Biotic exchange from movement of ‘static’ maritime structures

Abstract

Coastal infrastructure provides extensive habitat for marine nonindigenous species (''NIS''), especially biofouling species. Ecosystem transplants can arise when static maritime structures (''SMS'') are relocated under slow towing speeds following long periods of biofouling accumulation. Translocations of SMS occur more often than acknowledged and represent a high-risk vector of marine NIS that is largely overlooked and unregulated. We compiled geolocations and movement patterns for oil platforms, derelict/obsolete vessels, barges, dry docks, floating lodges, homes and docks, aquaculture gear and buoys for the NE Pacific coast. We related these data to NIS richness within the region and to global examples of SMS movement. Our review and synthesis of SMS, paired with biofouling surveys before and after dock towing events, reveal the growing NIS vector opportunities resulting from sprawling coastal infrastructure. As coastal development continues apace in the Anthropocene, this emerging management challenge will require strong frameworks and workable solutions for a global issue that currently lacks incentives to prevent species transfers and invasions.

Opsanus beta (Goode & Bean, 1880) (Acanthopterygii: Batrachoididae), a non-indigenous toadfish in Sepetiba Bay, south-eastern Brazil

“…oil and gas platforms, offshore wind farms, navigational buoys, non-cargo barges and dry docks) can be used as ‘stepping stones’ by marine non-indigenous species (Hewitt et al ., 2009). Most SMS are characterized by their large and complex wetted surface area, providing space for fouling organisms, which may attract predators (Hewitt et al ., 2009; Lacarella et al ., 2019). Habitat provided by reefs placed in areas devoid of natural hard bottom or structure may be colonized by NIS propagules dispersed from natural or anthropogenic sources (Glasby et al ., 2007).…”

Climate change and vessel traffic create networks of invasion in marine protected areas

“…anchiplanic); these species were likely spread through human‐mediated secondary vectors including shipping and boating (e.g. Clarke Murray et al., 2011; Simkanin, Davidson, Falkner, Sytsma, & Ruiz, 2009; Ulman et al., 2019), movements of maritime structures such as oil rigs and docks (Iacarella, Davidson, & Dunham, 2019) and aquaculture translocations (Haydar & Wolff, 2011). Ship and boat traffic is a particularly strong vector within regions owing to the large number of vessels and their frequency of movements (as shown here; Iacarella, Burke, et al, 2020), the entrainment potential in biofouling, ballast and bilge water (Clarke Murray et al., 2011; Fletcher et al., 2017; Ulman et al., 2019) and the lack of regulatory oversite within domestic waters (Briski, Wiley, & Bailey, 2012; Simkanin et al., 2009).…”

Managing Biofouling on Submerged Static Artificial Structures in the Marine Environment – Assessment of Current and Emerging Approaches

“…For the offshore energy sector, the impacts of biofouling on submerged infrastructure also include harboring and spreading NIS (Yeo et al, 2010;De Mesel et al, 2015;Capel et al, 2019;Iacarella et al, 2019;Coolen et al, 2020). Many offshore structures, such as drilling rigs and oil platforms, remain static for extended periods during operations and layups, typically leading to extensive biofouling growth Georgiades and Kluza, 2017;Gormley et al, 2018).…”