IMARES Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies

1. 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 Netherlandsemail: klaas.kaag@wur.nl

2. IMARESInstitute 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.

3. 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)

4. Global warming 2012 1980

5. 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

6. What are the risks? • Introductions of non-indigenous species in the Arctic • Transfer of NIS via the Arctic

7. 25-30 % of North Sea invaders by ballast water

8. 25% as hull fouling

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. DNA barcoding as monitoring tool DNA based biodiversity assessment Biodiversity description - Species list - Species richness - Compare sources Biodiversity description: species list species richness

13. Ballast water treatment • 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention • 14 guidelines • Reducing load of non-indigenous species in ballast water, without harming the receiving environment

14. Temperate biased test facilities Testing restricted to productive season (April-September) in order to meet challenge conditions specified in G8

15. 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

16. Specific Arctic challenges • Low temperatures • High productivity • Difficult conditions

17. Consequences of low temperatures • Metabolism slow • Sensitivity low • Sensitive life stages last longer • Reproductive rate slower • Chemical processes slower • Do Arctic species react the same as temperate species in winter? • Insensitive life stages (resting eggs; cysts)

18. Effects of temperature on toxicity 136 tests 15 substances no biocides used for BW • Toxicity generally increases with temperature. Heugenset al 2001 • Toxicity of hypochlorite and chloramine increases with increasing temperature. Capuzzo1979 • Some pesticides more toxic at lower temperatures. Weston et al 2009 • Most studies in range 15 to 30 °C • Little is known about BW biocides

19. 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

20. Are active substances different? • Not persistent • Effect instantaneous • At low temperatures more persistent • But organisms less sensitive • Does this change efficacy or ecological risk?

21. First testing experiences • Standard test organisms • Adapted to different temperatures • Compare standard test temperature with low temperature • Compare reference toxicant with BW biocide

22. 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

23. Testing experiences B. plicatilis (marine) * * **

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Thank you for your attention