Specialized Grooming as a Mechanical Method to Prevent Marine Invasive Species Recruitment and Transport on Ship Hulls

  • Kelli Z. HunsuckerEmail author
  • Emily Ralston
  • Harrison Gardner
  • Geoffrey Swain
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 29)


Biofouling on ship hulls is one of the primary vectors of non-indigenous species transport. The most common method to prevent biofouling settlement is through the application of ship hull coatings. However, there is no perfect coating and the ship hull will eventually become colonized by biofouling. Hull husbandry techniques are often employed to remove the biofouling from the ship hull, which adds in restoring the ships functional abilities and prevents the transport of biofouling organism as invasive species. Two such techniques are in-water cleaning and grooming. The cleaning of a ship hull may damage hull coatings, release both biocides and fouling organisms into the local environment, and is regulated or banned in many ports around the world. A more recent mechanical approach to biofouling, is grooming, a frequent and gentle wiping of the hull, which works in synergy with ship hull coatings to prevent the growth of biofouling organisms. By incorporating grooming into the ship maintenance, invasive species recruitment and transport is prevented.


Grooming Ship hulls Coatings Invasive species 


  1. Apte S, Holland B, Godwin L, Gardner J (2000) Jumping ship: a stepping stone event mediated transfer of a non-indigenous species via a potentially unsuitable environment. Biol Invasions 2:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bax N, Williamson A, Aguero M, Gonzalez E, Geeves (2003) Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Mar Policy 27:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brock R, Bailey-Brock J, Goody J (1999) A case study of efficacy of freshwater immersion in controlling introduction of alien marine fouling communities: the USS Missouri. Pac Sci 53:223–231Google Scholar
  4. Campbell M, Hewitt C (2011) Assessing the port to port risk of vessel movements vectoring non-indigenous marine species within and across domestic Australian borders. Biofouling 27:631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canning-Clode J, Fofonoff P, Riedel G, Torchin M, Ruiz G (2011) The effects of copper pollution on fouling assemblage diversity: a tropical-temperate comparison. PLoS One 6:e18026. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers LD, Stokes KR, Walsh FC, Wood RJK (2006) Modern approaches to marine antifouling coatings. Surf Coat Technol 201:3642–3652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen A, Carlton J (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coutts A, Taylor M (2004) A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshwat Res 38:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coutts ADM, Piola RF, Hewitt CL, Connell SD, Gardner JPA (2010) Effect of vessel speed on survival of biofouling organisms: implications for translocation of non-indigenous marine species. Biofouling 26(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crooks J, Chang A, Ruiz G (2011) Aquatic pollution increases the relative success of invasive species. Biol Invasions 13:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dafforn K, Glasby T, Johnston E (2008) Differential effects of tributyltin and copper antifoulants on recruitment of non-indigenous species. Biofouling 24:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dafforn K, Johnston E, Glasby T (2009a) Shallow moving structures promote marine invader dominance. Biofouling 25:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dafforn K, Glasby T, Johnston E (2009b) Links between estuarine condition and spatial distributions of marine invaders. Divers Distrib 15:807–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dafforn K, Lewis J, Johnston E (2011) Antifouling strategies: history and regulation, ecological impacts and mitigation. Mar Pollut Bull 62:453–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson I, McCann L, Sytsma M, Ruiz G (2008) Interrupting a multi-species bioinvasion vector: the efficacy of in-water cleaning for removing biofouling on obsolete vessels. Mar Pollut Bull 56:1538–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson I, Brown C, Sytsma M, Ruiz G (2009) The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling 25:645–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2007) Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat Invasions 2:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferreira C, Goncalves J, Coutinho R (2004) Ship hulls and oil platforms as potential vectors to marine species introduction. J Coast Res 39:1340–1345Google Scholar
  19. Floerl O, Inglis G (2005) Starting the invasion pathway: the interaction between source populations and human transport vectors. Biol Invasions 7:589–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Floerl O, Pool T, Inglis G (2004) Positive interactions between nonindigenous species facilitate transport by human vectors. Ecol Appl 14:1724–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Floerl O, Inglis G, Marsh H (2005) Selectivity in vector management: an investigation of the effectiveness of measures used to prevent transport of non-indigenous species. Biol Invasions 7:459–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glasby T, Connell S, Holloway M, Hewitt C (2007) Nonindigenous biota on artificial structures: could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions. Mar Biol 151:887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halpern B et al (2013) Cumulative human impact on the ocean as a result of shipping. National Center for Ecological Analaysis and Synthesis.
  24. Hearin J, Hunsucker KZ, Swain G, Stephens A, Gardner H, Lieberman K, Harper M (2015) Analysis of long-term mechanical grooming on large-scale test panels coated with an antifouling and a fouling release coating. Biofouling 31(8):625–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hearin J, Hunsucker KZ, Swain G, Gardner H, Stephens A, Lieberman L (2016) Analysis of mechanical grooming at various frequencies on a large scale test panel coated with a fouling-release coating. Biofouling 32(5):561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hewitt C, Campbell M (2010) The relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and translocation of marine invasive species. Report commissioned by The Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p 42Google Scholar
  27. Hopkins G, Forrest B (2008) Management options for vessel hull fouling: an overview of risks posed by in-water cleaning. ICES J Mar Sci 65:811–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hopkins G, Forrest B (2010) Challenges associated with pre-border management of biofouling on oil rigs. Mar Pollut Bull 60:1924–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopkins G, Forrest B, Coutts A (2010) The effectiveness of rotating brush devices for management of hull fouling. Biofouling 26:555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopkins G, Forrest B, Piola R, Gardner J (2011) Factors affecting survivorship of defouled communities and the effect of fragmentation on establishment success. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 396:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunsucker KZ, Gardner H, Swain G (2017) Using hydrodynamic testing to assess the performance of five fouling control coatings immersed at two field sites along the East Coast of Florida. American Towing Tank Conference, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  32. Hutchings P, Hilliard R, Coles S (2002) Species introductions and potential for marine pest invasions into tropical marine communities, with special reference to the indo-Pacific. Pac Sci 56:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. International Maritime Organization (2001) International convention on the control of harmful antifouling systems on ships. London, 18 October 2001Google Scholar
  34. International Maritime Organization (2006) International shipping and world trade. Facts and figures. See
  35. Jackson L (2008) Marine biofouling: an assessment of risks and management initiatives. Report for global invasive species programme, 68 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Mack R, Simberloff D, Lonsdale W, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz F (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKenzie L, Brooks R, Johnston E (2011) Heritable pollution tolerance in a marine invader. Environ Res 111:926–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Molnar J, Gamboa R, Revenga C, Spalding M (2008) Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ 6:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moser C, Wier T, Grant J, First M, Tamburri M, Ruiz GM, Miller AW, Drake LA (2016) Quantifying the total wetted surface area of the world fleet: a first step in determining the potential extent of ships’ biofouling. Biol Invasions 18:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Omae I (2003) General aspects of tin-free antifouling paints. Chem Rev 103:3431–3448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Piola R, Johnston E (2008) The potential for translocation of marine species via small-scale disruptions to antifouling surfaces. Biofouling 24:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piola R, Johnston E (2009) Comparing differential tolerance of native and non-indigenous marine species to metal pollution using novel assay techniques. Environ Pollut 157:2853–2864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piola R, Dafforn K, Johnston E (2009) The influence of antifouling practices on marine invasions. Biofouling 25:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ralston E, Swain G (2014) The ghost of fouling communities past: the effect of original community on subsequent recruitment. Biofouling 30:458–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruiz G, Carlton J, Grosholz E, Hines A (1997) Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences. Am Zool 37:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruiz GM, Rawlings TK, Dobbs FC, Drake LA, Mullady T, Huq A, Colwell RR (2000) Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 408:49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruiz G, Fofonoff P, Steves B, Carlton J (2015) Invasion history and vector dynamics in coastal marine ecosystems: a North American perspective. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 18:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sakai A, Allendorf F, Holt J, Lodge D, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sammarco P, Atchison A, Boland G (2004) Expansion of coral communities within the Northern Gulf of Mexico via offshort oil and gas platforms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 280:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schimanski KB, Piola RF, Goldstein SJ, Floerl O, Grandison C, Atalah J, Hopkins GA (2016) Factors influencing the en route survivorship and post-voyage growth of a common ship biofouling organism, Bugula neritina. Biofouling 32(8):969–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schultz MP, Bendick JA, Holm ER, Hertel WM (2011) Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling 27(1):87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swain G (1999) Redefining antifouling coatings. J Prot Coating Lining 16(9):26–35Google Scholar
  53. Swain G (2010) The importance of ship hull coatings and maintenance as drivers for environmental sustainability. In: Proceedings of Ship Design Operation Environmental Sustainability. RINA, London, 10–11 March, 2010Google Scholar
  54. Swain GW, Kovach B, Touzot A, Casse F, Kavanagh CJ (2007) Measuring the performance of today’s antifouling coatings. J Ship Production 23(3):164–170Google Scholar
  55. Sylvester F, Kalaci O, Leung B, Lacoursiere-Roussel A, Murray C, Choi FM, Bravo MA, Therriault TW, HJ MI (2011) Hull fouling as an invasion vector: can simple models explain a complex problem? J Appl Ecol 48:415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas KV, Brooks S (2010) The environmental fate and effects of antifouling paint biocides. Biofouling 26(1):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tribou M, Swain G (2010) The use of proactive in-water grooming to improve the performance of antifouling coatings. Biofouling 26(1):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tribou M, Swain G (2015) Grooming using rotating brushes as a proactive method to control ship hull fouling. Biofouling 31(4):309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tribou M, Swain G (2017) The effects of grooming on a copper ablative coating: a six year study. Biofouling 33(6):494–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tyrrell M, Byers J (2007) Do artificial substrates favor nonindigenous fouling species over native species? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. US Navy (2006) Naval ships’ technical manual chapter 081:waterborne underwater hull cleaning of Navy ships (5th rev). US Naval Sea Systems Command. Washington (DC). Pub#S9086-CQ-STM-010/CH-081Google Scholar
  62. Wanless R, Scott S, Sauer W, Andrew T, Glass J, Godfrey B, Griffiths C, Yeld E (2010) Semi-submersible rigs: a vector transporting entire marine communities around the world. Biol Invasions 12:2573–2583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wasson K, Fenn K, Pearse J (2005) Habitat differences in marine invasions of Central California. Biol Invasions 7:935–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiss C (1947) The comparative tolerances of some fouling organisms to copper and mercury. Biol Bull 93:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Westphal M, Browne M, McKinnon K, Noble I (2008) The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biol Invasions 10:391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. World Ocean Review (2010) Living with the oceans. A report on the state of world’s oceans. Maribus, Hamburg, 232pGoogle Scholar
  67. Wyatt A, Hewitt C, Walker D, Ward T (2005) Marine introductions in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, Western Australia: a preliminary assessment. Divers Distrib 11:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelli Z. Hunsucker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emily Ralston
    • 1
  • Harrison Gardner
    • 1
  • Geoffrey Swain
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Corrosion and Biofouling ControlFlorida Insitute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations