Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 3409–3416 | Cite as

Sounding out pests: the potential of hydroacoustics as a surveillance and compliance tool in aquatic biosecurity

  • D. A. AbdoEmail author
  • R. L. Duggan
  • J. I. McDonald
Invasion Note


Shipping is the main method for goods transportation, accounting for approximately 60% of all global trade. Biofouling of these shipping vessels is a critical pathway for the introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS) across the world’s oceans. In order to reduce the likelihood of NIS introductions, appropriate biosecurity mechanism need to be in place, including maintaining high standards in vessel hygiene, such as zero secondary biofouling. Development of methodologies that can accurately quantify vessel biofouling without impeding maritime operations, while simultaneously providing effective biosecurity for the marine environment and resources, and mitigation of introduced marine pests would be highly advantageous. This study tests such a methodology. We conduct a proof-of-concept study that uses hydroacoustics to quantify the biofouling on a vessel’s hull, using surrogates for a vessel hull and biofouling. Based on a simple off-the-shelf single beam echosounder, the method was able to visually detect and quantify various biofouling mimics (ranging in height from 10 to 200 mm in height) at a slow tow speed (0.5 m/s). The efficacy of the hydroacoustic method was influenced by the movement of the echosounder, with the discriminating capability reduced to the detection of only larger mimics as the speed of movement increased. With further development, the use of hydroacoustics could become a viable biosecurity surveillance option for the mitigation of introduced marine pest incursions.


Biofouling Introduced marine pest Subtidal Survey Monitoring 



The authors wish to thank the Perth Diving Academy for use of their facilities to conduct the experiment. Matthew Hewitt is thanked for his assistance during the experimentation. Thanks to Dr. Grey Coupland for providing a critical review of the manuscript. The anonymous reviewers are thanked for strengthening this manuscript. Funding for this work was provided by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development.


  1. Adams CM, Shumway SE, Whitlatch RB et al (2011) Biofouling in marine molluscan shellfish aquaculture: a survey assessing the business and economic implications of mitigation. J World Aquac Soc 42:242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JT, Holliday V, Kloser R et al (2007) Acoustic seabed classification of marine physical and biological landscapes. International Council for the Exploration of the SeaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell A, Phillips S, Georgiades E et al (2011) Risk analysis: vessel biofouling. Biosecurity New Zealand, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradford-Grieve JM (2016) Is there a taxonomic crisis? N Z Sci Rev 73:83Google Scholar
  5. DAWR (2015) Review of national marine pest biosecurity. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  6. Demer D, Berger L, Bernasconi M et al (2015) Calibration of acoustic instruments. ICES cooperative research report 133Google Scholar
  7. DoF (2013) Feasibility of using remote-operated vehicles (ROVs) for vessel biofouling inscpections. Department of Fisheries, Governemnt of Western Australia, PerthGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunn D (1965) Turbulence and its effect upon the transmission of sound in water. J Sound Vib 2:307–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitridge I, Dempster T, Guenther J et al (2012) The impact and control of biofouling in marine aquaculture: a review. Biofouling 28:649–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gohin F (2011) Annual cycles of chlorophyll—a, non-algal suspended particulate matter, and turbidity observed from space and in situ in coastal waters. Ocean Sci 7:705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hewitt C, Campbell M, Thresher R et al (1999) Marine biological invasions of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Technical report 20, Centre for Research on introduced marine pestsGoogle Scholar
  12. Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE et al (2004a) Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Mar Biol 144:183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hewitt CL, Willing J, Bauckham A et al (2004b) New Zealand marine biosecurity: delivering outcomes in a fluid environment. NZ J Mar Freshwat Res 38:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard A (1995) The possibility of long distance transmission of Bonamia by fouling on boat hulls. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutin E, Simard Y, Archambault P (2005) Acoustic detection of a scallop bed from a single-beam echosounder in the St. Lawrence. ICES J Mar Sci 62:966–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IMO (2018) Biofouling. In: International maritime organization. Accessed: 21 Feb 2018
  17. Inglis G, Floerl O, Ahyong S et al (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 paperGoogle Scholar
  18. Inglis G, Floerl O, Woods C (2012) Scenarios of vessel biofouling risk and their management. MAF research project RFP11832, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, pp 41–93Google Scholar
  19. Katsnelson B, Petnikov V, Lynch J (2012) Fundamentals of shallow water acoustics. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim KC, Byrne LB (2006) Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science. Ecol Res 21:794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lurton X (2004) An introduction to underwater acoustics. ASA, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Mineur F, Johnson MP, Maggs CA et al (2007) Hull fouling on commercial ships as a vector of macroalgal introduction. Mar Biol 151:1299–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MPI (2017) Craft risk management standard: vessels. Ministry for Primary Industries, Government of New Zealand, Wellignton, p 12Google Scholar
  24. NSPMMPI (2013) National system for the prevention and management of marine pest incursions: national biofouling management guidelines for the aquaculture industry. Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  25. Sabol BM, Melton RE, Chamberlain R et al (2002) Evaluation of a digital echo sounder system for detection of submersed aquatic vegetation. Estuaries 25:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sabol BM, Kannenberg J, Skogerboe J (2009) Integrating acoustic mapping into operational aquatic plant management: a case study in Wisconsin. J Aquat Plant Manag 47:44–52Google Scholar
  27. Simmonds J, MacLennan DN (2008) Fisheries acoustics: theory and practice. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Terlizzi A, Bevilacqua S, Fraschetti S et al (2003) Taxonomic sufficiency and the increasing insufficiency of taxonomic expertise. Mar Pollut Bull 46:556–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Vis C, Hudon C, Carignan R (2003) An evaluation of approaches used to determine the distribution and biomass of emergent and submerged aquatic macrophytes over large spatial scales. Aquat Bot 77:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aquatic Biosecurity, Sustainability and BiosecurityDepartment of Primary Industries and Regional DevelopmentNorth BeachAustralia

Personalised recommendations