Containment/chemical treatment Yes Low < 30 m Caulerpa taxifolia27 Successful method – – – – energy Wrapping plus chemicals P P Yes Low < 30 m Didemnum vexillum,10 Styela Successful method – – energy clava9 various fouling taxa9 Injection U U Yes No Yes Acanthaster planci28 Successful for small outbreaks – – Poison baits U U Yes No No Crustaceans (e.g. Charybdis Successful in laboratory – – japonica29) Poison barriers U U Yes No No Crustaceans (e.g. C. japonica29) Unsuccessful in laboratory – – Lime U U L Yes Low Yes Echinoderms7 Successful if applied as a blanket – energy on the substrate De-oxygenation L L L No Various taxa30 Variable success; depending on – – – species and life history stage concerned Note. Letters relate to the efficacy of the treatment methods: P = proven; L = likely; U = unlikely; NS = not successful. For details about suitability of methodologies against a broader range of taxa, see McEnnulty, FR, Bax, NJ, Schaffelke, B & Campbell, ML 2001, A review of rapid response options for the control of ABWMAC listed introduced species and related taxa in Australian waters, Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, technical report no. 23, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Source: Aquenal 2007. References: 7 Woods et al, (2007); 9 Coutts & Forrest (2005); 10 Pannell & Coutts (2007); 27 Anderson (2005); 28 Fisk & Power (1999); 29 Browne & Jones (2006a, b); 30 Tamburri et al. (2002). Table Chemical control options for eradication and control of marine pests in natural substrates Efficacy and environmental Target taxa (researched using Comments circumstances treatment method) reef soft reef soft restrictions energy situ Wave Depth In limitations Subtidal Subtidal sediment sediment Intertidal Intertidal
Containment/chemical treatment – – – – Yes Low energy < 30 m Caulerpa taxifolia27 Successful method Wrapping plus chemicals P P – – Yes Low energy < 30 m Didemnum vexillum,10 Styela clava9 various fouling taxa9 Successful method Injection U U – – Yes No Yes Acanthaster planci28 Successful for small outbreaks Poison baits U U – – Yes No No Crustaceans (e.g. Charybdis japonica29) Successful in laboratory Poison barriers U U – – Yes No No Crustaceans (e.g. C. japonica29) Unsuccessful in laboratory Lime U U L – Yes Low energy Yes Echinoderms7 Successful if applied as a blanket on the substrate De-oxygenation L L L – No – – Various taxa30 Variable success; depending on species and life history stage concerned Note. Letters relate to the efficacy of the treatment methods: P = proven; L = likely; U = unlikely; NS = not successful. For details about suitability of methodologies against a broader range of taxa, see McEnnulty, FR, Bax, NJ, Schaffelke, B & Campbell, ML 2001, A review of rapid response options for the control of ABWMAC listed introduced species and related taxa in Australian waters, Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, technical report no. 23, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Source: Aquenal 2007. References: 7 Woods et al, (2007); 9 Coutts & Forrest (2005); 10 Pannell & Coutts (2007); 27 Anderson (2005); 28 Fisk & Power (1999); 29 Browne & Jones (2006a, b); 30 Tamburri et al. (2002). Table Chemical control options for eradication and control of marine pests in natural substrates Efficacy and environmental circumstances In situ Wave energy limitations Depth restrictions Target taxa (researched using treatment method) Comments Subtidal reef Subtidal soft sediment Intertidal reef Intertidal soft sediment