Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Potential risky exotic fish species, their ecological impacts and potential reasons for invasion in Korean aquatic ecosystems

  • Atique, Usman (Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • An, Kwang-Guk (Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University)
  • Received : 2021.10.04
  • Accepted : 2022.01.16
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Due to the rapidly changing climatic conditions, South Korea faces the grand challenge of exotic species. With the increasing human movement, the influx of alien species to novel regions is prevalent across the globe. The latest research suggests that it is easy to prevent the introduction and establishment of alien species rather than controlling their spread and eradication. Like other countries, the Korean Ministry of Environment released a list (in 2018) of 45 potential risky exotic fish species considered likely to be invasive candidate fish species if they ever succeed in entering the Korean aquatic ecosystems. Results: The investigation into the invasion suitability traits showed that potential risky fish species could utilize those features in becoming invasive once they arrive in the Korean aquatic ecosystems. If the novel species establish viable populations, they are likely to incur higher economic costs, damage the native aquatic fauna and flora, and jeopardize the already perilled species. Furthermore, they can damage the installed infrastructure, decline overall abundance and biodiversity, and disturb the ecosystem services. Here we reviewed the list of fish species concerning their family, native origin, preferred aquatic biomes, main food items, current status in Korea, and potential threats to humans and the ecosystems. Data shows that most species are either already designated as invasive in the neighboring counties, including Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and China, or originate from these countries. Such species have a higher climate match with the Korean territories. Conclusions: Therefore, it is exceptionally essential to study their most critical features and take regulatory measures to restrict their entry. The incoming fish species must be screened before letting them in the country in the future. The regulatory authorities must highlight the threatening traits of such species and strictly monitor their entrance. Detailed research is required to explore the other species, especially targeting the neighboring countries fish biodiversity, having demonstrated invasive features and matching the Korean climate.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the 'Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI)' through "Exotic Invasive Fish Species Management Project", funded by the Ministry of Environment, Korea, and by Daejeon Green Environment Center under the Research Development Program (Yr 2016). Therefore, the authors would like to acknowledge for their support.

References

  1. Al-Chokhachy R, Sepulveda AJ. Impacts of nonnative Brown Trout on Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in a tributary stream. N Am J Fish Manag. 2019;39(1):17-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10244.
  2. Alexander ME, Dick JT, Weyl OL, Robinson TB, Richardson DM. Existing and emerging high impact invasive species are characterized by higher functional responses than natives. Biol Lett. 2014;10(2):20130946. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0946.
  3. Atique U, Kwon S, An KG. Linking weir imprints with riverine water chemistry, microhabitat alterations, fish assemblages, chlorophyll-nutrient dynamics, and ecological health assessments. Ecol Indic. 2020;117:106652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106652.
  4. Bomford M. Risk assessment models for establishment of exotic vertebrates in Australia and New Zealand. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre; 2008.
  5. Brenton-Rule E, Frankel S, Lester P. Improving management of invasive species: New Zealand's approach to pre- and post-border pests. Policy Q. 2016;12(1):17-25. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v12i1.4582.
  6. Bzoma S, Stempniewicz L. Great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) diet in the Gulf of Gdansk in 1998. In: Piekarek-Jankowska H, editors. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Functioning of coastal ecosystems in various geographical regions, held in Gdynia, Poland, on 19-22 June 2001. Gdansk: Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdansk; 2001.
  7. Cambray JA. Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. Hydrobiologia. 2003;500(1):217-30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024648719995.
  8. Chan J, Zeng Y, Yeo DCJ. Invasive species trait-based risk assessment for non-native freshwater fishes in a tropical city basin in Southeast Asia. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248480. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248480.
  9. Closs GP, Ludgate B, Goldsmith RJ. Controlling European perch (Perca fluviatilis): lessons from an experimental removal. In: New Zealand Department of Conservation, editor. Managing invasive freshwater fish in New Zealand proceedings of a workshop hosted by department of conservation, 10-12 May 2001, Hamilton. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Conservation; 2003. p. 37-48.
  10. Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Wei H, Li S, Piria M, Al-Faisal AJ, et al. Speaking their language- development of a multilingual decision-support tool for communicating invasive species risks to decision makers and stakeholders. Environ Model Softw. 2021;135:104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104900.
  11. Corkum LD, Sapota MR, Skora KE. The round goby, Neogobius melanostomus, a fish invader on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Biol Invasions. 2004;6(2):173-81. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BINV.0000022136.43502.db.
  12. Crystal-Ornelas R, Hudgins EJ, Cuthbert RN, Haubrock PJ, Fantle-Lepczyk J, Angulo E, et al. Economic costs of biological invasions within North America. NeoBiota. 2021;67:485-510. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58038.
  13. Cucherousset J, Olden JD. Ecological impacts of nonnative freshwater fishes. Fisheries. 2011;36(5):215-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2011.574578.
  14. Cuthbert RN, Diagne C, Haubrock PJ, Turbelin AJ, Courchamp F. Are the "100 of the world's worst" invasive species also the costliest? Biol Invasions. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02568-7.
  15. Davidson A. Fish and fish dishes of Laos. Vientiane: Imprimerie Nationale; 1975.
  16. Diagne C, Leroy B, Vaissiere AC, Gozlan RE, Roiz D, Jaric I, et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature. 2021;592(7855):571-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6.
  17. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006;81(2):163-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950.
  18. Emery-Butcher HE, Beatty SJ, Robson BJ. The impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters: a review. Freshw Biol. 2020;65(5): 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13479.
  19. Froese R, Pauly D. FishBase. 2011. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 11 Nov 2021.
  20. Fuller P, Maynard E, Raikow D, Larson J, Fusaro A, Neilson M. Morone americana. 2008. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=777. Accessed 11 Nov 2021.
  21. Fuller PL. Freshwater aquatic vertebrate introductions in the United States: patterns and pathways. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton J, editors. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 2003. p. 123-34.
  22. GB Non-Native Species Secretariat. GB non-native species information portal. 2016. http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/. Accessed 2 May 2016.
  23. Gederaas L, Moen TL, Skjelseth S, Larsen LK. Alien species in Norway - with the Norwegian Black List 2012. Trondheim: The Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre; 2012.
  24. Gnaedinger RH. Thiaminase activity in fish: an improved assay method. Fish Ind Res. 1964;2:55-9.
  25. Gozlan RE. Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish Fish. 2008;9(1):106-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00267.x.
  26. Haas RC, Thomas MV, Towns GL. An assessment of the potential use of Gambusia for mosquito control in Michigan. Technical Report 2003-2. Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division; 2003.
  27. Haubrock PJ, Pilotto F, Innocenti G, Cianfanelli S, Haase P. Two centuries for an almost complete community turnover from native to non-native species in a riverine ecosystem. Glob Change Biol. 2021a;27(3):606-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15442.
  28. Haubrock PJ, Turbelin AJ, Cuthbert RN, Novoa A, Taylor NG, Angulo E, et al. Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. NeoBiota. 2021b;67:153-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196.
  29. Herke SW, Kornfield I, Moran P, Moring JR. Molecular confirmation of hybridization between northern pike (Esox lucius) and chain pickerel (E. niger). Copeia. 1990;1990(3):846-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1446451.
  30. Hughes RM, Herlihy AT. Patterns in catch per unit effort of native prey fish and alien piscivorous fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA rivers. Fisheries. 2012;37(5):201-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2012.676833.
  31. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. Auckland: Species Survival Commission; 2000.
  32. Jang MH, Kim JG, Park SB, Jeong KS, Cho GI, Joo GJ. The current status of the distribution of introduced fish in large river systems of South Korea. Int Rev Hydrobiol. 2002;87(2-3):319-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2632(200205)87:2/3<319::AID-IROH319>3.0.CO;2-N.
  33. Jaric I, Heger T, Castro Monzon F, Jeschke JM, Kowarik I, McConkey KR, et al. Crypticity in biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2019;34(4):291-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.12.008.
  34. Johannsson OE. A history of changes in zooplankton community structure and function in Lake Ontario: responses to whole-lake remediation and exotic invasions. In: Munawar M, editor. State of Lake Ontario: past, present and future. Burlington: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society; 2003. p. 221-56.
  35. Kil JH, Kim CG. Overview of preventive measures against invasive alien species in Korea and suggestions for their improvement. Korean J Ecol Environ. 2014;47(4):239-46. https://doi.org/10.11614/KSL.2014.47.4.239.
  36. Kil JH, Mun S, Kim CG. Risk assessment tools for invasive alien species in Japan and Europe. Ecol Resil Infrastruct. 2015;2(3):191-7. https://doi.org/10.17820/eri.2015.2.3.191.
  37. Kim JJ, Atique U, An KG. Key drivers influencing the presence and absence of Micropterus salmoides and their effect on native fish communities and biotic integrity. Water. 2021;13(23):3430. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233430.
  38. Kim JJ, Atique U, An KG. Long-term ecological health assessment of a restored urban stream based on chemical water quality, physical habitat conditions and biological integrity. Water. 2019;11(1):114. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010114.
  39. Kim JY, Atique U, An KG. Relative abundance and invasion dynamics of alien fish species linked to chemical conditions, ecosystem health, native fish assemblage, and stream order. Water. 2021b;13(2):158. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020158.
  40. Kottelat M, Freyhof J. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Cornol: Publications Kottelat; 2007.
  41. Lake MD, Hicks BJ, Wells RDS, Dugdale TM. Consumption of submerged aquatic macrophytes by rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus L.) in New Zealand. Hydrobiologia. 2002;470:13-22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015689432289.
  42. Leunda PM, Oscoz J, Elvira B, Agorreta A, Perea S, Miranda R. Feeding habits of the exotic black bullhead Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque) in the Iberian Peninsula: first evidence of direct predation on native fish species. J Fish Biol. 2008;73(1):96-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01908.x.
  43. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1508):2407-13. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2179.
  44. Liang XF, Kiu JK, Huang BY. The role of sense organs in the feeding behaviour of Chinese perch. J Fish Biol. 1998;52(5):1058-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb00603.x.
  45. Luque GM, Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Bonnaud E, Genovesi P, Simberloff D, et al. The 100th of the world's worst invasive alien species. Biol Invasions. 2014;16(5):981-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0561-5.
  46. Madenjian CP, O'Gorman R, Bunnell DB, Argyle RL, Roseman EF, Warner DM, et al. Adverse effects of alewives on Laurentian Great Lakes fish communities. N Am J Fish Manag. 2008;28(1):263-82. https://doi.org/10.1577/M07-012.1.
  47. Mamun M, Kim S, An KG. Distribution pattern prediction of an invasive alien species largemouth bass using a maximum entropy model (MaxEnt) in the Korean peninsula. J Asia Pac Biodivers. 2018;11(4):516-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2018.09.007.
  48. Martino A, Syvaranta J, Crivelli A, Cereghino R, Santoul F. Is European catfish a threat to eels in southern France? Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2011;21(3):276-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1177.
  49. McLeod R. Counting the cost: impact of invasive animals in Australia. Canberra: Pest Animal Control CRC; 2004.
  50. Miller P, Vasil'eva ED. Perccottus glenii Dybowsky 1877. In: Miller PJ, editor. The freshwater fishes of Europe. Vol. 8, 1, mugilidae, atherinidae, atherinopsidae, blenniidae, odontobutidae, gobiidae 1. Wiebelsheim: AULA-Verlag; 2003. p. 135-56.
  51. Ministry of Environment notification. Designation and notification of alert species. Sejong: Ministry of Environment; 2017.
  52. Mollot G, Pantel JH, Romanuk TN. The effects of invasive species on the decline in species richness: a global meta-analysis. Adv Ecol Res. 2017;56:61-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2016.10.002.
  53. Moyle PB. Inland fishes of California. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1976.
  54. Muller T, Taller J, Kolics B, Kovacs B, Urbanyi B, Specziar A. First record of natural hybridization between pikeperch Sander lucioperca and Volga pikeperch S. volgensis. J Appl Ichthyol. 2010;26(3):481-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01463.x.
  55. Nico LG, Neilson ME. Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846). 2011. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=573. Accessed 12 Nov 2021.
  56. Olden JD, Poff NL. Long-term trends of native and non-native fish faunas in the American Southwest. Anim Biodivers Conserv. 2005;28(1):75-89.
  57. Pysek P, Hulme PE, Simberloff D, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, et al. Scientists' warning on invasive alien species. Biol Rev. 2020;95(6):1511-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627.
  58. Pysek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, et al. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species' traits and environment. Glob Change Biol. 2012;18(5):1725-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x.
  59. Quinn SP. Stomach contents of flathead catfish in the Flint River, Georgia. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies. 1987;41:85-92.
  60. Ray S, Mondal P, Paul AK, Iqbal S, Atique U, Islam MS, et al. Role of shrimp farming in socio-economic elevation and professional satisfaction in coastal communities. Aquac Rep. 2021;20:100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100708.
  61. Rosen PC, Schwalbe CR, Parizek DA Jr, Holm PA, Lowe CH. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. In: DeBano LH, Ffolliott PH, Ortega-Rubio A, Gottfried GJ, Hamre RH, Edminster CB, editors. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. General Technical Report RM-GTR-264. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; 1995. p. 251-61.
  62. Sardain A, Sardain E, Leung B. Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nat Sustain. 2019;2(4):274-82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0245-y.
  63. SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Global biodiversity outlook 4. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2014.
  64. Schultz K. Ken Schultz's field guide to freshwater fish. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.
  65. Seebens H, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Capinha C, Dawson W, Dullinger S, et al. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27(5):970-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15333.
  66. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, et al. Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(10):E2264-73. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719429115.
  67. Segev O, Mangel M, Blaustein L. Deleterious effects by mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) on the endangered fire salamander (Salamandra infraimmaculata). Anim Conserv. 2009;12(1):29-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00217.x.
  68. Son SH, Jo AR, Kim DE. Current status of alert alien species management for the establishment of proactive management systems in Korea. J Ecol Environ. 2021;45:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-021-00204-y.
  69. Townsend CR. Individual, population, community, and ecosystem consequences of a fish invader in New Zealand streams. Conserv Biol. 2003;17(1):38-47. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02017.x
  70. US Department of Agriculture. Federal noxious weed list. Riverdale: US Department of Agriculture; 2010.
  71. Vitousek PM, D'Antonio CM, Loope LL, Rejmanek M, Westbrooks R. Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. N Z J Ecol. 1997;21(1):1-16.
  72. Vitule JRS, Freire CA, Simberloff D. Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be bad. Fish Fish. 2009;10(1):98-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00312.x.
  73. Welcomme RL. International introductions of inland aquatic species. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1988.
  74. Wells L. Effects of alewife predation on zooplankton populations in Lake Michigan. Limnol Oceanogr. 1970;15(4):556-65. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1970.15.4.0556.
  75. Weyl OLF, Ellender BR, Woodford DJ, Jordaan MS. Fish distributions in the Rondegat River, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa, and the immediate impact of rotenone treatment in an invaded reach. African J Aquat Sci. 2013;38(2):201-9. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2012.753401.
  76. Whitmore DH. Introgressive hybridization of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and Guadalupe bass (M. treculi). Copeia. 1983; 1983(3):672-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1444331.
  77. Wisconsin SeaGrant. Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). 2016. Accessed 12 Nov 2021.
  78. Xu H, Qiang S, Genovesi P, Ding H, Wu J, Meng L, et al. An inventory of invasive alien species in China. NeoBiota. 2012;15:1-26. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.15.3575.