Aquatic Invasive Species

Much like in healthcare, preventative action for invasive species is typically much cheaper and simpler than palliative action. Preventing the establishment of a problem is crucial in the management of invasive species. Currently, much of the regulation concerning invasive species deals with specific species. This is something that policy-makers have to work on. Given the sheer volume of species that are moved from area to area that have the potential to become invasive, more regulation needs to be established about the vectors of transportation rather than targeting individual species themselves. While policy that deals with one specific species may be  better suited to be dealing with that species, the other potential invasive species are essentially ignored. Spending so much time on one species, no matter how problematic it may become is baffling when one thinks about the broader policies that could be enacted which would cover both the species in question as well as others. In imposing a broad set of regulation to the various vectors of species transport, whether it be through ballast water, live bait, aquaculture or other anthropogenic factors, one ultimately protects the environment better than they would through individual species policy.

One interesting idea brought up in the article that was proposed in 1999 by Reeves was that any person or corporation wanting to introduce a species must first prove that it will not cause ecological or economic harm. This policy would hold that entity accountable for the actions of the introduced species. I think that this would be a highly effective policy as it would add a more prominent economic incentive to those companies who would want to establish a species. It would be crucial to have an opposing point-of-view do their own research into the potential damage of the species though, as statisticians can create misleading data. Only if the two sides are in concordance with the results could the species be introduced.

Advances in invasive species management have necessitated a distinction between short-term management solutions and long-term remedies. Short-term solutions have emerged largely due to technological developments making it easier to detect established invasive populations earlier and to respond accordingly. Transportation, particularly shipping, acts as a significant pathway of introduction for non-native species into foreign ecosystems. Ship’s ballast water can contain thousands of organisms, which are transferred from port to port as ships take on and jettison ballast water. The threat posed by these “stepping stone invasions” is considerable. Approximately four degrees of separation exist between every port worldwide. Recent advances in pathway specific scientific analysis provides an excellent short-term solution. Analysis of temperature and salinity allow researchers to match ports where the conditions are conducive to the establishment of a specific non-native species. This approach allows for a targeted management effort and more effective use of limited management dollars. However promising, scientific advances do not have the power to force significant change on a long term and global scale. Policy and legislation is key to preventing the spread of invasive species in the long term. For example, legislation regulating the ballast water treatment systems on all ship provide a long term and cost-effective solution to transportation-mediated introduction of non-native species. Unfortunately, the majority of policy concerning the transfer of non-native species is too limited in scope and inefficient, particularly that of the United States. The Lacy Act is so inefficient most banned species are already established in the United States and the “innocent until proven guilty” listing criterion does nothing to prevent the further establishment of new invasives. A middle ground system, such as that implemented in Australia, has proved most effective at regulating the influx of non-native species without stifling trade. As short-term solutions are developed and implemented, policy-based long term solutions must not be forgotten as they play a crucial role in the future regulation of invasive species.

The problem of invasive species management is one that needs to be in the forefront of environmental policy. However, current practice focuses mainly on dealing with situations that have gotten out of control rather than trying to prevent invasions from happening in the first place. This leads to millions of dollars of damage from invasive species and an unfathomable amount of ecological damage.

In his lecture, Lodge suggested that one system of preventing species transport was being put into practice: portable ways of detecting and dealing with bilge water contamination and hull fouling could be developed in the near future, he said. However, this practice could be expensive, and without a political push for prevention of contamination by invasive species it is impossible to mandate that all ships must conform to one set of rules for dealing with hull fouling. The biggest problem, however, is the lack of motivation for finding a policy to deal with invasions. Invasion biology isn’t an exciting topic: it isn’t global warming and it isn’t energy. It’s ecology, which makes it seem much harder to control, and much less of a “hot topic” for lawmakers.

The fact remains, as Lodge pointed out, that it is an important topic and current laws are inadequate for dealing with the problem. The Lacey act, as he stated, only has a handful of species that were not put on the list until after they were already large problems. One reason for both of these problems is the lack of public knowledge of the problem of invasive species. Some have become headlines, like the Asian carps or the northern snakehead, but for the most part the problem is lack of awareness and apathy. Since people don’t know about invasive species, there is no incentive for policy makers to do anything about making policies to control them.

Governmental policies have failed to control the spread of aquatic invasive species in a number of ways. Particularly, they have not devoted substantial attention to the pathways, or vectors, that allow species to travel to new locations. According to Dr. David M. Lodge of the Center for Aquatic Conservation and Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame, an invasion can be broken down into five steps: the presence of the species in a pathway, transportation and subsequent release, establishment of a population, spread, and impact. For any of the other steps in an invasion to occur, a species must first enter a pathway. Therefore, the method most sure to prevent invasions is to stop them from ever beginning, by obstructing the pathways they require. Dr. Lodge describes two main types of pathways for invasive species: “incidental” vectors, or unintentional side effects of transportation, and “intentional” vectors, or commerce involving the species in question. It is essential that governments take steps to regulate both of these types of pathways.

The two main incidental vectors are airplanes and ships, as technology has effectively shrunk the world and created an interconnected network between continents. In fact, ship routes connect any given port to nearly every other port in the world by four or fewer steps. Although it would be impossible to stop intercontinental transportation, or to require complete purity of ballast water and ship hulls, it is possible for authorities to focus on ports around the world that are environmentally similar in water temperature, salinity, and other such factors, therefore making them more susceptible to invasions. Locations with high numbers of arriving ships and substantial similarities to other environments could then be targeted for increased transportation regulations.

Intentional vectors pose an equally potent threat to ecosystems around the world. At present in the U.S., there are only three sets of laws governing importation of species: the Public Health Service Act of 1946, the Plant and Animal Health Protection Acts of 2000 and 2002, and the Lacey Act of 1900. Any species not listed in these acts are assumed harmless and may be imported. Most of the few species that are listed had already established populations by the time they were incorporated, effectively rendering the laws useless. Most importantly, all regulations up until this point have been of an “all or nothing” mentality, either forbidding the transportation of a species or else allowing it unconditionally. Instead, authorities should use niche and spread modeling to predict the particular impact each species will have if imported, and create bioeconomic policies that allow some importation – creating economic benefits – while providing regulations that prevent invasions, creating environmental benefits as well.

Reference:

Lodge, David M. Lecture at Duke University, March 16, 2010.

David Lung

Professor Cooke

Writing 20- Invasive Aquatic Species

19 March 2010

All for One Regulation and One Regulation for All

Peters and Lodge (2009) suggest there needs to be consistent regulation on a regional scale that goes beyond political boundaries in order to viably control the spread of an invasive species. In their investigation of the spread of rusty crayfish, Peters and Lodge (2009) discovered a large disparity in the regulation of the many invasive crayfish that are present in the Great Lakes region. For the anglers, aquaculture industry, pet industry, and bait dealers, what is illegal varies considerably, making controlling the spread of invasive crayfish difficult since there are many ways for the crayfish to invade new habitats. As a result of policies among states that range from having a total ban on using crayfish to complete freedom of use, invasive crayfish have spread a significant distance over the course of 3 years (Minnesota to Pennsylvania). Acting on Peter and Lodge’s (2009) study, it is necessary to enact regional policies versus political policies.

Peters and Lodge (2009) make an excellent case and in my review of giant salvinia, it is necessary for broad regulation of invasive species instead of a smaller jurisdiction (state, local, etc.) making their own policies that run counter to those of another. Giant salvinia has been listed as a noxious weed in Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, California, Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia. Being listed as a noxious weed, there is a consistent regulation in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975 that prohibits transporting the weed in interstate or foreign commerce. Should each state of had their own policy to deal with giant salvinia, then the spread of the fern may go farther than it already has. Invasive species, as Peters and Lodge (2009) have stated, do not recognize political boundaries nor do they adhere to any laws. As a result, there needs to be a uniform set of regulations over an entire region or an area that an invasive species has currently spread; otherwise, the example set by the invasive crayfish will come to be a common occurrence among all invasive species.

References:

http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FEDNOX.HTML

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SAMO5

Peters JA, DM Lodge.  2009.  Invasive Species Policy at the Regional Level:  A Multiple Weak Links Problem.  Fisheries 34: 373-381.

Emily Chang

Professor Sandra Cooke

Writing 20

19 March 2010

Invasive Species Policy: The Fight Against the Common Enemy

Every environmental policy implemented in the modern world has its pros and cons. The regulations and restrictions imposed by them always run the risk of altering ecosystems, which includes the introduction of foreign species into certain habitats. Policies dealing with invasive species face various problems that jeopardize the chances of their success. Examples of this that Peters and Lodge (2009) give are inconsistent implementation across different regions and failure to regulate certain nonnative organisms before they harm their surroundings. These two issues are very pertinent to Eurasian watermilfoil because of the extent to which it has spread across North America and the ways in which it has spread.

Because Eurasian watermilfoil can be found in the majority of the fifty states and in several Canadian provinces, it is imperative that the United States and Canada cooperate to devise and impose legislation to control this aquatic plant before it irreversibly harms ecosystems. This cooperation is necessary because without the support of both countries, any such legislation will fail to manage or even eradicate the watermilfoil from the inland bodies of water in which it is established, making these regulations useless. Also, the milfoil has spread via many human processes such as fishing or boating. This means that people can help prevent further dispersal of this aquatic plant to untouched waters. It is clear that human participation in and compliance with the imposed restrictions can make or break legislative watermilfoil control; nevertheless, regulation agencies can better inform the general public through various means, like informative pamphlets and signs. With international, interstate, and “inter-human” cooperation, there is hope to manage and possibly eliminate Eurasian watermilfoil successfully as an aquatic threat.

Peters JA, DM Lodge. 2009. Invasive Species Policy at the Regional Level: A Multiple Weak Links Problem. Fisheries 34:373-381.

One thing that I found particularly interesting about aquatic invasive species policy is the “weakest link” problem of gaps in regional policy. The main article I read about this in was the Peters and Lodge et al 2009 paper titled: “Invasive Species Policy at the Regional Level: A Multiple Weak Links Problem”. The article talks about how invasive species that affect an entire region – in this case, Rusty Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) in the Laurentian Great Lakes region – can be under several different sets of policy controls. The entire Great Lakes region has declared rusty crayfish to be a major concern and a dangerous invasive species (Peters and Lodge et al 2009). However, not all of the states in that region have effective controls enacted against these crustaceans. For example, there are no regulations against anglers possessing crayfish in the state of Michigan, but in Wisconsin it is illegal to possess ANY crayfish (Peters and Lodge et al 2009).

The differences in policy in a high-traffic region such as the Laurentian Great Lakes make it difficult to control invasive species that have negative effects on all surrounding areas. It also took most of the states surrounding the Great Lakes around 30-40 years to enact policy after the first crayfish establishments had been recorded (Peters and Lodge et al 2009). It seems clear that if the entire region has determined rusty crayfish to be a viable threat, the entire region should enact uniform policies in order to halt the spread and reduce crayfish populations. However, neighboring states continue to have conflicting policies that only make it harder to effectively control the rusty crayfish invasions. I believe that enforcing region-wide policies is the first step to being able to manage rusty crayfish populations and eventually reduce their negative impacts.

Peters JA, DM Lodge. 2009. Invasive Species Policy at the Regional Level: A Multiple Weak Links Problem. Fisheries 34:373-381.

Kevin Shia

The implementation of invasive species policy and management has been a pressing issue for the resistance against biological invasions, especially towards invasive aquatic species. The debate is whether or not implementing new policies and managing invasive species is effective. Lodge et al. states that in order for there to be any success in the management of invasive species, the government should implement six factors. These factors are to use new practices to manage commercial and other pathways to reduce the transport of foreign species, adapt new risk analysis methods and apply them to all species, increase surveillance about invasive species so there would be a quicker response time to prevent them, provide funding for programs to prevent the spread, and establish The National Center for Invasive Species Management to control to improve policies in all levels of the government.

The zebra mussel is a very difficult aquatic invasive species to control. This is due to the species’ quick reproduction and its capability to survive in many aquatic environments. Based on these six factors to implement policies and effective management, it would not be effective on areas that already have had years of zebra mussel growth, but areas that do not have great growth, such as the western United States, the six recommendations can have a positive effect on the reduction of the zebra mussel. To reduce the zebra mussels, heating ballast water can kill zebra mussels as well as other species in larvae form during transport.  Also, with earlier detection of the zebra mussels in the Western United States, it can be quicker to reduce the population before it grows exponentially using emergency funding programs. Also, if the The National Center for Invasive Species Management is implemented, it would be easier to input more money into these emergency prevention and management programs, which can be a big solution to this problem.

Invasive species have become a costly problem for the United States. Invaders have ruined numerous local fishing economies and ecosystems. Though this problem was inevitable, there was a point in US history at which someone could have taken decisive action and implemented policies that could have slowed the spread of invasive species and saved the US a great deal of money. Unfortunately, as Dr. Lodge noted in his lecture, few legal actions have been taken to control the problem of invasive species, and all of these actions have proven to be extremely ineffective.

In addition to ineffective management of these invaders at the national level in the US, variations in species regulation at the local level also contributes to this problem. Peters and Lodge (2009) investigated crawfish regulations in the Laurentian Great Lakes area as an example of how poorly the movement of species is managed. They found great disparities in the severity of these regulations among different areas surrounding the Great Lakes, which confuses crawfish vendors and exacerbates the problem of invasive species. The variance in regulations is likely present among regulatory laws for other species as well.

In order to successfully manage invasive species, consistent and firm regulations need to be implemented at the state or national level; local regulations are ineffective. If management of invasive species is to be done at the state level, states need to work closely to prevent confusion that may result from the transport of these species. Peters and Lodge (2009) also recommend that any harm that comes from the introduction (accidental or otherwise) of a foreign species be the responsibility of the person or organization that allowed the introduction. This is a promising idea that would probably decrease the amount of “accidental” introductions of invasive species. Regardless of which path legislators decide to take, action should be taken to increase invasive species regulations as soon as possible.

Peters JA, DM Lodge. 2009. Invasive Species Policy at the Regional Level: A Multiple Weak Links Problem. Fisheries 34: 373-381.

Invasive species has become a tremendous problem in recent years, and there have been several attempts to manage this dilemma in various ways. One of the largest problems to solving this issue is the inconsistency of regulation throughout the United States and the world (Peters and Lodge 2009). Various states have implemented regulation of certain species with different levels of regulation. For example, the red swamp crayfish has spread widely to the Great Lakes region. There have also been indications of limited spread to New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. This is an important time for management of the red swamp crayfish. However, only Pennsylvania prohibits aquaculture of them. On the other hand, Illinois allows red swamp crayfish to be farmed even though they are only native to the southern part. This inconsistency is a prime example of the multiple weak link problem that allows invasive species to spread further because they can easily travel over state lines through connected water bodies. It will be necessary to establish more regional regulation. Furthermore, alien species management as a whole must learn to be proactive to alien species invasion instead of reactive. It is very difficult to eradicate a species from an area once it has infiltrated the area. Most current regulation is targeted to specific species, but research has shown that targeting specific economic vectors is more effective (Peters and Lodge 2009). I believe that all of these transformations will be vital to efficient management in the future.

Reference List

Peters JA, DM Lodge. 2009. Invasive Species Policy at the Regional Level: A Multiple Weak Links Problem. Fisheries 34:373-381.