Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111760

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Baseline

Assessment of litter in the remote beaches of Lakshadweep Islands,

Arabian Sea
T. Kaviarasan a, Subrat Naik a, S.K. Sivadas a, K. Dhineka a, M. Sambandam a, David Sivyer b,
Pravakar Mishra a, *, M.V. Ramana Murthy a
a
National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR), Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India, NIOT Campus, Pallikaranai, Chennai 600 100, India
b
Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Suffolk NR33 OHT, United Kingdom

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

Keywords: The objective of this study was to obtain baseline data on litter from three beaches of the Lakshadweep Islands
Macro litter (Kadmat, Suheli Par, and Minicoy). At each site, three transects of 20 × 20 m of the foreshore and intertidal zone
Clean Coast Index were sampled during low tide. All macro litter (size >2.5 cm to <1 m) within each transect were collected and
Remote beaches
counted. A total of 1231 litter items belonging to 22 categories were recorded. The highest average abundance
Lakshadweep Islands
Arabian Sea
(193 ± 97 items/400 m2) of marine litter was found in Kadmat, followed by Suheli Par (154 ± 31items/400 m2)
and Minicoy (63 ± 49 items/400 m2) islands. The Clean Coast Index (CCI) suggests that Minicoy Island has a
clean beach (CCI 3.15) while Suheli Par (CCI 8) and Kadmat (CCI 10) were moderate. The primary contributing
sources of litter on the beaches were fishing (45%) and public (34%). Better management practices are required
to control litter sources.

Sandy shore ecosystems are unique among the other marine envi-
ronments (McLachlan and Brown, 2006), highly vulnerable to human
impacts, and are increasingly affected by a variety of stressors (Jorge-
Romero et al., 2019). Anthropogenic litter pollution is one of the more
serious stressors and there is an urgent requirement for the assessment of
beach litter pollution to inform focused beach management and policy
making. Beach litter can be defined as any anthropogenic litter item that
appears on beaches. The source of beach litter is either land-based or of
ocean origin (Cheshire et al., 2009; Galgani et al., 2015). Land-based
sources of beach litter include agricultural, industrial and recreational
activities, whereas sea-based litter is mostly from fisheries, recreational
boating and commercial shipping (Cheshire et al., 2009). Several studies
from around the world have suggested that the source of beach litter is
mainly from land-based activities (Ribic et al., 2012; Slavin et al., 2012;
Portman and Brennan, 2017).
Litter, particularly plastic, is now omnipresent in the marine envi-
ronment affecting a wide range of taxa, from microscopic zooplankton
to large vertebrates (Nelms et al., 2016) e.g. plastic beach litter was
predominantly ingested by loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta (Tomas
et al., 2002). Fishing nets which are left or lost in the marine environ-
ment (ghost nets) pose a serious hazard to marine organisms and are
often found on beaches around the Arabian Sea (e.g. van Hoytema et al.,
2020). It is estimated globally that 640,000 t of fishing gear lost or
discarded annually and it drifts in the ocean affecting commercially
important and threatened species (Wilcox et al., 2013). Apart from the
biological impact of beach litter, loss of tourism revenue has also been
reported (Jang et al., 2014). A recent study stated that urban seagulls
ingest anthropogenic debris constantly year-round and plastic was the
most dominant debris type (Stewart et al., 2020).
Remote island systems may act as a potential sink for marine
anthropogenic litter in the open ocean (Lavers and Bond, 2017; Lebreton
et al., 2018). The Lakshadweep Islands located in the Arabian Sea off the
south-western coast of India is a dynamic biodiversity hotspot (Tripathy,
2002). These small and isolated islands are affected by anthropogenic
litter (Kaladharan et al., 2017) in a similar manner to other islands
around the world (Duhec et al., 2015; Bouwman et al., 2016). Only a few
studies have been reported on beach litter from Indian islands and those
are mostly from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal
(Dharani et al., 2003; Kaladharan et al., 2017; Krishnakumar et al.,
2020; Goswami et al., 2020; Patchaiyappan et al., 2020). Previous
studies reported that more than 40% of beach litter is plastic items in
Andaman and Lakshadweep Islands (Kaladharan et al., 2017; Krishna-
kumar et al., 2020), although there is only one report on marine litter
from Lakshadweep Islands (Kaladharan et al., 2017). Studies are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mishra@nccr.gov.in (P. Mishra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111760
Received 28 May 2020; Received in revised form 6 October 2020; Accepted 9 October 2020
Available online 20 October 2020
0025-326X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Kaviarasan et al.
generally lacking from the Lakshadweep Islands, mainly due to their
inaccessibility, therefore this baseline survey represents a significant
contribution towards formulating a litter management strategy for the
islands.
The study was conducted during August 2019 at Kadmat (11◦ 10′ N
and 72◦ 48′ E), Suheli Par (10◦ 10′ N and 72◦ 48′ E) and Minicoy (08◦ 18′ N
and 73◦ 04′ E) which are part of the coral reef group of Lakshadweep
Islands in the Arabian Sea (Fig. 1). Kadmat has a land area of 3.2 km2
with a coastline of about 8 km, the southernmost island Minicoy has an
area of 4.4 km2 with a coastline of 9.5 km and the smallest island visited
was Suheli Par with an area of about 0.5 km2. Both Kadmat (Population
density 1727/km2) and Minicoy (Population density 2163/km2) have
several human settlements (mostly fishing villages) while Suheli Par is
uninhabited (https://lakshadweep.gov.in/islands/). The economy of
the islands mostly depends on tourism, fishing and coconut cultivation
and most essential commodities must be imported from the Indian
subcontinent.
For the assessment of marine litter, three transects of 20 × 20 m of
the foreshore and intertidal zone were sampled during low tide at each
site. All macro litter (size >2.5 cm to <1 m) within the transects was
collected, counted, classified and probable sources were identified based
on UNEP/IOC (Marine Conservation Society, 2002; Cheshire et al.,
2009). The data from the three individual transects at each site were
combined to provide mean values.
Fig. 1. Map showing the study area Kadmat Island, Suheli Par Island and Minicoy Island.
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111760
To identify the level of beach cleanliness, Clean Coast Index (CCI)
was calculated based on Alkalay et al., (2007) with a slight modification
to calculate for total litter items instead of for total plastic related items.
CCI = (Total litter items on transect/Total area transect) × K
Coefficient K = 20 is applied for statistical reasons, as well as for
convenience. CCI and their inference are: 1) 0–2: very clean—no litter is
seen, 2) 2–5: clean—no litter is seen over a large area, 3) 5–10: mod-
erate—a few pieces of litter can be detected, 4) 10–20: dirty—much
debris on the shore, 5) 20+: extremely dirty—most of the beach is
covered with plastic debris (Alkalay et al., 2007).
The differences between the total density and material type among
the islands were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
using Statistica 12 (StatSoft Inc). Whenever ANOVA detected significant
difference at α = 0.05, a post-hoc Tukey’s test was carried out to identify
which locations showed a significant difference.
A total of 1231 litter items were collected across the nine transects
which were assigned to 22 categories (Table 1). Kadmat Island had the
greatest range of categories (21) while Suheli Par and Minicoy both had
only 14. ‘Fishing net’ was the main contributor with nearly half the
items across all three islands. The only other items with a percentage in
double figures were ‘plastic bottle caps’ and ‘plastic pieces’. ‘Plastic
rope’ and ‘footwear’ made up the remaining top-five commonest items
found, with both types having approximately 5% composition across all
T. Kaviarasan et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111760

Table 1
Individual item and their percentage composition of beach litter.
Kadmat Island Suheli Par Island Minicoy Island Overall

Code UNEP code Percentage Code UNEP code Percentage Code UNEP code Percentage Code UNEP code Percentage

FN PL20 35.35 FN PL20 48.16 FN PL20 50.77 FN PL20 42.56

PP PL24 19.14 PBC PL01 16.92 PR PL19 7.69 PBC PL01 13.43
PBC PL01 13.62 PWB PL02 5.86 FW RB02 6.15 PP PL24 11.41
PR PL19 5.17 PR PL19 5.64 PBC PL01 4.62 PR PL19 5.74
FW RB02 5.00 PP PL24 4.56 PWB PL02 4.62 FW RB02 4.69
PST PL04 3.10 PC PL07 3.69 PP PL24 4.62 PWB PL02 3.96
GB GC02 2.76 FW RB02 3.69 TR FB04 4.62 PC PL07 2.99
PC PL07 2.41 LI PL10 2.60 PC PL07 3.08 GB GC02 2.10
PWB PL02 2.24 GB GC02 2.17 CO PL24 3.08 TR FB04 2.02
TI ME03 2.07 TR FB04 1.95 TI ME03 3.08 TI ME03 1.86
GLB GC02 1.90 TB PL24 1.74 DI OT02 3.08 LI PL10 1.62
TB PL24 1.55 GLB GC02 1.30 PS PL04 1.54 PST PL04 1.46
LI PL10 1.38 TI ME03 1.08 PPC PL16 1.54 TB PL24 1.38
TR FB04 1.21 CO PL24 0.65 CI PL24 1.54 GLB GC02 1.38
SY PL12 1.03 PS PL04 0.00 PST PL04 0.00 CO PL24 0.81
BP PL24 1.03 PST PL04 0.00 LI PL10 0.00 DI OT02 0.57
PS PL04 0.34 SY PL12 0.00 SY PL12 0.00 SY PL12 0.49
CI PL24 0.17 PPC PL16 0.00 TB PL24 0.00 BP PL24 0.49
CO PL24 0.17 BP PL24 0.00 BP PL24 0.00 PS PL04 0.40
SP FB01 0.17 CI PL24 0.00 GB GC02 0.00 CI PL24 0.32
DI OT02 0.17 SP FB01 0.00 GLB GC02 0.00 PPC PL16 0.24
PPC PL16 0.00 DI OT02 0.00 SP FB01 0.00 SP FB01 0.08

PR-plastic rope, PBC-plastic water bottle cap, PS-plastic spoon, PWB-plastic water bottle, PST-plastic straw, CO-plastic comb, PC-polythene cover, TB-toothbrush, BP-
ballpoint pen, CI-cosmetic items, PPC-polypropylene woven cover, SY-syringe, LI-lighter, PP-plastic pieces, FW-footwear, TR-thermocol (polystyrene), SP-sponge
material, FN-fishing net, DI-diaper, LGB-liquor glass bottle, GB-glass bottle and TI-tin (can tastic).

three islands. The highest mean density of litter (Fig. 2) was found in
Table 2
Kadmat (193 ± 97 items 400 m−2) followed by Suheli Par (154 ± 31
Result of one-way ANOVA between islands for total density, plastic, glass and
items 400 m−2) and Minicoy islands (65 ± 49 items 400 m−2). This
rubber.
equates to 0.48, 0.38 and 0.16 particles per square metre respectively.
Variable Sum of Degrees of MS mean F- p-
The total density of litter (plastic, glass and rubber) showed significant
square freedom square ratio Value
variation between beaches in the study area (Table 2). Tukey’s post-hoc
test detected significantly low values at Minicoy Island. Total 26,707.06 2 13,353.53 6.28 0.03
density
The overall percentage composition of beach litter type is shown in
Plastic 21,520.67 2 10,760.33 5.24 0.05
Fig. 4. It was found that hard plastic was dominant (87%) followed by Glass 113.56 2 56.78 5.74 0.04
rubber (5%), glass (3%), foamed plastic and metal (2%), and others Rubber 56.00 2 28.00 12.00 0.01
(1%). Plastic, glass and rubber also showed significant variation
Note - foamed plastic, metal and others did not show significant variation so
(Table 2) among the islands and foamed plastic, metal and others did not results were not presented.
show significant variation. Significantly low density of plastic and glass
was observed at Minicoy Island (Tukey’s post-hoc test). Rubber density
was significantly high at Kadmat Island (Tukey’s post-hoc test).
The litter categories were assigned to six sources as per Marine
Conservation Society, UK, 2002 classification. This data indicating that
the ‘Public’ impact was highest in Suheli Par Island (37.3%) compared to

Fig. 2. Density of beach litter in Kadmat Island, Suheli Par Island and Minicoy Fig. 3. Sources of beach litter on Kadmat Island, Suheli Par Island, Mini-
Island/400m2. coy Island.

3
T. Kaviarasan et al.
Kadmat Island (33.79%) and Minicoy Island (24.6%) (Fig. 3).
Compared to earlier studies on other remote islands (Table S1) such
as Gough Island in South Atlantic (Ryan, 1987), Inaccessible Island,
Central South Atlantic (Ryan and Warkins, 1988), Pitcairn Group in
South Pacific (Benton, 1995), Bird Island in Atlantic Ocean (Walker
et al., 1997), Scotia Arc islands in the Southern Ocean (Convey et al.,
2002) the density of litter reported in the present study were 2.4 to 102
times higher. This would indicate that the Lakshadweep Islands are
more impacted by anthropogenic sources which is consistent with the
native population and the proximity of the Indian sub-continent. How-
ever, it has also been observed that the average abundance of the litter in
this study area was 5 to 370 times lower than the remote islands of the
Seychelles and Maldives, relatively nearby in the Indian Ocean
(Table S1), where the effects of well-established tourism may have a
strong local influence. The macro litter (0.2 cm to 20 cm) abundance of
Andaman and Nicobar Islands ranged from 358 to 925 particles/m2
(Krishnakumar et al., 2020), which is over 900 times more than the
mean litter density of present study. A proportion of the large range
difference between the present study and reported data on marine macro
litter from some of the other remote islands is probably due to the dif-
ferences in size classification between the studies, highlighting the need
for a global standard protocol in beach litter collection and assessment.
Abandoned fishing gear is a major concern globally as it entangles
with corals and causing physical damage to living organisms (Valder-
rama Ballesteros et al., 2018; Stelfox et al., 2016; Wilcox et al., 2013).
Fishing is the major occupation of the human population on the Lak-
shadweep Islands, and the percentage order of total fish landings for
these islands is Minicoy Island (17%), Suheli Par Island (14%), and
Kadamat Island (2%). Data from this study indicate that fishing activities
(mainly discarded fishing nets) are the major contributors to beach litter
accumulation (Minicoy Island - 55.4%; Suheli Par Island - 50.1% and
Kadmat Island - 36.6%). Our findings on the percentage composition of
fishing nets agree broadly with the pattern of fish landing percentage, i.
e., Minicoy Island>Suheli Par Island>Kadmat Island. A similar obser-
vation was also reported for the Nicobar Islands where nylon from
fishing activities contributed to 68% of the total plastic pollution
(Krishnakumar et al., 2020).
The litter indicating the ‘Public’ sources was highest in Suheli Par
Fig. 4. Type of litter materials and their percentage composition in Lak-
shadweep Island.
4
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111760
Island (37.3%) compared to Kadmat Island (33.79%) and Minicoy Island
(24.6%) (Fig. 3), even though Suheli Par Island is uninhabited and might
be therefore be expected to have a lower impact from that source.
However, it may be seen from the ~50% ‘Fishing net’ litter found on
survey that being uninhabited does not exempt beaches from human
impact and this has been shown elsewhere in the Arabian Sea region e.g.
Oman (van Hoytema et al., 2020; Farkas et al., 2017), Abu Dhabi (EAD,
2016) and coast of Muscat (Al-Masroori et al., 2004). It is known that the
population from neighbouring islands regularly visit Suheli Par Island to
fish for tuna and stayover for one to two weeks. As there are no litter
collection facilities on the island it is highly likely that this activity is the
major source of beach litter on this island.
Beach litter from medical (1.03%) and sanitary sources (0.17%) was
observed at Kadmat Island and Minicoy Island (3.08%), indicating that
proper solid waste management protocols are not followed in the
islands. The presence of thermocool (expanded polystyrene) in Minicoy
Island is likely from packing materials probably coming from the
mainland, i.e., India.
Hard plastic (87%) dominated the overall composition of beach litter
across all three islands with minor contributions from rubber (5%), glass
(3%), foamed plastic and metal (2%), and others (1%). Kaladharan et al.
(2017) previously reported that the beach litter of the Lakshadweep
Islands was dominated by plastic (40%). This has subsequently doubled,
but without data on waste management or any beach cleaning activities
in the interim, it is not possible to determine whether this is a genuine
increase in the ratio of plastic waste or merely an accumulation of long-
lasting material on open beaches. Beach litter found on other remote
islands around the world is also predominantly plastic items (Merrell,
1980; Benton, 1995; Agustin et al., 2015; Lavers and Bond, 2017;
Krishnakumar et al., 2020). The dominance of hard plastic was also
observed in mainland Korean beaches, although the source of hard
plastic there was considered mostly from daily recreational activities
rather than fishing (Lee et al., 2017). The presence of plastics in Kadmat
and Suheli Par is of concern as both these islands are turtle nesting
grounds (Tripathy, 2002; Kale et al., 2018) and plastic litter can impact
turtle rookeries by affecting the temperature and sediment permeability
(Nelms et al., 2016).
The CCI index for Minicoy was low (3.15) indicating a cleaner beach
whereas Kadmat (10) and Suheli Par (8) Islands had a higher CCI index
indicating a moderately polluted beach. The uninhabited Suheli Par Is-
land recorded a greater amount of litter and CCI index than the highly
populated Minicoy Island. As already noted, this is probably due to
frequent assemblies of fisherfolks at Suheli Par Island for tuna fishing.
During this survey only two items of foreign origin were collected, and
these probably come from international shipping. This is an encouraging
finding as the Arabian Sea is one of the busiest shipping routes for oil
trade from the Gulf region.
The three beaches surveyed were found to be clean or moderate but
the accumulation of litter in the Lakshadweep Islands should not be
ignored, as it has an important coral reef ecosystem and turtle nesting
habitat. The main source of beach litter in this area was fishing and other
fishing related community activities. The potential for tourism in these
islands is substantial but this would be heavily impacted by the accu-
mulation of litter on the beaches and fishing nets snagged on sur-
rounding coral reefs. The uninhabited Suheli Par Island had a higher CCI
index than the populated Minicoy Island therefore proper waste man-
agement at source demands government policies, along with community
support on all the islands. Although the local government has some litter
management policies in place they are not followed effectively in the
islands as there is a lack of garbage collection facilities near the beaches,
compulsory enforcement, and minimal public awareness and attitude on
litter management. To overcome the scenario encountered during this
study it is recommended that periodic beach cleaning must be imple-
mented before macro litter disintegrates into microplastic. This new
baseline data provides an opportunity to assess the plastic leakage to the
marine environment so that necessary rectification can be implemented
T. Kaviarasan et al.
for the management of litter in the islands. Seasonal evolution of beach
litter and the role of oceanographic and meteorological processes are
prerequisites for better quantification on beach litter sources and im-
pacts. None of these are currently recorded regularly.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111760.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
T. Kaviarasan: Fieldwork, Methodology, and analysis, Writing –
original draft.
Subrath Naik: Fieldwork, literature review.
Sivadas S.K.: Editing of the first draft.
K. Dhineka: Data analysis and graphics.
M. Sambandam: literature review and graphics.
Dave Sivyer: Critical Review & English editing.
Pravakar Mishra: Conceptualization, Final draft and Supervision.
M.V. Ramana Murthy: Project administration.
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.
Acknowledgement
Authors are grateful to the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of
India for implementing the Marine Litter and Microplastic Programme at
NCCR, Chennai. We are thankful to Dr. Brett Lyons, UK for critically
reviewing the manuscript.
References
Agustin, A.E., Merrifield, M.A., Potemra, J.T., Morishige, C., 2015. Temporal variability
of marine debris deposition at Tern Island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.076.
Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A., 2007. Clean-coast index-a new approach for beach
cleanliness assessment. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2006.10.002.
Al-Masroori, H., Al-Oufi, H., McIlwain, J.L., McLean, E., 2004. Catches of lost fish traps
(ghost fishing) from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fish. Res. 69
(3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.05.014.
Benton, T.G., 1995. From castaways to throwaways: marine litter in the Pitcairn Islands.
Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 56, 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.
tb01101.x.
Bouwman, H., Evans, S.W., Cole, N., Choong Kwet Yive, N.S., Kylin, H., Eriksson, C.,
et al., 2016. Daily accumulation rates of marine debris on sub-Antarctic island
beaches. Mar. Environ. Res. 66, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marenvres.2015.12.013.
Cheshire, A., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., et al., 2009.
UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter Regional Seas
Reports and Studies No. 186 IOC Technical Series No. 83.
Convey, P., Barnes, D.K.A., Morton, A., 2002. Debris accumulation on oceanic island
shores of the Scotia Arc, Antarctica. Polar Biol. 25, 612–617. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00300-002-0391-x.
Dharani, G., Abdul Nazar, A.K., Venkatesan, R., Ravindran, M., 2003. Marine debris in
Great Nicobar. Curr. Sci. 85, 574–575.
Duhec, A.V., Jeanne, R.F., Maximenko, N., Hafner, J., 2015. Composition and potential
origin of marine debris stranded in the Western Indian Ocean on remote Alphonse
Island, Seychelles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2015.05.042.
EAD, 2016. Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi. Biodiversity Annual Report 2016. Status
of Marine Turtle Conservation in Abu Dhabi Emirate.
Farkas, B., Buzás, B., Gulyás, E., Maury, N., 2017. Leatherback turtle found off Fujairah,
United Arab Emirates. Mar. Turt. Newsl. (154), 15–16 (ISSN 0839-7708).
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., 2015. Global distribution, composition and abundance
of marine litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing,
pp. 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_2.
Goswami, P., Vinithkumar, N.V., Dharani, G., 2020. First evidence of microplastics
bioaccumulation by marine organisms in the Port Blair Bay, Andaman Islands. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111163.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111760
Jang, Y.C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M.J., Shim, W.J., 2014. Estimation of lost tourism
revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021.
Jorge-Romero, G., Lercari, D., Ortega, L., Defeo, O., 2019. Long-term ecological
footprints of a man-made freshwater discharge onto a sandy beach ecosystem. Ecol.
Indic. 96, 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.024.
Kaladharan, P., Vijayakumaran, K., Singh, V.V., Prema, D., Asha, P.S., Sulochanan, B.,
et al., 2017. Prevalence of marine litter along the Indian beaches: a preliminary
account on its status and composition. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 59, 19–24. https://
doi.org/10.6024/jmbai.2017.59.1.1953-03.
Kale, N., Namboothri, N., Shanker, K., 2018. Monitoring Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas)
and Their Habitat Towards Mitigation of Fisher-turtle Conflict in the Lakshadweep
Islands. Report Submitted to Lakshadweep Administration. Dakshin Foundation,
Bengaluru.
Krishnakumar, S., Anbalagan, S., Kasilingam, K., Smrithi, P., Anbazhagi, S.,
Srinivasalu, S., 2020. Assessment of plastic debris in remote islands of the Andaman
and Nicobar Archipelago, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, 110841. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110841.
Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2017. Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic
debris on one of the world’s most remote and pristine islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A. 114, 6052–6055. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619818114.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., et al., 2018.
Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci.
Rep. 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22939-w.
Lee, J., Lee, J., Hong, S., Hong, S.H., Shim, W.J., Eo, S., 2017. Characteristics of meso-
sized plastic marine debris on 20 beaches in Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123, 92–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.020.
Marine Conservation Society, 2002. Nationwide Beach Clean and Survey Report. Marine
ConservationSociety, Herefordshire, p. 89.
McLachlan, A., Brown, A.C., 2006. Introduction. In: The Ecology of Sandy Shores.
Elsevier, pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012372569-1/50001-x.
Merrell, T.R., 1980. Accumulation of plastic litter on beaches of Amchitka Island, Alaska.
Mar. Environ. Res. 3, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1136(80)90025-2.
Nelms, S.E., Duncan, E.M., Broderick, A.C., Galloway, T.S., Godfrey, M.H., Hamann, M.,
et al., 2016. Plastic and marine turtles: a review and call for research. ICES J. Mar.
Sci. 73, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv165.
Patchaiyappan, A., Zaki, S., Dowarah, K., 2020. Occurrence, distribution and
composition of microplastics in the sediments of South Andaman beaches. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 111227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111227.
Portman, M.E., Brennan, R.E., 2017. Marine litter from beach-based sources: case study
of an Eastern Mediterranean coastal town. Waste Manag. 69, 535–544. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.040.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.02.008.
Ryan, P.G., 1987. The origin and fate of artefacts stranded on islands in the African sector
of the Southern Ocean. Environ. Conserv. 14, 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892900016854.
Ryan, P.G., Warkins, B.P., 1988. Accumulation of stranded plastic objects and other
artefacts at Inaccessible Island, Central South Atlantic Ocean. South African J.
Antart. Res. 18, 11–13.
Slavin, C., Grage, A., Campbell, M.L., 2012. Linking social drivers of marine debris with
actual marine debris on beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 1580–1588. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.05.018.
Stelfox, M., Hudgins, J., Sweet, M., 2016. A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst
marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 111, 6–17. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.034.
Stewart, L.G., Lavers, J.L., Grant, M.L., Puskic, P.S., Bond, A.L., 2020. Seasonal ingestion
of anthropogenic debris in an urban population of gulls. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160,
111549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111549.
Tomas, J., Guitart, R., Mateo, R., Raga, J.A., 2002. Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead
sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44,
211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00236-3.
Tripathy, B., 2002. Marine biodiversity of lakshadweep: an overview. Kachhapa 7,
14–19.
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.
van Hoytema, Nanne, Ross D, Bullimore, Aziza S, Al Adhoob, Majid H, Al-Khanbashi,
Paul Whomersley, Will JF, Le Quesne, 2020. Fishing gear dominates marine litter in
the Wetlands Reserve in Al Wusta Governorate, Oman. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 159
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111503.
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. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0025-326X(96)00053-7.
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, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12001.