Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Invasive Species Removal – Mechanical Methods to Remove Invasive Fish

Invasive species adversely impact their introduced environments by causing environmental, ecological, and economic damages. Due to the reproductive biology and competitive strength of many invasive species, they can be extremely difficult or impossible to eradicate once established. Early management interventions such as removal and eradication programs can help control or eliminate populations of invasive aquatic organisms. Physical or mechanical removal can be accomplished through capture by methods such as electrofishing, angling, or trapping. Though successful in some circumstances, physical removal efforts can be intensive, expensive and take numerous years. Application, eradication success, and management implications are discussed in these syntheses.

Rating:
Syntheses in this intervention scored mixed CEESAT ratings; 5 syntheses scored poorly but 2 reviews scored Green in at least 1 or more elements (Smith & Sutherland 2014, Moore et al. 2008). Rytwinski et al. (2018) is a detailed and systematic synthesis, demonstrating rigour in their review conduct by scoring Gold or Green in almost every CEESAT element. The majority of syntheses scored highly in RASCAT, demonstrating high applicability and relevancy to a Canadian freshwater context. Russell et al. (2012) and Gozlan et al. (2010) failed to demonstrate consideration of implications, practical advice, or recommendations for decision-makers. Photo credit: USFWS

Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J.J., Donaldson, L.A., Britton, J.R., Browne, D.R., Gresswell, R.E., Lintermans, M., Prior, K.A., Pellatt, M.G., Vis, C. and Cooke, S.J. (2018)

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

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

Authors: Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J.J., Donaldson, L.A., Britton, J.R., Browne, D.R., Gresswell, R.E., Lintermans, M., Prior, K.A., Pellatt, M.G., Vis, C. and Cooke, S.J.

Journal: Environmental Reviews

Year: 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0049

Species or groups: Brook trout, Rainbow trout, Common carp, Smallmouth bass, Northern pike, Brown trout, European perch, Topmouth gudgeon, Goldfish, Black bullhead, Yellow bullhead, Northern snakehead, Convict cichlid, Mosquitofish, Utah chub, Tui chub, Ruffe, Silver carp, Bighead carp, Channel catfish, Redbreast sunfish, Green sunfish, Bluegill, Largemouth bass, Yellow perch, White crappie, Lake trout, Chain pickerel, Round goby, Rainbow smelt, Spotted jewelfish, Brown bullhead, Eastern mosquitofish, Pumpkinseed, Stone moroko, Zander, Pond loach, Mozambique tilapia, Dusky millions fish, Spotted tilapia, Grass carp, Rudd, TTench

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2173

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.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. and Vincent, A.C. (2002)

Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation

Title: Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation

Authors: Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. and Vincent, A.C.

Journal: Conservation biology

Year: 2002

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99562.x

Species or groups: Rainbow trout

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2851

Abstract: Freshwater species and habitats are among the most threatened in the world. One way in which this growing conservation concern can be addressed is the creation of freshwater protected areas. Here, we present three strategies for freshwater protected‐area design and management: whole‐catchment management, natural‐flow maintenance, and exclusion of non‐native species. These strategies are based on the three primary threats to fresh waters: land‐use disturbances, altered hydrologies, and introduction of non‐native species. Each strategy draws from research in limnology and river and wetland ecology. Ideally, freshwater protected areas should be located in intact catchments, should have natural hydrological regimes, and should contain no non‐native species. Because optimal conservation conditions are often difficult to attain, we also suggest alternative management strategies, including multiple‐use modules, use of the river continuum concept, vegetated buffer strips, partial water discharges, and eradication of exotic species. Under some circumstances it may be possible to focus freshwater conservation efforts on two key zones: adjacent terrestrial areas and headwaters.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions

Title: Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions

Authors: Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J.

Journal: NA

Year: 2014

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Green toad, Great crested newt, Northwestern salamander, Mountain yellow-legged frog, Cascades frog, Smooth newt, Green and golden bell frog, Dusky gopher frog, California red-legged frog, Cricket frog, Carolina gopher frog, Common spadefoot toad

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/827; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/826

Abstract: NA

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Russell, D.J., Thuesen, P.A., & Thomson, F.E. (2012)

A review of the biology, ecology, distribution and control of Mozambique tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters 1852)(Pisces: Cichlidae) with particular emphasis on invasive Australian populations

Title: A review of the biology, ecology, distribution and control of Mozambique tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters 1852)(Pisces: Cichlidae) with particular emphasis on invasive Australian populations

Authors: Russell, D.J., Thuesen, P.A., & Thomson, F.E.

Journal: Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

Year: 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-011-9249-z

Species or groups: Mozambique tilapia

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/828

Abstract: Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters 1852) are native to the eastward flowing rivers of central and southern Africa but from the early 1930s they have been widely distributed around the world for aquaculture and for biological control of weeds and insects. While O. mossambicus are now not commonly used as an aquaculture species, the biological traits that made them a popular culture species including tolerance to wide ranging ecological conditions, generalist dietary requirements and rapid reproduction with maternal care have also made them a ‘model’ invader. Self-sustaining populations now exist in almost every region to which they have been imported. In Australia, since their introduction in the 1970s, O. mossambicus have become established in catchments along the east and west coasts and have the potential to colonise other adjacent drainages. It is thought that intentional translocations are likely to be the most significant factor in their spread in Australia. The ecological and physical tolerances and preferences, reproductive behaviour, hybridization and the high degree of plasticity in the life history traits of O. mossambicus are reviewed. Impacts of O. mossambicus on natural ecosystems including competitive displacement of native species, habitat alteration, predation and as a vector in the spread of diseases are discussed. Potential methods for eradicating or controlling invasive populations of O. mossambicus including physical removal, piscicides, screens, environmental management and genetic technologies are outlined.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Sato, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Nakajima, J., Mukai, T., Shimatani, Y., & Onikura, N. (2010)

A review of the research on introduced freshwater fishes: new perspectives, the need for research, and management implications

Title: A review of the research on introduced freshwater fishes: new perspectives, the need for research, and management implications

Authors: Sato, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Nakajima, J., Mukai, T., Shimatani, Y., & Onikura, N.

Journal: Landscape and Ecological Engineering

Year: 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-009-0086-3

Species or groups: Freshwater fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/828

Abstract: Although freshwater fishes have a long history of human-induced introduction, recent globalization has accelerated worldwide introduction events even more, and those introduced fish species are now perceived to be a major threat to ecosystems. Over the last two decades, numerous studies have been published on introduced fish species; however, it has been challenging for researchers to understand the magnitude of the impact and the underlying mechanism of invasions. Recently, new perspectives in understanding invasive freshwater fish biology have been presented in a number of studies, which can be largely attributed to advances in analytical techniques and also to a growing need for proactive analysis in management strategies. The aim of this paper is to summarize new ecological perspectives, the need for research, and/or management implications with emphasis on technological advances in, for example, statistics, molecular analysis, modeling techniques, and landscape analysis addressed under the following five categories: introduction pathways, predicting spatial patterns, biotic homogenization, hybridization, and control and eradication. The conservation of native fish fauna and the management of introduced fish species will benefit from combining these new perspectives with fundamental studies such as those on life history and population biology.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moore, A., Giorgetti, A., Maclean, C., Grace, P., Wadhwa, S., & Cooke, J. (2008)

Review of the impacts of gambusia, redfin perch, tench, roach, yellowfin goby and streaked goby in Australia

Title: Review of the impacts of gambusia, redfin perch, tench, roach, yellowfin goby and streaked goby in Australia

Authors: Moore, A., Giorgetti, A., Maclean, C., Grace, P., Wadhwa, S., & Cooke, J.

Journal: NA

Year: 2008

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Gambusia, Redfin perch, Tench, Roach, Yellowfin goby, Streaked goby

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/828

Abstract: NA

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Gozlan, R.E., Britton, J.R., Cowx, I., & Copps, G.H. (2010)

Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions

Title: Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions

Authors: Gozlan, R.E., Britton, J.R., Cowx, I., & Copps, G.H.

Journal: Journal of Fish Biology

Year: 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x

Species or groups: Rainbow trout, Brown trout, Brook trout, Largemouth bass, Black bullhead, Brown bullhead, Channel catfish, European catfish, tilapia, coregonids, Nile perch, Lake Tanganyika sardine, Mosquitofish, Grass carp, Silver carp, Goldfish, Koi carp, cichlids, Ruffe, Round goby, Topmouth gudgeon, Sterlet, Bighead carp, White sucker, Red shiner, Weatherfish, Fathead minnow, Tubenose goby, Sea lamprey

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/828

Abstract: This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non-native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non-native fishes with the long-term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non-native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human-mediated non-native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world’s farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non-native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non-native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non-native fish, pre-introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non-native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D. (2017)

Aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Region: An overview.

Title: Aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Region: An overview.

Authors: Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D.

Journal: Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Year: 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2017.1363715

Species or groups: Common carp

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/827

Abstract: Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are of concern in North America due to their devastating impacts on ecosystems and economies. The Great Lakes region is particularly vulnerable to AIS introduction and establishment with at least 184 nonindigenous species reported in this region from a large number of taxa including viruses, bacteria, diatoms, protozoa, arthropods, mollusks, fish, and plants. Representative species from these groups were explored, describing the features of their natural history and current efforts in prevention and control. Specifically, five AIS that are expected to spread to novel areas in the region are discussed: viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus and heterosporis (pathogens affecting fish), starry stonewort (an alga), zebra mussels (a bivalve), and carps (fishes). Novel strategies for AIS control include next-generation sequencing technologies, gene editing, mathematical modeling, risk assessment, microbiome studies for biological control, and human-dimension studies to address tensions related to AIS management. Currently, AIS research is evolving to adapt to known technologies and develop novel technologies to understand and prevent AIS spread. It was found that AIS control in this region requires a multidisciplinary approach focusing on the life history of the species (e.g., pheromones), adaptive management of anthropogenic structures (e.g., bubble curtains), and the integration of human dimensions to develop efficient management plans that integrate local citizens and management agencies.

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Invasive Species Removal – Mechanical Methods to Remove Invasive Fish

Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J.J., Donaldson, L.A., Britton, J.R., Browne, D.R., Gresswell, R.E., Lintermans, M., Prior, K.A., Pellatt, M.G., Vis, C. and Cooke, S.J. (2018)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. and Vincent, A.C. (2002)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Russell, D.J., Thuesen, P.A., & Thomson, F.E. (2012)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Sato, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Nakajima, J., Mukai, T., Shimatani, Y., & Onikura, N. (2010)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moore, A., Giorgetti, A., Maclean, C., Grace, P., Wadhwa, S., & Cooke, J. (2008)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Gozlan, R.E., Britton, J.R., Cowx, I., & Copps, G.H. (2010)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions

Article

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Invasive Species Removal – Mechanical Methods to Remove Invasive Fish

Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J.J., Donaldson, L.A., Britton, J.R., Browne, D.R., Gresswell, R.E., Lintermans, M., Prior, K.A., Pellatt, M.G., Vis, C. and Cooke, S.J. (2018)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. and Vincent, A.C. (2002)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Russell, D.J., Thuesen, P.A., & Thomson, F.E. (2012)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Sato, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Nakajima, J., Mukai, T., Shimatani, Y., & Onikura, N. (2010)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moore, A., Giorgetti, A., Maclean, C., Grace, P., Wadhwa, S., & Cooke, J. (2008)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Gozlan, R.E., Britton, J.R., Cowx, I., & Copps, G.H. (2010)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions