Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear at urban coastlines

Anya Roopa Gajanur, Zeehan Jaafar *
Department of Biological Sciences, 14 Science Drive 4, National University of Singapore, 117543, Singapore

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

Keywords: Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is considered a major threat to ocean biodiversity. Yet, little
Plastic pollution is known of the interactive impacts of ALDFGs and urban nearshore biodiversity and habitats, especially in
Singapore Southeast Asia where fisheries efforts are increasing. We identified ALDFG hotspots around Singapore–where
Ghost nets
80% of coastal areas are urbanized or anthropogenically modified. Fishing lines and nets were the most common
Ghost fishing
Marine debris
ALDFGs recovered; with strong correlations between ALDFG presence and beaches, intertidal, mangroves, as well
Urbanized shoreline as sites with significant coastal modifications. Plastic polymer nets trapped the highest organism diversity and
Southeast Asia abundance. A total of 1052 trapped individuals comprising 124 species were recovered, the majority in classes
Merostomata, Actinopterygii and Malacostraca. The most abundant trapped species was Carcinoscorpius rotun­
dicauda and the highest mortality presentation was in Class Actinopterygii. This study demonstrates that ALDFGs
remain a threat to marine biodiversity within urban coastal habitats and at heavily modified shorelines.

1. Introduction of mortality and morbidity for intertidal biodiversity. Derelict nets

Anthropogenic marine debris is a global and pervasive threat to
marine biodiversity (Jambeck et al., 2001). Abandoned, lost, or dis­
carded fishing gear (ALDFG), in particular, is a class of debris identified
as a major component of all marine debris that exact far-reaching
negative ecological and socio-economic impacts (Breen, 1990). This
debris type makes up 10% of the 6.5 million tons of marine debris added
to the global seas annually (Löhr et al., 2017). In 1975, 135,400 tons of
plastic fishing gear was dumped into the ocean by global fishing fleets
(Derraik, 2002). Today, fishing nets alone account for 46% of all debris
surveyed within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (Lebreton et al., 2018).
Plastic ALDFGs are especially prevalent because they are buoyant and
can be transported long range by drainage systems and currents in open
waters far from source points (Derraik, 2002; Vance and McGregor,
2019). The durability and ability of ALDFGs to travel long distances are
important factors for the high occurrences of entanglement in marine
organisms within them (Gall and Thompson, 2015). Plastic ALDFGs
have also been reported to affect ecosystem processes, such as inter­
fering in the production of marine snow and subsequent sequestration of
atmospheric carbon dioxide (Andrady, 2000; Moore, 2008).
Impacts of ALDFGs on global marine organisms have significantly
increased in the past decades, in part due to advances in fishing gear,
escalation in fishing efforts, and expansion of fishing grounds (Gilman
et al., 2016). When beached along shorelines, ALDFGs are major causes
continue to function due to their inherent design, with floats at the top
and weights at the bottom. The weighted ends often entangle onto corals
or mangrove roots, and severely affect the ability of intertidal organisms
to forage and escape predators (Donohue and Foley, 2007). Aerobic
intertidal organisms trapped in ALDFG asphyxiate at high tides, and are
ready prey at ebb tides. In open waters, these nets act like curtains in the
water column, and remain viable trapping devices as they move with the
ocean currents (Barnette, 2001; Giordano et al., 2009). Organisms
trapped in such nets eventually die of starvation, but not without first
attracting conspecifics, predators, and scavengers that in turn become
entangled, thus continuing this detrimental cycle (Breen, 1990). Single
derelict nets have been observed to, alone, entangle, kill and injure
hundreds of marine vertebrates (Cortes, 2018; Embury-Dennis, 2018).
Despite these wide-ranging impacts over broad areas, ALDFGs are
typically under reported. Most ALDFGs occur within the water column,
and therefore, their presence and impacts are difficult to detect and
record (Laist, 1997). There are indications however, that the impacts of
ALDFGs occur over comparatively shorter durations in shallower waters
(Ayaz et al., 2010; Erzini et al., 1997; Santos et al., 2003); an experi­
mental study reported that lost tangle nets ceased to capture any marine
organisms after 224 days (Santos et al., 2003). High rates of initial
entanglement have been shown to precede a steep decline, and is fol­
lowed by a long accentuated low catch rate phase (Sancho et al., 2003).
This is especially true if the nets are heavily bio-fouled, already

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jaafarz@nus.edu.sg (Z. Jaafar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113341
Received 16 July 2021; Received in revised form 8 January 2022; Accepted 8 January 2022
Available online 2 February 2022
0025-326X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
damaged, or becomes damaged (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). Exper­
imental commercial gill nets in the Southern Baltic Sea for example, saw
catch rates stabilize at 5–6% of the initial levels (Tschernij and Larsson,
2003). Further, nets in shallower areas are more susceptible to storms
and tidal actions that cause them to roll up on themselves and become
ineffective (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). In deeper waters, ALDFGs
were reported to be effective for over 3 years (Carr and Cooper, 1987;
Davies et al., 2017; Furevik and Fosseidengen, 2000; Gilman et al., 2016;
Humborstad et al., 2003; Tschernij and Larsson, 2003). Similar to nets in
shallow waters, there was a rapid decline in the catch rate between the
first few days after deployment of experimental nets and up to 45 days of
soak time. Unlike ALDFGs in shallow waters however, the capture effi­
ciency had stabilized at a higher rate of 20–30% of the commercial ef­
ficiency 45 days after deployment (Humborstad et al., 2003). The extent
of impact of ALDFGs in deeper marine ecosystems is limited (Brown and
Macfadyen, 2007; Humborstad et al., 2003) as there are currently no
substantial long-term studies on ghost-fishing at these areas.
Of the countries identified as the most prolific marine polluters
(Ocean Conservancy, 2015), four are in Southeast Asia. Also considered
a global biodiversity hotspot, Southeast Asia hosts ~34% of the world's
reefs (nearly 100,000 km2), and a third of its mangroves (~50,000 km2)
(Burke et al., 2002). The vast majority, estimated at about 95%, of
Southeast Asia's coral reef areas are at risk due to stressors such as
coastal development, overfishing, and marine debris (including
ALDFGs) pollution (Burke et al., 2002). In Indonesia alone, up to 60,000
units of fishing gear are reported lost from small scale fishery industries
annually (Wibowo et al., 2017). Despite the severity of the problem,
significant knowledge gaps persist within Southeast Asia. The shift to­
wards large-scale extraction and technologically-advanced methods in
fisheries and associated industries are likely to escalate ALDFG pollution
(Anticamara et al., 2011; Branch et al., 2011; FAO, 2020; Galbraith
et al., 2017). Also wanting are information on the behaviour of ALDFGs
at urban coastlines, and in areas with altered coastal ecosystems. Over
the past 15 years, anthropogenic changes to coastlines within Southeast
Asia have caused significant ecosystem changes and increased demand
for coastal resources (Song et al., 2020; Spalding, 2010; Veettil et al.,
2020; Zhang and Hou, 2020). Concurrently, changes to the climate have
resulted in coastal inundations and consequent biodiversity losses
(Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2015; Nitivattananon et al., 2012; Song et al.,
2020; Zhang and Hou, 2020). From 2000 to 2015, natural mainland
coastlines of Southeast Asian countries decreased by 4%, while artificial
coastlines and novel structures (such as aquaculture dikes, wharfs,
breakwaters, jetties) increased at a rate of 29% (Song et al., 2020).
Similarly, Southeast Asian island coastlines saw a net increase of 532
km, with artificial coastlines increasing by 3035 km as a result of
aquaculture dikes and reclamation (Zhang and Hou, 2020). Among
islands within the Southeast Asian region, Singapore reported the
highest nett changes, up to 16% in the annual average coastline length in
the fifteen years (Zhang and Hou, 2020). Between 1993 and 2011 for
example, Singapore's coastline increased from 408 km to 505 km as a
result of coastal reclamation, 63% of the shorelines were armoured with
sea walls, and approximately 20% of the coastline comprises newly-
created or artificially augmented beaches (Lai et al., 2015). Coastal
areas of the other Southeast Asian countries are now changing at un­
precedented rates, and will soon arrive to similar levels as Singapore
(Song et al., 2020; Zhang and Hou, 2020). There is an urgent need to
understand how ALDFGs behave in these urbanized coastlines and novel
habitats, especially when considering the gravity of ALDFG pollution in
the region. Our study focuses on understanding the impacts and
behaviour of ALDFGs in tropical and urbanized coastal areas. Utilising
coastlines of Singapore as model sites, we systematically surveyed urban
coastal areas for ALDFGs, characterised the ALDFGs encountered, and
investigated correlations between shorelines characteristics and these
ALDFGs. We were further able to identify taxa vulnerable to entangle­
ment and passive-trapping.
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341
2. Methods
An extensive literature review was first carried out to obtain infor­
mation on ALDFGs occurrences for the years between 2000 and 2019
within territorial waters of Singapore. These occurrences included re­
ports from concerted projects relating to marine debris or ALDFGs, such
as Project AWARE (2020), International Coastal Clean-up Singapore
(ICCS) (2020), Project Driftnet (2020), and intertidal surveys docu­
mented online by citizen scientists. Further internet searches used
phrases ‘abandoned nets + Singapore’, ‘ghost nets + Singapore’ and
‘ghost fishing + Singapore’. Mapped ALDFG data obtained from the
literature revealed hotspots within the territorial waters of Singapore;
and these informed the selection of ten sites that were surveyed as many
times as the shores were accessible between September 2018 and March
2019 (see Table 1 for information on surveyed sites). Accessibility was
dependent on shore exposure during spring ebb tides (ranged from − 0.2
m to 0.5 m chart datum), visitation restrictions and permit regulations.
2.1. Characterisations of ALDFGs
ALDFGs encountered in both literature and surveys were combined
and systematically characterised by identifying their type, condition,
and material. Any abandoned, lost or discarded netting material from
mariculture-cage enclosures encountered were also included in our data
as an ALDFG that could potentially trap marine organisms when dis­
lodged; these were differentiated from other nets by thick plastic and
nylon ropes with knots at points of intersection with adjacent mesh (see
Supplementary Fig. 1), and here termed ‘mariculture-cage nets’. During
surveys, any ALDFGs encountered were photographed, characterised
(gear type, opening sizes, mesh sizes, material types), and their GPS-
coordinate tacked. Organisms trapped or entangled within ALDFGs re­
ported in the literature and found during surveys were categorised as
‘live’ or ‘dead’, photographed, identified to lowest taxonomic order, and
counted. All live organisms encountered during the surveys were
released, and dead ones were responsibly disposed.
2.2. Site description
Ecosystems at sites where ALDFGs were found, both in the literature
and surveys, were systematically characterised (see Table 1 for survey
site details). Four parameters (hereby termed ecotypes) were inves­
tigated—ecosystem types (mangroves; beaches and intertidal areas
(rubble-algae-seagrass matrices); seagrass meadows; coral reefs; river,
reservoirs and marinas), presence or absence in protected areas, and
coastal modifications (reclaimed (includes naturalized shores) shore­
line; armoured shoreline). Naturalized shorelines refer to historically
reclaimed areas that retain natural characteristics such as beaches,
whereas armoured shores refer to shorelines with man-made structures
such as seawalls and breakwaters. We also included the presence of
mariculture facilities within 5 km of the sites, as they are a potential
source of ALDFGs, in our list of parameters. These data were used to
calculate the strength of interaction of ALDFGs to different ecotypes
using the Z-score analysis. The similarities and dissimilarities between
the distribution of ALDFGs across ecotypes were further analysed using
Euclidean distancing-hierarchical clustering.
3. Results
A total of 25,532 ALDFGs, both whole and fragmented, were
recovered from reports and surveys from 2000 to 2019. ALDFG occur­
rences were most concentrated at the eastern, south-eastern, northern
shorelines of Singapore and the north-eastern shoreline of Pulau Ubin
(Fig. 1). Monofilament fishing lines and nets (primarily gill, trammel,
trawl, or seine nets, but not including mariculture-cage nets) accounted
for 37% and 34% of all occurrences respectively, and made up the
majority of ALDFGs encountered. Only 0.03% of all ALDFG recorded
 A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
Table 1
Description of sites surveyed from September 2018 to March 2019.
Site Latitude Longitude Length of Region (as per Ecotype Number of
shoreline Fig. 1) times surveyed
Ecosystem types Mariculture facilities Coastal modifications Protected areas
(within a 5 km radius)

Changi Beach Park 1.392220 103.989974 1.21 Eastern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Reclaimed Yes 2
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) (naturalized) +
armoured
East Beach at NSRCC (National 1.31614 103.97531 1.33 South-eastern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- No Reclaimed No 1
Coast Service Resort and Country shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix)
Park Club)
Bedok Jetty 1.30521 103.9422 7.78 South-eastern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- No Reclaimed No 1
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) (naturalized)
Kallang and Singapore River, and, Marina 7.73 South-eastern Rivers and reservoirs No Reclaimed No 2
Bay shorelines
Pasir Ris Park 1.385 103.94555 2.56 Eastern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Reclaimed + Yes (mangroves 2
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) + armoured only)
mangroves
Pulau Semakau 1.20648 103.77091 3.84 Pulau Semakau Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Reclaimed Yes 3
algae-seagrasss matrix) + (naturalized) +
mangroves armoured
3

Pulau Eastern Mangroves 1.407419 103.980842 1.56 Pulau Ubin Mangroves Yes Natural Yes 2
Ubin Jelutong Beach 1.40115 103.96755 0.91 Pulau Ubin Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Natural Yes 4
algae-seagrasss matrix) +
mangroves
Main Jetty 1.40158 103.97024 0.61 Pulau Ubin Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Natural Yes 3
algae-seagrasss matrix) +
mangroves
Ketam Beach 1.41029 103.94671 1.13 Pulau Ubin Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Natural Yes 4
algae-seagrasss matrix) +
mangroves
Sungei Ubin 1.4043 103.97411 0.64 Pulau Ubin Mangroves Yes Natural Yes 4
Punggol Point Park 1.42178 103.91068 1.15 Eastern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- No Reclaimed No 2
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) (naturalized) +
armoured
Sembawang Park 1.46305 103.83891 1.30 Northern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- Yes Reclaimed + No 3
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) armoured

Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341

Tanah Merah Beach 1.31684 103.98002 0.45 South-eastern Beaches and intertidal (rubble- No Reclaimed No 3
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) (naturalized) +
armoured
West Coast Park 1.29542 103.76228 0.67 South-western Beaches and intertidal (rubble- No Reclaimed + No 2
shorelines algae-seagrasss matrix) armoured
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
Fig. 1. ALDFG hotspots based on type and abundance from 2003 to 2019, overlaid on an ecotone map showing two habitat types and year of coastal reclamation and
modification.
*Total ALDFG values for Southern Islands excluding Pulau Semakau.
were mariculture -cage nets; these were typically found at the eastern
and south-eastern coastal areas of Singapore as well as throughout
shorelines of Pulau Ubin. Lures, sinkers, hooks and rods, floats and
buoys, as well as traps and pots were also frequently found.
The Z-score analyses and hierarchical clustering revealed the strong
correlation of fishing lines with the following sites: mariculture facil­
ities, protected areas, coral reefs, beaches and intertidal areas, and at
sites with coastal modifications (Fig. 2). Nets also exhibited similar
trends in correlation to sites: mariculture facilities, protected areas,
seagrass meadows, mangroves, beaches and intertidal areas, as well as
modified coastlines (Fig. 2). Lures, sinkers, hooks, rods, floats, buoys and
traps were clustered together, indicating similarity in ecotype
interactions.
The ALDFGs were mostly recovered from, and strongly correlated to,
beaches and intertidal areas (74% of all ALDFG in the dataset), followed
by mangroves (Fig. 2). Ironically, even though fishing is prohibited in
these protected areas, more than half of all ALDFGs in our data (63.8%)
occurred in marine reserves and protected shorelines (Fig. 2). Majority
of these ALDFG were fishing lines (40.3% of all ALDFG recovered at
protected areas), followed by nets (33.1% of all ALDFG recovered at
protected areas). Notably, 56.7% of ALDFGs found in reserves and
protected areas were also at mangrove areas. Further, ALDFGs were
strongly correlated with sites that had previously undergone coastal
reclamation (79.5%) or coastal armouring (with seawalls; 77.2%)
(Figs. 1 and 2). At sites with coastal modifications, fishing lines were the
most abundant, followed by nets (Figs. 1 and 2). The type and abun­
dance of gear recovered at modified coastal sites were very similar to
ALDFGs found at beaches and intertidal areas (Figs. 1 and 2).
4
Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341
Interestingly, coral reefs had a different distribution of ALDFGs
compared to other ecotypes; in addition to fishing lines, lures, sinkers,
hooks and rods were the most abundant at reefs (Figs. 1 and 2). Many
ALDFGs (63.3%) were also recovered from sites within 5 km of mari­
culture facilities.
3.1. Organisms encountered in ALDFGs
A total of 1052 individuals comprising 124 species from 74 families,
29 orders and 11 classes were trapped in the ALDFGs. Thirty-four per
cent of all individuals trapped were found dead.
Most common organisms trapped were from classes Merostomata,
Actinopterygii and Malacostraca, accounting for 63.4%, 15.4% and
14.4% of all trapped individuals, respectively (Fig. 3, Table 2). Thirty-
nine trapped individuals belonged to the class Chondrichthyes. The
number of trapped individuals from other seven classes ranged from one
to twelve individuals (Table 2).
Within the Merostomata, two horseshoe crab species were identi­
fied—Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda and Tachypleus gigas. The former
species made up 94.6% of all horseshoe crabs, and 60% of all organisms,
trapped. However, the rate of mortality in this species was low, as 76.9%
of the trapped individuals were found alive. A total of 162 individuals
from 77 species of Actinopterygii fishes were found trapped, and
exhibited high mortality (74.7%). Within Actinopterygii, Perciformes
were the most abundant (84 individuals) and speciose (47 species) taxa.
Mortality rate of members from Actinopterygii was high, with 71.4% of
individuals found dead. Of the 151 individuals from twenty-one species
of Malacostraca found trapped, 64.9% were alive (Table 2).
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341

Fig. 2. Correlation of ALDFG to four parameters (i.e. associated ecosystems, coastal modifications, protection status and proximity to mariculture facilities) using Z-
score. MRF = mariculture facilities, NMRPS = nature and marine reserves and protected areas, CR = coral reefs, RR = rocky reefs, SG = seagrass meadows, MG =
mangroves, BI – beaches and intertidal areas (rubble-algae-seagrass matrices), RAR = rivers and reservoirs, RS – reclaimed shorelines, SW = seawalls. Number within
each cell shows raw count of ALDFGs. Dendrogram clusters show ALDFGs distributed similarly across site types.

Fig. 3. Organisms recovered from ALDFGs by

Class—total number of individuals (yellow); in­
dividuals recovered alive and subsequently
released (red); and individuals dead upon re­
covery (black). Values above each bar shows
percentage of individuals within that Status (e.g.
Merostomata accounts for 63.4% of all trapped
individuals, 74.9% of all individuals recovered
alive, and 41.2% of all individuals that were
dead upon recovery). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

Nets, of which 92.3% were monofilament plastic gill nets, trapped
the highest diversity of species and the most individuals—88.2% and
96% respectively. Traps (synthetic plastic material and metal), hooks,
and fishing lines (all plastic) accounted for 5.8% of the species diversity
and 3.5% of all individuals recovered.
4. Discussion
Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear persists within marine
ecosystems, but their impacts are not well understood in tropical urban
coastlines. The ALDFGs recovered in our study were likely to have
originated from fishery and fishing activities within the Straits of Johor
and the Straits of Singapore (Fig. 1). Collectively, countries in Southeast
Asia contribute 21.6% to global fisheries production annually although
within these, Singapore and Brunei factor lowest in fisheries productions
(SEAFDEC, 2017). Commercial fishing vessels operating within the EEZ
of Singapore are trawlers, but these are few in numbers when compared
to neighboring countries. Further, only about 1.5 km2 of the sea space
(12% of the Singapore's EEZ) are used for farmed fish production and
mariculture facilities (Lim et al., 2020). Conversely, smaller-scale fish­
ery activities such as artisanal and recreational fishing are common and
extract significant biomass from wild fishery resources and are equally

5
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341

Table 2
Species list and abundance of trapped individuals recovered from ALDFGs.
Class Order Family Species Individuals recovered

Total Alive Dead

Anthozoa Actiniaria Stichodactylidae Stichodactyla sp. 6 6 0

Alcyonacea Plexauridae Echinogorgia sp. 1 1 0
Plexauridae Euplexaura sp. 1 1 0
Unknown Unknown 2 2 0
Scleractinia Acroporidae Montipora sp. 1 1 0
Merulinidae Pectinia sp. 1 1 0
Scyphozoa Semaeostomeae Pelagiidae Chrysaora sp. 1 1 0
Malacostraca Decapoda Calappidae Matuta planiceps 2 0 2
Eriphidae Eriphia ferox 1 1 0
Matutidae Ashtoret lunaris 6 5 1
Menippidae Myomenippe hardwickii 20 16 4
Oziidae Ozius guttatus 1 1 0
Palinuridae Panulirus ornatus 1 1 0
Penaeidae Penaeus sp. 1 1 0
Pilumnidae Pilumnus vespertilio 5 0 5
Portunidae Thalamita danae 1 1 0
Charybdis sp. 7 0 7
Portunus pelagicus 46 34 12
Scylla olivacea 1 1 0
Scylla sp. 5 5 0
Scyllaridae Unknown 1 1 0
Unknown Unknown 1 0 1
Xanthidae Actaeodes hirsutissimus 2 0 2
Etisus laevimanus 1 0 1
Atergatis floridus 6 1 5
Atergatis integerrimus 36 23 13
Leptodius sp. 2 2 0
Lophozozymus pictor 5 5 0
Merostomata Xiphosura Limulidae Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda 631 485 146
Limulidae 3 2 1
Tachypleus gigas 33 32 1
Gastropoda Neograstropoda Volutidae Cymbiola nobilis 2 2 0
Cephalopoda Sepiida Sepiidae Sepia latimanus 1 1 0
Sepiidae 1 1 0
Chondrichthyes Carcharhiniformes Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus melanopterus 17 0 17
Myliobatiformes Dasyatidae Taeniura lymma 15 7 8
Brevitrygon heterura 1 1 0
Brevitrygon walga 6 2 4
Actinopterygii Atherinoformes Atherinidae Atherinomorous duodecimalis 1 0 1
Beloniformes Belonidae Strongylura strongylura 2 0 2
Tylosaurus crocodilus 1 0 1
Hemiramphidae Hyporhamphus quoyi 1 0 1
Carangiformes Carangidae Scomberoides commersonnianus 2 0 2
Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum 1 0 1
Elopiformes Elopidae Elops hawaiensis 1 0 1
Megalopidae Megalops cyprinoides 1 0 1
Gonorynchiformes Chanidae Chanos chanos 3 0 3
Mugiliformes Mugilidae Ellochelon vaigiensis 9 0 9
Planiliza sp. 1 0 1
Planiliza subviridis 1 0 1
Valamugil buchanani 9 0 9
Perciformes Apogonidae Apogonichthyoides melas 1 0 1
Carangidae Carangoides praeustus 1 0 1
Caranx sexfasciatus 1 0 1
Gnathanodon speciosus 1 0 1
Trachinotus blochii 1 0 1
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon octofasciatus 1 1 0
Chaetodon oligacanthus 2 1 1
Chelmon rostratus 3 3 0
Drepaneidae Drepane punctata 1 0 1
Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates 1 0 1
Gerreidae Gerres abbreviatus 3 0 3
Gerres oyena 1 0 1
Haemulidae Diagramma pictum 1 0 1
Pomadasys kaakan 1 0 1
Labridae Choerodon anchorago 5 1 4
Choerodon oligacanthus 1 0 1
Choerodon schoenleinii 1 0 1
Hemigymnus melapterus 1 0 1
Latidae Lates calcarifer 8 1 7
Psammoperca waigiensis 1 0 1
Lethrinidae Lethrinus lentjan 2 0 2
Lutjanidae Lutjanus madras 2 2 0
(continued on next page)

6
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341

Table 2 (continued )
Class Order Family Species Individuals recovered

Total Alive Dead

Lutjanus carponotatus 2 0 2
Mullidae Upeneus tragula 1 0 1
Nemipteridae Pentapodus sp. 1 0 1
Scolopsis cilatus 1 0 1
Scolopsis monogramma 2 1 1
Pempheridae Pempheris oualensis 1 0 1
Pomacanthidae Chaetodontoplus mesoleucus 3 3 0
Pomacentridae Abudefduf bengalensis 1 0 1
Dischistodus fasciatus 1 0 1
Dischistodus prosopotaenia 2 0 2
Hemiglyphidodon plagiometopon 1 0 1
Scaridae Scarus rivulatus 1 0 1
Scatophagidae Scatophagus argus 1 1 0
Serranidae Cromileptes altivelis 1 1 0
Epinephelinae 6 6 0
Epinephelus coioides 1 0 1
Epinephelus malabaricus 1 1 0
Siganidae Siganus canaliculatus 5 0 5
Siganus guttatus 5 1 4
Siganus javus 1 0 1
Sillaginidae Sillago aeolus 1 0 1
Sillago sihama 2 0 2
Terapontidae Pelates quadrilineatus 1 0 1
Toxotidae Toxotes jaculatrix 1 0 1
Uranoscopidae Icthyscopus lebeck 1 1 0
Pleuronectiformes Cynoglossidae Cynoglossus sp. 4 0 4
Soleidae Soleidae 2 0 2
Scorpaeniformes Platycephalidae Elates ransonnetii 4 0 4
Platycephalus sp. 2 0 2
Scorpaenidae Parascorpaena cf. picta 2 0 2
Parascorpaena picta 4 1 3
Siluriformes Ariidae Hexanematichthys sagor 2 2 0
Plicofolis nella 2 0 2
Plotosidae Plotosus canius 3 0 3
Plotosus lineatus 2 0 2
Syngnathiformes Syngnathidae Hippocampus sp. 1 1 0
Tetraodontiformes Diodontidae Diodon liturosus 1 1 0
Monacanthidae Acreichthys tomentosus 2 0 2
Chaetodermis penicilligerus 1 1 0
Monocanthus chinensis 10 10 0
Monocanthus sp. 1 0 1
Triacanthidae Triacanthus biculeatus 2 1 1
Reptilia Crocodilia Crocodylidae Crocodylus porosus 1 0 1
Squamata Acrochordidae Acrochordus granulatus 1 0 1
Squamata Varanidae Varanus salvator 2 2 0
Testudines Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas 2 0 2
Emydidae Trachemys scripta elegans 1 0 1
Aves Ciconiiformes Ardeidae Ardea cinerea 1 1 0
Pelecaniformes Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax 1 1 0
Mammalia Artiodactyla Delphinidae Sousa chinensis 1 1 0
Carnivora Mustelidae Lutrogale perspicillata 6 3 3

likely sources of ALDFGs. In addition, ALDFGs could also have travelled
via currents, from adjacent maritime nations of Malaysia and Indonesia.
In the absence of tracking capabilities of ALDFGs, we were unable to
state with certainty the origin or source of ALDFGs recovered in our
study.
Fishing lines and nets (likely of plastic polymer material) were the
most common type of ALDFGs found (Fig. 1), congruent with other
findings from the region (Todd et al., 2010), and likely selected for their
non-degradable quality and low cost (Breen, 1990). Due to their relative
prevalence in Singapore's waters when compared to other ALDFGs,
monofilament-plastic polymer nets trapped 96% of the organisms re­
ported in this study. The efficacy of such nets, especially those made of
plastic polymers, have been similarly demonstrated globally (Andrady,
2000; Derraik, 2002; Gall and Thompson, 2015; Gilman et al., 2016;
Moore, 2008).
Most ALDFGs were found on beaches as well as at intertidal and
mangrove areas (Burke et al., 2002; Chou et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2015;
Tan et al., 2016a, 2016b) (Fig. 2), and underpins the global problem of
marine debris and plastic pollution in these ecosystems (Gilman et al.,
2016; Kershaw, 2016). The behaviour of plastic marine debris, including
ALDFGs, differs when at different habitat types. They are retained in
mangrove areas longer than other coastal ecosystems (Ivar do Sul et al.,
2014). High rates of retention of plastic marine debris translate to high
in-situ degradation, and the consequent release of microplastics to the
immediate environment. The resultant elevated availability of micro­
plastics increases likelihoods of ingestion or absorption by organisms in
the area with unknown consequences (Andrady, 2011; Wright et al.,
2013). Also unknown are the contributions and effects of other com­
ponents of disintegrated ALDFGs to the ecosystem and organisms
therein.
Despite mangrove areas covering only 1.2% of total land area of
Singapore (9.6 km2; Friess et al., 2016), ALDFGs occurred at dispro­
portionately higher frequencies (24% of all ALDFGs in this study) at this
habitat type. The complex structures of mangrove plant roots and sap­
lings, in addition to the soft sediment, are likely key factors in initial
entanglement and subsequent retention of ALDFGs. Almost all the

7
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
mangrove areas where ALDFGs were recovered are under protection, or
gazetted as nature reserves; and therefore, are areas at which fishing
activities are prohibited. The ALDFGs recovered at these mangrove areas
likely originated from adjacent sites where fishing activities are not
restricted, or from undetected illegal fishing activities. Similarly, despite
the small areas of seagrass meadows (~0.2% of total shoreline) and
coral reefs and rocky shorelines (~7% of total shoreline, with mean
coral cover ranging from 0.35% to 49% over several decades (Guest
et al., 2016; Januchowski-Hartley et al., 2020)), an unproportionally
large amount of ALDFGs were recovered from these habitats (6% of all
ALDFG from each type of ecosystem) (Fig. 2). At coral reefs especially,
angling-specific ALDFGs seem to be a cause for concern as lures, sinkers,
hooks, and rods were the second-most abundant ALDFG recovered at
this ecotype (Fig. 2). Derelict fishing gear is known to cause harm to
seagrass beds and coral reefs, which provide many crucial marine
ecosystem services, through entanglement (Arthur et al., 2014; Consoli
et al., 2019; Fortes et al., 2018; Heery et al., 2018; Valderrama Balles­
teros et al., 2018). The impact of ALDFGs on seagrass meadows is
especially of concern because less than 1% of global seagrass cover falls
under a marine protected area even though 50% of seagrass beds are
located within Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (as
determined by the Convention of Biological Diversity) (Fortes et al.,
2018; Sudo et al., 2021). Fundamental understanding of the behaviour
and impact of ALDFG on seagrass meadows and coral reefs will benefit
greatly to cogent management and conservation strategies of these
imperiled habitats.
Coastal alterations impact the initial entanglement and subsequent
retention of ALDFGs. In Singapore, much of the coastal landscape was
altered through reclamation of nearshore habitats to increase land area
(Lai et al., 2015). Further, to stem the consequences of erosion, 60% of
the shoreline is protected by seawalls (Lai et al., 2015). Over 70% of
ALDFGs were found at sites that had undergone significant coastal
reclamation and 62% at sites with seawalls, suggesting that reclaimed
land, seawalls, as well as breakwaters, jetties and many other anthro­
pogenic coastal structures, are sites at which ALDFG may easily entangle
and remain.
Sixty-three percent of the ALDFGs were recovered at sites in close
proximity to fish mariculture facilities. In Singapore, there are a total of
110 sea-based farms, 108 of which are located in the Johor Strait and the
remaining 2 in the southern islands (Pulau Semakau and St. John's Is­
land). We encountered seven mariculture-cage nets that ran ashore, with
mesh sizes ranging between 2.3 cm and 14 cm, all of which were found
at Pulau Ubin within the Johor Strait, a site with many artisanal fish
farms. As they are structurally similar to fishing nets, mariculture-cage
nets could potentially ghost fish once they break away from the facil­
ity. However, as only a negligible number (relative to other ALDFG) of
mariculture-cage nets were found, more systematic studies are needed to
determine their ghost fishing capabilities. Future studies can also focus
on sea-based mariculture facilities and quantify their contribution to the
ALDFG pollution.
Our data of 19 years revealed different degrees of vulnerability of
marine organisms to ALDFGs. The majority of individuals (93%) found
trapped in ALDFGs belonged to one of these three class­
es—Merostomata, Actinopterygii or Malacostraca (Fig. 3). The
Mangrove horseshoe crab, Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, was the most
commonly-trapped species, accounting for 94.6% of all individuals in
Merostomata (Table 2), but many of these were recovered alive and
released. Conversely, a significantly higher proportion of individuals
from the class Actinopterygii, were recovered dead (Fig. 3, Table 2). The
higher survivability observed in C. rotundicauda, as well as other species
from classes Merostomata and Malacostraca, may be attributed to their
ability to withstand brief periods of emersion (U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Services, 2006), and the protection accorded by their exoskeleton.
However, the rate of survivability of individuals after their release is
unknown. A study on the Alaskan king crabs for example, showed
reduced recovery after escape when the crabs were trapped or confined
8
Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341
in fishing gear for 10–16 days, compared to 1–4 days of confinement
(High, 1979). Similar uncertainties exist for entangled organisms that
subsequently escape ALDFGs —their survivability as a direct or indirect
result of entanglement is unknown (Gilman et al., 2016).
The efficacy of recovered ALDFGs in trapping marine organisms
varied significantly. Within our dataset, four ALDFGs contributed
disproportionately to the abundance and diversity of trapped species.
These four ALDFGs, all monofilament plastic gill nets, were efficient in
trapping a broad diversity of marine organisms. The Mangrove horse­
shoe crabs we recovered were mostly from three different monofilament
plastic gill nets found between 2005 and 2008. The number of in­
dividuals trapped ranged from 100 to 300 per net. A mass of gill nets
found in 2015 contributed 29% of the diversity of all trapped organisms
observed in our data. We recovered 90 trapped individuals, including
thirteen out of the seventeen of Carcharhinus melanopterus in our dataset,
within this net; but only 24.4% of all individuals were alive. Such effi­
cacy in trapping abilities of ALDFGs is known. Reported examples
include the hundreds of sharks and fishes found in one derelict net off
the coast of Cayman Islands (Embury-Dennis, 2018), and, 99 seabirds
and 200 dead salmon recovered in another derelict net in 1978 (Derraik,
2002). Several factors govern the probability of entanglement and
accumulation of trapped individuals in derelict nets. The re-baiting
phenomenon is one whereby initial trapped organisms attract preda­
tors and scavengers who in turn entangle in the net, rather than a
function of direct trapping (Breen, 1990) or due to breeding seasons
(C. rotundicauda showed no seasonal breeding pattern (Cartwright-
Taylor et al., 2009)). The decomposing remains of horseshoe crabs for
example, attract scavengers, which in turn attract more horseshoe crabs
as predators to the scavengers; the cycle repeats until hundreds of
horseshoe crabs and other crustaceans are entangled in the nets (Breen,
1990; Cartwright-Taylor et al., 2011). It may be that more cases such as
these exist but are not observed or reported as after their demise,
entangled organisms sink rapidly to the seafloor thus evading detection
(Laist, 1997). ALDFGs may also occur further away from coastlines or in
areas with low human populations, and are thus unnoticed (Todd et al.,
2010). Trapping rates, specifically, could also decline with the loss of
overall structural integrity, as demonstrated of gill and trammel nets in
temperate European waters at depths 15-18 m (Erzini et al., 1997), with
the impact of ALDFGs on the environment possibly decreasing as it
disintegrates (Ayaz et al., 2010; Brown and Macfadyen, 2007; Erzini
et al., 1997; Santos et al., 2003). Alternatively, the decrease in impact of
ALDFGs may also be a consequence of organism adaptability, by using
ALDFGs for shelter, refuge or dispersal, rather than being solely due to
the structural integrity of ALDFGs (Kiessling et al., 2015; Angiolillo and
Fortibuoni, 2020). This underpins the urgent need for systematic studies
over larger areas to accurately evaluate the efficacy of ALDFGs as active
trapping devices. Other factors such as reproductive seasons and
breeding areas could increase the rate of entanglement. Several studies
have focused on the high entanglement rates of Hawaiian monk seals
(Neomonachus schauinslandi) in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, a
location considered as key breeding sites for this species (Donohue et al.,
2001; Henderson, 2001). Similarly, the shallow Arafura and Timor Seas
region is a hotspot of turtle-ghost net interactions because it is a critical
breeding and foraging area for several populations of turtles (Hardesty
et al., 2015). Age of the individuals was also found to affect entangle­
ment rates in Hawaiian monk seals—pups and juveniles were more
likely to be trapped in nets than adults, suggesting that nets are more
hazardous in nearshore reefs since weaned pups remain close to shore
(Henderson, 2001). Bullimore et al. (2001) also linked the rise and fall in
the catch rate of spider and ghost crabs (Superfamily Majoidea and
Family Ocypodidae, respectively) by ALDFGs to the seasonal increase in
water temperatures. Seasonality can also affect the rate of gear loss. For
example, the late-monsoon season in Rayong, Thailand saw an increase
in lost squid traps when compared to the pre-monsoon season, likely due
to stronger waves and currents during late-monsoon (Sukhsangchan
et al., 2020).
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
Measures to effectively reduce the ubiquity of ALDFGs have
remained elusive. The open and interconnected marine system facili­
tates the transport of ALDFGs over long distances. Efforts to identify the
origin of ALDFGs have met with limited success (Derraik, 2002; Vance
and McGregor, 2019). The tagging of fishing gear has been proposed as a
measure to identify origin of ALDFGs. This solution is only partially
viable since there are few examples of successful national gear-tagging
initiatives—it is mostly still up to individual operators to tag their
gear. Fishing nets especially, remain a challenge to effectively tag
because of high rates of breakage and disintegration. Moreover, cost-
effective tagging devices focused on relocating and retrieval of lost
gear have yet to be developed (Gilman et al., 2016; He and Suuronen,
2018).
Trapped organisms and ALDFGs are often encountered by coastal
communities and stakeholders. Authorities and interest groups over­
seeing coastal areas can avail protocol for the safe disposal of ALDFGs to
ensure that impact to the habitat is not sustained. Similarly, providing a
protocol for the disentanglement of trapped live organisms will increase
the likelihood of survival after release. Dive cleanups (e.g., Project
AWARE) and coastal cleanups (e.g., International Coastal Cleanup) ef­
forts are gaining popularity as stakeholders take on active roles to
conserve marine areas (Ocean Conservancy, 2019, 2015). Data from
these efforts provide crucial information and can contribute signifi­
cantly to our understanding of ALDFGs and ALDFG behaviour (Consoli
et al., 2020; Walther et al., 2018). Information from localized sites
identifies pertinent ALDFG issues locally, such as the impact assessment
of debris to marine fauna within Chesapeake Bay, USA (Bilkovic et al.,
2014). When combined, data from varied sites can elucidate regional
and global trends of ALDFGs (Awaluddin, 2011; Ocean Conservancy,
2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015) necessary for larger-scale management
plans and implementation.
Increasing the awareness of the stakeholders within the fishery in­
dustries and recreational fishers towards the need for the proper disposal
of fishing gear is a major component in the bid to curb ALDFGs.
Incentivising these stakeholders by providing safe and convenient gear
disposal system at low or no cost is one solution (Gilman et al., 2016;
Macfadyen et al., 2009). Disposal services by port facilities for example,
was evaluated to be an efficient management of ALDFG, and ultimately
economical, when environmental costs of ALDFGs are considered
(Brown and Macfadyen, 2007; Gilman et al., 2016). Fines for improper
disposal of ALDFGs, and other punitive measures can be effective, but
should only be imposed if these measures can be enforced. Proactive
measures to stem ALDFGs are therefore key because implementation of
mitigative measures is challenging while sustaining high environment
cost.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113341.
Funding
This work was supported by funds from the Department of Biological
Sciences, National University of Singapore to Zeehan Jaafar; and by the
Student Research Award 2018, Singapore Institute of Biology to Anya
Roopa Gajanur.
CrediT authorship contribution statement
Conceptualisation: Zeehan Jaafar
Study design: Zeehan Jaafar and Anya Gajanur
Investigation: Anya Gajanur and Zeehan Jaafar
Data curation: Anya Gajanur
Writing & reviewing: Anya Gajanur and Zeehan Jaafar
Visualisation: Anya Gajanur
Funding acquisition: Anya Gajanur and Zeehan Jaafar
Supervision: Zeehan Jaafar.
9
Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341
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.
Acknowledgments
We thank Muhammad Irsyad Khalis Daud, Frances Loke Wei and
Afreen Chawla for help during field surveys. We are grateful to Sirius Ng
facilitating data analyses, and to Joseph Cham for sharing the base
ecotone map. This project would not have been possible without the
assistance of Ria Tan from Wild Singapore who graciously provided field
support and made diligent records on ALDFGs at intertidal areas around
Singapore. We also thank Project Driftnet and Waterways Watch
Singapore for sharing their dataset. We acknowledge funds from the
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore to
Zeehan Jaafar; and from the Student Research Award, Singapore Insti­
tute of Biology to Anya R. Gajanur.
References
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Andrady, A.L., 2000. Plastics and their impacts in the marine environment, in. In:
Proceedings of the International Marine Debris Conference on Derelict Fishing Gear
and the Ocean Environment.
Angiolillo, M., Fortibuoni, T., 2020. Impacts of marine litter on Mediterranean reef
systems: from shallow to deep waters. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2020.581966.
Anticamara, J.A., Watson, R., Gelchu, A., Pauly, D., 2011. Global fishing effort
(1950–2010): trends, gaps, and implications. Fish. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fishres.2010.10.016.
Arthur, C., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Murphy, P., Bamford, H., 2014. Out of sight but not out of
mind: harmful effects of derelict traps in selected U.S. Coastal waters. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 86, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2014.06.050.
Awaluddin, M.Y., 2011. International coastal cleanup application at local marine area as
an environmental solution. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on
Chemistry 2011, pp. 309–310.
Ayaz, A., Ünal, V., Acarli, D., Altinagac, U., 2010. Fishing gear losses in the Gökova
special environmental protection area (SEPA), eastern Mediterranean, Turkey.
J. Appl. Ichthyol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01386.x.
Barnette, M.C., 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region
and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. In: NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC.
Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K., Stanhope, D., Angstadt, K., 2014. Derelict fishing gear in
Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: spatial patterns and implications for marine fauna. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.034.
Branch, T.A., Jensen, O.P., Ricard, D., Ye, Y., Hilborn, R., 2011. Contrasting global trends
in marine fishery status obtained from catches and from stock assessments. Conserv.
Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01687.x.
Breen, P.A., 1990. A review of ghost fishing by traps and gillnets. In: Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989. Honolulu,
Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Comer.. NOM Tech Memo. NHFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SUFSC-154.
1990.
Brown, J., Macfadyen, G., 2007. Ghost fishing in european waters: impacts and
management responses. Mar. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2006.10.007.
Bullimore, B.A., Newman, P.B., Kaiser, M.J., Gilbert, S.E., Lock, K.M., 2001. A study of
catches in a fleet of “ghost-fishing” pots. Fish. Bull. 99 (2), 247-247.
Burke, L., Selig, E., Spalding, M., 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources
Institute.
Carr, H.A., Cooper, R.A., 1987. Manned submersible and ROV assessment of ghost
gillnets in the Gulf of Maine. In: Oceans Conference Record (IEEE). https://doi.org/
10.1109/oceans.1987.1160764.
Cartwright-Taylor, L., Lee, J., Hsu, C.C., 2009. Population structure and breeding pattern
of the mangrove horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda in Singapore. Aquat.
Biol. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00206.
Cartwright-Taylor, L., von Bing, Y., Chi, H.C., Tee, L.S., 2011. Distribution and
abundance of horseshoe crabs Tachypleus gigas and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda
around the main island of Singapore. Aquat. Biol. https://doi.org/10.3354/
ab00346.
Chou, L.M., Huang, D., Tan, K.S., Toh, T.C., Goh, B.P.L., Tun, K., 2018. Singapore. In:
Sheppard, C. (Ed.), World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, Second edition.
Academic Press, pp. 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100853-
9.00031-2.
Consoli, P., Romeo, T., Angiolillo, M., Canese, S., Esposito, V., Salvati, E., Scotti, G.,
Andaloro, F., Tunesi, L., 2019. Marine litter from fishery activities in the Western
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
Mediterranean Sea: the impact of entanglement on marine animal forests. Environ.
Pollut. 249, 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2019.03.072.
Consoli, P., Scotti, G., Romeo, T., Fossi, M.C., Esposito, V., D’Alessandro, M.,
Battaglia, P., Galgani, F., Figurella, F., Pragnell-Raasch, H., Andaloro, F., 2020.
Characterization of seafloor litter on Mediterranean shallow coastal waters: evidence
from dive against Debris®, a citizen science monitoring approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110763.
Cortes, J., 2018. About 300 endangered sea turtles found dead off Mexican coast.
Reuters.
Davies, T., Curnick, D., Barde, J., Chassot, E., 2017. Potential environmental impacts
caused by beaching of drifting fish aggregating devices and identification of
management solutions and uncertainties. In: A Paper Submitted to the 1st Ad-Hoc
IOTC Working Group on FADs.
Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5.
Donohue, M.J., Boland, R.C., Sramek, C.M., Antonelis, G.A., 2001. Derelict fishing gear
in the northwestern Hawaiian islands: diving surveys and debris removal in 1999
confirm threat to coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0025-326X(01)00139-4.
Donohue, M.J., Foley, D.G., 2007. Remote sensing reveals links among the endangered
hawaiian monk seal, marine debris, and El Niño. Mar. Mamm. Sci. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00114.x.
Embury-Dennis, T., 2018. Hundreds of sharks and other fish discovered tangled in “ghost
net” drifting through Caribbean Sea. In: Independent.
Erzini, K., Monteiro, C.C., Ribeiro, J., Santos, M.N., Gaspar, M., Monteiro, P., Borges, T.
C., 1997. An experimental study of gill net and trammel net “ghost fishing” off the
Algarve (southern Portugal). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. https://doi.org/10.3354/
meps158257.
FAO, 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), 2020th-SOF ed. FAO,
Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en.
Fortes, M.D., Ooi, J.L.S., Tan, Y.M., Prathep, A., Bujang, J.S., Yaakub, S.M., 2018.
Seagrass in Southeast Asia: a review of status and knowledge gaps, and a road map
for conservation. Bot. Mar. 61, 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1515/BOT-2018-0008/
PDF.
Friess, D.A., Richards, D.R., Phang, V.X.H., 2016. Mangrove forests store high densities of
carbon across the tropical urban landscape of Singapore. Urban Ecosystems. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0511-3.
Furevik, D.M., Fosseidengen, J.E., 2000. Investigation on naturally and deliberately lost
gillnets in Norwegian waters. In: Working Document to the Fisheries Technology
Fish Behaviour Group. Harlem, Netherlands.
Galbraith, E.D., Carozza, D.A., Bianchi, D., 2017. A coupled human-earth model
perspective on long-term trends in the global marine fishery. Nat. Commun. https://
doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14884.
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
Gilman, E., et al., 2016. Abandoned, lost and discarded gillnets and trammel nets.
Methods to estimate ghost fishing mortality, and the status of regional monitoring
and management. In: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.
Giordano, S., Lazar, J., Bruce, D., Little, C., Levin, D., Slacum Jr., H.W., Dew-
Baxter Jr., J., Methratta Jr., L., Wong Jr., D., Corbin Jr., R., 2009. Quantifying the
Effects of Derelict Fishing Gear in the Maryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay. NOAA
Marine Debris Program.
Guest, J.R., Tun, K., Low, J., Vergés, A., Marzinelli, E.M., Campbell, A.H., Bauman, A.G.,
Feary, D.A., Chou, L.M., Steinberg, P.D., 2016. 27 years of benthic and coral
community dynamics on turbid, highly urbanised reefs off Singapore. Sci. Rep. 6
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36260.
Hardesty, B.D., Good, T.P., Wilcox, C., 2015. Novel methods, new results and science-
based solutions to tackle marine debris impacts on wildlife. Ocean Coast. Manag.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.004.
He, P., Suuronen, P., 2018. Technologies for the marking of fishing gear to identify gear
components entangled on marine animals and to reduce abandoned, lost or
otherwise discarded fishing gear. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.02.033.
Heery, E.C., Hoeksema, B.W., Browne, N.K., Reimer, J.D., Ang, P.O., Huang, D., Friess, D.
A., Chou, L.M., Loke, L.H.L., Saksena-Taylor, P., Alsagoff, N., Yeemin, T.,
Sutthacheep, M., Vo, S.T., Bos, A.R., Gumanao, G.S., Syed Hussein, M.A., Waheed, Z.,
Lane, D.J.W., Johan, O., Kunzmann, A., Jompa, J., Suharsono, Taira, D., Bauman, A.
G., Todd, P.A., 2018. Urban coral reefs: Degradation and resilience of hard coral
assemblages in coastal cities of East and Southeast Asia. Marine Pollution Bulletin
135, 654–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2018.07.041.
Henderson, J.R., 2001. A pre- and post-MARPOL annex V summary of hawaiian monk
seal entanglements and marine debris accumulation in the northwestern hawaiian
islands, 1982–1998. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)
00204-6.
High, W., 1979. Escape of King Crab, Paralithodes camtschatica, From Derelict Pots, Vol.
734. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Humborstad, O.B., Løkkeborg, S., Hareide, N.R., Furevik, D.M., 2003. Catches of
Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in Deepwater ghost-fishing
gillnets on the norwegian continental slope. Fish. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0165-7836(03)00215-7.
International Coastal Cleanup, 2020. Singapore. http://coastalcleanup.nus.edu.sg/.
(Accessed 30 September 2020).
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., Araújo, M.C.B., 2014. Plastic debris
retention and exportation by a mangrove forest patch. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.11.011.
10
Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341
Jambeck, J., Townsend, T.G., Barr, C.G., 2001. A survey of marine debris management
and research. In: Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) National
Conference.
Januchowski-Hartley, F.A., Bauman, A.G., Morgan, K.M., Seah, J.C.L., Huang, D.,
Todd, P.A., 2020. Accreting coral reefs in a highly urbanized environment. Coral
Reefs 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-01953-3.
Kershaw, P.J., 2016. Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics Global Lessons and
Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. UNEP.
Kiessling, T., Gutow, L., Thiel, M., 2015. Marine litter as habitat and dispersal vector. In:
Marine Anthropogenic Litter. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_6.
Lai, S., Loke, L.H.L., Hilton, M.J., Bouma, T.J., Todd, P.A., 2015. The effects of
urbanisation on coastal habitats and the potential for ecological engineering: a
Singapore case study. Ocean Coast. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2014.11.006.
Laist, D.W., 1997. Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine
Debris Including a Comprehensive List of Species With Entanglement and Ingestion
Records. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8486-1_10.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., Hajbane, S.,
Cunsolo, S., Schwarz, A., Levivier, A., Noble, K., Debeljak, P., Maral, H., Schoeneich-
Argent, R., Brambini, R., Reisser, J., 2018. Evidence that the great Pacific garbage
patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
018-22939-w.
Lim, H.S., Jiang, J., Tan, Y.W., 2020. The Singapore Aquaculture Industry - Contributing
to Singapore's Food Security. World Aquaculture Society.
Löhr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., van Belleghem, F., 2017. Solutions
for global marine litter pollution. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R., 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise
discarded fishing gear. In: UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies 185, United
Nations Environment Programme, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper
523.
Mantyka-Pringle, C.S., Visconti, P., di Marco, M., Martin, T.G., Rondinini, C., Rhodes, J.
R., 2015. Climate change modifies risk of global biodiversity loss due to land-cover
change. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.016.
Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing,
long-term threat. Environ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.025.
Nitivattananon, V., Tu, T.T., Rattanapan, A., Asavanant, J., 2012. Vulnerability and
resilience of urban communities under coastal hazard conditions in Southeast Asia.
In: Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda.
Conservancy, Ocean, 2019. The Beach and Beyond, Ocean Conservancy and
International Coastal Cleanup. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822391265-013.
Conservancy, Ocean, 2018. Building a Clean Swell - International Coastal Cleanup
Report.
Conservancy, Ocean, 2017. Together for our ocean. In: International Coastal Cleanup
Report.
Conservancy, Ocean, 2016. 30th anniversary. In: International Coastal Cleanup Report.
Conservancy, Ocean, 2015. Stemming the Tide. Land-based strategies for a plastic - free
ocean. In: International Coastal Cleanup Report.
AWARE, Project, 2020. Dive Against Debris® Map [WWW Document]. https://www.
projectaware.org/diveagainstdebrismap. (Accessed 30 September 2020).
Driftnet, Project, 2020. Project Driftnet [WWW Document]. https://projectdriftnet.blog
spot.com/. (Accessed 30 September 2020).
Sancho, G., Puente, E., Bilbao, A., Gomez, E., Arregi, L., 2003. Catch rates of monkfish
(Lophius spp.) by lost tangle nets in the Cantabrian Sea (northern Spain). Fish. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(03)00212-1.
Santos, M.N., Saldanha, H.J., Gaspar, M.B., Monteiro, C.C., 2003. Hake (Merluccius
merluccius L., 1758) ghost fishing by gill nets off the Algarve (southern Portugal).
Fisheries Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(03)00211-X.
SEAFDEC, 2017. Southeast Asian State of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2017. Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Center.
Song, Y., Li, D., Hou, X., 2020. Characteristics of mainland coastline changes in Southeast
Asia during the 21st century. J. Coast. Res. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-
19-00018.1.
Spalding, M., 2010. World Atlas of Mangroves. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781849776608.
Sudo, K., Quiros, T.E.A.L., Prathep, A., van Luong, C., Lin, H.J., Bujang, J.S., Ooi, J.L.S.,
Fortes, M.D., Zakaria, M.H., Yaakub, S.M., Tan, Y.M., Huang, X., Nakaoka, M., 2021.
Distribution, temporal change, and conservation status of tropical seagrass beds in
Southeast Asia: 2000–2020. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 779. https://doi.org/10.3389/
FMARS.2021.637722/BIBTEX.
Sukhsangchan, C., Phuynoi, S., Monthum, Y., Whanpetch, N., Kulanujaree, N., 2020.
Catch composition and estimated economic impacts of ghost-fishing squid traps near
Suan Son Beach, Rayong province, Thailand. ScienceAsia. https://doi.org/10.2306/
scienceasia1513-1874.2020.014.
Tan, K.S., Acerbi, E., Lauro, F.M., 2016a. Marine habitats and biodiversity of Singapore’s
coastal waters: a review. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rsma.2016.01.008.
Tan, K.S., Koh, K.S., Ng, J.Y., Goh, L., 2016. The comprehensive marine biodiversity
survey Singapore strait international workshop 2013. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology
Supplement 34.
Todd, P.A., Ong, X., Chou, L.M., 2010. Impacts of pollution on marine life in Southeast
Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9778-0.
Tschernij, V., Larsson, P.O., 2003. Ghost fishing by lost cod gill nets in the Baltic Sea.
Fish. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(03)00214-5.
Fish, U.S., Services, Wildlife, 2006. The Horseshoe Crab, Limulus polyphemus, A Living
Fossil.
A.R. Gajanur and Z. Jaafar
Valderrama Ballesteros, L., Matthews, J.L., Hoeksema, B.W., 2018. Pollution and coral
damage caused by derelict fishing gear on coral reefs around Koh tao, gulf of
Thailand. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135, 1107–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MARPOLBUL.2018.08.033.
Vance, A., McGregor, I., 2019. Desert Island Dump: The Shameful State of Henderson
Island. [WWW Document]. Stuff. https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2019/07/hende
rson-island-rubbish-plastic-ocean-waste/chapter1/. (Accessed 29 July 2019).
Veettil, B.K., Costi, J., Marques, W.C., Tran, X.L., Quang, N.X., Van, D.D., Hoai, P.N.,
2020. Coastal environmental changes in southeast Asia: a study from Quang Nam
Province, Central Vietnam. Regional Studies in Marine Science. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101420.
11
Marine Pollution Bulletin 175 (2022) 113341
Walther, B.A., Kunz, A., Hu, C.S., 2018. Type and quantity of coastal debris pollution in
Taiwan: a 12-year nationwide assessment using citizen science data. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.025.
Wibowo, S., Utomo, B.S.B., Ward, A.R., Diei-Ouadi, Y., Susana, S., Suuronen, P., 2017.
Case studies on fish loss assessment of small-scale fisheries in Indonesia. In: FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1129. Rome, Italy.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., 2013. The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollution (Barking, Essex :
1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031.
Zhang, Y., Hou, X., 2020. Characteristics of coastline changes on Southeast Asia Islands
from 2000 to 2015. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030519.