Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions

By Rodolphe E. Gozlan, J. Robert Britton, I. Cowx, G. Copp. 2010

834 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Aquatic Science, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2e9548cecdf4c90ed4ebbc8a93f84698875e029e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Aquatic Science

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Impacts of non-native fishes on Iberian freshwater ichthyofauna: current knowledge and gaps (2010, background): “Although not universally accepted (Gozlan 2008; Gozlan 2009; Gozlan et al. 2010; Gozlan and Newton 2009), the ecological impacts of non-native freshwater fish species have been highlighted as a growing worldwide environmental and socio-economic problem (Copp et al.”
Stock assessment in inland fisheries: a foundation for sustainable use and conservation (2016, background): “Furthermore, fish and other freshwater organisms have been introduced widely beyond their native ranges, often establishing new fisheries and sometimes interacting strongly with native fish stocks and fisheries (Welcomme 1988; DIAS 2004; Gozlan et al. 2010).”
A global assessment of freshwater fish introductions in mediterranean-climate regions (2013, background): “…(Marr et al., 2010) and the risk of further introductions remains extremely high because of increasing interest in angling, low public awareness about the impacts of non-native fish, and poor mechanisms to enforce bans on non-native fish introductions (Zenetos et al., 2009; Gozlan et al., 2010).”
Ecological Impacts of Nonnative Freshwater Fishes (2011, background): “…have been narrowly focused either in terms of geographic location, species of interest, pathway of invasion, or level of biological organization (Moyle 1976; Moyle et al. 1986; Moyle and Light 1996; Simon and Townsend 2003; Dunham et al. 2004; Eby et al. 2006; Fausch 2007; Gozlan et al. 2010).”
Experimental Evidence from Causal Criteria Analysis for the Effects of Common Carp Cyprinus carpio on Freshwater Ecosystems: A Global Perspective (2015, background): “, in measurable losses of diversity or change in ecosystem function (Gozlan et al., 2010).”
Confronting the wicked problem of managing biological invasions (2016, background): “1 www.issg.org; 2 Crawford and Muir 2007; 3 Cambray 2003; 4 Gozlan et al. 2010; 5 Helfman 2007; 6 Ellender et al. 2014; 7 Quist and Hubert 2004.”
Alien and invasive freshwater fish species in Iran: Diversity, environmental impacts and management (2015, background): “Biological invasions are now considered a major environmental issue of public concern (Gozlan et al. 2010).”
Worldwide freshwater fish homogenization is driven by a few widespread non-native species (2016, methodology): “At the end of the twentieth century at least 624 freshwater fish species have been established into areas located outside their natural range (Gozlan et al. 2010), due of trading, aquaculture and game fishing purpose (Rahel 2007).”
A review of current knowledge, risk and ecological impacts associated with non-native freshwater fish introductions in South Africa. (2014, background): “Such knowledge is essential for preventing new introductions and curbing the further spread of established non-native fishes (Copp et al. 2005; Clavero and García-Berthou 2006; Duggan et al. 2006; Gozlan et al. 2010).”