The 2010 PICES Rapid Assessment Survey of shallow water nonindigenous, native and cryptogenic marine species of central Oregon John W. Chapman1, Thomas Therriault2, Leslie Harris3, Ralph Breitenstein4 Participating Investigators: Toshio Furota5, Graham Gillespie2, Gayle Hansen6, Takeaki Hanyuda7, Gyo Itani 8, Gretchen Lambert9, Charles Lambert9, John Markham10, Vasily Radashevsky11 and Sylvia Yamada12 Divers: Jack Chapman13, Ian Chun14 Lorne Curran15, Caroline Emch-Wei16, John Estabrook14, 15, Jeff Fischer14, Brian Fodness14, Bruce Hansen15, Vallorie Hodges14 Volunteers: Donelle Breitenstein4, Faith Cole17, Katie Marko18, Darlene Smith19 1 Dept. Fisheries & Wildlife; Oregon State University; Hatfield Marine Science Center; 2030 SE Marine Science Dr.; Newport, OR 97365-5296, USA John.Chapman@OregonState.Edu 2 Fisheries and Oceans; Marine Ecosystems and Aquaculture Division; Pacific Biological Station;3190 Hammond Bay Road; Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7, Canada, thomas.therriault@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 3 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; 900 Exhibition Blvd; Los Angeles. CA 90007, USA, LHarris@NHM.Org 4 Hatfield Marine Science Center; 2030 SE Marine Science Dr.; Newport, OR 97365-5296, USA 5 Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Toho University; Miyama 2-2-1, Funabashi, Chiba 274-8510, Japan 6 OSU Associate, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2111 Marine Science Drive, Newport Oregon 97365, USA 7 Kobe University Research Center for Inland Seas, 1-1, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan 8 Laboratory of Marine Symbiotic Biology, Faculty of Education, Kochi University 2-5-1 Akebono, Kochi 780-8520, Japan 9 University of Washington, Friday Harbor Labs, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 - Mailing address: 12001 11th Ave. NW, Seattle WA 98177, USA 10 Arch Cape Marine Laboratory, Arch Cape, Oregon 97102-0133, USA 11 A.V. Zhirmunsky Institute of Marine Biology, 17 Palchevskogo St., Vladivostok , Primorsky Kray 690041, Russia 12 Zoology Department, 3029 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331-2914, USA 13 357 SE 35th St., South Beach, OR 97366, USA 14 Volunteer Diver Program, Oregon Coast Aquarium, 2820 SE Ferry Slip Rd / Newport, OR 97365, USA 15 USDA Forest Service (R6, PNW) Scientific Diving Program, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA 16 Emch-Wei (address unknown) 17 535 NW 12th St., Newport, OR 97365, USA 18 US Environmental Protection Agency, 2111 Marine Science Drive, Newport Oregon 97365, USA 19 WG-21 Co-Chairman, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Federal Government of Canada, 200 Kent St., STN 8W133, Ottawa , ON, Canada K1A 0E6  Abstract The introduced and native marine invertebrates, plants and algae in the Coos Bay, Yaquina Bay estuaries and the Umpqua estuary “Triangle” were surveyed to assess patterns and effects of biological invasions in Oregon and the eastern Pacific as part of a PICES initiative to advance ongoing international cooperation and research on marine invasions among PICES nations. The PICES surveyors collected 191 species identified from 400 sample lots. Twenty-five of the recovered species are new records for these estuaries and 9 species are new records for Oregon. These empirical and theoretical results indicate that new invasions of Oregon estuaries are increasingly frequent and presently reduce the likely economic and ecological values of these systems. Negative effects of these invasions include the decline of the native blue mud shrimp, Upogebia pugettensis and the possible displacements of other native species including the native hadzoid amphipod Melita oregonensis, presently known only from Coos Bay. New invasions discovered include the North Atlantic tunicate, Molgula citrina, the first known Arctic ballast water introduction through Arctic seaways, that was recovered from the Umpqua Triangle and thus for second time in the North Pacific and in its first known location south of Alaska. Restriction of the recently introduced tunicate, Didemnum vexillum, to the most stenohaline marine locations of the “Triangle” and Coos Bay and its absence in the salinity stable major seawater systems drawing from Yaquina Bay reveals a possible environmental limit to propagule pressure for invasions. The participants also conducted seven international projects and a running symposium during the survey. Intercalibration of US and Canadian green crab, Carcinus maenus sampling protocols revealed their reliability in the different habitats in the two nations. Genetic samples of Ulva species and the presumed native neriid polychaete, Hediste limnicola were collected to discover their North American and Asian origins. Comparisons of trans-Pacific invasion probabilities for bopyrid isopod parasites revealed that new eastern Pacific bopyridan species are more likely to be introduced than native species. Introduction Thousands of aquatic species have been introduced to North America, to the North Pacific and around the world over the past millennia and the last 5 centuries in particular, (e.g., Elton, 1958, Carlton 1989, 2009, Carlton and Eldridge 2009, Carlton and Geller 1993) and their threats and risks to receiving ecosystems and human welfare are poorly known over their massive ranges. Nevertheless, profound changes of many receiving ecosystems by introduced species are apparent (Lotz et al.& Lion fish ), commercially valuable introduced and native species are threatened by other introduced species that arrived by accident and design (Spartina, Didemnum $$$, Carcinus) and ecological theory predicts such species additions to community assemblages result in species losses (e. g., MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Marine introductions are nearly all among nations and thus manageable only by international cooperation. International cooperation requires clearly defined problems and management goals. In particular, the economics of marine invasions are a major and shared concern of all nations. That introduced species threaten ecosystems and human welfare is widely accepted (Elton 1958, Simberloff et al. 2011, Perrings et al. Pimentel et al. ) but the lack of evidence for negative impacts by the unstudied majority of introductions has been proposed also as evidence that few introductions threaten native species, natural ecosystems or human welfare (e.g., Sax et al , Briggs 2010, Davis et al. 2011). Efforts to manage introduced species are thus placed in doubt by the limits of scientific knowledge and challenges to theoretical assumptions of likely harm and provides a major first order question that can be addressed in marine systems only through cooperative international efforts. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of Japan, through the Fisheries Agency of Japan (JFA), approved funding for a North Pacific International Commission for the Exploration of the Seas (PICES) project entitled “Development of the prevention systems for harmful organisms’ expansion in the Pacific Rim” in 2007. A major goal of PICES is to increase scientific exchange and cross training opportunities for international colleagues working on important common issues in the north Pacific and has included facilitating activities such as the RAS surveys. Accordingly part of the JFA funding was provided to PICES working group 21 (WG-21) for research on non-indigenous marine species. The WG-21 identified the need for greater information exchange on non-indigenous marine species among PICES member countries (Canada, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States). Cooperative Rapid Assessment Surveys (RAS) of nonindigenous and native species in the member countries were identified as a major mechanism for generating and expanding international exchanges. The first PICES survey in a hosting country was performed previous to the annual 2008 PICES meeting in Dalian, China. The second PICES survey in a hosting country was performed previous to the annual 2009 PICES meeting in Jeju, South Korea. The 2010 survey was performed in the week preceding the 22-31 October 2010 PICES meeting hosted by the United States in Portland, Oregon. The 17-22 October 2010 PICES survey of Oregon estuaries and workshop participants included representatives from Russia, Japan, Canada and the USA (Figure 1) and was organized by John Chapman, Thomas Therriault, Leslie Harris and Ralph Breitenstein and conducted from the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Oregon (Figure 2). Figure 1. Participants in the 2010 Oregon Rapid Assessment Survey of nonindigenous, cryptogenic and native species: Front left to right - Gayle Hansen, Gyo Itani, Tom Therriault, Takeaki Hanyuda; Middle - Darlene Smith, Toshio Furota, if front of Katie Marko next to Leslie Harris in back of John Markham, Gretchen Lambert, Sylvia Yamada; Back – Vasily Radashevsky, Ralph Breitenstein, John Chapman, Graham Gillespie, Charles Lambert, Loren Curran. (Not shown are: Donelle Breitenstein, Jack Chapman, Ian Chun, Faith Cole, Caroline Emch-Wei, John Estabrook, Jeff Fischer, Brian Fodness, Bruce Hansen and Vallorie Hodges). Figure 2. Puget Sound, southern British Columbia, Washington and Oregon with Portland and the Oregon Coast survey sites. Please refer to figures 3,4 &5 for site identification markers The PICES survey and meetings in Oregon correspond with the stated 2009-2013 National Sea Grant College Program Strategic plan, which emphasizes an increasing importance of finding adequate ways to balance human social and economic uses of coastal land, water, energy, and other natural resources in ways that preserve the health and productivity of ecosystems they enclose. Oregon Sea Grant therefore additionally supported the PICES survey of Oregon. If all species have equal risks of displacement or extinction as new species are introduced, the vast majority of all species available for introduction threaten the few species that are economically valuable to humans. The 2010 PICES survey was designed to test whether such a majority of useless or costly marine introductions that can replace, degrade or otherwise threaten the minority of economically marine species and resources exists. The 2010 PICES test requires answers to three specific questions that are of likely economic concern among all North Pacific nations: Are new invasions occurring and expanding? Are the prevalences of introduced species increasing in near shore ecosystems? Do native species declines occur with expanding introduced species invasions as predicted? The PICES survey addressed these questions by comparing the accumulations and distributions of introduced species relative to native species in three eastern Pacific estuaries. Assessments of introduced species are most revealing when they are relative to native species. Distinctions of native and introduced species however, depend on the quality of taxonomy and the available ecological information to determine first appearances in new areas. Taxonomic effort determines whether native, introduced and cryptogenic can be identified and distinguished. Introduced species in Oregon are often described from their areas of origin or from populations established otherwise outside of where they are introduced. The description dates of all species can thus provide important information on the quality of taxonomic exploration among source and destination regions. Measures of invasion rates and prevalence rest heavily on taxonomic effort both in the region of interest and the regions of origin for the introduced species. Species previously described in foreign regions that are then introduced into Oregon are less likely to be misidentified or overlooked as native species. Species arriving from poorly explored regions are more likely to be poorly or incompletely described. These latter species are more likely to be misidentified or, if previously undescribed, to be incorrectly described as native species. We compared the description dates of species to assess the completeness of Oregon systematics relative the source regions of invading species. Except for genetically modified species, every species population is either native to a region or there due to human activities. Cryptogenic species are populations that cannot clearly be identified as native or introduced. Cryptogenic species thus complicate estimates of the nonindigenous compositions of communities. We conservatively included cryptogenic species as potential native species or considered them separately in these analyses. If species additions result in species deletions, invasions from a vast diversity of species that are not valuable to humans threaten the few species valuable to humans. The PICES survey therefore examined whether native species declines can occur as a species area power rule (SAR) of island biogeographical theory predicts. The species area power rule: S=cAz, where S = species, c is a taxon specific correction factor, A = area and the exponent z is a function of the declining number of species per unit of increasing area (MacArthur and Wilson 1969). SAR summarizes a universal observation that exponential species diversity increases with area, z, are invariably less than one and almost universally range between 0.2 and 0.3 (Rozenwig 1993, He and Hubbard 2011). An explicit prediction of SAR is that accumulating invasions of the majority of unwanted species among continents are threats to the few economically valuable species. We used the Oregon survey results to test whether local and geographical species losses or displacements are associated with species introductions as predicted in Oregon estuaries. The Oregon Survey The Oregon PICES survey (below and Appendix A) included 3 days of field sampling in Yaquina Bay, Coos Bay and the “Triangle” section of the Umpqua River and a partial review of published literature on native and introduced species of the area. Site Selections The survey habitats included the relatively low temperature, stenohaline entrances of the Yaquina Bay (Figures 3), the Umpqua Triangle (Figure 4) and Coos Bay (Figure 5) and the shallow, warmer, polyhaline heads of Yaquina Bay and Coos Bay are shown in the inserts of Figures 3 and 5 respectively. These habitats were chosen for their similarities to the Asian estuary habitats of previous PICES surveys. The fouling and soft benthos communities of the highly artificial Hatfield Marine Science Center and Oregon Coast Aquarium Seawater systems (Figure 3) were also surveyed because they are among the most salinity stable habitats in all of Oregon and yet, had not previously been examined for introduced species. Yaquina Bay The 18 km2 Yaquina Bay estuary (Figures 3 A & B) watershed is 655 km2 and the Yaquina Bay channel entrance is maintained for passage of relatively large ships permitting rapid seawater exchange in the lower estuary. Lee et al. (2010, Fig. 2-11) estimate the wet / dry season average salinity range of the lower 3 km of the Yaquina estuary sampling area is 33 to 28 practical salinity units (psu) and the salinity range at the 19 km Yaquina sampling area is between 28 and 2 psu. Lower Yaquina Bay habitats are also periodically subjected to low salinity conditions. Figure 3A. (left) The Yaquina River and estuary with general survey areas. A. Hatfield Marine Science Center, R. Idaho Mud Flat, M. Oregon Oyster fouling plates, N. Toledo Airport boat dock fouling plates, O. Wahl Marine fouling plates Figure 3B. (Right) Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center and lower Yaquina River. A. Hatfield Marine Science Center, B. HMSC Seawater Tank, D. Newport Fishing Pier, E. South Beach Marina, F. South Jetty, L. Oregon Coast Aquarium, P. Port Dock 5, Q. Wecoma Dock, R. Idaho Mud Flat Umpqua River and “Triangle” The 26 km2 Umpqua River estuary (Figure 4) watershed is approximately 1567 km2. The estimated estuary tide exchange volume to watershed area of the Umpqua River estuary is similar to Yaquina and Coos estuaries (Lee et al. 2009). The relatively shallow and wave washed Umpqua River channel entrance however, increases river influences in this estuary more than in the Tillamook or Yaquina estuaries. The 0.35 km2 Winchester Bay Triangle (Triangle from here on) is enclosed by rock jetties and is accessible only by land. The Triangle watershed is less than 0.1 km2 (Figure 4 insert) and an insignificant source of freshwater. The present south jetty of the Umpqua River forms the north wall of the Triangle. The south wall for the Triangle was the main jetty in the 1970s and the east end of the present north wall was a finger jetty that was extended to meet the old South Jetty in the 1980s. Although, limited freshwater exchange into the Triangle must occur through the north jetty rocks and subtidal culverts, no other habitats of such stable salinity conditions are likely to occur in other Oregon estuaries. Figure 4. The Winchester Bay - Umpqua River Estuary watershed, Insert: J. Winchester Triangle, K. South Jetty Coos Bay The Coos Bay estuary (Figure 5) and watershed areas are respectively, the 54 km2 and 1914 km2. Lee et al. (2009, Fig. 2-11) estimate the wet / dry season average salinity range of the lower 4 km of the Charleston Harbor area is 33 to 25 psu and the salinity range at the 33 km Coos Bay City float sampling area salinity range is unlikely to normally exceed 25 psu and 10 in the wet seasons . Figure 5. Coos Bay area with the Charleston boat basin and harbor and the City of Coos Bay public boat launch indicated. Inserts: (Top) Coos Bay City dock, (Bottom) Charleston small boat basin and harbor of the lower Coos Bay estuary. Field collections The RAS protocols for this survey were revisions of previous WG-21 survey methods. All collections were performed under United States NOAA permit 15841 (to JWC). Poor tides between 17 and 22 October reduced direct access to low intertidal and subtidal substratums. The surface collections where therefore supplemented with samples from low intertidal and subtidal substratums by divers, and from previously out planted subtidal fouling plates. Fouling plates were available only from Yaquina Bay and they consisted of bucket lids with four evenly spaced 10 cm plastic petri dishes fastened to their bottom sides. Three plates were suspended from the OSU Wecoma pier and float, at Oregon Oyster floats and at Wahl Marine pier and floats (Figure 3) on 3 July 2010 and recovered on 17 October 2010. Two plates at each site were suspended 1 and 2 meters respectively from the benthos and the third plate was suspended one meter below the water surface. The fauna and flora of these plates were examined directly and then scraped into sorting pans of fresh sea water for subsequent examination and more detailed sorting and identifications. Scrapings were collected from floats and pilings of each of the 2 general collection sites in Coos Bay (Figure 5) and the three general collection sites in Yaquina Bay (Figure 3). Additionally, the walls and circulation manifolds of a three hundred thousand gallon Hatfield Marine Science Center seawater tank were sampled on 20 October by the HMSC maintenance staff (Figure 3). All organisms and substrate materials in these scrapings were also sorted into separate sorting pans filled with fresh seawater until detailed sorting examination photography and identifications were possible. Identified invertebrates were preserved in 70 or 95% alcohol for voucher or reference collections or for genetic analyses. On 19 October, L. Curran, B. Hansen and C. Emch-Wei sampled the subtidal rocky benthos of the Winchester Bay “Umpqua Triangle” site (insert, Figure 4). J. Chapman, L. Curran, and C. Emch-Wei collected scrapings of the float undersides and subtidal piling biota in Charleston Harbor, Coos Bay (Top insert, Figure 5). L. Curran, B. Hansen, C. Emch-Wei collected scrapings from the lower Yaquina Bay on 20 October. Loren Curren additionally, sampled the Yaquina Reef outside of Yaquina Bay for tunicates on 20 October. The HMSC maintenance crew sampled the inside of the seawater tank while J. Chapman and G. Itani sampled the disconnected 25 cm diameter ID manifold pipes. Vasily Radachevski, Vallorie Hodges and Jeff Fischer sampled the OCA seawater tanks (Figure 3) on 25 October. Additionally, zooplankton samples collected from the Yaquina Bay channel by R. Breitenstein and J. Chapman throughout the months preceding and following the RAS were examined for additional species to those collected in the main survey. Sample handling and processing Sample processing was organized to facilitate taxonomic verification and handling, which has proven to be a major obstacle in rapid assessment surveys. Specimen records, curation and handling procedures were organized for consistency with international museum standards. Labels provided unique numbers of every lot of specimens for each site. Sample containers, preservatives and major collecting equipment for the survey were provided to all surveyors. Lab facilities and equipment at HMSC were used for sample preparation for examinations of live material collected from Yaquina Bay. Organisms collected from outside of Yaquina Bay were maintained in isolation from the HMSC seawater system to prevent cross contamination. Polychaetes were sorted from samples alive to allow examination of pigmentation patterns and delicate anatomical features. Crustaceans and mollusks were removed from samples within 24 hours where possible and preserved previous to sorting when sample sorting was delayed. Ascidians used for morphology based taxonomy were relaxed in menthol, and then fixed in 10% seawater formalin buffered with sodium borate to help preserve spicules and color. The formalin fixative by volume consisted of 100 parts full strength (37%) formaldehyde, 850 parts seawater and 50 ml of distilled water with 1 gram of sodium borate added per liter. Ascidians were relaxed before preservation in sealed plastic ziploc bags containing sea water with dissolved menthol crystals in the field or in covered dishes of seawater containing 5 drops of the menthol/ethanol mixture. The ascidians in relaxant were examined every 10 minutes and menthol/ethanol was added as needed until its effects were evident. Ascidians failing to respond to a sharp probe inserted into their open siphons were assumed to be relaxed. These ascidians were examined through a hand lens or microscope to be sure relaxation was complete. Relaxation usually occurred in 10-15 minutes. The relaxed specimens were rinsed briefly with fresh water to remove extra menthol crystals and transferred to the formalin fixative. Large solitary ascidians were held upside down to let the relaxative fluids drain out of the open siphons before immersion into the fixative. Large ascidians were immersed in the fixative with siphons pointing upward to permit these specimens to quickly fill. Additional details for these methods are reported at: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/stellwagen/didemnum/htm/page41.htm. Identified invertebrates were placed in separate containers and fixed in 70% or 95% ETOH. Identified invertebrates were preserved in 70 or 95% alcohol for voucher and reference collections or for genetic analyses. A pre-printed label with a unique numbers and the initials of the taxonomist making the identification was placed into each preserved specimen vial to permit continuous tracking. Specimens retained for bar coding were preserved separately for optimal genetic and morphological analyses. Spatial locations of all collecting sites were referenced by GPS positioning. Sample containers were selected to permit specimen volumes to remain at less than 1/6 of capacity. Each sample was labeled internally on waterproof paper in indelible ink or lead pencil. The labels included the sample name survey name month and year and split number when samples were split between more than one container (i.e., 3 of 5). Specimens were preserved by filling the container with EtOH. The samples were then sealed and inverted several times to assure adequate mixing of the preservative. EtOH was replaced with fresh 95% EtOH within 24-48 hours using 5 parts EtOH per 1 part sample and the sample was again inverted several times to mix the preservative. After the first change over, the new alcohol in the sample was inspected to determine whether the fluid remained nearly clear after an additional 24-48 hours. Samples not remaining clear after the second change were exchanged a third time by the same procedures. Preformatted standard spread sheets were provided to investigators to record species by sampling location, and specific distribution and sample type followed by the taxonomist’s initials, the unique reference number, and the best estimate of the species’ geographical origins with U, N, I and C representing, respectively, Unclassified, Native, Introduced and Cryptogenic status from the criteria for introduced (Chapman 1988, Chapman and Carlton 1991, 1994) and cryptogenic (Carlton 1997, 2009) species. Taxonomy The origins of species are difficult to determine without precise knowledge of their identities. Investigators were provided with the most recent taxonomic sources for eastern Pacific taxa in their areas of expertise and a rough draft of the pending EPA Atlas of North Pacific nonindigenous marine species was also provided for reference (Lee and Reusser 2010). Wireless internet service was provided also to access to online materials. Three stereo microscope camera systems and a Canon SLR macro camera system were used to photograph live species while they were alive. The origins of species Taxa identified to species level or at least well known by the investigators were included in the analyses. Protozoans, microsporidians, nematodes, platyhelminthes and diatoms, for instance, are not included in the analyses. Indeterminant, which could not be confidently identified to the species level were excluded from the analyses. Species origins were placed into four general classifications: Introduced - reproductive populations that occur in geographical regions due to human activities, where they could not have dispersed to naturally and where they did not occur previously; Native - populations that occur in a geographical region due to natural, non-human mechanisms; Cryptogenic - populations that cannot be distinguished as introduced or native and; Indeterminate - species too poorly identified to distinguish as introduced, native or cryptogenic. Distinctions among the first three origin types are possible from taxonomic, historical, evolutionary, geographical and ecological data. Introductions are commonly identified by their associations with human mechanisms of introduction such as recorded intentional government introductions for aquaculture, or species that are associated with ballast water traffic, the pet trade or fish and game stocks. However, the mechanisms that create and maintain most species distributions are unknown and the origins of most marine and estuarine species thus remain to be examined by any criteria. We relied on four main criteria to classify the origins of most species that had not been previously classified: criterion 1 - Geographically isolated conspecific populations, was perhaps the most commonly used criterion for introduced and cryptogenic species; criterion 2 – resurgence or recent appearance where not seen previously; criterion 3 - association with human dispersal vectors and mechanisms (Ruiz and Carlton 2003) and criterion 4 – restriction to unnatural, artificial substrata or to other introduced species (Chapman and Carlton 1991, 1994). Species of uncertain origins were classified as cryptogenic when their native or introduced origins were unclear. Species origins were assumed to be native until proven otherwise before 1996 when Carlton (1996) proposed the “cryptogenic” category of species that have unclear introduced or native origins. Carlton (2009, 2011) identified numerous sources of error that can lead to underestimates of the number of alien species within regions and place many species into the cryptogenic category. An implicit prediction of Carlton’s (1996) widely accepted geographical view of cryptogenic species is that and unknown proportion of them are introduced. Literature review Early surveys of Oregon estuaries concerned did not distinguish species origins. Surveys of Coos Bay invertebrates included Keen and Doty (1942) (gastropods), Hartman (1950) (polychaetes and Barnard (1954) (gammaridean amphipods). Hartman (1950) examined polychaetes from 12 Coos Bay stations and two Yaquina Bay stations on the north east shore of Sally’s Bend. Nearly all of the 72 estuary species from Hartman’s (1950) survey were new records for these estuaries and no new estuary species were found. Ruiz et al. (2000), T&N Associates (2002), Wonham and Carlton (2005) and Lee and Reusser (2010) reviewed surveys and individual publications on nonindigenous marine and estuarine invertebrates that included Oregon. Waldeck et al. (2003) and Sytsma et al. (2004) directly surveyed nonindigenous species of the lower Columbia River estuary. Carlton’s (2007) summary of marine, estuarine and maritime invasions of Coos Bay summarizes thirty years of field work and over a century of literature on of Coos Bay introductions. Additional sources for this review included Light and Smith’s Manual Carlton (2007), personal communications from Jeff Cordell, an unpublished Environmental Protection Agency species list and summaries and references for native and introduced invertebrates of the region in Lee and Reusser (2010). Earliest report dates for species in these reviews of Oregon estuaries are difficult to find and many are likely to be preceded by additional records not found. Such errors in sources used here are likely to be carried over to the present data. All species names cited were checked and updated, where possible, from Light and Smith Manual (Carlton 2007) or the online sources in The World Registry of Marine Species (WoRMS) or AlgaeBase. Results Yaquina Bay We sampled fouling substratums throughout the lower 3 km of Yaquina Bay (Figure 3) on the 20 and 21 October and again on 25 October 2010. These substratums were covered by abundant populations of the algae, Ulva, Enteromorpha and Alaria, the sponge, Halichondria, the bryozoan, Membranipora membranacea, the mussels Mytilus trossulus, Mytilus californiensis, the barnacle, Balanus glandula, the tunicate Botrylloides violaceus and the anemone, Metridium senile on most fouling surfaces. We did not find the introduced tunicates, Molgula manhattensis (previously observed for the first time in Yaquina Bay on the hull of a floating crane) or Didemnum vexillum in an extensive systematic search. The same fouling community found on the floating crane (except for Ostrea conchaphila) extended over all other areas of the Yaquina harbor sampled except on the bridge pylons and rock jetties where the dominant barnacle was Balanus nubilis and the seastar, Pisaster ochraceus, and dense growths of Metridium senile on their lower reaches were abundant. Stenohaline marine species such as Didemnum vexillum, and Distaplia occidentalis were not found in areas of Yaquina Bay. We searched in particular for the native tunicate Distaplia occidentalis which has been persistent in Coos Bay were D. vexillum occurs, during these surveys and would not have overlooked it if it had it been at any of the Yaquina Bay sites that were searched. Additional samples from the Yaquina Bay area included the native tunicate, Perophora annectens collected by Lorne Curran and John Estabrook on 10/17/2010 at 3:45 PM from rocks of the South Jetty at approximately 6 m (20 feet) depth, 44.61228N, 124.07298W and Eudistoma and Aplidium collected from the South Pinnacles, initially referred to as “Yaquina Reef” by Ian Chun from rocks at 11 m (35 feet) depth, 44 33.041, 124 06.901 on 10/18/2010. Triangle Curran, Hansen and Emch-Wei sampled the subtidal rocky benthos of the Winchester Bay “Umpqua Triangle” site and the channel side of the Umpqua south jetty, where a powerful wave surge occurs (Figure 4) on19 October. The harbor site (Figure 4) was dominated by filamentous diatom mats remaining from the late 2010 spring freshets. The north side of the north wall is subjected to heavy surge and direct Umpqua River flows, and was dominated by Mytilus edulis, small Mytilus zonarius (previously: M. californianus) and Balanus communities but lacked sponges, tunicates or any other low turbulence or stenohaline marine species. All areas within the Umpqua and in the Winchester Boat Harbor area are thus unsuited to Didemnum or the high diversities of native and introduced marine species. The rocky shore benthos and suspended oyster float lines along the north wall of the Triangle (Figure 4) are covered by a rich red and brown alga flora and invertebrate fauna below 6 m depths that we were unable to sample. Didemnum vexillum (Figure 5) is a dominant member of this below 6 m community and thus highly suited for of this artificially created oligohaline subtidal environment. Molgula citrine, mixed in with algae, were collected by John Estabrook and Bruce Hansen as part of a US Forest Service dive on 9/29 at 10:30 AM at approximately 3 m depth. (The substrate was a mooring line and thus, depth corrections for tide are complicated by the angle of the line.) Maximum depth for that line was 20 feet and its positions was 43.666012 N, 124.209558W. Overgrowing Didemnum vexillum colonies were collected by Ian Chun 10/17 on the south side of the north Triangle jetty rocks in four feet of water, coordinates: 43.666N, 124.2115W. Coos Bay We sampled floats and pilings of the Coos Bay city docks and the Charleston small boat basin and Harbor area on 19 October. The flood tide salinity of the Coos Bay city floats was 29 psu and the water temperature was 15.5 oC. The flood tide salinity of the Charleston Boat Basin and Harbor was 34/oo and the water temperature was 56-59 oF (13.3-15.5 oC). All Charleston survey sites were overgrown by a diverse and abundant biota including the mussels, Mytilus zonarius, Mytilus edulis, hydroids, bryozoans and tunicates, including Distaplia occidentalis, Botrylloides violaceus, Botryllus schlosseri. Other abundant species included the sea anemone, Metridium senile, the sponge, Halichondria, the seastar, Pisaster ochraceous, the crab, Cancer oregonensis, the barnacles, Balanus crenatus and Balanus glandula. The dominant or common fouling species of the Coos Bay City Floats (Figure 8), were the algae, Ulva the barnacle, Balanus glandula and mussels, Mytilus edulis and the amphipods Americorophium spinicorne and Ptylohyale littoralis, the isopod, Gnorimosphaeroma oregonensis and the tunicate, Molgula manhattensis . The pilings and rocks of the area were dominated by barnacles and the alga, Enteromorpha. The low salinity tolerant community of the Coos Bay City floats (Figure 8) appeared to be entirely different from the Charleston Harbor communities. General results of the survey (Appendix A) include: 191 species identified from 400 samples from the three surveyed estuaries. 25 of the species collected in the survey are new records for these estuaries 8 of these new records are new Polychaeta to Oregon Another new Oregon record, Molgula citrina, is also the second discovery of this species in the North Pacific and its first discovery south of Alaska where it arrived via Arctic ballast water traffic. The native Amphipod - Melita oregonenis was discovered again in Coos Bay its sole locality at low abundance. The combined survey and literature review provided of 562 total species (Table 1) consisting of 507 invertebrate species and 55 plant and algae species. Species Invertebrates Algae/Plants Totals Native 312 28 340 Cryptogenic 67 18 85 Introduced 128 9 137 Totals 507 55 562 Table 1. The combined native, cryptogenic and introduced invertebrates, algae and plants of Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay. Additional project results from survey participants included: Canadian and US green crab sample method comparisons revealed their suitability to their particular regions and methods for intercomparisons. Cross comparisons of eastern and western North Pacific bopyrid isopod parasite invasion probabilities. The propagule pressure hypothesis was partially tested from the distribution of Didemnum vexillum among the (Coos Bay, Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay). Genetic samples of the presumed native Hediste limnicola were collected for comparison with compared to the extremely similar Japanese Hediste diadroma. The collections to of source material for genetic comparisons and distinctions of “blooming” Ulva in Oregon estuaries that include Ulva pertusa (NIS) vs Ulva lactuca (cryptogenic). New invasions and expanding invasions of the Oregon coast thus continue and additional presently introduced species are thus likely to be found in the region. Moreover, in the absence of intervention, expanding invasions can be expected. Introduced native and cryptogenic species discoveries relative to taxonomic effort Present and previous collections and previous reports from Yaquina Bay and Coos Bay in particular were sufficient for comparisons of the timing and rates of invasions and their possible ecological effects. Variation in the numbers of new species descriptions per decade among the 55 introduced, native and cryptogenic plant and alga (Figure 6A) coincides with the history of taxonomy in general and with European colonization in western North America, as might be expected. Most of the presently conceived “native” algae species described in the 1755 decade belong to “cosmopolitan” species that could also be species complexes. These species, cooccurring with many other macrophyte species that have local distributions and yet seemingly equal potentials for dispersal, are a biogeographical conundrum. Otherwise, the variation in native algae and plant species descriptions per decade (Figure 6A) are similar to the variation apparent among invertebrates (Figure 7A). Previous to the 1855 decade (Figure 7A), most western North American plants and algae were described by Europeans and eastern US scientists. European colonization of the North American west coast was underway by the 1855 decade when most of the large macrophytes were described. The absence of species descriptions between the 1855 and 1905 decades (Figure 6A) coincides with the American civil war and precedes most major west coast universities and museums. The greater diversity of species described in the 1895 decade (Figure 6A) coincides with the opening of many west coast universities. The general decline in species descriptions after 1895 (Figure 6A) coincide with a general decline of taxonomy but also could result from increasingly complete eastern Pacific macrophyte taxonomy. The descriptions of cryptogenic, introduced and native macrophyte species eventually Figure 6). A – Frequencies of cryptogenic (Crypto), introduced (Intro) and native (Native) marine plant and algae species of Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay described per decade and; B – the accumulations of cryptogenic (Crypto), introduced (Intro) and native (Native) plant and algae species described per decade.. found in Oregon increased linearly (Figure 6B). Thus, eastern Pacific macrophyte taxonomy in Oregon as in other areas of the world appears to have proceeded at similar rates. The near constant rates of native species descriptions in Oregon and cryptogenic or introduced species in other areas indicates that macrophyte taxonomy is incomplete in Oregon and elsewhere, with many species remaining to be described. Similar to plants and algae, descriptions of the 511 introduced, native and cryptogenic invertebrate species also varied greatly among decades (Figure 7A) and also the patterns of descriptions coincide even more closely with the history of European presence in western North America. Previous to the 1855 decade (Figure 7A), western North American invertebrates were Figure 7. A – Frequencies of cryptogenic (Crypto), introduced (Intro) and native (Native) invertebrate species of Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay described per decade and; B – the accumulations of cryptogenic (Crypto), introduced (Intro) and native (Native) invertebrate species described per decade.. described by Europeans and eastern US scientists. European colonization of the coast was well underway by the 1855 decade when most large invertebrates were being described. A decline in species descriptions after 1855 (Figure 7A) again coincides with the American civil war and precedes most major west coast universities and museums. The large number of species described in the 1905 decade (Figure 7A) also closely follows the opening of nearly all major west coast universities and the decline in species descriptions after 1905 coincides with a general decline of taxonomy but also indicates most native species of the sample areas have been discovered and described. Since the introduced invertebrates were mainly described from regions outside of the northeast Pacific, covariation among cryptogenic, introduced and native invertebrate descriptions per decade (Figure 7A) indicates similar taxonomic efforts in Oregon and elsewhere in the world. However, the lesser declines of introduced and cryptogenic species described per decade (Figures 7A) and the declining accumulations of new species per decade (Figure 7B) relative to the description dates of introduced and cryptogenic species are likely results of greater taxonomic efforts per species in the northeast Pacific than in most other areas of the world. Thus, shallow marine northeast Pacific invertebrates species are well explored and arriving species among these taxa are less likely to be confused with native species whether they have been described elsewhere in the world or not. Of the 6 species discovered in the region in the 2005 decade (Figure 7A), four are introduced, one is a new native species and one is a cryptogenic species. Thus, most new species discovered Oregon coastal marine waters in the future will most likely be introductions from elsewhere. The per species taxonomies of the 562 identified introduced, cryptogenic and native eastern Pacific algae, plants and invertebrates of this study thus advanced at similar tempos since 1755. The timing of introduced and native species discoveries and thus estimates of invasion rates are not been greatly biased by unequal taxonomic efforts. Invasion rates Except for the native Ostrea conchiphila, which was reintroduced into Coos Bay, native species occurrences in Coos Bay and Yaquina Bay were assumed to have been continuous. The arrival dates of cryptogenic species are unknown. Introduced species are usually detected due to efforts of particular taxonomists, long after they are established, from circumstantial accumulations of previous records and samples and thus, readily underestimated (Carlton 2010). The rate of accumulation of recent arrivals are particularly vulnerable to overestimates. For these reasons, the earliest arrival dates of most of the introduced invertebrates of Yaquina Bay and most of the algae and plants of Coos Bay and Yaquina Bay were considered too poorly resolved for analyses. Analyses of Coos Bay introductions determined mainly by Carlton (2007) indicate that average yearly species introductions increased from about 1.2 in the 1975 decade to 7.1 in the 2005 decade (Figure 12) indicating that the rate of invasions is increasing. Figure 8. Cumulative invertebrate introductions to Coos Bay per decade (diamonds) and predicted introduced species per year (line) between the decades of 1895 and 2005 (line). The similar taxonomic accumulations of native, cryptogenic and introduced species descriptions over time (Figure 11) and recently discovered introductions in the last several decades, including for example, the isopod, Sphearoma quoianum, the green crab, Carcinus maenus and the tunicate, Didemnum vexillum (Appendix A), were indeed recent arrivals rather than past introductions that were only discovered recently. The exponential increase in Coos Bay introductions between 1885 and 2010 (Figure 8) is thus not likely to be inflated by “zoologist effects” in which the discovery of introductions by taxonomic experts lag significantly behind their times of arrival. New marine invertebrate introductions have thus been arriving in Coos Bay at an exponentially increasing rate since approximately 1885. New introductions by 2005 were arriving at about 2% of the total cryptogenic and native species diversity per year. These data are sufficient to consider consequences of invasions. Species additions and estimated deletions Extinctions are the most significant measure of biological loss. SAR predictions are that connections of isolated species populations in discrete areas (such as estuaries across the North Pacific) increase the species of those areas above equilibrium levels and accelerate species extinctions (Vitousek et al. 1996, Rosenzweig 1998). An upper limit of diversity in coastal in estuary ecosystems could thus result from displacement or extinctions of previously occurring and newly arriving species as additional introductions arrive. Assuming z remains similar among areas, the species area equation can be expanded to find the proportion of species diversity, H, in a homogenized area C composed of intersecting areas A and B such that: H = cCz / (cAz + cBz) 1). All things being equal, the average expected proportion of extinction, E, in both areas A and B would be: E = 1 – H 2). With complete species saturation (when z equals zero), each additional species results in the loss of another and thus, a 100% increase in local species would result in 50% extinction. However, z almost universally ranges between 0.2 and 0.3 (Rozenwig 1993, He and Hubbard 2011) with consequent estimated extinction risks, E, of 0.43 and 0.38 per species, respectively. Estimating the proportion, P, from Table 1, introduced invertebrates, I, to combined native, N, plus cryptogenic species, C, is 0.34. From Table 1 again, if the native and introduced cryptogenic invertebrates are proportional to the resolved introduced and native species, the introduced to native invertebrate ratio, P, is 0.41. The products of extinction risks and species additions (introductions) (E*P) are (the present risks of extinction) range between 0.13 and 0.18 (Table 2). P z = 0.2 z = 0.3 I/(C+N) 0.15 0.13 I/N 0.18 0.16 Table 2. Expected per species extinction probabilities, E, in the survey areas with two values of z and two estimates of the proportion of introduced species. These estimates are preliminary. Sampling of all species in these estuaries was not possible and underestimates of the diversity of native species could inflate the estimates of the proportion of introduced to native species. On the other side, potentially missing species also could not be examined closely in this survey. Even in the absence of evolution or adaptations, species displacements or extinctions are likely to lag in long lived species by years or decades after even the most severe diseases, parasites, predators or competitors arrive. The experimentally non-adapted nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, for instance, requires up to 20 generations to become extinct in the presence its natural bacterial parasite Serratia marcescens (Morran et al. 2011). Extinctions are thus difficult to measure. Additionally, important interactions between additional species with their new communities are most likely to be indirect and thus difficult to observe directly. Direct observations of large changes in multiple species abundances are not expected from a single survey. With the difficulties of detecting extinctions and displacements and the absence of efforts to find them however, any evidence of that they occur is strong evidence that they are important. Species deletions The most important assumption of species area theory is that additional species displace or replace previously occurring species. Evidence of these effects were found within Yaquina Bay and Coos Bay in the interactions of the burrowing shrimp, Upogebia pugettensis and the introduced Asian bopyrid isopod parasite Orthione griffenis from Asia. Blood loss to Orthione effectively castrates reproductive females and Upogebia populations have declined at around 18% per year since in association with intense Orthione infestations since at least 2002 (See Dumbauld et al. 2011, Chapman et al. 2011). Additional species that are possibly declining in the presence of other introduced species include: Gammaridean amphipods: Americorophium brevis Shoemaker, 1949 Abundant on Yaquina Bay and Coos Bay mudflats into the 1980s Uncommon after 1997 with spectacular increases of the introduced amphipod, Grandidierella japonica. Ampithoe simulans (Alderman, 1936) Abundant in shallow dredgings and on the introduced algae, Sargassum muticum in Coos Bay until the 1980s. Same habitats dominated by Ampithoe valida and A. lacertosa by 1990s Not found in 2010 RAS: Not common in surveys of Coos or Yaquina estuaries since 1980s. Paracalliopiella pratti (Barnard, 1954) 2 (= Calliopiella) Particularly abundant in the Oregon intertidal regions or shallow dredgings from Coos Bay and on Sargassum muticum in the 1950s. Not found in Coos Bay or Yaquina Bay during RAS. Melita oregonensis Barnard, 1954 Abundant in Coos Bay and surrounding coast in the 1950s and rare in Coos Bay since 1990s, one specimen found on the Coos Bay floats among introduced tunicate, Molgula manhattensis in RAS. Gastropoda Assiminea californica Species displacements: Zostera japonica Spartina alterniflora Vibrio tubiashi MSX Aurelia aurita Assiminea parasitologica Bankia setacea Sphaeroma quoianum Didemnum vexillum Styella clava Conclusions New invasions are increasing and expanding in near shore marine ecosystems; while native species are declining as theory predicts. The PICES survey revealed benthic community assemblages of central Oregon estuaries in an unpredictable state of flux. A broad diversity of recently introduced species, unsuited or counter human uses were found. The diversity of species valuable to humans in estuaries and all other ecosystems (Duarte et al. 2007) is minute relative to the diversity other arriving species that are displacing and replacing them (Wilson 1992, Tittensor Nature 28 July, PloS ONE 2 August). New introductions along with other alterations (Cohen and Carlton 1998, Carlton 2007, Wonham et al. 2005, Ruiz et al. 2001, Rumrill 2006) are changing northeastern Pacific estuaries at exponentially increasing rates and these changes increasingly alter the ecological interactions and the consequent economic values of these systems. The reduced freshwater dilution in Coos Bay channel entrance areas is apparent from the high abundances of long lived stenohaline native species such as the mussel Mytilus zonarius, and the native tunicate Distaplia occidentalis. Didemnum vexillum does not occur even in these main channel of Coos Bay despite likely oyster traffic plus heavy shipping and small boat traffic from California and Washington locations where Didemnum are abundant. The reduced river exchange conditions of the Triangle and the lower Coos Bay area (Figures 4 & 5) suggests that expansions by Didemnum are unlikely even in Coos Bay outside of the Charleston Boat Basin and are held in check by factors associated with lower salinities elsewhere. These partial lists of native and introduced species recovered in this survey continue cooperative trans North Pacific comparisons of invasions in estuary systems to refine and expand. Human activities are spreading marine introductions among North Pacific nations that threaten food producing species and other economically important marine resources and these invasions are increasing at exponential rates. Prevention is widely assumed to be the most economically viable responses to invasions followed by rapid responses. However, estimates of the economic importance of biological invasions without “state-of-the-art methods in ecosystem service science” evidence, have been criticized as poor motivations for conservation responses (Fisher and Naidoo 2011). Detailed economic analyses are needed. However, requirements of such analyses previous to all responses guarantee ineffective “burden of proof” policies that fail to respond even to the most severe invasions (Boyles et al. 2011). Predictive economic models are needed instead that can be refined and modified to adjust response for maximum benefits. Such models require detailed information on the rate of invasions, their extent and their likely effects. Recommendations The cost effectiveness and the quality of rapid assessment surveys increases with the time and timing allotted to them. Continued resources are needed to extend these surveys among nations over the coming decades. The bar coding efforts should be particularly valuable where taxonomic research is at early stages. Funding for a third the Russian barcode processing program at Vladivostock is being sought to permit 3-way intercalibration with the 2010 RAS analyses. Acknowledgements These results rest heavily data mined from the three decade long survey reports of introduced and cryptogenic species in Coos Bay conducted by James T. Carlton, Maritime Studies Program, Williams College -- Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT. We thank the Canadian DNA Barcoding Centre in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA labs for performing genetic barcoding analyses without cost. Yuki Tatara, Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Toho University, Japan, identified Assiminea snails collected during the RAS survey. The Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon, George Boehlert, HMSC Director, served as the local host institution. Funding for the Oregon RAS was supplemented by the Department of Fisheries & Oceans, Canada, Oregon Sea Grant covered the travel, food, lodging and ground transportation expenses of international experts from PICES member countries, by kind contributions by Department of Fisheries & Oceans, Canada, the US EPA, Ralph and Donnelle Breitenstein and Liu Xin of Oregon Oyster, Inc. References Abbott, I. A. and George J. Hollenberg. 1976. Marine Algae of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 827 pp. Anonymous 1973. Oregon Estuaries, Division of State Lands, 48 pp. Anonymous 2010. Oregon Coast Atlas, www.coastalatlas.net/index.php?option=com_custompages&e=4&Itemid=68 Baker, P., N. Richmond, and N. Terwilliger. 2000. Reestablishment of a native oyster, Ostrea conchaphila, following a natural local extinction, pp. 221-231, in: Judith Pederson, editor. Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Sea Grant College Program, MITSG 00-2, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 427 pp. Banse, K. 1956. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gattungen Fabricia, Manayunkia und Fabriciola (Sabellidae, Polychaeta). Zool. Jahrbuch Syst. 84: 415-438. [reference from Williamson et al. 1977; not seen] Banse, K. 1979. Ampharetidae (Polychaeta) from British Columbia and Washington. Can. J. Zool. 57: 1543-1552. Barnard, J. L. 1954. Marine Amphipoda of Oregon. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology 103 pp. Barnard, J. L. and C. M. Barnard. 1981. The amphipod genera Eobrolgus and Eyakia (Crustacea: Phoxocephalidae) in the Pacific Ocean. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 94: 295-313. Berman, J. and J. T. Carlton. 1991. Marine invasion processes: interactions between native and introduced marsh snails. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 150: 267 - 281. Boyles, J. et al. Response to Fisher and Naidoo, Science 333:287. Breitenstein, R.A., 2010, personal observations, Chapman Laboratory, Oregon State University. Buell, A. C., A. J. Pickart, and J. D. Stuart. 1995. Introduction history and invasion patterns of Ammophila arenaria on the north coast of California. Conservation Biology 9: 1587-1593. Caldwell, R. S. and D. R. Buhler. 1983. Heavy metals in estuarine shellfish from Oregon. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12: 15-23. Carlton, J. T. 1979. History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine and estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific coast of North America. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis, 904 pp. Carlton, J. T. 1989. . The introduced marine and maritime invertebrates, plants and fish of Coos Bay, Oregon. A Working Manuscript of the Carlton Laboratory, Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, Charleston, Oregon, June 1989, Draft 3. Manuscript, 67 pp. Carlton, J. T. 1996. Marine bioinvasions: the alteration of marine ecosystems by nonindigenous species. Oceanography 9(1): 36-43. Carlton, J. T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653-1655. Carlton, J. T. 2003. Community assembly and historical biogeography in the North Atlantic Ocean: the potential role of human-mediated dispersal vectors. Hydrobiologia 503:1-8. Carlton, J. T. 2005. Introduced and cryptogenic marine, brackish, and maritime organisms off Coos Bay, Oregon, OIMB Biological Invasions Seminar and Classes, 32 pp Carlton, J. T. 2007 Marine, estuarine and maritime bioinvasions of Coos Bay, Oregon, OIMB Biological Invasions Seminar and Classes, 41 pp. Carlton, J. T. 2009. Deep invasion ecology and the assembly of communities in historical time, pp. 13-56, in: G. Rilov and J. A. Crooks, editors, Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 641 pp. Carlton, J. T. 2011. The Global Dispersal of Marine and Estuarine Crustaceans, Carlton, J.,Chapman, J.W., Yamada, S., Rumrill, S., Burke, J., Fleck, B., Howard, C.,Hunt,C.,Palacios,K., Introduced Species in Oregon Estuaries, 1999 OSU Resource Management Class http://science.oregonstate.edu/~yamadas/ Carlton, J. T. and L. G. Eldredge. 2009. Marine bioinvasions of Hawai'i. The introduced and cryptogenic marine and estuarine animals and plants of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Bishop Museum Bulletins in Cultural and Environmental Studies 4, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, 202 pp. Carlton, J. T. and Jonathan B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: The global transport of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science 261: 78-82. Carlton, J. T. and Janet Hodder. 1995. Biogeography and dispersal of coastal marine organisms: experimental studies on a replica of a 16th-century sailing vessel. Marine Biology 121: 721-730. Castillo, G. C., H. W. Li, P. A. Rossignol. 2000. Absence of overall feedback in a benthic estuarine community: a system potentially buffered from impacts of biological invasions. Estuaries 23:275-291. Chapman, John: Aquatic Biological Invasions, Biology 421 OSU class, summer 2009 Chapman, John: Aquatic Biological Invasions, Biology 421 OSU class, summer 2010 Chapman JW (1988) Invasions of the northeast Pacific by Asian and Atlantic gammaridean amphipod crustaceans, including a new species of Corophium. J Crust Biol 8:364-382. Chapman, J. W. (2000). Climate effects on nonindigenous peracaridan crustacean introductions in estuaries. pp. 66-80, In J. Pederson (eds.) Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of a Conference, January 24-27, 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA. Chapman J. W. and Carlton J. T. 1991. A test of criteria for introduced species: the global invasion by the isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). J Crust Biol 11:386-400. Chapman J. W. and Carlton J. T. 1994. Predicted discoveries of the introduced isopod, Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). J Crust Biol 14:700-714. Chapman, W. M. 1942. Alien fishes in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. California Fish and Game 28: 9-15. Coan, E. V. 1979. Recent Eastern Pacific species of the crassatellid bivalve genus Crassinella. Veliger 22: 1-11. Coan, E. V., P. Valentich-Scott and F. R. Bernard, 2000, Bivalve seashells of western North America. Santa Barbara, California (Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History),764 pp. Cordell, J.R., Yaquina Bay Survey 1996, 2000, 2004, personal communication Cordell, J. R. and Sean M. Morrison. 1996. The invasive Asian copepod Pseudodiaptomus inopinus in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia estuaries. Estuaries 19: 629-638. Crandell, G.F., 1967. Seasonal Distribution of Harpacticoid Copepods in Yaquina Bay Oregon State University, PhD Thesis Cutress, C. E. 1949. The Oregon shore-anemones (Anthozoa). Master of Science thesis, Oregon State College, Corvallis, 71 pp. Dall, W. H. 1897. [Mollusca at Coos Bay, Oregon]. Nautilus 11: 66. Davidson, T, M., Shanks, A. L., Rumrill, S. S. The composition and density of fauna utilizing burrow microhabitats created by a non-native burrowing crustacean (Sphaeroma quoianum) Biol Invasions (2010) 12: 1403-1413 Day, L. B., editor. 1971. Natural resources, ecological aspects, uses and guidelines for the management of Coos Bay, Oregon. A Special Report, U. S. Department of Interior, 128 pp. + plates + appendices. Environmental Protection Agency, (2006) Yaquina Bay Estuary Species List (unpublished, personal communication Henry Lee) Evans, J. W. 1966. The ecology of the rock-boring clam Penitella penita (Conrad, 1837). Ph.D. thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, 112 pp. Evans, J. W. 1967. Relationship between Penitella penita (Conrad, 1837) and other organisms of the rocky shore. Veliger 10: 148-151. Fisher, B. and R. Naidoo 2011. Concerns about extrapolating right off the bat, Science 333:287. Frolander, H.F. Yaquina Bay Plankton Zooplankton Survey 1969 Oregon State University PhD thesis Geller, J. B., James T. Carlton, and Dennis A. Powers. 1994. PCR-based detection of mtDNA haplotypes of native and invading mussels on the northeastern Pacific coast: latitudinal pattern of invasion. Marine Biology 119: 243-249. Goddard, J. 1984. The opisthobranchs of Cape Arago, Oregon, with notes on their biology and a summary of benthic opisthobranchs known from Oregon. Veliger 27(2): 143-163. Goddard, J. 1987. Cape Arago opisthobranchs. Shells and Sea life 19(7):5 (published September, 1987; reprinted in Opisthobranch, new series 1, p. 2 (October 1987)) Gonor, J. J., et al. 1979. Ecological assessment at the North Bend Airport extension site. Part 1. Report to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, Oregon. Gosliner, T. 1995. The introduction and spread of Philine auriformis (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia) from New Zealand to San Francisco Bay and Bodega Harbor. Mar. Biol. 122: 249-255. Hand, C. and K. R. Uhlinger. 1994. The unique, widely distributed, estuarine sea anemone Nematostella vectensis Stephenson: a review, new facts, and questions. Estuaries 17: 501-508. Hancock, D. R., J. E. McCauley, J. M. Stander, P. T. Tester. 1977. Chapter VI, Distribution of benthic infauna in Coos Bay, pp. 508-579, in: Environmental impacts of dredging in estuaries. Schools of Engineering and Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, NSF Grant No. ENV71-01908-A03, 675 pp. Hartman, O. and D. J. Reish. 1950. The marine annelids of Oregon. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology 6, 64 pp. Hewitt, C. L. 1993. Marine biological invasions: the distributional ecology and interactions between native and introduced encrusting organisms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. JE-LC John Estabrook and Lorne Curran, 2010 Rapid Accesment Survey Jefferts, K. 1977. The vertical distribution of infauna: a comparison of dredged and undredged areas in Coos Bay, Oregon. Master of Science thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 128 pp. Jordan, J. R. 1989. Interspecific interactions between the introduced Atlantic crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii and the native estuarine crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis in Coos Bay, Oregon. Master of Science thesis, University of Oregon. Keen, M. and C. L. Doty 1942. An annotated check list off the gastropods off Cape Arago, Oregon, Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Zoology 3:16 pp. Knapp, S. E. 1950. Check list of the animals for the Coos Bay area. Examined 1977 at Oregon State University Marine Science Center library. Lee II, H. and Brown, C.A. (eds.) 2009. Classification of Regional Patterns of Environmental Drivers and Benthic Habitats in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. EPA/600/R-09-140, 298 pp. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/publications/authored.htm MacDonald, K. B. 1969. Molluscan faunas of Pacific coast salt marshes and tidal creeks. Veliger 11: 399-405. Mace, T. F. and G. O. Mackie. 1970. A study of an estuarine lagoon, with particular reference to Cordylophora lacustris Allman. Canadian Journal of Zoology 48: 1454-1456. Markham, J.C. 1967 A Study of Animals Inhabating Laminarian Holdfasts in Yaquina Bay. Oregon State University, Masters Thesis Marriage, L. D. 1954. The bay clams of Oregon. Their economic importance, relative abundance, and general distribution. Fish Commission of Oregon, Portland, Contribution No. 20, 47 pp. McGann, M., D. Sloan and Cohen, A. N. 2000. Invasion by a Japanese marine microorganism in western North America. Hydrobiologia 421: 25-30. Megahan, J. 1990. The distributional ecology of Hemileucon hinumensis and its relationship with soft sediment tube building species in Coos Bay, Oregon. Master of Science thesis, University of Oregon. Miller, T.W., E.V. Coan, J.W. Chapman. 1999. Rediscovery of the introduced, non-indigenous bivalve, Laternula marilina (Reeve, 1860) (Laternulidae) in the northeastern Pacific. The Veliger 42(3):282-284. Morran, L. T. et al. 2011. Running with the red queen: host-parasite coevolution selects for biparental sex, Science 333:216-218. Morris, R.H., Abbot, D. Haderlie, E. (1980) Intertidal invertebrates of California Stanford University Press, Stanford, California Ohtsuka,S.,Udea,H. 1999, Zoogeography of pelagic copepods in Japan and adjacent waters Bull. Plankton Soc Japan 46 (1) 1-20 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009 South Yaquina Bay Census Oregon Institute of Marine Biology (OIMB). 1962. Marine animals collected and preserved by National Science Foundation Marine Institute students, Charleston, Oregon, June 18 - August 10, 1962, 4 mimeo pp. Percy, K. L., C. Sutterlin, David A. Bella, and Peter C. Klingeman. 1974. Descriptions and information sources for Oregon estuaries. OSU Sea Grant College Program, 294 pp. Peterson, E. R. and A. Powers. 1952. A Century of Coos and Curry: History of Southwest Oregon. Binford and Mort, Portland, 599 pp. Peterson, W.T. 1979 Zoonation and Maintaince of copepod populations in the Oregon Upwelling Zone Deep Sea Research Part A Oceanographic Research Papers vol. 25 issue 5: 467-494. Posey, M. H. 1988. Community changes associated with the spread of an introduced seagrass, Zostera japonica. Ecology 69: 974-983. Qualman, A. 1983. Blood on the Half Shell. Binford and Mort, Portland OR, 159 pp. Queen, J. C. 1930. Marine decapod Crustacea of the Coos Bay, Oregon district. Master of Arts thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, 61 pp. Round, F.E., R. M. Crawford and D. G. Mann, D.G. 1990. The diatoms: biology and morphology of the genera. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 747 pp. Rudy, P., Jr., and L. H. Rudy. 1983. Oregon estuarine invertebrates. An illustrated guide to the common and important invertebrate animals. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-83/16, 225 pp. Rudy, P., Jr., and L. H. Rudy. 1985. Oregon estuarine invertebrates. Supplement. [Consisting of an additional 30 species, of approximately 120 text pages and plates]. Submitted to USFWS, but never published. Copy on file at OIMB Library and URL. Ruiz, G. et al., 2000 Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities Annu Rev Ecol Sys 31: 481-531 Rumrill, S. 2006. The ecology of the South Slough Estuary: Site profile of the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem, Oregon, 238 pp. Saito, N., 2002, A List of Crustacean Hosts of the Epicaridea Isopod, Japanese Society of Systemic Zoology, No. 13: 18-32 Shearer, G. M. 1942. A study of marine isopods of the Coos Bay region. M. S. thesis, Oregon State College, Corvallis OR 64 pp. Suchanek, T. H., J. B. Geller, B. R. Kreiser, and J. B. Mitton. 1997. Zoogeographic distributions of the sibling species Mytilus galloprovincialis and M. trossulus (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) and their hybrids in the North Pacific. Biol. Bull. 193: 187-194. Suomela, A. J. 1946. Biological research connected with the fisheries of Oregon, pp. 25-30, in: Aquatic Biology, Seventh Annual Biology Colloquium,1946, Oregon State Chapter of Phi Kappa Phi, Oregon State College, Corvallis, 40 pp. Schweitzer C. E. and R. M. Feldmann 2000. Re-evaluation of the Cancridae Latreille, 1802 (Decapoda: Brachyura) including three new genera and three new species, Contributions to Zoology, 69 (4) 223-250. Taylor, A. H. 1983. Plant communities and elevation in a diked intertidal marsh in the Coos Bay estuary, Oregon. Northwest Science 57: 132-142.foru The Light and Smith Manual Intertidal Invertebrates from Central California to Oregon edited by James T. Carlton, fourth edition 2007 Warren, L. M. 1991. Problems in capitellid taxonomy. The genera Capitella, Capitomastus and Capitellides (Polychaeta). Ophelia Suppl. 5: 275-282. Wiedermann, A. M., L. J. Dennis, and F. H. Smith, 1974, Plants of the Oregon Coastal Dunes, Oregon State University Book Store, Corvallis) Williamson, K. J., D. A. Bella, D. R. Hancock, and J. M. Stander 1977. Chapter VIII, Interdisciplinary integration of chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of estuarine sediments, pp. 580-666, in: Environmental impacts of dredging in estuaries. Schools of Engineering and Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, NSF Grant No. ENV71-01908-A03, 675 pp. Wonham, M., et al., 2005, Trends in Marine Biological Invasions in Northeast Pacific, Biological Invasions 7:369-392 Wrobel, David and Claudia Mills. 1998. Pacific coast pelagic invertebrates. A guide to the common gelatinous animals. Sea Challengers and Monterey Aquarium, Monterey, CA, 108 pp. Yamada, S. B., B. R. Dumbauld, A. Kalin, C. E. Hunt, R. Figlar-Barnes, and A. Randall. 2005. Growth and persistence of a recent invader Carcinus maenas in estuaries of the northeastern Pacific. Biological Invasions 7: 309-321. Yamada, Sylvia Behrens, Christopher Hunt, and Neil Richmond. 2000. The arrival of the European crab Carcinus maenas in Oregon estuaries, pp. 94-99, in: Judith Pederson, editor. Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Sea Grant College Program, MITSG 00-2, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 427 pp. Zimmerman, S.T. 1972, Seasonal Succession of Zooplankton Populations in Two Dissimilar Marine Embayments on the Oregon Coast, Oregon State University PhD Thesis Websites World register of marine species http://www.marinespecies.org/ Algaebase :: listing of the world’s algae http://www.algaebase.org/ UniProt http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/37644 Integrated Taxonomic Information System http://www.itis.gov/   .  Appendix A Survey Schedule “Everybody had a plan until I hit them.” Mike Tyson. The major survey was conducted between 17 and 22 October 2010 and additional collections were made by Vasily Radashevsky, Leslie Harris and John Chapman on the 25-28 October and a few collections from the “Triangle” on previous dates were included for Gretchen Lambert. Organized field collections began in lower Yaquina Bay on the 18th, moved to two sites in upper and lower Coos Bay on the 19th. The Hatfield Marine Science Center seawater system was sampled on the 20th and sampling continued to two upper and lower Yaquina Bay sites through the 21rst. Diver collection from the Coos Bay small boat basin and from the Umpqua estuary, on the north and south sides of the north Umpqua Triangle jetty were made on 19 October; by Caroline Emch-Wei, Loren Curran and Jack Chapman. Bruce Hansen and Loren Curran and John Estabrook collected from the South Beach Marina, Port Dock 5 areas of Yaquina Bay on 20 October. Final sampling and initial summaries of data were performed on the 22nd and sorting and initial taxonomic analyses of the material were complete by October 31rst. 17 Oct. 2010 Sunday Collect and deliver international arrivals to Newport from PDX Introductions and HMSC tour 18 Oct. 2010 Monday 9:00 - 9:45 AM Lab set up collection equipment and convene HMSC OSU 10:00 - 11:00 AM HMSC Analyses of Yaquina Bay fouling plate sampling 11:15 - 12:00 HMSC Lab and sample preparation 1:00 - 2:30 PM Port Dock 5 and Newport water front (Figure 3) 3:00 - 5:00 PM HMSC Lab and sample processing 5:30 - 8:30 PM Welcome Reception 19 Oct. 2010 Tuesday 8:00 AM Departure for Coos Bay 10:30 - 12:00 PM Sample Charleston Boat Harbor (Figure 6) 12:35 - 1:15 PM Coos Bay City Boat Launch (Figure 5) 4:00 - 5:30 PM HMSC Lab and sample preparation. 20 Oct. 2010 Wednesday 8:00 -11:30 AM HMSC seawater system (Figure 3) 12:00 - 1:00 PM HMSC (90 minute symposium) 1:35 - 5:20 PM HMSC Lab and sample preparation 21 Oct. 2010 Thursday 9:15 - 12:00 PM Coos Bay sample analyses 1:00 - 5:50 PM HMSC Lab and sample analyses and HMSC Personal field trips Departures (most of the participants) for Portland – PICES. 22 Oct. 2010 Friday 9:00 - 11:30 HMSC Personal field trips and lab analyses (visitor instigated) 1:00 - 6:00 PM HMSC Lab and sample preparation Departures for Portland - PICES main sessions. International projects (Appendix B) The survey provided additional sampling efforts to permit estimates and comparisons of: 1) genetic identities of eastern Pacific species populations (via genetic bar coding); 2) genetic and live samples of eastern Pacific Hediste limnicola for comparisons with Japanese Hediste diadroma; 3) genetic diversities of eastern and western Pacific Ulva spp.; 4) expanded survey of introduced and native seaweeds and seagrasses; 5) propagule pressure: per capita invasion probabilities of Didemnum vexillum; 6) survey Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay ascidians; 7) probabilities of discovering new native species and new introduced species of coastal bopyrid isopods in the eastern and western North Pacific. International Projects Specimens were prepared for genetic barcoding by Leslie Harris in coordination with Peter Miller, molecular technology coordinator, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). These analyses are being performed by the Canadian DNA Barcoding Centre in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Voucher specimens for these samples are deposited in the Natural History Museum, of Los Angeles County. The sequences data from these analyses will be available to the collectors and others through Genbank and other sites. Collected fresh and ETOH preserved Hediste limnicola from Yaquina Bay for genetic analyses were made by T. Furota on 20 October. T. Hanyda and G. Hansen collected preserved and fresh samples of Ulva spp. between 18 and 21 October for genetic identities of eastern Pacific species populations. T. Hanyda and G. Hansen’s surveys of seaweed and seagrass diversity also extended beyond the major invertebrate survey compensate for the lack of previous data associated with these taxa in previous surveys and reviews. Intense directed diver sampling for Didemnum vexillum in the lower Yaquina Bay and the Oregon Coast Aquarium and Hatfield Marine Science Center seawater holding tanks and simultaneously in Coos Bay and the Triangle permitted a test of propagule pressure: per capita invasion probabilities with habitat size. Didemnum vexillum specimens from these collections were fixed for genetic analyses to test whether the Coos Bay and Triangle populations were of similar origins and thus of potentially similar or different vectors. Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay were also sampled in particular for all ascidians to assure a more comprehensive analysis to tunicates. J. Chapman, G. Itani and J. Markham made special collections of burrowing shrimp from the Idaho Pt. mud flats, adjacent to HMSC on 20 and 21 October and reviewed previous surveys of North Pacific bopyrid diversity to test probabilities of discovering new native species and new introduced species of coastal bopyrid isopods in the eastern and western North Pacific. Appendix B 2010 PICES - RAS Symposium and Workshop Atlas of nonindigenous marine and estuarine species in the North Pacific Henry Lee II1 and Deborah A. Reusser2 1 Pacific Coast Ecology Branch, Western Ecology Division, National Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR 97365; 2 Newport Duty Station, Western Fisheries Research Center, Biological Resources Discipline, U. S. Geological Survey, Newport, OR 97365 This US EPA and US GS atlas of North Pacific Introduced marine and estuarine species is a user’s guide with instructions and electronic sources for generating custom atlases. The database development is 95% complete. A few bugs need resolution and the ability to classify (e.g. indigenous, non-indigenous, cryptogenic) is required. Invasions, island biogeography and human welfare John Chapman Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport Oregon, OR 97365. John.Chapman@OregonState.Edu Understanding how introduced species can displace valuable species to humans is critical for predicting their threat to human welfare. A fundamental assumption of ecology is that species additions ultimately result in species exclusions and deletions. This assumption derives from a species area relationship, noted by the earliest European explorers and formally described in the 1960s as the species area power rule S=cAz, where S = species, c is a taxon specific correction factor, A = area and the exponent z is a function of the declining number of species per unit of increasing land or water area or volume. The few species valuable to humans are vastly outnumbered by the many other species that can potentially displace or exclude them. Therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, the average introduction should be assumed “harmful” or a threat to human welfare. If such a relationship occurs, z predicts invasion impacts and measures the average threat of invasions. Low z values predict large invasion impacts. and z values, of one or greater, predict no, or positive, effects of species additions on local diversity. Pprecise values of z are difficult to measure. However, high z values are likely if extinctions are not occurring and low z values are likely if extinctions are occurring. Existing general estimates of z range around the low value of 0.3. Presently noted local and geographical species extinctions following species additions indicate large impacts from invasions and global declines of biodiversity are likely to be occurring and thus, z values in coastal marine systems are probably low. Systematic surveys of native and nonindigenous species additions and deletions, among geographic regions will eventually provide those data estimating z directly and tests of island biogeography theory. Propagule pressure: per capita invasion probabilities of Didemnum vexillum John Chapman1, Gretchen Lambert9, Charles Lambert9, Jack Chapman13, Ian Chun14 Loren Curran15, Caroline Emch-Wei16, John Estabrook14, 15, Jeff Fischer14, Brian Fodness14, Bruce Hansen15 and Vallorie Hodges14 1 Dept. Fisheries & Wildlife; Oregon State University; Hatfield Marine Science Center; 2030 SE Marine Science Dr.; Newport, OR 97365-5296, USA John.Chapman@OregonState.Edu 2 Fisheries and Oceans; Marine Ecosystems and Aquaculture Division; Pacific Biological Station;3190 Hammond Bay Road; Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7, Canada, thomas.therriault@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 9 University of Washington, Friday Harbor Labs, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 - Mailing address: 12001 11th Ave. NW, Seattle WA 98177, USA 13 357 SE 35th St., South Beach, OR 97366, USA 14 Volunteer Diver Program, Oregon Coast Aquarium, 2820 SE Ferry Slip Rd / Newport, OR 97365, USA 15 USDA Forest Service (R6, PNW) Scientific Diving Program, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA 22 535 NW 12th St., Newport, OR 97365, USA A prediction of the propagule pressure hypothesis is that colonization potentials of species are largely controlled by the numbers of dispersing individuals arriving in new areas. Whether the colonization risk (prevalence of colonies among suitable areas) is a strict function of arriving propagules (density) or the number propagules per unit area (intensity) of suitable habitat in a new area is unclear. The lower Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and adjacent Umpqua River channel, the lower Yaquina Bay and receiving HMSC seawater tank and water manifolds and the Oregon Coast Aquarium Seawater tank were intensively sample for the colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum that was first discovered in Oregon in 2010. These samples provided estimates of the potentials for D. vexillum to disperse and colonize different sized habitats with varying likely intensites and densities of propagules. Four likely vectors of D. vexillum in Oregon are: 1) coastal currents and natural secondary dispersal from Puget Sound or San Francisco Bay where it was previously established; 2) on hulls of coastal boats and ships; 3) with ballast water from transoceanic ships and; 4) with transplanted contaminated oysters. Although not easily discounted, dispersal in coastal currents appears has been assumed unlikely for D. vexillosum, which have short lived tadpole larvae. Moreover, D. vexillosum and has not been discovered in off shore areas of Oregon California or Washington. The Oregon D. vexillum also did not appear simultaneously or in sequence with the California or Washington populations as would be expected if its spread was on ocean currents. Coos Bay receives regular shipping traffic and thus a greater risk of ballast water introductions. Yaquina River and the Umpqua River estuaries receive, respectively, very little and no shipping at all. Thus, the D. vexillum invasion of Coos Bay on small boat traffic or with ship ballast traffic from Asia, California or Washington appears likely. Dispersal to Yaquina Bay with the minor ballast water traffic it receives appears unlikely and the Umpqua estuary is unlikely to receive ballast water traffic. Small boat and fishing vessel traffic is significant and only slightly greater in Coos Bay than in Yaquina Bay. Regular fishing vessel traffic occurs between Coos Bay, the Umpqua estuary and Yaquina Bay. Fishing vessel and small boat traffic from the Salmon Harbor of the Umpqua River estuary is within an order of magnitude of Yaquina Bay and thus, small boat traffic has significant potential to disperse D. vexillum among all three estuaries. D. vexillum was absent in Yaquina Bay and stenohaline OCA and HMSC seawater systems, despite a likely connecting small boat traffic vector from Coos Bay. Thus, receiving habitat size may significantly alter the importance of propagule pressure on invasion success. We predict that established Coos Bay and Triangle populations will lack genetic diversity if they were established by a single vector and that significant genetic diversity will occur within or among these two populations if they arrived by multiple mechanisms and vectors. Didemnum vexillum in New Zealand and other tunicate news Gretchen and Charles Lambert 9 University of Washington, Friday Harbor Labs, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 - Mailing address: 12001 11th Ave. NW, Seattle WA 98177, USA Video clips of Didemnum vexillum control efforts in New Zealand can be viewed and downloaded from the Woods Hole USGS website prepared by Page Valentine. These videos include images of D. vexillum in the Umpqua Triangle by Lorne Curran. The videos of New Zealand control efforts are impressive evidence of the hazards of spreading viable colony fragments by mechanical removal efforts. The videos of D. vexillum in New England http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/stellwagen/didemnum/index.htm do not seem to play as universally on different computers. Also presented, an “in press” paper in Aquatic Invasions 5(4),on the first Pacific record of Molgula citrina, a likely trans-Arctic ballast water introduction from the North Atlantic found in Seldovia, Alaska in 2008. Hediste genetics Toshio Furota5 and Hiroaki Toshuji5 5 Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Toho University; Miyama 2-2-1, Funabashi, Chiba 274-8510, Japan Hediste limnicola and H. diadroma are morphologally indistinguishable and there is a possibility that H. diadroma populations in Washington and Oregon estuaries are mixed with eastern Pacific H. diadroma or are, in fact, the same species. The taxonomy of Hediste limnicola of in Washington and Oregon and California estuaries is confused with the Japanese Hediste diadroma. Confusion on the direct development polychaete. We collected Hediste limnicola from several estuaries between southern Puget Sound, near Olympia, Washington and Yaquima river in October 2009 and for DNA analysis and gonad character observations. PCR products were generated in Japan for H. diadroma- by a specific primer set from 59 of the 70 individuals collected. This primer was effective only for Japanese H. diadroma, because genetic information for H. limnicola was lacking. Therefore, the results of the DNA analysis, Hediste worms collected in Washington and Oregon estuaries in 2009 were insufficient for distinguishing the two species. Developmental and morphological characteristics were also observed. 1. Some individuals were spawned only eggs but not sperms raising the question of whether there are dioecious H. limnicola. 2. Epitokeous chaetae were added in some individuals. It’s a feature of H. diadroma, but their presence in H. limnicola is uncertain. 3. Chromosome number of some individuals from Washington and Oregon were 2n=28 however, our data from H. limnicola collected in California indicate a chromosome number, 2n=26. This raises questions of whether differentiation occurs between local populations in the west coast. Distribution of Orthione griffenis Markham, 2004 (Crustacea: Isopoda) in Japan Gyo Itani1, Yukari Miyoshi1 and Hiroshi Kume2 1 Laboratory of Marine Symbiotic Biology, Kochi University 2 Fisheries Research Center, Ehime Prefecture Orthione griffenis has been found at four localities in the Seto Inland Sea (Yamaguchi Bay, Kurahashi Is., Yorishima, and Kawarazu), and in the Pacific Ocean at (Uranouchi Inlet), and in the East China Sea at (Fukue Is.). The host mud shrimps were Upogebia issaeffi (Balss), U. major (de Haan) and Austinogebia narutensis (Sakai). At Kawarazu flat, the Seto Inland Sea, the prevalence of O. griffenis in A. narutensis was 0.1 %, which was much lower than that (ca. 15 %) of Gyge ovalis (Shiino) in the same host shrimp population and also much lower than prevalences observed in North America. Interactions between O. griffenis and G. ovalis were not evident from their common occurrences on the same individual host in one case. Hosts of O. griffenis in Japan ranged from 9.7 to 20.0 mm in carapace length and included juveniles, in contrast to previous observations in North America where O. griffenis, the prevalence is much higher and only mature hosts are infested. Hosts of G. ovalis in Japan ranged from 6.7 to 22.0 mm in carapace length. In Japan, Shiino described four species of bopyrids from upogebiid mud shrimps in 1937 – 1964. O. griffenis and four undescribed species were noticed after ecological studies of mud shrimps started in Japan from 1997. Studies to elucidate ecological difference of this parasite on both sides of the North Pacific Ocean are needed to conserve the mud shrimp and their estuary habitats. Introduced Seaweeds - elucidation of invasion by molecular data Takeaki Hanyuda1 and Hiroshi Kawai1 1Kobe University Research Center for Inland Seas, 1-1, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan. E-mail: hanyut@kobe-u.ac.jp Artificial trans-oceanic introductions of macroalgae are a considerable threat to local ecosystems, but the origin, development and fate of the introduced populations are difficult to clarify. Ulva pertusa Kjellman (Ulvales, Ulvophyceae), one of the green tide species in Japan, is considered to be of eastern Asian origin. Recently the trans-oceanic introduction of this species has been reported from Europe and the Pacific coast of North America. However, the actual origin and pathway of invasion has not been clarified. Haplotype and genotype diversity of Ulva pertusa populations in eastern Asia (including Japan), Oceania, North America, etc. was analyzed using mitochondrial and chloroplast genome sequences and microsatellite markers. Compared to Far East Asia, genetic diversity elsewhere (Oceania, North and South America, and Europe) was conspicuously low in all analyses. Moreover, one specific haplotype or genotype occupied about 90% of these areas. These results indicate that Far East Asia provided the donar populations of Ulva pertusa that were artificially introduced around the Pacific and into North and South America and Europe and that, in nearly all cases, only a small proportion of the total Asian genetic diversity remains in the recipient populations. Spionidae Vasily I. Radashevsky Senior Scientist of the A.V. Zhirmunsky Institute of Marine Biology, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, morphologists, taxonomists, with major research interest about morphology, ecology, reproductive biology, phylogeny and systematization of Spionida (Annelida). The polychaete order Spionida comprises a few families and Spionidae Grube, 1860 is the largest among them, with more than 500 species. Spionids exhibit fantastic diversity of life strategies. Most of them are tube-dwellers, occurring on soft, sandy, silty or muddy bottoms in more or less temporary or permanent, mud-covered, sand-covered or mucous tubes; tubes can be also attached to a hard substratum. The population density of such species may reach hundreds of thousands of individuals per square meter. The adults usually collect food particles by long prehensile palps from the sediment surface or suspended/resuspended in water and are therefore referred to as interface feeders. The larvae of intertidal and shallow subtidal spionids, especially those occurring in estuaries (often used by man as port areas), easily survive in ballast waters and nowadays are transported worldwide. There have also been numerous unintentional transportations through aquaculture, especially oysters, some of which have had dramatic consequences (see brief review in Radashevsky & Olivares 2005). Two spionids, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata and P. kempi japonica were reported as unintentionally introduced to the Pacific coast of United States along with the Pacific oysters Crassostrea gigas. The purpose of the present study during the RAS PICES-2010 in Oregon was to examine these species, collect specimens for molecular analysis, look for other possible introductions, and also examine native spionids to re-describe their morphology and reproductive biology. Collecting samples around Newport and examination of old materials deposited at the Hatfield Marine Center of the OSU brought for examination the following species: Boccardia claparedei (Kinberg, 1866) Boccardia proboscidea Hartman, 1940 Boccardiella hamata (Webster, 1879) Dipolydora brachycephala (Hartman, 1936) Dipolydora cardalia (E. Berkeley, 1927) Dipolydora quadrilobata (Jacobi, 1883) Dipolydora socialis (Schmarda, 1861) Polydora cornuta Bosc, 1802 Polydora limicola Annenkova, 1934 Polydora neocaeca Williams & Radashevsky, 1999 Prionospio delta Hartman, 1965 Prionospio lighti (Maciolek, 1985) Pseudopolydora bassarginensis (Zachs, 1933) Pseudopolydora kempi japonica Imajima & Hartman, 1964 Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata (Okuda, 1937) Pygospio californica Hartman, 1936 Pygospio elegans Claparède, 1863 Rhynchospio arenincola Hartman, 1936 Rhynchospio foliosa Imajima, 1991 Scolelepis alaskensis (Treadwell, 1914) Spio butleri Berkeley & Berkeley, 1954 Streblospio benedicti Webster, 1879 Three of these species, Boccardia claparedei (Kinberg, 1866), Pseudopolydora bassarginensis (Zachs, 1933) and Rhynchospio foliosa Imajima, 1991 have never been reported from Oregon and may be considered as new records of non-indigenous species. What makes better taxonomy? Leslie Harris Polychaete Section, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, USA, 90007 E-mail: lharris@nhm.org All non-indigenous species (NIS) programs rest on the bedrock of species identifications for the assessments of their native, cryptogenic, or non-indigenous origins. Millions of dollars are spent on detection, prevention, control, and eradication programs. The economic damage of wide spread invasive species is likely to reach into the billions of dollars. Major impacts of large, charismatic marine introductions (such as green crabs, European fan worms, lionfish, and tunicates) are widely recognized. However, the smaller and more diverse species of polychaetes crustaceans and mollusks are likely to exert greater greater ecosystem effects but are seldom identified. There are many examples of well-established NIS that are at first mis-identified as natives or cryptogenic species before closer examination revealed they are introduced. These problems stem from poor access to taxonomic training, inadequate literature, lack of support, and poor communication between taxonomists. What's needed is enhanced exchange of information between regional and international taxonomists, both morphological and molecular methods of identification for cryptic species, and a greater reliance on previously verified specimens.  Voucher collections are essential as is their being made accessible by museum deposition with their locations included as part of the ecological literature. Green crab (Carcinus maenas) assessment in Yaquina Bay, Oregon (18-21 October 2010) Sylvia B. Yamada1, Graham Gillespie2 and Katie Marko3 1Zoology Department, 3029 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331-2914, USA. E-mail: yamadas@science.oregonstate.edu 2Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, 3190 Hammond Bay Road Nanaimo, BC  V9T 6N7, Canada. E-mail: Gillespie, Graham.Gillespie@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 3US Environmental Protection Agency, 2111 Marine Science Drive, Newport Oregon 97365 We assessed the abundance of Carcinus maenas in Yaquina Bay, Oregon using minnow traps in the high intertidal for young-of-the-year crabs and folding Fukui fish traps for large adults. The Fukui traps were deployed from a boat at high tide using long lines (as done in British Columbia) and along the shore at low tide (as done in Oregon). We used the two trapping methods simultaneously at two sites to allow us to compare the catch per unit effort (CPUE). Catches of Carcinus maenas were: 0.03 young-of-the-year-crabs per trap per day using 30 minnow traps, 0.09, large adult crabs, using 31 intertidal Fukui traps and 0.04, large adult crabs, using 24 Fukui traps on long lines. The average CPUE of 6 green crabs per 100 traps compares well with the CPUE we have observed in Oregon over the past few years. The native crabs, Cancer magister (CPUE= 5.1) and Cancer productus (CPUE= 0.8) were at least one order of magnitude more abundant than Carcinus maenas. These preliminary results suggest that the trapping methods used in British Columbia and Oregon compare favorably. No green crabs were caught by either method around the pump house at Hatfield Marine Science Center while both methods caught one green crab at Idaho Point. Catches of native crabs were higher using the long lines, but these differences were not statistically significant. Habitat differences between beaches in British Columbia (smaller silty estuaries in fjords) and Oregon (large sandy coastal bays) and differing crab communities (C. magister and C. productus are very abundant in Oregon while C. gracilis is the most common cancrid on British Columbia estuaries where C. maenas are abundant) define different niches for green crabs in the two areas. Thus the sampling methods used in each investigation are appropriate and abundance estimates comparable. More comparisons of the two methods are needed where or when abundances of Carcinus maenas are greater. Symposium and workshop (Appendix C) The 2010 Oregon RAS workshop and symposium of 12 minute talks by the participants during the survey facilitated exchange, cooperation and cross training opportunities on non-indigenous species issues in the north Pacific including: 1) Atlas of nonindigenous marine and estuarine species in the North Pacific; 2) Invasions, island biogeography and human welfare; 3) Spionidae 4) Introduced Seaweeds - elucidation of invasion by molecular data; 5) Distribution of Orthione griffenis Markham, 2004 (Crustacea: Isopoda) in Japan; 6) What makes better taxonomy?; 7) Didemnum vexillum in New Zealand and other tunicate news; 8) Taxonomical confusion between the direct development polychaete Hediste limnicola distributed in Washington and Oregon estuaries. Appendix C 2010 PICES - RAS SPECIAL PROJECTS The Oregon PICES Rapid Assessment Survey for Introduced Seaweeds and Seagrasses Gayle Hansen and Takeaki Hanyuda 1Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon; 2Kobe University Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe, Japan). Macrobenthic marine algae (seaweeds), phytoplankton, and seagrasses are the primary producers of our bays and estuaries. These species provide food, oxygen, shelter and support for invertebrates and fish. The attached forms, particularly the benthic algae and seagrasses, bind the sediment helping to prevent erosion. If pervasive introduced algal or seagrass species were to spread in our estuaries, the damages could be severe, completely altering the ecosystem as we know it. To assay for these introductions, we concentrated on the seaweeds and seagrasses for our part of the RAS. Our study involved: (1) collecting individual specimens by hand, (2) pressing voucher specimens on paper, (3) preserving specimens in formalin or silica gel, (4) examining the specimens with a compound microscope for basic identification, and (5) carrying out genetic analyses for identification and confirmation of the more difficult species. We joined the RAS team in examining the settling plates that had been placed in Yaquina and Coos Bay earlier. We found 18 species of seaweed and 1 seagrass on these plates. We were particularly surprised to find the tiny Antithamnionella spirographidis so widespread on the plates. In Yaquina Bay, we also collected the sand flats at HMSC and Idaho Point. Here we found the typical seaweeds and seagrasses of the Bay, including Ulva linza, Gracilaria pacifica, Porphyra rediviva, Zostera marina, and Zostera japonica. In Coos Bay, we collected only at the small and large boat docks in Charleston. These floating docks yielded 36 species, including several cryptic Ulva species that could be identified only with molecular techniques. Our last collection was at the Triangle near Umpqua Bay. We reached this oyster cultivation site late in the day, but we were still able to obtain 9 native and 1 introduced high intertidal species from the breakwater at this site. Of the 54 species we identified during the survey, 6 species were clearly introduced. In Yaquina Bay, where we sampled only the sand flats, we found only 1 introduction: Zostera japonica filled the area around Idaho Point. Known to be in Oregon since the 1940’s, this invasive seagrass was not discovered in Yaquina Bay until 1976. At Idaho Point, we also found quantities of drifting unattached “green tide” algae, species of the genus Ulva. Many of these species are considered cryptogenic in origin but, through molecular study, may eventually be found to be introduced. In Coos Bay, we sampled only the floating docks, sites well-known to have introductions brought in by boat fouling. Here we found the 5 other introductions. The Coos Bay introductions included: Sargassum muticum, a well known invader first reported from the Bay in 1947; Ceramium kondoi and, Ceramium cimbricum, noted as new to Oregon in 2002 by Cho et al.; Polysiphonia brodiei, first collected in this state by GH in 1998; and Ulva pertusa, a cryptic species new to Oregon revealed by TH using molecular methods (ITS and rbcL sequences). Interestingly, all 6 of these introductions were initially misidentified as other species. It wasn’t until additional detailed morphological and/or molecular study took place could we be certain of their identities and introduced status. Our complete list of seaweed and seagrass species is attached below. Although not a complete survey for Oregon, the RAS study gave us the opportunity to observe our common bay inhabiting species and to detect the more important seaweed and seagrass introductions in this area. Moreover, it provided the opportunity for GH and TH to work together to use both morphology and molecular methods to investigate the cryptic and often difficult to identify species of Ulva, the major cause of green tides in this area. References Abbott, I. A. and G. J. Hollenberg. 1976. Marine Algae of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 827 pp. Bayer, R. D. 1996. Macrophyton and tides at Yaquina Estuary, Lincoln County, Oregon. Journal of Oregon Ornithology 6: 781-795. Cho, T. O., S. M. Boo, and G. I. Hansen. 2002. Structure and reproduction of the genus Ceramium (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) from Oregon, USA. Phycologia 40: 547-571. Gabrielson, P. W., T. B. Widdowson, and S. C. Lindstrom. 2006. Keys to the Seaweeds and Seagrasses of southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. Phycological Contribution Number 7, Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 209 pp. Guiry, M.D. & G. M. Guiry. 2010. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. http://www.algaebase.org; searched on 09 November 2010 Hansen, G. I. 1997. A revised checklist and preliminary assessment of the macrobenthic marine algae and seagrasses of Oregon. Pp. 175-200. In T. Kaye, A. Liston, R. Love, D. Luoma, R. Meinke, and M. Wilson, eds. Conservation and Management of Native Flora and Fungi. Native Plant Society of Oregon, Corvallis, Oregon. Harrison, P. G., and R. E. Bigley. 1982. The recent introduction of the seagrass Zostera japonica Aschers. and Graebn. to the Pacific coast of North America. Canadian J. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 1642-1648. Scagel, R. F. 1956. Introduction of a Japanese alga, Sargassum muticum, into the Northeast Pacific. Washington Department of fisheries, Fisheries Research Papers 1: 1-10. Current taxonomical confusion on the direct development polychaete Hediste limnicola distributed in Washington and Oregon estuaries and Toshio Furota5 and Hiroaki Toshuji5 5Faculty of Science, Kagoshima University, Japan We (H. Toshji and T. Furota) collected Hediste spp. from several estuaries between southern Pudget Sound near Olympia to Yaquima river in October 2009 and have preliminary results of DNA analysis and gonad character observation on the worms. Methods PCR products were generated by Japan native H. diadroma-specific primer set in 59 individuals of 70 individuals. However, this primer set is effective only for Japanese Hediste, because we have no genetic information for H. limnicola that native to the west coast of North America. Therefore, only by the results of the DNA analysis, Hediste worms collected in Washington and Oregon estuaries in 2009 cannot be decided as H. diadroma. Developmental and morphological characteristics were also observed. Results 1. Some individuals were spawned only eggs but not sperms. Is there a dioecious H. limnicola? 2. Epitokeous chaetae were added in some individuals. It’s a feature of H. diadroma, but the presence in H. limnicola is uncertain. 3. Chromosome number of some individuals were 2n=28. Our data from H. limnicola collected in California was 2n=26. That differentiation occurs between local populations in the west coast? Preliminary conclusion Hediste limnicola and H. diadroma are morphologically indistinguishable. There is a large possibility that H. diadroma populations in Washington and Oregon estuaries has mixed with eastern Pacific H. diadroma. Non-indigenous Ascidians in Coos Bay, the Umpqua Triangle and Yaquina Bay PICES Rapid Assessment Survey Oct. 18-21, 2010 Gretchen Lambert9 and Charles Lambert9 9University of Washington Friday Harbor Labs, Friday Harbor WA http://depts.washington.edu/ascidian/ Introductions of ascidian species seem to fall on a north-south gradient. Four introduced species are currently known in Alaska, three of them new records just in the past two years. In Puget Sound we have found seven introduced species; in San Francisco Bay nine and in southern California 15 (see references at end of this report). 1. Didemnum vexillum common, though not yet abundant, at Coos Bay Charleston small boat harbor. Also apparently common in the Triangle. Not found at any additional sites yet, but frequent monitoring should be carried out. Larvae have been found in colonies at both sites. D. vexillum is apparently still absent from Yaquina Bay. 2. Molgula citrina abundant in the Triangle, only the second known site in the N. Pacific of this N. Atlantic species, the first record being May 2008 in Alaska (Lambert et al. In press). Nearly all individuals collected from the Triangle are mature, with brooded larvae. This is a small species, 1-2 cm in size, and not likely to cause any problems to aquaculture even in large numbers. 3. The non-native colonials Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides violaceus have been around for 30+ years and are still abundant especially in the Coos Bay small boat harbor. Both species are very widespread from southern California to British Columbia, and B. violaceus further north into Alaska (Lambert and Sanamyan 2001). They do not appear to cause any problems. 4. The non-native Molgula manhattensis is abundant at the Coos Bay city dock most of the time, including right now. During periods of heavy rain it can get wiped out (as during spring 2004) but pockets of individuals apparently can persist because this area can quickly repopulate. 5. The non-native Styela clava is common at the Coos Bay small boat harbor, where it has been present since 1993 (Richard Emlet and Amy Moran in Carlton 2003). 6. The native Corella inflata, abundant in Washington and north through British Columbia and Alaska, only appeared in large numbers in Oregon during the past few years, and is now abundant in the Coos Bay Charleston small boat harbor. The reasons for its recent appearance are unknown, and we are not sure whether to call it a new introduction or a range extension southward. References: Abbott, D. P. and Trason, W. B. 1968. Two new colonial ascidians from the west coast of North America. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 67: 143-154. Bullard, S. G., Lambert, G., Carman, M. R., Byrnes, J., Whitlatch, R. B., Ruiz, G., Miller, R. J., Harris, L., Valentine, P. C., Collie, J. S., Pederson, J., McNaught, D. C., Cohen, A. N., Asch, R. G., Dijkstra, J. and Heinonen, K. 2007. The colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. A: current distribution, basic biology, and potential threat to marine communities of the northeast and west coasts of North America. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 342: 99-108. Cohen, A., Mills, C., Berry, H., Wonham, M., Bingham, B., Bookheim, B., Carlton, J., Chapman, J., Cordell, J., Harris, L., Klinger, T., Kohn, A., Lambert, C., Lambert, G., Li, K., Secord, D. and Toft, J. 1998. Report of the Puget Sound Expedition Sept. 8-16, 1998; A Rapid Assessment Survey of Non-indigenous Species in the Shallow Waters of Puget Sound. Wash. State Dept. Nat. Res., Olympia, WA. 37 pp., Cohen, A. N., Berry, H. D., Mills, C. E., Milne, D., Britton-Simmons, K., Wonham, M. J., Secord, D. L., Barkas, J. A., Bingham, B., Bookheim, B. E., Byers, J. E., Chapman, J. W., Cordell, J. R., Dumbauld, B., Fukuyama, A., Harris, L. H., Kohn, A. J., Li, K., Mumford, T. F. J., Radashevsky, V., Sewell, A. T. and Welch, K. 2001. Washington state exotics expedition 2000: a rapid survey of exotic species in the shallow waters of Elliott Bay, Totten and Eld Inlets, and Willapa Bay. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources Nearshore Habitat Program, Olympia. 47 pp. Lambert, C. C. and Lambert, G. 1998. Non-indigenous ascidians in southern California harbors and marinas. Mar. Biol. 130: 675-688. Lambert, C. C. and Lambert, G. 2003. Persistence and differential distribution of nonindigenous ascidians in harbors of the Southern California Bight. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 259: 145-161. Lambert, G. 2007. The nonindigenous ascidian Molgula ficus in California. Cah. Biol. Mar. 48: 95-102. Lambert, G. 2009. Adventures of a sea squirt sleuth: unraveling the identity of Didemnum vexillum, a global ascidian invader. Aquatic Invasions 4: 5-28. Lambert, G. and Sanamyan, K. 2001. Distaplia alaskensis sp. nov. (Ascidiacea, Aplousobranchia) and other new ascidian records from south-central Alaska, with a redescription of Ascidia columbiana (Huntsman, 1912). Can. J. Zool. 79: 1766-1781. Lambert, G., Shenkar, N. and Swalla, B. J. 2010. First Pacific record of the north Atlantic ascidian Molgula citrina – bioinvasion or circumpolar distribution? Aquatic Invasions 5 (4): in press. Lambert, G. and Lambert C. C. 2007. Washington State 2006 survey for invasive tunicates with records from previous surveys. Final report June 19, 2006; amended Jan. 2007. The blink effect and probabilities of discovering new native relative to new and previously undescribed bopyrid isopod introductions to the northeast and northwest Pacific John W. Chapman1, Gyo Itani 2, John Markham3 1 Dept. Fisheries & Wildlife; Oregon State University; Hatfield Marine Science Center; 2030 SE Marine Science Dr.; Newport, OR 97365-5296, USA John.Chapman@OregonState.Edu 2Laboratory of Marine Symbiotic Biology, Faculty of Education, Kochi University 2-5-1 Akebono, Kochi 780-8520, Japan 3Arch Cape Marine Laboratory, Arch Cape, Oregon 97102-0133, USA A universal criterion for recognizing introduced species is their new appearances where never seen before. Just as the “blink” of moving planet reveals them as they appear and disappear in sequential images containing millions of stationary, constantly illuminated stars, newly arriving species in taxonomically explored regions “blink” against the constant background of previously known species. The blink effect of introductions however, depends on the completeness of taxonomic exploration where they arrive. New native species and newly arriving introduced species (whether they were previously known or not) can be indistinguishable in taxonomically unexplored systems. The probability that a new to science species in a region is introduced rather native, PIN, is a ratio of unreported species remaining in the region, Unep, relative to the number of unreported species that could be introduced to the region, Ua, where, PIN = Ua / (Unep + Ua). Obviously, the actual numbers of unknown species among regions, Ua and Unep, are unknowable. However, the proportions of undescribed East Asian species relative to western North American species can be estimated from the relative rates of new species being discovered. Markham (1992, 2001) noted relatively low bopyrid species numbers and low species diversities per decapod host occurred in the eastern Pacific relative to other regions by the early 1990s. In contrast, S. M. Shiino’s prolific discoveries of new Japanese bopyrid species resulted in a sinuate deviation in the accumulation of species between 1933 and 1974 (Chapman et al., Submitted) and Saito et al. (2000) included 5 “preliminary” (likely undescribed) species in their list of Japanese Bopyridae (Chapman et al., loc. cit.). An et al.’s (2009) discovery of 4 new bopyridan species from among 8 new records of Chinese mud shrimp further indicates that Japan is a conservative subsample of Asian bopyridan diversity. Consistent with this discrepant pattern of species discoveries on opposite sides of the North Pacific, thirteen western North American taxonomists described 0.11 new bopyrid species per year in 22 publications since 1850 (Markham 1992, 2001, 2008) while 14 resident Japanese or visiting taxonomists described 1.02 Japanese bopyrid per year in 37 publications since 1895 (Figure 3). The similar numbers of taxonomists were likely to have contributed similar research efforts. However, annual discovery rates of new Japanese bopyrid species relative to eastern Pacific species (Figure 3), was 1.02 and 0.11, respectively. Since, 1.02/0.11 = 9.3, new Japanese bopyrid species were discovered 9.3 times faster than eastern Pacific species with similar efforts. If all undescribed North Pacific bopyrids were equally likely to appear in the northeast Pacific, the probability that an undescribed northeast Pacific bopyrid is also introduced to the region, PIN, would therefore be, approximately: 9.3 / (1 + 9.3) = 0.9 or, 90%. The probability of any given introduced species to the eastern North Pacific being also a new species to science may be low. However, the probability of a new northeastern Pacific bopyridan being also a new species to science depends on how many native northeastern Pacific bopyridans remain undiscovered and how many new to science bopyridan species are likely to be introduced. Since species of all major taxa appear to be vulnerable to introduction, introductions can be predicted from direct counts or invasion rates over time. From direct counts, approximately 10% of the 3,500 shallow water marine invertebrates reported on the central California to Oregon coast (Carlton 2007) are introduced (Carlton, personal observation, Chapman personal observation). Therefore, no less than 10% of the new shallow water species discovered on the northeastern Pacific coast are likely to be introduced. Thus, without prior knowledge, no less than 1.8 of the 18 northeast Pacific bopyrid isopods (Chapman et al., Submitted) might be expected to be introduced. From introduction rates, a new introduced species is discovered in San Francisco Bay every 14 weeks and the rate of new introductions is increasing (Cohen and Carlton 1998). Thus, at least 52/14 = 3.7 species invade the northeastern Pacific every year and introductions increase the 3,500 shallow water marine species of the region, including bopyrids, by at least 1% every decade. Among the 17 northeastern Pacific bopyrids, the minimum chance of an eastern Pacific bopyrid introduction each decade is therefore, 0.01*17 = 0.17 or, 17%. Since discoveries of new eastern Pacific bopyids are likely to decline from the previous 1.1 per decade, the minimum chance that a newly discovered northeastern Pacific bopyrid is an introduced species depends on introduction rates relative to new species description rates. The minimum introduction to species description rate and is thus, 0.17/(1.1+ 0.17) = 0.13 or, 13% per decade. Averaging the per count and per rate estimates, the odds of an introduced bopyrid species being discovered on the western North American coast in the last three decades were (1-(.17+0.13)/2)3 < 0.61. Since most undescribed North Pacific bopyrids are in Asia, the odds of the next new bopyrid species being from Asia rather than from North America is therefore no less than, 1.02/(0.11+1.02) = 0.90, or 90%. Assuming that a new and large native bopyrid, such as O. griffenis (Chapman et al., Submitted), was highly unlikely to be found on the northeastern Pacific coast in the last three decades, the odds that such a large new to science bopryidan was also an introduction from elsewhere rather than a new native species from North America was at least 0.61 * 0.90 = 0.55 or 55%, and thus, by this criterion, more likely than not. Such estimates of North American introductions to Asia are less reliable due to the earlier stages of taxonomic exploration there. However, introduced species that are also undescribed arriving in regions that remain poorly resolved taxonomically fail to blink and are thus particularly difficult to identify. The lower taxonomic resolution of Asian marine coastal ecosystems relative to the northeastern Pacific may thus contribute to the lack of reported Asian introductions relative to eastern Pacific systems. References An J, Williams JD, and Yu H (2009) The Bopyridae (Crustacea: Isopoda) parasitic on thalassinideans (Crustacea: Decapoda) from China. Proc Biol Soc Washington 122:225-246. Chapman, J. W., B. R. Dumbauld, G. Itani and J. C. Markham Submitted. The unnatural history of Orthione griffenis (Isopoda: Bopyridae) in North America, Biological Invasions 33 pp. Cohen, A. N. and J. T. Carlton 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555-558. Markham J. C. 1992. The Isopoda Bopyridae of the eastern Pacific - Missing or just hiding? Proc San Diego Soc Nat Hist 17:1-4. Markham, J. C. 2001. A review of the bopyrid isopods parasitic on thalassinidean decapods. In B. Kensley, B. and R. C. Brusca (eds.) Isopod systematics and evolution, Crust Issues 13:195-204. Markham J. C. 2008. New records of pseudionine bopyrid isopods, including two new species and one new genus, infesting porcellanid crabs (Decapoda: Anomura) on the Pacific coast of North and Central America. Bull Sth California Acad Sci 107: 145-157. Saito, N., G. Itani and N. Nunomura 2000. A preliminary checklist of isopod crustaceans in Japan. Bull Toyama Sci Mus 3:11-107.  Appendix D Oregon Survey Outreach Press releases organized by Mark Floyd, News and Research Communications, Oregon State University, 416 Kerr Administration Bldg., Corvallis, Oregon 97331, 541-737-4611 http://www.newportnewstimes.com/view_xml_entity.php?id=Ar00101&date=10-20-2010-1&bodyInfo=false&entity=article&toc_id=431 http://gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_52509e68-d883-11df-b942-001cc4c002e0.html?print=1 http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2010/oct/international-scientists-conduct-%E2%80%9Crapid-assessment%E2%80%9D-survey-oregon-estuaries Deliverables State, national and international public out reach are particularly important for this survey. Which was reported by at least three media venues (above). An electronic version of this report will be posted on the OSU Scholars Archive (and or Sea Grant list of publications, if warranted). A preliminary report will be submitted for PICES and RAS participant review by 30 November 2010 and a summary report will be posted by 15 December 2010. Major findings will be presented at the 2011 Working Group 21 PICES meeting in Russia and submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. State, national and international public out reach are particularly important for this survey. PAGE 48 EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s A EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s A B