This review examines how micro(nano)plastics influence invasive plant competitiveness, suggesting ecological implications.
Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) have emerged as pervasive contaminants across diverse environments—including soil, water, and the atmosphere—posing substantial risks to resident organisms. Concurrently, alien plant invasion represents a significant driver of environmental change, introducing considerable ecological risks to terrestrial ecosystems. Synthesizing evidence from 26 original research articles, this review examines the bidirectional interactions between micro(nano)plastics (MNPs) and terrestrial invasive plants. A growing body of evidence indicates that MNPs alter the growth and performance of both invasive and native plants. In most documented cases, MNPs appear to enhance the competitive ability of invasive plants, thereby elevating invasion potential. However, counterexamples exist wherein MNPs strengthen the competitiveness of native plants, consequently mitigating invasion risk. These divergent outcomes are likely attributable to a suite of influencing factors, notably the characteristics of the MNPs (e.g., type, size, concentration), the specific invasive and native plant species involved, and variations in experimental conditions. Key mechanistic pathways involve MNPs-induced disturbances in soil microecology—particularly nutrient dynamics and rhizosphere microbiomes—and allelopathic interactions. Conversely, invasive plants may adsorb/absorb MNPs and subsequently modify their environmental fate and behaviors (e.g., degradation, transport). Finally, we delineate critical knowledge gaps and propose prioritized directions for future research. This review advances our understanding of the ecological risks associated with plant invasions in an era of pervasive MNP pollution and offers a scientific foundation for developing informed management strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: