Nucleic acids-based tools for ballast water surveillance, monitoring, and research

Abstract

Understanding the risks of biological invasion posed by ballast water—whether in the context of compliance testing, routine monitoring, or basic research—is fundamentally an exercise in biodiversity assessment, and as such should take advantage of the best tools available for tackling that problem. The past several decades have seen growing application of genetic methods for the study of biodiversity, driven in large part by dramatic technological advances in nucleic acids analysis. Monitoring approaches based on such methods have the potential to increase dramatically sampling throughput for biodiversity assessments, and to improve on the sensitivity, specificity, and taxonomic accuracy of traditional approaches. The application of targeted detection tools (largely focused on PCR but increasingly incorporating novel probe-based methodologies) has led to a paradigm shift in rare species monitoring, and such tools have already been applied for early detection in the context of ballast water surveillance. Rapid improvements in community profiling approaches based on high throughput sequencing (HTS) could similarly impact broader efforts to catalogue biodiversity present in ballast tanks, and could provide novel opportunities to better understand the risks of biotic exchange posed by ballast water transport—and the effectiveness of attempts to mitigate those risks. These various approaches still face considerable challenges to effective implementation, depending on particular management or research needs. Compliance testing, for instance, remains dependent on accurate quantification of viable target organisms; while tools based on RNA detection show promise in this context, the demands of such testing require considerable additional investment in methods development. In general surveillance and research contexts, both targeted and community-based approaches are still limited by various factors: quantification remains a challenge (especially for taxa in larger size classes), gaps in nucleic acids reference databases are still considerable, uncertainties in taxonomic assignment methods persist, and many applications have not yet matured sufficiently to offer standardized methods capable of meeting rigorous quality assurance standards. Nevertheless, the potential value of these tools, their growing utilization in biodiversity monitoring, and the rapid methodological advances over the past decade all suggest that they should be seriously considered for inclusion in the ballast water surveillance toolkit.

Climate change opens new frontiers for marine species in the Arctic: Current trends and future invasion risks

“…This process may involve literature review, interviews, expert workshops, Delphi questionnaires, expert consultation, trend analysis, and/or risk assessment (Ricciardi et al, 2017;Roy, et al, 2014;Sutherland & Woodroof, 2009 However, NIS may be overlooked if they are rare or morphologically cryptic, and sampling methods can result in false negatives (i.e., failure to detect the occurrence of NIS in a given environment) at the initial stage of an invasion (Delaney & Leung, 2010;Stanislawczyk, Johansson, & MacIsaac, 2018). We recommend the use of molecular techniques to aid in early detection of NIS (Chown et al, 2015;Darling & Frederick, 2018;Ricciardi et al, 2017). A range of nucleic acid-based detection methods has been developed and applied to determine presence/absence, and even the abundance, of NIS in a given community (Darling & Frederick, 2018 (Brown, Chain, Zhan, MacIsaac, & Cristescu, 2016).…”

“…We recommend the use of molecular techniques to aid in early detection of NIS (Chown et al, 2015;Darling & Frederick, 2018;Ricciardi et al, 2017). A range of nucleic acid-based detection methods has been developed and applied to determine presence/absence, and even the abundance, of NIS in a given community (Darling & Frederick, 2018 (Brown, Chain, Zhan, MacIsaac, & Cristescu, 2016). Additionally, the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) can assist in the detection of NIS in aquatic environments, particularly when populations are difficult to detect by other means (Jerde, Mahon, Chadderton, & Lodge, 2011;Lacoursière-Roussel et al, 2018).…”

“…For instance, the potential impact of aquaculture or fishery species should be carefully examined prior to introduction into Arctic seas. We recommend the use of molecular techniques to aid in early detection of NIS(Chown et al, 2015;Darling & Frederick, 2018;Ricciardi et al, 2017). While the introduction of the crab has brought economic benefits to Russia and Norway, there are concerns regarding its impacts on native communities, especially in Norwegian waters(Dvoretsky & Dvoretsky, 2015;Falk-Petersen, Renaud, & Anisimova, 2011;Oug, Cochrane, Sundet, Norling, & Nilsson 2011).…”

“…The Red King Crab was introduced into the Barents Sea in the 1960s to establish a commercial fishery(Dvoretsky & Dvoretsky, 2015). A range of nucleic acid-based detection methods has been developed and applied to determine presence/absence, and even the abundance, of NIS in a given community(Darling & Frederick, 2018). To balance the economic benefits and ecological concerns, the Norwegian government implements two management regimes-a quota-regulated zone to sustain the crab population for exploitation and a free-fishing zone to reduce the rate of spread southward along the Norwegian coast(Jørgensen & Nilssen, 2011;Lorentzen et al, 2018).…”

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

“…This list focuses on priority species, whose inclusion would effectively prevent, minimize, or mitigate their adverse impact in a cost‐efficient manner (EU, ). EU Member States should undertake appropriate actions to prevent the introduction and further spread of the listed species, enforce effective early detection tools and rapid eradication protocols for new introductions, and adopt management measures for those that are already widely spread (Darling et al, ; Darling & Frederick, ). However, with the exception of Plotosus lineatus , which was recently introduced into the list (EC, ), no other marine species are included among the IAS of Union concern.…”