Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

‘Eye in the sky’: Off-the-shelf unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) highlights

exposure of marine turtles to floating litter (FML) in nearshore waters of
Mayo Bay, Philippines
Neil Angelo S. Abreo a, b, *, Remie M. Aurelio Jr c, Vladimer B. Kobayashi a, d, Kirsten
F. Thompson e
a
Marine Litter Project, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Laboratory - Environmental Studies Group, University of the Philippines Mindanao, Philippines
b
Institute of Advanced Studies, Davao del Norte State College, Panabo City, Philippines
c
Center for the Advancement of Research in Mindanao, Office of Research, University of the Philippines Mindanao, Philippines
d
Department of Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science, College of Science and Mathematics, University of the Philippines Mindanao, Philippines
e
Biosciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Litter is a serious threat to the marine environment, with detrimental effects on wildlife and marine biodiversity.
Floating litter Limited data as a result of funding and logistical challenges in developing countries hamper our understanding of
Marine turtles the problem. Here, we employed commercial unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as a cost-effective tool to study the
Drones
exposure of marine turtles to floating marine litter (FML) in waters of Mayo Bay, Philippines. A quadcopter UAV
Plastics pollution
Philippines
was flown autonomously with on-board camera capturing videos during the flight. Still frames were extracted
when either turtle or litter were detected in post-flight processing. The extracted frames were georeferenced and
mapped using QGIS software. Results showed that turtles are highly exposed to FML in nearshore waters.
Moreover, spatial dependence between FML and turtles was also observed. The study highlights the effectiveness
of UAVs in marine litter research and underscores the threat of FML to turtles in nearshore waters.

1. Introduction distribution and foraging habitats of marine species occur (Williams

Marine litter is a global threat to marine biodiversity (Schuyler et al.,
2015; Wilcox et al., 2015). Mortality and reduced individual fitness are
commonly reported as effects of marine litter on marine species. There
are at least 914 marine species affected by this problem (Kühn and van
Franeker, 2020). This number is expected to increase as the topic has
gained more attention as years pass (Granek et al., 2020; Ryan, 2015a)
The increasing number of marine litter due to continuous input, and/or
the fragmentation of litter already present in the oceans, undoubtedly
contributing to an increase in interaction between litter and marine
species (Barnes et al., 2009; Schmidt et al., 2017).
Litter in the marine environment is estimated to be at least 5.25
trillion particles (Eriksen et al., 2014). Moreover, Jambeck et al. (2015)
estimated land input of marine litter at 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons in
2010 alone. This very high number makes marine litter ubiquitous in the
marine environment. Evidence shows the overlapping of marine litter
et al., 2011). Currently, the geographic extent of the marine litter
problem is still unknown (Fossi et al., 2018; Haarr et al., 2022). This gap
in knowledge on marine litter needs to be addressed as lack of infor­
mation hinders the development of possible strategies to effectively
combat the marine litter problem (Abreo, 2018). Moreover, possible
ecological effects (i.e. altered species assemblages) may arise because of
marine litter impacts (Browne et al., 2015). It is important to understand
areas where marine species encounter high rates of litter in the envi­
ronment because we are then better able to predict its effects and
potentially prevent leakage from the land (Sá et al., 2021).
Studies on the impacts of litter to marine species are now emerging in
the Philippines. At least 18 marine species are negatively affected by
litter in the marine environment from the country (Abreo et al., 2019a,
2019b). The number of affected species in the country will only increase
as the leakage from land into the waters of the Philippines and litter
fragmentation continues (Abreo, 2018; Barnes et al., 2009; Jambeck

* Corresponding author at: Marine Litter Project, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Laboratory - Environmental Studies Group, University of the Philippines
Mindanao, Philippines.
E-mail address: nsabreo@up.edu.ph (N.A.S. Abreo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114489
Received 20 October 2022; Received in revised form 8 December 2022; Accepted 10 December 2022
Available online 20 December 2022
0025-326X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
et al., 2015).
Marine turtles are affected by marine litter throughout all life stages
(Eastman et al., 2020; Schuyler et al., 2014; Witherington et al., 2012).
The presence of microplastics on beaches can alter sand temperature
with implications on the development of marine turtle eggs (Lavers
et al., 2021; Pike, 2014). Macroplastics deposited on beaches also add
obstacles for nesting females and for neonate turtles emerging from their
nests as they move towards the water (Triessnig et al., 2012; Fujisaki and
Lamont, 2016). FML in marine turtle foraging areas increases the
probability of plastic ingestion and entanglement, often causing mor­
tality (Atzori et al., 2021). Globally, all seven marine turtle species are
known to be negatively affected by marine plastics (Gall and Thompson,
2015). Five of the seven marine turtle species are found in the
Philippines (Alava et al., 2012). Among the five species, four are
recorded to be affected by marine plastics. The green turtle (Chelonia
mydas) and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) have records of
ingesting plastic (Abreo et al., 2016; Abreo et al., 2019b). The other two
species, hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and olive ridley turtle
(Lepidochelys olivacea) have records of entanglement (Abreo et al.,
2019b).
1.1. Marine litter risk assessment
Vulnerability of an organism to a threat can be defined as the like­
lihood of that organism to be negatively affected when exposed to a
stressor. In the case of marine litter, information on areas where an
organism would most likely encounter marine litter is considered crucial
(Nelms et al., 2015). To achieve this, both data on animal distribution
and marine litter spatial distribution is needed, which can be chal­
lenging in many regions. Global risk assessments on marine litter have
been made for several species but often rely on modeling and simula­
tions. Schuyler et al. (2015) identified global hotspots for plastic
ingestion by marine turtles and Germanov et al. (2018) identified areas
where filter-feeding megafauna (e.g. whale sharks and rays) could
potentially ingest marine microplastics, by modeling data on species
ranges and microplastic distribution. However, there is an urgent need
for regional risk assessments to provide empirical data that can be uti­
lized for grassroots response to the marine litter problem (Compa et al.,
2019b). These critical data are currently unavailable in the Philippines.
1.2. Drones in wildlife studies
Camera-based technology addresses observer bias since captured
image can be reviewed and re-assessed by multiple people (Mizuno
et al., 2017). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, have proven
to be an excellent cost-effective tool for scientific research and moni­
toring (Schofield et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2022). For example, UAVs
were used to study gray whale behavior off the coast of Oregon, USA
(Torres et al., 2018), survey dugongs in Australia (Hodgson et al., 2013),
observe mating dynamics of marine turtles in Greece (Schofield et al.,
2017), and determine variation in marine wildlife assemblages in New
South Wales, Australia (Kelaher et al., 2020). For a more comprehensive
review of UAV applications on marine wildlife studies, please see Ver­
fuss et al. (2019).
The availability of cost-effective commercial UAVs and improving
capabilities of these technologies, has presented a better alternative to
more expensive methods (e.g. small manned aircrafts for marine wildlife
surveys), and given access to researchers with less funding by removing
the logistical constraints and risk to both researchers and studied or­
ganisms (Francis et al., 2020; Ezat et al., 2018). For instance, Bennett
et al. (2015) developed “SnotBot”, an autonomous UAV to collect non-
invasive biological samples from whale blows, limiting the stress to
the whale. The use of UAVs has also allowed researchers to effectively
estimate the number and age structure of a hippopotamus population in
Botswana, a challenging task in such an aggressive species (Inman et al.,
2019). Comparative studies on UAVs and manned aerial surveys show
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
that UAVs are highly reliable in detecting target species (Inman et al.,
2019) or even more accurate when paired with artificial intelligence
(AI) and machine learning (Chabot and Francis, 2016; Francis et al.,
2020). Commercial UAVs also emit less noise, generating less distur­
bance (Bevan et al., 2018; Christiansen et al., 2016).
1.3. Drones in marine litter studies
The use of UAVs in marine litter surveys is thought to be a cost-
effective and efficient alternative for standard in situ visual count
method in beach surveys – beach litter surveys using UAVs require less
time to complete and require less manpower in the field (Lo et al., 2020;
Martin et al., 2021). Aerial photography also has a higher rate of marine
litter detection as compared to traditional in situ visual counts (Garcia-
Garin et al., 2019). The efficiency and low cost of using UAVs means that
they could be an exceptional tool for much needed regular beach litter
monitoring. In the Philippines, Abreo and Kobayashi (2021) first
demonstrated the utility of UAVs in quantifying beached marine litter,
specifically litter associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Development
of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for marine litter
surveys are now under development to increase litter detection and limit
human errors (Gonçalves et al., 2020; Pinto et al., 2021).
Although marine litter studies using UAVs are now increasing
(Gonçalves et al., 2022), this is the first study to leverage the capabilities
of UAVs, not only to detect marine litter, but also examine how these
materials could interact with marine fauna, linking marine litter
research with biodiversity and conservation. The aim of the study was to
explore the feasibility of using UAV to determine the spatial relationship
of turtles in-water distribution to floating marine litter occurrence and
underscore the threat of FML to turtles in nearshore areas.
2. Methods
The study was conducted in Mayo Bay under the jurisdiction of Mati
City, Davao Oriental (Fig. 1). Mayo Bay is known to provide habitat for
dugongs, marine turtles and social media posts show a diversity of ce­
taceans and a nesting site for Olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivaceae)
(Abreo et al., 2019b; Mizuno et al., 2017). Dahican beach is a soft white
7 km beach, ideal for turtle nesting (Kikukawa et al., 1998), with sea­
grass beds in adjacent shallow water that provide habitat for female
nesting turtles between nesting periods (Hart et al., 2013). The area is
also known to be affected by marine litter, with benthic marine plastics
in the shallow areas of the Bay (Abreo et al., 2018).
2.1. Drone survey
The UAV used in this study was a DJI Mavic 2 Pro quadcopter.
Quadcopters are capable of vertical take-off and slow flight speed which
is essential in marine litter detection (Deidun et al., 2018). Initial flight
was conducted prior to data collection to plot the flight path using the
DJI Waypoints 2.0 (an intelligent flight mode built-in with DJI drones)
for autonomous flight. Surveys were conducted during the periods 21st
to 23rd October and 16th to 23rd November 2021, between 05:00 and
07:00 to minimize sun glare on the water. Before every flight, a wind­
speed and pre-flight safety check was performed. The drone was flown
autonomously using the prior flight path set using Waypoint 2.0 to
ensure consistency. Following Deidun et al. (2018) the UAV was flown at
an altitude of 30 m (ground sampling distance = 0.76 cm/px) with − 900
camera gimbal angle. However, travel speed was set to 8 m/s instead of
3.5 m/s in Deidun et al. (2018). Altitude was selected in accordance with
Bevan et al. (2018) to provide a minimum altitude that does not disturb
turtles. Videos were recorded during each flight to minimize the possi­
bility of double-counting litter and turtle and each video was considered
as a single transect.
The videos were subjected to post-flight visual analysis following the
methods of Garcia-Garin et al. (2020). Briefly, videos were only viewed
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
Fig. 1. Study site showing drone flight path (Green arrow = video: ON; Red arrow = video: OFF) with sample color-stretched screen captured images (see Fig. 2)
overlaid on the map. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
in the post flight processing stage. All videos were reviewed by a single
researcher with experience in marine litter surveys. During the viewing
of the videos, videos were paused when the observer identified either
marine litter or turtle and then screenshots collected to show litter and
turtles (Fig. 2), preventing the double-counting of litter and turtles
whilst minimizing the effects of glare. The open-source VGG Image
Annotating (VIA) software (Dutta and Zisserman, 2019) was then used
during the post-flight visual analysis to annotate individual marine litter
and turtles within each photo. Color stretching in QGIS 3.12 was also
applied whenever possible to clearly see the turtles and litter against the
background (Fig. 2).
The screenshots from the videos captured by the UAV were geore­
ferenced using the GPS coordinates from the UAV and each photo was
plotted using QGIS software. To map the specific positions of litter and
turtles within each photo, a vector layer was created, with data points
added pinpointing each litter and/or turtle. QGIS then generated GPS
coordinates for each point. Euclidean distance was used to measure the
distance between points in QGIS software.
2.2. Exposure of marine turtles to FML
The exposure level of marine turtles to FML was taken as: (1) fre­
quency of marine turtles surrounded by FML; (2) mean number of FML
surrounding each turtle and (3) the mean distance between turtles and
FML (Darmon et al., 2016). Using QGIS 3.12 proximity analysis tools,
50 m–300 m (at 50 m increment) buffers were generated around each
turtle (Arcangeli et al., 2019; Darmon et al., 2016). At each buffer, the
number of FML was quantified. Further, the distance of each piece of
3
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
FML to each turtle was measured using the “distance to nearest hub”
function.
Point pattern analysis was employed and grid maps were generated
in QGIS to visualize the distribution of turtles and occurrence of FML.
The use of grid maps show patterns of higher than average occurrence of
a particular phenomenon, for example, the clustering (or dispersion) of
FML and distribution of marine turtles within the study area. Spatial
dependence between marine turtle distribution and FML occurrence was
first determined by performing a quadrat test through point patterns
generated from the null hypothesis under the assumption of Complete
Spatial Randomness (CSR) model using Monte Carlo simulation. Pearson
chi-square statistics were computed from the observed point pattern.
The p-value was determined by comparing the chi-squared statistic for
the observed point pattern, with the values obtained from the simula­
tions. If the quadrat test shows that the point pattern deviates from CSR,
then Ripley's cross K function was used to further investigate the re­
lationships between occurrence of FML and marine turtle spatial dis­
tribution. Analysis was performed in R programming language (R Core
Team, 2020). Since initial analysis showed the non-homogenous distri­
bution of points for both FML and marine turtles, the non-homogeneous
version of the Ripley's cross K function was used (Planchuelo et al.,
2020).
3. Results
The flight time for covering the entire study area was 8 min and 24 s
and the total distance was 2.9 km. Eleven (11) flights were performed
providing a total time of field sampling of 1.5 h. The drone captured 7
N.A.S. Abreo et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489

Fig. 2. Screen captured image color stretched in QGIS 3.12 and annotated using VGG Image Annotator software (inset: zoomed image of turtle and FML) extracted
from a video acquired using DJI Mavic 2 Pro drone (flight height: 30 m). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
online version of this chapter.)

videos per day, with each video covering 362.2 m – 520.3 m linear
distance. At 30 m flight height, the width of each transect is 37.4 m,
making the covered area of each day of survey 109,801m2. From the
captured videos, 583 still frames were extracted that corresponds to
litter and turtle presence. Out of all stills captured, 21 turtles and 1067
pieces of FML were recorded across all sampling days.
Among the turtles detected during the study, 68.2 % were exposed to
litter at 50 m radius and increase to 100 % from 150 m radius and
onwards. Moreover, a turtle was surrounded with a mean FML of 6.32
items at 50 m radius, increasing up to 79.27 items at 300 m radius
(Fig. 3). The average minimum distance between turtles and marine
litter was 40.06 m ± 32.16, with shortest distance measured at 0.36 m
and farthest at 523.64 m.
The pooled data show the point patterns of FML occurrence and
marine litter distribution (Fig. 4). The non-homogenous distribution of
points, especially for the FML occurrence was noticeable. This

Fig. 3. Number of FML surrounding marine turtles for a given radial distance in nearshore waters of Dahican, Mayo Bay. (Blue line connects the mean litter count for
each radial distance). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
Fig. 4. (a) locations ( ) of all floating litter and abundance map in a 50x50m grid; (b) spatial distribution of turtle sightings ( ) and abundance map in a
50x50m grid.
observation was supported by the grid maps generated using QGIS
software which clearly showed areas of higher point concentrations for
both FML occurrence and marine turtle distribution, signifying clus­
tering of points in the study area (Fig. 4). The statistically significant
result of the Monte Carlo test of complete spatial randomness (Pearson
X2 statistic is 1626.7, p < 0.05) confirms both FML occurrence and
marine turtle distribution is non-random. This means that the spatial
distribution for both FML and turtles are clustered.
Ripley's cross K function was computed to determine the degree of
spatial dependence of FML and turtles. The observed Cross-K function
was determined to be above the theoretical Cross-K function and outside
5
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
the simulation envelope (Fig. 5a), meaning that the number of litter
surrounding turtles is higher than the expected number of litter
assuming independence. This result was still evident even when
different edge corrections were applied (Fig. 5b). Point patterns for
turtles and litter are dependent and do not exhibit random clustering.
Moreover, results of the Ripley's cross K function signify spatial depen­
dence between litter occurrence and marine turtle distribution.
4. Discussion
There are inherent challenges in studying FML and mobile marine
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
Fig. 5. (a) Cross K plot between spatial distribution of marine turtle sightings and FML occurrence with simulation envelope; (b) Cross K plot showing effects of
different edge corrections.
fauna – research is expensive and needs to cover large geographic areas
over multiple seasons to provide meaningful data. These challenges
mean that there is a particular scarcity of data on marine litter and
wildlife interactions in developing countries. In the Philippines, data on
litter leakage from land suggests that this country has a serious litter
problem, but a lack of knowledge of distributional overlap between litter
and marine fauna limit the ability to provide solutions and there are no
data on FML for this country (Abreo, 2018; Lyons et al., 2019).
In the current study, both marine turtle distribution and FML
6
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
occurrence exhibited clustered, non-random distribution. For FML, the
result mirrors the non-homogenous distribution in nearshore waters of
the Mediterranean shown by Compa et al. (2019a, 2019b), albeit, in a
much finer scale. Similarly, clustering of FML is also observed in offshore
studies (Sá et al., 2021; Arcangeli et al., 2019; Macias et al., 2019)
although nearshore hydrodynamics are very different from those in the
open ocean (Van Sebille et al., 2020). Only a few studies have explored
the distribution (Compa et al., 2019a, 2019b) and behavior (Forsberg
et al., 2020) of FML in nearshore areas, however, the need to identify
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
hotspots or accumulation areas is important. The methodology applied
in the current study can be utilized to address this need. For marine
turtle distribution, our observations are consistent with those of Wil­
dermann et al. (2017), in which certain nearshore areas had a higher
probability of turtle observations (Cuevas et al., 2020). It is, however,
important to note that the area surveyed in the current study is relatively
small in comparison to studies by Wildermann et al. (2017) and Cuevas
et al. (2020) and the methods applied across the studies vary.
There is clear spatial dependence between the occurrence of FML and
marine turtle distribution in nearshore areas of Mayo Bay. In oceanic
waters, spatial overlap between the FML and turtle distribution is ex­
pected since the movement of FML and the turtles' preferred prey (e.g.
macroplankton) are greatly influenced by ocean circulation dynamics
(Arcangeli et al., 2019). Even if marine turtles can move independent of
currents (Putman and Mansfield, 2015; Wildermann et al., 2017), the
availability of food will draw these organisms in marine litter accumu­
lation areas (Arcangeli et al., 2019). Indeed, studies by Darmon et al.
(2016), Arcangeli et al. (2019) and Atzori et al. (2021) confirmed the
role of currents on the spatial overlap between FML and marine turtle
distribution in oceanic areas. Darmon et al. (2016) and Arcangeli et al.
(2019) also deduced that marine turtles select areas with FML accu­
mulation as a result of foraging. This could be a possible explanation for
the observed spatial dependence of marine turtle distribution to FML
accumulation areas in the present study. Sheet-like plastics observed in
the study are the types that marine turtles often ingest in the Philippines
and elsewhere (Abreo et al., 2016; Fukuoka et al., 2016). Evidences
suggest that marine turtles locate prey visually and mistake soft, trans­
parent plastics (e. g. freezer bags) as food (Narazaki et al., 2013;
Schuyler et al., 2014). Fukuoka et al. (2016) observed that loggerhead
turtles display movement patterns similar to approaching a gelatinous
prey when moving towards floating plastics, an evidence that turtles
actively feed on these materials. Moreover, biofouling organisms found
on marine litter emit chemical signals that encourages food search
behavior in marine organisms (Savoca et al., 2017). Another possible
explanation for the spatial dependence between FML occurrence and
marine turtle distribution is the effect of anthropogenic activities in the
study area. Schofield et al. (2021) showed that the intensity of human
activities in waters adjacent to a marine turtle nesting beach in Zakyn­
thos, Greece, exert greater influence to in-water marine turtle distribu­
tion. Marine turtles tend to move away from areas with high human
presence and may settle to stay in sub-optimal areas to avoid interaction.
In the study, marine turtles' distribution is concentrated in an area
adjacent to a closed beach resort and away from public access and skim
boarding spot. The disturbance caused by human activities could be
driving the turtles towards area where FML are in high densities.
Nevertheless, the spatial dependence of marine turtle distribution to
FML occurrence is a source of concern and should be investigated further
to avert the potential negative impacts to the marine turtle population.
4.1. Exposure of marine turtles to FML
Marine turtle species already suffer from a myriad factors that impact
their population abundance, for example climate change, rising sea
levels (Butler, 2019; Pike, 2014), hunting and egg collection (Williams
et al., 2019), vessel strikes (Denkinger et al., 2013), habitat destruction
(Mathenge et al., 2012) and bycatch (Baez et al., 2022). Litter in nesting
beaches and adjacent waters will undoubtedly add burden to these en­
dangered turtles.
The presence of FML can potentially entangle marine turtle or in­
crease the risk of ingestion by the turtles found in the vicinity (With­
erington et al., 2012). Being entangled in litter will increase drag and
can lower the swim speed of marine turtles by up to 50 %, depending on
the species (Booth, 2019). Increase in drag as a result of entanglement to
litter can also cause difficulty in turtle foraging, increase energy con­
sumption and negatively affect predator avoidance behavior (Nelms
et al., 2015). As shown here, turtles in the nearshore waters of Mayo Bay
7
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
are exposed to FML. Although caution is to be taken when comparing
with other studies using different methodologies, turtles in Mayo Bay
appear to be more exposed to FML in comparison to those reported by
Arcangeli et al. (2019) in the Mediterranean (frequency of turtles sur­
rounded by debris: 70 % at 2 km – 85 % at 10 km radius) and Darmon
et al. (2016) in the French Mediterranean and metropolitan Atlantic
waters (frequency of turtles surrounded by debris: 0 % at 50 m – 99.07 %
at 10 km radius). Also, higher mean number of FML per turtle was
observed in the Philippines study site compared to these other studies.
Coastal areas are considered as marine litter reservoir since large parts of
land-based litter accumulate for long periods of time near the shore
(Morales-Caselles et al., 2021; Onink et al., 2021), possibly explaining
the higher exposure of marine turtles in the study area. Moreover, the
Philippines is considered as the 3rd largest contributor of marine plastics
in the world (Jambeck et al., 2015), and studies suggest that higher litter
concentrations are commonly observed in nearshore areas (Pedrotti
et al., 2016) as they are closer to the source of leakage (e.g. urban
centers) (Ryan, 2015b). Marine turtle average swim speed in breeding
areas is <4 m per minute (Schofield et al., 2010) and can easily cover 10
km radius in a few hours (Darmon et al., 2016). The average distance of
litter to turtles can be covered by a turtle within minutes, increasing the
probability of it coming across litter in the study area – turtles will come
across litter at least every 1.9 h according to our data. Further, marine
turtles are obligate air breathers (Dodge et al., 2018), meaning they are
bound to encounter FML as they surface for air.
It is also noteworthy that Dahican beach is a known marine turtle
nesting site (Abreo et al., 2019b). We did not study the spatial distri­
bution of neonate turtles due to their small size, although the presence of
FML in the study area, as confirmed by our results, is likely to be a
serious threat to this critical life stage. Neonate turtles spend large
amount of their time on the water surface, mostly swimming at a depth
of 0.2 m (Hoover et al., 2020) increasing the possibility of entanglement.
Neonate turtles' surface feeding behavior also increases the probability
of litter ingestion (Witherington et al., 2012). Ryan et al. (2016)
observed that plastic ingestion by neonate sea turtles have increased
through time in the waters of South Africa and linked plastic ingestion to
their mortality. Moreover, high percentage of neonate sea turtles were
also found to have ingested plastic litter in nearshore waters of Florida,
U.S.A. (Eastman et al., 2020). Ingestion of litter results to dietary dilu­
tion and ensues reduced energy intake (McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999).
The detrimental effects of litter ingestion are more pronounced on
neonate turtles due to their small size (Rice et al., 2021) Other physical
impacts of litter ingestion include gastro-intestinal perforation, rupture,
and fecal impaction, all of which are detrimental to marine turtles
(Jerdy et al., 2017).
Our findings provide empirical evidence to support Schuyler et al.
(2015) modeling study that found Southeast Asia as a major area of
concern for litter and marine turtle interaction. The high exposure of
marine turtles to litter shown here could build the case for the
Philippines as possibly the hotspot for marine litter and wildlife inter­
action in the region (Coram et al., 2021). Specifically, in Mindanao,
Southern Philippines where majority of the cases of plastic ingestion by
marine turtles in the country are reported (Abreo et al., 2019b). Clearly,
for litter to impact marine turtles, their presence must overlap with the
spatial distribution of turtles. According to Wilcox et al. (2013),
encounter rates, which is a function of exposure, can be a logical mea­
sure of risk for wildlife and marine litter interaction. The higher the
number of marine litter present in an area, the greater the likelihood of a
marine wildlife to encounter it and possibly resulting to negative im­
pacts, which is especially true for entanglement (Høiberg et al., 2022).
However, encounter rates are not the only factor to consider in pre­
dicting litter ingestion by marine turtles. Prey preference and feeding
habits also play a crucial role in ingestion (Schuyler et al., 2015; War­
raich et al., 2020). Further investigations are needed to ascertain the
specific types of FML in the study site and compare that with common
litter types ingested by marine turtles in the Philippines (Abreo et al.,
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
2016) to assess the potential risk of litter ingestion. The limited capa­
bility of the drone camera, prevented litter being identified to specific
types and turtles were not identified to species level. One of the chal­
lenges in using UAVs in marine litter research is the less-detailed iden­
tification of marine litter type (Merlino et al., 2021) and Martin et al.
(2021) reported that flight height greatly influences the resolution of
captured images and the likelihood of accurate litter identification.
Lower flight heights result to higher percentage of correct litter identi­
fication but cover lesser area (Deidun et al., 2018; Lo et al., 2020). In
addition, to reduce disturbance to marine fauna, studies suggest a
minimum altitude. For example, Bevan et al. (2018) indicated that this
be at least 20 m for marine turtles. Although other limitations such as
sun glare, wind speed and sea state (Andriolo et al., 2022) were all
considered and steps were taken to lessen their effects in the current
study, spotting and specific identification of floating litter was still
challenging. In general, these limitations will result in researchers
reaching a compromise or ‘sweet spot’ depending on the particular ob­
jectives of their study. Here, area coverage was prioritized over image
resolution to address the main objective and to minimize disturbance of
the drone to marine turtles in the area.
5. Conclusion
The current study demonstrates the effectiveness of reasonably low-
cost commercially available UAVs in tackling some of the knowledge
gaps in marine litter research, especially in developing countries where
data is limited. Application of emerging technologies, such as UAVs, can
provide the much needed high-resolution data at a finer scale and
empirical evidence to substantiate findings of marine litter modeling
studies. Although further studies are needed, we demonstrate the pos­
sibility that marine turtles are highly exposed to FML in nearshore
coastal waters. The spatial dependence between marine turtle distribu­
tion and FML occurrence in nearshore coastal waters will likely increase
the risk of ingestion and entanglement, adding to the myriad threats on
the their survival. As beaches in Mayo Bay are also nesting sites, we
suggest that this is a particular concern that needs to be addressed
practically through urgent litter collection and prevention of leakage
from land.
Further, our study also underscores the need to improve the solid
waste management of the country and highlights the necessity to
address the shortcomings in the implementation of the Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000 to better protect the marine wildlife of the
Philippines against the threat of marine litter.
6. Recommendation
We recommend that more marine litter spatial risk assessment
studies be conducted, not only for marine turtles, but for other wildlife
as well to ascertain the possible impacts of litter to marine biodiversity.
With the methodology presented here, larger and more areas can be
investigated at a relatively lower cost. Further, application of machine
learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to standardize the meth­
odology is also recommended. ML and AI can further enhance the po­
tential of UAVs and other imaged-based technology in marine litter
research and increase reproducibility of the present study. The lack of
standardized methodology in marine litter research results to limited
understanding of the problem, hampering country-wide analysis.
Greater reproducibility will enhance comparability of data across
different geographic areas, thereby addressing logistical problems
related to an archipelagic country, such as the Philippines. Combining
the use of UAVs in citizen science projects are also recommended.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Neil Angelo S. Abreo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
8
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
editing. Remie M. Aurelio: Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Visualization, Data curation. Vladimer B. Kobayashi: Soft­
ware, Formal analysis, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. Kirsten F.
Thompson: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – re­
view & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This study received partial funding support from DOST-PCIEERD
through the project “Cost-effective technology for monitoring and
quantifying benthic area covered by marine litter in shallow coastal
areas” (Project No. 08638) and University of the Philippines Mindanao
in-house project “Determining spatial distribution of marine litter using
drone captured images in selected Davao Oriental coastal areas: Appli­
cation to assessing spatial overlap between beached litter and marine
turtle nesting sites”.
References
Abreo, N.A.S., 2018. Marine plastics in the Philippines: a call for research. Philipp. Sci.
Lett. 11, 18–19.
Abreo, N.A.S., Kobayashi, V., 2021. First evidence of marine litter associated with
COVID-19 in Davao Gulf, Mindanao,Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci. 150 (5), 1145–1149.
Abreo, N.A.S., Macusi, E.D., Blatchley, D.D., 2016. Ingestion of marine plastic debris by
green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Davao gulf, Mindanao, Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci.
145.
Abreo, N.A.S., Macusi, E.D., Jimenez, L.A., 2018. A survey of subtidal anthropogenic
marine debris (AMD) in Mayo bay, Mati City, Davao Oriental,Philippines. Philipp. J.
Sci. 147 (4), 597–600.
Abreo, N.A.S., Blatchley, D., Superio, M.D., 2019a. Stranded whale shark (Rhincodon
typus) reveals vulnerability of filter-feeding elasmobranchs to marine litter in the
Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.02.030.
Abreo, N.A.S., Thompson, K.F., Arabejo, G.F.P., Superio, M.D.A., 2019b. Social media as
a novel source of data on the impact of marine litter on megafauna: the Philippines
as a case study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 140, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.01.030.
Alava, M.N.R., Sabater, E.R., Aquino, M.T.R., Santos, M.D. (Eds.), 2012. Red List Status
of Marine Mammals in the Philippines. BFAR-NFRDI.
Andriolo, U., Garcia-Garin, O., Vighi, M., Borrell, A., Gonçalves, G., 2022. Beached and
floating litter surveys by unmanned aerial vehicles: operational analogies and
differences. Remote Sens. 14, 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061336.
Arcangeli, A., Maffucci, F., Atzori, F., Azzolin, M., Campana, I., Carosso, L., Crosti, R.,
Frau, F., David, L., Di-Méglio, N., Roul, M., Gregorietti, M., Mazzucato, V.,
Pellegrino, G., Giacoletti, A., Paraboschi, M., Zampollo, A., de Lucia, G.A.,
Hochscheid, S., 2019. Turtles on the trash track: loggerhead turtles exposed to
floating plastic in the Mediterranean Sea. Endanger. Species Res. 40, 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.3354/ESR00980.
Atzori, F., Carosso, L., Cadoni, N., Frau, F., Gutiérrez, M.L.G., Lucia, G.A.De,
Gregorietti, M., Pellegrino, G., Liubartseva, S., Lecci, R., Coppini, G., Maffucci, F.,
Hochscheid, S., Arcangeli, A., 2021. Loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, presence
and its exposure to floating marine litter in the Sardinia Channel and the Strait of
Sicily: results from seven years of monitoring using ferry as platform of observation.
Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 22, 422–435. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.25579.
Baez, J.C., Macias, D., Caminas, J.A., de Urbina, J.M.O., Garcia-Barcelona, S.,
Bellido, Juan J., Real, R., 2022. By-catch frequency and size differentiation in
loggerhead turtles as a function of surface longline gear type in the western
Mediterranean Sea. <journal-title>J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK</journal-title> 93,
1423–1427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315412001841.
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
Ser. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1985–1998. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.
Bennett, A., Preston, V., Woo, J., Chandra, S., Diggins, D., Chapman, R., Wang, Z.,
Rush, M., Lye, L., Tieu, M., Hughes, S., Kerr, I., Wee, A., 2015. Autonomous vehicles
for remote sample collection in difficult conditions: enabling remote sample
collection by marine biologists. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA). Presented at the 2015 IEEE
International Conference on Technologies for Practical robot Applications (TePRA).
IEEE, Woburn, MA, USA, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/TePRA.2015.7219660.
Bevan, E., Whiting, S., Tucker, T., Raith, A., Douglas, R., 2018. In: Measuring Behavioral
Responses of Sea Turtles, Saltwater Crocodiles, and Crested Terns to Drone
Disturbance to Define Ethical Operating Thresholds, pp. 1–17.
Booth, D.T., 2019. Towing a float decreases swim speed but does not affect swimming
behavior during offshore swimming in sea turtle hatchlings. Chelonian Conserv. Biol.
18, 112–115. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1350.1.
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.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20142929 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2929.
Butler, C.J., 2019. A review of the effects of climate change on chelonians. Diversity 11
(8), 138.
Chabot, D., Francis, C.M., 2016. Computer-automated bird detection and counts in high-
resolution aerial images: a review. J. Field Ornithol. 87 (4), 343–359.
Christiansen, F., Rojano-doñate, L., Madsen, P.T., Bejder, L., Harcourt, R., 2016. Noise
levels of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles with implications for potential
underwater impacts on marine mammals. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fmars.2016.00277.
Compa, M., March, D., Deudero, S., 2019a. Spatio-temporal monitoring of coastal
floating marine debris in the Balearic Islands from sea-cleaning boats. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 141, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.027.
Compa, M., Alomar, C., Wilcox, C., van Sebille, E., Lebreton, L., Hardesty, B.D.,
Deudero, S., 2019b. Risk assessment of plastic pollution on marine diversity in the
Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 678, 188–196.
Coram, A., Abreo, N.A.S., Ellis, R.P., Thompson, K.F., 2021. Contribution of social media
to cetacean research in Southeast Asia: illuminating populations vulnerable to litter.
Biodivers. Conserv. 30 (8), 2341–2359.
Cuevas, E., Putman, N.F., Uribe-Martínez, A., López-Castro, M.C., Guzmán-
Hernández, V., Gallegos-Fernández, S.A., Liceaga-Correa, M.de los Á., Trujillo-
Córdova, J.A., González-Díaz-Mirón, R.de J., Negrete-Phillipe, A., Acosta-
Sánchez, H.H., Martínez-Portugal, R.C., López-Hernández, M., Huerta-Rodríguez, P.,
Silver, J., 2020. First spatial distribution analysis of male sea turtles in the Southern
Gulf of Mexico. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 561846 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2020.561846.
Darmon, G., Miaud, C., Claro, F., Doremus, G., Galgani, F., 2016. Risk assessment reveals
high exposure of sea turtles to marine debris in French Mediterranean and
metropolitan Atlantic waters. Deep. Res. II 141, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.dsr2.2016.07.005.
Deidun, A., Gauci, A., Lagorio, S., Galgani, F., 2018. Optimising beached litter
monitoring protocols through aerial imagery. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 212–217.
Denkinger, J., Parra, M., Munoz, J.P., Carrasco, C., Murillo, J.C., Espinosa, E.,
Rubianes, F., Koch, V., 2013. Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the Galapagos
Marine Reserve? Ocean Coast.Manag. 80, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2013.03.005.
Dodge, K.L., Kukulya, A.L., Burke, E., Baumgartner, M.F., 2018. TurtleCam: a “smart”
autonomous underwater vehicle for investigating behaviors and habitats of sea
turtles. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 90.
Dutta, A., Zisserman, A., 2019. The VIA annotation software for images, audio and video.
In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM '19),
October 21–25, 2019, Nice, France. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3343031.3350535, 4 pages.
Eastman, C.B., Farrell, J.A., Whitmore, L., Rollinson Ramia, D.R., Thomas, R.S., Prine, J.,
Eastman, S.F., Osborne, T.Z., Martindale, M.Q., Duffy, D.J., 2020. Plastic ingestion in
post-hatchling sea turtles: assessing a major threat in Florida near shore waters.
Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00693.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., Borerro, J.C.,
Galgani, F., Ryan, P.G., Reisser, J., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world's oceans:
more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS
One 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913.
Ezat, M.A., Fritsch, C.J., Downs, C.T., 2018. Use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) to
survey Nile crocodile populations: a case study at Lake Nyamithi, Ndumo game
reserve, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 223, 76–81.
Forsberg, P.L., Sous, D., Stocchino, A., Chemin, R., 2020. Behaviour of plastic litter in
nearshore waters: first insights from wind and wave laboratory experiments. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 153, 111023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111023.
Fossi, M.C., Pedà, C., Compa, M., Tsangaris, C., Alomar, C., Claro, F., Ioakeimidis, C.,
Galgani, F., Hema, T., Deudero, S., Romeo, T., Battaglia, P., Andaloro, F., Caliani, I.,
Casini, S., Panti, C., Baini, M., 2018. Bioindicators for monitoring marine litter
ingestion and its impacts on Mediterranean biodiversity. Environ. Pollut. 237,
1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.019.
Francis, R.J., Lyons, M.B., Kingsford, R.T., Brandis, K.J., 2020. Counting mixed breeding
aggregations of animal species using drones: lessons from waterbirds on semi-
automation. Remote Sens. 12 (7), 1185.
Fujisaki, I., Lamont, M., 2016. The effects of large beach debris on nesting sea turtles.
J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 482, 33–37.
Fukuoka, T., Yamane, M., Kinoshita, C., Narazaki, T., Marshall, G.J., Abernathy, K.J.,
Miyazaki, N., Sato, K., 2016. The feeding habit of sea turtles influences their reaction
to artificial marine debris. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28015.
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
92, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
Garcia-Garin, O., Aguilar, A., Borrell, A., Gozalbes, P., Lobo, A., 2019. Who's better at
spotting? A comparison between aerial photography and observer-based methods to
monitor floating marine litter and marine mega-fauna. Environ. Pollut. 113680
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113680.
9
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
Garcia-Garin, O., Borrell, A., Aguilar, A., Cardona, L., Vighi, M., 2020. Floating marine
macro-litter in the North Western Mediterranean Sea: results from a combined
monitoring approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 159, 111467.
Germanov, E.S., Marshall, A.D., Bejder, L., Fossi, M.C., Loneragan, N.R., 2018.
Microplastics: no small problem for filter- feeding megafauna. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33,
227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.01.005.
Gonçalves, G., Andriolo, U., Pinto, L., Duarte, D., 2020. Mapping marine litter with
unmanned aerial systems: a showcase comparison among manual image screening
and machine learning techniques. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 155, 111158.
Gonçalves, G., Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, L.M.S., Sobral, P., Bessa, F., 2022. Beach litter
survey by drones: mini-review and discussion of a potential standardization.
Environ. Pollut. 315, 120370 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120370.
Granek, E.F., Brander, S.M., Holland, E.B., 2020. Microplastics in aquatic organisms:
improving understanding and identifying research directions for the next decade.
Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 5, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10145.
Haarr, M.L., Falk-Andersson, J., Fabres, J., 2022. Global marine litter research
2015–2020: geographical and methodological trends. Sci. Total Environ. 820,
153162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153162.
Hart, K.M., Zawada, D.G., Fujisaki, I., Lidz, B.H., 2013. Habitat use of breeding green
turtles Chelonia mydas tagged in dry Tortugas National Park: making use of local
and regional MPAs. Biol. Conserv. 161, 142–154.
Hodgson, A., Kelly, N., Peel, D., 2013. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for surveying
marine fauna: a Dugong case study. PLoS One 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0079556.
Høiberg, M.A., Woods, J.S., Verones, F., 2022. Global distribution of potential impact
hotspots for marine plastic debris entanglement. Ecol. Indic. 135, 108509.
Hoover, A.L., Shillinger, G.L., Williamson, S.A., Reina, R.D., Bailey, H., 2020. Nearshore
neonate dispersal of Atlantic leatherback turtles from a non-recovering
subpopulation. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75769-0.
Inman, V.L., Kingsford, R.T., Chase, M.J., Leggett, K.E., 2019. Drone-based effective
counting and ageing of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) in the Okavango
Delta in Botswana. PloS one 14 (12), e0219652.
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, 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Jerdy, H., Werneck, M.R., da Silva, M.A., Ribeiro, R.B., Bianchi, M., Shimoda, E., de
Carvalho, E.C.Q., 2017. Pathologies of the digestive system caused by marine debris
in Chelonia mydas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 116, 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.01.009.
Kelaher, B.P., Colefax, A.P., Tagliafico, A., Bishop, M.J., Giles, A., Butcher, P.A., 2020.
Assessing variation in assemblages of large marine fauna off ocean beaches using
drones. Mar. Freshw. Res. 71, 68–77.
Kikukawa, A., Namezaki, N., Hirate, K., Ota, H., 1998. Factors affecting nesting beach
selection by sea turtles: a multivariate approach. In: Epperly, S.P., Braun, J. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,
pp. 65–66.
Kühn, S., van Franeker, J.A., 2020. Quantitative overview of marine debris ingested by
marine megafauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, 110858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.110858.
Lavers, J.L., Rivers-auty, J., Bond, A.L., 2021. Plastic debris increases circadian
temperature extremes in beach sediments. J. Hazard. Mater. 416, 126140 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126140.
Lo, H.S., Wong, L.C., Kwok, S.H., Lee, Y.K., Po, B.H.K., Wong, C.Y., Cheung, S.G., 2020.
Field test of beach litter assessment by commercial aerial drone. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
151, 110823.
Lyons, Y., Su, T.L., Neo, M.L., 2019. A review of research on marine plastics in Southeast
Asia: who does what. In: Research on Marine Plastics in Sea.
Macias, D., Cózar, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E., González-Fernández, D., Stips, A., 2019. Surface
water circulation develops seasonally changing patterns of floating litter
accumulation in the Mediterranean Sea.A modelling approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
149, 110619.
Martin, C., Zhang, Q., Zhai, D., Zhang, X., Duarte, C.M., 2021. Enabling a large-scale
assessment of litter along saudi arabian red sea shores by combining drones and
machine learning. Environ. Pollut. 277, 116730 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2021.116730.
Mathenge, S.M., Mwasi, B.N., Mwasi, S.M., 2012. Effects of anthropogenic activities on
sea turtle nesting beaches along the Mombasa-Kilifi Shoreline, Kenya. Mar. Turt.
Newsl. 135, 14–18.
McCauley, S.J., Bjorndal, K.A., 1999. Conservation implications of dietary dilution from
debris ingestion: sublethal effects in post hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Conserv.
Biol. 13, 925–929. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98264.x.
Merlino, S., Paterni, M., Locritani, M., Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., Massetti, L., 2021.
Citizen science for marine litter detection and classification on unmanned aerial
vehicle images. Water 13 (23), 3349.
Mizuno, K., Asada, A., Sugimoto, K., Fujii, T., Yamamuro, M., Fortes, M.D., Sarceda, M.,
Jimenez, L.A., 2017. A simple and efficient method for making a high-resolution
seagrass map and quantification of dugong feeding trail distribution: a field test at
Mayo Bay,Philippines. Ecol. Inform. 38, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoinf.2017.02.003.
Morales-Caselles, C., Viejo, J., Martí, E., González-Fernández, D., Pragnell-Raasch, H.,
González-Gordillo, J.I., Montero, E., Arroyo, G.M., Hanke, G., Salvo, V.S.,
Basurko, O.C., Mallos, N., Lebreton, L., Echevarría, F., van Emmerik, T., Duarte, C.
M., Gálvez, J.A., van Sebille, E., Galgani, F., García, C.M., Ross, P.S., Bartual, A.,
Ioakeimidis, C., Markalain, G., Isobe, A., Cózar, A., 2021. An inshore–offshore
sorting system revealed from global classification of ocean litter. Nat. Sustain. 4,
484–493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00720-8.
N.A.S. Abreo et al.
Narazaki, T., Sato, K., Abernathy, K.J., Marshall, G.J., Miyazaki, N., 2013. Loggerhead
turtles (Caretta caretta) use vision to forage on gelatinous prey in mid-water. PLoS
One 8 (6), e66043.
Nelms, S.E., Duncan, E.M., Broderick, A.C., Galloway, T.S., Godfrey, M.H., Hamann, M.,
Lindeque, P.K., Godley, B.J., 2015. Plastic and marine turtles: a review and call for
research. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. du Cons. fsv165 https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/
fsv165.
Onink, V., Jongedijk, C.E., Hoffman, M.J., van Sebille, E., Laufkötter, C., 2021. Global
simulations of marine plastic transport show plastic trapping in coastal zones.
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abecbd.
Pedrotti, M.L., Petit, S., Elineau, A., Bruzaud, S., Crebassa, J.-C., Dumontet, B., Marti, E.,
Gorsky, G., Cozar, A., 2016. Changes in the floating plastic pollution of the
Mediterranean Sea in relation to the distance to land. PLoS One 11, 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161581.
Pike, D.A., 2014. Forecasting the viability of sea turtle eggs in a warming world. Glob.
Chang. Biol. 20, 7–15.
Pinto, L., Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., 2021. Detecting stranded macro-litter categories
on drone orthophoto by a multi-class neural network. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 169, 112594
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112594.
Planchuelo, G., Kowarik, I., von der Lippe, M., 2020. Endangered plants in novel urban
ecosystems are filtered by strategy type and dispersal syndrome, not by spatial
dependence on natural remnants. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fevo.2020.00018.
Putman, N.F., Mansfield, K.L., 2015. Direct evidence of swimming demonstrates active
dispersal in the sea turtle “lost years”. Curr. Biol. 25 (9), 1221–1227.
R Core Team, 2020. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rice, N., Hirama, S., Witherington, B., 2021. High frequency of micro- and meso-plastics
ingestion in a sample of neonate sea turtles from a major rookery. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
167, 112363 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112363.
Ryan, P.G., 2015a. A brief history of marine litter research. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L.,
Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing,
London, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3.
Ryan, P.G., 2015b. Does size and buoyancy affect the long-distance transport of floating
debris? Does size and buoyancy affect the long-distance transport of floating debris?
Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 1–6.
Ryan, P.G., Cole, G., Spiby, K., Nel, R., Osborne, A., Perold, V., 2016. Impacts of plastic
ingestion on post-hatchling loggerhead turtles off South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 107
(1), 155–160.
Sá, S., Bastos-Santos, J., Araújo, H., Pereira, A.T., Ferreira, M., Sarmento, P., Eira, C.,
2021. Floating marine litter and their risks to cetaceans off Portugal. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 170, 112603.
Savoca, M.S., Tyson, C.W., Mcgill, M., Slager, C.J., 2017. Odours from marine plastic
debris induce food search behaviours in a forage fish. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 2–8.
Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S., 2017. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea.
Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368.
Schofield, G., Hobson, V.J., Fossette, S., Lilley, M.K.S., Katselidis, K.A., Hays, G.C., 2010.
Fidelity to foraging sites, consistency of migration routes and habitat modulation of
home range by sea turtles: foraging and migration of sea turtles. Divers. Distrib. 16,
840–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00694.x.
Schofield, G., Hays, G.C., Katselidis, K.A., Lilley, M.K.S., Reina, R.D., 2017. Detecting
elusive aspects of wildlife ecology using drones: new insights on the mating
dynamics and operational sex ratios of sea turtles. Funct. Ecol. 31, 2310–2319.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12930.
10
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114489
Schofield, G., Esteban, N., Katselidis, K.A., Hays, G.C., 2019. Drones for research on sea
turtles and other marine vertebrates – a review. Biol. Conserv. 238, 108214 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108214.
Schofield, G., Dickson, L.C., Westover, L., Dujon, A.M., Katselidis, K.A., 2021. COVID-19
disruption reveals mass-tourism pressure on nearshore sea turtle distributions and
access to optimal breeding habitat. Evol. Appl. 14 (10), 2516–2526.
Schuyler, Q.A., Wilcox, C., Townsend, K., Hardesty, B.D., Marshall, N.J., 2014. Mistaken
identity? Visual similarities of marine debris to natural prey items of sea turtles. BMC
Ecol. 14 (1), 1–7.
Schuyler, Q.a., Wilcox, C., Townsend, K.a., Wedemeyer-Strombel, K.R., Balazs, G., van
Sebille, E., Hardesty, B.D., 2015. Risk analysis reveals global hotspots for marine
debris ingestion by sea turtles. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 567–576. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.13078.
Torres, L.G., Nieukirk, S.L., Lemos, L., Chandler, T.E., 2018. Drone up! Quantifying
whale behavior from a new perspective improves observational capacity. Front.
Mar. Sci 319.
Triessnig, P., Roetzer, A., Stachowitsch, M., 2012. Beach condition and marine debris:
new hurdles for sea turtle hatchling survival. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 11 https://
doi.org/10.2744/CCB-0899.1.
Van Sebille, E., Aliani, S., Law, K.L., Maximenko, N., Alsina, J.M., Bagaev, A.,
Wichmann, D., 2020. The physical oceanography of the transport of floating marine
debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2), 023003.
Verfuss, U.K., Aniceto, A.S., Harris, D.V., Gillespie, D., Fielding, S., Jiménez, G.,
Johnston, P., Sinclair, R.R., Sivertsen, A., Solbø, S.A., Storvold, R., Biuw, M.,
Wyatt, R., 2019. A review of unmanned vehicles for the detection and monitoring of
marine fauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 140, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.01.009.
Warraich, N., Wyneken, J., Blume, N., 2020. Feeding behavior and visual field
differences in loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles may explain differences in
longline fisheries interactions. Endanger. Species Res. 41, 67–77.
Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B.D., Sharples, R., Griffin, D.A., Lawson, T.J., Gunn, R., 2013.
Ghostnet impacts on globally threatened turtles, a spatial risk analysis for northern
Australia. Conserv. Lett. 6 (4), 247–254.
Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E., Hardesty, B.D., 2015. Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is
global, pervasive, and increasing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 11899–11904.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502108112.
Wildermann, N., Critchell, K., Fuentes, M.M., Limpus, C.J., Wolanski, E., Hamann, M.,
2017. Does behaviour affect the dispersal of flatback post-hatchlings in the Great
Barrier Reef? R. Soc. Open Sci. 4 (5), 170164.
Williams, J.L., Pierce, S.J., Hamann, M., Fuentes, M.M.P.B., 2019. Using expert opinion
to identify and determine the relative impact of threats to sea turtles in Mozambique.
Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3160.
Williams, R., Ashe, E., O’Hara, P.D., 2011. Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters
of British Columbia,Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1303–1316. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.02.029.
Witherington, B., Hirama, S., Hardy, R., 2012. Young Sea turtles of the pelagic
Sargassum-dominated drift community: habitat use, population density, and threats.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 463, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09970.
Yang, Z., Yu, X., Dedman, S., Rosso, M., Zhu, J., Yang, J., Xia, Y., Tian, Y., Zhang, G.,
Wang, J., 2022. UAV remote sensing applications in marine monitoring: Knowledge
visualization and review. Sci. Total Environ. 838, 155939. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2022.155939.