5urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:8D1BC1DD-8175-5933-B147-C839B202D5BAurn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C132FA7C-A22D-4474-AAAF-B7A6889D0FF9NeoBiotaNB1619-00331314-2488Pensoft Publishers10.3897/neobiota.83.9950899508Research ArticlePlantaeBiological InvasionsCenozoicEuropeSearching for the competitive ability of the alien seagrass Halophilastipulacea with the autochthonous species CymodoceanodosaManninoAnna Mariaannamaria.mannino@unipa.ithttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6419-706612ConceptualizationWriting - original draftWriting - review and editingData curationFormal analysisInvestigationMethodologyResourcesSupervisionVisualizationBalistreriPaolo3Writing - review and editingMancusoFrancesco Paolo21Writing - review and editingData curationFormal analysisBozzedaFabio24Writing - review and editingData curationFormal analysisPinnaMauriziohttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8335-409824ConceptualizationWriting - review and editingData curationFormal analysisDepartment of Biological, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies (STeBiCeF), University of Palermo, 90123 Palermo, ItalyNBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, 90133 Palermo, ItalyVia Salvatore Impellizeri 3, 91100 Trapani, ItalyDepartment of Earth and Marine Sciences, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, ItalyDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Technologies (DiSTeBA), University of Salento, DiSTeBA, S.P. Lecce-Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, ItalyResearch Centre for Fisheries and Aquaculture of Aquatina di Frigole, DiSTeBA, University of Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy
Corresponding author: Anna Maria Mannino (annamaria.mannino@unipa.it)
Academic editor: Ruth Hufbauer
202311052023831551770AA19A9E-9149-5C73-BD15-D2EBD409F8E40201202312042023Anna Maria Mannino, Paolo Balistreri, Francesco Paolo Mancuso, Fabio Bozzeda, Maurizio PinnaThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The tropical seagrass Halophilastipulacea (Forsskål) Ascherson, 1867 entered in the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal more than 100 years ago. In coastal-marine ecosystems the spatial niche of H.stipulacea is often overlapped with that of native Mediterranean Sea seagrasses and therefore it might out-compete them. Aiming to better understand its invasiveness potential, we monitored a Southern Mediterranean shallow coastal-marine water habitat from August 2010 to August 2011, where H.stipulacea co-occurred with the native seagrass Cymodoceanodosa (Ucria) Ascherson, 1870. Besides, the year-round dynamics of H.stipulacea was also monitored in four periods. To test the hypothesis that the presence/absence of H.stipulacea may have an effect on C.nodosa density, we analyzed the shoot density of C.nodosa in 8 sites, 4 sites where H.stipulacea was present (impacted sites) and 4 where H.stipulacea was absent (control sites). The results showed significant differences in C.nodosa shoot density according to the presence/absence of H.stipulacea, with the lowest values observed in sites where it co-occurred with H.stipulacea. We hypothesize that the dense rhizome-sediment net created by H.stipulacea can interfere with C.nodosa density, pushing down its rhizomes in the anoxic layer. The leaf features of H.stipulacea were generally comparable to those of other Mediterranean populations. In January 2011 a significant decline of H.stipulacea was observed, maybe related to changes in the environmental conditions that have become unfavorable (e.g. hydrodynamics, turbidity) and, unexpectedly, the seagrass disappeared in April 2011. In January, we also observed the occurrence of the green alien alga Caulerpacylindracea Sonder, 1945 which rapidly invaded the bare substrate left by H.stipulacea.
CymodoceanodosaHalophilastipulaceainvasive alien species (IAS)Mediterranean Seanon-indigenous species (NIS)seagrassesshallow coastal-marine habitatCitation
Mannino AM, Balistreri P, Mancuso FP, Bozzeda F, Pinna M (2023) Searching for the competitive ability of the alien seagrass Halophila stipulacea with the autochthonous species Cymodocea nodosa. NeoBiota 83: 155–177. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.83.99508
Introduction
Alien or non-indigenous species (NIS, i.e. organisms introduced from beyond their natural, past or present, geographical region and outside of their natural dispersal potential) are widely recognized as a major threat to native biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services (Wallentinus and Nyberg 2007; Katsanevakis et al. 2014; Vergés et al. 2016). Besides that, they may in time become invasive (Invasive Alien Species “IAS”), determining significant environmental, socio-economic and human health impacts, such as biodiversity loss and ecosystem services degradation (Giakoumi 2014; Gallardo et al. 2016; Vergés et al. 2016). The Mediterranean Sea is a hot-spot of biodiversity (e.g. Coll et al. 2010), but the dramatically-accelerating rate of alien species introduction made it also a true hot-spot for biological invasions (Zenetos et al. 2017; Galil et al. 2018; Bariche et al. 2020; Zenetos and Galanidi 2020).
Islands, also considered hotspots of biodiversity, are vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures as well as for hosting NIS (Tershy et al. 2015; Domina et al. 2018). In particular, Sicily Island and circum-Sicilian Islands (Central Mediterranean Sea, Italy) are notably prone to biological invasions, due to their strategic position at the crossroads between the South Western and Eastern Mediterranean Sea, by virtue of the intense maritime traffic skirting the region and lessepsian migrations (Occhipinti-Ambrogi et al. 2011a, 2011b; Katsanevakis et al. 2014; Mannino et al. 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019).
Among the NIS entered in the Mediterranean Sea, there is the putative lessepsian migrant (tropical species that migrate into the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal) Halophilastipulacea (Forsskål) Ascherson, 1867 (Hydrocharitaceae), a small seagrass native of the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean (Lipkin 1975; El Shaffai 2011). It is the only alien seagrass entered in the Mediterranean Sea given that the Halophila population found in Salamina Island, Greece (initially indicated as Halophiladecipiens Ostenfeld, 1902), most likely corresponds to a morphological variant of H.stipulacea (Gerakaris et al. 2020; García-Escudero et al. 2022). Halophilastipulacea, reported for the first time in the Mediterranean Sea off the Rhodes Island coast (Fritsch 1895), spread along the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and progressively expanded westwards and northwards (see Gambi et al. 2009, 2018; Tsiamis et al. 2010; Katsanevakis 2011; Sghaier et al. 2011, 2019; Varela-Álvarez et al. 2011; Winters et al. 2020; Di Genio et al. 2021; Hoffman 2021; Pica et al. 2021; Thibaut et al. 2022), mostly invading shallow water locations close to ports and marinas, suggesting that maritime traffic was the main vector of spreading. Currently, Cannes (France) represents the most northern location in the Western Mediterranean Sea, suggesting a rapid expansion of this species likely due to climate change and tropicalization. The species also entered in the tropical Atlantic Ocean (Caribbean Sea) where it has been rapidly expanding (Winters et al. 2020), and it is assumed that this genotype came from the Mediterranean Sea (Ruiz and Ballantine 2004; Boudouresque et al. 2016).
Halophilastipulacea is generally considered a relative fast-growing seagrass, and its success is attributed to its high morphological, physiological and biochemical plasticity and ability to spread and adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions (Gambi et al. 2009; Willette and Ambrose 2009; Mejia et al. 2016; Oscar et al. 2018; Beca-Carretero et al. 2020; Wesselmann et al. 2020; Winters et al. 2020; Thibaut et al. 2022). According to Oscar et al. (2018), the invasive nature of H.stipulacea in the Mediterranean and Caribbean Sea could be explained, in particular, by its remarkable tolerance to a wide range of temperatures (14–36 °C) and salinities (from 25 PSU to 60 PSU). Furthermore, Wesselmann et al. (2020) provide evidence for an upper thermal tolerance of H.stipulacea higher than those of the native seagrasses, particularly Posidoniaoceanica (L.) Delile, 1813. Thus, the increase of seawater temperature in the Mediterranean Sea would improve the H.stipulacea performance (growth, recruitment and metabolic rates) but also its expansion into the Western Mediterranean basin (Wesselmann et al. 2020; Di Genio et al. 2021).
Moreover, Rotini et al. (2017) showed that the associated bacterial consortium may help H.stipulacea to better cope with environmental changes, thus having an important role in its ecological resilience and invasiveness. Additionally, its ability to acquire ammonium efficiently either from the water or from the sediment, may confer it an advantage with respect to other Mediterranean seagrasses (Alexandre et al. 2014).
As a result of its high tolerance, it has been estimated that in the near future H.stipulacea will be present throughout the whole Mediterranean Sea (Georgiou et al. 2016; Beca-Carretero et al. 2020; Wesselmann et al. 2020). The indigenous warm-temperate seagrass Cymodoceanodosa (Ucria) Ascherson, 1870, is also able to tolerate high temperatures (34–35 °C, optimum temperature at 30 °C) and a wide range of salinities (between 10 and 50 PSU) (Tsioli et al. 2019). Under climate change scenarios, it is therefore expected C.nodosa to cope better with environmental changes, providing it with an advantage compared with P.oceanica.
In the Mediterranean Sea, H.stipulacea frequently co-occurs with native seagrasses such as C.nodosa, P.oceanica, Zosteranoltei Hornemann, 1832 and native or introduced macroalgae such as Caulerpaprolifera (Forsskål) Lamouroux, 1809, Caulerpacylindracea Sonder, 1845, and Caulerpataxifoliavar.distichophylla (Sonder) Verlaque, Huisman & Procaccini, 2013 (Kashta and Pizzuto 1995; Di Martino et al. 2006; Sghaier et al. 2011; Gaglioti and Gambi 2018). Although H.stipulacea is listed among the worst invasive species (Boudouresque and Verlaque 2002; Streftaris and Zenetos 2006), there is little evidence of its impact on native macrophytes in the Mediterranean Sea (Tsiamis et al. 2010; Sghaier et al. 2014; Hoffman 2021; Tsirintanis et al. 2022; Conte et al. 2023). Tsirintanis et al. (2022), for instance, reported for H.stipulacea a medium strength of evidence of combined negative and positive impacts on biodiversity. While Hoffman (2021) stated that the invasion of H.stipulacea into the sub-tidal of the Levant Mediterranean coast of Israel may represent a serious threat to the scarce population of C.nodosa down into the deep sub-tidal, as a consequence of the increased seawater temperatures. Moreover, Kolátková et al. (2021) hypothesized that a fungal parasite, recently discovered on Mediterranean H.stipulacea, may also affect native seagrasses such as C.nodosa. Recently, Conte et al. (2023) highlighted the potential capability of H.stipulacea to outcompete the native C.nodosa in the Aegean Sea, related to its morphophysiological plasticity and the ability to harbor and interact with diversified bacterial communities.
Instead, in the Caribbean Sea where it has been recently introduced, H.stipulacea is rapidly displacing native seagrasses (e.g. Syringodiumfiliforme Kützing, 1860) (Willette and Ambrose 2009, 2012; Willette et al. 2014; van Tussenbroek et al. 2016).
Since the ongoing tropicalization pattern of the Mediterranean Sea could facilitate H.stipulacea to compete with native seagrasses such as C.nodosa (Chefaoui et al. 2018; Savva et al. 2018; Wesselmann et al. 2020), it is mandatory to better understand the role of this alien species within native communities. Hence, we tested the hypothesis that the presence/absence of H.stipulacea may have an effect on native seagrasses. To do that, we surveyed from August 2010 to August 2011 a Southern Mediterranean shallow water habitat where H.stipulacea co-occurred with C.nodosa. In particular, the shoot density of C.nodosa in sites where C.nodosa co-occurred with H.stipulacea (impacted sites) and sites where C.nodosa formed monospecific populations (control sites) were analyzed. As information regarding the year-round dynamics of H.stipulacea in the Mediterranean Sea is scarce (Nguyen et al. 2020; Di Genio et al. 2021), we also monitored over four periods the H.stipulacea biometric features.
Materials and methodsStudy area
The study was carried out in semi-artificial shallow water basins located in proximity to the harbour of Termini Imerese (Fig. 1; 37°59'00"N, 13°42'00"E; North-Western Sicily, Italy, Southern Mediterranean Sea). To date, this is the only location in North-Western Sicily where H.stipulacea records have been reported (Mannino et al. 2009). The basins (hereafter referred to as sites) range in size from 5,500 m2 to 10,000 m2 and are connected to the sea via a central opening. The environmental characteristics at the sites are comparable, with sandy bottoms and depths ranging from 0.8 to 2.5 meters. Salinity remained consistent (38) throughout the seasons, while temperatures ranged from 25 °C in summer to 13 °C in winter (Table 1). Preliminary surveys revealed that H.stipulacea is not present in all sites but becomes dominant in those nearest to the harbor, whereas C.nodosa increases its presence into sites further away from the harbor. However, it is not clear if the presence of H.stipulacea can affect the density of C.nodosa or if the two species can co-occur. Due to the co-occurrence of these two species in this location, as well as the similar environmental characteristics, these sites are natural mesocosms that provide a unique opportunity to investigate the interaction of H.stipulacea and C.nodosa.
983CF94C-1778-57F4-AC77-6D43F01A756C
The study area (A) and details showing the investigated sampling sites (B). Impacted sampling sites (Halophilastipulacea present) are listed as: AH, BH, CH, DH. Control sampling sites (Halophilastipulacea absent) are listed as: A, B, C, D.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/848795
Mean values (± SE) of measured environmental factors at the sampling sites in four periods (T1 = August, T2 = October, T3 = January, T4 = April).
Abiotic features
T1
T2
T3
T4
Temperature (°C)
24.89 ± 0.23
21.97 ± 0.16
13.97 ± 0.16
17 ± 0.12
Salinity (PSU)
38.21 ± 0.07
38.10 ± 0.06
38 ± 0.08
38 ± 0.07
Experimental design
The experiment was carried out at 8 sites. In particular, four sites (A, B, C, D; control sites) characterized by the presence of monospecific C.nodosa populations and four sites (AH, BH, CH, DH; impacted sites) where C.nodosa co-occurred with H.stipulacea. Sites were surveyed from August 2010 to August 2011 and samplings were carried out in four periods (T1 = August, T2 = October, T3 = January, T4 = April).
The shoot density (number of shoots/m2) of C.nodosa and H.stipulacea was estimated by counting the number of shoots present in 3 randomly located quadrats (20 × 20 cm). The sampled shoots were brought to the lab, then were washed with seawater, sieved to remove sediment and big debris, and ultimately stored in labelled bags at 4 °C. For each site, the biometric features of H.stipulacea were then estimated by measuring the length and width of 30 randomly selected leaves (+/- 1 mm) in triplicate. To collect plant samples a formal permission was not required. Representative plant samples were deposited in the algological laboratory of the Department STeBiCeF - University of Palermo, Italy.
Statistical analysis
Differences in the density of C.nodosa among periods (fixed and orthogonal with 4 levels; T1, T2, T3 and T4), conditions (fixed and orthogonal with 2 levels; control vs impacted), sites (random and nested within conditions with 4 levels; 1, 2, 3 and 4) and their interaction were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cochran’s test was used to check for the homogeneity of variances (Underwood 1996).
To investigate which factor explained the variation in C.nodosa density, general mixed models (GLMs) were built using the “lme” function of the R package “nlme” (Pinheiro et al. 2016). These models included the density of H.stipulacea, temperature, and salinity as independent fixed continuous variables, the time as an independent random factor, and the density of C.nodosa as continuous dependent variable. When a variable did not follow normal distribution, it was log transformed to reach normal distribution before statistical analyses. We chose the best model for each dependent variable based on the Akaike information criterion, and we used the R package “MuMIn” (Barton 2012) to estimate variance explained by the mixed models. The number of degrees of freedom was determined using the “Kenward-Roger” method. All interactions up to the third level have been tested.
A descriptive analysis of H.stipulacea was carried out by calculating average (± SE) length and width of leaves, as well as its shoot density. ANOVA models were performed to investigate possible relationships between the measured variables (temperature, salinity, time, and C.nodosa densities) and width and length of H.stipulacea leaves.
Results
The C.nodosa shoot density was affected by the presence of H.stipulacea, with densities significantly lower in impacted sites compared to control ones (Fig. 2, Table 2). This effect was consistently observed through all investigated periods, although the density of C.nodosa tends to decrease from August 2010 to April 2011, with differences more marked in control sites than impacted ones (Fig. 2, Table 2).
52B0546D-86E8-5EA6-A31B-E8842B019B05
Variation of C.nodosa density in control sampling sites and in impacted sampling sites at each sampling time (T1 = August, T2 = October, T3 = January, T4 = April). As a preliminary analysis at each time, the sampling sites of each treatment were pairwise compared through a one-way ANOVA. No significant differences were found among sampling sites within the two “control” and “impacted” groups at each sampling time. The box plots were built merging the observations of each sampling site for each sampling time and treatment.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/848796
ANOVA results for testing the effects of sampling times and treatments on the density of the autochthonous species Cymodoceanodosa. Data were tested with the Cochran test (C=0.19; P>0.05) and then log transformed. Level of significance “P”: *** <0.001; ** <0.05, * <0.1.
DF
MS
F
P
Time
3
0.63
940
***
Treatment
1
13
19000
***
Time*Treatment
3
0.67
990
***
Treatment*Site
6
0.0014
2.1
*
Time*Treatment*Site
18
0.0014
2
**
Residuals
64
0.00068
Plant interaction assessment
Shoot density of H.stipulacea, temperature, their interaction, as well as the interaction between H.stipulacea density, temperature and salinity were significant (Table 3).
Type III Analysis of Variance Table. The table reports the sum of squares, mean square, degrees of freedom of numerator and denominator, F value and Variance ratio (Pr) for each fixed independent variable and for each considered interaction (in bold significant effects). “H. Density” indicates the shoot density of H.stipulacea.
SS
MS
NumDF
DenDF
F value
Pr(>F)
H. Density
27914.595
7424.866
1.000
85.901
0.811
0.870
Temperature
120933.622
10872.959
1.000
87.740
1.187
1.279
Salinity
9856.924
9856.924
1.000
1.925
1.077
0.412
H. Density*Temperature
19882.804
9149.827
1.000
85.890
0.099
0.320
H. Density*Salinity
7957.338
7957.338
1.000
85.895
0.369
0.354
Temperature*Salinity
385561.246
385561.246
1.000
1.954
42.109
0.024
H. Density*Temperature*Salinity
31951.772
14124.101
1.000
85.798
0.543
0.718
At level of single predictor only the variables H. Density and Temperature result significant; the two variables result with negative parameters according to an inverse relationship. Consistently with the results of the ANOVA for the decomposition of the variance, the parameters of H.stipulacea density, temperature, their interaction and the interaction between H.stipulacea density, temperature and salinity were significant (Table 4).
ANOVA table of fixed factors. The table shows the estimated values of the fixed factors, the standard error, the degrees of freedom and the significance values for each fixed factor and for each considered interaction (in bold significant effects). “H. Density” indicates the shoot density of H.stipulacea.
Estimate
Std. Error
DF
t value
Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept)
52631.390
24667.133
87.982
2.134
0.036
H. Density
-7.227
11.250
85.813
-0.642
0.722
Temperature
-2195.345
1397.647
87.558
-0.571
0.620
Salinity
-1389.506
646.783
87.994
-2.148
0.034
H. Density*Temperature
0.257
0.482
85.982
0.534
0.595
H. Density*Salinity
0.183
0.296
85.811
0.618
0.538
Temperature*Salinity
59.563
36.622
87.629
1.626
0.107
H. Density*Temperature*Salinity
-0.007
0.013
85.977
-0.517
0.606
The analysis of the first level of interaction showed that C.nodosa shoot density was negatively related to the increase of H.stipulacea density (Fig. 3A, see also Fig. 4A–C), while showing a positive relationship with temperature and salinity (Fig. 3B, C).
B9EBD314-6AD1-580C-A4DB-FDC2DCA239B5
Relationship between C.nodosa density and H.stipulacea density (A), temperature (B) and salinity (C).
Examples of habitat structure at the investigated sites. Cymodoceanodosa in presence of Halophilastipulacea (A), Halophilastipulacea dominating Cymodoceanodosa (B), Cymodoceanodosa in absence of Halophilastipulacea (C), multi-layered mat formed by rhizomes of Halophilastipulacea (D).
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/848798
We observed a dense multi-layered mat formed by the lateral rhizomes of H.stipulacea, growing between C.nodosa shoots and entrapping sediment (Fig. 4D). Therefore, in control sites rhizomes of C.nodosa grew above the sediment or were slightly covered by it (Fig. 5A) while in impacted sites they were pushed down in the anoxic layer by the multi-layered mat (Fig. 5B).
F1011820-9409-53AF-BB3E-7608210C4CB0
Cymodoceanodosa: rhizomes above the sediment (A), rhizomes pushed down in the anoxic layer (B).
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/848799
The second level interactions, on the other hand, produced negative relationships for the interaction between H.stipulacea density and temperature (Fig. 6A), and between H.stipulacea density and salinity (Fig. 6B); while the interaction between temperature and salinity showed a positive relationship with the density of C.nodosa (Fig. 6C). The third level interaction shows negative relationships for all the considered conditions (Fig. 6D).
314F1AE8-6E86-53CA-A748-86F311315D1F
Plot of the second (A–C) and third (D) level interactions, the figure shows the plot of the relationship resulting from the interaction between H.stipulacea density and temperature (A), H.stipulacea density and salinity (B), temperature and salinity (C) and for the interaction between all the fixed factors (D).
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/848800
The results of the mixed model clearly showed 3 different effects of the considered independent variables on C.nodosa density values. Temperature had a positive effect, H.stipulacea density had a negative effect and salinity (in the recorded range of values) showed a conservative effect. Their interactions clearly showed the strength of the interaction with the presence of H.stipulacea, a relationship appearing limited by the temperature that functions as a control variable on the negative effect led by the density of H.stipulacea (Fig. 6A, D).
Biometric features of H.stipulacea
Biometric features of H.stipulacea are reported in Fig. 7A, B. Elliptic leaf blades, typically characterized by a distinct mid vein with many branched cross veins, were long on average 59.0 mm ± 1.8 (specifically, 59.1 mm ± 1.6 in T1, 58.8 mm ± 1.8 in T2 and 59.2 mm ± 1.8 in T3) and wide on average 6.8 mm ± 0.175 (6.921 mm ± 0.15 in T1, 6.8 mm ± 0.16 in T2 and 6.7 mm ± 0.20 in T3; Table 5). Leaf length and width didn’t show significant differences among sites and sampling periods (P>0.05; Fig. 7A, B). Shoot density of H.stipulacea showed a mean value of 8,613.33 ± 384.31 number of shoots/m2 and a consistent reduction from T1 to T3 was observed (14,754.17 ± 722.51 in T1, 9,495.83 ± 287.98 in T2, and 1,590.0 ± 142.45 in T3). In T4 H.stipulacea totally disappeared except for the occurrence of a few dead shoots. Flowers have never been observed. Notably, we observed the occurrence in T3 of C.cylindracea (cover of 2.5%), that rapidly invaded the bare substrate left by H.stipulacea, reaching a cover of 40% in T4. Surveys carried out in August 2011 confirmed the presence of C.cylindracea, which reached a cover of about 70%.
A44C9843-DA58-59C9-B70E-CE6618BFDD91
Leaf length (A) and leaf width (B) of H.stipulacea in impacted sampling sites. Bars show mean ± SE (n = 30). In T4 the species disappeared.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/848801
Biometric data (mean ± SE) of H.stipulacea in the Mediterranean Sea.
Localities
References
Depth (m)
Mean density (No. of shoots/m2)
Mean leaf length (mm)
Mean leaf width (mm)
Termini Imerese harbor (Italy)
Present study
0.8 – 2.5
8,613.3 ± 384.31
59.07 ± 1.80
6.83 ± 0.17
Palinuro harbor (Italy)
Gambi et al. (2009)Di Genio et al. (2021)
2 – 5 1.8 – 4
10,500 ± 2,700 from 6,100 ± 953.9 to 9,290 ± 2,482
33.3 – 55.7 25.0–50.0
4.4 – 6.8 4.5 – 7.0
Peninsula of Maddalena (Italy)
Di Martino et al. (2006)
21
1,967
42 – 73
m.d.
Vulcano Island (Italy)
Procaccini et al. (1999)
5 – 25
12,795 – 15,170
40.3 – 67.5
5.1 – 7.8
Oliveri-Tindari (Italy)
Procaccini et al. (1999)
2
25,345 ± 4,324
63.8 – 84.3
8.3 – 10.1
Naxos-Taormina (Italy)
Cancemi et al. (1994)
2
19,728
m.d.
m.d.
Marina Cap Monastir (Tunisia)
Sghaier et al. (2011)
1 – 2
9,900 ± 3,509
58.2 ± 4.3
7.1 ± 0.7
Tobrouk Bay (Libya)
Sghaier et al. (2011)
1 – 1.5
476 ± 83
47
55
Cannes (France)
Thibaut et al. (2022)
11 – 17
202
up to 57
m.d.
m.d. = missing data.
As the best three-way ANOVA model for the “leaf width” variable, the model composed by the variables time, temperature and C.nodosa density was selected, based on the values of R2 (0.993) the model explains 99% of the observed variability. The best three-way ANOVA model built for the “leaf length” variable is instead the model composed of the categorical variable “Time”, based on the values of R2 (0.931) the model explains 93% of the observed variability. In both cases based on the values of the Fisher statistic (F), the information brought by the explanatory variables is significantly better than a basic mean would bring (Table 6).
ANOVA table of the two computed three-way ANOVA models. WModel and LModel indicate the model constructed for the variable “H.stipulacea leaf width” and “H.stipulacea leaf length” respectively.
Source
DF
SS
MS
F
Pr > F
P
WModel
13.000
428.876
32.990
354.997
<0.0001
***
Error
34.000
3.160
0.093
Corrected Total
47.000
432.036
LModel
7.000
31405.311
4486.473
88002.034
<0.0001
***
Error
40.000
2.039
0.051
Corrected Total
47.000
31407.351
Level of significance codes (P): 0 < *** < 0.001.
For each selected model the interactions up to the third level were evaluated; in both models the only highly significant variable is time, the variables temperature, salinity and C.nodosa density are weakly significant (Table 7). The interactions temperature*time, salinity*time, C.nodosa density*time and H.stipulacea density*time are weakly significant (Table 7); while all other variables and other interactions are not significant.
Type III Analysis of Variance. The table reports the values of degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F statistic and P-value for the factors and the interactions which resulted at least scarcely significant (0.1 < * < 1). Factors and interactions not present were found to be insignificant. Significant interactions are reported.
Although H.stipulacea is listed among one of the worst invasive species (Streftaris and Zenetos 2006), there is no clear evidence of competition with Mediterranean seagrasses, possibly due to its small shoot size compared to that of larger native species (Apostolaki et al. 2019). The co-occurrence of H.stipulacea and C.nodosa has been already reported for the Mediterranean Sea but negative interactions between the two seagrasses were not clearly observed except for the Tunisian and Crete (Greece) coasts (Kashta and Pizzuto 1995; Di Martino et al. 2006; Sghaier et al. 2014; Conte et al. 2023). Sghaier et al. (2014) reported a relevant competition between C.nodosa and H.stipulacea in Tunisian coast, with H.stipulacea displacing till 50% of C.nodosa. In Crete, Conte et al. (2023) highlighted severe signs of stress (altered associated bacterial communities, biometric and biochemical descriptors) in C.nodosa due to the proximity of H.stipulacea. In the Caribbean Sea, instead, a significant competition for space was reported between H.stipulacea and the native seagrass S.filiforme, with H.stipulacea rapidly expanding and displacing the local seagrass but also altering the seagrass community (Willette and Ambrose 2012).
The observed values of shoot density and the total absence of flowers and/or fruits in C.nodosa in impacted sites might be linked to a negative effect of H.stipulacea on C.nodosa growth. The system outlined by the physical conditions (temperature and salinity) and the presence of H.stipulacea, analyzed through a mixed model approach, showed different effects on the density of C.nodosa. The temperature is the main favoring factor with respect to the density of C.nodosa while the density of H.stipulacea has a strongly limiting effect on the density of C.nodosa. A positive correlation between temperature and shoot density, phenological parameters (number of leaves, leaf length, leaf width and biomass) and leaf elongation rates of C.nodosa has been found by other authors (Pérez and Romero 1992; Marbà et al. 1996; Cancemi et al. 2002; Tsioli et al. 2019). As already observed in other Mediterranean coasts, C.nodosa shows strong seasonal patterns in shoot density and phenological parameters, reaching the highest values in summer (Pérez and Romero 1992; Cancemi et al. 2002; Tsioli et al. 2019). The interactions showed that the strongest relationship is the one with H.stipulacea; in fact all interactions with it (H.stipulacea density-temperature, H.stipulacea density-salinity and third level interaction) are all negative. The temperature seems to have a buffering effect on the negative effect of H.stipulacea density, in particular the limiting effect is much stronger in high temperature conditions. We hypothesized that the limiting effect is due to the dense multi-layered mat formed by H.stipulacea rhizomes plus sediment, which push down C.nodosa rhizomes in a layer with oxygen depletion (van Tussenbroek et al. 2016). Higher temperatures will cause an increase in oxygen depletion. The behavior of H.stipulacea seems comparable to that of invasive Caulerpa spp., able to negatively affect seagrass growth through the modification and deterioration of sediments (Borum et al. 2004; Holmer et al. 2009). According to Ceccherelli and Campo (2002), C.cylindracea would affect C.nodosa shoot density, but no clear evidence of a negative interaction between these two macrophytes was found.
The leaf features of the studied H.stipulacea population were generally comparable to those of other Mediterranean populations (Table 5). Moreover, we observed that the dimensions of the leaves of H.stipulacea do not seem to strictly depend either on the measured environmental variables or on the densities of the two species. In fact, they seem to depend on the categorical variable “Time”, reflecting a temporal trend. On the other hand, shoot density of H.stipulacea presented some differences with respect to other Mediterranean populations (Table 5). The decline of H.stipulacea in January 2011 and the subsequent disappearance in April, could be related to changes in the environmental conditions that have become unfavorable (e.g. hydrodynamics, turbidity). Moreover, the occurrence in January of C.cylindracea, which rapidly expanded, invading the bare substrate left by H.stipulacea, may have prevented the re-establishment of H.stipulacea. Negative interactions and competitiveness between Caulerpa sp. and H.stipulacea have been already observed (Di Martino et al. 2006; Gab-Alla 2007).
Fertile plants of H.stipulacea were not observed in the study area. We know that they are much less common in the Mediterranean Sea than in the native habitat, suggesting a difficulty in completing sexual reproduction under the Mediterranean environmental conditions. Male flowers were mainly recorded in the Western Mediterranean (Cancemi et al. 1994; Procaccini et al. 1999; Gambi et al. 2009, 2018; Di Genio et al. 2021), suggesting that female flowers are not able to develop under the Western Mediterranean environmental conditions (Gambi et al. 2009). The recent finding of fertile plants bearing fruits on Chios Island and on Turkey coasts (Gerakaris and Tsiamis 2015; Dural et al. 2020), and flowers in Cyprus (Nguyen et al. 2018), indicates that in the Eastern Mediterranean H.stipulacea is able to reproduce sexually. Instead, the recent record of fruits in the Caribbean Sea (Chiquillo et al. 2019) has been questioned by Smulders et al. (2020), who believe that they likely are male flower buds, which have similar dimensions to fruits. The authors stated that the existence of female flowers and fruits of H.stipulacea in the Caribbean Sea is still an open question and confirmed that H.stipulacea reproduces only asexually in the Caribbean.
Since sexual reproduction has rarely been reported in invaded areas (Mediterranean and Caribbean Sea), the dominant way of dissemination and expansion seems to be vegetative propagation (Boudouresque and Verlaque 2002; Missaoui et al. 2003; Sghaier et al. 2011; Nguyen et al. 2018). Understanding reproduction of H.stipulacea in its invasive range is critical to managing this species. Indeed, sexual reproduction may increase the dispersal capacity and the adaptive capacity of this species and, through the seed banks, may increase its resilience to disturbances (Ackerman 2006; Unsworth et al. 2015; Smulders et al. 2020).
Although H.stipulacea highlights a relatively limited invasion success in the Mediterranean Sea if compared with the successful invasion reported for the Caribbean (see Winters et al. 2020) and has never shown any clear and regular invasive behavior (Di Martino et al. 2006; Gambi et al. 2009; Sghaier et al. 2011), it shows the potential for long distance dispersal (Willette and Ambrose 2009; Short et al. 2010) and possesses some features that could make it a potential threat to native seagrasses. Under warming scenarios, H.stipulacea could occupy the niche left by P.oceanica together with C.nodosa, continuing to support carbon sequestration, thus contributing in the mitigation of the global warming (Wesselmann et al. 2021). However, even though H.stipulacea might potentially contribute to increasing the carbon sequestration, the mainly allochthonous origin of organic carbon deposited in H.stipulacea sediments make it more susceptible to remineralization, implying a deterioration in the quality and quantity of the carbon. Furthermore, the weak rhizome structure of the species enhances the probability of sediment erosion and subsequent loss of sedimentary carbon stock (Apostolaki et al. 2019).
Conclusion
Certainly, our results represent a starting point and further investigation on the ecology and dynamics of H.stipulacea and its interaction with native seagrasses is needed. Indeed, in recent years, seagrass ecosystems have been experiencing a well-documented decline in many areas of the world (Boudouresque et al. 2009; Marbà and Duarte 2010; Marbà et al. 2014; Chefaoui et al. 2018), thus their conservation is becoming increasingly important (Unsworth et al. 2019). Under the climate change scenarios, the exotic H.stipulacea and the native warm tolerant species C.nodosa could substitute P.oceanica or even H.stipulacea could significantly outcompete the Cymodocea native species (Wesselmann et al. 2020). Genomic can be an important tool to better understand the ability of H.stipulacea to adapt to environmental conditions and spreading, and to respond to expected climate change (Specchia et al. 2017; Tsakogiannis et al. 2020; Winters et al. 2020; Zangaro et al. 2021).
CRediT author statement
Anna Maria Mannino: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing - Original draft, Writing - Review and Editing, Visualization, Supervision. Paolo Balistreri: Writing - Review & Editing. Francesco Paolo Mancuso: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing. Fabio Bozzeda: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing. Maurizio Pinna: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing- Review & Editing.
Acknowledgements
We thank Manfredi Parasporo for his help in Data Curation.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
ReferencesAckermanJD (2006) Sexual reproduction of seagrasses: pollination in the marine context. In: LarkumAWDOrthRJDuarteCM (Eds) Seagrasses: biology, ecology and conservation., 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2983-7_4AlexandreAGeorgiouDSantosR (2014) Inorganic nitrogen acquisition by the tropical species Halophilastipulacea.35(3): 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12128ApostolakiETVizziniSSantinelli KaberiHAndolinaCPapathanassiouE (2019) Exotic Halophilastipulacea is an introduced carbon sink for the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.9(1): 9643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45046-wBaricheMAl-MabrukSAAteşMABüyükACrocettaFDritsasMEddeDFortičAGavriilEGerovasileiouVGökoğluMHuseyinogluFMKarachlePKKleitouPTerbiyik KurtTLangeneckJLardicciCLipejLPavloudiCPinnaMRizgallaJRüştü ÖzenMSedanoFTaşkinEYildizGZangaroF (2020) New Alien Mediterranean Biodiversity Records (March 2020).21(1): 129–145. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.21987BartonK (2012) MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.7. 2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMInBeca-CarreteroPRotiniAMejiaAMiglioreLVizziniSWintersG (2020) Halophilastipulacea descriptors in the native area (Red Sea): A baseline for future comparisons with native and non-native populations. Marine Environmental Research 153: 104828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.104828BorumJGreveTMBinzerTSantosR (2004) What can be done to prevent seagrass loss? In: BorumJDuarteCMKrause-JensenDGreveTM (Eds) European Seagrasses: An Introduction to Monitoring and Management., 67–71.BoudouresqueCFVerlaqueM (2002) Assessing scale and impact of ship-transported alien macrophytes in the Mediterranean Sea. In: BriandF (Ed.) Alien marine organisms introduced by ships in the Mediterranean and Black Seas., 53–61.BoudouresqueCFBernardGPergentGShiliAVerlaqueM (2009) Regression of Mediterranean seagrasses caused by natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances and stress: A critical review.52(5): 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1515/BOT.2009.057BoudouresqueCFPerret-BoudouresqueMVerlaqueM (2016) Donor and recipient regions for exotic species of marine macrophytes: A case of unidirectional flow, the Mediterranean Sea. Rapports et Procès Verbaux des Réunions - Commission Internationale pour l`Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée 41: 426.CancemiGTerlizziAScipioneMBMazzellaL (1994) Il prato ad Halophilastipulacea (Forssk.) Aschers. di G. Naxos (Sicilia): Caratteristiche della pianta e del popolamento a fauna vagile.1: 401–402.CancemiGBuiaMCMazzellaL (2002) Structure and growth dynamics of Cymodoceanodosa meadows.66(4): 365–373. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2002.66n4365CeccherelliGCampoD (2002) Different effects of Caulerparacemosa on two co-occurring seagrasses in the Mediterranean.45(1): 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/BOT.2002.009ChefaouiRMDuarteCMSerrãoEA (2018) Dramatic loss of seagrass habitat under projected climate change in the Mediterranean Sea.24(10): 4919–4928. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14401ChiquilloKLBarberPHWilletteDA (2019) Fruits and flowers of the invasive seagrass Halophilastipulacea in the Caribbean Sea.62(2): 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2018-0052CollMPiroddiCSteenbeekJKaschnerKBen Rais LasramFAguzziJBallesterosEBianchiCNCorberaJDailianisTDanovaroREstradaMFrogliaCGalilBSGasolJMGertwagenRGilJGuihaumonFKesner-ReyesKKitsosM-SKoukourasALampadariouNLaxamanaELópez-Fé de la CuadraCMLotzeHKMartinDMouillotDOroDRaicevichSRius-BarileJSaiz-SalinasJISan VicenteCSomotSTempladoJTuronXVafidisDVillanuevaRVoultsiadouE (2010) The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, patterns and threats. PLoS ONE 5(8): e11842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011842ConteCApostolakiETVizziniSMiglioreL (2023) A tight interaction between the native seagrass Cymodoceanodosa and the exotic Halophilastipulacea in the Aegean Sea highlights seagrass holobiont variations.12(2): 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12020350Di GenioSGagliotiMMeneghessoCBarbieriFCerranoCGambiMC (2021) Phenology and ecology of the alien seagrass Halophilastipulacea in its northern range limit in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Botany 168: 103304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2020.103304Di MartinoVBlundoMCTitaG (2006) The Mediterranean introduced seagrass Halophilastipulacea in Eastern Sicily: Temporal variation of the associated algal assemblages.56(3): 223–230.DominaGCampisiPManninoAMSparacioIRaimondoFM (2018) Environmental quality assessment of the Sicilian coast using a multi-disciplinary approach. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 11(Suppl.): 11–18.DuralBOkudanESDemirNSenkardeşlerAErduğanHAyselV (2020) Observations on the flowering and fruit developments in Halophilastipulacea (Hydrocharitaceae) in the Aegean Sea (Turkey).26(1): 1–16.El ShaffaiA (2011) A Field Guide to Seagrasses of the Red Sea. IUCN Press, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.15373/2249555X/MAR2014/161FritschC (1895) Uber die auffindung einer marinen Hydrocharidee im Mittelmeer.45: 104–106.Gab-AllaAA-FA (2007) Ecological study on community of exotic invasive seaweed Caulerpaprolifera in Suez Canal and its associated macro invertebrates.7(5): 679–686. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2007.679.686GagliotiMGambiMC (2018) The natural laboratory of the CO2 vents off Panarea (Aeolian Islands, Italy): a special ecological setting and a further stepping stone for some alien macrophytes. Notiziario S.I.B.M.74: 111–117.GalilBSMarchiniAOcchipinti-AmbrogiA (2018) East is east and west is west? Management of marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea.201: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.021GallardoBClaveroMSánchezMIVilàM (2016) Global ecological impacts of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems.22(1): 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13004GambiMCBarbieriFBianchiCN (2009) New record of the alien seagrass Halophilastipulacea (Hydrocharitaceae) in the Western Mediterranean: A further clue to changing Mediterranean Sea biogeography. Marine Biodiversity Records 2: E84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175526720900058XGambiMCGagliotiMBarbieriF (2018) Sometimes they come back: The recolonization of the alien seagrass Halophilastipulacea (Forssk.) Aschers, 1867 (Hydrocharitaceae) in the Palinuro harbor (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy).7(3): 215–221. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2018.7.3.01García-EscuderoCATsigenopoulosCSGerakarisVTsakogiannisAApostolakiET (2022) ITS DNA Barcoding Reveals That Halophilastipulacea Still Remains the Only Non-Indigenous Seagrass of the Mediterranean Sea.14(2): 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14020076GeorgiouDAlexandreALuisJSantosR (2016) Temperature is not a limiting factor for the expansion of Halophilastipulacea throughout the Mediterranean Sea.544: 159–167. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11582GerakarisVTsiamisK (2015) Sexual reproduction of the Lessepsian seagrass Halophilastipulacea in the Mediterranean Sea.58(1): 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2014-0091GerakarisVLardiP-IIssarisY (2020) First record of the tropical seagrass species Halophiladecipiens in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Botany 160: 103151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2019.103151GiakoumiS (2014) Distribution Patterns of the Invasive Herbivore Siganusluridus (Rüppell, 1829) and its Relation to Native Benthic Communities in the Central Aegean Sea, Northeastern Mediterranean.35(1): 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12059HoffmanR (2021) Ecological significance of the late occurrence of Halophilastipulacea (Hydrocharitaceae, Tracheophyta) on the Southern Levantine Mediterranean shores of Israel.14(1): 555877. https://doi.org/10.19080/OFOAJ.2021.14.555877HolmerMMarbàNLamoteMDuarteCM (2009) Deterioration of Sediment Quality in Seagrass Meadows (Posidoniaoceanica) Invaded by Macroalgae (Caulerpa sp.).32(3): 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-009-9133-4KashtaLPizzutoF (1995) Sulla presenza di Halophilastipulacea (Forskål) Ascherson nelle coste dell’Albania.28: 161–166.KatsanevakisS (2011) Rapid assessment of the marine alien megabiota in the shallow coastal waters of the Greek islands, Paros and Antiparos, Aegean Sea. Aquatic Invasions 6(Suppl 1): S133–S137. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2011.6.S1.030KatsanevakisSCollMPiroddiCSteenbeekJBen Rais LasramFZenetosACardosoAC (2014) Invading the Mediterranean Sea: Biodiversity patterns shaped by human activities. Frontiers in Marine Science 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00032KolátkováVČepičkaIHoffmanRVohníkM (2021) Marinomyxa gen. nov. accommodates gall-forming parasites of the tropical to subtropical seagrass genus Halophila and constitutes a novel deep-branching lineage within Phytomyxea (Rhizaria: Endomyxa).81(3): 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01615-5LipkinY (1975) Halophilastipulacea, a review of a successful immigration.1: 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(75)90023-6ManninoAMMancusoFPToccaceliM (2009) Proceedings of the Mediterranean Seagrass Workshop, Hvar, Croatia 6–10 September 2009, 66 pp.ManninoAMBalistreriPYokeşMB (2014) First Record of Aplysiadactylomela (Opisthobranchia, Aplysiidae) from the Egadi Islands (Western Sicily). Marine Biodiversity Records 7: E22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755267214000190ManninoAMParasporoMCrocettaFBalistreriP (2017) An updated overview of the marine alien and cryptogenic species from the Egadi Islands Marine Protected Area (Italy).47(2): 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-016-0496-zManninoAMGambiMCDieliTGianguzzaP (2018) A new contribution to the alien macroalgal flora of the Ustica Island Marine Protected Area (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy).7(4): 367–373. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2018.7.4.03ManninoAMCiceroFToccaceliMPinnaMBalistreriP (2019) Distribution of Caulerpataxifoliavar.distichophylla (Sonder) Verlaque, Huisman & Procaccini in the Mediterranean Sea.37: 17–29. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.37.33079MarbàNDuarteCM (2010) Mediterranean warming triggers seagrass (Posidoniaoceanica) shoot mortality.16(8): 2366–2375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02130.xMarbàNCebriánJEnríquezSDuarteCM (1996) Growth patterns of Western Mediterranean seagrasses: Speciesspecific responses to seasonal forcing.133: 203–215. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps133203MarbàNDíaz-AlmelaEDuarteCM (2014) Mediterranean seagrass (Posidoniaoceanica) loss between 1842 and 2009.176: 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.05.024MejiaAYRotiniALacasellaFBookmanRThallerMCShem-TovRWintersGMiglioreL (2016) Assessing the ecological status of seagrasses using morphology, biochemical descriptors and microbial community analyses. A study in Halophilastipulacea meadows in the Northern Red Sea.60: 1150–1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.014MissaouiHMahjoubSChalkhafM (2003) Sur la présence de la phanérogame marine Halophilastipulacea dans le golfe de Gabès.30: 111–114.NguyenHMKleitouPKletouDSapirYWintersG (2018) Differences in flowering sex ratios between native and invasive populations of the seagrass Halophilastipulacea.61(4): 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2018-0015NguyenHMYadavNSBarakSLimaFPSapirYWintersG (2020) Responses of Invasive and Native Populations of the Seagrass Halophilastipulacea to Simulated Climate Change. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 812. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00812Occhipinti-AmbrogiAMarchiniACantoneGCastelliAChimenzCCormaciMFrogliaCFurnariGGambiMCGiacconeGGiangrandeAGraviliCMastrototaroFMazziottiCOrsi-ReliniLPirainoS (2011a) Alien Species along the Italian Coasts: An Overview.13(1): 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9803-yOcchipinti-AmbrogiAMarchiniACantoneGCastelliAChimenzCCormaciMFrogliaCFurnariGGambiMCGiacconeGGiangrandeAGraviliCMastrototaroFMazziottiCOrsi-ReliniLPirainoS (2011b) Erratum to: Alien Species along the Italian Coasts: An Overview.13(2): 531–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9856-yOscarMABarakSWintersG (2018) The tropical invasive seagrass, Halophilastipulacea, has a superior ability to tolerate dynamic changes in salinity levels compared to its freshwater relative, Vallisneriaamericana. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 950. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00950PérezMRomeroJ (1992) Photosynthetic response to light and temperature of the seagrass Cymodoceanodosa and the prediction of its seasonality.43(1): 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(92)90013-9PicaDGalantiLPolaL (2021) Tracheophyta. 2.1 First records of the seagrass Halophilastipulacea in Sardinia (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). In: Orfanidis S, Alvito A, Azzurro E, Badreddine A, Souissi JB, Chamorro C, et al. (Eds) New Alien Mediterranean Biodiversity Records (March 2021).22(1): 180–198. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.25294PinheiroRCde Deus JrJCNouvellonYCampoeOCStapeJLAlóLLGuerriniIAJourdanCLaclauJP (2016) A fast exploration of very deep soil layers by Eucalyptus seedlings and clones in Brazil.366: 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.012ProcacciniGAcuntoSFamàPMaltagliatiF (1999) Structural, morphological and genetic variability in Halophilastipulacea (Hydrocharitaceae) populations of the Western Mediterranean.135(1): 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270050615RotiniAMejiaAYCostaRMiglioreLWintersG (2017) Ecophysiological plasticity and bacteriome shift in the seagrass Halophilastipulacea along a depth gradient in the Northern Red Sea. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: 2015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.02015RuizHBallantineD (2004) Occurrence of the seagrass Halophilastipulacea in the tropical West Atlantic.75: 131–135.SavvaIBennettSRocaGJordàGMarbàN (2018) Thermal tolerance of Mediterranean marine macrophytes: Vulnerability to global warming.8(23): 12032–12043. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4663SghaierYRZakhama-SraiebRBenamerICharfi-CheikhrouhaF (2011) Occurrence of the seagrass Halophilastipulacea (Hydrocharitaceae) in the southern Mediterranean.54(6): 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1515/BOT.2011.061SghaierYRZakhama-SraiebRCharfi-CheikhrouhaF (2014) The effects of the invasive seagrass Halophilastipulacea on the native Cymodoceanodosa. 5th Mediterranean Symposium on Marine Vegetation, Port-Roze (Slovenia), October 2014: 167–171.SghaierYRZakhama-SraiebRBen HmidaACharfiF (2019) An inventory of non-indigenous species (NIS) inside and outside three tourist marinas from the southern Mediterranean coast.25(1): 29–48.ShortFTMoorebEGPeytonKA (2010) Halophilaovalis in the tropical Atlantic Ocean.93(3): 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2010.05.001SmuldersFOHChiquilloKLWilletteDABarberPHChristianenMJA (2020) Inconclusive evidence of sexual reproduction of invasive Halophilastipulacea: A new field guide to encourage investigation of flower and fruit production throughout its invasive range.63(6): 537–540. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2020-0046SpecchiaVJanzenSMariniGPinnaM (2017) The Potential Link between Mobile DNA and the invasiveness of the Species.13: 557–561.StreftarisNZenetosA (2006) Alien marine species in the Mediterranean - the 100 worst invasives and their impact.7(1): 87–118. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.180TershyBRShenKWNewtonKMHolmesNDCrollDA (2015) The importance of islands for the protection of biological and linguistic diversity.65(6): 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv031ThibautTBlanfunéABoudouresqueCFHolonFAgelNDescampsPDeterJPavyTDelaruelleGVerlaqueM (2022) Distribution of the seagrass Halophilastipulacea: A big jump to the Northwestern Mediterranean sea. Aquatic Botany 176: 103465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2021.103465TsakogiannisAManousakiTAnagnostopoulouVStavroulakiMApostolakiET (2020) The Importance of Genomics for Deciphering the Invasion Success of the Seagrass Halophilastipulacea in the Changing Mediterranean Sea.12(7): 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12070263TsiamisKMontesantoBPanayotidisPKatsarosCVerlaqueM (2010) Updated records and range expansion of alien marine macrophytes in Greece (2009).11(1): 61–80. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.91TsioliSOrfanidisSPapathanasiouVKatsarosCExadactylosA (2019) Effects of salinity and temperature on the performance of Cymodoceanodosa and Ruppiacirrhosa: A medium-term laboratory study.62(2): 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/bot-2017-0125TsirintanisKAzzurroECrocettaFDimizaMFrogliaCGerovasileiouVLangeneckJMancinelliGRossoASternNTriantaphyllouMTsiamisKTuronXVerlaqueMZenetosAKatsanevakisS (2022) Bioinvasion impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health in the Mediterranean Sea.17(3): 308–352. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2022.17.3.01UnderwoodAJ (1996) Detection, interpretation, prediction and management of environmental disturbances: Some roles for experimental marine ecology.200(1–2): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(96)02637-8UnsworthRKFCollierCJWaycottMMckenzieLJCullen-UnsworthLC (2015) A framework for the resilience of seagrass ecosystems.100(1): 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.016UnsworthRKFMcKenzieLJCollierCJCullen-UnsworthLCDuarteCMEklöfJSJarvisJCJonesBLNordlundLM (2019) Global challenges for seagrass conservation.48(8): 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1115-yvan TussenbroekBIvan KatwijkMMBoumaTJvan der HeideTGoversLLLeuvenRSEW (2016) Non-native seagrass Halophilastipulacea forms dense mats under eutrophic conditions in the Caribbean.115: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2016.05.005Varela-ÁlvarezERindiFCavasLSerrãoEADuarteCMMarbáN (2011) Molecular identification of the tropical seagrass Halophilastipulacea from Turkey.52: 227–232.WallentinusINybergCD (2007) Introduced marine organisms as habitats modifiers.55(7–9): 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.11.010WesselmannMAntonADuarteCMHendriksIEAgustíSSavvaIApostolakiETMarbàN (2020) Tropical seagrass Halophilastipulacea shifts thermal tolerance during Mediterranean invasion.287(1922): 20193001. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.3001WesselmannMGeraldiNRDuarteCMGarcia-OrellanaJDíaz-RúaRArias-OrtizAHendriksIEApostolakiETMarbàN (2021) Seagrass (Halophilastipulacea) invasion enhances carbon sequestration in the Mediterranean Sea.27(11): 2592–2607. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15589WilletteDAAmbroseRF (2009) The distribution and expansion of the invasive seagrass Halophilastipulacea in Dominica, West Indies, with a preliminary report from St. Lucia.91(3): 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2009.04.001WilletteDAAmbroseRF (2012) Effects of the invasive seagrass Halophilastipulacea on the native seagrass, Syringodiumfiliforme, and associated fish and epibiota communities in the eastern Caribbean.103: 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.06.007WilletteDAChalifourJDebrotAOODEngelMSMillerJOxenfordHAShortFTSteinerSCCVédieF (2014) Continued expansion of the trans-Atlantic invasive marine angiosperm Halophilastipulacea in the Caribbean.112: 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2013.10.001WintersGBeerSWilletteDAVianaIGChiquilloKLBeca-CarreteroPVillamayorBAzcárate-GarcíaTShem-TovRMwabvuBMiglioreLRotiniAOscarMABelmakerJGamlielIAlexandreAEngelenAHProcacciniGRilovG (2020) The tropical seagrass Halophilastipulacea: Reviewing what we know from its native and invasive habitats, alongside identifying knowledge gaps. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00300ZangaroFSaccomannoBTzafestaEBozzedaFSpecchiaVPinnaM (2021) Current limitations and future prospects of detection and biomonitoring of NIS in the Mediterranean Sea through environmental DNA.70: 151–165. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.70.71862ZenetosAGalanidiM (2020) Mediterranean non-indigenous species at the start of the 2020s: Recent changes.13(1): 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41200-020-00191-4ZenetosAÇinarMECrocettaFGolaniDRossoAServelloGShenkarNTuronXVerlaqueM (2017) Uncertainties and validation of alien species catalogues: The Mediterranean as an example.191: 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.03.031