4.7 Review

Substrate Selection of Ascidian Larva: Wettability and Nano-Structures

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse9060634

Keywords

biofouling; larval settlement; substrate preference; water wettability; moth-eye structure; MOSMITETM; silicone paradox

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ascidians are important marine sessile chordates in benthic ecosystems, with larvae preferring hydrophobic surfaces for settlement but not always suitable for attachment. Micro-scale structures or roughness may enhance larval settlement, while a nano-scale nipple array can significantly reduce attachment, hinting at similar functional structures on various invertebrates' body surfaces.
Ascidians are marine sessile chordates that comprise one of the major benthic animal groups in marine ecosystems. They sometimes cause biofouling problems on artificial structures underwater, and non-indigenous, invasive ascidian species can potentially and seriously alter native faunal communities. Ascidian larvae are usually tadpole-shaped, negatively phototactic, and adhere on substrates by secreting a glue from their adhesive organs. Although larvae often prefer hydrophobic surfaces, such as a silicone rubber, for settlement, hydrophobic materials are often used to reduce occurrence of fouling organisms on artificial structures. This inconsistency may indicate that an attractive surface for larvae is not always suitable for settlement. Micro-scale structures or roughness may enhance the settlement of ascidian larvae, but settlement is significantly reduced by a nano-scale nipple array (or moth-eye structure), suggesting functional properties of similar structures found on the body surfaces of various invertebrates. The substrate preferences of larvae should be one of the important bases in considering measures against biofouling, and this review also discusses the potential uses of materials to safely reduce the impacts of invasive species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available