Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1257–1272 | Cite as

Methodologies and special considerations for environmental risk analysis of genetically modified aquatic biocontrol organisms

  • Genya V. Dana
  • Anne M. Cooper
  • Kelly M. Pennington
  • Leah S. Sharpe
Original Paper


Genetic biocontrol of invasive aquatic species proposes to introduce, for control purposes, a genetically modified (GM) version of an invasive fish species to a targeted aquatic environment. Safe deployment and long term use of such technologies will depend on identifying and managing possible unintended effects to the natural environment. Environmental risk analysis (ERA) is a method for identifying the likelihood and consequences of unintended impacts, and for developing risk management strategies. For the unique situation of genetically modified biocontrol organisms (GMBOs), we review the latest thinking in ERA methodologies for GM fish and explore how terminology and assumptions from ERAs of traditional, non-modified biocontrol organisms and GM fish will need to be recast in ERAs of GMBOs. We also outline some special considerations that an ERA of a GMBOs will have to contend with: non-intuitive potential hazards; uncertainty introduced by extrapolating from domestic systems to natural ecosystems; redundancy in risk management options; and challenges of stakeholder engagement related to new technologies.


Genetic biocontrol Environmental risk analysis Invasive species management Genetically modified organisms 

Supplementary material

10530_2012_391_MOESM1_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 43 kb)


  1. Abrahams MV, Sutterlin A (1999) The foraging and antipredator behavior of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon. Anim Behav 58:933–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2007) Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318:100–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1:342–355PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barratt BIP, Howarth FG, Withers TM, Kean JM, Ridley GS (2010) Progress in risk assessment for classical biological control. Biol Control 52:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierle T (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgman M (2005) Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CBD (2000) Cartagena protocol in biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Available at: Accessed 1 Sep 2011
  8. Christie MR, Marine ML, French RA, Blouin MS (2012) Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:238–242PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cotton S, Wedekind C (2007) Control of introduced species using Trojan sex chromosomes. Trends Ecol Evol 22:441–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dambacher JM, Gaughan DJ, Rochet M-J, Rossignol PA, Trenkel VM (2009) Qualitative modelling and indicators of exploited ecosystems. Fish Fish 10:305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dana GV, Kapuscinski AR, Donaldson JS (2012) Integrating diverse scientific and practitioner knowledge in ecological risk analysis: a case study of biodiversity risk assessment in South Africa. J Environ Manag 98:134–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  14. Devlin RH, D’Andrade M, Uh M, Biagi CA (2004) Population effects of growth hormone transgenic coho salmon depend on food availability and genotype by environment interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9303–9308PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devlin RH, Sundström LF, Muir WM (2006) Interface of biotechnology and ecology for environmental risk assessments of transgenic fish. Trends Biotechnol 24:89–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunham RA, Chitmanat C, Nichols A, Argue B, Powers DA, Chen TT (1999) Predator avoidance of transgenic channel catfish containing salmonid growth hormone genes. J Mar Biotechnol 1:545–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eilenberg J, Hajek A, Lomer C (2001) Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. Biocontrol 46:387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellison CA, Barreto RW (2004) Prospects for the management of invasive alien weeds using co-evolved fungal pathogens: a Latin American perspective. Biol Invasions 6:23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flick WA, Webster DA (1964) Comparative first year survival and production in wild and domestic strains of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Trans Am Fish Soc 93:58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilna B, Kuzma J, Otts SS (2013) Governance of genetic biocontrol technologies for invasive fish. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0367-x
  23. Giordano R, Liersch S, Vurro M, Hirsch D (2010) Integrating local and technical knowledge to support soil salinity monitoring in the Amudarya river basin. J Environ Manag 91:1718–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glicken J (2000) Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of the participatory process and possible pitfalls. Environ Sci Policy 3:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene CW (1952) Results from stocking brook trout of wild and hatchery strains at Stillwater Pond. Trans Am Fish Soc 81:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutierrez JB, Teem JL (2006) A model describing the effect of sex-reversed YY fish in an established wild population: the use of a Trojan Y chromosome to cause extinction of an introduced exotic species. J Theor Biol 241:333–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hajek A (2004) Natural enemies: an introduction to biological control. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayes KR (2002) Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 1: fault-tree analysis for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 4:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes KR, Gregg PC, Gupta V, Jessop R, Lonsdale W, Sindel B, Stanley J, Williams C (2004) Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 3: hierarchical holographic model for herbicide tolerant oilseed rape. Environ Biosafety Res 3:109–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes KR, Kapuscinski AR, Dana G, Li S, Devlin RH (2007a) Introduction to environmental risk assessment for transgenic fish. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes KR, Regan HM, Burgman MA (2007b) Introduction to the concepts and methods of uncertainty analysis. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 188–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayes KR, Leung B, Thresher R, Dambacher JM, Hosack GR (2013) Meeting the challenge of quantitative risk assessment for genetic control techniques: a framework and some methods applied to the common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0392-9
  34. Heger T, Trepl L (2003) Predicting biological invasions. Biol Invasions 5:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hilbeck A, Jansch S, Meier M, Rombke J (2008) Analysis and validation of present ecotoxicological test methods and strategies for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, BonnGoogle Scholar
  36. Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosafety Res 4:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howarth FG (1991) Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annu Rev Entomol 36:485–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu W, Zhu ZY (2010) Integration mechanisms of transgenes and population fitness of GH transgenic fish. Sci China Life Sci 53:401–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hunt EJ, Loomans AJM, Kuhlmann U (2011) An international comparison of invertebrate biological control agent regulation: what can Europe learn? In: Ehlers R (ed) Regulation of biological control agents. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 79–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaner S, Lind L, Toldi C, Fisk S, Berger D (2007) Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  42. Kapuscinski AR, Patronski TJ (2005) Genetic methods for biological control of non-native fish in the Gila River Basin. Contract report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. University of Minnesota, Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability, St. Paul, MN, USA. Minnesota Sea Grant Publication F20.
  43. Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) (2007) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Kareiva P, Parker IM, Pascual M (1996) Can we use experiments and models in predicting the invasiveness of genetically engineered organisms? Ecology 77:1670–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds) (1991) Communicating risks to the public: international perspectives. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  46. Landis WG (2004) Ecological risk assessment conceptual model formulation for nonindigenous species. Risk Anal 24:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Le Curieux-Belfond O, Vandelac L, Caron J, Séralini G-E (2009) Factors to consider before production and commercialization of aquatic genetically modified organisms: the case of transgenic salmon. Environ Sci Policy 12:170–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3:3Google Scholar
  49. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Louda SM, Arnett AE, Rand TA, Russell FL (2003) Invasiveness of some biological control insects and adequacy of their ecological risk assessment and regulation. Conserv Biol 17:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lynam T, de Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecol Soc 12:5Google Scholar
  52. Mair GC, Nam YK, Solar II (2007) Risk management: reducing risk through confinement of transgenic fish. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 209–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McDaniels TL, Axelrod LJ, Cavanagh NS, Slovic P (1997) Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Anal 17:341–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Messing RH, Wright MG (2006) Biological control of invasive species: solution or pollution? Front Ecol Environ 4:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. National Invasive Species Council (NISC) (2006) Invasive species definition clarification and guidance white paper. Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). Accessed 30 Sep 2011
  56. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Nelson KC, Basiao S, Cooper AM, Dey M, Hernandez ML, Kunawasen S, Li S, Fonticiella D, Ratner BD, Toledo MI, Leelapatra W (2007) Problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA): science-guided deliberation in environmental risk assessment of transgenic fish. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 29–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nelson KC, Andow DA, Banker MJ (2009) Problem formulation and option assessment (PFOA) linking governance and environmental risk assessment for technologies: a methodology for problem analysis of nanotechnologies and genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:732–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Otts SS et al (2012) US regulatory framework for genetic biocontrol of invasive fish. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0327-5
  61. Paoletti C, Flamm E, Yan W, Meek S, Renckens S, Fellous M, Kuiper H (2008) GMO risk assessment around the world: some examples. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(Suppl 1):S70–S78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pennington KM, Kapuscinski AR (2011) Predation and food limitation influence fitness traits of growth-enhanced transgenic and wild-type fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reisenbichler RR, Rubin SP (1999) Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES J Mar Sci 56:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (1995) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  65. Senanan W, Hard JJ, Alcivar-Warren A, Trisak J, Zakaraia-Ismail M, Lorenzo Hernandez M (2007) Risk management: post-approval monitoring and remediation. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 239–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sharpe LM (accepted) Public perspectives on genetic biocontrol technologies for controlling invasive fish. Biol InvasionsGoogle Scholar
  67. Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biol Conserv 78:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sink DS (1983) Using the nominal group technique effectively. Nat Product Rev 2:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spreen M (1992) Rare populations, hidden populations, and link-tracing designs: what and why? Bull Method Sociol 36:34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sumner J, Ross T (2002) A semi-quantitative seafood safety risk assessment. Int J Food Microbiol 77:55–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sundström LF, Devlin RH, Johnsson JI, Biagi CA (2003) Vertical position reflects increased feeding motivation in growth hormone transgenic Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J Ethol 109:701–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sundström L, Tymchuk W, Lõhmus M, Devlin RH (2009) Sustained predation effects of hatchery-reared transgenic coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in semi-natural environments. J Appl Ecol 46:762–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Suter GW (2007) Ecological risk assessment, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  76. Thresher RE (2008) Autocidal technology for the control of invasive species. Fisheries 33:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thresher R, Hayes KR, Bax N, Teem J, Benfey T, Gould F (in review) Genetic control of invasive fish: technological options and its role in integrated pest management. Biol InvasionsGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Lenteren J, Babendreier D, Bigler F, Burgio G, Hokkanen H, Kuske S, Loomans A, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Van Rijn P, Thomas M (2003) Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control. Biocontrol 48:3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Viola AE, Schuck ML (1995) A method to reduce the abundance of residual hatchery steelhead in rivers. N Am J Fish Manag 14:488–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vose D (1996) Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modeling. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Webler T (1998) Beyond science: analysis and deliberation in public decision-making. Hum Ecol Rev 5:61–62Google Scholar
  82. Webler T, Tuler S (2000) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: theoretical reflections from a case study. Adm Soc 32:566–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wright D, Nakamichi R, Krause J, Butlin RK (2006) QTL analysis of behavioral and morphological differentiation between wild and laboratory zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Genet 36:271–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Genya V. Dana
    • 1
  • Anne M. Cooper
    • 2
  • Kelly M. Pennington
    • 3
  • Leah S. Sharpe
    • 3
  1. 1.Dana and Sharpe Risk AssociatesArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)CopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Conservation Biology Graduate ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations