Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1565–1575 | Cite as

Manipulating propagule pressure to test the invasibility of subtidal marine habitats

  • Christina Simkanin
  • Ian C. Davidson
  • Thomas W. Therriault
  • Glen Jamieson
  • John F. Dower
Original Paper


Global patterns show that estuaries are more invaded than open coasts and artificial habitats are more invaded than natural ones. The contention that artificial habitats in estuaries are more invasible than other habitats may result from variation in propagule supply, however, as artificial habitats are closely linked to vectors of non-native propagules, such as ships and boats. True comparisons of habitat invasibility require manipulations of propagule pressure, which has been historically difficult in marine systems. Using in-situ larval dosing, we delivered propagules of the widespread invasive ascidian Botrylloides violaceus into field mesocosms and assessed how habitat type (floating dock vs. benthic rock), resource availability (occupied vs. unoccupied plates), and propagule number (5, 25 and 50 larvae 225 cm−2) affected settlement (survival after 24 h) and recruitment (survival after 56 days) success. In-situ larval dosing was successful, and after eight weeks there were significant differences in recruitment due to initial dose-size, habitat type, and space availability. At the habitat scale, despite equal propagule delivery, PVC plates in natural benthic rock were not equally invasible and few propagules survived to recruitment. At the organism scale, increased habitat complexity, through facilitation by established fouling species, rather than freedom from space competitors, appears to be more important for B. violaceus to establish. Our results offer greater mechanistic understanding of broader invasion patterns between artificial and natural habitats. This work extends the possibilities for further research to counteract the confounding issue of unknown and unknowable propagule delivery when attempting to explain variation in invasion success.


Ascidian Anthropogenic habitat Dispersal Facilitation Marina Predation Supply-side ecology 



We are very grateful to marina managers and staff at the Institute of Ocean Sciences and the Royal Victoria Yacht Club who accommodated our sampling. We thank Natalia Filip, Kendra Myer, and Heidi Gartner for field support; Mark Minton for statistical advice; and Isabelle Côté, Kim Juniper, Verena Tunnicliffe, and the anonymous reviewers who provided comments on previous drafts. This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) through the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) and the Aquatic Invasive Species program of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.


  1. Altieri AH, Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2007) Hierarchical organization via a facilitation cascade in intertidal cordgrass bed communities. Am Nat 169(2):195–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton AM, Brewster LB, Cox AN, Prentiss NK (2004) Non-indigenous woody invasive plants in a rural New England town. Biol Invasions 6:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman J, Harris L, Lambert W, Buttrick M, Dufresne M (1992) Recent invasions of the Gulf of Maine: three contrasting ecological histories. Conserv Biol 6(3):435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24(3):127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd HC, Brown SK, Harp JA, Weisman IL (1986) Growth and sexual maturation of laboratory-cultured Monterey Botryllus schlosseri. Biol Bull 170(1):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britton-Simmons KH, Abbott KC (2008) Short- and long-term effects of disturbance and propagule pressure on a biological invasion. J Ecol 96:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess SC, Marshall DJ (2011) Are numbers enough? Colonizer phenotype and abundance interact to affect population dynamics. J Anim Ecol 80:681–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke MJW, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlton JT (1979) History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine ad estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific Coast of North America. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlton JT (1996) Patterns, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biol Conserv 78:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chytrý M, Jarosik V, Pyšek P, Hájek O, Knollová I, Tichý L, Danihelka J (2008) Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89(6):1541–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark GF, Johnston EL (2005) Manipulating larval supply in the field: a controlled study of marine invasibility. Mar Eco Prog Ser 298:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark GF, Johnston EL (2009) Propagule pressure and disturbance interact to overcome biotic resistance to marine invertebrate communities. Oikos 118:1679–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark GF, Johnston EL (2011) Temporal change in the diversity-invasibility relationship in the presence of a disturbance regime. Ecol Lett 14:52–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Antonio CM (1993) Mechanisms controlling invasion of coastal plant communities by the alien succulent Carpobrotus edulis. Ecology 74:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dafforn KA, Johnston EL, Glasby TM (2009) Shallow moving structures promote marine invader dominance. Biofouling 25(3):277–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dafforn KA, Glasby TM, Johnston EL (2012) Comparing the invasibility of experimental “reefs” with field observations of natural reefs and artificial structures. PLoS ONE 7(5):e38124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038124 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis MA, Pelsor M (2001) Experimental support for a resource-based mechanistic model of invasibility. Ecol Lett 4:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dijkstra J, Harris LG, Westerman E (2007) Distribution and long-term temporal patterns of four invasive colonial ascidians in the Gulf of Maine. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dumont CP, Gaymer CF, Theil M (2011) Predation contributes to invasion resistance of benthic communities against the nonindigenous tunicate Ciona intestinalis. Biol Invasions 13:2023–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epelbaum A, Therriualt TW, Paulson A, Pearce CM (2009) Botryllid tunicates: culture techniques and experimental procedures. Aquat Invasions 4(1):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eschtruth AK, Battles JJ (2011) The importance of quantifying propagule pressure to understand invasion: an examination of riparian forest invasibility. Ecology 92(6):1314–1322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fofonoff PW, Ruiz GM, Steves B, Carlton JT (2003) National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. Accessed 28 Mar 2013
  27. Forrest BM, Fletcher LM, Atalah J, Piola RF, Hopkins GA (2013) Predation limits spread of Didemnum vexillum into natural habitats from refuges on anthropogenic structures. PLoS ONE 8(12):e82229. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082229 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Forsyth DM, Duncan RP (2001) Propagule size and the relative success of exotic ungulate and bird introductions to New Zealand. Am Nat 157:583–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gittenberger A (2007) Recent population expansions of non-native ascidians in the Netherlands. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glasby TM (2001) Development of sessile marine assemblages on fixed versus moving substrata. Mar Eco Prog Ser 215:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glasby TM, Connell SD, Holloway M, Hewitt C (2007) Nonindigenous biota on anthropogenic structures: could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions? Mar Biol 151:887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedge LH, O’Connor WA, Johnston EL (2012) Manipulating the intrinsic parameters of propagule pressure: implications for bio-invasion. Ecosphere 3(6):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hobbs RJ (1989) The nature and effects of disturbance relative to invasions. In: Drake JA et al (eds) Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, SCOPE 37. Wiley, Chichester, pp 61–75Google Scholar
  35. Hunt HL, Scheibling RE (1997) Role of early post-settlement mortality in recruitment of benthic marine invertebrates. Mar Eco Prog Ser 155:269–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jeschke JM (2014) General hypotheses in invasion ecology. Divers Distrib 20:1229–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston EL, Piola RF, Clark GF (2009) The role of propagule pressure in invasion success. In: Rilov G, Crooks J (eds) Marine bioinvasions: ecology, conservation, and management perspectives. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–153Google Scholar
  38. Kremer LP, da Rocha RM (2016) The biotic resistance role of fish predation in fouling communities. Biol Invasions 18:3223–3227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lambert G, Sanamyan K (2001) Distaplia alaskensis sp. Nov. (Ascidiacea, Aplousobranchia) and other new ascidian records from south-central Alaska, with a redescription of Ascidia columbiana (Huntsman, 1912). Can J Zool 79:1766–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lambrinos JG (2002) The variable invasive success of Cortaderia species in a complex landscape. Ecology 83:518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2009) The more you introduce the more you get: the role of colonization pressure and propagule pressure in invasion ecology. Divers Distrib 15:904–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80(5):1522–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marshall DJ, Styan CA, Keough MJ (2000) Intraspecific co-variation between egg and body size affects fertilization kinetics of free-spawning marine invertebrates. Mar Eco Prog Ser 195:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mckinney ML (2002) Influence of settlement time, human population, park shape and age, visitation and roads on the number of alien plant species in protected areas in the USA. Divers Distrib 8:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meekins J, McCarthy B (2001) Effects of environmental variation on the invasive success of a nonindigenous forest herb. Ecol Appl 11:1336–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller AL, Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Wangen SR, Wiser SK, Meffin R, Duncan RP (2014) Quantifying invasion resistance: the use of recruitment functions to control for propagule pressure. Ecology 95(4):920–929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Minchin D (2007) Rapid coastal survey for targeted alien species associated with floating pontoons in Ireland. Aquat Invasions 2(1):63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Minton MS, Mack RN (2010) Naturalization of plant populations: the role of cultivation and population size and density. Oecologia 164(2):399–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Mukai H, Saito Y, Watanabe H (1987) Viviparous development in Botrylloides (compound ascidians). J Morphol 193:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. National Research Council (2011) Assessing the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk in ballast water. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Perkol-Finkel S, Zilman G, Sella I, Miloh T, Benayahu Y (2008) Floating and fixed artificial habitats: spatial and temporal patterns of benthic communities in a coral reef environment. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Priesler R, Wasson K, Wolff W, Tyrell M (2009) Invasions of estuaries versus the adjacent open coast: a global perspective. In: Rilov G, Crooks J (eds) Biological invasions in marine ecosystems. Springer, Berlin, pp 587–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pyšek P, Bacher S, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Wild J, Celesti-Grapow L, Gassó N, Kenis M, Lambdon PW, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Roques A, Sádlo J, Solarz W, Vilá M, Hulme P (2010) Contrasting patterns in the invasions of European terrestrial and freshwater habitats by alien plants, insects and vertebrates. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  55. Ramsay A, Davidson J, Landry T, Arsenault G (2008) Process of invasiveness among exotic tunicates in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Biol Invasions 10:1311–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rius M, Turon X, Marshall DJ (2009) Non-lethal effects of an invasive species in the marine environment: the importance of early life-history stages. Oecologia 159:873–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rogers TL, Byrnes JE, Stachowicz JJ (2016) Native predators limit invasion of benthic invertebrate communities in Bodega Harbor, California, USA. Mar Eco Prog Ser 545:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruiz GM, Carlton JT, Grosholz ED, Hines AH (1997) Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences. Am Zool 37:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruiz GM, Freestone A, Fofonoff P, Simkanin C (2009) Habitat distribution and heterogeneity in marine invasion dynamics: The importance of hard substrate and anthropogenic structure. In: Wahl W (ed) Marine hard bottom communities: patterns, dynamics, diversity and change. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saito Y, Mukai H, Watanabe H (1981) Studies on Japanese compound styelid Ascidians II. A new species of the genus Botrylloides and redescription of B. violaceus OKA. Publ Seto Mar Biol Lab 26:357–368Google Scholar
  61. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simberloff D (1989) Which insect introductions succeed and which fail? In: Drake JA et al (eds) Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective, SCOPE 37. Wiley, Chichester, pp 61–75Google Scholar
  63. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 40:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simberloff D, Wilson EO (1969) Experimental zoography of Islands: the colonization of empty islands. Ecology 50(2):278–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simkanin C, Davidson IC, Dower JF, Jamieson G, Therriault TW (2012) Anthropogenic structures and the infiltration of natural benthos by invasive ascidians. Mar Ecol 33:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simkanin C, Dower JF, Filip N, Jamieson G, Therriault TW (2013) Biotic resistance to the infiltration of natural benthic habitats: examining the role of predation in the distribution of the invasive ascidian Botrylloides violaceus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 439:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sinclair JS, Arnott SE (2016) Strength in size not numbers: propagule size more important than number in sexually reproducing populations. Biol Invasions 18:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skaug H, Fournier D, Bolker B, Magnusson A, Nielsen A (2016) Generalized linear mixed models using ‘AD Model Builder’. R package, version Scholar
  69. Stachowicz JJ, Byrnes JE (2006) Species diversity, invasion success, and ecosystem functioning: disentangling the influence of resource competition, facilitation, and extrinsic factors. Mar Eco Prog Ser 311:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strathmann MF (1987) Reproduction and development of marine invertebrates of the Northern Pacific Coast: data and methods for the study of eggs, embryos, and larvae. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  71. Streftaris N, Zenetos A, Papathanassiou E (2005) Globalisation in marine ecosystems: the story of non-indigenous marine species across European seas. Oceanogr Mar Biol 43:419–453Google Scholar
  72. Svane I, Young CM (1989) The ecology and behaviour of ascidian larvae. Oceanogr Mar Biol 27:45–90Google Scholar
  73. Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment, limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Todd CD, Turner SJ (1986) Ecology of intertidal and sublittoral cryptic epifaunal assemblages. I. Experimental rationale and the analysis of larval settlement. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 99:199–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Verling E, Ruiz GM, Smith LD, Galil B, Miller AW, Murphy KR (2005) Supply-side invasion ecology: characterizing propagule pressure in coastal ecosystems. Proc R Soc B 272(1596):1249–1257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Wahl M (1989) Marine epibiosis. I. Fouling and antifouling: some basic aspects. Mar Eco Prog Ser 58:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wasson K, Fenn K, Pearse JS (2005) Habitat differences in marine invasions of Central California. Biol Invasions 7(6):935–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  79. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological StationNanaimoCanada

Personalised recommendations