BioRisk 18: 133-143 (2022) Apeer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/biorisk.18.87433 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS & RK lO R IS k https://biorisk.pensoft.net The first evidence of microplastics in plant-formed fresh-water micro-ecosystems: Dipsacus teasel phytotelmata in Slovakia contaminated with MPs Katarina Fogasova', Peter Manko!, Jozef Obona' | Department of Ecology, Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences, University of Presov, 17. novembra 1, SK — 081 16 Presov, Slovakia Corresponding author: Katarina FogaSova (katarina.fogasova@smail.unipo.sk) Academic editor: Josef Settele | Received 25 June 2022 | Accepted 17 August 2022 | Published 30 August 2022 Citation: Fogasova K, Manko P, Obonia J (2022) The first evidence of microplastics in plant-formed fresh-water micro-ecosystems: Dipsacus teasel phytotelmata in Slovakia contaminated with MPs. BioRisk 18: 133-143. https://doi. org/10.3897/biorisk. 18.87433 Abstract Tiny pieces of plastic, or microplastics, are one of the emerging pollutants in a wide range of different ecosystems. However, they have, thus far, not been confirmed from phytotelmata — specific small water- filled cavities provided by terrestrial plants. The authors confirmed microplastics (141 um — 2.4 mm long fibres of several colour and blue and orange fragments with diameters of 9-81 xm) in quantities from 101 to 409 per ml in Dipsacus telmata from two different periods. The phytotelmata, therefore, appear to be possible indicators of current and future microplastic pollution of the environment. However, further research is needed to obtain accurate information and verify the methodology for possible assessment of the local environmental burden of microplastics. Keywords plants, plastics, transport, telmata Introduction Microplastics (MPs) are becoming an important problem (e.g. Andrady 2011; Cole et al. 2011; Weber et al. 2021 etc.). They have been recorded in a wide range of different ecosystems, from terrestrial to aquatic (e.g. de Souza Machado et al. 2018; Weber et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2021) and even in food, bottled drinking water and the organs of various organisms, including humans (e.g. Carbery et al. 2018; Jin et al. 2021; Copyright Katarina Fogasovd et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 134 Katarina Fogasova et al. / BioRisk 18: 133-143 (2022) Ragusa et al. 2021). Most studies of MPs, or SAMPs (atmospheric MPs), are more focused on the marine and freshwater ecosystems (e.g. Panebianco et al. 2019; Weber et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2021) and we still do not have enough information about their impact on organisms (e.g. Al-Jaibachi et al. 2019). To the authors’ knowledge, the presence of MPs has not yet been confirmed in phytotelmata, a wide range of generally non-permanent aquatic microecosystems in plants (e.g. Kitching 2000; Kanasova et al. 2020). Amongst the few phytotelmata in the temperate zone of Europe are dendrotelmata and phytotelmata provided by the teasel Dipsacus (e.g. Williams 1996, 2006; Kitching 2000; Obona et al. 2011; Obona and Svitok 2012; Kanasova 2017; KanaSova et al. 2020). Teasel phytotelmata (Fig. 1) are a relatively common, but overlooked aquatic microcosm with a very short-term occurrence of only 3 to 4 months (KanaSova et al. 2020). Dipsacus teasel has character- istic opposite leaves that grow on the stem above each other in several levels (the oldest near the soil surface and the youngest are the highest), clasping the stem and forming cup-like structures that collect water (water axil or telmata). The main purpose of the sampling was to describe the seasonal dynamics of organ- isms living in teasel telmata. The detection of MPs in these samples was accidental and unexpected. The objective of this paper is to describe the first documented evidence of MPs in phytotelmata. Materials and methods Water samples with sediment from phytotelmata on teasel Dipsacus came from two ar- eas of eastern Slovakia (see Map. 1) near the villages of Demjata (49°6'58.578231"N, 21°18'47.3838982"E, Fig. 2) and KapuSsany (49°3'12.6212568"N, 21°20'16.680325"E). The samples were obtained from five plants at each of two sampling localities at the end of each of five 14-day long collection periods from all levels of leaf axils at examined plants. The collection was carried out using standard methods (see Kanasova et al. 2020) using sterile containers. Therefore, contamination of the samples from an- other source is clearly excluded. These 50 sampled Dipsacus individuals provided 171 functioning phytotelmata. Altogether, 4596 ml of water and sediments were analysed (see Table 1). In the laboratory, the samples were examined using a microscope method after transfer to a sterile Petri dish. After first MP evidence, the examination was conducted following the microscopic method (see Yang et al. 2021). Positive samples were sepa- rated and MPs photographed and measured. From positive samples, we analysed 3 ml of the total sample volume. For the greatest possible accuracy, we analysed this volume in increments of 0.5 ml, always after thorough mixing of the liquid. Quantitative data were then converted to 1 ml of sample. These examinations and measurements were conducted using a Leica M205MC stereomicroscope (magnification of 7.8—160x), equipped with a Leica DFC295 digital camera. The minimal size of particles captured and measured by this method and equipment used is 1 ym. Pa Adu cI S GF y Ip € poseurep 81 z 4 I poseurep g Aurgndey = ¢ - poseurep Adura poseurep PT ¢€ L¥ Z TE I poseurep poseurep g _ Auesndey Py Adu dura G z Z I poseurep poseurep poseurep ZL Auesndey ¢ Adura Aydura Aydua is € ZI Z ZI I poseurep ZL Auesndey Z € 9 ral ¢ posewrep €8 y &6 € 9Z Z «6 xl peseurep g Auesndey poseurep A dura 9 uG al Py GZ ¢ 09 Z 07 I poseurep poseurep 6 eye(waq G poseurep poseurep G Py ZI ¢ 9 z 0Z I poseurep poseurep 8 eye(waq Pp poseurep Aidurs Adura Pail <6 OL Z Z I poseurep poseurep 8 vie(woq ¢ poseurep poseurep ZI G 67 y ZI ¢ 9 Z 6 I poseurep poseurep 6 vie(uq re 1Z0Z poseurep poseurep Adura OL Py 07 ¢ 9¢ Z 0S I poseurep poseurep 6 vie(wi9q I ITUL 8 9 9] G CI y WA ¢ 68 Z G I poseurep posewrep poseurep 6 Aursndey G LI 9 9¢ ¢ oY y 7 € 76 Z ics I peseurep peseurep g Auesndey =f & 9 9 67 C HEC y 08 € (47 < 67 I peseurep peseurep g Auesndey = -¢ is Aydura G G GZ y 97 ¢ LE 4 (4a I poseurep poseurep poseurep 6 Auesndey V6 ¢ cI Z 0z 9 SY S 09 y ly € IS vs ¢ I peseurep g Aursndey al Adura Aydura Aidura ZI y 07 € IP ‘4 poseurep G I poseurep 6 vie(woqg G eat Aaidura Aydura dura CY Py (46 ¢ 901 Z OL I poseurep poseurep 6 vie(wi9q Py SS dura Adu Il G LP Pp 19 ¢ 91 z 9 I poseurep poseurep 6 vie(wi9g ¢ g Adura Adura Adua L¢ G 6h Py 19 ¢ cL Z 07 I poseurep 6 vie(waq Z IZ0Z a Adu ¢ Py val ¢ gI Z GE I poseurep poseurep poseurep 8 vie(woq I /8Z/9 = dura dura Adura Pp Z CE I poseurep poseurep ZL Auesndey G . s) dura ¢ Pp Co, ¢ 91 z Py I poseurep 9 Auesndey Py = Aidura Aydurs Aydura OL ¢ I¢ Z I I 9