Search

Biofouling of vessels is implicated as a high risk transfer mechanism of non-indigenous marine species (NIMS). Biofouling on international vessels is managed through stringent border control policies, however, domestic biofouling transfers are managed under different policies and legislative arrangements as they cross internal borders. As comprehensive guidelines are developed and increased compliance of international vessels with 'clean hull' expectations increase, vessel movements from port to port will become the focus of biosecurity management. A semi-quantitative port to port biofouling risk assessment is presented that evaluates the presence of known NIMS in the source port and determines the likelihood of transfer based on the NIMS association with biofouling and environmental match between source and receiving ports. This risk assessment method was used to assess the risk profile of a single dredge vessel during three anticipated voyages within Australia, resulting in negligible to low risk outcomes. This finding is contrasted with expectations in the literature, specifically those that suggest slow moving vessels pose a high to extreme risk of transferring NIMS species.

Countries need to know what species are present within their waters to effectively manage the issue of non-indigenous marine species. Five survey methods are currently employed to detect introduced marine species: the Hewitt and Martin protocols (66% of effort; 73 ports, 12 countries); Rapid Assessment Surveys (7% of effort; 8 regions, 4 countries); the Bishop Museum protocols (7% of effort; 8 ports, 3 countries); the Chilean aquaculture surveys (1% of effort; numerous regions; 1 country); and Passive Sampling protocols (18% of effort; 20 ports, 2 countries). These methods use either quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture of the two sampling techniques and tend to target locations that are potential inoculation sites (i.e., such as ports, marinas and aquaculture facilities). To date, introduced marine species surveys have been implemented in 19 countries and have detected more than 1185 non-indigenous, 735 cryptogenic and 15,315 native species.

Aim: Human activities have introduced numerous non‐native species (NNS) worldwide. Understanding and predicting large‐scale NNS establishment patterns remain fundamental scientific challenges. Here, we evaluate if NNS composition represents a proportional subset of the total species pool available to invade (i.e. total global biodiversity), or, conversely, certain taxa are disproportionately pre‐disposed to establish in non‐native areas. Location: Global. Time period: Present day. Major taxa studied: Global diversity. Methods: We compiled one of the most comprehensive global databases of NNS (36,822 established species) to determine if NNS diversity is a representative proportional subset of global biodiversity. Results: Our study revealed that, while NNS diversity mirrors global biodiversity to a certain extent, due to significant deviance from the null model it is not always a representative proportional subset of global biodiversity. The strength of global biodiversity as a predictor depended on the taxonomic scale, with successive lower taxonomic levels less predictive than the one above it. Consequently, on average, 58%, 42% and 28% of variability in NNS numbers were explained by global biodiversity for phylum, class and family respectively. Moreover, global biodiversity was a similarly strong explanatory variable for NNS diversity among regions, but not habitats (i.e. terrestrial, freshwater and marine), where it better predicted NNS diversity for terrestrial than for freshwater and marine habitats. Freshwater and marine habitats were also greatly understudied relative to invasions in the terrestrial habitats. Over‐represented NNS relative to global biodiversity tended to be those intentionally introduced and/or 'hitchhikers' associated with deliberate introductions. Finally, randomness is likely an important factor in the establishment success of NNS. Main conclusions: Besides global biodiversity, other important explanatory variables for large‐scale patterns of NNS diversity likely include propagule and colonization pressures, environmental similarity between native and non‐native regions, biased selection of intentionally introduced species and disparate research efforts of habitats and taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indonesia is a biodiversity hotspot threatened with new introductions of marine species. As with many countries, Indonesia has a stratified shipping network of international ports linked to a large suite of domestic ports. We developed a hub and spoke network model to examine the risk associated with the secondary transfer of introduced marine species from the port hub of Tanjung Priok in Jakarta Bay to the 33 Indonesian provinces (including other ports in the Jakarta province). An 11-year shipping dataset was used (vessel next port of call records for maritime vessels that originated in Jakarta Bay and that remained in domestic waters) to derive a province ranking of vulnerability. Fifteen provinces represented almost 94% of the traffic frequency, with East Java and Jakarta provinces dominating. All urban provinces featured within the top seven highest frequency traffic provinces. Traffic patterns reflect an intra-coastal reliance on shipping, with traffic frequency decreasing with distance from Jakarta Bay. Provinces were regionalized into three categories (Lampung to East Java, Makassar Straits, and Malacca Straits) each with different vulnerabilities based on their values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyzed 69 publications on the impacts of introduced seaweeds. The predominant impacts were changed competitive relationships in the recipient habitat, indicated by high abundances of invaders, resultant space monopolization, and reduced abundances/biomass of native macrophytes. Changes in biodiversity, effects on fish and invertebrate fauna, toxic effects on other biota, and habitat change were also identified. The mechanisms underlying the manifestation of impacts are uncertain and inferences about common patterns were hampered because impact studies were available for only a few introduced seaweeds, covered only a fraction of their introduced distribution and generally were conducted over short time scales. There was no information about evolutionary effects or changes of ecosystem processes. Knowledge of socio-economic impacts of invasive seaweeds is poor. We collated costs associated with control/eradication activities and for national spending on marine biosecurity in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Prevention of impacts is the driving force for costly surveillance, eradication and control programs. Until we are able to understand, predict and measure impacts of introduced seaweeds, the management of species incursions needs to remain focused on early detection, rapid response and control to reduce the likelihood of negative impact effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We identified different distributions of marine nonindigenous species (NIS) and native species on some artificial structures versus natural reefs and using experimental manipulations, revealed some possible causal mechanisms. In well-established subtidal assemblages, numbers of NIS were 1.5–2.5 times greater on pontoons or pilings than on rocky reefs, despite the local species pool of natives being up to 2.5 times greater than that of NIS. Conversely, on reefs and seawalls, numbers of native species were up to three times greater than numbers of NIS. Differential recruitment to different positions and types of surfaces appeared to influence distribution patterns. NIS recruited well to most surfaces, particularly concrete surfaces near the surface of the water, whilst natives occurred infrequently on wooden surfaces. The position of rocky reefs and seawalls close to the shore and to the seabed appeared to make them favourable for the recruitment of natives, but this positioning alone does not hinder the recruitment of NIS. We argue that pontoons and pilings represent beachheads (i.e. entry points for invasion) for many nonindigenous epibiota and so enhance the spread and establishment of NIS in estuaries. Habitat creation in estuaries may, therefore, be a serious threat to native biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]