Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 484–494 | Cite as

Invasions in Marine Communities: Contrasting Species Richness and Community Composition Across Habitats and Salinity

  • H. Jimenez
  • E. Keppel
  • A. L. Chang
  • G. M. Ruiz


While many studies of non-native species have examined either soft-bottom or hard-bottom marine communities, including artificial structures at docks and marinas, formal comparisons across these habitat types are rare. The number of non-indigenous species (NIS) may differ among habitats, due to differences in species delivery (trade history) and susceptibility to invasions. In this study, we quantitatively compared NIS to native species richness and distribution and examined community similarity across hard-bottom and soft-sediment habitats in San Francisco Bay, California (USA). Benthic invertebrates were sampled using settlement panels (hard-bottom habitats) and sediment grabs (soft-bottom habitats) in 13 paired sites, including eight in higher salinity areas and five in lower salinity areas during 2 years. Mean NIS richness was greatest in hard-bottom habitat at high salinity, being significantly higher than each (a) native species at high salinity and (b) NIS richness at low salinity. In contrast, mean NIS richness in soft-bottom communities was not significantly different from native species richness in either high- or low-salinity waters, nor was there a difference in NIS richness between salinities. For hard-bottom communities, NIS represented an average of 79% of total species richness per sample at high salinity and 78% at low salinity, whereas the comparable values for soft bottom were 46 and 60%, respectively. On average, NIS occurred at a significantly higher frequency (percent of samples) than native species for hard-bottom habitats at both salinities, but this was not the case for soft-bottom habitats. Finally, NIS contributed significantly to the existing community structure (dissimilarity) across habitat types and salinities. Our results show that NIS richness and occurrence frequency is highest in hard-bottom and high-salinity habitat for this Bay but also that NIS contribute strongly to species richness and community structure across each habitat evaluated.


NIS Invasions Estuaries Soft sediments Hard bottoms Community structure 

Supplementary material

12237_2017_292_MOESM1_ESM.doc (50 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 50 kb)
12237_2017_292_MOESM2_ESM.doc (283 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 283 kb)


  1. Barnard, P.L., D.H. Schoellhamer, B.E. Jaffe, and L.J. McKee. 2013. Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview. Marine Geology 345: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn, T.M.P., S. Pysek, S. Bacher, et al. 2011. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blum, J.C., A.L. Chang, M. Liljesthrom, M.E. Schenk, M.K. Steinberg, and G.M. Ruiz. 2007. The non-native solitary ascidian Ciona intestinalis (L.) depresses species richness. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 342: 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlton, J.T. 1979. Introduced invertebrates of San Francisco Bay. In San Francisco Bay: The urbanized estuary. Investigations into the natural history of San Francisco Bay and Delta with reference to the influence of man, 427–444.Google Scholar
  5. Carlton, J.T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77: 1653–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: Environmental impacts and management priorities. Arlington, Virginia: Pew Oceans Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Carlton, J.T. 2007. The light and smith manual: Intertidal invertebrates from Central California to Oregon, completely revised and expanded. 4th ed. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, A.L. 2009. An urban estuary in a changing world: Diversity, invasions, and climate change in San Francisco Bay, 197. University of California, Davis. PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, B.S., A.L. Chang, A. Deck, and M.C. Ferner. 2016. Extreme low salinity drives mass mortality in northern San Francisco Bay: A consequence of atmospheric rivers? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283: 20161462. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, K.R., and R.M. Warwick. 1994. Similarity-based testing for community pattern: The 2-way layout with no replication. Marine Biology 118: 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, K.R., and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER v6: User manual/tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Non-indigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC and the National Sea Grant College Program Connecticut Sea Grant PB96–166525. Springfield, VA: US Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279: 555–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conomos, T.J. 1979. Properties and circulation of San Francisco Bay waters. In San Francisco Bay, the urbanized estuary, ed. T.J. Conomos, 192–221. San Francisco: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Pacific Division.Google Scholar
  15. Conomos, T.J., R.E. Smith, and J.W. Gartner. 1985. Environmental setting of San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crooks, J.A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences invasions: The role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97: 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dauer, D.M., and M.F. Lane. 2005. Side-by-side comparison of Young grab and composite petite Ponar grab samples for the calculation of the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI). In Report for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  18. Elton, C. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Facon, B., B.J. Genton, J. Shykoff, P. Jarnec, A. Estoup, and P. David. 2006. A general eco-evolutionary framework for understanding bioinvasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, J.T. Carlton 2013. NEMESIS National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. 6 February 2017.
  21. Glasby, T.M., S.D. Connell, C.L. Holloway, and C.L. Hewitt. 2007. Non-indigenous biota on artificial structures: Could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions? Marine Biology 151: 887–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grosholz, E. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of coastal invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17 (1): 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewitt, C.M., R. Campbell, R. Thresher, S. Martin, B. Boyd, D. Cohen, M. Currie, M. Gomon, J. Keough, M. Lewis, N. Lockett, M. Mays, T. McArthur, G. O’Hara, J. Poore, M. Ross, J. Storey, R. Watson, and M. Wilson. 2004. Introduced and cryptogenic and species in Port Phillip Bay. Vol. 144, 183–202. Victoria, Australia: Marine Biology.Google Scholar
  24. Keane, R.M., and M.J. Crawley. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kozloff, E.N. 1996. Marine invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest with additions and corrections. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, H., B. Thompson, and S. Lowe. 2003. Estuarine and scalar patterns of invasion in the soft-bottom benthic communities of the San Francisco Estuary. Biological Invasions 5 (12): 85–102.Google Scholar
  27. Levine, J.M., and C.M. D’Antonio. 1999. Elton revisited: A review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, J.M., P.B. Adler, and S.G. Yelenik. 2004. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecology Letters 7: 975–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lockwood, B.L., and G.N. Somero. 2011. Invasive and native blue mussels (genus Mytilus) on the California coast: The role of physiology in a biological invasion. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 400: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marraffini, M.L., and J.B. Geller. 2015. Species richness and interacting factors control invasibility of a marine community. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20150439. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2015.0439.
  31. Miller, A.W., M.S. Minton, and G.M. Ruiz. 2011. Geographic limitations and regional differences in ships’ ballast water management to reduce marine invasions in the contiguous United States. Bioscience 61: 880–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mooi, R., V.G. Smith, M. Gould Burke, T.M. Gosliner, C.N. Piotrowski, and R.K. Ritger. 2007. Animals of San Francisco Bay: a field guide to the common benthic species. San Francisco, California: California Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  33. Nichols, F.H., J.E. Cloern, S.N. Luoma, and D.H. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary. Science 231: 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruiz, G.M., and J.T. Carlton. 2003. Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for management strategies. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ruiz, G.M., A. Freestone, P.W. Fofonoff, and C. Simkanin. 2009. Habitat distribution and heterogeneity in marine invasion dynamics: The importance of hard substrate and artificial structure. In Marine hard bottom communities, ecological studies 206, ed. M. Wahl, 321–332. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, B. 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 Distributions 17: 362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 408: 4950.Google Scholar
  38. Stachowicz, J.J., H. Fried, R.W. Osman, and R.B. Whitlatch. 2002. Biodiversity, invasion resistance and marine ecosystem function: Reconciling pattern and process. Ecology 83: 2575–2590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torchin, M.E., K.D. Lafferty, and A.M. Kuris. 2002. Parasites and marine invasions. Parasitology 124: 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Torchin, M.E., K.D. Lafferty, A.P. Dobson, V.J. McKenzie, and A.M. Kuris. 2003. Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421: 628–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. US EPA. 2009. National coastal condition assessment: Field operations manual. EPA-841-R-09-003. Washington D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  42. Wasson, K., K. Fenn, and J.S. Pears. 2005. Habitat differences in marine invasions of central California. Biological Invasions 7: 935–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams, S.L., I. Davidson J.R. Pasari, G.V. Ashton, J.T. Carlton, R.E Crafton R.E. Fontana E.D. Grosholz A.W. Miller G.M. Ruiz C.J. Zabin 2013. Managing multiple vectors for marine invasions in an increasingly connected world bioscience 63(12): 952–966.Google Scholar
  44. Williamson, M. 1996. Biological invasions. Vol. 15. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Jimenez
    • 1
  • E. Keppel
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. L. Chang
    • 1
  • G. M. Ruiz
    • 2
  1. 1.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterTiburonUSA
  2. 2.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  3. 3.Italian National Research Council (CNR)ISMAR Institute of Marine SciencesVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations