Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 3491–3502 | Cite as

Risk assessment of the ornamental fish trade in Mexico: analysis of freshwater species and effectiveness of the FISK (Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit)

  • Roberto Mendoza
  • Sergio Luna
  • Carlos Aguilera
Original Paper

Abstract

Aquarium trade has been recognized as one of the major pathways of introduction of non-native fishes into new regions. Nearly 43 million freshwater ornamental fish of different species and varieties are annually commercialized in Mexico and there is a high probability for the establishment of some of these species because of their invasive attributes and the diverse climatic zones existing in the country. Within this context, the identification of high-risk species is of paramount importance considering the potential threat to Mexico’s great biological diversity. In the present study 700 freshwater aquarium fish species commonly imported and produced in the country were filtered for synonyms/varieties, resulting in 368 species, which where submitted to revision for invasive reports using specialized invasive species databases. This allowed ranking the main invasive species and the top 30 were subjected to risk analysis using the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK). Calibration of FISK was carried out after generating the reports. A receiver operating characteristic curve was made to determine the FISK ability to discriminate between invasive and non-invasive species in Mexico. Thereafter, Youden’s index was calculated and a threshold of 24 was obtained, representing the cut-off value for defining high-risk species. A total of 17 species out of 30 were classified under a high-risk category, among them several species of the genus Xiphophorus, Pterygoplichthys and Poecilia. Most of the species were native to Asia, Central and South America. Some of these species are already invasive in Mexico.

Keywords

Freshwater fish Ornamental trade FISK Mexico 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the Mexican National Fisheries Institute and the Program for the Support of Scientific and Technological Research (PAICYT) of the Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon for financing the Project.

References

  1. Almeida D, Ribeiro F, Leunda PM, Vilizzi L, Copp GH (2013) Effectiveness of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, to perform risk identification assessment in the Iberian Peninsula. Risk Anal 33(8):1404–1413. doi: 10.1111/risa.12050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson RP, Martínez-Meyer E (2004) Modeling species’ geographic distributions for preliminary conservation assessments: an implementation with the spiny pocket mice (Heteromys) of Ecuador. Biol Conserv 116(2):167–179. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00187-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arita HT (1997) The non-volant mammal fauna of Mexico: species richness in a megadiverse country. Biodivers Conserv 6:787–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartley D (2000) Responsible ornamental fisheries. FAO Aquac Newsl 24:10–14Google Scholar
  5. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512. doi: 10.1186/cc3000 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bomford M (2008) Risk assessment models for establishment of exotic vertebrates in Australia and New Zealand. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Bomford M, Glover J (2004) Risk assessment model for the import and keeping of exotic freshwater and estuarine finfish. A report produced by the Bureau of Rural Sciences for The Department of Environment and HeritageGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobo F, Vieira-Lanero R, Rego E, Servi MJ (2010) Temporal trends in non-indigenous freshwater species records during the 20th century: a case study in the Iberian Peninsula. Biodivers Conserv 19:3471–3487. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9908-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Contreras Balderas S, Almada Villela P, Lozano Vilano M, García Ramírez M (2003) Freshwater fish at risk or extinct in Mexico. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 12:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Contreras-Macbeath T, Mejía Mojica H, Carrillo Wilson R (1998) Negative impacts on the aquatic ecosystems of the state of Morelos, Mexico from introduced aquarium and other commercial fish. Aquar Sci Conserv 2:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Copp GH (2013) The fish invasiveness screening kit (FISK) for non-native freshwater fishes—a summary of current applications. Risk Anal 33(8):1394–1396. doi: 10.1111/risa.12095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005a) Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes: concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Sci Ser Tech Rep, Cefas Lowestoft, p 129Google Scholar
  13. Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005b) Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes: a summary of concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. J Appl Ichthyol 21:371–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Copp GH, Templeton M, Gozlan RE (2007) Propagule pressure and the invasion risk of non-native freshwater fishes: a case study in England. J Fish Biol 71(supplement D):148–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01680.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 Anal 29(3):457–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Courtenay WR Jr (1995) Marine fish introductions in southeastern Florida. Am Fish Soc Introd fish Sect Newsl 14(1):2–3Google Scholar
  17. Diario Oficial de la Federación (2004) Carta Nacional Pesquera. MexicoGoogle Scholar
  18. Duggan IC, Rixon CAM, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Popularity and propagule pressure: determinants of introduction and establishment of aquarium fish. Biol Invasions 8:377–382. doi: 10.1007/s10530-004-2310-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferincz Á (2014) Role of invasive and non-native fish species in the Balaton catchment. Dissertation, University of Pannonia, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  20. García M, Ramírez O, Ruiz T, March IJ (2014) Especies invasoras acuáticas en áreas naturales protegidas. In: Mendoza R, Koleff P (eds) Especies acuáticas invasoras en México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México, pp 445–468Google Scholar
  21. Ho C-F (2013) Ecological risk assessment and management of invasive freshwater fish species from aquarium and ornamental trades in Hong Kong. Dissertation, University of Hong Kong, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  22. Holthus P, Gamain N (2007) Del arrecife al minorista. Conservacion mundial. http://www.iucn.org/publications/worldconservation/docs/2007_01/12_world_conservation_2007_01_es.pdf
  23. Ishikawa T, Tachihara K (2014) Introduction history of non-native freshwater fish in Okinawa-jima Island: ornamental aquarium fish pose the greatest risk for future invasions. Ichthyol Res 61:17–26. doi: 10.1007/s10228-013-0367-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawson LL Jr, Hill JE, Vilizzi L, Hardin S, Copp GH (2013) Revisions of the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK) for its application in warmer climatic zones, with particular reference to Peninsular Florida. Risk Anal 33(8):1414–1431. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01896.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lintermans M (2004) Human-assisted dispersal of alien freshwater fishes in Australia. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 38:481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Low T (2011) Australia: invasions. In: Simberloff D, Rejmánek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Oakland, pp 36–42Google Scholar
  28. Mastitsky SE, Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Adamovich BV (2010) Non-native fishes of Belarus: diversity, distribution, and risk classification using the fish invasiveness screening kit (FISK). Aquat Invasions 5(1):103–114. doi: 10.3391/ai.2010.5.1.12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDowall RM (2004) Shoot first, and then ask questions: a look at aquarium fish imports and invasiveness in New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshw 38:503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mendoza R, Ramírez C, Contreras S, Koleff P, Álvarez P (2010) Aquarium trade as a pathway for the introduction of invasive species into Mexico. In: De Carlo F, Bassano A (eds) Freshwater ecosystems and aquaculture research. Nova Science Publishers Inc, NY, pp 209–224Google Scholar
  31. Mendoza R, Ramírez-Martínez C, Aguilera C, Meave del Castillo ME (2014) Principales vías de introducción de las especies exóticas. In: Mendoza R, Koleff P (eds) Especies acuáticas invasoras en México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México, pp 43–73Google Scholar
  32. Moore A, Marton N, McNee A (2010) A strategic approach to the management of ornamental fish in Australia. Communication strategy and grey list review—a report to OFMIG Bureau of Rural Sciences, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  33. Onikura N, Nakajima J, Inui R, Mizutani H, Kobayakawa M, Fukuda S, Mukai T (2011) Evaluating the potential for invasion by alien freshwater fishes in northern Kyushu Island, Japan, using the fish invasiveness scoring kit. Ichthyol Res 58:382–387. doi: 10.1007/s10228-011-0235-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Padilla DK, Williams SL (2004) Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 2:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Puntila R, Vilizzi L, Lehtiniemi M, Copp GH (2013) First application of FISK, the freshwater fish invasiveness screening kit, in Northern Europe: example of Southern Finland. Risk Anal 33(8):1397–1403. doi: 10.1111/risa.12069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramírez C, Mendoza R, Aguilera C (2010) Estado actual y perspectivas de la producción y comercialización de peces de ornato en México. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  38. Range IL (2013) Applicability of fish risk assessment (FISK) to ornamental species. Dissertation, Universidad de Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  39. Rixon CAM, Duggan IC, Bergeron NMN, Ricciardi A, Macisaac HJ (2005) Invasion risks posed by the aquarium trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodivers Conserv 14:1365–1381. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-9663-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruiz GM, Carlton JT, Grosholz ED et al (1997) Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences. Am Zool 37:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sax DF, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00217.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simonović P, Tošić A, Vassilev M, Apostolou A, Mrdak D, Ristovska M, Kostov V, Nikolić V, Škraba D, Vilizzi L, Copp GH (2013) Risk assessment of non-native fishes in the Balkans Region using FISK, the invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes. Mediterr Mar Sci 14(2):369–376. doi: 10.12681/mms.337 Google Scholar
  43. Snyder E, Mandrak NE, Niblock H, Cudmore B (2013) Developing a screening-level risk assessment prioritization protocol for aquatic non-indigenous species in Canada: review of existing protocols. DFO Can Sci Advis Sec Res Doc 2012/097. vii + 75 pGoogle Scholar
  44. Tarkan AS, Ekmekc FG, Vilizzi L, Copp GH (2014) Risk screening of non-native freshwater fishes at the frontier between Asia and Europe: first application in Turkey of the fish invasiveness screening kit. J Appl Ichthyol 30:392–398. doi: 10.1111/jai.12389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tlusty M (2004) Ornamental aquaculture. Small scale of production does not automatically mean small scale of impact. OFI J 46:6–9Google Scholar
  46. Tricarico E, Vilizzi L, Gherardi F, Copp GH (2010) Calibration of FI-ISK, an invasiveness screening tool for nonnative freshwater invertebrates. Risk Anal 30(2):285–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01255.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Troca DFA, Vieira JP (2012) Potencial invasor dos peixes não nativos cultivados na região costeira do Rio Grande do Sul Brazil. Bol Inst Pesca São Paulo 38(2):109–120Google Scholar
  48. Verbrugge LNH, Van der Velde G, Hendriks AJ, Verreycken H, Leuven RSEW (2012) Risk classifications of aquatic non-native species: application of contemporary European assessment protocols in different biogeographical settings. Aquat Invasions 7(1):49–58. doi: 10.3391/ai.2012.7.1.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vilizzi L, Copp GH (2013) Application of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, in the Murray-Darling Basin (Southeastern Australia). Risk Anal 33(8):1432–1440. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01860.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Whittington RJ, Chong R (2007) Global trade in ornamental fish from an Australian perspective: the case for revised import risk analysis and management strategies. Prev Vet Med 81:92–116. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.04.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolter C, Röhr F (2010) Distribution history of non-native freshwater fish species in Germany: how invasive are they? J Appl Ichthyol 26(2):19–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01505.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratorio de Ecofisiología, Facultad de Ciencias BiológicasUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, UANLSan Nicolás de los GarzaMexico

Personalised recommendations