Are Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and Prorocentrum belizeanum (Dinophyceae, Prorocentrales), the same species? An integration of morphological and molecular data.

The taxonomic assignment of Prorocentrum species is based on morphological characteristics; however, morphological variability has been found for several taxa isolated from different geographical regions. In this study, we evaluated species boundaries of Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and Prorocentrum belizeanum based on morphological and molecular data. A detailed morphological analysis was done, concentrating on the periflagellar architecture. Molecular analyses were performed on partial Small Sub-Unit (SSU) rDNA, partial Large Sub-Unit (LSU) rDNA, complete Internal Transcribed Spacer Regions (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2), and partial cytochrome b (cob) sequences. We concatenated the SSU-ITS-LSU fragments and constructed a phylogenetic tree using Bayesian Inference (BI) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods. Morphological analyses indicated that the main characters, such as cell size and number of depressions per valve, normally used to distinguish P. hoffmannianum from P. belizeanum, overlapped. No clear differences were found in the periflagellar area architecture. Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and P. belizeanum were a highly supported monophyletic clade separated into three subclades, which broadly corresponded to the sample collection regions. Subtle morphological overlaps found in cell shape, size, and ornamentation lead us to conclude that P. hoffmanianum and P. belizeanum might be considered conspecific. The molecular data analyses did not separate P. hoffmannianum and P. belizeanum into two morphospecies, and thus, we considered them to be the P. hoffmannianum species complex because their clades are separated by their geographic origin. These geographic and genetically distinct clades could be referred to as ribotypes: (A) Belize, (B) Florida-Cuba, (C1) India, and (C2) Australia.

Costs and benefits to European shipping of ballast-water and hull-fouling treatment: Impacts of native and non-indigenous species

Maritime transport and shipping are impacted negatively by biofouling, which can result in increased fuel consumption. Thus, costs for fouling reduction can be considered an investment to reduce fuel consumption. Anti-fouling measures also reduce the rate of introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS). Further mitigation measures to reduce the transport of NIS within ballast water and sediments impose additional costs. The estimated operational cost of NIS mitigation measures may represent between 1.6% and 4% of the annual operational cost for a ship operating on European seas, with the higher proportional costs in small ships. However, fouling by NIS may affect fuel consumption more than fouling by native species due to differences in species’ life-history traits and their resistance to antifouling coatings and pollution. Therefore, it is possible that the cost of NIS mitigation measures could be smaller than the cost from higher fuel consumption arising from fouling by NIS.