Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Determinants of rapid response success for alien invasive species in aquatic ecosystems

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Alien invasive species (AIS) have received much attention for their harmful effects on health, ecology and the global economy. In response to this threat, many countries have adopted the Convention on Biological Diversity, which requires prevention or eradication of AIS. The best management approach is prevention, however when this fails and AIS establish, it is imperative that cost-efficient, rapid-response (RR) countermeasures be available. We performed a meta-analysis of case studies involving successful and failed RR to AIS in temperate aquatic ecosystems. We examined eight variables including ecosystem type (freshwater vs. marine), method type (chemical vs. mechanical), number of methods (multiple vs. single), taxonomy (animal vs. plant), population abundance (number of organisms), infestation extent (surface area of infestation), habitat size (surface area of management site), and project duration (length of project in number of months). Eradication success was significantly greater for plant (89 %) versus animal AIS (64 %) while suppression of AIS was most successful for projects using chemical versus mechanical methods and when conducted in small habitats. Managers should expect that taxonomy will be highly influential to the success of eradication-based RR, while both method type and management surface area influence suppression outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akers P (2012) The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Hydrilla eradication program annual progress report 2012. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2011) Stormy Lake restoration project: environmental assessment. Soldotna

  • Anderson LWJ (2005) California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biol Invasions 7:1003–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angling Times (2012) Fishery fined for keeping invasive species in angling lakes. http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Times/Section/News–Catches/General-News/Fishery-fined-35K-for-having-invasive-species/. Accessed 27 Mar 2014

  • Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borucki S (2007) Lake Davis 2007 pike eradication project. California Department of Fish and Game Pesticide Investigations Unit. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dept/prec/2008/update_lake_davis.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2014

  • Centennial Parklands (2013) Carp eradication program. http://www.centennialparklands.com/au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/54548/FACT_SHEET_-_Carp_Eradication_Program.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2014

  • Cilliers CJ, Zeller D, Strydom G (1996) Short- and long-term control of water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) on seasonal water bodies and on a river system in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Hydrobiologia 340:173–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culver CS, Kuris AM (2000) The apparent eradication of a locally established introduced marine pest. Biol Invasions 2:245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimond PE, Mandrak NE, Brownson B (2010) Summary of the rapid response to round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) in Pefferlaw Brook with an evaluation of the national rapid response framework based on the Pefferlaw Brook experience. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2010/036. Fisheries and Oceans Canada

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson R (2000) The effectiveness of Australia’s response to the Black Striped Mussel incursion in Darwin, Australia. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest BM, Gardner JPA, Taylor MD (2009) Internal borders for managing invasive marine species. J Appl Ecol 46:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada (2004) An invasive alien species strategy for Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 40 p. http://ec.gc.ca/eee-ias/default.asp?lang=En&n=1A81B051-1. Accessed 21 May 2014

  • Hein CL, Vander Zanden MJ, Magnuson JJ (2007) Intensive trapping and increased fish predation cause massive population decline of an invasive crayfish. Freshw Biol 52:1134–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke A, Hanson JM (2009) Rapid response to non-indigenous species. 1. Goals and history of rapid response in the marine environment. Aquat Invasions 4:237–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEnnulty FR, Bax NJ, Schaffelke B, Campbell ML (2001) A review of rapid response options for the control of ABWMAC listed introduced marine pest species and related taxa in Australian waters. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Tech. Rep. 23. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia

  • Paolucci EM, MacIsaac HJ, Ricciardi A (2013) Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers. Divers Distrib 19:988–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peay S (2001) Eradication of alien crayfish populations. R&D Technical Report W1-037/TR1. Environment Agency, Bristol

  • Peay S, Hiley PD, Collen P, Martin I (2006) Biocide treatment of ponds in Scotland to eradicate signal crayfish. Bull Fr Pêche Piscic 380–381:1363–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves GH, Duncan SL (2009) Ecological history vs. social expectations: managing aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Soc 14:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadof CS, Jansen GR, Marshall P (2014) Gypsy moth in Indiana. Purdue University Department of Entomology. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publications/gm-1.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2014

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Sustaining life on Earth. Montreal, Quebec. 21 p. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-sustain-en.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2015

  • Tatum AJ, Hay SI, Rogers DJ (2006) Global traffic and disease vector dispersal. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:6242–6247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin PC, Liebhold AM (2011) Gypsy moth. Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California, California, pp 298–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Twohey MB, Heinrich JW, Seelye JG, Fredricks KT, Bergstedt RA, Kaye CA, Scholefield RJ, McDonald RB, Christie GC (2003) The sterile-male-release technique in Great Lakes sea lamprey management. Int Assoc Gt Lakes Res 29:410–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Program (1993) Convention on biological diversity. Concluded on 5 June1999, 29 December 1993. UNEP vol. 1760 I–30619

  • U.S. North Temperate Lakes Long Term Ecological Research network (2014) Management of aquatic invasive species: rusty crayfish removal in Sparkling Lake. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/researchhighlight/management-aquatic-invasives-rusty-crayfish-removal-sparkling-lake. Accessed 15 May 2014

  • Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (2005) Final Environmental Assessment Millbrook Quarry Zebra Mussel and Quagga Mussel Eradication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/final_zm_ea.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2015

  • Waugh JD (2009) Neighborhood watch. Early detection and rapid response to biological invasion along US trade pathways. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland 90 pp

  • Western Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel (WANS) (2003) Model rapid response plan for aquatic nuisance species. Prepared for the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species by California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.fws.gov/answest/Docs/WRP%20RRP%20Final,%20Part%20II.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2015

  • Woodfield R, Merkel K (2006) Final report on eradication of the invasive seaweed Caulerpa taxifolia from Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour, California. http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/uploads/files/CaseStudyAttachments/71_c.-taxifolia-eradication.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Amanda Eyraud, Andrea Locke, David Mee, Frank Rahel, and Robert Klumb for providing case studies, and Amber Coates, Brian Marston, Danny Lee, Evan Thames, Ida Tavner, Jenny Earle, Jonathan Heintz, Kirk Markham, Patrick Akers, Robert Massengill, and Roland Knapp for providing missing data. We additionally thank Brian Leung and David Drolet for providing assistance with statistical analyses, and one anonymous reviewer and Dan Simberloff for comments. This study was financially supported by the NSERC Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) and Canada Research Chair to Hugh MacIsaac.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugh J. MacIsaac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beric, B., MacIsaac, H.J. Determinants of rapid response success for alien invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Biol Invasions 17, 3327–3335 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0959-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0959-3

Keywords

Navigation