The use of environmental DNA in invasive species surveillance of the Great Lakes commercial bait trade

Abstract

Over 180 non-native species have been introduced in the Laurentian Great Lakes region, many posing threats to native species and ecosystem functioning. One potential pathway for introductions is the commercial bait trade; unknowing or unconcerned anglers commonly release unused bait into aquatic systems. Previous surveillance efforts of this pathway relied on visual inspection of bait stocks in retail shops, which can be time and cost prohibitive and requires a trained individual that can rapidly and accurately identify cryptic species. Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveillance, a molecular tool that has been used for surveillance in aquatic environments, can be used to efficiently detect species at low abundances. We collected and analyzed 576 eDNA samples from 525 retail bait shops throughout the Laurentian Great Lake states. We used eDNA techniques to screen samples for multiple aquatic invasive species (AIS) that could be transported in the bait trade, including bighead (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) and silver carp (H. molitrix), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus), Eurasian rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), and goldfish (Carassius auratus). Twenty-seven samples were positive for at least one target species (4.7% of samples), and all target species were found at least once, except bighead carp. Despite current regulations, the bait trade remains a potential pathway for invasive species introductions in the Great Lakes region. Alterations to existing management strategies regarding the collection, transportation, and use of live bait are warranted, including new and updated regulations, to prevent future introductions of invasive species in the Great Lakes via the bait trade.

Recreational freshwater fishing drives non‐native aquatic species richness patterns at a continental scale

“…These patterns highlight the fact that, despite their strong correlation, recreational demand and population density likely represent different clusters of anthropogenic dispersal vectors that may have differential effects on dispersal at the species level. The causal link between recreational fishing and dispersal of any particular NAS obviously depends on the characteristics of that species, although it is worth noting that recreational fishing represents a broad suite of vectors widely recognized to be generally important in the spread of aquatic invasives, including fouling of trailered boats and other equipment (Rothlisberger et al, 2010) as well as bait bucket transfers (Nathan et al, 2014). While the specific aim in the current study was to test explicit hypotheses regarding the strength of different proxy variables in predicting macroscale distribution patterns, future research could build stronger pre- can be expected to respond to factors as varied as climate (Rahel & Olden, 2008), water chemistry (Whittier, Ringold, Herlihy, & Pierson, 2008), hydrological alteration (Catford et al, 2014) and pollution (Varo et al, 2015).…”

Sampling Design for Early Detection of Aquatic Invasive Species in Great Lakes Ports

“…Ballast water discharge has been the most prevalent vector for AIS introduction to the Great Lakes (Ricciardi 2006); Duluth-Superior and Thunder Bay receive a large ballast water discharge volume from both Great Lakes and transoceanic commercial vessels, and both host a variety of AIS (Grigorovich et al 2003). All three ports are population centers, and both Thunder Bay and Duluth-Superior attract recreational boating and angling activity-factors increasing the introduction risk of AIS associated with commercial trade or recreational boats (Ricciardi 2006;Nathan et al 2015). Sampling boundaries encompassing roughly equal areas (Duluth-Superior: 44.5 km 2 ; Sault Ste.…”

The role of anglers' perceptions and habits in biological invasions: perspectives from the Iberian Peninsula

“…It is not only 'game fish species' that have been introduced worldwide by this vector. Anglers’ use of live bait contributes to the dispersal of other aquatic organisms (Drake and Mandrak, ; Banha and Anastácio, ; Nathan et al, ), such as fish, crayfish and other invertebrates (Ludwig and Leitch, ; Font and Lloret, ). Other non‐bait organisms and pathogens have also been introduced accidentally by water or packing material of live bait containers (Goodchild, ; Haska et al, ) and, in the Iberian Peninsula, one example is the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) (Binimelis et al, ).…”