Biological Invasions

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 265–277 | Cite as

Quantifying the total wetted surface area of the world fleet: a first step in determining the potential extent of ships’ biofouling

  • Cameron S. MoserEmail author
  • Timothy P. Wier
  • Jonathan F. Grant
  • Matthew R. First
  • Mario N. Tamburri
  • Gregory M. Ruiz
  • A. Whitman Miller
  • Lisa A. Drake
Original Paper


Ships’ hulls can transport aquatic nuisance species, but there is little quantitative information about the magnitude of vessel biofouling on a global or regional scale. There does not exist a robust method to estimate the wetted surface area (WSA) of a particular fleet of ships, especially across the diversity of possible vessel types. An estimate of the total WSA of ship arrivals into a port or region is essential to determine the potential scope of biofouling and to inform management strategies to reduce the future invasions. Multiple statistical models were developed so commonly available ships’ parameters could be used to estimate the WSA for a given set of fleet data. Using individual ship characteristics and publicly available data from  ~120,000 active commercial ships in the world fleet, the method results in a total global minimum WSA estimate of approximately 325 × 106 m2. The size of the global fleet employed here is greater than the commonly cited vessel number of approximately 80,000–90,000, as we include ships <100 gross tons. Over 190,000 vessels were initially identified, representing a WSA of 571 × 106 m2, but active status of only 120,000 vessels could be confirmed. Reliable data were unavailable on the operating status of many additional and especially smaller vessels. This approach, along with a contemporary and comprehensive estimate of global WSA, when combined with knowledge of the different operational profiles of ships that may reduce biofouling (port residence times, steaming speeds, extent of antifouling coatings, cleaning frequency, etc.), can inform current numerical models and risk assessments of bioinvasions.


Aquatic nuisance species Hull fouling Invasive species Wetted surface area Global fleet Non-indigenous species 



This work was supported by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (funding agreement 2012–38) and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). We thank Carolyn Junemann (MARAD) for guidance and programmatic support and Mark Minton (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) for his advice with shipping data. We appreciate advice from Rich Everett (U.S. Coast Guard) and the data provided from the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. This work was supported by Diane Lysogorski, Section Head of NRL Code 6136 and Director of the Center for Corrosion Science and Engineering—Key West, Florida. Finally, the reviews of this manuscript by Stephanie Robbins-Wamsley, Diane Lysogorski, Edward Lemieux (Branch Head, Code 6130), Barry Spargo (Acting Superintendent, Chemistry Division, Naval Research Laboratory), Jim Carlton, and three anonymous reviewers improved it—thank you.


  1. Australian Department of Agriculture (2015) Proposed Australian biofouling management strategies, [updated 2015 Feb 25; cited 2015 Aug 4].
  2. Baier RE, Meyer AE, DePalma VA, King RW, Fornalik MS (1983) Surface microfouling during the induction period. J Heat Transf 105:618–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettelhäuser F, Ullrich P (1993) Die Suche nach dem sozial-und umweltverträglichen Schiff-Die ersten Schritte. Arbeitskreis andere nützliche Objekte der Bremer Vulkan Werft (translated):1–92Google Scholar
  4. Callow JA, Callow ME (2011) Trends in the development of environmentally friendly fouling-resistant marine coatings. Commun Nat. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1251 Google Scholar
  5. Campbell ML, Inti Keith I, Hewitt CL, Dawson TP, Collins K (2015) Evolving marine biosecurity in the Galapagos Islands. Bioinvasions Rec 6(3):227–230Google Scholar
  6. Clare AS, Rittschof D, Gerhart DJ, Maki JS (1992) Molecular approaches to non-toxic antifouling. Invertebr Reprod Dev 22:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbett JJ, Koehler HW (2003) Updated emissions from ocean shipping. J Geophys Res 108(D20):4650–4666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coutts ADM (1999) Hull fouling as a modern vector for marine biological invasions: investigation of merchant vessels visiting northern Tasmania. Masters Thesis, Australian Maritime College, Launceston, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  9. Coutts ADM, Taylor MD (2004) A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshw 38:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coutts ADM, Dodgshun TJ (2007) The nature and extent of organisms in vessel sea-chests: a protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Mar Pollut Bull 54:875–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson IC, McCann LD, Fofonoff PW, Sytsma MD, Ruiz GM (2008) The potential for hull-mediated species transfers by obsolete ships on their final voyages. Divers Distrib 14:518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson IC, Brown CW, Sytsma MD, Ruiz GM (2009) The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling 25:645–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Decho AW (2000) Microbial biofilms in intertidal systems: an overview. Cont Shelf Res 20:1257–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobretsov S, Abed RMM, Teplitski M (2013) Mini-review: inhibition of biofouling by marine microorganisms. Biofouling 29:423–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endresen Ø, Sørgård E, Sundet JK, Dalsøren SB, Isaksen ISA, Berglen TF, Gravir G (2003) Emission from international sea transportation and environmental impact. J Geophys Res 108(D17):4560. doi: 10.1029/2002JD002898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [EMSA] European Maritime Safety Agency (2012) The world merchant fleet 2012: statistics from Equasis. European Maritime Safety Agency, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  17. [FAO] Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2007) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Floerl O, Inglis G, Dey KL, Smith A (2009) The importance of transport hubs in stepping-stone invasions. J Appl Ecol 46:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gollasch S (2002) The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling 18(2):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hay C, Dodgshun T (1997, May) Ecosystem transplant? The case of the Yefim Gorbenko. Seafood N Z, p 13–15Google Scholar
  21. Hewitt C (2002) Distribution and biodiversity of Australian tropical marine bioinvasions. Pac Sci 56:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglis GJ, Floerl O, Ahyong S, Cox S, Unwin M, Ponder-Sutton A, Seaward K, Kospartov M, Read G, Gordon D, Hosie A, Nelson W, d’Archino R, Bell A, Kluza D (2010) The biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on international vessels arriving in New Zealand: summary of the patterns and predictors of fouling. Biosecurity New Zealand technical paper, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (1974) UNTS 3: International convention for the safety of life at sea, vol 1184Google Scholar
  24. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2004) Convention BWM/CONF/36: international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sedimentsGoogle Scholar
  25. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2011) Resolution MEPC.207(62): guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofoulingGoogle Scholar
  26. [IMO] Internation Maritime Organization (2012) MEPC.1/Circ.792: guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craftGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones B (1998) Infosheet 45: Lloyd’s Register/International Maritime Organisation Numbers. Lloyd’s Register Foundation Information Centre, London. [updated 2014 Jan 3; cited 2014 Nov 13].
  28. Lenz J, Andres HG, Gollasch S, Dammer M (2000) Einschleppung fremder organismen in Nord-und ostsee: untersuchungen zum ökologischen gefahrenpotential durch den schiffsverkehr (translated). UBA Project Water: 102 04 250, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, Texte 5Google Scholar
  29. Leung B, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Predicting invasions: propagule pressure and the gravity of Allee effects. Ecology 85:1651–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MAN Diesel and Turbo (2011) Basic principles of ship propulsion. MAN SE, MunichGoogle Scholar
  31. [MPI] Ministry of Primary Industries (2014) Biofouling on vessels arriving to New Zealand. CRMS-Bioufoul, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Molland AF (2011) Ship resistance and propulsion: practical estimation of propulsive power. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muirhead JR, MacIsaac HJ (2011) Evaluation of stochastic gravity model selection for use in estimating non-indigenous species dispersal and establishment. Biol Invasions 13:2445–2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (2013) NBIC Online Database, Electronic publication, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and United States Coast Guard. searched 26 Aug 2013
  35. Olesen G (1982, May) Antifouling paint—a source of pollution. Shipcare Marit Manage, p 37–41Google Scholar
  36. Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (2008) Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruiz GM, Fofonoff PW, Steves BP, Carlton JT (2015) Invasion history and vector dynamics in coastal marine ecosystems: a North American perspective. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 18(3):1–13Google Scholar
  38. Saunders HE (1957) Hydrodynamics in ship design, vol II. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneekluth H, Bertram V (1998) Ship design for efficiency and economy, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz MP (2007) Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling 23(5):331–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schultz MP, Swain GW (2009) The influence of biofilms on skin friction drag. Biofouling 15(1–3):129–139Google Scholar
  42. Schultz MP, Bendick JA, Holm ER, Hertel WM (2011) Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling 27(1):87–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shikuma NJ, Hadfield MG (2005) Temporal variation of an initial marine biofilm community and its effects on larval settlement and metamorphosis of the tubeworm Hydroides elegans. Biofilms 2:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Census Bureau (2010) Census 2010, state and county QuickFacts. [updated 2015 May 28; cited 2015 Aug 10].
  45. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014) Annual energy outlook 2014. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  46. Visscher JP (1928) Nature and extent of fouling of ships’ bottoms. Bull US Bur Fish 43:193–252Google Scholar
  47. Zobell CE (1943) The effect of solid surfaces upon bacterial activity. J Bacteriol 46:39–56PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cameron S. Moser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Timothy P. Wier
    • 1
  • Jonathan F. Grant
    • 2
  • Matthew R. First
    • 3
  • Mario N. Tamburri
    • 4
  • Gregory M. Ruiz
    • 5
  • A. Whitman Miller
    • 5
  • Lisa A. Drake
    • 6
  1. 1.Excet Inc.SpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.Battenkill Technologies, Inc.Manchester CenterUSA
  3. 3.Chemistry DivisionNaval Research Laboratory, Code 6136WashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomonsUSA
  5. 5.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  6. 6.Chemistry DivisionNaval Research Laboratory, Code 6136Key WestUSA

Personalised recommendations