Search

Marine artificial structures provide substrates on which organisms can settle and grow. These structures facilitate establishment and spread of non-indigenous species, in part due to their distinct physical features (substrate material, movement, orientation) compared to natural habitat analogues such as rocky shores, and because following construction, they have abundant resources (space) for species to colonise. Despite the perceived importance of these habitat features, few studies have directly compared distributions of native and non-indigenous species or considered how functional identity and associated environmental preferences drive associations. We undertook a meta-analysis to investigate whether colonisation of native and non-indigenous species varies between artificial structures with features most closely resembling natural habitats (natural substrates, fixed structures, surfaces oriented upwards) and those least resembling natural habitats (artificial materials, floating structures, downfacing or vertical surfaces), or whether functional identity is the primary driver of differences. Analyses were done at global and more local (SE Australia) scales to investigate if patterns held regardless of scale. Our results suggest that functional group (i.e., algae, ascidians. barnacles, bryozoans, polychaetes) rather than species classification (i.e., native or non-indigenous) are the main drivers of differences in communities between different types of artificial structures. Specifically, there were differences in the abundance of ascidians, barnacles, and polychaetes between (1) upfacing and downfacing/vertical surfaces, and (2) floating and fixed substrates. When differences were detected, taxa were most abundant on features least resembling natural habitats. Results varied between global and SE Australian analyses, potentially due to reduced variability across studies in the SE Australian dataset. Thus, the functional group and associated preferences of the highest threat NIS in the area should be considered in design strategies (e.g., ecological engineering) to limit their establishment on newly built infrastructure. [Display omitted] • We assessed effects of habitat features on colonisation by marine biota. • Abundances did not vary between native and non-indigenous species. • Abundance of functional groups varied between features. • Ecologically informed design strategies are important to reduce invasion risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The modern day seascape is a mix of natural habitats (saltmarsh, mangroves, seagrass, unvegetated beaches), but increasingly is being replaced with hard engineering structures (e.g. floating pontoons) that have resulted in novel habitats available for flora and fauna. While these engineered structures provide new marine habitat resources, from the viewpoint of biodiversity, they effectively support a sub-set of species found in natural habitats. Unlike previous studies that have used divers for fish visual census, we used a remotely operated vessel with an underwater camera to examine the fish community using floating pontoons in a marina facility in tropical central Queensland, Australia. The camera filmed continuously the edge and underside of pontoons (both surveys covered similar pontoon linear distances – July (winter) 430m; November (summer) 485m; 2021). Fifteen fish species representing 14 families were recorded, with more species observed during summer compared to the winter survey. Remarkably, across both surveys of the 243 fishes individuals that were recorded, 166 (68%) appeared upside-down in videos (i.e., oriented to the underside of the pontoon). Engaging a behaviour of swimming upside-down has been acknowledged in natural habitats elsewhere; some coral reef species living in caves or reef ledges orientate themselves to the cave ceiling or overhanging ledge to increase prey capture rate. However, this is the first study to record fishes exhibiting the same behaviour. We conclude that our less invasive video survey approach provided the opportunity to observe fishes in a state of natural behaviour, orientating themselves towards the pontoon substrate, which is probably simply a response of adhering to basic characteristic modes, i.e., it is the orientation relative to the substrate that is important, rather than their orientation in space per se. Indeed marina pontoons provide an additional feature in already habitat complex estuaries; these data add to why we need to consider the ecosystem services offered by marine infrastructure, and the plasticity of fish to adapt to new environments in an expanding blue economy. [Display omitted] • Pontoons in marinas are an obvious marine habitat in modern day seascape. • ROV revealed nearly all fish were upside-down, orientated to the pontoon substrate. • This behavior could be a response of adhering to basic characteristic modes, such as accessing food and shelter. • The placidity of fish to adopt to new marine environments is demonstrated here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]