Survey of Non-Native Species in Prince William Sound Greg Ruiz - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
survey of non native species in
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Survey of Non-Native Species in Prince William Sound Greg Ruiz - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 22, 2023 256 likes •514 views

Survey of Non-Native Species in Prince William Sound Greg Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Edgewater Maryland USA & Jon Geller Moss Landing Marine Laboratory California State University Overview Patterns of invasion

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Survey of Non-Native Species in Prince William Sound

Greg Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Edgewater Maryland USA & Jon Geller Moss Landing Marine Laboratory California State University

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview

  • Patterns of invasion for North America
  • Latitudinal pattern of invasions on Pacific coast
  • Testing for temporal changes in invasions:

New invasions in Prince William Sound?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

1817 1989 1900 1980’s 1980’s INVASIONS BY EUROPEAN GREEN CRABS 2003

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Database

Literature Monitoring Collections Records Reporting System Invasion Patterns Early Detection / Rapid Response Predictions Management Efficacy Management / Policy

Outputs & Applications

NEMESIS

(National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Rate of new coastal invasions detected for each coast of North America

Coastal Invasions of the United States Time (years) since 1790

30 60 90 120 150 180

Number of Invasions

20 40 60 80 100

West Coast Gulf Coast East Coast

(Ruiz et al. 2000)

Increasing Discovery Rate

Ruiz et al 2000

slide-6
SLIDE 6

~100,000 Arrivals to US Ports and Places Annually (Overseas + Domestic)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Latitudinal Pattern of Invasion

NEMESIS 2006 Literature Review of known NIS

30 60 90 120 150 180 San Diego Long Beach San Francisco Bay Humboldt Bay Coos Bay Puget Sound Ketchikan Sitka Prince William Sound Kachemak Bay Kodiak Island Dutch Harbor Number of Species AK

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Explanations (hypotheses)

  • Biases in Data
  • Differences in Susceptibility to Invasions

(Resistance: Biotic, Abiotic, Disturbance)

  • Differences in Propagule Supply

(Propagule Pressure)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

  

Standardized Surveys: Sessile Invertebrate Community

slide-10
SLIDE 10

  

Standardized Surveys: Sessile Invertebrate Community

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Conducting the Surveys: Methods

20 PVC panels and 2 wood blocks were deployed at 10 different blocks per embayment Panels are constructed of PVC plastic and wood to attract species that settle

  • n hard surfaces and those

that bore into wooden structures.

Octob

  • ber

r 2004-KJL KJL

slide-12
SLIDE 12

30 BAYS X 10 BLOCKS X 20 PLATES (n=6,000)

Plate Retrieval On-Site Analysis Voucher Collection/ Preservation Synoptic Collection / Archive Taxonomic Identification / Verification Data Analysis

Standardized Surveys

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Latitudinal Pattern of Invasion: Sessile Invertebrates

5 10 15 20 25 30 25 35 45 55 65 Latitude (Degrees N) Non-Native Species Richness

r2 = 0.90 Ruiz et al., unpublished data

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Latitudinal Pattern of Invasion: Sessile Invertebrates

5 10 15 20 25 30 25 35 45 55 65 Latitude (Degrees N) Non-Native Species Richness

r2 = 0.90 Ruiz et al., unpublished data

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Potential for Northward Spread ?

de Rivera et al. 2011

slide-16
SLIDE 16

10,000 20,000 30,000 Panama California Oregon and Washington Alaska

Number of Ship Arrivals (2004-2005)

Low Ship Traffic in Alaska

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Number of Species

50 100 150 200 250 300

State / Province

CA OR WA BC AK

First Record in CA First Recrod not in CA

Northward Spread of California Invasions

Ruiz et al. 2011

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Study Goals

  • Test whether new invasions have occurred

in PWS

  • Establish baseline to assess changes in

marine communities over time

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Approach

  • Identify species present in the sessile

invertebrate community, using field surveys

  • Classify species as native, non-native, or

cryptogenic

  • Use molecular genetic analyses to ground-

truth consistency of identifications and test for cryptic species

  • Compare results to previous surveys and

literature

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Survey & Analyses

  • Six sites – selected to be in proximity to

tanker traffic for PWS

  • 20 PVC settling plates per site
  • Deployed for 3 months in summer 2011
  • Microscopic analyses:

– Vouchers of each “morpho-species” collected from 10 plates for morphological analyses – Vouchers of each “morpho-species” collected from each site for genetic analyses

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Atlantic barnacle: Amphibalanus improvisus

Image courtesy of Prof. Christiane Maria Rocha Farrapeira, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco- UFRPE, Brazil

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Distribution

(deRivera et al. 2007)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Results

  • Mis-match between taxonomic name

based on morphological analyses and Genbank

  • Many species have no genotypes in

Genbank to test for concordance

  • Greater genetic variation (structure) than

expected for some morpho-species

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Genetic Tree (COI) for Membranipora villosa in PWS

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Next Steps

  • Molecular analysis of plankton samples
  • Consider repeated measures for sufficient

baseline to track temporal changes and increase statistical confidence