# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why I got interested in this topic is because ever since I was little I always loved the ocean. I would go to the beach all the time when I was little and really grew a major interest in this matter.

# data[].attributes.body
Marine invasive species, also known as non-native species, non-indigenous species, or alien species, are organisms that have been introduced into ecosystems where they do not historically or naturally occur.

California Wildlife website

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists estimate there are 5,000 to 10,000 species traveling in cargo ships at any given time, floating in the ballast water used to keep the ships stable at sea. When the water is released on arrival, so are those living creatures. Zebra mussels are said to have attached themselves to the sides of ships travelling from Central Asia, then set up home in the Great Lakes of North America. There, they now clog boat engines, damage water pipes – and, most significantly, threaten native species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 need-to-know facts about… Life Below Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our blue planet is defined by its oceans. Sadly, the saying ‘plenty more fish in the sea’ could soon become obsolete.

# data[].attributes.body
Over the years many invasive species have been arriving to ocean water they don't belong. A reason why this could be is because people are releasing their marine pets to the wild. This is bad because these invasive species start being competition to the Exotic marine life. Since these invasive species may not have natural predators they start to ruin the food chain and become competition.

this information was found on the NOAA fisheries website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Invasive fish species are one of the greatest threats to marine and coastal biodiversity worldwide, second only to habitat loss. Learn more about invasive marine species in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
In this map it shows me different types of invasive species and what they are and from where did they originated from.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marine Aquatic Invasive Species Survey - PUBLIC VIEWER MAP EB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marine Aquatic Invasive Species Survey - PUBLIC VIEWER MAP EB

# data[].attributes.headline
What are some times of Invasive species around the world?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are some times of Invasive species around the world?

# data[].attributes.body
These animals are some examples of invasive species around the world.

1. Red lionfish

2. Chinese mitten Crab

3. Zebra mussel

4. European Green Crab

5. Rapana venosa

6. Nile Perch

7. New Zealand mud snail

8. Small mouth bass

9. Grass carp

10. Rainbow trout

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Provides an overview of all Species Profiles included on our Web site with primary common and scientific names.

# data[].attributes.body
Species distributions are rapidly changing, facilitated by enhanced human migration and globalization over the past several centuries. Increasingly, species are becoming introduced to and established in novel locations that are often well outside their limits for natural dispersal.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7045714/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An evolutionary perspective on marine invasions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Species distributions are rapidly changing as human globalization increasingly moves organisms to novel environments. In marine systems, species introductions are the result of a number of anthropogenic mechanisms, notably shipping,…

# data[].attributes.body
Around 779 have been reported in Europe's seas, with the rate of new introductions steadily rising since 1970. The average annual rate of new introductions quadrupled compared to the 1970's in the last six-year assessment period of 2012-2017. Half of these introductions occurred via the transport-stowaway/shipping pathway, with 14% through corridors such as manmade waterways that connect adjacent non-EU waters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Non-indigenous species pose a significant threat to biodiversity and are a key focus of European Union policy efforts. Around 779 have been reported in Europe's seas, with the rate of new introductions steadily rising since 1970. The average annual rate of new introductions quadrupled compared to the 1970's in the last six-year assessment period of 2012-2017. Half of these introductions occurred via the transport-stowaway/shipping pathway, with 14% through corridors such as manmade waterways that connect adjacent non-EU waters. Stronger action is needed to reduce the risk of new introductions, including harmonised monitoring for NIS across Europe's seas.

Non-indigenous species (NIS) are widely recognised as a major global threat to biodiversity. They may also pose a risk to human and animal health, while impacting local economies and livelihoods, often causing irreversible harm. In favourable environmental conditions-such as the absence of natural predators- NIS can reproduce, spread rapidly and become invasive, potentially outcompeting native species for space and other resources, and introducing lethal parasites and diseases. At least 87 NIS are considered invasive in Europe's seas .

To address this growing threat, the EU has introduced targeted legislation and policies. The Invasive Alien Species (IAS) regulation sets out rules to prevent, minimise and mitigate the negative impacts of IAS across the EU. Additionally, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve good environmental status (GES) in Europe's marine waters. The directive mandates minimising or eliminating new NIS introductions through human activity and requires Member States to establish thresholds for GES regarding newly introduced NIS.

At least 952 NIS, excluding microalgae and parasite/pathogen species, had been recorded in Europe's marine waters by 2021, with 779 introduced since 1970. Most of these new introductions since 1970 are invertebrates (67.6%), followed by vertebrates (17.7%) and primary producers (14.7%). The types and rates of NIS introductions vary across Europe's regional and subregional seas.

The recent increase in NIS numbers has been largely driven by introductions to the Mediterranean Sea and North-East Atlantic. Average annual introductions were 17.7 and 15.5 new NIS, respectively, during the 2012-2017 assessment cycle (Figure 1). The Aegean-Levantine Sea is the most affected in the Mediterranean, with an annual average of 16 new NIS. Macaronesia in the North-East Atlantic recorded an annual average of 8.5 new NIS over the same period (see results by sub-region here).

The surge in the rate of new introductions during the last six-year assessment period (2012-2017) suggests a deteriorating state. It could also reflect enhanced scientific monitoring and the growing contribution of citizen science. This surge may also be linked to climate change, as evidenced by the influx of tropical species, such as Red Sea fish into the Mediterranean. Additionally, it may be a result of time lags in detecting new NIS. In conclusion, current data alone are insufficient to assess GES based solely on NIS introduction numbers.

The main pathway for marine NIS in Europe's waters has been through seafaring vessels, via hull fouling, ballast water and other transport-stowaway methods, accounting for 51.2% of new introductions. This is followed by the corridor pathway (14.3% of new introductions) primarily through manmade waterways connecting adjacent non-EU waters such as the introduction of Red Sea species into the Mediterranean. Other significant pathways include the unintentional transport of live organisms (transport-contaminant) and natural spread from neighbouring non-EU waters (unaided) (Figure 2).

During the last six-year assessment period, most pathways saw a steady rise in NIS introductions. This may reflect increased scientific efforts to identify NIS in hotspots such as ports and marinas. The findings underscore an urgency for stronger measures to reduce the risk of new introductions and spread of IAS. Key actions include deepening our understanding of NIS impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, particularly under changing climatic conditions, and maintaining updated, validated NIS inventories to ensure effective monitoring of policy implementation.

Supporting information

Accuracy and uncertainties

Uncertainty in alien status

It is common to miscategorise NIS as native. Many pseudo-indigenous species occur in the Mediterranean, precisely because many old taxonomic works originated in the region.

There are many records of cryptogenic species in Europe's seas. Phylogenetic studies have revealed that some of these are truly non-indigenous. For more details see Zenetos et al.

Knowledge on the diversity of marine microalgae in Europe's seas is limited, making it difficult to determine whether a suspected microalgal invader was already present as part of rare, hidden and unsampled phytoplankton.

Uncertainty in introduction/detection year

It is not always feasible to know the exact year of first collection/observation of a NIS. This is common in older publications that provide checklists with no further details. The year of introduction is based on the first collection dates reported but these do not necessarily indicate the true year of introduction, which may have been years earlier.

Due to the time lapse between observation and publication, the rate of introduction for the most recent years (2020-2021), is an underestimate as information on species collected during this period is expected to be published over the next two years.

Moreover, later inspection of archived samples has often led to the backdating of recent findings. This is the case for (1) unreported records, particularly by amateur conchologists who publish their earlier findings only after a species' identity has been published; (2) overlooked species in museums and/or private collections; and (3) phylogenetic methods revealing the backdating of species, since these methods are now used to identify alien and cryptogenic species.

Uncertainty in pathway description

In many cases, it is impossible to identify the introduction pathway/vector. For example, for species that are most frequently associated with hull fouling, this form of transport is assumed to be the responsible vector. For planktonic taxa and microscopic resting stages, ballast water is deemed to be the most likely vector as species that are associated with hull fouling can be expected to be flushed away during journeys at sea. Human activities near the site of first recording are generally assumed to be responsible for the introduction event. However, such deductions are not always well founded, especially in cases where the most likely vector is unclear (e.g. for ship-transferred NIS, ballast and hull fouling are assigned as potential vectors).

Data sets uncertainty

Data sets on NIS in official sources, such as AquaNiS, EASIN, HELCOM and NOBANIS are often contradictory. This can be because these sources include freshwater species, which are encountered in the upper estuarine reaches, in their inventories. HELCOM also defines the regional borders of the Baltic Sea differently in comparison to EU MSFD.

Geographical comparability

Partly native species have been included in the regional- and subregional-level analyses but not considered at EU level. Such NIS mostly include Mediterranean molluscan transported through shellfish movements to the North-East Atlantic and vice versa but also sessile macrobiota, such as tunicates, and Ponto-Caspian species that have been introduced to the Baltic Sea and other EU MSFD regions outside of the Black Sea. Species native to a subregion (e.g. the North Sea) that have been anthropogenically transferred to another country within the subregion are not included in the analyses of the subregions, although they do count as NIS in the countries that they have invaded. Of the validated NIS in EU waters, 46 are species native to at least one EU regional sea and have not been included in the analyses at pan-European level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marine non-indigenous species in Europe's seas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Non-indigenous species pose a significant threat to biodiversity and are a key focus of European Union policy efforts. Around 779 have been reported in Europe's seas, with the rate of new introductions steadily rising since 1970. The average annual rate of new introductions quadrupled compared to the 1970's in the last six-year assessment period of 2012-2017.

# data[].attributes.body
First observed at Long Beach Harbor in 2003, dense patches of S. horneri now dominates extensive swaths of kelp forest and subtidal habitat at six of the eight Channel Islands. Channel Islands National Park’s long-term Kelp Forest Monitoring Program has been documenting this species continuing spread, as well as the effects it is having on the kelp forest community. Since eradicating S. horneri is virtually impossible in an open ocean environment, the kelp forests will likely be forever changed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marine Invasive Species - Channel Islands National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Non-native species invasions are an increasing concern in marine ecosystems around the world. As ships travel the globe with increasing frequency, species from one corner of the world are being moved to the other corner as hitchhikers on or in these vessels. The hitchhikers usually arrive first in harbors, and if conditions are right they survive and reproduce. Once established in a harbor, the invader is increasingly likely to receive assistance from some of the many other nearby boats in spreading further to surrounding waters.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists have identified 95 marine alien species along the South African coast. Among these marine aliens, there’s a special group known as fouling agents. These organisms attach to surfaces like a vessel’s hull, jetties, mariculture rafts and rocks. Most fouling organisms are sedentary, such as algae, barnacles and mussels. Some are burrow-dwelling, such as worms, while others cling to surfaces, such as amphipods and isopods. Crabs, starfish and some small fishes are also included in the group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Saldanha Bay harbor on the west coast of South Africa has long been an important point for global shipping routes. It was also the port of entry for an unwanted stow-away: the Mediterranean mussel. The species first appeared in South Africa in the late 1980s, and has spread along the west and south coasts. It has displaced native species, increased the areas covered by mussel beds, and damaged infrastructure like pipes, jetties and aquaculture equipment.

Saldanha is one of eight major maritime ports and 23 marinas and yacht clubs in South Africa through which marine alien species have entered South African waters. These aliens from all around the world can arrive attached to the hulls of vessels or in ballast water.

Scientists have identified 95 marine alien species along the South African coast. Among these marine aliens, there's a special group known as fouling agents. These organisms attach to surfaces like a vessel's hull, jetties, mariculture rafts and rocks.

Most fouling organisms are sedentary, such as algae, barnacles and mussels. Some are burrow-dwelling, such as worms, while others cling to surfaces, such as amphipods and isopods. Crabs, starfish and some small fishes are also included in the group.

Alongside threats to biodiversity, fouling can be a nuisance for vessel owners and harbor managers. It costs a lot of money to clean hulls and infrastructure and prevent fouling that can clog pipes and damage systems. The costs can be direct, such as lower productivity for the aquaculture industry or increased fuel demand for ships.

Some indirect costs link to prevention, management and control. Prevention is best. It requires knowing which species are present and whether they're multiplying and establishing themselves. So it's essential to develop a standard long-term monitoring approach.

With coordinated efforts between academics, governments and harbor managers, it's possible to put into motion measures to track aliens before they become established, prioritize actions, and measure the effectiveness of interventions.

We started with tracking the arrival of these aliens. The Robinson Lab at Stellenbosch University developed and tested a method to monitor alien fouling species at ports and yacht clubs along the South African coast.

We showed that a simple, low-cost method can yield useful information about which species are present and the best time to intervene. The method can be used in other vulnerable locations too.

Better safe than sorry
We attached small PVC (plastic) panels, about the size of a medium sized envelope, to harbor piers or buoys close to the harbor. We left them to float in the water for two months to see what organisms would attach themselves.

Some of the units were enclosed in a cage-like structure, to stop other species, such as fishes, crabs or shrimps, from eating whatever alien organisms might attach to the panels. The materials for the entire experiment cost as little as R800 (about US$50) for the 20 units installed at each harbor site.

We tested the method at harbors in Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Saldanha Bay in 2019 and found that two months is the minimum time necessary to detect and identify invasive species.

During our trial, we detected 21 species of which 66% were invasive. The high prevalence of invasive species was alarming and reinforces the need to monitor these environments. Most of the species had been detected by researchers before but one of them, Ascidiella aspersa, was recorded only for the Western Cape and we found it in Port Elizabeth, indicating a range expansion eastwards.

These results show how important it is to establish long-term standardized surveillance. This will enable temporal and spatial comparisons of information that's collected consistently.

Our study, coupled with previous research, shows that most fouling species reproduce all year long, but have reproduction peaks during summer and winter. The main message is that harbors should monitor what's there at least twice a year during the reproduction peak season.

Going forward
The potential impacts of alien species are so alarming that international organizations urge countries to act locally in parallel with global efforts and coordination. The Convention for Biodiversity, a multilateral treaty among participant countries instigated by the UN's 2030 agenda to promote the Sustainable Development Goals, requires the prevention of alien species introduction and the control or eradication of already introduced aliens that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.

Developing a standardized long-term monitoring approach is essential for meeting national and international standards of sustainable development such as achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015. For the industry, monitoring alien species is also relevant to increase competitiveness in global markets that are progressively turning their attention towards a green economy.

The method we're suggesting can be valuable to governmental conservation departments aiming to control bioinvasions, as well as to policymakers who need to evaluate the efficacy of biosecurity protocols.

For the industry, this monitoring approach can help shipping companies, aquaculture companies, as well as managers of ports, marinas and yacht clubs that might want to pursue green certification such as the Blue Flag program.

This efficient, easy and versatile method could decrease the potential of future invasion and losses. We recommend that this early-warning method be used widely in South African harbors and abroad.
The Author
Tainã Gonçalves Loureiro is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Center for Sustainable Oceans, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Stellenbosch University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tracking Invasive Species Carried by Ship to South Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Saldanha Bay harbor on the west coast of South Africa has long been an important point for global shipping routes. It was also the...

# data[].attributes.headline
Marine Invasive problems in Central America

# data[].attributes.subject
Marine Invasive problems in Central America

# data[].attributes.body
Lionfish continue to expand at astonishing speeds and are harming native coral reef ecosystems in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Biologists suspect that lionfish populations have not yet peaked in the Gulf of Mexico, which means that their demand for native prey will continue to increase. Recent research has also revealed that lionfish can tolerate brackish coastal zones. Mangrove and estuarine habitats may also be at risk of invasion. Adult lionfish are primarily fish-eaters and have very few predators outside of their home range. Researchers have discovered that a single lionfish residing on a coral reef can reduce recruitment of native reef fish by 79 percent. Lionfish feed on prey normally consumed by snappers, groupers, and other commercially important native species. This means their presence could negatively affect the well-being of valuable commercial and recreational fisheries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
have become the poster child for invasive species issues in the western north Atlantic region. Their notoriety as invaders is on par with zebra mussels, snakeheads, and even Asian carp. Their populations continue to expand, threatening the well-being of coral reefs and other marine ecosystems. This includes the commercially and recreationally important fish that depend on them. NOAA and its partners are working hard to develop ways to prevent further spread and control existing populations.

The common name "lionfish" refers to two closely-related and nearly indistinguishable species that are invasive in U.S. waters. Lionfish, which are native to the Indo-Pacific , were first detected along Florida coasts in the mid-1980s. Their populations have swelled dramatically in the past 15 years. Lionfish are popular with aquarists, so it is plausible that repeated escapes into the wild via aquarium releases are the cause for the invasion. Lionfish now inhabit reefs, wrecks, and other habitat types in the warm marine waters of the greater Atlantic.

Lionfish continue to expand at astonishing speeds and are harming native coral reef ecosystems in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Biologists suspect that lionfish populations have not yet peaked in the Gulf of Mexico, which means that their demand for native prey will continue to increase. Recent research has also revealed that lionfish can tolerate brackish coastal zones. Mangrove and estuarine habitats may also be at risk of invasion.

Impacts to Native Fish and Coral Reefs

Adult lionfish are primarily fish-eaters and have very few predators outside of their home range. Researchers have discovered that a single lionfish residing on a coral reef can reduce recruitment of native reef fish by 79 percent. Lionfish feed on prey normally consumed by snappers, groupers, and other commercially important native species. This means their presence could negatively affect the well-being of valuable commercial and recreational fisheries.

As lionfish populations grow, they put additional stress on coral reefs. For example, lionfish eat herbivores, and herbivores eat algae from coral reefs. Without herbivores, algal growth goes unchecked, which can be detrimental to the health of coral reefs.

These reefs are already struggling from the effects of climate change, pollution, disease, overfishing, sedimentation, and other stressors. This has led to the listing of seven coral species in the lionfish-infested area.

NOAA has created an Invasive Lionfish Web Portal. It's a clearinghouse for all things related to lionfish outreach and education, research, monitoring, and management.

NOAA researcher and lionfish expert Dr. James Morris hosted a lionfish symposium at the 2014 meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute in Barbados. An earlier workshop focused on harvesting invasive lionfish found that:

An invasive lionfish food fish market is practical, feasible, and should be promoted.

Alternative invasive lionfish end-uses, such as the curio and aquarium trade, are also viable markets.

Regarding consumption and the risk for ciguatera poisoning , invasive lionfish should not be treated differently than other tropical fish species and a general caution statement should be displayed within all establishments that serve fish and on all fish products.

Local control is effective at minimizing invasive lionfish impacts at local scales and should be encouraged where possible.

Though no confirmed cases of ciguatera poisoning from eating lionfish have occurred, fears persist. If lionfish are proven to be safe, and if cost-effective harvest and distribution mechanisms are developed, small-scale fishermen may be able to capitalize while simultaneously helping to control the invasion.

Cooperation and communication among local, state, federal, and international partners is crucial for proper management of lionfish and other widespread invasive species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force developed a National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and Management Plan (pdf, 69 pages). NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries Program developed a lionfish plan that will guide the management of this invasive species in the affected sanctuaries in the Gulf and southeastern United States. Together, these plans will guide the management of invasive lionfish and ensure that all are working toward common objectives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lionfish are native to coral reefs in the tropical waters of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans. But you don't have to travel halfway around the world to see them. This is an invasive species that threatens the well-being of coral reefs and other marine ecosystems, including the commercially and recreationally important fishes that depend on them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Marine Invasive problems in South America

# data[].attributes.subject
Marine Invasive problems in South America

# data[].attributes.body
Since our data show costs reported in Brazil for only 16 invasive alien species, our estimates are likely a conservative minimum of the actual economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil. Taken together, they indicate that invasive alien species are an important cause of economic losses and that Brazil has mostly opted for paying for the damage incurred by biological invasions rather than investing in preventing them from happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
José Ricardo Pires Adelino, Gustavo Heringer, Christophe Diagne, Franck Courchamp, Lucas Del Bianco Faria, Rafael Dudeque Zenni

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil: a first assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biological invasions are one of the leading causes of global environmental change and their impacts can affect biodiversity, ecosystem services, human health and the economy. Yet, the understanding on the impacts of invasive alien species is still limited and mostly related to alien species outbreaks and losses in agricultural yield, followed by the understanding of the ecological impacts on natural systems. Notably, the economic impacts of biological invasions have rarely been quantified. Brazil has at least 1214 known alien species from which 460 are recognized as invasive alien species. Still, there are no comprehensive estimates of the cost of their impact and management. Here, we aimed at filling this gap by providing a comprehensive estimate of the economic cost of biological invasions in Brazil. In order to quantify these costs for species, ecosystems and human well-being we used the InvaCost database which is the first global compilation of the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that Brazil reportedly spent a minimum of USD 105.53 billions over 35 years (1984–2019), with an average spent of USD 3.02 (± 9.8) billions per year. Furthermore, USD 104.33 billion were due to damages and losses caused by invaders, whereas only USD 1.19 billion were invested in their management (prevention, control or eradication). We also found that recorded costs were unevenly distributed across ecosystems, and socio-economic sectors, and were rarely evaluated and published. We found that the economic costs with losses and damages were substantially greater than those used for prevention, control or eradication of IAS. Since our data show costs reported in Brazil for only 16 invasive alien species, our estimates are likely a conservative minimum of the actual economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil. Taken together, they indicate that invasive alien species are an important cause of economic losses and that Brazil has mostly opted for paying for the damage incurred by biological invasions rather than investing in preventing them from happening.

# data[].attributes.body
Non-native species -- including a range of small marine invertebrates -- can reach Antarctica by catching a ride on floating objects like kelp, driftwood, pumice, and plastic. Previously, scientists thought these species only drifted from remote and unpopulated islands in the Southern Ocean. However, this new research suggests they can reach the Antarctic coastline from all southern continents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Antarctica vulnerable to invasive species hitching rides on plastic and organic debris

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study reveals how ocean biology and marine pollution can end up on Antarctica’s shoreline.

# data[].attributes.headline
Floating dock from Japan carries potential invasive species

# data[].attributes.subject
Floating dock from Japan carries potential invasive species

# data[].attributes.body
Debris from the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan began making its way toward the West Coast of the United States, there were fears of possible radiation and chemical contamination as well as costly cleanup. But a floating dock that unexpectedly washed ashore in Newport this week and has been traced back to the Japanese disaster has brought with it a completely different threat -- invasive species.

ScienceDaily