@article{tait_towards_2023,
	title = {Towards remote surveillance of marine pests: {A} comparison between remote operated vehicles and diver surveys},
	volume = {10},
	issn = {2296-7745},
	shorttitle = {Towards remote surveillance of marine pests},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1102506},
	abstract = {Early detection of marine invasive species is key for mitigating and managing their impacts to marine ecosystems and industries. Human divers are considered the gold standard tool for detecting marine invasive species, especially when dive teams are familiar with the local biodiversity. However, diver operations can be expensive and dangerous, and are not always practical. Remote operated vehicles (ROVs) can potentially overcome these limitations, but it is unclear how sensitive they are compared to trained divers for detecting pests. We assessed the sensitivity and efficiency of ROVs and divers for detecting marine non-indigenous species (NIS), including the potential for automated detection algorithms to reduce post-processing costs of ROV methods. We show that ROVs can detect comparable assemblages of invasive species as divers, but with lower detection rates (0.2 NIS min-1) than divers (0.5 NIS min-1) and covered less seafloor than divers per unit time. While small invertebrates (e.g., skeleton shrimp Caprella mutica) were more easily detected by divers, the invasive goby Acentrogobius pflaumii was only detected by the ROV. We show that implementation of computer vision algorithms can provide accurate identification of larger biofouling organisms and reduce overall survey costs, yet the relative costs of ROV surveys remain almost twice that of diver surveys. We expect that as ROV technologies improve and investment in autonomous and semi-autonomous underwater vehicles increases, much of the current inefficiencies of ROVs will be mitigated, yet practitioners should be aware of limitations in taxonomic resolution and the strengths of specialist diver teams.},
	urldate = {2023-03-17},
	journal = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
	author = {Tait, Leigh W. and Bulleid, Jeremy and Rodgers, Lily Pryor and Seaward, Kimberley and Olsen, Louis and Woods, Chris and Lane, Henry and Inglis, Graeme J.},
	year = {2023},
}

Early detection of marine invasive species is key for mitigating and managing their impacts to marine ecosystems and industries. Human divers are considered the gold standard tool for detecting marine invasive species, especially when dive teams are familiar with the local biodiversity. However, diver operations can be expensive and dangerous, and are not always practical. Remote operated vehicles (ROVs) can potentially overcome these limitations, but it is unclear how sensitive they are compared to trained divers for detecting pests. We assessed the sensitivity and efficiency of ROVs and divers for detecting marine non-indigenous species (NIS), including the potential for automated detection algorithms to reduce post-processing costs of ROV methods. We show that ROVs can detect comparable assemblages of invasive species as divers, but with lower detection rates (0.2 NIS min-1) than divers (0.5 NIS min-1) and covered less seafloor than divers per unit time. While small invertebrates (e.g., skeleton shrimp Caprella mutica) were more easily detected by divers, the invasive goby Acentrogobius pflaumii was only detected by the ROV. We show that implementation of computer vision algorithms can provide accurate identification of larger biofouling organisms and reduce overall survey costs, yet the relative costs of ROV surveys remain almost twice that of diver surveys. We expect that as ROV technologies improve and investment in autonomous and semi-autonomous underwater vehicles increases, much of the current inefficiencies of ROVs will be mitigated, yet practitioners should be aware of limitations in taxonomic resolution and the strengths of specialist diver teams.

@techreport{woods_national_2022,
	type = {Biosecurity {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {Paper} {No}: 2022/09},
	title = {National {Marine} {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance} - {Annual} {Synopsis} {Report} for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2021–22 ({SOW23030})},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/53821-National-Marine-High-Risk-Site-Surveillance-Annual-Synopsis-Report-for-all-High-Risk-Sites-202122-SOW23030},
	abstract = {The National Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (NMHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non- indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the NMHRSS programme is to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register. The programme surveys in Aotearoa New Zealand ports and marinas which have previously been identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS.
The programme has two secondary objectives: (1) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (2) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The NMHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary target NIS (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis, and Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary target NIS (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii, and Styela clava). Each High Risk Site is surveyed bi-annually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and
Summer surveys). 
This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 12 High Risk Sites during
the periods June to November 2021 (the Winter 2021 surveys) and November 2021 to May 2022 (the Summer 2021–22 surveys).},
	language = {English},
	institution = {Biosecurity New Zealand},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Pryor Rodgers, Lily and Buckthought, Dane and Carter, Megan and Middleton, Crispin and Olsen, Louis and Smith, Matt},
	month = jun,
	year = {2022},
	pages = {297},
}

The National Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (NMHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non- indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the NMHRSS programme is to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register. The programme surveys in Aotearoa New Zealand ports and marinas which have previously been identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives: (1) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (2) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The NMHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary target NIS (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis, and Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary target NIS (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii, and Styela clava). Each High Risk Site is surveyed bi-annually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 12 High Risk Sites during the periods June to November 2021 (the Winter 2021 surveys) and November 2021 to May 2022 (the Summer 2021–22 surveys).

@article{hatami_modelling_2022,
	title = {Modelling the likelihood of entry of marine non-indigenous species from internationally arriving vessels to maritime ports: a case study using {New} {Zealand} data},
	volume = {72},
	copyright = {2022 Rezvan Hatami, Graeme Inglis, Stephen E. Lane, Abraham Growcott, Daniel Kluza, Catherine Lubarsky, Charlotte Jones-Todd, Kimberley Seaward, Andrew P. Robinson},
	issn = {1314-2488},
	shorttitle = {Modelling the likelihood of entry of marine non-indigenous species from internationally arriving vessels to maritime ports},
	url = {https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/77266/},
	doi = {10.3897/neobiota.72.77266},
	abstract = {The establishment of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) in new locations can degrade environmental, socio-cultural, and economic values. Vessels arriving from international waters are the main pathway for the entry of marine NIS, via exposure due to ballast water discharge (hereafter, ballast discharge) and biofouling. We developed a systematic statistical likelihood-based methodology to investigate port-level marine NIS propagule pressure from ballast discharge and biofouling exposure using a combination of techniques, namely k-Nearest-Neighbour and random forest algorithms. Vessel characteristics and travel patterns were assessed as candidate predictors. For the ballast discharge analysis, the predictors used for model building were vessel type, dead weight tonnage, and the port of first arrival; the predictors used for the biofouling analysis were days since last antifouling paint, mean vessel speed, dead weight tonnage, and hull niche area. Propagule pressure for both pathways was calculated at a voyage, port and annual level, which were used to establish the relative entry score for each port. The model was applied to a case study for New Zealand. Biosecurity New Zealand has commissioned targeted marine surveillance at selected ports since 2002 to enable early detection of newly arrived marine NIS (Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance, MHRSS). The reported methodology was used to compare contemporary entry likelihoods between New Zealand ports. The results suggested that Tauranga now receives the highest volume of discharged ballast water and has the second most biofouling exposure compared to all other New Zealand ports. Auckland was predicted to receive the highest biofouling mass and was ranked tenth for ballast discharge exposure. Lyttelton, Napier, and New Plymouth also had a high relative ranking for these two pathways. The outputs from this study will inform the refinement of the MHRSS programme, facilitating continued early detection and cost-effective management to support New Zealand’s wider marine biosecurity system. More generally, this paper develops an approach for using statistical models to estimate relative likelihoods of entry of marine NIS.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2022-05-11},
	journal = {NeoBiota},
	author = {Hatami, Rezvan and Inglis, Graeme and Lane, Stephen E. and Growcott, Abraham and Kluza, Daniel and Lubarsky, Catherine and Jones-Todd, Charlotte and Seaward, Kimberley and Robinson, Andrew P.},
	month = apr,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Publisher: Pensoft Publishers},
	pages = {183--203},
}

The establishment of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) in new locations can degrade environmental, socio-cultural, and economic values. Vessels arriving from international waters are the main pathway for the entry of marine NIS, via exposure due to ballast water discharge (hereafter, ballast discharge) and biofouling. We developed a systematic statistical likelihood-based methodology to investigate port-level marine NIS propagule pressure from ballast discharge and biofouling exposure using a combination of techniques, namely k-Nearest-Neighbour and random forest algorithms. Vessel characteristics and travel patterns were assessed as candidate predictors. For the ballast discharge analysis, the predictors used for model building were vessel type, dead weight tonnage, and the port of first arrival; the predictors used for the biofouling analysis were days since last antifouling paint, mean vessel speed, dead weight tonnage, and hull niche area. Propagule pressure for both pathways was calculated at a voyage, port and annual level, which were used to establish the relative entry score for each port. The model was applied to a case study for New Zealand. Biosecurity New Zealand has commissioned targeted marine surveillance at selected ports since 2002 to enable early detection of newly arrived marine NIS (Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance, MHRSS). The reported methodology was used to compare contemporary entry likelihoods between New Zealand ports. The results suggested that Tauranga now receives the highest volume of discharged ballast water and has the second most biofouling exposure compared to all other New Zealand ports. Auckland was predicted to receive the highest biofouling mass and was ranked tenth for ballast discharge exposure. Lyttelton, Napier, and New Plymouth also had a high relative ranking for these two pathways. The outputs from this study will inform the refinement of the MHRSS programme, facilitating continued early detection and cost-effective management to support New Zealand’s wider marine biosecurity system. More generally, this paper develops an approach for using statistical models to estimate relative likelihoods of entry of marine NIS.

@techreport{woods_national_2021,
	type = {Biosecurity {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {PaperNo}: 20212/10},
	title = {National {Marine} {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance} programme {Design} {Report} for {Napier} {Port} and {Ahuriri} {Inner} {Harbour}.},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/53818-National-Marine-High-Risk-Site-Surveillance-programme},
	abstract = {This document details how the Napier Port and Ahuriri Inner Harbour is to be included in the national Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme. MHRSS is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS) to support New Zealand’s marine biosecurity system. The outcome of this report is to present a scientifically defensible surveillance methodology that is specific to Napier Port and Ahuriri Inner Harbour, whilst considering existing operational constraints on surveillance activities.},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2022-10-24},
	institution = {Biosecurity New Zealand},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Pryor Rodgers, Lily and Lane, Henry and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jun,
	year = {2021},
	pages = {105},
}

This document details how the Napier Port and Ahuriri Inner Harbour is to be included in the national Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme. MHRSS is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS) to support New Zealand’s marine biosecurity system. The outcome of this report is to present a scientifically defensible surveillance methodology that is specific to Napier Port and Ahuriri Inner Harbour, whilst considering existing operational constraints on surveillance activities.

@techreport{woods_marine_2021,
	type = {Biosecurity {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {Paper} {No}: 2021/07},
	title = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance}: {Annual} {Synopsis} report for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2020-21 ({SOW18048})},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/47524-Marine-High-Risk-Site-Surveillance-Annual-Synopsis-Report-for-all-High-Risk-Sites-202021-SOW18048},
	abstract = {The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealand nonindigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register in New Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives: (1) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (2) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary target NIS (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary target NIS (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava). 
Each High Risk Site is surveyed biannually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June to September 2019 (the Winter 2019 surveys) and November 2019 to March 2020 (the Summer 2019–20 surveys).},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2021-05-11},
	institution = {Biosecurity New Zealand},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Pryor Rodgers, Lily and Buckthought, Dane and Carter, Megan and Lyon, Warrick and Middleton, Crispin and Olsen, Louis and Smith, Matt},
	month = jun,
	year = {2021},
	pages = {281},
}

The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealand nonindigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register in New Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives: (1) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (2) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary target NIS (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary target NIS (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava). Each High Risk Site is surveyed biannually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June to September 2019 (the Winter 2019 surveys) and November 2019 to March 2020 (the Summer 2019–20 surveys).

@article{georgiades_role_2021,
	title = {The {Role} of {Vessel} {Biofouling} in the {Translocation} of {Marine} {Pathogens}: {Management} {Considerations} and {Challenges}},
	volume = {8},
	issn = {2296-7745},
	shorttitle = {The {Role} of {Vessel} {Biofouling} in the {Translocation} of {Marine} {Pathogens}},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.660125/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Marine_Science&id=660125},
	doi = {10.3389/fmars.2021.660125},
	abstract = {Vessel biofouling is a major pathway for the introduction, establishment, and subsequent spread of marine non-indigenous macro-organisms. As a result, national and international regulations and guidelines have been implemented to manage the risks associated with this pathway, yet widespread enforcement and uptake are still in their infancy. By comparison, translocation of marine pathogens by vessel biofouling has received little attention, despite a mounting body of evidence highlighting the potential importance of this pathway. Using molluscan pathogens as a model, this paper examines the potential for translocation of marine pathogens via the vessel biofouling pathway by reviewing: 1) examples where vessel biofouling is suspected to be the source pathway of non-indigenous pathogen introduction to new areas; and 2) the association between pathogens known to have detrimental effects on wild and farmed mollusc populations with species known to foul vessels and anthropogenic structures. The available evidence indicates that vessel biofouling is a viable and important pathway for translocating marine pathogens, presenting a risk to marine values (i.e., environment, economic, social, and cultural). While preventive measures to minimize the translocation of macro-organisms is the most efficient way to minimize the likelihood of associated pathogen translocation, the application of reactive management measures to biofouled vessels, including post-filtration treatment, requires further and explicit consideration.},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2021-05-11},
	journal = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
	author = {Georgiades, Eugene and Scianni, Chris and Davidson, Ian and Tamburri, Mario N. and First, Matthew R. and Ruiz, Gregory and Ellard, Kevin and Deveney, Marty and Kluza, Daniel},
	year = {2021},
	note = {Publisher: Frontiers},
	keywords = {In-water cleaning, Marine biosecurity, molluscs, pathogens, vessel biofouling},
}

Vessel biofouling is a major pathway for the introduction, establishment, and subsequent spread of marine non-indigenous macro-organisms. As a result, national and international regulations and guidelines have been implemented to manage the risks associated with this pathway, yet widespread enforcement and uptake are still in their infancy. By comparison, translocation of marine pathogens by vessel biofouling has received little attention, despite a mounting body of evidence highlighting the potential importance of this pathway. Using molluscan pathogens as a model, this paper examines the potential for translocation of marine pathogens via the vessel biofouling pathway by reviewing: 1) examples where vessel biofouling is suspected to be the source pathway of non-indigenous pathogen introduction to new areas; and 2) the association between pathogens known to have detrimental effects on wild and farmed mollusc populations with species known to foul vessels and anthropogenic structures. The available evidence indicates that vessel biofouling is a viable and important pathway for translocating marine pathogens, presenting a risk to marine values (i.e., environment, economic, social, and cultural). While preventive measures to minimize the translocation of macro-organisms is the most efficient way to minimize the likelihood of associated pathogen translocation, the application of reactive management measures to biofouled vessels, including post-filtration treatment, requires further and explicit consideration.

@techreport{hatami_improving_2021,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	type = {Prepared for the {Diagnostic} and {Surveillance} {Directorate}},
	title = {Improving {New} {Zealand}'s marine biosecurity surveillance programme: {A} statistical review of biosecurity vectors},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/43825-Improving-New-Zealands-marine-biosecurity-surveillance-programme-A-statistical-review-of-biosecurity-vectors},
	abstract = {The national Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme was established in 2002 to facilitate early detection of non-indigenous marine species (NIS) to New Zealand, including seven marine pests listed on the New Zealand register of Unwanted Organisms at eight “high risk” sites. 

The selection of these original sites was based on a series of proxy indicators including:
• the number of international vessel visits or tonnage of imports from ports where the species were known to occur,
• the volume of ballast water discharged from potential source locations,
• the availability of habitat within the port or harbour that was suitable for the target species, and
• hydrodynamics within the ports that would affect the retention or dispersion of local populations.

The MHRSS over time has been expanded and currently 11 “high risk” sites are included in the programme.

Since the inception of the MHRSS programme, survey methods for NIS have continually been refined, but there has been no reprioritisation of “high risk” sites at a national scale to account for changes to vessel traffic patterns or behaviour since 2002. Additionally, allocation of survey effort between surveillance sites is only loosely related to the relative likelihood of NIS entry and establishment at each site. Therefore, the development of a systematic statistical likelihood-based methodology that can determine the relative likelihood of exposure of sites to NIS from internationally arriving commercial vessels was developed to inform how the MHRSS programme could be improved. Several historical datasets were used to develop models for predicting ballast water discharge volume and biofouling exposure to the contemporary vessel arrival data (2015-2017) for each port of interest, using K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN) and random forests algorithms for ballast water and biofouling, respectively. 

Tauranga had the highest predicted mean ballast water discharge volume across 2015-2017, followed by New Plymouth, Lyttelton, Taharoa, Napier, Whangarei and Gisborne. Auckland had a low volume of discharge relative to its number of vessels. Auckland had the highest average predicted biofouling exposure across 2015-2017, followed by Tauranga, Lyttelton, Napier and Wellington.

The above results were used to weight the surveillance effort that could be applied to each location. The Port of Napier was identified as a site that has a high relative likelihood of NIS exposure but is not currently part of the MHRSS programme. This model could be extended in future to assess port level characteristics that influence the likelihood of establishment of NIS.

Finally, several recommendations were made around data custodianship to improve how analysis in the future could be conducted.},
	number = {Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2021/01},
	urldate = {2021-01-26},
	institution = {Biosecurity New Zealand},
	author = {Hatami, Rezvan and Lane, Steve and Robinson, Andrew and Inglis, Graeme J and Todd-Jones, Charlotte and Seaward, Kimberley},
	month = jan,
	year = {2021},
	pages = {95},
}

The national Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme was established in 2002 to facilitate early detection of non-indigenous marine species (NIS) to New Zealand, including seven marine pests listed on the New Zealand register of Unwanted Organisms at eight “high risk” sites. The selection of these original sites was based on a series of proxy indicators including: • the number of international vessel visits or tonnage of imports from ports where the species were known to occur, • the volume of ballast water discharged from potential source locations, • the availability of habitat within the port or harbour that was suitable for the target species, and • hydrodynamics within the ports that would affect the retention or dispersion of local populations. The MHRSS over time has been expanded and currently 11 “high risk” sites are included in the programme. Since the inception of the MHRSS programme, survey methods for NIS have continually been refined, but there has been no reprioritisation of “high risk” sites at a national scale to account for changes to vessel traffic patterns or behaviour since 2002. Additionally, allocation of survey effort between surveillance sites is only loosely related to the relative likelihood of NIS entry and establishment at each site. Therefore, the development of a systematic statistical likelihood-based methodology that can determine the relative likelihood of exposure of sites to NIS from internationally arriving commercial vessels was developed to inform how the MHRSS programme could be improved. Several historical datasets were used to develop models for predicting ballast water discharge volume and biofouling exposure to the contemporary vessel arrival data (2015-2017) for each port of interest, using K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN) and random forests algorithms for ballast water and biofouling, respectively. Tauranga had the highest predicted mean ballast water discharge volume across 2015-2017, followed by New Plymouth, Lyttelton, Taharoa, Napier, Whangarei and Gisborne. Auckland had a low volume of discharge relative to its number of vessels. Auckland had the highest average predicted biofouling exposure across 2015-2017, followed by Tauranga, Lyttelton, Napier and Wellington. The above results were used to weight the surveillance effort that could be applied to each location. The Port of Napier was identified as a site that has a high relative likelihood of NIS exposure but is not currently part of the MHRSS programme. This model could be extended in future to assess port level characteristics that influence the likelihood of establishment of NIS. Finally, several recommendations were made around data custodianship to improve how analysis in the future could be conducted.

@article{bailey_trends_2020,
	title = {Trends in the detection of aquatic non-indigenous species across global marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems: {A} 50-year perspective},
	volume = {26},
	issn = {1472-4642},
	shorttitle = {Trends in the detection of aquatic non-indigenous species across global marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ddi.13167},
	doi = {10.1111/ddi.13167},
	abstract = {Aim The introduction of aquatic non-indigenous species (ANS) has become a major driver for global changes in species biogeography. We examined spatial patterns and temporal trends of ANS detections since 1965 to inform conservation policy and management. Location Global. Methods We assembled an extensive dataset of first records of detection of ANS (1965–2015) across 49 aquatic ecosystems, including the (a) year of first collection, (b) population status and (c) potential pathway(s) of introduction. Data were analysed at global and regional levels to assess patterns of detection rate, richness and transport pathways. Results An annual mean of 43 (±16 SD) primary detections of ANS occurred—one new detection every 8.4 days for 50 years. The global rate of detections was relatively stable during 1965–1995, but increased rapidly after this time, peaking at roughly 66 primary detections per year during 2005–2010 and then declining marginally. Detection rates were variable within and across regions through time. Arthropods, molluscs and fishes were the most frequently reported ANS. Most ANS were likely introduced as stowaways in ships’ ballast water or biofouling, although direct evidence is typically absent. Main conclusions This synthesis highlights the magnitude of recent ANS detections, yet almost certainly represents an underestimate as many ANS go unreported due to limited search effort and diminishing taxonomic expertise. Temporal rates of detection are also confounded by reporting lags, likely contributing to the lower detection rate observed in recent years. There is a critical need to implement standardized, repeated methods across regions and taxa to improve the quality of global-scale comparisons and sustain core measures over longer time-scales. It will be fundamental to fill in knowledge gaps given that invasion data representing broad regions of the world's oceans are not yet readily available and to maintain knowledge pipelines for adaptive management.},
	language = {en},
	number = {12},
	urldate = {2022-05-11},
	journal = {Diversity and Distributions},
	author = {Bailey, Sarah A. and Brown, Lyndsay and Campbell, Marnie L. and Canning-Clode, João and Carlton, James T. and Castro, Nuno and Chainho, Paula and Chan, Farrah T. and Creed, Joel C. and Curd, Amelia and Darling, John and Fofonoff, Paul and Galil, Bella S. and Hewitt, Chad L. and Inglis, Graeme J. and Keith, Inti and Mandrak, Nicholas E. and Marchini, Agnese and McKenzie, Cynthia H. and Occhipinti-Ambrogi, Anna and Ojaveer, Henn and Pires-Teixeira, Larissa M. and Robinson, Tamara B. and Ruiz, Gregory M. and Seaward, Kimberley and Schwindt, Evangelina and Son, Mikhail O. and Therriault, Thomas W. and Zhan, Aibin},
	year = {2020},
	note = {\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ddi.13167},
	keywords = {aquatic non-indigenous species, biological invasions, detection rate, inventory, long-term dataset, population status, richness, spatial patterns, temporal trends, transport pathways},
	pages = {1780--1797},
}

Aim The introduction of aquatic non-indigenous species (ANS) has become a major driver for global changes in species biogeography. We examined spatial patterns and temporal trends of ANS detections since 1965 to inform conservation policy and management. Location Global. Methods We assembled an extensive dataset of first records of detection of ANS (1965–2015) across 49 aquatic ecosystems, including the (a) year of first collection, (b) population status and (c) potential pathway(s) of introduction. Data were analysed at global and regional levels to assess patterns of detection rate, richness and transport pathways. Results An annual mean of 43 (±16 SD) primary detections of ANS occurred—one new detection every 8.4 days for 50 years. The global rate of detections was relatively stable during 1965–1995, but increased rapidly after this time, peaking at roughly 66 primary detections per year during 2005–2010 and then declining marginally. Detection rates were variable within and across regions through time. Arthropods, molluscs and fishes were the most frequently reported ANS. Most ANS were likely introduced as stowaways in ships’ ballast water or biofouling, although direct evidence is typically absent. Main conclusions This synthesis highlights the magnitude of recent ANS detections, yet almost certainly represents an underestimate as many ANS go unreported due to limited search effort and diminishing taxonomic expertise. Temporal rates of detection are also confounded by reporting lags, likely contributing to the lower detection rate observed in recent years. There is a critical need to implement standardized, repeated methods across regions and taxa to improve the quality of global-scale comparisons and sustain core measures over longer time-scales. It will be fundamental to fill in knowledge gaps given that invasion data representing broad regions of the world's oceans are not yet readily available and to maintain knowledge pipelines for adaptive management.

@techreport{woods_marine_2020,
	type = {Biosecurity {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {Paper} {No}: 2020/05},
	title = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance}: {Annual} {Synopsis} report for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2019-20 ({SOW18048})},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/41163-marine-high-risk-site-surveillance-annual-synopsis-report-for-all-high-risk-sites-2019-20},
	abstract = {The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealand nonindigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register in New Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives: (1) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (2) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary target NIS (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary target NIS (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava). 
Each High Risk Site is surveyed biannually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June to September 2019 (the Winter 2019 surveys) and November 2019 to March 2020 (the Summer 2019–20 surveys).},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2021-05-11},
	institution = {Biosecurity New Zealand},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Pryor Rodgers, Lily and Buckthought, Dane and Carter, Megan and Lyon, Warrick and Olsen, Louis and Smith, Matt},
	month = jun,
	year = {2020},
	pages = {271},
}

The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealand nonindigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register in New Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives: (1) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (2) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary target NIS (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary target NIS (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava). Each High Risk Site is surveyed biannually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June to September 2019 (the Winter 2019 surveys) and November 2019 to March 2020 (the Summer 2019–20 surveys).

@article{georgiades_regulating_2020,
	title = {Regulating {Vessel} {Biofouling} to {Support} {New} {Zealand}’s {Marine} {Biosecurity} {System} – {A} {Blue} {Print} for {Evidence}-{Based} {Decision} {Making}},
	volume = {7},
	issn = {2296-7745},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00390/full},
	doi = {10.3389/fmars.2020.00390},
	abstract = {A healthy marine environment is integral to many of New Zealand’s economic, social and cultural values, which include fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and recreational and customary activities. The introduction and spread of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) via the vessel biofouling pathway may put these values at risk. Over the past two decades, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been proactive in commissioning research focused on the risks associated with vessel biofouling, identification of potential risk vessels, and risk management options. In 2010, MPI consulted on options to manage the biofouling risks on all vessels entering New Zealand waters. In 2014, New Zealand became the first country to introduce mandatory biofouling requirements. Between 2014 and 2018, MPI focused on communicating the requirements to support stakeholder awareness, readiness and uptake. In parallel, MPI commissioned further research to investigate proactive and reactive approaches to biofouling management. Research outcomes were summarized and technical advice provided to inform stakeholders of what constitutes best biofouling management practices. This review summarizes MPI’s research and technical advice on the risks associated with vessel biofouling and its management, and the procedures followed to produce New Zealand’s biofouling regulations. The development of these regulations is also contextualized in terms of New Zealand’s marine biosecurity system. The transparent and evidence-based approach followed by MPI provides a blueprint for establishing biofouling regulations. Because these regulations are based on International Maritime Organization guidelines, there is the potential to develop consistent global and domestic practices for managing marine NIS introduction and spread.},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
	author = {Georgiades, Eugene and Kluza, Daniel and Bates, Tracey and Lubarsky, Katie and Brunton, Jennie and Growcott, Abraham and Smith, Trecia and McDonald, Simon and Gould, Brendan and Parker, Naomi and Bell, Andrew},
	year = {2020},
	note = {Publisher: Frontiers},
	keywords = {Biofouling, New Zealand, biosecurity, marine, non-indigenous species, pathway approach Abstract},
}

A healthy marine environment is integral to many of New Zealand’s economic, social and cultural values, which include fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and recreational and customary activities. The introduction and spread of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) via the vessel biofouling pathway may put these values at risk. Over the past two decades, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been proactive in commissioning research focused on the risks associated with vessel biofouling, identification of potential risk vessels, and risk management options. In 2010, MPI consulted on options to manage the biofouling risks on all vessels entering New Zealand waters. In 2014, New Zealand became the first country to introduce mandatory biofouling requirements. Between 2014 and 2018, MPI focused on communicating the requirements to support stakeholder awareness, readiness and uptake. In parallel, MPI commissioned further research to investigate proactive and reactive approaches to biofouling management. Research outcomes were summarized and technical advice provided to inform stakeholders of what constitutes best biofouling management practices. This review summarizes MPI’s research and technical advice on the risks associated with vessel biofouling and its management, and the procedures followed to produce New Zealand’s biofouling regulations. The development of these regulations is also contextualized in terms of New Zealand’s marine biosecurity system. The transparent and evidence-based approach followed by MPI provides a blueprint for establishing biofouling regulations. Because these regulations are based on International Maritime Organization guidelines, there is the potential to develop consistent global and domestic practices for managing marine NIS introduction and spread.

@article{tait_invasive_2020,
	title = {Invasive ecosystem engineers threaten benthic nitrogen cycling by altering native infaunal and biofouling communities},
	volume = {10},
	copyright = {2020 The Author(s)},
	issn = {2045-2322},
	url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58557-8},
	doi = {10.1038/s41598-020-58557-8},
	abstract = {Predicting the effects of invasive ecosystem engineering species in new bioregions has proved elusive. In part this is because separating biological effects from purely physical mechanisms has been little studied and yet could help predict potentially damaging bioinvasions. Here we tested the effects of a large bio-engineering fanworm Sabella spallanzanii (Sabella) versus worm-like structures (mimics) on gas and nutrient fluxes in a marine soft bottom sediment. Experimental plots of sediment in Hauraki Gulf (New Zealand) were used to test the hypothesis that ecosystem engineers negatively influence benthic ecosystem function through autogenic mechanisms, facilitating activity by biofouling organisms and competitive exclusion of native infauna. Enhanced physical structure associated with Sabella and mimics increased nitrogen fluxes, community metabolism and reduced denitrification from 23 μmol m−2 h−1 to zero at densities greater than 25 m2. Sabella plots on average had greater respiration (29\%), NH4 release (33\%), and greater NO3 release (52\%) compared to mimics, suggesting allogenic (biological) mechanisms occur, but play a secondary role to autogenic (physical) mechanisms. The dominance of autogenic mechanisms indicates that bio-engineers are likely to cause significant impacts when established, regardless of fundamental differences in recipient regions or identity of the introduced bio-engineer. In the case of Sabella spallanzanii, compromised denitrification has the potential to tip the balance of net solute and gas exchanges and cause further ecological degradation in an already eutrophic system.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Scientific Reports},
	author = {Tait, L. W. and Lohrer, A. M. and Townsend, M. and Atalah, J. and Floerl, O. and Inglis, G. J.},
	month = jan,
	year = {2020},
	note = {Number: 1
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group},
	pages = {1581},
}

Predicting the effects of invasive ecosystem engineering species in new bioregions has proved elusive. In part this is because separating biological effects from purely physical mechanisms has been little studied and yet could help predict potentially damaging bioinvasions. Here we tested the effects of a large bio-engineering fanworm Sabella spallanzanii (Sabella) versus worm-like structures (mimics) on gas and nutrient fluxes in a marine soft bottom sediment. Experimental plots of sediment in Hauraki Gulf (New Zealand) were used to test the hypothesis that ecosystem engineers negatively influence benthic ecosystem function through autogenic mechanisms, facilitating activity by biofouling organisms and competitive exclusion of native infauna. Enhanced physical structure associated with Sabella and mimics increased nitrogen fluxes, community metabolism and reduced denitrification from 23 μmol m−2 h−1 to zero at densities greater than 25 m2. Sabella plots on average had greater respiration (29%), NH4 release (33%), and greater NO3 release (52%) compared to mimics, suggesting allogenic (biological) mechanisms occur, but play a secondary role to autogenic (physical) mechanisms. The dominance of autogenic mechanisms indicates that bio-engineers are likely to cause significant impacts when established, regardless of fundamental differences in recipient regions or identity of the introduced bio-engineer. In the case of Sabella spallanzanii, compromised denitrification has the potential to tip the balance of net solute and gas exchanges and cause further ecological degradation in an already eutrophic system.

@article{hayes_assessment_2019,
	title = {The {Assessment} and {Management} of {Marine} {Pest} {Risks} {Posed} by {Shipping}: {The} {Australian} and {New} {Zealand} {Experience}},
	volume = {6},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00489/full},
	doi = {doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00489},
	abstract = {Ships have been translocating species around the world for hundreds of years but attempts to understand and manage this issue date back only three decades. Here we review the assessment and management of risks from vessel biofouling and ballast water over this time period from an Australian and New Zealand perspective. We detail a history of successes and failures at the science-policy interface that include international guidelines for biofouling management and the recent ratification of a ballast water convention. We summarize the efficacy and costs of current treatment options, and highlight the practical challenges and policy implications of managing the diffuse and succinct bio-invasion risks that shipping creates pre- and post-border. We then use the lessons learnt over the last 30 years to recommend a future empirical strategy.},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
	author = {Hayes, Keith and Inglis, Graeme and Barry, Simon},
	month = jul,
	year = {2019},
	pages = {489},
}

Ships have been translocating species around the world for hundreds of years but attempts to understand and manage this issue date back only three decades. Here we review the assessment and management of risks from vessel biofouling and ballast water over this time period from an Australian and New Zealand perspective. We detail a history of successes and failures at the science-policy interface that include international guidelines for biofouling management and the recent ratification of a ballast water convention. We summarize the efficacy and costs of current treatment options, and highlight the practical challenges and policy implications of managing the diffuse and succinct bio-invasion risks that shipping creates pre- and post-border. We then use the lessons learnt over the last 30 years to recommend a future empirical strategy.

@article{atalah_introduced_2019,
	title = {The {Introduced} {Fanworm}, {Sabella} spallanzanii, {Alters} {Soft} {Sediment} {Macrofauna} and {Bacterial} {Communities}},
	volume = {7},
	issn = {2296-701X},
	url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00481/full},
	doi = {10.3389/fevo.2019.00481},
	abstract = {The Mediterranean fanworm, Sabella spallanzanii, is an introduced and established “unwanted species” in New Zealand, subject to nationwide targeted surveillance in port, marina, urban and natural environments. S. spallanzanii has the potential to change soft-sediment benthic habitats due to the physical presence of the fanworm’s tube and associated biological activities, particularly suspension feeding and bio-deposition. A 6-month field experiment was conducted to investigate the impacts of S. spallanzanii on existing communities within invaded soft-sediment habitats. Macrofaunal communities were assessed using traditional sampling and taxonomy while microbial and eukaryotic communities were characterised using metabarcoding of 16S and 18S ribosomal genes, respectively. Live and mimic S. spallanzanii were transplanted at different densities (10 - 50 individuals per m2) into experimental plots with existing assemblages, to test for potential biological and/or physical effects on benthic communities. Analyses revealed consistent, significant differences in macrofaunal, eukaryote and bacterial assemblages in the presence of live S. spallanzanii and mimics, indicating that these effects are brought about by biological and physical functions associated with the worms. The presence of S. spallanzanii did not alter total abundance and taxa richness of benthic assemblages but resulted in compositional differences. Changes in the structure of native benthic communities, as indicate by this study, can potentially impact functioning of soft-sediment habitats, through alterations to nutrient cycling, bioturbation and benthic-pelagic coupling. Quantitative measurements of impacts are crucial to understand the trajectory of marine invasions, their roles in re-structuring communities, and to guide management efforts.},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution},
	author = {Atalah, Javier and Floerl, Oliver and Pochon, Xavier and Townsend, Michael and Tait, Leigh and Lohrer, Andrew M.},
	year = {2019},
	note = {Publisher: Frontiers},
	keywords = {Impact study, Introduced Species, Mediterranean fanworm, environmental DNA (eDNA), field experiment, invasive species, soft sediment},
}

The Mediterranean fanworm, Sabella spallanzanii, is an introduced and established “unwanted species” in New Zealand, subject to nationwide targeted surveillance in port, marina, urban and natural environments. S. spallanzanii has the potential to change soft-sediment benthic habitats due to the physical presence of the fanworm’s tube and associated biological activities, particularly suspension feeding and bio-deposition. A 6-month field experiment was conducted to investigate the impacts of S. spallanzanii on existing communities within invaded soft-sediment habitats. Macrofaunal communities were assessed using traditional sampling and taxonomy while microbial and eukaryotic communities were characterised using metabarcoding of 16S and 18S ribosomal genes, respectively. Live and mimic S. spallanzanii were transplanted at different densities (10 - 50 individuals per m2) into experimental plots with existing assemblages, to test for potential biological and/or physical effects on benthic communities. Analyses revealed consistent, significant differences in macrofaunal, eukaryote and bacterial assemblages in the presence of live S. spallanzanii and mimics, indicating that these effects are brought about by biological and physical functions associated with the worms. The presence of S. spallanzanii did not alter total abundance and taxa richness of benthic assemblages but resulted in compositional differences. Changes in the structure of native benthic communities, as indicate by this study, can potentially impact functioning of soft-sediment habitats, through alterations to nutrient cycling, bioturbation and benthic-pelagic coupling. Quantitative measurements of impacts are crucial to understand the trajectory of marine invasions, their roles in re-structuring communities, and to guide management efforts.

@article{cahill_portable_2019,
	title = {A portable thermal system for reactive treatment of biofouled internal pipework on recreational vessels},
	volume = {139},
	issn = {0025-326X},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1830883X},
	doi = {10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.032},
	abstract = {Biofouled commercial and recreational vessels are primary vectors for the introduction and spread of marine non-indigenous species (NIS). This study designed and assessed a portable system to reactively treat biofouling in the internal pipework of recreational vessels – a high-risk ‘niche area’ for NIS that is difficult to access and manage. A novel thermal treatment apparatus was optimised in a series of laboratory experiments performed using scale models of vessel pipework configurations. Treatment effectiveness was validated using the Pacific oyster Magallana gigas, a marine NIS with known resilience to heat. In subsequent field validations on actual recreational vessels, treatment was successfully delivered to high-risk portions of pipework when an effective seal between delivery unit and targeted pipework was achieved and ambient heat loss was minimised. In addition to demonstrating the feasibility of in-water treatment of vessel pipework, the study highlights the importance of robust optimisation and validation of any treatment system intended for biosecurity purposes.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Marine Pollution Bulletin},
	author = {Cahill, Patrick and Tait, Leigh and Floerl, Oliver and Bates, Tracey and Growcott, Abraham and Georgiades, Eugene},
	month = feb,
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Heat, In-water, Non-indigenous species, Reactive treatment, Thermal},
	pages = {65--73},
}

Biofouled commercial and recreational vessels are primary vectors for the introduction and spread of marine non-indigenous species (NIS). This study designed and assessed a portable system to reactively treat biofouling in the internal pipework of recreational vessels – a high-risk ‘niche area’ for NIS that is difficult to access and manage. A novel thermal treatment apparatus was optimised in a series of laboratory experiments performed using scale models of vessel pipework configurations. Treatment effectiveness was validated using the Pacific oyster Magallana gigas, a marine NIS with known resilience to heat. In subsequent field validations on actual recreational vessels, treatment was successfully delivered to high-risk portions of pipework when an effective seal between delivery unit and targeted pipework was achieved and ambient heat loss was minimised. In addition to demonstrating the feasibility of in-water treatment of vessel pipework, the study highlights the importance of robust optimisation and validation of any treatment system intended for biosecurity purposes.

@techreport{woods_marine_2019,
	address = {Wellington, N.Z.},
	type = {Biosecurity {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance}: {Annual} {Synopsis} {Rport} for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2018-19 ({SOW18048})},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/36783},
	abstract = {The Marine HighRisk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-riskmarine non-indigenous species(NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programmeis to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealandnon-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register inNew Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highestriskfor the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programmehas two secondary objectives:(i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and;(ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programmeis designed to detect the presence of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensisand Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia,Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzaniiand Styela clava) target NIS.Each HighRisk Site is surveyed bi-annually(hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys).This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys atthe 1},
	language = {English},
	number = {ISBN No: 978-1-99-000813-9 (online)ISSN No: 2624-0203 (online)},
	urldate = {2020-02-21},
	institution = {MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Pryor Rodgers, Lily and Buckthought, Dane and Carter, Megan and Lyon, Warrick and Neill, Kate and Olsen, Louis and Smith, Matt and Tait, Leigh and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jun,
	year = {2019},
	pages = {231},
}

The Marine HighRisk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-riskmarine non-indigenous species(NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programmeis to detect incursions of new-to-New Zealandnon-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register inNew Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highestriskfor the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programmehas two secondary objectives:(i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and;(ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programmeis designed to detect the presence of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensisand Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia,Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzaniiand Styela clava) target NIS.Each HighRisk Site is surveyed bi-annually(hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys).This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys atthe 1

@article{tait_enhancing_2018,
	title = {Enhancing passive sampling tools for detecting marine bioinvasions.},
	volume = {128},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18300183},
	abstract = {Early detection is important for successful management of invasive species, but optimising monitoring systems to detect multiple species from different taxonomic groups remains a major challenge. Settlement plates are often used to monitor non-indigenous marine species (NIMS) associated with vessel biofouling, but there have been few assessments of their fitness-for-purpose. We deployed arrays of settlement plates (“settlement arrays”) containing combinations of treatments that reflected conditions associated with the vessel transport pathway (i.e., copper based antifouling coatings, shaded habitat) to determine the treatment combinations that maximised NIMS diversity. Horizontal (shaded) treatments preferentially sampled higher NIS diversity than vertical plates. Although plates with copper-based biocides had larger proportions of NIS to indigenous species, they sampled only a subset of NIS diversity. Overall diversity was greatly enhanced through use of multiple treatments, demonstrating benefits of multi-faceted sampling arrays for maximising the potential taxonomic and species richness.},
	journal = {Marine Pollution Bulletin},
	author = {Tait, L. and Inglis, G. and Seaward, K.},
	year = {2018},
	keywords = {Biodiversity, Biofouling, Copper, Invasion biology, Non-indigenous species (NIS), Settlement plates, Species richness},
	pages = {41--50},
}

Early detection is important for successful management of invasive species, but optimising monitoring systems to detect multiple species from different taxonomic groups remains a major challenge. Settlement plates are often used to monitor non-indigenous marine species (NIMS) associated with vessel biofouling, but there have been few assessments of their fitness-for-purpose. We deployed arrays of settlement plates (“settlement arrays”) containing combinations of treatments that reflected conditions associated with the vessel transport pathway (i.e., copper based antifouling coatings, shaded habitat) to determine the treatment combinations that maximised NIMS diversity. Horizontal (shaded) treatments preferentially sampled higher NIS diversity than vertical plates. Although plates with copper-based biocides had larger proportions of NIS to indigenous species, they sampled only a subset of NIS diversity. Overall diversity was greatly enhanced through use of multiple treatments, demonstrating benefits of multi-faceted sampling arrays for maximising the potential taxonomic and species richness.

@article{soliman_forecasting_2018,
	title = {Forecasting the economic impacts of two biofouling invaders on aquaculture production of green-lipped mussels {Perna} canaliculus in {New} {Zealand}},
	volume = {10},
	issn = {1869-215X, 1869-7534},
	url = {https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/aei/v10/p1-12/},
	doi = {10.3354/aei00249},
	abstract = {Resource managers must weigh the costs of preventing biological invasions against the harm that may eventuate from inaction. The costs of intervention are assured, but impacts are typically uncertain. Quantifying the expected economic impacts of invaders before they occur is a pivotal element in justifying expenditure on intervention. We forecast the cumulative economic impacts of 2 invasive biofouling species (Styela clava and Sabella spallanzanii) on New Zealand green-lipped mussel Perna canaliculus aquaculture by combining outputs from an infestation model and ecosystem energy budget model with partial budgeting and equilibrium models. Simulations considered the direct and combined economic impacts of each species on producers and on export markets for the shellfish. Direct impacts on producers were estimated at NZ\$23.9 million (Styela clava), \$14 million (Sabella spallanzanii) and \$26.4 million (both species combined), over a 24 yr period. Societal impacts at the market level were \$10.2, \$8 and \$10.7 million, respectively. The societal impacts reflect changes in producer and consumer surplus after adjustment to altered market prices. Uncertainty boundaries of the estimates were \$7.4-91.9, \$2.5-56.7 and \$7.4-99.7 million, respectively. We assumed that there are few strong alternatives to the New Zealand product on the world market. Producers therefore benefit from any increase in export price by partially shifting production losses caused by the invaders to foreign consumers. Relaxing this assumption produced greater societal impacts (\$13.3 million). Slowing the spread of the pests, reducing densities and enhancing the premium market position of green-lipped mussels could significantly mitigate the potential impacts.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Aquaculture Environment Interactions},
	author = {Soliman, Tarek and Inglis, Graeme J.},
	month = jan,
	year = {2018},
	keywords = {Bio-economic modelling, Marine invasive species, Pest risk analysis, Sabella spallanzanii, Styela clava},
	pages = {1--12},
}

Resource managers must weigh the costs of preventing biological invasions against the harm that may eventuate from inaction. The costs of intervention are assured, but impacts are typically uncertain. Quantifying the expected economic impacts of invaders before they occur is a pivotal element in justifying expenditure on intervention. We forecast the cumulative economic impacts of 2 invasive biofouling species (Styela clava and Sabella spallanzanii) on New Zealand green-lipped mussel Perna canaliculus aquaculture by combining outputs from an infestation model and ecosystem energy budget model with partial budgeting and equilibrium models. Simulations considered the direct and combined economic impacts of each species on producers and on export markets for the shellfish. Direct impacts on producers were estimated at NZ$23.9 million (Styela clava), $14 million (Sabella spallanzanii) and $26.4 million (both species combined), over a 24 yr period. Societal impacts at the market level were $10.2, $8 and $10.7 million, respectively. The societal impacts reflect changes in producer and consumer surplus after adjustment to altered market prices. Uncertainty boundaries of the estimates were $7.4-91.9, $2.5-56.7 and $7.4-99.7 million, respectively. We assumed that there are few strong alternatives to the New Zealand product on the world market. Producers therefore benefit from any increase in export price by partially shifting production losses caused by the invaders to foreign consumers. Relaxing this assumption produced greater societal impacts ($13.3 million). Slowing the spread of the pests, reducing densities and enhancing the premium market position of green-lipped mussels could significantly mitigate the potential impacts.

@techreport{woods_marine_2018,
	address = {Wellington, N.Z.},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Marine {High}  {Risk}  {Site}  {Surveillance} {Programme} {Annual} {Synopsis} {Report} for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2017–18 ({SOW18048})},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30381/direct},
	abstract = {The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-r isk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of New-to-New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register in New Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives:  (i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and;  (ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensisand Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) target NIS.  Each High R isk Site is surveyed bi-annually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June to September 2017 (the Winter 2017 round of surveys) and November 2017 to March 2018 (the Summer 2017–18 round of surveys).},
	language = {English},
	number = {2018/45},
	urldate = {2020-02-21},
	institution = {MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Pryor Rodgers, Lily and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jun,
	year = {2018},
	pages = {209},
}

The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high-r isk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of New-to-New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register in New Zealand ports and marinas previously identified as the highest risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The programme has two secondary objectives: (i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensisand Potamocorbula amurensis) and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) target NIS. Each High R isk Site is surveyed bi-annually (hereafter referred to as the Winter and Summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June to September 2017 (the Winter 2017 round of surveys) and November 2017 to March 2018 (the Summer 2017–18 round of surveys).

@article{pande_risk-based_2017,
	title = {A risk-based surveillance design for marine pest {Mediterranean} fanworm {Sabella} spallanzanii ({Gmelin}, 1791) ({Polychaete}:sabellidae) - a {New} {Zealand} case study},
	volume = {8},
	url = {https://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2017/2/MBI_2017_Pande_etal.pdf},
	abstract = {To determine the presence, or extent and spread, of marine pests is often difficult and decisions on allocating limited
sampling effort need to be made using available information. This study presents a robust structured methodology to develop
a detection survey for the marine pest Sabella spallanzanii. The design of the detection survey used modelled hydrodynamics
of the area and expert knowledge on settlement characteristics for Sabella. Habitat suitability for settlement was defined based
on expert opinion elicited using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique and a self-administrated questionnaire.
Zones for Sabella settlement were then identified by overlaying suitable habitat areas and hydrodynamic patterns of potential
larval propagule dispersal. Settlement zones were assigned a risk/likelihood ranking to ensure available surveying effort was
allocated efficiently over a potentially wide settlement area. This design was shown to be successful in detecting Sabella.
Provided underlying hydrodynamic information is available, the structured approach to pest species detection presented here
could readily be applied to develop surveillance plans for other broadcast spawning marine pests.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Management of Biological Invasions},
	author = {Pande, Anjali and Acosta, Hernando and Brangenberg, Naya and Knight, Ben},
	month = feb,
	year = {2017},
	pages = {257--265},
}

To determine the presence, or extent and spread, of marine pests is often difficult and decisions on allocating limited sampling effort need to be made using available information. This study presents a robust structured methodology to develop a detection survey for the marine pest Sabella spallanzanii. The design of the detection survey used modelled hydrodynamics of the area and expert knowledge on settlement characteristics for Sabella. Habitat suitability for settlement was defined based on expert opinion elicited using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique and a self-administrated questionnaire. Zones for Sabella settlement were then identified by overlaying suitable habitat areas and hydrodynamic patterns of potential larval propagule dispersal. Settlement zones were assigned a risk/likelihood ranking to ensure available surveying effort was allocated efficiently over a potentially wide settlement area. This design was shown to be successful in detecting Sabella. Provided underlying hydrodynamic information is available, the structured approach to pest species detection presented here could readily be applied to develop surveillance plans for other broadcast spawning marine pests.

@article{pochon_wanted_2017,
	title = {Wanted dead or alive? {Using} metabarcoding of environmental {DNA} and {RNA} to distinguish living assemblages for biosecurity applications},
	volume = {12},
	issn = {1932-6203},
	shorttitle = {Wanted dead or alive?},
	url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187636},
	doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0187636},
	abstract = {High-throughput sequencing metabarcoding studies in marine biosecurity have largely focused on targeting environmental DNA (eDNA). DNA can persist extracellularly in the environment, making discrimination of living organisms difficult. In this study, bilge water samples (i.e., water accumulating on-board a vessel during transit) were collected from 15 small recreational and commercial vessels. eDNA and eRNA molecules were co-extracted and the V4 region of the 18S ribosomal RNA gene targeted for metabarcoding. In total, 62.7\% of the Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) were identified at least once in the corresponding eDNA and eRNA reads, with 19.5\% unique to eDNA and 17.7\% to eRNA. There were substantial differences in diversity between molecular compartments; 57\% of sequences from eDNA-only OTUs belonged to fungi, likely originating from legacy DNA. In contrast, there was a higher percentage of metazoan (50.2\%) and ciliate (31.7\%) sequences in the eRNA-only OTUs. Our data suggest that the presence of eRNA-only OTUs could be due to increased cellular activities of some rare taxa that were not identified in the eDNA datasets, unusually high numbers of rRNA transcripts in ciliates, and/or artefacts produced during the reverse transcriptase, PCR and sequencing steps. The proportions of eDNA/eRNA shared and unshared OTUs were highly heterogeneous within individual bilge water samples. Multiple factors including boat type and the activities performed on-board, such as washing of scientific equipment, may play a major role in contributing to this variability. For some marine biosecurity applications analysis, eDNA-only data may be sufficient, however there are an increasing number of instances where distinguishing the living portion of a community is essential. For these circumstances, we suggest only including OTUs that are present in both eDNA and eRNA data. OTUs found only in the eRNA data need to be interpreted with caution until further research provides conclusive evidence for their origin.},
	language = {en},
	number = {11},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {PLOS ONE},
	author = {Pochon, Xavier and Zaiko, Anastasija and Fletcher, Lauren M. and Laroche, Olivier and Wood, Susanna A.},
	month = nov,
	year = {2017},
	note = {Publisher: Public Library of Science},
	keywords = {Biodiversity, Boats, DNA sequencing, Fungi, Marine biology, Polymerase chain reaction, Ribosomal RNA, Taxonomy},
	pages = {e0187636},
}

High-throughput sequencing metabarcoding studies in marine biosecurity have largely focused on targeting environmental DNA (eDNA). DNA can persist extracellularly in the environment, making discrimination of living organisms difficult. In this study, bilge water samples (i.e., water accumulating on-board a vessel during transit) were collected from 15 small recreational and commercial vessels. eDNA and eRNA molecules were co-extracted and the V4 region of the 18S ribosomal RNA gene targeted for metabarcoding. In total, 62.7% of the Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) were identified at least once in the corresponding eDNA and eRNA reads, with 19.5% unique to eDNA and 17.7% to eRNA. There were substantial differences in diversity between molecular compartments; 57% of sequences from eDNA-only OTUs belonged to fungi, likely originating from legacy DNA. In contrast, there was a higher percentage of metazoan (50.2%) and ciliate (31.7%) sequences in the eRNA-only OTUs. Our data suggest that the presence of eRNA-only OTUs could be due to increased cellular activities of some rare taxa that were not identified in the eDNA datasets, unusually high numbers of rRNA transcripts in ciliates, and/or artefacts produced during the reverse transcriptase, PCR and sequencing steps. The proportions of eDNA/eRNA shared and unshared OTUs were highly heterogeneous within individual bilge water samples. Multiple factors including boat type and the activities performed on-board, such as washing of scientific equipment, may play a major role in contributing to this variability. For some marine biosecurity applications analysis, eDNA-only data may be sufficient, however there are an increasing number of instances where distinguishing the living portion of a community is essential. For these circumstances, we suggest only including OTUs that are present in both eDNA and eRNA data. OTUs found only in the eRNA data need to be interpreted with caution until further research provides conclusive evidence for their origin.

@article{fletcher_bilge_2017,
	title = {Bilge water as a vector for the spread of marine pests: a morphological, metabarcoding and experimental assessment},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {1573-1464},
	shorttitle = {Bilge water as a vector for the spread of marine pests},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1489-y},
	doi = {10.1007/s10530-017-1489-y},
	abstract = {Vessel movements are considered the primary anthropogenic pathway for the secondary spread of marine non-indigenous species. In comparison to the well-studied mechanisms of hull fouling and ballast water, the importance of bilge water for domestic and cross-regional spread of non-indigenous species is largely unknown and has the potential to compromise the overall effectiveness of biosecurity management actions. In this study, the diversity and abundance of biological material contained in bilge water from 30 small vessels ({\textless}20 m) was assessed using traditional and molecular identification tools (metabarcoding of the 18S rRNA gene). Laboratory-based studies were also used to investigate the relationship between voyage duration and propagule success. A large taxonomic diversity in organisms was detected, with 118 and 45 distinct taxa identified through molecular and morphological analyses, respectively. Molecular techniques identified five species recognised as non-indigenous to the study region in 23 of the 30 bilge water samples analysed. Larvae and fragments passed through an experimental bilge pump system relatively unharmed. Time spent in the bilge sump was found to affect discharge success, particularly of short-lived and sensitive larvae, but survival for 3 days was observed. Our findings show that bilge water discharges are likely to pose a non-negligible biosecurity threat and that further research to identify high-risk vessel operating profiles and potential mitigation measures are warranted.},
	language = {en},
	number = {10},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	journal = {Biological Invasions},
	author = {Fletcher, Lauren M. and Zaiko, Anastasija and Atalah, Javier and Richter, Ingrid and Dufour, Celine M. and Pochon, Xavier and Wood, Susana A. and Hopkins, Grant A.},
	month = oct,
	year = {2017},
	pages = {2851--2867},
}

Vessel movements are considered the primary anthropogenic pathway for the secondary spread of marine non-indigenous species. In comparison to the well-studied mechanisms of hull fouling and ballast water, the importance of bilge water for domestic and cross-regional spread of non-indigenous species is largely unknown and has the potential to compromise the overall effectiveness of biosecurity management actions. In this study, the diversity and abundance of biological material contained in bilge water from 30 small vessels (\textless20 m) was assessed using traditional and molecular identification tools (metabarcoding of the 18S rRNA gene). Laboratory-based studies were also used to investigate the relationship between voyage duration and propagule success. A large taxonomic diversity in organisms was detected, with 118 and 45 distinct taxa identified through molecular and morphological analyses, respectively. Molecular techniques identified five species recognised as non-indigenous to the study region in 23 of the 30 bilge water samples analysed. Larvae and fragments passed through an experimental bilge pump system relatively unharmed. Time spent in the bilge sump was found to affect discharge success, particularly of short-lived and sensitive larvae, but survival for 3 days was observed. Our findings show that bilge water discharges are likely to pose a non-negligible biosecurity threat and that further research to identify high-risk vessel operating profiles and potential mitigation measures are warranted.

@techreport{woods_marine_2017,
	title = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance} {Programme}: {Annual} report for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2016–17 ({SOW18048}).},
	shorttitle = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance} {Programme}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/19004/direct},
	abstract = {The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of New to New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register at ports and marinas throughout New Zealand previously identified as high risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The MHRSS programme also has two secondary objectives, which are: (i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis), and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) target NIS. Each High Risk Site is surveyed bi-annually (hereafter referred to as the winter and summer surveys).

This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June–September 2016 (the Winter 2016 round of surveys) and November 2016–May 2017 (the Summer 2016–17 round of surveys).

The number of locations sampled generally met the overall MHRSS programme survey targets. A total of 2849 locations (98.1\% of target 2903) were surveyed during the Winter 2016 surveys. A total of 2923 locations (100.7\% of target 2903) were surveyed during the Summer 2016–17 surveys. No primary target species were detected, but all four secondary target species were detected at various locations and times:
• Arcuatula senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Waitemata (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17).
• Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17).
• Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Lyttelton (Winter 2016); Nelson (Summer 2016–17); Picton (Winter 2016); Tauranga (Summer 2016–17); Waitemata (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17).
• Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Lyttelton (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Nelson (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Opua (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Otago (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Picton (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Tauranga (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Waitemata (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Wellington (Winter 2016); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17).

The number of specimens collected and sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) for formal identification per survey ranged from none to 12. The total numbers of specimens sent to MITS were 24 for the Winter 2016 round and 47 for the Summer 2016–17 round.

Five of the 24 specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2016 surveys were NIS, including the red alga Grateloupia turuturu (Lyttelton, and G. cf. turuturu from Nelson), the caprellid amphipod Caprella cf. penantis (Tauranga), the fish Chironemus maculosus (Port Taranaki) and the solitary ascidian Styela clava (Wellington).
• The record of C. cf. penantis from Tauranga Harbour represents a New to New Zealand record
• The record of C. maculosus from Port Taranaki represents a MHRSS programme range extension.

Ten of the 47 specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2016–17 surveys were NIS, including the caprellid amphipod Caprella scauroides (Waitemata), the amphipod Apocorophium acutum (Waitemata) and the colonial ascidians Botrylloides giganteum (Whangarei), Clavelina lepadiformis (Wellington), Polyandrocarpa zorritensis (Whangarei) and Symplegma brakenhielmi (Waitemata and Whangarei).
• The record of C. scauroides from Waitemata Harbour represents a New to New Zealand record
• The record of C. lepadiformis from Wellington Harbour represents a MHRSS programme range extension.

MPI was informed of the New to New Zealand species and range extensions at the time of collection, or the time that specimen identity was confirmed.},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Inglis, Graeme and Pryor Rodgers, Lily},
	month = jul,
	year = {2017},
	doi = {10.13140/RG.2.2.23903.56486},
}

The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) is a national programme of surveys targeted at the early detection of high risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS programme is to detect incursions of New to New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register at ports and marinas throughout New Zealand previously identified as high risk for the introduction and establishment of marine NIS. The MHRSS programme also has two secondary objectives, which are: (i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS programme is designed to detect the presence of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis), and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) target NIS. Each High Risk Site is surveyed bi-annually (hereafter referred to as the winter and summer surveys). This Annual Synopsis Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites during the periods June–September 2016 (the Winter 2016 round of surveys) and November 2016–May 2017 (the Summer 2016–17 round of surveys). The number of locations sampled generally met the overall MHRSS programme survey targets. A total of 2849 locations (98.1% of target 2903) were surveyed during the Winter 2016 surveys. A total of 2923 locations (100.7% of target 2903) were surveyed during the Summer 2016–17 surveys. No primary target species were detected, but all four secondary target species were detected at various locations and times: • Arcuatula senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Waitemata (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17). • Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17). • Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Lyttelton (Winter 2016); Nelson (Summer 2016–17); Picton (Winter 2016); Tauranga (Summer 2016–17); Waitemata (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17). • Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Lyttelton (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Nelson (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Opua (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Otago (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Picton (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Tauranga (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Waitemata (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17); Wellington (Winter 2016); and Whangarei (Winter 2016, Summer 2016–17). The number of specimens collected and sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) for formal identification per survey ranged from none to 12. The total numbers of specimens sent to MITS were 24 for the Winter 2016 round and 47 for the Summer 2016–17 round. Five of the 24 specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2016 surveys were NIS, including the red alga Grateloupia turuturu (Lyttelton, and G. cf. turuturu from Nelson), the caprellid amphipod Caprella cf. penantis (Tauranga), the fish Chironemus maculosus (Port Taranaki) and the solitary ascidian Styela clava (Wellington). • The record of C. cf. penantis from Tauranga Harbour represents a New to New Zealand record • The record of C. maculosus from Port Taranaki represents a MHRSS programme range extension. Ten of the 47 specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2016–17 surveys were NIS, including the caprellid amphipod Caprella scauroides (Waitemata), the amphipod Apocorophium acutum (Waitemata) and the colonial ascidians Botrylloides giganteum (Whangarei), Clavelina lepadiformis (Wellington), Polyandrocarpa zorritensis (Whangarei) and Symplegma brakenhielmi (Waitemata and Whangarei). • The record of C. scauroides from Waitemata Harbour represents a New to New Zealand record • The record of C. lepadiformis from Wellington Harbour represents a MHRSS programme range extension. MPI was informed of the New to New Zealand species and range extensions at the time of collection, or the time that specimen identity was confirmed.

@techreport{inglis_indicators_2016,
	title = {Indicators of non-indigenous species in marine systems.},
	url = {https://data.mfe.govt.nz/document/12667-inglis-and-seaward-2016-indicators-of-non-indigenous-species-in-marine-systems/},
	author = {Inglis, G. and Seaward, K.},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {74},
}

@techreport{georgiades_options_2016,
	type = {Technical {Paper}},
	title = {Options to {Strengthen} {On}-farm {Biosecurity} {Management} for {Commercial} and {Non}-commercial {Aquaculture}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/13287-options-to-strengthen-on-farm-biosecurity-management-for-commercial-and-non-commercial-aquaculture},
	abstract = {Aquaculture facilities have an inherent risk of pest and pathogen introduction, exacerbation or
spread. Biosecurity measures can be employed to effectively manage these risks.
People involved at any level of the aquaculture industry play a vital role to New Zealand’s
biosecurity system. Maintaining good on-farm biosecurity practices can minimise the
potential impact of pests and pathogens to farms, sectors, the wider industry and
New Zealand’s aquatic environment. Following good biosecurity practices demonstrates to
others that the New Zealand aquaculture industry is a responsible user of the aquatic
environment, reduces impacts to markets, and ensures New Zealand’s reputation for high
environmental performance.
To assist the commercial and non-commercial aquaculture industry to strengthen their onfarm biosecurity practices, the Ministry for Primary Industries, in collaboration with
Aquaculture New Zealand, have produced this technical document and associated reference
material and templates. This information can be found on the MPI website www.mpi.govt.nz.
This document provides technical information, biosecurity objectives and best practice
options to enable farmers to make informed decisions regarding their on-farm biosecurity
management. The objectives and options are based on national and international “best
practice” from both the regulatory and the aquaculture industry perspectives. These have been
shown to successfully prevent or manage the introduction, exacerbation or spread of pests and
pathogens on aquaculture facilities.
This document provides information to enable the uptake of effective on-farm biosecurity
management, including:
• suggested options to strengthen on-farm biosecurity management;
• identification of many, but not all, of the risk organisms associated with the species
within document scope; and
• ideas to help protect your business, sector, industry and the New Zealand aquatic
environment.
This document does not set prescriptive measures, practices, rules or requirements on farmers.
Biosecurity measures adopted by farmers should be practical and fit for purpose. The options
identified within this document represent a starting point for the implementation of general
on-farm biosecurity procedures for each farm based on their own site-specific conditions.
Ideally each individual biosecurity procedure should be implemented with the understanding
that it will work within a wider biosecurity plan},
	number = {No: 2016/47},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	author = {Georgiades, Eugene and Fraser, Richard and Jones, Brian},
	month = jul,
	year = {2016},
}

Aquaculture facilities have an inherent risk of pest and pathogen introduction, exacerbation or spread. Biosecurity measures can be employed to effectively manage these risks. People involved at any level of the aquaculture industry play a vital role to New Zealand’s biosecurity system. Maintaining good on-farm biosecurity practices can minimise the potential impact of pests and pathogens to farms, sectors, the wider industry and New Zealand’s aquatic environment. Following good biosecurity practices demonstrates to others that the New Zealand aquaculture industry is a responsible user of the aquatic environment, reduces impacts to markets, and ensures New Zealand’s reputation for high environmental performance. To assist the commercial and non-commercial aquaculture industry to strengthen their onfarm biosecurity practices, the Ministry for Primary Industries, in collaboration with Aquaculture New Zealand, have produced this technical document and associated reference material and templates. This information can be found on the MPI website www.mpi.govt.nz. This document provides technical information, biosecurity objectives and best practice options to enable farmers to make informed decisions regarding their on-farm biosecurity management. The objectives and options are based on national and international “best practice” from both the regulatory and the aquaculture industry perspectives. These have been shown to successfully prevent or manage the introduction, exacerbation or spread of pests and pathogens on aquaculture facilities. This document provides information to enable the uptake of effective on-farm biosecurity management, including: • suggested options to strengthen on-farm biosecurity management; • identification of many, but not all, of the risk organisms associated with the species within document scope; and • ideas to help protect your business, sector, industry and the New Zealand aquatic environment. This document does not set prescriptive measures, practices, rules or requirements on farmers. Biosecurity measures adopted by farmers should be practical and fit for purpose. The options identified within this document represent a starting point for the implementation of general on-farm biosecurity procedures for each farm based on their own site-specific conditions. Ideally each individual biosecurity procedure should be implemented with the understanding that it will work within a wider biosecurity plan

@techreport{sim-smith_managing_2016,
	title = {Managing {Biosecurity} {Risk} for {Business} {Benefit}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11743-managing-biosecurity-risk-for-business-benefit-aquaculture-biosecurity-practices-research},
	abstract = {New Zealand’s geographical isolation and border controls have kept New Zealand relatively
free from pests and diseases that commonly affect aquaculture production elsewhere in the
world. However, biosecurity and biological threats remain a threat to New Zealand’s
aquaculture and fisheries industries, as this can lead to losses in production and potential
impacts to trade and tourism caused by emerging or introduced pests and diseases. These
risks can be managed through the implementation of border controls, marine users taking
steps to prevent pest and disease spread and farm operators using farm management practices
such as good husbandry and having on-farm biosecurity plans.
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Aquaculture NZ have collaborated on a
project entitled “Identification of On-Farm Aquaculture Biosecurity Management Options”.
The project provides options to enhance on-farm biosecurity protection for New Zealand’s
commercial and non-commercial aquaculture sectors.
In order to develop the on-farm biosecurity management options, it was first necessary to
understand the current farming practices, on-farm biosecurity management, and concerns and
perceptions of the farmers themselves. MPI contracted Coast and Catchment Ltd to carry out
this research with the in-kind support from Aquaculture NZ.
The research findings presented in this report have been combined with the assessment of
information on the potential biosecurity risks to the aquaculture industry and trout producers
(organisms and pathways). MPI, with input from the aquaculture industry, and trout
producers have developed, a set of relevant best practice options to inform on-farm
biosecurity management. The final product is practical and effective in preventing and
reducing pests and diseases impacting commercial and non-commercial aquaculture facilities.
Uptake of options can flow into updated industry environmental management systems,
sustainable management frameworks, operational procedures and any future biosecurity
planning whether voluntary or more formally agreed readiness and response measures as part
of a Government Industry Agreement.
Good biosecurity management at the farm level both strengthens the sectors’ role as
responsible users of the aquatic environment and maintains New Zealand’s reputation for high
environmental performance. The Identification of On-Farm Aquaculture Biosecurity
Management Options project supports the sustainable growth of the aquaculture sector and
non-commercial sectors.},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	institution = {Coast \& Catchment Ltd Environmental Consultants},
	author = {Sim-Smith, Carina and Faire, Stacey and Lees, Annette},
	month = jul,
	year = {2016},
}

New Zealand’s geographical isolation and border controls have kept New Zealand relatively free from pests and diseases that commonly affect aquaculture production elsewhere in the world. However, biosecurity and biological threats remain a threat to New Zealand’s aquaculture and fisheries industries, as this can lead to losses in production and potential impacts to trade and tourism caused by emerging or introduced pests and diseases. These risks can be managed through the implementation of border controls, marine users taking steps to prevent pest and disease spread and farm operators using farm management practices such as good husbandry and having on-farm biosecurity plans. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Aquaculture NZ have collaborated on a project entitled “Identification of On-Farm Aquaculture Biosecurity Management Options”. The project provides options to enhance on-farm biosecurity protection for New Zealand’s commercial and non-commercial aquaculture sectors. In order to develop the on-farm biosecurity management options, it was first necessary to understand the current farming practices, on-farm biosecurity management, and concerns and perceptions of the farmers themselves. MPI contracted Coast and Catchment Ltd to carry out this research with the in-kind support from Aquaculture NZ. The research findings presented in this report have been combined with the assessment of information on the potential biosecurity risks to the aquaculture industry and trout producers (organisms and pathways). MPI, with input from the aquaculture industry, and trout producers have developed, a set of relevant best practice options to inform on-farm biosecurity management. The final product is practical and effective in preventing and reducing pests and diseases impacting commercial and non-commercial aquaculture facilities. Uptake of options can flow into updated industry environmental management systems, sustainable management frameworks, operational procedures and any future biosecurity planning whether voluntary or more formally agreed readiness and response measures as part of a Government Industry Agreement. Good biosecurity management at the farm level both strengthens the sectors’ role as responsible users of the aquatic environment and maintains New Zealand’s reputation for high environmental performance. The Identification of On-Farm Aquaculture Biosecurity Management Options project supports the sustainable growth of the aquaculture sector and non-commercial sectors.

@techreport{ministry_for_primary_industries_aquaculture_2016,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	title = {Aquaculture {Biosecurity} {Handbook}, {Assisting} {New} {Zealand}'s commercial and non-commerical aquaculture to minimise on-farm biosecurity risk},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/13293},
	abstract = {This handbook provides guidance to strengthen
your on-farm biosecurity management to
protect your business, industry and stock. These
practices can help you minimise unnecessary
costs and production losses, and reduce the
risk of losing market access. By following good
on-farm biosecurity practices you will be better
placed to cope with a potential pest or disease
outbreak.
An industry that is better informed will:
» avoid problems rather than try and solve them
» make informed decisions
» minimise the impacts by being prepared if
something does arise
» maintain and improve your role as a
responsible user of the aquatic environment.
Preventive biosecurity is more cost effective than
reactively trying to solve a problem once it has
occurred. The best way to start is to understand
the risks associated with your farm and industry,
and to undertake good biosecurity practices to
manage and minimise them where practical.},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	author = {Ministry for Primary Industries},
	month = jul,
	year = {2016},
}

This handbook provides guidance to strengthen your on-farm biosecurity management to protect your business, industry and stock. These practices can help you minimise unnecessary costs and production losses, and reduce the risk of losing market access. By following good on-farm biosecurity practices you will be better placed to cope with a potential pest or disease outbreak. An industry that is better informed will: » avoid problems rather than try and solve them » make informed decisions » minimise the impacts by being prepared if something does arise » maintain and improve your role as a responsible user of the aquatic environment. Preventive biosecurity is more cost effective than reactively trying to solve a problem once it has occurred. The best way to start is to understand the risks associated with your farm and industry, and to undertake good biosecurity practices to manage and minimise them where practical.

@techreport{tait_optimising_2016,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Optimising settlement arrays for surveillance of non-indigenous species: results and recommendations following settlement array field trials},
	shorttitle = {Optimising settlement arrays for surveillance of non-indigenous species},
	url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leigh_Tait/publication/311734841_Optimising_settlement_arrays_for_surveillance_of_non-indigenous_biofouling_species_literature_review/links/585840e008ae3852d25441e4.pdf},
	number = {No: 2016/70},
	author = {Tait, Leigh and Inglis, Graeme and Seaward, Kimberley and Spong, Keren and Wilkens, Serena},
	month = nov,
	year = {2016},
	doi = {10.13140/RG.2.2.33138.71361},
}

@techreport{tait_optimising_2016-1,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Optimising settlement arrays for surveillance of non-indigenous biofouling species. {Literature} review},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15067/direct},
	abstract = {The Ministry for Primary Industries commissioned an evaluation of the utility of passive
sampling devices or “settlement arrays” for early detection of marine non-indigenous species
(NIS) to complement the sampling methods currently used in the national Marine High Risk
Site Surveillance (MHRSS). Passive sampling methods have a long history of use in marine
biological research, where they have been used predominantly to study the recruitment of
sessile marine organisms from planktonic life stages (larvae, spores, etc.) into a benthic
juvenile or adult phase. They may have some advantages (and disadvantages) over current
sampling methods used in the MHRSS including:
• the ability to sample species continuously over a period of time (“time integrated
sampling”),
• the ability to sample locations that are inaccessible to divers and other sampling
methods,
• the ability to sample juvenile (pre-reproductive) stages of NIS, and
• less dependence on specialist expertise to obtain the samples.
This literature review forms the first component of the evaluation. It is intended to inform the
design of subsequent field trials of the arrays to optimise their use for detecting a broad range
of non-indigenous biofouling organisms.
The review summarises current knowledge on the use of passive sampling methods in marine
biosecurity surveillance and aspects of the design and deployment of settlement arrays that
are likely to influence the types and abundances of biofouling organisms sampled by them.
Published scientific literature, unpublished technical reports and scientific experts were
consulted to evaluate the importance of a range of design and environmental influences on the
biofouling assemblages sampled by settlement arrays. These included:
• the type and colour of material,
• plate size,
• depth of deployment,
• orientation,
• surface roughness,
• period of deployment (season and duration),
• presence of antifouling coatings (including methods used to prematurely age the
coatings),
• broad taxonomic differences in settlement preferences, and
• the number and spatial distribution of arrays.
The review identified a number of key characteristics of settlement arrays that have a strong
influence on the types of biofouling organisms that recruit to them. Most important were the
timing, duration and depth of deployment, orientation (and shading) of the surfaces, surface
rugosity, predation and the presence of antifouling coatings. By comparison, the type of
material used to construct the surfaces and its size appear to have relatively minor effects on
the composition and richness of the assemblages, but did affect the abundance of individual
species.
Ministry for Primary Industries Optimising settlement arrays for surveillance of non-indigenous biofouling species • 1
The presence of light and accumulation of sediment on deployed structures have important
influences on biofouling macroalgae and invertebrates. Macroalgal species are more
frequently observed on vertically-oriented and upward-facing structures at shallow depths ({\textless}
5 m), where there is limited light attenuation. In contrast, the accumulation of sediment on
upward-facing surfaces in estuarine environments limits recruitment of invertebrates, many of
which exhibit a preference for the shaded undersides of surfaces or on vertically-oriented
structures where sediment cannot collect.
Studies have highlighted the importance of fish predation on settlement array assemblages
whereby unprotected settlement arrays develop different assemblages compared to protected
surfaces, particularly at tropical latitudes.
The presence of biocidal antifouling coatings inhibits recruitment of biofouling organisms,
but as the coating degrades the composition of the assemblage is influenced by the tolerance
of different species to the residual biocides. Many non-indigenous barnacles, bryozoans, and
polychaete worms, in particular, exhibit a high tolerance to common antifouling biocides and
occur earlier and in greater abundance on biocidal coated surfaces.
Although settlement arrays are used in a number of marine biosecurity applications overseas,
there have been relatively few assessments of their utility for early detection of biofouling
NIS. A disadvantage of this method for early detection is that, like other methods of passive
sampling, the relationship between the presence and abundance of the target species within
the environment and its detection on the settlement surface is complex and difficult to
quantify. For biofouling species, this can mean that:
• uncommon (rare) biofouling species, including those that are at an early stage of
population establishment, will be under-sampled, and
• absence from an array does not necessarily mean the absence of an established
population (because of species-specific variation in settlement preferences).
Although arrays can be deployed and retrieved by people with limited scientific knowledge,
another disadvantage associated with the use of settlement arrays is that, identification of
accumulated organisms requires specialist taxonomic expertise and can be time-consuming,
sometimes requiring up to 4 h processing per plate, and expensive. In Australia, Canada and
the USA, where non-specialists have been used to implement surveillance using settlement
arrays, the programmes are focussed on a suite of target species, rather than all potential NIS.
Based on the results of the review, and taking into account the constraints of the project
budget, it is recommended that the proposed field trials incorporate experimental treatments
to determine the best combination of array design features to complement the MHRSS
programme:
• orientation of plates (vertical vs. horizontal undersides),
• predation cages (caged and uncaged),
• presence of antifouling coating (three levels: non-biocidal control, thin antifouling top
coat and moderate antifouling top coat), and
• surface rugosity (rough only).
The plates should be constructed of polyvinyl chloride and all plates should be deployed at
2 m depth from floating structures. A minimum of ten replicates of each treatment condition
should be deployed to allow a robust assessment of their ability to sample NIS richness. The
plates should be deployed for a minimum of three months to allow biofouling to reach a size
and maturity to enable high taxonomic resolution.},
	number = {No: 2016/71},
	urldate = {2020-12-14},
	author = {Tait, Leigh and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = nov,
	year = {2016},
	pages = {53},
}

The Ministry for Primary Industries commissioned an evaluation of the utility of passive sampling devices or “settlement arrays” for early detection of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) to complement the sampling methods currently used in the national Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS). Passive sampling methods have a long history of use in marine biological research, where they have been used predominantly to study the recruitment of sessile marine organisms from planktonic life stages (larvae, spores, etc.) into a benthic juvenile or adult phase. They may have some advantages (and disadvantages) over current sampling methods used in the MHRSS including: • the ability to sample species continuously over a period of time (“time integrated sampling”), • the ability to sample locations that are inaccessible to divers and other sampling methods, • the ability to sample juvenile (pre-reproductive) stages of NIS, and • less dependence on specialist expertise to obtain the samples. This literature review forms the first component of the evaluation. It is intended to inform the design of subsequent field trials of the arrays to optimise their use for detecting a broad range of non-indigenous biofouling organisms. The review summarises current knowledge on the use of passive sampling methods in marine biosecurity surveillance and aspects of the design and deployment of settlement arrays that are likely to influence the types and abundances of biofouling organisms sampled by them. Published scientific literature, unpublished technical reports and scientific experts were consulted to evaluate the importance of a range of design and environmental influences on the biofouling assemblages sampled by settlement arrays. These included: • the type and colour of material, • plate size, • depth of deployment, • orientation, • surface roughness, • period of deployment (season and duration), • presence of antifouling coatings (including methods used to prematurely age the coatings), • broad taxonomic differences in settlement preferences, and • the number and spatial distribution of arrays. The review identified a number of key characteristics of settlement arrays that have a strong influence on the types of biofouling organisms that recruit to them. Most important were the timing, duration and depth of deployment, orientation (and shading) of the surfaces, surface rugosity, predation and the presence of antifouling coatings. By comparison, the type of material used to construct the surfaces and its size appear to have relatively minor effects on the composition and richness of the assemblages, but did affect the abundance of individual species. Ministry for Primary Industries Optimising settlement arrays for surveillance of non-indigenous biofouling species • 1 The presence of light and accumulation of sediment on deployed structures have important influences on biofouling macroalgae and invertebrates. Macroalgal species are more frequently observed on vertically-oriented and upward-facing structures at shallow depths (\textless 5 m), where there is limited light attenuation. In contrast, the accumulation of sediment on upward-facing surfaces in estuarine environments limits recruitment of invertebrates, many of which exhibit a preference for the shaded undersides of surfaces or on vertically-oriented structures where sediment cannot collect. Studies have highlighted the importance of fish predation on settlement array assemblages whereby unprotected settlement arrays develop different assemblages compared to protected surfaces, particularly at tropical latitudes. The presence of biocidal antifouling coatings inhibits recruitment of biofouling organisms, but as the coating degrades the composition of the assemblage is influenced by the tolerance of different species to the residual biocides. Many non-indigenous barnacles, bryozoans, and polychaete worms, in particular, exhibit a high tolerance to common antifouling biocides and occur earlier and in greater abundance on biocidal coated surfaces. Although settlement arrays are used in a number of marine biosecurity applications overseas, there have been relatively few assessments of their utility for early detection of biofouling NIS. A disadvantage of this method for early detection is that, like other methods of passive sampling, the relationship between the presence and abundance of the target species within the environment and its detection on the settlement surface is complex and difficult to quantify. For biofouling species, this can mean that: • uncommon (rare) biofouling species, including those that are at an early stage of population establishment, will be under-sampled, and • absence from an array does not necessarily mean the absence of an established population (because of species-specific variation in settlement preferences). Although arrays can be deployed and retrieved by people with limited scientific knowledge, another disadvantage associated with the use of settlement arrays is that, identification of accumulated organisms requires specialist taxonomic expertise and can be time-consuming, sometimes requiring up to 4 h processing per plate, and expensive. In Australia, Canada and the USA, where non-specialists have been used to implement surveillance using settlement arrays, the programmes are focussed on a suite of target species, rather than all potential NIS. Based on the results of the review, and taking into account the constraints of the project budget, it is recommended that the proposed field trials incorporate experimental treatments to determine the best combination of array design features to complement the MHRSS programme: • orientation of plates (vertical vs. horizontal undersides), • predation cages (caged and uncaged), • presence of antifouling coating (three levels: non-biocidal control, thin antifouling top coat and moderate antifouling top coat), and • surface rugosity (rough only). The plates should be constructed of polyvinyl chloride and all plates should be deployed at 2 m depth from floating structures. A minimum of ten replicates of each treatment condition should be deployed to allow a robust assessment of their ability to sample NIS richness. The plates should be deployed for a minimum of three months to allow biofouling to reach a size and maturity to enable high taxonomic resolution.

@techreport{woods_marine_2016,
	title = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance} {Programme}: {Annual} report for all {High} {Risk} {Sites} 2015–16 ({Project} 12099)},
	shorttitle = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance} {Programme}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/13350/direct},
	abstract = {The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) Programme is a national programme of surveys that are targeted at the early detection of particular High Risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS Programme is to detect incursions of New to New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register at High Risk Sites throughout New Zealand. The MHRSS Programme also has two secondary objectives, which are: (i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS Programme is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis), and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) target non-indigenous marine animals and plants.
This Annual Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites (ports and marinas) covered by the MHRSS Programme during the periods May–September 2015 (the Winter 2015 round of surveys) and November 2015–March 2016 (the Summer 2015–16 round of surveys).
The number of locations sampled met the target sampling effort on all surveys, apart from the Winter 2015 Otago Harbour survey (99.6\% target achieved – sampling count error in the field), with 2934 locations (101.1\% of target) surveyed during Winter 2015, and 2918 locations (100.5\% of target) surveyed during Summer 2015–16. No primary target species were detected, but all four secondary target species were detected at various locations and times:
Arcuatula senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter2015, Summer 2015–16); and Whangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16).
Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2015,Summer 2015–16); and Whangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16).
Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter2015, Summer 2015–16); Lyttelton (Winter 2015), Nelson (Winter 2015, Summer2015–16); Tauranga (Summer 2015–16); Wellington (Summer 2015–16); andWhangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16).
Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Lyttelton (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Nelson (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Opua (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Otago (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Picton (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Tauranga (Winter 2015, Summer 2015-16); Wellington (Summer 2015–16); and Whangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16).
Numbers of specimens collected and sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) for formal identification per survey ranged from none to 16, and the total numbers of specimens sent were 28 for the Winter 2015 round of surveys and 72 for the Summer 2015–16 round.
Seven of the 28 specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2015 survey were NIS, including the red algae Grateloupia turuturu and Schizymenia apoda (both Lyttelton), the colonial ascidians Botrylloides leachii and Didemnum vexillum (both Opua), and the bryozoans Celleporaria nodulosa (Tauranga) and Celleporaria umbonatoidea (Opua).
The record of S. apoda from Lyttelton represents a MHRSS Programme range extension (previously known from Otago, Picton and Wellington harbours).
Twenty-seven of the 72 specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2015–16 survey were NIS, including the brown algae Stictyosiphon soriferus (Wellington) and Undaria pinnatifida (Port Taranaki and Wellington), the red algae Grateloupia turuturu (Port Taranaki) and Griffithsia crassiuscula (Otago), the caprellid amphipod Caprella mutica (Picton), the annelid (polychaete worm) Sabella spallanzanii (Auckland and Tauranga), the colonial ascidian Botrylloides leachii (Otago), the solitary ascidians Ascidiella aspersa (Otago), Ciona intestinalis (Picton), Clavelina lepadiformis (Picton), Polyandrocarpa zorritensis (Whangarei) and Styela clava (Tauranga), the bryozoan Amathia verticillata (Auckland, Nelson and Tauranga), and the sponge Halisarca dujardini (Wellington).
The record of P. zorritensis from Marsden Cove Marina in Whangarei Harbourrepresents a MHRSS Programme range extension (previously known fromTauranga).
The record of C. mutica from Waikawa Marina in Picton represents a MHRSSProgramme range extension (previously known from Bluff, Lyttelton and Otago).
The record of C. lepadiformis from Waikawa Marina in Picton represents a MHRSSProgramme range extension (previously known from Nelson).
A sponge collected during the Whangarei Harbour summer survey (Phlyctaenopora (Barbozia) n. sp.) represents a New to New Zealand native species.
MPI was informed of the range extensions and New to New Zealand species at the time of collection, or the time that specimen identity was confirmed.},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jun,
	year = {2016},
	doi = {10.13140/RG.2.2.23580.90243},
}

The Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) Programme is a national programme of surveys that are targeted at the early detection of particular High Risk marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The primary objective of the MHRSS Programme is to detect incursions of New to New Zealand non-indigenous organisms listed on the Unwanted Organisms Register at High Risk Sites throughout New Zealand. The MHRSS Programme also has two secondary objectives, which are: (i) to detect incursions of marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms not previously recorded in New Zealand, and; (ii) to detect range extensions by marine NIS or cryptogenic organisms that are already established in New Zealand waters. The MHRSS Programme is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary (Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Caulerpa taxifolia, Eriocheir sinensis and Potamocorbula amurensis), and four secondary (Arcuatula senhousia, Eudistoma elongatum, Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) target non-indigenous marine animals and plants. This Annual Report details the targeted surveillance surveys at the 11 High Risk Sites (ports and marinas) covered by the MHRSS Programme during the periods May–September 2015 (the Winter 2015 round of surveys) and November 2015–March 2016 (the Summer 2015–16 round of surveys). The number of locations sampled met the target sampling effort on all surveys, apart from the Winter 2015 Otago Harbour survey (99.6% target achieved – sampling count error in the field), with 2934 locations (101.1% of target) surveyed during Winter 2015, and 2918 locations (100.5% of target) surveyed during Summer 2015–16. No primary target species were detected, but all four secondary target species were detected at various locations and times: Arcuatula senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter2015, Summer 2015–16); and Whangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16). Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2015,Summer 2015–16); and Whangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16). Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter2015, Summer 2015–16); Lyttelton (Winter 2015), Nelson (Winter 2015, Summer2015–16); Tauranga (Summer 2015–16); Wellington (Summer 2015–16); andWhangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16). Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Lyttelton (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Nelson (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Opua (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Otago (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Picton (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16); Tauranga (Winter 2015, Summer 2015-16); Wellington (Summer 2015–16); and Whangarei (Winter 2015, Summer 2015–16). Numbers of specimens collected and sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) for formal identification per survey ranged from none to 16, and the total numbers of specimens sent were 28 for the Winter 2015 round of surveys and 72 for the Summer 2015–16 round. Seven of the 28 specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2015 survey were NIS, including the red algae Grateloupia turuturu and Schizymenia apoda (both Lyttelton), the colonial ascidians Botrylloides leachii and Didemnum vexillum (both Opua), and the bryozoans Celleporaria nodulosa (Tauranga) and Celleporaria umbonatoidea (Opua). The record of S. apoda from Lyttelton represents a MHRSS Programme range extension (previously known from Otago, Picton and Wellington harbours). Twenty-seven of the 72 specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2015–16 survey were NIS, including the brown algae Stictyosiphon soriferus (Wellington) and Undaria pinnatifida (Port Taranaki and Wellington), the red algae Grateloupia turuturu (Port Taranaki) and Griffithsia crassiuscula (Otago), the caprellid amphipod Caprella mutica (Picton), the annelid (polychaete worm) Sabella spallanzanii (Auckland and Tauranga), the colonial ascidian Botrylloides leachii (Otago), the solitary ascidians Ascidiella aspersa (Otago), Ciona intestinalis (Picton), Clavelina lepadiformis (Picton), Polyandrocarpa zorritensis (Whangarei) and Styela clava (Tauranga), the bryozoan Amathia verticillata (Auckland, Nelson and Tauranga), and the sponge Halisarca dujardini (Wellington). The record of P. zorritensis from Marsden Cove Marina in Whangarei Harbourrepresents a MHRSS Programme range extension (previously known fromTauranga). The record of C. mutica from Waikawa Marina in Picton represents a MHRSSProgramme range extension (previously known from Bluff, Lyttelton and Otago). The record of C. lepadiformis from Waikawa Marina in Picton represents a MHRSSProgramme range extension (previously known from Nelson). A sponge collected during the Whangarei Harbour summer survey (Phlyctaenopora (Barbozia) n. sp.) represents a New to New Zealand native species. MPI was informed of the range extensions and New to New Zealand species at the time of collection, or the time that specimen identity was confirmed.

@techreport{woods_marine_2015,
	title = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance}: {Annual} report for all ports and marinas 2014–15 ({Project} 12099)},
	shorttitle = {Marine {High} {Risk} {Site} {Surveillance}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/9415/direct},
	author = {Woods, Chris and Seaward, Kimberley and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jun,
	year = {2015},
	doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.3173.8960},
}

@techreport{morrisey_-water_2015,
	address = {Wellington},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {In-water cleaning technologies: {Review} of {Information}},
	url = {https://mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/10814-in-water-cleaning-technologies-review-of-information},
	number = {No: 2015/38},
	urldate = {2020-12-14},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Woods, Chris},
	month = nov,
	year = {2015},
	pages = {53},
}

@techreport{morrisey_marine_2014,
	address = {Wellington},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Marine high-risk site surveillance
Annual report for all ports and marinas 2013–2014
({Project} 12099)},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4421/direct},
	abstract = {The Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance programme of targeted surveillance for marine nonindigenous species (NIS), delivered by NIWA under contract to the Ministry for Primary
Industries (MPI), is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary and four
secondary target non-indigenous or potentially invasive marine animals and plants that MPI
have identified as presenting a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand. It
also aims to monitor changes in the distribution of established marine non-indigenous or pest
species.
This annual report details the targeted surveillance surveys in the 11 ports and marinas
covered by the programme during the periods May–September 2013 (the Winter 2013 round
of surveys) and November 2013–March 2014 (the Summer 2013–2014 round).
Numbers of locations sampled met the target on all surveys apart from the summer survey of
Otago Harbour, when severe weather caused the loss of several trap lines and reduced the
number of trap deployments.
Numbers of specimens sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) per survey
ranged from none to nine, and the total numbers of specimens sent were 26 for the Winter
2013 round and 33 for the Summer 2013–2014 round.
No primary target species were detected, but all four secondary target species were:
• Arcuatula (Musculista) senhousia was recorded during the following surveys:
Auckland (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer
2013–2014).
• Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2013,
Summer 2013–2014), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014).
• Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter
2013, Summer 2013–2014), Lyttelton (Winter 2013), Nelson (Summer 2013–2014 –
range extension), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014).
• Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2013,
Summer 2013–2014), Lyttelton (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Nelson (Winter
2013, Summer 2013–2014), Opua (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Otago Harbour
(Winter 2013, Summer 2013-2014), Picton (Winter 2013 – range extension),
Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014).
Eight of the specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2013 survey were NIS, including:
• the red alga Grateloupia turuturu (Tauranga – the first record from this location
during a MHRSS survey);
• the sponge Halisarca dujardini (Wellington);
• the phoronid worm Phoronis ijimai (Whangarei – new record for New Zealand)
• Sabella spallanzanii (Whangarei);
• Styela clava (Picton – range extension and Whangarei).
Ten of the specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2013–2014 survey were NIS including:
• the colonial ascidian Botrylloides giganteum (Whangarei – new record for New
Zealand);
• the bryozoan Celleporaria umbonatoidea (Opua);
• the crab Pyromaia tuberculata (Port Taranaki – range extension);
• the solitary ascidian Pyura doppelgangera (Opua – range extension); 
Ministry for Primary Industries Marine High Risk Site Surveillance Annual Report 2013–2014
• Sabella spallanzanii (Nelson – range extension and Whangarei).
MPI were informed of the range extensions and new-to-New Zealand species at the time of
collection or the time that identity was confirmed.},
	number = {No:2014/19},
	urldate = {2020-12-14},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Seaward, Kimberley and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jul,
	year = {2014},
	pages = {163},
}

The Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance programme of targeted surveillance for marine nonindigenous species (NIS), delivered by NIWA under contract to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary and four secondary target non-indigenous or potentially invasive marine animals and plants that MPI have identified as presenting a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand. It also aims to monitor changes in the distribution of established marine non-indigenous or pest species. This annual report details the targeted surveillance surveys in the 11 ports and marinas covered by the programme during the periods May–September 2013 (the Winter 2013 round of surveys) and November 2013–March 2014 (the Summer 2013–2014 round). Numbers of locations sampled met the target on all surveys apart from the summer survey of Otago Harbour, when severe weather caused the loss of several trap lines and reduced the number of trap deployments. Numbers of specimens sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) per survey ranged from none to nine, and the total numbers of specimens sent were 26 for the Winter 2013 round and 33 for the Summer 2013–2014 round. No primary target species were detected, but all four secondary target species were: • Arcuatula (Musculista) senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014). • Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014). • Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Lyttelton (Winter 2013), Nelson (Summer 2013–2014 – range extension), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014). • Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Lyttelton (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Nelson (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Opua (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014), Otago Harbour (Winter 2013, Summer 2013-2014), Picton (Winter 2013 – range extension), Whangarei (Winter 2013, Summer 2013–2014). Eight of the specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2013 survey were NIS, including: • the red alga Grateloupia turuturu (Tauranga – the first record from this location during a MHRSS survey); • the sponge Halisarca dujardini (Wellington); • the phoronid worm Phoronis ijimai (Whangarei – new record for New Zealand) • Sabella spallanzanii (Whangarei); • Styela clava (Picton – range extension and Whangarei). Ten of the specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2013–2014 survey were NIS including: • the colonial ascidian Botrylloides giganteum (Whangarei – new record for New Zealand); • the bryozoan Celleporaria umbonatoidea (Opua); • the crab Pyromaia tuberculata (Port Taranaki – range extension); • the solitary ascidian Pyura doppelgangera (Opua – range extension); Ministry for Primary Industries Marine High Risk Site Surveillance Annual Report 2013–2014 • Sabella spallanzanii (Nelson – range extension and Whangarei). MPI were informed of the range extensions and new-to-New Zealand species at the time of collection or the time that identity was confirmed.

@techreport{morrisey_marine_2013,
	address = {Wellington},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Marine high-risk site surveillance {Annual} report for all ports and marinas 2012–2013 ({Project} 12099)},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4117/direct},
	abstract = {Executive Summary
The Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance programme of targeted surveillance for marine nonindigenous species (NIS), delivered by the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric
Research (NIWA) under contract to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), is designed to
detect the presence of a group of five primary and four secondary target non-indigenous or
potentially invasive marine animals and plants that MPI have identified as presenting a
significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand. It also aims to monitor changes
in the distribution of established marine non-indigenous or pest species.
This annual report details the targeted surveillance surveys in the 11 ports and marinas
covered by the programme during the periods June - September 2012 (the Winter 2012 round
of surveys) and November 2012 - March 2013 (the Summer 2012-2013 round).
Numbers of locations sampled met the target on all surveys. Numbers of specimens sent to the
Marine Invasive Taxonomic Service (MITS) per survey ranged from none to 16, and the total
numbers of specimens sent were 44 for the Winter 2012 round and 41 for the Summer 2012-
2013 round. No primary target species were detected but all four secondary target species
were:
• Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2012,
Summer 2012-2013), Whangarei (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013).
• Musculista senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Summer
2012-2013), Tauranga (Winter 2012), Whangarei (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013).
• Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter
2012, Summer 2012-2013), Lyttelton (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Whangarei
(Winter 2012 – range extension, Summer 2012-2013).
• Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2012,
Summer 2012-2013), Dunedin (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Lyttelton (Winter
2012, Summer 2012-2013), Nelson (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Opua (Winter
2012, Summer 2012-2013), Wellington (Summer 2012-2013 – range extension but
may have come off boat hull), Whangarei (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013).
MPI were informed of the range extensions at the time.
Eleven of the specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2012 survey were NIS, including
Charybdis japonica (Opua), Grateloupia sp. (Nelson), Metapenaeus bennettae (Whangarei),
Nassarius burchardi (Whangarei), Sabella spallanzanii (Whangarei), Styela clava (Nelson)
and Undaria pinnatifida (on a vessel in Opua). None of them were new records but Charybdis
in Opua, S. spallanzanii in Whangarei and Undaria in Opua represent range extensions and
were notified to MPI. S. spallanzanii had been detected on four fishing boats moored on
Whangarei Wharves, Port Nikau by commercial divers in early April 2012 and, at the request
of MPI and Northland Regional Council, additional sampling effort was allocated to this
location during the Winter survey. The three specimens collected at this location during the
survey were the first to be found on structures (as opposed to vessels) in Whangarei Harbour.
During a shore search in Marsden Cove Marina, a single S. spallanzanii was recorded from
another fishing boat. Additional dives were then done around this vessel and large numbers of
S. spallanzanii were noted on the hull (two specimens were collected and sent to MITS), but
none on the pontoons or other structures.
ii
Twenty of the specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2012-2013 survey were NIS,
including Grateloupia turuturu (Lyttelton), Sabella spallanzanii (Lyttelton and Whangarei)
and Styela clava (Wellington). S. clava had previously been recorded on the hulls of vessels
in Clyde Quay Marina, Wellington (in 2007) but the present record (from Chaffers Marina)
represents the first since then and consisted of two individuals found on the seabed. They
were not attached to any substratum and may, therefore, have been dislodged from a vessel
hull. S. spallanzanii was found during diver (five out of six dives) and shore searches (three
out of ten searches) in Marsden Cove Marina, Whangarei Harbour, growing on pontoons,
breakwalls and pilings. It was also found on five out of ten piles searched by divers at Port
Nikau, Whangarei Harbour. The red alga Schizymenia apoda was provisionally identified
from Dunedin, but confirmation of this identification requires molecular analysis. S. apoda
was first identified in New Zealand from specimens collected from Wellington Harbour
during the Winter 2009 survey, and is now widespread throughout that harbour. The eastern
Australian penaeid prawn Metapenaeus bennettae, first recorded in the Waitemata Harbour in
August 2009 and in Whangarei Harbour in February 2012, appears to be established in both
locations},
	number = {No:2013/55},
	urldate = {2020-12-14},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Seaward, Kimberley and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = may,
	year = {2013},
	pages = {167},
}

Executive Summary The Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance programme of targeted surveillance for marine nonindigenous species (NIS), delivered by the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) under contract to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary and four secondary target non-indigenous or potentially invasive marine animals and plants that MPI have identified as presenting a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand. It also aims to monitor changes in the distribution of established marine non-indigenous or pest species. This annual report details the targeted surveillance surveys in the 11 ports and marinas covered by the programme during the periods June - September 2012 (the Winter 2012 round of surveys) and November 2012 - March 2013 (the Summer 2012-2013 round). Numbers of locations sampled met the target on all surveys. Numbers of specimens sent to the Marine Invasive Taxonomic Service (MITS) per survey ranged from none to 16, and the total numbers of specimens sent were 44 for the Winter 2012 round and 41 for the Summer 2012- 2013 round. No primary target species were detected but all four secondary target species were: • Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Whangarei (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013). • Musculista senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Summer 2012-2013), Tauranga (Winter 2012), Whangarei (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013). • Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Lyttelton (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Whangarei (Winter 2012 – range extension, Summer 2012-2013). • Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Dunedin (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Lyttelton (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Nelson (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Opua (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013), Wellington (Summer 2012-2013 – range extension but may have come off boat hull), Whangarei (Winter 2012, Summer 2012-2013). MPI were informed of the range extensions at the time. Eleven of the specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2012 survey were NIS, including Charybdis japonica (Opua), Grateloupia sp. (Nelson), Metapenaeus bennettae (Whangarei), Nassarius burchardi (Whangarei), Sabella spallanzanii (Whangarei), Styela clava (Nelson) and Undaria pinnatifida (on a vessel in Opua). None of them were new records but Charybdis in Opua, S. spallanzanii in Whangarei and Undaria in Opua represent range extensions and were notified to MPI. S. spallanzanii had been detected on four fishing boats moored on Whangarei Wharves, Port Nikau by commercial divers in early April 2012 and, at the request of MPI and Northland Regional Council, additional sampling effort was allocated to this location during the Winter survey. The three specimens collected at this location during the survey were the first to be found on structures (as opposed to vessels) in Whangarei Harbour. During a shore search in Marsden Cove Marina, a single S. spallanzanii was recorded from another fishing boat. Additional dives were then done around this vessel and large numbers of S. spallanzanii were noted on the hull (two specimens were collected and sent to MITS), but none on the pontoons or other structures. ii Twenty of the specimens sent to MITS from the Summer 2012-2013 survey were NIS, including Grateloupia turuturu (Lyttelton), Sabella spallanzanii (Lyttelton and Whangarei) and Styela clava (Wellington). S. clava had previously been recorded on the hulls of vessels in Clyde Quay Marina, Wellington (in 2007) but the present record (from Chaffers Marina) represents the first since then and consisted of two individuals found on the seabed. They were not attached to any substratum and may, therefore, have been dislodged from a vessel hull. S. spallanzanii was found during diver (five out of six dives) and shore searches (three out of ten searches) in Marsden Cove Marina, Whangarei Harbour, growing on pontoons, breakwalls and pilings. It was also found on five out of ten piles searched by divers at Port Nikau, Whangarei Harbour. The red alga Schizymenia apoda was provisionally identified from Dunedin, but confirmation of this identification requires molecular analysis. S. apoda was first identified in New Zealand from specimens collected from Wellington Harbour during the Winter 2009 survey, and is now widespread throughout that harbour. The eastern Australian penaeid prawn Metapenaeus bennettae, first recorded in the Waitemata Harbour in August 2009 and in Whangarei Harbour in February 2012, appears to be established in both locations

@techreport{floerl_efficacy_2012,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {The efficacy of settlement plate arrays for marine surveillance},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4041/direct},
	abstract = {Since 2002, the New Zealand government has funded a nationwide programme of targeted
surveillance for high-risk marine pest species at a selection of New Zealand’s ports and
marinas (“Marine High Risk Site Surveillance”, MHRSS). The current programme relies
heavily on visual searches (particularly SCUBA) for detecting sessile high-risk species in port
environments. However, in adverse weather conditions and/or low underwater visibility the
effectiveness of visual surveys can be impaired, with the associated risk that target species
(especially juvenile specimens) may be overlooked.
The use of passive detection methods such as settlement arrays has the potential to improve
the ability of the MHRSS program to detect founding populations. In 2009-2010, settlement
arrays were used as a tool to evaluate the success of the Sabella spallanzanii Local
Elimination Programme. No S. spallanzanii recruits were encountered on any of the array
surfaces, but the utility of the arrays for marine pest surveillance could not be determined
because no attempts had yet been made to evaluate their efficacy for detecting small, founding
populations of marine species.
The objective of this project was to provide an assessment of the efficacy of settlement arrays
in detecting non-indigenous species. The project evaluated the efficacy of settlement arrays,
using the survey design from the S. spallanzanii Local Elimination Programme, for four nonindigenous species − Styela clava (Clubbed tunicate); Undaria pinnatifida (Asian kelp);
Ciona intestinalis (Vase tunicate); and Sabella spallanzanii (Mediterranean fan-worm) –
known to be in Lytellton harbour.
Using a combination of literature review, modelling studies, and field and laboratory
experiments, the project evaluated: (i) the capacity of settlement arrays to detect marine pest
species at different population densities; (ii) the sensitivity of the arrays for the target species;
(iii) the spatial and temporal limitations of the settlement arrays; (iv) efficiency measures to
increase the efficacy and sensitivity of the arrays; and (v) the interpretation of negative
results.
The rate at which propagules of the target species were likely to encounter the settlement
array surfaces was determined by coupling a hydraulic model with know attributes of the
target species. The hydraulic model was developed for Lyttelton Port to calculate the volume
of water sampled by array surfaces over an 8-week monitoring period. Literature reviews
were conducted to determine the reproductive season, fecundity, fertilisation, propagule lifespan and settlement preferences of the four target species.
To determine the sensitivity of the array surfaces for detection of target recruits by an
observer, in situ experiments were conducted in Lyttelton Port during which array surfaces
were exposed to controlled “doses” of laboratory-spawned propagules. These experiments
were conducted for C. intestinalis, S. clava and U. pinnatifida.
To calculate the confidence of detection stochastic scenario tree models were developed to
combine elements of the target species’ reproductive biology and the attractiveness of array
surfaces for each species at: (i) a range of resident population sizes and (ii) a range of
sampling efforts. Similar models were constructed to calculate the confidence of detection of
each species using existing surveillance methods and sampling effort (SCUBA and benthic
sled tows). However, due to the significant uncertainty in parameterising these models
confidence in the outputs was low.
2 • Efficacy of Settlement Arrays for Marine Surveillance Ministry for Primary Industries
As a consequence of the large uncertainty it was not possible to confidently assert if the use of
settlement arrays, along with the existing surveillance program, would significantly alter the
likelihood of detecting target species. However, the model has proved to be a robust
framework to determine which key parameters require further investigation in order to
provide an adequately robust justification for the addition (or not) of settlement arrays to the
marine surveillance programme.},
	number = {No:2012/16},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	author = {Floerl, Oliver and Inglis, Graeme and Peacock, Lisa and Plew, David},
	month = aug,
	year = {2012},
	pages = {91},
}

Since 2002, the New Zealand government has funded a nationwide programme of targeted surveillance for high-risk marine pest species at a selection of New Zealand’s ports and marinas (“Marine High Risk Site Surveillance”, MHRSS). The current programme relies heavily on visual searches (particularly SCUBA) for detecting sessile high-risk species in port environments. However, in adverse weather conditions and/or low underwater visibility the effectiveness of visual surveys can be impaired, with the associated risk that target species (especially juvenile specimens) may be overlooked. The use of passive detection methods such as settlement arrays has the potential to improve the ability of the MHRSS program to detect founding populations. In 2009-2010, settlement arrays were used as a tool to evaluate the success of the Sabella spallanzanii Local Elimination Programme. No S. spallanzanii recruits were encountered on any of the array surfaces, but the utility of the arrays for marine pest surveillance could not be determined because no attempts had yet been made to evaluate their efficacy for detecting small, founding populations of marine species. The objective of this project was to provide an assessment of the efficacy of settlement arrays in detecting non-indigenous species. The project evaluated the efficacy of settlement arrays, using the survey design from the S. spallanzanii Local Elimination Programme, for four nonindigenous species − Styela clava (Clubbed tunicate); Undaria pinnatifida (Asian kelp); Ciona intestinalis (Vase tunicate); and Sabella spallanzanii (Mediterranean fan-worm) – known to be in Lytellton harbour. Using a combination of literature review, modelling studies, and field and laboratory experiments, the project evaluated: (i) the capacity of settlement arrays to detect marine pest species at different population densities; (ii) the sensitivity of the arrays for the target species; (iii) the spatial and temporal limitations of the settlement arrays; (iv) efficiency measures to increase the efficacy and sensitivity of the arrays; and (v) the interpretation of negative results. The rate at which propagules of the target species were likely to encounter the settlement array surfaces was determined by coupling a hydraulic model with know attributes of the target species. The hydraulic model was developed for Lyttelton Port to calculate the volume of water sampled by array surfaces over an 8-week monitoring period. Literature reviews were conducted to determine the reproductive season, fecundity, fertilisation, propagule lifespan and settlement preferences of the four target species. To determine the sensitivity of the array surfaces for detection of target recruits by an observer, in situ experiments were conducted in Lyttelton Port during which array surfaces were exposed to controlled “doses” of laboratory-spawned propagules. These experiments were conducted for C. intestinalis, S. clava and U. pinnatifida. To calculate the confidence of detection stochastic scenario tree models were developed to combine elements of the target species’ reproductive biology and the attractiveness of array surfaces for each species at: (i) a range of resident population sizes and (ii) a range of sampling efforts. Similar models were constructed to calculate the confidence of detection of each species using existing surveillance methods and sampling effort (SCUBA and benthic sled tows). However, due to the significant uncertainty in parameterising these models confidence in the outputs was low. 2 • Efficacy of Settlement Arrays for Marine Surveillance Ministry for Primary Industries As a consequence of the large uncertainty it was not possible to confidently assert if the use of settlement arrays, along with the existing surveillance program, would significantly alter the likelihood of detecting target species. However, the model has proved to be a robust framework to determine which key parameters require further investigation in order to provide an adequately robust justification for the addition (or not) of settlement arrays to the marine surveillance programme.

@techreport{morrisey_marine_2012,
	address = {Wellington},
	type = {{MPI} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Marine high-risk site surveillance {Annual} report for all ports and marinas 2011–2012 ({Project} 12099)},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4118/direct},
	abstract = {The Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance programme of targeted surveillance for nonindigenous marine species (NIS), delivered by NIWA under contract to the Ministry for
Primary Industries (MPI), is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary and
four secondary target non-indigenous or potentially invasive marine animals and plants that
MPI have identified as presenting a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New
Zealand. It also aims to monitor changes in the distribution of established non-indigenous or
pest species.
This annual report details the targeted surveillance surveys in the 11 ports and marinas
covered by the programme during the periods June - September 2011 (the Winter 2011 round
of surveys) and November - March 2012 (the Summer 2011-2012 round).
Target numbers of locations sampled met the target on all but three occasions, and all were
within 96\% of target or higher. Failure to achieve target was often due to loss of traps by, for
example, theft.
The four secondary target species were all detected:
• Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2011,
Summer 2011-2012), Whangarei (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012).
• Musculista senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter
2011, Summer 2011-2012), Tauranga (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Whangarei
(Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012).
• Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter
2011, Summer 2011-2012), Lyttelton (Winter 2011).
• Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2011,
Summer 2011-2012), Dunedin (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Nelson (Winter
2011, Summer 2011-2012), Opua (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Tauranga
(Summer 2011-2012 – range extension), Whangarei (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-
2012).
Numbers of specimens sent to MITS per survey ranged from none to 11, and the total number
of specimens sent were 25 for the Winter 2011 round and 33 for the Summer 2011-2012
round. Nine of the specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2011 survey were NIS, including
Caprella mutica (from the hull of a resident yacht in Bluff), Sabella spallanzanii (Lyttelton),
Grateloupia turuturu (Nelson and New Plymouth) and Styela clava (Nelson). None of them
were new records and only C. mutica represented a range extension. Seven of the specimens
from the Summer 2011-2012 survey were NIS, including Grateloupia turuturu (New
Plymouth) and Styela clava (Tauranga), the latter representing a range extension. Three
specimens of the penaeid prawn Metapenaeus bennettae and three of the hippollytid prawn
Lysmata californica were collected in Whangarei in Summer 2011-2012. M. bennettae has
previously been recorded only in Waitemata Harbour, where it was first detected in August
2009. The incomplete head of a specimen of L. californica was collected during the Summer
2009-2010 surveillance of Whangarei, but could not be identified to species because of lack
of material. The more recent specimens confirm that the previous individual was most
probably of the same species and represented the first record of this species in New Zealand
or the western Pacific. Two of the specimens of L. californica were gravid.},
	number = {No:2013/56},
	urldate = {2020-12-14},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Seaward, Kimberley and Inglis, Graeme},
	month = jun,
	year = {2012},
	pages = {166},
}

The Marine High-Risk Site Surveillance programme of targeted surveillance for nonindigenous marine species (NIS), delivered by NIWA under contract to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), is designed to detect the presence of a group of five primary and four secondary target non-indigenous or potentially invasive marine animals and plants that MPI have identified as presenting a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand. It also aims to monitor changes in the distribution of established non-indigenous or pest species. This annual report details the targeted surveillance surveys in the 11 ports and marinas covered by the programme during the periods June - September 2011 (the Winter 2011 round of surveys) and November - March 2012 (the Summer 2011-2012 round). Target numbers of locations sampled met the target on all but three occasions, and all were within 96% of target or higher. Failure to achieve target was often due to loss of traps by, for example, theft. The four secondary target species were all detected: • Eudistoma elongatum was recorded during the following surveys: Opua (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Whangarei (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012). • Musculista senhousia was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Tauranga (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Whangarei (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012). • Sabella spallanzanii was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Lyttelton (Winter 2011). • Styela clava was recorded during the following surveys: Auckland (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Dunedin (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Nelson (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Opua (Winter 2011, Summer 2011-2012), Tauranga (Summer 2011-2012 – range extension), Whangarei (Winter 2011, Summer 2011- 2012). Numbers of specimens sent to MITS per survey ranged from none to 11, and the total number of specimens sent were 25 for the Winter 2011 round and 33 for the Summer 2011-2012 round. Nine of the specimens sent to MITS from the Winter 2011 survey were NIS, including Caprella mutica (from the hull of a resident yacht in Bluff), Sabella spallanzanii (Lyttelton), Grateloupia turuturu (Nelson and New Plymouth) and Styela clava (Nelson). None of them were new records and only C. mutica represented a range extension. Seven of the specimens from the Summer 2011-2012 survey were NIS, including Grateloupia turuturu (New Plymouth) and Styela clava (Tauranga), the latter representing a range extension. Three specimens of the penaeid prawn Metapenaeus bennettae and three of the hippollytid prawn Lysmata californica were collected in Whangarei in Summer 2011-2012. M. bennettae has previously been recorded only in Waitemata Harbour, where it was first detected in August 2009. The incomplete head of a specimen of L. californica was collected during the Summer 2009-2010 surveillance of Whangarei, but could not be identified to species because of lack of material. The more recent specimens confirm that the previous individual was most probably of the same species and represented the first record of this species in New Zealand or the western Pacific. Two of the specimens of L. californica were gravid.

@techreport{morrisey_aquatic_2011,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	type = {{MAF} {Biosecurity} {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Aquatic {Animal} {Pest} and {Disease} {Readiness} {Planning} and {Intelligence} {Phase} {II}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15751-aquaculture-readiness-data-project-report-phase-2},
	abstract = {Phase I consited of data collection in a suitable format to underpin effective surveillance,
incursion investigation and response, and biosecurity readiness work for cultured and
enhanced aquatic species. The data collected in Phase I are used in Phase II to create ‘defined
areas’ in which aquacultured organisms have a similar likelihood of exposure to a pest or
disease. A three-stage approach was used to derive the defined dispersion areas. In the first
stage, we reviewed relevant examples of disease and pest preparedness work/research. This
guided our development of dispersion areas in the second stage, in which GIS layers
representing the geographical distribution of aquaculture facilities and vectors of disease and
pest movement were established. Potential vectors include hydrodynamic features of
aquacultural areas, anthropogenic vectors, and other relevant environmental factors, such as
habitat types that are likely to influence transmission of pests and diseases. The third stage
integrated hydrodynamic layers to derive the proposed dispersion areas. Input from MAFBNZ
and other stakeholders to the process was sought at workshops held in Nelson and Auckland
in late 2010. The consensus was that the simplest modelling option for marine farms should
be adopted and applied nationwide – i.e. dispersion would be modelled on the basis of tidal
advection. Modelling of dispersion by downstream drift in rivers used flow rates (mean, mean
annual maximum, and mean annual low flow) to derive downstream dispersion distances,
assuming 1–3 days infectious life. This included land-based facilities that discharge into
waterways.},
	number = {No: 2011/68},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Plew, David and Seaward, Kimberley},
	month = jul,
	year = {2011},
	pages = {64},
}

Phase I consited of data collection in a suitable format to underpin effective surveillance, incursion investigation and response, and biosecurity readiness work for cultured and enhanced aquatic species. The data collected in Phase I are used in Phase II to create ‘defined areas’ in which aquacultured organisms have a similar likelihood of exposure to a pest or disease. A three-stage approach was used to derive the defined dispersion areas. In the first stage, we reviewed relevant examples of disease and pest preparedness work/research. This guided our development of dispersion areas in the second stage, in which GIS layers representing the geographical distribution of aquaculture facilities and vectors of disease and pest movement were established. Potential vectors include hydrodynamic features of aquacultural areas, anthropogenic vectors, and other relevant environmental factors, such as habitat types that are likely to influence transmission of pests and diseases. The third stage integrated hydrodynamic layers to derive the proposed dispersion areas. Input from MAFBNZ and other stakeholders to the process was sought at workshops held in Nelson and Auckland in late 2010. The consensus was that the simplest modelling option for marine farms should be adopted and applied nationwide – i.e. dispersion would be modelled on the basis of tidal advection. Modelling of dispersion by downstream drift in rivers used flow rates (mean, mean annual maximum, and mean annual low flow) to derive downstream dispersion distances, assuming 1–3 days infectious life. This included land-based facilities that discharge into waterways.

@techreport{kospartov_non-indigenous_2010,
	address = {Christchurch},
	title = {Non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species in {New} {Zealand} - {Current} state of knowledge: {Interim} report.},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}

This interim report presents progress made in updating the state of knowledge of non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species in New Zealand. Ten years ago, Cranfield et al. (1998) published a consolidated account of the non-indigenous and cryptogenic species that had been recorded from New Zealand marine environments. Since that time, the number of non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species recorded in New Zealand has more than tripled as a result of surveys funded by MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand, other biodiversity-related research and reports made by members of the public. 

We compiled records for a total of 590 non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species from New Zealand waters. Of these, 288 are non-indigenous, and 302 are suspected to be. The records represent 16 phyla, but are dominated by the phyla Arthropoda, Porifera, Annelida and Bryozoa. This interim report provides preliminary information on their taxonomy, biosecurity status, likely vectors for introduction and spread, applicable Chapman and Carlton criteria, and national and global distributions. It is accompanied by an electronic database of tables containing the list of species and associated information.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Kospartov, Marie and Inglis, G. J. and Seaward, Kimberley and van den Brink, Anneke and D’Archino, Roberta and Ahyong, Shane T.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Biological invasions, Biosecurity, MAF, New Zealand, cryptogenic, marine species, non-indigenous},
	pages = {25 pp.},
}

Executive summary This interim report presents progress made in updating the state of knowledge of non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species in New Zealand. Ten years ago, Cranfield et al. (1998) published a consolidated account of the non-indigenous and cryptogenic species that had been recorded from New Zealand marine environments. Since that time, the number of non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species recorded in New Zealand has more than tripled as a result of surveys funded by MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand, other biodiversity-related research and reports made by members of the public. We compiled records for a total of 590 non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species from New Zealand waters. Of these, 288 are non-indigenous, and 302 are suspected to be. The records represent 16 phyla, but are dominated by the phyla Arthropoda, Porifera, Annelida and Bryozoa. This interim report provides preliminary information on their taxonomy, biosecurity status, likely vectors for introduction and spread, applicable Chapman and Carlton criteria, and national and global distributions. It is accompanied by an electronic database of tables containing the list of species and associated information.

@techreport{morrisey_aquatic_2010,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	type = {{MAF} {Biosecurity} {New} {Zealand} {Technical} {Paper}},
	title = {Aquatic {Animal} {Pest} and {Disease} {Readiness} {Planning} and {Intelligence} {Phase} {I} – {Data} {Acquisition}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15748-aquatic-animal-pest-and-disease-readiness-planning-and-intelligence-phase-1},
	abstract = {The purpose of this study is to collect data on the location of farmed and enhanced aquatic
species, their movements and the associated environmental conditions that may contribute to
the spread of pests or diseases of aquatic animals. This information will feed into a baseline of
aquaculture and enhanced fisheries species information that stakeholders and MAF
Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) hope to continue to improve and update in the future,
and use in biosecurity emergencies.
Information on the location of aquaculture facilities was collated primarily from resource
consents issued by regional councils and unitary authorities, the Ministry of Fisheries’
(MFish) Fish Farm Register, and directly from organisations such as Fish and Game
New Zealand. Information on the movement of stock and equipment among facilities within
New Zealand was obtained from MFish’s Fish Transfer Authorisation dataset, Fish and Game
New Zealand regional offices, and telephone interviews with selected aquaculture industry
groups, companies and individual farmers. Sources of hydrodynamic information were
identified in consultation with NIWA specialists.},
	number = {No: 2010/16},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Page, Mike and Seaward, Kimberley and Boustead, Nelson},
	month = jul,
	year = {2010},
	pages = {41},
}

The purpose of this study is to collect data on the location of farmed and enhanced aquatic species, their movements and the associated environmental conditions that may contribute to the spread of pests or diseases of aquatic animals. This information will feed into a baseline of aquaculture and enhanced fisheries species information that stakeholders and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) hope to continue to improve and update in the future, and use in biosecurity emergencies. Information on the location of aquaculture facilities was collated primarily from resource consents issued by regional councils and unitary authorities, the Ministry of Fisheries’ (MFish) Fish Farm Register, and directly from organisations such as Fish and Game New Zealand. Information on the movement of stock and equipment among facilities within New Zealand was obtained from MFish’s Fish Transfer Authorisation dataset, Fish and Game New Zealand regional offices, and telephone interviews with selected aquaculture industry groups, companies and individual farmers. Sources of hydrodynamic information were identified in consultation with NIWA specialists.

@techreport{inglis_westhaven_2010,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Westhaven {Marina}: {First} baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32845-westhaven-marina-first-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-research-project-zbs200518},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}

•	This report describes the results of a baseline survey of the Westhaven Marina undertaken in March 2006. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the marina. 

•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas. 

•	Sampling methods used in the survey 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 were used to collect marine organisms from habitats within Westhaven Marina. 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, seastar and shrimp traps.

•	Sampling effort was distributed in Westhaven Marina 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.

•	During the survey, 203 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 109 native species, 27 non-indigenous species, 20 cryptogenic taxa and 47 indeterminate taxa. 

•	The 27 non-indigenous species found in the survey of Westhaven Marina included representatives of 16 phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata; Hydroides ezoensis, Hydroides elegans, Polydora hoplura, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata and Paralepidonotus ampulliferus (Arthropoda) Apocorophium acutum, Charybdis japonica and Amphibalanus amphitrite; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, B. stolonifera, Bowerbankia gracilis, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora subtorquata, Tricellaria catalinensis, and Zoobotryon verticillatum, (Chordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Diplosoma listerianum, Botryllus tuberatus and Styela clava (Cnidaria) Pennaria disticha, (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; (Ochrophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, and (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf. macera and Amphilectus fucorum.

•	No species recorded in the survey were new records for New Zealand waters.  

•	Two species recorded during the survey of Westhaven Marina – the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida and the clubbed ascidian Styela clava - were on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms.   

•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Marina 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 56 \% (15 of 27 species) of NIS recorded in the Westhaven baseline surveys are likely to have been introduced in biofouling assemblages on vessels, 4 \% (one species) via ballast water, 33 \% (9 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or biofouling vectors and the method of introduction for 7 \% (two species) is currently unknown.

•	The predominance of species likely to have been introduced as biofouling in the introduced biota of the Westhaven baseline (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Schimanski, Kate and van den Brink, Anneke and Kospartov, Marie and Neil, Kerry and Peacock, Lisa and Fitridge, I. and Cox, Serena L. and Read, Geoffrey and Ahyong, Shane T. and Page, Mike and Burnett, Jill and D'Archino, Roberta and Gordon, Dennis},
	month = jun,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Auckland, Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Westhaven Marina, biological invasions},
	pages = {161 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a baseline survey of the Westhaven Marina undertaken in March 2006. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the marina. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas. • Sampling methods used in the survey 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 were used to collect marine organisms from habitats within Westhaven Marina. 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, seastar and shrimp traps. • Sampling effort was distributed in Westhaven Marina 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. • During the survey, 203 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 109 native species, 27 non-indigenous species, 20 cryptogenic taxa and 47 indeterminate taxa. • The 27 non-indigenous species found in the survey of Westhaven Marina included representatives of 16 phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata; Hydroides ezoensis, Hydroides elegans, Polydora hoplura, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata and Paralepidonotus ampulliferus (Arthropoda) Apocorophium acutum, Charybdis japonica and Amphibalanus amphitrite; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, B. stolonifera, Bowerbankia gracilis, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora subtorquata, Tricellaria catalinensis, and Zoobotryon verticillatum, (Chordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Diplosoma listerianum, Botryllus tuberatus and Styela clava (Cnidaria) Pennaria disticha, (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; (Ochrophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, and (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf. macera and Amphilectus fucorum. • No species recorded in the survey were new records for New Zealand waters. • Two species recorded during the survey of Westhaven Marina – the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida and the clubbed ascidian Styela clava - were on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Marina 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 56 % (15 of 27 species) of NIS recorded in the Westhaven baseline surveys are likely to have been introduced in biofouling assemblages on vessels, 4 % (one species) via ballast water, 33 % (9 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or biofouling vectors and the method of introduction for 7 % (two species) is currently unknown. • The predominance of species likely to have been introduced as biofouling in the introduced biota of the Westhaven baseline (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.

@techreport{inglis_viaduct_2010,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Viaduct {Harbour} {Marina}: {First} baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32842-viaduct-harbour-marina-first-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-research-project-zbs200518},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}

•	This report describes the results of a port baseline survey of the Viaduct Harbour Marina undertaken in March-April 2006. The survey provides an initial inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the marina. 

•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas. 

•	Sampling methods used in the survey 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 Viaduct Harbour Marina. 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, seastar and shrimp traps.

•	Sampling effort was distributed in the Viaduct Harbour Marina 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.

•	During the survey, 151 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 86 native species, 19 non-indigenous species, 16 cryptogenic taxa and 30 indeterminate taxa. 

•	The 19 non-indigenous species found in the repeat survey of the Viaduct Harbour Marina included representatives of 14 phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans, Polydora hoplura, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata Paralepidonotus ampulliferus, (Bryozoa) Bugula stolonifera, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora arcuata, Tricellaria catalinensis, Bowerbankia gracilis, Zoobotryon verticillatum Buskia socialis, (Chordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Diplosoma listerianum, Botryllus tuberatus Styela clava (Cnidaria) Pennaria disticha, (Mollusca) Limaria orientalis, Theora lubrica and (Ochrophyta) Undaria pinnatifida.

•	One species recorded in the survey, the cryptogenic category 1 shrimp Lysmata vittata, was a new record for New Zealand waters.  

•	Two species recorded during the survey of the Viaduct Harbour Marina – the clubbed tunicate, Styela clava and the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida - are on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms.   

•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Marina 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 53 \% (10 of 19 species) of NIS recorded in the Viaduct Harbour Marina baseline survey are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 \% (1 species) via ballast water and 42 \% (8 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors.

•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of Viaduct Harbour Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and van den Brink, Anneke and Schimanski, Kate and Kospartov, Marie and Gust, N. and Peacock, Lisa and Ahyong, Shane T. and Burnett, Jill and Read, Geoffrey and Gordon, Dennis and Page, Mike and Kelly, Michelle and Cox, Serena L.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Auckland, Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Viaduct Harbour, biological invasions},
	pages = {149 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a port baseline survey of the Viaduct Harbour Marina undertaken in March-April 2006. The survey provides an initial inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the marina. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas. • Sampling methods used in the survey 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 Viaduct Harbour Marina. 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, seastar and shrimp traps. • Sampling effort was distributed in the Viaduct Harbour Marina 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. • During the survey, 151 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 86 native species, 19 non-indigenous species, 16 cryptogenic taxa and 30 indeterminate taxa. • The 19 non-indigenous species found in the repeat survey of the Viaduct Harbour Marina included representatives of 14 phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans, Polydora hoplura, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata Paralepidonotus ampulliferus, (Bryozoa) Bugula stolonifera, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora arcuata, Tricellaria catalinensis, Bowerbankia gracilis, Zoobotryon verticillatum Buskia socialis, (Chordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Diplosoma listerianum, Botryllus tuberatus Styela clava (Cnidaria) Pennaria disticha, (Mollusca) Limaria orientalis, Theora lubrica and (Ochrophyta) Undaria pinnatifida. • One species recorded in the survey, the cryptogenic category 1 shrimp Lysmata vittata, was a new record for New Zealand waters. • Two species recorded during the survey of the Viaduct Harbour Marina – the clubbed tunicate, Styela clava and the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida - are on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Marina 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 53 % (10 of 19 species) of NIS recorded in the Viaduct Harbour Marina baseline survey are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 % (1 species) via ballast water and 42 % (8 species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of Viaduct Harbour Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2010,
	address = {Nelson, New Zealand},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted survey for non-indigenous marine species in {Port} {Tarakohe}, {New} {Zealand}},
	url = {https://marinebiosecurity.org.nz/assets/Uploads/25a794b927/Tarakohe-target-species-survey-July-2010-final-report-V2.pdf},
	abstract = {The objectives of the targeted survey for non-indigenous marine species in Port Tarakohe,
commissioned by Tasman District Council, were to detect incursions of seven primary and three
secondary target marine species and, where possible, to detect incursions of other non-indigenous
species not previously known from Port Tarakohe or the surrounding area. The primary target species
are listed on the unwanted organisms register under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and are considered to
present a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand: the alga Caulerpa taxifolia, the
Japanese kelp Undaria pinnatifida, the polychaete worm Sabella spallanzanii, the bivalve
Potamocorbula amurensis, the crab Carcinus maenas, the seastar Asterias amurensis and the ascidian
(seasquirt) Styela clava. Two of these species (S. spallanzanii and S. clava) are already present in New
Zealand but at a limited number of locations, while U. pinnatifida is widespread along the east coast of
the South Island and southern North Island. The secondary species are known to be established in New
Zealand’s coastal waters but are confined to a limited number of geographic locations: the bivalve
Musculista senhousia and the seasquirts Didemnum sp. and Eudistoma elongatum. Methods used were
compatible with those used in the surveys for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand’s (MAFBNZ) targeted
surveillance programme for non-indigenous marine species, delivered by NIWA at other ports and
harbours around New Zealand. The target-species survey of Tarakohe follows a baseline biological
survey of Golden Bay, including Port Tarakohe, commissioned by MAFBNZ in 2007.
A total of 87 locations was surveyed in Port Tarakohe in July 2010, using a variety of techniques
designed to sample a range of habitat types encompassing soft and hard surfaces, such as mud and
gravel bottoms and artificial structures, including pontoons, pilings, moorings, jetties and commercial
vessel berths. The sampling techniques used were crab box traps, starfish traps, epibenthic sled tows,
and diver and shore searches. Target location numbers were met for all sample types.
Five specimens were collected during the survey and sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service
(MITS) for identification, including three ascidians, one bryozoan and one fish.
Two primary target species, the clubbed tunicate Styela clava and the Japanese kelp Undaria
pinnatifida, were collected. Undaria was first recorded in Port Tarakohe in 2002 but Styela has not
previously been reported from this location. Several other non-indigenous species already known to be
widespread in New Zealand were also recorded, of which the most conspicuous was the colonial
ascidian Didemnum sp. Didemnum was first recorded in Port Tarakohe in 2006.},
	number = {NEL2010-021},
	urldate = {2020-12-15},
	institution = {Prepard for Tasman District Council},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald},
	month = aug,
	year = {2010},
}

The objectives of the targeted survey for non-indigenous marine species in Port Tarakohe, commissioned by Tasman District Council, were to detect incursions of seven primary and three secondary target marine species and, where possible, to detect incursions of other non-indigenous species not previously known from Port Tarakohe or the surrounding area. The primary target species are listed on the unwanted organisms register under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and are considered to present a significant risk of arriving and establishing in New Zealand: the alga Caulerpa taxifolia, the Japanese kelp Undaria pinnatifida, the polychaete worm Sabella spallanzanii, the bivalve Potamocorbula amurensis, the crab Carcinus maenas, the seastar Asterias amurensis and the ascidian (seasquirt) Styela clava. Two of these species (S. spallanzanii and S. clava) are already present in New Zealand but at a limited number of locations, while U. pinnatifida is widespread along the east coast of the South Island and southern North Island. The secondary species are known to be established in New Zealand’s coastal waters but are confined to a limited number of geographic locations: the bivalve Musculista senhousia and the seasquirts Didemnum sp. and Eudistoma elongatum. Methods used were compatible with those used in the surveys for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand’s (MAFBNZ) targeted surveillance programme for non-indigenous marine species, delivered by NIWA at other ports and harbours around New Zealand. The target-species survey of Tarakohe follows a baseline biological survey of Golden Bay, including Port Tarakohe, commissioned by MAFBNZ in 2007. A total of 87 locations was surveyed in Port Tarakohe in July 2010, using a variety of techniques designed to sample a range of habitat types encompassing soft and hard surfaces, such as mud and gravel bottoms and artificial structures, including pontoons, pilings, moorings, jetties and commercial vessel berths. The sampling techniques used were crab box traps, starfish traps, epibenthic sled tows, and diver and shore searches. Target location numbers were met for all sample types. Five specimens were collected during the survey and sent to the Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS) for identification, including three ascidians, one bryozoan and one fish. Two primary target species, the clubbed tunicate Styela clava and the Japanese kelp Undaria pinnatifida, were collected. Undaria was first recorded in Port Tarakohe in 2002 but Styela has not previously been reported from this location. Several other non-indigenous species already known to be widespread in New Zealand were also recorded, of which the most conspicuous was the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. Didemnum was first recorded in Port Tarakohe in 2006.

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2010-1,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Bluff} {Harbour} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31557-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Bluff},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Seaward, Kimberley and Williams, Caroline and Inglis, G. J.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Bluff, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {20 pp.},
}

@techreport{inglis_port_2010,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Auckland}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32812-port-of-auckland-second-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-research-project-zbs200518},
	abstract = {{\textless}i{\textgreater}Executive summary
{\textless}/i{\textgreater}
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Auckland undertaken in March 2006. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with that recorded during an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Auckland undertaken in April 2003. 

•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. 

•	To allow a direct comparison with the initial baseline survey of the Port of Auckland, the repeat survey used the same methodologies and sampled the same sites (where possible) as in the initial 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 Auckland. 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, seastar and shrimp traps.

•	Sampling effort in the Port of Auckland was distributed 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.

•	As a result of ongoing taxonomic work, some identifications made during the initial baseline survey of the Port of Auckland have undergone revision since the publication of that report. The revised data indicated that a total of 173 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Auckland in April 2003. They consisted of 116 native species, 22 cryptogenic taxa, 14 non-indigenous species, and 21 indeterminate taxa

•	During the repeat survey, 238 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 145 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 34 cryptogenic species and 45 indeterminate taxa. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 51 \% of the native species, 50 \% of the non-indigenous species, and 41 \% of the cryptogenic taxa recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.

•	The 14 non-indigenous species found in the repeat survey of the Port of Auckland included representatives of 17 phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans, Paralepidontus ampuliferus; (Arthropoda) Apocorphium acutum, Charybdis japonica; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Watersipora subtorquata; (Chordata) Styela clava; (Cnidaria) Pennaria disticha; (Mollusca) Limaria orientalis, Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; (Porifera) Amphilectus fucorum, Callyspongia robusta and (Entoprocta) Barentsia matsushimana. Seven of these species – P. ampuliferus, A. acutum, W. subtoquata, S. clava, L. orientalis, C. robusta and B. matsushimana - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Auckland. In addition, six non-indigenous species that were recorded in the first survey – (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, Celleporaria sp. 1, Anguinella palmate; (Chordata) Arenigobius bifrenatus; (Cnidaria) Obelia longissima and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini– were not found during the repeat survey.

•	No species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters.  

•	One species recorded during the second survey of the Port of Auckland – the club-shaped ascidan Styela clava - is on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms.

•	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 47 \% (nine of 19 species) of NIS recorded in the two Port of Auckland baseline surveys are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 10 \% (two species) via ballast water, 36 \% (seven species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors and the vectors of introduction for 10 \% (two species) is currently unknown.

•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of Port of Auckland (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and van den Brink, Anneke and Schimanski, Kate and Peacock, Lisa and Kospartov, Marie and Neil, Kerry and Miller, Sheryl and Ahyong, Shane T. and Burnett, Jill and Read, Geoffrey and Page, M. and Cox, Serena L.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Auckland, Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Waitemata Harbour, biological invasions},
	pages = {160 pp.},
}

\textlessi\textgreaterExecutive summary \textless/i\textgreater • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Auckland undertaken in March 2006. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with that recorded during an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Auckland undertaken in April 2003. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. • To allow a direct comparison with the initial baseline survey of the Port of Auckland, the repeat survey used the same methodologies and sampled the same sites (where possible) as in the initial 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 Auckland. 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, seastar and shrimp traps. • Sampling effort in the Port of Auckland was distributed 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. • As a result of ongoing taxonomic work, some identifications made during the initial baseline survey of the Port of Auckland have undergone revision since the publication of that report. The revised data indicated that a total of 173 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Auckland in April 2003. They consisted of 116 native species, 22 cryptogenic taxa, 14 non-indigenous species, and 21 indeterminate taxa • During the repeat survey, 238 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 145 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 34 cryptogenic species and 45 indeterminate taxa. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 51 % of the native species, 50 % of the non-indigenous species, and 41 % of the cryptogenic taxa recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 14 non-indigenous species found in the repeat survey of the Port of Auckland included representatives of 17 phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans, Paralepidontus ampuliferus; (Arthropoda) Apocorphium acutum, Charybdis japonica; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Watersipora subtorquata; (Chordata) Styela clava; (Cnidaria) Pennaria disticha; (Mollusca) Limaria orientalis, Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; (Porifera) Amphilectus fucorum, Callyspongia robusta and (Entoprocta) Barentsia matsushimana. Seven of these species – P. ampuliferus, A. acutum, W. subtoquata, S. clava, L. orientalis, C. robusta and B. matsushimana - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Auckland. In addition, six non-indigenous species that were recorded in the first survey – (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, Celleporaria sp. 1, Anguinella palmate; (Chordata) Arenigobius bifrenatus; (Cnidaria) Obelia longissima and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini– were not found during the repeat survey. • No species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. • One species recorded during the second survey of the Port of Auckland – the club-shaped ascidan Styela clava - is on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. • 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 47 % (nine of 19 species) of NIS recorded in the two Port of Auckland baseline surveys are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 10 % (two species) via ballast water, 36 % (seven species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors and the vectors of introduction for 10 % (two species) is currently unknown. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of Port of Auckland (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.

@techreport{inglis_kaipara_2010,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Kaipara {Harbour} \& {Marinas}: {Baseline} survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32827-kaipara-harbour-and-marinas-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-research-project-zbs200519},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}

•	This report describes the results of the first port baseline survey of Kaipara Harbour, undertaken in September and October 2006. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the fiord and surrounding coastal area and compares the biota with existing marine species records from the area. 

•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in New Zealand’s shipping ports and marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. 

•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Some variations to these protocols were necessary for use in the marine environments of Kaipara Harbour. 

•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within Kaipara Harbour. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using an anchor box dredge, large hand corer and diver visual transects, and a gravity corer or small hand corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled with fine-meshed plankton nets. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited crab and shrimp traps, and fish were sampled with poison stations and beach seine netting. Beach wrack was surveyed on visual walks along selected shorelines. Sediment samples were also collected to analyse organic content and particle size. 

•	Sampling effort was distributed in Kaipara Harbour and surrounding coastal environments according to priorities identified by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In total, 22 sites were sampled during the survey.

•	Organisms collected during the survey were sent to New Zealand and international taxonomic experts for identification.

•	Prior to the baseline survey, a desktop review was conducted to compile an inventory of non-indigenous marine species that have been recorded previously from Kaipara Harbour and surrounding areas. Seven non-indigenous species (the molluscs Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica, the bryozoan Membraniporopsis tubigera and the magnoliophytes Spartina alterniflora, Spartina anglica and Spartina x townsendi) had been reported from within Kaipara Harbour. Four cryptogenic category one taxa (C1: those whose identity as native or non-indigenous is ambiguous) were also reported from within Kaipara Harbour.

•	The baseline survey of Kaipara Harbour recorded a total of 389 species or higher taxa. The collection consisted of 274 native taxa, 10 non-indigenous species (NIS), nine cryptogenic category one taxa, 18 cryptogenic category two taxa (species that have recently been discovered but for which there is insufficient biogeographic or taxonomic information to determine the native provenance), and zooplankton (which were screened for target non-indigenous species but otherwise not identified), with the remaining 77 taxa being indeterminate (unable to be identified to species level).

•	The ten species recorded in the survey known to be non-indigenous to New Zealand included the annelid Dipolydora armata, the crustaceans Jassa slatteryi and Pyromaia tuberculata, the bryozoans Conopeum seurati, Anguinella palmata and Bowerbankia gracilis, the molluscs Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica and the sponge Amphilectus fucorum

•	The nine cryptogenic category one taxa recorded from the initial baseline survey included the crustacean Lysmata vittata, the ascidian Didemnum sp., the cnidarian Bougainvillia muscus, the dinoflagellates Gymnodinium catenatum, Alexandrium affine and Alexandrium catenella and the sponges Suberites cf. perfectus, Ciocalypta cf. pencillus and Callyspongia ramose. All of these taxa are known to have established populations within New Zealand, but the occurrence of three of them in Kaipara Harbour represents an extension of the known range in New Zealand (L. vittata, S. cf. perfectus and C. cf. pencillus). 

•	The 19 NIS and C1 taxa were recorded from a total of only 72 of the 368 samples identified during the Kaipara Harbour survey, in water depths ranging from the intertidal zone to 28 m. the majority of these were anchor box dredges, pile scrapings and benthic sleds. 

•	Four taxa recorded from the initial port baseline survey of Kaipara Harbour are new records from New Zealand waters, and may be new to science. These are the sponges Adocia new sp. 10, Haliclona new sp. 21, Eurypon new sp. 1 and Tedania new sp. 5. All of these are considered to be cryptogenic category 2 taxa (C2), as there is insufficient information to determine whether New Zealand lies within their native range.

•	None of the species recorded during the Kaipara Harbour survey or during the desktop review of existing species records are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. However, two species are on the Australian CCIMPE Trigger List (the mollusc Musculista senhousia (NIS; recorded in both the survey and the desktop review) and the ascidian Didemnum sp. (C1; recorded only from the survey

•	Four toxin-producing dinoflagellates were recorded during the Kaipara Harbour port baseline survey – the native species Protoceratium reticulatum and the C1 taxa Alexandrium catenella, Gymnodinium catenatum and Alexandrium ostenfeldii. One native, toxin-producing diatom, Pseudo-nitzschia australis was also recorded. Another two native diatoms recorded during the port survey, Chaetoceros convolutes and Chaetoceros concavicornis are considered harmful to fish due to its barbed setae, but are not directly toxic. 

•	There was only limited overlap in species composition between the desktop review of existing marine species records and the records from the port baseline survey. These differences can be attributed to variation in sampling effort and technique between surveys and to the differences in time-frame over which the records were accumulated (i.e. single snap-shot survey versus accumulation of historical records).  

•	Most non-indigenous and C1 taxa recorded during the Kaipara Harbour port survey or desktop review are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping).

•	The councils in charge of Kaipara Harbour are implementing marine Biosecurity policies to protect the area from further invasion of NIS and C1 taxa, and from spread of those already present to other New Zealand locations.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Schimanski, Kate and van den Brink, Anneke and Kospartov, Marie and Smith, Matt and Miller, Sheryl and Cox, Serena L. and Read, Geoffrey and Burnett, Jill and Page, Mike and Gordon, Dennis},
	month = jun,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, Kaipara Harbour, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {151 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of the first port baseline survey of Kaipara Harbour, undertaken in September and October 2006. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the fiord and surrounding coastal area and compares the biota with existing marine species records from the area. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in New Zealand’s shipping ports and marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Some variations to these protocols were necessary for use in the marine environments of Kaipara Harbour. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within Kaipara Harbour. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using an anchor box dredge, large hand corer and diver visual transects, and a gravity corer or small hand corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled with fine-meshed plankton nets. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited crab and shrimp traps, and fish were sampled with poison stations and beach seine netting. Beach wrack was surveyed on visual walks along selected shorelines. Sediment samples were also collected to analyse organic content and particle size. • Sampling effort was distributed in Kaipara Harbour and surrounding coastal environments according to priorities identified by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In total, 22 sites were sampled during the survey. • Organisms collected during the survey were sent to New Zealand and international taxonomic experts for identification. • Prior to the baseline survey, a desktop review was conducted to compile an inventory of non-indigenous marine species that have been recorded previously from Kaipara Harbour and surrounding areas. Seven non-indigenous species (the molluscs Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica, the bryozoan Membraniporopsis tubigera and the magnoliophytes Spartina alterniflora, Spartina anglica and Spartina x townsendi) had been reported from within Kaipara Harbour. Four cryptogenic category one taxa (C1: those whose identity as native or non-indigenous is ambiguous) were also reported from within Kaipara Harbour. • The baseline survey of Kaipara Harbour recorded a total of 389 species or higher taxa. The collection consisted of 274 native taxa, 10 non-indigenous species (NIS), nine cryptogenic category one taxa, 18 cryptogenic category two taxa (species that have recently been discovered but for which there is insufficient biogeographic or taxonomic information to determine the native provenance), and zooplankton (which were screened for target non-indigenous species but otherwise not identified), with the remaining 77 taxa being indeterminate (unable to be identified to species level). • The ten species recorded in the survey known to be non-indigenous to New Zealand included the annelid Dipolydora armata, the crustaceans Jassa slatteryi and Pyromaia tuberculata, the bryozoans Conopeum seurati, Anguinella palmata and Bowerbankia gracilis, the molluscs Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica and the sponge Amphilectus fucorum • The nine cryptogenic category one taxa recorded from the initial baseline survey included the crustacean Lysmata vittata, the ascidian Didemnum sp., the cnidarian Bougainvillia muscus, the dinoflagellates Gymnodinium catenatum, Alexandrium affine and Alexandrium catenella and the sponges Suberites cf. perfectus, Ciocalypta cf. pencillus and Callyspongia ramose. All of these taxa are known to have established populations within New Zealand, but the occurrence of three of them in Kaipara Harbour represents an extension of the known range in New Zealand (L. vittata, S. cf. perfectus and C. cf. pencillus). • The 19 NIS and C1 taxa were recorded from a total of only 72 of the 368 samples identified during the Kaipara Harbour survey, in water depths ranging from the intertidal zone to 28 m. the majority of these were anchor box dredges, pile scrapings and benthic sleds. • Four taxa recorded from the initial port baseline survey of Kaipara Harbour are new records from New Zealand waters, and may be new to science. These are the sponges Adocia new sp. 10, Haliclona new sp. 21, Eurypon new sp. 1 and Tedania new sp. 5. All of these are considered to be cryptogenic category 2 taxa (C2), as there is insufficient information to determine whether New Zealand lies within their native range. • None of the species recorded during the Kaipara Harbour survey or during the desktop review of existing species records are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. However, two species are on the Australian CCIMPE Trigger List (the mollusc Musculista senhousia (NIS; recorded in both the survey and the desktop review) and the ascidian Didemnum sp. (C1; recorded only from the survey • Four toxin-producing dinoflagellates were recorded during the Kaipara Harbour port baseline survey – the native species Protoceratium reticulatum and the C1 taxa Alexandrium catenella, Gymnodinium catenatum and Alexandrium ostenfeldii. One native, toxin-producing diatom, Pseudo-nitzschia australis was also recorded. Another two native diatoms recorded during the port survey, Chaetoceros convolutes and Chaetoceros concavicornis are considered harmful to fish due to its barbed setae, but are not directly toxic. • There was only limited overlap in species composition between the desktop review of existing marine species records and the records from the port baseline survey. These differences can be attributed to variation in sampling effort and technique between surveys and to the differences in time-frame over which the records were accumulated (i.e. single snap-shot survey versus accumulation of historical records). • Most non-indigenous and C1 taxa recorded during the Kaipara Harbour port survey or desktop review are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping). • The councils in charge of Kaipara Harbour are implementing marine Biosecurity policies to protect the area from further invasion of NIS and C1 taxa, and from spread of those already present to other New Zealand locations.

@techreport{floerl_review_2010,
	type = {Final {Report}},
	title = {Review of biosecurity and contaminant risks associated with in-water cleaning},
	url = {https://www.marinepests.gov.au/sites/default/files/Documents/review-biosecurity-contaminant-risks-in-water-cleaning.pdf},
	abstract = {Executive Summary
In 1997, the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) developed the Code of Practice for Antifouling andIn-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance (hereafter referred to as the ANZECC Code). The ANZECC Code was developed out of dual concerns over the toxic effects of antifouling biocides on the marine environment and the potential of in-water ship hull cleaning practices to facilitate the establishment of marine non-indigenous species (NIS). 

The ANZECC Code describes practices that prevent the release of toxic chemicals and biofouling organisms into the marine environment. It prohibits in-water cleaning of vessels unless a permit is granted by the relevant management authority. The ANZECC Code is currently at variance with the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships, ratified by Australia in 2007, because it accepts the use of tributyltin-based antifouling coatings. 

Over the past decade, progress has been made internationally with the development of non-biocidal antifouling coatings and novel hull cleaning technologies that reduce the risk of releasing contaminants or biofouling organisms into the marine environment. This report represents a literature review and analysis of the benefits and risks of in-water cleaning associated with currently available cleaning technologies, and considers whether an alternative approach to the current protocols within the ANZECC Code is appropriate.},
	author = {Floerl, O. and Peacock, L. and Seaward, K. and Inglis, G.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2010},
}

Executive Summary In 1997, the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) developed the Code of Practice for Antifouling andIn-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance (hereafter referred to as the ANZECC Code). The ANZECC Code was developed out of dual concerns over the toxic effects of antifouling biocides on the marine environment and the potential of in-water ship hull cleaning practices to facilitate the establishment of marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The ANZECC Code describes practices that prevent the release of toxic chemicals and biofouling organisms into the marine environment. It prohibits in-water cleaning of vessels unless a permit is granted by the relevant management authority. The ANZECC Code is currently at variance with the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships, ratified by Australia in 2007, because it accepts the use of tributyltin-based antifouling coatings. Over the past decade, progress has been made internationally with the development of non-biocidal antifouling coatings and novel hull cleaning technologies that reduce the risk of releasing contaminants or biofouling organisms into the marine environment. This report represents a literature review and analysis of the benefits and risks of in-water cleaning associated with currently available cleaning technologies, and considers whether an alternative approach to the current protocols within the ANZECC Code is appropriate.

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for the {Port} of {Auckland} 2008/2009.},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31581-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Waitemata-Harbour},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, D. and Peacock, L. and Inglis, G.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Auckland, Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {35 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-1,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Wellington} {Harbour} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31584-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Wellington},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J. and Miller, Sheryl},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, Wellington, biological invasions},
	pages = {26 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-2,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Lyttelton} {Harbour} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31563-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Lyttelton},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J. and Woods, Chris M. C.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, Lyttelton Harbour, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {31 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-3,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Otago} {Harbour} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31560-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Dunedin},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J. and Woods, Chris M. C.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Dunedin, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Otago Harbour, Port Chalmers, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {25 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-4,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Picton} {Harbour} and {Havelock} {Marina} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31572-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Picton},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Havelock, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Picton, Port surveys, Surveillance, Waikawa marina, biological invasions},
	pages = {45 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-5,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for the {Port} of {Nelson} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31566-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Nelson},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, Nelson, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {25 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-6,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Tauranga} {Harbour} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31587-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Whangarei},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J. and Smith, Matt},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, Tauranga, biological invasions},
	pages = {28 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2009-7,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Annual} report for {Whangarei} {Harbour} 2008/2009},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31587-Targeted-surveillance-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-in-New-Zealand-Design-report-for-Whangarei},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Peacock, Lisa and Inglis, G. J. and Middleton, Crispin},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, Whangarei Harbour, biological invasions},
	pages = {30 pp.},
}

@techreport{inglis_kaikoura_2009,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Kaikoura: {First} baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32824-kaikoura-first-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-research-project-zbs200519},
	abstract = {{\textless}i{\textgreater}Executive summary
{\textless}/i{\textgreater}
•	This report describes the results of the first port baseline survey of Kaikoura, undertaken in May 2007. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine taxa in Kaikoura and the surrounding coastal area and compares the biota with existing marine species records from the area. 
•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in New Zealand’s shipping ports and marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. 
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Some variations to these protocols were necessary for use in the marine environments of Kaikoura. 
•	A wide range of sampling techniques were used to collect marine organisms from habitats within Kaikoura. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using an anchor box dredge, large hand corer and diver visual transects, and a gravity corer or small hand corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled with fine-meshed plankton nets. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited crab and shrimp traps, and fish were sampled with poison stations and beach seine netting. Beach wrack was surveyed on visual walks along selected shorelines. Sediment samples were also collected to analyse organic content and particle size. 
•	Sampling effort was distributed in Kaikoura and surrounding coastal environments according to priorities identified by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In total, 21 sites were sampled during the survey.
•	Organisms collected during the survey were sent to New Zealand and international taxonomic experts for identification.
•	Prior to the port baseline survey, a desktop review was conducted to compile an inventory of non-indigenous marine species that have been recorded previously from Kaikoura and surrounding areas. Eight non-indigenous species were recorded from the literature describing the Kaikoura marine flora and fauna. These include the polychaete worm Dipolydora armata, amphipod Monocorophium sextonae, salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, hydroid Obelia longissima, brown algae Punctaria latifolia, Sargassum verruculosum and Undaria pinnatifia and the sponge Chondropsis topsentii. Fourteen cryptogenic category one taxa (C1: those whose identity as native or non-indigenous is ambiguous) were also recorded from the literature describing Kaikoura.  
•	The initial port baseline survey of Kaikoura recorded a total of 411 species or higher taxa. The collection consisted of 296 native taxa, four non-indigenous species, eight cryptogenic category one taxa, 20 cryptogenic category two taxa (species that have recently been discovered but for which there is insufficient biogeographic or taxonomic information to determine the native provenance), and zooplankton (which were screened for target non-indigenous species but otherwise not identified), with the remaining 82 taxa being indeterminate (unable to be identified to species level). 
•	The four non-indigenous species (NIS) recorded from the initial baseline survey of Kaikoura included the amphipod Jassa slatteryi, the hydroid Pennaria disticha, the brown alga Undaria pinnatifida and the sponge Dendya clathrata. The eight C1 taxa were represented by the polychaete worm species complex Capitella “capitata”, the ascidians Didemnum sp., Cystodytes dellechiajei, Corella eumyota and Botrylloides leachi, and the sponges Leucosolenia cf. discoveryi, Callyspongia diffusa and Crella incrustans. All of these have been previously recorded in New Zealand. However, the record of the NIS sponge Dendya clathrata from the Kaikoura port survey represents an extension to the known range of this species in New Zealand. 
•	The 12 NIS and C1 taxa collected during the Kaikoura port survey were represented by 29 records. They occurred in samples collected by seven different sampling methods, in water depths ranging from the intertidal to below 20 m depth. Almost half of these records came from pile scrapings at depths of 5 m or less. Benthic sleds and diver visual surveys yielded the next greatest numbers of NIS \& C1 taxon records. 
•	The greatest number of NIS and C1 taxa were recorded during the port survey from 
•	All of the taxa recorded from the first port baseline survey of Kaikoura have been recorded previously in New Zealand. 
•	One of the species recorded from the Kaikoura port survey, the Asian seaweed Undaria pinnatifida, is currently listed on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. It is also listed on the Australian CCIMPE Trigger List along with four other taxa recorded from the Kaikoura baseline survey - the ascidian Didemnum sp. (considered C1 in New Zealand) and the three diatoms Pseudo-nitzschia australis, Chaetoceros concavicornis and C. convolutus (all considered native in New Zealand). Undaria pinnatifida is also on an Australian list of 53 Australian priority domestic pests. Another species on the Australian priority domestic pest list, the mollusc Chiton glaucus (considered native in New Zealand), was recorded during the desktop review of existing marine species records from Kaikoura. Another three species recorded from the Kaikoura port survey, the three diatoms Pseudo-nitzschia australis, Chaetoceros concavicornis and C. convolutus (all considered native in New Zealand), are included on the companion Australian list of 37 priority international pests. 
•	Three toxin-producing species were recorded during the Kaikoura port baseline survey – the native dinoflagellates Dinophysis acuminata and D. tripos and the native diatom Pseudo-nitzschia australis. Cyst specimens of another dinoflagellate genus known to contain toxin-producing species, Alexandrium sp., were also collected during the Kaikoura port survey, but could not be identified to species level. Another two native diatoms recorded during the port survey, Chaetoceros convolutus and C. concavicornis, are considered harmful to fish due to their barbed setae, but are not directly toxic. 
•	Two hundred and fifty of the 328 taxa (76 \%) that were identified in the port survey were not represented amongst the 510 taxa recorded during the desktop review. The port baseline survey thus represents a valuable addition to the knowledge of the flora and fauna of the Kaikoura area. The low overlap in species composition between the desktop review of existing marine species records and the records from the port baseline survey can be attributed to variation in sampling effort and technique between surveys and to the differences in time-frame over which the records were accumulated (i.e. single snap-shot survey versus accumulation of historical records).  
•	Most non-indigenous and C1 taxa recorded during the Kaikorua survey or desktop review are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping, associated with fisheries or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping).
•	There is little shipping traffic operating in Kaikoura, and those that do operate there are generally ecotourism, fishing or recreation vessels. This lack of shipping activity significantly reduces the risk of introduction of new marine species to the area.
•	The distribution of NIS and C1 taxa in the Kaikoura area appears to be centred around the three main wharf or slipway areas (Fyffe Cove slipway, the South Bay area, and the Ingles Bay area). It is suggested that regular maintenance and surveillance of these areas and the vessels using them will reduce the likelihood of NIS and C1 taxa becoming established at Kaikoura and prevent them from being translocated to other locations in New Zealand.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Kospartov, Marie and Seaward, Kimberley and Schimanski, Kate and Peacock, Lisa and Gust, N. and Hoe, Chang and Read, Geoffrey and Ahyong, Shane T. and Burnett, Jill and Cox, Serena L.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, Kaikoura, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {153 pp.},
}

\textlessi\textgreaterExecutive summary \textless/i\textgreater • This report describes the results of the first port baseline survey of Kaikoura, undertaken in May 2007. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine taxa in Kaikoura and the surrounding coastal area and compares the biota with existing marine species records from the area. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in New Zealand’s shipping ports and marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Some variations to these protocols were necessary for use in the marine environments of Kaikoura. • A wide range of sampling techniques were used to collect marine organisms from habitats within Kaikoura. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using an anchor box dredge, large hand corer and diver visual transects, and a gravity corer or small hand corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled with fine-meshed plankton nets. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited crab and shrimp traps, and fish were sampled with poison stations and beach seine netting. Beach wrack was surveyed on visual walks along selected shorelines. Sediment samples were also collected to analyse organic content and particle size. • Sampling effort was distributed in Kaikoura and surrounding coastal environments according to priorities identified by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In total, 21 sites were sampled during the survey. • Organisms collected during the survey were sent to New Zealand and international taxonomic experts for identification. • Prior to the port baseline survey, a desktop review was conducted to compile an inventory of non-indigenous marine species that have been recorded previously from Kaikoura and surrounding areas. Eight non-indigenous species were recorded from the literature describing the Kaikoura marine flora and fauna. These include the polychaete worm Dipolydora armata, amphipod Monocorophium sextonae, salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, hydroid Obelia longissima, brown algae Punctaria latifolia, Sargassum verruculosum and Undaria pinnatifia and the sponge Chondropsis topsentii. Fourteen cryptogenic category one taxa (C1: those whose identity as native or non-indigenous is ambiguous) were also recorded from the literature describing Kaikoura. • The initial port baseline survey of Kaikoura recorded a total of 411 species or higher taxa. The collection consisted of 296 native taxa, four non-indigenous species, eight cryptogenic category one taxa, 20 cryptogenic category two taxa (species that have recently been discovered but for which there is insufficient biogeographic or taxonomic information to determine the native provenance), and zooplankton (which were screened for target non-indigenous species but otherwise not identified), with the remaining 82 taxa being indeterminate (unable to be identified to species level). • The four non-indigenous species (NIS) recorded from the initial baseline survey of Kaikoura included the amphipod Jassa slatteryi, the hydroid Pennaria disticha, the brown alga Undaria pinnatifida and the sponge Dendya clathrata. The eight C1 taxa were represented by the polychaete worm species complex Capitella “capitata”, the ascidians Didemnum sp., Cystodytes dellechiajei, Corella eumyota and Botrylloides leachi, and the sponges Leucosolenia cf. discoveryi, Callyspongia diffusa and Crella incrustans. All of these have been previously recorded in New Zealand. However, the record of the NIS sponge Dendya clathrata from the Kaikoura port survey represents an extension to the known range of this species in New Zealand. • The 12 NIS and C1 taxa collected during the Kaikoura port survey were represented by 29 records. They occurred in samples collected by seven different sampling methods, in water depths ranging from the intertidal to below 20 m depth. Almost half of these records came from pile scrapings at depths of 5 m or less. Benthic sleds and diver visual surveys yielded the next greatest numbers of NIS & C1 taxon records. • The greatest number of NIS and C1 taxa were recorded during the port survey from • All of the taxa recorded from the first port baseline survey of Kaikoura have been recorded previously in New Zealand. • One of the species recorded from the Kaikoura port survey, the Asian seaweed Undaria pinnatifida, is currently listed on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. It is also listed on the Australian CCIMPE Trigger List along with four other taxa recorded from the Kaikoura baseline survey - the ascidian Didemnum sp. (considered C1 in New Zealand) and the three diatoms Pseudo-nitzschia australis, Chaetoceros concavicornis and C. convolutus (all considered native in New Zealand). Undaria pinnatifida is also on an Australian list of 53 Australian priority domestic pests. Another species on the Australian priority domestic pest list, the mollusc Chiton glaucus (considered native in New Zealand), was recorded during the desktop review of existing marine species records from Kaikoura. Another three species recorded from the Kaikoura port survey, the three diatoms Pseudo-nitzschia australis, Chaetoceros concavicornis and C. convolutus (all considered native in New Zealand), are included on the companion Australian list of 37 priority international pests. • Three toxin-producing species were recorded during the Kaikoura port baseline survey – the native dinoflagellates Dinophysis acuminata and D. tripos and the native diatom Pseudo-nitzschia australis. Cyst specimens of another dinoflagellate genus known to contain toxin-producing species, Alexandrium sp., were also collected during the Kaikoura port survey, but could not be identified to species level. Another two native diatoms recorded during the port survey, Chaetoceros convolutus and C. concavicornis, are considered harmful to fish due to their barbed setae, but are not directly toxic. • Two hundred and fifty of the 328 taxa (76 %) that were identified in the port survey were not represented amongst the 510 taxa recorded during the desktop review. The port baseline survey thus represents a valuable addition to the knowledge of the flora and fauna of the Kaikoura area. The low overlap in species composition between the desktop review of existing marine species records and the records from the port baseline survey can be attributed to variation in sampling effort and technique between surveys and to the differences in time-frame over which the records were accumulated (i.e. single snap-shot survey versus accumulation of historical records). • Most non-indigenous and C1 taxa recorded during the Kaikorua survey or desktop review are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping, associated with fisheries or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping). • There is little shipping traffic operating in Kaikoura, and those that do operate there are generally ecotourism, fishing or recreation vessels. This lack of shipping activity significantly reduces the risk of introduction of new marine species to the area. • The distribution of NIS and C1 taxa in the Kaikoura area appears to be centred around the three main wharf or slipway areas (Fyffe Cove slipway, the South Bay area, and the Ingles Bay area). It is suggested that regular maintenance and surveillance of these areas and the vessels using them will reduce the likelihood of NIS and C1 taxa becoming established at Kaikoura and prevent them from being translocated to other locations in New Zealand.

@techreport{hayden_vessel_2009,
	address = {Pastoral House},
	type = {Final {Report}},
	title = {Vessel {Movements} within {New} {Zealand} {Evaluation} of vessel movements from the 24 ports and marinas surveyed through the port baseline survey programmes, {ZBS2000}-04 and {ZBS2005}-19 ({ZBS2005}-13)},
	shorttitle = {Assessment of the risk of domestic or secondary transfer of introduced marine species by vessels in {New} {Zealand} waters requires knowledge of voyage patterns and the number of trips made by each vessel type (the vector strength). {This} project aimed to help determine the potential threat that traffic between 24 {New} {Zealand} ports and marinas poses to the spread of introduced marine species within {New} {Zealand} by assessing vessel vector strengths among {New} {Zealand} ports and marinas. {The} report includes movements of large ({\textgreater}99 gross tonnes) merchant vessels (including fishing) in the years 2000-2005, recreational vessel movement in 2000-2004 and small fishing vessels (≤99 tonnes) in 2004-2006. {Arrivals} of vessels from overseas locations were not included in the analyses.},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4128-vessel-movements-within-new-zealand-evaluation-of-vessel-movements-from-the-24-ports-and-marinas-surveyed-through-the-port-baseline-survey-programmes},
	language = {English},
	number = {MPI Technical Paper No: 2014/04},
	urldate = {2020-02-27},
	institution = {Ministry for Primary Industries},
	author = {Hayden, Barb and Unwin, Martin and Roulston, Helen and Peacock, Lisa and Floerl, Oliver and Kospartov, Marie and Seaward, Kimberley},
	month = jun,
	year = {2009},
	pages = {263},
}

@techreport{stuart_golden_2009,
	address = {Pastoral House},
	type = {Final {Report}},
	title = {Golden {Bay} {Non}-{Indigenous} {Species} {Port} {Survey}. {Baseline} {Surveys} of {New} {Ports} and {Marinas}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32818-golden-bay-non-indigenous-species-port-survey-baseline-surveys-of-new-ports-and-marinas},
	abstract = {New Zealand’s geographic isolation presents the opportunity to protect its unique biodiversity and economy. Knowledge of existing non-indigenous and indigenous biodiversity is required to identify new species threats, detect new species introductions, and undertake effective management of marine biosecurity (Hewitt et al. 2004). New Zealand has, therefore, implemented a number of baseline port surveys to elucidate the degree of non-indigenous and indigenous species diversity within its ports, marinas and also in regions relatively unaffected by human activities (Campbell et al. 2007). 

This document reports the results of a baseline survey of native and non-indigenous species undertaken at Golden Bay, New Zealand between 5 and 9 November 2007. The survey was performed by Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd and the Cawthron Institute in accordance with survey protocols and design prepared by the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. 

Nine non-indigenous species and nineteen cryptogenic species were detected during the survey. The non-indigenous species comprised Barantolla lepte, Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Crassostrea gigas, Cryptosula pallasiana, Limaria orientalis, Tricellaria catalinensis, Undaria pinnatifida and Watersipora subtorquata. All non-indigenous species had been recorded previously in New Zealand. Bugula flabellata, C. gigas, C. pallasiana, U. pinnatifida and W. subtorquata were collected from wharf pilings or pontoons, indicating an association with shipping and a biofouling habit, whereas B. flabellata and U. pinnatifida were also found on marine farms, indicating an association with aquaculture activities. 

The possible origin and potential vectors for the translocation of new species to Golden Bay are discussed in relation to the relative risk of new species introductions and the translocation of non-indigenous species that have established at Golden Bay. Options for the management of vector pathways and non-indigenous species to prevent new species incursions to Golden Bay and the spread of established species are also discussed.},
	language = {English},
	number = {Biosecurity project number ZBS 2005/19},
	urldate = {2020-02-27},
	institution = {MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON},
	author = {Stuart, M and Jones, E and Piola, R and McClary, D},
	month = aug,
	year = {2009},
	pages = {66},
}

New Zealand’s geographic isolation presents the opportunity to protect its unique biodiversity and economy. Knowledge of existing non-indigenous and indigenous biodiversity is required to identify new species threats, detect new species introductions, and undertake effective management of marine biosecurity (Hewitt et al. 2004). New Zealand has, therefore, implemented a number of baseline port surveys to elucidate the degree of non-indigenous and indigenous species diversity within its ports, marinas and also in regions relatively unaffected by human activities (Campbell et al. 2007). This document reports the results of a baseline survey of native and non-indigenous species undertaken at Golden Bay, New Zealand between 5 and 9 November 2007. The survey was performed by Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd and the Cawthron Institute in accordance with survey protocols and design prepared by the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Nine non-indigenous species and nineteen cryptogenic species were detected during the survey. The non-indigenous species comprised Barantolla lepte, Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Crassostrea gigas, Cryptosula pallasiana, Limaria orientalis, Tricellaria catalinensis, Undaria pinnatifida and Watersipora subtorquata. All non-indigenous species had been recorded previously in New Zealand. Bugula flabellata, C. gigas, C. pallasiana, U. pinnatifida and W. subtorquata were collected from wharf pilings or pontoons, indicating an association with shipping and a biofouling habit, whereas B. flabellata and U. pinnatifida were also found on marine farms, indicating an association with aquaculture activities. The possible origin and potential vectors for the translocation of new species to Golden Bay are discussed in relation to the relative risk of new species introductions and the translocation of non-indigenous species that have established at Golden Bay. Options for the management of vector pathways and non-indigenous species to prevent new species incursions to Golden Bay and the spread of established species are also discussed.

@techreport{inglis_vessel_2008,
	title = {Vessel biofouling as a vector for the introduction of non-indigenous marine species to {New} {Zealand}: {Management} {Tools}.},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Ponder-Sutton, A. and Unwin, M. J. and Floerl, O.},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {135 pp},
}

@techreport{inglis_perna_2008,
	address = {Christchurch},
	title = {Perna viridis and {Mytilopsis} sallei. {Rapid} {Response} {Manual} {Version} 1},
	url = {https://www.marinepests.gov.au/sites/default/files/Documents/empplan-rapid-response-manual-mytilopsis-sallei-perna-viridis.pdf},
	abstract = {Marine Pest Rapid Response Manuals are technical documents that provide the authoritative reference to the control/eradication policies for a particular marine pest in Australia. They provide species-specific information about the pest, principles for its control and relevant control policies. The manuals are designed to provide sufficient information to allow authorities to make informed decisions on what policies and procedures should be used to control an outbreak of the marine pest in Australia.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Seaward, K. and Lewis, A.},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {73 pp.},
}

Marine Pest Rapid Response Manuals are technical documents that provide the authoritative reference to the control/eradication policies for a particular marine pest in Australia. They provide species-specific information about the pest, principles for its control and relevant control policies. The manuals are designed to provide sufficient information to allow authorities to make informed decisions on what policies and procedures should be used to control an outbreak of the marine pest in Australia.

@techreport{bell_assessing_2008,
	title = {Assessing the marginal dollar value losses to an estuarine ecosystem from an aggressive alien invasive crab},
	url = {https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare08/5978.html},
	abstract = {This paper reports on a case study to establish dollar values for loss of biodiversity in the New Zealand coastal marine environment. The study uses the European Shore Crab (Carcinas maenas) as the example alien invasive species and the Pauatahanui Inlet, Wellington, New Zealand, as the ecosystem representative of the coastal marine environment. Choice modelling is the stated preference tool used to elicit marginal dollar values for these various attributes of the inlet. Reallocation of existing government expenditure is used as the payment mechanism. Results indicate a wide range of dollar values for the marginal losses to the environment, with no clear trend on a distance-decay relationship. The probability distributions of the dollar values of the environmental attributes tended to have a concentration around the median with very wide tails, especially on the high side. This indicates that most people generally agreed on a dollar value, but a very few individuals expressed extremely high values. The study concludes that the dollar values for loss of biodiversity and other environmental attributes do provide useful information to decision makers, but considerable caution needs to be exercised when applying these values in benefit cost studies. Marginal rate of substitution estimates between environmental attributes will be useful for estimating money values for attributes identified given future work estimates a statistically significant money value for one.},
	language = {en},
	number = {5978},
	urldate = {2021-05-11},
	institution = {Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society},
	author = {Bell, Brian A. and Menzies, Sharon and Yap, Michael and Kerr, Geoffrey N.},
	year = {2008},
	note = {Publication Title: 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia},
	keywords = {Environmental Economics and Policy, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy},
}

This paper reports on a case study to establish dollar values for loss of biodiversity in the New Zealand coastal marine environment. The study uses the European Shore Crab (Carcinas maenas) as the example alien invasive species and the Pauatahanui Inlet, Wellington, New Zealand, as the ecosystem representative of the coastal marine environment. Choice modelling is the stated preference tool used to elicit marginal dollar values for these various attributes of the inlet. Reallocation of existing government expenditure is used as the payment mechanism. Results indicate a wide range of dollar values for the marginal losses to the environment, with no clear trend on a distance-decay relationship. The probability distributions of the dollar values of the environmental attributes tended to have a concentration around the median with very wide tails, especially on the high side. This indicates that most people generally agreed on a dollar value, but a very few individuals expressed extremely high values. The study concludes that the dollar values for loss of biodiversity and other environmental attributes do provide useful information to decision makers, but considerable caution needs to be exercised when applying these values in benefit cost studies. Marginal rate of substitution estimates between environmental attributes will be useful for estimating money values for attributes identified given future work estimates a statistically significant money value for one.

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2008,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Whangarei}},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31587/direct},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Willis, Kate J. and Inglis, G. J. and Middleton, Crispin and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, Whangarei Harbour, biological invasions},
	pages = {84 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2008-1,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Waitemata} {Harbour} (including the {Viaduct} {Basin}, {Hobson} {West} {Marina} area, {Westhaven} {Marina} and {Bayswater} {Marina})},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Smith, Matt and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Auckland, Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {86 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2008-2,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Wellington}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Miller, Sheryl and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, Wellington, biological invasions},
	pages = {87 pp.},
}

@techreport{willis_targeted_2008,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Bluff}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Willis, Kate J. and Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Johnson, Olivia and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Bluff, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {78 pp.},
}

@techreport{willis_targeted_2008-1,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Lyttelton}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Willis, Kate J. and Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Johnson, Olivia and Woods, Chris M. C. and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, Lyttelton Harbour, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {85 pp.},
}

@techreport{willis_targeted_2008-2,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Dunedin}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Willis, Kate J. and Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Johnson, Olivia and Woods, Chris M. C. and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Dunedin, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Otago Harbour, Port Chalmers, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {86 pp.},
}

@techreport{willis_targeted_2008-3,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Picton}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Willis, Kate J. and Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Middleton, Crispin and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Havelock, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Picton, Port surveys, Surveillance, Waikawa marina, biological invasions},
	pages = {82 pp.},
}

@techreport{morrisey_targeted_2008-3,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Nelson}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Morrisey, Donald and Willis, Kate J. and Inglis, G. J. and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, Nelson, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, biological invasions},
	pages = {85 pp.},
}

@techreport{willis_targeted_2008-4,
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Targeted surveillance for non-indigenous marine species in {New} {Zealand}. {Design} report for {Tauranga}},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Willis, Kate J. and Morrisey, Donald and Inglis, G. J. and Miller, Sheryl and Smith, Matt and Peacock, Lisa},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Surveillance, Tauranga, biological invasions},
	pages = {90 pp.},
}

@techreport{inglis_taharoa_2008,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Taharoa {Terminal}: {First} baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32839-taharoa-terminal-first-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marine-species-research-project-zbs2005-19},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}

This report describes the results of the first port baseline survey of Taharoa Terminal, undertaken from late May to early July 2006. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species at the Taharoa Terminal and surrounding coastal area and compares the biota with existing marine species records from the area. 
•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in New Zealand’s shipping ports and marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. 
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Some variations to these protocols were necessary for use in the marine and coastal environments of Taharoa. 
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats at Taharoa. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using an anchor box dredge, large hand corer and diver visual surveys, and a gravity corer or small hand corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled with fine-meshed plankton nets. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited crab and shrimp traps, and fish were sampled with poison stations and beach seine netting. Beach wrack was surveyed on visual walks along selected shorelines. Sediment samples were also collected to analyse organic content and particle size. 
•	Sampling effort was distributed at the Taharoa Terminal and surrounding coastal environments according to priorities identified by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In total, 27 sites were sampled during the survey.
•	Organisms collected during the survey were sent to New Zealand and international taxonomic experts for identification.
•	Prior to the port baseline survey, a desktop review was conducted to compile an inventory of non-indigenous marine species that have been recorded previously from Taharoa and surrounding areas. No non-indigenous species had been reported from the area. Two cryptogenic category one taxa (C1: those whose identity as native or non-indigenous is ambiguous), both dinoflagellates, had been reported from Taharoa previously. 
•	The initial port baseline survey of Taharoa Terminal recorded a total of 328 species or higher taxa. The collection consisted of 212 native taxa, six non-indigenous taxa, 12 cryptogenic category one taxa, four cryptogenic category two taxa (C2: species that have recently been discovered but for which there is insufficient biogeographic or taxonomic information to determine the native provenance), and zooplankton (which were screened for target non-indigenous species but otherwise not identified), with the remaining 93 taxa being indeterminate (unable to be identified to species level). 
 

•	The six non-indigenous species (NIS) recorded from the initial baseline survey included three algae (Polysiphonia subtilissima, Polysiphonia brodiei and Polysiphonia aff. sertularioides), one freshwater plant (Elodea canadensis), one barnacle (Austromegabalanus nigrescens) and one bryozoan (Electra angulata). The 12 C1 taxa included the annelid Heteromastus filiformis, the bryozoan Scruparia ambigua, the ascidian Diplosoma listerianum, the hydroids Clytia hemisphaerica and Obelia dichotoma, the dinoflagellates Gymnodinium catenatum, Alexandrium catenella, A. affine, A. ostenfeldii and A. tamarense, the sponge Chondropsis topsentii, and the red alga Ceramium cliftonianum. One NIS – the barnacle Austromegabalanus nigrescens – and one C1 – the alga Ceramium cliftonianum – had not previously been recorded in New Zealand. The other NIS and C1 taxa are known to have established populations within New Zealand, but their occurrence at Taharoa represents an extension of the known range in New Zealand for one of them (Polysiphonia brodiei) and a possible extension for another two (Clytia hemisphaerica and Obelia dichotoma).
•	The 18 NIS and C1 taxa collected during the Taharoa port survey were represented by 138 records. More than three-quarters of these were collected in the quadrat scrapings from the offshore mooring buoy, at depths of 0.5 m and 2 m. The 31 records resulting from the other methods were collected in samples from depths ranging from the intertidal to 35 m depth.
•	The distribution of NIS and C1 taxa in the Taharoa area appears to be centred around the mooring buoy. Seven taxa were recorded only on the mooring buoy, another three were only recorded from samples within 1 km of the buoy, and a further five were recorded from samples within 3 km of the buoy.
•	Four taxa recorded from the initial port baseline survey of Taharoa Terminal appear to be new to science. Classed as C2, these are the bryozoan Celleporina sp. and the polychaetes Notomastus Notomastus-B, Asychis Asychis-B and Paraprionospio Paraprionospio-A [pinnata]. The Taharoa records represent the first records for Celleporina sp. and Notomastus Notomastus-B. 
•	None of the species recorded during the Taharoa Terminal port survey or during the desktop review of existing species records are on the New Zealand Unwanted Organisms Register. However, three diatoms recorded from the port survey are on both the Australian CCIMPE Trigger List and an Australian list of 37 priority international pests. Another two species, the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum (recorded in both the port survey and previously), and the red alga Polysiphonia brodiei (recorded in the port survey), are included on an Australian list of 53 Australian priority domestic pests. 
•	Eight toxin-producing species were recorded during the Taharoa Terminal port baseline survey – the native dinoflagellates Lingulodinium polyedrum, Dinophysis acuta and D. tripos, the native diatom Pseudo-nitzschia australis and the C1 dinoflagellates Alexandrium catenella, A. tamarense, A. ostenfeldii and Gymnodinium catenatum. Only the latter two species have previously been recorded from Taharoa. Another two native diatoms recorded during the port survey, Chaetoceros convolutus and C. concavicornis, are considered harmful to fish due to their barbed setae, but are not directly toxic. 

•	Two hundred and twenty-eight of the 234 species ({\textgreater}97 \%) that were identified in the port survey were not represented amongst the 42 taxa recorded during the desktop review. The port baseline survey thus represents a valuable addition to the knowledge of the flora and fauna of the Taharoa area. The low overlap in species composition between the desktop review of existing marine species records and the records from the port baseline survey can be attributed to the paucity of previous sampling in the area, variation in sampling effort and technique between surveys and to the differences in time-frame over which the records were accumulated (i.e. single snap-shot survey versus accumulation of historical records).  
•	Almost all of the non-indigenous and C1 taxa recorded during the Taharoa port survey or desktop review could have arrived in New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping). Approximately half of them could also have arrived at Taharoa by natural means. 
•	Ten of the 18 species may have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, one through the domestic aquarium trade, two either by hull fouling or by rafting on natural or man-made substrata, and five either in ballast water or on ocean currents. 
•	The distribution of NIS and C1 taxa in the Taharoa area appears to be centred around the mooring buoy. Seven taxa were recorded only on the mooring buoy, and a total of 15 of the 18 taxa were recorded only in samples taken within 3 km from the buoy. It is suggested that maintaining the mooring buoy clear of fouling organisms will reduce the likelihood of NIS and C1 taxa becoming established at Taharoa and prevent them from being translocated to other locations in New Zealand.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Kospartov, Marie and Peacock, Lisa and Middleton, Crispin and Johnson, Olivia},
	month = sep,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {115 pp.},
}

Executive summary This report describes the results of the first port baseline survey of Taharoa Terminal, undertaken from late May to early July 2006. The survey provides an inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species at the Taharoa Terminal and surrounding coastal area and compares the biota with existing marine species records from the area. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in New Zealand’s shipping ports and marinas of first entry for vessels entering New Zealand from overseas. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Some variations to these protocols were necessary for use in the marine and coastal environments of Taharoa. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats at Taharoa. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using an anchor box dredge, large hand corer and diver visual surveys, and a gravity corer or small hand corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Phytoplankton and zooplankton were sampled with fine-meshed plankton nets. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited crab and shrimp traps, and fish were sampled with poison stations and beach seine netting. Beach wrack was surveyed on visual walks along selected shorelines. Sediment samples were also collected to analyse organic content and particle size. • Sampling effort was distributed at the Taharoa Terminal and surrounding coastal environments according to priorities identified by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In total, 27 sites were sampled during the survey. • Organisms collected during the survey were sent to New Zealand and international taxonomic experts for identification. • Prior to the port baseline survey, a desktop review was conducted to compile an inventory of non-indigenous marine species that have been recorded previously from Taharoa and surrounding areas. No non-indigenous species had been reported from the area. Two cryptogenic category one taxa (C1: those whose identity as native or non-indigenous is ambiguous), both dinoflagellates, had been reported from Taharoa previously. • The initial port baseline survey of Taharoa Terminal recorded a total of 328 species or higher taxa. The collection consisted of 212 native taxa, six non-indigenous taxa, 12 cryptogenic category one taxa, four cryptogenic category two taxa (C2: species that have recently been discovered but for which there is insufficient biogeographic or taxonomic information to determine the native provenance), and zooplankton (which were screened for target non-indigenous species but otherwise not identified), with the remaining 93 taxa being indeterminate (unable to be identified to species level). • The six non-indigenous species (NIS) recorded from the initial baseline survey included three algae (Polysiphonia subtilissima, Polysiphonia brodiei and Polysiphonia aff. sertularioides), one freshwater plant (Elodea canadensis), one barnacle (Austromegabalanus nigrescens) and one bryozoan (Electra angulata). The 12 C1 taxa included the annelid Heteromastus filiformis, the bryozoan Scruparia ambigua, the ascidian Diplosoma listerianum, the hydroids Clytia hemisphaerica and Obelia dichotoma, the dinoflagellates Gymnodinium catenatum, Alexandrium catenella, A. affine, A. ostenfeldii and A. tamarense, the sponge Chondropsis topsentii, and the red alga Ceramium cliftonianum. One NIS – the barnacle Austromegabalanus nigrescens – and one C1 – the alga Ceramium cliftonianum – had not previously been recorded in New Zealand. The other NIS and C1 taxa are known to have established populations within New Zealand, but their occurrence at Taharoa represents an extension of the known range in New Zealand for one of them (Polysiphonia brodiei) and a possible extension for another two (Clytia hemisphaerica and Obelia dichotoma). • The 18 NIS and C1 taxa collected during the Taharoa port survey were represented by 138 records. More than three-quarters of these were collected in the quadrat scrapings from the offshore mooring buoy, at depths of 0.5 m and 2 m. The 31 records resulting from the other methods were collected in samples from depths ranging from the intertidal to 35 m depth. • The distribution of NIS and C1 taxa in the Taharoa area appears to be centred around the mooring buoy. Seven taxa were recorded only on the mooring buoy, another three were only recorded from samples within 1 km of the buoy, and a further five were recorded from samples within 3 km of the buoy. • Four taxa recorded from the initial port baseline survey of Taharoa Terminal appear to be new to science. Classed as C2, these are the bryozoan Celleporina sp. and the polychaetes Notomastus Notomastus-B, Asychis Asychis-B and Paraprionospio Paraprionospio-A [pinnata]. The Taharoa records represent the first records for Celleporina sp. and Notomastus Notomastus-B. • None of the species recorded during the Taharoa Terminal port survey or during the desktop review of existing species records are on the New Zealand Unwanted Organisms Register. However, three diatoms recorded from the port survey are on both the Australian CCIMPE Trigger List and an Australian list of 37 priority international pests. Another two species, the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum (recorded in both the port survey and previously), and the red alga Polysiphonia brodiei (recorded in the port survey), are included on an Australian list of 53 Australian priority domestic pests. • Eight toxin-producing species were recorded during the Taharoa Terminal port baseline survey – the native dinoflagellates Lingulodinium polyedrum, Dinophysis acuta and D. tripos, the native diatom Pseudo-nitzschia australis and the C1 dinoflagellates Alexandrium catenella, A. tamarense, A. ostenfeldii and Gymnodinium catenatum. Only the latter two species have previously been recorded from Taharoa. Another two native diatoms recorded during the port survey, Chaetoceros convolutus and C. concavicornis, are considered harmful to fish due to their barbed setae, but are not directly toxic. • Two hundred and twenty-eight of the 234 species (\textgreater97 %) that were identified in the port survey were not represented amongst the 42 taxa recorded during the desktop review. The port baseline survey thus represents a valuable addition to the knowledge of the flora and fauna of the Taharoa area. The low overlap in species composition between the desktop review of existing marine species records and the records from the port baseline survey can be attributed to the paucity of previous sampling in the area, variation in sampling effort and technique between surveys and to the differences in time-frame over which the records were accumulated (i.e. single snap-shot survey versus accumulation of historical records). • Almost all of the non-indigenous and C1 taxa recorded during the Taharoa port survey or desktop review could have arrived in New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or spread from other locations in New Zealand (including translocation by shipping). Approximately half of them could also have arrived at Taharoa by natural means. • Ten of the 18 species may have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, one through the domestic aquarium trade, two either by hull fouling or by rafting on natural or man-made substrata, and five either in ballast water or on ocean currents. • The distribution of NIS and C1 taxa in the Taharoa area appears to be centred around the mooring buoy. Seven taxa were recorded only on the mooring buoy, and a total of 15 of the 18 taxa were recorded only in samples taken within 3 km from the buoy. It is suggested that maintaining the mooring buoy clear of fouling organisms will reduce the likelihood of NIS and C1 taxa becoming established at Taharoa and prevent them from being translocated to other locations in New Zealand.

@techreport{inglis_port_2008,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Wellington}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20wellington.pdf},
	abstract = {Executive summary
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Wellington undertaken in February 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 Wellington undertaken in November / 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 Wellington, 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 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 Wellington. 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 Wellington 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 325 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Wellington in November / December 2001. They consisted of 225 native species, 13 non-indigenous species (NIS), 36 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 51 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 303 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 196 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 48 cryptogenic species and 46 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 64 \% of the native species, 69 \% of non-indigenous species, and 42 \% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 13 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Wellington included representatives of 11 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Spirobranchus polytrema, Polydora hoplura; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Cyclicopora longipora, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale, Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata; (Crustacea) Monocorophium acherusicum; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, and Undaria pinnatifida. Four of these species - Eudendrium generale, Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata, and Monocorophium acherusicum - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Wellington. In addition, four non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – (Annelida) Dipolydora armata, (Cnidaria) Eudendrium capillare, (Crustacea) Cancer gibbosulus and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini – were not found during the repeat survey.
•	Eleven species recorded in the repeat survey were (initially) new records for New Zealand waters. These include one non-indigenous species (the hydroid Eudendrium generale), ten cryptogenic sponges (Adocia new sp. 1, Adocia new sp. 7, Chalinula new sp. 1, Chalinula new sp. 2, Dactylia new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 2, Haliclona new sp. 3, Haliclona new sp. 11 and Haliclona new sp. 16).
•	One species from the Port of Wellington is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms: the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This species 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 through domestic translocationor spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 77 \% (10 of 13 species) of NIS in the Port of Wellington are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 8 \% (1 species) via ballast water and 15 \% (2 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 Wellington (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 Morrisey, D. and Floerl, OWoods and Kospartov, M. and Hayden, B. JFenwick},
	month = may,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Wellington, biological invasions},
	pages = {140 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Wellington undertaken in February 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 Wellington undertaken in November / 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 Wellington, 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 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 Wellington. 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 Wellington 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 325 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Wellington in November / December 2001. They consisted of 225 native species, 13 non-indigenous species (NIS), 36 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 51 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 303 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 196 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 48 cryptogenic species and 46 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 64 % of the native species, 69 % of non-indigenous species, and 42 % of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 13 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Wellington included representatives of 11 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Spirobranchus polytrema, Polydora hoplura; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Cyclicopora longipora, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale, Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata; (Crustacea) Monocorophium acherusicum; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, and Undaria pinnatifida. Four of these species - Eudendrium generale, Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata, and Monocorophium acherusicum - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Wellington. In addition, four non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – (Annelida) Dipolydora armata, (Cnidaria) Eudendrium capillare, (Crustacea) Cancer gibbosulus and (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini – were not found during the repeat survey. • Eleven species recorded in the repeat survey were (initially) new records for New Zealand waters. These include one non-indigenous species (the hydroid Eudendrium generale), ten cryptogenic sponges (Adocia new sp. 1, Adocia new sp. 7, Chalinula new sp. 1, Chalinula new sp. 2, Dactylia new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 1, Haliclona new sp. 2, Haliclona new sp. 3, Haliclona new sp. 11 and Haliclona new sp. 16). • One species from the Port of Wellington is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms: the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This species 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 through domestic translocationor spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 77 % (10 of 13 species) of NIS in the Port of Wellington are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 8 % (1 species) via ballast water and 15 % (2 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 Wellington (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas

@techreport{inglis_port_2008-1,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Timaru}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20timaru.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Timaru undertaken in November 2004. 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 Timaru undertaken in February 2002.
•	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 Timaru, the survey used the same methodologies, occurred in the same season and, where possible, 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 Timaru. 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 Timaru 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 275 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Timaru in February 2002. They consisted of 172 native species, 15 non-indigenous species, 39 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 49 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 230 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 136 native species, 21 non-indigenous species, 33 cryptogenic species and 40 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 59\% of the native species, 57\% of non-indigenous species, and 58\% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 21 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Timaru included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: Euchone limnicola, Spirobranchus polytrema, Polydora hoplura (Annelida); Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana, Celleporaria nodulosa, Watersipora subtorquata (Bryozoa); Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei?, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus, Synthecium subventricosum (Cnidaria); Caprella mutica, Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Jassa marmorata, J. slatteryi, J. staudei (Crustacea); Griffithsia crassiuscula, Undaria pinnatifida (Macroalgae); Ciona intestinalis (Urochordata). Nine of these species – Spirobranchus polytrema, Polydora hoplura (Annelida); Celleporaria nodulosa (Bryozoa); Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei?, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus, Synthecium subventricosum (Cnidaria); Jassa marmorata, J. staudei (Malacostraca) – were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Timaru. In addition, 3 non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – Barantolla lepte (Annelida), Cancer gibbosulus (Crustacea) and Polysiphonia sublitissima (Macroalgae) – were not found during the repeat survey.
•	17 species recorded in the repeat survey had not been described from New Zealand waters prior to the baseline surveys. Five of these were non-indigenous species (a polychaete worm, Spirobranchus polytrema, a bryozoan, Celleporaria nodulosa, a hydroid, Amphisbetis maplestonei, and two amphipods, Caprella mutica and Jassa staudei). The remaining 12 species do not correspond with existing species descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	The only species from the Port of Timaru on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 86 \% (18 of 21 species) of NIS in the Port of Timaru are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, and 14 \% (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 Timaru (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, Port surveys, Timaru, biological invasions},
	pages = {150 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Timaru undertaken in November 2004. 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 Timaru undertaken in February 2002. • 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 Timaru, the survey used the same methodologies, occurred in the same season and, where possible, 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 Timaru. 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 Timaru 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 275 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Timaru in February 2002. They consisted of 172 native species, 15 non-indigenous species, 39 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 49 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 230 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 136 native species, 21 non-indigenous species, 33 cryptogenic species and 40 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 59% of the native species, 57% of non-indigenous species, and 58% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 21 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Timaru included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: Euchone limnicola, Spirobranchus polytrema, Polydora hoplura (Annelida); Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana, Celleporaria nodulosa, Watersipora subtorquata (Bryozoa); Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei?, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus, Synthecium subventricosum (Cnidaria); Caprella mutica, Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Jassa marmorata, J. slatteryi, J. staudei (Crustacea); Griffithsia crassiuscula, Undaria pinnatifida (Macroalgae); Ciona intestinalis (Urochordata). Nine of these species – Spirobranchus polytrema, Polydora hoplura (Annelida); Celleporaria nodulosa (Bryozoa); Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei?, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus, Synthecium subventricosum (Cnidaria); Jassa marmorata, J. staudei (Malacostraca) – were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Timaru. In addition, 3 non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – Barantolla lepte (Annelida), Cancer gibbosulus (Crustacea) and Polysiphonia sublitissima (Macroalgae) – were not found during the repeat survey. • 17 species recorded in the repeat survey had not been described from New Zealand waters prior to the baseline surveys. Five of these were non-indigenous species (a polychaete worm, Spirobranchus polytrema, a bryozoan, Celleporaria nodulosa, a hydroid, Amphisbetis maplestonei, and two amphipods, Caprella mutica and Jassa staudei). The remaining 12 species do not correspond with existing species descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • The only species from the Port of Timaru on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 86 % (18 of 21 species) of NIS in the Port of Timaru are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, and 14 % (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 Timaru (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2008-2,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Tauranga}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20tauranga.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Tauranga undertaken in April 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 Tauranga undertaken in March 2002.
•	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 Tauranga, 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 Tauranga. 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 Tauranga according to priorities identified in the CRIMP protocols, which are designed to maximise the chances of detecting nonindigenous 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 304 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Tauranga in March 2002. They consisted of 202 native species, 10 non-indigenous species, 51 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 41 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 264 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 177native species, 9 non-indigenous species, 43 cryptogenic species and 35 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 41\% the native species, 44\% of non-indigenous species, and 50\% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 9 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Tauranga included representatives of 3 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Electra tenella, Watersipora subtorquata, Amathia distans, Zoobotryon verticillatum (Bryozoa); Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata (Cnidaria); Cliona celata (Porifera). Five of these species – Electra tenella, Amathia distans, Zoobotryon verticillatum, Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata – were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Tauranga. In addition, 5 non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – Polydora hoplura, Clytia ?linearis, Eudendrium capillare, Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum – were not found during the repeat survey.
•	Twenty three species recorded in the repeat survey had not previously been described from New Zealand waters. This included 19 species of sponge that not correspond with existing descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	None of the species recorded from the Port of Tauranga is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms.
•	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 44 \% (4 of 9 species) of NIS in the Port of Tauranga are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 44 \% (4 species) by hull fouling or ballast water, and 1 species (12 \%) via fouling on flotsam vectors.
•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Tauranga (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, Port surveys, Tauranga, biological invasions},
	pages = {145 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Tauranga undertaken in April 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 Tauranga undertaken in March 2002. • 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 Tauranga, 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 Tauranga. 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 Tauranga according to priorities identified in the CRIMP protocols, which are designed to maximise the chances of detecting nonindigenous 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 304 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Tauranga in March 2002. They consisted of 202 native species, 10 non-indigenous species, 51 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 41 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 264 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 177native species, 9 non-indigenous species, 43 cryptogenic species and 35 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 41% the native species, 44% of non-indigenous species, and 50% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 9 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Tauranga included representatives of 3 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Electra tenella, Watersipora subtorquata, Amathia distans, Zoobotryon verticillatum (Bryozoa); Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata (Cnidaria); Cliona celata (Porifera). Five of these species – Electra tenella, Amathia distans, Zoobotryon verticillatum, Monotheca pulchella, Sertularia marginata – were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Tauranga. In addition, 5 non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – Polydora hoplura, Clytia ?linearis, Eudendrium capillare, Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum – were not found during the repeat survey. • Twenty three species recorded in the repeat survey had not previously been described from New Zealand waters. This included 19 species of sponge that not correspond with existing descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • None of the species recorded from the Port of Tauranga is on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. • 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 44 % (4 of 9 species) of NIS in the Port of Tauranga are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 44 % (4 species) by hull fouling or ballast water, and 1 species (12 %) via fouling on flotsam vectors. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Tauranga (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2008-3,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Taranaki}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/2008-port-of-taranaki.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Taranaki undertaken in March 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 Taranaki undertaken in April 2002.
•	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 Taranaki, 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 Taranaki. 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 Taranaki 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 267 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Taranaki in April 2002. They consisted of 178 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 34 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 41 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 269 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 180 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species and 49 speciesindeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54\% of the native species, 61\% of non-indigenous species, and 48\% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 13 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Taranaki included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Euchone limnicola, Barantolla lepte; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei; (Crustacea) Monocorophium sextonae; (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, and Undaria pinnatifida. Five of these species - Euchone limnicola, Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei, Monocorophium sextonae, Undaria pinnatifida - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Taranaki. In addition, six non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey - Bugula stolonifera, Tricellaria inopinata, Watersipora arcuata, Eudendriumcapillare, Polysiphonia sertularioides and Halisarca dujardini – were not found during the repeat survey.
•	Eleven species recorded in the repeat survey of Taranaki had not been described from New Zealand waters prior to the baseline surveys. One of these was an indigenous species (the hydroid Amphisbetia maplestonei). The remaining 10 species do not correspond with existing species descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	The only species from the Port of Taranaki on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution in southern and eastern New Zealand, but was recorded for the first time from Taranaki during the repeat baseline survey of this port.
•	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 61 \% (8 of 13 species) of NIS in the Port of Taranaki are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 8 \% (1 species) via ballast water and 31\% (four 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 Taranaki (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 Plymouth, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Taranaki, biological invasions},
	pages = {144 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Taranaki undertaken in March 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 Taranaki undertaken in April 2002. • 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 Taranaki, 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 Taranaki. 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 Taranaki 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 267 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Taranaki in April 2002. They consisted of 178 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 34 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 41 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 269 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 180 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species and 49 speciesindeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54% of the native species, 61% of non-indigenous species, and 48% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 13 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Taranaki included representatives of 6 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Euchone limnicola, Barantolla lepte; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata; (Cnidaria) Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei; (Crustacea) Monocorophium sextonae; (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, and Undaria pinnatifida. Five of these species - Euchone limnicola, Monotheca pulchella, Amphisbetia maplestonei, Monocorophium sextonae, Undaria pinnatifida - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Taranaki. In addition, six non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey - Bugula stolonifera, Tricellaria inopinata, Watersipora arcuata, Eudendriumcapillare, Polysiphonia sertularioides and Halisarca dujardini – were not found during the repeat survey. • Eleven species recorded in the repeat survey of Taranaki had not been described from New Zealand waters prior to the baseline surveys. One of these was an indigenous species (the hydroid Amphisbetia maplestonei). The remaining 10 species do not correspond with existing species descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • The only species from the Port of Taranaki on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution in southern and eastern New Zealand, but was recorded for the first time from Taranaki during the repeat baseline survey of this port. • 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 61 % (8 of 13 species) of NIS in the Port of Taranaki are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 8 % (1 species) via ballast water and 31% (four 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 Taranaki (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@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.},
}

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

@techreport{inglis_port_2008-5,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Lyttelton}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20lyttelton.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Lyttelton undertaken in November 2004. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with that recorded during an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Lyttelton undertaken in March 2002.
•	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 Lyttelton, the survey used the same methodologies 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 Lyttelton. 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 Lyttelton 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 245 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Lyttelton in March 2002. They consisted of 147 native species, 18 non-indigenous species, 38 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 42 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 269 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 151 native species, 23 non-indigenous species, 55 cryptogenic species and 40 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 57\% of the native species, 61\% of non-indigenous species, and 44\% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 23 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Lyttelton included representatives of 8 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Polydora hoplura, Spirobranchus polytrema; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Conopeum seurati, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Monotheca pulchella, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus; (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum, Crassicorophium bonnellii, Jassa slatteryi, Monocorophium acherusicum, M. sextonae; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia brodiaei, Polysiphonia senticulosa, Undaria pinnatifida; (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini; (Urochordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Ciona intestinalis, and Styela clava. Nine of these species - Polydora hoplura, Spirobranchus polytrema, Monotheca pulchella, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus, Crassicorophium bonnellii, Polysiphonia senticulosa, Halisarca dujardini, Ascidiella aspersa, and Styela clava - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Lyttelton. In addition, three non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – (Bryozoa) Tricellaria inopinata; (Crustacea) Cancer gibbosulus and (Macroalgae) Polysiphonia subtilissima– were not found during the repeat survey.
•	Three species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. Two of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (an amphipod, Crassicorophium bonnellii and an ascidian, Styela clava). The other was a newly discovered sponge (Haliclona new sp. 17).
•	Two species from the Port of Lyttelton are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms: the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida, and the club-shaped ascidian, Styela clava. Undaria 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 78 \% (18 of 23 species) of NIS in the Port of Lyttelton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 4 \% (1 species) via ballast water and 18 \% (4 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 Lyttelton (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, Lyttelton Harbour, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {139 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Lyttelton undertaken in November 2004. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the port and compares the biota with that recorded during an earlier port baseline survey of the Port of Lyttelton undertaken in March 2002. • 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 Lyttelton, the survey used the same methodologies 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 Lyttelton. 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 Lyttelton 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 245 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Lyttelton in March 2002. They consisted of 147 native species, 18 non-indigenous species, 38 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 42 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 269 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 151 native species, 23 non-indigenous species, 55 cryptogenic species and 40 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 57% of the native species, 61% of non-indigenous species, and 44% of cryptogenic species recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 23 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Lyttelton included representatives of 8 major taxonomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Polydora hoplura, Spirobranchus polytrema; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, B. neritina, Conopeum seurati, Cryptosula pallasiana, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Monotheca pulchella, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus; (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum, Crassicorophium bonnellii, Jassa slatteryi, Monocorophium acherusicum, M. sextonae; (Mollusca) Theora lubrica; (Macroalgae) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia brodiaei, Polysiphonia senticulosa, Undaria pinnatifida; (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini; (Urochordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Ciona intestinalis, and Styela clava. Nine of these species - Polydora hoplura, Spirobranchus polytrema, Monotheca pulchella, Symplectoscyphus subdichotomus, Crassicorophium bonnellii, Polysiphonia senticulosa, Halisarca dujardini, Ascidiella aspersa, and Styela clava - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Lyttelton. In addition, three non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – (Bryozoa) Tricellaria inopinata; (Crustacea) Cancer gibbosulus and (Macroalgae) Polysiphonia subtilissima– were not found during the repeat survey. • Three species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. Two of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (an amphipod, Crassicorophium bonnellii and an ascidian, Styela clava). The other was a newly discovered sponge (Haliclona new sp. 17). • Two species from the Port of Lyttelton are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms: the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida, and the club-shaped ascidian, Styela clava. Undaria 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 78 % (18 of 23 species) of NIS in the Port of Lyttelton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 4 % (1 species) via ballast water and 18 % (4 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 Lyttelton (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas

@techreport{inglis_milford_2008,
	title = {Milford {Sound}. {First} baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species.},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20milford%20resurvey%20report.pdf},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Kospartov, M. and Peacock, L.},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {126},
}

@techreport{inglis_whangarei_2006,
	title = {Whangarei {Marina}: {Baseline} survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_15%20WhangareiMarina.pdf},
	abstract = {Executive Summary
This report describes the results of a November 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non- indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Whangarei Town Basin Marina.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Whangarei Town Basin Marina. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a sled and benthic grabs, anda gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Whangarei Marina was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 56 species or higher taxa was identified from the Whangarei Town Basin Marina survey. They consisted of 35 native species, nine non-indigenous species, four cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and eight species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	One species - a non-indigenous species of amphipod, Melita matilda - collected from the Whangarei Marina had not previously been described from New Zealand waters.
•	The nine non-indigenous organisms described from the Whangarei Marina included representatives of four phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Ficopomatus enigmatus and Polydora cornuta, (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina and Conopeum seurati, (Crustacea) Monocorophium acherusicum, Paracorophium brisbanensis and Melita matilda, (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia and Theora lubrica.
•	None of the non-indigenous species detected from the Whangarei Town Basin Marina are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Resting cysts of the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellates, Gymnodinium catenatum and Alexandrium cf. catenella were recorded in sediment samples taken from the marina. Both species are on the Australian ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Marina are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping. Approximately 56 \% (five of nine species) of NIS in the Whangarei Marina are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 11 \% via ballast water and 33 \% could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors.
•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Whangarei Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Fitridge, I. and Floerl, O. and Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Whangarei Harbour, Whangarei Marina, biological invasions},
	pages = {62 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a November 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non- indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Whangarei Town Basin Marina. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Whangarei Town Basin Marina. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a sled and benthic grabs, anda gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Whangarei Marina was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 56 species or higher taxa was identified from the Whangarei Town Basin Marina survey. They consisted of 35 native species, nine non-indigenous species, four cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and eight species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • One species - a non-indigenous species of amphipod, Melita matilda - collected from the Whangarei Marina had not previously been described from New Zealand waters. • The nine non-indigenous organisms described from the Whangarei Marina included representatives of four phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Ficopomatus enigmatus and Polydora cornuta, (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina and Conopeum seurati, (Crustacea) Monocorophium acherusicum, Paracorophium brisbanensis and Melita matilda, (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia and Theora lubrica. • None of the non-indigenous species detected from the Whangarei Town Basin Marina are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Resting cysts of the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellates, Gymnodinium catenatum and Alexandrium cf. catenella were recorded in sediment samples taken from the marina. Both species are on the Australian ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Marina are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping. Approximately 56 % (five of nine species) of NIS in the Whangarei Marina are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 11 % via ballast water and 33 % could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Whangarei Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas

@techreport{inglis_whangarei_2006-1,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Whangarei {Harbour} ({Whangarei} {Port} and {Marsden} {Point}): {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_16%20PortOfWhangarei.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a November 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Whangarei, located near the city of Whangarei, and shipping terminals at Marsden Point operated by Northport and the New Zealand Refining Company.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the two Whangarei Harbour facilities. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Whangarei and Marsden Point facility was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 207 species or higher taxa was identified from the Whangarei Port and Marsden Point survey. They consisted of 128 native species, 19 non-indigenous species, 38 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 22 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Eighteen species of marine organisms collected from the two Whangarei Harbour facilities have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. One of these was a newly discovered non-indigenous species of bryozoan (Celleporaria sp.1). Fourteen of the other 17 newly recorded species do not match existing taxonomic descriptions within New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	The 19 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Whangarei and Marsden Point facility included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Ficopomatus enigmaticus, Polydora hoplura, Pseudopolydora kempi and Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Bugula stolonifera, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Celleporaria sp.1, Schizoporella errata and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Obelia longissima, (Crustacea) Jassa slatteryi and Pyromaia tuberculata, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica, (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf macera and Cliona celata. 
•	None of the species from the Whangarei Harbour is currently listed on the New Zealand register of unwanted marine organisms. Resting cysts of the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum was recorded in sediment samples taken from Marsden Point. G. catenatum is one of four toxic dinoflagellates listed on the Australian ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Harbour are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping. Approximately 69 \% (13 of 19 species) of NIS in the Whangarei Harbour are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 \% via ballast water and 26 \% 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 Whangarei and Marsden Point facility (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, Marsden Point, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Whangarei Harbour, Whangarei Port, biological invasions},
	pages = {82 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a November 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Whangarei, located near the city of Whangarei, and shipping terminals at Marsden Point operated by Northport and the New Zealand Refining Company. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the two Whangarei Harbour facilities. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Whangarei and Marsden Point facility was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 207 species or higher taxa was identified from the Whangarei Port and Marsden Point survey. They consisted of 128 native species, 19 non-indigenous species, 38 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 22 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Eighteen species of marine organisms collected from the two Whangarei Harbour facilities have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. One of these was a newly discovered non-indigenous species of bryozoan (Celleporaria sp.1). Fourteen of the other 17 newly recorded species do not match existing taxonomic descriptions within New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • The 19 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Whangarei and Marsden Point facility included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Ficopomatus enigmaticus, Polydora hoplura, Pseudopolydora kempi and Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Bugula stolonifera, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Celleporaria sp.1, Schizoporella errata and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Obelia longissima, (Crustacea) Jassa slatteryi and Pyromaia tuberculata, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica, (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf macera and Cliona celata. • None of the species from the Whangarei Harbour is currently listed on the New Zealand register of unwanted marine organisms. Resting cysts of the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum was recorded in sediment samples taken from Marsden Point. G. catenatum is one of four toxic dinoflagellates listed on the Australian ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Harbour are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping. Approximately 69 % (13 of 19 species) of NIS in the Whangarei Harbour are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 % via ballast water and 26 % 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 Whangarei and Marsden Point facility (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Wellington}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_09%20PortOfWellington.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
This report describes the results of a December 2001 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Wellington.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Wellington. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Wellington was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 336 species or higher taxa was identified from the Wellington Port survey. They consisted of 227 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 26 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 69 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Sixteen species have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Four of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (a polychaete worm, Spirobranchus polytrema, a hydroid, Eudendrium capillare, a crab, Cancer gibbosulus, and an ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.). The remaining 12 species do not correspond with existing descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	The 14 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Wellington included representatives of eight phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Dipolydora armata, Polydora hoplura, Spirobranchus polytrema, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Cyclicopora longipora, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Eudenrium capillare, (Crustacea) Cancer gibbosulus, (Mollusca) Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, Griffithsia crassiuscula, (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini, (Urochordata) Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	The only species from the Port of Wellington on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution in southern and eastern New Zealand.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Fitridge, I. and Floerl, O. and Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Wellington, biological invasions},
	pages = {94 pp.},
}

Executive summary This report describes the results of a December 2001 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Wellington. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Wellington. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Wellington was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 336 species or higher taxa was identified from the Wellington Port survey. They consisted of 227 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 26 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 69 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Sixteen species have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Four of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (a polychaete worm, Spirobranchus polytrema, a hydroid, Eudendrium capillare, a crab, Cancer gibbosulus, and an ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.). The remaining 12 species do not correspond with existing descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • The 14 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Wellington included representatives of eight phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Dipolydora armata, Polydora hoplura, Spirobranchus polytrema, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Cyclicopora longipora, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Eudenrium capillare, (Crustacea) Cancer gibbosulus, (Mollusca) Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, Griffithsia crassiuscula, (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini, (Urochordata) Cnemidocarpa sp. • The only species from the Port of Wellington on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution in southern and eastern New Zealand.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-1,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Timaru}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_06%20PortOfTimaru.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a February 2002 baseline survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Timaru.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Timaru. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Timaru was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 282 species or higher taxa was identified from the Timaru Port survey. They consisted of 177 native species, 16 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 62 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Twenty-one species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Timaru have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Three of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (a crab, Cancer gibbosulus, an amphipod, Caprella mutica, and an ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.), and 18 are considered cryptogenic. The 18 cryptogenic species included eight species of amphipod, a pycnogonid, an ascidian, and eight species of sponge that did not match existing descriptions and may be new to science.
•	The 16 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Timaru included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Euchone limnicola, Barantolla lepte, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana and Watersipora subtorquata, (Crustacea) Caprella mutica, Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Jassa slatteryi and Cancer gibbosulus, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia subtilissima, (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	The only species from the Port of Timaru on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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. Approximately 69 \% (11 of 16 species) of NIS in the Port of Timaru are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, and 31 \% (five 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 Timaru (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Timaru, biological invasions},
	pages = {75 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a February 2002 baseline survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Timaru. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Timaru. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Timaru was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 282 species or higher taxa was identified from the Timaru Port survey. They consisted of 177 native species, 16 non-indigenous species, 27 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 62 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Twenty-one species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Timaru have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Three of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (a crab, Cancer gibbosulus, an amphipod, Caprella mutica, and an ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.), and 18 are considered cryptogenic. The 18 cryptogenic species included eight species of amphipod, a pycnogonid, an ascidian, and eight species of sponge that did not match existing descriptions and may be new to science. • The 16 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Timaru included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Euchone limnicola, Barantolla lepte, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Cryptosula pallasiana and Watersipora subtorquata, (Crustacea) Caprella mutica, Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Jassa slatteryi and Cancer gibbosulus, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia subtilissima, (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Cnemidocarpa sp. • The only species from the Port of Timaru on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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. Approximately 69 % (11 of 16 species) of NIS in the Port of Timaru are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, and 31 % (five 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 Timaru (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-2,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Tauranga}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_05%20PortOfTauranga.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a March 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Tauranga.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Tauranga. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Tauranga was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 316 species or higher taxa were identified from the Tauranga Port survey. They consisted of 202 native species, 12 non-indigenous species, 40 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 62 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Twenty two species collected from the Port of Tauranga have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Seventeen of these were species of sponge that are thought to be new to science. The other first records for New Zealand were a cryptogenic ascidian (Microcosmus squamiger) and amphipod (Meridiolembos sp. aff. acherontis), and three non-indigenous species; the hydroids Clytia ?linearis and Eudendrium capillare, and the ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp..
•	The 12 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Tauranga included representatives of seven phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Dipolydora flava and Polydora hoplura, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina,  and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Clytia ?linearis and Eudendrium capillare, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum and Monocorophium acherusicum, (Phycophyta) Codium fragile tomentasoides, (Porifera) Cliona celata, (Urochordata) Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	There were no species from the Port of Tauaranga on the New Zealand register of unwanted marine organisms.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 75 \% (nine of 12 species) of NIS in the Port of Tauaranga are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages and 25 \% 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 Tauranga (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Tauranga, biological invasions},
	pages = {74 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a March 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Tauranga. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Tauranga. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Tauranga was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 316 species or higher taxa were identified from the Tauranga Port survey. They consisted of 202 native species, 12 non-indigenous species, 40 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 62 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Twenty two species collected from the Port of Tauranga have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Seventeen of these were species of sponge that are thought to be new to science. The other first records for New Zealand were a cryptogenic ascidian (Microcosmus squamiger) and amphipod (Meridiolembos sp. aff. acherontis), and three non-indigenous species; the hydroids Clytia ?linearis and Eudendrium capillare, and the ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.. • The 12 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Tauranga included representatives of seven phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Dipolydora flava and Polydora hoplura, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Clytia ?linearis and Eudendrium capillare, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum and Monocorophium acherusicum, (Phycophyta) Codium fragile tomentasoides, (Porifera) Cliona celata, (Urochordata) Cnemidocarpa sp. • There were no species from the Port of Tauaranga on the New Zealand register of unwanted marine organisms. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 75 % (nine of 12 species) of NIS in the Port of Tauaranga are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages and 25 % 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 Tauranga (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-3,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Taranaki}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_04%20PortOfTaranaki.pdf},
	abstract = {{\textless}b{\textgreater}
{\textless}/b{\textgreater}\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of an April 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Taranaki.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Taranaki. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Taranaki was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 270 species or higher taxa was identified from the Taranaki Port survey. They consisted of 180 native species, 15 non-indigenous species, 20 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 55 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Two NIS and seven cryptogenic species sampled in the Port of Taranaki were recorded for the first time in New Zealand waters. These were the hydroid Eudendrium capillare the ascidian Cnemidocarpa sp., the cryptogenic portunid crab, Ovalipes elongatus, an undescribed pycnogonid (Achelia sp. nov. A), an amphipod (Leucothoe sp. 1), and five species of sponge (Esperiopsis n. sp. 1, Halichondria n. sp. 4, Halichondria n. sp. 1, Paraesperella n. sp. 1, Phorbas n. sp. 2).
•	The 15 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Taranaki included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Barantolla lepte, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Bugula stolonifera, Cryptosula pallasiana, Tricellaria inopinata, Watersipora arcuata and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Eudendrium capillare, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Griffithsia crassiuscula and Polysiphonia sertularioides, (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini, and (Urochordata) Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	None of the non-indigenous organisms collected and described from the Port of Taranaki are currently on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and cysts of the cryptogenic toxic dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum, were present in the Port. Both species are included on the ABWMAC list of unwanted marine species in Australia.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Port of Taranaki are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 73 \% (11 of 15 species) of NIS in the Port of Taranaki are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 7 \% via ballast water and 20 \% 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 Taranaki (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Plymouth, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Taranaki, biological invasions},
	pages = {86 pp.},
}

\textlessb\textgreater \textless/b\textgreaterExecutive Summary This report describes the results of an April 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Taranaki. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Taranaki. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Taranaki was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 270 species or higher taxa was identified from the Taranaki Port survey. They consisted of 180 native species, 15 non-indigenous species, 20 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 55 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Two NIS and seven cryptogenic species sampled in the Port of Taranaki were recorded for the first time in New Zealand waters. These were the hydroid Eudendrium capillare the ascidian Cnemidocarpa sp., the cryptogenic portunid crab, Ovalipes elongatus, an undescribed pycnogonid (Achelia sp. nov. A), an amphipod (Leucothoe sp. 1), and five species of sponge (Esperiopsis n. sp. 1, Halichondria n. sp. 4, Halichondria n. sp. 1, Paraesperella n. sp. 1, Phorbas n. sp. 2). • The 15 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Taranaki included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Barantolla lepte, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Bugula stolonifera, Cryptosula pallasiana, Tricellaria inopinata, Watersipora arcuata and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Eudendrium capillare, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas and Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Griffithsia crassiuscula and Polysiphonia sertularioides, (Porifera) Halisarca dujardini, and (Urochordata) Cnemidocarpa sp. • None of the non-indigenous organisms collected and described from the Port of Taranaki are currently on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and cysts of the cryptogenic toxic dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum, were present in the Port. Both species are included on the ABWMAC list of unwanted marine species in Australia. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Port of Taranaki are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 73 % (11 of 15 species) of NIS in the Port of Taranaki are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 7 % via ballast water and 20 % 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 Taranaki (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-4,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Picton}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_03%20PortOfPicton.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a December 2001 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non- indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Picton.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Picton. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a benthic sled, and a gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, box, starfish and shrimp traps.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Picton was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 215 species or higher taxa was identified from the Picton Port survey. These consisted of 148 native species, 9 non-indigenous species, 25 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 33 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Fourteen species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Picton had not previously been described from New Zealand waters. These consisted of a newly-discovered nonindigenous species (the ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.), a cryptogenic amphipod (Meridiolembos sp. aff. acherontis) and 12 species of sponge that did not match existing species descriptions and which may be new to science.
•	The nine non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Picton included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida): Dipolydora armata, Dipolydora flava and Polydora hoplura (Bryozoa): Bugula flabellata and Watersipora subtorquata, (Phycophyta): Undaria pinnatifida and Griffithsia crassiuscula (Porifera): Halisarca dujardini and (Urochordata): Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	The only species from the Port of Picton on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 through domestic translocation or natural spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 56 \% (five of nine species) of NIS in the Port of Picton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages and 44 \% (four species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. Ballast water was not attributed as a definite introduction vector for any of the NIS encountered in the Port of Picton.
•	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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Picton, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {72 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a December 2001 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non- indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Picton. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Picton. Fouling assemblages were scraped from hard substrata by divers, benthic assemblages were sampled using a benthic sled, and a gravity corer was used to sample for dinoflagellate cysts. Mobile predators and scavengers were sampled using baited fish, box, starfish and shrimp traps. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Picton was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 215 species or higher taxa was identified from the Picton Port survey. These consisted of 148 native species, 9 non-indigenous species, 25 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 33 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Fourteen species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Picton had not previously been described from New Zealand waters. These consisted of a newly-discovered nonindigenous species (the ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.), a cryptogenic amphipod (Meridiolembos sp. aff. acherontis) and 12 species of sponge that did not match existing species descriptions and which may be new to science. • The nine non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Picton included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida): Dipolydora armata, Dipolydora flava and Polydora hoplura (Bryozoa): Bugula flabellata and Watersipora subtorquata, (Phycophyta): Undaria pinnatifida and Griffithsia crassiuscula (Porifera): Halisarca dujardini and (Urochordata): Cnemidocarpa sp. • The only species from the Port of Picton on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 through domestic translocation or natural spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 56 % (five of nine species) of NIS in the Port of Picton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages and 44 % (four species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. Ballast water was not attributed as a definite introduction vector for any of the NIS encountered in the Port of Picton. • 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.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-5,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Nelson}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202008%20port%20of%20nelson.pdf},
	abstract = {Executive summary
•	This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Nelson undertaken in December 2004. 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 Nelson undertaken in January 2002.
•	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 Nelson, the survey used the same methodologies 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 Nelson. 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 andscavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps.
•	Sampling effort was distributed in the Port of Nelson 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 193 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Nelson in January 2002. They consisted of 130 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 20 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 30 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	During the repeat survey, 257 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 176 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 32 cryptogenic species and 36 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 48\% of the native species, 54\% of non-indigenous species, and 38\% of cryptogenic species recordedduring the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey.
•	The 13 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Nelson included representatives of 5 taxanomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Electra tenella, Celleporaria nodulosa, Watersipora subtorquata; (Hydrozoa) Lafoeina amirantensis, Filellum serpens?, Synthecium campylocarpum, Synthecium subventricosum; (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica and (Macroalgae) Undaria pinnatifida. Six of these species - Hydroides elegans, Electra tenella, Filellum serpens?, Synthecium campylocarpum, Synthecium subventricosum and Undaria pinnatifida - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Nelson. In addition, 6 non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – Polydora hoplura (Annelida), Conopeum seurati, Electra angulata, Schizoporellaerrata, Anguinella palmata (Bryozoa) and Ciona intestinalis (Urochordata) – were not found during the repeat survey.
•	Ten species recorded in the repeat survey are new records for New Zealand waters. Two of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (a bryozoan, Celleporaria nodulosa, and a hydroid, Lafoeina amirantensis). The others are sponges that do not correspond with existing descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	The only species from the Port of Nelson on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 68 \% (13 of 19 species) of NIS in the Port of Nelson are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 \% (one species) via ballast water and 22 \% (four species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. One species (5\%) is suspected to have arrived on drift plastic.
•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Nelson (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 Morrisey, D. J. and Floerl, O. and Woods, C. and Kospartov, M. and Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, Nelson, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {129 pp.},
}

Executive summary • This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Port of Nelson undertaken in December 2004. 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 Nelson undertaken in January 2002. • 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 Nelson, the survey used the same methodologies 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 Nelson. 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 andscavengers were sampled using baited fish, crab, starfish and shrimp traps. • Sampling effort was distributed in the Port of Nelson 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 193 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Port of Nelson in January 2002. They consisted of 130 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 20 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 30 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • During the repeat survey, 257 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 176 native species, 13 non-indigenous species, 32 cryptogenic species and 36 species indeterminata. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 48% of the native species, 54% of non-indigenous species, and 38% of cryptogenic species recordedduring the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. • The 13 non-indigenous organisms found in the repeat survey of the Port of Nelson included representatives of 5 taxanomic groups. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans; (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Electra tenella, Celleporaria nodulosa, Watersipora subtorquata; (Hydrozoa) Lafoeina amirantensis, Filellum serpens?, Synthecium campylocarpum, Synthecium subventricosum; (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica and (Macroalgae) Undaria pinnatifida. Six of these species - Hydroides elegans, Electra tenella, Filellum serpens?, Synthecium campylocarpum, Synthecium subventricosum and Undaria pinnatifida - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Port of Nelson. In addition, 6 non-indigenous species that were present in the first survey – Polydora hoplura (Annelida), Conopeum seurati, Electra angulata, Schizoporellaerrata, Anguinella palmata (Bryozoa) and Ciona intestinalis (Urochordata) – were not found during the repeat survey. • Ten species recorded in the repeat survey are new records for New Zealand waters. Two of these were newly discovered non-indigenous species (a bryozoan, Celleporaria nodulosa, and a hydroid, Lafoeina amirantensis). The others are sponges that do not correspond with existing descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • The only species from the Port of Nelson on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 68 % (13 of 19 species) of NIS in the Port of Nelson are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 % (one species) via ballast water and 22 % (four species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. One species (5%) is suspected to have arrived on drift plastic. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Port of Nelson (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-6,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Nelson}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_02%20PortOfNelson.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a January 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Nelson.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Nelson. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Nelson was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 196 species or higher taxa was identified from the Nelson Port survey.
•	They consisted of 133 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 15 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 34 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Six species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Nelson have not previously been described from New Zealand waters; three of these are newly discovered nonindigenous species (the bryozoan Celleporaria nodulosa, the hydroid Lafoeina amirantensis and the ascidian Cnemidocarpa sp.) and three are cryptogenic (the sponges Halichondria n. sp. 5, Haliclona n. sp. 1, Haliclona n. sp. 7).
•	The 14 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Nelson included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Polydora hoplura (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Conopeum seurati, Electra angulata, Celleporaria nodulosa, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora subtorquata and Anguinella palmate, (Cnidaria) Lafoeina amirantensis, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica and (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	The only species from the Port of Nelson on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution in southern and eastern New Zealand. 
•	The bivalve Crassostrea gigas was also present in the Port of Nelson and this species is listed on the Australian ABWMAC schedule of non-indigenous pest species.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 79 \% (11 of 14 species) of NIS in the Port of Nelson are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 7 \% via ballast water and 14 \% 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 Nelson (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, Nelson, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {75 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a January 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Nelson. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Nelson. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Nelson was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 196 species or higher taxa was identified from the Nelson Port survey. • They consisted of 133 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 15 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 34 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Six species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Nelson have not previously been described from New Zealand waters; three of these are newly discovered nonindigenous species (the bryozoan Celleporaria nodulosa, the hydroid Lafoeina amirantensis and the ascidian Cnemidocarpa sp.) and three are cryptogenic (the sponges Halichondria n. sp. 5, Haliclona n. sp. 1, Haliclona n. sp. 7). • The 14 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Nelson included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Polydora hoplura (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Conopeum seurati, Electra angulata, Celleporaria nodulosa, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora subtorquata and Anguinella palmate, (Cnidaria) Lafoeina amirantensis, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica and (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Cnemidocarpa sp. • The only species from the Port of Nelson on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution in southern and eastern New Zealand. • The bivalve Crassostrea gigas was also present in the Port of Nelson and this species is listed on the Australian ABWMAC schedule of non-indigenous pest species. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 79 % (11 of 14 species) of NIS in the Port of Nelson are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 7 % via ballast water and 14 % 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 Nelson (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-7,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Napier}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_13%20PortOfNapier.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a January 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Napier.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by theAustralian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Napier. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Napier was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 199 species or higher taxa was identified from the Port of Napier survey. They consisted of 134 native species, 10 non-indigenous species, 14 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 41 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Seven species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Napier have not previously been described from New Zealand waters; two of these were newly discovered nonindigenous species (the polychaete, Spirobranchus polytrema and the hydroid Eudendrium generale), and five are considered cryptogenic.
•	The ten non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Napier included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Spirobranchus polytrema, Barantolla lepte, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale (Mollusca) Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Ascidiella aspersa
•	The only species from the Port of Napier on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 60\% (6 of 10 species) of NIS in the Port of Napier are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, while 10\% could have been introduced via ballast water and 30\% may 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 Napier (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, Napier, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {71 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a January 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Napier. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by theAustralian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Napier. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Napier was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 199 species or higher taxa was identified from the Port of Napier survey. They consisted of 134 native species, 10 non-indigenous species, 14 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 41 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Seven species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Napier have not previously been described from New Zealand waters; two of these were newly discovered nonindigenous species (the polychaete, Spirobranchus polytrema and the hydroid Eudendrium generale), and five are considered cryptogenic. • The ten non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Napier included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Spirobranchus polytrema, Barantolla lepte, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Eudendrium generale (Mollusca) Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Ascidiella aspersa • The only species from the Port of Napier on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 60% (6 of 10 species) of NIS in the Port of Napier are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, while 10% could have been introduced via ballast water and 30% may 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 Napier (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-8,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Lyttelton}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/2005-01-port-of-lyttelton.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a March 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Lyttelton. 
•	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. 
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Lyttelton.  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. 
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Lyttelton was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 246 species or higher taxa was identified from the Lyttelton Port survey.  They consisted of 150 native species, 20 non-indigenous species, 22 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 54 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). 
•	Fourteen species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Lyttelton have not previously been described from New Zealand waters.  Two of these were non-indigenous species (a crab, Cancer gibbosulus, and an ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.) that had not previously been recorded in New Zealand.  The 12 other new species are considered cryptogenic.  They include seven species of amphipod and 5 species of sponge which do not match existing species descriptions and may be new to science.
•	The 20 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Lyttelton included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Conopeum seurati and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Haliplanella lineata, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Monocorophium sextonae, Jassa slatteryi, Stenothoe sp. aff. S. gallensis and Cancer gibbosulus, (Mollusca) Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia brodiaei, Polysiphonia subtilissima, (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Cnemidocarpa sp.
•	The only species from the Port of Lyttelton on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 80 \% (16 of 20 species) of NIS in the Port of Lyttelton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 \% (one species) via ballast water and 15 \% (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 Lyttelton (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, Lyttelton Harbour, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {82 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a March 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Lyttelton. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Lyttelton. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Lyttelton was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 246 species or higher taxa was identified from the Lyttelton Port survey. They consisted of 150 native species, 20 non-indigenous species, 22 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 54 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Fourteen species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Lyttelton have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. Two of these were non-indigenous species (a crab, Cancer gibbosulus, and an ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.) that had not previously been recorded in New Zealand. The 12 other new species are considered cryptogenic. They include seven species of amphipod and 5 species of sponge which do not match existing species descriptions and may be new to science. • The 20 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Lyttelton included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Conopeum seurati and Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Haliplanella lineata, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Monocorophium sextonae, Jassa slatteryi, Stenothoe sp. aff. S. gallensis and Cancer gibbosulus, (Mollusca) Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia brodiaei, Polysiphonia subtilissima, (Urochordata) Ciona intestinalis and Cnemidocarpa sp. • The only species from the Port of Lyttelton on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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 through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 80 % (16 of 20 species) of NIS in the Port of Lyttelton are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 5 % (one species) via ballast water and 15 % (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 Lyttelton (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-9,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Gisborne}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_11%20PortOfGisborne.pdf},
	abstract = {Executive Summary
This report describes the results of a January 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Gisborne.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Gisborne. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Gisborne was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 205 species or higher taxa were identified from the Gisborne Port survey. They consisted of 130 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 17 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 44 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	The 14 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Gisborne included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Euchone limnicola and Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Celleporaria noduosa and Watersipora subtorquata, (Crustacea) Monocorophium acherusicum and Cancer amphioetus, (Mollusca) Theora lubrica and Polycera hedgpethi, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, (Urochordata) Ascidiella aspersa and Cnemidocarpa sp. Three of these species - the bryozoan Celleporaria nodulosa, the crab Cancer amphioetus, and the ascidian Cnemidocarpa sp. - had not previously been described from New Zealand waters.
•	Four species of sponge (Dysidea n. sp. 1, Euryspongia n. sp. 2, Halichondria n. sp. 1, Haliclona n. sp. 10), an isopod (Cirolana sp. nova), and a pycnogonid (?Tanystylum sp. nov. B) found in the Port of Gisborne did not match existing species descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science.
•	The only species from the Port of Gisborne on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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.
•	Approximately 64.3 \% (nine of 14 species) of NIS in the Port of Gisborne are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 7.1 \% via ballast water and 28.6 \% 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 Gisborne (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Gisborne, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {76 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a January 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Gisborne. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Port of Gisborne. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Gisborne was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 205 species or higher taxa were identified from the Gisborne Port survey. They consisted of 130 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 17 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 44 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • The 14 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Gisborne included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Euchone limnicola and Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, Tricellaria inopinata, Cryptosula pallasiana, Celleporaria noduosa and Watersipora subtorquata, (Crustacea) Monocorophium acherusicum and Cancer amphioetus, (Mollusca) Theora lubrica and Polycera hedgpethi, (Phycophyta) Undaria pinnatifida, (Urochordata) Ascidiella aspersa and Cnemidocarpa sp. Three of these species - the bryozoan Celleporaria nodulosa, the crab Cancer amphioetus, and the ascidian Cnemidocarpa sp. - had not previously been described from New Zealand waters. • Four species of sponge (Dysidea n. sp. 1, Euryspongia n. sp. 2, Halichondria n. sp. 1, Haliclona n. sp. 10), an isopod (Cirolana sp. nova), and a pycnogonid (?Tanystylum sp. nov. B) found in the Port of Gisborne did not match existing species descriptions from New Zealand or overseas and may be new to science. • The only species from the Port of Gisborne on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms is the Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida. This alga is known to now have a wide distribution 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. • Approximately 64.3 % (nine of 14 species) of NIS in the Port of Gisborne are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 7.1 % via ballast water and 28.6 % 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 Gisborne (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-10,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Bluff}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_07%20PortOfBluff.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a March 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Bluff.
•	The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-indigenous marine biodiversity in 13 international shipping ports and three marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Bluff. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Bluff was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 330 species or higher taxa was identified from the Port of Bluff survey. They consisted of 207 native species, 12 non-indigenous species, 28 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 83 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Twenty species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Bluff have not previously been described from New Zealand waters; three of these were first New Zealand records of non-indigenous species (a hydroid, Symplectoscyphus indivisus; a crab, Cancer amphioetus; and a sponge, Leucosolenia cf. discoveryi). The other 17 species are considered cryptogenic and include 16 species of sponge that do not match existing species descriptions and which may be new to science.
•	The 12 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Bluff included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Watersipora subtorquata (Cnidaria) Symplectoscyphus indivisus (Crustacea) Cancer amphioetus (Phycophyta) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia brodiaei (Porifera) Grantessa intusarticulata, Leucosolenia cf. discoveryi, Stylotella agminata, Halisarca dujardini, Chondropsis topsentii, Psammoclema cf. crassum
•	No species detected from the Port of Bluff are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Cysts of the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Alexandrium catenella were recovered from core samples taken in Bluff. A. catenella is one of four toxic dinoflagellate species on the Australian ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Port of Bluff are likely to have been introduced to the port by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 75\% of NIS (nine of 12 species) in the Port of Bluff are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, and 25 \% 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 Bluff (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, OWoods and Hayden, B. JFenwick},
	month = sep,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Bluff Harbour, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {71 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a March 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Port of Bluff. • The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-indigenous marine biodiversity in 13 international shipping ports and three marinas of first entry for yachts entering New Zealand from overseas. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from a range of habitats within the Port of Bluff. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Port of Bluff was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 330 species or higher taxa was identified from the Port of Bluff survey. They consisted of 207 native species, 12 non-indigenous species, 28 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 83 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Twenty species of marine organisms collected from the Port of Bluff have not previously been described from New Zealand waters; three of these were first New Zealand records of non-indigenous species (a hydroid, Symplectoscyphus indivisus; a crab, Cancer amphioetus; and a sponge, Leucosolenia cf. discoveryi). The other 17 species are considered cryptogenic and include 16 species of sponge that do not match existing species descriptions and which may be new to science. • The 12 non-indigenous organisms described from the Port of Bluff included representatives of five phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Watersipora subtorquata (Cnidaria) Symplectoscyphus indivisus (Crustacea) Cancer amphioetus (Phycophyta) Griffithsia crassiuscula, Polysiphonia brodiaei (Porifera) Grantessa intusarticulata, Leucosolenia cf. discoveryi, Stylotella agminata, Halisarca dujardini, Chondropsis topsentii, Psammoclema cf. crassum • No species detected from the Port of Bluff are on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Cysts of the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Alexandrium catenella were recovered from core samples taken in Bluff. A. catenella is one of four toxic dinoflagellate species on the Australian ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Port of Bluff are likely to have been introduced to the port by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 75% of NIS (nine of 12 species) in the Port of Bluff are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, and 25 % 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 Bluff (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{inglis_port_2006-11,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Port of {Auckland}: {Baseline} survey for non-indigenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_08%20PortOfAuckland.pdf},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Fitridge, I. and Floerl, O. and Woods, C. M. C. and Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Auckland, Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, Waitemata Harbour, biological invasions},
	pages = {72 pp.},
}

@techreport{inglis_opua_2006,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Opua {Marina}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_14%20OpuaMarina.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of a November 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non- indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Opua Marina.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Opua Marina. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Opua Marina was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 122 species or higher taxa was identified from the Opua Marina survey. They consisted of 76 native species, 12 non-indigenous species, 14 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 20 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	Five species of marine organisms collected from the Opua Marina, all of which are considered cryptogenic, have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. 
•	The five species included a species of mussel whose taxonomic affinities are uncertain (Mytilus sp.), an ascidian (Pyura sp.) and three species of sponge that do not match existing species descriptions and may be new to science.
•	The 12 non-indigenous organisms described from the Opua Marina included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Polydora cornuta, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Obelia longissima, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum, (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas, Limaria orientalis, Theora lubrica, Polycera hedgpethi, (Phycophyta) Polysiphonia sertularioides.
•	None of the species recorded from the Opua Marina are on the New Zealand register of unwanted marine organisms. Two species – the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum – are on the ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests in Australia.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the marina are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand.
•	Approximately 58 \% (seven of 12 species) of NIS in the Opua Marina are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 8.5 \% via ballast water and 33.5 \% could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors.
•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Opua Marina (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Opua, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {73 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of a November 2002 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non- indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Opua Marina. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Opua Marina. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Opua Marina was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 122 species or higher taxa was identified from the Opua Marina survey. They consisted of 76 native species, 12 non-indigenous species, 14 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 20 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • Five species of marine organisms collected from the Opua Marina, all of which are considered cryptogenic, have not previously been described from New Zealand waters. • The five species included a species of mussel whose taxonomic affinities are uncertain (Mytilus sp.), an ascidian (Pyura sp.) and three species of sponge that do not match existing species descriptions and may be new to science. • The 12 non-indigenous organisms described from the Opua Marina included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Polydora cornuta, (Bryozoa) Bugula flabellata, Bugula neritina, Watersipora subtorquata, (Cnidaria) Obelia longissima, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum, (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas, Limaria orientalis, Theora lubrica, Polycera hedgpethi, (Phycophyta) Polysiphonia sertularioides. • None of the species recorded from the Opua Marina are on the New Zealand register of unwanted marine organisms. Two species – the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and the cryptogenic toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum – are on the ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests in Australia. • Most non-indigenous species located in the marina are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping or through domestic translocation or spread from other locations in New Zealand. • Approximately 58 % (seven of 12 species) of NIS in the Opua Marina are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 8.5 % via ballast water and 33.5 % could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Opua Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas

@techreport{inglis_dunedin_2006,
	address = {Wellington},
	type = {Biosecurity {New} {Zealand} {Technical} paper},
	title = {Dunedin {Harbour} ({Port} {Otago} and {Port} {Chalmers}) {Baseline} survey for non-indigenous marine species ({Research} {Project} {ZBS2000}/4)},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_10%20PortOfOtago.pdf},
	number = {No:2005/10},
	institution = {MAF Information Bureau},
	author = {Inglis, Graeme and Gust, Nick and Fitridge, Isla and Floerl, Oliver and Woods, Chris and Hayden, Barbara and Fenwick, Graham},
	month = mar,
	year = {2006},
	pages = {104},
}

@techreport{gust_rapid_2006,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Rapid nationwide delimitation surveys for {Styela} clava},
	abstract = {This report describes a nationwide surveillance program conducted in November 2005 to determine the distribution and density of the non-indigenous clubbed tunicate, Styela clava at twenty-six high risk sites. The surveys of fourteen ports, nine marinas and three harbours were completed within a month of Biosecurity New Zealand’s request for rapid surveillance.
The nationwide surveys for Styela clava were requested by Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) after the clubbed tunicate was found to be widespread in the Viaduct Basin and Freemans Bay, Auckland in mid October 2005. The surveys were initiated within days of notification by BNZ, with the aim of rapidly determining the current distribution and relative abundance of the introduced ascidian. At each location the surveys combined above-water observations from the shoreline or small research vessels, with in-water searches using SCUBA divers. This methodology was developed during the October 2005 delimitation survey for S. clava in the Viaduct Basin and Freemans Bay and enabled survey teams to sample a variety of man-made habitats quickly over a large area. Where S. clava was detected, estimates of its relative abundance were made visually using a semi-quantitative log-scale. Suspected specimens of Styela clava were collected and sent to taxonomic experts to verify their identity from each survey location. 
Survey locations spanned a latitudinal range of over 11° with 13 locations searched on each of the North and South Islands. The 26 locations surveyed were chosen by BNZ as high risk sites for Styela clava incursions. Locations surveyed (from north to south) were; Opua Marina, Tutukaka Marina, Whangarei Marina, Whangarei Port, Whangarei Marsden Point, Mangawhai Harbour, Whitianga Marina, Tauranga Port, Tauranga Bridge Marina, Whakatane Port, New Plymouth, Napier Port, Wellington Port, Tarakohe, Nelson Port and Marina, Havelock Marina, Picton Marina, Picton Port and Shakespeare Bay, Waikawa Marina, Greymouth Port, Lyttelton Port, Lyttelton Harbour, Akaroa Harbour, Dunedin (Port Chalmers), Dunedin (Port Otago) and Bluff Port. 
Styela clava was detected at three of the 26 locations surveyed; individuals were detected in Tutukaka Marina, Lyttelton Port and Lyttelton Marina. Maximum densities encountered at each infested location were in the range of 1-10 S. clava per m2. These densities are up to three orders of magnitude lower than densities reported for S. clava overseas where it has caused significant ecological and economic impacts. Only two individuals were detected in Tutukaka Marina. Divers recovered these from the underside of floating Marina pontoons. These mature specimens represent the most northerly extent of the invasion currently known in New Zealand. Fifteen individuals were collected from nine sites within Lyttelton Port. Lyttelton Marina is located a kilometre to the west of the Lyttelton Port and was also found to be infected with S. clava. A total of five S. clava were found attached to ropes at four sites within the Marina. Styela clava was not detected on any of the other jetties, wharves or mooring lines inspected around the perimeter of Lyttelton Harbour. In Lyttelton Port and Marina all individuals collected were large ({\textgreater} 90 mm) and mature, suggesting the species was not a recent arrival to the area. A sample collected from a tug boat in Lyttelton by a PhD student in May 2002 has subsequently been re-identified as S. clava, which confirms the species has been present there for at least three years. In New Zealand Ports and Marinas S. clava is associated with a variety of man-made substrata. It has been detected on a wide variety of fixed and floating surfaces including: concrete break-walls, wooden pier piles, vessel hulls, mooring lines, and floating pontoons.
Prior to the nationwide surveys, S. clava was known to be present in the Viaduct Basin, Freemans Bay and Westhaven Marina (Gust et al. 2005). It is now known to be widespread throughout the Hauraki Gulf, with higher density populations (tens to hundreds per m2) established near Waiheke Island. Additional opportunistic surveys by NIWA at Gulf Harbour Marina on the 24th of November found S. clava present at densities of 1-10 individuals per m2  beneath floating pontoons. 
Detection probabilities were calculated for each of the 23 locations where S. clava was not found nationwide, to provide an indication of the relative confidence of detection among locations, search techniques and substrata. To calculate these probabilities, an experiment was conducted to estimate the sensitivity of the search methods for S. clava. Known numbers of S. clava mimics were deployed at twelve sites (four each in Whangarei Harbour, New Plymouth and Opua Marina) under different conditions of water clarity. An independent team then searched the sites for the mimics using the standard survey protocol. Experimental results showed that search sensitivity for above-water searches was positively related to water clarity; however diver search sensitivity remained high (0.93 of model Styela clava were found on average) irrespective of water clarity. 
At the 23 locations where rapid surveillance did not detect Styela clava, we estimated the relative confidence that above-water surveys would have detected it if at least one individual was present. Above-water detection probabilities varied widely between locations (from 0.02 to 0.55), which often reflected the prevailing water clarity during searches, and its effect on search sensitivity (other factors such as the size and construction of the sampled location, and the sampling effort achieved influenced above-water detection probabilities. Detection probability curves for diver searches were calculated for different potential incursion sizes of S. clava in each location. The number of dives that could be achieved in the limited search time available was an important determinant of detection probability, as was the size of the modelled incursion. 
The above-water and in-water searches provided complementary approaches for rapidly determining the extent of the incursion at locations nationwide. Both techniques were successful in detecting specimens. Above-water surveys were particularly effective if water clarity was high ({\textgreater} 2 m Secchi depth) since large areas of potential S. clava habitat could be searched rapidly in the upper water column where this species is often observed. In contrast SCUBA divers can search smaller areas in a given time, but were able to investigate deeper substrata or those hidden from above-water observers. SCUBA searches had high sensitivity in the poor water clarity environments common in many New Zealand Ports, Marinas and Harbours.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Gust, N. and Inglis, G. J. and Peacock, Lisa and Miller, Sheryl and Floerl, OHayden and Fitridge, I. and Hurren, Helen and Johnston, Olivia},
	month = oct,
	year = {2006},
	pages = {83 pp.},
}

This report describes a nationwide surveillance program conducted in November 2005 to determine the distribution and density of the non-indigenous clubbed tunicate, Styela clava at twenty-six high risk sites. The surveys of fourteen ports, nine marinas and three harbours were completed within a month of Biosecurity New Zealand’s request for rapid surveillance. The nationwide surveys for Styela clava were requested by Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) after the clubbed tunicate was found to be widespread in the Viaduct Basin and Freemans Bay, Auckland in mid October 2005. The surveys were initiated within days of notification by BNZ, with the aim of rapidly determining the current distribution and relative abundance of the introduced ascidian. At each location the surveys combined above-water observations from the shoreline or small research vessels, with in-water searches using SCUBA divers. This methodology was developed during the October 2005 delimitation survey for S. clava in the Viaduct Basin and Freemans Bay and enabled survey teams to sample a variety of man-made habitats quickly over a large area. Where S. clava was detected, estimates of its relative abundance were made visually using a semi-quantitative log-scale. Suspected specimens of Styela clava were collected and sent to taxonomic experts to verify their identity from each survey location. Survey locations spanned a latitudinal range of over 11° with 13 locations searched on each of the North and South Islands. The 26 locations surveyed were chosen by BNZ as high risk sites for Styela clava incursions. Locations surveyed (from north to south) were; Opua Marina, Tutukaka Marina, Whangarei Marina, Whangarei Port, Whangarei Marsden Point, Mangawhai Harbour, Whitianga Marina, Tauranga Port, Tauranga Bridge Marina, Whakatane Port, New Plymouth, Napier Port, Wellington Port, Tarakohe, Nelson Port and Marina, Havelock Marina, Picton Marina, Picton Port and Shakespeare Bay, Waikawa Marina, Greymouth Port, Lyttelton Port, Lyttelton Harbour, Akaroa Harbour, Dunedin (Port Chalmers), Dunedin (Port Otago) and Bluff Port. Styela clava was detected at three of the 26 locations surveyed; individuals were detected in Tutukaka Marina, Lyttelton Port and Lyttelton Marina. Maximum densities encountered at each infested location were in the range of 1-10 S. clava per m2. These densities are up to three orders of magnitude lower than densities reported for S. clava overseas where it has caused significant ecological and economic impacts. Only two individuals were detected in Tutukaka Marina. Divers recovered these from the underside of floating Marina pontoons. These mature specimens represent the most northerly extent of the invasion currently known in New Zealand. Fifteen individuals were collected from nine sites within Lyttelton Port. Lyttelton Marina is located a kilometre to the west of the Lyttelton Port and was also found to be infected with S. clava. A total of five S. clava were found attached to ropes at four sites within the Marina. Styela clava was not detected on any of the other jetties, wharves or mooring lines inspected around the perimeter of Lyttelton Harbour. In Lyttelton Port and Marina all individuals collected were large (\textgreater 90 mm) and mature, suggesting the species was not a recent arrival to the area. A sample collected from a tug boat in Lyttelton by a PhD student in May 2002 has subsequently been re-identified as S. clava, which confirms the species has been present there for at least three years. In New Zealand Ports and Marinas S. clava is associated with a variety of man-made substrata. It has been detected on a wide variety of fixed and floating surfaces including: concrete break-walls, wooden pier piles, vessel hulls, mooring lines, and floating pontoons. Prior to the nationwide surveys, S. clava was known to be present in the Viaduct Basin, Freemans Bay and Westhaven Marina (Gust et al. 2005). It is now known to be widespread throughout the Hauraki Gulf, with higher density populations (tens to hundreds per m2) established near Waiheke Island. Additional opportunistic surveys by NIWA at Gulf Harbour Marina on the 24th of November found S. clava present at densities of 1-10 individuals per m2 beneath floating pontoons. Detection probabilities were calculated for each of the 23 locations where S. clava was not found nationwide, to provide an indication of the relative confidence of detection among locations, search techniques and substrata. To calculate these probabilities, an experiment was conducted to estimate the sensitivity of the search methods for S. clava. Known numbers of S. clava mimics were deployed at twelve sites (four each in Whangarei Harbour, New Plymouth and Opua Marina) under different conditions of water clarity. An independent team then searched the sites for the mimics using the standard survey protocol. Experimental results showed that search sensitivity for above-water searches was positively related to water clarity; however diver search sensitivity remained high (0.93 of model Styela clava were found on average) irrespective of water clarity. At the 23 locations where rapid surveillance did not detect Styela clava, we estimated the relative confidence that above-water surveys would have detected it if at least one individual was present. Above-water detection probabilities varied widely between locations (from 0.02 to 0.55), which often reflected the prevailing water clarity during searches, and its effect on search sensitivity (other factors such as the size and construction of the sampled location, and the sampling effort achieved influenced above-water detection probabilities. Detection probability curves for diver searches were calculated for different potential incursion sizes of S. clava in each location. The number of dives that could be achieved in the limited search time available was an important determinant of detection probability, as was the size of the modelled incursion. The above-water and in-water searches provided complementary approaches for rapidly determining the extent of the incursion at locations nationwide. Both techniques were successful in detecting specimens. Above-water surveys were particularly effective if water clarity was high (\textgreater 2 m Secchi depth) since large areas of potential S. clava habitat could be searched rapidly in the upper water column where this species is often observed. In contrast SCUBA divers can search smaller areas in a given time, but were able to investigate deeper substrata or those hidden from above-water observers. SCUBA searches had high sensitivity in the poor water clarity environments common in many New Zealand Ports, Marinas and Harbours.

@techreport{inglis_gulf_2006,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Gulf {Harbour} {Marina}: {Second} baseline survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32821-gulf-harbour-marina-second-baseline-survey-for-non-indigenous-marinespecies-research-project-zbs200518},
	abstract = {This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina undertaken in April 2006. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine taxa within the port and compares the biota with that recorded during an earlier port baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina undertaken in April 2003. 

The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five 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 Gulf Harbour Marina, the survey used the same methodologies and sampled the same sites (where possible) as in the initial baseline survey. To improve the description of the biota of the marina, 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 and marina conditions. These are described in more detail in the body of the report. 

A wide range of sampling techniques were used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Gulf Harbour Marina. 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, seastar and shrimp traps. 

Sampling effort was distributed in the Gulf Harbour Marina 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. 

As a result of ongoing taxonomic work, some identifications made during the initial baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina have undergone revision since the publication of that report. The revised data indicate that a total of 123 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina in April 2003. They consisted of 78 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 17 cryptogenic taxa (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 14 indeterminate taxa (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). 

During the repeat survey, 146 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 79 native species, 23 non-indigenous species, 13 cryptogenic taxa and 31 indeterminate taxa. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54 \% of the native species, 48 \% of the non-indigenous species and 46 \% of the cryptogenic taxa recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. 

The 23 non-indigenous species found in the repeat survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides ezoensis, Hydroides elegans, Pseudopolydora corniculata, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata; (Arthropoda) Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Amphibalanus amphitrite; (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, 
B. stolonifera, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora subtorquata, Watersipora arcuata, Celleporaria aperta, Bowerbankia gracilis, Scrupocellaria n. sp., Zoobotryon verticillatum; (Chordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Diplosoma listerianum, Styela clava (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; and (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf. macera. Eleven of these species - Pseudopolydora corniculata, Pseudopolydora paucibranchia, Monocorophium acherusicum, Amphibalanus amphitrite, Bugula stolonifera, Watersipora arcuata, Celleporaria apera, Bowerbankia gracilis, Diplosoma listerianum, Styela clava and Musculista senhousia 
- were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina. In addition, three non-indigenous species that were recorded in the first survey – (Arthropoda) Ericthonius pugnax; (Mollusca) Limaria orientalis and (Ochrophyta) Cutleria multifida – were not found during the repeat survey. 

No species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. 
One species recorded during the second survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina – the club tunicate Styela clava - is on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. 

Most non-indigenous species located in the marina 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 58 \% (15 of 26 species) of NIS recorded in the two Gulf Harbour Marina baseline surveys are likely to have been introduced in biofouling assemblages, 2 \% (one species) via ballast water and 31 \% (eight species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or biofouling vectors and for 2 \% (one species) the method of introduction is unknown. 

The predominance of biofouling species in the introduced biota of the Gulf Harbour Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.},
	number = {MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2019/05},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Schimanski, Kate and van den Brink, Anneke and Kospartov, Marie and Neil, Kerry and Cox, Serena L. and Nelson, Wendy and Ahyong, Shane T. and Read, Geoffrey and Page, Mike},
	month = jun,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Gulf Harbour Marina, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {141 pp. + Appendices},
}

This report describes the results of a repeat port baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina undertaken in April 2006. The survey provides a second inventory of native, non-indigenous and cryptogenic marine taxa within the port and compares the biota with that recorded during an earlier port baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina undertaken in April 2003. The survey is part of a nationwide investigation of native and non-native marine biodiversity in 25 international shipping ports and five 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 Gulf Harbour Marina, the survey used the same methodologies and sampled the same sites (where possible) as in the initial baseline survey. To improve the description of the biota of the marina, 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 and marina conditions. These are described in more detail in the body of the report. A wide range of sampling techniques were used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Gulf Harbour Marina. 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, seastar and shrimp traps. Sampling effort was distributed in the Gulf Harbour Marina 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. As a result of ongoing taxonomic work, some identifications made during the initial baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina have undergone revision since the publication of that report. The revised data indicate that a total of 123 species or higher taxa were identified in the first survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina in April 2003. They consisted of 78 native species, 14 non-indigenous species, 17 cryptogenic taxa (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 14 indeterminate taxa (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). During the repeat survey, 146 species or higher taxa were recorded, including 79 native species, 23 non-indigenous species, 13 cryptogenic taxa and 31 indeterminate taxa. Many species were common to both surveys. Around 54 % of the native species, 48 % of the non-indigenous species and 46 % of the cryptogenic taxa recorded during the repeat survey were also found in the earlier survey. The 23 non-indigenous species found in the repeat survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina included representatives of six phyla. The non-indigenous species detected were: (Annelida) Hydroides ezoensis, Hydroides elegans, Pseudopolydora corniculata, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata; (Arthropoda) Apocorophium acutum, Monocorophium acherusicum, Amphibalanus amphitrite; (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, B. stolonifera, Schizoporella errata, Watersipora subtorquata, Watersipora arcuata, Celleporaria aperta, Bowerbankia gracilis, Scrupocellaria n. sp., Zoobotryon verticillatum; (Chordata) Ascidiella aspersa, Diplosoma listerianum, Styela clava (Mollusca) Musculista senhousia, Crassostrea gigas, Theora lubrica; and (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf. macera. Eleven of these species - Pseudopolydora corniculata, Pseudopolydora paucibranchia, Monocorophium acherusicum, Amphibalanus amphitrite, Bugula stolonifera, Watersipora arcuata, Celleporaria apera, Bowerbankia gracilis, Diplosoma listerianum, Styela clava and Musculista senhousia - were not recorded in the earlier baseline survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina. In addition, three non-indigenous species that were recorded in the first survey – (Arthropoda) Ericthonius pugnax; (Mollusca) Limaria orientalis and (Ochrophyta) Cutleria multifida – were not found during the repeat survey. No species recorded in the repeat survey were new records for New Zealand waters. One species recorded during the second survey of the Gulf Harbour Marina – the club tunicate Styela clava - is on the New Zealand Register of Unwanted Organisms. Most non-indigenous species located in the marina 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 58 % (15 of 26 species) of NIS recorded in the two Gulf Harbour Marina baseline surveys are likely to have been introduced in biofouling assemblages, 2 % (one species) via ballast water and 31 % (eight species) could have been introduced by either ballast water or biofouling vectors and for 2 % (one species) the method of introduction is unknown. The predominance of biofouling species in the introduced biota of the Gulf Harbour Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas and in New Zealand.

@techreport{inglis_gulf_2005,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Gulf {Harbour} {Marina}: {Baseline} survey for non-indenous marine species},
	url = {https://niwa.co.nz/static/marine-biosecurity/Inglis%20et%20al%202005_12%20GulfHarbourMarina.pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive Summary}
This report describes the results of an April 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Gulf Harbour Marina.
•	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.
•	Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions.
•	A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Gulf Harbour Marina. 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.
•	The distribution of sampling effort in the Gulf Harbour Marina was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 taxonomicexperts for identification.
•	A total of 124 species or higher taxa were identified from the Gulf Harbour Marinasurvey. They consisted of 78 native species, 15 non-indigenous species, 12 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 19 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level).
•	The 15 non-indigenous organisms described from the Gulf Harbour Marina included representatives of seven phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans and Hydroides ezoensis, (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, Schizoporella errata, Zoobotryon verticillatum, and Watersipora subtorquata, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum and Ericthonius pugnax, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Limaria orientalis, and Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Cutleria multifida, (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf macera, (Urochordata) Ascidiella aspersa and Cnemidocarpa sp. Two of these species (the fouling serpulid polychaete, Hydroides ezoensis, and the ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.) had not previously been reported from New Zealand waters. Two cryptogenic species (an amphipod, Leucothoe sp. 1, and an ascidian, Microcosmus squamiger) were also recorded for the first time from New Zealand.
•	None of the species found in the Gulf Harbour Marina appear on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Two species – the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and the cryptogenic, toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum – are on the ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests in Australia.
•	Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping. Approximately 66.7 \% (10 of 15 species) of NIS in the Gulf Harbour Marina are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 6.7 \% via ballast water and 26.7 \% could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors.
•	The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Gulf Harbour Marina (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 Hayden, B. J. and Fenwick, G. D.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {Biosecurity, Cryptogenic, Gulf Harbour Marina, Introduced taxa, MAF, Marine species, NIS, New Zealand, Non-indigenous marine species, Port surveys, biological invasions},
	pages = {76 pp.},
}

Executive Summary This report describes the results of an April 2003 survey to provide a baseline inventory of native, non indigenous and cryptogenic marine species within the Gulf Harbour Marina. • 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. • Sampling methods used in these surveys were based on protocols developed by the Australian Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) for baseline surveys of non-indigenous species in ports. Modifications were made to the CRIMP protocols for use in New Zealand port conditions. • A wide range of sampling techniques was used to collect marine organisms from habitats within the Gulf Harbour Marina. 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. • The distribution of sampling effort in the Gulf Harbour Marina was designed to maximise the chances of detecting non-indigenous species and 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 taxonomicexperts for identification. • A total of 124 species or higher taxa were identified from the Gulf Harbour Marinasurvey. They consisted of 78 native species, 15 non-indigenous species, 12 cryptogenic species (those whose geographic origins are uncertain) and 19 species indeterminata (taxa for which there is insufficient taxonomic or systematic information available to allow identification to species level). • The 15 non-indigenous organisms described from the Gulf Harbour Marina included representatives of seven phyla. The non-indigenous species detected (ordered alphabetically by phylum, class, order, family, genus and species) were: (Annelida) Hydroides elegans and Hydroides ezoensis, (Bryozoa) Bugula neritina, Schizoporella errata, Zoobotryon verticillatum, and Watersipora subtorquata, (Crustacea) Apocorophium acutum and Ericthonius pugnax, (Mollusca) Crassostrea gigas, Limaria orientalis, and Theora lubrica, (Phycophyta) Cutleria multifida, (Porifera) Vosmaeropsis cf macera, (Urochordata) Ascidiella aspersa and Cnemidocarpa sp. Two of these species (the fouling serpulid polychaete, Hydroides ezoensis, and the ascidian, Cnemidocarpa sp.) had not previously been reported from New Zealand waters. Two cryptogenic species (an amphipod, Leucothoe sp. 1, and an ascidian, Microcosmus squamiger) were also recorded for the first time from New Zealand. • None of the species found in the Gulf Harbour Marina appear on the New Zealand register of unwanted organisms. Two species – the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and the cryptogenic, toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium catenatum – are on the ABWMAC list of unwanted marine pests in Australia. • Most non-indigenous species located in the Port are likely to have been introduced to New Zealand accidentally by international shipping. Approximately 66.7 % (10 of 15 species) of NIS in the Gulf Harbour Marina are likely to have been introduced in hull fouling assemblages, 6.7 % via ballast water and 26.7 % could have been introduced by either ballast water or hull fouling vectors. • The predominance of hull fouling species in the introduced biota of the Gulf Harbour Marina (as opposed to ballast water introductions) is consistent with findings from similar port baseline studies overseas.

@techreport{floerl_efficacy_2005,
	address = {Christchurch},
	type = {{NIWA} {Client} {Report}},
	title = {Efficacy of hull cleaning operations in containing biological material. {I} {Risk} assessment},
	url = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.1028&rep=rep1&type=pdf},
	abstract = {\textit{Executive summary}
In January 2003 the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) contracted NIWA to assess the risk posed to marine biosecurity by New Zealand’s commercial hull cleaning facilities.
The specific objectives of this project were:
1. To investigate for a variety of hull cleaning situations the types, amounts and viability of fouling organisms discharged and assess whether the effluent control methodology used is successful in reducing the amount of viable material reaching the coastal marine area.
2. To discuss and make recommendations on control methodologies that would be most effective in minimizing the release of viable organisms from hull cleaning situations
taking into account the efficacy, practicality and cost of using effective methodologies in an existing or new hull cleaning situation.
Between May and August 2003, NIWA staff visited hull cleaning facilities in Lyttelton,
Auckland, Whangaparaoa and Tauranga, where vessels are removed from the water for cleaning (dry-dock and haul-out facilities) or where fouling organisms are removed in situ by divers. In Objective 1, 19 vessels were sampled, ranging from 10–105 m in length. Sampling of fouling organisms and liquid effluent was done at all stages of the hull cleaning and waste treatment process. Macrofouling was sampled before, and immediately following its removal from vessel hulls by freshwater blasting or manual scraping (in-water cleaning). Liquid fouling waste was examined before it entered settlement tanks and filters, and following treatment prior to discharge into the sea.
In all cleaning operations examined, physical removal of fouling assemblages from vessel hulls did not result in mortality of all organisms. The overall viability of organisms removed from hulls was lowest in haul-out (16 percent) and dry-dock (43 percent) facilities, where fouling organisms were often exposed to air, high-pressure freshwater blasting and trampling.
However, viability was high for (1) hard-bodied organisms not directly attached to hull surfaces (epibiota), and (2) organisms associated with clumps of mussels in the protected sea chests of large ships. Survival and viability of organisms following in-water cleaning by divers, which did not involve exposure to air or high-pressure water blasting, was significantly higher (72 percent) than in shore-based operations.
The multi-chamber settlement tanks used by the facilities examined to remove solid particles from liquids (water blast effluent) were effective at killing and removing most biota suspended in the liquid effluent. Concentrations of intact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms in the first settlement tank chamber were 39–100 percent lower than those in the cleaning run-off. Liquids sampled in the last chamber of the settlement tanks had 99–
100 percent of all animal and unicellular biota removed, and it is likely that few or none of the remaining organisms were viable. In some cases, freshwater taxa were encountered in the tanks. No biological material occurred in the final effluent of facilities that subject settlement tank contents to filtration (sandfilter) prior to discharge into the sea.
The results of Objective 1 suggest that:
1. In-water hull cleaning without collection of fouling waste poses the highest risk to marine biosecurity. This excludes in-water operations that collect and contain fouling organisms following their removal from vessel hull, as such operations were not included in this study.
2. Operations that clean vessels in shore-based facilities and discharge solid and liquid fouling waste into the sea without any treatment pose a more than minor risk to marine biosecurity.
3. Operations that clean vessels out of the water and employ settling tanks to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge into the sea pose a relatively low risk to marine biosecurity, providing there is an adequate residency time of liquid waste in the tanks.
4. Operations that clean vessels out of the water and employ settling tanks and filters (for example, sandfilters) to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge into the sea pose negligible risk to marine biosecurity.
5. The residency period of water blasting effluent in settlement tanks is likely to vary between seasons because far more vessels are cleaned per day during summer months than during winter. Actual residency time will be a function of the capacity of the settlement tanks and the number of vessels cleaned per day (and, therefore, the volume of water entering the tanks). We recommend that a repetition of settlement tank sampling be carried out during summer months when far more boats are cleaned per day and the residency period of cleaning effluent in settlement tanks is likely to be shorter.
A review of existing legislation and waste treatment methods used at existing cleaning facilities in New Zealand and elsewhere was conducted as part of Objective 2. Our review suggests that although few of New Zealand’s Regional Coastal Plans deal explicitly with managing risks to marine biosecurity, concerns about the release of toxic contaminants from
cleaning facilities and their effects on the coastal marine environment have meant that many of the larger Regional Authorities have moved to discourage return of untreated solid and liquid wastes to the marine environment.
We recommend fouling waste treatment systems described in (3) above are a desirable standard for hull cleaning facilities where there is a risk of contamination by unwanted marine organisms. For operators that already have some form of collection and settling tank treatment system, the most cost-effective option is likely to be retain and/or modify the existing system to achieve the characteristics listed in (3) above. For operators that do not currently have treatment systems, the simplest and most cost-effective option is likely to be that described in (3) above. This recommendation is based simply on the fact that currently this is the most commonly used system in New Zealand and it is a system that has been shown to be effective at reducing biosecurity risk (Objective 1). This recommendation does not preclude the use of other, possibly more sophisticated systems.
There are likely to be significant benefits of including additional filtration steps or other more sophisticated treatment technologies as ‘add-ons’ to the treatment process. First, such steps will offer an additional buffer of confidence in reducing risks to marine biosecurity, for example by providing a final ‘catch all’ removal of particles greater in size than the ‘particle standard’ of 60 μm proposed by McClary and Nelligan (2001). Second, they will improve the removal of fine particulates and associated antifouling chemicals. This is important for operators who not only need to manage marine biosecurity risk, but who also may need consents for discharges to the sea under the Resource Management Act, or may need permission to divert hull-cleaning waste to local community wastewater treatment plants.},
	institution = {NIWA},
	author = {Floerl, O. and Norton, N. and Inglis, G. and Hayden, B. and Middleton, C. and Smith, M. and Alcock, N. and Fitridge, I.},
	month = aug,
	year = {2005},
	pages = {72 pp.},
}

Executive summary In January 2003 the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) contracted NIWA to assess the risk posed to marine biosecurity by New Zealand’s commercial hull cleaning facilities. The specific objectives of this project were: 1. To investigate for a variety of hull cleaning situations the types, amounts and viability of fouling organisms discharged and assess whether the effluent control methodology used is successful in reducing the amount of viable material reaching the coastal marine area. 2. To discuss and make recommendations on control methodologies that would be most effective in minimizing the release of viable organisms from hull cleaning situations taking into account the efficacy, practicality and cost of using effective methodologies in an existing or new hull cleaning situation. Between May and August 2003, NIWA staff visited hull cleaning facilities in Lyttelton, Auckland, Whangaparaoa and Tauranga, where vessels are removed from the water for cleaning (dry-dock and haul-out facilities) or where fouling organisms are removed in situ by divers. In Objective 1, 19 vessels were sampled, ranging from 10–105 m in length. Sampling of fouling organisms and liquid effluent was done at all stages of the hull cleaning and waste treatment process. Macrofouling was sampled before, and immediately following its removal from vessel hulls by freshwater blasting or manual scraping (in-water cleaning). Liquid fouling waste was examined before it entered settlement tanks and filters, and following treatment prior to discharge into the sea. In all cleaning operations examined, physical removal of fouling assemblages from vessel hulls did not result in mortality of all organisms. The overall viability of organisms removed from hulls was lowest in haul-out (16 percent) and dry-dock (43 percent) facilities, where fouling organisms were often exposed to air, high-pressure freshwater blasting and trampling. However, viability was high for (1) hard-bodied organisms not directly attached to hull surfaces (epibiota), and (2) organisms associated with clumps of mussels in the protected sea chests of large ships. Survival and viability of organisms following in-water cleaning by divers, which did not involve exposure to air or high-pressure water blasting, was significantly higher (72 percent) than in shore-based operations. The multi-chamber settlement tanks used by the facilities examined to remove solid particles from liquids (water blast effluent) were effective at killing and removing most biota suspended in the liquid effluent. Concentrations of intact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms in the first settlement tank chamber were 39–100 percent lower than those in the cleaning run-off. Liquids sampled in the last chamber of the settlement tanks had 99– 100 percent of all animal and unicellular biota removed, and it is likely that few or none of the remaining organisms were viable. In some cases, freshwater taxa were encountered in the tanks. No biological material occurred in the final effluent of facilities that subject settlement tank contents to filtration (sandfilter) prior to discharge into the sea. The results of Objective 1 suggest that: 1. In-water hull cleaning without collection of fouling waste poses the highest risk to marine biosecurity. This excludes in-water operations that collect and contain fouling organisms following their removal from vessel hull, as such operations were not included in this study. 2. Operations that clean vessels in shore-based facilities and discharge solid and liquid fouling waste into the sea without any treatment pose a more than minor risk to marine biosecurity. 3. Operations that clean vessels out of the water and employ settling tanks to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge into the sea pose a relatively low risk to marine biosecurity, providing there is an adequate residency time of liquid waste in the tanks. 4. Operations that clean vessels out of the water and employ settling tanks and filters (for example, sandfilters) to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge into the sea pose negligible risk to marine biosecurity. 5. The residency period of water blasting effluent in settlement tanks is likely to vary between seasons because far more vessels are cleaned per day during summer months than during winter. Actual residency time will be a function of the capacity of the settlement tanks and the number of vessels cleaned per day (and, therefore, the volume of water entering the tanks). We recommend that a repetition of settlement tank sampling be carried out during summer months when far more boats are cleaned per day and the residency period of cleaning effluent in settlement tanks is likely to be shorter. A review of existing legislation and waste treatment methods used at existing cleaning facilities in New Zealand and elsewhere was conducted as part of Objective 2. Our review suggests that although few of New Zealand’s Regional Coastal Plans deal explicitly with managing risks to marine biosecurity, concerns about the release of toxic contaminants from cleaning facilities and their effects on the coastal marine environment have meant that many of the larger Regional Authorities have moved to discourage return of untreated solid and liquid wastes to the marine environment. We recommend fouling waste treatment systems described in (3) above are a desirable standard for hull cleaning facilities where there is a risk of contamination by unwanted marine organisms. For operators that already have some form of collection and settling tank treatment system, the most cost-effective option is likely to be retain and/or modify the existing system to achieve the characteristics listed in (3) above. For operators that do not currently have treatment systems, the simplest and most cost-effective option is likely to be that described in (3) above. This recommendation is based simply on the fact that currently this is the most commonly used system in New Zealand and it is a system that has been shown to be effective at reducing biosecurity risk (Objective 1). This recommendation does not preclude the use of other, possibly more sophisticated systems. There are likely to be significant benefits of including additional filtration steps or other more sophisticated treatment technologies as ‘add-ons’ to the treatment process. First, such steps will offer an additional buffer of confidence in reducing risks to marine biosecurity, for example by providing a final ‘catch all’ removal of particles greater in size than the ‘particle standard’ of 60 μm proposed by McClary and Nelligan (2001). Second, they will improve the removal of fine particulates and associated antifouling chemicals. This is important for operators who not only need to manage marine biosecurity risk, but who also may need consents for discharges to the sea under the Resource Management Act, or may need permission to divert hull-cleaning waste to local community wastewater treatment plants.

@article{floerl_risk_2005,
	title = {A risk based predictive tool to prevent accidental introductions of marine non-indigenous species},
	volume = {35},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-004-0193-8.pdf},
	journal = {Environmental Management},
	author = {Floerl, O. and Inglis, G. and Hayden, B.},
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {fouling ranks, ascidians,},
	pages = {765--768},
}

@techreport{inglis_field_2004,
	title = {Field surveys to determine the extent of distribution and relative abundance of \textit{{Charybdis} japonica} in the {Whangarei} region},
	url = {https://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22502/ZBS2001-01%20Survey%20Charybdis%20japonica%20Whangarei%20Objective%203%20Final.pdf.ashx},
	author = {Inglis, G. J. and Gust, N. and Mackay, G. and Tasker, R.},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {17},
}

@article{floerl_positive_2004,
	title = {Positive interactions between non-indigenous species facilitate transport by human vectors},
	volume = {14},
	url = {https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/03-5399},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5399},
	abstract = {Numerous studies have shown how interactions between nonindigenous species (NIS) can accelerate the rate at which they establish and spread in invaded habitats, leading to an "invasional meltdown." We investigated facilitation at an earlier stage in the invasion process: during entrainment of propagules in a transport pathway. The introduced bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata is tolerant of several antifouling biocides and a common component of hull-fouling assemblages, a major transport pathway for aquatic NIS. We predicted that colonies of W. subtorquata act as nontoxic refugia for other, less tolerant species to settle on. We compared rates of recruitment of W. subtorquata and other fouling organisms to surfaces coated with three antifouling paints and a nontoxic primer in coastal marinas in Queensland, Australia. Diversity and abundance of fouling taxa were compared between bryozoan colonies and adjacent toxic or nontoxic paint surfaces. After 16 weeks immersion, W. subtorquata covered up to 64\% of the tile surfaces coated in antifouling paint. Twenty-two taxa occurred exclusively on W. subtorquata and were not found on toxic surfaces. Other fouling taxa present on toxic surfaces were up to 248 times more abundant on W. subtorquata. Because biocides leach from the paint surface, we expected a positive relationship between the size of W. subtorquata colonies and the abundance and diversity of epibionts. To test this, we compared recruitment of fouling organisms to mimic W. subtorquata colonies of three different sizes that had the same total surface area. Secondary recruitment to mimic colonies was greater when the surrounding paint surface contained biocides. Contrary to our predictions, epibionts were most abundant on small mimic colonies with a large total perimeter. This pattern was observed in encrusting and erect bryozoans, tubiculous amphipods, and serpulid and sabellid polychaetes, but only in the presence of toxic paint. Our results show that W. subtorquata acts as a foundation species for fouling assemblages on ship hulls and facilitates the transport of other species at greater abundance and frequency than would otherwise be possible. Invasion success may be increased by positive interactions between NIS that enhance the delivery of propagules by human transport vectors},
	number = {6},
	journal = {Ecological Applications},
	author = {Floerl, O. and Pool, T. K. and Inglis, G. J.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {ABUNDANCE, AMPHIPOD, ANTIFOULING, AUSTRALIA, BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, Biocides, Bryozoans, COLONIZATION, DIVERSITY, Epibionts, FACILITATION, Fouling organisms, GREGARIOUS SETTLEMENT, HABITAT, HULL FOULING, INVASION, MARINA, MARINAS, MARINE INVERTEBRATE LARVAE, NIS, NORTH-AMERICA, PATTERN, PATTERNS, PLANT INVASIONS, POLYCHAETE, POSITIVE INTERACTIONS, PREDICTION, Paints, QUEENSLAND, RATES, RECRUITMENT, ROCKY INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY, SESSILE INVERTEBRATES, SPREAD, SUCCESS, Ship hulls, TIME, TRANSPORT, VECTORS, WATERSIPORA, Watersipora subtorquata, antifouling paints,bryozoans,epibiosis,facilitation,hull fouling,nonindigenous species,perimeter,positive interactions,toxicity,Watersipora subtorquata, colonies, foundation species, interaction, interactions, organisms, size},
	pages = {1724--1736},
}

Numerous studies have shown how interactions between nonindigenous species (NIS) can accelerate the rate at which they establish and spread in invaded habitats, leading to an "invasional meltdown." We investigated facilitation at an earlier stage in the invasion process: during entrainment of propagules in a transport pathway. The introduced bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata is tolerant of several antifouling biocides and a common component of hull-fouling assemblages, a major transport pathway for aquatic NIS. We predicted that colonies of W. subtorquata act as nontoxic refugia for other, less tolerant species to settle on. We compared rates of recruitment of W. subtorquata and other fouling organisms to surfaces coated with three antifouling paints and a nontoxic primer in coastal marinas in Queensland, Australia. Diversity and abundance of fouling taxa were compared between bryozoan colonies and adjacent toxic or nontoxic paint surfaces. After 16 weeks immersion, W. subtorquata covered up to 64% of the tile surfaces coated in antifouling paint. Twenty-two taxa occurred exclusively on W. subtorquata and were not found on toxic surfaces. Other fouling taxa present on toxic surfaces were up to 248 times more abundant on W. subtorquata. Because biocides leach from the paint surface, we expected a positive relationship between the size of W. subtorquata colonies and the abundance and diversity of epibionts. To test this, we compared recruitment of fouling organisms to mimic W. subtorquata colonies of three different sizes that had the same total surface area. Secondary recruitment to mimic colonies was greater when the surrounding paint surface contained biocides. Contrary to our predictions, epibionts were most abundant on small mimic colonies with a large total perimeter. This pattern was observed in encrusting and erect bryozoans, tubiculous amphipods, and serpulid and sabellid polychaetes, but only in the presence of toxic paint. Our results show that W. subtorquata acts as a foundation species for fouling assemblages on ship hulls and facilitates the transport of other species at greater abundance and frequency than would otherwise be possible. Invasion success may be increased by positive interactions between NIS that enhance the delivery of propagules by human transport vectors

@techreport{chiswell_alternative_2001,
	address = {Wellington, New Zealand.},
	title = {Alternative biosecurity management tools for vector threats: ballast water discharge and exchange areas.},
	url = {https://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22499/ZBS2000-02%20Vector%20threats%20Discharge%20and%20Exchange%20areas%20Objectives%201,2,3%20Final.pdf.ashx},
	institution = {National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research},
	author = {Chiswell, S. M. and Inglis, G. J. and Hayden, B.},
	year = {2001},
	keywords = {New Zealand, ballast water, biosecurity, exotic, introduced species, management, review, transport pathway},
	pages = {28},
}