Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1572–1581 | Cite as

Transient small boats as a long-distance coastal vector for dispersal of biofouling organisms

Article

Abstract

Alaska is at the northern end of an apparent latitudinal trend of decreasing coastal marine introductions on the West Coast of North America. Historical propagule supply may have played a role in forming this trend, but few studies have evaluated propagule supply to northern latitudes. Here, we examined the role of small boat traffic as a mechanism of long-distance spread for nonindigenous species (NIS) into coastal Alaska. We used a combination of public records, marina surveys, and boater interviews to characterize vessel traffic patterns and boater behaviors. In-water SCUBA sampling of recently arrived transient boats provided data on extent, richness, composition, and biogeography of biofouling incursions to Alaska from outside of the state. We documented a striking seasonality and directionality of vessel traffic, and most vessels were on voyages of >900 km. Most transient vessels sampled had few organisms, although one third had >100 organisms on submerged surfaces. Several NIS were recorded, including two that are not known to be established in Alaska (Watersipora subtorquata and Amphibalanus improvisus). The seasonal northward pulse of vessels and their cumulative biofouling species represent an important incursion mechanism for species yet to establish at the northern edge of a marine bioinvasion front in the northeastern Pacific. The low numbers of NIS sampled in this study coincide with the low number of marine NIS known from Alaska, which suggests that an opportunity remains to promote awareness and management of the vector to limit NIS influx to the region. This may be particularly relevant for future scenarios of increased vessel traffic and ocean warming, which are likely to interact to increase establishment success of invaders from the south.

Keywords

Anthropogenic transport Biofouling Introduced Latitudinal gradient Nonindigenous species Vector 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (project leader Tammy Davis). Gary Freitag, Barbara Morgan, Steve Corporon, Monaca Noble, and Trevor Ruiz provided local assistance in Ketchikan, and we also thank Dr Ernie Meloche for inspiration in the field. Other parties who offered assistance in the form of data, access, local knowledge, or personnel include Allen and Saunya Alloway at Wind and Water Charters and Scuba, Alaska Forestry Service, Ketchikan Customs and Border Protection, and Ketchikan Ports and Harbors. Taxonomic experts were Kristen Larson (tunicates), Jeff Cordell (mobile crustacea), Chris Brown (barnacles), and Linda McCann (bryozoans). The genetic analyses were completed by Jonathon Geller’s laboratory.

Supplementary material

12237_2014_9782_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 54.5 KB)

References

  1. Ashton, G., K. Boos, R. Shucksmith, and E. Cook. 2006. Risk assessment of hull fouling as a vector for marine non-natives in Scotland. Aquatic Invasions 4: 214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, G., E. Riedlecker, and G.M. Ruiz. 2008. First non-native crustacean established in coastal waters of Alaska. Aquatic Biology 3: 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlton, J.T. 1985. Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine organisms: The biology of ballast water. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review 23: 313–371.Google Scholar
  4. Carlton, J.T. 1996. Pattern, process and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biological Conservation 78: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke Murray, C., E.A. Pakhomov, and T.W. Thierrault. 2011. Recreational boating: A large unregulated vector transporting marine invasive species. Diversity and Distributions 6: 1161–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, A.N. 2005. Guide to the exotic species of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. www.exoticsguide.org. Accessed 10 Aug 2013.
  7. Cohen, C.S., L. McCann, T. Davis, L. Shaw, and G. Ruiz. 2011. Discovery and significance of the colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum in Alaska. Aquatic Invasions 6: 263–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coutts, A.D.M., and M.D. Taylor. 2004. A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. NZ Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darbyson, E., A. Locke, J.M. Hanson, and J.H.M. Willison. 2009. Marine boating habits and the potential for spread of invasive species in the Gulf of St Lawrence. Aquatic Invasions 4: 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, I., Zabin, C., Chang, A., Sytsma, M., and G. Ruiz. 2008. Characterizing the risk of species transfers on recreational boats in marine systems via hull fouling: A pilot study. Final report, US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, I.C., C.W. Brown, M.D. Sytsma, and G.M. Ruiz. 2009. The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling 25: 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson, I., C. Zabin, A. Chang, C.W. Brown, M. Sytsma, and G. Ruiz. 2010. Recreational boats as potential vectors of marine organisms at an invasion hotspot. Aquatic Biology 11: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. deRivera, C.E., G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, and P. Jivoff. 2006. Biotic resistance to invasion: Native predator limits abundance and distribution of an introduced crab. Ecology 86: 3367–3376.Google Scholar
  14. deRivera, C.E., B.P. Steves, P.W. Fofonoff, A.H. Hines, and G.M. Ruiz. 2011. Potential for high-latitude marine invasions along western North America. Diversity and Distribution 17: 1198–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fan, L., W.W. Wilson, and D. Tolliver. 2009. Logistical rivalries and port competition for container flows to US markets: Impacts of changes in Canada’s logistics system and expansion of the Panama Canal. Maritime Economics and Logistics 11: 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrapeira, C.M.R., A.V. Oliveira Marrocos de Melo, D.F. Barbosa, and K.M. Euzebio da Silva. 2007. Ship hull fouling in the port of Recife, Pernambuco. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 55: 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Floerl, O., and G.J. Inglis. 2003. Boat harbour design can exacerbate hull fouling. Austral Ecology 28: 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Floerl, O., and G.J. Inglis. 2005. Starting the invasion pathway: The interaction between source populations and human transport vectors. Biological Invasions 7: 589–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Floerl, O., G.J. Inglis, and B.J. Hayden. 2005a. A risk-based predictive tool to prevent accidental introductions of nonindigenous marine species. Environmental Management 35: 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Floerl, O., G.J. Inglis, and H.M. Marsh. 2005b. Selectivity in vector management: An investigation of the effectiveness of measures used to prevent transport of non-indigenous species. Biological Invasions 7: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fofonoff, P., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J.T. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasions for non-native species to the coasts of North America. In Invasive species: Vectors and management strategies, ed. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton, 152–182. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  22. Godwin, L.S., Eldredge, L.G., and K. Gaut. 2004. The assessment of hull fouling as a mechanism for the introduction and dispersal of marine alien species in the main Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Technical Report, No. 28. Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  23. Haska, C.L., C. Yarish, G. Kramer, N. Blaschik, R. Whitlatch, H. Zhang, and S. Lin. 2011. Bait worm packaging as a potential vector of invasive species. Biological Invasions 14: 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewitt, C.L., and M.L. Campbell. 2009. Assessment of relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and translocation of marine invasive species. Final report, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tasmania.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, L.E., A. Ricciardi, and J.T. Carlton. 2001. Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: A risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological Applications 11: 1789–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelley, A.L., C. deRivera, and B.A. Buckley. 2013. Cold tolerance of the invasive Carcinus maenas in the east Pacific: Molecular mechanisms and implications for range expansion in a changing climate. Biological Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0454-7.Google Scholar
  27. Lavoie, D.M., L.D. Smith, and G.M. Ruiz. 1999. The potential for intracoastal transfer of non-indigenous species in the ballast water of ships. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48: 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lockwood, J.L., T. Cassey, and T. Blackburn. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marelli, D.C. 1981. New records for Caprellidae in California, and notes on a morphological variant of Caprella verrucosa Boeck, 1871. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 94: 654–662.Google Scholar
  30. McClory, J., and T. Gotthardt. 2008. Non-native and invasive animals of Alaska: A comprehensive list and select species status reports. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Environmental and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/nonnative/invasive/pdfs/invasivespp_report.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2013.
  31. McGee, S., R. Piorkowski, and G. Ruiz. 2006. Analysis of recent vessel arrivals and ballast water discharge in Alaska: Toward assessing ship-mediated invasion risk. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 1634–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKinney, M.L. 2006. Correlated non-native species richness of birds, mammals, herptiles and plants: Scale effects of area, human population and native plants. Biological Invasions 8: 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minchin, D., O. Floerl, D. Savini, and A. Occhipinti-Ambrogi. 2006. Small craft and the spread of invasive species. In The ecology of transportation: Managing mobility for the environment, ed. J. Davenport and J.L. Davenport, 99–118. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mineur, F., M.P. Johnson, C.A. Maggs, and H. Stegenga. 2007. Hull fouling on commercial ships as a vector of macroalgal introduction. Marine Biology 151: 1299–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NEMESIS. 2013. National Estuarine and Marine Exotic Species Information System. Housed at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Marine Invasions Laboratory.Google Scholar
  36. Padilla, D.K., M.A. Chotkowski, and L.A.J. Buchan. 1996. Predicting the spread of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) to inland waters using boater movement patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5: 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pilgrim, E.M., and J.A. Darling. 2010. Genetic diversity in two introduced biofouling amphipods (Ampithoe valida & Jassa marmorata) along the Pacific North American coast: investigation into molecular identification and cryptic diversity. Diversity and Distribution 16: 827–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reitzel, A.M., B.G. Miner, and L.R. McEdward. 2004. Relationships between spawning date and larval development time for benthic marine invertebrates: A modelling approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series 280: 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruiz, G.M., and C.L. Hewitt. 2009. Latitudinal patterns of biological invasions in marine ecosystems: A polar perspective. In Smithsonian at the Poles: Contributions to International Polar Year Science, ed. I. Krupnik, M.A. Lang, and S.E. Miller, 347–358. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruiz, G., P. Fofonoff, J. Carlton, M. Wonham, and A. Hines. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 481–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruiz, G., Huber, T., Larson, K., McCann, L., Steves, B., Fofonoff, P., and A.H. Hines. 2006. Biological invasions in Alaska’s coastal marine ecosystems: Establishing a baseline. Final report, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council & US Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.pwsrcac.org/programs/marine-invasive-species/studies/. Accessed 10 Aug 2013.
  42. Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, B.P. Steves, S.F. Foss, and S.N. Shiba. 2011. Marine invasion history and vector analysis of California: A hotspot for western North America. Diversity and Distribution 17: 362–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sax, D.F. 2001. Latitudinal gradients and geographic ranges of exotic species: Implications for biogeography. Journal of Biogeography 28: 131–150.Google Scholar
  44. Tepolt, C.K., J.A. Darling, M.J. Bagley, J.B. Geller, M.J. Blum, and E.D. Grosholz. 2009. European green crabs (Carcinus maenas) in the northeastern Pacific: Genetic evidence for high population connectivity and current-mediated expansion from a single introduced source population. Diversity and Distribution 15: 997–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wasson, K., C.J. Zabin, L. Bedinger, C. Diaz, and J.S. Pearse. 2001. Biological invasions of estuaries without international shipping: The importance of intraregional transport. Biological Conservation 102: 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zabin, C.J., G.V. Ashton, C.W. Brown, and G.M. Ruiz. 2009. Northern range expansion of the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae) in western North America. Aquatic Invasions 4: 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine Invasions LaboratorySmithsonian Environmental Research CenterTiburonUSA
  2. 2.Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute, Environmental Science and ManagementPortland State University & Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Marine Invasions LaboratorySmithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA

Personalised recommendations