Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A modular assessment tool for managing introduced fishes according to risks of species and their populations, and impacts of management actions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A modular assessment scheme for assisting the risk management of introduced fishes is described, with its recent application to England and Wales demonstrated. The initial module prioritises the introduced fishes in the risk assessment area according to their potential invasiveness and current distribution. The second module then assesses populations of the prioritised species in relation to the character of their receiving waters and the potential risks posed by their population in that circumstance; the output is a suggested management action for each population. The third module evaluates the suggested management action in relation to its potential impacts in the environment and how these impacts may be mitigated. The final module assesses the estimated cumulative cost of the selected management action relative to an alternative action. To demonstrate its potential value for managing extant populations of introduced fish, three eradication case-studies from England were assessed retrospectively using the scheme. This revealed eradication of two topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva populations was commensurate with their levels of ecological risk in the environment. By contrast, initial assessment of the eradication of a feral population of fathead minnow Pimephales promelas suggested control and containment was the commensurate management action due to a relatively low risk of natural dispersal. Application of the scheme elsewhere in the world and to other faunal groups should enable more objective decision-making in management programmes and enhance conservation outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen Y, Kirby S, Copp GH, Brazier M (2006) Toxicity of rotenone to topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva for the species’ eradication from a tarn in Cumbria. Fish Manag Ecol 13:337–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker RHA, Black R, Copp GH et al. (2008) The UK risk assessment scheme for all non-native species. In: Rabitsch W, Essl F, Klingenstein F (eds) Biological invasions—from ecology to conservation. Neobiota, vol 7. pp 46–57

  • Branquart E (co-ordinator) and 20 contributors (2007) Guidelines for environmental impact assessment (ISEIA) and list classification of non-native organisms in Belgium. Discussion document, version 2.1. 4 pp. Available at: www.biodiversity.be

  • Britton JR, Brazier M (2006) Eradicating the invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva, from a recreational fishery in Northern England. Fish Man Ecol 13:329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton JR, Davies GD (2007) First UK recording in the wild of the bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis. J Fish Biol 70:1280–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton JR, Pegg J, Sedgwick R, Page R (2007) Using mark-recapture to estimate catch rates and growth of the European catfish Silurus glanis in a recreational fishery. Fish Man Ecol 14:263–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton JR, Davies GD, Brazier M, Chare S (2008) Case studies on eradicating the Asiatic cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva from fishing lakes in England to prevent their riverine dispersal. Aquat Conserv 18:867–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton JR, Davies GD, Brazier M (2010a) Towards the successful control of Pseudorasbora parva in the UK. Biol Invasions 12:25–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton JR, Cucherousset J, Davies GD, Godard M, Copp GH (2010b) Non-native fishes and climate change: predicting species responses to warming temperatures in a temperate region. Freshw Biol 55:1130–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton JR, Gozlan RE, Copp GH (2011) Managing non-native fish in the environment. Fish Fish. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00390.x (in press)

  • Campbell C, Carter FD (1999) The Florida Department of Corrections involvement in exotic pest plant control. In: Jones DT, Gamble BW (eds) Florida’s garden of good and evil. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, West Palm Beach, pp 147–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefas (2011) Non-native species—decision support tools: invasive species: identification kits. www.cefas.co.uk/4200.aspx. Accessed 15 Feb 2011

  • Copp GH, Bianco PG, Bogutskaya N et al (2005a) To be, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish? J Appl Ichthyol 21:242–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005b) Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes: concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Cefas Science Technical Report No. 129, Cefas, Lowestoft, 32 pp

  • Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005c) Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes: a summary of concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. J Appl Ichthyol 21:371–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copp GH, Wesley KJ, Verreycken H, Russell IC (2007a) When an ‘invasive’ fish species fails to invade! Example of the topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. Aquat Invasions 2:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copp GH, Templeton M, Gozlan RE (2007b) Propagule pressure and the invasion risks of non-native freshwater fishes in Europe: a case study of England. J Fish Biol 71(Suppl D):148–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Mumford JD, 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 

  • Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Gozlan RE (2010a) Fish movements: the introduction pathway for topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva and other non-native fishes in the UK. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 20:269–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Gozlan RE (2010b) The demography of introduction pathways, propagule pressure and non-native freshwater fish occurrences in England. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 20:595–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards PK, Leung B (2009) Re-evaluating eradication of nuisance species: invasion of the tunicate, Ciona intestinalis. Front Ecol Environ 7:326–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnoff D, Shogrena JF, Leung B, Lodge D (2007) Take a risk: preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecol Econ 62:216–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genovesi P (2005) Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: a review. Biol Invasions 7:127–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozlan RE (2008) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish Fish 9:106–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Gozlan RE, Britton JR, Cowx IG, Copp GH (2010a) Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions. J Fish Biol 76:751–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozlan RE, Britton JR et al (2010b) Pan-continental invasion of Pseudorasbora parva: towards a better understanding freshwater fish invasions. Fish Fish 11:315–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Regan HM, Burgman MA (2007) Introduction to the concept of mathods of uncertainty analysis. In: Kapuscinski AR, Li S, Hayes KR, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: volume 3 methodologies for transgenic fish. CAB International, Oxford, pp 188–208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hickley P, Chare S (2004) Fisheries for non-native species in England and Wales: angling or the environment. Fish Manag Ecol 11:203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howald G, Donlan CJ, Tershy BR et al (2007) Invasive rodent eradications on islands. Conserv Biol 21:1258–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE, Pysek P, Nentwig W, Vila M (2009) Will the threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 324:40–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leprieur F, Brosse S, García-Berthou E et al (2009) Scientific uncertainty and the assessment of risks posed by non-native freshwater fishes. Fish Fish 10:88–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Londsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez MA, Pauchard A (2010) Biological invasions in developing and developed countries: does one model fit all? Biol Invasions 12:707–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrott D, Roy S, Baker R, Cannon R, Eyre D, Hill M, Wagner M, Preston C, Roy H, Beckmann B, Copp GH, Edmonds NJ, Ellis J, Laing I, Britton JR, Gozlan RE, Mumford J (2009) Horizon scanning for new invasive non-native species in England. Research Report, Natural England, Peterborough, 127 pp

  • Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluation plant introductions. J Environ Manag 57:239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Biodiversity—global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders G, Cooke B, McColl K, Shine R, Peacock T (2010) Modern approaches for the biological control of vertebrate pests: an Australian perspective. Biol Control 52:288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2003) How much information on population biology is needed to manage introduced species? Conserv Biol 17:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2006) Risk Assessments, Blacklists, and White Lists for Introduced Species: Are Predictions Good Enough to Be Useful? Agric Resour Econ Rev 35:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2009) We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biol Invasions 11:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes KE, O’Neill KP, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA et al (2006) The importance of stakeholder engagement in invasive species management: a cross-jurisdictional perspective in Ireland. Biodiv Conserv 15:2829–2852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stott B (1977) On the question of the introduction of the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella Val.) into the United Kingdom. Fish Manag 8:63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton-Croft M (2010) Norfolk Non-native Species Initiative Newsletter, Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, Issue 5 (Autumn/Winter) 2010:1

  • Thomas H (2010) Final Report of the GB Non-native Species Rapid Response Working Group. Protected Species and Non-native Species Team, Biodiversity Programme, Defra, London, 45 pp

  • van Kleef H, van der Velde G, Leuven RSEW, Esselink H (2008) Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) invasions facilitated by introductions and nature management strongly reduce macroinvertebrate abundance in isolated water bodies. Biol Invasions 10:1481–1490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler AC (1998) Ponds and fishes in Epping Forest, Essex. Lond Nat 77:107–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Zięba G, Copp GH, Davies GD, Stebbing P, Wesley KJ, Britton JR (2010) Recent releases and dispersal of non-native fishes in England and Wales, with emphasis on sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus. Aquat Invasions 5:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Science, School of Applied Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK

    J. Robert Britton, Gordon H. Copp & Gareth D. Davies

  2. Salmon and Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, NR33 0HT, UK

    Gordon H. Copp

  3. North Area North West Region, Environment Agency, Penrith, Cumbria, UK

    Matt Brazier

  4. Fisheries Technical Services, Environment Agency, Bromholme Lane, Brampton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE28 4NE, UK

    Gareth D. Davies

Authors
  1. J. Robert Britton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gordon H. Copp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matt Brazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gareth D. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Robert Britton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Britton, J.R., Copp, G.H., Brazier, M. et al. A modular assessment tool for managing introduced fishes according to risks of species and their populations, and impacts of management actions. Biol Invasions 13, 2847–2860 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9967-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9967-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation