Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

Full length article

Macro-and/or microplastics as an emerging threat effect crop growth and

soil health
Haihe Gao a, b, 1, Qin Liu a, b, 1, Changrong Yan a, b, *, Karen Mancl c, Daozhi Gong a, Jiuxing He a, b,
Xurong Mei a, **
a
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, P.R. China
b
Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Residual Pollution in Agricultural Film, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100081, P.R. China
c
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

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

Keywords: Pollution caused by macro- and microplastics has become a global concern that is ubiquitous throughout the
Macro- and microplastics environment. The reported impacts of macro-and/or microplastics in soil were mixed without uniform conclu­
Meta-analysis sions. Here, we quantitatively analyzed the effects of macro-and microplastics on crop growth and soil health
Random forest analysis
using a global meta-analysis, based on 2,226 paired field/ laboratory measurements from 141 papers published
Crop growth
Soil health
in the literature. The results show that the unabated accumulation of macro-and/or microplastics negatively
impacts crop growth and soil health. Overall, there were no significant effects on crop-soil properties of mac­
roplastics between 30 and 240 kg/ha excluding soil water infiltration rate, but the crop-soil properties were
negatively impacted with time and macroplastics over 240 kg/ha excluding soil olsen-potassium. There were no
significant effect on crop-soil animal properties of microplastics between 0.01 and 100 mg/kg excluding weight,
but the crop-soil animal properties impacts were negative with time and microplastics over 10,000 mg/kg
excluding plant chlorophyll. Using a random forest model (RF) trained with crop/ animal and macro-and/or
microplastics factors, we found that the response of crop growth and soil health to macro-and/or micro­
plastics was related to plastic content, plastic type, plastic size and crop/ animal type variables. Altogether, our
findings of macro-and microplastics impacts on crop growth and soil health are crucial to policy-making related
to agricultural sustainable development under global change.

1. Introduction gained public attention (Alimi et al., 2018; Rochman and Hoellein,
2020). Research has found that the abundance of macro-and/or micro­
Plastic pollution is one of the major challenges facing humanity plastics in soil ecosystems was closely related to long-term inputs to
today. The existence and persistence of plastic pollution in the envi­ agricultural production, which included: the use of plastic film mulch,
ronment has attracted the attention of scientists and the public. Plastics’ the application of organic fertilizer and sewage sludge, the use of irri­
convenience has led to increasing demand worldwide, and is now one of gation water, atmospheric sedimentation, and among others (Dris et al.,
the most successful and widely used manufactured products of the last 2016; Mintenig et al., 2017; Piehl et al., 2018; Sanchez, 2020).
century (Choi et al., 2020). Global plastic production increased from 2 As an important agricultural production technology to improve soil
× 106 t in 1950 to 3.8 × 108 t in 2015 and is expected to reach 3.3 × temperature, reduce soil water evaporation and suppress weed growth,
1010 t by 2050, and during the same period 79% of all plastic was dis­ plastic mulch was used in agriculture as early as the 1950s (Kasirajan
carded into landfills or directly into nature, primarily soil (Geyer et al., and Ngouajio, 2012). As the largest user of plastic film mulch in the
2017; Lin et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Macroplastics (≥ 5 mm) and world(NBS, 2020), China’s plastic residue survey showed the amount of
microplastics (< 5 mm) in terrestrial and soil ecosystems have now plastic residues in plastic film mulched cropland soils has ranged from

* Corresponding author at: Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, P.R.
China.
** Co-corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yanchangrong@caas.cn (C. Yan), meixurong@caas.cn (X. Mei).
1
Haihe Gao and Qin Liu contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106549
Received 22 May 2022; Received in revised form 24 June 2022; Accepted 12 July 2022
Available online 30 July 2022
0921-3449/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

0.2 to 317.4 kg/ha, with a mean value of 34.0 kg/ha in China (Zhang leaves and nitrogen content (Machado et al., 2019). Furthermore,
et al., 2020). The highest macroplastic abundance measured was 545 microplastics could also enter the body through ingestion and inhalation
kg/ha in a cotton field in Xinjiang of China that has used plastic film for and could be absorbed by organs, potentially affecting health, such as
more than 20 years (Dong et al., 2015). In addition, the highest micro­ damaging cells or causing inflammation and immune responses
plastics abundance measured was 6.2 × 105 particle /kg in vegetable (Vethaak and Legler, 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Therefore, it is imperative
plots of China (Zhou et al., 2019b). But in other countries and regions to understand the impacts of macro-and/or microplastics on crop
outside China, plastic residue in farmland soil caused by plastic film growth and soil health.
mulching was small (Haas et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2017). With the rise Here, we investigate the effects of macro-and/or microplastics on
of waste resource utilization in recent years, organic fertilizers like crop growth and soil health using a systematic study of available data.
composted or fermented straw, livestock and poultry manure, and The objectives are (1) to quantify the relative effects of macroplastics to
sludge are widely applied by farmers to agricultural soil (Weithmann terrestrial crops and soil physiochemical properties; (2) to quantify the
et al., 2018), bringing macro-and microplastics into agricultural soil concentration, type and particle size of microplastics and their effects
(Hopkins et al., 2016). Although most macro-and microplastics could be and importance on terrestrial crops and soil animal; and (3) to correlate
removed before composting, visible macro-and microplastics were macro-and/or microplastics to crop growth and soil health impacts.
found in organic fertilizer products at 2.4–180 mg/kg in Bonn, Germany
(Blasing and Amelung, 2018) and even as high as 1,200 mg/kg in 2. Methods summary
Slovenia(Gajst, 2016). However, the total amount of soil microplastics
after application of sludge as organic fertilizer could reach 6.3 × 104 to 2.1. Data collection
43 × 104 t per year in Europe (Willen et al., 2017; Zubris and Richards,
2005), 4.4 × 104 to 30 × 104 t per year in North America and 2.8 × 103 An extensive literature survey was conducted before December 2021
to 1.9 × 104 t per year in Australia(Ng et al., 2018; Nizzetto et al., 2016), on the impact of macro-and/or microplastics on crop growth and soil
due to the difficulty in removing microplastics in conventional sludge health with no restriction on publication year. Data were collected from
pre-treatment methods. Studies have also found microplastics in lakes the Web of Science (http://accesss.webofknowledge.com/), Google
and rivers that varied widely, up to 103 to 109 times(Dris et al., 2015; Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) and the China National Knowl­
Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015). The Los Angeles River and Lake St. Clair in edge Infrastructure (http://www.cnki.net/). The search terms included
North America(Moore et al., 2011; Zbyszewski et al., 2014), Rhine ‘plastic’ or ‘macroplastics’ or ‘microplastics’ or ‘nanoplastics’ or ‘resid­
Rivers and Tamar Estuary in Europe(Sadri and Thompson, 2014; Wag­ ual plastic film’ or ‘plastic particles’ in the article title, abstract, or
ner et al., 2014), Lake Hovsgol, Mongolia and Three Gorges Reservoir in keywords. This search produced a large dataset, but only standard data
Asia(Di and Wang, 2018; Free et al., 2014) contained microplastics with available remained. The following criteria were used to select appro­
0 to 1146,418 items /m3. Microplastics were also found in groundwater priate studies: (1) the simulation experiments must contain the location,
with between 0 and 7 items /m3 in the north-western part of Germany experimental duration, crop or animal species; (2) the content of mac­
and 0 to 15,200 items /m3 in the state of Illinois in the United States roplastics and the particle size or concentration of microplastics had to
(Mintenig et al., 2019; Panno et al., 2019). The microplastics abundance be reported in the publications; (3) at least one effect on crop growth and
in raw sewage water and treated wastewater was found to be up to 3160, soil health (crop and soil animal growth, water use efficiency, and soil
000 and 125,000 items /m3, respectively, much higher than the micro­ physiochemical properties) was used in the analysis; and (4) either the
plastics abundance in surface water and groundwater(Gatidou et al., sample included mean and sample sizes of the variables or was repeated
2019). Atmospheric sedimentation is also one of the ways macro-and/or at least once or had a test duration of at least two years. The original data
microplastics enter the soil environment. Plastic atmospheric fallout in were obtained from the papers numerically from the tables, texts, sup­
Paris ranged from 2 to 355 particles/m2/day, with particle sizes above 1, porting information or extracted from the figures with the Get-Data
000 μm accounting for 50% (Dris et al., 2016). In Binhai City, China, Graph Digitizer version 2.24 software. When retrieved articles met our
macro-and/or microplastics were also found in the atmosphere, with research criteria but lacked effective data, we contacted the authors to
microplastics accounting for more than 50% (Zhou et al., 2017). obtain useful data in some cases. In the current study, the soil concen­
With continuous input and degradation of plastics onto farmland, the tration of macroplastics was 30–2,700 kg/ha and microplastics was
abundance of microplastics will increase. The impact of macro-and/or 0.01–640,000 mg/kg. After the query results were carefully checked, in
microplastics as an emerging threat to crop growth and soil health re­ total 2,226 comparisons from 141 studies conducted met our selection
mains uncertain. The reported negative effects of exposure to macro- criteria for the analysis. The results of effects of macro- and micro­
and/or microplastics include: (1) reducing species and activity of soil plastics on crop growth and soil health are based on the above con­
microorganisms and animal (Besseling et al., 2013; Machado et al., centrations and the detailed information and relevant literatures were
2018; Mbachu et al., 2021); (2) damaging soil structure, which can contained in supplement Table S1.
subsequently change the physical and chemical properties of soil(Ji The following information was extracted from each selected study
et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019); (3) retarding roots and that met the above criteria: polymer type of macro-and/or microplastics
shoots growth and plant development(Jiang et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2014; (PE, polyethylene; PS, polystyrene; PP, polypropylene; PLA, polylactic
Machado et al., 2019); and (4) changing the carbon cycling and affecting acid; PC, polycarbonate; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; PMMA, Poly (methyl
greenhouse gas emissions(Gong et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2014). Further, methacrylate); EVA, ethylene-vinyl acetate compolymer; EPDM,
microplastics had more negative effects on crop growth than macro­ ethylene propylene diene monomer; PF, polyester fiber; PA, polyamide;
plastics implying that sustainable development of agriculture will be and unknown polymer). We only analyzed the effects of macroplastics
severely hindered (Qi et al., 2018). However, some researchers reported (PE) on crop growth and soil health due to a lack of relevant data; the
that the exposure to macro-and/or microplastics did not cause plant, soil plants (wheat, cotton, rice, maize, cucumber, soybean, lettuce, Arabi­
animal or soil damage and can even provide a more favorable envi­ dopsis, plantain etc.); the soil animal (earthworm, soil springtail,
ronment for the growth of plants and soil animal (Chae and An, 2018; terrestrial snail nematode, enchytraeid, isopod etc.); the shape (particle,
Lian et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020a). For example, field application of fiber and fragment), size and concentration of macro-and/or micro­
pure polyethylene microplastic has no significant short-term effect on plastics used. According to the biological significance of each study’s
soil biological quality and function (Brown et al., 2022). Two percent impact of macro-and/or microplastics on crop growth and soil health,
high-density polyethylene microplastics also had no significant impact the response to biological endpoints were classified. Variables in crop
on physical and chemical properties of soil (Machado et al., 2018). But growth effects in macro-and/or microplastics included crop yield, plant
polyamide microplastics significantly increase the biomass of plant height, root length, biomass, and germination rate. Crop water use

2
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

efficiency was found only found for macroplastics and plant chlorophyll considered significant if confidence intervals did not overlap with zero
content (chlorophyll A and chlorophyll B) was found only found for and randomization tests yielded P < 0.05; otherwise the effects were not
microplastics. Soil physiochemical properties in macroplastics included considered significant between treatments (Jat et al., 2020).
soil organic matter, soil total nitrogen, soil olsen-phosphorus, soil olsen- Since journals tend to publish only certain types of studies, such as
potassium, soil porosity, soil moisture, and soil bulk density. The those with statistically significant results, publication bias may have a
response of variables in crop water use efficiency in macroplastics and strong impact on the conclusions of the meta-analysis. In the present
plant chlorophyll content in microplastics. Finally, soil animal variables study, an analysis of Rosenberg’s Fail-Safe Number (N*) was added to
in microplastics included reproduction, survival, and change in weight assess the Publication Bias (Figs. 1–4). If the N*was above 5n+10, where
at end of experiment. n is the sample size of the effect sizes, the meta-analysis results did not
We included studies involving experiments in the field or in pot or have Publication Bias (Gao et al., 2019b). In addition, we drew the
other container with dimensions, which met the above selection criteria frequency distribution of the effect sizes to reflect the distribution reg­
and provided sufficient sample size for further analysis. Moreover, ularities of individual studies. The frequency of effect size was also fitted
macro- or microplastics were added directly to the soil to assess the to a Gaussian distribution function to test the homogeneity of observed
short-term effects of macro- or microplastics on plant growth and soil data (Figs. S1–4) (Liu et al., 2017). These operations were performed
health in all experiments. Meanwhile, all studies testing the effects of using Origin 2021 and Excel 2016 software. Meanwhile, the study used
macro-and/or microplastics were reevaluated by biological endpoints to the sensitivity analyzes to test and verify robustness of our meta-analysis
determine whether they contained sufficient information and minimized process. The same meta-analysis procedure was carried out after
effects coming from different biological endpoints to compare the effects excluding the non-variances data sets and conducted the same
reported between studies (Jacob et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021). If a bio­ meta-analysis procedure by removing outlier studies, and compared the
logical endpoint was tested in less than three studies, then it would be results with those of the original meta-analysis (Gao et al., 2019a; Li
excluded from the analysis. If the study reported biological endpoints et al., 2018).
from different exposure durations, the effect sizes were averaged over
time. When the soil physicochemical properties of multiple soil depths 2.3. Random forest analysis
are reported, the overall treatment effects were calculated for the entire
soil tillage layer. Meanwhile, when the microplastic content in the hy­ We adopted RF to capture the complex relationship between macro-
droponic and potted plant was tested, the microplastic content was and/or microplastic changes and crop growth and soil health as well as
calculated when it was not directly given in the literature. In addition, the interactions with other explanatory variables. RF is a machine
cereal crops and cash crops were divided along with soil animal into learning method with preventing overfitting and high prediction accu­
microfauna (2–100 um of body width), mesofauna (100 um–2 mm of racy by building numerous trees based on the observation dataset
body width), and macrofauna (2–20 mm of body width) to study the (Breiman, 2001) and has been widely applied for predicting variation of
impact of plastic on different types of crops and soil animals. The effects crop yields, soil carbon stock, GHGs emissions (Li et al., 2020; Liu et al.,
of microplastic particle size (nanometer, micrometer, millimeter) were 2019; Zhou et al., 2019a). The importance of variables can be directly
considered. We also considered the effects of macroplastic content obtained from the RF model training based on their contributions to the
(30–240, 240–480, 480–960, 960–2,700 kg/ha) and microplastic con­ tree splits using the randomForest” package in the R environment
tent (0.01–100, 100–10,000, 10,000–640,000 mg/kg). (v3.2.2; https://www.r-project.org/). The partial dependence between
the explanatory variables and a set of dependent features were con­
ducted to analyze the response of crop growth and soil health change
2.2. Meta-analysis with macro-and/or microplastics to single important variables. In RF
training, the natural logarithm-transformed RR is used as the response
A global meta-analysis was adopted to analyze the responses of variable, and the explanatory variables include Macro-and/or micro­
samples in crop growth and soil health between the plastic residues and plastic content, crop/animal type, microplastic type, microplastic par­
no-plastic residues treatments. As a metric for the effect of plastic resi­ ticle size, and macro-and/or microplastic content is only continuous
dues on crop growth and soil health, the natural log of the response ratio variables. The best RF model for prediction, we further adopted a
were used(Chen and Chen, 2021). This metric started with an estimate leave-one-out method (Siewert, 2018; Tramontana et al., 2015).
of the relative change in effect of the plastic residues (Am ) and no-plastic Meanwhile, the significance of each predictor on the response variables
residues (An ) treatments in crop growth and soil health, and logarithmic was assessed with the “rfPermute” package and cross-validated R2
transforms were performed to improve its statistical behavior. To values were assessed with 500 permutations of the response variable, by
explain the effects, the results were calculated as(Chen and Chen, 2021): using the “A3” package.
S = {exp[ln(Am /An )] − 1} × 100%. Standard deviation (SD) of the
selected variables was extracted from the papers, but converted to SD for 3. Results
data providing standard error (SE) and sample size (n) or Variance (Var),
√̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
using SD = SE × n or SD = Var. Additionally, if a study did not 3.1. Responses of crop-soil properties to macroplastics
report SD, SE or Var, we calculated it using the average coefficient of
variation of the dataset where the SD was reported, and multiplied by Macroplastics had significant negative effects on crop growth and
the reported mean(Groenigen et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2020). A soil health. Overall, macroplastics significantly decreased crop yield
weighted meta-analysis was adopted to reduce estimated impact of SD, (6.3%), water use efficiency (WUE, 7.7%), germination (8.4%), plant
to improve its statistical significance and the probability of the confi­ height (9.5%), root length (10.3%), plant biomass (11.4%) in crop
dence interval near the cumulative mean effect size of each classification properties (Fig. 1a). Moreover, macroplastics also significantly
variable by using METAWIN 2.1 to calculate bias-correct the 95% con­ decreased soil organic matter (8.0%), soil total nitrogen (13.1%), soil
fidence intervals (9,999 iterations). Weighted (W) by the inverse of the olsen-P (17.0%), soil olsen-K (6.7%), soil porosity (5.4%), soil moisture
pooled variance, using Wv = 1/(varm /A2m + varn /A2n ), with Am and An (8.9%), soil water (SW) infiltration rate (23.8%) and increased soil bulk
as before, and varm and varn as their respective variance. Meanwhile, density (4.6%) in soil physiochemical properties (Fig. 1b).
between-groups heterogeneity was assessed using randomization pro­ In terms of different crop types, macroplastics could significantly
cedures based on 9,999 replications, which is more adaptable to affect crop-soil properties excluding plant biomass (Fig. 2). Macro­
ecological synthesis compared to the fixation procedures (Pittelkow plastics had greater impact on cash crops than cereal crops in terms of
et al., 2015; Shang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2020b). Results were yield, germination, plant height and root length (P < 0.05), and the

3
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Fig. 1. Responses of crop (a) and soil properties (b) to macroplastics. Dots with error bars denote the mean values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the error
bar does not overlap with zero, the response is considered significant (*P < 0.05). The numbers of observations are also shown. WUE, water use efficiency; P,
phosphorus; K, potassium; SW, soil water. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 2. Responses of crop (a) and soil properties (b) to macroplastics in different crop types. Cereal crop (○) and cash crop (□). Dots with error bars denote the mean
values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). There is significance between cereal crop and cash crop (*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01). If the error bar does not overlap
with zero, the response is considered significant (*P < 0.05). The numbers of observations are also shown. WUE, water use efficiency; P, phosphorus; K, potassium;
SW, soil water. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

response of root length (− 13.0%) to cash crops was greatest. But mac­ negative effects on crop growth and soil health (P < 0.05). Overall,
roplastics only significantly decreased plant biomass (12.1%) in cash microplastics significantly decreased germination (11.4%), plant height
crops and had no significant impacts on cereal crops (Fig. 2a). In addi­ (9.5%), root length (6.8%), plant biomass (10.5%), plant chlorophyll
tion, macroplastics also had greater impact on cash crops than cereal (2.2%) in crop properties (Fig. 3a). In addition, microplastics signifi­
crops in terms of soil total nitrogen, soil olsen-P, soil olsen-K and soil cantly decreased reproduction (12.8%), survival (5.1%) and weight
bulk density (P < 0.05), but macroplastics had no significant effects (4.0%) in soil animal properties (Fig. 3b).
between cash crops and cereal crops on soil organic matter, soil porosity, In terms of different crop/ soil animal types, microplastics could
soil moisture and SW infiltration rate (Fig. 2b). significantly affect crop-soil properties excluding plant biomass, plant
chlorophyll and animal weight (Fig. 4). We found microplastics had
significant impacts on germination, plant biomass plant chlorophyll
3.2. Responses of crop-soil properties to microplastics between cash crops and cereal crops and survival and weight between
microfauna, mesofauna and macrofauna animal (P < 0.05), and had the
The effects of microplastics on crop growth and soil health was biggest impact on cash crop and microfauna animal (Fig. 4a, b). But
similar to the summary effect (Fig. 3). Microplastics also had significant

4
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Fig. 3. Responses of crop (a) and soil animal properties (b) to microplastics. Dots with error bars denote the mean values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the
error bar does not overlap with zero, the response is considered significant (*P < 0.05). The numbers of observations are also shown. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 4. Responses of crop (a) and soil animal properties (b) to microplastics in different crop/animal types. Cereal crop (○), cash crop (□), microfauna animal (⋄),
mesofauna animal (▽) and macrofauna animal (△). Dots with error bars denote the mean values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). There is significance
between cereal crop and cash crop, or microfauna, mesofauna and macrofauna animal (*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01). If the error bar does not overlap with zero, the
response is considered significant (*P < 0.05). The numbers of observations are also shown. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

microplastics only significantly decreased plant biomass (21.9%) and different microplastic particle sizes had no significant difference in
plant chlorophyll (3.6%) in cash crops and had no significant impact on reproduction and survival (Fig. 5). In particular, the response of soil
cereal crops (Fig. 4a). In addition, microplastics had influence on animal’s weight to nanometer microplastics was greatest (-7.1%).
microfauna by decreasing weight (10.8%), excluding weight (95% CI, In terms of microplastic types, the results showed that different types
− 14.6 to +2.0) in mesofauna and weight (95% CI, − 7.5 to +0.6) in of microplastics had significantly different degrees of impact on crop-
macrofauna animal (Fig. 4b). soil animal properties (Figs. 6, 7). Overall, PE microplastics had the
Considering different microplastic particle sizes (nanometer, micro­ greatest influence on plant biomass (-12.9%) and animal reproduction
meter and millimeter), microplastics could also significantly affect crop- (-23.2%). PS microplastics had the greatest influence on germination
soil properties excluding plant chlorophyll, animal survival and weight. (-25.0%), root length (-9.1%). The response of crop’s height to PC
In addition, microplastics of millimeter could be even greater than microplastics was greatest (-20.3%). The response of soil animal’s sur­
nanometer or micrometer microplastics in crop growth (P < 0.05), but vival and weight to PP microplastics was greatest (-7.3% and -8.2%). PE

5
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Fig. 5. Responses of crop (a) and soil animal properties (b) to different microplastic particle sizes. Nanometer microplastics (○), micrometer microplastics (□) and
millimeter microplastics (△). Dots with error bars denote the mean values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). There is significance between cereal crop and cash
crop, or microfauna, mesofauna and macrofauna animal (*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01). If the error bar does not overlap with zero, the response is considered significant
(*P < 0.05). The numbers of observations are also shown. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

Fig. 6. Responses of crop growth to different microplastic types. a-e, Responses of germination (a), plant height (b), root length (c), plant biomass (d) and chlorophyll
(e). Dots with error bars denote the mean values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the error bar does not overlap with zero, the response is considered
significant (*P < 0.05). The numbers of observations are also shown. PE, polyethylene; PS, polystyrene; PP, polypropylene; PLA, polylactic acid; PC, polycarbonate;
PVC, polyvinyl chloride; PMMA, Poly (methyl methacrylate); EVA, ethylene-vinyl acetate compolymer; PA, polyamide; EPDM, ethylene propylene diene monomer.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

microplastics significantly decreased all crop-soil properties. Similar to 3.3. Importance of explanatory variables
the effects of PE microplastics, PS microplastics also had negative effects
on crop growth and soil health, decreasing germination, plant height, Among the explanatory variables, macroplastic content was a more
root length and plant biomass of crop by and reproduction, survival, and important variable than crop type in the RF model (Fig. 8a, c). Crop-soil
weight of soil animal. In addition, microplastics of PP only had negative properties responses to macroplastic content were positive as indicated
effects on crop’s germination, plant height, root length and soil animal’s by the partial dependence of the crop-soil properties response ratios
survival, weight. Microplastics of PLA only decreased germination and (RRs) on macroplastic content. In terms of crop growth, the dependence
plant chlorophyll of the crop. Correspondingly, microplastics of PC only of germination was the largest, reaching 31.4%. In terms of soil health,
decreased germination and plant height of crop. Microplastics of PVC the dependence of soil olsen-K was the largest, reaching 15.4%.
only decreased plant height of crop, and microplastics of EVA only In addition, we also found that crop growth and soil health were
decreased germination of crop. associated with added macroplastic content (Fig. 8b, d). The general
trend was an inverse relationship between crop-soil properties response
variable and the content of macroplastics (P < 0.05), except for soil total
nitrogen and soil bulk density. Hence, the higher the macroplastic

6
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Fig. 7. Responses of crop growth to different microplastic types. a-c, Responses of reproduction (a), survival (b), and weight (c). Dots with error bars denote the
mean values and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the error bar does not overlap with zero, the response is considered significant (*P < 0.05). The numbers of
observations are also shown. PE, polyethylene; PS, polystyrene; PP, polypropylene; PLA, polylactic acid; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; PA, polyamide; PF, polyester fiber.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 8. Variables importance in the trained random forest (RF) model (a, c) and partial dependence of crop-soil properties changes with macroplastics addition (b, d).
Crop type (▅) and macroplastic content (▅). Significance levels are as follows: *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01. WUE, water use efficiency; P, phosphorus; K, potassium; SW,
soil water.

7
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

content, the greater negative impact on the crop-soil properties. In terms The higher the microplastic content, the greater the negative impact on
of crop growth, there were significant correlations between the response the crop properties (P < 0.05). Moreover, there was a negative linear
variables of crop properties and soil macroplastic content (P < 0.01), correlation between microplastic content and its effect on soil animal’s
excluding WUE (P < 0.05). In terms of soil health, the response variables reproduction (P < 0.01), but there were no significant linear correlations
of soil olsen-P, soil olsen-K, soil porosity and soil moisture were signif­ between microplastic content and its effect on soil animal’s survival or
icantly correlated with soil macroplastic content (P < 0.01), and soil weight (P > 0.05). In addition, we also found there were no significant
organic matter and SW infiltration rate were significantly correlated effects on crop-soil animal properties of microplastics between 0.01 and
with soil macroplastic content (P < 0.05). Moreover, there were no 100 mg/kg excluding weight, but decreased significantly with increased
significant effect on crop-soil properties of macroplastics between 30 time and microplastic content over 10,000 mg/kg excluding plant
and 240 kg/ha excluding SW infiltration rate, but the crop-soil proper­ chlorophyll. When the microplastics between 100 and 10,000 mg/kg,
ties decreased significantly with increased time and microplastic content microplastics only significantly decreased plant height, root length,
over 240 kg/ha excluding soil olsen-potassium (Figs. S5, S6). plant chlorophyll and survival (Figs. S7, S8).
Among the explanatory variables, microplastic type was the most
important variable in the RF model of crop growth, excluding germi­ 4. Discussion
nation (Fig. 9a). Meanwhile, crop-soil animal properties response to
microplastic type and microplastic content were positive as indicated by The goal of this global meta-analysis was to evaluate the crop growth
the partial dependence of the crop-soil animal properties RRs on and soil health responses to different conditions of macro-and/or
microplastic type and microplastic content excepting root length microplastics. The effects of macro-and/or microplastics on plants, soil
(Fig. 9a, c), and crop properties response to microplastics were positive animal and soil physical and chemical properties were quantified (Zhou
as indicated by the partial dependence of the crop properties RRs on et al., 2021). The global meta-analysis revealed that yield, water use
crop type excepting plant chlorophyll. We found only germination efficiency, germination, root length, plant height and biomass of crops,
(12.5%), plant height (13.6%) and plant biomass (11.3%) were positive reproduction and survival of soil animal decreased to different degrees
as indicated by the partial dependence of the crop properties RRs on with increased macro-and/or microplastic contents, which was similar
microplastic particle size. But only reproduction (13.4%) was positive as to the conclusion of some studies (Gao et al., 2019a; Zhang et al., 2020;
indicated by the partial dependence of the soil animal properties RRs on Zhou et al., 2021). However, the research found that the yield of maize
soil animal type (Fig. 9c). did not decrease when the content of macroplastics was under 720
Similar to the effects of macroplastics on crop growth and soil health, kg/ha, but the yield was decreased through obstruction of root and
inverse relationships were found between most crop-soil animal prop­ growth and development when the content of macroplastics was above
erties response variables and the content of microplastics (Fig. 9b, d). 720 kg/ha(Xie et al., 2007). It was also found that the cotton yield

Fig. 9. Variables importance in the trained random forest (RF) model (a) and partial dependence of crop-soil animal properties changes with microplastics addition
(b). Crop/ soil animal type (▅), microplastics content (▅), microplastics type (▅) and microplastics particle size (▅). Significance levels are as follows: *P < 0.05 and
**P < 0.01.

8
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

decreased significantly due to the reduction of nitrogen use efficiency macro-and/or microplastics were used as vectors of other co-
when the macroplastic content reached 675 kg/ha (Gong et al., 2015), contaminants for control treatment. Although this meta-analysis had
and whereas microplastics up to 35% had negligible effect or even concluded that macro-and/or microplastics were harmful to crop and
boosted the growth of the seeds of red pepper and tomato (Kim et al., soil animal, the model crop and soil animal types studied were still
2003). The study investigated the effects of microplastics on the limited and the biological data remain insufficient to adequately assess
behavior of earthworms, including tunnel formation and ingestion, and the risks of macro-and/or microplastics. Therefore, scientists in the field
the highest dose tested (1.5% weight in soil) did not have a significant can consider future research in many aspects when testing macro-and/or
effect (Huerta Lwanga et al., 2016). microplastics: (1) test the polymer type, the size and shape of macro-
The negative impacts on crop growth may be related to changes in and/or microplastics in agriculture to enhance adaptability; (2) should
soil physicochemical properties and/or the activity of soil animal. The have clear and standardized descriptions of their own materials and
meta-analysis results showed, soil property changes of an 8.0% reduc­ methods, such as the polymer type, the size and the original shape of
tion in soil organic matter, 13.1% reduction in soil total nitrogen, 17.0% macro-and/or microplastics; (3) pay more attention to the effects of
reduction in soil olsen-P, 6.7% reduction in soil olsen-K, 5.4% reduction macro-and/or microplastics on different types of soil animal, soil mi­
in soil porosity, 8.9% reduction in soil moisture, 23.8% reduction in SW croorganisms, and soil physicochemical properties, as well as on the
infiltration rate and 4.6% increase in soil bulk density of soil physi­ whole ecosystem; (4) enhance the study of the impact of long-term
ochemical properties, and 12.8% reduction in reproduction, 5.1% macro-and/or microplastics on plants, animals and ecosystems.
reduction in survival and 4.0% reduction in weight of soil animal More attention should be paid to the negative impact of macro-and/
(Fig. 1b and Fig. 3b). Both the physical structure and fertility of the soil or microplastics pollution and how to solve these pollution problems.
were negatively affected by the accumulation of macroplastics and The important measure to control the growth of plastic in the soil
decreased with increasing macroplastics, and some studies supported environment is to reduce the use of plastic products. Some countries in
this conclusion(Jiang et al., 2017; Zeng et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2018). Europe and the Americas have formulated laws and regulations on
Meanwhile, it was found that the accumulation of microplastics in soil plastic product source control and achieved limited results. Overall, the
also damaged soil physicochemical properties, such as soil aeration restrictions on plastic bags in Africa and Asia were more extensive, and
water permeability and soil organic carbon and nitrogen cycling(Leh­ most of them were banned or required different bag thicknesses. Euro­
mann et al., 2019; Machado et al., 2019, 2018). These changes of soil pean countries have mostly adopted taxation policies and few plastic
physicochemical properties explained the decline in the quality of soil restrictions at the national level are found in North and South America
environment including reduced soil microbial biomass and enzymatic (Convery et al., 2007; Dikgang et al., 2012a, b; Dikgang and Visser,
activity(Paco et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016), as well as the number and 2012; Wagner, 2017; Xanthos and Walker, 2017). Few international
activity of soil animals(Ju et al., 2019; Prendergast-Miller et al., 2019). laws and regulations control plastic production. In recent years, biode­
The decline in the quality of the farmland soil environment may lead to gradable plastic has gained attention to replace plastic in the world, but
the decrease of seeding quality and germination rate. It may go on to biodegradable plastic has not been applied on a large scale, because the
affect plant growth and crop nutrient uptake. The reduction of nutrient cost of biodegradable plastic is high, its quality needs to be improved
input can in turn reduce the soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity, and whether its application produces secondary pollution. Based on the
soil animal numbers and activity(Asadishad et al., 2018; Sun et al., current situation we propose the following priorities for future research:
2018; Yang et al., 2018). Further changes in the soil environment can (1) increasing public awareness and action to reduce the use of dispos­
eventually change the regulatory ability of the whole crop’s growth and able plastics; (2) assessing and formulating plastic policy and regula­
soil health, and it appears to be leading to a reduction in crop yield. So tions; (3) exploring effective separation and detection methods of
far, a critical point of reversible changes in crop growth and soil health microplastics in the soil; and (4) strengthening the recycling and treat­
for macro-and/or microplastics concentration has not been identified. ment of plastic waste and the development of alternative materials.
However, it was found that the addition of microplastics can promote
the accumulation of soil enzyme activity and soluble nutrients in soil 5. Conclusions
(Liu et al., 2017), and improve the bioavailability of zinc and increase
the contact between earthworms and zinc as a medium(Hodson et al., This present work aims to quantify the global effects of macro-and/or
2017), but the underpinning mechanisms of these change needed to be microplastics on crop growth and soil health for the studied crops. To
further explored. this end, a dataset from 141 relevant research papers published before
Moreover, the meta-analysis indicated that the negative effects of December 2021 were constructed. We concluded that, the unabated
macro-and/or microplastics on cash crop properties could be even accumulation of macro-and/or microplastics negatively impacts crop
greater than cereal crops and microplastics had more negative effects on growth and soil health using a global meta-analysis and a random forest
survival and weight in soil microfauna than in mesofaunas and macro­ model. Overall, when the content of macroplastics was between 30 kg/
fauna, possibly due to different adaptation to external environmental ha and 2,700 kg/ha, macroplastics affected crop growth on an average
changes among different crops and soil animal (Lozano and Rillig, 2020; of -6.3% to -11.4% and soil health on an average of -5.4% to -23.8%
Selonen et al., 2020). Small microplastics particles may be more toxic excluding soil bulk density +4.6%. When the content of microplastics
because they had larger surface area than large particle and more readily was between 0.01 mg/kg- 640,000 mg/kg, microplastics affected crop
penetrate membranes and accumulate in tissues and cells (Lu et al., growth on an average of -2.2% to -11.4% and soil health on an average
2016; Shen et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2018). Millimeter microplastics were of -4.0% to -12.8%.
found to have more negative effects than nanometer and micrometer The extent of impact depended on crop/ soil animal type, plastic
microplastics, possibly due to polymer type, the size of soil animal and type, plastic size and plastic content. These results also indicated that the
their ability to ingest microplastics, or their different experimental negative effects of macro-and/or microplastics on cash crop properties
exposure times or pathway (Fueser et al., 2019; Lei et al., 2018; Zhao could be even greater than cereal crops and microplastics had more
et al., 2021). Meanwhile, since this global meta-analysis did not consider negative effects on survival and weight in soil microfauna animal. In
other parameters, such as the shape of macro-and/or microplastic, only terms of microplastic particle sizes, millimeter size microplastics could
the short-term effects of macro- or microplastics on plant growth and have an even greater impact than nanometer or micrometer micro­
soil health, caution should be taken in interpreting the differences plastics on crop growth. In terms of microplastic types, the results
affected between the different taxonomic groups. showed that different types of microplastics had significantly different
It has long been suggested that macro-and/or microplastics have less degrees of impact on crop-soil animal properties, excluding plant chlo­
or even negligible effects on the growth of crops and soil animal and rophyll. Among the explanatory variables, macroplastic content was a

9
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

more important variable than crop type in the RF model, and the inverse Chae, Y., An, Y.J., 2018. Current research trends on plastic pollution and ecological
impacts on the soil ecosystem: a review. Environ. Pollut. 240, 387–395.
relationship between crop-soil properties response variable and the
Chen, X., Chen, H.Y.H., 2021. Plant mixture balances terrestrial ecosystem C:N:P
content of macroplastics, excluding soil total nitrogen and soil bulk stoichiometry. Nat. Commun. 12 (1), 4562.
density. In addition, crop-soil animal properties response to microplastic Choi, Y.R., Kim, Y.N., Yoon, J.H., Dickinson, N., Kim, K.H., 2020. Plastic contamination
type and microplastic content were positive as indicated by the partial of forest, urban, and agricultural soils: a case study of Yeoju City in the Republic of.
Korea. J. Soils Sediments 21 (5), 1962–1973.
dependence of the crop-soil animal properties RRs on microplastic type Convery, F., McDonnell, S., Ferreira, S., 2007. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons
and microplastic content. The inverse correlation was also found be­ from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 38 (1), 1–11.
tween microplastic content and its effects on crop-soil animal properties, Di, M., Wang, J., 2018. Microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the Three Gorges
Reservoir. China. Sci. Total Environ. 616-617, 1620–1627.
excluding the root length of crop and the survival of soil animal. Alto­ Dikgang, J., Leiman, A., Visser, M., 2012a. Analysis of the plastic-bag levy in South
gether, these results of macro-and/or microplastics impact on crop Africa. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 66, 59–65.
growth and soil health are crucial to policy-making related to agricul­ Dikgang, J., Leiman, A., Visser, M., 2012b. Elasticity of demand, price and time: lessons
from South Africa’s plastic-bag levy. Appl. Econ. 44 (26), 3339–3342.
tural sustainable development under global change. Dikgang, J., Visser, M., 2012. Behavioural response to plastic bag legislation in Boswana.
South African J. Econ. 80 (1), 123–133.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Dong, H., Liu, T., Han, Z., Sun, Q., Liu, R., 2015. Determining time limits of continuous
film mulching and examining residual effects on cotton yield and soil properties.
J. Environ. Biol. 36 (3), 677–684.
Haihe Gao, Xurong Mei, Changrong Yan and Qin Liu conceived Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., Tassin, B., 2016. Synthetic fibers in
the study, all authors planned the analysis, Haihe Gao and Jiuxing He atmospheric fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull.
104 (1–2), 290–293.
provided data, Haihe Gao and Qin Liu performed the analysis, Haihe
Dris, R., Imhof, H., Sanchez, W., Gasperi, J., Galgani, F., Tassin, B., Laforsch, C., 2015.
Gao, Qin Liu, Karen Mancl and Daozhi Gong prepared the initial draft Beyond the ocean: contamination of freshwater ecosystems with (micro-)plastic
and all authors edited and revised the manuscript. particles. Environ. Chem. 12 (5), 539.
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R.C., Aldridge, D.C., 2015. Microplastics in freshwater
systems: a review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and
Declaration of Competing Interest prioritisation of research needs. Water Res 75, 63–82.
Free, C.M., Jensen, O.P., Mason, S.A., Eriksen, M., Williamson, N.J., Boldgiv, B., 2014.
High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Mar. Pollut.
The authors declare that they have no known competing interests or
Bull. 85 (1), 156–163.
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work Fueser, H., Mueller, M.T., Weiss, L., Hoss, S., Traunspurger, W., 2019. Ingestion of
reported in this paper. microplastics by nematodes depends on feeding strategy and buccal cavity size.
Environ. Pollut. 255, 113227.
Gajst, T., 2016. Analysis of Plastic Residues in Commercial Compost. University of Nova
Data availability Gorica, Nova Gorica.
Gao, H., Yan, C., Liu, Q., Ding, W., Chen, B., Li, Z., 2019a. Effects of plastic mulching and
Data will be made available on request. plastic residue on agricultural production: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 651,
484–492.
Gao, H., Yan, C., Liu, Q., Li, Z., Yang, X., Qi, R., 2019b. Exploring optimal soil mulching
to enhance yield and water use efficiency in maize cropping in China: a meta-
Acknowledgements analysis. Agric. Water Manage 225, 105741.
Gatidou, G., Arvaniti, O.S., Stasinakis, A.S., 2019. Review on the occurrence and fate of
microplastics in sewage treatment plants. J. Hazard. Mater. 367, 504–512.
This research was supported by the Zero-Waste Agricultural Mulch Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
Films for Crops in China project (Newton Fund: Newton UK-China made. Sci. Adv. 3 (7), e1700782.
Gong, D., Hao, W., Mei, X., Gao, X., Liu, Q., Caylor, K., 2015. Warmer and wetter soil
Agritech Challenge 2017; No. 2017YFE0121900), NERC GCRF Plastics stimulates assimilation more than respiration in rainfed agricultural ecosystem on
proposal call: Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing the China Loess Plateau: the role of partial plastic film mulching tillage. PLoS ONE
Countries (Do agricultural microplastics undermine food security and 10 (8), e0136578.
Groenigen, K.J., Osenberg, C.W., Hungate, B.A., 2011. Increased soil emissions of potent
sustainable development in less economically developed countries? NE/
greenhouse gases under increased atmospheric CO2. Nature 475 (7355), 214–216.
V005871/1), National Key Research and Development Program of China Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M., 2015. How Circular is the global
(No. 2021YFD1700700) and Research on planting technology and in­ economy? An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the
tegrated model of rational utilization of water resources in arid area European Union and the world in 2005. J. Ind. Eco. 19 (5), 765–777.
Hodson, M.E., Duffus-Hodson, C.A., Clark, A., Prendergast-Miller, M.T., Thorpe, K.L.,
(2020ZD0005). We gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers 2017. Plastic bag derived-microplastics as a vector for metal exposure in terrestrial
for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Invertebrates. Environ Sci Technol 51 (8), 4714–4721.
Hopkins, D.W., Wheatley, R.E., Coakley, C.M., Daniell, T.J., Mitchell, S.M., Newton, A.C.,
Neilson, R., 2016. Soil carbon and nitrogen and barley yield responses to repeated
Supplementary materials additions of compost and slurry. J. Agric. Sci. 155 (1), 141–155.
Huerta Lwanga, E., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters, P., Salanki, T., van der Ploeg, M.,
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in Besseling, E., Koelmans, A.A., Geissen, V., 2016. Microplastics in the terrestrial
ecosystem: implications for lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae).
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106549. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (5), 2685–2691.
Jacob, H., Besson, M., Swarzenski, P.W., Lecchini, D., Metian, M., 2020. Effects of virgin
References micro- and nanoplastics on fish: trends, meta-analysis, and perspectives. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 54 (8), 4733–4745.
Jat, M.L., Chakraborty, D., Ladha, J.K., Rana, D.S., Gathala, M.K., McDonald, A.,
Alimi, O.S., Budarz, F.J., Hernandez, L.M., Tufenkji, N., 2018. Microplastics and
Gerard, B., 2020. Conservation agriculture for sustainable intensification in South
nanoplastics in aquatic environments: aggregation, deposition, and enhanced
Asia. Nat. Sustain. 3 (4), 336–343.
contaminant transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (4), 1704–1724.
Ji, Z., Huang, Y., Feng, Y., Johansen, A., Xue, J., Tremblay, L.A., Li, Z., 2021. Effects of
Asadishad, B., Chahal, S., Akbari, A., Cianciarelli, V., Azodi, M., Ghoshal, S., Tufenkji, N.,
pristine microplastics and nanoplastics on soil invertebrates: a systematic review and
2018. Amendment of agricultural soil with metal nanoparticles: effects on soil
meta-analysis of available data. Sci. Total Environ. 788, 147784.
enzyme activity and microbial community composition. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52
Jiang, X., Liu, W., Wang, E., Zhou, T., Xin, P., 2017. Residual plastic mulch fragments
(4), 1908–1918.
effects on soil physical properties and water flow behavior in the Minqin Oasis,
Besseling, E., Wegner, A., Foekema, E.M., van den Heuvel-Greve, M.J., Koelmans, A.A.,
northwestern China. Soil Tillage Res. 166, 100–107.
2013. Effects of microplastic on fitness and PCB bioaccumulation by the lugworm
Ju, H., Zhu, D., Qiao, M., 2019. Effects of polyethylene microplastics on the gut microbial
Arenicola marina (L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (1), 593–600.
community, reproduction and avoidance behaviors of the soil springtail, Folsomia
Blasing, M., Amelung, W., 2018. Plastics in soil: analytical methods and possible sources.
candida. Environ. Pollut. 247, 890–897.
Sci. Total Environ. 612, 422–435.
Kasirajan, S., Ngouajio, M., 2012. Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for
Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45 (1), 5–32.
agricultural applications: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32 (2), 501–529.
Brown, R.W., Chadwick, D.R., Thornton, H., Marshall, M.R., Bei, S., Distaso, M.A.,
Kim, M.N., Shin, J.H., Im, S.S., 2003. Effect of poly(l-Lactide) and poly(Butylene
Bargiela, R., Marsden, K.A., Clode, P.L., Murphy, D.V., Pagella, S., Jones, D.L., 2022.
Succinate) on the growth of red pepper and tomato. J. Polym. Environ. 11 (3),
Field application of pure polyethylene microplastic has no significant short-term
101–105.
effect on soil biological quality and function. Soil Biol. Biochem. 165, 108496.

10
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Kim, Y.N., Berger, S., Kettering, J., Tenhunen, J., Haas, E., Kiese, R., 2014. Simulation of Qi, Y.L., Yang, X., Pelaez, A.M., Lwanga, H.E., Beriot, N., Gertsen, H., Garbeva, P.,
N2O emissions and nitrate leaching from plastic mulch radish cultivation with Geissen, V., 2018. Macro- and micro- plastics in soil-plant system: effects of plastic
LandscapeDNDC. Ecol. Res. 29 (3), 441–454. mulch film residues on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth. Sci. Total Environ. 645,
Lehmann, A., Fitschen, K., Rillig, M.C., 2019. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing the 1048–1056.
effect of microplastic on soil aggregation. Soil Syst. 3 (1), 21. Rochman, C.M., Hoellein, T., 2020. The global odyssey of plastic pollution. Science 368
Lei, L., Liu, M., Song, Y., Lu, S., Hu, J., Cao, C., Xie, B., Shi, H., He, D., 2018. Polystyrene (6496), 1184–1185.
(nano)microplastics cause size-dependent neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and other Sadri, S.S., Thompson, R.C., 2014. On the quantity and composition of floating plastic
adverse effects in Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ. Sci. Nano 5 (8), 2009–2020. debris entering and leaving the Tamar Estuary, Southwest England. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
Li, Q., Li, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., 2018. Mulching improves yield and water- 81 (1), 55–60.
use efficiency of potato cropping in China: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 221, Sanchez, C., 2020. Fungal potential for the degradation of petroleum-based polymers: an
50–60. overview of macro- and microplastics biodegradation. Biotechnol. Adv. 40 (19),
Li, W., Ciais, P., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D., Popp, A., Arneth, A., Di Fulvio, F., 107501.
Doelman, J., Humpenöder, F., Harper, A.B., Park, T., Makowski, D., Havlik, P., Selonen, S., Dolar, A., Jemec Kokalj, A., Skalar, T., Parramon Dolcet, L., Hurley, R., Van
Obersteiner, M., Wang, J., Krause, A., Liu, W., 2020. Mapping the yields of Gestel, C.A.M., 2020. Exploring the impacts of plastics in soil - The effects of
lignocellulosic bioenergy crops from observations at the global scale. Earth Syst. Sci. polyester textile fibers on soil invertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 700, 134451.
Data 12 (2), 789–804. Shang, Z., Abdalla, M., Xia, L., Zhou, F., Sun, W., Smith, P., 2021. Can cropland
Lian, J., Wu, J., Xiong, H., Zeb, A., Yang, T., Su, X., Su, L., Liu, W., 2020. Impact of management practices lower net greenhouse emissions without compromising yield?
polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat Glob. Chang. Biol. 2, 1–14.
(Triticum aestivum L.). J. Hazard. Mater. 385, 121620. Shen, M., Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y., Song, B., Zeng, G., Hu, D., Wen, X., Ren, X., 2019. Recent
Lin, D., Yang, G., Dou, P., Qian, S., Zhao, L., Yang, Y., Fanin, N., 2020. Microplastics advances in toxicological research of nanoplastics in the environment: a review.
negatively affect soil fauna but stimulate microbial activity: insights from a field- Environ. Pollut. 252, 511–521.
based microplastic addition experiment. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287 (1934), Siewert, M.B., 2018. High-resolution digital mapping of soil organic carbon in permafrost
20201268. terrain using machine learning: a case study in a sub-Arctic peatland environment.
Liu, H., Yang, X., Liu, G., Liang, C., Xue, S., Chen, H., Ritsema, C.J., Geissen, V., 2017a. BGD 15, 1663–1682.
Response of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese loess Sun, M., Ye, M., Jiao, W., Feng, Y., Yu, P., Liu, M., Jiao, J., He, X., Liu, K., Zhao, Y.,
soil. Chemosphere 185, 907–917. Wu, J., Jiang, X., Hu, F., 2018. Changes in tetracycline partitioning and bacteria/
Liu, J., Bu, L., Zhu, L., Luo, S., Chen, X., Li, S., 2014. Optimizing plant density and plastic phage-comediated ARGs in microplastic-contaminated greenhouse soil facilitated by
film mulch to increase maize productivity and water-use efficiency in semiarid areas. sophorolipid. J. Hazard. Mater. 345, 131–139.
Agron. J. 106 (4), 1138–1146. Tramontana, G., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G., Tomelleri, E., Papale, D., 2015. Uncertainty
Liu, Q., Liu, B., Zhang, Y., Hu, T., Lin, Z., Liu, G., Wang, X., Ma, J., Wang, H., Jin, H., analysis of gross primary production upscaling using Random Forests, remote
Ambus, P., Amonette, J.E., Xie, Z., 2019. Biochar application as a tool to decrease sensing and eddy covariance data. RSEnv 168, 360–373.
soil nitrogen losses (NH3 volatilization, N2 O emissions, and N leaching) from Vethaak, A.D., Legler, J., 2021. Microplastics and human health. Science 371, 672–674.
croplands: options and mitigation strength in a global perspective. Glob. Chang Biol. Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez-Muñoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S.,
25 (6), 2077–2093. Fries, E., Grosbois, C., Klasmeier, J., Marti, T., Rodriguez-Mozaz, S., Urbatzka, R.,
Liu, S., Lin, F., Wu, S., Ji, C., Sun, Y., Jin, Y., Li, S., Li, Z., Zou, J., 2017b. A meta-analysis Vethaak, A.D., Winther-Nielsen, M., Reifferscheid, G., 2014. Microplastics in
of fertilizer-induced soil NO and combined NO+N2O emissions. Glob. Chang. Biol. freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know. Environ. Sci. Eur.
23 (6), 2520–2532. 26 (1), 1–9.
Lozano, Y.M., Rillig, M.C., 2020. Effects of microplastic fibers and drought on plant Wagner, T.P., 2017. Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste
communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (10), 6166–6173. Manage. 70, 3–12.
Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Deng, Y., Jiang, W., Zhao, Y., Geng, J., Ding, L., Ren, H., 2016. Uptake Wang, J., Coffin, S., Sun, C., Schlenk, D., Gan, J., 2019. Negligible effects of microplastics
and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) and toxic on animal fitness and HOC bioaccumulation in earthworm Eisenia fetida in soil.
effects in liver. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (7), 4054–4060. Environ. Pollut. 249, 776–784.
Machado, A.A.S., Lau, C.W., Kloas, W., Bergmann, J., Bachelier, J.B., Faltin, E., Wang, J., Lv, S., Zhang, M., Chen, G., Zhu, T., Zhang, S., Teng, Y., Christie, P., Luo, Y.,
Becker, R., Gorlich, A.S., Rillig, M.C., 2019. Microplastics can change soil properties 2016. Effects of plastic film residues on occurrence of phthalates and microbial
and affect plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (10), 6044–6052. activity in soils. Chemosphere 151, 171–177.
Machado, A.A.S., Lau, C.W., Till, J., Kloas, W., Lehmann, A., Becker, R., Rillig, M.C., Weithmann, N., Möller, J.N., Löder, M.G.J., Piehl, S., Laforsch, C., Freitag, R., 2018.
2018. Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environ. Sci. Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic into the environment. Sci.
Technol. 52 (17), 9656–9665. Adv. 4 (4), eapp8060.
Mbachu, O., Jenkins, G., Kaparaju, P., Pratt, C., 2021. The rise of artificial soil carbon Willen, A., Junestedt, C., Rodhe, L., Pell, M., Jonsson, H., 2017. Sewage sludge as
inputs: reviewing microplastic pollution effects in the soil environment. Sci. Total fertiliser - environmental assessment of storage and land application options. Water
Environ. 780, 146569. Sci. Technol. 75 (5–6), 1034–1050.
Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, I., Loder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2017. Identification of Xanthos, D., Walker, T.R., 2017. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution
microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array- from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res. 108, 365–372. 118 (1–2), 17–26.
Mintenig, S.M., Loder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2019. Low numbers of Xie, H.E., Yong, S.L., Yang, S., Wang, J.J., Xiu, F., Wu, X.F., Wu, Z.X., 2007. Influence of
microplastics detected in drinking water from ground water sources. Sci. Total residual plastic film on soil structure crop growth and development in fields. J. Agro.
Environ. 648, 631–635. Environ. Sci. 26, 153–156.
Moore, C.J., Lattin, G.L., Zellers, A.F., 2011. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing Yang, X., Bento, C.P.M., Chen, H., Zhang, H., Xue, S., Lwanga, E.H., Zomer, P.,
from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. J. Integr. Ritsema, C.J., Geissen, V., 2018. Influence of microplastic addition on glyphosate
Coast. Zon. Manage. 11, 65–73. decay and soil microbial activities in Chinese loess soil. Environ. Pollut. 242,
NBS, 2020. China Agricultural Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing, China. 338–347.
Ng, E.L., Huerta Lwanga, E., Eldridge, S.M., Johnston, P., Hu, H.W., Geissen, V., Chen, D., Zbyszewski, M., Corcoran, P.L., Hockin, A., 2014. Comparison of the distribution and
2018. An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Sci. degradation of plastic debris along shorelines of the Great Lakes. North America. J.
Total Environ. 627, 1377–1388. Great Lakes Res. 40 (2), 288–299.
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., Langaas, S., 2016. Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics Zeng, L., Zhou, Z., Shi, Y., 2013. Environmental problems and control ways of plastic film
of urban origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (20), 10777–10779. in agricultural production. Appl. Mech. Mater. 295-298, 2187–2190.
Paco, A., Duarte, K., da Costa, J.P., Santos, P.S.M., Pereira, R., Pereira, M.E., Freitas, A.C., Zhang, D., Ng, E.L., Hu, W., Wang, H., Galaviz, P., Yang, H., Sun, W., Li, C., Ma, X., Fu, B.,
Duarte, A.C., Rocha-Santos, T.A.P., 2017. Biodegradation of polyethylene Zhao, P., Zhang, F., Jin, S., Zhou, M., Du, L., Peng, C., Zhang, X., Xu, Z., Xi, B.,
microplastics by the marine fungus Zalerion maritimum. Sci. Total Environ. 586, Liu, X., Sun, S., Cheng, Z., Jiang, L., Wang, Y., Gong, L., Kou, C., Li, Y., Ma, Y.,
10–15. Huang, D., Zhu, J., Yao, J., Lin, C., Qin, S., Zhou, L., He, B., Chen, D., Li, H., Zhai, L.,
Panno, S.V., Kelly, W.R., Scott, J., Zheng, W., McNeish, R.E., Holm, N., Hoellein, T.J., Lei, Q., Wu, S., Zhang, Y., Pan, J., Gu, B., Liu, H., 2020. Plastic pollution in croplands
Baranski, E.L., 2019. Microplastic contamination in karst groundwater systems. threatens long-term food security. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26 (6), 3356–3367.
Groundwater 57 (2), 189–196. Zhang, M., Dong, B., Qiao, Y., Yang, H., Wang, Y., Liu, M., 2018. Effects of sub-soil plastic
Piehl, S., Leibner, A., Loder, M.G.J., Dris, R., Bogner, C., Laforsch, C., 2018. Identification film mulch on soil water and salt content and water utilization by winter wheat
and quantification of macro- and microplastics on an agricultural farmland. Sci. Rep. under different soil salinities. Field Crops Res. 225, 130–140.
8 (1), 17950. Zhao, T., Lozano, Y.M., Rillig, M.C., 2021. Microplastics increase soil PH and decrease
Pittelkow, C.M., Liang, X., Linquist, B.A., van Groenigen, K.J., Lee, J., Lundy, M.E., van microbial activities as a function of microplastic shape, polymer type, and exposure
Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R.T., van Kessel, C., 2015. Productivity limits and time. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 1–14.
potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517 (7534), 365–368. Zheng, P., Zhang, K., Zhang, S., Wang, R., Wang, H., 2017. The door-to-door recycling
Prendergast-Miller, M.T., Katsiamides, A., Abbass, M., Sturzenbaum, S.R., Thorpe, K.L., scheme of household solid wastes in urban areas: a case study from Nagoya, Japan.
Hodson, M.E., 2019. Polyester-derived microfibre impacts on the soil-dwelling J. Clean. Prod. 163, S366–S373.
earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Pollut. 251, 453–459. Zhou, C., Lu, C., Mai, L., Bao, L., Liu, L., Zeng, E., 2021a. Response of rice (Oryza sativa
Qi, Y., Beriot, N., Gort, G., Huerta Lwanga, E., Gooren, H., Yang, X., Geissen, V., 2020. L.) roots to nanoplastic treatment at seedling stage. J. Hazard. Mater. 401, 123412.
Impact of plastic mulch film debris on soil physicochemical and hydrological Zhou, J., Wen, Y., Marshall, M.R., Zhao, J., Gui, H., Yang, Y., Zeng, Z., Jones, D.L.,
properties. Environ. Pollut. 266, 115097. Zang, H., 2021b. Microplastics as an emerging threat to plant and soil health in
agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 787, 147444.

11
H. Gao et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 186 (2022) 106549

Zhou, Q., Tian, C., Luo, Y., 2017. Various forms and deposition fluxes of microplastics Zhou, Z., Wang, C., Luo, Y., 2020b. Meta-analysis of the impacts of global change factors
identified in the coastal urban atmosphere. Chin. Sci. Bull. 62 (33), 3902–3909. on soil microbial diversity and functionality. Nat. Commun. 11 (1), 3072.
Zhou, Y., Hartemink, A.E., Shi, Z., Liang, Z., Lu, Y., 2019a. Land use and climate change Zhu, B.K., Fang, Y.M., Zhu, D., Christie, P., Ke, X., Zhu, Y.G., 2018. Exposure to
effects on soil organic carbon in North and Northeast China. Sci. Total Environ. 647, nanoplastics disturbs the gut microbiome in the soil oligochaete Enchytraeus
1230–1238. crypticus. Environ. Pollut. 239, 408–415.
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2019b. Characterization of microplastics and the association Zhu, F., Zhu, C., Wang, C., Gu, C., 2019. Occurrence and ecological impacts of
of heavy metals with microplastics in suburban soil of central China. Sci. Total microplastics in soil systems: a review. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 102 (6),
Environ. 694, 133798. 741–749.
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2020a. Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics and cadmium Zubris, K.A., Richards, B.K., 2005. Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of
on the earthworm Eisenia foetida. J. Hazard. Mater. 392, 122273. sludge. Environ. Pollut. 138 (2), 201–211.

12