Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America

Science

Volumn 298, Issue 5596, 2002, Pages 1233-1236

  Kolar, Cynthia S ^a   Lodge, David M ^a  

^a UPPER MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AQUACULTURE; FISHERIES; LAKES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL METHODS;

NONAGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS;

ECOLOGY;

FISH; INTRODUCED SPECIES; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ACCURACY; AQUACULTURE; ARTICLE; ECOLOGY; FISH; LAKE; NORTH AMERICA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; FISHES; FORECASTING; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEAWATER; SODIUM CHLORIDE; TEMPERATURE;

NORTH AMERICA;

PISCES;

EID: 0037044760     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1075753     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. H. A. Mooney, R. J. Hobbs, Invasive Species in a Changing World (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
2. F. J. Rahel, Science 288, 854 (2000).
3. O. E. Sala et al., Science 287, 1770 (2000).
4. D. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, D. Morrison, Bioscience 50, 53 (1999).
5. National Invasive Species Council, National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge (National Invasive Species Council, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. D. M. Lodge, Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 133 (1993).
7. R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, J. G. Virtue, Weed Risk Assessment (CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, 2001).
8. Committee on the Scientic Basis for Predicting the Invasive Potential of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests in the United States, Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002).
9. M. Enserink, Science 285, 1834 (1999).
10. C. S. Kolar, D. M. Lodge, Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 199 (2001).
11. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council, Ecological Risk Assessment in the Federal Government, Report CENR/5-99/001 (May 1999).
12. S. H. Reichard, C. W. Hamilton, Conserv. Biol. 11, 193 (1997).
13. M. Rejmanek, D. M. Richardson, Ecology 77, 1655 (1996).
14. Detailed Materials and Methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
15. Method suggested by A. Grafen, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 326, 119 (1989). Classification of P. B. Moyle, C. C. Cech Jr., Introduction to Ichthyology (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, ed. 3, 1996).
16. Method suggested by A. Grafen, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 326, 119 (1989). Classification of P. B. Moyle, C. C. Cech Jr., Introduction to Ichthyology (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, ed. 3, 1996).
17. Function coefficients for the establishment DA (signs indicate association with establishment): constant = 9.8025, closer to mature length by 2 years = 0.0704, wide temperature range = 0.1430, wide salinity tolerance = 1.5844, history of invasiveness = 1.4602.
18. The reliability of our models (and all other models) is a function of the accuracy of the prediction and the frequency with which the event occurs at all (i.e., the "base rate," or proportion of introduced species that establish). Low base rate probability inflates the number of "false-positives" identified by the screening tool (species predicted to become established, spread quickly, or be perceived as a nuisance) (31). See online material for a discussion of the influence of base rate on our results.
19. CART was performed with CART software (Salford Systems, San Diego, CA).
20. Discriminant function coefficients for the spread DA (signs indicate association with spreading quickly): constant = 24.68635, survive higher temperatures = -1.52543, wide temperature range = 0.95508, closer to mature length by 2 years = -0.0000076.
21. Discriminant function coefficients for the impact DA (signs indicate association with being a nuisance): constant = -1.29465, egg diameter = -2.41764, minimum temperature threshold = -0.17902, salinity range = 0.73598.
22. A. Ricciardi, H. J. MacIsaac, Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 62 (2000).
23. J. Illies, Limnofauna Europea (Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, 1978).
24. C. J. Krebs, Ecological Methodology (Harper & Row, New York, 1989).
25. A. Ricciardi, J. B. Rasmussen, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1759 (1998).
26. B. Cudmore-Vokey, E. J. Crossman, "Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels," Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2550 (Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Canada, 2000).
27. Fed. Regist. 67, 49280 (2002).
28. E. Sharp, "Beware big fish: Asian carp are threat to lakes," Detroit Free Press, 11 April 2002; available at www.freep.com/sports/outdoors/outcol11_200204411. htm.
29. Risk Assessment and Management Committee, Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process (Report to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 21 October 1996); available at www.anstaskforce.gov/gennasrev.htm.
30. U.S. Congress, Harmful Nonindigenous Species in the United States (Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, 1993).
31. C. I. Goddard, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Circular Letter (8 July 1997).
32. C. S. Smith, W. M. Lonsdale, J. Fortune, Biol. Invas. 1, 89 (1999).
33. We thank R. Sparks, E. Marsden, and D. Schneider for thoughtful discussion. We also thank J. Drake, J. Feder, K. Filchak, T. Kreps, B. Leung, and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Thanks are also due to the fish managers and exotic species specialists who responded to our nuisance survey. This research is part of a larger project (National Sea Grant 643-1532-04). Additional support was provided by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Environmental Protection Agency STAR fellowship (R-82889901-0), the NSF Biocomplexity Initiative, a Clare Boothe Luce Presidental Fellowship (C.S.K.), and the Equal Opportunities Section of the American Fisheries Society (C.S.K.).