Temporal development of hull-fouling assemblages associated with an Antarctic supply vessel

Abstract

Introduction of non-native species poses one of the greatest, but least understood threats to marine biodiversity. Whilst considerable research effort has focused on vectors such as ballast water, hull fouling remains poorly understood and there is a notable lack of data concerning the temporal development of fouling communities. Here we use remote video capture techniques to assess the development and change of fouling assemblages on an Antarctic supply vessel over a 2 yr period. Assemblages were dominated by cosmopolitan species, some of which are known to be invasive. We demonstrate that whilst areas surrounded by sea-ice are at low risk of introductions from this pathway, substantial fouling assemblages are routinely transported to sub-Antarctic islands where the thermal conditions may allow their establishment. Extent of fouling assemblages, and thus the threat of invasion, may be reduced by changing the dry docking regime and minimising port layover times and in-water cleaning of submerged hull surfaces.

Trait-based approaches to conservation physiology: forecasting environmental change risks from the bottom up

“…If pollution serves to favour species that are globally invasive, this may promote the invasion of other areas via shipping traffic. While ballast water agreements to mitigate invasion risks are in place, dealing with hull fouling is a much more complicated matter [125,126]. Pollution not only takes the form of contamination by heavy metals and organic pollutants, but also involves the deposition of elements such as nitrogen [127].…”

Assessing the port to port risk of vessel movements vectoring non-indigenous marine species within and across domestic Australian borders

“…The slow pace with which the vessels transit from one region to another also provides species with the opportunity to adapt to the changing water temperatures and salinities. As such, these vessels often arrive in a region heavily fouled (eg Coutts 2004) leading to significant statements of risk both within the peer reviewed literature (Farrapeira et al 2007;Otani et al 2007;Davidson et al 2009;Hopkins and Forrest 2008;Lee and Chown 2009) and the management grey literature (Savarese 2005; Biosecurity New Zealand 2008; http://www.biosecurity.govt. nz/enter/ships/yachts; http://www.marinepests.gov.au/ recreational-boating/managing-biofouling).…”

“…Biofouling (and its associated sub-vectors) is a recognised vector of introduced marine and freshwater species (Hewitt et al 1999aHewitt 2002;Godwin 2003;Lee and Chown 2009). As hull husbandry requirements become prevalent, particularly for international vessel entries, the likelihood of vessels arriving in clean condition or being subject to inspection upon arrival will increase.…”

Survival of ship biofouling assemblages during and after voyages to the Canadian Arctic

“…To date there has been only one post-voyage in situ assessment of biofouling on commercial ships conducted in the Canadian Arctic, the results of which represent a snapshot of biofouling at one site (Chan et al 2015b). In contrast, ship biofouling has received far more attention in the Antarctic, where survivorship of biofouling organisms during voyages from temperate to Antarctic and sub-Antarctic ports has been characterized (Lewis et al 2004; Lee and Chown 2009; Hughes and Ashton 2016). In general, passage through sea ice effectively removed biofouling assemblages attached to the hull of ships travelling to Antarctic ports (Lewis et al 2004; Lee and Chown 2009), but organisms in niche areas such as intake ports and sea chests were protected from ice and had higher survival during transits (Hughes and Ashton 2016).…”