Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1887–1893 | Cite as

The potential of large rafting objects to spread Lessepsian invaders: the case of a detached buoy

  • Angelina Ivkić
  • Jan Steger
  • Bella S. Galil
  • Paolo G. AlbanoEmail author
Open Access
Invasion Note

Abstract

A diverse and abundant fouling community dominated by Lessepsian non-indigenous species was identified on a 13.5-m-long steel buoy stranded on the Israeli coast but originating from Port Said, at the Mediterranean entrance of the Suez Canal, Egypt. The molluscan community was sampled quantitatively by scraping. Three quarters of the individuals and more than half of the species were non-indigenous. Among the latter, a mytilid bivalve, Gregariella cf. ehrenbergi, was first recorded in the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of these samples, suggesting that the full consideration of all potential vectors can contribute to non-indigenous species detection. Large floating objects in coastal waters, such as buoys, are particularly suitable for colonization by Lessepsian species because hard substrates, and artificial ones in particular, are highly susceptible to the establishment of non-indigenous species. Moreover, their size and persistence enable the development of abundant and mature fouling communities that can disseminate propagules as eggs and larvae over long distances and for extended periods if detached. This report highlights the potential for large rafting debris as a vector of the spread of non-indigenous biota within the Mediterranean Sea.

Keywords

Anthropogenic debris Rafting Non-indigenous species Introduction vectors Fouling Mediterranean Sea 

Introduction

Floating marine litter is increasingly becoming an important vector of introduction and spread of non-indigenous species (NIS) (Kiessling et al. 2015). It may double or even triple the dispersal of marine organisms due to its high persistence (Barnes 2002) and open new introduction pathways (Hoeksema et al. 2012, 2015; Holmes et al. 2015; Carlton et al. 2017). The larger and longer-lasting floating objects have a greater potential as vectors for biological invasions because they likely host a more diverse fouling community and may traverse longer distances due to lower degradation and sinkage rates (Thiel and Gutow 2005; Goldstein et al. 2014). A major example is the dispersal of western Pacific species on rafting objects after the tsunami generated by the 2011 East Japan earthquake: 289 Japanese coastal species crossed the northern Pacific Ocean reaching the shores of North America and Hawai’i (Carlton et al. 2017). Some objects were as large as docks or fishing vessels, and able to carry tens of species per object.

In the Mediterranean Sea, the role of marine litter as a primary or secondary vector of species introductions has largely been neglected (Katsanevakis and Crocetta 2014); in the major recent assessments of pathways and vectors in Europe, it has been either lumped with others or not considered (Zenetos et al. 2012; Katsanevakis et al. 2013; Nunes et al. 2014; Galil et al. 2014). To improve our understanding of the role of marine litter as a vector of NIS dispersal, it is necessary to quantify the contribution of litter on their regional spread, determine which litter items are the main carriers, and identify the major donor and recipient areas (Rech et al. 2016).

One of the high-risk donor areas is certainly the Levantine Basin, the easternmost part of the Mediterranean Sea. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 triggered the Lessepsian invasion (Por 1978), and the recent Canal enlargement may turn out to have triggered the onset of a new wave of introductions (Galil et al. 2015, 2017). Any floating object in this region may be prone to the colonization by Lessepsian species and consequently may contribute to their transportation to other sectors of the basin.

Thus, the stranding of a 13.5-m-long steel buoy in Israel that was traced to originate from Port Said, Egypt, at the Mediterranean entrance to the Suez Canal, permitted the first examination of the role of large rafting debris in the Lessepsian invasion. During its ca 280-km-long journey, the buoy transported a diverse and abundant invertebrate assemblage dominated by NIS. To our knowledge, this is the first report of large rafting objects as vectors for Lessepsian invaders and our finding clearly demonstrates their potential in facilitating the secondary spread of Lessepsian NIS.

Materials and methods

In 2014, a 13.5-m-long steel buoy, originally moored at the entrance of the Suez Canal in Port Said, Egypt, got detached and stranded near Shefayim, Israel, from where it was subsequently transported to a dumping site in the close-by Herzliya Marina (Captain M. Solomon and A. Tzindr, pers. comm.). On 28 September 2016, we scraped the fouling community on the buoy from 0.1 m2 quadrats approximately every meter along a depth transect from the water line to its lowermost end (at originally 5.5 m depth) and, in addition, a quadrat in the interior of the buoy at ca 5.5 m depth (coded consecutively from Q1, water level, to Q7, in the interior). Q5 lacked fouling organisms and was omitted from consideration; the exterior of the buoy looked abraded, suggesting possible damage during transport with consequent loss of fouling organisms. Due to the long period elapsed between stranding and sampling, soft-bodied organisms were no longer present and thus we focused our research on mollusks, whose shells were abundant, and mostly still retained the dried tissues. The samples were sieved on 0.5 mm and 4 mm mesh and the retained mollusks identified to species. The samples will be deposited in the Natural History Museum Vienna and a voucher collection in the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University.

We computed metrics and drew charts with the statistical programming environment R (R Development Core Team 2008). We created the final graphical output with the program Inkscape.

Results

We identified 11 indigenous and 10 non-indigenous mollusk species (414 and 1294 individuals, respectively). Bivalves dominated the sampled molluscan community. Among the NIS, we found Gregariella cf. ehrenbergi (Issel, 1869), a species not previously recorded from the Mediterranean Sea (Steger et al. 2018). On the ground at the Herzliya Marina, next to the buoy, we found specimens of the non-indigenous intertidal gastropod Cellana rota (Gmelin, 1791). Fouling gastropods in most cases adhere with their foot and thus fall off once dead. In addition, we found few specimens of the crabs Eriphia verrucosa (Forskål, 1775) and the non-indigenous Sphaerozius nitidus Stimpson, 1858. The latter was reported from Port Said in a study on brachyuran crabs associated with marine fouling in Mediterranean Egyptian harbors (Ibrahim and Ramadan 2016). Their presence suggests that the buoy arrived in the marina with still living fouling organisms. However, at the time of sampling, the original gastropod assemblage may have been partly lost and therefore be under-represented in our samples, potentially leading to an underestimation of NIS diversity and abundance for this taxonomic group. The buoy was also covered by many individuals of the non-indigenous Balanus trigonus (Darwin, 1854) and some specimens of Perforatus perforatus (Bruguière, 1789) as well as the non-indigenous Amphibalanus reticulatus (Utinomi, 1967).

In all quadrats, NIS were more diverse and abundant than native species, with the highest NIS diversity in Q2 (− 1 m) and the greatest NIS abundance in Q1 (water line) (Fig. 1). The most abundant NIS were Brachidontes pharaonis (P. Fischer, 1870) and Malleus regula (Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775) with 746 and 297 individuals, respectively (Table 1). Modiolus cf. barbatus and Striarca lactea (Linnaeus, 1758) were the most abundant native species with 241 and 62 individuals, respectively (Table 1). It is worth mentioning that the identity of the mytilid bivalve Modiolus cf. barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758) is uncertain: a similar species is known from the Red Sea (Oliver 1992) but the taxonomic knowledge of the genus in the Indo-Pacific province is too poor for a definite identification, especially at the sub-adult stage of most of our specimens. Because of its abundance, however, if this species would prove to be a Red Sea Modiolus, most metrics of non-indigenous species diversity and abundance would increase considerably. Dendostrea cf. folium (Linnaeus, 1758) is also tentatively identified due to the poor taxonomic knowledge of the group (Crocetta et al. 2015), but it is clearly not a native species. In most quadrats, natives were more abundant in the smaller (0.5–4 mm) than in the larger shell size fraction (> 4 mm) (Table 2). The one exception was Q2, a particularly poor sample with only 13 individuals. Overall, species richness did not differ between the size fractions.
Fig. 1

Position of the sampled quadrats on the buoy and share of native versus non-indigenous species (NIS) abundance and richness (in %). Photos were shot with the buoy laying horizontally. The location of Q1 represents the original water line. Q5 was located between Q4 and Q6 but did not contain mollusks and is therefore omitted. Q7 is situated in the interior of the buoy. Abundance and species richness of NIS (in red) were higher than of native species (in blue) at all depths

Table 1

Species abundance in each quadrat (Q5 did not contain any mollusks)

Class

Family

Genus

Status

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q6

Q7

Gastropoda

Cerithiopsidae

Cerithiopsis tenthrenois (Melvill, 1896)

NIS

0

0

0

0

0

2

Gastropoda

Rissoidae

Crisilla semistriata (Montagu, 1808)

Native

0

0

0

0

0

1

Bivalvia

Arcidae

Arca noae (Linnaeus, 1758)

Native

3

0

0

0

1

0

Bivalvia

Noetiidae

Striarca lactea (Linnaeus, 1758)

Native

2

2

5

1

29

23

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Gregariella cf. ehrenbergi (Issel, 1869)

NIS

12

0

6

2

45

18

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Musculus subpictus (Cantraine, 1835)

Native

0

0

0

0

0

2

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Musculus costulatus (Risso, 1826)

Native

1

0

0

0

0

0

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Lithophaga lithophaga (Linnaeus, 1758)

Native

0

0

1

0

0

4

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Modiolus cf. barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Native

83

0

49

7

23

79

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Arcuatula senhousia (Benson, 1842)

NIS

1

0

0

0

0

0

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Brachidontes pharaonis (P. Fischer, 1870)

NIS

708

4

15

1

8

10

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Septifer cumingii (Récluz, 1848)

NIS

37

2

4

3

20

15

Bivalvia

Mytilidae

Mytilaster cf. minimus (Poli, 1795)

Native

2

0

0

0

1

0

Bivalvia

Pteriidae

Pinctada imbricata radiata (Leach, 1814)

NIS

3

0

0

0

2

5

Bivalvia

Ostreidae

Ostrea edulis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Native

27

0

7

1

13

1

Bivalvia

Ostreidae

Dendostrea cf. folium (Linnaeus, 1758)

NIS

5

4

28

1

1

7

Bivalvia

Malleidae

Malleus regula (Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775)

NIS

58

1

70

2

66

100

Bivalvia

Chamidae

Chama pacifica (Broderip, 1835)

NIS

3

0

6

1

5

10

Bivalvia

Myidae

Sphenia binghami (Turton, 1822)

Native

7

0

4

0

16

15

Bivalvia

Gastrochaenidae

Cucurbitula cymbium (Spengler, 1783)

NIS

0

0

0

0

2

1

Bivalvia

Gastrochaenidae

Rocellaria dubia (Pennant, 1777)

Native

0

0

0

0

3

1

The most abundant non-indigenous species (NIS) and native species in each quadrat are marked in bold

Table 2

Abundance and species richness of non-indigenous species (NIS) and native species in the two size fractions

Quadrat

Mesh size

Abundance

Species richness

NIS

Native

NIS

Native

Q1

0.5–4 mm

201 (73%)

75 (27%)

6 (50%)

6 (50%)

> 4 mm

624 (93%)

49 (7%)

7 (58%)

5 (42%)

Q2

0.5–4 mm

3 (100%)

0 (0%)

1 (100%)

0 (0%)

> 4 mm

8 (80%)

2 (20%)

4 (80%)

1 (20%)

Q3

0.5–4 mm

29 (37%)

50 (63%)

5 (56%)

4 (44%)

> 4 mm

98 (87%)

15 (13%)

4 (57%)

3 (43%)

Q4

0.5–4 mm

4 (36%)

7 (64%)

3 (75%)

1 (25%)

> 4 mm

6 (75%)

2 (25%)

4 (67%)

2 (33%)

Q6

0.5–4 mm

81 (57%)

62 (43%)

7 (54%)

6 (46%)

> 4 mm

67 (74%)

23 (26%)

24 (86%)

4 (14%)

Q7

0.5–4 mm

75 (38%)

124 (62%)

8 (53%)

7 (47%)

> 4 mm

93 (98%)

2 (2%)

5 (71%)

2 (29%)

The larger size fraction (> 4 mm) generally shows a greater diversity and abundance of non-indigenous species than the smaller one (0.5–4 mm). Q5 did not contain any mollusks and was therefore omitted

Discussion

The rich sessile fouling community on the buoy was at an advanced successional stage, as the presence of adult specimens of the bivalves Brachidontes pharaonis in Q1 and Malleus regula in Q7 suggests (Astudillo et al. 2009). Some specimens of Pinctada imbricata radiata are more than 10 cm long and thus more than 6 years old (Narayanan and Michael 1968). Their size, as well as the large size of some specimens of Chama pacifica and Malleus regula, suggest that this community developed while the buoy was still moored at Port Said.

We also detected a new NIS on the buoy, the mytilid Gregariella cf. ehrenbergi. This species has a complex taxonomic status and cryptic habitat (Steger et al. 2018) which may cause significant time lags in first detection (Crooks 2005; Albano et al. 2018). Therefore, we cannot determine whether this is truly a recent arrival, but our study demonstrates that the full consideration of all potential vectors can contribute to NIS detection.

Steel buoys are particularly suitable for the colonization by sessile and motile NIS because hard substrates are highly susceptible to their establishment and, once detached from their mooring, are likely to serve as raft for their fouling community (Miller 1968; Kerckhof and Cattrijsse 2001; Wasson et al. 2005; Lim et al. 2009; Nawrot et al. 2015; Simpson et al. 2016). Moreover, artificial substrates facilitate NIS establishment (Bulleri and Airoldi 2005; Glasby et al. 2007; Bulleri and Chapman 2010) because of weaker competitive interactions, as predicted by the biotic resistance hypothesis (Elton 1958), or because of reduced mortality due to predation, as predicted by the enemy release hypothesis (Keane and Crawley 2002) and experimentally tested (Dumont et al. 2011; Rogers et al. 2016). Indeed, 75% of the individuals on the buoy were identified as NIS. The NIS dominance was even more prominent in the larger size fraction (> 4 mm), likely a consequence of the larger average size of the Red Sea species pool (Nawrot et al. 2017).

Marine litter, in general, has rarely been discussed as a vector of primary or secondary NIS introduction in the Mediterranean Sea and, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of Lessepsian NIS transported on a detached buoy. The Mediterranean Sea hosts a great number of large floating objects such as navigational buoys, components of aquaculture plants and harbor pontoons, where rich fouling communities can develop (Kerckhof and Cattrijsse 2001; Lim et al. 2009; Rech et al. 2018). If such large objects get detached, they may serve as a vector of NIS spread during rafting because under suitable conditions mature individuals may release eggs and larvae en route (Lockwood et al. 2005, 2009; Simberloff 2009). Therefore, we propose that large rafting objects should be fully considered as vectors of biological invasions in the Mediterranean Sea.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Sampling in Israel was conducted in the framework of the project “Historical ecology of Lessepsian migration” funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) P28983-B29 (PI: P. G. Albano). AI was supported by an ERASMUS+ traineeship. We are indebted to Martin Zuschin for his support all along the planning and running of the project. We thank Captain Michael Solomon, Senior Marine Surveyor, Shipping and Ports Administration and Amir Tzindr, Harbour Master, Herzliya Marina for information on the origin and location of the stranded buoy. Beata Dunne copyedited the manuscript final version. Graham Oliver and Francis Kerckhof offered useful suggestions on the identification of bivalves and barnacles, respectively. Furthermore, we thank Francesca Sangiorgi for additional support and supervision. Two anonymous reviewers provided useful suggestions on a first version of the ms. Open access funding provided by Austrian Science Fund (FWF).

References

  1. Albano PG, Gallmetzer I, Haselmair A, Tomašových A, Stachowitsch M, Zuschin M (2018) Historical ecology of a biological invasion: the interplay of eutrophication and pollution determines time lags in establishment and detection. Biol Invasions 20:1417–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1634-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astudillo JC, Bravo M, Dumont CP, Thiel M (2009) Detached aquaculture buoys in the SE pacific: potential dispersal vehicles for associated organisms. Aquat Biol 5:219–231.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes DKA (2002) Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416:808–809.  https://doi.org/10.1038/416808a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulleri F, Airoldi L (2005) Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic Sea. J Appl Ecol 42:1063–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01096.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulleri F, Chapman MG (2010) The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. J Appl Ecol 47:26–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01751.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlton JT, Chapman JW, Geller JB et al (2017) Tsunami-driven rafting: transoceanic species dispersal and implications for marine biogeography. Science 357:1402–1406.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao1498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crocetta F, Mariottini P, Salvi D, Oliverio M (2015) Does GenBank provide a reliable DNA barcode reference to identify small alien oysters invading the Mediterranean Sea? J Mar Biol Assoc U K 95:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315414001027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crooks JA (2005) Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–329.  https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-12-3-316.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumont CP, Harris LG, Gaymer CF (2011) Anthropogenic structures as a spatial refuge from predation for the invasive bryozoan Bugula neritina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 427:95–103.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galil BS, Marchini A, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Minchin D, Narščius A, Ojaveer H, Olenin S (2014) International arrivals: widespread bioinvasions in European Seas. Ethol Ecol Evol 26:152–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2014.897651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galil BS, Boero F, Campbell ML et al (2015) ‘Double trouble’: the expansion of the Suez Canal and marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. Biol Invasions 17:973–976.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0778-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galil B, Marchini A, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Ojaveer H (2017) The enlargement of the Suez Canal—Erythraean introductions and management challenges. Manag Biol Invasions 8:141–152.  https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.2.02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glasby TM, Connell SD, Holloway MG, Hewitt CL (2007) Nonindigenous biota on artificial structures: Could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions? Mar Biol 151:887–895.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0552-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldstein MC, Carson HS, Eriksen M (2014) Relationship of diversity and habitat area in North Pacific plastic-associated rafting communities. Mar Biol 161:1441–1453.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2432-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoeksema B, Roos P, Cadée G (2012) Trans-Atlantic rafting by the brooding reef coral Favia fragum on man-made flotsam. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 445:209–218.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoeksema B, Roos P, Cadée G (2015) Trans-Atlantic rafting by the brooding reef coral Favia fragum on man-made flotsam. Corrigendum. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 451:209–218.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09460 Google Scholar
  18. Holmes AM, Oliver PG, Trewhella S, Hill R, Quigley DTG (2015) Trans-Atlantic rafting of inshore Mollusca on macro-litter: american molluscs on British and Irish shores, new records. J Conchol 42:1–9Google Scholar
  19. Ibrahim KMA, Ramadan SE (2016) Brachyuran crabs associated with marine fouling from Egyptian Mediterranean harbors. Rapport Commission Internationale Mer Méditerranée 41:421Google Scholar
  20. Katsanevakis S, Crocetta F (2014) Pathways of introduction of marine alien species in European waters and the Mediterranean—a possible undermined role of marine litter. In: Briand F (ed) Marine litter in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. CIESM Publisher, Monaco, p 180Google Scholar
  21. Katsanevakis S, Zenetos A, Belchior C, Cardoso AC (2013) Invading European Seas: assessing pathways of introduction of marine aliens. Ocean Coast Manag 76:64–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keane R, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02499-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerckhof F, Cattrijsse A (2001) Exotic Cirripedia (Balanomorpha) from buoys off the Belgian coast. Senckenb Marit 31:245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03043033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiessling T, Gutow L, Thiel M (2015) Marine litter as habitat and dispersal vector. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer, Cham, pp 141–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lim S-C, de Voogd NJ, Tan K-S (2009) Fouling sponges (Porifera) on navigation buoys from Singapore waters. Raffles Bull Zool 22(suppl.):41–58Google Scholar
  26. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 15:904–910.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00594.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller MA (1968) Isopoda and Tanaidacea from Buoys in coastal waters of the Contintental United States, Hawaii, and the Bahamas (Crustacea). Proc U S Natl Mus 125:1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Narayanan KR, Michael MS (1968) On the relation between age and linear measurements of the pearl oyster Pinctada vulgaris (Schumacher) of the Gulf of Kutch. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 65:444–452Google Scholar
  30. Nawrot R, Chattopadhyay D, Zuschin M (2015) What guides invasion success? Ecological correlates of arrival, establishment and spread of Red Sea bivalves in the Mediterranean Sea. Divers Distrib 21:1075–1086.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nawrot R, Albano PG, Chattopadhyay D, Zuschin M (2017) Climate change and body size shift in Mediterranean bivalve assemblages: unexpected role of biological invasions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284:20170357.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunes AL, Katsanevakis S, Zenetos A, Cardoso AC (2014) Gateways to alien invasions in the European seas. Aquat Invasions 9:133–144.  https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2014.9.2.02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oliver PG (1992) Bivalved seashells of the Red Sea. Verlag Christa Hemmen, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  34. Por FD (1978) Lessepsian migration: the influx of Red Sea biota into the Mediterranean by way of the Suez Canal. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. Rech S, Borrell Y, García-Vazquez E (2016) Marine litter as a vector for non-native species: what we need to know. Mar Pollut Bull 113:40–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rech S, Salmina S, Borrell Pichs YJ, García-Vazquez E (2018) Dispersal of alien invasive species on anthropogenic litter from European mariculture areas. Mar Pollut Bull 131:10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers TL, Byrnes JE, Stachowicz JJ (2016) Native predators limit invasion of benthic invertebrate communities in Bodega Harbor, California, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 545:161–173.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simpson TS, Wernberg T, McDonald JI (2016) Distribution and localised effects of the invasive Ascidian Didemnum perlucidum (Monniot 1983) in an Urban Estuary. PLoS ONE 11:e0154201.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steger J, Stockinger M, Ivkić A, Galil BS, Albano PG (2018) New records of non-indigenous molluscs from the eastern Mediterranean Sea. BioInvasions Rec 7:245–257.  https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2018.7.3.05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thiel M, Gutow L (2005) The ecology of rafting in the marine environment. I. The floating substrata. Oceanogr Mar Biol 42:181–263Google Scholar
  43. Wasson K, Fenn K, Pearse JS (2005) Habitat differences in marine invasions of central California. Biol Invasions 7:935–948.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-004-2995-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zenetos Α, Gofas S, Morri C et al (2012) Alien species in the Mediterranean Sea by 2012. A contribution to the application of European Union’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Part 2. Introduction trends and pathways. Mediterr Mar Sci 13:328–352.  https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PalaeontologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Israel National Center for Biodiversity StudiesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations