Sediment and light intensity collected during deployment of experimental “reef”.

<p>(a) Sediment (g/dry weight) was collected from individual plates prior to final collection of plates and (b) light (lux) was sampled above the plates with loggers for 28 days during the experiment. The averages are presented for each measure and bars are separated by (a) orientation (horizontal or vertical) and assemblage (new or established) and (a/b) coded for shading treatment (unshaded, shade control or shaded).</p

PERMANOVA results comparing non-indigenous and native invertebrate species percent cover and richness sampled from artificial and natural habitats.

<p>Non-indigenous invertebrate a) percent cover and b) species richness, native invertebrate c) percent cover and d) species richness compared between vertical surfaces of artificial (pilings and pontoons) and natural (reef) habitats. Habitats were sampled at twice at 4 sites. Significant results (p<0.05) are indicated in bold.</p

Study sites in Port Jackson, Australia.

<p>Sites were sampled in an <i>in-situ</i> underwater survey of vertical surfaces of artificial and natural habitats (BA, FT, GB and CL), photoquadrats of horizontal reef (BA, FT, GB) and sandstone plate deployment (FT). BA  =  Balmain, FT  =  Fig Tree, GB  =  Gore Bay and CL  =  Clontarf.</p

Pairwise comparisons of the non-indigenous and native algal species percent cover and richness sampled from artificial and natural habitats.

<p>Non-indigenous algal e) percent cover and f) species richness, native algal g) percent cover and h) species richness compared between the vertical surfaces of artificial and natural structures. Habitat was the factor of interest in the comparisons and the direction of difference indicated in the left column. The sites and years at which these patterns occurred are indicated in the right column. Habitat  =  Pi (piling), Po (pontoon), Re (reef).Sites  =  BA (Balmain), CL (Clontarf), GB (Gore Bay) and FT (Fig Tree). Years  = 06 (2006) and 07 (2007).</p

PERMANOVA results comparing non-indigenous and native algal species percent cover and richness sampled from artificial and natural habitats.

<p>Non-indigenous algal e) percent cover and f) species richness, native algal g) percent cover and h) species richness compared between vertical surfaces of artificial (pilings and pontoons) and natural (reef) habitats. Habitats were sampled at twice at 4 sites. Significant results (p<0.05) are indicated in bold.</p

Percent cover and richness of algae sampled on vertical surfaces of artificial and natural habitats and horizontal reef.

<p>Non-indigenous algae sampled from (a, e) vertical surfaces of habitats and (b, f) horizontal reef and native algae sampled from (c, g) vertical surfaces of habitats and (d, h) horizontal reef. In-situ sampling was conducted at four sites in 2006 and 2007. Individual bars represent sites ordered BA, FT, GB and CL from left to right. Sampling years (06/07) are indicated above the bars. Percent covers for horizontal reef were sampled in a separate survey at three sites at five sampling times (Jan 07, Apr 07, Sep 07, Mar 08, Jun 08). Individual bars represent sites ordered BA, FT, GB from left to right for each sampling time.</p

Pairwise comparisons of the non-indigenous and native invertebrate species percent cover and richness sampled from artificial and natural habitats.

<p>Non-indigenous invertebrate a) percent cover and b) species richness, native invertebrate c) percent cover and d) species richness compared between the vertical surfaces of artificial and natural structures. Habitat was the factor of interest in the comparisons and the direction of difference indicated in the left column. The sites and years at which these patterns occurred are indicated in the right column. Habitat  =  Pi (piling), Po (pontoon), Re (reef). Sites  =  BA (Balmain), CL (Clontarf), GB (Gore Bay) and FT (Fig Tree). Years  = 06 (2006) and 07 (2007).</p

Percent cover and richness of invertebrates sampled on vertical surfaces of artificial and natural habitats and horizontal reef.

<p>Non-indigenous invertebrates were sampled from (a, e) vertical surfaces of habitats and (b, f) horizontal reef, native invertebrates were sampled from (c, g) vertical surfaces of habitats and (d, h) horizontal reef. In-situ sampling was conducted at four sites in 2006 and 2007. Individual bars represent sites ordered BA, FT, GB and CL from left to right. Sampling years (06/07) are indicated above the bars. Percent covers for horizontal reef were sampled in a separate survey at three sites at five sampling times (Jan 07, Apr 07, Sep 07, Mar 08, Jun 08). Individual bars represent sites ordered BA, FT, GB from left to right for each sampling time.</p

Percent covers and richness of algae sampled on experimental “reef”.

<p>(a, b) non-indigenous algae and (c, d) native algae were sampled on experimentally deployed sandstone plates. Bars are separated by orientation (horizontal or vertical) and assemblage (new or established) and coded for shading treatment (unshaded, shade control or shaded).</p

Principal co-ordinates analysis (PCO) comparing the hard-substrate community composition between artificial and natural habitats.

<p>Sampling was done on vertical surfaces of pilings, pontoons and rocky reefs at four sites in 2006 and 2007. The PCO plot (a) is coded by habitat and the vector overlay (b) indicates which taxa were positively correlated (>0.4) with the axes. The length of the vector indicates the strength of the relationship.</p