Aquatic Invasions (2011) Volume 6, Issue 3: in press doi: 10.3391/ai.2011.6.3 ? 2011 The Author(s). Journal compilation ? 2011 REABIC Open Access Research Article CORRECTED PROOF Discovery and significance of the colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum in Alaska C. Sarah Cohen1*, Linda McCann2, Tammy Davis3, Linda Shaw4 and Gregory Ruiz5 1San Francisco State University, Romberg Tiburon Center and Biology Department, 3150 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA, 94920 2Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Romberg Tiburon Center, 3152 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 3Invasive Species Program, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, PO Box 115526, Juneau, Alaska, 99811 4Habitat Conservation Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, PO Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska, 99802 5Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 647 Contees Wharf Rd., Edgewater, MD 21037 Email: sarahcoh@rtc.sfsu.edu (CSC), mccannl@si.edu (LM), tammy.davis@alaska.gov (TD), Linda.Shaw@noaa.gov (LS), ruizg@si.edu (GR) *Corresponding author Received: 5 February 2011 / Accepted: 5 May 2011 / Published online: 11 May 2011 Abstract The colonial tunicate, Didemnum vexillum Kott, 2002, has a history of invading and overgrowing marine communities in temperate waters worldwide. The species can colonize and dominate remarkably large areas of benthic habitat, including coastal bays and outer coastal areas, causing concerns about potential long-term effects on community structure, critical habitats, and fisheries resources. We report here the confirmed occurrence of D. vexillum in Alaska, representing a dramatic 1000 km northward extension of this non-native species along the western coast of North America. The species was detected as part of a ?bioblitz?, engaging citizen scientists to survey local biota and detect non-native marine species incursions. Following detection, the identity of D. vexillum was confirmed with robust genetic methods, and morphological characters were also consistent with previous species descriptions. Although invasions have been relatively rare in Alaskan waters to date, it is now clear that D. vexillum is established in at least one site (Whiting Harbor) near Sitka, Alaska. Given the explosive growth and spread of this species in other global regions, and its potential for significant impacts across diverse habitats in Alaska, current efforts are underway to evaluate its distribution and options to eradicate or control the species. Key words: Didemnum vexillum, ascidian, nonindigenous species, genetic species identification, citizen science, aquaculture, multilocus Introduction The colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum Kott, 2002 (Ascidiacea, Aplousobranchia) has attracted increasing attention as an invader in temperate marine communities around the globe, because it overgrows and dominates existing benthic communities, often over expansive areas (Coutts and Forest 2007; Lambert 2009). Didemnum vexillum occurs across a wide range of marine habitats, including exposed outer coasts and natural substrata at depths up to 81 m (Bullard et al. 2007), whereas most marine invasions appear restricted to bays and are associated with artificial or manmade structure (Wasson et al. 2005; Preisler et al. 2009; Ruiz et al. 2009). The capacity to colonize outer coasts is exemplified on Georges Bank off eastern North America, where the species is reported to occur over an area of 230 km2 to depths of 60 m creating a continuous mat in some regions (Bullard et al. 2007; Valentine et al. 2007). Concerns exist about potential local and regional impacts that may result from D. vexillum, due to its ability to spread over larger areas and dominate communities. The species has been damaging to shellfish aquaculture, where it can smother commercial stock in nets and lantern pens (Bullard et al. 2007; Carman et al. 2010; Valentine et al. 2007). It may also affect critical habitat and food resources for fisheries species (Lengyel et al. 2009; Mercer et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2010), although such direct and indirect effects are still poorly understood. In western North America, D. vexillum was first documented in San Francisco Bay, California in 1993, and it has since appeared in additional locations in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia (Lambert 2009, Richard Emlet, personal communication, Sarah Cohen, unpublished data). As with many species, the actual date of invasion is uncertain, due to both a potential lag-time in detection as C.S. Cohen et al. well as the ability to confirm species-level identification. There are a number of morphologically similar species of didemnid tunicates, making taxonomic identification of existing specimens and links to historical records challenging. In this paper, we report the first verified occurrence of D. vexilllum in Alaska. The species was detected in Whiting Harbor near Sitka, Alaska during a bioblitz, in which volunteers were organized to search intensively for particular non-native species (including D. vexillum) some of which had not yet been identified in Alaska but are present to the south (California to British Columbia). Here, we document this discovery of D. vexillum and the molecular genetic results to verify its identification, discussing briefly the current status of this species, past observations of a didemnid tunicate in the area, as well as the important role of volunteer citizen scientists in detecting invasions. Methods On 12-13 June 2010, we conducted the Marine Invasive Species Bioblitz in Sitka, Alaska. One of our goals was to engage the public (i.e., volunteer citizen scientists) in searching for a suite of conspicuous non-native species that were previously unknown from Alaskan waters. The target species included the green crab Carcinus maenas (Linneaus, 1758) the Japanese kelp Undaria pinnitida ((Harvey) Suringar 1873, the bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata (d'Orbigny, 1842 ), and the tunicates Ciona spp, Styela clava (Herdman, 1881), and Didemnum vexillum; we also surveyed changes in the distribution of two recent invaders, Botrylloides violaceus (Oka, 1927) and Botryllus schlosseri (Pallas, 1766), which are established in Sitka (G. Ruiz et al. 2006; Wang 2011). The volunteers had a wide range of backgrounds, most with limited knowledge or experience involving invertebrate identification. Training was provided to participants through a slide presentation to assist with recognition of target organisms, a hands-on microscope examination of selected species, interactive discussion with experienced surveyors, and distribution of laminated field handouts with pictures and key characters of target species. During the two days, ten sites were surveyed by two to ten volunteers per site (Figure 1). Each site was assigned a team leader, who coordinated a visual search of anthropogenic structures and natural substrata (Table 1). Up to four types of habitats were identified at each site and as many as possible were surveyed during a -0.6m low tide, including, a) shoreline between high and low tide line, b) docks (including structures hanging from docks such as lines, buoys, etc) c) boat hulls and d) aquaculture nets. The only aquaculture farm surveyed was in Whiting Harbor and was accessible only by boat. The other nine sites were reached by land, and six of them were harbors. Searches were conducted for one hour at Whiting Harbor and up to three hours at all other sites. Depths in the harbors ranged from 2 to 4 meters, while the depth at the Whiting Harbor survey site was approximately 13 meters. Whenever one of the target non-native species was potentially found, representative samples were collected for further examination and preserved in 70-95% ethanol. Only one new putative target species, which was unknown to occur in Alaska, was detected during the bioblitz. It appeared to be D. vexillum based on gross morphology. Specimens of the organism were analyzed furter using molecular methods to confirm identification. Samples of D. vexillum for genetic comparison were also collected from floating structures in Sausalito, California in July 2010; from shell debris near seagrass in Tomales Bay, California in February 2009; and a near shore location in New Castle, New Hampshire in May 2002. Subsequently, the Alaskan Bioblitz samples were examined by microscope for diagnostic morphological characters. For genetic analyses, genomic DNA extraction was carried out with Clontech columns, using three modified protocols that involved varying the method of tissue harvesting and initial processing. Tissue processing methods included a) soaking overnight in lysis buffer while shaking, b) drying out overnight at room temperature to evaporate the ethanol, or c) processing directly with 2-3 water rinses. Subsequently, the tissue was finely minced, without specifically isolating zooids from the tunic, prior to DNA extraction. All 3 methods of preparing sample tissue provided robust amounts of DNA and subsequent PCR products. PCR methods and primers generally followed Stefaniak et al. (2009) and Hess et al. (2009) with slight modifications of PCR conditions (e.g., varying annealing temperatures to optimize reactions). Samples were prepared for Discovery and significance of Didemnum vexillum in Alaska Figure 1. Map of Alaska showing inset of Sitka with the bioblitz survey sites: Ferry Terminal, Cove Marina, Eliason Harbor, Thomsen Harbor, ANB Marina, Sealing Cove, Crescent Harbor, Totem Flats, Sawmill Cove, Whiting Harbor Oyster Farm. sequencing using a SAPexo reaction followed by cycle sequencing and analysis on an ABI 3130 Avant DNA Analyzer. Sequences were aligned in Sequencher 4.8 and basecalls were determined by eye with manual editing in comparison to reference sequences in Genbank. Didemnum vexillum sequences from Whiting Harbor were compared to five San Francisco Bay samples, one New Hampshire sample, and to published references (Stefaniak et al. 2009; Hess et al. 2009). In total, comparisons were made among 77 apparent conspecific individuals and three congeneric species. The two anonymous nuclear loci were obtained with PCR primers that were designed by Hess et al. (2009) to selectively amplify D. vexillum, against a panel of two congeners (D. perlucidum and D. duplicatum) and some other tunicate and non- tunicate taxa. Reference samples of D. vexillum from Genbank are globally distributed, with a regional emphasis on current areas of invasive concern in Washington State, USA and the northwest Atlantic, USA (Hess et al. 2009; Stefaniak et al. 2009). C.S. Cohen et al. Table 1. Sitka survey sites and density data for Didmenum vexillum from the bioblitz in 2010: P= present. Habitat types: S=shoreline to low tide line, D=docks, B=boat hulls, C= aquaculture nets, NS=not surveyed, NA=not applicable as the habitat types in question were not present at that particular site. No. Sites Habitat 2010 Latitude Longitude 1 Ferry Terminal S 0 57.12932 -135.3798 D NS B NS 2 Cove Marina S 0 57.11723 -135.3887 D 0 B 0 3 Eliason Harbor S 0 57.05763 -135.355 D 0 B 0 4 Thomsen Harbor S NS 57.05586 -135.3512 D 0 B 0 5 ANB Marina S NS 57.04941 -135.3418 D 0 B 0 6 Sealing Cove S 0 57.0482 -135.351 D 0 B 0 7 Crescent Cove S NS 57.05007 -135.3282 D 0 B 0 8 Totem Flats S 0 57.04521 -135.3138 D NA B NA 9 Sawmill Cove S 0 57.04531 -135.23 D 0 B NS 10 Whiting Oyster Farm S NS 57.04554 -135.3715 D P B NA C P Results Detection of Didemnum vexillum during bioblitz survey Didemnum vexillum was found at only one of the ten surveyed sites (Figure 1), the oyster farm in Whiting Harbor. All specimens were found on fouling lines or lantern nets hanging from the aquaculture docks within a few meters of the surface. The species formed extensive mats at three locations at the site, including two separate nets and one line, and occluded the mesh surface of the lantern nets (Figure 2). Colony growth and overall appearance resembled D. vexillum as described previously on the east and west coasts of North America (see Lambert 2009) and elsewhere. At the time of discovery in June, water temperature was 12oC and salinity was 28 PSU in Whiting Harbor. Confirmation of genetic identity for Didemnum vexillum The samples from Whiting Harbor were confirmed as D. vexillum based on comparison of DNA sequence variation at four loci, including the frequently used metazoan mitochondrial barcoding locus, cytochrome oxidase 1 (CO1) and three nuclear loci, including one coding locus, tho, and two anonymous loci, DL2.1A1 and Dnr1 (Table 2). The sequence obtained from Alaskan samples for one of these loci, DL2.1A1 matches published D. vexillum haplotypes either directly or through visual phase inference from direct sequenced PCR products. Similarly, alleles obtained from Alaskan samples at the Dnr1 locus were found to match published SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) haplotypes (i.e., genotypes based on patterns of variable nucleo- Discovery and significance of Didemnum vexillum in Alaska Figure 2. Didemnum vexillum on oyster lantern net at Whiting Harbor Oyster Farm, Sitka Alaska, June 12, 2010, with close up. Photos by Linda Shaw NOAA. Table 2. Genetic comparison of Alaskan allele identity to published global database alleles for one mitochondrial and three nuclear loci, with information from the global database on distribution records of the allelic matches. Type of locus Locus name # differing AK alleles (total # AK alleles sampled) # global variants (total # global alleles sampled) AK allele identity global database locations matching AK samples # global allele matches to AK alleles Primer, database reference Mito- chondrial CO1 2 (2) 18 (71) 4 Pacific only: Japan, BC oyster farm rare (2/71) Stefaniak et al. (2009) 11 global, both sides of Pacific and Atlantic common (37/71) Nuclear, coding tho2^ 2 (4) Stefaniak et al. (2009) exon 2 or more (4) 108 (114+) NA NA NA intron 2 or more (4) NA NA NA NA Nuclear, anonymous Dnr1 2-3 (4) 4 (72) 4 NE Pacific and NW Atlantic: WA, ME rare in Atlantic (1/58); Pacific (2/14) Hess et al. (2009) 1 or 2 global (allele 1) or Japan only (allele 2) AK allele 1: common (33/ 72); AK allele 2: rare, (1/72) Nuclear, anonymous DL2.1 A1 2 (4) 4 (74) 2 global, both sides of Pacific; west Atlantic Common (19/74) Hess et al. (2009) 4 both sides of Pacific and Atlantic (26/74) ^ Indels complicate scoring in more detail without cloning. tide sites) obtained through direct sequencing or phase inference (referred to as reconstructed genotypes in Hess et al. 2009, Table 2). An additional robust confirmation of species identity with previously reported D. vexillum comes from a match of the tho intron obtained from the Alaskan and other new samples in this study. These samples show conserved flanking exon with the genbank tho exons and conserved flanking intron (445 nt intron with 7 SNP sites) C.S. Cohen et al. with the Alaskan sequence obtained in this study (S. Cohen, unpublished data). Geographic comparison of Alaskan haplotypes with global sampling Mitochondrial CO1 haplotypes found in Alaskan samples match 2 known haplotypes (4 and 11) in Genbank (Table 2). One is widely distributed, and the other is limited to occurrences at two known locations, including a single occurrence in North America at an aquaculture facility in British Columbia and a single occurrence in Japan (Stefaniak et al. 2009). Nuclear loci provided PCR products and sequences that match existing D. vexillum sequences in Genbank and in newly genotyped samples (Table 2). However, rare allele matches were not found with these loci in samples available for comparison at this time. Morphological characteristics of Alaskan specimens Alaskan samples were examined morphologically by G. Lambert for diagnostic characters, including tunic, spicules, zooids, sperm duct, and larvae, all which matched published descriptions of this species (Kott 2002; Lambert 2009). Thus, morphological and genetic traits provide a consistent outcome in species identity. Discussion Identification of Didemnum vexillum We confirm the presence of Didemnum vexillum in Whiting Harbor near Sitka, Alaska. This is 1000 km north of the closest verified populations in British Columbia (Lambert 2009), extending the documented latitudinal range of this global invader to 57o latitude and the edge of the temperate zone. At this location, temperature ranged from 3.7oC in February to a high of 15.1oC in August from 1996-2011, over the 15 years data is available (NOAA NOS/CO-OPS ODIN 2011), and salinity is reported to range from 24 to 30 PSU in the Sitka area on an annual basis (Heather Meuret Woody, unpublished data). The identification of D. vexillum in Alaska is robust for several important reasons. Firstly, using the traditional barcoding locus CO1, the 2 Alaskan samples genotyped match 2 known samples identically (haplotypes 11 and 4). This alone does not preclude identification error, since there are various known reasons for CO1 matches that do not reflect biological species; these include low rates of molecular divergence in some taxa (including Didemnum), incomplete lineage sorting, and hybridization (DeSalle 2006; Lou and Golding 2010; Ballard and Whitlock 2004). To avoid these errors we considered available molecular data at several loci to determine species identity. Secondly, primers used to amplify two of the loci (DL2 and Dnr1) were designed by Hess et al. (2009) to exclude two congeners, as well as more distant species, although there are currently few reference sequences for known congeners (Hess et al. 2009; Stefaniak et al. 2009). Finally, intron sequence from Alaskan samples at the tho locus matched intron sequence from non-Alaskan D. vexillum. Combined use of these four diverse loci (CO1, DL2, Dnr1, and tho) in genetic analyses, D. vexillum, provides a robust answer to species identity. We show strong genetic similarities in both mitochondrial and nuclear genomes, including coding and noncoding sequence. Comparison of sequence data from both genomes additionally excludes interspecific hybridization that would be undetected with exclusive use of the mitochondrial CO1 barcoding locus. This information is ecologically relevant, because interspecific hybridization could occur between native and invasive species, and it has the potential to alter the population dynamics of an invading species. Tunicates have high levels of genetic variation reportedly due to rapid molecular evolution (Tsagkogeorga et al. 2010), though this cannot be distinguished from morphological stasis and a long evolutionary history. Thus, the finding of shallow genetic divergence in D. vexillum CO1 and tho exon DNA sequence in global sampling appeared to highlight a genetic bottleneck due to founder effects during invasions (Stefaniak et al. 2009), and this limited variation appeared to be substantiated in several additional nuclear loci (Hess et al. 2009). Similarly, in this study, DL2 alleles found in Alaska (Hess haplotypes 2 and 4) are both previously reported in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at high frequencies (Stefaniak et al. 2009) and thus, they offer little discriminatory population information. Dnr1 revealed no new alleles, but some additional information related to geographic distribution is discussed below. Discovery and significance of Didemnum vexillum in Alaska Surprisingly, however, a small number of new non-Alaskan samples revealed intriguing levels of variation at some of these same loci that may be useful for discovering invasion history and pathways. The tho locus intron alignment shows conspecificity, a lack of indels in a comparison of new samples in this study, and 7 SNPs were found in just 6 sequences. At the DL2 locus, additional samples from central California (n=6) and New Hampshire (n=1) revealed at least three additional DL2 alleles (3 in California and 2 in New Hampshire), suggesting that further use of this locus may provide additional source and vector information. Source The source of D. vexillum in Alaska is not immediately evident, due to limitations in the available data, including a) our small sample size to date from Alaska, b) the low level of variation that D. vexillum shows in global genetic variation at the CO1 locus, c) limited sampling in many regions including possible source areas such as Japan, and d) the global distribution of a common haplotype (11). Despite these constraints, some important information is provided by an uncommon haplotype for CO1. The two CO1 haplotypes identified from Alaska include the relatively rare haplotype 4, matching just two samples (the marine lab at Otsuchi Bay, Japan and an oyster farm on Cortes Island, British Columbia) in 71 database samples (Stefaniak et al. 2009). Based on this limited sample size to date, Japan and British Columbia are at least two potential sources of introduction into Alaska. In addition, there is a possibility of regional patterning suggested by the anonymous nuclear locus Dnr1. In the Alaskan samples, which are both heterozygotes, each contains an allele (Hess haplotype 4) that is only found in 3 other instances in the global database (72 individual samples, > 142 alleles sampled). All 3 cases are from the states of Maine and Washington, possibly suggesting there may be genotypes associated with northern latitudes, although more sampling is required. While the sample size in this report is extremely limited, the genotyping thus far of the Alaskan samples shows diversity at all four loci, both in haplotype variability and heterozygosity. The samples do not show genetic uniformity and are therefore not from a single clone. Thus, in addition to confirming the identity of D. vexillum in Alaska, the genetic variability reported here may also serve to increase the probability of high demographic performance (e.g., growth, reproduction, spread), since genetic diversity may confer advantages in this respect (Facon et al. 2006). In sum, all loci indicate this newly detected population in Alaska is genetically diverse and that it contains genotypes that may show regional patterning. Although the geographic distribution of samples is still limited, it is possible that some genotypes may be well-suited to cold-water environments like Alaska. Increased sampling in Alaska and elsewhere, combined with experiments to examine performance, is needed to test for such a relationship. This approach could also provide critical insights into the potential source and transfer mechanism (vectors) for D. vexillum in Alaska. Current status, invasion history, and potential impacts in Alaska At the present time, the known distribution of D. vexillum in Alaska is restricted to Whiting Harbor near Sitka. It is now evident that the population is established here. Since the bioblitz, we have documented that D. vexillum covers relatively large areas of both natural and manmade substrate in Whiting Harbor, subtidally and intertidally to depths of 16 meters. We are now working with multiple agencies and organizations to determine the extent of the species? distribution by SCUBA, ROV and shoreline surveys, and to advance measures to eradicate or control the population as well as to prevent further spread of this species in Alaska; the latter includes strong public outreach and also exploring options to limit or minimize access to infested areas. Part of this plan includes additional sample collection to expand the number of alleles examined to get a clearer picture of how D. vexillum may have been transported to Alaska, and this in turn can shape our management strategies to prevent new incursions. The timing of colonization of Whiting Harbor is uncertain. Following our recent discovery and confirmation of D. vexillum, we located anecdotal reports and even some photos of organisms from the same site that may be D. vexillum dating back to 2000 (T. Davis, unpublished data). However, to our knowledge, species level identifications are not available for any of these organisms, and we have not yet C.S. Cohen et al. been able to locate specimens that can provide taxonomic confirmation of earlier material. It appears that D. vexillum is capable of extensive spread in Alaska?s marine habitats, based on reports from eastern North America (Bullard et al. 2007; Valentine et al. 2007). Given its ability to overgrow resident biota, this species may pose a significant risk to Alaska?s natural resources. Unlike other parts of North America, there are still relatively few non-native marine species at high latitudes, and Alaska has therefore experienced low impacts from such invasions to date (Ruiz and Hewitt 2009). Although several new invasions have occurred in Alaska in recent years (Ashton et al. 2008; Lambert et al. 2010), none of these are known to have severe impacts. In contrast, Didemnum vexillum has a history of explosive growth and spread. This species has the potential for severe local and regional impacts (given the potential areal extent) to benthic community structure, aquaculture, and fisheries resources. One of the most important keys to management of invasive species is early detection as it can allow time for more management options, reduced costs and more successful outcomes (Anderson 2005). In terrestrial habitats, surveys can often be mounted with limited cost and logistical issues, and new species may be recognized relatively quickly. In aquatic habitats, it is sometimes costly and difficult to conduct extensive surveys. Aquatic invaders may often go undetected for years to decades (Grigorovich et al. 2003; Lambert 2009), particularly small invertebrates and species which have morphologically similar congeners throughout the world (Knowlton 1993; Geller et al. 2009). In Alaska, the sheer size of the marine habitat relative to the small size of the scientific community and overall low population density there, further limits our ability to detect species invasions. We are now actively expanding a state-wide network for detection of non-native marine species, by engaging Alaskan citizens in the monitoring process. Our goal is to increase the participation of citizen scientists, from school children to adults, to address a significant gap that exists in our ability to track the arrival and spread of new invaders, such as D. vexillum. This approach increases opportunities for management response, through early detection, and also providing insights about where and how species are arriving to the state. The lack of basic knowledge on colonial ascidians, in general, and of marine fauna in nearshore Alaska, highlights the issues with working in understudied regions and taxa. Lack of background information can severely hamper rapid response (Coutts and Forrest 2007), exacerbating invasion threats and complicating management issues. Baseline monitoring and surveys such as the bioblitz, are critical tools to be used to reduce the threat of invasive species. Surveying must be accompanied by significant attention to taxonomic and systematic data and comparison to global databases. This is particularly important for resolving issues of cryptic native versus invasive species, as well as in gaining information about potential population sources and vectors. The bioblitz and subsequent genetic analysis allowed us to detect an important invader that might otherwise have continued to go unnoticed for some time. Monitoring and bioblitz activities, involving communities and scientists working together, can provide a model for the early detection of conspicuous invasive species throughout the world. Acknowledgements We thank many people who helped in this research. Marnie Chapman and Heather Woody assisted tirelessly in all aspects of this research. Heather Woody also inspired us to undertake the bioblitz. Richard Coleman and David Lake obtained genetic data at the SFSU RTC molecular facility (NSF FSML award 0435033). John Stein provided lab space at the Sitka Science Center, and Grant Miller provided access to Whiting Harbor. Carolyn Bergstrom, Krissy Dunker, Jon Martin, Katharine Miller, Ken Rear, David Tallmon, Sherry Tamone, and many others assisted in the field surveys. Larry Harris and Benjamin Becker provided additional samples from non-Alaskan regions for genetic analyses. Gretchen Lambert examined morphological characters of Alaskan samples. This research was supported by funding from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco State University, and the Smithsonian Institution. References Ashton GV, Riedlecker EI, Ruiz GM (2008) First non-native crustacean established in coastal waters of Alaska. Aquatic Biology 3: 133?137, doi:10.3354/ab00070 Anderson LWJ (2005) California?s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological Invasions 7: 1003?1016, doi:10.1007/s10530- 004-3123-z Ballard JWO, Whitlock MC (2004) The incomplete natural history of mitochondria. Molecular Ecology 13: 729? 744, doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.02063.x Bullard SG, Lambert G, Carman MR, Byrnes J, Whitlatch RB, Ruiz GM, Miller RJ, Harris L, Valentine PC, Collie JS, Pederson J, McNaught DC, Cohen, AN, Asch RB, Dijkstra J, Heinonen K (2007) The colonial ascidian Discovery and significance of Didemnum vexillum in Alaska Didemnum sp. A: Current distribution, basic biology and potential threat to marine communities of the northeast and west coasts of North America. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 342: 99?108, doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2006.10.020 Carman MR, Morris JA, Karney RC, Grunden DW (2010) An initial assessment of native and invasive tunicates in shellfish aquaculture of the North American east coast. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26(2): 8?11, doi:10.1111/ j.1439-0426.2010.01495.x Coutts ADM, Forrest BM (2007) Development and application of tools for incursion response: lessons learned from the management of the fouling pest Didemnum vexillum. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 342: 154?162, doi:10.1016/j.jembe. 2006.10.042 DeSalle R (2006) Species discovery versus species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: response to Rubinoff. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1545?1547, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00543.x Facon B, Genton BJ, Shykoff J, Jarne P, Estoup A, David P (2006) A general eco-evolutionary framework for understanding bioinvasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 130?135, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.012 Hess JE, Swalla BJ, Moran P (2009) New molecular markers to genetically differentiate populations of Didemnum vexillum Kott, 2002 ? an invasive ascidian species. Aquatic Invasions 4: 299?310, doi:10.3391/ai.2009.4.2.1 Geller JB, Darling JA, Carlton JT (2010) Genetic perspectives on marine biological invasions. Annual Review of Marine Science 2: 367?393, doi:10.1146/ annurev.marine.010908.163745 Grigorovich I, Colautti RI, Mills EL, Holeck K, Ballert AG, MacIsaac HJ (2003) Ballast-mediated animal introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes: retrospective and prospective analyses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60: 740?756, doi:10.1139/f03-053 Knowlton N (1993) Sibling species in the sea. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 24: 189?216, doi:10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001201 Kott P (2002) A complex didemnid ascidian from Whangamata, New Zealand. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 82: 625?628, doi:10.1017/S0025315402005970 Lambert G (2009) Adventures of a sea squirt sleuth: unraveling the identity of Didemnum vexillum, a global ascidian invader. Aquatic Invasions 4: 5?28, doi:10.33 91/ai.2009.4.1.2 Lengyel NL, Collie JS, Valentine PC (2009) The invasive colonial ascidian Didemnum vexillum on Georges Bank ? Ecological effects and genetic identification. Aquatic Invasions 4: 143?152, doi:10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.15 Lambert G, Shenkar N, Swalla BJ (2010) First Pacific record of the north Atlantic ascidian Molgula citrina ? bioinvasion or circumpolar distribution? Aquatic Invasions 5: 369?378, doi:10.3391/ai.2010.5.4.06 Lou M, Golding GB (2010) Assigning sequences to species in the absence of large interspecific differences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56: 187?194, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.002 Mercer JM, Whitlach RB, Osman RW (2009) Potential effects of the invasive colonial ascidian (Didemnum vexillum Kott, 2002) on pebble-cobble bottom habitats in Long Island Sound, USA. Aquatic Invasions 4: 133? 142, doi:10.3391.ai2009.4.1.14 NOAA NOS/CO-OPS ODIN (2011) National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, Operational Data Interactive Navigation (NOAA NOS/CO-OPS ODIN). http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/gmap3/ (Accessed 21 March 2011) Preisler R, Wasson K, Wolff W, Tyrell M (2009) Invasion of estuaries vs. the adjacent open coast: a global perspective. In: Rilov G, Crooks JA (eds), Biological invasions in marine ecosystems: ecology, management and geographic perspectives. Springer -Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 587?617, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79236- 9_33 Ruiz GM, Huber T, Larson K, McCann L, Steves B, Fofonoff P, Hines AH (2006) Biological Invasions in Alaska?s Coastal Marine Ecosystems: Establishing a Baseline. Final Report submitted to Prince William Sound Regional Citizens? Advisory Council and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 112 pp Ruiz GM, Freestone AL, Fofonoff PW, Simkanin C (2009) Habitat distribution and heterogeneity in marine invasions dynamics: The importance of hard substrate and artificial structure. In: Wahl M (ed), Marine Hard Bottom Communities, Ecological Studies 206. Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 321?332, doi:10.1007/ b76710_23 Ruiz GM, Hewett CL (2009) Latitudinal patterns of biological invasions in marine ecosystems: a polar perspective. In: Smithsonian at the Poles Contributions to International Polar Year Science. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington DC, pp 347? 358, doi:10.5479/si.097884601X.26 Smith B, Collie J, Lengyel N (2010) Invasive species impacts marine life, alters feeding habits of bottom- dwelling fish on Georges Bank. State News Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, SS10.11. Stefaniak L, Lambert G, Gittenberger A, Zhang H, Lin S, Whitlatch RB (2009) Genetic conspecificity of the worldwide populations of Didemnum vexillum Kott 2002. Aquatic Invasions 4: 29?44, doi:10.3391/ ai.2009.4.1.3 Tsagkogeorga G, Turon X, Galtier N, Douzery EJP, Delsuc F (2010) Accelerated evolutionary rate of housekeeping genes in tunicates. Journal of Molecular Evolution 71: 153?167, doi:10.1007/s00239-010-9372-9 Valentine PC, Collie JS, Reid RN, Asch RG, Guida VG, Blackwood DS (2007) The occurrence of the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. on Georges Bank gravel habitat ? Ecological observations and potential effects on groundfish and scallop fisheries. Journal of Experimental Ecology 342: 179?181, doi:10.1016/j.jembe. 2006.10.038 Wang VH (2011) Investigating recent invasions of a colonial tunicate using a polymorphic fusion locus. Master?s thesis, Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, 46 pp Wasson K, Fenn K, Pearse JS (2005) Habitat differences in marine invasions of central California. Biological Invasions 7: 935?946, doi:10.1007/s10530-004-2995-2