The effectiveness of non-native fish removal techniques in freshwater ecosystems: a systematic review

Author:

Rytwinski Trina12,Taylor Jessica J.12,Donaldson Lisa A.12,Britton J. Robert3,Browne David R.4,Gresswell Robert E.5,Lintermans Mark6,Prior Kent A.7,Pellatt Marlow G.8,Vis Chantal9,Cooke Steven J.12

Affiliation:

1. Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation and Environmental Management, Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

2. Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.

3. Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.

4. Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa, ON K2M 2W1, Canada.

5. US Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA.

6. Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia.

7. Ecosystem Restoration, Parks Canada, Gatineau, QC J8X 0B3, Canada.

8. Natural Resource Conservation, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation Directorate, Parks Canada, Vancouver, BC V6B 6B4, Canada.

9. Marine Policy Division, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation Directorate, Parks Canada, Gatineau, QC J8X 0B3, Canada.

Abstract

In aquatic systems, biological invasions can result in adverse ecological effects. Management techniques available for non-native fish removal programs (including eradication and population size control) vary widely, but include chemicals, harvest regimes, physical removal, or biological control. For management agencies, deciding on what non-native fish removal program to use has been challenging because there is little reliable information about the relative effectiveness of these measures in controlling or eradicating non-native fish. We conducted a systematic review, including a critical appraisal of study validity, to assess the effectiveness of different non-native fish removal methods and to identify the factors that influence the overall success rate of each type of method. We found 95 relevant studies, generating 158 data sets. The evidence base was dominated by poorly documented studies with inadequate experimental designs (76% of removal projects). When the management goal was non-native fish eradication, chemical treatments were relatively successful (antimycin 89%; rotenone 75%) compared with other interventions. Electrofishing and passive removal measure studies indicated successful eradication was possible (58% each) but required intensive effort and multiple treatments over a number of years. Of these studies with sufficient information, electrofishing had the highest success for population size control (56% of data sets). Overall, inadequate data quality and completeness severely limited our ability to make strong conclusions about the relationships between non-native fish abundance and different methods of eradication and population control and the factors influencing the overall success rate of each method. Our review highlights that there is considerable scope for improving our evaluations of non-native fish removal methods. It is recommended that programs should have explicitly stated objectives, better data reporting, and study designs that (when possible and appropriate) incorporate replicated and controlled investigations with rigorous, long-term quantitative monitoring. Future research on the effectiveness of non-native fish removal methods should focus on: (i) the efficacy of existing or potentially new removal measures in larger, more complex environments; (ii) a broader range of removal measures in general; and (iii) phenotypic characteristics of individual fish within a population that fail to be eradicated or controlled.

Publisher

Canadian Science Publishing

Subject

General Environmental Science

Reference108 articles.

1. Ayres, R., and Clunie, P. 2010. Management of freshwater fish incursions: a review. PestSmart Toolkit publication, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia.

2. Baker, G., Darby, N., and Williams, T. 2010. Bonneville cutthroat trout restoration project: Great Basin National Park. Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2008/055. Natural Resources Program Center, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

3. Managing Fish Predators and Competitors: Deciding When Intervention is Effective and Appropriate

4. Rapid proliferation of an endemic galaxiid following eradication of an alien piscivore (Perca fluviatilis) from a reservoir

Cited by 89 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3