Transcript Species Invasions in Large Ecosystems Seminar

Species Invasions in Large
Ecosystems
Ballast-mediated Animal Introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes:
Retrospective and Prospective Analyses
- Grigorovich, I.A., R.I. Colautti, E.L. Mills, K. Holeck, A.G. Ballert, and
H.J. MacIsaac. 2003
Presented by: Kamto Chung, Marianne Fernandez & Carrie Kwok
Outline of Presentation
 Introduction
 Key definitions
 Background information
 Summary of Grigorovich et al. paper
 Critique of paper
 Findings from other studies
 Current Canadian Ballast Water Management Regulations
 Current BWM regulations of other countries
 Discussion
Key Definitions
 Invasive Species
 Also referred to as non-indigenous species (NIS)
 BOB/NOBOB
 Ballast on Board (BOB)
 No Ballast on Board (NOBOB)
 Ballast Water Exchange (BWE)
 Propagule Pressure Hypothesis
Laurentian Great Lakes and the
St. Lawrence Seaway
Source: http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/greatlk.htm
Ballast-mediated Animal Introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes:
Retrospective and Prospective Analyses – Grigorovich et al. 2003
Objectives
What was examined:
1) Retrospective analysis of non-indigenous species (NIS)
in the Great Lakes
2) Patterns of shipping activities and ballast water
discharge
3) Emerging invasion patterns
4) Forecasting ballast-mediated introductions
Methods
1. Historical and emerging patterns of introduction
- Comprehensive inventory of NIS from 1959-1999
- Regression line slopes
- Information for each NIS:
1. Date of first appearance
2. Locality
3. Native range
4. Most plausible mechanism of introduction
- Invasion hotspots (>1 NIS per 1000 km2 water)
Methods
2. Shipping activities and
ballast water exchange
- Comprehensive database developed using annual reports
from the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, US
Custom forms, etc.
- Inferred ballasting and de-ballasting operations by the type
of transaction recorded at each port
Methods
3. Forecasting introductions
- Developed a qualitative risk-screening framework
Sampling of ballast tanks revealed that 80-100% of organisms loaded abroad
were eliminated during transoceanic transit by open-ocean ballast exchange
Method Limitations
 Historic NIS records may not fully represent the rate of
invasions
 Species introduced to previously uncolonized sites within
the basin are not considered invasive
 When no entry mechanism was indicated in the original
record of a species, assumed the vector based on other
studies’ findings
 Some ballast statuses of incoming transoceanic vessels
were unobtainable
Results
 43 aquatic animal and protist species introduced into the
Great Lakes since 1959
Zebra mussels
Spiny water flea
Round goby
Rusty crayfish
Sea lamprey
Eurasian ruffe
 67% of these were attributed to ballast water discharge
Results
 Since 1959, over 90% of incoming vessels have NOBOB
status
NOBOB vessels favour invasion of species capable of diapause or resistant
life stages
Results
 NOBOB ships have residual
ballast water and can still
facilitate invasions
Results
 4 invasion hotspots, comprising 5.6% of total Great
Lakes water surface area
 Account for 53.5% of NIS recorded since 1959
 Generally correspond to the major areas of ballast water
discharge
Results
Forecasted future introductions:
 26 species are ‘high-risk invaders’
 10 currently existing in the Great Lakes
 16 yet to be reported in the Great Lakes
 37 species are ‘low-risk invaders’
 6 currently existing in the Great Lakes
 31 yet to be reported in the Great Lakes
 The extent of ballast-mediated invasions are not
correlated with the quantities of ballast water discharge
and do not follow the Propagule Pressure Hypothesis
Critique of Paper
Criticisms:
 Meta-study
 Lack recommendations and application – what to do with
the findings?
 Inaccurate predictive model:
 Several taxa are poorly differentiated morphologically
(cryptic invaders that were introduced before 1959, but
remained undetected for an extended time)
 Some species posing a risk of invasion cannot be predicted
because certain ports of ballast origin were not considered
Since the paper
 New studies were done…
 Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations in
2006, 2011
Johengen et al. 2005
 Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
 Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and
Low-Salinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Nonindigenous Species Introductions to the Great
Lakes
Main Findings
 In order to lower the risk of NIS, you need conscientious and
consistent application of good management practices
 Flushing NOBOB tanks with saltwater
 Salinity tests using density meter to ensure salt content >30ppt
Main Findings
 sampled over 80 individual NOBOB ballast tanks and developed
detailed biological and physical characterizations of the residual water
and sediment in those tanks
 Three on-board experiments suggest that use of ballast water
exchange, while clearly imperfect, can be a beneficial management
practice
Main Findings
 Regular flushing was associated with less residual mud, along with
raising salinity
 Effectiveness of salinity shock in killing freshwater-tolerant organisms
varied according to species
Main Findings
 “To assure maximum protection, new and highly effective methods to reliably treat
ballast water and/or ballast residuals to significant and scientifically defensible
biological endpoints are required”
 Basically corroborated Grigorovich’s earlier study

“despite high compliance of these guidelines, NIS still exist, indicating that the current
ballast management strategy is not fool-proof”
Ricciardi, A. 2006.
Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to
changes in vector activity
 positive correlation between # of NIS and shipping activity/ decade
 Surprisingly, not a single non-indigenous species ever established in
the Great Lakes basin is known to have disappeared
 Accumulation may lead to a greater frequency of synergistic disruption
(ie .quagga mussels and round gobies cause outbreaks of avian
botulism in Lake Erie)
Conclusion
 Consensus among the scientific community that ballast
water still serves as a vector of NIS introductions, even
after BWE guidelines.
 Severity and timing
 Amount of NIS spp. vary ~170
 Timing
 Historical reports
 Ongoing Status?
Other Findings
Evaluation of the Great Lakes Ballast Water Management Program – Bailey et al. 2011
 Program is one of the most comprehensive globally
 Results:





Risk of ship-mediated NIS introductions has been reduced
No new species found in Great Lakes since 2006
BWE and tank flushing can effectively decrease the number of viable propagules in the
ballast tank
Need to maintain high inspection effort levels
Program initiatives, while providing a robust defense against introductions, do not
provide complete protection against NIS
 Although inspection programs can be expensive, cost of inaction is typically
greater
 $1.6 million annual spending on inspections; cost of aquatic invasives are at least $200
million annually – Transport Canada
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
An international conference held in 1948 adopted this convention to
develop international regulations to improve safety at seas
There are currently 170 States that have membership with the IMO;
representatives meet once every two years.
The purpose of the organization is:
“to provide machinery for cooperation among
Governments in the field of governmental regulation
and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds
affecting shipping engaged in international trade; to
encourage and facilitate the general adoption of the
highest practicable standards in matters concerning
maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention
and control of marine pollution from ships”
- IMO
International Convention for the Control and Management
of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment (BWM Convention)
 Adopted in February 2004
 As of February 2015, 44 Member States have ratified the
Convention and use their guidelines as part of their
Ballast Water Management plans
Main Practices of the BWM Convention:
 All ships in international traffic are required to manage
their ballast water and sediments to the Regulation D1 –
Ballast Water Exchange Standard or Regulation D2 –
Ballast Water Performance Standard
 All ships must carry a ballast water record book and an
international ballast water management certificate
 Highly recommend on-board ballast water treatment
system, but in the meantime, mid-ocean BWE is
acceptable
Canada’s BWM Regulations
Exceptions to ballast water rules
1. Bad weather – alternative exchange zones available
1. Accidents – still need to minimize risks
2. Ships travelling within the Great Lakes Basin are not subject
to BWM regulations
Enforcement of Regulations
 No unmanaged ballast water permitted to enter the Great
Lakes from the high seas
 Joint Canada-U.S. inspections to confirm salinity in ballast
tanks
 DFO: random sampling and analysis – report to Transport
Canada
BWM Regulations of Other
Countries
Australia
 Introduced in 2001
 Signed IMO Convention in 2005
 The requirements are consistent with
the IMO Convention, but with a few
refinements not covered by the IMO
guidelines
U.S.A.
 Member State of the IMO, but did not ratify the BWM
Convention
 Regulations:
 Any vessel with ballast water entering U.S. waters from
outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone must either:
 Conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange
 Retain the vessel’s ballast water onboard
 Utilize an alternative control method approved by the U.S. Coast
Guard
Questions?
Discuss!
 What recommendations can be made to enhance
Grigorovich et al.’s study?
 Do you think there could be other improvements or
additions to Canada’s current BWM regulations?
 Given the finding that no new species have been found in
the Great Lakes since 2006, what should the concern of
the Canadian government shift towards?
Discuss!
 What do you think about physical alterations of the
ecosystem in order to protect ecosystem integrity?
 How does the issue of invasive species rank as a priority
against other ongoing conservation challenges in the
Great Lakes?
Literature Cited
Australian Government. 2013. Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (Version 5).
Retrieved from
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/aqis/airvesselmilitary/vessels/ballast/ballas
t-water-mgmt-requirements-v5.pdf February 27, 2015.
Bailey, S.A., M.G. Deneau, L. Jean, C.J. Wiley, B. Leung, and H.J. MacIsaac. 2011. Evaluating Efficacy of an
Environmental Policy to Prevent Biological Invasions. Journal of Environmental Science & Technology,
45: 2554-2561.
Grigorovich, I.A., R.I. Colautti, E.L. Mills, K. Holeck, A.G. Ballert, and H.J. MacIsaac. 2003. Ballast-mediated
animal introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes: retrospective and prospective analyses. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 60.
Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology 3rd edition.
Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
International Maritime Organization. 2015. “Ballast Water Management”. Retrieved from
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManagement/Pages/Default.aspx February
27, 2015.
Johengen, T.H., D.F. Reid, and P.T. Jenkins. 2005. Great Lakes NOBOB assessment: final briefing. U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Community Day.
Literature Cited
NOAA. 2015. Ballast Water: U.S. Federal Management. Retrieved from:
http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_ballast_federal.html February 27, 2015.
Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation
to changes in vector activity. Diversity and Distributions, 12.4: 425-433.
Transportation Research Board. 2008. Committee on the St. Lawrence Seaway:
Options to Eliminate Introduction of Non-indigenous Species into the Great
Lakes, Phase 2.