Wallis test) shows that there are no differences (frequency andmean cover of litter) among the five sites and so all sites weremerged in a single dataset. The same non-parametric tests (v2,Kruskal–Wallis test) were used to analyse the distribution patternsand the possible relationships between marine litter cover or fre-quency as dependent variables and habitat type and litter catego-ries (material) as independent variables.

Fig. 4. Most frequent plastic items considering only polluted plots.

3. Results and discussion

We observed that the 52.3% of the plots sampled (80/153) hadat least one litter item (hereafter named polluted plots). 86% ofthe polluted plots (69/80) had plastic, 45% (36/80) had polystyrene,12% (10/80) had glass and 16% (13/80) had mixed materials notincluded in the categories above (Fig. 3). The difference betweengroups was statistically significant (v2 = 69.68, d.f. = 3, p < 0.001).The same results were obtained using litter average cover (Krus-kal–Wallis test, p < 0.001). 69 plots containing plastics had 11 dif-ferent items (Table 2). Plastic items with the highest occurrencewere: plastic fragments (in 58 plots), bottles (in 13 plots), bottlecaps (in 11 plots) and plastic drinking glass (in 4 plots), Fig. 4.These results highlight that plastic is the most abundant and fre-quent litter item. In fact, plastic seems to be the most commontype of marine litter worldwide as similar results were observedin the Caribbean region, USA, Brazil, Israel and sub-Antarctic islandbeaches (Golik and Gertner, 1992; Moore et al., 2001; Ivar do Suland Costa, 2007; Oigman-Pszczol and Creed, 2007; Erikssonet al., 2013).

The frequency of the polluted plots was analysed in relation tothe habitat type (Fig. 5). The difference among all groups is statis-tically significant (v2 = 18.3, d.f. = 7, p < 0.05); but fixed dune hab-itats have almost no marine litter (Fig. 5). Differences among the

Fig. 3. Material type frequency considering only polluted plots.

Fig. 5. Marine litter frequency across different habitats along the sea-inland coastalgradient considering only polluted plots. The numbers on the x-axis refer to habitattype described in Table 1.


other habitats (1210, 2110, 2120, 2210, 2230) were not significant(v2 = 2.6, d.f. = 4, p > 0.05). The same situation occurred with theaverage cover (Kruskal–Wallis test, p = 0.378). Even though no sig-nificant differences were found among beach and fore dune habi-tats, it was possible to identify a distribution trend (Fig. 5):habitat 1210 (upper beach) was the least polluted by beach litterprobably because it is more exposed to the action of the sea andwinds. The largest quantities of beach litter are present in habitat2110 (embryo dunes) and 2120 (mobile dunes) corresponding tothe most typical coastal dune habitats. In the Mediterranean, evenduring winter storms, the action of waves and tides generally doesnot extend beyond these habitats. Beach litter accumulates mainlyin embryo and mobile dune habitats forming a sort of ‘‘sourcearea’’ from where litter can be further distributed over dune habi-tats further inland, in particular by wind action. We have also



G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

observed that in some cases litter tends to accumulate in suchlarge quantities that it forms a sort of belt along embryo andmobile dune.

The lack of beach litter in fixed dune habitats suggests that thehigher and more dense vegetation typical of these woody habitatsacts as a barrier against litter’s movement inland, as proposed byAraùjo and Costa (2006, 2007).

Thus, we can affirm that there are differences in the spatial dis-tribution of the beach litter along the coastal zonation and that it ispossible to identify a relationship between the sea-inland gradientand beach litter distribution.

4. Conclusions

Along the coast of Lazio plastic and polystyrene are the mostcommon litter item in line with findings which confirms plasticas the most widespread marine litter worldwide (Golik andGertner, 1992; Moore et al., 2001; Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2007;Oigman-Pszczol and Creed, 2007; Eriksson et al., 2013).

Differences of litter spatial distribution were found betweenhabitats close to the sea and coastal habitats inland. In fact, thecoastal zone that corresponds to upper beach, fore dunes and tran-sition dunes (Fig. 1) is similarly threatened by beach litter, with thehighest levels of accumulation. This zone is not only characterizedby the high impact of beach litter but also by a high number ofimportant habitats listed in the European Habitats Directive (Euro-pean Commission, 1992). As a consequence, cleaning actions areconcentrated mostly in this area, causing at times the coastal dunesystem’s complete destruction. On the other hand, the distributionof beach litter does not impact fixed dune habitats which may actas a natural barrier protecting the inner part of the coast from mar-ine litter dispersion. The fixed dune habitats’ role in preventingmarine litter dispersion may be related to the characteristics of thisparticular vegetation type: the Mediterranean maquis, is a woodyvegetation usually with high cover values. Thus, vegetation struc-ture seems to be a key factor in litter’s dispersion dynamics.

Future studies should still address marine litter as a threat, con-sidering also vegetation cover and vegetation height, probably keyfactors in achieving a better understanding of litter’ spatial distri-bution along the sandy coasts.

Finally, from the coastal management perspective, we can con-clude that the mechanical cleaning of coastal ecosystems repre-sents not only a threat but is also expensive and short-term innature. Our results may constitute a basis that would facilitatethe drawing up of guidelines for managers in selecting preventiveand corrective measures, optimizing the available resources andprotecting the coastal ecosystems. However, in order to obtainnew insights into litter removal or to develop preventiveapproaches for reducing beach contamination, we still need afurther understanding of the sources and driving forces of marinelitter along Mediterranean coasts.

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by the PROGETTO LIFE+ENVEUROPE –LIFE08/ENV/IT/000399.

References

Acosta, A., Stanisci, A., Ercole, S., Blasi, C., 2003. Sandy coastal landscape of the Lazioregion. Phytocoenologia 33, 715–726.

Acosta, A., Carranza, M., Izzi, C., 2005. Combining land cover mapping of coastaldunes with vegetation analysis. Appl. Veg. Sci. 8, 133–138.

Acosta, A., Jucker, T., Prisco, I., Santoro, R., 2013. Passive recovery of Mediterraneancoastal dunes following limitations to human trampling. In: Martinez, M.I.,Hesp, P., Gallego-Fernandez, J.B. (Eds.), Restoration of Coastal Dunes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Cap, p. 12.


Alados, C.L., Pueyo, Y., Barrantes, O., Escós, J., Giner, L., Robles, A.B., 2004. Variationsin landscape patterns and vegetation cover between 1957 and 1994 in asemiarid Mediterranean ecosystem. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 543–559.

Araùjo, M.C.B., Costa, M.F., 2006. Municipal services on tourist beaches: costs andbenefits of solid waste collection. J. Coast. Res. 22, 1070–1075.

Araùjo, M.C., Costa, M.F., 2007. An analysis of the riverine contribution to the solidwastes contamination of an isolated beach at the Brazilian Northeast. Manage.Environ. Quality: an Int. J. 18, 6–12.

Carboni, M., Carranza, M.L., Acosta, A., 2009. Assessing conservation status oncoastal dunes: a multiscale approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91, 17–25.

Carboni, M., Thuiller, W., Izzi, F., Acosta, A., 2010. Disentangling the relative effectsof environmental versus human factors on the abundance of native and alienplant species in Mediterranean sandy shores. Divers. Distrib. 16 (4), 537–546.

Carboni, M., Santoro, R., Acosta, A., 2011. Dealing with scarce data to understandhow environmental gradients and propagule pressure shape fine-scale aliendistribution patterns on coastal dunes. J. Veg. Sci. 22 (5), 751–765.

Carboni, M., Acosta, A.T.R., Ricotta, C., 2013. Are differences in functional diversityamong plant communities on Mediterranean coastal dunes driven by theirphylogenetic history? J. Veg. Sci. 24, 932–941.

CBD Technical Series. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and theScientific and Technical Advisory Panel-GEF, 2012. Impacts of Marine Debris onBiodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions, Montreal, Technical SeriesNo. 67, pp. 61.

Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L.,Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira,M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G., 2009.UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. UNEP RegionalSeas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83, pp. 120.

Ciccarelli, D., 2014. Mediterranean coastal sand dune vegetation: influence ofnatural and anthropogenic factors. Environ. Manage. 54, 194–204.

Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B., 1997. Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions.Springer Series on Environmental Management. Springer-Verlac, New York, 432pp.

Curr, R.H.F., Koh, A., Edwards, E., 2000. Assessing anthropogenic impact onmediterranean sand dunes from aerial digital photography. J. Coast. Conserv.6, 15–22.

Davenport, J., Davenport, J.L., 2006. The impact of tourism and personal leisuretransport on coastal environments: a review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 67, 280–292.

Drius, M., Malavasi, M., Acosta, A.T.R., Ricotta, C., Carranza, M.L., 2013. Boundary-based analysis for the assessment of coastal dune landscape integrity over time.Appl. Geogr. 45, 41–48.

Eriksson, C., Burton, H., Fitch, S., Schulz, M., van den Hoff, J., 2013. Dailyaccumulation rates of marine debris on sub-Antarctic island beaches. Mar.Pollut. Bull. 66, 199–208.

Gallego-Fernández, J.B., Martínez, M.L., 2011. Environmental filtering and plantfunctional types on Mexican foredunes along the Gulf of Mexico. Ecoscience 18(1), 52–62.

Garbari, F., 1984. Aspetti della vegetazione e della flora delle nostre coste marine.Agricoltura Ambiente 23, 45–48.

Golik, A., Gertner, Y., 1992. Litter on the Israeli coastline. Mar. Environ. Res. 33 (1),1–15.

Hesp, P., 1991. Ecological processes and plant adaptations on coastal dunes. J. AridEnviron. 21, 165–191.

Hesp, P.A., Martınez, M.L., 2007. Disturbance processes and dynamics in coastaldunes. In: Johnson, E.A., Miyanishi, K. (Eds.), Plant Disturbance Ecology: TheProcess and the Response. Academic Press, Elsevier, pp. 215–247.

Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine Debris in the Wider Caribbean Region:from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54,1087–1104.

Kusui, T., Noda, M., 2003. International survey on the distribution of stranded andburied litter on beaches along the Sea of Japan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47, 175–179.

Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., Arthur, C., 2013. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment.NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46.

Malavasi, M., Santoro, R., Cutini, M., Acosta, A.T.R., Carranza, M.L., 2013. What hashappened to coastal dunes in the last half century? A multitemporal coastallandscape analysis in Central Italy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 119, 54–63.

Martinez, M.L., Gallego-Fernandez, J.B., Garcia-Franco, J.G., Moctezuma, C., Jimenez,C.D., 2006. Assessment of coastal dune vulnerability to natural andanthropogenic disturbances along the Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Conserv. 33(02), 109–117.

Merrell, T.R., 1980. Accumulation of plastic litter on beaches of Amchitka Island,Alaska. Mar. Environ. Res. 3, 171–184.

Moore, S.L., Gregorio, D., Carreon, M., Weisberg, S.B., Leecaster, M.K., 2001.Composition and distribution of Beach Debris in Orange County, California.Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 241–245.

Oigman-Pszczol, S.S., Creed, J.C., 2007. Quantification and Classification of MarineLitter on Beaches along Armaçao dos Buzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Coast. Res.23, 421–428.

Rees, G., Pond, K., 1995. Marine litter monitoring programmes – a review ofmethods with special reference to national surveys. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30 (2),103–108.

Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Statterfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart,S.H.M., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L.L., O’Connor, S., Wilkie, D., 2008. A standardlexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats andactions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 897–911.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0025-326X(14)00679-1/h0005






















































































Santoro, R., Carboni, M., Carranza, M.L., Acosta, A., 2012. Focal species diversitypatterns can provide diagnostic information on plant invasions. J. Nat. Conserv.20 (2), 85–91.

Schlacher, T.A., Schoeman, D.S., Dugan, J., Lastra, M., Jones, A., Scapini, F., McLachlan,A., 2008. Sandy beach ecosystems: key features, sampling issues, managementchallenges and climate change impacts. Mar. Ecol. 29 (1), 70–90.

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. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71, 307–316.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2009. Sustainable CoastalTourism – An Integrated Planning Management Approach, pp. 87.

Van der Maarel, E., 2003. Some remarks on the functions of European coastalecosystems. Phytocoenologia 33 (2), 187–202.

Williams, A.T., Tudor, D.T., 2001. Litter burial exhumation: spatial and temporaldistribution on a cobble pocket beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1031–1039.

















marine litter in mediterranean sandy littorals: spatial distribution patterns along central italy...

Documents