Transcript Monitoring NIS - Wageningen UR

First experiences with tools for monitoring and
predicting non-indigenous species (NIS) in the Arctic
Klaas Kaag, Andrea Sneekes, Hilde van Pelt, Martine van den
Heuvel-Greve, Anneke van den Brink, Bas Bolman & Jeroen Jansen
P.O. Box 57, 1780 AB Den Helder, The Netherlands
email: [email protected]
IMARES
Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies
A scientific institute for strategic and applied marine
ecological research in support of maritime policies and
innovations.
Sustainable maritime economy and seafood production in
harmony with the protection of the seas.
IMARES in the (Ant)arctic

TripleP@Sea – Standards and guidelines
for ‘sustainable development’ (4 PhDs)

SYMBIOSIS – Modelling oil spill effects on
zooplankton and cod

Arctic Handbook – Generic EIA

EIA Arctic Naval Operations

Scientific Expedition Edgeøya Spitsbergen
(SEES.NL)

Contaminants in the Arctic (‘Silent snow’)

Association of Polar Early Career
Scientists (APECS)

Antarctic expeditions (>30 yr)
Global warming
1980
2012
Recent Arctic developments

Decrease in sea ice coverage results in an increase of human
activities:
Harbour development and shipping
Offshore oil & gas exploration
Tourism
Fishery
What are the risks?
 Introductions of non-
indigenous species in the
Arctic
 Transfer of NIS via the
Arctic
25-30 % of North Sea invaders by ballast water
25% as hull fouling
Non-Indigenous Species in the Arctic

Gollasch (2006): 18 NIS in
European Arctic waters

Ruiz et al. (2006): 12 NIS in
Alaskan waters

Hines & Ruiz (2000): 24 NIS &
29 cryptogenic species

Ware et al. (2012): Probably no
established NIS in high Arctic
(Svalbard area), but planktonic
species in ballast water able to
survive local conditions
Transfer of NIS through the Arctic

Shorter trips, result in
increased survival of
‘passengers’

Lewis et al. (2003): transfer of
potential NIS in and on ships in
Antarctic

Lewis et al. (2003): Regrowth
experiments show different
species compared to direct
analysis of ballast water

DNA analysis of viable
organisms
DNA barcoding as monitoring tool
DNA barcoding: a short DNA sequence that can
characterize every species on the planet
DNA metabarcoding: automated identification of
multiple species in an environmental sample
DNA based biodiversity
assessment
DNA barcoding
as monitoring
tool
Biodiversity description
- Species
list
Biodiversity
description:
species
list
- Species
richness
species richness
- Compare sources
Ballast water treatment
 2004 Ballast Water
Management
Convention
 14 guidelines
 Reducing load of nonindigenous species in
ballast water, without
harming the receiving
environment
Temperate biased test facilities
Testing restricted to productive season (April-September)
in order to meet challenge conditions specified in G8
Seasonal biased testing
But,
 Shipping occurs all year
round
 Organisms are present all
year round
 Treatment should work all
year round
 Winter tests difficult but
not impossible
Specific Arctic challenges
 Low temperatures
 High productivity
 Difficult conditions
Consequences of low temperatures






Metabolism slow

Insensitive life stages (resting
eggs; cysts)
Sensitivity low
Sensitive life stages last longer
Reproductive rate slower
Chemical processes slower
Do Arctic species react the
same as temperate species in
winter?
Effects of temperature on toxicity

Toxicity generally increases with
temperature.

Heugens et al 2001
Toxicity of hypochlorite and
chloramine increases with
increasing temperature.

Capuzzo 1979
Some pesticides more toxic at
lower temperatures.
Weston et al 2009
136 tests
15 substances
no biocides used for BW
80
70
60
50
40
30

Most studies in range 15 to 30 °C
20

Little is known about BW biocides
10
0
Positive
Negative
Optimum
No correlation
Effects of low temperatures on toxicity

Most effort related to oil & gas.
Petroleum hydrocarbons and POP’s
most problematic in Arctic.
MacDonalds & Brewer 1996

Arctic species less sensitive to
heavy metals. Chapman & McPherson
1993; Chapman et al 2006

Sensitivity for oil and some PAHs
comparable for Arctic and
temperate species. Hoop et al 2011

Longer exposure times may be
more realistic. Chapman & Riddle 2005

Adaptation to low temperatures
may result in increased effects.
Camus et al 2004
Are active substances different?
 Not persistent
 Effect instantaneous
 At low temperatures more
persistent
 But organisms less
sensitive
 Does this change efficacy
or ecological risk?
First testing experiences
 Standard test organisms
 Adapted to different temperatures
 Compare standard test temperature with low
temperature
 Compare reference toxicant with BW biocide
First testing experiences
PERACLEAN(r) Ocean
 Low sensitivity due to slow biological processes
 Higher exposure due to slower degradation
 Net results similar or higher toxicity
Comparison with reference toxicant (K2Cr2O7)
 Lower sensitivity...
 Similar exposure (no degradation)
 Net result less toxicity
Testing experiences
B. plicatilis (marine)
*
*
**
Testing experiences
cilates (marine)
 Acute effects (1 day)
● less toxicity at low
temperature
 Chronic effects (5 days)
● higher toxicity at low
temperature
● growth (recovery) at
both temperatures
● much slower at 5°C
Preliminary conclusions
 Low temperature testing is slow
process
 Biocide shows different response
than persistent toxicants
 Different results for marine and
freshwater tests
 Long-term exposure may increase
effect
 Thanks to Evonik Industries AG for
co-funding this research
Further research
 Sensitivity of natural communities
● 4 seasons
 Dutch Arctic Centre Svalbard
● testing of local species
 Laboratory
● compare effects of BW biocides
at different temperature for
different species
● interactions with salinity
 Joint Industry Projects
Thank you for your attention