DOCSLIB.ORG

I Biofouling in Salmon Aquaculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I Biofouling in Salmon Aquaculture Biofouling in Salmon Aquaculture: the effectiveness of alternative netting materials and coatings in coastal British Columbia by Courtney D. Edwards BSc. University of Victoria, 2008 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Department of Geography © Courtney D. Edwards, 2012 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. i Biofouling in Salmon Aquaculture: the effectiveness of alternative netting materials and coatings in coastal British Columbia by Courtney D. Edwards BSc. University of Victoria, 2008 Supervisory Committee Co-Supervisor Dr. S.F. Cross (Department of Geography) Co-Supervisor Dr. M. Flaherty (Department of Geography) ii Supervisory Committee Co-Supervisor Dr. S.F. Cross (Department of Geography) Co-Supervisor Dr. M. Flaherty (Department of Geography) Abstract Biofouling in salmon aquaculture is an important issue. The use of copper based antifoulants contributes to marine pollution and managing biofouling on untreated nets incurs a heavy cost on the industry. What is needed is an antifoulant coating that balances the needs of the industry with good environmental practices. This study describes the effectiveness of seven alternative netting treatments and two copper based treatments as compared to an untreated nylon net. Effectiveness was measured in terms of percent net occlusion, percent cover of major fouling groups and biomass. Following eight months immersion, results show that the alternative treatments did not out-perform the untreated nylon control, and that the two copper treatments significantly outperformed the control and all of the alternative treatments tested in this study. The results demonstrate that the alternative treatments tested in this study were unable to meet the performance standards set by industry, that more research is needed into alternative antifoulant coatings for aquaculture, and that the effectiveness of copper based treatments will continue to be a barrier to the implementation of alternative antifouling treatments. keywords: biofouling; salmon; copper antifoulant; image analysis iii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. i CHAPTER 2: Biofouling ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 The Biology of Biofouling .................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Biofouling in Salmon Aquaculture ..................................................................................... 11 2.3 Historical Context of Antifoulants ...................................................................................... 14 2.4 Environmental Concerns of Antifoulants ........................................................................... 15 2.5 Alternative Treatments........................................................................................................ 17 2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 3: Materials and Methods .......................................................................................... 22 3.1 Test Materials...................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Net Materials ................................................................................................................ 22 3.1.3 Coatings ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Study Site ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.3. Experimental Design .......................................................................................................... 27 3.4. Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 4: Results ................................................................................................................... 33 4.1 Succession ........................................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Percent Net Occlusion......................................................................................................... 34 4.3 Percent Cover ...................................................................................................................... 38 4.4 Biomass ............................................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER 5: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 44 5.1 Percent Net Occlusion......................................................................................................... 44 5.2 Percent Cover ...................................................................................................................... 45 5.3 Biomass ............................................................................................................................... 46 5.4 Multiple Measures .............................................................................................................. 46 iv 5.4.1 Time ............................................................................................................................. 49 5.4.2 Depth ............................................................................................................................ 49 5.4.3 Treatment by Depth Interaction ................................................................................... 49 5.4.4 Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 50 5.4.5 Dyneema and Sancure.................................................................................................. 51 5.4.6. Netrex and Flexgard .................................................................................................... 52 5.6 Challenges in Aquaculture Field Research ......................................................................... 53 5.7 Better Management Practices ............................................................................................. 56 CHAPTER 6: Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 59 References ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix A: SPSS v.17 Syntax .................................................................................................... 69 v List of Tables: Table 1: Copper based antifoulant coatings that are available in Canada for use in aquaculture (PMRA 2012)……………………………………………………………………………………17 Table 2: Summary of netting materials and coatings tested in this study. Including the treatment name used throughout this document in both the text and figures. Because there are two treatments with Dyneema netting they are sometimes referred to as ‘untreated Dyneema’ and ‘Dyneema with Sancure.’ The control is untreated nylon……………………………………………………………………………22 Table 3: Dominant taxa by fouling group……………………………………………………....38 Table 4: Summary table for PERMANOVA analysis showing significance tests for treatment, depth and treatment*depth. Table 5: Mean percent cover of major fouling groups (< 3% coverage; Untransformed data) for the treatments found to be significantly different at each depth. Untransformed data. Column labels: mus = mussel, barn = barnacle, tuni = tunicate, hyd = hydroid, sabe = sabellid, capr = caprellid, diat = diatom…………………………………………………………………………..38 Table 6: PERMANOVA pairwise comparisons showing significant differences in treatment as compared to the control, separated by depth…………………………………………………….40 Table 7: Significant results for indices used in this study (PNO over time, PNO for the final month of September, percent cover, and biomass), where ‘X’ marks a significant result for the associated index. Including treatment, depth and the treatment*depth interaction. Super-script represents, when relevant, the depths where the significance was found and whether it was higher (↑) or lower (↓) than the control………………………………………………………………….48 Table 8: Significant results comparing the two copper treatments and the two Dyneema treatments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marine Biofilms on Different Fouling Control Coating Types 3 Reveal Differences in Microbial Community Composition and 4 Abundance 5 6 Maria Papadatou 1 | Samuel C
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.11.443447; this version posted May 11, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE 2 Marine biofilms on different fouling control coating types 3 reveal differences in microbial community composition and 4 abundance 5 6 Maria Papadatou 1 | Samuel C. Robson 2,3 | Sergey Dobretsov 4,5 | Joy E.M. Watts 1,3 | Jennifer Longyear 6 | 7 Maria Salta 1 8 9 1 School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK 10 2 School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK 11 3 Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK 12 4 Department of Marine Science and Fisheries, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman 13 5 Centre of Excellence in Marine Biotechnology, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman 14 6 AkzoNobel/ International Paint Ltd, Felling, Gateshead, UK 15 16 Correspondence: Maria Salta, School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. Email: [email protected] 17 Funding Information: University of Portsmouth: 35030/SC00049BIOL 18 19 Abstract 20 Marine biofouling imposes serious environmental and economic impacts on marine applications, especially in 21 the shipping industry. To combat biofouling, protective coatings are applied on vessel hulls which are divided 22 into two major groups: biocidal and non-toxic fouling-release. The aim of the current study was to explore the 23 effect of coating type on microbial biofilm community profiles to better understand the differences between 24 the communities developed on fouling control biocidal antifouling and biocidal-free coatings.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating and Mitigating Introduction of Marine Non-Native Species Via Vessel Biofouling
    ICES AD HOC REPORT 2019 ICES Viewpoint background document: Evaluating and mitigating introduction of marine non-native species via vessel biofouling Editors Bella S. Galil ● Cynthia McKenzie Authors Bella S. Galil ● Cynthia McKenzie ● Sarah Bailey Marnie Campbell ● Ian Davidson ● Lisa Drake ● Chad Hewitt Anna Occhipinti-Ambrogi ● Richard Piola International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: Galil, B.S., McKenzie, C., Bailey, S., Campbell M., Davidson, I., Drake, L., Hewitt, C., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., and Piola, R. 2019. ICES Viewpoint background document: Evaluating and mitigating introduction of marine non-native species via vessel bio- fouling. ICES Ad Hoc Report 2019. 17 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4680 For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the mate- rial in this report may be reused using the recommended citation. ICES may only grant usage rights of information, data, images, graphs, etc. of which it has ownership. For other third-party material cited in this report, you must contact the original copyright holder for permission. For citation of datasets or use of data to be included in other databases, please refer to the latest ICES data policy on the ICES website. All extracts must be acknowledged. For other reproduction requests please contact the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Biofouling Communities in a Portuguese Port Using a Combined Morphological and Metabarcoding Approach Joana Azevedo 1,2,3, Jorge T
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Monitoring of biofouling communities in a Portuguese port using a combined morphological and metabarcoding approach Joana Azevedo 1,2,3, Jorge T. Antunes1,2,3, André M. Machado 1, Vitor Vasconcelos1,2, Pedro N. Leão 1* & Elsa Froufe 1* Marine biofouling remains an unsolved problem with a serious economic impact on several marine associated industries and constitutes a major vector for the spread of non-indigenous species (NIS). The implementation of biofouling monitoring programs allows for better fouling management and also for the early identifcation of NIS. However, few monitoring studies have used recent methods, such as metabarcoding, that can signifcantly enhance the detection of those species. Here, we employed monthly monitoring of biofouling growth on stainless steel plates in the Atlantic Port of Leixões (Northern Portugal), over one year to test the efect of commercial anti-corrosion paint in the communities. Fouling organisms were identifed by combining morpho-taxonomy identifcation with community DNA metabarcoding using multiple markers (16S rRNA, 18S rRNA, 23S rRNA, and COI genes). The dominant colonizers found at this location were hard foulers, namely barnacles and mussels, while other groups of organisms such as cnidarians, bryozoans, and ascidians were also abundant. Regarding the temporal dynamics of the fouling communities, there was a progressive increase in the colonization of cyanobacteria, green algae, and red algae during the sampled period with the replacement of less abundant groups. The tested anticorrosion paint demonstrated to have a signifcant prevention efect against the biofouling community resulting in a biomass reduction. Our study also reports, for the frst time, 29 NIS in this port, substantiating the need for the implementation of recurring biofouling monitoring programs in ports and harbours.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Fouling Communities on Fish Farms in the SW Mediterranean Sea: Composition, Growth and Reproductive Periods
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Harmful Fouling Communities on Fish Farms in the SW Mediterranean Sea: Composition, Growth and Reproductive Periods 1, 2 3 2, Mar Bosch-Belmar * , Agnés Escurriola , Giacomo Milisenda , Verónica L. Fuentes y and 1,4, , Stefano Piraino * y 1 Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa), Piazzale Flaminio 9, 00196 Roma, Italy 2 Institut de Ciències del Mar, ICM-CSIC, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain 3 Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, 90142 Palermo, Italy 4 Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche ed Ambientali, Università del Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy * Correspondence: [email protected] (M.B.-B.); [email protected] (S.P.) S.P. and V.L.F. are joint senior authors. y Received: 31 July 2019; Accepted: 22 August 2019; Published: 24 August 2019 Abstract: Biological fouling organisms on fish cages represent a major issue and costly factor in marine finfish aquaculture. Cnidarians have been identified as one of the most problematical groups, contributing significantly to the occlusion and structural stress of the cage nets, but also dramatically affecting farmed species health in aquaculture facilities worldwide. Recently, significant relationships were established in different Spanish aquaculture facilities between hydrozoans and juvenile fish affected by gill injuries and mortality episodes. Community composition, growth rate and reproductive potential of biofouling were monitored on fish cages over two seasonal periods of fry cages farming, located in southern Spain (SW Alboran Sea), with a special focus on cnidarians. Biomass and community composition of biofouling changed with time and between studied periods, with a marked seasonality in colonization periods and taxonomic composition, particularly for the colonial hydrozoans.
    [Show full text]
  • Removing Biofilm from Membranes – a Practical Approach
    Removing biofilm from membranes – a practical approach. M. W.Armstrong, S.Gallego, S. P. Chesters Genesys International Limited,3A Aston Way, Middlewich, Cheshire, CW10 0HS, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Within the lifetime of most reverse osmosis (RO) systems some fouling will adversely affect membrane performance.One of the major foulants identified on lead membranes during a decade of membrane autopsy at the Genesys Membrane laboratory is biological fouling (biofouling). All raw water sources contain microorganisms such as algae, bacteria and fungi. They also contain compounds which provide nutrients and energy sources which promote biological growth. In addition current methods of control such as chlorination will increase the availability of nutrient compounds. The effects of biofouling on membrane operation include a reduction in flux, increase in pressure drop and salt passage and potentially membrane degradation and failure. Current technology favours the use of biocides to control biofouling; however bacteria in biofilm are more resistant to biocides than planktonic organisms. In addition using biocides produces an accumulated biomass which encourages active re-growth of the population. Therefore the successful approach must kill the biological population and successfully remove it from the membrane surface to prevent rapid re-growth. This paper explores the processes for developing and testing a cleaning product Genesol 703 which removes biofouling from RO/NF/UF systems. The results of removing biofilm from membranes are presented. Product efficacy was determined by comparison of membrane flux rates before and after cleaning and visual inspection by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results demonstrate that Genesol 703 is a technically and economically viable cleaning chemical product for the removal of biofouling from membranes.
    [Show full text]
  • Unveiling the Role of Novel Biogenic Functionalized Cufe Hybrid
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Unveiling the role of novel biogenic functionalized CuFe hybrid nanocomposites in boosting anticancer, antimicrobial and biosorption activities Marwa Eltarahony1*, Marwa Abu‑Serie2*, Hesham Hamad3, Sahar Zaki1 & Desouky Abd‑El‑Haleem1 The quest for eco‑friendly and biocompatible nanoparticles (NPs) is an urgent issue in the agenda of the scientifc community and applied technology, which compressing synthesis routes. For the frst time, a simple route for the biosynthesis of functionalized CuFe‑hybrid nanocomposites (FCFNCs) was achieved using Streptomyces cyaneofuscatus through a simultaneous bioreduction strategy of Cu and Fe salts. The suitability of FCFNCs was evaluated medically and environmentally as an anticancer agent, antimicrobial agent and dye bio‑sorbent. The physicochemical characteristics of FCFNCs using XRD, EDX, elemental mapping, FTIR, UV–Vis., TEM and ζ‑potential confrmed the formation of spheres agglomerated into chains (37 ± 2.2 nm), self‑functionalized nanocomposite by proteinaceous moieties with considerable stability (− 26.2 mV). As an anticancer agent, FCFNCs displayed the highest apoptotic impact (> 77.7%) on Caco‑2, HepG‑2, MCF‑7 and PC‑3 cancer cells at IC50 ≤ 17.21 μg/mL with the maximum up regulation of p53 and caspase 3 expression and the lowest Ki‑67 level, relative to both functionalized CuNPs (FCNPs) and FeNPs (FFNPs). Meanwhile, it maintained the viability of normal human cells by EC100 up to 1999.7 μg/mL. Regarding the antimicrobial activity, FCFNCs ofered > 70% growth reduction among wide spectrum prokaryotic and eukaryotic pathogens. Additionally, the synergistic feature of FCFNCs disintegrated the pre‑established bioflm and algal growth in a dose‑dependent manner.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Biofouling Controls for Enhanced in Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater
    A REVIEW OF BIOFOULING CONTROLS FOR ENHANCED IN SITU BIOREMEDIATION OF GROUNDWATER October 2005 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release, Distribution is Unlimited TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BIOFOULING CAUSES AND MECHANISMS .............................................................. 3 2.1 CAUSES OF BIOFOULING.................................................................................. 3 2.2 BIOFILM FORMATION ....................................................................................... 3 2.3 BIOFOULING OBSERVED IN EISB APPLICATIONS...................................... 4 3.0 WELL REHABILITATION VERSUS PREVENTATIVE CONTROL.......................... 11 3.1 WELL REHABILITATION................................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Physical Displacement Methods ............................................................... 11 3.1.2 Chemical Treatment .................................................................................. 11 3.1.3 Other Rehabilitation Methods................................................................... 12 3.1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Well Rehabilitation............................ 12 3.2 PREVENTATIVE BIOFOULING CONTROLS ................................................. 13 3.2.1 Biofouling Controls in Industrial and Water Treatment Applications...... 13 3.2.2 Nontoxic Coatings to Prevent Biofouling................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Biofouling and Fisheries
    Marine Biofouling and Fisheries 著者 "TSENG W.Y., HUANG Z.K." journal or 南方海域調査研究報告=Occasional Papers publication title volume 13 page range 42-55 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10232/16226 42 Kagoshima Univ. Res. Center S. Pac, Occasional Papers, No. 13, p. 42-55, 1987 Marine Biofouling and Fisheries W. Y. TSENG* and Z. K. HUANG** Abstract Marine biofouling occurs on the bottom of boats, fishing gear, nets and the surface of underwater construction materials, as well as on the surface of living and nonliving marine organisms. It causes great damage to marine and fisheries industries. This paper discusses some of the biology of marine biofouling organisms and the relationship be tween marine biofouling and fisheries. Special attention is given to the damage caused by marine biofouling to the fin-fish cage culture industries of Hong Kong. At present, approximately 5,000 species of marine biofouling organisms occur in the world, of which 2,000 species are recorded. In the coastal water of China, there are a- bout 700 recorded species. About 250 biofouling organisms are found in Hong Kong. The dominant species are barnacles, bryozoans, polychaetes, sea squirts (ascidians) and bivalves. The main biofouling of fish cages in Hong Kong is caused by the polychaete Hydroides elegans, sea squirts Styela plicata and S. canopus, oyster Ostrea glomerata, barnacles Balanus reticulatus and B. trigonus. Depending on habitat and sea water temperatures, marine biofouling has obvious seasonal fluctuations in growth and occurrence. Marine fouling organisms occur on the fish cages in Hong Kong all the year round, but April to June is the predominant season of the occurrence of Hydroides elegans.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Colonization in Marine Environments: Overview of Current Knowledge and Emerging Research Topics
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Review Microbial Colonization in Marine Environments: Overview of Current Knowledge and Emerging Research Topics Gabriella Caruso Institute of Polar Sciences, National Reasearch Council (ISP-CNR), Spianata S. Raineri 86, 98122 Messina, Italy; [email protected]; Tel.: +39-090-6015423; Fax: +39-090-669007 Received: 13 December 2019; Accepted: 22 January 2020; Published: 24 January 2020 Abstract: Microbial biofilms are biological structures composed of surface-attached microbial communities embedded in an extracellular polymeric matrix. In aquatic environments, the microbial colonization of submerged surfaces is a complex process involving several factors, related to both environmental conditions and to the physical-chemical nature of the substrates. Several studies have addressed this issue; however, more research is still needed on microbial biofilms in marine ecosystems. After a brief report on environmental drivers of biofilm formation, this study reviews current knowledge of microbial community attached to artificial substrates, as obtained by experiments performed on several material types deployed in temperate and extreme polar marine ecosystems. Depending on the substrate, different microbial communities were found, sometimes highlighting the occurrence of species-specificity. Future research challenges and concluding remarks are also considered. Emphasis is given to future perspectives in biofilm studies and their potential applications, related to biofouling prevention (such as cell-to-cell communication by quorum sensing or improved knowledge of drivers/signals affecting biological settlement) as well as to the potential use of microbial biofilms as sentinels of environmental changes and new candidates for bioremediation purposes. Keywords: biofilms; microbes; colonization; substrates; temperate areas; polar regions 1. Introduction Biofilm formation on substrate surfaces is the first step in biofouling formation [1–5].
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Exposure Trials Evaluating the Biofouling and Corrosion Resistance of Copper-Nickel Alloy Sheathing Materials
    The 12th International Congress on Marine Corrosion & Fouling 27 – 30 July 2004, University of Southampton, UK Long-term Exposure Trials Evaluating the Biofouling and Corrosion Resistance of Copper-nickel Alloy Sheathing Materials. Dr Sheelagh Campbell1 Dr Robert Fletcher2 and Carol Powell3 1 School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, 2 Institute for Marine Sciences, University of Portsmouth St.Michael’s Building, White Swan Road, Portsmouth. PO1 2DT, UK. 3 Consultant Metallurgist to the Nickel Institute Abstract The modern equivalent of copper sheathing, so successful on Nelson’s ships, is the use of a 90-10 copper-nickel alloy applied as an adhesive backed foil to ships and as granules embedded in polychloroprene rubber used on legs and risers of offshore structures. The 10% nickel alloy is reported to have better corrosion resistance than copper whilst maintaining similar biofouling resistance. While independent long term evaluation studies for copper-nickel itself are widely available, little data exists for these types of composite products. A 7 and 8 year raft exposure trial study in Langstone Harbour, UK, evaluating the corrosion and biofouling behaviour of the foil and granule composite products respectively has now been completed. Removals of panels for destructive assessment after 1, 4 or 5 and 7 or 8 years were made. In addition, a third product under development at the start of the study, involving expanded mesh with a neoprene backing, and also a single sample of hot rolled plate were included in this study. The adhesion of the foil product was measured by peel resistance tests on 3 occasions over the exposure time.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions and Answers – Bryozoans
    Questions and Answers – Bryozoans What is bryozoa? Bryozoans are among the invertebrate animals that thrive in dark places where continuously flowing water brings an unlimited supply of particulate food (Fig 2). Free branches of the tubular colonies may become tangled and intertwined, filling the pipeline interior with a dense meshwork that impedes or blocks water flow. Pieces of colonies are eventually carried off by the water until they clog a filter, water sprinkler orifice, or other end-use device. The colonies leave behind dormant, resistant structures attached to the pipeline interior, which are the “seeds” to start new colony growth (T.S.Wood, 2005). Fig. 2. Colony of the bryozoan, Plumatella bombayensis, growing on a plastic substratum in eutrophic waters of Thailand. How widespread is the bryozoa problem? Throughout the world, bryozoans grow on filters, fountains, irrigation systems, cooling tower grids, water supply and wastewater facilities (WOOD & MARSH 1999). Typically known as “moss” or “algae”, they are seldom recognized as animals (Fig. 3). Fouled surfaces are usually ineffectively cleaned and then returned to service. Freshwater bryozoans are common in freshwater habitats worldwide. Species such as Plumatella casmiana are reported from every continent except Antarctica (WOOD &WOOD 2000), while others, such as Plumatella mukaii, have widely distributed but highly disjunct populations (WOOD 2002). It is clear from distribution data that freshwater bryozoans have little difficulty getting around (T.S.Wood, 2005). Fig. 3. Handful of plumatellid bryozoans (Plumatella vaihiriae) from the wall of a secondary clarifier of a municipal wastewater treatment (T.S.Wood, 2005). How long has bryozoa been a problem in pipelines? There are historical worldwide reports going back to the 1700’s ; more up to date reports from the early 1900’s to the present day are widely published.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Biofilms Constitute a Bank of Hidden Microbial Diversity And
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08463-z OPEN Marine biofilms constitute a bank of hidden microbial diversity and functional potential Weipeng Zhang1, Wei Ding1, Yong-Xin Li 1, Chunkit Tam1, Salim Bougouffa 2, Ruojun Wang1, Bite Pei1, Hoyin Chiang1, Pokman Leung 1, Yanhong Lu1, Jin Sun1,HeFu3, Vladimir B Bajic 2, Hongbin Liu1, Nicole S. Webster 4,5 & Pei-Yuan Qian1 Recent big data analyses have illuminated marine microbial diversity from a global per- 1234567890():,; spective, focusing on planktonic microorganisms. Here, we analyze 2.5 terabases of newly sequenced datasets and the Tara Oceans metagenomes to study the diversity of biofilm- forming marine microorganisms. We identify more than 7,300 biofilm-forming ‘species’ that are undetected in seawater analyses, increasing the known microbial diversity in the oceans by more than 20%, and provide evidence for differentiation across oceanic niches. Gen- eration of a gene distribution profile reveals a functional core across the biofilms, comprised of genes from a variety of microbial phyla that may play roles in stress responses and microbe-microbe interactions. Analysis of 479 genomes reconstructed from the biofilm metagenomes reveals novel biosynthetic gene clusters and CRISPR-Cas systems. Our data highlight the previously underestimated ocean microbial diversity, and allow mining novel microbial lineages and gene resources. 1 Department of Ocean Science and Division of Life Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China. 2 Computational Bioscience Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal 23955, Saudi Arabia. 3 Department of Marine Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens 30602 GA, USA.
    [Show full text]