Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:09:40.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Guess who arrived in the western tropical Atlantic? Microcosmus squamiger (Ascidiacea: Pyuridae) records on the Brazilian coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2024

Paulo Cezar Azevedo Silva*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia e Dinâmica Bêntica Marinha, Departamento de Ciências, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 24435-005, São Gonçalo, RJ, Brazil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Oceanografia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 20550-013 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Luis Felipe Skinner
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia e Dinâmica Bêntica Marinha, Departamento de Ciências, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 24435-005, São Gonçalo, RJ, Brazil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Oceanografia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 20550-013 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Rosana Moreira Rocha
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Sistemática e Ecologia de Invertebrados Marinhos, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná. 81531-980 Curitiba, PR, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Paulo Cezar Azevedo Silva; Email: bio.paulo.a@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Microcosmus squamiger, an ascidian with high invasion potential, is recorded for the first time in the Brazilian western Atlantic, between Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo. The species was found near ports and marinas, and its introduction may have been favoured by intense nautical activity and climatic events such as La Niña. Coexistence with Microcosmus exasperatus, a morphologically similar species, was observed in all localities where M. squamiger was recorded. This discovery implies that a more rigorous process of species identification is necessary during monitoring activities, given that both species can be easily confused (only the syphon spinules differentiate them) and M. exasperatus is widely distributed with collection records dating back more than half a century on the Brazilian coast. The preference of M. squamiger for colder waters suggests that researchers in the Southeast and South Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina should closely monitor the arrival and possible environmental impacts of this species. The identification of M. squamiger in locations close to bivalve mariculture areas in Rio de Janeiro raises concern, as the species has the potential to compete with bivalves. This study highlights the importance of continuing to monitor the potential spread and the implications of the introduction of M. squamiger into Brazilian waters, as well as its relationship with M. exasperatus, a species already established in this same region.

Type
Marine Record
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

Introduction

Globalized maritime trade has facilitated the transport of numerous species through fouling on ship hulls or floating platforms (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Simard, Robichaud, Martin and Therriault2014), enabling the establishment of non-native species outside their natural distribution range (Lambert, Reference Lambert, Sawada, Yokosawa and Lambert2001; Marins et al., Reference Marins, Novaes, Rocha and Junqueira2010). On such vectors, sessile benthic species gain an opportunity to disperse over long distances and different marine environments as adults (Dias et al., Reference Dias, Rocha, Godwin, Tovar Hernández, Delahoz, Mckirdy and Snow2016), which generates significant environmental and economic implications (Lins and Rocha, Reference Lins and Rocha2020; Pires-Teixeira et al., Reference Pires-Teixeira, Neres-Lima and Creed2021). Ascidians can demonstrate a remarkable capacity for tolerance to wide variations in temperature, salinity, and high levels of pollution (Rocha et al., Reference Rocha, Castellano and Freire2017). This highlights the susceptibility of regions located in areas of intense maritime activity to the introduction of non-native species (Lins et al., Reference Lins, Marco, Andrade and Rocha2018). Ascidians have gained increasing recognition as prominent invaders in marine ecosystems, being able to compete effectively with other sessile organisms and potentially disrupting ecosystem functioning in various ways (Zhan et al., Reference Zhan, Briski, Bock, Ghabooli and MacIsaac2015).

Microcosumus squamiger Michaelsen 1927 was described from Australia and recent genetic studies considered it a native species of this region, where populations have the greatest local genetic variability and a significantly higher number of unique haplotypes (Rius et al., Reference Rius, Pascual and Turon2008). Its occurrence is associated with calm and shallow habitats close to the coast. In the last 20 years, this species has been identified in several parts of the world, including the Pacific coast of North America (Lambert and Lambert, Reference Lambert and Lambert2003), South Africa (Monniot et al., Reference Monniot, Monniot, Griffiths and Schleyer2001; Holman et al., Reference Holman, Parker-Nance, Bruyn, Creer, Carvalho and Rius2022), the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean Sea (Turon et al., Reference Turon, Nishikawa and Rius2007), the Tyrrhenian Sea (Mastrototaro and Dappiano, Reference Mastrototaro and Dappiano2008), the Eastern Aegean Sea (Önen, Reference Önen2021), and South Korea (Bae et al., Reference Bae, Lee, Kim and Yi2022) indicating the notable dispersal capability of this species. Due to this dispersal capability and its ability to colonize both natural and artificial substrates, M. squamiger has been identified as an exceptional model for studies on the dispersal and establishment of invasive species (Rius et al., Reference Rius, Pineda and Turon2009; Ordóñez et al., Reference Ordóñez, Pascual, Rius and Turon2013).

Lins et al. (Reference Lins, Marco, Andrade and Rocha2018) predicted the arrival of M. squamiger to the South West Atlantic coast of the Americas and this study reports the first record of many individuals in a large stretch of the Brazilian coast. We present a morphological description of those individuals and discuss their spatial distribution and the environmental risk associated with their presence.

Methodology

The research was carried out from the southern coast of Bahia (SBA) – 16°24'S, down to the centre-west of the State of Rio de Janeiro (RJ) – 23°03'S (Figure 1). The region is characterized by the presence of coral reefs in the SBA, and the abundance of rocky substrates in Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro. There is a marked change in the direction of the coast in Cabo Frio, RJ, which favours a seasonal upwelling of the South Atlantic Central Water (SACW) during the austral summer (Andrade and Dominguez, Reference Andrade and Dominguez2002; Coe and Carvalho, Reference Coe and Carvalho2013). Furthermore, these regions experience intense maritime traffic, especially within Ilha Grande Bay, RJ, and Tartaruga Bay, ES (ANTAQ, 2023; MARINETRAFFIC, 2023). During 2022 and 2023, collections were carried out at 25 locations (Table 1), both by free diving in places with depths less than 3 m and by SCUBA diving in places with depths greater than 3 m. Most collections took place on natural substrates, to inventory native species or those well adapted to local conditions.

Figure 1. Sampling locations of Microcosmus squamiger and Microcosmus exasperatus in the studied section of the Brazilian coast. (A and B) Rio de Janeiro, (C) Espírito Santo and (D) South Bahia. Check Table 1 for more information on locations.

Table 1. Information about the 25 locations investigated in Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Espírito Santo (ES), and Bahia (BA)

The numbers present in (ID) correspond to the localities in Figure 1. Substrate type refers to natural substrates (rocky reef (RR) and coral reef (CR)), and artificial ones (piers (P), shipwrecks (S), and breakwaters (B)). The abundance corresponds to the number of Microcosmus squamiger individuals collected at each location, and (-) indicates the absence of the species at the location

Microcosmus specimens were collected from substrates that included rocks, corals, and artificial structures such as shipwrecks and breakwaters. To ensure preservation and adequate analysis, the specimens were anaesthetized with menthol diluted in seawater at the time of collection and were subsequently transported to the laboratory, where they were fixed in 96% ethanol. The specimens were dissected and described using routine methods which also included mounting slides of the spinules present in the syphons for observation under an optical microscope (Zeiss Stemi 305), equipped with a digital camera (Zeiss Axiocam ERc 5s), and under scanning electron microscopy (JEOL-JSM-6390-LV) after the samples underwent dehydration in an alcohol concentration gradient (70%, 80%, 90% and 100%). Voucher specimens were deposited in the Zoology Collection of the Faculdade de Formação de Professores (CZFFP), part of the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ).

Results

A total of 36 M. squamiger individuals were collected, 18 in Rio de Janeiro (11 in Ilha Grande Bay and 7 between Cabo Frio and Rio das Ostras) and 18 in Espírito Santo, near Vitória/Vila Velha (Table 1). The specimens were collected from natural and artificial substrates.

Microcosmus squamiger Michaelsen, 1927

Material examined: CZFFP-607: 2 individuals, Araraquara Island, RJ, 06 July 2022; CZFFP-608: 4 individuals, Brandão Island, RJ, 06 July 2022; CZFFP-610: 3 individuals, Jorge Grego Island, RJ, 18 October 2022; CZFFP-609: 2 individuals, Lopes Mendes, RJ, 18 October 2022; CZFFP-612: 4 individuals, Comprida Island, RJ, 13 April 2022; CZFFP-611: 4 individuals, Coqueiros Island, RJ, 24 March 2023; CZFFP-613: 1 individual, Itatiaia Island, ES, 21 March 2023; CZFFP-615: 13 individuals, Sereia Beach, ES, 21 March 2023; CZFFP-614: 4 individuals, Tartaruga bay, ES, 20 March 2023.

Description: The animals were found in isolation or aggregations with encrusting algae and bryozoans growing on the tunic (Figure 2A). The animals range from 3 to 5 cm in diameter and are globular with a rigid and thick tunic. Externally, they are reddish brown while internally the tunic is purple. Some of this colour fades after preservation in ethanol. The body wall is beige, with well-separated apical syphons with similar diameters (Figure 2B, C). The syphons have small spinules (between 15–20 μm), shaped as ‘roof tiles’ or ‘fingernails’ with serrated edges (Figure 2G).

Figure 2. Microcosmus squamiger Michaelsen, 1927. (A) Three specimens in the natural environment forming clusters on Sereia beach (ES). (B) Dissected animal with oral tentacles and pharynx stained with methylene blue. (C) Animal removed from the tunic, making it possible to see the muscles. (D) Branched oral tentacle. (E) Dorsal tubercle with aperture in U with enrolled ends. (F) detail of the pharynx with stigmata and some parastigmatic vessels. (G) Syphon spinules of M. squamiger. (H) Syphon spinules of M. exasperatus, under a light microscope.

There are around 14–16 large branched oral tentacles and some smaller ones, all branched to the third order (Figure 2D). The dorsal tubercle is very prominent and large, with the opening forming two spiral loops in opposite directions, as described by Bae et al. (Reference Bae, Lee, Kim and Yi2022) (Figure 2E). The dorsal lamina is simple, with a smooth margin, and extends towards the oesophageal opening. The digestive tract is positioned on the left side, the stomach is covered by a brown digestive gland. The intestine is isodiametric and strongly adhered to the body wall, without endocarps, and the anus rim is smooth. Gonads are present on both sides, well adhered to the body wall, and divided into three lobes each, with short gonoducts. On the right side, the gonads are close to the endostyle. The pharynx has 8 to 10 folds on each side and 8 to 12 straight stigmata per mesh. Parastigmatic vessels are present (Figure 2B, F). The distribution of longitudinal vessels for a large individual is as follows: right side _ E 4 6 4 15 4 16 5 16 5 20 6 19 4 19 3 20 4 13 6 3 DL; left side _ DL 4 14 5 13 4 18 4 20 4 19 3 17 4 15 4 15 4 16 3 12 3 6 3 E.

The description of the specimens here is in agreement with the descriptions of Kott (Reference Kott1985) and Bae et al. (Reference Bae, Lee, Kim and Yi2022) and they were well differentiated from M. exasperatus that have larger, pointed syphon spinules (Figure 2H). The difference in these structures between both species is even more evident when viewed in scanning electron microscopy (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Images of the syphon spines of Microcosmus squamiger (A and C) and Microcosmus exasperatus (B and D) under scanning electron microscope.

Discussion

In this study, M. squamiger was recorded in approximately 46% of the locations investigated in the State of Rio de Janeiro. None of these locations were within or in direct proximity to ports or marinas. However, it is important to highlight that the areas chosen for investigation in Rio de Janeiro are strategically located on the route of intense international maritime and cabotage traffic, making them potential gateways for several exotic and invasive species (Castro et al., Reference Castro, Fileman and Hall-Spencer2017). In Espírito Santo (ES), specimens of M. squamiger were collected in locations adjacent to port and marina areas, which also increases the chance of finding exotic species (Clarke Murray et al., Reference Clarke Murray, Pakhomov and Therriault2011). In Southern Bahia (SBA), we did not find M. squamiger although Microcosmus exasperatus was recorded inhabiting the coral reefs (sites 23, 24, and 25 in Figure 1). In all locations where M. squamiger was documented, coexistence with M. exasperatus was observed. These two species share remarkable morphological similarities, with the main distinction being based on the shape and size of the spinules found in the syphons of both species (Mastrototaro and Dappiano, Reference Mastrototaro and Dappiano2008). While M. exasperatus exhibits larger spicules with a pointed shape, M. squamiger has smaller spicules, fewer in number, and with a conformation that resembles nails or shingles (Kott, Reference Kott1985). The subtlety of the morphological differences is the main reason these two species are confused with each other in different regions of the globe. It is important to highlight that the record of M. squamiger represents a recent and unprecedented introduction, not only in Brazilian waters but for the entire western Atlantic. This species had not been previously recorded by any of the research groups dedicated to Ascidiacea in Brazil, taking into account that research groups in Paraná and Rio de Janeiro have more than a decade of biological data in the region where this species was recently found. By 2010, surveys to the north (Rocha et al., Reference Rocha, Bonnet, Baptista and Beltramin2012) and neither to the south (Dias et al., Reference Dias, Rocha, Lotufo and Kremer2013) ever retrieved M. squamiger. On the other hand, M. exasperatus is considered a cryptogenic species in Brazil, with collection records dating back to more than half a century of presence on the Brazilian coast (Millar, Reference Millar1958). Two other species of Microcosmus have already been recorded for Brazil: M. helleri Herdman, 1881, which differs from M. squamiger mainly due to a lower number of pharyngeal folds (6 on each side) and the absence of spinules on the syphons, and M. anchylodeirus Traustedt, 1883, which differs in quantity, shape, and position of the gonads (Rocha et al., Reference Rocha, Bonnet, Baptista and Beltramin2012).

Detailed analyses of the life cycle of M. squamiger in the Mediterranean Sea indicate that this species is not particularly adapted to high water temperatures, with the optimum temperature for larvae varying between 20 and 25 °C, becoming unviable above 30 °C (Rius et al., Reference Rius, Pineda and Turon2009, Reference Rius, Clusella-Trullas, Mcquaid, Navarro, Griffiths, Matthee, Von Der Heyden and Turon2014). This might explain its absence in South Bahia, where the water temperature can exceed 27.5 °C in summer, reaching 31.4 °C in shallower reefs (PO.DAAC, 2023). We assume that the records of this species represent a recent introduction on the Brazilian coast, potentially facilitated by climatic events, such as the recent period of three consecutive years of La Niña (2020–23) (Fang et al., Reference Fang, Zheng, LI, Hu, Ren, Wu, Yuan, Fang, Cai and Zhu2023). This assumption is based on observations of expanded records of other ascidian species in the same region and during the same period, which might be influenced by a decrease in seawater temperature due to La Niña. For instance, the expanded occurrences of Rhodosoma turcicum (Savigny, 1816) and Cnemidocarpa irene (Hartmeyer, 1906), species originating or predominantly occurring in the Western Indo-Pacific Ocean (Nishikawa, Reference Nishikawa1992; Monniot and Monniot, Reference Monniot and Monniot1994) were observed (Barboza and Skinner, Reference Barboza and Skinner2021). Additionally, that study has also registered Ciona robusta Hoshino & Tokioka, 1967, which had not been found in the Ilha Grande Bay region since 2016 despite continuous monitoring. It is important to highlight that such climatic events, with global repercussions, have the potential to affect population dynamics and directly influence the distribution and survival capacity of benthic and pelagic species (Paes and Moraes, Reference Paes and Moraes2007; Wernberg et al., Reference Wernberg, Smale, Tuya, Thomsen, Langlois, Bettignies, Bennett and Rousseaux2012).

The presence of M. squamiger in many sites on natural substrates in a large stretch of coast suggests a fast spread of this species and raises concern about the potential impact of the population expansion of this invasive ascidian. Except for Sereia Beach, in Espírito Santo, local abundance now is low, probably as a result of the initial phase of establishment or non-ideal environment conditions, or both. Additionally, the presence of M. squamiger in the Baía da Ilha Grande (Figure 1A) raises concerns about population expansion because this region presents several areas designated for mariculture. M. squamiger has been reported in other locations as a potential competitor of bivalves, as well as colonizing aquaculture structures such as ropes and cages, thus increasing production costs due to maintenance (Rodriguez and Ibarra-Obando, Reference Rodriguez and Ibarra-Obando2008; Rius et al., Reference Rius, Pineda and Turon2009; Chebbi et al., Reference Chebbi, Mastrototaro and Missaoui2010; Ali et al., Reference Ali, Tamilselvi and Sivakumar2014). Its presence in mariculture facilities could allow its spread through secondary introductions outside the regions where the species was initially found, as observed for other species (Lins and Rocha, Reference Lins and Rocha2023). Lins et al. (Reference Lins, Marco, Andrade and Rocha2018) predicted the arrival of M. squamiger on the southwest coast of the Atlantic at latitudes higher than those studied here; thus, we anticipate observing a distribution expansion towards the south. Another outcome could be the disappearance of the species or its limitation to greater depths as a consequence of the predicted El Niño 2023–2024 (NOAA, 2023), because strong El Niños in the past have raised the sea surface temperature in the Ilha Grande Bay to 33 °C (Barboza and Skinner, Reference Barboza and Skinner2021). Therefore, we recommend that researchers and managers in the states south of Rio de Janeiro, as well as Uruguay and Argentina, remain vigilant regarding the arrival, expansion, and potential environmental impacts associated with the presence of this species in the natural environment.

Data

The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgements

Authors thanks to Coral Vivo network for field assistance and full access to its facilities, to Plataforma de Microscopia Eletrônica Rudolf Barth - Fiocruz, and to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author contributions

PCAS: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft.

LFS: Formal analysis, Project administration, Resources, Writing – Review and editing.

RMR: Formal analysis, Writing – Review and editing.

Financial support

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001; Grant CNPQ 306788/2022-5; by FAPERJ – Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Process SEI-260003/015490/2021 and E-26/210.444/2021); and by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – Brasil (CNPq, 306788/2022-5).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical standards

All samples were collected following Brazilian environmental laws and animal welfare guidelines for anaesthesia and sacrifice, adhering to best practices. This study was conducted under the ICMBio Licenses #36194-9 and #87660-1, and INEA License #016/2022.

References

Ali, H, Tamilselvi, M and Sivakumar, V (2014) Non-indigenous ascidians in VO Chidambaram port, Thoothukudi, India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43, 21472157.Google Scholar
Andrade, ACS and Dominguez, JML (2002) Informações geológico-geomorfológicas como subsídios à análise ambiental: o exemplo da planície costeira de Caravelas - Bahia. Boletim Paranaense de Geociências 51, 917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ANTAQ (2023) Relatório Anual da Agência Nacional de Transportes Aquaviários 2022. Brasília, DF: ANTAQ. Available at [https://www.gov.br/antaq/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/prestacao_de_contas/relatorio-de-gestao/relatorio_de_gestao_2022___v-final.pdf]. (accessed 26 December 2023).Google Scholar
Bae, S, Lee, SH, Kim, JM and Yi, CH (2022) First record of the invasive ascidian Microcosmus squamiger Michaelsen, 1927 (Ascidiacea: Pyuridae) in Jeju Island, South Korea. BioInvasions Records 11, 937946. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2022.11.4.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barboza, DF and Skinner, LF (2021) The spread of the introduced ascidians Ciona robusta Hoshino & Tokioka, 1967 and Rhodosoma turcicum (Savigny, 1816) in the southwestern Atlantic. Ocean and Coastal Research 69, e21001. https://doi.org/10.1590/2675-2824069.20-303dfbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, MCT, Fileman, TW and Hall-Spencer, JM (2017) Invasive species in the Northeastern and Southwestern Atlantic Ocean: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 116, 4147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chebbi, N, Mastrototaro, F and Missaoui, H (2010) Spatial distribution of ascidians in two Tunisian lagoons of the Mediterranean Sea. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 51, 117.Google Scholar
Clarke Murray, C, Pakhomov, EA and Therriault, TW (2011) Recreational boating: a large unregulated vector transporting marine invasive species. Diversity and Distributions 17, 11611172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe, HHG and Carvalho, CN (2013) Cabo Frio - um enclave semiárido no litoral úmido do estado do Rio de Janeiro: respostas do clima atual e da vegetação pretérita. GEOUSP Espaço e Tempo 17, 136152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, GM, Rocha, RM, Lotufo, TMC and Kremer, LP (2013) Fifty years of ascidian biodiversity research in São Sebastião, Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93, 273282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, J, Rocha, RM, Godwin, S, Tovar Hernández, MA, Delahoz, M, Mckirdy, S and Snow, M (2016) Investigating the cryptogenic status of the sea squirt Didemnum perlucidum (Tunicata, Ascidiacea) in Australia based on a molecular study of its global distribution. Aquatic Invasions 11, 239245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, X, Zheng, F, LI, K, Hu, ZZ, Ren, H, Wu, J, Yuan, Y, Fang, L, Cai, Q and Zhu, J (2023) Will the historic southeasterly wind over the equatorial Pacific in March 2022 trigger a third-year La Niña event? Advances in Atmospheric Science 40, 613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-2147-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, MA, Simard, N, Robichaud, DD, Martin, JL and Therriault, TW (2014) Fouling around: vessel sea-chests as a vector for the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. Management of Biological Invasions 5, 2130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2014.5.1.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, LE, Parker-Nance, S, Bruyn, M, Creer, S, Carvalho, G and Rius, M (2022) Managing human-mediated range shifts: understanding spatial, temporal and genetic variation in marine non-native species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377, 20210025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kott, P (1985) The Australian Ascidiacea part 1, phlebobranchia and stolidobranchia. Memoires of the Queensland Museum 23, 1440.Google Scholar
Lambert, G (2001) A global overview of ascidian introductions and their possible impact on the endemic fauna. In Sawada, H, Yokosawa, H and Lambert, CC (eds), The Biology of Ascidians, Section 4 - Taxonomy and Ecology. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, pp. 249257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, CC and Lambert, G (2003) Persistence and differential distribution of nonindigenous ascidians in harbors of the Southern California Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series 259, 145161. doi: 10.3354/meps259145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lins, DM and Rocha, RM (2020) Cultivated brown mussel (Perna perna) size is reduced through the impact of three invasive fouling species in southern Brazil. Aquatic Invasions 15, 114126. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2020.15.1.08CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lins, DM and Rocha, RM (2023) Marine aquaculture as a source of propagules of invasive fouling species. PeerJ 11, e15456. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lins, DM, Marco, JRP, Andrade, AF and Rocha, RM (2018) Predicting global ascidian invasions. Diversity and Distributions 24, 692704. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARINETRAFFIC (2023) MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence. Available at https://www.marinetraffic.com/. (accessed 26 December 2023).Google Scholar
Marins, FO, Novaes, RL, Rocha, RM and Junqueira, AO (2010) Non indigenous ascidians in port and natural environments in a tropical Brazilian bay. Zoologia 27, 213221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastrototaro, F and Dappiano, M (2008) New record of the non-indigenous species Microcosmus squamiger (Ascidiacea: Stolidobranchia) in the harbour of Salerno (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Marine Biodiversity Records 1, e12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, RH (1958) Some ascidians from Brazil. Journal of Natural History, Series 13, 1, 497514. doi:10.1080/00222935808650975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monniot, C and Monniot, F (1994) Additions to the inventory of eastern tropical Atlantic ascidians; arrival of cosmopolitan species. Bulletin of Marine Science 54, 7193.Google Scholar
Monniot, C, Monniot, f, Griffiths, CL and Schleyer, M (2001) South African ascidians. Annals of the South African Museum 108, 1141, https://doi.org/10.1038/086174a0Google Scholar
Nishikawa, T (1992) The ascidians of the Japan Sea. III. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 35, 303334. http://hdl.handle.net/2433/176214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOAA (2023) El niño/southern oscillation (enso) diagnostic discussion. CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP/NWS, December 16, 2023. Available at https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml. (accessed 19 December 2023).Google Scholar
Önen, SA (2021) First occurrence of fouling ascidian species Microcosmus squamiger Michaelsen, 1927 and Didemnum ahu Monniot C. & Monniot F. 1987 in İzmir Bay (Eastern Aegean Sea). Journal of Natural History 54, 18971912, https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2020.1831638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, V, Pascual, M, Rius, M and Turon, X (2013) Mixed but not admixed: a spatial analysis of genetic variation of an invasive ascidian on natural and artificial substrates. Marine Biology 160, 16451660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paes, ET and Moraes, LDS (2007) A new hypothesis on the influence of the El Niño/La Niña upon the biological productivity, ecology and fisheries of the Southern Brazilian Bight. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 2, 94102.Google Scholar
Pires-Teixeira, LM, Neres-Lima, V and Creed, JC (2021) How do biological and functional diversity change in invaded tropical marine rocky reef communities? Diversity 13, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PO.DAAC - Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (2023) Firefox ESR v38.4.0 Web Page. Available at [https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/] from NASA EOSDIS PO.DAAC, Pasadena, CA, (accessed 19 December 2023).Google Scholar
Rius, M, Pascual, M and Turon, X (2008) Phylogeography of the widespread marine invader Microcosmus squamiger (Ascidiacea) reveals high genetic diversity of introduced populations and non-independent colonizations. Diversity and Distributions 14, 818828, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00485.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rius, M, Pineda, M and Turon, X (2009) Population dynamics and life cycle of the introduced ascidian Microcosmus squamiger in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Invasions 11, 21812194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rius, M, Clusella-Trullas, S, Mcquaid, CD, Navarro, RA, Griffiths, CL, Matthee, CA, Von Der Heyden, S and Turon, X (2014) Range expansions across ecoregions: interactions of climate change, physiology and genetic diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23, 7688. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, RM, Bonnet, NY, Baptista, MS and Beltramin, FS (2012) Introduced and native Phlebobranch and Stolidobranch solitary ascidians (Tunicata: Ascidiacea) around Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Zoologia 29, 3953. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702012000100005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, RM, Castellano, GC and Freire, CA (2017) Physiological tolerance as a tool to support invasion risk assessment of tropical ascidians. Marine Ecology Progress Series 577, 105119. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, LF and Ibarra-Obando, SE (2008) Cover and colonization of commercial oyster (Crassostrea gigas) shells by fouling organisms in San Quintin Bay, Mexico. Journal of Shellfish Research 27, 337343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turon, X and Nishikawa, T and Rius, M (2007) Spread of Microcosmus squamiger (Ascidiacea: Pyuridae) in the Mediterranean Sea and adjacent waters. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 342, 185188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.10.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernberg, T, Smale, DA, Tuya, F, Thomsen, MS, Langlois, TJ, Bettignies, T, Bennett, S and Rousseaux, CS (2012) An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot. Nature Climate Change 3, 7882. doi:10.1038/nclimate1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhan, A, Briski, E, Bock, DG, Ghabooli, S and MacIsaac, HJ (2015) Ascidians as models for studying invasion success. Marine Biology 162, 24492470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2734-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Sampling locations of Microcosmus squamiger and Microcosmus exasperatus in the studied section of the Brazilian coast. (A and B) Rio de Janeiro, (C) Espírito Santo and (D) South Bahia. Check Table 1 for more information on locations.

Figure 1

Table 1. Information about the 25 locations investigated in Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Espírito Santo (ES), and Bahia (BA)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Microcosmus squamiger Michaelsen, 1927. (A) Three specimens in the natural environment forming clusters on Sereia beach (ES). (B) Dissected animal with oral tentacles and pharynx stained with methylene blue. (C) Animal removed from the tunic, making it possible to see the muscles. (D) Branched oral tentacle. (E) Dorsal tubercle with aperture in U with enrolled ends. (F) detail of the pharynx with stigmata and some parastigmatic vessels. (G) Syphon spinules of M. squamiger. (H) Syphon spinules of M. exasperatus, under a light microscope.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Images of the syphon spines of Microcosmus squamiger (A and C) and Microcosmus exasperatus (B and D) under scanning electron microscope.