Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1745–1759 | Cite as

Quantifying the extent of niche areas in the global fleet of commercial ships: the potential for “super-hot spots” of biofouling

  • Cameron S. Moser
  • Timothy P. Wier
  • Matthew R. First
  • Jonathan F. Grant
  • Scott C. Riley
  • Stephanie H. Robbins-Wamsley
  • Mario N. Tamburri
  • Gregory M. Ruiz
  • A. Whitman Miller
  • Lisa A. Drake
Original Paper

Abstract

Niche areas of ships, such as lateral thruster tunnels, sea chests, and propellers, are often hot spots for the accumulation of biofouling organisms, a potential source of aquatic invasive species. Yet, the relative importance of different niche areas is poorly resolved, in terms of both total surface area and the associated biota (i.e., the species of organisms and their abundances). To address this information gap, a method was developed to estimate the extent of various niche areas in the global fleet of 120,252 commercial ships active between 1999 and 2013. The total niche area for these vessels was estimated to be 32,996 × 103 m2, representing approximately 10% of the total wetted surface area (WSA) available for colonization by biota. Considering the portion of niche areas relative to the total WSA, it was highest for passenger vessels (27%), followed by tugs (25%), and fishing vessels (21%), with niche areas representing a small portion of the WSA for bulk carriers and tankers (7–8%). Examining the different types of niche areas, thruster tunnels had the greatest total extent (10,189 × 103 m2), representing a disproportionately large contribution (>50%) of the total niche area for passenger vessels and tugs compared to other vessel types. This result, combined with the use and cleaning of thrusters, may render them “super-hot spots” of biofouling. The uneven distribution and extent of niche areas across vessels has implications for transfers of organisms and management strategies to reduce invasions associated with the surfaces of ships.

Keywords

Aquatic nuisance species Invasive species Non-indigenous species 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (funding agreement 2012–38) and the Maritime Administration (MARAD). We are grateful to Carolyn Junemann (MARAD) for guidance and programmatic support, and we thank Mark Minton (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) for his insights regarding the shipping data. Likewise, we appreciate advice from Rich Everett (U.S. Coast Guard Office of Environmental Standards) and the data provided from the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). This work was supported by Diane Lysogorski, Former 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 Edward Lemieux (Director, Code 6139, Naval Research Laboratory), Warren Schultz (Acting Superintendent, Chemistry Division, Naval Research Laboratory), James Carlton, and two anonymous reviewers improved it—thank you.

Supplementary material

10530_2017_1386_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (113 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 112 kb)

References

  1. [ABS] American Bureau of Shipping (2014) Ballast water treatment advisory. Houston (TX)Google Scholar
  2. Australian Department of Agriculture (2015) Proposed Australian biofouling management strategies. [updated 2015 Feb 25; cited 2015 Aug 4]. Available from:http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/biofouling
  3. Baier RE, Meyer AE, DePalma VA, King RW, Fornalik MS (1983) Surface microfouling during the induction period. J Heat Transf 105:618–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrass CB (2004) Ship design and performance for masters and mates. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. [CFR] United States Code of Federal Regulations (2003) Protection of environment. Title 40, Pt. 125Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Carlton JT (1987) Patterns of transoceanic marine biological invasions in the Pacific Ocean. Bull Mar Sci 41:452–465Google Scholar
  8. Carlton JS (2007) Marine propellers and propulsion. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Coutts ADM (1999) Hull fouling as a modern vector for marine biological invasions: investigation of merchant vessels visiting northern Tasmania. Master’s Thesis, Australian Maritime College. Launceston, TasmaniaGoogle 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 54:875–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coutts ADM, Taylor MD (2004) A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. N Z J Mar Fresh 38:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coutts ADM, Moore KM, Hewitt CL (2003) Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Mar Pollut Bull 46:1504–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Davidson IC, Brown CW, Sytsma MD, Ruiz GM (2009) The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling 25:645–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson IC, Ashton G, Ruiz G, Scianni C, Brown C, Lohan KP, Fleischer R (2013) Richness, extent, condition, reproductive status, and parasitism of fouling communities on commercial vessels. Report to the Marine Invasive Species Program of the California State Lands Commission, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson IC, Scianni C, Ceballos L, Zabin C, Ashton G, Ruiz G (2014) Evaluating ship biofouling and emerging management tools for reducing biofouling-mediated species incursions. Report to the Marine Invasive Species Program of the California State Lands Commission, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  17. Decho AW (2000) Microbial biofilms in intertidal systems: an overview. Cont Shelf Res 20:1257–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2007) Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat Invasions 2(2):121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [EMSA] European Maritime Safety Agency (2012) The world merchant fleet 2012: statistics from Equasis. European Maritime Safety Agency. LisbonGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Gollasch S (2002) The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling 18:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heger R (2005) Dockmaster training manual. Heger Dry Dock, Inc., HollistonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewitt C (2002) Distribution and biodiversity of Australian tropical marine bioinvasions. Pac Sci 56:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (1993) Resolution A.751 (18): Interim standards for ship maneuverabilityGoogle Scholar
  25. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2004) Convention BWM/CONF/36: international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sedimentsGoogle Scholar
  26. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2011) Resolution MEPC.207(62): guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofoulingGoogle Scholar
  27. [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2012) MEPC.1/Circ.792: guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craftGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanier F (2014) The lowdown on bottom paint. BoatUS News. Boat Owners Association of The United States. [updated 2014 Jan 3; cited 2015 Apr 2]. Available from: http://www.boatus.com/magazine/2014/april/boat-bottom-paint.asp
  29. Leung B, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Predicting invasions: propagule pressure and the gravity of Allee effects. Ecology 85:1651–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovell SJ, Drake LA (2009) Tiny stowaways: analyzing the economic benefits of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permit regulating ballast water discharges. Environ Manage 43:546–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. MAN Diesel and Turbo (2011) Basic principles of ship propulsion. MAN SE, MunichGoogle Scholar
  32. [MPI] Ministry of Primary Industries (2014) Biofouling on vessels arriving to New Zealand. CRMS-Bioufoul. WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Molland AF, Turnock SR (2007) Marine rudders and control surfaces—principles, data, design and applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Moser CS, Wier TP, Grant JF, Tamburri MN, Ruiz GN, Miller AW, First MR, Drake LA (2015) Quantifying the total wetted surface area of the world fleet: A first step in determining the potential extent of ships’ biofouling. Biol Invasions. early onlineGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. [NBIC] National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (2013) NBIC Online Database. Electronic publication, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and United States Coast Guard. Available from http://invasions.si.edu/nbic/search.html; searched 2013 Aug 26
  37. [NT] Northern Territory Government information and services (2016) Hull pest inspections for visiting boats. [updated 2016 Mar 31; cited 2016 Dec 30]. Available from: https://nt.gov.au/marine/for-all-harbour-and-boat-users/hull-pest-inspections-for-visiting-boats
  38. 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
  39. Parente J, Daidola JC, Basar NS, Rodi RC (1996) Commercial ship design and fabrication for corrosion control SR-1377. M. Rosenblatt & Son Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. [PIANC] Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (1992) Capability of ship manoeuvring simulation models for approach channels and fairways in harbours: report of working group no. 20 of permanent technical committee II. PIANC BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  41. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piola R, Conwell C (2010) Vessel biofouling as a vector for the introduction of non-indigenous marine species to New Zealand: Fishing vessels. Biosecurity New Zealand technical paper, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Saunders HE (1957) Hydrodynamics in ship design, vol II. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Schultz MP, Bendick ER, Holm ER, Hertel WM (2011) Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling 27(1):87–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Inv 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sylvester F, MacIsaac HJ (2010) Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the Great Lakes? Diversity Distrib 16:132–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor AH, Rigby G (2001) Suggested designs to facilitate improved management and treatment of ballast water on new and existing ships. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Australia - Research Advisory Group Ballast Water Research and Development ProgramGoogle Scholar
  49. Thieme H (1965) Design of ship rudders. Shipbuilding Institute University of Hamburg, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  50. Visscher JP (1928) Nature and extent of fouling of ships’ bottoms. Bull Bur Fish 43:193–252Google Scholar
  51. Watson DGM (1998) Practical ship design. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams SL, Davidson IC, Pasari JR, Ashton GV, Carlton JT, Crafton RE, Fontana RE, Grosholz ED, Miller AW, Ruiz GM, Zabin CJ (2013) Managing multiple vectors for marine invasions in an increasingly connected world. Bioscience 63(12):952–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. WorleyParsons Ltd. (2006) Sea water system operations and design features. BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  54. 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) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cameron S. Moser
    • 1
  • Timothy P. Wier
    • 2
  • Matthew R. First
    • 3
  • Jonathan F. Grant
    • 4
  • Scott C. Riley
    • 2
  • Stephanie H. Robbins-Wamsley
    • 2
  • Mario N. Tamburri
    • 5
  • Gregory M. Ruiz
    • 6
  • A. Whitman Miller
    • 6
  • Lisa A. Drake
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemistry DivisionU.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6137Key WestUSA
  2. 2.Excet IncSpringfieldUSA
  3. 3.Chemistry DivisionU.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6137WashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Battenkill Technologies, IncManchester CenterManchesterUSA
  5. 5.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomonsUSA
  6. 6.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA

Personalised recommendations