Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Mar 27;30(20):57759–57770. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-26617-x

Terrestrial mammals of the Americas and their interactions with plastic waste

Félix Ayala 1,2,✉, Martín Zeta-Flores 3, Sonia Ramos-Baldárrago 4, Juan Tume-Ruiz 5, Antia Rangel-Vega 5, Eddy Reyes 5, Edgardo Quinde 5, Gabriel Enrique De-la-Torre 6, Leticia Lajo-Salazar 7, Susana Cárdenas-Alayza 1,8
PMCID: PMC10040927  PMID: 36971935

Abstract

Plastics have brought many benefits to society, but their mismanagement has turned them into a serious environmental problem. Today, the effects of plastic waste on wildlife are becoming increasingly evident. Since studies on plastic pollution have focused on species in marine ecosystems, here we review current knowledge on interactions between terrestrial mammals and plastic waste in the countries of the Americas, which is a global hotspot of mammalian biodiversity and in turn has, among its member countries, nations with high per capita generations of plastic waste globally. We identified 46 scientific articles documenting plastic ingestion in 37 species and four species that used plastic waste for nest or burrow construction. Of the 46 investigations, seven focused on plastic contamination, while the others reported on the presence of plastics in wildlife, even though this was not the primary focus of the research. However, these publications lack analytical methods commonly used in plastic studies, and only one study applied a standardized methodology for plastic detection. Therefore, in general, plastic pollution research on terrestrial mammals is limited. We extend several recommendations such as designing methodologies that are adapted to terrestrial mammals for the identification of plastics in fecal matter or gastrointestinal contents, carrying out species-specific analyzes on the impacts of plastics in nests or burrows, and giving further attention to this understudied issue and taxa.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-023-26617-x.

Keywords: Interaction plastic biota, Nest, Burrows, Macroplastic, Microplastic, Single-use plastics

Introduction

Commercially available plastics (synthetic polymers) are widely available and designed in different shapes, sizes, and weights, and tend to be of low cost and massive production (Thompson et al. 2009). They are utilized in multiple industries such as food packaging, medicine, agriculture, and household daily use items (Rivera et al. 2005; Thompson et al. 2009; Hajibabaei et al. 2018; Osman 2022). Improper management of these materials, as well as their use and disposal, has turned them into waste, and they can now be found in soils, air, and water (Welle and Franz 2018; Xu et al. 2020; Xie et al. 2022). It has been estimated that the amount of plastic waste that will be generated in the year 2060 will rise to 265 million metric tons (Lebreton and Andrady 2019). In addition to causing visual pollution, plastic waste causes alterations in biogeochemical cycles and environmental matrices (Sanz-Lázaro et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021). Plastic wastes are classified according to their size into megaplastics (> 1 m), macroplastics (2.5 cm–1 m), mesoplastics (5 mm–2.5 cm), microplastics (1 - 5,000 μm), and nanoplastics (< 1 μm) (Lippiatt et al. 2013). Their residues are persistent pollutants to degradation, remaining for extended periods of time and potentially affecting biota (van Bijsterveldt et al. 2021; Azevedo-Santos et al. 2021). Given their ubiquity, a diverse suite of organisms interacts with plastic waste in their daily lives (e.g., nesting material), can become entangled, and/or ingest plastic (Jagiello et al. 2019; Kühn and van Franeker 2020; Ayala et al. 2022a).

Plastic pollution is currently considered a major problem and a "global change driver" that has gathered significant public attention (Malizia and Monmany-Garzia 2019). Research has heavily focused on marine environments, while terrestrial ecosystems are being less studied (Malizia and Monmany-Garzia 2019; Bucci et al. 2020; He et al. 2020; Al Malki et al. 2021; Blettler and Mitchell 2021; Nessi et al. 2022; Thrift et al. 2022). In the marine environment, at least 56% of mammal species have been reported to ingest plastic and 69% are affected by entanglements (Kühn and van Franeker 2020). However, to our knowledge, effects on terrestrial mammals are scarce. There are no known studies that collect information on different groups of mammals such as the work of Kühn and Van Franeker (2020) for marine species. However, there are reports collecting specific cases of ruminants (Priyanka and Dey 2018), rodents (Yong et al. 2020; Zolotova et al. 2022), and carnivores in agricultural areas ingesting plastics (Jankowiak et al. 2016).

Given the ubiquitous presence of plastics on land, we believe that interactions between terrestrial mammal species and plastic debris are not well documented (Blettler et al. 2018). In the Americas, there are several countries with high per capita plastic waste generation capacity (e.g., United States, Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina) (Law et al. 2020). In addition, this continent is home to 17% of described mammals and 26.5% of threatened species (Mammal Diversity Database 2022). In this regard, we reviewed the current status of wild terrestrial mammals reported in the Americas in relation to their interaction with plastic pollution. Our objective was to provide an overview of current knowledge on plastic-terrestrial mammal interactions in the Americas, discuss positive or negative impacts, identify knowledge gaps and deficiencies, and, finally, extend recommendations for future researchers toward required studies on the fauna of terrestrial ecosystems in the Americas.

Materials and methods

Scopus and Google Scholar were used from September to November 13, 2022 to search for published literature on interactions in wild mammals involving 1) plastic ingestion, 2) entanglement, and 3) plastic waste used in nests and/or burrows. The search was carried out by a search of relevant keywords such as “Plastic and terrestrial mammals,” “Chiroptera and plastic waste,” “Cingulates and plastic waste,” “Dasyuromorphia and plastic waste,” “Dermoptera and plastic waste,” “Didelphimorphia and plastic waste,” “Eulipotyphla and plastic waste,” “Lagomorpha and plastic waste”, “Paucituberculata and plastic waste,” “Anteaters and plastic waste,” “Primate and plastic waste,” “Rodentia and plastic waste,” “Carnivora and plastic waste,” and “Artiodactyla and plastic waste.” A search was also performed with common names for different species (e.g., bats and plastic waste, monkeys, and plastic waste). In addition, with the identified scientific articles, we filled a database answering the following queries: 1) What type of interaction is most reported? 2) What are the methodologies for plastic detection? 3) What are the most common plastics? For this purpose, theses, reports, conference proceedings, preprints, original articles, and short notes were considered. Documents were also found by consulting the references of previously located articles. Documents were retrieved in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. A PRISMA flow chart according to Moher et al. (2009) was used to represent the information search stages (Fig. 1). If details were available, the reported plastics were sorted by size following Lippiatt et al. (2013).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flowchart showing the protocol for locating and selecting papers

Results

Identified research spans from 1977 to 2022. A total of 46 documents were identified and divided into 38 original research articles, 5 theses, two conference proceedings, and one preprint paper (Supplementary Table 1). The Journal of Zoology had the most studies on American mammal interactions with plastic waste with 15% (n = 3). This was followed by Journal of Mammalogy, Mammalian Biology, Mastozoología Neotropical, Notas Sobre Mamíferos, Science of the Total Environment, and Urban Ecosytems with 4% (i.e., two publications per journal) (Fig. 2). Information on institutions where theses, conference proceedings, and preprints were produced is provided in Supplementary Material.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Journals from which the documents were retrieved. Additional information in the supplementary material

Records were compiled for the following families and number of species (in brackets): Phylostomidae (17), Canidae (6), Embalonuridae (4), Procyonidae (3), Didelphidae (2), Felidae (2), Sciuridae (2), Ursidae (2), Mormophidae (2), and Octodontidae (1) (see Table 1). Research was most abundant in Brazil and the United States, where there were 16 and 10 papers, respectively (Fig. 3).

Table 1.

List of species that have interacted with plastic waste in the Americas. Symbol (x) shows records, while symbol (-) indicates no report

Family Species Conservation status Interaction Reference
Ingestion Nest/burrowing
Canidae Canis latrans Least concern x - MacCracken 1982, Manning 2007, Morey et al.2007, Lukasik et al. 2008, Grigione et al. 2011, Lukasik et al. 2011, Larson et al. 2015, Murray et al. 2015, Santana and Armstrong 2017, Espinosa-Graciano and García-Collazo 2017, Cypher et al. 2018, Krug 2020, Peterson et al. 2021
Cerdocyon thous Least concern x - Montanelli 2001, Cirignoli et al. 2011, Tirelli et al. 2019, Bocchiglieri et al. 2021
Chrysocyon brachyurus Near threatened x - Aragona et al., 2001, Silva et al. 2003, Massara et al. 2012, Aximoff et al. 2020
Lycalopex griseus Least concern x - Zúñiga et al. 2022
Lycalopex culpaeus Least concern x - Beltrán-Ortiz et al. 2017, Jarrín-Porras et al. 2020
Lycalopex gymnocercus Least concern x - Birochio 2008, Monteiro et al. 2015
Lycalopex sp x - García et al. 2018, Fuenzalida et al. 2020
Didelphidae Lutreolina crassicaudata Least concern x - Facure et al. 2011
Didelphis albiventris Least concern - x Blettler and Mitchell 2021
Embalonuridae Rhynchonycteris naso Least concern x Correia et al. 2022
Saccopteryx bilineata Least concern x Correia et al. 2022
Saccopteryx leptura Least concern x Correia et al. 2022
Peropteryx trinitatis Data deficient x Correia et al. 2022
Felidae Puma concolor Least concern x - Núñez et al. 2000, Gheler-Costa et al. 2018, Bartolucci et al. 2020
Leopardus tigrinus Vulnerable x - Campos 2009
Octodontidae Spalacopus cyanus Least concern x Begall and Gallardo 2000
Procyonidae Procyon lotor Least concern x - Hoffmann and Gottschang 1977
Nasua Nasua Least concern x - Montanelli 2001, Alves-Costa et al., 2004, Ferreira et al. 2013, Ambrosio Ferreira 2017, Rodrigues et al. 2021, Rodrigues et al. 2022
Nasuella olivacea Near threatened x - Cáceres-Martínez et al. 2015
Sciuridae Sciurus carolinensis Least concern - x Ammendolia et al. 2022
Simosciurus nebouxii Least concern - x Ayala et al. 2022a
Ursidae Ursus arctos Least concern x - Smith and Lindsey 1989
Tremarctos ornatus Vulnerable x - Cáceres-Martínez et al. 2015
Mormophidae Pteronotus gymnonotus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Pteronotus rubiginosus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Pteronotus sp x - Correia et al. 2022
Phylostomidae Carollia brevicauda Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Carollia perspicillata Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Lonchorhina aurita Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Lophostoma silvicola Not included x - Correia et al. 2022
Phyllostomus discolor Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Phyllostomus elongatus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Phyllostomus hastatus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Tonatia bidens Data deficient x - Correia et al. 2022
Rhinophylla fischerae Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Artibeus lituratus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Artibeus gnomus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Artibeus obscurus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Artibeus cinereus Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Sturnira lilium Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Sturnira tildae Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Uroderma bilobatum Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Uroderma magnirostrum Least concern x - Correia et al. 2022
Open in a new tab

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Number of registrations in the countries of the Americas

What type of interaction is the most reported?

The information collected allowed us to group interactions into two main categories: 1) ingestion of plastics and 2) plastic waste used in burrows or nests. No terrestrial mammals were reported with entanglements. We found 37 species that ingested plastics, with Canis latrans being the most reported species with 13 studies and Nasua nasua in second place with six studies. This was followed by Cerdocyon thous and Chrysocyon brachyurus with four studies each (see Table 1 for details). On the other hand, in the category of nest and/or burrow debris, only four species were reported. These were Spalacopus cyanus, Simosciurus nebouxii, Sciurus carolinensis, and Didelphis albiventris with one record for each species (Table 1).

What are the methodologies for plastic detection?

Most of the records are incidental, and their objectives were not focused on the identification of plastic residues. Only 15% (n = 7) of the studies provided details about plastics and discussed their presence in the samples (Supplementary Table 1). Because of this, it was not possible to develop more detailed statistical analyses. Three studies described and discussed the presence of plastics in the diet of T. ornatus, Puma concolor, and Cerdocyon thous, but standardized methodologies or analytical analyses were not employed (Cáceres-Martínez et al. 2015; Bartolucci et al. 2020; Bocchiglieri et al. 2021). Three articles described the presence of plastics in burrows and/or nests in D. albiventris, S. nebouxii, and S. carolinensis (Blettler and Mitchell 2021; Ayala et al. 2022b; Ammendolia et al. 2022). Finally, only one study on the presence of microplastics in 23 bat species used standardized methodologies but lacked analytical methods to confirm the polymeric composition of the suspected plastics (Correia et al. 2022).

What are the most common plastics?

The studies evidenced plastic film, nylon, cigarettes, disposable cups, and disposable masks associated with the Covid-19 pandemic (Supplementary Table 1). However, since the study of plastics was not the main research objective, in most studies, only descriptions of the presence of plastics are available (e.g., Campos 2009; Tirelli et al. 2019). In seven studies, it was possible to determine plastics size when photographs with scales in the figures or size reference of animals was presented. Of these, the identification of macroplastics was possible in six and that of microplastics in one article (supplementary Table 1).

The type of interaction with plastic waste was evaluated for each taxon (Fig. 4). However, since these data are not representative as details are not included in all the publications evaluated, caution is advised.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Types of waste with which mammals interacted

Discussion

Our review shows that in the Americas, research on interactions with plastic debris in terrestrial mammal is scarce, and that reports were conducted in only 9/35 countries throughout the range. These results do not necessarily mean that this phenomenon does not occur in the other countries of the Americas, but rather that publication efforts to highlight this problem are low. Currently, a large amount of studies focuses on marine environments, while terrestrial ecologists have overlooked this type of pollution in terrestrial fauna (Malizia and Monmany-Garzia 2019; Bucci et al. 2020; He et al. 2020; Blettler and Mitchell 2021; Nessi et al. 2022; Thrift et al. 2022). Interestingly, reports noted the ingestion of “garbage” or “debris” by terrestrial mammals (Mattson et al. 1991; Dobey et al. 2005), but the term “plastic waste” was not mentioned in those papers. However, it is likely that these animals also ingested plastic. We recommend that future diet studies employ the terminology “plastic waste” ingestion and not overlook such details in determining interactions with other mammalian species.

The species that ingested the most plastics were C. latrans and N. nasua. In the case of C. latrans, these species are opportunistic predators and approach human settlements. Foraging behaviors in close proximity to urban areas for these species include inspecting garbage cans or ingesting food scraps in plastic containers, which increases the likelihood of plastic ingestion (Morey et al. 2007; Larson et al. 2015; Santana and Armstrong 2017; Krug 2020). N. nasua are omnivores and have a varied diet that includes fruits, vertebrates, and invertebrates, and opportunistically take advantage of anthropogenic foods in areas where people congregate (Ferreira et al. 2013). This species has been observed to ingest plastic wrappers with food debris (Montanelli 2001), a probable reason why plastics are found in fecal samples (Alves-Costa et al. 2004; Ferreira et al. 2013; Ambrosio Ferreira 2017; Rodrigues et al. 2021, 2022). However, elements such as metals, glass, threads, latex, and paper have also been recorded, suggesting sustained foraging on human waste residues (Rodrigues et al. 2022). The specific effects of plastic ingestion on coatis are so far unknown but should be studied further (Rodrigues et al. 2022).

Species of the family Canidae such as C. thous and C. brachyurus presented four records of plastic ingestion per species, although information regarding polymer composition or types of plastics is scarce in these studies. For example, for C. thous, only in two studies it was possible to identify plastics in fecal samples as plastic films (Cirignoli et al. 2011; Bocchiglieri et al. 2021). The other studies present only one description (Montanelli 2001; Tirelli et al. 2019). On the other hand, in C. brachyurus, the samples presented a plastic film (Aximoff et al. 2020). The other studies lack details (Aragona et al. 2001; Silva et al. 2003; Massara et al. 2012). Because the objectives of these investigations do not focus on the identification of plastics, it is likely that smaller plastics such as microplastics have gone unnoticed. In other studies focused on solid waste in canid fecal samples, the incidence in the samples was low; however, these studies were on arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus), a species that inhabits sparsely anthropized areas and inspects waste when natural food is scarce (Hallanger et al. 2022; Technau et al. 2022). The information available in the Americas does not allow us to determine whether plastics present in fecal samples are determined by their feeding grounds linked to urban areas given the paucity of data. However, in pachyderms, up to 32% of the fecal samples analyzed had plastics associated with human-modified habitats where plastic waste was improperly dumped (Katlam et al. 2022).

The only species that had standardized analyses for the detection of plastics (microplastics) were bats. Microfibers smaller than 5 mm were detected in the digestive and respiratory tracts of Brazilian species (Correia et al. 2022). Currently, to our knowledge, only microplastics have been examined in UK bats (Arnold et al. 2022). The hypothesis is that microplastics reach bats through their diet and through suspended microplastics during foraging (Arnold et al. 2022; Correia et al. 2022). The technique of Correia et al. 2022 was the only one in the ingestion category that applied cervical dislocation. The other studies in this category detected plastic debris in feces. However, in this group, microplastics have also been detected through fecal analysis. so they are proposed as biomonitors of plastic contamination (Arnold et al. 2022). Other studies on terrestrial mammals have seen an effective use of mammalian waste organic matter for the detection of plastic particles (Gallitelli et al. 2022; Thrift et al. 2022; Toto et al. 2023). This implies its applicability to future studies on plastic waste pollution in terrestrial mammals.

In ruminants such as Artiodactyla, ingested plastic is trapped in the rumen and does not reach the feces, which can lead to death and can only be detected by necropsy (Kumar and Dhar 2013). However, in our search, plastic ingestion was not reported through necropsies. Considering that this type of contamination in specific cases can be detected by post-mortem evaluation, studies on dead animals could help to reveal the types of plastics consumed. In camels, plastic bezoars (i.e., clumps of bags, ropes, and other plastic materials) have been detected in the stomachs of at least 300 individuals (Eriksen et al. 2021).

Furthermore, four species were recorded with residues in burrows or nests. Two species were native to South America (D. albiventris and S. nebouxii), one species was native to North America (S. carolinensis), and one species was endemic specifically to Chile (Spalacopus cyanus). In three of these species, details on the use of plastics have been provided (Blettler and Mitchell 2021; Ayala et al. 2022b; Ammendolia et al. 2022). Only one of these studies mentions plastics in burrows (Begall and Gallardo 2000). The family Sciuridae is the only one with more than one study on plastics in nests (Ayala et al. 2022b; Ammendolia et al. 2022). The use of plastic waste in nests or burrows is a recently reported problem, and it is unknown whether plastic use may have short or long-term harm to mammal survivorship (Mohan and Singh 2018; Ayala et al. 2022b). Single-use plastic bags were the predominant materials in the nests of the two South American mammal species (D. albiventris and S. nebouxii) (Blettler and Mitchell 2021; Ayala et al. 2022b). In birds, it has been hypothesized that plastic bags in nests could cause embryo mortality by increasing temperature (Blettler et al. 2020). Thus, in mammals, the use of plastics could also be preferred by species if these materials for structural or providing cushioning in nests, making them more comfortable. However, preference of plastic types by species, location, and plastic waste availability (e.g., mapping distance to dumping sites) would help understanding if increased use is related to material preference or resource availability. In addition, new waste materials such as Covid-19-associated face masks have recently been incorporated into squirrel nests (Ammendolia et al. 2022). Finally, plastics may have endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as bisphenol-A (BPA), associated with reproductive damage in humans (Kawa et al. 2021) and induction of carcinogenesis, as reported in animal models (Ma et al. 2019). In addition, larger plastics can degrade into microplastics and be ingested (Thrift et al. 2022) and reach the bloodstream (Leslie et al. 2022). Therefore, it is necessary to assess the toxicological impact of plastics on terrestrial mammals according to plastic types and species to understand the level of this problem for wildlife health.

We expected to find American land mammals in the entanglement category, but this has not been identified in the studies consulted. This is striking given the high incidence of entanglements in marine ecosystems (Battisti and Gippoliti 2018; Jepsen and de Bruyn 2019; Donnelly-Greenan et al. 2019; Høiberg et al. 2022; Rodríguez et al. 2022; Battisti et al. 2023). However, bears with plastic feeders around their necks have been observed in social networks (MyFWC 2021). Social networks are good tools for detecting plastic pollution in wildlife (Ayala et al. 2023). Future studies using iEcology (Jarić et al. 2020) could further address this problem in terrestrial mammals.

Citizen science was also used to identify wildlife interacting with plastic waste (Blettler and Mitchell 2021). Although the study identified mostly continental birds, there were two mammal species that made use of plastic: one was D. albiventris using plastic bags in burrows and the other species was Thylamy ssp. inside a bottle apparently using it as a shelter (Blettler and Mitchell 2021). The latter species was not considered in our review because it did not fall into the categories of ingestion or nest waste. Citizen science has also recently been employed in the study of microplastics in fecal samples of small mammals in the UK (Thrift et al. 2022). In addition, one study used social media to collect records of different animal groups that had interacted with Covid-19-associated debris (Ammendolia et al. 2022). In the aforementioned study, we did not consider a record of Ursus arctos horribilis because it was in a different category than in our review.

Among the species identified with interactions, we were able to identify two species listed as vulnerable (Tremarctosornatus and Leopardus tigrinus) under IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Table 1). However, we cannot confirm the potential effects of plastic on these endangered species given the limited information available. Future reports should include as much information as possible to assess level of potential damage by plastic waste (gastrointestinal perforation or obstruction, entanglement). Also, analysis of the plastics by spectroscopic methods (e.g., FTIR spectroscopy) will allow researchers to understand the possible sources of contamination and propose management measures based on this information.

Conclusions and future directions

From our study, we conclude that the incidence potential detrimental effects of plastic waste on terrestrial mammals in the Americas are currently unknown. Although some occasional records of wildlife ingesting plastics and using single-use plastic bags to build nests or burrows, records remain scarce. In the case of plastic waste in nests and/or burrows, not much has been studied and some of the key questions that remain include: Does the use of plastics help maintain an adequate temperature in low-temperature conditions? Does the use of plastics prevent conflicts with conspecifics or help avoid predators? Is there a preference for the choice of certain plastic materials in nests? What will be the toxicological effects of the use of plastics in nests? Does the choice of plastics occur mainly because of the scarcity of natural resources or high availability of plastic material? As these research efforts develop, future studies should aim to identify plastics and standardize detection protocols to be able to compare across taxa to 1) understand the magnitude of this problem, 2) pinpoint sources of contamination, and 3) recommend management actions (Zantis et al. 2021).

Interaction with plastics is a widely reported problem in marine ecosystems but has been documented in only a few countries in the Americas with terrestrial ecosystems albeit the existence of an established scientific research community. Thus, terrestrial researchers should also focus their attention on the impact of plastic waste, as this is where the greatest plastic loads occur (Jambeck et al. 2015). The study of plastic waste in terrestrial environments lands on at least five of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Malizia and Monmany-Garzia 2019), making it an important topic on the global agenda that needs to be better addressed. Finally, given the increase of human settlements in previously undeveloped areas, we predict that terrestrial mammal interactions with plastic waste will increase in the near future, reason why efforts to adequately address this issue calls for prompt research and management actions in terrestrial ecosystems.

Supplementary information

ESM 1: (24.9KB, xlsx)

Supplementary Table

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Cristel Cordero-Maldonado for her suggestions and comments and to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions to improve this document.

Author contribution

Félix Ayala: writing (original draft preparation), conceptualization, data curation, visualization, reviewing, and editing. Martín Zeta-Flores: investigation, conceptualization, and formal analysis. Sonia Ramos-Baldárrago: investigation, data curation, and formal analysis. Juan Tume-Ruiz: investigation and formal analysis. Antia Rangel-Vega: investigation and formal analysis. Eddy Reyes: investigation and formal analysis. Edgardo Quinde: investigation and formal analysis. Gabriel Enrique De-la-Torre: investigation, conceptualization, reviewing, and editing. Leticia Lajo-Salazar: investigation, conceptualization, reviewing, and editing. Susana Cárdenas-Alayza: investigation, conceptualization, reviewing, and editing.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Al Malki JS, Hussien NA, Tantawy EM, Khattab Y, Mohammadein A. Terrestrial biota as bioindicators for microplastics and potentially toxic elements. Coatings. 2021;11:1152. doi: 10.3390/coatings11101152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alves-Costa CP, Da Fonseca GAB, Christófaro C. Variation in the diet of the brown-nosed coati (Nasua nasua) in southeastern Brazil. J Mammal. 2004;85:478–482. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2004)085<0478:VITDOT>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambrosio Ferreira G. Wild neighbors: perception of residents of the environment of a fragment of Atlantic forest in urban areas on the presence and approximation of coatis (Nasua nasua) Int Int J Avian Wildl Biol. 2017;2:00039. doi: 10.15406/ijawb.2017.02.00039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ammendolia J, Saturno J, Bond AL, et al. Tracking the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic-related debris on wildlife using digital platforms. Sci Total Environ. 2022;848:157614. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aragona M, Setz EZF. Diet of the maned wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus (Mammalia: Canidae), during wet and dry seasons at Ibitipoca State Park, Brazil. J Zool. 2001;254:131–136. doi: 10.1017/S0952836901000620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnold G, Muller G, Ormerod SJ (2022) Field data support the transfer of microplastic to aerial insectivores via flying insects. 10.2139/ssrn.4250871
  7. Aximoff I, Carvalho WD, Romero D, et al. Unravelling the drivers of maned wolf activity along an elevational gradient in the Atlantic Forest, south-eastern Brazil. Mamm Biol. 2020;100:187–201. doi: 10.1007/s42991-020-00017-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ayala F, Castillo-Morales K, Cárdenas-Alayza S. Impact of marine debris recorded in a sympatric colony of otariids in the south coast of Peru. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;174:113281. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ayala F, Lajo-Salazar L, Cárdenas-Alayza S. White-naped squirrels use plastic waste for nest construction in agricultural areas of northern Peru. Int J Environ Stud. 2022;79:724–730. doi: 10.1080/00207233.2021.1950363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ayala F, Vizcarra JK, Castillo-Morales K et al (2023) From social networks to bird enthusiasts: reporting interactions between plastic waste and birds in Peru. Environ Conserv. 10.1017/S037689292300005X
  11. Azevedo-Santos VM, Marques LM, Teixeira CR, et al. Digital media reveal negative impacts of ghost nets on Brazilian marine biodiversity. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;172:112821. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bartolucci C, Guerisoli MD, Martin GM. Primer registro de basura en heces de puma (Puma concolor) en el Parque Nacional Los Glaciares, provincia de Santa Cruz, República Argentina. NotasSobreMamíferosSudam. 2020;2:001–008. doi: 10.31687/saremNMS.20.0.29. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Battisti C, Gippoliti S. Not just trash! Anthropogenic marine litter as a ‘charismatic threat’ driving citizen-based conservation management actions. Anim Conserv. 2018;22(4):311–313. doi: 10.1111/acv.12473. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Battisti C, Gallitelli L, Vanadia S, Scalici M. General macro-litter as a proxy for fishing lines, hooks and nets entrapping beach-nesting birds: implications for clean-ups. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023;186:114502. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Begall S, Gallardo MH. Spalacopus cyanus (Rodentia: Octodontidae): an extremist in tunnel constructing and food storing among subterranean mammals. J Zool. 2000;251:53–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb00592.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Beltrán-Ortiz EP, Cadena-Ortiz H, Brito J. Dieta del zorro de páramo Lycalopexculpaeus (Molina 1782) en un bosque seco interandino del norte de Ecuador. Mastozool Neotropical. 2017;24:6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Birochio D. Ecología trófica de Lycalopexgymnocercus en la región pampeana: un acercamiento inferencial al uso de los recursos PhD Thesis. Universidad Nacional del Sur; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  18. Blettler MCM, Mitchell C. Dangerous traps: macroplastic encounters affecting freshwater and terrestrial wildlife. Sci Total Environ. 2021;798:149317. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Blettler MCM, Abrial E, Khan FR, et al. Freshwater plastic pollution: recognizing research biases and identifying knowledge gaps. Water Res. 2018;143(15):416–424. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Blettler MCM, Gauna L, Andréault A, et al. The use of anthropogenic debris as nesting material by the greater thornbird, an inland–wetland-associated bird of South America. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27:41647–41655. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10124-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Bocchiglieri A, Bezerra RHS, Conceicao AM. First record of plastic ingestion by Cerdocyon thous (Carnivora, Canidae) in northeastern Brazil. NotasSobreMamíferosSudam. 2021;3:001–008. doi: 10.31687/saremNMS.21.7.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bucci K, Tulio M, Rochman CM. What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ecol Appl. 2020;30(2):e0244. doi: 10.1002/eap.2044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cáceres-Martínez CH, Acevedo-Rincón AA, Sánchez-Montaño LR. Registros de plásticos en la ingesta de Tremarctos ornatus (Carnívora: Ursidae) y de Nasuella olivacea (Carnívora: Procyonidae) en el Parque Nacional Natural Tamá, Colombia. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2015;86:839–842. doi: 10.1016/j.rmb.2015.07.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Campos CB. Dieta de carnívoros e uso do espaço por mamíferos de médio e grande porte em áreas de silvicultura do Estado de São Paulo. Brasil: Doutorado em Ecologia Aplicada, Universidade de São Paulo; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cirignoli S, Galliari CA, Pardiñas UFJ, et al. Mamíferos de la reserva valle del cuña pirú, misiones Argentina. Mastozool Neotropical. 2011;18:20. [Google Scholar]
  26. Correia L, Ribeiro-Brasil DRG, Garcia M et al (2022) Plastic waste in the Amazon Forest: what is the future of the ecosystem services provided by the local bats? 10.2139/ssrn.4270188
  27. Cypher BL, Kelly EC, Westall TL, Van Horn Job CL. Coyote diet patterns in the Mojave Desert: implications for threatened desert tortoises. Pac Conserv Biol. 2018;24:44. doi: 10.1071/PC17039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dobey S, Masters DV, Scheick BK, et al. Ecology of Florida black bears in the Okefenokee‐Osceola ecosystem. Wildl Monogr. 2005;158:1–41. doi: 10.2193/0084-0173(2005)158[1:EOFBBI]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Donnelly-Greenan EL, Nevins HM, Harvey JT. Entangled seabird and marine mammal reports from citizen science surveys from coastal California (1997–2017) Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;149:110557. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Eriksen M, Lusher A, Nixon M, Wernery U. The plight of camels eating waste. J AridEnviron. 2021;185:104374. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Espinosa-Graciano EM, García-Collazo R. Dieta estacional del coyote (canis latrans) en el parque estatal sierra de tepotzotlán, estado de méxico seasonal diet of the coyote (canis latrans) in the sierra tepotzotlan state park State Of Mexico. BIOCYT Biol Cienc Tecnol. 2017;10:10. [Google Scholar]
  32. Facure KG, do Nascimento Ramos V. Food habits of the thick-tailed opossum Lutreolina crassicaudata (Didelphimorphia, Didelphidae) in two urban areas of southeastern Brazil. Mamm Biol. 2011;76:234–236. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2010.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferreira GA, Nakano-Oliveira E, Genaro G, Lacerda-Chaves AK. Diet of the coati Nasua nasua (Carnivora: Procyonidae) in an area of woodland inserted in an urban environment in Brazil. Rev Chil Hist Nat. 2013;86:95–102. doi: 10.4067/S0716-078X2013000100008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Fuenzalida S, Carrasco L (2020) DIFERENCIAS EN LA INGESTA DE RESTOS DE ORIGEN ANTRÓPICO POR PARTE DE LYCALOPEX CULPAEUS Y LYCALOPEX GRISEUS ENTRE ZONAS DE ALTA Y BAJA AFLUENCIA DE PÚBLICO EN EL PARQUE NACIONAL RÍO CLARILLO. Brotes Científicos 10
  35. Gallitelli L, Battisti C, Pietrelli L, Scalici M. Anthropogenic particles in coypu (Myocastor coypus; Mammalia, Rodentia)’ faeces: first evidence and considerations about their use as track for detecting microplastic pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29:55293–55301. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21032-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. García C, Sandoval N, Silva A, et al. Consumo de residuos y desechos de origen antrópico por zorros (Lycalopexsp.) en la Reserva Nacional Río Clarillo, Región Metropolitana, Chile. Biodiversidata. 2018;6:27–32. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gheler-Costa C, Botero GP, Reia L, et al. Ecologia trófica de onça-parda (Puma concolor) em paisagem agrícola. Rev Em Agronegócio E Meio Ambiente. 2018;11:203. doi: 10.17765/2176-9168.2018v11n1p203-225. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Grigione MM, Burman P, Clavio S, et al. Diet of Florida coyotes in a protected wildland and suburban habitat. Urban Ecosyst. 2011;14:655–663. doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-0159-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hajibabaei M, Nazif S, TavanaeiSereshgi F. Life cycle assessment of pipes and piping process in drinking water distribution networks to reduce environmental impact. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;43:538–549. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hallanger IG, Ask A, Fuglei E. Occurrence of ingested human litter in winter artic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) from Svalbard Norway. Environ Pollut. 2022;303:119099. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. He D, Bristow K, Filipović V, et al. Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems: a scientometric analysis. Sustainability. 2020;12:8739. doi: 10.3390/su12208739. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoffmann CO, Gottschang JL. Numbers, distribution, and movements of a raccoon population in a suburban residential community. J Mammal. 1977;58(4):623–36. doi: 10.2307/1380010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Høiberg MA, Woods JS, Verones F. Global distribution of potential impact hotspots for marine plastic debris entanglement. Ecol Indic. 2022;135:108509. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108509. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jagiello Z, Dylewski Ł, Tobolka M, Aguirre JI. Life in a polluted world: a global review of anthropogenic materials in bird nests. Environ Pollut. 2019;251:717–722. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347:768–771. doi: 10.1126/science.1260352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Jankowiak L, Malecha AW, Krawczyk AJ. Garbage in the diet of carnivores in an agricultural area. Eur J Ecol. 2016;2(1):81–86. doi: 10.1515/eje-2016-0009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Jarić I, Correia RA, Brook BW, et al. iEcology: harnessing large online resource to generate ecological insights. Trends Ecol Evol. 2020;35(7):630–639. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jarrín- Porras E, Sandoval-Morejón D, Llumiquinga C, et al. Análisis morfológico, dietario y molecular de heces recolectadas en la Reserva Geobotánica Pululahua para la identificación del lobo de páramo (Lycalopexculpaeus, Molina 1782) Rev Vínculos. 2020;5:33. doi: 10.24133/vinculosespe.v5i3.1646. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jepsen EM, de Bruyn PJN. Pinniped entanglement in oceanic plastic pollution: a global review. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;145:295–305. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Katlam G, Prasad S, Pande A, Ramchiary N. Plastic ingestion in Asian elephants in the forested landscapes of Uttarakhand, India. J Nat Conserv. 2022;68:126196. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126196. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kawa IA, Fatima Q, Mir SA, Jeelani H, Manzoor S, Rashid F, et al. Endocrine disrupting chemical bisphenol A and its potential effects on female health. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2021;15:803–811. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2021.03.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Krug B. A comparison of coyote diets in urban and rural habitats in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Master of Science in Biology, Winthrop University; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kühn S, van Franeker JA. Quantitative overview of marine debris ingested by marine megafauna. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020;151:110858. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kumar V, Dhar P. Foreign body impactation in a captive sambar (Rusa unicolor) Vet World. 2013;6(1):49–50. doi: 10.5455/vetworld.2013.49-50. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Larson RN, Morin DJ, Wierzbowska IA, Crooks KR. Food habits of coyotes, gray foxes, and bobcats in a coastal southern California urban landscape. West North Am Nat. 2015;75:339–347. doi: 10.3398/064.075.0311. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Law KL, Starr N, Siegler TR, et al. The United States’ contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eabd0288. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd0288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lebreton L, Andrady A. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5:1–11. doi: 10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. 2022;163:107199. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Lippiatt S, Opfer S, Arthur C. Marine debris monitoring and assessment: recommendations for monitoring debris trends in the marine environment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R46; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lukasik VM, Alexander SM. Contributed paper for the Canadian Parks for Tomorrow: 40th Anniversary Conference. United States: University of Calgary; 2008. Coyote diet and conflict in urban parks in Calgary, Alberta; p. 10. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lukasik VM, Alexander SM. Spatial and temporal variation of coyote (Canis latrans) diet in Calgary, Alberta. Cities Environ. 2011;4:1–25. doi: 10.15365/cate.4182011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ma Y, Liu H, Wu J, et al. The adverse health effects of bisphenol A and related toxicity mechanisms. Environ Res. 2019;176:108575. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Maccracken JG. Coyote foods in a southern California suburb. Wildl Soc Bull. 1982;10:4. [Google Scholar]
  64. Malizia A, Monmany-Garzia AC. Terrestrial ecologists should stop ignoring plastic pollution in the Anthropocene time. Sci Total Environ. 2019;668:1025–1029. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Mammal Diversity Database. (2022). Mammal Diversity Database (1.10) [Data set]. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.7394529
  66. Manning DL. A comparative ecological study between coyotes (Canis latrans) in a protected and urban habitat: a closer look at enteric parasites and diet between Florida coyotes. Master of Science Thesis University of South Florida; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  67. Massara RL, de Oliveira Paschoal AM, Hirsch A, Chiarello AG. Diet and habitat use by maned wolf outside protected areas in eastern Brazil. Trop Conserv Sci. 2012;5:284–300. doi: 10.1177/194008291200500305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mattson DJ, Blanchard BM, Knight RR. Food habits of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977–1987. Can J Zool. 1991;69:1619–1629. doi: 10.1139/z91-226. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mohan K, Singh M. Altered habitats, altered behaviours: use of plastic in nest building by Indian palm squirrel. Curr Sci. 2018;114:963. doi: 10.18520/cs/v114/i05/963-963. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group T Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals Int Med. 2009;151(4):264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Montanelli S (2001) Notassobreecología alimentaria, densidadrelativa e impactoturístico en loscarnívoros del Parque Nacional Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina. Tesis presenrada para obtener el grado de Doctor en Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires
  72. Monteiro G, Fleck J, Kluge M, et al. Adenoviruses of canine and human origins in stool samples from free-living pampas foxes (Lycalopexgymnocercus) and crab-eating foxes (Cerdocyonthous) in São Francisco de Paula, Rio dos Sinos basin. Braz J Biol. 2015;75:11–16. doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.0313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Morey PS, Gese EM, Gehrt S. Spatial and temporal variation in the diet of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area. Am Midl Nat. 2007;158:147–161. doi: 10.1674/0003-0031(2007)158[147:SATVIT]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Murray M, Cembrowski A, Latham ADM, et al. Greater consumption of protein-poor anthropogenic food by urban relative to rural coyotes increases diet breadth and potential for human-wildlife conflict. Ecography. 2015;38:1235–1242. doi: 10.1111/ecog.01128. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. MyFWC [MyFWC Florida Fish and Wildlife] (November 15, 2021) Bear rescue An adult bear was reported wandering around with a plastic container on its head. Our bear biologists, law [video] [Publication]. Facebook. https://web.facebook.com/watch/?v=1860464940821646
  76. Nessi A, Winkler A, Tremolada P, et al. Microplastic contamination in terrestrial ecosystems: a study using barn owl (Tyto alba) pellets. Chemosphere. 2022;308:136281. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Núñez R, Miller B, Lindzey F. Food habits of jaguars and pumas in Jalisco, Mexico. J Zool. 2000;252:373–379. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb00632.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Osman H. Plastics in agricultural mulch film. Encycl Mater Plast Polym. 2022;4:92–102. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-820352-1.00242-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Peterson M, Baglieri M, Mahon K, et al. The diet of coyotes and red foxes in southern New York. Urban Ecosyst. 2021;24:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11252-020-01010-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Priyanka M, Dey S. Ruminal impaction due to plastic materials - an increasing threat to ruminants and its impact on human health in developing countries. Vet World. 2018;11:1307–1315. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2018.1307-1315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Rivera AM, Strauss KW, Zundert AV, Mortier E. The history of peripheral intravenous catheters: how little plastic tubes revolutionized medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Belgica. 2005;56(3):271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Rodrigues DH, Calixto E, Cesario CS, et al. Feeding ecology of wild brown-nosed coatis and garbage exploration: a study in two ecological parks. Animals. 2021;11:2412. doi: 10.3390/ani11082412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Rodrigues DHD, Boere V, Cesario CS, et al. Potentially harmful materials in the feces of wild ring-tailed coatis (Nasua nasua) and health implications. Ciênc Rural. 2022;52:e20210108. doi: 10.1590/0103-8478cr20210108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rodríguez Y, Vandeperre F, Santos MR, Herrera L, Parra H, Deshpande A, Bjorndal KA, Pham CK. Litter ingestion and entanglement in green turtles: an analysis of two decades of stranding events in the NE Atlantic. Environ Pollut. 2022;298:118796. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Santana EM, Armstrong JB. Food habits and anthropogenic supplementation in coyote diets along an urban-rural gradient. Hum-Wildl Interact. 2017;11:156–166. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sanz-Lázaro C, Casado-Coy N, Beltrán-Sanahuja A. Biodegradable plastics can alter carbon and nitrogen cycles to a greater extent than conventional plastics in marine sediment. Sci Total Environ. 2021;756:143978. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Silva JA, Talamoni SA. Diet adjustments of maned wolves, Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger) (Mammalia, Canidae), subjected to supplemental feeding in a private natural reserve, southeastern Brazil. Rev Bras Zool. 2003;20:339–345. doi: 10.1590/S0101-81752003000200026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Smith BL, Lindsey DG. Bear-People Conflicts: Proceedings Of A Symposium On Management Strategies. Canada: Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; 1989. Grizzly bear management concerns associated with a northern mining town garbage dump; pp. 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  89. Technau B, Unnsteinsdóttir ER, Schaafsma FL, Kühn S. Plastic and other anthropogenic debris in Artic fox (Vulpes lagopus) faeces from Iceland. Polar Biol. 2022;45(8):1403–1413. doi: 10.1007/s00300-022-03075-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Thompson RC, Swan SH, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS. Our plastic age. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009;364:1973–1976. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Thrift E, Porter A, Galloway TS, et al. Ingestion of plastics by terrestrial small mammals. Sci Total Environ. 2022;842:156679. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Tirelli FP, de Freitas TRO, Michalski F, et al. Using reliable predator identification to investigate feeding habits of Neotropical carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora) in a deforestation frontier of the Brazilian Amazon. Mammalia. 2019;83:415–427. doi: 10.1515/mammalia-2018-0106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Toto B, Refosco A, Dierkes J, Kögel T. Efficient extraction of small microplastic particles from rat feed and feces for quantification. Heliyon. 2023;9(1):e12811. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. van Bijsterveldt CEJ, van Wesenbeeck BK, Ramadhani S, et al. Does plastic waste kill mangroves? A field experiment to assess the impact of macro plastics on mangrove growth, stress response and survival. Sci Total Environ. 2021;756:143826. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Wang J, Peng C, Li H, et al. The impact of microplastic-microbe interactions on animal health and biogeochemical cycles: a mini-review. Sci Total Environ. 2021;773:145697. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Welle F, Franz R. Microplastic in bottled natural mineral water – literature review and considerations on exposure and risk assessment. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2018;35:2482–2492. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2018.1543957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Xie Y, Li Y, Feng Y, et al. Inhalable microplastics prevails in air: exploring the size detection limit. Environ Int. 2022;162:107151. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Xu B, Liu F, Cryder Z, et al. Microplastics in the soil environment: Occurrence, risks, interactions and fate – a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2020;50:2175–2222. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2019.1694822. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Yong C, Valiyaveettil S, Tang B. Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics in mammalian systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1509. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Zantis LJ, Carroll EL, Nelms SE, Bosker T. Marine mammals and microplastics: a systematic review and call for standardisation. Environ Pollut. 2021;269:116142. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Zolotova N, Kosyreva A, Dzhalilova D, et al. Harmful effects of the microplastic pollution on animal health: a literature review. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13503. doi: 10.7717/peerj.13503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Zúñiga AH, Rau JR, Sandoval R, Fuenzalida V. Landscape use and food habits of the chilla fox ( Lycalopex griseus, Gray) and domestic dog ( Canis lupus familiaris ) in a peri-urban environment of south-central Chile. Folia Oecologica. 2022;49:159–167. doi: 10.2478/foecol-2022-0018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ESM 1: (24.9KB, xlsx)

Supplementary Table

Articles from Environmental Science and Pollution Research International are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES