Invasivne species

Methods for control, prevention and removal (eradication)

Legislation

According to IUCN Red list, alien invasive species are responsible for extinction of more species in the world than any other agent. E.g., on the global level 1/3 of birds, 6% of mammals and 11% of amphibians is endangered by alien invasive species.

Education „better save than sorry“ - the only successful way of fighting invasive species is prevention (disable their entrance into new habitat) - activities are focused to raise awareness about negative influence of IAS and consequences of their presence in the nature - to be successful against IAS, public must be included (especially risk groups – fishermen, pat owners, gardeners) – lectures, tv, radio, leaflets, educative publications, Internet…..

Prevention is the first line of defence

- most effective and most cost-effective

- if it fails, hard(er) to fight and eradicate already established IAS population

- if possible and justifiable the IAS should be eradicated (if prevention didn’t work

out)

- in ideal cases, eradication is the first and only step in stopping the negative

influence of IAS

- if eradication is not possible, control of spreading is necessary (more demanding

and expensive)

Taxonomic groups of invasive species introduced to Croatia in 2011 (from DAISI database)

IAS with established populations in Cro (that can’t be eradicated with nowadays knowledge and technology, their control their spreading into new areas): zebra mussel (Dreissenia polymorpha), killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus), harlequin ladybird (Harmonia axyridis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), desert false indigo(Amorpha fruticosa) & tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

- 11

- 5

Mechanical methods - easier for bigger organisms - traps, nets…

Chemical methods - insecticides, herbicides - Expensive - Sometimes not selective - IAS can become resistant

Biological methods (biocontrol) - With other organisms, with diseases - They can become invasive - Before any implementation it should be tested and possible scenarios done

Eradication

Procedure of invasive assessment (estimation) - Risk assessment – most frequently a questioner – based on the answers, species (present or not present in the area) is classified according to its invasibility - There is no a 100% sure way of invasibility estimation, but comparing our estimates with estimates and experience from ecologically similar areas is helpful

- Normally it is done for a single species (taking into account possibility of introduction, population establishment, speed of possible spread and influence)

- Also it could be conducted for propagule’s vectors and introduction paths (more complex and demanding)

- Hight risk > 18 bodova; - Medium risk 14 – 17 bodova - Low risk 0 – 13 bodova

- Based on the risk assessment a species is listed to a list:

Black list – proved to be strongly invasive - Introduction is strictly forbidden - species that are not necessarily present, but if present they could make lots of problems and damage

White list – species that are not „risky”, and their introduction should not present any threat – they could be introduced but it should not be taken as „introduce it as much as you want and let if freely into the nature” Gray list – species that are neither on the black not white list - Normally species that are „unknown” in terms of invasibility (some of their „relatives are either on the black or on the white list)

What are black and white list?

http://www.tvlink.org/mediadetails.php?key=7ce01ed5e48804848445&title=Invasive+alien+species+–+a+growing+threat+in+Europe&titleleft=Environment

The proposal is for three types of interventions; prevention, early warning and rapid response, and management.

Invasive alien species – a growing threat in Europe

Invasive alien species (IAS) cost the EU an estimated EUR 12 billion per year, prompting the European Commission to push for an EU-wide approach to tackle the issue. The phenomenon, which occurs when plants and animals are deliberately or unintentionally introduced by human action to a new environment where they establish, reproduce and proliferate, is causing serious problems for biodiversity. The dedicated legal instrument aims to tackle the problem through a new harmonised system and a shift from “cure” to “prevention”.

Recognising the increasingly serious problem of IAS in Europe, the European Commission will launch a dedicated legislative instrument by September 2013. The instrument, which is due to be adopted in 2013, is one of six key objectives of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

• Commission adopts first EU list of invasive alien species, an important step towards halting biodiversity loss

Brussels, 13 July 2016 Today the European Commission took an important step towards halting biodiversity loss, adopting a list of invasive alien species that require action across the EU. The list contains 37 species that cause damage on a scale that justifies dedicated measures across the Union.

LIST OF INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES OF UNION CONCERN Plants: American Skunk cabbage; Asiatic tearthumb; Curly waterweed; Eastern baccharis; Floating pennywort; Floating primrose; Green cambomba; Kudzu vine; Parrot’s feather; Persian hogweed; Water hyacinth; Water primrose (2 species); Whitetop weed Animals: Amur sleeper; Asian hornet; Small Indian mongoose; Bryant’s fox squirrel; Chinese mitten crab; Coypu; Eastern crayfish ; Grey squirrel; Indian house crow; Marbled crayfish; Muntjac deer; North American bullfrog; Pallas’s squirrel; Racoon; Red eared slider; Red swamp crayfish; Ruddy duck; Sacred ibis; Siberian chipmunk; Signal crayfish; South American coati; Topmouth gudgeon; Virile (northern) crayfish

The first update of the Union list entered into force in August 2017 (12 new species) The second update of the Union list is under preparation.

SUCCESSFULL ERADICATIONS IN EU

37 PROJECTS – 33 ON ISLANDS

26% RATS 4% RABBITS

SUCCESSFUL RECOVERY OF NATIVE BIODIVERSITY

INVASIVE INVERTEBRATES (AQUATIC) ERADICATION PROJECTS – RARE

- mass trapping

- Hormone traps – inhibit sexual maturity

- Pheromone bites – sexually mature males

- Males’ sterilisation – (x-rays) back to habitat – unsuccessful mating

Collapse > 80% „treated” populations

Invasive freshwater crustaceans in Croatia

Signal c. Pacifastacus leniusculus Spiny-cheek c. Faxonius (Orconectes) limosus Red swamp c. Procambarus clarkii

OLD NICS introduced to Europe before 1980

Calico c. Faxonius immunis Kentucky river c. Faxonius juvenilis Virile c. Faxonius virilis

Eastern white river c. Procambarus acutus Gulf white river c. Procambarus zonangulus Marbled c. Procambarus fallax f. virginalis

Yabby Cherax destructor Red claw Cherax quadricarinatus

NEW NICS introduced to Europe after 1980

Crayfish plague

NORTH AMERICA

AUSTRALIA

New diseases?

class: Malacostraca order: Decapoda infraorder: Astacidea

In Croatia

– Decapoda • Faxonius limosus • Pacifastacus leniusculus • Eriocheir sinensis • Procambarus fallax f. virginalis • (Procambarus virginalis)

Faxonius limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) spiny-cheek crayfish

Brown-red stripes

Spines on the sides of the head

Spine on the inner side of the article

Rostrum

Cephalothorax scheme

Up to 12 cm

F. limosus

o Origin: North America o Introduced to: Europe

F. limosus

Distribution of F. limosus in Europe (Kouba et al., 2014)

o Introduced to Europe in the second half of 19th century (Poland) to

replace native noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) o During 20th century spread across Europe

F. limosus

F. limosus

o All freshwater habitats o Adaptable to different habitat conditions (even pollution) o Highly fecund

• Impact: o Competition with natives for food and space o Vector of Aphanomyces astaci (crayfish plague)

o A. astaci one of “100 worst invasive species”

F. limosus

• Control: Up till nowadays no successful methods

F. limosus

F. limosus in Croatia

• 2007. - 2009. • literature data & research until 2006.

Upstream dispersion through the Drava River

Data until 2011. g. Data until 2016. g.

• F. limosus push out native Astacus astacus & Astacus leptodactylus

F. limosus

A. leptodactylus narrow-clawed crayfish A. astacus – noble crayfish

Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852) – signal crayfish

blue

Cephalothorax scheme

Up to 16 cm

P. leniusculus

o Origin: North America o Introduced to:

o Europe o Asia: Japan

Distribution of P. leniusculus in Europe (Kouba et al., 2014)

P. leniusculus

Introduced to Europe in 20th century (1959. Sweden) to replace native crayfish populations

o Impact:

o Competition with natives for food and space o Crayfish plague vector

o Control:

o No successful methods

P. leniusculus

P. leniusculus in Coatia

Downstream spread through the Mura and Drava Introduced to the Korana River

• 2007. - 2009. • 2011

• in Mura & Drava P. leniusculus pushes out (replace) Astacus astacus • in Korana pushes out (replace) A. leptodactylus

P. leniusculus

A. astacus – noble crayfish

18-24.4 km/year (fastest in Europe)

O. limosus was first recorded in Croatia in 2003 (Maguire and Klobucar, 2003; Maguire and Gottstein-Matocec, 2004) in the Nature Park Kopacki rit, where it spread from the Hungarian section of the Danube River

> 2.5 km/year

The first record of the signal crayfish in Croatia dates from 2008 (Maguire et al., 2008). Until now, signal crayfish records in Croatia have been found in the Mura River and the the Drava River.

Lake Tahoe, Lake Hennessey (USA) - Finland

Lake Natoma (USA) - Sweden

Austria – from California(Lake Tahoe + Sweden) – Drava & Mura – Slovenia - Croatia

Phylogenetic reconstruction – position of Croatian signal crayfish

MtDNA – 16S rRNA Korana

Mura

Locality Na HE HO FIS FST Korana 4.13 0.526 0.496 0.003 0.026 Mura 6.00 0.577 0.530 0.117

GB 4.36 0.530 0.622 -0.154 0.127 PT 3.83 0.572 0.611 -0.056

FI 4.16 0.529 0.432 0.240 SW 3.63 0.500 0.507 0.108

Mean values Na – allelic richnes, HE – expected heterosigosity, HO – observed heterozigosity, FIS – inbreeding coefficient, FST – fixation index; GB – Great Britain, PT – Portugal, FI – Finland, SW- Sweden

Mikrosateliti

• Na highest in Mura • Ho slightly lower in Cro– Mura > Korane (population established for longer time,

repetitive introductions – higher diversity), -Lower Ho – inbreeding – diversity lost, higher number of homozygotes - Fis – positive when there is less heterozygotes • Fst – lower values – higher gene exchange (through reproduction) – Cro smaller than

EU – but pop geo separated – recent connection ? – anthropogenic influence – introduction from Mura to Korana

What is crayfish plague? • The most lethal disease for native crayfish • Pathogen Aphanomyces astaci – class Oomycetes (different plant

pathogens – potato blight- Ireland)

Diéguez-Uribeondo et al. (2006)

Non native constantly active proPO system (melanisation of pathogen)

- Why native die, and non-native not?

Crayfish species F. limosus P. leniusculus

Infected/tested 14 / 24 7 / 26

% infected 58% 27%

Infection level A0(10), A1(1), A2(2), A3(11) A0(19), A2(4), A3(1), A4(1), A5(1)

Pathogen type ? B (Ps)

Pathogen Aphanomyces astaci in Cro

P. leniusculus F. limosus

- aquaristics -floods

Procambarus fallax

• aquaristics mid- 1990s Germany • parthenogenetic

Procambarus fallax f. virginalis – P. virginalis

Fecundity of different ICS

BSc thesis Marija Cvitanić

M – marbled, OL – spiny cheek, PL – signal, PC – P. clarkii

Eriocheir sinensis (Milne-Edwards, 1854) – mitten crab

“hairy” claws

Carapace width 30- 100 mm

class: Malacostraca oreder: Decapoda infraorder: Brachyura

E. sinensis

o origin: east Asia

o Introduced to: o Europe o North America

E. sinensis

E. sinensis in Europi

In Croatia recorded in 2005 in the Danube River, no recent records

o predator (molluscs, fish, crustacean)

o Way of spreading: o Aquaculture and commerce (live animals) o Transport – ballast waters

E. sinensis

o Impact: o Dig into the river banks – erosion o Competition for food and space o Reduce native invertebrates abundance

o Control: no successful method

E. sinensis

• Life history: – Catadrome species – sexually mature individuals migrate from the

freshwater to the sea for mating – Tolerant to pollution

E. sinensis

other invasives in Europe

"100 worst" invasive organisms in Europe the most invasive crayfish species at all

Proc

amba

rus

clar

kii

Distribution of P. clarkii in Europe (Kouba et al., 2014)

Calico c. Faxonius immunis Kentucky river c. Faxonius juvenilis Virile c. Faxonius virilis

White river c. Procambarus acutus Florida c. Procambarus alleni Marbled c. Procambarus fallax f. virginalis

Yabby Cherax destructor Red claw Cherax quadricarinatus

Distribution of the New NICS – Orconectes spp. and Cherax spp. (Kouba et al. 2014)

Distribution of the New NICS – Procambarus spp. (Kouba et al. 2014)

Family Pontogammaridae – invasive amphipodes in Croatia (origin from ponto-caspian basin)

Dikerogammarus bispinosus – Danube, np Kopački rit

Dikerogammarus vilosus– Drava, Danube (killer shrimp)

Negative impact on native amphipodes, and the whole invertebrate community at a moment only in bigger rivers

Obesogammarus obesus - Danube

class: Malacostraca

order: Amphipoda

Dikerogammarus haemobaphes – Sava, Drava

50 km upstream (from 2004. to 2009.)