Management of Biological Invasions (2016) Volume 7, Issue 4: 351–363 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2016.7.4.05 © 2016 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2016 REABIC Open Access Research Article Marine pests in paradise: capacity building, awareness raising and preliminary introduced species port survey results in the Republic of Palau Marnie L. Campbell 1,2, * , Chad L. Hewitt 1,3 and Joel Miles 4 1 National Centre for Marine Conservation and Resource Sustainability, University of Tasmania, Newnham, Tasmania, 7250, Australia Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand 3 School of Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand 4 National Invasive Species Committee, Bureau of Agriculture, Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment & Tourism, 969940 Republic of Palau 2 *Corresponding author E-mail addresses: marnie.campbell@waikato.ac.nz (MLC), chad.hewitt@waikato.ac.nz (CLH), joelmiles52@gmail.com (JM) Received: 12 April 2016 / Accepted: 19 July 2016 / Published online: 17 September 2016 Handling editor: Vadim Panov Abstract Introduced marine species can have a large impact upon small countries that are reliant on marine tourism. Non-governmental organisations, such as the World Conservation Union (IUCN), are working with technical experts to implement capacity building and awareness programs that transfers introduced marine species knowledge to countries in need of aid. The Republic of Palau is reliant on tourism and as such is proactively engaging in this process to ensure that it has the necessary skills to determine and manage its introduced marine species pathways and vectors. The IUCN with the aid of technical experts implemented a four day training workshop that provided both theoretical and practical field experience with introduced marine species port surveys. An outcome of this exercise was the detection of 11 introduced marine species, the training of 10 Palau agencies and two international organisations, and recommendations for future implementation that will aid Palau to address the problem of introduced marine species within their borders. Key words: non-indigenous species, non-native species, marine pests, biofouling, biosecurity, environmental management, species criteria, Pacific Island Countries Introduction Within the last two decades research on introduced species has expanded from a focus on ballast water mediated transport (e.g., Williams et al. 1988; Carlton and Geller 1993), to a more holistic view of potential vectors (e.g., Carlton 2001; Hewitt et al. 2004; Padilla and Williams 2004; Fofonoff et al. 2003; Campbell and Hewitt et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2015). Marine invaders have now been detected in virtually all regions of the world oceans, with indications that multiple vectors contribute to these broad-scale distributions (e.g., Hayes et al. 2005; Hewitt and Campbell 2007). Not all countries have the capacity to determine the current state of invasions within their waters or the ability to implement proactive biosecurity measures (e.g., Bax et al. 2003; Hewitt and Campbell 2007; Nuñez and Pauchard 2010; Azmi et al. 2015a, 2015b). This lack of capacity has serious biosecurity implications. Of particular concern is the reliance of a number of small island states, specifically Pacific Island Countries (PICs), on their marine environments, to the extent that the “marine economy” derived from tourism, artisanal and commercial fisheries and aquaculture contributes more than 10% of Gross National Income (GNI) in many instances (Table 1). The marine economy is a useful term to capture the direct and indirect benefits derived from marine based activities to GNI, which need to be examined in the context of marine biosecurity. Marine economy activities include more traditional economic drivers, such as commercial export based fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium species collection, and oil and gas extraction; as well as subsistence fisheries and marine based tourism (see Table 1). While traditional economic drivers have previously been calculated for contribution to GNI, it is commonly realised that the ability to capture less traditional aspects in PICs is limited, resulting in an under-estimation of GNI 351 M.L. Campbell et al. Table 1. Pacific Island countries Gross Domestic Product (GDP), currency, and the percentage “marine economy” component of the GDP, with the Republic of Palau highlighted by italics (source: Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). * – estimate Country Cook Island Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Islands Kiribati Marshal Islands Nauru* Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands* Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu GDP $171,599,000 $229,869,864 $3,587,300,000 $74,100,000 $97,311,800 $80,000,000 $14,210,300 $129,601,000 $8,780,800,000 $705,914,000 $1,352,700,000 $251,135,000 $22,044,500 $29,206 contribution (e.g., Gillett and Lightfoot 2001; Gibson and Nero 2008). For many PICs, fisheries can account for more than 10% contribution to GNI, with marine based tourism having an equal or greater share. Despite a high reliance on the marine environment and marine resources for economic well-being, many of these PICs have limited understanding about introduced marine species and the risks they pose to their economies. As Nuñez and Pauchard (2010) have discussed, these developing states have limited capacity or capability to meet the demands of marine biosecurity within their domain. To address this, a number of non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations have established programs to ensure that all countries have access to information about marine introduced species (awareness raising) and can receive expert training (capacity building) to facilitate regional and international outcomes. Two examples of this proactive international stance include: 1) the work undertaken by the Global Ballast Water Management Programme (referred to as GloBallast) — a collaboration between the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the International Maritime Organisations (IMO) (IMO 2000a); and 2) the IUCN’s marine programme (IUCN 2013), with a third organisation unfortunately closing in 2011 (the Global Invasive Species Programme [GISP]; BGCI 2011). These organisations have provided training for introduced species surveys, identification and taxonomy, risk assessment, ballast water management, and public awareness in a number of countries. Phase I of the Globallast programme undertook introduced species port survey training in six countries 352 Currency NZ$ US$ F$ AUD$ US$ AUD$ NZ$ US$ Kina Tala SI$ T$ AUD$ Vt million Marine component (%) 11.31 4.70 2.34 11.98 7.40 2.12 1.58 2.69 0.56 7.99 0.01 7.13 6.77 0.95 (Brazil, China, India, Iran, South Africa, and the Ukraine). This training provided basic skills in ballast water management, ballast water risk assessment, and taxonomic identification (IMO 2000b). In general, these initiatives targeted stakeholders such as universities, museums, navy, and port authorities. GISP had maintained a broader, all-ecosystem approach to invasive species providing for example, public awareness (e.g., invasive species posters), training workshops, and advice to decision makers (e.g., Simons and de Poorter 2008). Similarly, the IUCN provides introduced species awareness raising in countries such as Chile (e.g., Hewitt et al. 2006), the Seychelles, and Samoa, and have also undertaken some targeted introduced species surveys (e.g., Tamelander et al. 2009). One example of the IUCN efforts is a facilitation and capacity building exercise conducted in the Republic of Palau (herein referred to as Palau) in 2007 on introduced species port survey methods, both theoretical and applied. This paper provides an overview of the exercise, including outcomes derived from the workshop. The work in Palau involved a number of different in-country agencies, working with Australian marine biosecurity experts who provided training that was facilitated by the IUCN and the Office of Environmental Response and Coordination, Palau. The activity in Palau focussed on providing an awareness of introduced marine species and the problems they cause, training interested agencies in port survey techniques and taxonomic sorting, and introducing the concepts of risk assessment. One of the main objectives of this work was to ensure that Palau would receive training in skills that Introduced marine species in Palau would allow them to undertake their own introduced species baseline surveys and establish monitoring programs, thus ensuring that knowledge transfer occurred. It is anticipated that follow-up surveys within Palau will further build capacity and increase knowledge about introduced marine species in this region. Outcomes from the training exercise provided preliminary data on the introduced species present in the region and associated vectors that may pose a risk to Palau. This type of information can then form the basis of informed introduced species management programs. aim of the developed survey was to detect introduced marine species through examination of marine biodiversity. Therefore, survey sites were selected based on likely primary inoculation points (areas with overseas linkages) and secondary sites with high frequency of visitation from primary inoculation points (i.e., secondary transfer locations). In addition, sites of high environmental, economic or socio-cultural importance were identified for monitoring. Upon return from the field a literature search was undertaken to identify known introduced and cryptogenic species from the region to inform the development of a biosecurity framework specific to Palau. Materials and methods Training workshop Between 25th and 28th July, 2007, 10 Palauan agencies (Bureau of Marine Resources, Bureau of Agriculture, CARP Dive Tour Company, Koror State Government, Office of Environmental Response and Coordination (OERC), Palau Conservation Society, Palau International Coral Reef Centre, Coral Reef Research Foundation, Peleliu State Government, Sam’s Tours) and two international organisations (IUCN, The Nature Conservancy) were trained in introduced marine species baseline survey design and techniques, including undertaking a preliminary survey of Malakal Harbour, Koror State, Palau, sample sorting and para-taxonomic species identification. It is important to note that the para-taxonomic training was focussed on identifying obvious non-native species (building capability) and providing knowledge about where to find taxonomic information, such as relevant databases or how to contact taxonomic experts. The supplementary material in this paper provides a list of taxonomic databases and references that we typically provide during port survey capacity building training. A component of the project included in-water training of methods and post-survey taxonomic sorting with species identification. The survey training specifically covered the Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001) protocols, with further information provided during a workshop on alternative protocols such as the Rapid Assessment Survey (RAS) surveys (e.g., Cohen et al. 2001, 2005; Pedersen et al. 2003), the Bishop Museum protocols (e.g., Coles and Eldredge 2002), the Chilean aquaculture survey protocols (e.g., Hewitt et al. 2006), and passive sampling (Ruiz and Hewitt 2002; Wyatt et al. 2005; deRivera et al. 2005). Workshop participants designed a baseline survey, grounded by their shared local knowledge coupled with their training in the Hewitt and Martin protocols (1996, 2001). As with all baseline port surveys; the Survey site Palau is an archipelago of over 586 islands (eight main islands) located east of the Philippine island of Mindanao; the first Europeans to see the islands were the Spanish in the 1500’s (Faulkner et al. 2004; Yukihira et al. 2007). It is a biodiversity hotspot (Faulkner et al. 2004; Yukihira et al. 2007) and a well-known international tourist destination based on its Rock Islands, jellyfish lakes and unique SCUBA diving opportunities (Yamashita 2000). The government is proactive, with regards to introduced pests and are concerned with the potential impact introduced marine species pose to their tourism (including charter fishing) industries. Introduced species survey methods The preliminary survey served two purposes: 1) to train the survey team in introduced species survey methods; and 2) to undertake a preliminary examination of the species present in Malakal Harbour. The survey aimed to detect introduced marine species and provide an indication of their spatial distribution. Collection of native biodiversity data was a secondary aim of the survey plan. Within this paper we discuss the detection of introduced marine species, not native species. An initial suite of survey sites were selected by introduced species port survey specialists for consideration by the workshop participants. This selection of sites was subsequently discussed with workshop participants to add local knowledge and thereby improve site selection by adding or removing sites where needed. This ensured that selection of sites was refined and prioritised based on the heuristic knowledge of the workshop participants, coupled with the prioritisation knowledge provided in the Hewitt and Martin (2001) introduced species sampling principles (Table 2). At the end of the heuristic workshop process, a total of 38 sites were identified, 353 M.L. Campbell et al. Table 2. Sites selected for introduced marine species surveys, including method of sampling, heuristic priorities and introduced species priorities. Italic font indicates sites that would be sampled under a typical introduced marine species survey using the Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001) protocols. Site name Neco floating dock Neco marine dock PMIC Sam’s Tours Channel marker Bureau of Marine Resources/Belau -Mariculture Demonstration Center Marine Law Enforcement Commercial Berth 3 (south) Commercial Berth end Method Training sites covered Qualitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Semi-quantitative Heuristic priority Introduced spp priority 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative Phase 1 – Malakal port sites Malakal causeway Quantitative Palau Royal Resort Quantitative Carp Restaurant Quantitative Fisheries wharf Quantitative Palau Island Traders International Quantitative BRM - mariculture Quantitative Marine law Quantitative Barge wreck Qualitative CPR – dry dock Quantitative Chandelier cave Qualitative Recreational anchorage Qualitative Recreational anchorage – Chinese wreck Qualitative Recreational anchorage - wreck Qualitative Old Japanese dry dock Qualitative Phase 2 – external to port – Koror State Channel buoys 1 Semi- quantitative Channel buoys 2 Semi- quantitative Channel buoys 3 Semi- quantitative Derelict tugs Qualitative Large foreign vessel anchorage Pincher Bay Qualitative PPR Qualitative Sea plane anchorage Qualitative T-dock (historical jetty) Qualitative KB (JP) bridge - north Quantitative KB (JP) bridge - south Qualitative Fish & fins/PICRC Quantitative Dump site Qualitative Ngetkedam Qualitative Anchorage – near helmut dive site Qualitative MV “Pristine” Qualitative Phase 3 – beyond Koror State (To be designed) within a three phase program (phase 1 – Malakal Harbor; phase 2 – surrounding regions within Koror State; and phase 3 – areas outside of Koror State) being suggested to complete the site survey. This paper concentrates on phase 1, with phases 2 and 3 underway via the Koror Rangers at times of their convenience. Typically, an introduced species survey for a region of this size would sample fewer sites (e.g., 22 sites) but retaining the ability to detect low density invasions (e.g., Hewitt and Martin 2001). Indicated in Table 2 (via italic font) are the sites that would be 354 sampled during a full Hewitt and Martin style survey. By sampling fewer sites but maintaining a high detection limit (statistical ability to find an introduced species based on the sampling effort expended), the efficiency of the survey is increased both with regards to resource use and statistical robustness. However, when training participants, it is often desirable to include more sites to ensure the inclusion of stakeholder opinion. A number of sites that were sampled through visual inspection (qualitative sampling) were added Introduced marine species in Palau Figure 1. A selection of the survey sites in Palau: Malakal Harbour (A, B), “pristine” areas (C, D), and tourist sites (E, F). to the survey in an ad-hoc fashion, with introduced or suspect introduced species being noted at all ad hoc sites. Samples from the hulls of three vessels were also collected in a qualitative fashion. Fouling communities were sampled at 16 sites; nine sites within Malakal Harbour and seven sites outside of the harbour, including three “pristine” sites in the Rock Islands (Figure 1). Standard 0.10 m2 quadrats were used to sample hard substrate using the methods described in Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001). Quadrats were sampled at three depths (–0.5m, –3m, and –7m) in triplicate (n = 9 samples) where depth allowed. When depths were limited (too shallow), two depths (–0.5m and –3m) were sampled using four replicates (n = 8 samples). During this preliminary survey no benthic cores, phytoplankton or pelagic samples were collected and hence sampling focussed on biofouling communities. Collected specimens were placed on ice until taxonomic sorting and identification occurred on the afternoon of the day that collection occurred. Specimens were preserved using 70% ethanol and 355 M.L. Campbell et al. labels were used to ensure that site and specimen integrity was maintained following the methods of Hewitt and Martin (1996). Specimens were identified to least taxonomic unit, aiming to obtain a species level identification, so that species status (is it a native, introduced, cryptogenic species) could be derived. A number of para-taxonomic experts were involved in the species identifications. Identifying a species status A modified version of the Chapman and Carlton (1991, 1994) 10-point criteria was used to determine a species status (Table 3; Campbell et al., in review). These criteria evaluate ecological, geographical and evolutionary attributes of a species, using deductive reasoning to aid in the determination of a species status. Knowledge that spans across multiple disciplines, such as taxonomy, phylogeny, genetics, ecology, biology, and biogeography, is used to assess the species status. The modified criteria have been trialled (e.g., Brazil, China, India, Iran, Samoa, the Seychelles) in regions where a historical track record of native species exist and worked relatively well (M Campbell, unpublished data). The modified criteria include an additional five criteria to those that Chapman and Carlton (1991, 1994) originally suggested. These new additions were derived by evaluating native and introduced species patterns from national and international port survey data sets (Australia, South Africa, Brazil; Pollard and Hutchings 1990a, 1990b; Hewitt et al. 1999, 2004; Hewitt and Campbell 2001; Hewitt 2002; Campbell 2003; Campbell et al. 2004; Hewitt and Campbell, unpubl. data) and readily available international species data present in the published literature (e.g., Cohen and Carlton 1995; Ribera and Boudouresque 1995; Brattegard and Holthe 1997; Zaitsev and Mamaev 1997; Cranfield et al. 1998; Zaitsev and Alexandrov 1998; Coles et al. 1999; Boudouresque and Verlaque 2002; CIESM 2002; Galil et al. 2002; Leppäkoski et al. 2002; Orensanz et al., 2002; Green and Short 2003; Occhipinti-Ambrogi and Savini 2003; Castilla et al. 2005). To determine if a species was native, introduced or cryptogenic, a “weight of evidence” approach was applied. Three of the new criteria are based on patterns linked to an introduced species affinity with mediated transport mechanisms (such as vessels and aquaculture) that lead to a broader distribution than may be observed by naturally dispersing natives and are summarised as: — Criterion 7: The local (<10’s km) distribution of the introduced species is wide when compared to similar native species’ local distributions; 356 — Criterion 8: The regional (100’s – 1000’s km) distribution of the introduced species is wide when compared to similar native species’ regional distribution; — Criterion 10: Introduced species have a widespread global distribution; — Criterion 14: Only one sex of a dimorphic species can be detected. Several introduced species have been identified where a single sex is detected and reproduction is limited to asexual means alone. Founder effects may result in a reduced probability of individuals of both sexes being introduced to a locale; and — Criterion 15: This genus is not present in the country/island/continent (higher taxonomic affinities are lacking). Results and discussion Training workshops A four day workshop was conducted that involved 10 Palauan and two international organisations. The initial 2 days involved classroom activities, where participants were trained using a more traditional style “chalk and talk” information provision session followed by information transfer with group activities. During the “chalk and talk” session experts discussed what introduced marine species are, the different field survey techniques that exist for detecting introduced species (sensu Campbell et al. 2007), and how risk analysis can be used for marine biosecurity (e.g., Campbell 2008; Campbell and Hewitt 2011, 2013). Within the group activities a “strawman” model of a Hewitt and Martin port survey for Malakal and surrounding regions was provided to participants. The workshop participants then used their newly acquired introduced species and survey knowledge, plus their local knowledge to modify sites and decide the best sampling techniques for each subsequently selected site (Campbell and Hewitt 2008). This combined method resulted in participants stating that they felt confident that they had the skills to understand, plan and implement a baseline survey for introduced species with minimal guidance from experts. The remaining two-days of the workshop involved field activities where a group of people that would be involved in undertaking port surveys had in-water training in the field sampling and laboratory sorting techniques. This training resulted in nine sites being surveyed with additional ad hoc collections. The preliminary survey detected introduced species and as such is considered to be a successful implementation of a knowledge and skills capacity building exercise. Introduced marine species in Palau Table 3. Criteria used to determine if a marine species is introduced, cryptogenic or native (from Campbell et al., in review). The criteria are modified from Chapman and Carlton (1991), with the exceptions of new additions, which are highlighted in bold font and shaded background. Geography Provincial Provincial Provincial Provincial Provincial Provincial Provincial Provincial Global Global Global Global Global Global Global Criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Description Sudden local appearance Subsequent local spread Distribution associated with human mechanisms of dispersal Trophic dependence (and symbioses) on known introduced marine species Most prevalent in, or restricted to, new or artificial environments Local distribution restricted compared to native species Local distribution wider when compared to native species Regional species distribution wider when compared to native species Disjunct global distribution Widespread global distribution Active dispersal mechanisms are inadequate to attain current global distribution without human aid Passive dispersal mechanisms are inadequate to attain current global distribution without human aid The species is most similar morphologically, or genetically, to species in other regions of the world Only one sex of a dimorphic species can be detected This genus is not present in the country/island/continent (higher taxonomic affinities are lacking) Baseline survey results The preliminary field survey detected 11 introduced and two cryptogenic and seven potentially introduced species (Table 4). The introduced species were dominated by bryozoans (46%), followed by ascidians (27%), hydroids (18%) and barnacles (9%). Taxa from the ascidians, polychaetes and porifera are potentially introduced and need further analysis to confirm their identity. These species were detected in association with wharf facings, floating docks, channel markers, and as biofouling on international vessel hulls. Fourteen percent of the species detected on international vessel hulls were not detected in the port environs, inferring that international vessels are a potential vector of concern as they may transfer new species to the region. Historically, and in modern times, biofouling is one of the primary mechanisms that introduced marine species are transferred between locations (Godwin 2003; Hewitt et al. 2004; Ashton et al. 2006; Davidson et al. 2008; Hopkins and Forrest 2008; Mineur et al. 2008; Lee and Chown 2009; Galil et al. 2014). This vector is relatively poorly managed (Hewitt and Campbell 2007; Lee and Chown 2009), although a number of countries have introduced guidelines regarding vessel management that specifically targets introduced marine species vectoring via biofouling (e.g., USA: California Hull Fouling Legislation Assembly Bill 740 (AB 740)). It’s not surprising that a lag period for development and implementation of biofouling management guidelines exists, given the 14-year lag period we’ve seen for the adoption of the Inter- national Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments Ballast Water Convention in 2004. A number of species of concern, that can become pests, or are known as pests elsewhere, were detected (e.g., the hydroids Eudendrium carneum Clarke, 1882 and Thyroscyphus fruticosus (Esper, 1793), the bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata (d’Orbigny, 1852), and a tentative identification of the Caribbean barnacle Chthamalus proteus Dando and Southward, 1980). These species have the potential to impact on native fauna and flora in Palau, due to their propensity to heavily foul substrata. Both E. carneum and T. fructicosus were previously known and are believed to have been introduced with a floating bridge that came from China in 1996 (Lambert 2002; Colin 2009). The method of introduction for the other species is unknown but likely associated with vessel biofouling given that Palau receives little international ballast water but it does receive a large number of recreational vessels (such as touring yachts). Of concern is that some of the species detected have the potential to become pest species and damage tourist destinations. A similar situation has already occurred in Palau, with the introduction of the cnidarian, Aiptasia sp., into one of the major international tourist destinations, Ongeim’l Tketau (Jelly Fish Lake; Colin 2009), located on the rock island of Mecherchar. Palau relies on the tourism industry, with 11% of the gross domestic product being tourist related (US Department of State 2012) and thus impacts upon drawcard tourist destinations could have serious implications for the country’s economy. 357 M.L. Campbell et al. Table 4. Detected introduced, cryptogenic and potentially introduced species during the preliminary Palau introduced species survey. Species are listed with an indication of the sampling locations/sites (wharves, moorings, vessel hulls, or “pristine” locations without commercial activity). A “●” indicates presence upon a substrate. Please note that scientific names and taxonomic authorities (for species names) were verified using the WoRMS database (http://www.marinespecies.org/). Phyla Species Status Porifera Haliclona caerulea? (Hechtel, 1965) Mycale sp. (orange sponge) Eudendrium carneum Clarke, 1882 Obelia sp. Thyroscyphus fruticosus (Esper, 1793) Sabellastarte sp. Serpulididae Potential Potential Introduced Cryptogenic Introduced Potential Potential Cryptogenic (cosmopolitan) Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced ● Hydroida Polychaeta Cirripedia Bryozoa Ascidia Pisces Amphibalanus amphitrite (Darwin, 1854) Chthamalus proteus Dando and Southward, 1980 Amathia distans Busk, 1886 Virididentula dentata (Lamouroux, 1816) Bugula neritina (Linnaeus, 1758) Tricellaria occidentalis (Trask, 1857) / T. inopinata D’Hondt and Occhipinti Ambrogi, 1985 Watersipora subtorquata (D’Orbigny, 1852) Ascidia sydneiensis Stimpson, 1855 Botryllus sp. (cf. niger) Didemnum perlucidum Monniot F., 1983 Phallusia nigra Savigny, 1816 Diplosoma listerianum (Milne Edwards, 1841) Gobiidae sp. Styela plicata (Lesueur, 1823), a species that is native to Palau, but has been introduced to Australia (e.g., Glasby 1999; Wyatt et al. 2005) and elsewhere (e.g., da Rocha and Kremer 2005; de Barros et al. 2009), was detected in moderate densities at the commercial wharves on facings. This species is a pest in some regions (e.g., Glasby 1999), reaching high densities and fouling infrastructure (e.g., Glasby 1999; Connell 2000). Given the presence of this species in the port environment, it is possible that Palau may act as a donor region for this species, with a pathway related to international recreational vessels that visit Palau during larger treks. Pre-existing literature Previous introduced species and biodiversity research from Palau (Lambert 2002; Golbuu et al. 2005; Colin 2009), and the wider Indo-Pacific biogeographic region including: tropical Australia (Hewitt 2002), Guam (Paulay et al. 2002), Samoa and American Samoa (P. Skelton, pers. comm.), had collectively identified 127 introduced or cryptogenic marine or estuarine taxa. Ascidians represent a substantial portion (33%) of these introductions, followed by bryozoans (11%), hydroids (11%) and then bivalves (9%; Figure 2). Based on life-history characters and 358 Introduced Potential Potential Introduced Introduced Introduced Potential Wharves Vessels ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Mooring Pristine ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● the timing of likely introduction, species were assigned association with primary vectors of introductions (e.g., ballast water, vessel biofouling, intentional aquaculture species and hitch-hiker aquaculture species). The majority of species (98%) have traits that indicate vessel biofouling is the highest likelihood vector, however the vectors of ballast water (40%), aquaculture hitch-hikers (39%) and intentional introductions (31%) have a substantial proportion of species that may have been transported by these means. Within Palau, six introduced and 13 cryptogenic species have been identified through biodiversity work undertaken by the Coral Reef Research Foundation (Lambert 2002; Colin 2009; supplementary material Table S1). Within (Western) Samoa and American Samoa, nine introduced species have been detected (P. Skelton, pers. comm.; Table S1). Similarly, within Guam 40 introduced and 45 cryptogenic species have been detected by surveys using the Bishop Museum protocols (Paulay et al. 2002; Table S1). Surveys using the Hewitt and Martin protocols have detected 25 introduced species and six cryptogenic species within tropical Australia (Hewitt 2002; Table S1). Of the potential and possible introduced species in Palau, there are no shared introduced and cryptogenic species with tropical Australia; however Palau Taxa Introduced marine species in Palau Figure 2. Number of introduced and cryptogenic marine species by taxa introduced into Palau, Guam, Samoa and tropical Australia. Echinodermata Arthropods ‐ isopoda Arthropodes ‐ cirripedia Molluscs ‐ gastropoda Cnidaria ‐ anthozoa Arthropods ‐ malacostrata Algae Porifera Pisces Polychaeta Mollusca ‐ bivalvia Cnidaria ‐ hydrozoa Bryozoa Urochordata 0 and Samoa share one introduced species (T. fruticosa), and Palau and Guam, share three introduced species (Didemnum perlucidum Monniot F., 1983, Diplosoma listerianum (Milne Edwards, 1841), Lissoclinum fragile (Van Name, 1902)). The lack of species-sharing between regions may be an artefact of taxonomic effort, or a result of the qualitative versus quantitative nature of the survey sampling methods used in these areas. Alternatively, this lack of overlap may also be due to the dearth of pathways shared between the regions; however this seems unlikely given that these regions are historically linked by wartime activity during WWII, and currently linked by recreational traffic (Oliver 1989; Marti 2004) and in some instances commercial traffic (Campbell and Hewitt 1999; Ruiz et al. 2015). We note however, that commercial traffic has been reduced with modernisation of ports and vessels (e.g., Ward 1989). Detecting and identifying introduced marine species The combined literature review and preliminary baseline survey identified a total of 11 introduced, 17 cryptogenic and 12 potentially introduced species for Palau. These species were typically associated with artificial substrates, such as wharves, floating buoys and vessel hulls. Recommendations When this research was undertaken Palau had two pieces of legislation relating to non-native species: Palau National Code Title 25, Chapter 20 refers to Quarantine laws; and in 2004 Palau published the Palau National Invasive Species Strategy (https://www. cbd.int/doc/submissions/ias/ias-pw-strategy-2007-en.pdf), which included the establishment of The National Invasive Species Committee (NISC). In 2006, the 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Numbers position of National Invasive Species Coordinator was created and filled; this position also acts as the secretary for the NISC. In March 2016, the Palau President signed into law the Biosecurity Act (http://www.paclii.org/pw/legis/num_act/ba2014rn9582015241/). This new law contains an update to Quarantine laws (http://www.islandtimes.us/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=644:biosecurity-bill-becomes-law). Many aspects of the early legislation is focussed or implemented in an agricultural and land management context, with an outward focus on preventing pest species reaching Palau. After this initial training exercise (as described in this paper), non-native marine species and survey expertise was established and initiatives were put in place to consider and improve the management of marine ecosystems. The Palau National Invasive Species Committee is very pro-active and involved in further initiatives across the Pacific island region (http://www.palaunisc.org/news--noteworthy/archives/06-2016). Based on dialogue during the workshop and outcomes of the field survey, the following recommendations were made to the OERC and various State Governments to improve introduced marine species management in Palau: 1. An evaluation of the roles and responsibilities of national and state governments for marine biosecurity delivery needs to occur; 2. A full baseline port survey, including regions beyond Koror State, should be implemented to gauge the presence of introduced and cryptogenic species that may cause high risk impacts to economic, cultural, social and environmental values. The preliminary findings suggest that commercial and non-commercial vessel areas (e.g., tourist destinations) are a high priority. We note that since the initial sampling reported here, 359 M.L. Campbell et al. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. additional sampling has started to occur and is ongoing (I. Olkeriil, pers. comm.). However, the recommendation that a full baseline port survey be conducted has not been acted upon; Risk assessments should occur to determine high risk routes (pathways), and transport vectors into Palau and into different Palau islands. By understanding the pathways and vectors of introduced species effective management strategies can be formulated; A risk assessment of high risk species that pose a future threat to Palau should be conducted to aid in the creation of effective preparedness plans that include targeted surveillance, with rapid response plans (also see points 6 and 7); A programme for inspection of high risk vessels (based on risk assessments) entering Koror State should be considered. Consideration of domestic borders and pathways should also occur; An action plan that details how the detection of an introduced species should be dealt with and delineates the government agencies that are responsible for different tasks within the action plan should be developed; Eradication and management plans for a number of potential high risk species should be developed for rapid implementation in the likelihood that a high risk introduced species is detected; and Mooring buoys and ropes at tourist destinations need to be changed frequently to prevent the transfer and establishment of introduced species between tourist locations. For a number of reasons, including limited resources, most of these recommendations have had no, or only partial, implementation. Palau continues to explore avenues for obtaining resources for this purpose. It should be noted that a Regional Biosecurity Plan (RBP) for Micronesia and Hawaii has been developed and adopted in association with build-up of US Government resources in Guam. The assessment for the RBP evaluated both direct and regional risks and impacts across terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems and included several elements of the recommendations listed above in the marine assessment (Ruiz et al. 2015) The Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) for the RBP outlines numerous activities for implementation of the plan; activities specific to Palau include a number of marine-related activities, including development and adoption of hull fouling regulations, and building capacity to enforce such regulations. 360 Conclusions Palau is a pristine destination that attracts a large number of international tourists; however introduced marine species are becoming prevalent in this region, which could have economic implications for tourism. The Palau government is pro-actively attempting to prepare for the impacts that may be associated with introduced species. As part of this preparation, an introduced marine species capacity building exercise that combined both theory and field experience was implemented within Koror State. This was managed via a workshop that trained 10 Palau and two international agencies in introduced marine species and port survey techniques. The survey and subsequent literature review detected 11 introduced, two cryptogenic and seven potentially introduced species. A series of recommendations were made to aid Palau in its ability to prepare and deal with introduced marine species. This work is preliminary in nature and continued efforts on introduced species management are needed to ensure Palau is fully prepared for this global problem of introduced marine species. Acknowledgements This work was partially funded by the IUCN, TOTAL, the Marine Biosecurity Education Consortium (funded by the Australian Department of Environment), and the Australian Maritime College. The Palau Office of Environmental Response and Coordination and the Koror State Government provided funding for extending the field survey and undertaking species identification. We wish to acknowledge and thank the people that took part in the training and provided information, particularly Ilebrang Okeriil (regulatory and implementation information), and Lori and Patrick Colin of the Coral Reef Research Foundation (CRRF). Lori and Patrick strongly advocated for capacity building in Palau that led to this work and provided substantive pre-existing taxonomic information and identifications as part of the US National Cancer Institute Marine Natural Products Collection program. We also thank and acknowledge Carmen Primo (University of Tasmania) for identification of ascidian samples. Last, we thank and acknowledge the reviewers for their constructive comments. References Ashton G, Boos K, Shucksmith R, Cook E (2006) Risk assessment of hull fouling as a vector for marine non-natives in Scotland. Aquatic Invasions 1: 214–218, http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2006.1.4.4 Azmi F, Primo C, Hewitt CL, Campbell ML (2015a) Assessing marine biosecurity risks when data is limited: bioregion pathway and species-based exposure analyses. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72: 1078–1091, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu236 Azmi F, Hewitt CL, Campbell ML (2015b) A hub and spoke network model to analyse the secondary dispersal of introduced marine species in Indonesia. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72: 1069–1077, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu150 Bax N, Williamson A, Aguero M, Gonzalez E (2003) Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy 27: 313–323, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00041-1 Introduced marine species in Palau BGCI (2011) BGCI Resource centre, http://www.bgci.org/resources/ news/0794/ (accessed 22 October 2013) Boudouresque CF, Verlaque M (2002) Biological pollution in the Mediterranean Sea: invasive versus introduced species. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 32–38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X (01)00150-3 Brattegard T, Holthe T (eds) (1997) Distribution of marine, benthic macro-organisms in Norway. A tabulated catalogue. Preliminary edition. Research report for DN 1997-1. Directorate for Nature Management; Norway, 409 pp Campbell ML (2003) Training and capacity building, lessons, future needs and directions for the International Maritime Organisations GloBallast Port Survey Program. 1st International Workshop on Guidelines & Standards for Invasive Aquatic Species Surveys & Monitoring. Arraial do Cabo, Brazil, April 13–17, 2003, 35 pp Campbell ML (2008) Organism impact assessment: Risk analysis for post-incursion management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 795–804, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn083 Campbell ML, Hewitt CL (1999) A bay-wide survey for introduced species in Port Phillip Bay, 1995–1996. In: Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE, Martin RB (eds), The Introduced Species of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia, pp 247–260 Campbell ML, Hewitt CL (2008) Palau Introduced Marine Species Port Survey Training & Preliminary Findings. A training workshop of the Marine Biosecurity Education Consortium. National Centre for Marine Conservation and Resource Sustainability Technical Report (Feb. 2008), Launceston, 59 pp Campbell ML, Hewitt CL (2011) Assessing the port to port risk of vessel movements vectoring non-indigenous marine species within and across domestic Australian borders. Biofouling 27: 631–644, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2011.593715 Campbell ML, Hewitt CL (2013) Protecting high-value areas from introduced marine species. Management of Biological Invasions 4: 171–182, http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2013.4.3.01 Campbell ML, Hewitt CL, Nair R (2004) Inshore Marine Ecosystems —Bryozoa. II. Australia. Technical report prepared by Corporate Process Management, Perth, for ABRS, Canberra Campbell ML, Gould B, Hewitt CL (2007) Survey evaluations to assess marine bioinvasions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55: 360– 378, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.015 Campbell ML, Primo C, Hewitt CL (in review) Marine biosecurity crisis decision-making: two tools to aid “go” / “no go” decisionmaking. PLoS One Carlton JT (2001) Introduced species in US Coastal water: environmental impacts and management priorities. Pew Ocean Commission, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 29 pp Carlton JT, Geller JB (1993) Ecological roulette. The global transport of nonindigenous species marine organisms. Science 261: 78–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.261.5117.78 Castilla JC, Uribe M, Bahamonde N, Clarke M, DesqueyrouxFaundez R, Kong I, Moyano H, Rozbaczylo N, Santelices B, Valdovinos C, Zavala P (2005) Down under the southeastern Pacific: marine non-indigenous species in Chile. Biological Invasions 7: 213–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-004-0198-5 Chapman JW, Carlton JT (1991) A test of criteria for introduced species: the global invasion by the isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). Journal of Crustacean Biology 11: 386–400, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1548465 Chapman JW, Carlton JT (1994) Predicted discoveries of the introduced isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). Journal of Crustacean Biology 14: 700–714, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1163/193724094X00669 CIESM (2002) Alien marine organisms introduced by ships in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. CIESM Workshop Monographs No 20, Monaco, 136 pp Cohen AN, Berry H, Mills C, Milne D, Britton-Simmons K, Wonham M, Secord D, Barkas JA, Bingham B, Bookheim B, Byers J, Chapman JW, Cordell J, Dumbauld B, Fukuyama A, Harris LH, Kohn A, Li K, Mumford T, Radashevsky V, Sewell A, Welch K (2001) Report of the Washington State Exotics Expedition 2000: A Rapid Assessment Survey of Exotic Species in the Shallow Waters of Elliot Bay, Totten and Eld Inlets, and Willapa Bay. Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington, USA, 47 pp Cohen AN, Carlton JT (1995) Non-indigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 246 pp Cohen AN, Harris LH, Bingham BL, Carlton JT, Chapman W, Lambert CC, Lambert G, Ljubenkov JC, Murray SN, Rao LC, Reardon K, Schwindt E (2005) Rapid assessment survey for exotic organisms in southern California bays and harbours, and abundance in port and non-port areas. Biological Invasions 7: 995–1002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-004-3121-1 Coles SL, DeFelice RC, Eldredge LG, Carlton JT (1999) Historical and recent introductions of non-indigenous marine species into Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Marine Biology 135: 147–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002270050612 Coles SL, Eldredge LG (2002) Nonindigenous species introductions on coral reefs: A need for information. Pacific Science 56: 191– 209, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/psc.2002.0010 Colin PL (2009) Marine Environments of Palau. Indo-Pacific Press, California, USA, 414 pp Connell SD (2000) Floating pontoons create novel habitats for subtidal epibiota. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 247: 183–194, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(00) 00147-7 Cranfield HJ, Gordon DP, Willan RC, Marshall BA, Battershill CN, Francis MP, Nelson WA, Glasby CJ, Read GB (1998) Adventive marine species in New Zealand. NIWA Technical Report # 34, Wellington, New Zealand, 48 pp Davidson IC, McCann LD, Fofonoff PW, Sytsma MD, Ruiz GM (2008) The potential for hull-mediated species transfers by obsolete ships on their final voyages. Diversity and Distributions 14: 518–529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00465.x de Barros RC, da Rocha RM, Pie MR (2009) Human-mediated global dispersion of Styela plicata (Tunicata, Ascidiacea). Aquatic Invasions 4: 45–57, http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.4 de Rivera CE, Ruiz G, Crooks J, Wasson K, Lonhart S. Fofonoff P, Steves B, Rumrill SS, Brancato MS, Pegau S, Bulthuis D, Preisler RK, Schoch C, Bowlby E, DeVogelaere A, Crawford M, Gittings S, Hines A, Takata L, Larson K, Huber T, Leyman AM, Collinetti E, Pascot T, Shull S, Anderson M, Powell S (2005) Broad-Scale Non-indigenous Species Monitoring along the West Coast in National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves. Environmental Science and Management Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 76. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/esm_fac/76 da Rocha RM, Kremer LP (2005) Introduced ascidians in Paranagua Bay, Parana, southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 22: 1170–1184, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752005000400052 Faulkner DJ, Newman DJ, Cragg M (2004) Investigations of the marine flora and fauna of the Islands of Palau. Natural Product Reports 21: 50–76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b300664f Fofonoff PW, Ruiz GM, Steves B, Carlton JT (2003) In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnative species to the coasts of North America. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds), Invasive Species. Vectors and Management Strategies. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 152–182 Galil B, Froglia C, Noël P (2002) CIESM Atlas of Exotic Species in the Mediterranean. CIESM Publishers; Monaco, 192 pp 361 M.L. Campbell et al. Galil BBS, Marchini A, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Minchin D, Narscius A, Ojaveer H, Olenin S (2014) International arrivals: widespread bioinvasions in European Seas. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 26: 152–171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2014.897651 Gibson J, Nero K (2008) Why don't Pacific Island countries’ economies grow faster? In: Bisley A (ed), Pacific Interactions: Pasifika in New Zealand – New Zealand in Pasifika. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, pp 191–244 Gillett R, Lightfoot C (2001) The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Countries. A report prepared for the Asian Development Bank, the Forum Fisheries Agency, and the World http://www.adb.org/publications/contribution-fisheriesBank. economies-pacific-island-countries (accessed 22 October 2013) Glasby TM (1999) Differences Between Subtidal Epibiota on Pier Pilings and Rocky Reefs at Marinas in Sydney, Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48: 281–290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ecss.1998.0417 Godwin SL (2003) Hull fouling of maritime vessels as a pathway for marine species invasions to the Hawaiian Islands. Biofouling 19: 123–131, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0892701031000061750 Golbuu Y, Bauman A, Kuartei J, Victor S (2005) The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Palau. In: Waddell JE (ed) The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, Massachusetts, USA, pp 488–507 Green EP, Short FT (eds) (2003) World Atlas of Seagrasses. Prepared by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. University of California Press, Berkeley, 336 pp Hayes KR, Cannon R, Neil K, Inglis G (2005) Sensitivity and cost considerations for the detection and eradication of marine pests in ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 823–834, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.02.032 Hewitt CL (2002) The distribution and diversity of tropical Australian marine bio-invasions. Pacific Science 56: 213–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/psc.2002.0016 Hewitt CL, Campbell ML (2001) The Australian distribution of the introduced sphaeromatid isopod, Paracerceis sculpta. Crustaceana 74: 925–936, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685400152682674 Hewitt CL, Campbell ML (2007) Mechanisms for the prevention of marine bioinvasions for better biosecurity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55: 395–401, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.005 Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Gollasch S (2006) Alien Species in Aquaculture. Considerations for Responsible Use. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 32 pp Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE, Martin RB (eds) (1999) The Introduced Species of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Technical Report No. 20. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, 344 pp Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE, Martin RB, Boyd S, Cohen BF, Currie DR, Gomon MF, Keough MJ, Lewis JA, Lockett MM, Mays N, McArthur MA, O'Hara TD, Poore GCB, Ross DJ, Storey M, Watson JE, Wilson RS (2004) Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Marine Biology 144: 183–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00227-003-1173-x Hewitt CL, Martin RB (1996) Port Surveys for Introduced Marine Species – Background considerations and sampling protocols. CRIMP Technical Report 4, Division of Fisheries, CSIRO, Hobart, Australia Hewitt CL, Martin RB (2001) Revised protocols for baseline port surveys for introduced marine species – design considerations, sampling protocols and taxonomic sufficiency. CRIMP Technical Report Number 22. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia, 52 pp Hopkins GA, Forrest BM (2008) Management options for vessel hull fouling: an overview of risks posed by in-water cleaning. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 811–815, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ icesjms/fsn026 362 IMO (2000a) GloBallast Partnerships. http://globallast.imo.org/ index.asp (accessed 22 October 2013) IMO (2000b) The GloBallast Project – Phase 1. http://globallast.imo. org/index.asp?page=gef_interw_project.htm&menu=true (accessed 22 October 2013) IUCN (2013) Managing Marine Invasive Species – IUCN. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/marine/marine_our_w ork/marine_invasives/ (accessed 22 October 2013) Lambert G (2002) Nonindigenous ascidians in tropical waters. Pacific Science 56: 291–298, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/psc.2002.0026 Lee JE, Chown SL (2009) Temporal development of hull-fouling assemblages associated with an Antarctic supply vessel. Marine Ecol Prog Ser 386: 97–105, http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08074 Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) (2002) Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe – Distribution, Impact and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 583 pp Marti BE (2004) Trends in world and extended-length cruising (1985–2002). Marine Policy 28: 199–211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.marpol.2003.09.004 Mineur F, Johnson MP, Maggs CA (2008) Macroalgal Introductions by Hull Fouling on Recreational Vessels: Seaweeds and Sailors. Environmental Management 42: 667–676, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-008-9185-4 Nuñez MA, Pauchard A (2010) Biological invasions in developing and developed countries: does one model fit all? Biological Invasions 12: 707–714, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9517-1 Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Savini D (2003) Biological invasions as a component of global change in stressed marine ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 542–551, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0025-326X(02)00363-6 Oliver DL (1989) The Pacific Islands. Third edition. University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii, USA, 304 pp Orensanz JM, Schwindt E, Pastorino G, Bortolus A, Casas G, Darrigran G, Elias RL, Gappa JJ, Obenat S, Pascual M, Penchaszadeh P, Piriz ML, Scarabino F, Spivak ED, Vallarino EA (2002) No longer the pristine confines of the world ocean: a survey of exotic marine species in the southwestern Atlantic. Biological Invasions 4: 115–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020596916153 Padilla D, Williams SL (2004) Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 131– 138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0131:BBWAAO]2.0.CO;2 Paulay G, Kirkendale L, Lambert G, Meyer C (2002) Anthropogenic biotic interchange in a coral reef ecosystem: a case study from Guam. Pacific Science 56: 403–421, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/psc. 2002.0036 Pedersen J, Bullock R, Carlton J, Dijkstra J, Dobroski N, Dyrynda P, Fisher R, Harris L, Hobbs N, Lambert G, Lazo-Wasem E, Mathieson A, Miglietta M, Smith J, Smith J, Tyrrell M (2003) Marine Invaders in the Northeast. Rapid Assessment Survey of Non-native and Native Marine Species of Floating Dock Communities. MIT Sea Grant College Program Publication No. 05-3, Massachusetts USA, 46 pp Pollard DA, Hutchings PA (1990a) A review of exotic marine organisms introduced to the Australian Region. I. Fishes. Asian Fisheries Science 3: 205–221 Pollard DA, Hutchings PA (1990b) A review of exotic marine organisms introduced to the Australian Region. II. Invertebrates and algae. Asian Fisheries Science 3: 223–250 Ribera MA, Boudouresque CF (1995) Introduced marine plants, with special reference to macroalgae: mechanisms and impact. In: Round FE, Chapman DJ (eds), Progress in Phycological Research. Vol. 11. Biopress Ltd, Bristol, pp 187–268 Ruiz GM, Hewitt CL (2002) Toward understanding patterns of coastal marine invasions: a prospectus. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds), Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe— Distribution, Impact and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 529–547, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9956-6_53 Introduced marine species in Palau Ruiz GM, Zabin CJ, Ashton GV, Campbell M, Davidson IC, Eldredge LG, Fofonoff PW, Hewitt CL, Minton M (2015) Marine Invasive Species Risk Assessment for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawai’i, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii Vol III. Prepared by: University of Guam and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community 2014, http://www.navfac. navy.mil/navfac_worldwide/pacific/about_us/regional-biosecurity-planfor-micronesia-and-hawaii-.html Simons S, de Poorter M (2008) Best Practices in Pre-Import Risk Screening for Species of Live Animals in International Trade. Proceedings of an Expert Workshop on Preventing Biological Invasions. University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA, 9–11 April 2008, 32 pp Tamelander J, Campbell M, Lundin CG (2009) Detecting Bioinvasions on Small Islands in the Indian Ocean – Project Completion Report. IUCN Global Marine Programme 2009, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 24 pp US Department of State (2012) US Relations with Palau, http://www. state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1840.htm (accessed 22 October 2013) Ward GR (1989) Earth’s empty quarter? The Pacific Islands in a Pacific century. The Geographical Journal 155: 235–246, Williams SL, Crafton RE, Fontana RE, Grosholz ED, Ha G, Pasari JR, Zabin CJ (2015) A vector analysis of marine ornamental species in California. Management of Biological Invasions 6: 13–29, http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2015.6.1.02 Wyatt ASJ, Hewitt CL, Walker DI, Ward TJ (2005) Marine introductions in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, Western Australia: a preliminary assessment. Diversity and Distributions 11: 33–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00109.x Yamashita S (2000) The Japanese Encounter with the South: Japanese Tourists in Palau. The Contemporary Pacific 12: 437– 463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cp.2000.0071 Yukihira H, Shimoike K, Golbuu Y, Kimura T, Victor S, Ohba H (2007) Coral reef communities and other marine biotopes in Palau. In: Kayanne H, Omori M, Fabricius K, Verheij E, Colin P, Golbuu Y, Yukihira Y (eds), Coral Reefs of Palau. Palau International Coral Reef Center, Palau, pp 10–29 Zaitsev YP, Mamaev V (1997) Marine Biological Diversity in the Black Sea. A Study of Change and Decline. United Nations Publications, New York, 208 pp Zaitsev YP, Alexandrov BG (1998) Black Sea Biological Diversity, Ukraine. United Nations Publications, New York, 351 pp http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/635065 Williams RJ, Griffiths FB, Van der Wal EJ, Kelly J (1988) Cargo vessel ballast water as a vector for the transport of nonindigenous marine species. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 26: 409–420, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7714(88)90021-2 Supplementary material The following supplementary material is available for this article: Table S1. Pre-existing knowledge of introduced and cryptogenic species in Palau, Guam, Western and American Samoa, and tropical Australia. Appendix 1. Taxonomic databases and networks (listed alphabetically). Appendix 2. Taxonomic bibliography. This material is available as part of online article from: http://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2016/Supplements/MBI_2016_Campbell_etal_Supplement.xls http://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2016/Supplements/MBI_2016_Campbell_etal_Appendix1.pdf http://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2016/Supplements/MBI_2016_Campbell_etal_Appendix2.pdf 363