Non-Native Fish May Be A Benefit Not A Burden
ScienceDaily (Feb. 28, 2008) — A major study authored by a leading conservation ecologist from Bournemouth University has found that the majority of non-native fish introduced to freshwater habitats around the world actually do more good than harm.
http://www.scienceda...80226171618.htm
an unusual slant on exotic release
Started by
Guest_Moontanman_*
, Nov 21 2008 02:12 PM
21 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_BTDarters_*
Guest_BTDarters_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 02:07 AM
Yeah, right! I've got one word for 'ya ... carp!
Edited by BTDarters, 22 November 2008 - 02:07 AM.
#3
Guest_Moontanman_*
Guest_Moontanman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 02:12 AM
Yeah, carp, I have a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. You could write volumes just listing the damage carp have done since their release in the early days of the US. I hope to see some thoughts on this from the people here who study this concept.
#4
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:18 AM
While I would NOT EVER, EVER, EVER go with the term "benefit", nor would I EVER, EVER, EVER encourage someone to make an introduction, his single point about evaluating the "invasiveness" of the species in terms of habitat modification and disturbance is well taken ("Even non-native species that are considered as detrimental to ecosystems are not evaluated against other environmental pressure (i.e. habitat destruction, overfishing etc.").
Until we recognize the role of OUR actions (beyond moving species around) in the success of these species, we're not going to get very far in preventing future invasion, or "containing" already "out of the bag" species.
Man, I really wish I'd taken a picture the other day of the LINE of mullein, an invasive exotic plant, at a newly acquired TNC property. Would you think that plant communities would arrange themselves in lines perpendicular to a road? Oh, and the mullein-less part of the line was to the west of the line (histoic TNC property). Prevailing winds and consequent dispersal are from the west, so it's had plenty chance to sow its seed. Only anthropogenic "management" histories could account for this.
I think fish folks could get much further ahead if they paid attention to plant people. Water has a tendency to obscure the similar "lines" we find in our systems.
Number one in this mess, however, is to STOP making introductions, period. So please don't hear me wrong
Todd
Until we recognize the role of OUR actions (beyond moving species around) in the success of these species, we're not going to get very far in preventing future invasion, or "containing" already "out of the bag" species.
Man, I really wish I'd taken a picture the other day of the LINE of mullein, an invasive exotic plant, at a newly acquired TNC property. Would you think that plant communities would arrange themselves in lines perpendicular to a road? Oh, and the mullein-less part of the line was to the west of the line (histoic TNC property). Prevailing winds and consequent dispersal are from the west, so it's had plenty chance to sow its seed. Only anthropogenic "management" histories could account for this.
I think fish folks could get much further ahead if they paid attention to plant people. Water has a tendency to obscure the similar "lines" we find in our systems.
Number one in this mess, however, is to STOP making introductions, period. So please don't hear me wrong
Todd
#5
Guest_nativeplanter_*
Guest_nativeplanter_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:39 AM
Mullein is what is called a "ruderal" species. It is one that can quickly invade disturbed areas, and can often tolerate the harsher conditions found there (compacted soils, dryness, heat, low nutrients). However, they are generally poor competators overall and if the land is left alone, will be replaced by others. They have small seeds to aid dispersal. The basic strategy of ruderals is to get in there fast, make lots of little seeds fast, and have them spread to another disturbed area before better competators overtake them. You will notice that mullein isn't really found in habitats that haven't been disturbed in a long while. I'm guessing that is the case with the TNC property. Of course, TNC only buys habitats in need of preservation, and those tend not to have been disturbed in quite some time.
............
I think fish folks could get much further ahead if they paid attention to plant people. .
............
#6
Guest_Moontanman_*
Guest_Moontanman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:44 AM
Mullein is what is called a "ruderal" species. It is one that can quickly invade disturbed areas, and can often tolerate the harsher conditions found there (compacted soils, dryness, heat, low nutrients). However, they are generally poor competators overall and if the land is left alone, will be replaced by others. They have small seeds to aid dispersal. The basic strategy of ruderals is to get in there fast, make lots of little seeds fast, and have them spread to another disturbed area before better competators overtake them. You will notice that mullein isn't really found in habitats that haven't been disturbed in a long while. I'm guessing that is the case with the TNC property. Of course, TNC only buys habitats in need of preservation, and those tend not to have been disturbed in quite some time.
............
You make an interesting point, with introduced fishes is there a tendency for these fish to be successful in areas of disturbed habitat? I know that Carp seem to do better in places of high pollution and turbidity that discourage native fishes. From these strong holds it would seem easier for adult carp to spread to other places where the habitat is disturbed. i know carp do damage everywhere but do they proliferate as fast in healthy habitats as they do in sick habitats?
#7
Guest_teleost_*
Guest_teleost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 12:10 PM
I will now not only participate in derailing this thread but also demonstrate my ignorance....(that's always fun 
). I always thought common Mullein was native to NA?
). I always thought common Mullein was native to NA?
#8
Guest_Newt_*
Guest_Newt_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 01:34 PM
Nah, the mulleins are Old World species (along with a huge proportion of other roadside and fallow-field weeds). There are about 18 introduced Verbascum in the US now.
#9
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2008 - 02:45 PM
Not sure how many have read the full article where this snippet of news was taken from.
It is quite an interesting paper and worth a good full over analysis...
Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad?
It is quite an interesting paper and worth a good full over analysis...
Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad?
#10
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 12:19 PM
Mullein is what is called a "ruderal" species. It is one that can quickly invade disturbed areas, and can often tolerate the harsher conditions found there
Exactly my point. What if we thought about round goby, dreissenid mussels, carp that way? The waterways have a different "management" history, just like my illustration, yet we treat these organisms as though they have some ability to transcend the same ecological pressures every other species is required to adhere to.
I still think the best layer in prediciting Great Lakes invasion is the EPA Areas of Concern map. Check it out, and then look where each "invasion" begins. They quickly move into a propagule strategy throughout these historically depauperate, highly disturbed systems, which masks the fact that they needed that local hot spot jumping point to begin colonization. Each species or disease has moved from port to port, and then radiating out from there.
What would happen if they didn't have those ports?
Spotted knapweed, however... Lord, I hope we don't end up with one of those in our waterways. That plant is flat out evil. What kinds of ecological pressure could bring about such a big nasty?
And again, I don't support introducing anything anywhere.
Thanks for the link Richard. I'd read it when it came out, I wanted to give it a looky after another year in the field.
Todd
#11
Guest_nativeplanter_*
Guest_nativeplanter_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 01:39 PM
I had a great post going until I accidentally closed the window... I won't go into as much detail here.
Ruderal species are not the only invasives. There are lots that invade more stable habitats (such as purple loosestrife, tallow tree, chinese privet). But I do think that a lot of exotics that are termed "invasive" really are only exotic ruderals, since many don't seem to invade mature forested areas. But it is true that invasive exotics are most often found in disturbed areas. Unfortunately, we seem to be disturbing more and more land as time goes on.
Ruderal species are not the only invasives. There are lots that invade more stable habitats (such as purple loosestrife, tallow tree, chinese privet). But I do think that a lot of exotics that are termed "invasive" really are only exotic ruderals, since many don't seem to invade mature forested areas. But it is true that invasive exotics are most often found in disturbed areas. Unfortunately, we seem to be disturbing more and more land as time goes on.
#12
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 03:30 PM
Ruderal species are not the only invasives....
Again, exactly my point (be nice if I made them all at once, huh?
) Our native ruderal fish species are Pimephales and Semotilus and Pylodictus and ceratin Centrarchidae, but I've yet to see NSF and the Great Lakes Commission trip over themselves to fund studies on how these species blow (blew) through disturbed ecosystems. Especially since some fisheries managers would like to see the local success of the latter portion of that list! It's been addressed to a certain extent in the IBI, but beyond that, the most recognition I've heard is "they're almost like exotics".
We need to into the scale of mechanisms instead of the continued focus on the scale of local processes. It's prevailed to some extent in the plant community tradition, but it's nearly absent from the aquatic traditions, outside of some marine studies that were forced to view the mechanisms by the nature of the system, because that was about all they could measure.
Todd "kindly take a knife to a bluntnose minnow" Crail
#13
Guest_truf_*
Guest_truf_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 04:23 PM
Is there any wide spread program for reintroduction of extirpated fish species into their erstwhile ranges?
#14
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 04:45 PM
Is there any wide spread program for reintroduction of extirpated fish species into their erstwhile ranges?
Alligator gar are being re-established in the Mingo National Wildlife reserve in Missouri. They where exterpaited by 1970 and a re-stocking program began in 2007.
#15
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 05:04 PM
Quite a few, actually. For an enjoyable primer, take a look at http://www.conservationfisheries.org/
Todd
Todd
#16
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 05:07 PM
Conservation Fisheries, Inc., in Knoxville, TN, has worked on various projects to captive-breed T&E species and release fingerlings into their former range. I helped with the release of ~1000 boulder darters in to the Elk River in Fayette, TN, several years ago.
#17
Guest_Newt_*
Guest_Newt_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:29 PM
Alligator gar are being re-established in the Mingo National Wildlife reserve in Missouri. They where exterpaited by 1970 and a re-stocking program began in 2007.
This species is being re-established in West Tennessee as well, along with the Alligator Snapping Turtle. Meanwhile, actual Alligators (not part of our historical fauna) are creeping into the southwestern part of the state, apparently due to unexpectedly fruitful restocking programs in neighboring states.
#18
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 08:07 PM
This species is being re-established in West Tennessee as well, along with the Alligator Snapping Turtle. Meanwhile, actual Alligators (not part of our historical fauna) are creeping into the southwestern part of the state, apparently due to unexpectedly fruitful restocking programs in neighboring states.
If my memory serves me that was the release of a few hundred in 1999 and a couple thousand in 2006. It has not been established that they where actually extirpated though before the introductions, which is why I did not mention it. One was caught in 1999 that was 70lbs during intensive sampling for the fish. No question however that the fish is on the brink and has been for some time.
Illinois has also considered a stocking program but to my knowledge it has not gone anywhere. Illinois has declared the Alligator gar extirpated since 1994 however this also is really not well established and the status remains unknown. I believe Illinois was one of the successful Alligator snapping turtle reintroduction states also.
#19
Guest_camber1981_*
Guest_camber1981_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:47 PM
I believe Illinois was one of the successful Alligator snapping turtle reintroduction states also.
I wouldn't doubt it one bit. About 10 years ago I was camping in Rock Cut State Park in Rockford, IL, I saw somebody snag and land an Alligator snapper that was about 24-28" long(didn't wanna get close enough to find out for sure!!!!).
#20
Guest_truf_*
Guest_truf_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 November 2008 - 11:49 PM
Quite a few, actually. For an enjoyable primer, take a look at http://www.conservationfisheries.org/
Todd
Yes, I remember Pat Rakes giving a talk about reintroduction of the Barrens Topminnow at a Greater Cincinnati Aquarium Society (GCAS.org) meeting a few years ago. It was very informative, and they do good work there.
I'm not really talking about a few species that are endangered, I guess I'm more talking about large numbers of fish species that may be more common in one area, but have been extirpated from parts of their former range. Maybe due to a singular event 30 or 40 years ago. Or perhaps poor logging or mining practices in the past, which have since been corrected, etc.... Maybe species like Tippecanoe Darters in Ohio, or Variegate Darters in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to act now while there are viable populations still present in other waterways, to re-disperse these species (among others)? This could help to avert a future problem in their current more limited range.
BTW...does Conservation Fisheries operate only in and around TN?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
