Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp 1469–1481 | Cite as

An assessment of a bait industry and angler behavior as a vector of invasive species

  • Jay V. KilianEmail author
  • Ronald J. Klauda
  • Sarah Widman
  • Michael Kashiwagi
  • Rebecca Bourquin
  • Sara Weglein
  • John Schuster
Original Paper

Abstract

The use of live bait by anglers is an important vector of both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Bait-bucket introductions of invasive crayfishes, fishes, earthworms, pathogens, and other organisms have reduced biodiversity and altered ecosystem function and structure throughout the United States, including the Mid-Atlantic region. In 2008, we conducted a telephone survey of bait shops and a mail survey of anglers to obtain information on the trade and use of bait in Maryland, a US state with many introduced bait species. Our telephone survey of bait shops confirmed that this industry is a source of non-native and invasive species in Maryland. Our survey documented at least six non-native bait species for sale in the state. With the exception of a few locally collected bait species, bait sold in Maryland originated from sources outside of the state, and in some cases, outside the Mid-Atlantic region. Results of our angler survey indicated that 64% of Maryland freshwater anglers, both resident and non-resident, used live bait and that the release of unused live bait was quite common and occurred statewide. The release of unused bait by anglers varied with bait type. Anglers more readily released aquatic than terrestrial baits. For example, 65 and 69% of Maryland anglers using fishes and crayfishes released their unused bait; whereas only 18 and 10% of anglers released their unused earthworms and grubs-mealworms-maggots, respectively. Our surveys indicated that any non-native, potentially invasive species imported into the state via the bait industry is likely to be released by anglers into Maryland’s aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Many of these species have the potential to become established in the state. These results illustrate the need for greater oversight of the bait industry, development of consistent regulations on bait use, and a region-wide education campaign aimed at changing anglers’ behavior regarding bait use and its disposal. We recommend specific management actions that, if implemented, would greatly reduce further bait-bucket introductions and provide protection against invasive bait species in Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic region.

Keywords

Invasive species Bait Industry Mid-Atlantic Angler behavior Vector Non-native 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jonathan McKnight, Tammy O’Connell, Marek Topolski, Lisetta Silvestri, and Megan Mueller for assistance with data collection and the MDNR Invasive Species Matrix Team for providing assistance and guidance with survey design and for support of this study. We thank Arden Fields and Len Singel for assistance with the MDNR Fisheries angler database. We also thank Dr. Paul Hendrix of the University of Georgia for providing taxonomic verifications of earthworm species and Zachary Loughman of West Liberty University for crayfish identification. We thank Scott Stranko, Kerrie Kyde, Jonathan McKnight, Robert DiStefano, and two anonymous reviewers for providing comments and suggestions that all led to improvements in the manuscript. This study was funded in part by State Wildlife Grant funds provided to the state wildlife agencies by US Congress, and administered through the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Program.

References

  1. Bestgen KR, Platania SP, Brooks JE, Propst DL (1989) Dispersal and life history traits of Notropis girardi (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), introduced into the Pecos River, New Mexico. Am Midl Nat 122:228–235. doi: 10.2307/2425907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callaham MA Jr, Ganzalez G, Hale CM, Heneghan L, Lachnicht SL, Zou X (2006) Policy and management responses to earthworm invasions in North America. Biol Invasions 8:1317–1329. doi: 10.1007/s10530-006-9016-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlton JT, Cohen AN (2003) Episodic global dispersal in shallow water marine organisms: the case history of the European shore crabs Carcinus maenas, and C. aestuarii. J Biogeogr 30:1809–1820. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2003.00962.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang AL, Grossman JD, Spezio TS, Weiskel HW, Blum JC, Burt JW, Muir AA, Piovia-Scott J, Veblen KE, Grosholz ED (2009) Tackling aquatic invasions: risks and opportunities for the aquarium fish industry. Biol Invasions 11:773–785. doi: 10.1007/s10530-008-9292-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlebois PM, Lamberti GA (1996) Invading crayfish in a Michigan stream: direct and indirect effects on periphyton and macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 15:551–563. doi: 10.2307/1467806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Code of Maryland COMAR (2006) 08.02.19.00. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  7. Deacon JE (1988) The endangered woundfin and water management in the Virgin River, Utah, Arizona, Nevada. Fisheries 13:18–29. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1988)013%3c0018:TEWAWM%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deacon JE, Hubbs C, Zahuranec BJ (1964) Some effects of introduced fishes on the native fish fauna of southern Nevada. Copeia 1964:384–388. doi: 10.2307/1441031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiStefano RJ, Litvan ME, Horner PT (2009) The bait industry as a potential vector for alien crayfish introductions: problem recognition by fisheries agencies and a Missouri evaluation. Fisheries 34:586–597. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446-34.12.586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ESRI (2008) ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuller PL, Nico LG, Williams JD (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into Inland waters of the United States. US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodchild CD (2000) Ecological impacts of introductions associated with the use of live bait. In: Claudi R, Leach JH (eds) Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: vectors, biology, and impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 181–202Google Scholar
  13. Hendrix PF (2006) Biological invasions belowground: earthworms as invasive species. Biol Invasions 8:1201–1204. doi: 10.1007/s10530-006-9048-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hidalgo FJ, Baron PJ, Orensanz JM (2005) A prediction come true: the green crab invades the Patagonian coast. Biol Invasions 7:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbs HH III, Jass JP, Huner JV (1989) A review of global crayfish introductions with particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana 56:299–316. doi: 10.1163/156854089X00275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller RP, Lodge DM (2007) Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. Bioscience 57:428–436. doi: 10.1641/B570509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller RP, Cox AN, Van Loon C, Lodge DM, Herborg L, Rothlisberger J (2007) From bait shops to the forest floor: earthworm use and disposal by anglers. Am Midl Nat 158:321–328. doi: 10.1674/0003-0031(2007)158[321:FBSTTF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr SJ, Brousseau CS, Muschett M (2005) Invasive aquatic species in Ontario: a review and analysis of potential pathways for introduction. Fisheries 30:21–30. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(2005)30[21:IASIO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kilian JV, Ashton M (2007) Rusty crayfish invades Maryland. Crayfish News 29(4):5Google Scholar
  20. Kilian JV, Becker AJ, Stranko SA, Ashton M, Klauda RJ, Gerber J, Hurd M (2010a) The status and distribution of Maryland crayfishes. Southeast Nat 9(Special Issue 3):11–32. doi: 10.1656/058.009.s302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kilian JV, Klauda RJ, Widman S, Kashiwagi M, Bourquin R, Weglein S, Schuster J (2010b) A study of the sale, use, and release of live bait in Maryland: a call for stricter regulations, better education, and enhanced monitoring to reduce the threat of invasive species introductions. Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource Assessment Service, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  22. Kulwicki MM, Rosenthal SK, Lodge DM (2003) Aquatic nuisance species awareness of anglers in northern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan. In: Abstracts from the 12th international conference on aquatic invasive species. Windsor, June 9–12 2003. The Professional Edge, Ottawa, p 139Google Scholar
  23. Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02038.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Litvak MK, Mandrak NE (1993) Ecology of freshwater baitfish use in Canada and the United States. Fisheries 18:6–13. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1993)018%3c0006:EOFBUI%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Litvak MK, Mandrak NE (2000) Baitfish trade as a vector of aquatic introductions. In: Claudia R, Leach JH (eds) Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: vectors, biology, and impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 163–180Google Scholar
  26. Lodge DM, Taylor CA, Holdich DM, Skurdal J (2000) Reducing impacts of exotic crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries 25(89):21–23. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1993)018%3c0006:EOFBUI%3e2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
  27. Lovullo TJ, Stauffer JR Jr (1993) The retail bait-fish industry in Pennsylvania: source of introduced species. J Pa Acad of Sci 67:13–15Google Scholar
  28. Ludwig HR Jr, Leitch JA (1996) Interbasin transfer of aquatic biota via anglers’ bait buckets. Fisheries 21:14–18. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1996)021%3c0014:ITOABV%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDonald PS, Jensen GC, Armstrong DA (2001) The competitive and predatory impacts of the non-indigenous crab Carcinus maenas L. on early benthic phase Dungeness crab Cancer magister Dana. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 258:39–54. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(00)00344-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meredith WG, Schwartz FJ (1960) Maryland crayfishes. Educational series 46. Maryland Department of Research and Education. Solomons.Google Scholar
  31. Meronek G, Copes FA, Coble DW (1995) A summary of bait regulations in the north central United States. Fisheries 20:16–23. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1995)020%3c0016:ASOBRI%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Migge-Kleian S, McLean MA, Maerz JC, Heneghan L (2006) The influence of invasive earthworms on indigenous fauna in ecosystems previously uninhabited by earthworms. Biol Invasions 8:1275–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moyle PB (1976) Fish introduction in California: history and impact on native fishes. Biol Conserv 9:101–118. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(76)90043-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olsen TM, Lodge DM, Capelli G, Houlihan RJ (1991) Mechanisms of impact of an introduced crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) on littoral congeners, snails, and macrophytes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1853–1861. doi: 10.1139/f91-219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters JA, Lodge DM (2009) Invasive species policy at the regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:373–381. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446-34.8.373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Philipp DP (1991) Genetic implications of introducing Florida largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides floridanus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1853–1861. doi: 10.1139/f91-304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Picco AM, Collins JP (2008) Amphibian commerce as a likely source of pathogen pollution. Conserv Biol 22:1582–1589. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01025.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Schwartz FJ, Rubelmann R, Allison J (1963). Ecological population expansion of the introduced crayfish, Orconectes virilis. Ohio J Sci 63(6):266Google Scholar
  40. Stauffer JR Jr (1984) Colonization theory relative to introduced populations. In: Courtenay WR, Stauffer JR Jr (eds) Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 8–21Google Scholar
  41. Szlavecz K, Csuzdi C (2007) Land use change affects earthworm communities in eastern Maryland, USA. Eur J Soil Biol 43:S79–S85. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor CA, Schuster GA, Cooper JE, DiStefano RJ, Eversole AG, Hamr P, Hobbs HH III, Robison HW, Skelton CE, Thoma RF (2007) A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10 + years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32:372–388. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(2007)32[372:AROTCS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tyus HM, Saunders JF III (2000) Nonnative fish control and endangered fish recovery: lessons from the Colorado River. Fisheries 25:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walton WC, MacKinnon C, Rodriguez LF, Proctor C, Ruiz GM (2002) Effect of an invasive crab upon a marine fishery: green crab, Carcinus maenas, predation upon a venerid clam, Katelysia scalarina in Tasmania (Australia). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 272:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson KA, Magnuson JJ, Lodge DM, Hill AM, Kratz TK, Perry WL, Willis TV (2004) A long-term rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) invasion: dispersal patterns and community change in a north temperate lake. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:2255–2266. doi: 10.1139/f04-170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay V. Kilian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald J. Klauda
    • 1
  • Sarah Widman
    • 2
  • Michael Kashiwagi
    • 1
  • Rebecca Bourquin
    • 1
  • Sara Weglein
    • 1
  • John Schuster
    • 1
  1. 1.Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesResource Assessment ServiceAnnapolisUSA
  2. 2.Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesFisheries ServiceAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations