The effect of vessel speed on the survivorship of biofouling organisms at different hull locations

Abstract

This study used a specially designed MAGPLATE system to quantify the en route survivorship and post-voyage recovery of biofouling assemblages subjected to short voyages (< 12 h) across a range of vessel speeds (slow, medium, fast; in the range 4.0-21.5 knots). The effect of hull location (bow, amidships and stern) was also examined. While no significant differences were evident in en route survivorship of biofouling organisms amongst hull locations, biofouling cover and richness were markedly reduced on faster vessels relative to slower craft. Therefore, the potential inoculum size of non-indigenous marine species and richness is likely to be reduced for vessels that travel at faster speeds (> 14 knots), which is likely to also reduce the chances of successful introductions. Despite this, the magnitude of introductions from biofouling on fast vessels can be considered minor, especially for species richness where 90% of source-port species were recorded at destinations.

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

“…Niche areas, including sea chest grating, stern tube, rope guard, propeller, and rudder, are topographically complex and protected areas on ships; such locations are particularly vulnerable to biofouling (Coutts and Taylor 2004; Coutts et al 2010a; Sylvester and MacIsaac 2010). Biofouling organisms at the bow and the stern are subjected to varying degrees of hydrodynamic forces that can influence their survivorship during voyages, with those at the bow experiencing the greatest forces and those at the stern the least when compared to other locations on the hull (Coutts et al 2010b; Lindholdt et al 2015). We also classified all biofouling taxa into three categories largely based on motility: (1) mobile invertebrates; (2) sessile and sedentary invertebrates; and (3) algae (modified from Canning-Clode and Sugden 2014).…”

“…Coutts et al 2010a; Sylvester et al 2011; Clarke Murray et al 2012). Very few studies, however, have examined pre- and post-voyage survivorship of biofouling organisms on ships by repeated sampling (Carlton and Hodder 1995; Brock et al 1999; Davidson et al 2008; Coutts et al 2010a, b). The majority of these studies were conducted on experimental plates (Coutts et al 2010b) or on slow-moving, obsolete ships (Carlton and Hodder 1995; Brock et al 1999; Davidson et al 2008).…”

“…Very few studies, however, have examined pre- and post-voyage survivorship of biofouling organisms on ships by repeated sampling (Carlton and Hodder 1995; Brock et al 1999; Davidson et al 2008; Coutts et al 2010a, b). The majority of these studies were conducted on experimental plates (Coutts et al 2010b) or on slow-moving, obsolete ships (Carlton and Hodder 1995; Brock et al 1999; Davidson et al 2008). Only Coutts et al 2010a quantified en route survivorship of biofouling taxa on operating ships, but during short trips (<12 h).…”

“…before, during, and after Arctic voyages) owing to environmental variations. In addition, we tested whether location on the hull has an effect on biofouling assemblage structure (see Davidson et al 2009; Coutts et al 2010b; Sylvester et al 2011) and whether temporal changes in assemblage structure during Arctic voyages depend on hull location. Finally, we explored whether responses of assemblage structure differ across taxonomic groups based on their motility.…”

Leaching Rate and Antifouling Property of Antifouling Coating Systems under Conditions Fouled by Sessile Organisms

“…， テストセル (直径 4.3cm) 試験 [6] ， 試験片に付着した汚損スライムから単離した付着藻類 に対する防汚試験 [7] ，鋼材に殺生物剤を塗布した試験 片(面積 100cm 2 )のラフト試験 [8] ，実船および港湾内 にアクリルパネル(23.5cm×16cm×0.3cm)を取付けた 生物汚損集積試験 [9] ，ポリカーボネート製の試験板 (10cm×12cm)に対するフジツボキプリス幼生の付着 評価試験 [10] など多数報告されている．これらの評価は 試験片の付着物のバイオマス(藻類からのクロロフィ ル-a 量，生物個体数) ，写真(目視)判定，試料への 相対被覆率・重量変化によりそれぞれ単独で実施され ている．しかしながら，汚損が進行する AFCS におい て，殺生物剤の溶出挙動を長期間に調査した報告例は 少ない．この理由としては，殺生物剤の環境リスク評 価のための，国際標準化機構(ISO)や米国材料試験 協会(ASTM)による溶出試験方法(ASTM/ISO 法) [11,12] …”