Predicting establishment success for introduced freshwater fishes: a role for climate matching

Abstract

We modelled data comprising 1,189 successful and 489 failed introduction records for 280 species of freshwater fishes around the world. We found significant variations in establishment success between genera and families. The number of countries where introductions occurred was a significant predictor of the probability a species would establish in at least one country and all species that had been introduced to nine or more countries (46 species) had established at least one exotic population. We also conducted more detailed quantitative modelling for 135 species introduced to 10 countries to identify factors affecting establishment success. Relative to failed species, established species had better climate matches between the country where they were introduced and their geographic range elsewhere in the world. Established species were also more likely to have high establishment success rates elsewhere in the world. Neither the reason why fish were introduced nor the country where they were introduced was correlated with establishment success. Cross-validations indicated our model correctly categorised establishment success with 78% accuracy. Our findings may guide risk assessments for the import of live exotic fish to reduce the rate new species establish in the wild.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organisation

ROC curve:

Receiver operating characteristic curve

References

  1. Andersen MC, Adams H, Hope B, Powell M (2004) Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Anal 24:787–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arthington AH, Kailola PJ, Woodland DJ, Zalucki JM (1999) Baseline environmental data relevant to an evaluation of quarantine risk potentially associated with the importation to Australia of ornamental finfish. Report to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baker RHA, Sansford CE, Jarvis CH, Cannon RJC, MacLeod A, Walters KF (2000) The role of climatic mapping in predicting the potential geographical distribution of non-indigenous pests under current and future climates. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001) Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414:195–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bomford M (2003) Risk assessment for the import and keeping of exotic vertebrates in Australia. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. URL: http://www.affashop.gov.au/product.asp?prodid=12803

  6. Bomford M (2008) Risk assessment models for establishment of exotic vertebrates in Australia and New Zealand. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra. URL: http://www.invasiveanimals.com

  7. Bomford M, Darbyshire RO, Randall L (2009a) Determinants of establishment success for introduced exotic mammals. Wildl Res 36:192–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bomford M, Kraus F, Barry SC, Lawrence E (2009b) Predicting establishment success for alien reptiles and amphibians: a role for climate matching. Biol Invasions 11:713–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooke RK, Lockwood JL, Moulton MP (1995) Patterns of success in passeriform bird introductions on Saint Helena. Oecologia 103:337–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown L, Barry S, Cunningham D, Bomford M (2006) Current practice in applying CLIMATE for weed risk assessment in Australia. In: Preston C, Watts JH, Crossman ND (eds) Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference: Managing Weeds in a Changing Climate. Weed Management Society of South Australia Inc, Adelaide, pp 703–706

  11. Bureau of Rural Sciences (2006) CLIMATE software. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. URL: http://affashop.gov.au/product.asp?prodid=13506

  12. Bureau of Rural Sciences (2009) CLIMATCH free-access internet based software Bureau of Rural Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. URL: http://www.brs.gov.au/Climatch/

  13. Cambray JA (2003) Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. Hydrobiologia 500:217–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Case TJ (1991) Invasion resistance, species build-up and community collapse in metapopulation models with interspecific competition. Biol J Linn Soc 42:239–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Jones KE, Lockwood JL (2004) Mistakes in the analysis of exotic species establishment: source pool designation and correlates of introduction success among parrots (Aves: Psittaciformes) of the world. J Biogeogr 31:277–284

    Google Scholar 

  16. Colautti RI (2005) Are characteristics of introduced salmonid fishes biased by propagule pressure? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:950–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Mumford J, Godard MJ, Fenwick G, Gozlan RE (2009) Calibration of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes. Risk Anal 29:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dextrase AJ, Mandrak NE (2006) Impacts of alien invasive species on freshwater fauna at risk in Canada. Biol Invasions 8:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Drake JM (2004) Allee effects and the risk of biological invasion. Risk Anal 24:795–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Duggan IC, Rixon CAM, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Popularity and propagule pressure: determinants of introduction and establishment of aquarium fish. Biol Invasions 8:377–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duncan RP, Forsyth DM (2005) Competition and the assembly of introduced bird communities. In: Cadotte MW, McMahon SM, Fukami T (eds) Conceptual ecology and invasions biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 415–431

    Google Scholar 

  22. Duncan RP, Young JR (1999) The fate of Passeriform introductions on oceanic islands. Conserv Biol 13:934–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Duncan RP, Bomford M, Forsyth DM, Conibear L (2001) High predictability in introduction outcomes and the geographical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role for climate. J Anim Ecol 70:621–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of bird introductions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. FAO (1998) Database of aquatic introductions. URL: http://www.fao.org/fi%2A/statist/fisoft/dias/search.htm

  26. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservations presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fishbase (2007) A global information system on fishes. URL: http://www.fishbase.org/

  28. Forsyth DM, Duncan RP, Bomford M, Moore G (2004) Climatic suitability, life-history traits, introduction effort and the establishment and spread of introduced mammals in Australia. Conserv Biol 18:557–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S, Sax DF, Seabloom EW, Smith MD, Stohlgren TJ, Tilman D, Von Holle B (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. García-Berthou E (2007) The characteristics of invasive fish: what has been learned so far? J Fish Biol 71(Supplement D):33–55

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:453–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Harvey BC, White JL, Nakamoto RJ (2004) An emergent multiple predator effect may enhance biotic resistance in a stream fish assemblage. Ecology 85:27–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hayes KR, Barry SC (2008) Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biol Invasions 10:483–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heger T, Trepl L (2003) Predicting biological invasions. Biol Invasions 5:313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Holdgate MW (1986) Summary and conclusions: characteristics and consequences of biological invasions. Philos Trans R Soc London B314:733–742

    Google Scholar 

  37. Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:203–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kennedy TA, Naeem S, Howe KM, Knops JMH, Tilman D, Reich P (2002) Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kriticos DJ, Randall RP (2001) A comparison of systems to analyse potential weed distributions. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood, pp 61–79

    Google Scholar 

  42. Leprieur F, Beauchard O, Blanchet S, Oberdorff T, Brosse S (2008) Fish invasions in the world’s river systems: when natural processes are blurred by human activities. Public Libr Sci Biol 6(2):e28

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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 Fish 10:88–97

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lintermans M (2004) Human-assisted dispersal of alien freshwater fish in Australia. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 38:481–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lobo JM, Jimenez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lodge DM (1993) Species invasions and deletions: community effects and responses to climate and habitat change. In: Karieva PM, Kingsolver JG, Huey RB (eds) Biotic interactions and global change. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, pp 367–387

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lovell SJ, Stone SF, Fernandez L (2006) The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: a review of the literature. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35:195–208

    Google Scholar 

  48. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB, Levine R (2004) Invasive species profiling? Exploring the characteristics of non-native fishes across invasion stages in California. Freshw Biol 49:646–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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 Res 38:503–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moyle PB (1986) Fish introductions into North America: patterns and ecological impact. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York, pp 27–43

    Google Scholar 

  51. Moyle PB, Cech JJ Jr (2004) An introduction to ichthyology, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  52. Moyle PB, Light T (1996a) Biological invasions of fresh water: empirical rules and assembly theory. Biol Conserv 78:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Moyle PB, Light T (1996b) Fish invasions in California: do abiotic factors determine success? Ecology 77:1666–1670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Moyle PB, Marchetti MP (2006) Predicting invasion success: freshwater fishes in California as a model. Bioscience 56:515–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:316–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Nico LG, Fuller PL (1999) Spatial and temporal patterns of nonindigenous fish introductions in the United States. Fisheries 24:16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Noble IR (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: terrestrial and vascular plants. In: Drake JA (ed) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 301–313

    Google Scholar 

  58. Olden JD, Poff JD, Bestgen KR (2006) Life-history strategies predict fish invasions and extirpations in the Colorado River Basin. Ecol Monogr 76:25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pheloung PC (1996) CLIMATE: a system to predict the distribution of an organism based on climate preferences. Department of Agriculture, Perth

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rahel FJ (2007) Biogeographic barriers, connectivity and homogenization of freshwater faunas: it’s a small world after all. Freshw Biol 502:696–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL: http://www.R-project.org

  62. 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. Biol Invasions 10:89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ricciardi A (2001) Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an ‘invasional meltdown’ occurring in the Great Lakes? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:2513–2525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1998) Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1759–1765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rixon CAM, Duggan IC, Bergeron NMN, Ricciardi A, MacIsaac H (2005) Invasion risks posed by the aquarium trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodivers Conserv 14:1365–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ruesink JL (2003) One fish, two fish, old fish, new fish: which invasions matter? In: Kareiva P, Levin SA (eds) The importance of species: perspectives on expendability and triage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 161–178

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ruesink JL (2005) Global analysis of factors affecting the outcome of freshwater fish introductions. Conserv Biol 19:1883–1893

    Google Scholar 

  68. Shine S, Williams N, Gündling L (2000) A guide to designing legal institutional frameworks on alien invasive species. IUCN, Gland. URL: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-040-En.pdf

  69. Sikder IU, Mal-Sarkar S, Mal TK (2006) Knowledge-based risk assessment under uncertainty for species invasion. Risk Anal 26:239–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Simberloff D, Boecklen W (1991) Patterns of extinction in the introduced Hawaiian avifauna: a reexamination of the role of competition. Am Nat 138:300–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Smith CS, Lonsdale WM, Fortune J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol Invasions 1:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sol D, Vila M, Kuhn I (2008) The comparative analysis of historical alien introductions. Biol Invasions 10:951–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal 26:163–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sutherst RW, Maywald GF, Yonow T, Stevens PM (1998) CLIMEX. Predicting the effects of climate on plants and animals. Users guide. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  75. Taylor JN, Courtenay WR Jr, McCann JA (1984) Known impacts of exotic fishes in the continental United States. In: Courtenay WR Jr, Stauffer JR Jr (eds) Distribution, biology and management of exotic fishes. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 322–373

    Google Scholar 

  76. Townsend CR (2003) Individual, population, community, and ecosystem consequences of a fish invader in New Zealand streams. Conserv Biol 17:38–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Vila-Gispert A, Alcaraz C, García-Berthou E (2005) Life-history traits of invasive fish in small Mediterranean streams. Biol Invasions 7:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Weatherley AH, Lake JS (1967) Introduced fish species in Australian inland waters. In: Weatherley AH (ed) Australian Inland waters and their Fauna. Australian National University Press, Canberra, pp 217–239

    Google Scholar 

  79. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman & Hall. Boca Raton, Florida

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the Australian Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, the Bureau of Rural Sciences in the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and by the Australian Government Department the Environment and Heritage. We thank the three anonymous reviewers whose comments improved earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Bomford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bomford, M., Barry, S.C. & Lawrence, E. Predicting establishment success for introduced freshwater fishes: a role for climate matching. Biol Invasions 12, 2559–2571 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9665-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate matching
  • Establishment success
  • Exotic species
  • Freshwater fish
  • Prediction
  • Risk assessment