URBANISING OUR
OCEANS
Implications of economic development on
the establishment and spread of marine
non-native species
Dr Elizabeth Cook
Invasive Species Ireland Forum 2013
www.sams.ac.uk
“Urbanisation” (Physical Geography Dictionary) =
Expansion of ‘cities’ into rural regions because of
population growth
“Urbanisation of the oceans” = Expansion of human
influence into coastal and offshore areas because of
increased demand for global products and food
production, new sources of energy and increased
tourism/ recreational activity
URBANISATION OF OUR OCEANS
• DIVERSITY – Immobile and mobile structures (e.g., coastal defences,
artificial reefs, vessels, fish cages)
CD
AR
SW
AB
MB
P
CS
LC
FP
FC
DB
Examples of the diversity of artificial structures in the marine environment: coastal defences (CD), artificial reefs (AR),
pipes (P), shipwrecks (SW), anchored buoys (AB), mooring blocks (MB), commercial ships (CS), leisure
crafts (LC), floating pontoons (FP), fish cages (FC), drifting buoys (DB).
Mineur et al. 2013 Ann Rev Ocean Mar Biol 50: 187-232
SCALE
© J. Stehlikova (SAMS)
Individual structures to developments spanning many kilometres of coastline…
Geoje, South Korea
Dubai
m2
© E. Cook (SAMS)
In 40 years, development of 40 million
land,
including 3 shore side and 5 floating docks
‘ARMOURING OUR COASTLINE’
Examples:
Sydney Harbour: Approx. 50% of
the foreshore is now composed of
hard structures (Bulleri et al. 2005)
Photo Credit: R. Haywood
• US (e.g. Maryland and Virginia) over 50% of the coastline has been
replaced by artificial structures
• Adriatic, Japan and Netherlands – Majority of originally sedimentary
coastline now reinforced by ‘hard’ sea defences
• Europe – Estimated 22,000 km2 coastal zone now ‘hardened’ by artificial
structures
OCEAN SPRAWL?
Armouring our coastline, but what about offshore?
In Europe, over 7,500 wind turbines online, under
construction or consented (see review in Miller et al. in
press. Front. Ecol Env.)
URBAN SPRAWL
URBAN OCEAN SPRAWL
Japanese Skeleton Shrimp (Caprella mutica)
©E. Cook (SAMS)
BUT WHAT DOES ‘OCEAN
SPRAWL’ HAVE TO DO WITH
INVASIVE NON-NATIVE
(INNS) SPECIES?
NON-NATIVE SPECIES - OVERVIEW
■ Non-native – species introduced by anthropogenic activity outside
their native range
■ Invasive non-native (INNS) – non-native species that threaten
biodiversity or cause economic damage
■ In 2011, Wildlife and Natural Environment (WANE) (Scotland) Act
(2011) was passed by Scottish Government and includes a
requirement to notify the existence of specific INNS in Scotland
(Part 2; sections 14 to 17).
1
© E. Cook (SAMS)
■ Number of species have already been linked with significant fish kills
worldwide, high clearance costs from aquaculture sites and marinas
(e.g., Karenia mikimotoi, Styela clava, Crepidula fornicata,
Didemnum vexillum) and a significant reduction in native
biodiversity (e.g., Caulerpa taxifolia)
© C. Beveridge (SAMS)
■ Global estimate is £0.9 trillion annually1; in the UK, estimated to
cost to economy is £1.7 billion per annum, including £7.1 million per
annum to aquaculture industry alone2. Whereas, in Ireland and N.
Ireland combined, estimated to cost £176.6K per annum to
aquaculture industry3.
Pimentel et al. Agri. Ecosyst. Env 84; 2 Williams et al. 2010 CABI; 3 Kelly et al. 2013 NIEA & NPWS
ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES AND THEIR SUSCEPTIBILITY
TO INVASION
• Diversity of structures provides a wide range of habitats suitable for
many different species, including INNS
• Artificial structures in recipient environment pre-selected for
attachment by INNS
• Certain structures shown to favour colonisation by INNS, particularly
man-made materials (e.g., plastic, metal and concrete)
Fouling on pontoon floats in Peterhead marina, NE Scotland including the non-native macroalga
Codium fragile subsp. fragile and bryozoan Tricellaria inopinata © E. Cook (SAMS)
ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES - IMMOBILE
• Structures at least partly submerged and permanently secured to the
seabed1
• Including; coastal defences, artificial reefs, submerged pipes,
shipwrecks, anchored buoys, fixed pontoons and mooring blocks
© C. Beveridge (SAMS)
1 See
review Mineur et al. 2012. Ann Rev Ocean Mar Biol 50: 187-232
Clydeport Jetty,
Firth of Clyde
RAPID MARINA SURVEYS – Floating Pontoons
© E. Cook (SAMS)
fragile
•
•
•
•
•
10 Largest Scottish
Marinas (80 – 250
berths)
Annual survey
2006 – 2008
1–2 hrs for each
marina
7 target species
4 NNS found in
total (1-3 per
marina)
© E. Cook (SAMS)
© E. Cook (SAMS)
Location of marinas sampled and distribution of
non-native species.
Ashton et al. (2006) Aquat. Inv. 1 (4): 209-213
© E. Cook (SAMS)
RAPID SURVEY (2012) – Floating pontoons in marinas/
harbours in Northern Scotland
•
10 NNS in total from 27 sites, including first records of 4 NNS in this
region
•
Bugula simplex – first record in Scotland
•
Stromness, Kirkwall (Orkney) and Cromarty marina had the most
NNS (6-7 species per marina)
•
Greater number of NNS in harbours with pontoons and floating
structures
C. Nall (in prep.) (UHI SAMS/ERI)
RAPID SURVEY (2012) – Non-native species found on floating pontoons in
marinas/ harbours in Northern Scotland
Austrominius
modestus (5)
Botrylloides
violaceus (7)
Codium fragile
subsp. fragile (11)
Neosiphonia
harveyi (2)
Caprella mutica (12)
Tricellaria
inopinata (3)
Corella eumyota (6)
Schizoporella
japonica (8)
Heterosiphonia
japonica (9)
Bugula simplex (1)*
C. Nall (in prep.). UHI PhD Student SAMS/ ERI, Thurso
OFFSHORE IMMOBILE ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES
• 40 offshore navigation buoys studies in
conjunction with Northern Lighthouse
Board (NLB)
• 4 geographic areas in Scotland
subjected to a range of tidal flows
B
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
A. Macleod (2013). PhD Thesis. Aberdeen University.
Caprella mutica
© C. Beveridge (SAMS)
Corella eumyota
• 5 NNS identified in total
• Offshore structures in variety of
flow environments able to
support established communities
of NNS
Macleod et al. (in prep.) Biofouling
Codium fragile
subsp. fragile
© K. Hiscock
Austominius modestus
© Algaebase
© A. Macleod (SAMS)
NNS IDENTIFIED ON NAVIGATION BUOYS
Heterosiphonia japonica
© E. Cook, SAMS
© E. Cook (SAMS)
© F. Kerckhof (MUMM)
© E. Cook (SAMS)
© E. Cook (SAMS)
© E. Cook (SAMS)
© T. Nickell (SAMS)
Caprella mutica
European expansion of the Japanese
Skeleton Shrimp, Caprella mutica.
Cook et al. 2007 Aqua Inv 2(4): 411-421
ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES - MOBILE
• Defined as structures that can float or be moved, including those that
can move species over considerable distances such as between ocean
basins.
• Includes; commercial ships, leisure craft, fish cages, drifting buoys.
Pathways involved in the
transmission of alien species
into British brackish and
marine environments. Likely
arrival mode involving a single
known pathway (dark bar),
possible transmission pathway
involving more than one mode
of entry (light bar) and
unknown (striped).
Number of Species
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Minchin et al. (2013) Aquat Inv 8 (1): 3-19
Number of boats
NNS ON RECREATIONAL VESSELS
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
Number of animal NNS
5
6
7
8
© E. Cook (SAMS)
Dense biofouling on recreational boat hull
observed on Scottish marina survey, 2008
•
Average of 4 NNS per yacht (n=63); 12 NNS found on yachts sampled on south coast of
England (Bishop et al. MBA)
•
NNS found on hulls include; Styela clava, Didemnum vexillum, Tricellaria inopinata and
Caprella mutica
Cook et al. (2011). Marine Aliens Final Report . SAMS report 34.
NNS ON COMMERCIAL VESSELS
•
Niche areas, particularly propeller shafts, base of the keel and sea chests are
high risk sites for colonisation by NNS
•
NNS including; decapods, bivalves, bryozoans, mussels, barnacles and caprellids
have all been found in these niche areas1
© T. McCollin (Marine Scotland Science)
Dry Dock Sampling (Marine Scotland Science, 2009) – Nine vessels sampled in Aberdeen; two non-native species found on
vessel hulls - Austroelminius modestus (Darwin’s barnacle) and Caprella mutica (Japanese skeleton shrimp). Unable to
examine sea chests.
1
Coutts et al (2003) Mar Poll Bull 46: 1504-1515
ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES – Are they increasing the risk of
dispersal of INNS?
• Potential to act as ‘vectors’ (mobile) and/or ‘stepping stones ‘ (immobile)
for the dispersal of INNS
• Good evidence for mobile structures
• Increasingly immobile structures are being placed in novel environments,
where hard substratum previously absent
• ‘Stepping stone’ effect – extremely hard to detect in marine environment
From Miller et al. (in press). Front. Ecol. Env.
E.g., Northern Gulf of Mexico
•
•
Over 3,000 oil/ gas platforms providing hard substratum where only sandy muds with low
habitat diversity existed prior to the 1940s
Connectivity of native and non-native coral populations between oil/gas platforms detected
using genetic variation1,2
Map of the oil and gas platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
Sammarco et al. (2012) PLOS One: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030144.g002
1
Page et al (1999). MEPS 325:101-107; 2 Sammarco et al. (2012) PLOS One 7(4): e30144
What implications will
this have on the
dispersal of marine
INNS?
Northern Ireland offshore renewable energy strategic action plan (March 2012)
(www. offshoreWIND.biz)
CROSS-CHANNEL
DISPERSAL?
Tom Adams & Dmitry Aleynik (SAMS)
•
•
•
•
•
(T. Adams, unpubl.)
Use of a coupled biophysical model
currently in progress
FVCOM (Finite Volume Coastal Ocean
Model)1 – Greater predictive
capability near shore than previously
used models due to variable mesh
size
940 sites, approx. 1 km apart
Currently, assumption is no ‘natural’
migration from N. Ireland to Scotland
But what if novel habitat introduced?
1
Chen et al. (2006) Oceanography 19(1): 78-89
CROSS-CHANNEL
DISPERSAL?
• Novel habitat allows migration to
Scotland
• Darker => higher probability
• Effects most obvious for medium
duration dispersers (c 4-8 days)
• E.g., Crassostrea gigas (Pacific
Oyster) – feral populations now
found in Lough Foyle, NW N.
Ireland and Didemnum vexillum in
the Firth of Clyde, Strangford
Lough – both have pelagic larval
dispersal and will colonise
artificial structures
(T. Adams, unpubl.)
© D. Minchin (MOI Investigations)
© E. Cook (SAMS)
© W. Mcknight (Thanet,
Kent)
Crassostrea gigas (Pacific Oyster) –Larval
duration (~14-18 days)
Didemnum vexillum (Carpet Sea Squirt) – Larval
duration (~hours - 2 days)
CROSS-CHANNEL
DISPERSAL?
•
•
•
Dmitry Aleynik (SAMS)
Could the model be expanded and
used to help predict more
accurately the dispersal of NNS?
If so, potential to target ‘source’
populations for management/
control
Or to predict which MPAs should be
closely monitored as at a higher
risk of invasion by NNS
CONCLUDING REMARKS
• Urbanisation of our oceans is happening at a rapid rate, particularly in
the UK with the expansion of the marine renewable energy sector
• NNS have been shown to successfully establish on a wide variety of
coastal and offshore structures
• Impact of ‘Ocean Sprawl’ is yet to be fully understood
• Is the addition of thousands of immobile structures really going to
make a significant difference, considering the amount of vessel traffic
already taking place?
• Climate change is predicted to increase the abundance and frequency
of invasion by NNS1. How will this, combined with increasing numbers
of coastal and offshore structures influence the dispersal of NNS?
1 Cook et al (in press) Non-natives. MCCIP Report Card.
THANK YOU
Acknowledgements: C. Beveridge, A. Macleod, C. Nall, T. Adams,
D. Aleynik, J. Stehlikova, M. Wilson, R. Shucksmith, G. Ashton, K.
Boos, M. Jahnke
Elizabeth Cook | [email protected]
www.sams.ac.uk/elizabeth-cook
© SAMS