Ascidian Fouling in North Carolina Shellfish Farms

Abstract

Ascidians are marine sessile animals that are particularly abundant on artificial structures, where they often overgrow native species and compete with other filter feeders. North Carolina’s (NC) coastline supports productive aquaculture operations and ascidians are considered pests there. Five shellfish farms and four nearby marinas were surveyed to compare the structure and composition of their ascidian communities using photo-quadrat surveys and presence–absence and abundance matrices, with “marina” and “shellfish farm” as factors. Twelve species were observed in the marinas, but only six in the farms: three native, two cryptogenic, and one identifiable only to the genus level. The three native species (Clavelina oblonga, Perophora viridis, and Molgula manhattensis) have established populations in many world regions and were observed in at least two of the farms visited. The cryptogenic Styela plicata was found in all farms and marinas and was the most abundant species. All species observed in shellfish farms were also present in marinas, with no significant difference in ascidian composition or abundance. Independently of introduction status, species thriving in a wide range of habitats are more adaptable and better suited to establish populations on artificial substrates, resulting in increased maintenance costs for aquaculture operations.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

The increasing interconnectedness of the modern world brings unintended consequences to natural ecosystems. Economic ties between countries facilitate the intercontinental transport of goods across the world’s oceans, with commercial shipping vessels playing a crucial role in connecting ecosystems that previously had no natural link. These vessels can inadvertently transport non-native organisms on their hulls, in ballast water, or alongside cargo [1–3]. Species that survive transport may successfully establish new populations, and a few will subsequently spread beyond their entry ports and potentially become invasive (e.g., sea walnut [4]). Another common pathway for the introduction of non-native marine species is through aquaculture. Most of the species farmed are non-native and escapes often occur in mariculture because of poor facility maintenance, intense storms (e.g., hurricanes), and damage to nets or cages by other animals (e.g., Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout [5]). The import of farmed bivalves has also resulted in the unintentional introduction of several non-native species, such as the American whelk tingle that was introduced to England with the American oyster [6] and the introduction of the slipper limpet in Europe associated with the Pacific oyster [7]. Once a marine non-native species becomes established, its eradication is complex, and even if successful, the species is likely to be reintroduced [8]. Thus, most efforts to date focus on preventing species introductions and mitigating the adverse effects of non-native species on natural ecosystems and ecosystem services. For the aquaculture industry, mitigation includes biofouling control of native and non-native species and was estimated to represent 5%–30% of production costs [9–11].

Ascidians, or sea squirts, are filter-feeding animals found in benthic communities around the globe. These animals are dispersed long distances attached to ship hulls, buoys, and nets [12] and are prevalent and abundant in a variety of artificial substrates, including harbors and aquaculture facilities [9, 13–18], where they directly compete with farmed animals for food [19] and substrate [20], causing significant economic losses [21, 22]. Non-native ascidians are characterized by rapid growth rates and long reproductive seasons [23–26], releasing larvae into the water column that settle within a few days [27, 28]. Thus, ascidians cannot be eradicated once present on a shellfish farm and mitigation techniques must be applied to reduce their impact [29, 30].

The most common method of combating ascidian fouling on oyster cages is by flipping the cages periodically (every 2–3 weeks), exposing ascidians on one side of the cage to the open air to cause desiccation, ultimately leading to the death of the animals [31, 32]. Other regularly used techniques include power washing [33], manual removal by scraping biofouling organisms off lines and cages [34], and removing the whole cage from the water to dry completely after shellfish have been harvested [35]. Other methods, such as chemical treatments with lime, bleach, or acetic acid, are less frequently utilized due to their potential adverse effects on the farmed animals [34, 36–39]. The introduction of natural predators (biological treatments) has also been attempted to mitigate biofouling with mixed results [40, 41].

The shellfish aquaculture industry is a small but important industry in North Carolina’s (NC) coastal communities, contributing over $31 million to the state’s economy in 2022 [42]. Currently, most producers grow oysters, with a few also growing clams and scallops, in the water column on a free-flow system where oyster seeds are placed into floating cages or cages suspended from the bottom. The state allowed the use of public waters to grow shellfish commercially in 1858 [43]. Since then, the industry has grown rapidly, with projected contributions of $100 million to the economy by 2030 [42]. Although the negative impacts of ascidians in aquaculture facilities are well known, no study to date has characterized ascidian assemblages in NC shellfish farms. Here, we visited shellfish farms along the NC coast and at each site (1) identified all ascidians encountered using key morphological characters, (2) determined the introduced status of each species, and (3) calculated the abundance of each species at each farm. Equivalent data was also collected from marinas to compare ascidian composition and abundance between the two habitats.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

Five aquaculture sites were surveyed (Figure 1 and Table 1), each composed of one to four mooring lines: (1) Morris Family Shellfish Farm, located on Nelson Bay, and growing oysters exclusively. (2) Cedar Island Oyster Company, located next to Cedar Island Bay and separated from the Atlantic Ocean by Cape Lookout National Seashore produce oysters. (3) Waterman’s Choice Topsail Sound Farm is shielded from the Atlantic by Topsail Beach, NC. This farm grows both clams and oysters, but only oyster cages were surveyed since clams were grown in fully submerged bags. (4) NC State Center for Marine Science and Technology (CMAST), located in Bogue Sound, behind Atlantic Beach, NC. This was the smallest deployment, with only three cages on one mooring line and exclusively growing scallops. (5) UNCW’s Shellfish Hatchery, located behind the Masonboro Island Reserve. The hatchery grows both oysters and scallops, but only the oyster cages were deployed during this study.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

Table 1

Study sites, GPS coordinates, habitat type, sampling date, salinity, temperature (°C) at the sampling time, species richness (SpR), and Shannon index (H).

Study site	GPS coordinates	Habitat	Sampling date	Salinity	Temperature (°C)	SpR	H
Cedar Island Oyster Company	35° 00′ 23.926″ N76° 18′ 30.356″ W	Shellfish farm	October 23rd, 2022	30	17.5	1	0
Morris Family Shellfish Farm	34° 52′ 17.784″ N76° 23′ 37.391″ W	Shellfish farm	October 22nd, 2022	35	19.0	2	0.3010
Morehead City Yacht Basin	34° 43′ 16.577″ N76° 42′ 14.367″ W	Marina	October 15th, 2022	35	21.5	4	0.2919
Anchorage Marina	34° 42′ 0.671″ N76° 43′ 47.36″ W	Marina	October 16th, 2022	34	20.9	2	0.1470
CMAST	34° 43′ 20″ N76° 45′ 36″ W	Shellfish farm	October 6th, 2023	30	24.7	5	0.5443
Waterman’s Choice Topsail Sound Farm	34° 22′ 50″ N77° 37′ 31″ W	Shellfish farm	October 5th, 2023	35	24.7	6	0.5892
Harbor Village Marina	34° 23′ 18″ N77° 38′ 13″ W	Marina	October 5th, 2023	34	25.7	4	0.4278
Seapath Marina	34° 12′ 48″ N77° 48′ 22″ W	Marina	October 16th, 2023	36	21.0	12	0.9317
UNCW Shellfish Hatchery	34° 8′ 26″ N77° 51′ 50″ W	Shellfish farm	October 9th, 2023	35	21.0	3	0.2645

Abbreviation: CMAST, NC State Center for Marine Science and Technology.

In addition, four nearby marinas were surveyed (Figure 1 and Table 1): (1) Morehead City Yacht Basin, (2) Anchorage Marina, (3) Harbor Village Marina, and (4) Seapath Marina. Morehead City Yacht Basin is dedicated to sport fishing with vessels that travel along the coast for regional tournaments. The other three marinas specialize in private recreational boating. Seawater temperature and salinity were recorded at all sites at the time of sampling (Table 1). The marinas were chosen for their proximity to the surveyed farms and accessibility. No marinas exist in the vicinity of the two northernmost farms visited (Figure 1).

2.2. Ascidian Collection and Identification

Samples for each ascidian species were collected from submerged oyster cages or mooring lines in farms or floating docks in marinas (depths ranging from 0 to 1 m); no ethical approval was required to collect these samples. Samples were placed in Ziploc bags with seawater and a few menthol crystals and transported to UNCW Center for Marine Science to confirm in situ identification. Species were then classified into three categories: (1) native, (2) introduced or non-native, and (3) cryptogenic (native and introduced status cannot be determined), as defined in [44, 45]. The status of each species was determined based on Shenkar, Swalla, and Browman [46], Zhan et al. [47], Simkanin et al. [48], Villalobos et al. [49], and Hutchings et al. [50].

2.3. Photo-Quadrat Analysis

In shellfish farms, a minimum of seven photos per mooring line (including cages along it) were taken. At each marina site, 10 photos were taken along each dock. Pictures were taken at 0–0.5 m depths with an Olympus C-7070 camera in an underwater case and fixed to an aluminum frame (inside edge: 11.716 cm × 17.526 cm, 13 cm from frame to camera lens). The aluminum frame was attached to keep a reference frame for analyzing images and ensuring the correct focal distance when taking photos. The photos were analyzed using ImageJ v1.48 [51], and the number of individuals or colonies per m² and species was calculated for each image and then averaged to obtain species abundance per m² at each site.

2.4. Data Analysis

The Shannon index (H) of species diversity [52] was calculated in Excel (Microsoft). Two similarity matrices were constructed using the zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis index calculated from presence–absence and abundance data using the software package PRIMER v7 [53]. Results were visualized with a cluster plot and permutational analyses of variance (PERMANOVA) were applied to determine whether ascidian assemblages in shellfish farms and marinas were significantly different.

3. Results

Six ascidian species were found in the surveyed shellfish farms (Figure 2): three species were native to NC: Clavelina oblonga (Herdman, 1880); Perophora viridis [54]; and Molgula manhattensis (De Kay, 1843). Two species, Distaplia bermudensis (Van Name, 1902) and Styela plicata (Lesueur, 1823), were considered cryptogenic, and the last species, Didemnum sp., was only identified at the genus level because zooid contraction made characterization of some key morphological characters unreliable. The most common and abundant species in shellfish farms was the cryptogenic S. plicata, observed in all the sites surveyed (Figure 3). The native C. oblonga was also common, although it was only observed at three of the five sites visited and at lower abundances than S. plicata. The native P. viridis and M. manhattensis were observed in two shellfish farms, while D. bermudensis and Didemnum sp. were only observed at one site (Figure 3). All species observed in shellfish farms were also observed in marinas (Figure S1). However, six additional species were observed in the marinas: three native species, Eudistoma capsulatum (Van Name, 1902); Didemnum lutarium (Van Name, 1910); and Distaplia corolla (Monniot, 1974), the introduced, Polyandrocarpa anguinea (Sluiter, 1898), and the cryptogenic, Distaplia stylifera (Kowalevsky, 1874) and Botrylloides niger [55]. The Shannon index ranged from 0.9317 in the Seapath Marina, where all 12 ascidian species were observed, to 0 in Morris Family Shellfish Farms, where only S. plicata was recorded (Table 1).

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

Styela plicata reached numbers as high as 423 individuals per m² at Cedar Island Oyster Company and as high as 376 individuals per m² at the Morehead City Yacht Basin. The species was prevalent in all surveyed sites, with the lowest abundance recorded at the UNCW Shellfish Hatchery (29 individuals per m²). Other species common in shellfish farms and marinas were the native species P. viridis and C. oblonga. Neither species was recorded at all sites, and both were much more abundant in marinas than farms (P. viridis: 9.6 colonies/m² ± 14.5 SD in marinas and 2.5 ± 3.5 in farms; C. oblonga: 34 colonies/m² in marinas ± 23 SD and 1.8 ± 2 in farms; Figures 3 and S1). Colonial species like D. bermudensis and D. corolla were more common in marinas, while M. manhattensis was observed in two shellfish farms, but only one marina (Figures 3 and S1).

Presence–absence analysis based on the Bray–Curtis similarity matrix revealed that species composition at the two southernmost surveyed farms, UNCW Shellfish Hatchery, and Waterman’s Choice Topsail Sound Farm, were the most similar (Figure 4A). However, ascidian assemblages at these two farms were more comparable to that observed at a northern marina (Anchorage Marina) than at the closest marinas (Seapath Marina and Harbor Villa Marina; Figures 1 and 4A). The Cedar Island Oyster Company and the Morris Family Shellfish Farm in northern NC are located only 16.9 km apart, and the ascidian composition at both sites was most similar. Finally, ascidian assemblages in CMAST, the only non-oyster farm, resembled that of a nearby marina, Morehead City Yacht Basin (Figure 4A).

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

When considering species abundances at each surveyed site, similarity groupings differed from those based on presence–absence data. Both Morris Family Shellfish Farms and Cedar Island Oyster Company hosted communities that were more similar to those observed in marinas than to each other (Figure 4B). Ascidian communities at CMAST (in northern NC) and Waterman’s Choice Topsail Sound Farm (in southern NC) were similar to each other, while the ascidian community at UNCW Shellfish Hatchery was distinct from all other sites (Figure 4B). The UNCW Shellfish Hatchery also had the least number of ascidians per m² (Figure 3). Overall, there were no significant differences in species composition ($p=0.37$) or abundance ($p=0.46$) between marinas and aquaculture farms.

4. Discussion

This study is the first to characterize ascidian assemblages in shellfish farms in NC where they are considered pests. Six ascidian species were observed: two cryptogenic species, S. plicata and D. bermudensis; three native species, C. oblonga, M. manhattensis, and P. viridis; and a didemnid species. The most common species in terms of presence and abundance were the solitary ascidian S. plicata, and the colonial C. oblonga. Six additional species were observed in marinas, but overall, there were no significant differences in ascidian assemblages between the surveyed shellfish farms and the marinas.

All species observed in shellfish farms have an extensive distribution range in NC, including marinas [49, 50] and seagrass meadows [56]. The solitary S. plicata dominated all five of the shellfish farms, being the only ascidian present at the two northernmost study sites and the only species found in all nine sample sites visited. Styela plicata has also been noted as the most common species in NC marinas [49, 50] and seagrass beds [56]. In fact, S. plicata has been introduced in many regions of the world [57, 58], and although its origin was hypothesized to be in the NW Pacific Ocean [45, 57, 59, 60], recent data does not support this claim [58, 61]. The species is highly resilient to a wide range of environmental conditions, including temperature and salinity changes [62], pollution [63], and even hurricane impacts [50]. The other cryptogenic species, D. bermudensis, was first described in the Bermuda Islands, and although less conspicuous than S. plicata, the species has populations in the Mediterranean Sea, Brazil, and the southeastern United States [15, 49, 64, 65]. In NC, the species has been observed both in marinas and natural reefs [66].

Similarly, the three native species observed in shellfish farms have established populations in many regions of the world. Clavelina oblonga has been reported in Brazil, Panama, the Azores, Africa, Italy, and Spain [67–70] and is found on natural and artificial substrates [68], is tolerant to pollution [68], and can impact aquaculture through fouling [15, 69]. Molgula manhattensis has been reported in the Mediterranean [71], western US [72], Argentina [73], Japan [74], Australia [75], and China [76], and it is thought to have been introduced to these locations via hull fouling and oyster translocations [74, 77]. Perophora viridis was first described in New England (northeastern US) [54], and since then, it has been observed all the way down to Florida, the Caribbean Sea, Brazil, Spain, and Italy [49, 78–85]. Although the species is widespread where it has been observed, little is known of its tolerance thresholds.

The most relevant environmental variables associated with ascidian distribution are seawater temperature and salinity [41, 86–88]. However, widely distributed and invasive species are notorious for their tolerance of a wide range of salinity and temperature [89–94]. All farms visited herein were in shallow marsh habitats where sharp changes in salinity and temperature are common (i.e., temperatures from 9 to 30°C and salinities from 26 to 38.5 [88]), and accordingly, only widely distributed species were observed. In addition, while shellfish farms have dedicated boats that rarely leave the facility, marinas experience constant vessel traffic. Thus, lower species richness (SpR) and abundance in shellfish farms than in marinas may result from harsher environmental conditions in shallow marsh habitats and lower propagule pressure. The wide distribution and successful introduction of the five species observed in shellfish farms into many regions of the world, and their tolerance to wide fluctuations in salinity and temperature suggests these animals can survive in different environments through adaptive evolution [95]. For M. manhattensis, Chen et al. [95] suggested that local environmental factors, notably the salinity-related variables, were crucial evolutionary forces in driving adaptive divergence. For S. plicata, Galià-Camps et al. [96] found large inversions in four chromosomes that were enriched with genes thought to increase the fitness of animals in estuary and harbor environments.

5. Conclusion

Highly adaptable species are more difficult to eradicate, and thus, current efforts focus on mitigation. Flipping cages remains the easiest, most cost-efficient, and most common method used [31, 32], with frequency being key to successful fouling control. For instance, while most farms flipped cages every 2–3 weeks, the UNCW Shellfish Hatchery did it weekly (Wilbur, pers. comm.), resulting in the lowest ascidian abundance recorded in this study. Although the increased frequency of flipping cages appeared to reduce ascidian fouling, it may not be feasible at other farms since the UNCW Shellfish Hatchery relied on students to perform this task. Relatedly, regular maintenance of biofouling organisms on gear could have led to an underestimate of ascidian abundance herein, since the timing and frequency of flipping cages differed among the visited farms. To understand the full implications of ascidian growth on shellfish farming, further studies should consider cage maintenance schedules and conduct seasonal surveys to monitor changes in ascidian assemblages over time.

Author Contributions

Jordan Pilcher and Grace Monteith equally contributed to this work.

References

[1] A. J. Niimi, "Role of Container Vessels in the Introduction of Exotic Species," Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 49 no. 9-10, pp. 778-782, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.06.006, 2004.

[2] I. C. Davidson, C. W. Brown, M. D. Sytsma, G. M. Ruiz, "The Role of Containerships as Transfer Mechanisms of Marine Biofouling Species," Biofouling, vol. 25 no. 7, pp. 645-655, DOI: 10.1080/08927010903046268, 2009.

[3] M. Frey, N. Simard, D. Robichaud, J. Martin, T. Therriault, "Fouling Around: Vessel Sea-Chests as a Vector for the Introduction and Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species," Management of Biological Invasions, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 21-30, DOI: 10.3391/mbi.2014.5.1.02, 2014.

[4] M. V. Pereladov, "Some Observations for Biota of Sudak Bay of the Black Sea," pp. 237-238, .

[5] H. M. Føre, T. Thorvaldsen, "Causal Analysis of Escape of Atlantic Salmon and Rainbow Trout From Norwegian Fish Farms During 2010–2018," Aquaculture, vol. 532,DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736002, 2021.

[6] B. E. Spencer, "Predators and Methods of Control in Shellfish Cultivation," 1991. Aquaculture Europe 91

[7] M. Blanchard, "Recent Expansion of the Slipper Limpet Population ( Crepidula fornicata ) in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel (Western Channel, France)," Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 22 no. 1, pp. 11-19, DOI: 10.1051/alr/2009004, 2009.

[8] J. E. Havel, K. E. Kovalenko, S. M. Thomaz, S. Amalfitano, L. B. Kats, "Aquatic Invasive Species: Challenges for the Future," Hydrobiologia, vol. 750 no. 1, pp. 147-170, DOI: 10.1007/s10750-014-2166-0, 2015.

[9] C. M. Adams, S. E. Shumway, R. B. Whitlatch, T. Getchis, "Biofouling in Marine Molluscan Shellfish Aquaculture: A Survey Assessing the Business and Economic Implications of Mitigation," Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, vol. 42 no. 2, pp. 242-252, DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-7345.2011.00460.x, 2011.

[10] E. Lacoste, N. Gaertner-Mazouni, "Biofouling Impact on Production and Ecosystem Functioning: A Review for Bivalve Aquaculture," Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 7 no. 3, pp. 187-196, DOI: 10.1111/raq.12063, 2015.

[11] D. Tsοtsios, D. K. Moutopoulos, A. Lattos, B. Michaelidis, J. A. Theodorou, "Impacts of the Establishment of Biofoulants on Greek Aquaculture: Farmers’ Expert Knowledge," Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 11 no. 5,DOI: 10.3390/jmse11051077, 2023.

[12] M.-T. Gewing, N. Shenkar, "Monitoring the Magnitude of Marine Vessel Infestation by Non-Indigenous Ascidians in the Mediterranean," Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 121 no. 1-2, pp. 52-59, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.041, 2017.

[13] R. M. Daigle, C. M. Herbinger, "Ecological Interactions Between the Case Tunicate ( Ciona intestinalis ) and the Farmed Blue Mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) in Nova Scotia, Canada," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 177-187, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.18, 2009.

[14] G. Arsenault, J. Davidson, A. Ramsay, "Temporal and Spatial Development of an Infestation of Styela clava on Mussel Farms in Malpeque Bay, Prince Edward Island, Canada," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 189-194, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.19, 2009.

[15] R. M. Rocha, L. P. Kremer, M. S. Baptista, R. Metri, "Bivalve Cultures Provide Habitat for Exotic Tunicates in Southern Brazil," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 195-205, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.20, 2009.

[16] V. Kripa, K. S. Mohamed, T. S. Velayudhan, "Seasonal Fouling Stress on the Farmed Pearly Oyster, Pinctada fucata From Southeastern Arabian Sea," Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, vol. 43 no. 4, pp. 514-525, DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-7345.2012.00578.x, 2012.

[17] M. Rosa, B. A. Holohan, S. E. Shumway, "Biofouling Ascidians on Aquaculture Gear as Potential Vectors of Harmful Algal Introductions," Harmful Algae, vol. 23,DOI: 10.1016/j.hal.2012.11.008, 2013.

[18] M. V. Alvanou, K. Feidantsis, D. K. Papadopoulos, "Major Ascidian Species With Negative Impacts on Bivalve Aquaculture: Current Knowledge and Future Research Aims," Open Geosciences, vol. 16 no. 1, pp. 2022-0660, 2024.

[19] M. Carman, D. Grunden, "First Occurrence of the Invasive Tunicate Didemnum vexillum in Eelgrass Habitat," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 23-29, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2010.5.1.4, 2010.

[20] J. A. Morris, M. R. Carman, K. E. Hoagland, E. R. M. Green-Beach, R. C. Karney, "Impact of the Invasive Colonial Tunicate Didemnum vexillum on the Recruitment of the Bay Scallop ( Argopecten irradians irradians ) and Implications for Recruitment of the Sea Scallop ( Placopecten magellanicus ) on Georges Bank," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 207-211, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.21, 2009.

[21] C. W. McKindsey, T. Landry, F. O’beirn, I. M. Davies, "Bivalve Aquaculture and Exotic Species: A Review of Ecological Considerations and Management Issues," Journal of Shellfish Research, vol. 26 no. 2, pp. 281-294, DOI: 10.2983/0730-8000(2007)26[281:BAAESA]2.0.CO;2, 2007.

[22] K. Feidantsis, D. K. Papadopoulos, A. Lattos, J. A. Theodorou, B. Michaelidis, I. A. Giantsis, "Effects of Biofouling by Ascidians on Cultured Mussels: Apoptosis, Autophagy, and Antioxidant Defense," Journal of Shellfish Research, vol. 42 no. 2, pp. 199-213, DOI: 10.2983/035.042.0202, 2023.

[23] M. Rius, M. C. Pineda, X. Turon, "Population Dynamics and Life Cycle of the Introduced Ascidian Microcosmus squamiger in the Mediterranean Sea," Biological Invasions, vol. 11 no. 10, pp. 2181-2194, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-008-9375-2, 2009.

[24] M. C. Pineda, S. López-Legentil, X. Turon, "Year-Round Reproduction in a Seasonal Sea: Biological Cycle of the Introduced Ascidian Styela plicata in the Western Mediterranean," Marine Biology, vol. 160 no. 1, pp. 221-230, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-012-2082-7, 2013.

[25] V. Ordóñez, M. Pascual, M. Fernández-Tejedor, M. C. Pineda, D. Tagliapietra, X. Turon, "Ongoing Expansion of the Worldwide Invader Didemnum vexillum (Ascidiacea) in the Mediterranean Sea: High Plasticity of Its Biological Cycle Promotes Establishment in Warm Waters," Biological Invasions, vol. 17 no. 7, pp. 2075-2085, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-015-0861-z, 2015.

[26] J. Muñoz, M. Page, J. McDonald, S. Bridgwood, "Aspects of the Growth and Reproductive Ecology of the Introduced Ascidian Didemnum perlucidum (Monniot, 1983) in Western Australia," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 10 no. 3, pp. 265-274, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2015.10.3.02, 2015.

[27] R. A. Cloney, "Ascidian Larvae and the Events of Metamorphosis," American Zoologist, vol. 22 no. 4, pp. 817-826, DOI: 10.1093/icb/22.4.817, 1982.

[28] I. Svane, C. M. Young, "The Ecology and Behaviour of Ascidian Larvae," Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, vol. 27, pp. 45-90, 1989.

[29] J. Bannister, M. Sievers, F. Bush, N. Bloecher, "Biofouling in Marine Aquaculture: A Review of Recent Research and Developments," Biofouling, vol. 35 no. 6, pp. 631-648, DOI: 10.1080/08927014.2019.1640214, 2019.

[30] D. Tsotsios, D. K. Papadopoulos, M. V. Alvanou, "Environmentally Friendly and Efficient Methods for Mitigating the Density of Ascidian Fouling in Mediterranean Mussel Farming," Fishes, vol. 9 no. 4,DOI: 10.3390/fishes9040135, 2024.

[31] I. Fitridge, T. Dempster, J. Guenther, R. de Nys, "The Impact and Control of Biofouling in Marine Aquaculture: A Review," Biofouling, vol. 28 no. 7, pp. 649-669, DOI: 10.1080/08927014.2012.700478, 2012.

[32] K. A. Hillock, M. J. Costello, "Tolerance of the Invasive Tunicate Styela clava to Air Exposure," Biofouling, vol. 29 no. 10, pp. 1181-1187, DOI: 10.1080/08927014.2013.832221, 2013.

[33] A. L. Mallet, C. E. Carver, "Incorporating the New Zealand Tunicate Treatment Technology Into a Tunicate Management Strategy for Indian Point Marine Farms," . Report prepared for Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia. Dartmouth (Nova Scotia): Mallet Research Services, 21 pp

[34] S. E. Switzer, T. W. Therriault, A. Dunham, C. M. Pearce, "Assessing Potential Control Options for the Invasive Ascidian Didemnum vexillum in Shellfish Aquaculture," Aquaculture, vol. 318 no. 1-2, pp. 145-153, DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.04.044, 2011.

[35] M. Sievers, T. Dempster, M. J. Keough, I. Fitridge, "Methods to Prevent and Treat Biofouling in Shellfish Aquaculture," Aquaculture, vol. 505, pp. 263-270, DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.02.071, 2019.

[36] C. E. Carver, A. Chisholm, A. L. Mallet, "Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Ciona intestinalis (L.) Biofouling on Shellfish Production," Journal of Shellfish Research, vol. 22, pp. 621-631, 2003.

[37] N. LeBlanc, J. Davidson, R. Tremblay, M. McNiven, T. Landry, "The Effect of Antifouling Treatments for the Clubbed Tunicate on the Blue Mussel, Mytilus edulis," Aquaculture, vol. 264 no. 1–4, pp. 205-213, DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.027, 2007.

[38] A. Locke, "Preliminary Evaluation of Effects of Invasive Tunicate Management With Acetic Acid and Calcium Hydroxide on Non-Target Marine Organisms in Prince Edward Island, Canada," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 221-236, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.23, 2009.

[39] K. C. Rolheiser, A. Dunham, S. E. Switzer, C. M. Pearce, T. W. Therriault, "Assessment of Chemical Treatments for Controlling Didemnum vexillum , Other Biofouling, and Predatory Sea Stars in Pacific Oyster Aquaculture," Aquaculture, vol. 364, pp. 53-60, 2012.

[40] C. Lodeiros, N. Garcı́a, "The use of Sea Urchins to Control Fouling During Suspended Culture of Bivalves," Aquaculture, vol. 231 no. 1–4, pp. 293-298, DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.10.022, 2004.

[41] A. Epelbaum, L. M. Herborg, T. W. Therriault, C. M. Pearce, "Temperature and Salinity Effects on Growth, Survival, Reproduction, and Potential Distribution of Two Non-Indigenous Botryllid Ascidians in British Columbia," Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 369 no. 1, pp. 43-52, DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2008.10.028, 2009.

[42] F. Graff, "Oysternomics: New Report Highlights Economic Impact of Oysters in North Carolina," 2024. Accessed online November 7, 2024 [ https://www.pbsnc.org/blogs/science/oysternomics-new-report-highlights-economic-impact-of-oysters-in-north-carolina/ ]

[43] K. Beesley, "Shellfish," 2024. < https://aquaculture.ces.ncsu.edu/shellfish/ >, NC State Accessed November 7, 2024

[44] J. T. Carlton, "Biological Invasions and Cryptogenic Species," Ecology, vol. 77 no. 6, pp. 1653-1655, DOI: 10.2307/2265767, 1996.

[45] J. T. Carlton, "Deep Invasion Ecology and the Assembly of Communities in Historical Time," Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems: Ecological, Management, and Geographic Perspectives: Ecological Studies, vol. 204, pp. 13-56, 2009.

[46] N. Shenkar, B. J. Swalla, H. Browman, "Global Diversity of Ascidiacea," PLoS ONE, vol. 6 no. 6,DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020657, 2011.

[47] A. Zhan, E. Briski, D. G. Bock, S. Ghabooli, H. J. MacIsaac, "Ascidians as Models for Studying Invasion Success," Marine Biology, vol. 162 no. 12, pp. 2449-2470, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-015-2734-5, 2015.

[48] C. Simkanin, P. W. Fofonoff, K. Larson, G. Lambert, J. A. Dijkstra, G. M. Ruiz, "Spatial and Temporal Synamics of Ascidian Invasions in the Continental United States and Alaska," Marine Biology, vol. 163 no. 7,DOI: 10.1007/s00227-016-2924-9, 2016.

[49] S. Villalobos, G. Lambert, N. Shenkar, S. López-Legentil, "Distribution and Population Dynamics of Key Ascidians in North Carolina Harbors and Marinas," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 447-458, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2017.12.4.03, 2017.

[50] B. Hutchings, E. Stiles, P. M. Erwin, S. López-Legentil, "Hurricane Events Facilitate the Dominance of Introduced Invertebrate Species in Harbors," Biological Invasions, vol. 25 no. 8, pp. 2495-2506, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-023-03056-w, 2023.

[51] C. A. Schneider, W. S. Rasband, K. W. Eliceiri, "NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 Years of Image Analysis," Nature Methods, vol. 9 no. 7, pp. 671-675, DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2089, 2012.

[52] C. E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication," Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27 no. 3, pp. 379-423, DOI: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x, 1948.

[53] R. K. Clarke, R. N. Gorley, "Primer Version 7: User Manual/Tutorial," 2015. PRIMER-E, 192

[54] A. E. Verrill, "On the Distribution of Marine Animals on the Southern Coast of New England," American Journal of Science and Arts, vol. 3, pp. 357-362, 1871.

[55] W. A. Herdman, "Report on the Tunicata Collected During the Voyage of H.M.S. “Challenger” During the Years 1873-1876," 1886. Part. II. Ascidiae compositae. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76. Zoology. 14 (part 38): 1-432, pl. 1-49

[56] M. Surprenant, J. C. Jarvis, S. López-Legentil, "Ascidian Diversity and Abundance in North Carolina Seagrass Meadows," Marine Ecology, vol. 44 no. 6,DOI: 10.1111/maec.12772, 2023.

[57] R. C. Barros, "Human-Mediated Global Dispersion of Styela plicata (Tunicata: Ascidiacea)," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 45-57, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.4, 2009.

[58] M. C. Pineda, S. López-Legentil, X. Turon, S.-O. Kolokotronis, "The Whereabouts of an Ancient Wanderer: Global Phylogeography of the Solitary Ascidian Styela plicata," PLoS ONE, vol. 6 no. 9,DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025495, 2011.

[59] R. E. Thresher, R. B. Martin, S. Boyd, "Introduced and Cryptogenic Species in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia," Marine Biology, vol. 144 no. 1, pp. 183-202, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-003-1173-x, 2004.

[60] J. T. Carlton, "Species Invasions: Insights Into Ecology, Evolution, and Biogeography," Bio Science, vol. 56, pp. 694-695, 2006.

[61] C. Galià-Camps, A. Enguídanos, X. Turon, M. Pascual, C. Carreras, "The Past, the Recent, and the Ongoing Evolutionary Processes of the Worldwide Invasive Ascidian Styela plicata," Molecular Ecology, vol. 33 no. 18,DOI: 10.1111/mec.17502, 2024.

[62] M. C. Pineda, C. D. McQuaid, X. Turon, "Tough Adults, Frail Babies: An Analysis of Stress Sensitivity across Early Life-History Stages of Widely Introduced Marine Invertebrates," PLoS ONE, vol. 7 no. 10,DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046672, 2012.

[63] S. A. Naranjo, J. L. Carballo, J. C. García-Gómez, "Effects of Environmental Stress on Ascidian Populations in Algeciras Bay (southern Spain)," Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 144, pp. 119-131, DOI: 10.3354/meps144119, 1996.

[64] F. Mastrototaro, R. Brunetti, "The Non-Indigenous Ascidian Distaplia bermudensis in the Mediterranean: Comparison With the Native Species Distaplia magnilarva and Distaplia lucillae sp. Nov," Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 86 no. 1, pp. 181-185, DOI: 10.1017/S0025315406013014, 2006.

[65] M. Lezzi, M. Del Pasqua, C. Pierri, A. Giangrande, "Seasonal Non- Indigenous Species Succession in a Marine Macrofouling Invertebrate Community," Biological Invasions, vol. 20 no. 4, pp. 937-961, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-017-1601-3, 2018.

[66] J. S. Evans, P. M. Erwin, N. Shenkar, S. López-Legentil, "A Comparison of Prokaryotic Symbiont Communities in Nonnative and Native Ascidians From Reef and Harbor Habitats," FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 94 no. 9,DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiy139, 2018.

[67] J. Pérès, "Contribution à l’étude des Ascidies de la Côte Occidentale d’Afrique," Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental de l’Afrique Noire, vol. 11, pp. 159-207, 1949.

[68] R. Rocha, L. Kremer, K. Fehlauer-Ale, "Lack of COI Variation for Clavelina oblonga (Tunicata, Ascidiacea) in Brazil: Evidence for Its Human-Mediated Transportation?," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 7 no. 3, pp. 419-424, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2012.7.3.012, 2012.

[69] V. Ordóñez, M. Pascual, M. Fernández-Tejedor, X. Turon, "When Invasion Biology Meets Taxonomy: Clavelina oblonga (Ascidiacea) Is an Old Invader in the Mediterranean Sea," Biological Invasions, vol. 18 no. 4, pp. 1203-1215, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-016-1062-0, 2016.

[70] M. Goddard-Dwyer, S. López-Legentil, P. M. Erwin, K. N. Johnson, "Microbiome Variability Across the Native and Invasive Ranges of the Ascidian Clavelina oblonga," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 87 no. 2, pp. e02233-e02220, DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02233-20, 2021.

[71] C. Monniot, "Les Molgulidae Des Mers Européennes," Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Série A, Zoologie, vol. 60, pp. 172-272, 1969.

[72] G. Lambert, "A Global Overview of Ascidian Introductions and Their Possible Impact on the Endemic Fauna," The Biology of Ascidians, pp. 249-257, 2001.

[73] C. B. Giachetti, Nás Battini, K. L. Castro, E. Schwindt, "Invasive Ascidians: How Predators Reduce Their Dominance in Artificial Structures in Cold Temperate Areas," Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 533,DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2020.151459, 2020.

[74] T. Tokioka, Y. Kado, "The Occurrence of Molgula manhattensis (De Kay) in Brackish Water Near Hiroshima, Japan," Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, vol. 21 no. 1, pp. 21-29, DOI: 10.5134/175799, 1972.

[75] P. Kott, "The Australian Ascidiacea. Part I. Phlebobranchia and Stolidobranchia," Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, vol. 23, 1985.

[76] Y. Chen, S. Li, Y. Lin, H. Li, A. Zhan, "Population Genetic Patterns of the Solitary Tunicate, Molgula manhattensis , in Invaded Chinese Coasts: Large-Scale Homogeneity but Fine-Scale Heterogeneity," Marine Biodiversity, vol. 48, 2017.

[77] A. N. Cohen, J. T. Carlton, US Fish and Wildlife Service, "Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta: A Report for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service," 1995. The National Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut Sea Grant (NOAA Grant Number NA36RG0467)

[78] W. G. Van Name, "The North and South American Ascidians," Bulletin of the America Museum of Natural History, vol. 84, 1945.

[79] I. Goodbody, "The Tropical Eastern Atlantic Perophoridae (Ascidiacea): I. The Genus Perophora," Bulletin of Marine Science, vol. 55, pp. 176-192, 1994.

[80] L. Cole, G. Lambert, "Tunicata (Urochordata) of the Gulf of Mexico," Gulf of Mexico–Origins, Waters, and Biota. Biodiversity, pp. 1209-1216, 2009.

[81] R. M. da Rocha, N. Y. K. Bonnet, "Ascídias (Tunicata, Ascidiacea) Introduzidas No Arquipélago De Alcatrazes, São Paulo," Iheringia. Série Zoologia, vol. 99 no. 1, pp. 27-35, DOI: 10.1590/S0073-47212009000100004, 2009.

[82] S. López-Legentil, M. L. Legentil, P. M. Erwin, X. Turon, "Harbor Networks as Introduction Patchworks: Contrasting Distribution Patterns of Native and Introduced Ascidians," Biological Invasions, vol. 17 no. 6, pp. 1623-1638, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-014-0821-z, 2015.

[83] A. Marchini, J. Ferrario, A. Sfriso, A. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, "Current Status and Trends of Biological Invasions in the Lagoon of Venice, a Hotspot of Marine NIS Introductions in the Mediterranean Sea," Biological Invasions, vol. 17 no. 10, pp. 2943-2962, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-015-0922-3, 2015.

[84] O. T. Streit, G. Lambert, P. M. Erwin, S. López-Legentil, "Diversity and Abundance of Native and Non-Native Ascidians in Puerto Rican Harbors and Marinas," Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 167,DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112262, 2021.

[85] M. L. Nydam, L. M. Stefaniak, G. Lambert, B. Counts, S. López-Legentil, "Compositional Stability of Invaded Marine Communities Over Time," Biological Invasions, vol. 24 no. 11, pp. 3489-3507, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-022-02852-0, 2022.

[86] R. Brunetti, L. Beghi, M. Bressan, M. G. Marin, "Combined Effects of Temperature and Salinity on Colonies of Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides leachi (Ascidiacea) From the Venetian Lagoon," Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 2, pp. 303-314, DOI: 10.3354/meps002303, 1980.

[87] G. Lambert, "Ecology and Natural History of the Protochordates," Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 83 no. 1, pp. 34-50, DOI: 10.1139/z04-156, 2005.

[88] M. C. Pineda, X. Turon, S. López-Legentil, "Stress Levels Over Time in the Introduced Ascidian Styela plicata : The Effects of Temperature and Salinity Variations on hsp70 Gene Expression," Cell Stress and Chaperones, vol. 17 no. 4, pp. 435-444, DOI: 10.1007/s12192-012-0321-y, 2012.

[89] S. G. Bullard, G. Lambert, M. R. Carman, "The Colonial Ascidian Didemnum sp. A: Current Distribution, Basic Biology and Potential Threat to Marine Communities of the Northeast and West Coasts of North America," Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 342 no. 1, pp. 99-108, DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2006.10.020, 2007.

[90] P. C. Valentine, M. R. Carman, D. S. Blackwood, E. J. Heffron, "Ecological Observations on the Colonial Ascidian Didemnum sp. in a New England Tide Pool Habitat," Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 342 no. 1, pp. 109-121, DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2006.10.021, 2007.

[91] J. Dijkstra, A. Dutton, E. Westerman, L. Harris, "Heart Rate Reflects Osmotic Stress Levels in Two Introduced Colonial Ascidians Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides violaceus," Marine Biology, vol. 154 no. 5, pp. 805-811, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-008-0973-4, 2008.

[92] S. G. Bullard, R. B. Whitlatch, "In situ Growth of the Colonial Ascidian Didemnum vexillum Under Different Environmental Conditions," Aquatic Invasions, vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 275-278, DOI: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.27, 2009.

[93] R. M. Rocha, G. C. Castellano, C. A. Freire, "Physiological Tolerance as a Tool to Support Invasion Risk Assessment of Tropical Ascidians," Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 577, pp. 105-119, DOI: 10.3354/meps12225, 2017.

[94] J. M. Kenworthy, D. Davoult, C. Lejeusne, "Compared Stress Tolerance to Short-Term Exposure in Native and Invasive Tunicates from the NE Atlantic: When the Invader Performs Better," Marine Biology, vol. 165 no. 10,DOI: 10.1007/s00227-018-3420-1, 2018.

[95] Y. Chen, Y. Gao, X. Huang, S. Li, A. Zhan, "Local Environment-Driven Adaptive Evolution in a Marine Invasive Ascidian ( Molgula manhattensis )," Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11 no. 9, pp. 4252-4266, DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7322, 2021.

[96] C. Galià-Camps, T. Schell, C. Pegueroles, D. Baranski, A. Ben Hamadou, "Genomic Richness Enables Worldwide Invasive Success," ,DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3902873/v1, 2024.