Content uploaded by Dineshbabu Ap
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dineshbabu Ap on Nov 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
ijlpr 2020; doi XXXX/ijpbs/lpr.2020.XXXX Research Article
International Journal of Life science and Pharma Research
A STUDY ON ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF MACROFOULING
COMMUNITIES IN SEA CAGE FARM IN SOUTH-WEST COAST OF
INDIA
SONALI S. MHADDOLKAR1*, A.P. DINESHBABU2, JAYASREE LOKA1, SUJITHA
THOMUS2
1 Karwar Research Centre of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, P.O. Karwar, Uttarkannada, Karnataka, India 581 301
2 Mangalore Research Centre of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, PB No.244, Hoige Bazar, Mangalore,
*email: sonamdkar@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Development of aquaculture facilities like cages has led to rise in submerged structures
which provide ample substratum to biofoulers which could greatly interfere with culture
operations. An attempt was made to study the biofouling communities and succession of macro
foulers on the cage culture net installed in the open sea. The main objective of the present study
is to reveal the succession pattern of the biofouling communities on the panels of cage culture
sites to find out seasonal settlement pattern, Dominant species and Climax community. A long-
term study on the succession pattern of the cage farm experimental-net-panels revealed results as
Hydroids-Gastropods-Hydroids-Barnacles-Modiolus-Green mussels. Hydroids were initial
communities on the net panels and green mussels (Perna viridis) formed the climax community,
also dominating on the cage culture nets. Different succession patterns were observed in two
sites as well as in culture nets studied. The net panels of the cage are loaded with hydroids in the
initial months and the peak fouling will be during May. So frequent net cleaning is required
during summer and during the spat settlement period of green mussels (September, October, and
November). Modiolus settlement during February month on the culture nets can be avoided by
net exchange immediately after spat fall in this month. This attempt was made to study the
ecological succession on the panels, in cages installed in Karwar, which is the first attempt since
the open sea cage culture was initiated in India. And looking at vast opportunities for further
development in biofouling research, the aim of this research work is to obtain the baseline
information about the ecological succession pattern of biofouling in cage sites. More research on
biofouling in mariculture is essential to ensure the profitability of the aquaculture operations with
environmental safety measures as a prime criterion.
Keywords: macrofouling communities, succession, climax community, panels, sea cage farm.
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
INTRODUCTION
Development of aquaculture facilities like
cages has led a sore in submerged cage-
structures like nets, floats, ropes which
provide ample substratum to the biofoulers,
greatly interfering culture operations.1 The
assemblage and development of biofouling
communities is a typical exemplar for
succession process.2 Succession is a process
where in community moves from a simple to
complex form.3 Railking4 carried out
detailed studies on marine biofouling
process. Many studies are undertaken to
understand the spatial temporal succession
patterns of the biofoulers and to ascertain
the period in which interventions are
required to reduce the loss of aquaculture
materials due to biofouling.5,6 Panels are
used widely to study the biofouling and
several researchers have worked on the
succession involving size, duration, location,
season, months for studying the biofouling
on different structures mainly ships hulls,
water exchange pipes, jetties, buoys,
mariculture structures and other submerged
surfaces.7,8 Research is carried out in
biofouling on mariculture structures
worldwide.9,10,7,11 The ecological succession
of biofoulers is very complex process and
development pattern found on the suspended
cage structure may vary from the natural sea
bed and hard substratum.3 Formation of
biofouling community is site specific12 and
their development with respect to time is
prerequisite for the marine structures and for
developing cleaning practices13. Ecological
process of biofouling community-
development may take a day or week 6and
biofouling community varies with time and
space but the major variations will be the
seasonal variations. 3,14,15 Duration of
substrate immersion is an important aspect
to be considered for studying the
assemblage of biofouling in succession
experiments.1 Along with the other factor’s
predation is a major factor affecting the
succession of the fouling communiies3.
Severity of settlement varies on different
substrata based on the choice of settlement
of planktonic larval-forms.16 Succession
studies at different depth were by
Dziubińska and Szaniawska2.The attaching
foulers forms the bigger components but the
free-living forms are also found in the
community of biofoulers17.
Pioneering study in biofouling along the
Indian coast were conducted on different
structures such as experimental panels, ship
halls, jetties etc.17,18,19. Many research works
are carried on the fouling community
structure 7,12,20,21,22. Literature review about
succession and climax communities of
biofouling in general (other than mariculture
facilities) is available along the Indian
coast,12 but very less literature is available
on the ecological succession of biofouling
on the panels in marine culture sites, along
the coasts of India. This attempt was made
to study the biofouling and ecological
succession on the panels, in cages installed
in Karwar, which is the first attempt since
the open sea cage culture was initiated in
India. The main objective of the present
study is to reveal the succession pattern of
the biofouling communities on the panels of
cage culture sites to find out seasonal
settlement patterns, Dominant species and
Climax community. And looking at vast
opportunities for the further development in
biofouling research, the aim of this research
work is to obtain the baseline information
about the ecological succession pattern of
biofouling in cage sites. More research on
biofouling in mariculture is essential to
ensure the profitability of the aquaculture
operations with environmental safety
measures as a prime criterion.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
In marine cages installed in the Arabian Sea
at Karwar, Karnataka (N 14o48.406’, E
074o06.664’), so far seven varieties of
finfishes (Lates calcarifer, Rachycentron
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
canadum, Lutjanus argentimaculatus,
L.johnii, Trachinotus blochii,
Acanthopagrus latus) and shellfishes (Perna
viridis) are successfully farmed. For
experimental studies two sites were chosen
so as to compare between the cage and the
reference.
The experimental panels were installed in
marine farm and the reference site during
the period 2015 to 2016. Annual Panel
setups were made with 12, HDPE net panels
(100mm2) of mesh size 22 mm fixed to
19mm diameter half inch PVC pipe frame.
They are tied by using 4mm nylon rope in
the water column adjacent to the cages in
the culture site. These panels were anchored
with 5 kg weight to stay in vertical position
in the water column. Reference site is 500m
away from the cage site where the panels
were placed using the barrel and the anchor.
Every month three panels (from 1m, 3m, 6m
depth) from each site were brought to the
laboratory for analysis. Monthly, seasonal
(exchange) data of culture net are collected
for further analysis.
Laboratory studies
The net panels were brought to the
laboratory separately in the plastic trough
with sea water. The fouling organisms are
washed with sterile sea water and sieved in
200-micron sieve.23The fouling samples
were preserved in 5% formaldehyde for
further identification. Smaller fouling
organisms were observed under AXIO,
Zeiss (Scope-A1) microscope (5x
magnifications). Taxonomic Identifications
were done using identification keys.24,25,26
Density (number/10cm2), total length,
percentage of major macro fouling
organisms were studied using digital vernier
caliper and photographic images. The
identified foulers were reclassified to
different groups (community).
Statistical Analysis
The collected data was analyzed statistically
using software like PAST, PRIMER 0.5 and
XL-STAT version 2018. Average data of the
panels from three depths of each site was
taken for the analysis and comparison
between the sites.
RESULTS
Succession of biofouling on long term
panels:
Hydroids were the initial settlers dominating
from December to May on the experimental
panels of cage and reference sites. June
month 2016, they totally vanished in both
the sites. The density of hydroids ranged
from85 no/10cm2 in January-16
to1433no/10cm2in July-16 in the cage site
whereas, 180no/10cm2 in January to
1733no/10cm2 August in the reference site.
In June gastropods dominated both in cage
sites with 16no/10cm2 and reference sites
with33 no/10 cm2.July and August hydroids
dominated. Oysters dominated in August
(57no/10cm2) in reference site where as in
September barnacles dominated with
41no/10cm2in cage site and Green mussels
dominated (29no/10cm2) in reference site.
October Modiolus dominated in both the
sites with 547no/10cm2 and during
November Green mussel was most
dominating (188no/10cm2) abundant group
in cage site and Amphipods were the
dominant communities (43 no/10cm2) in
reference site. Fig. 1 & 2 represents
dominant fouling organisms on long term
panels of cage and reference site.
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Figure 1. &2. Dominant biofouling
communities of cage site and reference site
The pioneering biofouling communities on
the panels was composed of hydroids,
barnacles, green mussels in December-15(30
days) panel in cage site where as in
reference site along with hydroids,
polychaete worms, amphipods, barnacles,
crabs, shrimps, Isopods, green mussels,
modiolus, oysters, are the fouling
communities got settled. In January-16 (60
days) panel bryozoans, crabs, shrimps and
modiolus started appearing on the cage
panels where as in the reference site
Bryozoans started appearing on the panel
and Polychaete worms, amphipods, shrimps,
Isopods started disappearing from the panel.
In February-16 (90days) amphipods,
isopods, gastropods, oysters got introduced
on the panel. Good density of isopods and
slight increase in the bryozoan number was
observed but Crabs and shrimps disappeared
and decrease in the barnacle number was
also observed in cage sites, whereas in
reference site Barnacle density decreased.
Crabs, green mussels, modiolus, oyster
density started decreasing and vanished
towards the end of this period. Sponges,
flatworms, scallops, nudibranchs appeared
for the first time on the panel. Polychaete
worms, amphipods, Isopods, reappeared
during this period. March-16 (120 days)
panel, Sponges, Polychaete worms,
Echinoids which were not present in
previous months was observed during this
month in cage site but in reference site
Sponge, hydroids, sea anemones, bryozoans,
flatworms, polychaete worms, amphipods,
Isopods showed an increase in trend. Sea
anemones, gastropods, ascidians appeared
for the first time on the panel. Scallops and
nudibranch disappeared. During April-16
(150 days) there was a slight increase in the
sponge density. Crabs disappeared in the
cage site but in the reference site the green
mussels, sponges, amphipods, hydroids, sea
anemones, barnacles, crabs’ number has also
increased then the previous period.
Nudibranch which disappeared in the
previous period has appeared during this
period whereas gastropods and oysters
disappeared in this period. In May-16 (180
days) Sea anemones and ophiuroids settled
for the first time. The communities of crabs,
green mussels, oyster, reappeared which
were absent in the previous month in cage
site but in reference site Sponge, bryozoans,
polychaete worms, Amphipods, crabs,
Isopod, green mussel showed a decreasing
trend, Flatworms, nudibranch and ascidians
disappeared during this period. Shrimp and
ophiuroids reappeared during this period.
June-16 (210 days) most of the communities
like Hydroids, sea anemones, bryozoans,
barnacles, isopods, oysters, ophiuroids
disappeared and Ascidians got introduced
for the first time and Echinoids reappeared
on the cage panel. In reference, most of the
fouling communities disappeared during this
period. Polychaete worms, amphipods,
barnacles, crabs, gastropods, green mussels
modiolus were present among the fouling
community. Hydroids showed a complete
decline. Sponges, hydroids, sea anemones,
Bryozoans, shrimps, Isopods, oysters,
echinoids, ophiuroids which were present in
the previous period completely disappeared.
Modiolus appeared during this period. In
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
July-16 (240 days), Hydroids again
reappeared along with Bryozoans and
barnacles. Amphipods, gastropods,
Ascidians which were present in the
previous month disappeared from the
panels. In the reference site Sponges,
hydroids, sea anemones, Bryozoans,
barnacles, crabs, green mussels, modiolus,
echinoids and ascidians were the fouling
communities on the panel. The polychaete,
amphipods, gastropods which were present
in the previous period, disappeared. Most of
the communities which disappeared during
the previous duration have started appearing
again like sponges, hydroids, Sea anemones,
Bryozoans, echinoid, ascidians. August-16
(270 days), Flat worms got introduced for
the first time in this month. Amphipods
modiolus, Ascidians, reappeared in the
panel, whereas in the reference panel
Sponges polychaete worms, amphipods,
barnacles, crabs, green mussels, oyster
limpets were present on the panel. The
communities which were present during the
previous period like Hydroids, sea
anemones, bryozoans, modiolus
disappeared. Polychaete worms, amphipods,
oyster and limpets, reappeared on the panel.
Oysters are the dominating community
(57no/10cm2). Barnacles were the next
dominating community. September-16
(310days) Oysters reappeared on the panel.
Flatworms, modiolus, Ascidians which were
lesser in number during the previous month
completely vanished whereas in reference
Polychaete worms, barnacles, crabs,
Isopods, Green mussels, modiolus, oysters
were the communities which appeared on
the panel. Oysters which were dominant
during the previous period started
decreasing. Sponge, amphipod, limpets were
completely declined. Isopod and modiolus
reappeared on the panel. October-16 (340
days) highest density was of Modiolus
(77.47%). Polychaete worms, Shrimps,
Gastropods, Modiolus, Ophiuroids
reappeared. Bryozoans and oysters
disappeared in this month where as in
reference Polychaete worms, Barnacle,
crabs, Isopods, green mussels, modiolus
were present on the panel. Density of
barnacle, isopod, modiolus showed an
increase in trend. Oyster density declined.
Modiolus density increased. November-16
(360 days) panels were fully covered by
green mussels (100%) and the community
reached its climax stage. Whereas Hydroids,
sea anemones, polychaete worms,
amphipods, crabs, gastropods, modiolus
were the communities observed in the
reference panel and Amphipods were the
dominant communities (43 no/10cm2).
Seasonal succession of the long-term
panels:
In the present case the long-term cumulative
panels were studied up to 360 day(1year).
The settlement pattern revealed Hydroids as
prominent communities in all the seasons
both in culture site and reference site
(fig.1&2). Cage sites the high settlement of
hydroid, barnacles, modiolus and green
mussels was observed, along with the
gastropods. Where as in the reference where
there is no culture activities hydroids,
oysters, anemones, modiolus have settled on
the panels along with gastropods and
amphipods on the panel. Other than these
major fouling organisms’ sponges, sea
anemones, bryozoans, flatworms,
polychaete worms, pycnogonida, crabs,
shrimps, Isopods, Scallops, Nudibranchs,
limpets, Echinoids, Ophiuroids and
ascidians were also formed succession
sequences as a minor biofouling species.
Seasonal succession patterns on the long-
term studies of cage and reference were
presented in the fig.9.
Peak settlement period for the major
fouling organisms on long term panels:
Hydroids: peak settlement month is July for
the culture site and for reference site May
Modiolus: peak month is October both for
cage and reference site Barnacles: peak
month is August both for cage and reference
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Green mussels: peak month is November in
cage and April in reference Isopods: peak
month is February in cage and March in
reference Polychaete worms: peak month is
May in cage site and June in reference
Bryozoans: peak months are September and
March for cage and reference.
Seasonal fouling on the culture net:
Seasonal settlement pattern (fig.5) and
succession pattern biofouling on the culture
net (fig.10) revealed the Hydroid and algal
dominance in short term fouling studies.
Total 22 fouling communities were present
on the net viz. algae, sponge, hydroids, sea
anemones, bryozoans, flatworms,
polychaete worms, amphipods,
pycnogonida, barnacles, crabs, shrimps,
Isopods, gastropods, green mussels,
modiolus, nudibranch, oysters, limpets,
echinoids, ophiuroids, and ascidians. during
Pre-monsoon season algae were the
dominating community with 40.85%
followed by hydroids 34.98% and modiolus
by 10.89%.The fouling communities like
algae, hydroids, sea anemones, bryozoans,
flatworms, polychaete worms, amphipods,
pycnogonida, barnacles, crabs, shrimps,
Isopods, gastropods, green mussels,
modiolus, nudibranch, oysters,echinoids and
ascidians appeared in this season on the
culture net.During Monsoon season
hydroids dominated on the net 50.69%
followed by algae 16.50% ,Modiolus 9.31%.
Sea anemones, pycnogonida, shrimps,
gastropods, nudibranch and ascidians which
were present in the pre monsoon
disappeared in this season. Sponges and
limpets appeared in this season. Hydroids
showed an increasing trend whereas algae
showed a decreasing trend. Modiolus
showed a decline during monsoon.Algae
dominated during Post-monsoon season,
with 37.70% followed by modiolus 29.18%
and hydroids 16.87%. Algae showed an
increasing trend and hydroids showed a
decreasing trend. Modiolus also showed an
increasing trend during post monsoon. Flat
worms and ascidians which were present in
the monsoon are absent in this season.
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Figure 3,4,5. Seasonal settlement pattern of Cage panel, reference panel, culture net
Monthly succession pattern:
Figure 6. Succession pattern on the long-term panels of cage site
Figure 7. Succession pattern on the long-term panels of Reference site
Figure 8. Succession pattern on the Short term panels of culture net
Seasonal succession pattern:
Figure 9 Seasonal Succession pattern on the long-term panels (cage site and reference)
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Figure 10. Seasonal Succession pattern on the short term cage culture net
Figure 11.A model of overall Macro fouling of cage farm of Karwar, India
Climax community:
Green mussels (Perna viridis) were the
dominant fouling community forming the
climax in the cage site on the net panels
after 12 months of immersion. But in the
reference site panels and the other structures
the climax community is not so prominent.
Overall macrofouling in the cage culture site
is presented (fig.11).
DISCUSSION
This present study can be compared with the
biofouling studies in bivalve aquaculture
(oyster culture) wherein initial colonies
included hydroids, bryozoans, sponges,
ascidians, polychaetes, bivalves, barnacles
and algae.27,28,29 In bivalve aquaculture
practices the primary colonies enables the
attachment of groups like crustaceans,
polychaete worms or echinoderms and
secondary colonization occurs after a month
or few month.27,30In the present study
Hydroids and barnacles appeared in the
initial month in the cage panel whereas
Hydroids, polychaete worms, amphipods,
barnacles, crabs, shrimps, Isopods, green
mussels, modiolus, oysters appeared in the
reference panel. The recruitment, settlement
complexities could be the reason for these
differences in marine invertebrates.27,31 The
similar reasons could be given in the case of
fin fish aquaculture cage panel and the
reference panel. The biofouling succession
as well as colonization patterns differs with
climatic zone, as in tropical zones constant
settlements around all the months whereas at
fixed intervals in temperate zone.6,27The
local surveys are necessary as the colony
patterns of biofuels differ along the farming
area.27
Literature on succession studies of
biofoulers is available on marine cages of
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Gulf of Maine, United States of
America.3The basic information on fouler
diversity, composition and succession is
very much required to control the foulers
and estimate the fouling potency of that
locality.7,32Sahu et al. 12suggested low
salinity and high turbidity favorable for
barnacle which settle year around.
Seasonal succession pattern
In the seasonal succession pattern of
biofoulers settlement of short-term studies
are different from long term studies, similar
observations were made by Sahu et al.12
During monsoon low fouling diversity and
density due to low salinity and low
temperature. 12Long term panels peak
settlement is during May in reference with
Hydroids highest total density in November
(green mussels) in a cage with experimental
panels. Overall, in the May month fouling
abundance was more on the cage nets.
Cage panel succession was represented in
fig6. Hydroids were the first to settle on the
long-term panels during the initial month
(December) along with barnacles, followed
by the gastropods in June. During this
succession period Barnacles, bryozoans and
other fouler were found to colonies on the
panel. But the hydroids population was not
much affected by secondary fouling
communities’ settlements. But during June
month hydroids totally vanished and
gastropods were the dominant fouling group
along with polychaete worms, Ascidians and
other species. Again, in July hydroids
reappeared and dominated the panels till
august. In August barnacles dominated over
the hydroids. October Modiolus started
dominating, along them green mussel
settlement was also started increasing, green
mussels which started their appearance in
May month started increasing steadily from
August onwards and during November it
reached highest. Total panel was covered by
green mussels forming the climax
community in the cage site (fig.12).
Reference panel succession was represented
in fig7. Reference site the hydroids were the
first settlers followed by the gastropods,
Oysters in August and green mussels in
June, September and Modiolus in October
and amphipods in November. The climax
community was not so prominent, since it is
open waters the grazing and predation may
be the factor which is affecting the
dominancy and the climax communities of
biofoulers.13
Table .1. ANOVA results for site and Biofoulers
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares
F
Sponge * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
314.618
1
314.618
2.739
0.113
Within Groups
2412.155
21
114.865
Total
2726.773
22
Hydroid * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
116168.775
1
116168.7
75
0.218
0.645
Within Groups
11170000
21
531766.4
32
Total
11280000
22
Sea Anemones
* site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
35.077
1
35.077
1.927
0.18
Within Groups
382.324
21
18.206
Total
417.401
22
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Bryozoans *
site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
235.929
1
235.929
0.614
0.442
Within Groups
8067.617
21
384.172
Total
8303.546
22
Flatworm * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1.886
1
1.886
0.196
0.662
Within Groups
201.718
21
9.606
Total
203.604
22
Polychaete
worms * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
132.536
1
132.536
2.124
0.16
Within Groups
1310.324
21
62.396
Total
1442.86
22
Amphipod *
site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
118.841
1
118.841
0.856
0.365
Within Groups
2916.367
21
138.875
Total
3035.208
22
Barnacles * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1731.834
1
1731.834
0.448
0.51
Within Groups
81148.533
21
3864.216
Total
82880.367
22
Crab * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1.235
1
1.235
0.029
0.867
Within Groups
896.672
21
42.699
Total
897.907
22
Shrimps * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
0.443
1
0.443
0.75
0.396
Within Groups
12.407
21
0.591
Total
12.85
22
Isopod * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1649.751
1
1649.751
1.043
0.319
Within Groups
33231.061
21
1582.431
Total
34880.812
22
Scallops * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
0.018
1
0.018
0.913
0.35
Within Groups
0.407
21
0.019
Total
0.425
22
Gastropod * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
8.432
1
8.432
0.142
0.71
Within Groups
1250.505
21
59.548
Total
1258.937
22
Green mussels
* site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
2142.918
1
2142.918
1.197
0.286
Within Groups
37589.468
21
1789.975
Total
39732.386
22
Modiolus * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
5436.515
1
5436.515
0.386
0.541
Within Groups
295390.963
21
14066.23
6
Total
300827.478
22
Nudibranchs *
site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
4.822
1
4.822
1.906
0.182
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Within Groups
53.139
21
2.53
Total
57.961
22
Oyster * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
140.451
1
140.451
1.009
0.327
Within Groups
2922.351
21
139.16
Total
3062.802
22
Limpets * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
0.443
1
0.443
0.913
0.35
Within Groups
10.185
21
0.485
Total
10.628
22
Echinoids * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1.321
1
1.321
0.274
0.606
Within Groups
101.094
21
4.814
Total
102.415
22
Ophiuroids *
site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
7.677
1
7.677
1.691
0.208
Within Groups
95.357
21
4.541
Total
103.034
22
Ascidians * site
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1.583
1
1.583
1.807
0.193
Within Groups
18.397
21
0.876
Total
19.981
22
Table .2. ANOVA results for season and Biofoulers
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares
F
Sponge * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
257.717
2
128.859
1.044
0.371
Within
Groups
2469.056
20
123.453
Total
2726.773
22
Hydroid * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
2305338.653
2
1152669.326
2.568
0.102
Within
Groups
8977925.192
20
448896.26
Total
11280000
22
Sea anemones *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
59.933
2
29.966
1.677
0.212
Within
Groups
357.468
20
17.873
Total
417.401
22
Bryozoans *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
2692.3
2
1346.15
4.798
0.02
Within
Groups
5611.246
20
280.562
Total
8303.546
22
Flatworm *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
10.396
2
5.198
0.538
0.592
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Within
Groups
193.208
20
9.66
Total
203.604
22
Polychaete
worms * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
165.239
2
82.619
1.293
0.296
Within
Groups
1277.621
20
63.881
Total
1442.86
22
Amphipod *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
136.882
2
68.441
0.472
0.63
Within
Groups
2898.325
20
144.916
Total
3035.208
22
Barnacles *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
10618.889
2
5309.444
1.47
0.254
Within
Groups
72261.478
20
3613.074
Total
82880.367
22
Crab * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
87.148
2
43.574
1.075
0.36
Within
Groups
810.759
20
40.538
Total
897.907
22
Shrimps * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
1.483
2
0.742
1.305
0.293
Within
Groups
11.367
20
0.568
Total
12.85
22
Isopod * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
13253.478
2
6626.739
6.128
0.008
Within
Groups
21627.333
20
1081.367
Total
34880.812
22
Scallops * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
0.036
2
0.018
0.932
0.41
Within
Groups
0.389
20
0.019
Total
0.425
22
Gastropod *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
150.009
2
75.004
1.353
0.281
Within
Groups
1108.929
20
55.446
Total
1258.937
22
Green mussels *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
6911.609
2
3455.804
2.106
0.148
Within
Groups
32820.778
20
1641.039
Total
39732.386
22
Modiolus *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
59763.716
2
29881.858
2.479
0.109
Within
241063.762
20
12053.188
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
Groups
Total
300827.478
22
Nudibranchs *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
9.864
2
4.932
2.051
0.155
Within
Groups
48.097
20
2.405
Total
57.961
22
Oyster * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
274.109
2
137.055
0.983
0.392
Within
Groups
2788.692
20
139.435
Total
3062.802
22
Limpets * season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
0.906
2
0.453
0.932
0.41
Within
Groups
9.722
20
0.486
Total
10.628
22
Echinoids *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
0.431
2
0.216
0.042
0.959
Within
Groups
101.984
20
5.099
Total
102.415
22
Ophiuroids *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
7.764
2
3.882
0.815
0.457
Within
Groups
95.27
20
4.763
Total
103.034
22
Ascidians *
season
Between
Groups
(Combined)
3.828
2
1.914
2.37
0.119
Within
Groups
16.153
20
0.808
Total
19.981
22
The ANOVA results obtained from SPSS
(table.1), for site and biofouling
communities have shown no significance,
but the season and the biofouling
communities(table.2) have shown
significance (P<0.05). Some Biofoulers
showed significance between the seasons,
influencing the biofouling community as a
whole.
Short term seasonal succession studies
(cage culture net):
In the cage net Hydroids, Algae, Modiolus
were the important foulers observed in the
seasonal succession series. In the pre-
monsoon season algae appeared in the panel
followed by hydroids and modiolus in less
density along with other fouling organisms
like sea anemones, barnacles, crabs,
shrimps, Isopods, gastropods, green
mussels, nudibranchs, oysters, echinoids,
Ascidians. In the monsoon hydroids
dominated, reducing the algae. Modiolus
also appeared in the monsoon panel. But the
important foulers like sea anemones,
shrimps, gastropods, nudibranchs and
ascidians disappeared. Sponges and limpets
appeared. In post monsoon algae dominated
and modiolus density also increased. Flat
worms and ascidians disappeared. On the
short-term panels in the premonsoon
Ascidians appeared and were absent in the
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
monsoon and post monsoon. Flatworms
absent in the monsoon.
It is observed that in the short-term studies
on the culture nets hydroids settlement is
during the month of September. Modiolus
settlement in May, October, November,
December and February month and algae
settlement during March and April.
Climax community:
In literature of ecological succession,
Clements theory is an idealistic theory
proposing climax as the final stage of
succession process.33Most of the Indian
studies climax species is Pernaviridis, few
studies barnacles and ascidians were climax
communities.12Scanty of literature is
available on the Climax communities
concerned to the aquaculture net panels.
Sahu et al.12 has reported Green mussels as
the climax community on wooden panels.In
the present study which was carried out in a
culture farm, the green mussels formed the
climax community. But in the reference site
which is away from the culture activities no
climax as such was observed. This may be
due to the grazing and predation effect of
wild fishes and other animals in the
reference site.
Green mussels are the dominant foulers
forming the climax, due to their higher
efficiency to hold the net fibers, fast growth
and higher ability to filter the photo-
planktons which are available in large
quantities due to the higher nutrients’
availability. The other foulers get fewer
places to survive, so not able to establish on
the net. 12 The dominant organisms are
successful due to their size, growth, longer
life span, longer larval stage.34 In most of the
aqua culture related biofouling studies
carried out in Mediterranean where sea bass
is culture fish, the mussels, hydroids, algae
were the dominating communities.35 The
present results also move in this direction.
CONCLUSION
Hydroids were the initial community on the
long-term panels and green mussels formed
the climax community in the cage site panel.
Highest fouling in July month (mainly by
hydroids) in cage long term panels,
reference highest fouling in May (hydroids),
net highest settlement in May (due to
hydroids and algae). When the biofoulers
and seasonal dominance of biofouling
communities of experimental panels were
compared with that of net fouling,
completely different fouling structure was
observed and the different foulers dominated
in the months studied. The hydroids were
frequently occurring biofoulers on the long-
term panels. Algae, hydroids were dominant
on the cage net. And the net panels of the
cage are loaded with hydroids in the initial
months and the peak fouling will be during
May. So frequent net cleaning is required
during summer and during the spat
settlement period of green mussels
(September, October, and November).
Modiolus settlement during February month
on the culture nets can be avoided by net
exchange immediately after spat fall in this
month. In the initial months the grazing
organisms and fishes can be introduced in
the cages along with the culture fishes so as
to reduce the fouling by biological method.
It is suggested to use eco friendly organic
artificial agents which will not harm the
ecosystem and the water quality to
overcome these fouling. Net service stations
are available for cleaning and treating the
fouled nets in many countries. And
environmental regulations have been put
forth for cage culture activities in the marine
waters which restrict the use of anti-fouling
chemicals for net maintenance. Since India
is still in developing stage in cage culture,
when compared to many maritime countries,
there is remarkable opportunity for the
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
further development of cage farming in
India and much more opportunities to
biofouling research in Mariculture. This
ecological study will initiate further research
in this aspect.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are grateful to the
Dr.A.Gopalakrishnan, Director, Central
Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin,
India, and the Mariculture Division of
CMFRI for providing the facilities to carry
out this research work as a part of Ph.D
work. First Author is also thankful to
Mangalore University, for allowing him to
taking up this research work as a part of
Ph.D. and Dr.K.K.Philipose, Emeritus
Scientist, ICAR [former SIC-KRC of
CMFRI] for his constant support for this
work.
Funding acknowledgement
We acknowledge that support for carrying
out the study at Karwar Research Centre of
CMFRI Laboratory, cage farm and
equipment were provided by the Mariculture
Division, Central Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, Cochin, India.
Authors Contribution statement
Mrs.Sonali S.Mhadolkar, contributed to
writing of the manuscript, and gathered the
data with regard to this research. Co Authors
contributed to the analysis of the results and
necessary inputs are given for the designing
of manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Martell L, Bracale R, Carrion SA,
Purcell JE, Lezzi M, Gravili C, Piraino
S,Boero F. Successional dynamics of
marine fouling hydroids (Cnidaria:
Hydrozoa) at a finfish aquaculture
facility in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS
ONE.2018Apr 02;13(4): e0195352.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.
0195352
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.019
5352
2. Dziubinska A, zaniawskaA. Short term
study on the early succession stages of
fouling communities in the coastal Zone
of Puck Bay (Southern Baltic Sea).
Oceanological and Hydrological studies.
2011;Vol. 39 (4). DOI: https: //doi.org
/10.2478/v/ 0009-010
3. Green JK, Grizzle RE. Successional
development of fouling communities on
open ocean aquaculture fish cages in the
western Gulf of
Maine,USA.Aquaculture,2007 Feb 28;
262(2-4):289-301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.200
6.11.003
4. Railking AI. Marine biofouling.
Colonization Processes and defenses,1st
ed.CRC press;2004. p.316.
5. Cook EJ, Black KD, Sayer MDJ,Cromey
CJ. Angel DL, Spanier E, Tsemel A,
Katz T, Eden N, Karakassis I,Tsapakis
M, Apostolaki ET , Malej A.The
influence of caged mariculture on the
early development of sublittoral fouling
communities: a pan-European study.
ICES J Mar Sci.2006Jan 01; 63(4):
pp.637-649
.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.1
2.007
6. Fitridge I, Dempster T, Guenther J,de
Nys R. The impact and control of
biofouling in marine aquaculture:a
review. Biofouling. 2012 Jul 9; 28 (7):
649-669.
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gbif
7. Pati SK, Rao MV, Balaji M. Spatial and
temporal changes in biofouling
community structure at Visakhapatnam
harbour, east coast of India. Trop Ecol.
2015 May;56 (2):139-154.
8. Sahu G, Mohanty AK, Smita MA,
Prasad MVR, Satpathy KK. Recruitment
of biofouling community in coastal
waters of Kalpakkam, southwestern Bay
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
of Bengal, India; a seasonal perspective.
Indian J Geomarine Sci.2015 September;
4(9):pp. 1335-1351.
9. Bacchiocchi F, Airoldi L. Distribution
and dynamics of epibiota on hard
structures for coastal protection. Estuar
Coast Shelf Sci. 2003April; 56(5-6):
1157-1166.
10. Boyd MJ. Fouling community structure
and development in Bodega Harbor,
California. Ph.D. thesis, University of
California, Davis. 1972. p. 189.
11. Sutherland JP, Karlson RH.
Development and stability of the fouling
community at Beaufort, North Carolina.
Ecol monogr.1977; 47(4): pp. 425-446.
12. Sahu G, Achary MS, Satpathy KK,
Mohanty AK, Biswas S ,Prasad MVR.
Studies on the settlement and succession
of macrofouling organisms in the
Kalpakkam coastal waters, Southeast
coast of India. Indian J Geo Marine Sci.
2011 Dec;40(6): pp. 747-761
13. Yan T, Yan W, Dong Y, Wang H, Yan
Y, Liang G. Marine fouling in
offshore areas east of Hainan
island, northern South China Sea.
Chin J Oceanol Limnol. 1999 Sept; 17:
233-239.
14. Fraschetti S, Terlizzi A, Terlizzi A,
Benedetti-Cecchi L. Patterns of
distribution of marine assemblages from
rocky shores: evidence of relevant scales
of variation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser.
2005Jul; 296:13–29. DOI:
10.3354/meps296013
15. Holloway MG, Keough MJ. An
introduced polychaete affects
recruitment and larval abundance of
sessile invertebrates. Ecol Appl. 2002
Dec 01;12(6): 1803-1823.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
0761(2002)012[1803:AIPARA]2.0.CO;
2
16. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
United States. Navy Dept. Bureau of
Ships, "Marine fouling and its
prevention ; prepared for Bureau of
Ships, Navy Dept.", 1952.
DOI:10.1575/1912/191,
https://hdl.handle.net/1912/191
17. Dattesh VD, Prakash S. Physiological
responses to environmental hypoxia and
anoxia in Balanus amphitrite (Cirripedia:
Thoracica).Mar Eco Prog ser. 2009 Sept
; 390: 157-166.103354/meps08155
18. Hodson S. Fouling organisms of the
Indian Ocean: Biofoul-ing and Control
Technology. By R. Nagabhushanam and
M. F. Thompson. Aquat Ecol.1998 Dec;
32:367–368. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/ A:
1009982612722
19. Nair KVK, Murugan P, Eswaran MS.
Macro Foulants in Kalpakkam coastal
waters east coast of India, Indian J Geo
Marine Sci.1988 Dec;17(4): 341-343.
20. Ismail SA ,Azariah J. Species
composition and diversity in shallow
water fouling communities of Madras
harbour. J Mar Biol Ass India.1978Dec
31; 20(1&2): 65 - 74.
21. Satyanarayana RK, Balaji M.
Observation on the development of test
block communities at an Indian harbour.
In: Thompson M-F, Nagabhushanam R,
Sarojini R, Fingerman M(eds.). Recent
Developments in Biofouling Control.
Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi. 1994;pp. 75-96.
22. Swami BS ,Udhayakumar M.
Biodiversity and seasonal variations of
macrofouling species settling on test
panels exposed in nearshore waters of
Mumbai. In: S.A. H. Abidi et al. (eds.),
Proceedings of National seminar on New
Frontier in marine bioscience Research.
NIOT, Chennai. 2004 Jan 22-23;pp.
439-457.
23. Bloecher N. Biofouling in Norvegian
Salmon farming Industry. Ph.D.
Thesis.2013.pp.1-100
24. Chambers SJ, Muir AI. Polychaetes,
British Chrysopetaloidea, Pisionoida and
Aphroditoidea. Key and Notes for
identification of species.S ynopsis of the
British fauna (New series),54 ,Published
ISSN 2250 – 0480 Author copy 2020 – Issue -XX P. No -XX-XX
for the Linnean Society of London and
the Estuarine and Coastal Sciences
Association by Field Studies Council,
1997;pp.202.www.worldcart.org
25. Hayward PJ and Ryland JS. Handbook
of Marine Fauna of North West Europe.
Oxford University press.2017feb
23;p.880
26. World Register of Marine Species.2016.
http://www.marine species.org at VLIZ.
Accessed 2016-07-14.doi:10.14284/170.
27. Chagas RA, Borros MRF, Santos WCR,
Herrmann M. Composition of biofouling
community associated with oyster
culture in an Amazon estuary,Para state.
Northern Brazil. Rev Biol Mar
Oceanogr. 2018 Jun; 53 (1): 9-17.
28. Durr S, Watson DI. Biofouling and
antifouling in aquaculture. In: Durr S,
Thomason JC, editors. Biofouling.
Oxford (UK);Wiley-Blackwell:
2010.p.267-287.
29. Sievers M, Dempster T, Fitridge I ,
Keough M. Monitoring biofouling
communities could reduce impacts to
mussel aquaculture by allowing
synchronization of husbandry techniques
with peaks in settlement. Biofouling,
2014 Jan;30(2),pp.203-212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/
08927014.2013.856888
30. Sa FS, Nalesso RC, Paresque. Fouling
organisms on Perna mussels: Is it worth
removing them? Braz J Oceanogr.
2007Jun; 55(2): 155-161. DOI:
10.1590/S1679-87592007000200008
31. Keough MJ. Patterns of recruitment of
sessile invertebrates in two sub tidal
habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol.
1983Jan31; 66(3):213-245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
0981(83)90162-4
32. Satheesh S. A study on the Marine
fouling community of Kudankulam
Coastal waters. Ph.D. Thesis.
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli. India.2006;p.142
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle
/10603/61023
33. Clements FE. Plant succession and
indicators. H.W.Wilson
Company,NewYork.1928.453 pp
34. Richmond MD, Seed R. A review of
marine macrofouling communities with
special reference to animal fouling.
Biofouling. 1991; 3(2): 151-
168.https://doi.org/10.1080/0892701910
9378169
35. Fernandez-Gonzalez V, Sanchez-Jerez
P. Fouling assemblages associated with
off-coast aquaculture facilities: an
overall assessment of the Mediterranean
Sea. Medit Mar Sci.2017Feb 13
;18(1):87-96.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/mms.180
6
