AI 2011 6 4 Arens Etal2.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aquatic Invasions (2011) Volume 6, Issue 4: 465–476 doi: 10.3391/ai.2011.6.4.12 Open Access © 2011 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2011 REABIC Proceedings of the 3rd International Invasive Sea Squirt Conference, Woods Hole, USA, 26–28 April 2010 Research Article Pressurized seawater as an antifouling treatment against the colonial tunicates Botrylloides violaceus and Botryllus schlosseri in mussel aquaculture Collin J. Arens1*, S. Christine Paetzold1, Aaron Ramsay1,2 and Jeff Davidson1 1Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, 550 University Ave., Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, C1A 4P3, Canada 2Present address: Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development, 548 Main St., Montague, Prince Edward Island, C0A 1R0, Canada Email: [email protected] (CJA), [email protected] (SCP), [email protected] (AR), [email protected] (JD) *Corresponding author Received: 2 December 2010 / Accepted: 8 June 2011 / Published online: 28 July 2011 Editor’s note: This paper is a contribution to the proceedings of the 3rd International Invasive Sea Squirt Conference held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA, on 26–28 April 2010. The conference provided a venue for the exchange of information on the biogeography, ecology, genetics, impacts, risk assessment and management of invasive tunicates worldwide. Abstract The development of effective mitigation techniques against Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides violaceus colonizing blue mussel aquaculture operations has not been well studied. The objectives of our research were to determine the efficacy of using pressurized seawater in the mitigation of colonial tunicate fouling and to identify optimal treatment timing and frequencies in reducing tunicate biomass. Treatment trials using high- (~700 psi) and low-pressure (~40 psi) seawater spraying were conducted in St. Peters Bay and Savage Harbour, PEI, from May to November 2009. The use of high-pressure seawater was an effective anti-fouling measure for these species, causing significant reductions in tunicate biomass. In contrast, low-pressure seawater had no discernable effect. The timing of treatment was found to be the most important factor affecting efficacy, with reductions in tunicate biomass increasing in magnitude the closer the treatment occurred to harvest. Treatment frequency did not affect tunicate biomass. In addition, fewer treatments also resulted in less nuisance mussel spat fouling the mussel socks. Colonial tunicate fouling did not affect adult mussel growth and productivity, and no evidence of smothering or crop loss was observed. Key words: mussel aquaculture, aquatic invasive species, Botryllus schlosseri, Botrylloides violaceus, farm management, mitigation Introduction introduction and establishment of non- indigenous tunicates, resulting from changes in The spread of non-indigenous tunicates has had handling and defouling procedures, as well as the ecological and economic impacts world-wide as implementation of regulatory restrictions to these species become dominant in marine reduce the risk of spread to unaffected areas biofouling communities (Lambert and Lambert (Forrest et al. 2007; Locke et al. 2009b). 1998; Carver et al. 2003; Coutts and Forrest Shellfish aquaculture industries worldwide 2005; Gittenberger 2009). Invasive tunicates have been strongly affected by the spread of non- typically proliferate on artificial substrates such indigenous tunicates. A combination of factors as rock walls, wharf pilings, navigational buoys, including increased maintenance and processing floating docks, vessel hulls, and aquaculture costs, production losses resulting from inter- infrastructure (Lambert and Lambert 2003; specific competition for space and resources Forrest et al. 2007; Tyrrell and Byers 2007; (Lesser et al. 1992; Carver et al. 2003), and crop Locke et al. 2009a). As a consequence, increased loss associated with smothering and detachment management costs are often associated with the threaten the viability of the industry in some 465 C.J. Arens et al. areas (Boothroyd et al. 2002; Ramsay et al. formally evaluated for colonial tunicates, and 2008a; Locke et al. 2009a). This has prompted mussel growers currently lack information on research to develop mitigation strategies that optimal treatment timing and frequencies reduce tunicate fouling. For anti-fouling required to improve farm management practices. measures to be practical, they must be cost- The objectives of this study were to a) deter- effective, environmentally benign, and minimize mine the efficacy of pressurized seawater to product loss and negative impacts on shellfish mitigate colonial tunicate fouling, b) identify production, without compromising food safety optimal treatment timing and frequencies for (Braithwaite and McEvoy 2005; Locke et al. reducing tunicate biomass, and c) evaluate the 2009a). impact of treatment on mussel productivity. We In Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, two also document the impact of Botryllus schlosseri solitary tunicates [Styela clava (Herdman, 1881) and Botrylloides violaceus on mussel growth and and Ciona intestinalis (Linnaeus, 1758)] and two productivity, the growth of the tunicate species, colonial tunicates [Botryllus schlosseri (Pallas, and the effect of treatment on settlement of 1766) and Botrylloides violaceus Oka, 1927] nuisance mussel spat. have been established since the late 1990s (Ramsay et al. 2008b; Locke et al. 2009a, b). These species have caused considerable Methods challenges for local mussel (Mytilus edulis Treatment application and sample collection Linnaeus, 1758) and oyster [Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791)] culture industries, Pressurized seawater trials were conducted in particularly with respect to the solitary tunicates two semi-enclosed bays, St. Peters Bay S. clava and C. intestinalis (Carver et al. 2003; (46°25.005′N, 62°41.247′W) and Savage Howes et al. 2007; Locke et al. 2007; LeGresley Harbour (46°24.764′N, 62°50.458′W), located et al. 2008; Locke et al. 2009a). Compared to the along the north shore of PEI (Figure 1). Sites two solitary tunicates, little research has focused were selected based on the presence of active on developing effective mitigation techniques for mussel culture operations, existing populations Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides violaceus, of the colonial tunicates Botryllus schlosseri and and the impacts of these species on mussel Botrylloides violaceus, and the absence of productivity have not been well described C. intestinalis and S. clava. (Carver et al. 2006). PEI mussel farmers In May 2009, 270 mussel socks were seeded currently use pressurized seawater to remove and deployed on long-lines at existing leases in colonial tunicates, a method adapted from both St. Peters Bay and Savage Harbour. At the mitigation strategies used against C. intestinalis time of deployment, two to three mussel socks in the region. Alternative treatments that have were sampled per bay to determine mussel been explored for Botryllus schlosseri and density, biomass and length (Table 1). Two Botrylloides violaceus include the use of fresh above-water, pressurized seawater treatments water, brine, lime, and acetic acid immersion, were tested for their efficacy in reducing tunicate with exposure to ~5% acetic acid for >15 s biomass on mussel socks: high-pressure seawater proving the most effective (Carver et al. 2006; (~700 psi applied with a commercial pressure Forrest et al. 2007). In New Zealand, several washer using a single rotary nozzle) in St. Peters methods were used in an attempt to eradicate the Bay and low-pressure seawater (~40 psi applied colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum Kott, 2002 with a hose) in Savage Harbour. Treatment from the region, including water blasting, air pressures were selected based on existing drying, chlorine dosing, and wrapping wharf mitigation methods used by mussel growers in pilings with plastic (Coutts and Forrest 2007). each bay. Both treatments were applied manually Although several of these methods were as opposed to using the sprayer-boxes used in effective in mitigating colonial tunicate fouling, C. intestinalis-infested bays. High- and low- they are not necessarily practical or feasible in pressure treatment efficacy was evaluated using an aquaculture setting. As a consequence, high- 18 treatment groups based on combinations of pressure spraying is widely used in PEI, as it has treatment timing (date of treatment) and frequen- proven to be cost-effective, capable of being cy (number of treatments) (Table 2). Treatment applied with minimal training, and without any groups were distributed along longlines in St. observable effect on mussel quality. However, Peters Bay and Savage Harbour using a the efficacy of this treatment has never been randomized block design with each line divided 466 Pressurized water as colonial tunicate mitigation Figure 1. Map of Prince Edward Island, Canada, with an inset indicating the two study sites, St. Peters Bay and Savage Harbour. Shaded regions within each bay indicate areas occupied by mussel leases. Table 1. Stocking characteristics for mussel socks deployed in St. Peters Bay and Savage Harbour in May 2009. For comparison with this study’s results, mussel density and weight are presented per 15 cm. Stocking characteristics St. Peters Bay Savage Harbour Deployment date 29 May 22 May Mean mussel density per 15 cm (SD) 98.3 (1.1) 47.8 (1.5) Mean mussel length (SD) 27.1 mm (5.4) 38.9 mm (4.8) Mean mussel weight per 15 cm (SD) 92.7 g (1.6) Not recorded