@techreport{inglis_port_2008-4,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Picton}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20picton.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Picton undertaken in January 2005. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with the results of an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Picton undertaken in December 2001.
•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 13 international shipping ports and three marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas.
•	To allow a direct comparison between the initial baseline survey and the resurvey of the Port of Picton, the survey used the same methodologies, occurred in the same season, and sampled the same sites used in the initial baseline survey. To improve the description of the biota of the port, some additional survey sites were added during the repeat survey.
•	Sampling methods used in both surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species (NIS) in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. These are described in more detail in the body of the report.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Picton. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a sled and benthic grabs, and a gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps.
•	Sampling effort was distributed in the Port of Picton according to priorities identified in the CRIMP protocols, which are designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species. Most effort was concentrated on high-risk locations and habitats where non-indigenous species were most likely to be found.
•	Organisms collected during the survey were sent to local and international taxonomic experts for identification.
•	A total of 206 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Picton in December 2001. They consisted of 145 native species, 7 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 27 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 249 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 167 native species, 11 non-indigenous species, 36 cryptogenic species and 35 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54\% of the native species, 45\% of non-indigenous species, and 50\% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 11 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Picton included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida), Spirobranchus polytrema; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Undaria pinnatifida, and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini. Six of these species - Spirobranchus polytrema, Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Eudendrium generale and Theora lubrica - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Picton. In addition, two non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – the annelids Dipolydora armata and Polydora hoplura – were not found during the repeat survey.
•	Ten species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. These were all newly discovered sponges (Adocia new sp. 1, Chalinula new sp. 2, Chondropsis new sp. 1, Dactylia new sp. 1, Dysidea new sp. 3, Haliclona new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 4, Haliclona new sp. 6, Haliclona new sp. 14, and Mycale (Carmia) new sp. 3).
•	One species recorded from the Port of Picton repeat survey, the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida, is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Undaria pinnatifida is now widely distributed in southern and eastern New Zealand.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping).
•	Approximately 64\% (7 of 11 species) of NIS in the Port of Picton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 9\% (1 species) via ballast water and 27\% (3 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors.
•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Picton (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Fitridge, I. and Floerl, O. and Woods, C. and Kospartov, M. and Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = may,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Picton, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {133 pp.},
}

{"_id":"NGFPgxwbcqvGfcEGM","bibbaseid":"inglis-gust-fitridge-floerl-woods-kospartov-hayden-fenwick-portofpictonsecondbaselinesurveyfornonindenousmarinespecies-2008","author_short":["Inglis, G. J.","Gust, N.","Fitridge, I.","Floerl, O.","Woods, C.","Kospartov, M.","Hayden, B. J.","Fenwick, G. D."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"techreport","type":"NIWA Client Report","address":"Christchurch","title":"Port of Picton: Second baseline survey for non-indenous marine species","url":"https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20picton.pdf","abstract":"<i>Executive summary</i> • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Picton undertaken in January 2005. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with the results of an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Picton undertaken in December 2001. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 13 international shipping ports and three marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas. • To allow a direct comparison between the initial baseline survey and the resurvey of the Port of Picton, the survey used the same methodologies, occurred in the same season, and sampled the same sites used in the initial baseline survey. To improve the description of the biota of the port, some additional survey sites were added during the repeat survey. • Sampling methods used in both surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species (NIS) in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. These are described in more detail in the body of the report. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Picton. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a sled and benthic grabs, and a gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps. • Sampling effort was distributed in the Port of Picton according to priorities identified in the CRIMP protocols, which are designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species. Most effort was concentrated on high-risk locations and habitats where non-indigenous species were most likely to be found. • Organisms collected during the survey were sent to local and international taxonomic experts for identification. • A total of 206 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Picton in December 2001. They consisted of 145 native species, 7 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 27 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 249 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 167 native species, 11 non-indigenous species, 36 cryptogenic species and 35 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54% of the native species, 45% of non-indigenous species, and 50% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 11 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Picton included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida), Spirobranchus polytrema; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Undaria pinnatifida, and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini. Six of these species - Spirobranchus polytrema, Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Eudendrium generale and Theora lubrica - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Picton. In addition, two non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – the annelids Dipolydora armata and Polydora hoplura – were not found during the repeat survey. • Ten species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. These were all newly discovered sponges (Adocia new sp. 1, Chalinula new sp. 2, Chondropsis new sp. 1, Dactylia new sp. 1, Dysidea new sp. 3, Haliclona new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 4, Haliclona new sp. 6, Haliclona new sp. 14, and Mycale (Carmia) new sp. 3). • One species recorded from the Port of Picton repeat survey, the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida, is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Undaria pinnatifida is now widely distributed in southern and eastern New Zealand. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping). • Approximately 64% (7 of 11 species) of NIS in the Port of Picton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 9% (1 species) via ballast water and 27% (3 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Picton (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas","institution":"NIWA","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Inglis"],"firstnames":["G.","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gust"],"firstnames":["N."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fitridge"],"firstnames":["I."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Floerl"],"firstnames":["O."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Woods"],"firstnames":["C."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kospartov"],"firstnames":["M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hayden"],"firstnames":["B.","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fenwick"],"firstnames":["G.","D."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"May","year":"2008","keywords":"Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Picton, Port surveys, biological invasions","pages":"133 pp.","bibtex":"@techreport{inglis_port_2008-4,\n\taddress = {Christchurch},\n\ttype = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},\n\ttitle = {Port of {Picton}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},\n\turl = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20picton.pdf},\n\tabstract = {\\textit{Executive summary}\n•\tThis report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Picton undertaken in January 2005. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with the results of an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Picton undertaken in December 2001.\n•\tThe survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 13 international shipping ports and three marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas.\n•\tTo allow a direct comparison between the initial baseline survey and the resurvey of the Port of Picton, the survey used the same methodologies, occurred in the same season, and sampled the same sites used in the initial baseline survey. To improve the description of the biota of the port, some additional survey sites were added during the repeat survey.\n•\tSampling methods used in both surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species (NIS) in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. These are described in more detail in the body of the report.\n•\tA wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Picton. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a sled and benthic grabs, and a gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps.\n•\tSampling effort was distributed in the Port of Picton according to priorities identified in the CRIMP protocols, which are designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species. Most effort was concentrated on high-risk locations and habitats where non-indigenous species were most likely to be found.\n•\tOrganisms collected during the survey were sent to local and international taxonomic experts for identification.\n•\tA total of 206 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Picton in December 2001. They consisted of 145 native species, 7 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 27 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).\n•\tDuring the repeat survey, 249 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 167 native species, 11 non-indigenous species, 36 cryptogenic species and 35 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54\\% of the native species, 45\\% of non-indigenous species, and 50\\% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.\n•\tThe 11 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Picton included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida), Spirobranchus polytrema; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Undaria pinnatifida, and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini. Six of these species - Spirobranchus polytrema, Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Eudendrium generale and Theora lubrica - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Picton. In addition, two non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – the annelids Dipolydora armata and Polydora hoplura – were not found during the repeat survey.\n•\tTen species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. These were all newly discovered sponges (Adocia new sp. 1, Chalinula new sp. 2, Chondropsis new sp. 1, Dactylia new sp. 1, Dysidea new sp. 3, Haliclona new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 4, Haliclona new sp. 6, Haliclona new sp. 14, and Mycale (Carmia) new sp. 3).\n•\tOne species recorded from the Port of Picton repeat survey, the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida, is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Undaria pinnatifida is now widely distributed in southern and eastern New Zealand.\n•\tMost non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping).\n•\tApproximately 64\\% (7 of 11 species) of NIS in the Port of Picton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 9\\% (1 species) via ballast water and 27\\% (3 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors.\n•\tThe predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Picton (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas},\n\tinstitution = {NIWA},\n\tauthor = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Fitridge, I. and Floerl, O. and Woods, C. and Kospartov, M. and Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tkeywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Picton, Port surveys, biological invasions},\n\tpages = {133 pp.},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Inglis, G. J.","Gust, N.","Fitridge, I.","Floerl, O.","Woods, C.","Kospartov, M.","Hayden, B. J.","Fenwick, G. D."],"key":"inglis_port_2008-4","id":"inglis_port_2008-4","bibbaseid":"inglis-gust-fitridge-floerl-woods-kospartov-hayden-fenwick-portofpictonsecondbaselinesurveyfornonindenousmarinespecies-2008","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20picton.pdf"},"keyword":["Biosecurity","Cryptogenic","Introduced taxa","MAF","Marine species","NIS","New Zealand","Non-indigenous marine species","Picton","Port surveys","biological invasions"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"techreport","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/groups/1780128/items?key=mkYJdVcVZD5yyS6bAqdHVlVs&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["DzoRvg3v4wt7w44ED"],"keywords":["biosecurity","cryptogenic","introduced taxa","maf","marine species","nis","new zealand","non-indigenous marine species","picton","port surveys","biological invasions"],"search_terms":["port","picton","second","baseline","survey","non","indenous","marine","species","inglis","gust","fitridge","floerl","woods","kospartov","hayden","fenwick"],"title":"Port of Picton: Second baseline survey for non-indenous marine species","year":2008}