Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 2997–3003 | Cite as

Are botanical gardens a risk for zooplankton invasions?

  • Ian C. DugganEmail author
  • Kathryn S. Duggan
Original Paper

Abstract

A number of zooplankton invasions have been linked with the movement of plants to botanical and other public gardens. Although most of these records are historical, several recent examples indicate that aquatic fauna may still be transported by plant movements among gardens, or that there are unrecognised long-standing established populations in garden ponds around the world. We sampled 40 ponds from 10 gardens, in the United Kingdom and United States, to determine whether there is a high prevalence of non-indigenous zooplankton in garden ponds that could spread more widely if provided opportunity. No non-indigenous species were recorded from any of the gardens visited. We conclude that most well-established gardens do not pose a major threat for zooplankton invasions, mainly due to the destruction of ponds and associated populations through time, which apparently occurs commonly. In addition, ponds are regularly cleaned, insecticides are used on plants that may enter the water, and small fish are frequently added to conservatory ponds, further reducing the probability of zooplankton survival. Extirpation of populations may be occurring at a greater rate than re-introduction, due to greater restrictions on movement of plants, while the increasing focus on ex-situ conservation and science rather than aesthetics by botanical gardens means that fewer aquatic plants are being moved.

Keywords

Botanical gardens Craspedacusta Historic vector Incidental fauna 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all those gardens that agreed to allow us to take samples from their ponds, and those employees that took their time to guide us and provide information on the ponds; P. Brownless (RBGE), P. Morris (Kew), K. Pritchard (Oxford), J. Arcate Schuler (NYBG), R. Mottern III (Duke), C. Flanagan (USBG), M. Gray (Mobot), C. Sclar (Longwood) and M. Eysenbach (Chicago Parks). We thank R. Keller (U. Chicago) and M. Williamson (U. York) for providing preservative. J. Muirhead (Smithsonian Institute), J. Banks (Waikato) and H. Hodges aided in shipping samples. H. MacIsaac, J. Reid and an anonymous reviewer provided comments that improved our manuscript.

References

  1. Banks CM, Duggan IC (2009) Lake construction has facilitated calanoid copepod invasions in New Zealand. Divers Distrib 15:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskin Y (2002) The greening of horticulture: new codes of conduct aim to curb plant invasions. Bioscience 52:464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beddard FE (1906) The wild fauna and flora of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Amphibia. Bull Misc Inf, R Bot Gard Kew Addit Ser 5:66–68Google Scholar
  4. Brooks JL, Dodson SI (1965) Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150:28–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruno MC, Reid JW, Perry SA (2005) A list and identification key for the freshwater, free-living copepods of Florida (U.S.A.). J Crustacean Biol 25:384–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duggan IC (2010) The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna. Biol Invasions 12:3757–3770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duggan IC, Green JD, Burger DF (2006) First New Zealand records of three non-indigenous zooplankton species: Skistodiaptomus pallidus, Sinodiaptomus valkanovi and Daphnia dentifera. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 40:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Günther A (1906) The wild fauna and flora of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Amphibia. Bull Misc Inf, R Bot Gard Kew Addit Ser 5:10–12Google Scholar
  9. Harding JO, Smith WP (1974) A key to the British cyclopid and calanoid copepods. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication, 18, Ambleside, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Hebert PDN, Witt JDS, Adamowicz SJ (2003) Phylogeographical patterning in Daphnia ambigua: regional divergence and intercontinental cohesion. Limnol Oceanogr 48:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heywood VH (1987) The changing role of the botanic gardens. In: Bramwell D, Hamann O, Heywood V, Synge H (eds) Botanic gardens and the World conservation strategy. Academic Press, London, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  12. Heywood VH (2011) The role of botanic gardens as resource and introduction centres in the face of global change. Biodivers Conserv 20:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koste W (1978) Rotatoria Die Radertiere Mitteleuropas (Uberordnung Monogononta). Stuttgart, Berlin, BorntraegerGoogle Scholar
  14. Lang K (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden. Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, LundGoogle Scholar
  15. Lankester ER (1880) On Limnocodium (Craspedacusta) sowerbii, a new trachomedusa inhabiting fresh water. Q J Micros Sci 20:351–371Google Scholar
  16. Light SF (1939) New American subgenera of Diaptomus Westwood (Copepoda, Calanoida). Trans Am Microsc Soc 58:473–484Google Scholar
  17. Mack RN (2005) Predicting the identity of plant invaders: future contributions from horticulture. HortScience 40:1168–1174Google Scholar
  18. Mack RN, Lonsdale WM (2001) Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. Bioscience 51:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Makino W, Knox MA, Duggan IC (2010) Invasion, genetic variation and species identity of the calanoid copepod Sinodiaptomus valkanovi. Freshwater Biol 55:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayou R, Matthews J (2010) The buildings of the botanic garden. Botanic Garden News (Oxford) 73:4–7Google Scholar
  21. Onbasili D, Duman F (2010) Acute toxicity of some insecticides on Artemia salina and Daphnia magna. Fresenius Environ Bull 19:2608–2610Google Scholar
  22. Pennak RW (1978) Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. Wiley, New York, p 803Google Scholar
  23. Pennisi E (2010) Tending the global garden. Science 329:1274–1277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pocock RI (1906) The wild fauna and flora of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Amphibia. Bull Misc Inf, R Bot Gard Kew Addit Ser 5:21–22Google Scholar
  25. Reichard SH (2004) Conflicting values and common goals: codes of conduct to reduce the threat invasive species. Weed Technol 18:1503–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reid JW (1999) New records of Bryocyclops from the continental U.S.A., Puerto Rico, and Brazil (copepoda: cyclopoida: cyclopidae). J Crustacean Biol 19:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reid JW (2001) A human challenge: discovering and understanding continental copepod habitats. Hydrobiologia 453(454):201–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reid JW (2008) Arctodiaptomus dorsalis (Marsh): a case history of copepod dispersal. Banisteria 30:3–18Google Scholar
  30. Reid JW, Hribar LJ (2006) Records of some Copepoda (Crustacea) from the Florida Keys. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 155:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scourfield DJ (1947) A short-spined Daphnia presumably belonging to the ‘‘longispina’’ group - D. ambigua n.sp. J Quekett Micros Club 11:127–131Google Scholar
  32. Segers H (1995) Rotifera vol. 2: the Lecanidae. In: Dumont HJ (ed) Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the World 6. SPB Academic Publishing bv, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  33. Soderstrom M (2001) Recreating Eden : a natural history of botanical gardens. Véhicule Press, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  34. Sowerby AD (1941) The romance of the Chinese fresh-water jellyfish. Hong Kong Naturalist 10:186–189Google Scholar
  35. Ueda H, Ohtsuka S (1998) Redescription and taxonomic status of Sinodiaptomus valkanovi, a common limnoplanktonic calanoid copepod in Japan, with comparison to the closely related S. sarsi. Hydrobiologia 379:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesCentre for Biodiversity and Ecology Research, The University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations