Towards the successful control of the invasive Pseudorasbora parva in the UK

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to detail a control programme of the invasive Asian cyprinid fish Pseudorasbora parva in the UK that was initiated in March 2005. Described as Europe's most invasive fish, P. parva presents a risk to native fishes through the transmission of a novel pathogen and undesirable impacts arising from processes including increased inter-specific competition. Populations have been recorded in 32 UK waters since their first recording outside of aquaculture in 1996; the majority are lakes \5 ha used for recreational angling in England. The aims of the control programme were to develop a basic evaluation framework that assesses populations by risk (high, medium and low), determine commensurate management actions according to that risk and then execute those actions. For populations assessed as 'high-risk', for example those that could result in P. parva dispersal into a river catchment, eradication was determined as the commensurate management action and six operations have since been completed, principally using rotenone, and all have been successful to date. For P. parva populations in sites evaluated as lower risk, techniques such as biomanipulation were determined as more appropriate actions and have been used to successfully reduce their abundance by [99%. To date, the total direct cost of this programme of sustained and on-going P. parva control is approximately £190,000.

Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species

“…However, some parallels can be drawn as well as exceptions highlighted. Our results indicate that terrestrial and lentic freshwater species are more likely to be priorities for eradication than marine or lotic freshwater species, and this already has been the case in GB where eradications, either complete or underway, have been instigated for terrestrial vertebrates (Himalayan porcupine, Hystrix brachyuran; coypu, Myocastor coypus; muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus (Baker 2010); monk parakeet, Myiopsitta monachus; ruddy duck, Oxyura jamaicensis (Defra 2015; Robertson et al 2015) and lentic freshwater species (topmough gudegon, Pseudorasbora parva (Britton and Brazier 2006;Britton et al 2010); fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas; black bullhead, Ameiurus melas; African clawed-frog, Xenopus leavis; American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus; and, water primrose, Luwigia grandiflora (Defra 2015). An important difference between our data and experience from GB to date is that the NNRM scheme indicates terrestrial plants could be a high priority for eradication where limited to small populations; however, there are few recorded eradications of these species in GB, or indeed in Europe (Genovesi 2005).…”

Change of fish fauna in ponds after eradication of invasive piscivorous largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, in north‐eastern Japan

“…Thus, the migration of topmouth minnow and freshwater goby is considered to be much more likely than that of crucian carp. Moreover, topmouth minnow showed a dramatic increase in number and tended to easily dominate the community in a non-native environment (Britton et al, 2007(Britton et al, , 2010, and the alien rose bitterling increased dramatically but dominated only in the treatment ponds. Since all three species (topmouth minnow, rose bitterling and crucian carp) are of similar size and are omnivorous nekton, and the freshwater goby is also an omnivorous species (Miyadi et al, 1976), it is considered that interspecific competition exists among these fish.…”

The introduced Micropterus salmoides in an equatorial lake: a paradoxical loser in an invasion meltdown scenario?

“…Interactions between invasive fishes and native fish communities are frequently revealed through dietary studies (Matern and Brown 2005;Kalogirous et al 2007;Britton et al 2009a). Gut contents analyses (GCA) provide evidence of whether the invading population has increased predation pressure on prey species (Carol et al 2009) or has increased competition for resources (Britton et al 2007).…”