You are here:
Early detection monitoring for non-indigenous fishes; comparison of survey approaches during two species introductions in a Great Lakes port
Citation:
Peterson, G., J. Hoffman, A. Trebitz, C. Hatzenbuhler, J. Myers, J. Ross, S. Okum, AND E. Pilgrim. Early detection monitoring for non-indigenous fishes; comparison of survey approaches during two species introductions in a Great Lakes port. Biological Invasions . Springer SBM, New York, NY, , 463-478, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02655-9
Impact/Purpose:
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, there is a commitment for a bi-national program for aquatic invasive species early detection surveillance Great Lakes-wide. This work builds on invasive species early detection work conducted by EPA/ORD and other agencies. In this study we evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different early detection approaches for non-indigenous fishes using data collected during actual introductions. Outcomes from this research will help improve early detection monitoring strategies in Great Lakes coastal systems
Description:
Assessing the relative performance of different sampling methods used for early detection monitoring (EDM) is a critical step in understanding the likelihood of detecting new non-indigenous species (NIS) in an environment of interest. EDM performance metrics are typically based on the probability of detecting established NIS or rare indigenous species as a proxy; however, detection probability estimates for these species may not accurately reflect survey effectiveness for newly-introduced NIS. With the recent introduction of white bass (Morone chrysops) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) in the Port of Duluth-Superior, a NIS introduction hot spot within the Laurentian Great Lakes, we compared detection data from three different EDM survey approaches that varied by targeted life-stage (adult-juvenile versus ichthyoplankton), media (physical fish versus environmental DNA), and taxonomic method (morphology-based versus DNA-based taxonomy). While both species appear to have been detected at early stages of introduction, white bass were present up to 5 years prior to initial detection whereas gizzard shad may have been detected in the first year of introduction. Detection efficiency (measured by the effort required to achieve 95% probability of detection) differed by EDM approach. Also, the relative sensitivity (detection rate) of each survey approach differed by species. For both species, detection in DNA-based (ichthyoplankton survey with DNA-based taxonomy and eDNA) surveys was generally as good or better than the adult-juvenile survey with morphology-based taxonomy that was previously optimized for NIS early detection. We conclude that using complimentary sampling methods can help to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and provide more reliable early detection of new invaders.
URLs/Downloads:
DOI: Early detection monitoring for non-indigenous fishes; comparison of survey approaches during two species introductions in a Great Lakes port
PETERSON2021_ARTICLE_EARLYDETECTIONMONITORINGFORNON.PDF (PDF, NA pp, 666.625 KB, about PDF)