ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil Advance Access originally published online on March 7, 2008
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2008 65(5):811-815; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn026
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Management options for vessel hull fouling: an overview of risks posed by in-water cleaning
Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax St East, Private Bag 2, Nelson, New Zealand
Correspondence to G. A. Hopkins: tel: +64 3 5482319; fax: +64 3 5469464; e-mail: grant.hopkins{at}cawthron.org.nz
Hopkins, G. A., and Forrest, B. M. 2008. Management options for vessel hull fouling: an overview of risks posed by in-water cleaning. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 811–815.Hull fouling has been identified as an important pathway for the spread of non-indigenous marine species. However, the management of associated biosecurity risks has proven challenging. Left unmanaged, a fouled vessel can pose a biosecurity risk through the detachment and dispersal of viable material, and through spawning by adult taxa upon arrival in a recipient port or region. These risks can be managed effectively through the removal of the vessel to land for defouling (e.g. dry-docking). However, alternative methods are needed for small (e.g. recreational) vessels, as well as for large vessels fouled outside their dry-docking schedule. Among the various treatment options, in-water cleaning is relatively common, although some countries have placed restrictions on this method because of perceived biosecurity risks. Here, we present a conceptual framework that identifies risks posed by in-water cleaning compared with alternatives, including no management. Decisions on the appropriate management option will be influenced by many factors, including the species present, the level of fouling, and the time a vessel spends in a recipient region. It is important that any regulatory changes regarding in-water defouling be supported by relevant research that quantifies the risks associated with the various management options.
Keywords: hull fouling risk, in-water cleaning, marine bioinvasion, rotating brushes, vector management
Received 21 June 2007; accepted 15 January 2008; advance access publication 7 March 2008.
 |
Background |
|---|
 Top Background Risks from in-water cleaningConclusions and future...References |
|---|
Marine biosecurity is the protection of the marine environment from impacts of non-indigenous marine species (NIMS), and typically involves pre- and post-border management of vectors and high-risk organisms (Hewitt et al., 2004). Given the constraints in controlling NIMS once they have established adventive populations, it is clearly preferable to manage pathways of spread to reduce the risk of initial incursion (Bax et al., 2001; Ruiz and Carlton, 2003; Hewitt et al., 2004; Finnoff et al., 2007). Of the many pathways for NIMS in the marine environment, vessel traffic has been identified as being particularly important (Hewitt et al., 1999; Gollasch, 2002), with the main vessel-related mechanisms being ballast water (Carlton, 1985; Olenin et al., 2000; Taylor et al., 2007) hull fouling (Lewis et al., 2003; Coutts and Taylor, 2004), and fouling of niche areas such as sea chests, intake pipes, and gratings (Carlton et al., 1995; Coutts et al., 2003; Minchin and Gollasch, 2003; Coutts and Dodgshun, 2007).
There has been considerable research globally into treatment solutions for ballast water (e.g. Mountfort et al., 1999; Oemcke et al., 2004). Nonetheless, practical tools to reduce ballast-water-related introductions are still unavailable, are not completely effective, or have the potential to enhance the survival of some groups of organisms (Taylor et al., 2007). Despite the evidence of biosecurity risks associated with fouling-related mechanisms, the range of opportunities for treatments other than application of antifoulant coatings are poorly understood. The use of tributyltin (TBT) self-polishing copolymer paints has to date been the most successful means of combating fouling on vessels (Yebra et al., 2004). However, owing to the negative impacts of TBT on the marine environment (Stewart et al., 1992), the application of TBT-based paints will be phased out by January 2008. Although other biocidal (e.g. copper) paints are reasonably effective (Floerl and Inglis, 2005), their efficacy is limited on vessels that are frequently idle. Similarly, non-toxic hull coatings are likely to become more widespread in their use, but require reasonable vessel speeds (>20 knots) to remove fouling organisms (Yebra et al., 2004). Along with factors such as poor vessel maintenance, the limitations of present antifouling coatings highlight a need for alternative strategies to manage fouling on vessels, and to reduce the spread of NIMS (Brady, 2001).
There are several management options when a high-risk vessel (i.e. a vessel fouled with NIMS or pest organisms) arrives at a recipient port. Refusing entry (risk avoidance) is arguably the most desirable approach, at least from the perspective of the recipient port or country. In New Zealand, this option is supported by relevant biosecurity legislation, but in reality is rarely enforced. Instead, vessel fouling is typically managed through in-water hull cleaning or removal of the vessel to land for defouling (e.g. dry-docking). In-water cleaning is often used for small vessels and may be the only alternative for large vessels outside their dry-docking schedule. However, a number of countries have placed restrictions on this approach or are considering doing so. This move is partly the result of concerns over the release of fouling organisms to the environment, based on the perception that biosecurity risks will be exacerbated by in-water cleaning (ANZECC, 1996; Woods et al., 2007). However, there appears little information to support this stance, and conceivably, there may be situations where biosecurity risks resulting from in-water cleaning are less than those from unmanaged vessel fouling. Here, we discuss this issue and present preliminary findings from an experimental evaluation of in-water hull cleaning systems.
|
Risks from in-water cleaning |
|---|
|
TopBackgroundRisks from in-water cleaningConclusions and future...References |
|---|
Understanding risks from in-water hull cleaning requires an understanding of baseline (i.e. unmanaged) hazards and their magnitude, and how these change with management. The key sources of hull-fouling risk with and without management are represented conceptually in Figure 1.
|
Unmanaged risk
Given a suitable habitat, biosecurity risks from hull fouling primarily arise when competent pest organisms are released into a recipient region in the form of adult life stages or planktonic propagules (Figure 1). For some species (e.g. certain macroalgae, colonial bryozoans, compound ascidians, sponges), dispersal of fragments may also be a path to establishment in a new habitat (Valentine et al., 2007). For planktonic propagules, it is well recognized that factors such as increased density or frequency of release are related to invasion success (Ruiz et al., 2000), and the same concept of "propagule pressure" applies to adult organisms or fragments (Lockwood et al., 2005). Clearly, therefore, biosecurity risk will depend on various characteristics of the fouling assemblage (e.g. species composition, dispersal modes, reproductive status) and the level of fouling. Such factors, in turn, are determined by many other processes that occur between source and recipient regions, with the fouling assemblage that arrives in a new region reflecting factors such as voyage and maintenance history of the vessel, species assemblages present in source regions, and the survivorship of the fouling community during vessel passage (Hayes, 1998).
Several other factors contribute to risk from the point of a vessel’s arrival. Fouling organisms may release viable propagules in response to new environmental cues (e.g. altered salinity or temperature) in a recipient region and inoculate surrounding habitats including artificial structures (Apte et al., 2000; Minchin and Gollasch, 2003). Hull-fouling organisms or viable fragments may also detach through contact with wharf piles and other structures, or through other mechanisms (e.g. predation, water currents). Assuming suitable environmental conditions, risk is likely to increase with the residence time of a vessel in a recipient region for all release modes (Floerl and Inglis, 2005), e.g. by providing attached organisms sufficient time to become reproductively viable. However, it is worth noting that some vessels may also visit a port or region where suboptimal environmental conditions prevail (e.g. low salinity, high turbidity), and in such cases, release risks may be mitigated through die-off of the fouling organisms.
Risks posed by in-water hull cleaning
Relative to no management, the risk of in-water cleaning reflects the combined risk from the cleaning operation itself, and from the residual risk posed by the reduced level of hull fouling (Figure 1). In-water cleaning operations typically involve mechanical removal of fouling and can be undertaken using a range of devices, depending on the vessel size, build composition (i.e. wood, steel, fibreglass), and the type of paint coating used. For example, a small recreational yacht is likely to be defouled using plastic or metal hand-held scrapers (which may take several hours), whereas a large merchant ship is more likely to be defouled over 1–2 d using diver-operated devices such as rotating brushes. Most in-water hull cleaning devices are not designed to clean the entire hull of the vessel, and niche areas (e.g. sea chests and intake pipes) often remain untreated between dry-docking periods. Usually, defouled material is not retained by the cleaning devices and may settle on natural seabed habitat or artificial structures adjacent to the vessel, or be more widely dispersed by currents.
Release of viable organisms
The physical disturbance of fouling communities by in-water defouling methods may trigger the release of viable gametes or propagules (ANZECC, 1996). If this occurs, in-water defouling may increase the biosecurity risk relative to natural spawning cues. However, the likelihood of this is currently unknown and is the subject of our continuing research. Fouling organisms or viable fragments dislodged during manual defouling may survive and establish (ANZECC, 1996). This is potentially a significant issue for in-water methods that do not retain defouled material. However, our recent experimental work reveals that intact organisms can also be dislodged from the hull and lost to the environment when a vessel is treated by devices that aim to retain all defouled material.
We tested two diver-operated rotating brush systems on a fouled vessel and on two settlement plate shapes (flat plates, and curved plates to mimic a vessel’s hull) with varying levels of biofouling. Each system consisted of a single brush rotating at 700 rpm, coupled with a purpose-built suction and collection capability. In initial trials, up to 12% (mean 5.6%, s.e. 2.3%) of defouled material was not retained, with retention less on curved surfaces (GAH, unpublished data). Most biofouling not captured by the systems was crushed and fragmented, but viable organisms such as barnacles and hydroids were almost always present. Moreover, as fouling levels became more advanced, larger calcareous organisms, for instance serpulid polychaetes, were resistant to the rotating brushes and remained relatively intact on our experimental surfaces (Figure 2). Other sources of risk identified during these trials included the unintentional detachment of fouling organisms by divers operating the devices (e.g. by divers’ fins) and by equipment associated with the rotating brush devices, e.g. hoses and ropes. Results of a more comprehensive experimental study, including an evaluation of seasonal changes in efficacy of defouling and retention, are currently being analysed. We are also investigating the factors that affect the survival of this defouled material, including the extent of damage sustained during the defouling process, the environmental conditions of the receiving environment (e.g. substratum type, water temperature, salinity, light), and the biological processes in recipient ports, for instance predation and competition.
|
Enhanced recolonization
The removal of fouling from a vessel without the reapplication of antifouling paint may increase the susceptibility of the surface to new fouling, so exacerbating future biosecurity risk. For example, Floerl et al. (2005) found that defouled boat surfaces in a tropical region of Australia had up to six times more recruitment than surfaces that had been either chemically sterilized or contained intact fouling assemblages. Several theories were advanced to explain this finding, including: (i) the liberation of chemical or physical cues for settlement during defouling; (ii) the predation of settling larvae by the existing fouling communities; (iii) larval avoidance behaviour; and (iv) that the presence of a fouling community may provide resistance against recruitment by taking up space.
Alternatives to in-water cleaning
Regular defouling of a vessel hull is an effective biosecurity management practice that minimizes the transfer of fouling organisms, in particular the reapplication of antifouling coatings within recommended time frames (Floerl and Inglis, 2005). This typically takes place at dry-docking, following the physical removal of hull-fouling organisms, using devices such as water blasters and scrapers. Biosecurity risks posed by the use of dry-docking or haul-out (e.g. travel lift) facilities are likely to be less significant than in-water hull-cleaning methods, and can be managed through the installation of barriers such as filters and containment tanks, to prevent defouled material re-entering the marine environment (Woods et al., 2007).
In-water encapsulation techniques have recently been developed to reduce the risks posed by hull fouling. For example, fouled vessels in New Zealand have been wrapped in plastic (encapsulated) in situ in an attempt to eliminate (by creation of anoxic conditions) the solitary ascidian Styela clava and the colonial ascidian Didemnum vexillum, based on approaches described by Coutts and Forrest (2005, 2007). Although these techniques appear promising, the development of anoxic conditions may be too slow to cause mortality where the time frames of visiting vessels are short (<48 h). Mortality could be accelerated through the addition of chemical agents to the encapsulated seawater (Coutts and Forrest, 2005), although collateral damage to the wider ecosystem would need to be considered. An advantage of encapsulation methods is that risk organisms are contained once the wrap is in place, although fouling material may be detached during the wrapping process (Denny, 2007).
|
Conclusions and future directions |
|---|
|
TopBackgroundRisks from in-water cleaningConclusions and future...References |
|---|
Regulatory moves to ban or restrict in-water cleaning need to account for the possibility that risks posed by this method may, under certain circumstances, be less than those from no management intervention. For example, in the case of domestic vessel risk and the management of internal borders, a restriction on in-water cleaning could act as a disincentive to vessel operators to defoul, especially when faced with potentially expensive alternatives (e.g. dry-docking or slipping). Clearly, in such instances, unmanaged biosecurity risks may be exacerbated and exceed the risks posed by in-water cleaning, especially where biosecurity practices are adopted.
Although understanding the risks from in-water cleaning and the development of other defouling methods will contribute to biosecurity programmes, the effective management of hull-fouling risks will ultimately require a broader suite of measures. These include the development of specific management programmes for vessels visiting high-value areas (Lewis et al., 2006), educating and promoting awareness among vessel operators, research to understand better the factors contributing to vessel risk, and targeted surveillance programmes for vessels or vessel types identified as high risk. Decisions on subsequent management options for high-risk vessels will need to consider many factors, including the fouling species present, the level of fouling, the residence time of a vessel in a recipient region, and the risks from treatment.
In relation to in-water cleaning, it is important that any regulatory changes be supported by research that quantifies the relative risks associated with the various methods. To achieve this, in our opinion, future research should focus on gaining a better understanding of environmental factors affecting the survivorship of defouled material, the effects of cleaning disturbance on propagule release, and the colonization of recently defouled surfaces by high-risk species. The relative efficacy, costs, and benefits of other in-water techniques, such as hull wrapping, also need to be quantified.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
We thank Ashley Coutts (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services) and Chris Denny (Cawthron Institute) for their useful discussions about this manuscript. The in-water cleaning trials and defouling survivorship work was funded by Biosecurity New Zealand, and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (Contract CO1X0502).
|
References |
|---|
|
TopBackgroundRisks from in-water cleaningConclusions and future...References |
|---|
-
ANZECC. Working together to reduce impacts from shipping operations: code of practice for antifouling and in-water hull cleaning and maintenance. (1996) Canberra: Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. 10.
Apte S., Holland B. S., Godwin L. S., Gardner J. P. A. Jumping ship: a stepping stone event mediating transfer of non-indigenous species via a potentially unsuitable environment. Biological Invasions (2000) 2:75–79.[CrossRef]
Bax N., Carlton J. T., Mathews-Amos A., Haedrich R. L., Howarth F. G., Purcell J. E., Rieser A., et al. The control of biological invasions in the world’s oceans. Conservation Biology (2001) 15:1234–1246.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Brady R. F. A fracture mechanical analysis of fouling release from non-toxic antifouling coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings (2001) 43:188–192.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Carlton J. T. Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine organisms: the biology of ballast water. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review (1985) 23:313–374.
Carlton J. T., Reid D. M., van Leeuwen H. Shipping study: the role of shipping in the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States (other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options. (1995) Washington, DC: US Coast Guard, Connecticut, Department of Transportation. 213.
Coutts A. D. M., Dodgshun T. J. The nature and extent of fouling in vessel sea-chests: a protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Marine Pollution Bulletin (2007) 54:875–886.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Coutts A. D. M., Forrest B. M. Evaluation of eradication tools for the clubbed tunicate Styela clava. (2005) Nelson, New Zealand: Cawthron Institute. 48. Cawthron Report 1110.
Coutts A. D. M., Forrest B. M. Development and application of tools for incursion response: lessons learned from the management of the fouling pest Didemnum vexillum. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology (2007) 342:154–162.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Coutts A. D. M., Moore K. M., Hewitt C. L. Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Marine Pollution Bulletin (2003) 46:1510–1513.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Coutts A. D. M., Taylor M. D. A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling of merchant vessels in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research (2004) 38:215–229.[Web of Science]
Denny C. M. In situ plastic encapsulation of the NZHMS "Canterbury" frigate: a trial of a response tool for marine fouling pests. Prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand. (2007) New Zealand: Cawthron Report, 1271. Cawthron Institute, Nelson. 13.
Finnoff D., Shogren J. F., Leung B., Lodge D. Take a risk: preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecological Economics (2007) 62:216–222.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Floerl O., Inglis G. J. Starting the invasion pathway: the interaction between source populations and human transport vectors. Biological Invasions (2005) 7:589–606.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Floerl O., Inglis G. J., Marsh H. M. Selectivity in vector management: an investigation of the effectiveness of measures used to prevent transport of non-indigenous species. Biological Invasions (2005) 7:459–475.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Gollasch S. The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling (2002) 18:105–121.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hayes K. R. Ecological risk assessment for ballast water introductions: a suggested approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science (1998) 55:201–212.
Hewitt C. L., Campbell M. L., Thresher R. E., Martin R. B. Marine biological invasions of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. In: CSIRO Marine Research Technical Report 20 (1999) Hobart: Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests. 344.
Hewitt C. L., Willing J., Bauckham A., Cassidy A. M., Cox C. M. S., Jones L., Wotton D. M. New Zealand marine biosecurity: delivering outcomes in a fluid environment. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research (2004) 38:429–438.[Web of Science]
Lewis P. N., Bergstrom D. M., Whinam J. Barging in: a temperate marine community travels to the Subantarctic. Biological Invasions (2006) 8:787–795.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lewis P. N., Hewitt C. L., Riddle M., McMinn A. Marine introductions in the Southern Ocean: an unrecognised hazard to biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin (2003) 46:213–223.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lockwood J. L., Cassey P., Blackburn T. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2005) 20:223–228.[CrossRef]
Minchin D., Gollasch S. Fouling and ships’ hulls: how changing circumstances and spawning events may result in the spread of exotic species. Biofouling (2003) 19:111–122.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mountfort D. O., Hay C., Taylor M., Buchanan S., Gibbs W. Heat treatment of ships’ ballast water: development and application of a model based on laboratory studies. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering (1999) 5:193–206.
Oemcke D., Parker N., Mountfort D. Effect of UV irradiation on viability of micro scale and resistant forms of marine organisms: implications for the treatment of ships’ ballast water. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering (2004) 7:153–172.
Olenin S., Gollasch S., Jonusas S., Rimkute I. En-route investigation of plankton in ballast water in ship’s voyage from the Baltic Sea to the open Atlantic coast of Europe. International Review of Hydrobiology (2000) 85:577–596.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ruiz G. M., Carlton J. T. Invasion vectors: a conceptual framework for management. In: Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies—Ruiz G. M., Carlton J. T., eds. (2003) Washington, DC: Island Press. 459–504.
Ruiz G. M., Fofonoff P. W., Carlton J. T., Wonhom M. J., Hines A. H. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (2000) 31:481–531.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Stewart C., de Mora S. J., Jones M. R. L., Miller M. C. Imposex in New Zealand neogastropods. Marine Pollution Bulletin (1992) 24:204–209.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Taylor M. D., MacKenzie L. M., Dodgshun T. J., Hopkins G. A., de Zwart E. J., Hunt C. D. Trans-Pacific shipboard trials on planktonic communities as indicators of open ocean ballast water exchange. Marine Ecology Progress Series (2007) 350:41–54.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Valentine P. C., Carman M. R., Blackwood D. S., Heffron E. J. Ecological observations on the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. in a New England tide pool habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology (2007) 342:109–121.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Woods C., Floerl O., Fitridge I., Johnston O., Robinson K., Rupp D., Davey N., et al. Evaluation of the seasonal efficacy of hull cleaning methods. Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Report ZBS2005–22 (2007) 119.
Yebra D. M., Kiil S., Dam-Johansen K. Antifouling technology—past, present and future steps towards efficient and environmentally friendly antifouling coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings (2004) 50:75–104.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||