Influence of habitat features on the colonisation of native and non-indigenous species

Abstract

Marine artificial structures provide substrates on which organisms can settle and grow. These structures facilitate establishment and spread of non-indigenous species, in part due to their distinct physical features (substrate material, movement, orientation) compared to natural habitat analogues such as rocky shores, and because following construction, they have abundant resources (space) for species to colonise. Despite the perceived importance of these habitat features, few studies have directly compared distributions of native and non-indigenous species or considered how functional identity and associated environmental preferences drive associations. We undertook a meta-analysis to investigate whether colonisation of native and non-indigenous species varies between artificial structures with features most closely resembling natural habitats (natural substrates, fixed structures, surfaces oriented upwards) and those least resembling natural habitats (artificial materials, floating structures, downfacing or vertical surfaces), or whether functional identity is the primary driver of differences. Analyses were done at global and more local (SE Australia) scales to investigate if patterns held regardless of scale. Our results suggest that functional group (i.e., algae, ascidians. barnacles, bryozoans, polychaetes) rather than species classification (i.e., native or non-indigenous) are the main drivers of differences in communities between different types of artificial structures. Specifically, there were differences in the abundance of ascidians, barnacles, and polychaetes between (1) upfacing and downfacing/vertical surfaces, and (2) floating and fixed substrates. When differences were detected, taxa were most abundant on features least resembling natural habitats. Results varied between global and SE Australian analyses, potentially due to reduced variability across studies in the SE Australian dataset. Thus, the functional group and associated preferences of the highest threat NIS in the area should be considered in design strategies (e.g., ecological engineering) to limit their establishment on newly built infrastructure.