Marine Pollution Bulletin 88 (2014) 249–254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

The effect of fine-scale sampling frequency on estimates of beach litter

accumulation
Peter G. Ryan a,⇑, Annerie Lamprecht b, Debbie Swanepoel a, Coleen L. Moloney b
a
Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
b
Marine Research Institute and Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The effect of sampling frequency on estimates of the rate of litter accumulation was determined for two
Available online 16 September 2014 South African sandy beaches. After initial cleaning, all manufactured items >10 mm diameter were col-
lected in alternating bouts of daily or weekly cleanups. Daily sampling collected 2.5 (range 2.1–3.4) times
Keywords: more litter items than weekly samples and 1.7 (1.3–2.3) times more litter by mass. Low density items
Stranded debris such as foamed polystyrene showed a greater differential (4–5 times more items from daily sampling),
Plastics presumably due to faster turnover of lightweight litter items. Variation in weekly samples was not con-
Sample rate
sistently less than daily estimates, suggesting that less frequent samples only partly integrate short-term
Accumulation
Meta-analyses
fluctuations in litter dynamics. Researchers using beach accumulation data to infer trends in nearshore
South Africa marine litter, or to assess the efficacy of litter mitigation measures, need to ensure consistency in sam-
pling frequency.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Plastic and other drifting artefacts are major marine pollutants,
and considerable efforts have been made to prevent the release of
plastic articles into the environment (e.g. Coe and Rogers, 1997).
Assessing the efficacy of measures to reduce marine debris at sea
is complicated by its great spatial heterogeneity and the high cost
of at-sea surveys (Ryan et al., 2009). As a result, much of what we
know about marine litter is inferred from surveys of litter strand-
ing on beaches (e.g. Derraik, 2002; Barnes et al., 2009), and major
regional initiatives to assess trends in marine debris rely heavily on
beach monitoring (Sheavly, 2007; OSPAR Commission, 2007).
Initial studies of beach litter reported standing stocks of accu-
mulated litter, which can show gross changes in the abundance
and distribution of litter (e.g. Ryan and Moloney, 1990), but are
not necessarily a good indicator of the abundance of litter in adja-
cent coastal waters (Escardó-Boomsma et al., 1995; Ryan et al.,
2009). Other factors that affect the amount of litter on beaches
include the physical environment (beach structure, wave action
and local currents, which influence both stranding and removal
rates); beach dynamics (burial or exposure of litter); proximity to
urban centres (which influences exposure to land-based sources
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 6502966; fax: +27 21 6503295.
E-mail address: pryan31@gmail.com (P.G. Ryan).
such as the number of beach visitors and urban run-off); and for-
mal or informal cleanup efforts (Merrell, 1980; Bowman et al.,
1998; Williams and Tudor, 2001). Also, increases in the standing
stock of beach litter may reflect long-term accumulation rather
than a change in the amount of debris at sea (Ryan et al., 2009).
As a result, estimates of litter accumulation rates made by repeat-
edly cleaning the same stretch of beach currently are best practice
for using beach surveys to assess marine litter trends (e.g. Sheavly,
2007; OSPAR Commission, 2007; Ryan et al., 2009; Ribic et al.,
2010, 2012).
One problem with litter accumulation estimates is that they
might be sensitive to the frequency with which litter is sampled
because of differences in litter turn-over rates (Ryan et al., 2009).
Dixon and Cooke (1977) showed that the weekly retention rate
of marked bottles on beaches in Kent, UK, varied among beaches
and was influenced by the type of bottle, because plastic bottles
remained ashore longer than glass bottles. Subsequent studies
have confirmed different retention rates depending on beach struc-
ture and the type of litter (Merrell, 1980; Garrity and Levings,
1993; Bowman et al., 1998; Kataoka et al., 2013). Escardó-
Boomsma et al. (1995) differentiated the amount of litter arriving
on a beach (the loading rate) from the amount of litter that accu-
mulates per unit of time (net accumulation rate). However, this
distinction has been largely ignored by subsequent studies, which
have reported accumulation rates at sampling frequencies ranging
from daily (Eriksson et al., 2013), every two weeks (Williams and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.036
0025-326X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
250 P.G. Ryan et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 88 (2014) 249–254
Tudor, 2001), monthly (Corbin and Singh, 1993; Thornton and
Jackson, 1998; Sheavly, 2007), quarterly (OSPAR Commission,
2007), every six months (Slip and Burton, 1991) to annually
(Merrell, 1984; Edyvane et al., 2004). Some studies have sampled
at different frequencies in different seasons (e.g. Walker et al.,
1997; Ivar do Sul et al., 2011).
Sheavly (2007) reported no difference in accumulation rate for
samples collected at different intervals, but Ribic et al. (2010,
2012) found that frequent sampling (614 days) and very infre-
quent sampling (>180 days) affected debris counts relative to their
28-day standard sampling interval. Ribic et al. (2010, 2012) failed
to report how these changes in sampling frequency affected litter
counts, but the inference was that too frequent sampling reduced
litter counts, and very infrequent samples increased litter counts.
However, Ryan et al. (2009) included results from an unpublished
MSc dissertation (Swanepoel, 1995) to suggest that summing daily
accumulation samples to obtain weekly data yielded up to six-
times more litter items than weekly sampling at the same beaches.
More recently, Eriksson et al. (2013) showed that daily sampling at
sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island increased litter accumulation rates
almost ten-fold compared to monthly sampling, although surveys
took place in different years. These findings suggest that sampling
frequency, at least at fine temporal scales, has a major impact on
estimates of litter accumulation rates.
In this paper we report the findings from Swanepoel’s (1995)
work in more detail, and supplement them with additional sam-
pling. We compare the amount (number and mass) of litter col-
lected daily with weekly accumulations collected at the same
sites to evaluate the extent to which more frequent sampling
increases estimates of the amount of litter arriving on beaches.
We also assess whether less frequent sampling reduces the vari-
ability in beach litter accumulation data by integrating fine-scale
variations (given that processes such as weather, wave action
and tidal patterns might be expected to affect litter arrival and
exhumation rates at fine temporal scales). Our findings have rele-
vance for the design of beach litter monitoring programmes, and
are especially important for meta-analyses of beach litter accumu-
lation data collected at different sampling frequencies.
2. Materials and methods
The study took place at two beaches in Table Bay, South Africa
(Fig. 1), in the Cape Town metropolitan area. The beaches were
chosen to have similar physical structures but to be different dis-
tances from the urban centre and to have contrasting ease of access
and user profiles. Milnerton Beach is a popular recreational beach
10 km from the city centre, used for walking, surfing, swimming
and other recreational activities, and attracts large numbers of vis-
itors daily, especially in summer (November–March). Koeberg Nat-
ure Reserve is 25 km farther north (35 km from the city centre) and
the study beach is closed to visitors. Both are exposed, west-facing,
fine-grained sandy beaches with gentle to moderate beach profiles
(10–15° slopes), and both are backed by steep, vegetated dunes
which limit shoreward migration of litter. Neither study site was
cleaned by local authorities during the surveys, but adjacent bea-
ches at both sites were cleaned: Milnerton was cleaned by munici-
pal workers weekly (1994 and 1995) or daily (2012), whereas
Koeberg was cleaned by volunteers every four months. We could
not control informal cleaning efforts by members of the public.
At each beach, a study area was demarcated, divided into ten
equal subsections along the beach (Fig. 1). In 1994 and 1995,
500 m of beach was sampled (ten 50-m subsections) at each beach,
and the same site was sampled at Koeberg in 2012. However, at
Milnerton only the southern 250 m surveyed in the 1990s was
sampled in 2012 (ten 25-m subsections) because the marked
increase in the density of litter prevented both beaches being sam-
pled in full on the same day. Prior to each experiment, a team of
volunteers removed all accumulated macro litter (articles
>10 mm diameter) between the water line and the dune vegetation
(including any litter visible in the vegetation) from each study area,
and from adjacent buffer zones approximately 25 m wide at each
end of the study sections. The following day (24 h, or two tidal
cycles later), sampling of ‘new’ litter commenced at both sites.
Teams of three to six observers worked systematically along each
beach, collecting all litter items in each of the ten subsections. Each
subsection was searched until no items had been found for several
minutes, with searches of each section taking roughly 5–15 min,
depending on the amount of litter present.
In 1994, daily sampling continued for 15 days (18 October–1
November), and was followed by one sample after 4 days, one after
6 days and four weekly samples, and then another 14 daily sam-
ples (9–23 December). In 1995, the initial cleaning took place on
26 June, with a weekly sample on 3 July, 14 daily samples to 17
July, and then a final weekly sample on 24 July. In 2012, daily sam-
pling continued for 10 days (2–11 October), followed by three
weekly samples (18 and 25 October and 1 November), 10-days of
daily sampling (2–11 November), four weekly samples (18 and
25 November and 2 and 9 December), and then a final 10 daily
samples (10–19 December). There was no consistent difference
in tidal phase (neap or spring) between daily and weekly sample
periods.
All litter samples were returned to the University of Cape Town to
be sorted and counted. Each debris item was identified as far as pos-
sible and categorised by type of material (plastic, metal, glass, ciga-
rette butts, etc.). Wood items were included if they were ‘worked’
rather than natural wood. Plastic items were further subdivided by
function: packaging and other single-use items, user items including
fishing gear, and plastic fragments of uncertain provenance. Foamed
polystyrene items (including cups and fast-food trays as well as
packing chips and moulded packaging) were placed in a separate
category because of their lower density than most other litter items.
Articles were dried and cleaned of sand before weighing. In 1994, the
entire sample was weighed to the nearest 25 g with a Pesola spring
balance, but large pieces of timber and other very large litter items
were not weighed. No mass data were recorded in 1995, but in
2012 each litter category was weighed separately to the nearest
0.1 g on an electronic top-pan balance.
Litter samples were kept separate for each 50- or 25-m subsec-
tion of beach and data compared among subsections to check for
consistent differences in fine-scale accumulation of litter. Such dif-
ferences were detected, presumably linked to local currents, wave
action and resultant beach structure (Bowman et al., 1998), but
there was no tendency for the end subsections at each beach to
have the highest accumulation rates, suggesting that lateral drift
from adjacent areas outside the sampling area was minimal (data
not shown). Thereafter, samples were pooled for each beach and
accumulation data were summarised as the number or mass of lit-
ter items recorded per metre of beach per day, calculated as the lit-
ter yield divided by the length of beach sampled (m) and by the
number of days since the last collection (days). For comparative
purposes, the rate estimated from the 6-day accumulation sample
in 1994 was combined with the weekly samples, but the 4-day
accumulation sample was discarded.
The effects of daily versus weekly sampling on the accumula-
tion of litter on the beaches was tested with a general linear model
(GLM), with beach and year as covariates:
Accumulated litter ðm1 d Þ ¼ eb0 þ bweekly=daily þ bbeach þ byear þ e
1
where b0 is a constant; bweekly/daily, bbeach and byear are parameter
sets describing the effects of the predictor variables (sampling
 P.G. Ryan et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 88 (2014) 249–254
10 km
Robben
Table
Island
Fig. 1. Table Bay, South Africa, showing the location of the two study sites at Milnerton and Koeberg, each comprising 10 subsections.
frequency, beach and year) on litter accumulation, and e refers to
the residuals (there were no significant interaction effects). The
model was applied to all litter items and also to each major category
of litter. Where there were zero values in the data set (for non-
plastic items), a small constant (equal to 10% of the mean
abundance) was added to each data point before a logarithmic
transformation was applied to reduce heteroscedasticity and nor-
malise the data (both checked by residual analysis). Coefficients of
variation corrected for sample size [=SD/mean ⁄ (1 + (1/4n))] were
used to compare relative variability in the number and mass of litter
items recorded in daily and weekly samples from the same beach/
year. However, there were too few weekly samples in July 1995
to compare their variation with daily samples.
3. Results
In October–December 1994, the 34 accumulation samples at
both beaches comprised 38,155 litter items weighing at least
151.1 kg. In July the following year 39,963 items were sampled
in only 16 collections, and 37 collections in 2012 yielded 199,303
items weighing 257.8 kg. Plastic articles dominated the samples
251
Koeberg
Blouberg
Table View
Bay
Rietvlei
Milnerton
Black River
Cape Town
numerically from both beaches in all three years, comprising
86.5% by number in 1994, 89.3% in 1995 and 93.5% in 2012. The
contribution of plastics to the mass of litter was only recorded in
2012, when they comprised 58.9% overall, with wood (21.9% of
total mass) and glass (12.8%) dominating the mass of non-plastic
items. Plastics were more dominant at Koeberg (95.3% by number
in all years and 62.0% by mass in 2012), which is farther from the
city centre and has many fewer visitors than Milnerton (91.3% by
number and 57.7% by mass). After plastics, wood contributed most
to the mass of litter at both Koeberg (30.4%) and Milnerton (18.4%),
but glass items were more important at Milnerton (16.9% of total
litter mass) than at Koeberg (2.7%).
The GLM indicated that estimates of daily accumulation rates of
all litter items varied with sample site (F = 335, df = 1, 169,
p < 0.00001), year (F = 81, df = 2, 169, p < 0.00001) and sampling
frequency, with daily sampling providing consistently greater esti-
mates than weekly sampling (F = 32, df = 1, 169, p < 0.00001;
Table 1). On average, after accounting for the effects of beach
and year, daily samples captured 2.5 times more litter overall than
weekly samples (Fig. 2). This factor was consistent (1.8–2.5) for all
broad litter categories apart from foamed polystyrene (4.2), which
had the largest factor of all litter types in five of six beach-year
252 P.G. Ryan et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 88 (2014) 249–254

Table 1
The effect of sampling frequency (daily versus weekly) on estimates of litter accumulation rates (number of items per metre of beach per day) at two South African beaches in
three years. ‘Factor’ is the number of times the rate estimated from daily samples exceeds that from weekly samples (=daily rate/weekly rate).

Site and litter type 1994 1995 2012

Day Week Factor Day Week Factor Day Week Factor
n = 29 n=5 n = 14 n=2 n = 30 n=7
Milnerton
Packaging 0.40 0.22 1.8 1.35 0.60 2.2 4.32 1.63 2.6
Polystyrene 0.71 0.11 6.7 0.37 0.04 10.5 1.38 0.32 4.3
User items 0.15 0.04 3.3 0.47 0.13 3.7 1.54 0.89 1.7
Fragments 0.05 0.01 4.2 0.27 0.10 2.7 6.26 2.27 2.8
All plastics 1.31 0.39 3.4 2.46 0.86 2.8 13.50 5.11 2.6
Cigarettes 0.16 0.05 3.4 0.18 0.02 7.6 0.57 0.21 2.7
Wood 0.04 0.01 4.0 0.06 0.01 8.3 0.13 0.05 2.5
Other non-plastics 0.04 0.01 3.1 0.17 0.03 5.6 0.38 0.09 4.1
All non-plastics 0.24 0.07 3.5 0.41 0.06 6.7 1.08 0.36 3.0
All litter 1.55 0.46 3.4 2.87 0.93 3.1 14.58 5.47 2.7

Koeberg
Packaging 0.11 0.05 2.1 0.38 0.26 1.4 0.75 0.32 2.3
Polystyrene 0.16 0.07 2.1 0.50 0.10 5.1 0.50 0.09 5.7
User items 0.04 0.02 2.3 0.21 0.15 1.5 0.27 0.10 2.7
Fragments 0.02 0.01 2.2 0.12 0.06 2.1 0.48 0.10 4.6
All plastics 0.33 0.15 2.1 1.21 0.56 2.1 1.99 0.61 3.3
Cigarettes 0.01 0.00 3.7 0.01 0.00 2.9 0.01 0.00 3.0
Wood 0.01 0.01 2.0 0.04 0.02 1.9 0.02 0.01 2.5
Other non-plastics 0.01 0.00 4.9 0.04 0.03 1.2 0.02 0.01 3.3
All non-plastics 0.03 0.01 2.8 0.09 0.06 1.5 0.05 0.02 2.8
All litter 0.35 0.16 2.2 1.30 0.62 2.1 2.04 0.63 3.2

comparisons (Table 1). The consistent pattern of crude factors 4. Discussion

when comparing daily to weekly estimates for each site and year
(Table 1) provides further evidence for the generality of this effect.
Sampling frequency appears to have slightly less of an impact
on estimates of the mass of litter accumulating on beaches. The
crude mass estimates in 1994 indicated that daily masses at both
beaches were 1.5 times greater than estimates based on weekly
samples. These values increased to 1.8 (Koeberg) and 2.3 (Milner-
ton) in 2012, when the average mass of each litter item (1.3 g) was
considerably less than in 1994 (4.0 g), despite the fact that large
pieces of wood and other very large litter items were not weighed
in 1994. Data on how the masses of different categories of litter dif-
fered in their response to sampling frequency were restricted to
2012. Plastic litter items tended to have a slightly greater day:week
factor (Milnerton 2.5, Koeberg 1.9) than non-plastic items (Milner-
ton 2.1, Koeberg 1.7). Foamed polystyrene again had the greatest
factors (Milnerton 3.2, Koeberg 3.3), although these were lower
than the factors for numbers of polystyrene items in 2012
(Table 1).
The numbers of litter items accumulating daily in different
time periods at each beach varied considerably (Table 2), with
an average coefficient of variation of 59%. This was slightly greater
than the average weekly coefficients of variation in 1994 and
2012 (49%), but there was no consistent pattern comparing daily
and weekly CVs. Daily variation in the mass of litter (64%) also
was slightly greater than weekly samples (49%), but again there
was no consistent pattern. For example, in 1994, the daily CV in
mass was greater than the weekly CV at Koeberg, but weekly var-
iability was greater at Milnerton (Table 2). Coefficients of varia-
tion tended to be greater at Koeberg than at Milnerton
(Table 2), possibly linked to the smaller volumes of litter at Koe-
berg. In 1994/95, daily CVs were greatest in winter (July) and
decreased through spring (October) to summer (December). How-
ever, in 2012 CVs of daily litter counts increased from October to
December (but there was no corresponding pattern in CVs of litter
masses; Table 2).
Beaches are dynamic systems where litter can be stranded by
the sea; dumped by beach visitors; buried and exhumed; exported
inland, offshore or along-shore by wind, wave or tidal action; or
removed by formal or informal beach cleaning efforts (Ryan
et al., 2009). The best way to monitor the persistence of litter items
(and, by inference, estimate the scale of these movements and the
resultant litter turnover rates) is by mark-recapture studies (e.g.
Merrell, 1980; Garrity and Levings, 1993; Bowman et al., 1998;
Williams and Tudor, 2001; Kataoka et al., 2013). However, mark-
recapture studies are logistically challenging on a large scale at
urban beaches characterised by large litter loads; most studies to
date have only sampled specific litter types (Dixon and Cooke,
1977; Merrell, 1980; Williams and Tudor, 2001). Our study sam-
pled over 280,000 litter items; attempting to mark and follow
the fate of even a small subsample of this number would be almost
impossible. By alternating daily and weekly beach litter collections
we were able to show that more frequent sampling increased the
estimate of the amount of litter found on a beach.
Our results were consistent across beaches in three different
years, sampling in both summer and winter, with little variation
in the magnitude of the effect of more frequent sampling. For most
litter items, daily sampling resulted in 2–3 times more litter being
collected than weekly sampling. This presumably results from
rapid turnover of many litter items which are missed in weekly
samples because they are either buried or transported off the
beach (blown inshore, blown or washed offshore, carried along-
shore, or removed by informal beach cleaning efforts by well-
meaning members of the public). Small, lightweight items are
more likely to be blown inland or buried, resulting in rapid turn-
over ( Merrell, 1984; Williams and Tudor, 2001), and hence should
have a greater differential between daily and weekly estimates of
accumulation rates. This was shown by foamed polystyrene, which
is particularly prone to wind dispersal and had more than a four-
fold increase in litter accumulation rates based on daily samples.
 P.G. Ryan et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 88 (2014) 249–254 253

Plastics Non-plastics In addition to differences among litter types, the effect of sam-
pling frequency on estimates of litter arrival rates varies with the
0.10
0.8 magnitude of the difference in sampling frequency. Thus Eriksson
et al. (2013) found almost an order of magnitude more litter by
0.08
sampling daily rather than monthly at beaches on two sub-Antarc-
0.6 tic islands. The size of the effect probably also varies between bea-
0.06 ches, as a result of differences in turnover rates linked to beach
0.4 structure (e.g. slope, orientation, exposure) and local conditions
0.04 (e.g. wind strength and direction). In general, the faster the turn-
over rate, the greater the disparity between arrival rates estimated
0.2 0.02 at different sampling frequencies (cf. Kataoka et al., 2013). The
effect of daily sampling was greater in 2012 than in the 1990s, pre-
0.0 0.00 sumably because the mean mass of litter items in 2012 was lower,
increasing turnover rates.
Litter accumulation rate (items per metre per day)

Packaging Polystyrene Our findings are particularly important for meta-analyses com-
paring beach litter accumulation data collected at different fre-
0.25
quencies. For example, Barnes and Milner (2005) presented
0.3 broad latitudinal patterns in beach litter density, ostensibly repre-
0.20 senting annual accumulation rates, but scrutiny of their sources
indicate a diversity of sampling approaches from standing stock
0.2 0.15 surveys to seasonal and monthly sampling. Even if analyses control
for sampling frequencies, the intrinsic differences in litter turnover
0.10 rates among beaches (see above) are likely to confound compari-
0.1 sons unless samples are collected at a high frequency (e.g. daily).
0.05 Unfortunately, daily sampling is costly to implement because it is
time and labour intensive. Less frequent, regular sampling (e.g.
0.0 0.00 monthly) of the same site or set of sites is adequate to track
long-term changes in litter loads. Such programmes would benefit
Fragments User items from short bouts of daily sampling to assess the extent to which
infrequent sampling underestimates the loading rates of specific
0.05 litter items (i.e. to evaluate the proportions of various litter items
0.10 arriving on a beach that actually accumulate there). This informa-
0.04 tion could be used to develop correction factors to improve the
0.08 accuracy of monitoring programmes, although turnover rates
0.03 probably depend on the size as well as type of litter item. Ideally,
0.06
litter comparisons among beaches should be based on estimates
0.02 of loading rate rather than accumulation rate.
0.04

0.01 0.02
Acknowledgements
0.00 0.00
Day Week We thank the numerous volunteers who assisted with litter
Day Week
collections, especially P. Hardcastle, M. Lamprecht, A. Legodi,
Fig. 2. The effect of sampling frequency (daily versus weekly) on estimates of litter T. Oosthuizen and J. Oosthuizen. G. Greef, J. Le Roux and
accumulation rates for different categories of beach litter determined by a GLM H. Westman kindly gave permission to work in the Koeberg Private
including data from two Cape Town beaches over three years. Error bars show 95% Nature Reserve. G. Frost (Milnerton Municipality) and J. Kieser
confidence intervals.
(Plastics SA) supplied rubbish bags and assisted with initial
cleanups. The National Research Foundation – South Africa and
the University of Cape Town – South Africa provided funds for field
Table 2
expenses and bursary support for A.L. and D.S.
Coefficients of variation (CV) in daily and weekly litter collections at two South
African beaches in three years. Too few weekly samples were collected in July 1995 to
estimate the weekly CV, and there were no mass data for 1995. References
Year and month Milnerton Koeberg
Barnes, D.K.A., Milner, P., 2005. Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile
Number Mass Number Mass organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 146, 815–825.
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and
1994
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364,
October daily (n = 15) 48% 59% 47% 87% 1985–1998.
December daily (n = 14) 24% 44% 42% 71% Bowman, D., Manor-Samsonov, N., Golit, A., 1998. Dynamics of litter pollution on
Weekly (n = 5) 27% 71% 65% 57% Israeli Mediterranean beaches: a budgetary, litter flux approach. J. Coastal Res.
1995 14, 2588–2597.
Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B., 1997. Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions.
July daily (n = 14) 89% – 130% –
Springer-Verlag, New York.
2012 Corbin, C.J., Singh, J.G., 1993. Marine debris contamination of beaches in St. Lucia
October daily (n = 10) 38% 67% 36% 94% and Dominica. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26, 325–328.
November daily (n = 10) 49% 27% 40% 77% Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
December daily (n = 10) 61% 23% 102% 88% review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852.
Weekly (n = 7) 44% 23% 59% 54% Dixon, T.R., Cooke, A.J., 1977. Discarded containers on a Kent Beach. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 8, 105–109.
254 P.G. Ryan et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 88 (2014) 249–254
Edyvane, K.S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P.W., Higham, J.S., Wace, N.M., 2004. Long-term
marine litter monitoring in the remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48, 1060–1075.
Eriksson, C., Burton, H., Fitch, S., Schulz, M., 2013. Daily accumulation rates of
marine debris on sub-Antarctic island beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 66, 199–208.
Escardó-Boomsma, J., O’Hara, K., Ribic, C.A., 1995. National Marine Debris
Monitoring Program, vols. 1–2. US EPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Garrity, S.D., Levings, S.C., 1993. Marine debris along the Caribbean coast of Panama.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26, 317–324.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Barnes, D.K.A., Costa, M.F., Convey, P., Costa, E.S., Campos, L., 2011.
Plastics in the Antarctic environment: are we looking only at the tip of the
iceberg? Oecol. Aust. 15, 150–170.
Kataoka, T., Hinata, H., Kato, S., 2013. Analysis of a beach as a time-invariant linear
input/output system of marine litter. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77, 266–273.
Merrell Jr., T.R., 1980. Accumulation of plastic litter on beaches of Amchitka Island,
Alaska. Mar. Environ. Res. 3, 171–184.
Merrell Jr., T.R., 1984. A decade of change in nets and plastic litter from fisheries in
Alaska. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15, 378–384.
OSPAR Commission, 2007. OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter:
Monitoring of Marine Litter on Beaches in the OSPAR Region. OSPAR
Commission, London.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., 2010. Trends and drivers of
marine debris on the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 60, 1231–1242.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., 2012. Trends in marine debris
along the U.S. Pacific Coast and Hawai’i 1998–2007. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 994–
1004.
Ryan, P.G., Moloney, C.L., 1990. Plastic and other artefacts on South African beaches:
temporal trends in abundance and composition. S. Afr. J. Sci. 86, 450–452.
Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Moloney, C.L., 2009. Monitoring the
abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
364, 1999–2012.
Sheavly, S.B., 2007. National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program
Report, Data Analysis and Summary. Ocean Conservancy, Washington, DC.
Slip, D.J., Burton, H.R., 1991. Accumulation of fishing debris, plastic litter, and other
artefacts, on Heard and Macquarie Islands in the Southern Ocean. Environ.
Conserv. 18, 249–254.
Swanepoel, D., 1995. An analysis of beach debris accumulation in Table Bay, Cape
Town, South Africa. MSc Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Thornton, L., Jackson, N.L., 1998. Spatial and temporal variations in debris
accumulation and composition on an estuarine shoreline, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 36, 705–711.
Walker, T.R., Reid, K., Arnould, J.P.Y., Croxall, J.P., 1997. Marine debris surveys at Bird
Island, South Georgia 1990–1995. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 61–65.
Williams, A.T., Tudor, D.T., 2001. Litter burial and exhumation: spatial and temporal
distribution on a cobble pocket beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1031–1039.