Environmental Management

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 82–95

A Comparison of Approaches for Estimating Relative Impacts of Nonnative Fishes

  • N. W. R. Lapointe
  • R. M. Pendleton
  • P. L. Angermeier


Lack of standard methods for quantifying impact has hindered risk assessments of high-impact invaders. To understand methodological strengths and weaknesses, we compared five approaches (in parentheses) for quantifying impact of nonnative fishes: reviewing documented impacts in a large-scale database (review); surveying fish biologists regarding three categories of impact (socioeconomic, ecological, abundance); and estimating frequency of occurrence from existing collection records (collection). In addition, we compared game and nongame biologists’ ratings of game and nongame species. Although mean species ratings were generally correlated among approaches, we documented important discrepancies. The review approach required little effort but often inaccurately estimated impact in our study region (Mid-Atlantic United States). Game fishes received lower ratings from the socioeconomic approach, which yielded the greatest consistency among respondents. The ecological approach exhibited lower respondent bias but was sensitive to pre-existing perceptions of high-impact invaders. The abundance approach provided the least-biased assessment of region-specific impact but did not account for differences in per-capita effects among species. The collection approach required the most effort and did not provide reliable estimates of impact. Multiple approaches to assessing a species’ impact are instructive, but impact ratings must be interpreted in the context of methodological strengths and weaknesses and key management issues. A combination of our ecological and abundance approaches may be most appropriate for assessing ecological impact, whereas our socioeconomic approach is more useful for understanding social dimensions. These approaches are readily transferrable to other regions and taxa; if refined, they can help standardize the assessment of impacts of nonnative species.


Invasion Freshwater Survey Introduced Impact assessment Game Nongame 


  1. Andow DA (2005) Characterizing the ecological risks of introductions and invasions. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) Invasive alien species: a new synthesis Island Press. Washington, DC, pp 84–103Google Scholar
  2. Barrett PJ (2009) Estimating Devil’s Hole pupfish lifestage ratios using the Delphi method. Fisheries 34:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Murakami M, Chapman PL (2004) Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85:2656–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cambray JA (2003) Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalization of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. Hydrobiologia 500:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlton JT (2002) Bioinvasion ecology: assessing invasion impact and scale. In: Leppakoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution. impacts and management. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 7–17Google Scholar
  6. Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2009) Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Diversity and Distributions 15:22–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Mumford J, Fenwick GV, Godard MJ, Gozlan RE (2009) Calibration of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for nonnative freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis 29:457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daehler CC (2001) Two ways to be an invader, but one is more suitable for ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82:101–102Google Scholar
  9. Davis MA (2009) Invasion biology. Oxford Univeristy Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis MA, Thompson K (2000) Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81:226–230Google Scholar
  11. Davis MA, Thompson K (2001) Invasion terminology: should ecologists define their terms differently than others? No, not if we want to be of any help! Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82:206Google Scholar
  12. Edwards C, Hill J, Maxwell J (1998) Aquatic zoogeography of North America (nearctic zone). United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, RhinelanderGoogle Scholar
  13. Falk-Petersen J, Bøhn T, Sandlund OT (2006) On the numerous concepts in invasion biology. Biological Invasions 8:1409–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Findlay CS, Bert DG, Zheng LG (2000) Effect of introduced piscivores on native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:570–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García-Berthou E (2007) The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far? Journal of Fish Biology 71:33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. García-Berthou E, Alcaraz C, Pou-Rovira Q, Zamora L, Coenders G, Feo C (2005) Introduction pathways and establishment rates of invasive aquatic species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biological Conservation 141:2969–2983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gherardi F (2007) Understanding the impact of invasive crayfish. In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles distribution, and threats. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 507–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gozlan RE (2008) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish and Fisheries 9:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gozlan RE (2009) Response by R Gozlan: biodiversity crisis and the introduction of non-native fish: solutions, not scapegoats. Fish and Fisheries 10:109–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gozlan RE, Britton JR, Cowx I, Copp GH (2010) Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions. Journal of Fish Biology 76:751–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrell FEJ (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models logistic regression and survival analysis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrell FEJ (2009) Design: design package. R package version 2.3-0. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Design. Accessed: June 30, 2010
  24. Hayes KR, Barry SC (2008) Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biological Invasions 10:483–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6:65–70Google Scholar
  26. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Kuhn I, Minchin D et al (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jelks HL, Walsh SJ, Burkhead NM, Contreras-Balderas S, Diaz-Pardo E, Hendrickson DA et al (2008) Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1994) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  29. Koehn JD (2004) Carp (Cyprinus carpio) as a powerful invader in Australian waterways. Freshwater Biology 49:882–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leprieur F, Brosse S, García-Berthou E, Oberdorff T, Olden JD, Townsend CR (2009) Scientific uncertainty and the assessment of risks posed by non-native freshwater fishes. Fish and Fisheries 10:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2007) Invasion ecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Lowe SJ, Browne M, Boudjelas S (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species. ICUN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  35. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB, Levine R (2004a) Alien fishes in California watersheds: characteristics of successful and failed invaders. Ecological Applications 14:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB, Levine R (2004b) Invasive species profiling? Exploring the characteristics of non-native fishes across invasion stages in California. Freshwater Biology 49:646–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson JS, Crossman EJ, Espinosa-Peréz H, Findley LT, Gilberd CR, Lea RN et al (2004) Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada and Mexico, 6th ed. Special Publication No. 29. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  38. Nentwig W, Kühnel E, Bacher S (2010) A generic impact-scoring system applied to alien mammals in Europe. Conservation Biology 24:302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nico LG, Fuller PL (1999) Spatial and temporal patterns of nonindigenous fish introductions in the United States. Fisheries 24:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM et al (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pascual M, Macchi P, Urbanski J, Marcos F, Riva Rossi C, Novara M et al (2002) Evaluating potential effects of exotic freshwater fish from incomplete species presence-absence data. Biological Invasions 4:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pierce CL, Rasmussen JB, Leggett WC (1990) Sampling littoral fish with a seine–Corrections for variable capture efficiency. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:1004–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ribeiro F, Elvira B, Collares-Pereira MJ, Moyle PB (2008) Life-history traits of non-native fishes in Iberian watersheds across several invasion stages: a first approach. Biological Invasions 10:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ricciardi A (2003) Predicting the impacts of an introduced species from its invasion history: an empirical approach applied to zebra mussel invasions. Freshwater Biology 48:972–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ricciardi A, Atkinson SK (2004) Distinctiveness magnifies the impact of biological invaders in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Letters 7:781–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ricciardi A, Cohen J (2007) The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biological Invasions 9:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ricciardi A, Kipp R (2008) Predicting the number of ecologically harmful exotic species in an aquatic system. Diversity and Distributions 14:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruesink JL (2003) One fish, two fish, old fish, new fish: which invasions matter? In: Karieva P, Levin SA (eds) The importance of species: perspectives on expendability and triage. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruesink JL (2005) Global analysis of factors affecting the outcome of freshwater fish introductions. Conservation Biology 19:1883–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruesink JL, Parker IM, Groom MJ, Kareiva PM (1995) Reducing the risks of nonindigenous species introductions—Guilty until proven innocent. Bioscience 45:465–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1987) Hydrologic unit maps. USGS Water Supply Paper, p 2294Google Scholar
  52. Shafland PL, Gestring KB, Stanford MS (2008) Categorizing introduced fishes collected from public waters. Southeastern Naturalist 7:627–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shirley SM, Kark S (2009) The role of species traits and taxonomic patterns in alien bird impacts. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:450–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Team RDC (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  55. Townsend CR, Winterbourn MJ (1992) Assessment of the environmental risk posed by an exotic fish—The proposed introduction of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) to New Zealand. Conservation Biology 6:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Surface waters data and metadata files. Philadelphia, PA. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/emap/remap/html/three/data/index.html. Accessed: December 1, 2009
  57. United States Geological Survey (2008) Ecology data. Reston, Virginia. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ecology/. Accessed: December 1, 2009
  58. Valery L, Fritz H, Lefeuvre JC, Simberloff D (2008) In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biological Invasions 10:1345–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vander Zanden MJ, Casselman JM, Rasmussen JB (1999) Stable isotope evidence for the food web consequences of species invasions in lakes. Nature 401:464–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S et al (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vitule JRS, Freire CA, Simberloff D (2009) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be bad. Fish and Fisheries 10:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. W. R. Lapointe
    • 1
  • R. M. Pendleton
    • 2
  • P. L. Angermeier
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitUnited States Geological SurveyBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fish and Wildlife ConservationVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations