Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • [ABS] American Bureau of Shipping (2014) Ballast water treatment advisory. Houston (TX)

  • 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

  • Baier RE, Meyer AE, DePalma VA, King RW, Fornalik MS (1983) Surface microfouling during the induction period. J Heat Transf 105:618–624

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barrass CB (2004) Ship design and performance for masters and mates. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • [CFR] United States Code of Federal Regulations (2003) Protection of environment. Title 40, Pt. 125

  • Campbell ML, Inti Keith I, Hewitt CL, Dawson TP, Collins K (2015) Evolving marine biosecurity in the Galapagos Islands. Bioinvasions Rec 6(3):227–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlton JT (1987) Patterns of transoceanic marine biological invasions in the Pacific Ocean. Bull Mar Sci 41:452–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlton JS (2007) Marine propellers and propulsion. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Tasmania

  • Coutts ADM, Dodgshun TJ (2007) The nature and extent of organisms in vessel sea-chests: a protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Mar Pollut Bull 54:875–886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutts ADM, Moore KM, Hewitt CL (2003) Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Mar Pollut Bull 46:1504–1515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:518–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson IC, Brown CW, Sytsma MD, Ruiz GM (2009) The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling 25:645–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Sacramento

  • 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, Sacramento

  • Decho AW (2000) Microbial biofilms in intertidal systems: an overview. Cont Shelf Res 20:1257–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake JM, Lodge DM (2007) Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat Invasions 2(2):121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [EMSA] European Maritime Safety Agency (2012) The world merchant fleet 2012: statistics from Equasis. European Maritime Safety Agency. Lisbon

  • Floerl O, Inglis G, Dey KL, Smith A (2009) The importance of transport hubs in stepping-stone invasions. J Appl Ecol 46:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollasch S (2002) The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling 18:105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heger R (2005) Dockmaster training manual. Heger Dry Dock, Inc., Holliston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt C (2002) Distribution and biodiversity of Australian tropical marine bioinvasions. Pac Sci 56:213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [IMO] International Maritime Organization (1993) Resolution A.751 (18): Interim standards for ship maneuverability

  • [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2004) Convention BWM/CONF/36: international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments

  • [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2011) Resolution MEPC.207(62): guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling

  • [IMO] International Maritime Organization (2012) MEPC.1/Circ.792: guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft

  • 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

  • Leung B, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Predicting invasions: propagule pressure and the gravity of Allee effects. Ecology 85:1651–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:546–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MAN Diesel and Turbo (2011) Basic principles of ship propulsion. MAN SE, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • [MPI] Ministry of Primary Industries (2014) Biofouling on vessels arriving to New Zealand. CRMS-Bioufoul. Wellington

  • Molland AF, Turnock SR (2007) Marine rudders and control surfaces—principles, data, design and applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 online

  • Muirhead JR, MacIsaac HJ (2011) Evaluation of stochastic gravity model selection for use in estimating non-indigenous species dispersal and establishment. Biol Invasions 13:2445–2458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [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

  • [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

  • 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. Honolulu

  • Parente J, Daidola JC, Basar NS, Rodi RC (1996) Commercial ship design and fabrication for corrosion control SR-1377. M. Rosenblatt & Son Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • [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 Brussels

  • 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 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders HE (1957) Hydrodynamics in ship design, vol II. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz MP, Bendick ER, Holm ER, Hertel WM (2011) Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling 27(1):87–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Inv 1:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester F, MacIsaac HJ (2010) Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the Great Lakes? Diversity Distrib 16:132–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Program

  • Thieme H (1965) Design of ship rudders. Shipbuilding Institute University of Hamburg, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher JP (1928) Nature and extent of fouling of ships’ bottoms. Bull Bur Fish 43:193–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson DGM (1998) Practical ship design. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):952–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WorleyParsons Ltd. (2006) Sea water system operations and design features. BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. Melbourne

  • Zobell CE (1943) The effect of solid surfaces upon bacterial activity. J Bacteriol 46:39–56

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chemistry Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6137, Key West, FL, 33040, USA

    Cameron S. Moser & Lisa A. Drake

  2. Excet Inc, Springfield, VA, 22151, USA

    Timothy P. Wier, Scott C. Riley & Stephanie H. Robbins-Wamsley

  3. Chemistry Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6137, Washington, DC, 20375, USA

    Matthew R. First

  4. Battenkill Technologies, Inc, Manchester Center, Manchester, VT, 05255, USA

    Jonathan F. Grant

  5. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, 20688, USA

    Mario N. Tamburri

  6. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, 21037, USA

    Gregory M. Ruiz & A. Whitman Miller

Authors
  1. Cameron S. Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy P. Wier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew R. First
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan F. Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott C. Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephanie H. Robbins-Wamsley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mario N. Tamburri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gregory M. Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. A. Whitman Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lisa A. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cameron S. Moser.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 112 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moser, C.S., Wier, T.P., First, M.R. et al. Quantifying the extent of niche areas in the global fleet of commercial ships: the potential for “super-hot spots” of biofouling. Biol Invasions 19, 1745–1759 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1386-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1386-4

Keywords

search

Navigation