Monitoring hydrilla using two RAPD procedures and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database

Hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle), an invasive aquatic weed, continues to spread to new regions in the United States. Two biotypes, one a female dioecious and the other monoecious have been identified. Management of the spread of hydrilla requires understanding the mechanisms of introduction and transport, an ability to map and make available information on distribution, and tools to distinguish the known U.S. biotypes as well as potential new introductions. Review of the literature and discussions with aquatic scientists and resource managers point to the aquarium and water garden plant trades as the primary past mechanism for the regional dispersal of hydrilla while local dispersal is primarily carried out by other mechanisms such as boat traffic, intentional introductions, and waterfowl. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database is presented as a tool for assembling, geo-referencing, and making available information on the distribution of hydrilla. A map of the current range of dioecious and monoecious hydrilla by drainage is presented. Four hydrilla samples, taken from three discrete, non-contiguous regions (Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Washington State) were examined using two RAPD assays. The first, generated using primer Operon G17, and capable of distinguishing the dioecious and monoecious U.S. biotypes, indicated all four samples were of the monoecious biotype. Results of the second assay using the Stoffel fragment and 5 primers, produced 111 markers, indicated that these samples do not represent new foreign introductions. The differences in the monoecious and dioecious growth habits and management are discussed.

An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the Western Atlantic Ocean.

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) are venomous coral reef fishes from the Indian and western Pacific oceans that are now found in the western Atlantic Ocean. Adult lionfish have been observed from Miami, Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and juvenile lionfish have been observed off North Carolina, New York, and Bermuda. The large number of adults observed and the occurrence of juveniles indicate that lionfish are established and reproducing along the southeast United States coast. Introductions of marine species occur in many ways. Ballast water discharge, a very common method of introduction for marine invertebrates, is responsible for many freshwater fish introductions. In contrast, most marine fish introductions result from intentional stocking for fishery purposes. Lionfish, however, likely were introduced via unintentional or intentional aquarium releases, and the introduction of lionfish into United States waters should lead to an assessment of the threat posed by the aquarium trade as a vector for fish introductions. Currently, no management actions are being taken to limit the effect of lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Further, only limited funds have been made available for research. Nevertheless, the extent of the introduction has been documented and a forecast of the maximum potential spread of lionfish is being developed. Under a scenario of no management actions and limited research, three predictions are made: ● With no action, the lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast United States shelf. ● Effects on the marine ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more noticeable as the lionfish population grows. ● There will be incidents of lionfish envenomations of divers and/or fishers along the east coast of the United States. Removing lionfish from the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem would be expensive and likely impossible. A bounty could be established that would encourage the removal of fish and provide specimens for research. However, the bounty would need to be lower than the price of fish in the aquarium trade (~$25-$50 each) to ensure that captured specimens were from the wild. Such a low bounty may not provide enough incentive for capturing lionfish in the wild. Further, such action would only increase the interaction between the public and lionfish, increasing the risk of lionfish envenomations. As the introduction of lionfish is very likely irreversible, future actions should focus on five areas. 1) The population of lionfish should be tracked. 2) Research should be conducted so that scientists can make better predictions regarding the status of the invasion and the effects on native species, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. 3) Outreach and education efforts must be increased, both specifically toward lionfish and more generally toward the aquarium trade as a method of fish introductions. 4) Additional regulation should be considered to reduce the frequency of marine fish introduction into U.S. waters. However, the issue is more complicated than simply limiting the import of non-native species, and these complexities need to be considered simultaneously. 5) Health care providers along the east coast of the United States need to be notified that a venomous fish is now resident along the southeast United States. The introduction and spread of lionfish illustrates the difficulty inherent in managing introduced species in marine systems. Introduced species often spread via natural mechanisms after the initial introduction. Efforts to control the introduction of marine fish will fail if managers do not consider the natural dispersal of a species following an introduction. Thus, management strategies limiting marine fish introductions need to be applied over the scale of natural ecological dispersal to be effective, pointing to the need for a regional management approach defined by natural processes not by political boundaries. The introduction and success of lionfish along the east coast should change the long-held perception that marine fish invasions are a minimal threat to marine ecosystems. Research is needed to determine the effects of specific invasive fish species in specific ecosystems. More broadly, a cohesive plan is needed to manage, mitigate and minimize the effects of marine invasive fish species on ecosystems that are already compromised by other human activities. Presently, the magnitude of marine fish introductions as a stressor on marine ecosystems cannot be quantified, but can no longer be dismissed as negligible. (PDF contains 31 pages)

Field Guide to Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida

The purpose of this field guide is to provide information on nonindigenous (i.e., non-native) fishes that have been observed in Florida’s marine waters. Introductions of non-native marine fishes into Florida’s waters could be intentional or unintentional, and are likely from a variety of sources, including aquarium releases, escape from aquaculture, loss due to extreme weather events (e.g., flooding from hurricanes), and possibly transfer with ballast water or hull-fouling. Presently the lionfishes (Pterois volitans and P. miles) are the only non-native marine fish species known to be established along the coast of Florida. All other marine fishes in this guide (except the euryhaline species, see below) have infrequent occurrences, occur singly or in small groups, and have not yet become self-sustaining populations. Aquarium releases are one of the major pathways whereby nonindigenous fishes gain access to new environments (Ruiz et al. 1997; Fuller et al. 1999). Most of the nonindigenous marine fishes found in Florida’s waters are thought to be aquarium fishes that either were illegally released into the ocean or escaped captivity (e.g., during severe storm/flooding events). Indeed, south Florida is a hotspot for nonindigenous marine aquarium fishes (Semmens et al. 2004). Increased public awareness of the problems caused by released or escaped aquarium fishes may aid in stemming the frequency of releases. For example, HabitattitudeTM (www.habitattitude.net) is a national public awareness and partnership campaign that encourages aquarists and water gardeners to prevent the release of unwanted aquarium plants, fish and other animals. It prompts hobbyists to adopt alternative actions when dealing with these aquatic plants and animals. (PDF file contains 133 pages.)

Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps in St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

Since 2001, NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s (CCMA) Biogeography Branch (BB) has been working with federal and territorial partners to characterize, monitor, and assess the status of the marine environment across the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). At the request of the St. Thomas Fisherman’s Association (STFA) and NOAA Marine Debris Program, CCMA BB developed new partnerships and novel technologies to scientifically assess the threat from derelict fish traps (DFTs). Traps are the predominant gear used for finfish and lobster harvesting in St. Thomas and St. John. Natural phenomena (ground swells, hurricanes) and increasing competition for space by numerous user groups have generated concern about increasing trap loss and the possible ecological, as well as economic, ramifications. Prior to this study, there was a general lack of knowledge regarding derelict fish traps in the Caribbean. No spatially explicit information existed regarding fishing effort, abundance and distribution of derelict traps, the rate at which active traps become derelict, or areas that are prone to dereliction. Furthermore, there was only limited information regarding the impacts of derelict traps on natural resources including ghost fishing. This research identified two groups of fishing communities in the region: commercial fishing that is most active in deeper waters (30 m and greater) and an unknown number of unlicensed subsistence and or commercial fishers that fish closer to shore in shallower waters (30 m and less). In the commercial fishery there are an estimated 6,500 active traps (fish and lobster combined). Of those traps, nearly 8% (514) were reported lost during the 2008-2010 period. Causes of loss/dereliction include: movement of the traps or loss of trap markers due to entanglement of lines by passing vessels; theft; severe weather events (storms, large ground swells); intentional disposal by fishermen; traps becoming caught on various bottom structures (natural substrates, wrecks, etc.); and human error.

Potential risks of contaminants with specific reference to mercury

Fresh water and fish are important to the people who live in the Lake Victoria region therefore the quality of the water and fish is of major importance (Johnson & Odada, 1996). It is well known that dirty water and spoilt fish can lead to poor health and lower standards of living, and that quality can be affected by the pollution in the environment. Even though Lake Victoria is very large, it is relatively shallow and the water remains in the lake basin for a long time (Bootsma & Hecky, 1993). There are a number of environmental issues in Lake Victoria, including water hyacinth~over-population and increased farming causing problems with the lake ecosystem. All these factors combine to keep contaminants within the lake for long time, which will lead to gradually increasing concentrations in the lake. Pollution is a term that covers a wide variety of chemicals and physical changes and their adverse effects on the environment. Here we focus on contaminants, which are unwanted chemicals introduced to the environment. Contaminants include a very wide variety of chemicals, both man-made and natural, for example, mercury, pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals, and natural plant and algae toxins. Many contaminants do not always lead to adverse effects immediately, but can gradually induce long-term problems leading to chronic illnesses and physical damage. A few contaminants have very rapid impacts resulting in immediately obvious changes such as death or injury. Sources of contaminants are varied. Contaminants can get in the lake by the way of agricultural treatment of crops near the lake, industrial effluent, intentional introduction such as fish poisoning byfishermen, natural sources such as heavy metals from particular types of rocks, and even some plants naturally release their toxins. Contaminant sources are not always found near Lake Victoria.