Reconstructing biological invasions using public surveys: a new approach to retrospectively assess spatio-temporal changes in invasive spread

  • Nitya Prakash MohantyEmail author
  • John Measey
Original Paper


Management of biological invasions increasingly relies on the knowledge of invasive species’ dispersal pathways that operate during introduction and post-introduction dispersal. However, the early stages of biological invasions (introduction, establishment, and initial spread) are usually poorly documented, limiting our understanding of post-introduction dispersal and the role of humans in invasive spread. We aim to assess a new approach to retrospectively understand spatio-temporal patterns of introduction, establishment, dispersal, and spread in biological invasions, using the case study of an ongoing invasion of the Indian bullfrog (Hoplobatachus tigerinus) on the Andaman archipelago, Bay of Bengal. We sampled 91 villages on eight human inhabited islands of the Andaman archipelago from 2015 to 2016. We assessed the occurrence of the bullfrog using visual encounter surveys and recorded the invasion history (year of establishment, source site, and dispersal pathway) for each site by surveying 892 key informants (farmers, plantation workers, and aqua-culturists). We sought to corroborate the reconstructed invasion history with false positive occupancy modelling, using site specific covariates that corresponded to hypotheses on specific dispersal pathways. The bullfrog occurred in at least 62% of the sampled sites spread over six islands, a dramatic increase to the previously known invaded range. The bullfrog was most likely introduced in early 2000s, and its exponential expansion has occurred since 2009. ‘Contaminants’ of fish culture trade and intentional ‘release’ were reported to be the primary pathways of introduction and post-introduction dispersal, facilitating introductions from the Indian mainland and inter-island transfers. False-positive occupancy modelling confirmed that three sites on the archipelago influenced the invasion disproportionately by acting as dispersal hubs. The study elucidates the efficacy of using public surveys to identify dispersal pathways and hubs, and to understand invasive spread, when such information is typically unavailable otherwise. The proposed approach is scalable to other systems and species.


Amphibia Andaman Islands Dispersal pathway False positive Hoplobatrachus tigerinus Key informant survey 



This research was supported by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB) and approved by the Human Research (Humanities) Ethics committee of Stellenbosch University (SU-HSD-003771). We would like to thank, the Department of Environment and Forests, Andaman and Nicobar Islands for Granting permits (#CWLW/WL/134/350); the Inlaks Shivdasani Foundation-Ravi Sankaran Fellowship Programme, the Rufford Small Grants (#20818-2) for funding and the Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University for a bursary to NPM; the Andaman & Nicobar Environment Team (ANET) for facilitating field work; all the respondents for contributing to our understanding of the subject; Sachin Anand, Saw Isaac, Bipin Tirkey for collecting part of the data, and Suresh Kujur for help during field work; Prof. David M Richardson, Dr. Ana Novoa, Susan Canavan, and Sahir Advani for feedback on the manuscript; Dr. Kevin Smith and two anonymous referees for constructive criticism which improved the manuscript. NPM would like to acknowledge the support and advice of Dr. Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Dr. Manish Chandi, and Harikrishnan S. during the study.

Author contributions

NPM and JM conceived the idea of the study; NPM collected the data; NPM and JM analysed the data; NPM wrote the manuscript, JM contributed to the writing.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1839_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)
10530_2018_1839_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (79 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (JPEG 79 kb)


  1. Aikio S, Duncan RP, Hulme PE (2010) Lag-phases in alien plant invasions: separating the facts from the artefacts. Oikos 119(2):370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F et al (2017) Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods Ecol Evol 00:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barun A, Niemiller ML, Fitzpatrick BM, Fordyce JA, Simberloff D (2013) Can genetic data confirm or refute historical records? The island invasion of the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus). Biol Invasions 15:2243–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaman J, Vaske JJ, Miller CA (2005) Cognitive processes in hunters’ recall of participation and harvest estimates. J Wildl Manag 69:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell RC, Drewes RC, Channing A, Gvoždík V, Kielgast J, Lötters S, Zamudio KR (2015) Overseas dispersal of Hyperolius reed frogs from Central Africa to the oceanic islands of São Tomé and Príncipe. J Biogeogr 42:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, Wilson JR, Richardson DM (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Cons 139:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambert T, Miller DA, Nichols JD (2015) Modeling false positive detections in species occurrence data under different study designs. Ecology 96:332–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chown SL, Huiskes AH, Gremmen NJ, Lee JE, Terauds A, Crosbie K, Lebouvier M (2012) Continent-wide risk assessment for the establishment of non-indigenous species in Antarctica. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:4938–4943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Christy MT, Savidge JA, Rodda GH (2007) Multiple pathways for invasion of anurans on a Pacific island. Divers Distrib 13:598–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clavero M, Villero D (2013) Historical ecology and invasion biology: long-term distribution changes of introduced freshwater species. Bioscience 64:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connelly NA, Brown TL, Knuth BA (2000) Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys. Hum Dimens Wildl 5:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2014) Pathways of introduction of invasive species, their prioritization, and management. CBD.
  15. Coughlin SS (1990) Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 43:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crall AW, Jarnevich CS, Young NE, Panke BJ, Renz M, Stohlgren TJ (2015) Citizen science contributes to our knowledge of invasive plant species distributions. Biol Invasions 17:2415–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniels RR (2005) Amphibians of peninsular India. Universities Press, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2013) Accessed from 15th Aug 2017
  19. Dutta SK (1997) Amphibians of India and Sri Lanka: checklist and bibliography. Odyssey Publishing House, FloreyGoogle Scholar
  20. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2012) ArcGIS Release 10.3.1. Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Booy O, Brundu G, Brunel S, García-Berthou E (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. Bioscience 65:769–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faulkner SC, Verity R, Roberts D, Roy SS, Robertson PA, Stevenson MD, Le Comber SC (2016) Using geographic profiling to compare the value of sightings vs trap data in a biological invasion. Divers Distrib 23:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ficetola GF, Coïc C, Detaint M, Berroneau M, Lorvelec O, Miaud C (2007) Pattern of distribution of the American bullfrog Rana catesbeiana in Europe. Biol Invasions 9:767–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fitzpatrick BM, Fordyce JA, Niemiller ML, Reynolds RG (2012) What can DNA tell us about biological invasions? Biol Invasions 14:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Floerl O, Inglis GJ, Dey K, Smith A (2009) The importance of transport hubs in stepping-stone invasions. J Appl Ecol 46(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forest Statistics (2013) Accessed from 15 Aug 2017
  27. García-Díaz P, Cassey P (2014) Patterns of transport and introduction of exotic amphibians in Australia. Divers Distrib 20:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gardiner JS (1906) Notes on the distribution of the land and marine animals, with a list of the land plants and some remarks on the coral reefs. In: Gardiner JS (ed) The fauna and geography of the Maldive and Laccadive archipelagos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1046–1057Google Scholar
  29. Genovesi P, Carboneras C, Vila M, Walton P (2015) EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive species: a step towards a global response to biological invasions? Biol Invasions 17:1307–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glaw F, Vences M (2007) A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. ISBN-13: 9783929449037Google Scholar
  31. Goldstein EA, Lawton C, Sheehy E, Butler F (2014) Locating species range frontiers: a cost and efficiency comparison of citizen science and hair-tube survey methods for use in tracking an invasive squirrel. Wildl Res 41:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harikrishnan S, Vasudevan K (2013) Recent introduction and spread of Indian bullfrog Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1802) into the Andaman Islands. Aliens 33:42–43Google Scholar
  33. Harikrishnan S, Vasudevan K (2015) The devil is in the detail: estimating species richness, density, and relative abundance of tropical island herpetofauna. BMC Ecol 15:18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harikrishnan S, Vasudevan K, Choudhary BC (2010) A review of herpetofaunal descriptions and studies from Andaman and Nicobar islands, with an updated checklist. In: Ramakrishna C, Sivaperuman C (eds) Recent trends in biodiversity of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, pp 387–398Google Scholar
  35. Hines JE (2010) PRESENCE: software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
  36. Horvitz N, Wang R, Wan FH, Nathan R (2017) Pervasive human-mediated large-scale invasion: analysis of spread patterns and their underlying mechanisms in 17 of China’s worst invasive plants. J Ecol 105:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hulme PE (2015) Invasion pathways at a crossroad: policy and research challenges for managing alien species introductions. J Appl Ecol 52:1418–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M et al (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol 45:323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hyndman RJ, Mesgaran MB, Cousens RD (2015) Statistical issues with using herbarium data for the estimation of invasion lag-phases. Biol Invasions 17:3371–3381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaiser H, Trujillo JD, Lynch JD (2002) Northern South America: rapid dispersal through human interactions. Herpetol Rev 33:290–293Google Scholar
  42. Kikillus KH, Hare KM, Hartley S (2012) Online trading tools as a method of estimating propagule pressure via the pet-release pathway. Biol Invasions 14:2657–2664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kraft CE, Sullivan PJ, Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Nekola JC, Johnson LE, Padilla DK (2002) Landscape patterns of an aquatic invader: assessing dispersal extent from spatial distributions. Ecol Appl 12(3):749–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kraus F (2007) Using pathway analysis to inform prevention strategies for alien reptiles and amphibians. In: Managing vertebrate invasive species, USDA National Wildlife Research Centre SymposiaGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraus F (2015) Impacts from invasive reptiles and amphibians. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kraus F, Campbell EW III (2002) Human-mediated escalation of a formerly eradicable problem: the invasion of Caribbean frogs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Invasions 4:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li Y, Ke Z, Wang Y, Blackburn TM (2011) Frog community responses to recent American bullfrog invasions. Curr Zool 57:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu X, McGarrity ME, Li Y (2012) The influence of traditional Buddhist wildlife release on biological invasions. Conserv Lett 5(2):107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu X, Li X, Liu Z, Tingley R, Kraus F, Guo Z, Li Y (2014) Congener diversity, topographic heterogeneity and human-assisted dispersal predict spread rates of alien herpetofauna at a global scale. Ecol Lett 17:821–829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Loo SE, Keller RP, Leung B (2007) Freshwater invasions: using historical data to analyse spread. Divers Distrib 13:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle AJ, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McGeoch MA, Spear D, Kleynhans EJ, Marais E (2012) Uncertainty in invasive alien species listing. Ecol Appl 22:959–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Measey GJ, Vimercati G, Villiers FA, Mokhatla M, Davies SJ, Thorp CJ, Kumschick S (2016) A global assessment of alien amphibian impacts in a formal framework. Divers Distrib 22:970–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Measey J, Davies SJ, Vimercati G, Rebelo A, Schmidt W, Turner A (2017) Invasive amphibians in southern Africa: a review of invasion pathways. Bothalia-Afr Biodiv Conserv 47(2):1–12Google Scholar
  55. Middleton K (2012) Renarrating a biological invasion: historical memory, local communities and ecologists. Environ History 18:61–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller DA, Nichols JD, McClintock BT, Grant EHC, Bailey LL, Weir LA (2011) Improving occupancy estimation when two types of observational error occur: non-detection and species misidentification. Ecology 92:1422–1428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Mohanraj P, Veenakumari K, Bandyopadhyay AK (1997) Perilous Aliens. Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port BlairGoogle Scholar
  58. Mohanty NP, Measey J (2018) What’s for dinner? Diet and potential trophic impact of the invasive Indian bullfrog on the Andaman archipelago. PeerJ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mohanty NP, Sachin A, Selvaraj G, Vasudevan K (2018) Using public surveys to reliably and rapidly estimate the distributions of multiple invasive species. Biotropica 50(2):197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Muirhead JR, MacIsaac HJ (2005) Development of inland lakes as hubs in an invasion network. J Appl Ecol 42(1):80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Murray RG, Popescu VD, Palen WJ, Govindarajulu P (2015) Relative performance of ecological niche and occupancy models for predicting invasions by patchily-distributed species. Biol Invasions 17:2691–2706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GA, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Nunes AL, Tricarico E, Panov VE, Cardoso AC (2015) Pathways and gateways of freshwater invasions in Europe. Aquat Invasions 10:359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Oliveira BF, São-Pedro VA, Santos-Barrera G, Penone C, Costa GC (2017) AmphiBIO, a global database for amphibian ecological traits. Sci Data 4:170123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Pearman PB, Guisan A, Broennimann O, Randin CF (2008) Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 23:149–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Pergl J, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Essl F, Genovesi P, Harrower CA, Perglová I (2017) Troubling travellers: are ecologically harmful alien species associated with particular introduction pathways? NeoBiota 32:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pillay R, Miller DA, Hines JE, Joshi AA, Madhusudan MD (2014) Accounting for false positives improves estimates of occupancy from key informant interviews. Divers Distrib 20:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Puth LM, Post DM (2005) Studying invasion: have we missed the boat? Ecol Lett 8:715–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergl J, Jarošík V, Sixtová Z, Weber E (2008) Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:237–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rajan P, Pramod P (2013) Introduced birds of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. Indian Birds 8:71–72Google Scholar
  71. Rangasamy V, Chandra K, Raghunathan C, Venkataraman K (2014) Amphibians and reptiles in Andaman and Nicobar islands: diversity and distribution. Souvenir: Island biodiversity, Uttar Pradesh state Biodiversity Board, pp 124–130Google Scholar
  72. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  73. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States: most invasive plants have been introduced for horticultural use by nurseries, botanical gardens, and individuals. Bioscience 51:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Bacher S (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Cons 144:2097–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Somaweera R, Somaweera N, Shine R (2010) Frogs under friendly fire: how accurately can the general public recognize invasive species? Biol Cons 143:1477–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2001) Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: insights from Argentine ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:1095–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Trakhtenbrot A, Nathan R, Perry G, Richardson DM (2005) The importance of long-distance dispersal in biodiversity conservation. Divers Distrib 11:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Sittert L, Measey GJ (2016) Historical perspectives on global exports and research of African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis). Trans R Soc S Afr 71:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Wilgen BW, Davies SJ, Richardson DM (2014) Invasion science for society: a decade of contributions from the Centre for Invasion Biology: commentary. S Afr J Sci 110(7–8):8–19Google Scholar
  82. Vimercati G, Hui C, Davies SJ, Measey GJ (2017) Integrating age structured and landscape resistance models to disentangle invasion dynamics of a pond-breeding anuran. Ecol Modell 356:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wells MJ (1974) Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Hack in South Africa. In: Proceedings of 1st national weeds conference of South Africa, pp 125–137Google Scholar
  84. Wilson JR, Dormontt EE, Prentis PJ, Lowe AJ, Richardson DM (2009) Something in the way you move: dispersal pathways affect invasion success. Trends Ecol Evol 24:136–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhulidov AV, Kozhara AV, Scherbina GH, Nalepa TF, Protasov A, Afanasiev SA, Pavlov DF (2010) Invasion history, distribution, and relative abundances of Dreissena bugensis in the old world: a synthesis of data. Biol Invasions 12:1923–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and ZoologyStellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Andaman and Nicobar Environment TeamWandoor, South AndamanIndia

Personalised recommendations