What do we really know about the impacts of one of the 100 worst invaders in Europe? A reality check
- First Online:
- 539 Downloads
Invasive species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide, and to successfully manage their introductions is a major challenge for society. Knowledge on the impacts of an invasive species is essential for motivating decision makers and optimally allocating management resources. We use a prominent invasive fish species, the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) to objectively quantify the state of scientific knowledge on its impacts. Focusing on how native fish species are affected by round goby invasions, we analyzed 113 peer-reviewed papers and found that impacts are highly ecosystem and time scale dependent. We discovered round goby impacts to be profound, but surprisingly complex. Even if identical native species were affected, the impacts remained less comparable across ecosystems than expected. Acknowledging the breadth but also limitations in scientific knowledge on round goby impacts would greatly improve scientists’ ability to conduct further research and inform management measures.
KeywordsInvasive species impact Management Prevention Round goby Neogobius melanostomus
- Abbett, R., E.M. Waldt, J.H. Johnson, J.E. McKenna Jr., and D.E. Dittman. 2013. Interactions between invasive round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus) and fantail darters (Etheostoma flabellare) in a tributary of the St. Lawrence River, New York, USA. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 28: 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Anonymous. 1998. Exhibition of July: Salmon 2000: Preliminary success of the renaturalization programme. Natur und Museum (Frankfurt am Main) 128: 220–223.Google Scholar
- DAISIE. 2015. European Invasive Alien Species Gateway: 100 of the worst. Retrieved 24 June, 2015, from http://www.europe-aliens.org/speciesTheWorst.do.
- Dick, J.T.A., M.E. Alexander, J.M. Jeschke, A. Ricciardi, H.J. MacIsaac, T.B. Robinson, S. Kumschick, O.L.F. Weyl, et al. 2014. Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach. Biological Invasions 16: 735–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- EU. 2009. Invasive alien species: Nature and biodiversity. Retrieved June 24, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/Invasive%20Alien%20Species/Invasive_Alien_EN.pdf.
- Fitzsimons, J., B. Williston, G. Williston, G. Bravener, J.L. Jonas, R.M. Claramunt, J.E. Marsden, and B.J. Ellrott. 2006. Laboratory estimates of salmonine egg predation by round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus), sculpins (Cottus cognatus and C. bairdi), and crayfish (Orconectes propinquus). Journal of Great Lakes Research 32: 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hensler, S.R., D.J. Jude, and Ji.X. He. 2008. Burbot growth and diets in lakes Michigan and Huron: An ongoing shift from native species to round gobies. In Burbot: Ecology, management, and culture, ed. V.L. Paragamian, and D.H. Bennett, 91–107. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
- ICPR. 2015. The Rhine. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://www.iksr.org/en/rhine/index.html.
- IGKB. 2015. The Organisation. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://www.igkb.org/die-igkb/die-organisation/ (in German).
- Lindner, K., A.F. Cerwenka, J. Brandner, S. Gertzen, J. Borcherding, J. Geist, and U.K. Schliewen. 2013. First evidence for interspecific hybridization between invasive goby species Neogobius fluviatilis and Neogobius melanostomus (Teleostei: Gobiidae: Benthophilinae). Journal of Fish Biology 82: 2128–2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- N’Guyen, A., P.E. Hirsch, I. Adrian-Kalchhauser, and P. Burkhardt-Holm. 2015. Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0723-z
- Rakauskas, V., Ž. Pūtys, J. Dainys, J. Lesutienė, L. Ložpys, and K. Arbačiauskas. 2013. Increasing population of the invader round goby, Neogobius melanostomus (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Gobiidae), and its trophic role in the Curonian Lagoon, SE Baltic Sea. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 43: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar