Marine Debris Project Final Report 2014

FiguresFigure 1. Map depicting the initial proposed coastal debris survey sites. Note that Tasmania was notoriginally included in the plan and that portions of coastal Queensland, South Australia, WesternAustralia and the Northern Territory were also initially excluded. .................................................................... 6Figure 2. Map showing locations of coastal debris surveys around mainland Australia and the southernisland state of Tasmania. This map includes locations of school debris surveys (blue squares),engagement with the ‘Kids Teaching Kids’ program (green stars) and CSIRO surveys (red circles). ................. 7Figure 3. Map showing means of access to each CSIRO coastal debris survey site around mainlandAustralia and Tasmania. ................................................................................................................................... 14Figure 4. Debris density along the coastline with circle sizes proportionate to debris density for eachtransect at a site. Map is uncorrected for population, beach type, substrate, or other covariates. ............... 28Figure 5. Relative density of anthropogenic debris along the Australian coast. Predicted densities arescaled with respect to the location with the highest density of debris (warmer colours [red] depictingrelatively high densities of debris, corrected for shape, substrate, gradient and backshore sampling errorterms). Black dots show actual coastal debris sampling sites. The map includes the combined terrestrialand marine anthropogenic debris inputs. ........................................................................................................ 29Figure 6. Map showing locations of surface trawls around the coast of Australia, between Fiji andAustralia and between New Zealand and Australia. ........................................................................................ 30Figure 7. Map showing locations of sea surface plastic concentrations, corrected following methods inReisser et al. 2013). .......................................................................................................................................... 31Figure 8. Map of Australia showing (a) the location of citizen science transects and emu parades (bluedots) and transects carried out by project staff (orange dots). ....................................................................... 46Figure 9. The mean density (items.m2 ± se) of marine debris found during citizen science transects andemu parades compared with nearby transects by project staff. ..................................................................... 48Figure 10. The mean density (items.m2 ± se) of debris items found on transects and emu parades byadults, secondary and primary school students compared with nearby transects carried out by CSIROstaff. .................................................................................................................................................................. 49Figure 11. The mean density (items.m2 ± se) of marine debris found among transects made by trainedand untrained adults, primary and secondary school students supervised by trained and untrainedteachers compared with nearby transects by project staff. ............................................................................ 50Figure 12. The mean density (items.m2 ± se) of marine debris found among emu parades made bytrained and untrained adults, primary and secondary school students supervised by trained anduntrained teachers compared with nearby transects by project staff............................................................. 51Figure 13. The relative abundance of marine debris of different size classes found during citizen sciencetransects and emu parades compared with transects by project staff. ........................................................... 52Figure 14. The proportion of beverage containers in materials recovered during clean-ups in Australia.Shaded bars depict the proportion of beverage containers in each state, error bars show the 95%confidence interval on these mean estimates. Bars which do not share a letter are significantly differentin a pairwise comparison at the p < 0.05 level. ................................................................................................ 57Figure 15. The ratio of beverage container lids to beverage containers found by Clean Up Australiavolunteers in 2012 for each state and territory. The error bars give the 95% confidence interval aroundthe estimates. Shared letters across bars denote values that are not significantly different at the p < 0.05level. ................................................................................................................................................................. 59Hardesty et al. (2014) | v