Williams and Grosholz 2008 Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Williams and Grosholz 2008 Presentation

  • 463 views
Uploaded on

Paper discussion on the invasive species challenge in estuarine and coastal environments by Mayra Sanchez

Paper discussion on the invasive species challenge in estuarine and coastal environments by Mayra Sanchez

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
463
On Slideshare
393
From Embeds
70
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 70

http://egrad.uprrp.edu 68
http://online.uprrp.edu 2

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. THE INVASIVE SPECIES CHALLENGE IN ESTUARINE AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS: MARRYING MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE Susan L. Williams & Edwin D. Grosholz THE H.T. ODUM SYNTHESIS ESSAYhttp://www.reefcorner.org http://www.fishgame.com http://www.reefcorner.org http://www.okeanosgroup. com
  • 2. INTRODUCTION Estuarine and costal environments are susceptible due to activities relating  Boating and shipping; Ballast water  Aquarium trade  Aquaculture  Life seafood and bait http://globallast.imo.org Despite public awareness and scientific interest on invasive species, research articles are relatively few.
  • 3. PROGRESS TOWARD MANAGEMENT: THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKLeaders on regulatory framework:Australia and New Zealand: proactive and integrated approach on the control ofinvasive species.  Centralized management efforts, strong science-based research and accessibility to information are the key to effective control and eradication programs.Slackers on regulatory framework:USA lacks federal leadership and centralized management , there are laws thatoverlap affecting the effectiveness of regulation and management and there is a slowmovement towards progress.European Union uncoordinated as individual countries with different approach onmanaging invasive species in the same water body
  • 4. PROGRESS TOWARD MANAGEMENT: THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe existing legal instruments focus heavily on preventing introduction ofnonnative species, is undoubtedly the best way to reduce future costs ofmanagement.  Reasons why this legal instruments fail; 1. The introduction is no evident in its early stages 2. Understudies of economical impact reduces the allocation of resources 3. Externalities, which are the costs to society or native biota above identifiable direct costs associated with the specific economy (aquaculture products, eradication programs), are notoriously difficult to estimate, particularly in the marine environment
  • 5. WHY ALLOCATE PRECIOUS RESOURCESTO INTRODUCED SPECIES IN THECOASTAL ENVIRONMENT?1) They are vectors for pathogens2) Accumulate higher level of contaminants than native species3) Associated with endangering or Phyllorhiza punctata threatening native species Pomacanthus imperator4) High economical impacts and restoration Penaeus monodon Pterois spp. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/
  • 6. SUCCESS IS POSSIBLESuccesses occurres when;  introduced populations were small and restricted, human and financial resources were available, and early action was taken.Fall-back control program are successful when science and managementwork together.  Managers were in consensus that access to experts and basic biological and ecological information was critical to managing the eradications and more was desirable  Managers also relied on scientists to provide eradication success/failure benchmarks and reviews of programs to facilitate adaptive management  Risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses were useful even if qualitative; the more extensive the scientific evidence for the risk, the easier it was to take or defend management actions.
  • 7. TWO CASE STUDIES: THE INTRODUCTION OF CAULERPA AND SPARTINAInvasion of Caulerpa taxifolia Southern California  US Noxious Weed List in 1999  Identified invasion in 2000  Eradicated in 2006, due to the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team  No investigation before or during the eradication process. http://www.hawaii.edu Australia  Identified invasion 2000, eradication was not possible  Control programs are a priority to limit dispersal  This has given an opportunity to research management options and ecological effects of introduced C. taxifolia
  • 8. TWO CASE STUDIES: THE INTRODUCTION OF CAULERPA AND SPARTINA Invasion of Spartina spp. Native to eastern North America @World of Stock  Introduced in 1890 in Washington (Accidental introduction)  Total of 2,400ha 1997 to 90% reduction 2011 (USDA)  Introduced in 1975 in California (Deliberated introduction by the Army Corps of Engineers)  800ha 2005 to 80ha 2011 (San Francisco Bay eradication program)  Some investigation was involved during the eradication program, which demonstrate the capacity of management and science to achieve similar goals without conflict@World of Stock
  • 9. AGENDA FOR MANAGEMENT-FOCUSED RESEARCH Effects in Communities and Ecosystems: More focus on ecosystem processes and function instead of the typical approach. Prevention:  Trait base approach: using previous invasion to detect future problems.  Species distribution modeling: model that relates species distribution data with information on the environmental and/or spatial characteristics of those locations Early Detection
  • 10.  Risk Assessment: determines the probability of a species to established and cause harm. Help prioritize and initiate action.In absence of effective prevention and early detection Understanding Connectivity to Prioritize Eradication and Control Efforts: There is a lack of understanding connectivity among population of marine species. More advanced knowledge will help prioritize on eradication and control. Eradication and Control : There is a need for tested techniques of eradication and control  Bio-controls  Transgenic approach to control reproduction  Pheromone control  Disruption of molting*
  • 11.  Need for Decision Support : There is a need for a single source, readily accessible, step-wise management decision support system.  Australia’s National Introduced Marine Pest Information System central repository of information on the biology, ecology and distribution (international and national) of invasive marine pest species  USA National Invasive Species Information Center (NISIC): Gateway to invasive species information Evolutionary Potential: Poorly investigated how short term or rapid evolution influences the success or failure of introduced species Ecological Economics and Introduced Species Cross-disciplinary: Relates to the risk assessment involving cost of introduced species and the development of better management recommendations
  • 12. Overlooked research needs: Facilitation of Subsequent Introduced Species : How can introduced species become facilitators for other invasive species. Climate Change and Specie Introduction:  There is a need for understanding how climate change interacts with coastal invasions:  Rise SST  Rise Sea Level  Rise CO2  Ocean Acidification
  • 13. DISCUSSION Management of introduced species requires the same will and resources that nations have applied to reducing pollution and restoring wetlands and fisheries stocks, with high pay-offs, and investments spent on restoration efforts risk being obliterated by the introduction of just one successful nonnative species.