Abstract
Microplastic pollution is a largely unexplored yet pervasive environmental problem, in terrestrial environments, including impacts on plants and food crops. Plant growth and function are most often negatively impacted by plastic exposure, but these pollutants can also stimulate plant processes such as root growth and there is a tentative suggestion that monocotyledonous may be less sensitive to microplastics than dicotyledonous plants. Toxic effects include reduced plant biomass, chlorophyll content, photosynthesis, and changes to antioxidants, metabolites, and nutrients, with stimulatory effects often found at lower concentrations of exposure. There is strong evidence that roots can directly uptake and translocate plastic particles at 1 µm and under in size. Indirect effects include interactions of microplastics with other pollutants, soil properties, and soil organisms. These findings have potentially wide-ranging implications for terrestrial ecosystem function and human health. Future research should further elucidate the mechanisms of plant microplastic toxicity at realistic concentrations. This short review highlights the significance of microplastics in the terrestrial environment, where they can occur at higher concentrations than in the aquatic environment, with likely impacts on important food crop plants. The significance of these findings for human and ecosystem health remains to be elucidated and we make four recommendations to the scientific community for improved future experimentation.
Introduction
Studies on the occurrence and effects of microplastics and smaller nanoplastics have been increasing, with a major focus on aquatic ecosystems, but recent plastic pollution research on terrestrial plants and ecosystems is emerging (Rillig, 2012; de Souza Machado et al., 2018a; Zhou et al., 2021). Since the 1950s, approximately 8,300 million metric tons of plastic was produced (Geyer et al., 2017), and rising global plastic consumption has resulted in increased plastic waste and widespread presence and persistence in the environment (Thompson et al., 2004; Jambeck et al., 2015). Plastics are polymers [e.g. low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polystyrene (PS)] that also contain a variety of chemical additives, such as plasticizers, pigments, and flame retardants (Geyer et al., 2017), making them a diverse pollutant group, with respect to chemical composition, size, shape, concentration, and source (Supplementary Figure S1). Plastic pollution originates from the direct release of plastics and secondarily from the fragmentation of larger plastics (Horton and Dixon, 2017). In the environment, plastics degrade into smaller plastic fragments from exposure to ultraviolet radiation, heat, and water. As plastics fragment, the surface area to volume ratio increases along with the bioavailability of these particles, potential to leach chemical additives, and ability to accumulate other pollutants in the environment (de Souza Machado et al., 2018a).
On land, plastic pollution is released from urban, industrial, and agricultural settings (Horton and Dixon, 2017). Microplastics enter agricultural soils directly from horticultural and agronomic usage and fragmentation of plastic mulching, greenhouse materials, irrigation pipes, and packaging and indirectly from contaminated compost, treated wastewater and sewage sludge, surface runoff, and atmospheric deposition (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2012; Horton et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2018). Horton et al. (2017) estimated that plastics are released to the terrestrial environment at 4–23 times more than that in the marine environment, highlighting the threat to terrestrial ecosystems and plants, but despite this, there is limited research on plastic pollution impacts on plants (Rillig et al., 2019). Here we discuss the direct impacts of diverse microplastics on terrestrial plants at different development stages and the interaction between microplastics and the broader terrestrial ecosystem that indirectly affects plants (Figure 1). We propose a conceptual model for how microplastics impact plants and highlight the need to elucidate the mechanisms of action of microplastics on plants to understand how realistic microplastic exposure conditions impact terrestrial plants.
Figure 1
Uptake and translocation of plastics
Recent studies have identified plastic particle uptake, translocation, and accumulation in terrestrial plants, while plants were assumed to be unable to uptake larger plastics since particles bigger than approximately 5–20 nm are unable to enter cell walls (Schwab et al., 2016). However, even 50 nm plastics were found in the vacuoles and cytoplasm of onion (Allium cepa) root cells (Giorgetti et al., 2020), while 1,000 nm plastics can accumulate in the intercellular space of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and carrot (Daucus carota) roots and shoots (Dong et al., 2021b; Liu et al., 2022). In lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), 200 nm particles were found in the roots, shoots, and leaves, such that the particles were translocated from the roots to the shoots through transpiration that pulled strings of plastic particles throughout the vascular system (Li et al., 2020). Both 200 nm and 2,000 nm particles entered the root stele at discontinuous and developing areas of the Casparian strip where lateral roots emerge, while more plastics accumulated in hydroponic plants compared to sandy soil as a result of weaker root apoplastic barrier and higher transpiration (Li et al., 2020). Interestingly, only negatively charged plastic particles were detected in the apoplast and xylem in Arabidopsis thaliana, while positively charged particles stimulated exudate production that trapped the plastics and reduced uptake (Sun et al., 2020). However, one study found no evidence of plastic uptake in wheat and A. thaliana (Taylor et al., 2020). Another recently discovered pathway for microplastic uptake is leaf adsorption via accumulation on trichomes, stomatal uptake, and apoplastic transport (Li et al., 2025), which highlights the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment and the persistent exposure of terrestrial plants to these pollutants.
The results of these studies demonstrated that plants can directly take up microplastics with major implications for terrestrial plants and crop quality and potential human ingestion and health impacts. However, it is important to consider the relevance of the concentration of microplastics and type of media used in such uptake experiments and how they relate to microplastic concentrations and terrestrial plant exposure in the wider environment (Fuller and Gautam, 2016; Zhang et al., 2018; Corradini et al., 2019; Dierkes et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2023). Overall, concentrations in microplastic uptake experiments are reasonable but tend to be at the higher end of the spectrum of environmental exposure, especially for soil-based experiments, and this could bias the results observed (Figure 2A). Future research focused on microplastic uptake by terrestrial plants exposed to lower microplastic concentrations in soil would be of value, especially for food crops.
Figure 2
Germination and seedling development
Our conceptual model shows that multiple studies investigated the effect of microplastic exposure on germination and seedling development, with the majority demonstrating a negative effect of microplastics on the early stages of plant development (Table 1A). Seed germination rate generally decreased significantly following exposure to microplastics as the concentration and size increased, where the microplastics accumulated on the seed pores, blocked water, and delayed germination (Bosker et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2022). However, several studies found negligible differences in germination after 24 hours, which may be attributed to the nano-priming effect of small microplastics that promoted seed germination (Lian et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Shorobi et al., 2023). During seedling development, exposure to microplastics frequently inhibited root growth and decreased root length, but not in wheat (Bosker et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2019; Lian et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2022; Iswahyudi et al., 2024). Microplastic exposure induced cytotoxicity and genotoxicity in seedling roots through a decrease in mitotic index and an increase in chromosome aberrations as microplastic concentration and time increased (Gopinath et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2019; Giorgetti et al., 2020; Maity et al., 2020). Although not conclusive, we propose a tentative hypothesis from the data available, that monocotyledonous species may be less sensitive to microplastics than dicotyledonous species, given impacts on seed germination. As a working hypothesis this is useful but requires further research to confirm or reject this proposal.
Table 1
| Table 1A Germination and seedling development | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. | Species | Exposure Time | Polymer Type | Size | Shape | Concentration | Germination | Root Growth | Health/toxicity | |
| Guo et al., 2022 | Trifolium repens, Orychophragmus violaceus, & Impatiens balsamina | 7 days | PS | 2 µm, 80 nm | Fragment | 0, 10, 50, 100, 500 mg/L | - | |||
| Bosker et al., 2019 | Lepidium sativum L. | 3 days | Polymer | 50, 500, 4800 nm | Sphere | 10^6-10^10 particles/L | - | - | ||
| Esterhuizen and Kim, 2022 | Nelumbo nucifera | 7 days | PP, PVC, PUR, PET, HDPE, PS | 4 mm | Fragment | 14% (w/w); 4 g/L | - | |||
| Boots et al., 2019 | Lolium perenne | 30 days | HDPE, PLA, fibers | HDPE: 102.6 µm & PLA: 65.6 µm | Fragment | HDPE & PLA: 0.001% (w/w) & fibers: 0.1% (w/w) | - | |||
| Pflugmacher et al., 2020 | Lepidium sativum L. | 7 days | PC | 3 mm | Granule | 0.1%, 1.0%, and 10% (w/w) | - | |||
| Pflugmacher et al., 2021 | Lepidium sativum L. | 7 days | PC | 3 mm | Granule | 2% (w/w) | - | |||
| Lian et al., 2020 | Triticum aestivum L. | 5 days | PSNP | 100 nm | Sphere | 0.01, 0.1 1.0, 10 mg/L | 0 | + | ||
| Giorgetti et al., 2020 | Allium cepa | 3 days | PS | 50 nm | Sphere | 0.01, 0.1, 1.0 g/L | 0 | - | - | |
| Zhang et al., 2021 | Oryza sativa L. | 14 days | PS | 200 nm | Bead | 0.1, 10, 1000 mg/L | 0 | |||
| Maity et al., 2020 | Allium cepa L. | 3 days | PS | 100 nm | Sphere | 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 mg/L | - | - | ||
| Jiang et al., 2019 | Vicia faba | 2 days | PS | 0.1, 5 µm | Sphere | 10, 50, 100 mg/L | - | - | ||
| Gopinath et al., 2019 | Allium cepa | 3, 6, 12, 24 hours | PS & facial scrub | 100 nm | Particles | 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 µg/mL | - | - | ||
| Bao et al., 2022 | Triticum aestivum L. | 5 days | PE | 200 µm | Fragment | 800 mg/L | + | |||
| Table 1B Growth and physiology | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. | Species | Total Plant Biomass | Root growth | Shoot growth | Chlorophyll content | Photosynthesis | Antioxidant enzymes | Metabolites | Nutrient content | |
| Boots et al., 2019 | Lolium perenne | + | - | 0 | ||||||
| Lian et al., 2020 | Triticum aestivum L. | + | + | + | + | - | - | |||
| Yang et al., 2021 | Brassica chinensis L. | - | - | 0 | ||||||
| Urbina et al., 2020 | Zea mays L. var. Jubilee | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Urbina et al., 2020 | Zea mays L. var. Jubilee | - | - | - | - | - | ||||
| Qi et al., 2020 | Triticum aestivum | - | ||||||||
| Colzi et al., 2022 | Cucurbita pepo L. | - | - | - | - | - | ||||
| de Souza Machado et al., 2019 | Allium fistulosum | + | 0 | |||||||
| Lozano et al., 2021b | Daucus carota | + | + | |||||||
| Zeb et al., 2022 | Lactuca sativa | + | - | - | 0 | - | ||||
| Wu et al., 2020 | Oryza sativa L. | 0 | - | - | - | |||||
| Wu et al., 2020 | Oryza sativa L. | - | ||||||||
The effect of microplastics on plant germination, seedling development, growth, and physiology.
Green: positive (+); red: negative (-); yellow: negligible differences (0); white: no data. Table (A) represents germination and seedling development. Table (B) represents growth and physiology. Ref. corresponds to the references in the main text.
Plant growth, morphology, and yield
Recent experiments have investigated the effect of microplastic exposure on plant growth, morphology, and yield through soil-based and hydroponic experiments (Table 1B). Microplastic exposure decreased total plant biomass in Chinese cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.) (Yang et al., 2021), maize (Zea mays L.) (Urbina et al., 2020), and wheat (Qi et al., 2020). Similar to the negative effect of microplastics on seedling root development, microplastic exposure decreased root and shoot growth, especially in high microplastic concentrations (Urbina et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Colzi et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024; Riaz et al., 2025). Hydroponic maize in the high microplastic concentration (100 mg/L) had approximately half the root length of maize in the control, with irregular root development and architecture (Urbina et al., 2020). In contrast, several studies found that microplastic exposure increased root and shoot biomass and length (Lian et al., 2020; Lozano et al., 2021b). Exposure to different microplastics stimulated longer and finer spring onion (Allium fistulosum) roots but had variable effects on spring onion bulbs, such that polyester fibers doubled the dry mass while polyamide beads nearly doubled the water content compared to the control (de Souza Machado et al., 2019). Several studies found that long-term microplastic and mulch residue exposure decreased crop yield in rice, cotton (Gossypium spp.), and maize (Hegan et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2020; Koskei et al., 2021; Yi et al., 2023; Iqbal et al., 2025). Wu et al. (2020) conducted a rice hydroponic experiment and field trial, where shoot biomass decreased by 12.8% and 25.9% when exposed to microplastic concentrations of 50 mg/kg and 250 mg/kg, respectively, which aligns with the decreased shoot biomass as microplastic concentration increased in the hydroponic experiment.
Plant physiology, metabolism, and nutrient content
Many of these studies also investigated the effect of microplastics on plant physiology, metabolism, and nutrient content, which can have major implications on plant productivity and health (Table 1B). The majority of studies found that microplastics decreased chlorophyll content and photosynthesis (Urbina et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Colzi et al., 2022; Nei et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). Interestingly, hydroponic wheat exposed to PS microplastics had elevated chlorophyll content, net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate that peaked at 0.1 mg/L of microplastics and decreased in higher concentrations (Lian et al., 2020). In maize, the high concentration (100 mg/L) of HDPE decreased net carbon fixation, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate, such that net carbon fixation and transpiration were three times lower compared to the control (Urbina et al., 2020).
Several studies demonstrated changes to plant antioxidant defense systems and metabolism, where microplastic exposure significantly altered wheat and rice metabolites (Lian et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2020). Lettuce exposed to 0.1% microfibers changed 14 out of 46 identified metabolites that increased to 17 altered metabolites under 0.2% microfibers (Zeb et al., 2022). As microplastic concentration increased, rice and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) antioxidant enzyme activity decreased but increased in wheat (Wu et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2022; Riaz et al., 2025). Increased MDA content in tomato and wheat indicated increased oxidative stress while rice had ten inhibited main metabolic pathways, which can lead to decreased growth and crop yield (Wu et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2022; Riaz et al., 2025).
Microplastic exposure also impacted plant carbon, nitrogen, and nutrient content, where high microplastic concentrations decreased shoot nitrogen content in maize but increased in wheat (Lian et al., 2020; Urbina et al., 2020). Interestingly, spring onion exposed to polyamide microplastics had higher foliar nitrogen content, which was likely attributed to the chemical composition of the polyamide beads that released nitrogen into the soil (de Souza Machado et al., 2019). Similarly, Urbina et al. (2020) estimated that maize exposed to HDPE microplastics absorbed approximately 30% of the carbon from HDPE-derived carbon in the maize roots, but not the shoots. As microplastic concentration increased, soluble sugar and protein decreased in tomato while foliar soluble sugar increased but starch decreased in Chinese cabbage (Yang et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022). Microplastic exposure decreased carotenoid and flavonoid content in tomato fruit and generally reduced micronutrient content in tomato, wheat, and field pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) (Lian et al., 2020; Colzi et al., 2022; Nei et al., 2024; Emenike et al., 2025). Although the majority of experiments demonstrated a negative effect of microplastic exposure on terrestrial plant growth, physiology, and traits, there were also a significant number of studies where growth and metabolism were stimulated, particularly for root growth. These differences in the effect of microplastics on terrestrial plants may be attributed to multiple factors, including species, growth medium, microplastic concentration, polymer, size, shape, exposure duration, and/or environmental factors. In Lozano et al. (2021b), the majority of the variance in shoot and root biomass was explained by microplastic polymer, shape, and their interaction, while microplastic concentration alone explained very little of the variation (Lozano et al., 2021b). Therefore, the inherent variability in microplastic characteristics, in addition to different experimental designs, highlights the complex interactions of microplastic pollution on terrestrial plants and where further research to elucidate mechanisms of action of microplastics on plants is warranted (Figure 2B).
Interaction of microplastics with other chemical pollutants
Microplastics themselves not only affect plant growth and traits directly but also have the potential to interact with chemical additives and other environmental pollutants that can further impact plants indirectly. Degrading plastics leach chemical additives over time that contribute to the impact of microplastics on plants. Garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) exposed to polycarbonate (PC) granules and leachate from new and artificially aged PC decreased germination and seedling length as concentration increased (Pflugmacher et al., 2020). As the PC age increased, the magnitude of the negative effect on garden cress growth and chlorophyll content decreased (Pflugmacher et al., 2021). Since bisphenol A (BPA) is known to leach from PC, garden cress was also exposed to BPA that had an intermediate negative effect on seedling growth that was between the severity of new and aged PC treatments, which suggests that the negative effect of new PC leachate might be attributed to a variety of leached chemical additives (Pflugmacher et al., 2020, 2021). Phthalate esters are also common plastic additives that can leach into the environment and disrupt the human endocrine system. Elevated levels of phthalates were found in vegetables, especially leafy vegetables, grown with plastic mulch and greenhouses, which highlights the potential human health implications of terrestrial plastic pollution (Du et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2017).
In the environment, microplastics also interact with other chemical pollutants, such as heavy metals, that can have a negative effect on plant growth, biomass, and photosynthesis (Dong et al., 2020, 2021b, 2022; Zeb et al., 2022). Carrot co-exposure to PS microplastics and arsenic increased microplastic internalization occurrence and particle size in the intercellular space and within cells because arsenic exposure altered root cells (Dong et al., 2021b). Carrot arsenic content increased with arsenic concentration, but the presence of PS decreased carrot arsenic content (Dong et al., 2021b). Similarly, wheat exposed to copper, cadmium, and microplastics had lower heavy metal content, while increased concentrations of microplastics decreased rice arsenic content, which suggests that microplastics can adsorb heavy metals and, therefore, reduce the uptake of heavy metals by plants (Dong et al., 2020, 2022; Zong et al., 2021). However, microplastics can absorb and desorb heavy metals, which suggests that microplastics can absorb, transport, and desorb other chemical pollutants (Abbasi et al., 2020). For example, wheat co-exposed to microplastics and oxytetracycline, a common antibiotic in manure, resulted in altered antioxidant enzyme activities and plant metabolism (Bao et al., 2022). The evidence is clear that microplastics can interact with chemical pollutants in the environment resulting in increased and perhaps synergistic impacts of pollution on plants.
Impact of microplastics on terrestrial ecosystems
Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems can change soil properties, microbial communities, and species interactions, which can indirectly impact terrestrial plants. Soil microplastic pollution can alter soil organic matter, carbon, and nutrients, which impacts plant nutrients (Dong et al., 2021a; Meng et al., 2022). Furthermore, microplastics can alter pH, decrease bulk density, and change the soil structure, such that microplastic fibers with a different shape from typical soil particles caused the greatest changes to soil structure, water holding capacity, and reduced microbial activity (de Souza Machado et al., 2018b, 2019; Boots et al., 2019; Lozano et al., 2021b). Microplastics not only alter the soil environment but also impact the soil microbial community, such that the bacterial and fungal diversity on the surface of microplastics was lower and distinct from the bulk soil (Zhang et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2021; Rillig et al., 2024). Fungal diversity had a stronger response to microplastics than bacteria, but the dissimilarity in the soil bacterial community composition increased as microplastic concentration increased (Fan et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022). Microplastics affect not only soil microorganisms but also larger soil organisms, such as earthworms that ingest and transport microplastics throughout the soil profile (Huerta Lwanga et al., 2016, 2017a). Even though microplastics negatively affected earthworm biomass, the presence of earthworms alleviated the negative effects of plastic mulch residue on wheat growth and physiology (Qi et al., 2018). However, microplastics can have cascading effects on terrestrial communities through microplastic trophic transfer and biomagnification in natural and experimental food chains, which highlights the major implications of microplastic pollution on terrestrial plants, ecosystems, and humans (Huerta Lwanga et al., 2017b; Abdolahpur Monikh et al., 2022).
Discussion
Although the threat of plastic pollution is not new, interest in the impacts of plastic pollution on terrestrial plants is increasing because of the wider-ranging potential consequences for crop quality and yield, ecosystem function, and impact on human health (Lozano et al., 2021a; Yates et al., 2021; Mamun et al., 2023; Bethanis and Golia, 2024). Since plastics are expected to accumulate in agricultural soils and degrade faster under a warming climate, it is essential to utilize plastics sustainably whilst reducing plastic pollution, supporting crop production, and protecting ecosystem and human health (Hofmann et al., 2023; Meizoso-Regueira et al., 2024; Wei et al., 2024). However, the physical and chemical diversity of plastic pollution makes it challenging to disentangle their effects on terrestrial plants. There is still no consensus on the type of plastics that may stimulate or inhibit plant processes and a limited understanding of how plant species and genotype can affect these responses.
This review has shown that microplastics can directly and indirectly impact plant growth and function. From the available evidence, our conceptual model shows that the negative effect on plant growth, physiology, and biochemical properties may be attributed to changes in plant-water relations, metabolism, and redox reactions. Microplastic exposure altered plant metabolites and antioxidant enzyme activity, which indicates oxidative stress and damage to the antioxidant defense system and results in a visible reduction in plant growth and yield. It is therefore hypothesized that ion and water relations and water uptake are being impacted through changes in member properties but also water transport through member proteins. However, gaps still remain in our understanding of the mechanisms behind these changes, as most studies focus on investigating microplastic accumulation and distribution in plants and impacts on plant growth without assessing potential changes to plant molecular biology, physiology and metabolism. This is a clear gap in understanding. For indirect effects mediated through chemical interactions, degrading plastics, and wider soil and soil organism interactions, information is needed on how soil and microplastic properties interact to bring about plant uptake and the effects of microplastics on the plant-soil system.
Future research should work to address the following gaps
Mechanisms of action: More detailed information on mechanisms of action is required and the elucidation of how different types of plastic and environments elicit their effects.
Plastic distribution: The majority of recent plastic quantification studies in the terrestrial environment are from China and Europe, while the concentration and identity of microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems in other parts of the world are still lacking. A wide-ranging assessment is required to quantify the distribution of global microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems, especially in agricultural systems with different farming practices, including urban and home gardens, enabling more realistic plant exposure experiments.
Realistic plastics: Many current experiments fail to use realistic environmental exposure experiments, and the majority of studies utilize pristine rather than fragmented, degraded, and aged microplastics that interacted with other chemical pollutants in the environment. Plastic concentrations, sizes, shapes, aging, and chemical properties should be considered in future exposure experiments, alongside mixtures of other pollutants to ensure a realistic pollution cocktail, including pesticides, fertilizers, and heavy metals.
Relevant conditions: Multiple experiments expose terrestrial plants to microplastics in small hydroponic containers for short durations with a single species and a limited number of plant genotypes. In the future, improved experiments should focus on the exposure of soil-grown plants to more relevant environmental conditions, for longer durations and consider natural plant genetic variation, especially diverse food crops.
Plant-plastic-environment interactions: Trophic transfer of microplastics up terrestrial food chains has been demonstrated, which has major implications on biomagnification and human exposure, ingestion, and health. Future research should elucidate the effect of microplastics on plant interactions investigating pathways of plastic ingestion by humans through food crops, elucidating differences between crop types and growing conditions.
Research governance
We suggest that research in this emerging area would benefit from a scientific community initiative that sets standards for experimentation, similar to that for air pollution impacts and the critical loads concept (Bull, 1992). For plastics, we propose the code addresses four founding principles: (i) specify standardized mixtures (‘recipes’) of microplastic and nanoplastic types for experimentation, (ii) recommend the use of realistic concentrations to represent rural (0.1-0.5 mg/kg) and urban (900-5,000 mg/kg) environmental concentrations of plastics, (iii) encourage the development of dose-response experiments to establish critical thresholds, (iv) specify that long-term (whole growth cycle), rather than short-term experiments should have high priority. In this way, over a five-year period or so, significant advances in our understanding of plants and plastic pollution could be established.
A future that addresses these research and research governance gaps will help to quantify the impacts of plastic pollution in the terrestrial environment. Taken together, microplastics remain significantly under-studied forms of pollution in relation to plant performance, where increased knowledge is needed urgently to help mitigate their negative impacts, particularly for food crops consumed by humans.
Statements
Author contributions
AW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. GT: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 2020277095. A.E.W. acknowledges the Department of Plant Sciences, UC Davis for the award of a GSR scholarship funded by endowments, particularly the James Monroe McDonald Endowment, administered by UCANR. Research in the laboratory of G.T., is supported by the John B. Orr Endowment in Environmental Plant Sciences at University of California, Davis and by University College London.
Acknowledgments
Figures created with BioRender.com. No part of this manuscript was created or edited using generative AI.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1666047/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AbbasiS.MooreF.KeshavarziB.HopkeP. K.NaiduR.RahmanM. M.et al. (2020). PET-microplastics as a vector for heavy metals in a simulated plant rhizosphere zone. Sci. Total Environ.744, 140984. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140984
2
Abdolahpur MonikhF.HolmS.KortetR.BandekarM.KekäläinenJ.KoistinenA.et al. (2022). Quantifying the trophic transfer of sub-micron plastics in an assembled food chain. Nano Today46, 101611. doi: 10.1016/j.nantod.2022.101611
3
BaoY.PanC.LiD.GuoA.DaiF. (2022). Stress response to oxytetracycline and microplastic-polyethylene in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during seed germination and seedling growth stages. Sci. Total Environ.806, 150553. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150553
4
BethanisJ.GoliaE. E. (2024). Micro- and nano-plastics in agricultural soils: A critical meta-analysis of their impact on plant growth, nutrition, metal accumulation in plant tissues and crop yield. Appl. Soil Ecol.194, 105202. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2023.105202
5
BootsB.RussellC. W.GreenD. S. (2019). Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: above and below ground. Environ. Sci. Technol.53, 11496–11506. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
6
BoskerT.BouwmanL. J.BrunN. R.BehrensP.VijverM. G. (2019). Microplastics accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere226, 774–781. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.163
7
BullK. R. (1992). An introduction to critical loads. Environ. pollut.77, 173–176. doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(92)90074-K
8
ChenN.ShuaiW.HaoX.ZhangH.ZhouD.GaoJ. (2017). Contamination of phthalate esters in vegetable agriculture and human cumulative risk assessment. Pedosphere27, 439–451. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60340-0
9
ColziI.RennaL.BianchiE.CastellaniM. B.CoppiA.PignattelliS.et al. (2022). Impact of microplastics on growth, photosynthesis and essential elements in Cucurbita pepo L. J. Hazard. Mater.423, 127238. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127238
10
CorradiniF.MezaP.EguiluzR.CasadoF.Huerta-LwangaE.GeissenV. (2019). Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Sci. Total Environ.671, 411–420. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.368
11
de Souza MachadoA. A.KloasW.ZarflC.HempelS.RilligM. C. (2018a). Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol.24, 1405–1416. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14020
12
de Souza MachadoA. A.LauC. W.KloasW.BergmannJ.BachelierJ. B.FaltinE.et al. (2019). Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol.53, 6044–6052. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01339
13
de Souza MachadoA. A.LauC. W.TillJ.KloasW.LehmannA.BeckerR.et al. (2018b). Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environ. Sci. Technol.52, 9656–9665. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02212
14
DierkesG.LauschkeT.BecherS.SchumacherH.FöldiC.TernesT. (2019). Quantification of microplastics in environmental samples via pressurized liquid extraction and pyrolysis-gas chromatography. Anal. Bioanal. Chem.411, 6959–6968. doi: 10.1007/s00216-019-02066-9
15
DongY.BaoQ.GaoM.QiuW.SongZ. (2022). A novel mechanism study of microplastic and As co-contamination on indica rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Hazard. Mater.421, 126694. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126694
16
DongY.GaoM.QiuW.SongZ. (2021a). Effect of microplastics and arsenic on nutrients and microorganisms in rice rhizosphere soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.211, 111899. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.111899
17
DongY.GaoM.QiuW.SongZ. (2021b). Uptake of microplastics by carrots in presence of As (III): Combined toxic effects. J. Hazard. Mater.411, 125055. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125055
18
DongY.GaoM.SongZ.QiuW. (2020). Microplastic particles increase arsenic toxicity to rice seedlings. Environ. pollut.259, 113892. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113892
19
DuQ. Z.FuX. W.XiaH. L. (2009). Uptake of di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate from plastic mulch film by vegetable plants. Food Addit. Contam. - Part A Chem. Anal. Control. Expo. Risk Assess.26, 1325–1329. doi: 10.1080/02652030903081952
20
EmenikeC.AdelugbaA.MacDonaldM.AsieduS. K.OfoeR.LordA. (2025). A combined effect of mixed multi-microplastic types on growth and yield of tomato. Microplastics4, 5. doi: 10.3390/microplastics4010005
21
EsterhuizenM.KimY. J. (2022). Effects of polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene terephthalate, polyurethane, high-density polyethylene, and polystyrene microplastic on Nelumbo nucifera (Lotus) in water and sediment. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.29, 17580–17590. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17033-0
22
FanP.TanW.YuH. (2022). Effects of different concentrations and types of microplastics on bacteria and fungi in alkaline soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.229, 113045. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.113045
23
FullerS.GautamA. (2016). A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized fluid extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol.50, 5774–5780. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00816
24
GeyerR.JambeckJ. R.LawK. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv.3, e1700782. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
25
GiorgettiL.SpanòC.MucciforaS.BottegaS.BarbieriF.BellaniL.et al. (2020). Exploring the interaction between polystyrene nanoplastics and Allium cepa during germination: Internalization in root cells, induction of toxicity and oxidative stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem.149, 170–177. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.02.014
26
GopinathP. M.SaranyaV.VijayakumarS.Mythili MeeraM.RuprekhaS.KunalR.et al. (2019). Assessment on interactive prospectives of nanoplastics with plasma proteins and the toxicological impacts of virgin, coronated and environmentally released-nanoplastics. Sci. Rep. 201991 9, 1–15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45139-6
27
GuoM.ZhaoF.TianL.NiK.LuY.BorahP. (2022). Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the seed germination of herbaceous ornamental plants. Sci. Total Environ.809, 151100. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151100
28
HeganD.TongL.ZhiquanH.QinmingS.RuL. (2015). Determining time limits of continuous film mulching and examining residual effects on cotton yield and soil properties. J. Environ. Biol.36, e677–e684. doi: 10.5555/20153361794
29
HofmannT.GhoshalS.TufenkjiN.AdamowskiJ. F.BayenS.ChenQ.et al. (2023). Plastics can be used more sustainably in agriculture. Commun. Earth Environ. 202341 4, 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00982-4
30
HortonA. A.DixonS. J. (2017). Microplastics: An introduction to environmental transport processes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.5, e1268. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1268
31
HortonA. A.WaltonA.SpurgeonD. J.LahiveE.SvendsenC. (2017). Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ.586, 127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190
32
Huerta LwangaE.GertsenH.GoorenH.PetersP.SalánkiT.van der PloegM.et al. (2016). Microplastics in the terrestrial ecosystem: implications for lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, lumbricidae). Environ. Sci. Technol.50, 2685–2691. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05478
33
Huerta LwangaE.GertsenH.GoorenH.PetersP.SalánkiT.van der PloegM.et al. (2017a). Incorporation of microplastics from litter into burrows of Lumbricus terrestris. Environ. pollut.220, 523–531. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.096
34
Huerta LwangaE.Mendoza VegaJ.QuejV. K.De LosJ.ChiA.Sanchez Del CidL.et al. (2017b). Field evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a terrestrial food chain. Sci. Rep.7, 1–7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14588-2
35
IqbalS.LiY.XuJ.WorthyF. R.GuiH.FarajT. K.et al. (2025). Smallest microplastics intensify maize yield decline, soil processes and consequent global warming potential. J. Hazard. Mater.486, 136993. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136993
36
IswahyudiI.WidodoW.WarkoyoW.SutantoA.GarfansaM. P.MujiyantiW. A.et al. (2024). Investigating the impact of microplastics type of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene on seed germination and early growth of rice plants. Environ. Qual. Manage.34, e22287. doi: 10.1002/tqem.22287
37
JambeckJ. R.GeyerR.WilcoxC.SieglerT. R.PerrymanM.AndradyA.et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Sci. (80-.).347, 768–771. doi: 10.1126/science.1260352
38
JiangX.ChenH.LiaoY.YeZ.LiM.KlobučarG. (2019). Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environ. pollut.250, 831–838. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.055
39
KoskeiK.MunyasyaA. N.WangY. B.ZhaoZ. Y.ZhouR.IndoshiS. N.et al. (2021). Effects of increased plastic film residues on soil properties and crop productivity in agro-ecosystem. J. Hazard. Mater.414, 125521. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125521
40
LiB.HuangS.WangH.LiuM.XueS.TangD.et al. (2021). Effects of plastic particles on germination and growth of soybean (Glycine max): A pot experiment under field condition. Environ. pollut.272, 116418. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116418
41
LiL.LuoY.LiR.ZhouQ.PeijnenburgW. J. G. M.YinN.et al. (2020). Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nat. Sustain.3, 929–937. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0567-9
42
LiY.ZhangJ.XuL.LiR.ZhangR.LiM.et al. (2025). Leaf absorption contributes to accumulation of microplastics in plants. Nature641, 666–673. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08831-4
43
LianJ.WuJ.XiongH.ZebA.YangT.SuX.et al. (2020). Impact of polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Hazard. Mater.385, 121620. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121620
44
LiuY.GuoR.ZhangS.SunY.WangF. (2022). Uptake and translocation of nano/microplastics by rice seedlings: Evidence from a hydroponic experiment. J. Hazard. Mater.421, 126700. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126700
45
LozanoY. M.Aguilar-TriguerosC. A.OnandiaG.MaaßS.ZhaoT.RilligM. C. (2021a). Effects of microplastics and drought on soil ecosystem functions and multifunctionality. J. Appl. Ecol.58, 988–996. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13839
46
LozanoY. M.LehnertT.LinckL. T.LehmannA.RilligM. C. (2021b). Microplastic shape, polymer type, and concentration affect soil properties and plant biomass. Front. Plant Sci.12. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.616645
47
MaityS.ChatterjeeA.GuchhaitR.DeS.PramanickK. (2020). Cytogenotoxic potential of a hazardous material, polystyrene microparticles on. J. Hazard. Mater.385, 121560. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121560
48
MamunA.PrasetyaT. A. E.DewiI. R.AhmadM. (2023). Microplastics in human food chains: Food becoming a threat to health safety. Sci. Total Environ.858, 159834. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159834
49
Meizoso-RegueiraT.FuentesJ.CusworthS. J.RilligM. C. (2024). Prediction of future microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils. Environ. pollut.359, 124587. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124587
50
MengF.YangX.RiksenM.GeissenV. (2022). Effect of different polymers of microplastics on soil organic carbon and nitrogen – A mesocosm experiment. Environ. Res.204, 111938. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111938
51
NeiN.ChangmaiU.SKS.KumarN.BorahB.ChikkaputtaiahC.et al. (2024). Impact of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) microplastic on growth, photosynthesis and nutrient uptake of Solanum lycopersicum L. (Tomato). Environ. pollut.349, 123994. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123994
52
NgE. L.Huerta LwangaE.EldridgeS. M.JohnstonP.HuH. W.GeissenV.et al. (2018). An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ.627, 1377–1388. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.341
53
PflugmacherS.SulekA.MaderH.HeoJ.NohJ. H.PenttinenO. P.et al. (2020). The influence of new and artificial aged microplastic and leachates on the germination of lepidium sativum L. Plants9, 339. doi: 10.3390/plants9030339
54
PflugmacherS.TallinenS.KimY. J.KimS.EsterhuizenM. (2021). Ageing affects microplastic toxicity over time: Effects of aged polycarbonate on germination, growth, and oxidative stress of Lepidium sativum. Sci. Total Environ.790, 148166. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148166
55
QiY.OssowickiA.YangX.Huerta LwangaE.Dini-AndreoteF.GeissenV.et al. (2020). Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat rhizosphere and soil properties. J. Hazard. Mater.387, 121711. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121711
56
QiY.YangX.PelaezA. M.Huerta LwangaE.BeriotN.GertsenH.et al. (2018). Macro- and micro- plastics in soil-plant system: Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth. Sci. Total Environ.645, 1048–1056. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.229
57
RadfordF.HortonA.HudsonM.ShawP.WilliamsI. (2023). Agricultural soils and microplastics: Are biosolids the problem? Front. Soil Sci.2. doi: 10.3389/fsoil.2022.941837
58
RiazK.YasmeenT.AttiaK. A.KimikoI.ArifM. S. (2025). Phytotoxic effects of polystyrene microplastics on growth morphology, photosynthesis, gaseous exchange and oxidative stress of wheat vary with concentration and shape. Toxics13, 57. doi: 10.3390/toxics13010057
59
RilligM. C. (2012). Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ. Sci. Technol.46, 6453–6454. doi: 10.1021/es302011r
60
RilligM. C.KimS. W.ZhuY. G. (2024). The soil plastisphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.22, 64–74. doi: 10.1038/s41579-023-00967-2
61
RilligM. C.LehmannA.Souza MachadoA. A.YangG. (2019). Microplastic effects on plants. New Phytol.223, 1066–1070. doi: 10.1111/nph.15794
62
RilligM. C.ZierschL.HempelS. (2017). Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms. Sci. Rep. 201771 7, 1–6. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01594-7
63
Scarascia-MugnozzaG.SicaC.RussoG. (2012). Plastic materials in european agriculture: actual use and perspectives. J. Agric. Eng.42, 15–28. doi: 10.4081/jae.2011.28
64
SchwabF.ZhaiG.KernM.TurnerA.SchnoorJ. L.WiesnerM. R. (2016). Barriers, pathways and processes for uptake, translocation and accumulation of nanomaterials in plants - Critical review. Nanotoxicology10, 257–278. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2015.1048326
65
ShiR.LiuW.LianY.WangQ.ZebA.TangJ. (2022). Phytotoxicity of polystyrene, polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J. Environ. Manage.317, 115441. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115441
66
ShorobiF. M.VyavahareG. D.SeokY. J.ParkJ. H. (2023). Effect of polypropylene microplastics on seed germination and nutrient uptake of tomato and cherry tomato plants. Chemosphere329, 138679. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138679
67
SunY.DuanC.CaoN.LiX.LiX.ChenY.et al. (2022). Effects of microplastics on soil microbiome: The impacts of polymer type, shape, and concentration. Sci. Total Environ.806, 150516. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150516
68
SunX. D.YuanX. Z.JiaY.FengL. J.ZhuF. P.DongS. S.et al. (2020). Differentially charged nanoplastics demonstrate distinct accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat. Nanotechnol.15, 755–760. doi: 10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4
69
TaylorS. E.PearceC. I.SanguinetK. A.HuD.ChrislerW. B.KimY. M.et al. (2020). Polystyrene nano- and microplastic accumulation at Arabidopsis and wheat root cap cells, but no evidence for uptake into roots. Environ. Sci. Nano7, 1942–1953. doi: 10.1039/D0EN00309C
70
ThompsonR. C.OlsonY.MitchellR. P.DavisA.RowlandS. J.JohnA. W. G.et al. (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Sci. (80-.).304, 838. doi: 10.1126/science.1094559
71
UrbinaM. A.CorreaF.AburtoF.FerrioJ. P. (2020). Adsorption of polyethylene microbeads and physiological effects on hydroponic maize. Sci. Total Environ.741, 140216. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140216
72
WangJ.ChenG.ChristieP.ZhangM.LuoY.TengY. (2015). Occurrence and risk assessment of phthalate esters (PAEs) in vegetables and soils of suburban plastic film greenhouses. Sci. Total Environ.523, 129–137. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.101
73
WangW.XieY.LiH.DongH.LiB.GuoY.et al. (2024). Responses of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) growth and soil properties to conventional non-biodegradable and new biodegradable microplastics. Environ. pollut.341, 122897. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122897
74
WeiX. F.YangW.HedenqvistM. S. (2024). Plastic pollution amplified by a warming climate. Nat. Commun.15, 1–3. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-46127-9
75
WuX.LiuY.YinS.XiaoK.XiongQ.BianS.et al. (2020). Metabolomics revealing the response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) exposed to polystyrene microplastics. Environ. pollut.266, 115159. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115159
76
YangM.HuangD. Y.TianY. B.ZhuQ. H.ZhangQ.ZhuH. H.et al. (2021). Influences of different source microplastics with different particle sizes and application rates on soil properties and growth of Chinese cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.222, 112480. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112480
77
YatesJ.DeeneyM.RolkerH. B.WhiteH.KalamatianouS.KadiyalaS. (2021). A systematic scoping review of environmental, food security and health impacts of food system plastics. Nat. Food 202122 2, 80–87. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00221-z
78
YiZ.ZhangZ.ChenG.RengelZ.SunH. (2023). Microplastics have rice cultivar-dependent impacts on grain yield and quality, and nitrogenous gas losses from paddy, but not on soil properties. J. Hazard. Mater.446, 130672. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130672
79
YuH.ZhangY.TanW. (2021). The “neighbor avoidance effect” of microplastics on bacterial and fungal diversity and communities in different soil horizons. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology8, 100121. doi: 10.1016/j.ese.2021.100121
80
ZebA.LiuW.MengL.LianJ.WangQ.LianY.et al. (2022). Effects of polyester microfibers (PMFs) and cadmium on lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and the rhizospheric microbial communities: A study involving physio-biochemical properties and metabolomic profiles. J. Hazard. Mater.424, 127405. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127405
81
ZhangZ.CuiQ.ChenL.ZhuX.ZhaoS.DuanC.et al. (2022). A critical review of microplastics in the soil-plant system: Distribution, uptake, phytotoxicity and prevention. J. Hazard. Mater.424, 127750. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127750
82
ZhangY.HaoS.LiP.DuZ.ZhouY.WangG.et al. (2024). Effects of different microplastics on wheat’s (Triticum aestivum L.) growth characteristics and rhizosphere soil environment. Plants13, 3483. doi: 10.3390/plants13243483
83
ZhangS.YangX.GertsenH.PetersP.SalánkiT.GeissenV. (2018). A simple method for the extraction and identification of light density microplastics from soil. Sci. Total Environ.616–617, 1056–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.213
84
ZhangQ.ZhaoM.MengF.XiaoY.DaiW.LuanY. (2021). Effect of polystyrene microplastics on rice seed germination and antioxidant enzyme activity. Toxics9, 179. doi: 10.3390/toxics9080179
85
ZhangM.ZhaoY.QinX.JiaW.ChaiL.HuangM.et al. (2019). Microplastics from mulching film is a distinct habitat for bacteria in farmland soil. Sci. Total Environ.688, 470–478. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.108
86
ZhouJ.WenY.MarshallM. R.ZhaoJ.GuiH.YangY.et al. (2021). Microplastics as an emerging threat to plant and soil health in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ.787, 147444. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147444
87
ZongX.ZhangJ.ZhuJ.ZhangL.JiangL.YinY.et al. (2021). Effects of polystyrene microplastic on uptake and toxicity of copper and cadmium in hydroponic wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.217, 112217. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112217
Summary
Keywords
microplastics, pollution, terrestrial plants, stress responses, plastic uptake
Citation
Wong AE and Taylor G (2025) Plants and microplastics: Growing impacts in the terrestrial environment. Front. Plant Sci. 16:1666047. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1666047
Received
15 July 2025
Accepted
08 September 2025
Published
30 September 2025
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Silvia Celletti, University of Turin, Italy
Reviewed by
Guangyang Liu, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
Mohamed Syazwan Osman, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Wong and Taylor.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Gail Taylor, gtaylor@ucdavis.edu, gail.taylor@ucl.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.