Training and capacity building, lessons, future needs and directions for the International Maritime Organisations GloBallast Port Survey Program Campbell, Marnie L.1, 2 1Corporate Process Management, 20 Carson Street, Stoneville, WA 6081, Australia. 2 Current address: Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 5600 Marvin Moss Lane, Wilmington NC 28409 Corresponding author: Dr Marnie L. Campbell Postal address: Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 5600 Marvin Moss Lane, Wilmington NC 28409 Ph: +1 910 962 2356 Fax: +1 910 962 2410 email:
[email protected]
1.
Introduction
It would appear that introductions of marine species are accelerating, matching improvements in vessel design (Carlton 1992; Ruiz et al 1997; Hewitt et al. 1999; Hewitt 2003). As such, introduced species have been recognised as a major threat to native biodiversity (Elton 1958; Lubchenco et al. 1991; Ruiz et al. 1997; Hobbs and Mooney 1998; Hewitt et al. 1999; Lewis et al. 2003; Occhipinti-Ambrogi and Savini 2003), with significant funding being applied to attempt to understand this problem and ameliorate its affects. In the field of marine biological invasions, species are categorised as being native, introduced, or cryptogenic. Some simple definitions for these terms are as follows: 1) Native species are those that live in an area where it originated; 2) Introduced species are those that have been recognisably transported by the agency of humans to a new biological region where it previously did not exist (sensu Carlton 1996); and 3) Cryptogenic species are those that cannot be identified as either introduced or native; their origins are unknown or hidden (sensu Carlton 1996). Introductions of species differ little from the natural range expansions of species into new environments and communities, except in spatial and temporal scale (Lodge 1993; Pimm 1991; Vermeij 1991). Human-mediated introductions occur over spatial scales as great as between noncontiguous biotic provinces and within time-scales of days to months. Numerous transport mechanisms (vectors) have been recognised for the transfer of introduced marine species (see Carlton 1992; Campbell and Hewitt 1999). Of these, ballast water, hull fouling (which includes sea chests) and mariculture activities are considered the major vectors, with ballast water receiving the majority of funding to date. In 2000, the Global Ballast Water Management Programme (herein referred to as GloBallast) was established by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) with funding from the Global Environment Fund (GEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the IMO. GloBallast aims to aid capacity building of ballast water management techniques to developing countries. Six demonstration countries, Brazil, China, India, Iran, South Africa, and the Ukraine, were selected to represent the main development regions of the world. The development objectives of this programme are “to reduce the transfer of harmful organisms from ships ballast water; to implement the IMO ballast water guidelines; and to prepare for implementation of the new IMO Ballast Water Convention” (http://globallast.imo.org). As one component of these objectives, the demonstration countries received training in baseline port surveys for introduced species. The author of this paper was appointed as the GloBallast port survey coordinator in February 2001 with a focus of developing preliminary surveys designs, developing and facilitating training workshops, reviewing in-country survey plans, participating in baseline port surveys and providing post-survey assistance. Each demonstration country received training in the implementation of the Hewitt and Martin baseline port survey protocols (1996, 2001; also known as the CRIMP protocols), specifically: 1) Survey design and sampling strategy; 2) Sampling methods and appropriate equipment;
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
3) Public awareness programs; 4) Selection of target habitats; 5) Environmental data; 6) Survey implementation; 7) Survey data management (quality assurance and quality control [QAQC]); 8) Sample preservation, cataloguing and archiving; 9) Report preparation; and 10) Identification of suitable taxonomists. This work was successfully implemented during 2001 with the time frames for the workshops and port surveys being indicated in Figure 1 as a Gantt chart.
South Africa WS South Africa PS China WS Ukraine WS Iran WS China PS Iran PS Ukraine PS Brazil WS India WS India PS Brazil PS Figure 1. GloBallast workshop (WS) and port baseline survey (PS) Gantt chart. This paper examines the baseline port survey training; discussing why the Hewitt and Martin protocols (1996, 2001) were selected as the minimum standard during training; strengths and weaknesses that were encountered; the importance of instigating and maintaining quality QAQC protocols; establishing, maintaining and managing specimen collections; and future directions.
2.
Why the Hewitt and Martin (CRIMP) Protocols?
CSIRO Marine Research, Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) was established in 1995 with one of its primary aims being to investigate the degree of
introduced species in Australian waters and hence use this knowledge to effectively manage the problem (Hewitt, current workshop). To this end, CRIMP began the National Port Survey Program: a world first survey program of continental scale designed to establish a series of baseline evaluations for introduced species by targeting prioritised sample locations such as primary, secondary and tertiary inoculation, and control (pristine) sites (Hewitt 2002). Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001) used biological invasion principles to design the survey and sampling strategy for this program. To date, the Hewitt and Martin protocols (1996, 2001) have been used as a minimum standard in more than 34 baseline port surveys in Australian waters. Any introduced species port survey undertaken in Australia waters must, as a minimum, meet the Hewitt and Martin protocols, with the responsible Commonwealth regulatory agency (Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia [AFFA]) vetting all survey designs, results and collections to ensure that the minimum level of scientific robustness is maintained. Initially, the protocols were the only methods available in Australia (and globally) that quantitatively sampled a range of habitats to detect introduced species and additionally collected quantitative biodiversity information. Recently, these protocols were refined (Hewitt and Martin 2001) to clarify sampling questions posed by numerous management agencies. Also, other methodologies have since been developed (CRCReef, Queensland; NIWA, New Zealand) but these methodologies fundamentally use the Hewitt and Martin protocols as a foundation. In general, the additional methodologies have built upon the minimum standard by adding equipment that enables sampling in dangerous waters, or where legislation prevents the use of specific methods (e.g., substituting ichthyoplantkon sampling for rotenone poison stations); or have included hydrodynamic models to assist in selection of survey sites. Therefore, the Hewitt and Martin protocols were ideal for the GloBallast baseline port surveys because the protocols offer a solid starting point that has been extensively tested and used in the Australian and international context. The protocol assets are numerous: 1) It offers a consistent approach to sampling (e.g., techniques, site codes, specimen handling, species identifications, data management) and hence data is comparable within and between countries; 2) The protocols are designed to detect rare species. Often introduced species are rare in their spatial distribution (i.e., patchiness) and may also be rare in abundance. Hence the protocols were developed to sample in a stratified fashion to increase the likelihood of detection of introduced species presence; 3) Habitats are targeted, not species. Thus, no prior knowledge of a regional biota is required, as may be necessary if target species were used. Typically, the Hewitt and Martin protocols target habitats near points of inoculation. Such points of inoculation may include berths where vessels dock and takeon and discharge ballast water, mariculture facilities, recreational boating facilities, channel markers etc; 4) The protocols are developed to ensure QAQC is maintained at each step of the survey process (e.g., site codes, labelling, data templates, vouchering of specimens, verification of identifications, data-basing etc);
5) Identifications must be taken to the species level where possible and to Least Taxonomic Unit (LTU) in any other circumstance. These identifications should be verified by taxonomic experts to ensure that there is comparability between surveys (within and between countries); 6) Voucher and reference collections of the specimens must be established and maintained. These collections are established as sorting of specimens occurs and provide a record of the taxa collected at each site (voucher collection) and of the taxa collected in each region or country (reference collection). The reference collections are maintained as „working‟ collections enabling taxonomists and agencies with an interest to access the information, while vouchers provide a long term record of the survey; and 7) Information (physical, biological, film archive etc) is maintained and where appropriate entered into a database that facilitates access for numerous agencies, including researchers and management. Ergo, the Hewitt and Martin protocols were selected as a trial for the GloBallast baseline port introduced species.
3.
Strengths
When learning a „new‟ methodology it is expected that strengths and weaknesses will appear. By noting and discussing these strengths and weaknesses a learning process is initiated and sustained. Each demonstration country is unique, and has its own unique set of strengths and weaknesses however; much of these strengths and weaknesses are similar and for ease of discussion, could be classified into the following categories: technical, scientific and management. The strengths encountered during the training are discussed below. 3.1 Technical Each of the six demonstration countries was able to implement and follow the standardised protocol. The standard nature of the protocols will facilitate future comparisons between countries and when further surveys are implemented within each country, comparisons of in-country sites will also be possible. The methods employed were achievable by all of the GloBallast demonstration countries: the equipment was not too expensive and could be manufactured, purchased, or obtained. Thus, all countries were able to meet the minimum Hewitt and Martin protocols. Efficient teamwork is necessary to apply the Hewitt and Martin protocols. Typically, teams are established for field, laboratory and data handling aspects of the work. One team can work on all aspects (as was common for the CRIMP team) or different teams can be developed for each individual aspect of the work. Each country was able to effectively build teams that could deal with each of the technical aspects of the work. 3.2 Scientific Each survey was successful at sampling both native and introduced biodiversity. In biological invasion work, specimens must be identified to the level of species (high taxonomic resolution) before its status (introduced, cryptogenic or native) can be determined. In many of the habitats targeted by the Hewitt and Martin protocols, current
theory is that high taxonomic resolution is required to prevent loss of information (e.g., Terlizzi et al. in press). Although it is a long process, all countries are currently identifying survey specimens to species level. The surveys successfully detected introduced species. At present, sample sorting and identifications are continuing, however during the port survey training there had been identification of 25 introduced and 26 suspected introduced species in all. This number has no doubt increased as sorting has continued and species identifications (and verifications) are concluded. The survey designs (all of which were vetted) were successful in detecting rare species. One IUCN red book listed (rare) native seahorse species was located in large numbers (but still in a restricted range) in the port region of Odessa, where it had not been previously recorded. Similarly, a species of tridacnid clam, thought to be extinct from the Persian Gulf, was collected during the Khark Island survey. In addition, it is anticipated that a number of new species (those that have not already been collected and described) have been collected during the surveys. Once again, this information will become more apparent once laboratory analyses are completed. Distributional records of each specimen provide a record of the port and surrounding region‟s biodiversity. The necessity of site codes and labelling ensures that distributional information is maintained. The need to know exactly where an introduced species is located is of paramount importance if a rapid response to a potential „threat/pest‟ species is required and is discussed further in the section on QAQC below. It should be noted here that port surveys do not designate if a species is a pest. However, if an a priori pest species is detected during a survey, then a rapid response may be initiated based on several response criteria such as the extent of the species distribution in the port (is it eradicable) and may involve an overall assessment of risks to the port or nation. 3.3 Management To effectively undertake a baseline port survey, expertise from both scientific and technical areas must be utilised. The demonstration countries achieved this by developing linkages between both scientific and technical agencies. This was evident, for example, through the in-country associations of universities, museums, port authorities, and government authorities. Linkages between demonstration countries were also encouraged and occurred to a limited extent. For example, the demonstration countries were able to help each other source equipment or literature. Linkages beyond the demonstration countries were also encouraged to ensure that resources (equipment, literature and taxonomic expertise) and scientific opinion (e.g., invasion processes, rapid response, risk assessment) could be obtained. Tentative steps towards achieving these linkages were made but require more work. The development of such linkages has been greatly facilitated with the wide-spread use of internet, which will continue to aid this process.
4.
Weaknesses
A number of weaknesses affected the efficiency, progress and quality of the work during the surveys. These are discussed below under the same categories as the strengths. Although weaknesses existed, where possible they were overcome in the field through discussion or further clarification of the protocol requirements.
4.1
Technical
Open and effective communication is an essential component of pre-survey, survey and post-survey work. On occasions, language difficulties between the trainer and the trainees existed but with open communications this can be overcome. The baseline port surveys required numerous agencies (within, between and beyond) to interact; to do so effectively requires clear and open lines of communication that must be maintained. Difficulties encountered in the field were often resolved so they would not interfere with survey progress. These were then reported upon to provide a posteriori knowledge for further surveys. Difficulties that occurred involved: appropriate camera equipment; use of site codes and appropriate labelling of samples; use of boat data sheets to record information; tide corrections for quadrats; specimen preservation; specimen handling; sorting technique; sample storage; and sample integrity. All of these difficulties were addressed during survey training, but must be reinforced to ensure that changes, where appropriate, are made. The importance of safety cannot be emphasised enough in field and laboratory situations. Duty of care to workers is essential to ensure a healthy, happy work team. If divers are fatigued, cold, overheated, or using unsafe practices then their efficiency is reduced and the likelihood of them sustaining injury is increased, while decreasing the probability of achieving work tasks. It is imperative that there are enough divers, with appropriate skills, to ensure that the work team can be rotated through activities therefore allowing divers to have rest periods during the day. Although the fieldwork may seem easy, it is tiring and should not be underestimated. When diving multiple times per day, over multiple days there is a drastic increase in a diver‟s susceptibility to decompression illness and to diver fatigue (resulting in a reduction in work efficiency). This risk must be managed in a proactive fashion through planning. Dive equipment must meet minimum international safety standards. Without functioning, or safe dive equipment, divers cannot successfully complete their tasks. Of particular importance is the use of a depth gauge. The Hewitt and Martin protocols require that quadrats are placed at set depths on piles, whilst correcting for tidal height during sampling. Without a depth gauge a diver cannot adequately achieve this and must rely on surface support to determine placement of the quadrat, or their intuition. Intuition is not recommended for depth calculations due to lack of accuracy. Also, reliance on surface personnel is not always feasible. A depth gauge overcomes ensures accurate placement of quadrats, which increases the scientific integrity of the data. 4.2 Scientific A necessary component of invasion biology and hence the protocols, is identification to the level of species. Without this, specimens cannot be designated as native, introduced or cryptogenic. Currently, all countries are suffering from a loss of taxonomic expertise as funding to these areas is reduced and taxonomic knowledge is lost as taxonomists retire. Boero (2001) provides a good account of the global demise of taxonomy. It is imperative that as a part of this program taxonomic skills are developed within each country to ensure that a broad range of species level identifications can occur (not just commercially important species), so that biological invasions can be recognised.
All species identifications need to be verified by international taxonomic experts to account for any perceived bias in species identification, thus maintaining QAQC. A list of taxonomic experts used by CRIMP and the author was provided to the IMO and then to individual demonstration countries to ensure that international taxonomic verification could proceed. This process is reliant on the completion of voucher or reference collections, with the reference collection typically provided to taxonomists for verification of identifications. Thus, it is imperative that collections are established and maintained. If samples cannot, for legal reasons, be sent beyond countries borders, then it is recommended that in-country workshops be held to ensure that verification of identifications occurs. The verification process is an important step in ensuring QAQC of samples. As yet, it is uncertain as to whether this process has progressed and if it is being coordinated in a suitable manner within each demonstration country. Identification of introduced species is a complex process. To achieve accurate categorisation of a species status (is it introduced, cryptogenic or native) expert help is required from both taxonomists and ecologists (invasion biologists). Typically, taxonomists provide a species name and some indication if they believe this species to be native; however ecologists are needed to assess a species invasive capacity. To assess invasive capacity requires knowledge of invasion processes. Invasion biologists often use the Chapman and Carlton (1991, 1994) criteria to investigate local/regional and global aspects of a species ecology. In brief, the Chapman and Carlton criteria involve assessing the following attributes on a local/regional scale: 1) Sudden appearance in a region where it was not previously known; 2) Subsequent rapid and/or disjunct spread after arrival; 3) The species is associated with human mechanisms of dispersal; 4) The species is associated with other recognised non-native species (community or predator-prey relationship); 5) The species is associated primarily with new or artificial environments ; 6) The species‟ distribution is restricted relative to natives; And on a global scale: 7) The species has a disjunct worldwide distribution; 8) No active dispersal mechanisms (other than human mediated transport) can account for the worldwide distribution; 9) No passive dispersal mechanisms (other than human mediated transport) can account for the worldwide distribution; and, 10) The species is closest morphologically and genetically to species in another bioprovince By assessing each species against these criteria its status can be deduced. Although this may seem like a straightforward process, it is complex and requires input from experts. At present it would appear that some of the demonstration countries need expert input with the identification of species status. 4.3 Management QAQC is vital through all stages of the baseline port survey process and is specifically relevant to the re-labelling of material during the sorting process and
taxonomic identifications. There is potential for loss of QAQC as sample sorting progresses through the stages of: 1) rough sorting; 2) fine sorting; 3) species identifications; and 4) validation of voucher collection. It is imperative that site codes and labels remain with specimens as the move through this process occurs, and that additional labels are made as samples are winnowed down to the level of species. It is the site code and the label that ensure that a species can be traced back to its sample site and the conditions associated with that sample site. Boat data sheets provide important information relating to the sample sites and must be archived and entered into a database. When species identifications are complete this information must also be added to the database. Therefore associations between species, environment and geography can be examined. These analyses can only be achieved if QAQC is maintained throughout the entire baseline survey process (this includes postsurvey work), and are imperative to ensure that sample integrity is maintained. As discussed earlier, effective communication between all agencies is essential. Management must provide a clear and transparent process to all agencies to enure the smooth running of the baseline port surveys. It is essential that voucher and reference collections are established and maintained early in the process. These collections must be created during all stages of the sorting process, not as an after-thought following taxonomic verification. Without a reference collection species verification cannot occur. A reference collection can only be made once a voucher collection exists. Thus, as a species is identified (in rough, fine or the identification process) it is placed into a „working‟ collection that is then expanded as more species identifications are made. Without voucher or reference collections, the species identifications that have been attributed to a site cannot be confirmed and thus cannot be queried for validity. Thus, a species sample without an accurate label (which includes a site code and species name) to verify its presence, is a specimen that cannot be accurately demonstrated to have been collected during the baseline port survey. This is a serious loss of information and breaches QAQC.
5.
The Importance of Quality Assurance and Quality Control
QAQC works at many levels within the baseline port survey process. It acts to ensure that: 1) equipment, divers, laboratory personnel are suitable and organised pre-survey and during the survey; 2) that agencies involved in the work are advised of activities; 3) that survey design meets that minimum standards and is consistent between surveys and regions; 4) that samples and data (physical, technical, biological) are collected in a valid manner; 5) that specimens are handled in an appropriate manner so that they reach the identification stage in a high quality state (having been kept on ice, narcotised if required, immediately sorted into the appropriate preservative etc);
6) that a paper-trail or „chain-of-custody‟ exists to ensure that all information is collected, and maintained throughout the survey (pre-, during, and post-) process to ensure that no loss of information occurs; 7) site codes and labels are provided for all samples, especially during the sorting process where duplicate labels must be made when samples are reduced from one quadrat sample of many species, to many species samples from one quadrat; 8) species distributions are recorded, which is an important component of the survey process. Knowing the exact location of a species becomes increasingly paramount if an incursion is detected (as discussed above). A rapid response to any incursion (whether it be false-alarm or not) is an essential tool for management and requires accurate information. If QAQC has been poorly maintained then establishing a species whereabouts becomes difficult, if not impossible. This is exacerbated if the species is deemed a threat/pest, with the lack of an exact location potentially hampering any eradication or management attempt; 9) data is managed so that port, sites (physical), vector (transport mechanism) and slide (photographs and video) information is databased and stored so that it can be accessed when required; 10) vector management requires an accurate knowledge of a species distribution, which, as discussed above, relies on accurate QAQC and maintenance of records; All these mechanisms must be maintained by good QAQC practices which will aid in the development of management strategies. Failure to maintain QAQC will result in inaccurate data entering the database, or loss of data, which will have „downstream‟ affects in a risk assessment. Accurate baseline port survey data is required as it is one of the foundations of the risk assessment.
6.
Specimen Collections
To successfully identify a species status (native, introduced or cryptogenic) it must first be identified to species level. A lower taxonomic resolution (i.e. identification to family or genus) will not provide enough data to assess species status. As discussed above, voucher and reference collections must be created as sorting proceeds through the steps of initial rough to fine sorting and identification. Voucher and reference collections are an integral output from the baseline port survey that feeds into the database and the risk assessment. A voucher collection must contain at least one specimen of each of the species collected during a port survey. This collection acts as a record of the survey and should be maintained intact as a survey collection. Typically, there is only one voucher collection and it is curated in one location, such as a museum. The voucher collection is not loaned to agencies; reference collections are loaned to other agencies. Like the voucher collection, a reference collection contains at least one specimen of each species that was collected. If however, only one specimen of a species exists, then this remains in the voucher collection. The reference collection is a record of each
introduced species in a region or country. Typically, there are numerous reference collections that are copies of the original reference collection. Maintaining multiple reference collections aids in loaning the collection to agencies and groups with taxonomic expertise or interest. The reference collection is nationally orientated and remains a working collection for comparison that is constantly added to. Ideally, the reference collection is provided to international taxonomic experts for verification of species identifications. This process is required even if in-country taxonomic experts have provided the species identification. If a collection cannot cross country borders, due to legal constraints, then the individual international taxonomists need to be invited into the country to examine the collection or alternatively (and preferably) an in-country workshop inviting all necessary taxonomic experts should be considered. As discussed earlier the verification process maintains QAQC and ensures a clear and transparent process when determining species identification. 6.1 Collection Management For collection integrity to be maintained, the collections must be kept as a „whole collection‟, not split into individual taxonomic groups that are stored in different localities. For this purpose, a facility that has long term storage and maintenance is required. Such facilities are usually available in museums and/or universities. Data must also be kept as a whole collection. This is typically done with a database. The database needs to use an agreed upon structure and link port, sample, species, physical, and site information to the voucher and reference collections. A number of databases that focus on introduced marine species, such as the National Introduced Marine Pests Information System (http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis/; CRIMP NIMPIS database; Hewitt et al 2002) and the National Estuarine and Marine Invasions Database (http://invasions.si.edu/nis.htm; Smithsonian SERC database), already exist. Indeed, the post survey data templates that the demonstration countries were trained to use are derived from CRIMP practices, and readily feed into both the NIMPIS and SERC databases.
7.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Capacity building and training of concepts, whether they be technical, scientific or management, can only succeed if adequate expertise is involved in the process. For the baseline port surveys to succeed experts with the following skills must be actively involved: invasion processes; survey design taxonomy; survey and field techniques; and overall coordination and project management; It is unreasonable to expect a team to be able to function sufficiently after limited training, such as was received during the GloBallast baseline port survey work. The training that has been received to date is adequate as an introduction to the baseline port
survey process but it specifically lacked post-survey focus and is by no means sufficient to establish a fully functioning invasion biology team that can plan, coordinate, undertake, sort, process, synthesise and manage the data that the port surveys have generated. This initial training is a first step in capacity building for the demonstration countries, and should be considered as such. In-country capacity building is an ongoing process that will be required for surveys, laboratories taxonomists and management. In conclusion, it is important to remember not to underestimate the complexity of: quality assurance and quality control; planning, designing and undertaking surveys; port-survey follow-up activities (such as data analysis and synthesis, report writing, and collection and data management), the expertise required from a range of disciplines; and project management and coordination. The Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001) protocols have proven to be adequate at detecting introduced species in all of the GloBallast demonstration countries. All demonstration countries have been able to start learning invasion biology practices, especially baseline port surveys. Future training must reinforce countries strengths and mitigate their weaknesses by providing expert advice while capacity building.
8.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Steve Raaymakers (IMO GloBallast PCU) for extending an invitation to present at this workshop and providing constructive criticism of this manuscript. The author would also like to acknowledge the GEF/UNDP/IMO funding for the GloBallast baseline port surveys, and thank individual demonstration countries for their hospitality and veracity.
9.
References
Boero, F. 2001. Light after dark: the partnership for enhancing expertise in taxonomy. TREE 16: 266. Campbell, M. L., Hewitt, C. L. 1999. Vectors, shipping and trade. pp 45-60 In: Hewitt, C. L., Campbell, M. L., Thresher, R. E., and Martin, R. B. (eds). The Introduced Species of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Technical Report No. 20. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia. Carlton, J. T. 1992. Blue immigrants: the marine biology of maritime history. The Log of Mystic Seaport 44: 31-36. Carlton, J. T. 1996. Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biol. Cons. 78: 97-106. Chapman, J. W., Carlton, J. T. 1991. A test of criteria for introduced species: the global invasion by the isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). J. Crust. Biol. 11: 386400. Chapman, J. W., Carlton, J. T. 1994. Predicted discoveries of the introduced isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). J. Crust. Biol. 14: 700-714.
Elton, C.S., 1958. The ecology of invasion by animals and plants. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London. Hewitt, C.L., 2002. The distribution and diversity of tropical Australian marine bioinvasions. Pacific Science 56(2): 213-222. Hewitt, C.L., in press. Marine biosecurity issues in the world oceans: global activities and Australian directions. Ocean Yearbook 17. Hewitt, C. L., Campbell, M. L., Thresher, R. E., Martin, R. B. (eds.) 1999. The Introduced Species of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Technical Report No. 20. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia. 344 pp. Hewitt, C. L. Martin, R. B. 1996. Port Surveys for Introduced Marine Species – Background Considerations and Sampling Protocols. CRIMP Technical Report 4, Division of Fisheries, CSIRO, Hobart. Hewitt, C. L., Martin, R. B. 2001. Revised Protocols for Baseline Port Surveys for Introduced Marine Species – Survey Design, Sampling Protocols and Specimen Handling. CRIMP Technical Report 22, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Hewitt, C. L., Martin, R. B., Sliwa, C., McEnnulty, F. R., Murphy, N. E., Jones, T., Cooper, S. eds. 2002. National Introduced Marine Pest Information System. Web publication http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis. Hobbs, R.J., Mooney, H.A., 1998. Broadening the extinction debate: population deletions and additions in California and Western Australia. Conserv. Biol. 12, 271–283. Lewis, P. N., Hewitt, C. K., Riddle, M., McMinn, A. 2003. Marine introductions in the Southern Ocean: an unrecognised hazard to biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46: 213223. Lodge, D. 1993. Species invasions and deletions: Community effects and responses to climate and habitat change. Pp 367-387. In: Biotic Interactions and Global Change, eds. P. M. Kareiva, J. G. Kingsolver, R. B. Huey eds. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland. Lubchenco, J., Olson, A.M., Brubaker, L.B., Carpenter, S.R., Holland, M.M., Hubbell, S.P., Levin, S.A., MacMahon, J.A., Matson, P.A., Melillo, J.M., Mooney, H.A., Peterson, C.H., Pulliam, H.R., Real, L.A., Regal, P.J., Risser, P.G., 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda. Ecology 72 (2), 371– 412. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., Savini, D. in press. Biological invasions as a component of global change in stressed marine ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. Pimm, S. L. 1991. Balance of Nature? University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ruiz, G. M., Carlton, J. T., Grosholz, E. D., Hines, A. H., 1997. Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences. American Zoologist 37, 621–632. Terlizzi, A., Bevilacqua, S., Fraschetti, S., Boero, F. in press. Taxonomic sufficiency and the increasing insufficiency of taxonomic expertise. Mar. Pollut. Bull. Vermeij, G. J. 1991. When biotas meet: understanding biotic interchange. Science 253: 1099-104.
