Download Species Prioritization in Arizona*s Aquatic Invasive Species

Dr. David Walker
University of Arizona


Difficult and often subjective.
Animals, plants, and algae.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Human health
Human infrastructure
Commerce
Recreation
Ecological impact to native or
economically valuable species
Environmental health
Intrinsic value of native wildlife



Priority given to species that are the most
abundant and negatively impacting Arizona.
Those species with distributions having little
impact versus wide distributions posing extra
management challenges will weigh on
prioritization as well.
“Priority of threat analysis”, given to species
not yet found in Arizona.
◦ Focus of early detection and rapid responses for
emerging AIS populations in the state.
•
•
•
•
•
Prevention (outreach, education,
enforcement)
Early detection, rapid response (EDRR)
Containment/control
Eradication – localized
Management (no eradication possible)
- Prevention of spread
- Minimization of impacts


“AIS whose introduction and spread has
already caused, or has the potential for,
significant impairment of a water body (or
water bodies) within the state for either
anthropocentric use or intrinsic value.”
“Efforts at containment through prevention of
introduction of species are likely to have the
greatest environmental and/or economic
impact.”
•
•
•
•
Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta)
Golden algae (Prymnesium parvum)
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus
•
Quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis
•
•
•
antipodarum)
bugensis)
Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
Whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis)
Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)


“AIS whose introduction and spread may
have, or has the potential to impair a water
body or bodies within the state, detracting
from either anthropocentric use or intrinsic
value.”
“These AIS do not currently have as great a
potential for wide-spread harm to aquatic
systems as Priority 1 AND/OR their presence
in the state has only been anecdotal”


“They are highly localized so that spread
appears relatively minimal AND/OR the
introduction and potential spread of these
AIS, and subsequent impairment, appears to
be imminent or great.”
“Priority 2 consists of populations which
might be controlled locally.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis)
Didymo a.k.a. “rock snot” (Didymosphenia
geminata)
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum)
Northern snakehead (Channa argus)
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Redclaw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus)
Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)

“AIS whose introduction and spread within
the state seems minimal compared to Priority
1 or Priority 2 AIS, however, the potential for
introduction and spread exists AND/OR these
AIS have already caused large-scale
impairment to aquatic systems in Arizona but
have become so firmly entrenched or widespread throughout the state that currently the
management, remediation, and control of
these AIS seems infeasible or is otherwise
logistically difficult or impossible.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Asiatic clams (Corbicula spp.)
Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)
Giant reed (Arundo donax)
Golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata)
Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
Northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis)
Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus)
Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (order
Mononegavirales, family Rhabdoviridae,
genus Novirhabdovirus)


Although this is the prioritization scheme as
it stands today, the Arizona AIS Management
Plan is meant to be a working document.
Species will undoubtedly be added or
subtracted, or prioritization changed, as
threats rise and fall.