Download Lower Columbia River ANS Survey

Invasive Species: Implications for Habitat Restoration and
Effects on Salmonids
Mark Sytsma
Center for Lakes and Reservoirs
Portland State University
www.clr.pdx.edu
Columbia River Estuary Science-Policy Exchange
10-11 September 2009
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Invasion Process
Vectors
Impacts
Threats to the Pacific Northwest
Management
Invasion Process
Source Region
Host Region
Spread
Native
and
non-native
species
Transport
pool
Colonists
Established
Invasive
Establishment
Impacts
Species
Modified from Olson and Linen 1997
Vectors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ballast Water
Hull Fouling
Live Seafood
Live Bait
Aquaculture
Aquarium and
Pet Trade
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recreational Boating
Hunting and Angling
Intentional Release
Gardening
Ornamental Ponds
Wildlife Restoration
Vector Strength for Lower Columbia River
Aquatic Invertebrates
Aquarium
Ornamental Pond
Release by an Individual
Accidental
Oyster Association
Escape
Fishery Enhancement
Solid Ballast
Ballast Water
Ship Fouling
Gradual Spread
Biological Control
Unknown
0
5
10
15
Number of Introduced Species
20
25
Source and Volume of Ballast Water
Discharge into the Columbia River
Source: 2009 Oregon Task Force on Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Report to the Legislature
Habitat Alternation in the Columbia
River Creates Environmental Match
for AIS
Habitat alteration along the Columbia River estuary contrasting the
shoreline position in 1868-1875 with the present shoreline shown in
outline. (Source: Lower Columbia River Bi-State Water Quality
program http://www.ecotrust.org)
Columbia River AIS Surveys
• Lower
Columbia
River Survey
(2001-2003)
• Middle
Columbia
River Survey
(2006)
– 82 AIS
– 17 AIS
Lower Columbia AIS
Mammals
Amphibians
Fish
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Annelida
Cnidaria
Bryozoa
Vascular Plants
0
5
10
15
20
Number of Introduced Species
25
30
Lower Columbia River Invasion Rates
•
Fish
• High rate of
introduction in
1800s, lower
rate in 1900s
Invertebrates
• New species
every 5 years
from 1880-1975
• New species
every 5 months
since 1995
30
B
25
Number of Species
•
J
J
J
20
B
J
15
J
J
B
J
B
J
10
B
5
0
B
1805
1855
J
B
B
1905
Year of Discovery
green = fishes
B
B
B
B
B
B
1955
blue= invertebrates
2005
Lower Columbia Invertebrate
Introductions
T.U. Darmstadt
Nonindigenous Species
20
18
WSU
16
14
Photo: Jeff Cordell
12
10
8
6
Photo: Jeff Cordell
4
2
0
1800 1850 1900
1950 2000 2050
calacademy
Middle Columbia River Vector Strength
ESC – escape from commercial cultivation, AQ – aquarium species, OR – ornamental species, SB – ships ballast, BW –
ballast water, HF – hull fouling, GS – gradual spread from introduction outside basin, AX – accidental introduction
(hitchhiking with an intentional release), FS – fisheries or wildlife enhancement by or approved by an agency, RI –
release/stocking by an individual, not sanctioned by an agency, REC – recreational fishing/boating activity
Middle Columbia River AIS
Consequences of Bioinvasion
• Direct effects
– Predation
Juvenile and adult
salmon encounter 2040 non-indigenous fish
during migration
High numbers of
introduced fish
species are found
where there are high
numbers of listed
native species
(Sanderson et al. 2009. Bioscience 59: 245-256).
Consequences of Bioinvasion
• Indirect effects
Hybridization
Homogenization of biotic
communities and loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem
resilience
Food web alteration
Spartina foliosa x S.
alterniflora hybrid
from SFB
Jeff Cordell
Psuedodiaptomus inopinus
Percent numerical composition of copepods across salinity gradient
in 14 west coast estuaries without P. inopinus
in 7 west coast estuaries with P.inopinus
> 10 psu
0 psu
Paracalanus sp.
E. americana
Cyclopidae
Corycaeus sp.
P. inopinus
Acartiura spp.
Acartia tonsa
E. affinis
Oithona similis
Other Copepods
Source: Bollens, et al. 2002. Hydrobiologia 480: 87-110
Hypothesized Changes in Estuarine
Food Webs
Pelagic Food Web (pre-invasion)
Bentho-Pelagic Food Web
(post-invasion)
juvenile
salmon
sculpin
Invasive copepods
Native copepods
mysids
Source: Steve Bollens, WSU-Vancouver
AIS That Impact Restoration
Activities and With SystemChanging Potential
Zebra/Quagga Mussels
Common Reed Haplotypes 1 and M
Hydrilla
Zebra and Quagga Mussels
• Freshwater fouling organisms
• Colonize underwater structures: submerged
pumps, boats, nets, marine engines, navigation
buoys, fish screens and ladders.
• Disrupt natural food chains, and threaten native
fish and mussel populations.
• Clog intake and cooling pipes of large water users
Current Distribution
Zebra/Quagga Mussel Monitoring
Zebra/Quagga Mussel Monitoring
Early Detection is
Key to Control
Larvae Detection Bottleneck
• Cross-polarized light
microscopy
– Slow but sure
• PCR
– Potentially fast and
accurate but needs
standardization of
procedures and testing
on natural matrix
samples
• FlowCam
– Faster than human scope
work. Accuracy?
Hydrilla verticillata
Bruneau River and
Boise populations
Management
PREVENT
Host Region
DETECT
Spread
Native
Invaders
Colonists
Nuisance
and
non-native
Establishment
Impacts
Transport
species
Species
CONTROL
pre-establishment
CONTROL
post-establishment
PREVENT
MONITOR for INVASIVENESS
PROTECT
Source Region
Management Coordination
•
•
•
•
•
•
National ANS Task Force
Western Regional Panel of the ANSTF
Columbia River Basin Team
State Management Plans
State Invasive Species Councils
State Agency Activities
What’s Needed?
• Enhanced early detection and rapid response
capabilities
• Vulnerability assessments at federal hydro and
fish passage facilities
• Research on management
• Permit issues need to be resolved
The End
Mark Sytsma
503-725-8038
[email protected]