Impacts of Northern Pike on Stocked Rainbow Trout in Pactola Reservoir, South Dakota

Scheibel, Natalie C.; Dembkowski, Daniel J.; Davis, Jacob; Chipps, Steven R.

doi:10.1080/02755947.2015.1116472

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(ii)Implementation: referring to whether the cost estimate was actually realised in the invaded habitat (observed) or whether it was extrapolated (potential). For example, potential costs can include estimated reductions in shery income (Scheibel et al, 2016), known local costs that are extrapolated to a larger system in which they occur (Oreska and Aldridge, 2011), and costs extrapolated over multiple years based on estimates from a shorter period (Leigh, 1998);…”

Section: Global Cost Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the recorded economic cost of alien invasive fishes worldwide?

Haubrock

Bernery

Cuthbert

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive alien fishes have caused pernicious ecological impacts on aquatic ecosystems. However, there has not been a global appraisal of associated economic impacts. Here, we compiled reported economic impacts of invasive alien fishes using the most comprehensive global database of invasion costs (InvaCost). We analyze how fish invasion costs are distributed geographically and temporally, as well as which socioeconomic sectors are most impacted. Fish invasions have caused the economic loss of at least US$32.8 billion globally (2017 value), from only 26 reported species (of 128 known invasive alien fish species). North America had the highest costs (> 99%), followed by Europe and Asia, with no costs reported in Africa, Oceania nor South America. Very few costs from invasive fish in the marine realm were reported (0.1%). Most costs are related to resource damages and losses (97%), with relatively little spent on management; mainly impacting the fisheries sector (93%). However, when only considering empirically observed costs (without predictions), most costs were incurred by authorities and stakeholders through management, indicating that damage costs from invasive fishes are often extrapolated and/or difficult to quantify. Fish invasion costs increase markedly over time, from US$0.57 billion/year in the 1980s to US$1 billion/year in the 2000s. Fish invasions have been relatively well studied; however, economic costs have been lower than expected based on overall numbers of alien species. Accordingly, although costs are increasing, improved reporting is required to better understand how fish invasion costs are distributed across time, space and economic sectors.

show abstract

Section: Global Cost Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the recorded economic cost of alien invasive fishes worldwide?

Haubrock

Bernery

Cuthbert

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Invasive alien species are also responsible for a variety of substantial losses across many socio-economic sectors (Bacher et al 2018). As an illustration, it has been shown that a reduction of 10-16% of yield crops globally was associated with invasive insects (Bebber et al 2013), but invasive species can also cause losses of human-made goods and services (Binimelis et al 2007), destruction of infrastructure over sectors like forestry (Scheibel et al 2016), fisheries (Rosaen et al 2012), and agriculture (Paini et al 2016), among others. Such sectors often drive the economy of a country, and the effects of biological invasions can hinder its sustainable economic growth, especially in developing countries (Early et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic costs of biological invasions in Ecuador: the importance of the Galapagos Islands

Ballesteros‐Mejia¹,

Angulo²,

Diagne³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions, as a result of human intervention through trade and mobility, are the second biggest cause of biodiversity loss. The impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on the environment are well known, however, economic impacts are poorly estimated, especially in mega-diverse countries where both economic and ecological consequences of these effects can be catastrophic. Ecuador, one of the smallest mega-diverse countries, lacks a comprehensive description of the economic costs of IAS within its territory. Here, using "InvaCost", a public database that compiles all recorded monetary costs associated with IAS from English and Non-English sources, we investigated the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that between 1983 and 2017, the reported costs associated with biological invasions ranged between US$86.17 million (when considering only the most robust data) and US$626 million (when including all cost data) belonging to 37 species and 27 genera. Furthermore, 99% of the recorded cost entries were from the Galapagos Islands. From only robust data, the costliest identified taxonomic group was feral goats (Capra hircus; US$20 million), followed by Aedes mosquitoes (US$2.14 million) while organisms like plant species from the genus Rubus, a parasitic fly (Philornis downsi), black rats (Rattus rattus) and terrestrial gastropods (Achatina fulica) represented less than US$2 million each. Costs of "mixed-taxa" (i.e. plants and animals) represented the highest (61% of total robust costs; US$52.44 million). The most impacted activity sector was the national park authorities, which spent about US$84 million. Results from robust data also revealed that management expenditures were the major type of costs recorded in the Galapagos Islands; however, costs reported for medical losses related to Aedes mosquitoes causing dengue fever in mainland Ecuador would have ranked first if more detailed information had allowed us to categorize them as robust data. Over 70% of the IAS reported for Ecuador did not have reported costs. These results suggest that costs reported here are a massive underestimate of the actual economic toll of invasions in the country.

show abstract

“…In many cases, stocked fish are actually suppressing wild production that would have naturally occurred (Youngson and Verspoor, 1998). Similarly, pen-raised fish may not be well suited for wild release, which ultimately relegates these stocking events to very costly and unnecessary dietary supplementation for established wild populations (Pouder et al, 2010;Scheibel et al, 2016). Thus, the value of provisioning services may not change despite large sums of money invested.…”

Section: Fish-stock Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fishing for ecosystem services

Pope

Pegg

Cole

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tEcosystems are commonly exploited and manipulated to maximize certain human benefits. Such changes can degrade systems, leading to cascading negative effects that may be initially undetected, yet ultimately result in a reduction, or complete loss, of certain valuable ecosystem services. Ecosystembased management is intended to maintain ecosystem quality and minimize the risk of irreversible change to natural assemblages of species and to ecosystem processes while obtaining and maintaining long-term socioeconomic benefits. We discuss policy decisions in fishery management related to commonly manipulated environments with a focus on influences to ecosystem services. By focusing on broader scales, managing for ecosystem services, and taking a more proactive approach, we expect sustainable, quality fisheries that are resilient to future disturbances. To that end, we contend that: (1) management always involves tradeoffs; (2) explicit management of fisheries for ecosystem services could facilitate a transition from reactive to proactive management; and (3) adaptive co-management is a process that could enhance management for ecosystem services. We propose adaptive co-management with an ecosystem service framework where actions are implemented within ecosystem boundaries, rather than political boundaries, through strong interjurisdictional relationships.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

show abstract

Impacts of Northern Pike on Stocked Rainbow Trout in Pactola Reservoir, South Dakota

Cited by 11 publications

References 37 publications

What is the recorded economic cost of alien invasive fishes worldwide?

What is the recorded economic cost of alien invasive fishes worldwide?

Economic costs of biological invasions in Ecuador: the importance of the Galapagos Islands

Fishing for ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About