Barnacle Fouling on the Hull of an Ocean-Going Bulk Carrier Visited the Port of Kawasaki and the Risk Assessment of Their Invasion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Barnacle fouling on the hull of an ocean-going bulk carrier visited the Port of Kawasaki and the risk assessment of their invasion Michio Otani (Marine Ecology Institute Inc.) Toshiyuki Yamaguchi (Chiba University) Hiroshi Kawai (Kobe University) Points Difference of barnacle condition by hull location ・ Species composition ・ Survival rate ・ Incubation rate Risk assessment ・ The difference of invasion risks by species ・ The estimation of the donor port for the candidate of invasive species to the Port of Kawasaki Surveyed ship ・Ore Carrier: 203,180DWT ・Ports of call: Japan (Kawasaki, Mizushima, and Fukuyama) Australia (Mainly Port Headland) ・Date and site: 22nd Sept., 2007 at Mizushima Port Mizushima Fukuyama Kawasaki Her route & ports of call Port Headland Surveyed ship ・Ore Carrier: 203,180DWT ・Port of call: Japan (Kawasaki, Mizushima, and Fukuyama) Australia (Mainly Port Headland) ・Date and site: 22nd Sept., 2007 at Mizushima Port Hull locations surveyed Gudgeon Propeller post Sea chest Fore part Bulbous bow Poop: around propeller of hull and rudder Rope guard (Photographed by T. Hanyuda) Lepadidae: 1species Chthamalidae:1 species Tetraclitidae: 5 species Balanidae: (Balaninae: 8 species Megabalaninae: 6 species) Chthamalus Austrobalanus Tesseropora Tetraclita Lepas anserifera Tetraclitella Yamaguchiella challengeri imperator rosea purpurescens coerulescens squamosa Striatobalanus Amphibalanus Amphibalanus Amphibalanus Balanus trigonus Balanus sp. amaryllis amphitrite improvisus reticulatus Megabalanus Megabalanus Megabalanus Megabalanus Megabalanus Megabalanus validus coccopoma occator rosa volcano ajax Difference of barnacle condition by hull location All barnacles 100% 100% 12.3 80% 80% Other barnacles 49.9 54.5 Megabalanus rosa 60% 60% Death Balanus trigonus 92.2 87.7 Life 40% 40% Amphibalanus reticulatus Composition of Composition 50.1 dominant species 20% 20% 45.5 Chthamalus challengeri 0% 0% Bulbous Feore hull Sea chest Poop Bulbous bow Fore hull Sea chest grating Poop bow grating Hull location Survival rate Sum of incubated barnacles Species composition 100% 0.0 5.6 21.1 80% 50.0 60% III: Eggs with eyes 100.0 II: Eggs without eyes 40% 73.2 I: No eggs 20% 46.7 0% 0.0 Bulbous Hull Sea chest Poop bow grating Hull location Incubation rate Invasion risk assessment Recipient port: The Port of Kawasaki Candidate species: Twelve species which never discovered at the Port of Kawasaki and its adjacent waters were chosen Other conditions 1.As a donor, only some Australian ports trade with the Port of Kawasaki were chosen 2.Postulated that candidate species were carried by not only bulk carriers but also other ocean-going ships from Australia 3.Included also Austrominius modestus as a candidate which was estimated as the most probable species to be introduced in our previous survey Equation for the calculation of IP m m 1 vj ⋅ ESj bj ⋅ ESj IP = ⋅ + (a part of Hayes et ∑ ∑ al. 2005) c j=1 tj j=1 tj Visit score Ballast score β IP: Invasion Potential for each species d v : Ship visit to the recipient port ES = 1− ES: Environmental similarity 90 b : Discharged ballast water at the recipient port d : Absolute difference of the latitude t : Journey duration between donor and recipient port j : Bioregion/or port infected by invasive β: Parameter to adjust the “strength” species of the difference between the c : Constant given by the sum of hull fouling latitude of the donor and recipient and ballast water invasion score across all port bioregions What is the bioregion? Used IUCN bioregion (Kelleher et al. 1995) Results of two scores by bioregion m m 1 vj ⋅ ESj bj ⋅ ESj IP = ⋅∑ + ∑ c j=1 tj j=1 tj Results Visit score Ballast score Mean Volum e of Mean jouney discharged Ballast Ballast Ballast distans duration Difference of BW in ES ES ES Visit score Visit score Visit score Water score Water score Water score IUCN Bioregion (mile) (day) Lat. Ship visit Kawasaki (β=0.2) (β=1) (β=3) (β=0.2) (β=1) (β=3) (β=0.2) (β=1) (β=3) ASR-X 4,329 11.2 1.7 13 770 0.5478929 0.9811111 0.9999933 0.6359472 1.1387897 1.1607065 37.667640 67.451389 68.749537 ASR-XI 3,934 10.0 8.1 2 166 0.3821991 0.910000 0.999271 0.0764398 0.1820000 0.1998542 6.3445059 15.106000 16.587899 ASR-XII 3,904 8.7 13.3 42 0 0.3177841 0.8522222 0.9967728 1.5282748 4.0984733 4.793640 0 0 0 ASR-V 4,902 13.7 1.1 7 0 0.585590 0.9877778 0.9999982 0.3003027 0.5065527 0.5128196 0 0 0 ASR-VII 5,448 14.1 2.5 1 0 0.5116407 0.9722222 0.9999786 0.0362866 0.0689519 0.0709205 0 0 0 ASR-VIII 4,878 13.4 2.6 2 4 0.5077948 0.9711111 0.9999759 0.0757903 0.144942 0.1492501 0.1515805 0.2898839 0.2985003 ASR-IX 4,833 15.3 5.8 3 0 0.4221208 0.9355556 0.9997324 0.0827688 0.183442 0.196026 0 0 0 ASR-IV 4,430 12.0 4.5 10 0 0.450720 0.950000 0.999875 0.3755998 0.7916667 0.8332292 0 0 0 ASR-II 3,650 10.3 15.0 48 0 0.3011729 0.8333333 0.995370 1.4035241 3.8834951 4.6386192 0 0 0 c value Ballast Ballast Ballast Visit score Vis it s core Visit score Water score Water score Water score (β=0.2) (β=1) (β=3) (β=0.2) (β=1) (β=3) All bioregion 4.5149339 10.998314 12.555065 44.163727 82.847273 85.635936 Results of the calculation of the Port of Kawasaki IP 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Striatobalanus amaryllis Austrobmegabalanus ni... IP Tesseropora rosea at Tetraclitella purpurascens Austrobalanus imperator Eliminius modestus Megabalanus coccopoma Megabalanus validus Megabalanus ajax Megabalanus occator β Tetraclita squamosa =0.2 β Yamaguchiella cerlescens =1 β =3 Add another condition Previous IP is resulted only from the difference of the latitude Added another environmental condition of sheltered or exposed Species ES(H) Sheltered・・・・1 Striatobalanus amaryllis 1 Exposed ・・・・2 Austrobmegabalanus nigresce 0.5 Tesseropora rosea 0.5 d Tetraclitella purpurascens 0.5 ES()H = 1− 2 Austrobalanus imperator 0.5 Austrominius modestus 1 Final IP=IP(L)×ES(H)IP Species StriatobalanusIP amaryllis1.0 Eliminius modestus0.8 A 0.6 ustrobmegabalanus nigresc Tesseropora rosea0.4 Tetraclitella purpurascens0.2 0.0 Austrobalanus imperator Striatobalanus amaryllis β Austrominius modestus 0.9789984=0.2 0.9788436 0.9790129 e 0.8001518 0.743604 0.7244835 Austrobmegabalanus ni... 0.4832484 0.4769924 0.4740996 0.4812764 0.4752655 0.4724090IP β 0.4786413 0.4723923 0.4695254=1 Tess0.4750830eropora rose 0.4687309a 0.4658861 Tetraclitella purpurascens β=3 β =0.2 Austrobalanus imperator β =1 β =3 Next issue is the origin of these two species When we discussed the issue, we presumed that origins of these two species might have been different by vector like a hull fouling and a ballast water We used visit and ballast score to presume their origin, because they related to hull fouling and ballast water respectively Origin of candidate species to the Port of Kawasaki (1) (Relative importance of bioregion: Hull fouling) ASR-II ASR-XII 100 100 80 80 60 60 (%) 40 (%) 40 20 20 0 Striatobalanus amaryllis 0 ASR-XI ASR-IV Port Headland (ASR-II) 100 100 80 80 Newcastle (ASR-X) 60 60 (%) 40 (%) 40 Gladstone (ASR-XII) 20 20 0 0 ASR-X ASR-VII 100 ASR-V 100 80 100 80 60 60 80 (%) 40 Austrominius(%) modestus 60 40 ASR-VIII 20 (%) 40 20 Albany (ASR-V)100 ASR-IX 0 20 0 80 100 0 60 80 (%) Newcastle40 (ASR-X)60 20 (%) 40 0 20 0 Striatobalanus amaryllis: Austrominius modestus: Origin of candidate species to the Port of Kawasaki (2) (Relative importance of bioregion: Ballast water) ASR-II ASR-XII 100 100 80 80 60 60 (%) 40 (%) 40 20 20 0 0 ASR-IV ASR-XI 100 100 80 80 60 60 (%) (%) 40 40 20 20 0 0 ASR-VII ASR-X ASR-V 100 100 100 80 80 60 80 (%) (%) 60 40 ASR-VIII (%) 20 40 100 ASR-IX 20 0 60 80 100 0 60 80 (%) 40 60 20 (%) 40 0 20 0 Striatobalanus amaryllis: Austrominius modestus: We have to be careful of next things ・Ships from those two bioregions with ballast water are PCCs (Pure Car Carrier) ・Since PCCs go to various countries, the origin of ballast water may not always be from Australia ・The age of ballast water may be old enough to kill barnacle larvae in it, because PCCs hardly discharge their ballast water The ballast water from those bioregions in Australia does not contribute to the introduction of barnacles Conclusions From hull fouling survey ・Ships’ hulls obviously contribute to the dispersal of barnacles across the sea, with various species attached to each hull location From invasion risk assessment ・High-risk species likely to be introduced to the Port of Kawasaki by hull fouling were Striatobalanus amaryllis and Austrominius modestus ・Candidate ports of former species are Port Headland, Gladstone, and Newcastle and those of latter are Albany and Newcastle ・Ballast water may not contribute to the introduction of these two species Our future plans ・We should be careful about ships’ hulls come from candidate ports to prevent new introduction to the Port of Kawasaki ・We would like to apply our method to other species and other Japanese ports as many as possible to solve the introduction issue in Japan Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Global Environment Research Fund (D-072) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.