A Survey Analysis Comparing Perceptions of Plastic Use in Nurseries and Greenhouses in the United States

Abstract

Plastic is extensively used in nursery and greenhouse operations. Concerns are growing about the potential release of plastic byproducts, such as microplastics and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), into water resources. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare perceptions of plastic use and water quality impacts between scientists researching water contaminants and nursery/greenhouse growers, (2) identify barriers to growers reducing plastic use, and (3) explore preferred communication channels for scientists to inform growers about emerging research. An online survey was administered to collect data from scientists in a USDA-funded multi-state Hatch project (N = 20) and nursery/greenhouse growers (N = 66) across the United States. The findings indicated both groups were unsure of the impacts of plastic use. While most respondents perceived surface water pollution as a critical issue, neither scientists nor growers strongly agreed on-farm plastic use poses a significant threat. Both groups recognized the importance of regular water testing, but few believed mandatory changes to plastic use should be enacted without further evidence. Growers cited limited equipment, financial constraints, and uncertain availability of viable plastic alternatives as key barriers. Despite these barriers, growers were willing to learn more, primarily through online resources, short courses, and workshops. The findings underscore the need for targeted research that quantifies plastic byproducts in nursery/greenhouse water and identifies cost-effective alternatives. Timely dissemination of scientific findings using trusted sources will be critical to bridge knowledge gaps and support adoption of best practices to safeguard water quality in surface and groundwater.

1. Introduction

Most specialty crops, defined as fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and horticulture and nursery crops including floriculture (accounting for 13.8 billion USD in annual United States (US) sales [1]), are produced in a container before planting. Nursery and greenhouse growers around the world rely heavily on plastic to produce plants [2,3] since nurseries are locations where young plants are grown both inside and outside until they can be replanted and greenhouses are indoor spaces where plants can be grown year-round because the grower can control the environment. Materials used in nurseries and greenhouses include but are not limited to consumables wrapped in plastic prior to use, containers, ground and structural coverings, plumbing and irrigation, stakes and ties, labels, plastic mulch, and fertilizer that can be encapsulated in plastic [2,3]. Many plastics used in specialty crop production are single-use due to the inability to recycle in most municipalities. Specialty crop plastics are exposed to solar radiation, resulting in supra-optimal temperatures [3], and weathering throughout their use when compared to indoor industries with less solar exposure.

Concurrently, there is increasing concern for emerging contaminants that include plastics and their ubiquitous byproducts [4], specifically microplastics and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Microplastics, particles with three or more dimensions measuring > 1 nm and <5 mm, contaminate seawater, freshwater, drinking water, food, soils, and the atmosphere [5,6,7]. Microplastics from containers were identified as one plastic type commonly found in the environment [8]; however, many sources of plastic contribute to microplastics found in the environment [4]. Large gaps remain in the scientific communities’ understanding of the influence of microplastics on human and environmental health [9,10] because microplastic particles are derived from a variety of plastic types (chemical constituents) and degradation and wear patterns result in a variety of particle sizes, adding to the complexity of accurately evaluating risks associated with plastics in the environment [3,4] including how long they may take to degrade [11]. Microplastics may also serve as vectors distributing sorbed compounds as they move in water and air (e.g., PFAS, heavy metals) [7,11,12].

One potential route by which PFAS can be introduced to surface or groundwaters is via leaching of pesticide active and inert ingredients (e.g., surfactants, emulsifiers, carriers, dyes, etc.) and adjuvants used in nursery and greenhouse operations if located on non- or semi-permeable ground [13,14]. Many pesticides are fluorinated to enhance compound stability, lipophilicity (potential for binding or movement through membranes into organisms), and activity [15]. Ogawa et al. reported that 67% of the new pesticides registered for use within the last five years worldwide were organofluorine compounds [16]. While fluorination increases pesticide stability (more effective pesticide applications), it also increases compound and degradation persistence in the environment. In addition, precipitation events often deposit airborne particulates that can contain PFAS or transport contaminated dust from regional airsheds [17]. Within existing plant production systems that adopt best management practices for water security (e.g., irrigation retention reservoirs and water recycling), contaminants can be concentrated due to continual evapotranspiration with increased incidence of micro- and meteorological droughts [18]. Over 60% of nursery and greenhouse growers surveyed by White et al. collected, transported, and stored stormwater and irrigation return flow [19] but may have little knowledge regarding the contaminants being contained and aggregated with its reuse.

Human exposure to PFAS is chronically toxic, resulting in various forms of cancer, immune system changes or damage, alterations in liver function, and reproductive issues, among other adverse health impacts [4,20,21,22]. Similarly to human water users, agricultural operations (both animal- and plant-based) are impacted when water sources are impaired by PFAS contamination, which often results in PFAS accumulation in plant tissues, animal meat, and milk products [21]. Data reported by government and non-profit organizations testing water pollution levels have indicated widespread PFAS contamination throughout the world, regardless of proximity to plastic byproduct sources [2]. In the US, an ongoing study mapping PFAS in the Potomac River Basin [23] has found numerous compounds throughout the area. In Northwest Georgia, PFAS sampling has revealed diverse levels of contamination throughout the Upper and Middle Coosa river basins [24]. A recent and impactful study published in 2023 found PFAS in multiple river sites in Pennsylvania with at least 1 of 33 PFAS examined detected in 76% of the 161 Pennsylvania streams [25].

Soares et al. indicated that comprehending beliefs and attitudes toward plastics, plastic pollution, and plastic disposal management is essential for the success of both governmental and industrial efforts to tackle plastic waste and associated plastic byproducts [26,27]. Nursery and greenhouse growers, like the community at large, are largely unaware of the risks posed by exposure to microplastics and PFAS, despite decades of research [28], and little is known about their beliefs and attitudes toward plastic use on-farm. Addressing the potential contamination associated with microplastics and PFAS in water systems will require reduced plastic use on-farm. Therefore, the role growers play in changing the use of plastic on-farm, its disposal, and subsequent PFAS and microplastics entry into the environment is crucial for effectively reducing its effect [29]. Given this, growers’ perceptions and attitudes toward plastic use must be understood so effective educational programs and science communication efforts about issues with plastic use on-farm and associated contaminants can be developed [29]. Important questions include the following: What do growers think about their use of plastic on-farm? Do growers believe plastic use on-farm impacts surface water? What do growers think about plastic use impacts on water exiting their facility? What motivates growers to reduce their use of plastic? Finding answers to these questions has pertinent implications for promoting environmentally friendly agricultural programs that encourage the adoption of plastic alternatives. With this knowledge, scientists can help bring about changes in agricultural practices by understanding the human dimension in addition to the technical aspects of agricultural plastics use and fate [29].

Few studies [29,30] have used surveys to explore agricultural producers’ views and attitudes about microplastics and plastic pollution and none have specifically investigated the attitudes of US nursery and greenhouse growers toward plastic use and associated environmental risks. Both survey research and qualitative studies have, however, shown communication gaps and failures in conveying scientific information about PFAS from the scientific community to the end user (grower) may be a primary reason for the lack of awareness [31]. Communication between those within the scientific community studying water contaminant issues and the nursery and greenhouse industry must be clear and concise, offering positive, solution-based, and action-driven ideas that enable adoption of solutions that address concerns long term [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Therefore, a study using a survey instrument designed to determine what the scientific community and those they are trying to conduct research for (nursery and greenhouse growers) think about water contaminants including microplastics and PFAS, alongside communication preferences of nursery and greenhouse growers, could assist in bridging the gap and ensuring needed solutions are identified and effectively communicated.

The objectives of this research were to identify both nursery and greenhouse growers’ and direct or adjacent scientists working on water quality issues (1) perceptions of plastic use and its impact on water quality, (2) potential barriers that may impact the reduction in plastic use in nurseries and greenhouses, and (3) the best ways for scientists to communicate about new research impacting water quality issues like plastics with nursery and greenhouse growers. The purpose of the study was to examine if perceptions between the two groups were aligned or disparate. Therefore, comparisons were made to explore how to further align research with industry concerns, encourage conversations between scientists and growers, and allow for open dialogue about the benefits and issues with the integration of plastic alternatives in nurseries and greenhouses between the two groups. If scientists and growers align in a commitment to determining the effects of plastic use on water quality and strive to find effective and efficient alternatives, issues with plastic use can be mitigated and water quality assured.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Populations

Data were collected from both scientists working on water contaminant issues and nursery and greenhouse growers (hereafter referred to as growers) across the US through a researcher-developed online survey. Responses were collected using an online survey platform, Qualtrics (Provo, UT, USA), from November 2023 to January 2024. The first population of interest were the 29 scientists who held membership in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-funded multi-state Hatch project number NC-1186 titled Water Management and Quality for Specialty Crop Production and Health. Scientists involved in this project include water toxicologists, horticulturalists, plant pathologists, irrigation specialists, agricultural economists, and social scientists from across the US focused on advancing water management for specialty crop production and health. These are the primary researchers working directly with nursery and greenhouse growers in the US so they hold the highest level of water quality knowledge and can alter their scientific practices to address concerns with plastic alternatives and PFAS. A 69% response rate was obtained (N = 20). Characteristics of respondents were compared to those of non-respondents with no significant differences found [35]. However, given the small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution and deemed exploratory.

The second population of interest was growers interested in ensuring contaminants, of all kinds, are reduced in water utilized in or released from specialty crop production. The population was purposively selected because these growers were the most likely to seek new research findings, work collaboratively with scientists, and act as opinion leaders within the nursery and greenhouse industry to share evolving research findings related to water quality. Response bias and overrepresentation are both limitations to purposive sampling because they can lead to the inability to generalize the findings to the population of interest [35]. To mitigate this effect several approaches were taken to obtain responses from this specific group of growers. Specifically, growers attending educational events where talks were given on water remediation and recycling were presented with a QR code and a survey link. In addition, growers receiving the GrowerTalks newsletter (Ball Publishing, West Chicago, IL, USA) with information related to water management and quality were provided with an invitation to participate in the survey using a QR code and clickable website link to the survey. Another limitation of the study was only contacting growers with e-mail or access to the Internet; therefore, the results should not be generalized to the entire grower population. An effort was made to obtain responses from growers from across the US to ensure geographic representation based on diverse water quality issues. A total of 66 responses were obtained, which is like response rates previously obtained and utilized to explore similar populations of interest within the nursery and greenhouse industry [34]. To understand the representativeness of two sets of respondents and ensure for proper interpretation of the results, both scientists and growers were asked a series of demographic questions including sex, age, race, ethnicity, education level, and geographic location (

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the US scientists and US nursery and greenhouse growers responding to a survey in 2024.

	Scientist Responses (N = 20) %	Grower Responses (N = 66) %
Sex
Female	15.4	44.1
Male	84.6	55.9
Race
African American	0.0	6.3
Asian or Pacific Islander	7.7	3.1
Caucasian/White	92.3	90.6
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino	0.0	3.1
Age (years)
18–24	7.7	0.0
25–34	15.4	27.2
35–44	15.4	27.2
45–54	15.4	9.0
55–64	38.5	30.2
65 years and older	7.7	6.0
Education
High school graduate	0.0	5.9
2-year college degree	7.7	11.8
4-year college degree	7.7	61.8
Graduate degree	84.6	20.6
Region of the US
Northeast	23.1	33.4
South	30.8	9.9
Midwest	7.7	29.9
West	38.5	26.6

).

In addition, growers were asked what type of production facility they managed by checking all that apply from the following options: greenhouse, nursery, and indoor or vertical farm. They could also select other and provide a description. Grower respondents represented all types of production facilities with fewer involved in indoor or vertical farms than greenhouses or nurseries, which is appropriate for the types of farms in the US (

Table 2. Facility type, water supply, and water capture or recycling behaviors of nursery and greenhouse growers responding to a survey in 2024 (N = 66).

	Grower Responses %
Type of production facility a
Greenhouse	63.8
Nursery	60.3
Indoor or vertical farm	12.1
Other	3.4
Primary water supply a
Private wells	56.9
Municipal public water supply	25.9
Surface water	22.4
Rural water district	13.8
Unsure	3.4
Capture and/or recycle water
Capture and recycle	27.6
Capture	12.1
Recycle	8.6
Unsure	5.2
None	46.6

Note. ^a Could select all that apply.

).

Grower respondents were also asked to indicate their primary water supply with options including private wells, surface water, municipal public supply, or rural water district. They could also select unsure. Over half obtained their water from private wells and over a quarter from municipal public water supply (Table 2). Finally, growers were asked if they capture and/or recycle water by selecting from the following options: capture water, recycle water, or capture and recycle water. They could also indicate unsure or none of the above. Over a quarter of the respondents captured and recycled their water (Table 2).

2.2. Instrumentation

The research presented here was part of a larger study designed to understand perceptions related to environmental stewardship within the nursery and greenhouse industry. Five sets of questions integrated into the researcher-developed online survey were germane to the study objectives. To address the first study objective, the scientists and growers were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with five statements designed to measure perceptions of plastic use and its impact on water quality on-farm and eight statements designed to measure perceptions associated with the threat of plastic use on-farm impacting surface water on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). To address the second study objective, scientists and grower respondents were asked to respond the same way to a set of nine statements associated with perceived barriers to reducing plastic use on-farm. Specific survey items used to address the first two study objectives can be seen in

Table 3. Survey items used to address study objectives one and two allowing for comparisons between scientists and nursery and greenhouse growers.

	Number of Items	Statements
Perceptions associated with plastic use and its impact on water quality on farm	5	Reduced use of plastic on-farms will improve water quality off-farm
		Plastic use on-farms should be reduced to avoid water contamination
		Plastic use on-farms poses a serious threat to water quality off-farm
		Water contamination from plastic use of farms is a serious problem
		Plastic use on-farm, if used correctly pose no threat to water quality off-farm
Perceptions associated with plastic use on-farm impacting surface water	8	Surface water pollution is an important environmental issue in my area
		Surface water pollution is not a problem in my facility/the facilities I work with
		Plastics used on-farms have significantly polluted surface water in my area
		Plastics used on-farms do not contribute to surface water pollution in my area
		Growers should be required to reduce plastic use at their facilities to protect surface water resources
		Growers should be required to periodically test levels of surface water pollution at their facilities
		Growers should be required to change their plastic use at their facilities to protect water resources
		Growers who contribute to surface water pollution should not be permitted to participate in government programs
Perceived barriers to reducing plastic use on-farm	9	I believe plastics are environmentally friendly on-farm
		I do not know enough about the impacts of plastic used and their byproducts on-farm
		I am unsure about the release of potentially toxic byproducts from plastics on-farm
		I (The growers I work with) do not have the equipment to use alternatives to plastic use on the farm
		I (The growers I work with) do not have the financial means to use alternatives to plastic on the farm
		Plastic alternatives to ground cloths do not control weeds well or long enough
		Plastic alternatives on the farm require too much management
		Plastic alternatives on the farm are not suited to my (the growers I work with) irrigation practices/system
		Alternatives to plastic on the farm are not available

.

To address the third objective, growers were asked to indicate where they obtained their information about water quality management including contaminants by selecting all that apply from a list of 12 options that included the Internet, attending events/activities, governmental websites, farming organizations, self-observation, crop advisors, newspaper, magazine, radio, social media, television, and family/friends. They could also select other and provide a description. Growers were also asked to indicate the types of learning opportunities they would most likely take advantage of to learn more about water topics. They could select all that apply from a list of 11 options that included attend a short course or workshop, visit a website, attend a seminar or conference, e-mail newsletter, on-farm demonstrations, YouTube videos, research station demonstrations, podcast, social media updates on latest research, read a newspaper article or series, and watch TV coverage. They could also select other and provide a description or select “I would not take advantage of any of these opportunities”.

Face and content validity of the instrument was determined by a panel of water-focused extension professionals, agricultural communications, agricultural and biological engineering, and survey methodology experts. Face (content–instrument alignment) validity ensures the instrument was measuring the characteristics the researchers intended for it to measure [35]. Construct validity ensured the instrument was written in such a way that the audience could understand the questions and the questions were adequately meeting the objectives of the study [35,36]. After review of the instrument, minor revisions were made based on suggestions from the expert panel. The University of Georgia Institutional Review Board granted permission for the research to be conducted.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed descriptively, in the form of frequencies and percentages. The responses to perception and barrier items designed to address the first two objectives were analyzed independently for the scientist and the grower samples and then compared using a series of Chi-squared tests to determine if responses to each statement were significantly different between the two groups with a p value < 0.05 established a priori [36]. A flowchart detailing the main processes of the research is exhibited in Figure 1.

3. Results

Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions associated with plastic use and its impact on water quality on-farm using responses to five statements where they could indicate their level of agreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Figure 2). Over half of the growers (53.9%) somewhat or strongly agreed water contamination from plastic use on-farm was a serious problem but only 41.5% felt plastic use should be reduced. From the scientists’ perspective, 59.1% somewhat or strongly agreed reduced use of plastic on-farm would improve water quality off-farm but only 31.8% felt water contamination from plastic use on-farm was a serious problem. When the responses from the two groups were compared using a Chi-square test, no significant differences were found.

Perceptions associated with plastic use on-farm impacting surface water were also examined using responses to eight statements where respondents could indicate their level of agreement with each statement from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Figure 3). Both groups (growers at 69.2% and scientists at 95.3%) somewhat or strongly agreed surface water pollution is an important environmental issue in their area. However, neither group felt plastic use on-farm had significantly polluted surface water in their area. Scientists (47.6%) also either somewhat or strongly disagreed that growers contributing to surface water pollution should not be permitted to participate in government programs including receiving subsidies or incentives. When the responses from the two groups were compared using a Chi-square test, no significant differences were found. Both groups (growers at 70.0% and scientists at 95.2%) felt growers should be required to periodically test levels of surface water pollution at their facilities; however, neither group felt strongly about requiring changes to plastic use.

Potential barriers to reducing plastic use on-farm were explored using responses to nine statements where respondents could indicate their level of agreement with each statement from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Figure 4). Both groups (57.9% of scientists and 64.9% of growers) somewhat or strongly disagreed that plastics are environmentally friendly, indicating a general acknowledgement of plastic use as a potential problem. However, 72.9% of growers and 78.9% of scientists somewhat or strongly agreed they do not know enough about the impacts of plastic use and their byproducts on-farm, demonstrating a lack of knowledge regarding microplastics and PFAS. In addition, 78.9% of scientists and 70.2% of growers somewhat or strongly agreed they are unsure about the release of potentially toxic byproducts from plastics on-farm.

Growers somewhat or strongly agreed they do not have the equipment to use plastic alternatives (70.2%) or the financial means to use plastic alternatives (54.0%). However, they neither agreed nor disagreed that plastic alternatives to ground cloth do not control weeds well or long enough or that plastic alternatives require too much management. These findings imply growers do not see the alternatives as lacking in their functional capacity to perform the same role as the current plastics in use. In addition, only 43.2% of growers somewhat or strongly agreed alternatives to plastics were not available while 63.2% of scientists somewhat or strongly agreed with the same statement. When responses related to perceived barriers were compared between the two groups using a series of Chi-square tests, only responses for “alternatives to plastic on the farm are not available” differed significantly between the two groups. A consolidated heat-map (Figure 5) highlights areas of alignment and divergence between scientists’ and growers’ agreement across all perception and barrier items.

Grower respondents indicated the Internet was their most utilized information source when it came to obtaining information about water quality issues and water contaminants (see Figure 6). Growers also reported attending events and activities, consulting government websites, and connecting through farming organizations. One limitation of this study was the data were collected from growers who were already attending these types of events and activities and consulting online newsletters related to water quality and contamination concerns. Therefore, the growers responding to the survey were inherently likely to report these locations as places they obtained information. However, if these are the opinion leaders within the nursery and greenhouse industry that are sought out by others for information related to water quality concerns, then they are the exact grower audience scientists should be collaborating and communicating with first when research findings emerge. When asked what types of learning experiences the growers would take advantage of to learn more about water topics, 38.4% reported they would attend a short course or workshop, 33.7% would visit a website, and 32.6% would attend a seminar or conference (see Figure 7). These findings agree with those captured by White et al. in 2019, indicating communication preferences have not changed over the past six years [19].

4. Discussion

Scientists and nursery/greenhouse growers were similar in their perceptions of plastic use and its impact on water quality on-farm. The sentiment regarding plastic use was neutral amongst both groups with many believing that reducing plastic use on-farm was unnecessary. The literature clearly associates plastic use with water contaminants such as microplastics and PFAS [4,5], yet scientists studying water contaminants associated with nursery production in the US, and the nursery and greenhouse growers they work with, are largely unaware of its impacts [11].

Water used to grow plants in nurseries and greenhouses encounters plastic at many times during the production cycle (e.g., plastic irrigation pipes, ground covers, distributed to plants through plastic containers, etc.). These plastics are exposed to extreme temperatures and are likely breaking down, allowing for transfer through water on-farm [4]. Previous research has indicated there are large gaps in the scientific communities’ understanding of plastic degradation and wear patterns that may result in microplastics moving in water [11,12]. Given the lack of awareness within the specific scientific community examined in this study, there is a need for more research on the impact of plastic use in nurseries and greenhouses, specifically, and the prevalence of microplastics and PFAS in water considering how much of it is reused and recycled [19]. Given the known impact of plastic on biodiversity, and ecosystems in general [37,38], it is important to study plastic use on-farm within this important industry that uses plastic extensively so more is known about its impact on surrounding water and land resources.

When asked about plastic use on-farm impacting surface water, both scientists and nursery and greenhouse growers felt surface water pollution was an important environmental issue but did not believe plastic use on-farm polluted surface water in their area. The findings imply the connection between plastic use on-farm and surface water quality issue needs to be validated. If on-farm water is polluting surface water, feasible solutions must be offered to enable changes in practice (reduction in plastic use) and expanded communication efforts between the two groups [33]. Without a confirmed connection between plastic use on-farm and PFAS/microplastics in surface water, there is likely fear amongst the nursery and greenhouse grower community that talking about reducing plastic use may result in greater scrutiny of production practices from retailers and consumers. While standardized methods (e.g., EPA Method 537.1 [39]) exist for detecting PFAS in drinking water, fewer guidelines target horticultural irrigation or microplastics, which rely on specialized microscopy and spectroscopic analyses. To integrate these tests into routine checks, cost-effective screening methods and support (e.g., pilot initiatives by federal agencies and extension programs) are essential to ensure practical feasibility for growers. Therefore, changing agricultural practices to avoid a potential, but not confirmed, problem is not likely to occur. Given the lack of information available at large associated with the impact of plastic debris on humans [40,41], this finding is consistent across industries and worthy of further exploration, especially in the face of a changing climate where ecological impact is more important to track than ever before [42].

Nursery and greenhouse growers and scientists disagreed on the availability of plastic alternatives with growers reporting higher levels of awareness of alternatives than scientists. The finding implies nursery and greenhouse growers are working directly with plastic alternative suppliers without communicating with the scientific community as they select alternatives. Nursery and greenhouse growers’ responses indicated there is an opportunity to increase adoption of plastic alternatives if they are available, are similar in cost profiles to plastic options, and can be integrated within production systems. There is also an opportunity for allied suppliers and nursery and greenhouse growers to work together to promote the use of plastic alternatives. However, this should be undertaken with caution because it could provide an opportunity for green washing, rather than true use of products with lower plastic profiles. By keeping the scientific community engaged in conversations when nursery and greenhouse growers are considering adopting plastic alternatives, this potential could be reduced. Scientists, often guided by alternative priorities and prior research awareness, may emphasize broader environmental ramifications, whereas growers, facing immediate operational constraints (e.g., finances, equipment), prioritize cost-effective decisions. Perhaps scientists need to more readily engage with plastic alternative suppliers to ensure they are up to date on the latest technologies supportive of the industry. Bridging these perspectives through targeted extension programs, which bring suppliers, growers, and scientists together, could assist. Meanwhile, together, the three groups could work collectively toward establishing potential policy frameworks that could facilitate informed adoption of sustainable practices including plastic alternatives. In addition, scientists could partner with suppliers to test the chemistries of plastic alternatives and their byproducts to ensure the problem created by plastic use on-farm is not exacerbated by choosing a similar recalcitrant, stable chemistry.

The lack of general knowledge about plastic use on-farm and its potential effects on water underscores the need for stronger communication between scientists and growers. Building trusted channels for research-based information will facilitate quicker dissemination of critical findings [32,33]. The findings align with a recent review of the last 20 years of microplastic research [4], which found science communication as a key player in informing the sociopolitical dynamics driving public concern and policy decisions impacting the use of plastics globally. Fortunately, perceived barriers by the nursery and greenhouse industry to adopting plastic alternatives were low and both scientists and growers indicated the need to test water periodically. However, current water quality tests used by nursery and greenhouse growers do not include microplastics or PFAS and their precursors. Therefore, it is recommended that water quality tests that can detect microplastics, PFAS, and their precursors be developed and made available to nursery and greenhouse growers.

As research emerges and is shared, adoption of alternative materials and production methods should occur rapidly [40]. An imperative first step is for the scientific community to partner with nursery and greenhouse growers (and possibly a nursery and greenhouse grower organization) in the development of a regularly updated website with the latest research on plastic use nursery and greenhouse growers can access. In addition, short courses and workshops offered locally where scientists and nursery and greenhouse growers review and share results collectively bringing both perspectives could prove beneficial to the broader nursery and greenhouse community as the nursery and greenhouse growers can then bring local context to the research findings. However, nursery and greenhouse grower respondents from all regions of the US indicated they experience water issues in their area and are concerned about water contaminants despite location.

Information needs to be shared in a way that conveys the magnitude and urgency of the issue so informed changes to production practices can be made [4,40]. Scientists need to clearly articulate emerging water toxicology research as it emerges, especially as it relates to freshwater resources, such as rivers, in areas surrounding nurseries and greenhouses. In addition, growers should be encouraged to share their tacit knowledge acquired on-farm with the scientific community as they continue to explore ways to expand knowledge surrounding the impacts of plastic use on water quality. Therefore, a larger seminar or conference provided on an annual basis on the use of plastics on-farm is recommended. This annual conference or seminar would provide an opportunity for experts from across the world (both scientists and nursery and greenhouse growers) to present information about current and new knowledge related to plastics and plastic byproducts (e.g., microplastics and PFAS) in water and presence/accumulation in edible plants grown in nurseries and greenhouses. This transfer of knowledge would allow nursery and greenhouse growers to make educated decisions related to plastic use and water management, further ensuring the sustainability of an important agricultural industry.

5. Conclusions

Minimizing plastics used in nursery and greenhouse operations could reduce the potential release of plastic byproducts, such as microplastics and PFAS, into water resources both on-farm and in surface water. Using an online survey, key findings indicated scientists studying water contaminants and nursery and greenhouse growers across the US are unsure of the impacts of plastic use and therefore do not see the adoption of plastic alternatives as a pressing need. Members of both groups perceived surface water pollution as a critical issue but did not believe on-farm plastic use posed a significant threat to surface water. Despite recognizing the importance of regular water testing, few expressed mandatory changes to plastic use should be enacted without evidence indicating a need for further research in the US. Primary barriers to adoption of plastic alternatives included limited equipment, financial constraints, and uncertain availability of viable alternatives. However, nursery and greenhouse growers were willing to learn more, primarily through online resources, short courses, and workshops. There is a need for targeted research that (1) quantifies plastic byproducts in nursery/greenhouse water both on-farm and in surface water, (2) develops cost-effective plastic alternatives, and (3) creates water quality tests that detect microplastics, PFAS, and their precursors. Effective science communication using trusted sources in a timely manner will be critical to increasing knowledge about potential water contaminants associated with plastic use in nurseries and greenhouses.