Mini-review: Assessing the drivers of ship biofouling management – aligning industry and biosecurity goals

Abstract

Biofouling exerts a frictional and cost penalty on ships and is a direct cause of invasion by marine species. These negative consequences provide a unifying purpose for the maritime industry and biosecurity managers to prevent biofouling accumulation and transfer, but important gaps exist between these sectors. This mini-review examines the approach to assessments of ship biofouling among sectors (industry, biosecurity and marine science) and the implications for existing and emerging management of biofouling. The primary distinctions between industry and biosecurity in assessment of vessels biofouling revolve around the resolution of biological information collected and the specific wetted surface areas of primary concern to each sector. The morphological characteristics of biofouling and their effects on propulsion dynamics are of primary concern to industry, with an almost exclusive focus on the vertical sides and flat bottom of hulls and an emphasis on antifouling and operational performance. In contrast, the identity, biogeography, and ecology of translocated organisms is of highest concern to invasion researchers and biosecurity managers and policymakers, especially as it relates to species with known histories of invasion elsewhere. Current management practices often provide adequate, although not complete, provision for hull surfaces, but niche areas are well known to enhance biosecurity risk. As regulations to prevent invasions emerge in this arena, there is a growing opportunity for industry, biosecurity and academic stakeholders to collaborate and harmonize efforts to assess and manage biofouling of ships that should lead to more comprehensive biofouling solutions that promote industry goals while reducing biosecurity risk and greenhouse gas emissions.

Prioritizing marine invasive alien species in the European Union through horizon scanning

“…To this end, the recent adoption by the International Maritime Organization of the ‘ International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments ’ is encouraging. shipping fouling has an important role for introductions, which also applies to secondary spread of already introduced alien populations (Davidson et al, ; Foster, Giesler, Wilson, Nall, & Cook, ; Gewing & Shenkar, ; Simard et al, ; Ulman et al, , ). The related guidance developed in the context of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC, ) is a step forward, but we would stress the need for more enforceable control of this pathway.…”

A history of ship specialization and consequences for marine invasions, management and policy

“…Although ship type comparisons have not featured prominently in ship biofouling studies to date, they point to a range of important sources of variation, including dry‐docking and maintenance schedules, antifouling coatings (and their age), extended lay‐ups, environmental conditions (e.g. visits to freshwater ports) and niche areas (Coutts, ; Davidson et al., ; Sylvester & MacIsaac, ; Thomason, ; Visscher, ). Several single vessel or small sample size studies underscore the importance of these factors to biofouling transfers (Bishop, ; Davidson, Ruiz, & Sytsma, ; Drake & Lodge, ; Farrapeira, Marrocos de Melo, Barbosa, & Euzebio da Silva, ; Godwin, ; Mineur, Johnson, Maggs, & Stegenga, ; Xiuming, Weishang, Haokui, & Keduo, ).…”

“…Similarly, biofouling management has a long history of industry‐driven practices to reduce drag and fuel costs that unintentionally benefit biosecurity (Davidson et al., ), but additional biosecurity policies are being developed to prevent biofouling‐mediated invasions, especially in New Zealand, Australia, California and at the International Maritime Organization (IMO; New Zealand Government, ; Roberts & Tsamenyi, ; Scianni & Huber, ). The maritime industry already accounts for ship type variation to a certain extent by applying different antifouling coatings based on vessel operational profiles, including speeds and voyage routes (Coutts & Taylor, ).…”

“…Biofouling management for containerships and auto‐carriers should be directed at ship type independent factors like voyage routes or lay‐ups because their inherent characteristics are lower risk than other ship types. Overall, biofouling management policies that manage for biosecurity as well as vessel efficiency should become a priority in coming years (Davidson et al., ), especially given that ballast management has progressed significantly over the last two decades.…”

Epibiotic pressure contributes to biofouling invader success

“…Yet many marine biofouling communities are heavily invaded 2, 13, 14 , with many introduced species obtaining spatial dominance 11–14 . Biofouling species represent a disproportionate number of total recognised invasions and impacts 1, 2 resulting in global concern 15 . Entry into space limited systems requires new recruits to find suitable free substrate to settle and grow, however any free substrate can quickly become colonised during periods of high recruitment pressure 13, 16 .…”