Aquatic Invasive Species

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.

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.

The United States of America has often been called the “melting pot” of the world, as it accepted people from all parts of the globe. However, an undesirable byproduct of such mixing was the introduction of many different species. While some people intentional bring exotic animals and plants to this country, an exponentially larger number are transported unknowingly. The current world is incredibly connected; even the landlocked ports of the Great Lakes can be associated with ports in Egypt, Australia, and Argentina. In fact, Dr. David Lodge demonstrated how the laurentian Great Lakes are connected to such ports by a maximum of four degrees of separation. Along their journeys, the ships have a tendency to pick up hitchhikers and other unwanted passengers. Even though most of these species aren’t able to survive due to differences in salinity and temperature, those that do survive are incredibly resilient. Their effects have already proven costly, such as the Zebra Mussel infestation in the Great Lakes. Additionally, San Francisco Bay has become the ultimate melting pot for different species, as noted in Dr. Lodge’s lecture.

How can we control this problem? Federal regulation seems to be the best starting point, but enforcement is the largest issue. Treatment or replacement of ballast water proves promising, as the removal of species offshore could help preserve the ecosystems of our port cities. However, until these systems become cost effective, many shipping companies would either forget or simply refuse to implement them. The Coast Guard in conjunction with Port Authorities would be the general enforcing agents. Legislation regarding which species may be brought in is much more clear cut and straightforward than which species are barred from our borders. The Lacey Act is a prime example of the ultimate failure to protect our natural habitats from invaders (other than ourselves). While this would be time-consuming, it would prove very cost-effective and allow researchers to model the effects of different species introduction. These are just a few of the many ways to protect our borders. Above all, the greatest asset to limiting foreign species invasions is clearly the enforcement of current laws, and the formation of stricter ones to preserve our native species.

-Evan Schwartz

Diversity Distrib. 16, 132-143 (2010)

Hull fouling can be an important method of transport of aquatic species to areas where they can become invasive all around the world. However, Its importance in freshwater habitats is not understood very well.

Fransisco Sylvester and Hugh J. MacIsaac from the University of Windsor looked at non-indigenous species transported through hull fouling to the Great Lakes to see if there was a risk of invasion. They took samples from surfaces of over 20 vessels that arrived in the Great Lakes and sorted and identified the invertebrates present. While they found over 170,000 invertebrates per ship most of these were freshwater species already in the Great Lakes. Of the species that they found not already in the Great Lakes, only one of these was in good condition.  Their conclusions were that hull fouling seems to pose of low risk for introducing invasive species into the Great Lakes.

Tara Porter

As I wrote on January 14, concerns have been growing over the possibility of Asian carp entering the Great Lakes. Scientists at the University of Notre Dame have been maintaining an environmental DNA monitoring program in the waterways around Chicago. In the Fall Asian carp DNA was found in the Cal-Sag channel (see map at the end of this article), and now, according to this Chicago Tribune article, Asian carp DNA has been found in Lake Michigan. As stated in the article, the DNA identification does not necessarily indicate the definite occurrence of a live specimen; the DNA could have come from the sewer system or transport of carp feces. However, the scientist in charge of the DNA analysis spoke at the Chicago meeting I attended last week, and he stated that it was very unlikely that the DNA came from these other pathways.

Welcome! The primary purpose of this blog is for Duke Writing 20 students enrolled in “The Billion Dollar Problem of Aquatic Invasive Species” to share their research findings, opinions, and questions with an audience beyond our classroom. Our Writing 20 course will work with many forms and genres of reading and writing, and this blog will be just one of them! But I thought I’d get the ball rolling on this blog by posting about my trip to Chicago yesterday.

I attended (and gave a talk at) the Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier Panel Meeting. The agenda for the meeting can be found here. This group meets about 2-3 times a year to discuss the electric fish barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The main purpose of this barrier is to prevent invasive Asian carp (bighead and silver carps) from entering Lake Michigan. Today’s meeting was especially important for many reasons, including:

1. Asian carp DNA was found ABOVE the barrier this past Fall
2. A multi-million dollar fish poisoning effort – one of the largest ever – near the barrier yielded one bighead carp (among thousands and thousands of dead fish).
3. Michigan is now suing Illinois to close the canal.
4. Obama is backing Illinois’ desire to NOT close the canal.
5. Everyone’s freaking out or arguing about whether we should be freaking out.

You can read more about the barrier issues here and Asian carp and the Great Lakes here. I had been invited to give a talk on using Asian carp bioenergetic models to predict the ability of this invader to become established in the Great Lakes. Some question whether the voracious, plankton-eating carp would be food-limited in the low productivity Great Lakes. The short answer from the models is: probably, sometimes, in some places, but it depends. That’s science for you! I think my talk was well-received, so I guess it was worth the effort to fly from RDU to Chicago and back in one day!