Document 1 Proposal for imo ballast Water Management Convention a-4 Target Species selection criteria


Target species selection: the procedure



Yüklə 252,73 Kb.
səhifə4/6
tarix11.04.2018
ölçüsü252,73 Kb.
#37453
1   2   3   4   5   6

5.3Target species selection: the procedure


The preparation of a TS list requires the following categories of information:

  1. Pathway of spread (see questions 1-2 in 5.2 above and on Figure 2 below)

  2. Ecology of the species in the given LME (see question 3 in 5.2 above and on Figure 2 below)

  3. Impacts (see questions 4-11 in 5.2 above and on Figure 2 below).

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the flow procedure for selecting the list of TS that pose an unacceptable risk. Numbers denote the selection criteria (see point 5.3 above). Solid line corresponds to the progress in the procedure where the answer to a particular question is ‘YES’ while the dotted line corresponds to a ‘NO’ answer.


6Testing the system


The proposed system was tested at two levels: LME-level and the port-to-port level. The test case for the LME level was NIS/CS of the LME number 23 (the Baltic Sea). The port-to-port test was performed for both intra LME level (the Baltic Sea) as well as between two LME’s (Celtic seas and the Baltic Sea).

6.1Preliminary list of NIS/CS target species for the LME 23 (Baltic Sea)


The proposed framework was tested for its utility in selecting the list of species that pose a potentially unacceptable risk based on the recently updated Baltic Sea NIS/CS data on 64 established taxa (AquaNIS 2015) t this constitutes a reservoir of species that might be transmitted by ships’ ballast water and ballast sediments for consideration when assessing different ports within the Baltic Sea. From the initial analysis of the 64 taxa a little more than half (36 taxa) should be included into the TS list. This is because these pose either a direct or potentially unacceptable risk. Five species were removed as these were unlikely to have a life history stage that could be entrained while ballasting (Step 2; Question: Is there a potential for an unacceptable risk for the species to become entrained in ballast tanks?). Twelve species were removed at Step 3 (Question: Is there a potential for unacceptable risk for the species to be spread further by ballast water [major sub-regions/countries] within the selected assessment area?), and eleven species that did not pose an unacceptable risk for the different impact stages were removed (Step 11). The results are displayed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Preliminary Baltic Sea NIS/CS TS list for the internal-LME shipping activities. Taxa posing potentially unacceptable risk are shaded. For the numbers of each risk assessment criterion see section 5.3 above.

No

Species

Unacceptable risk (RA criteria no.)

Acceptable risk (RA criteria no.)

Reference for the decision

1

Acartia (Acanthacartia) tonsa

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

2

Alitta succinea

 

11

Expert judgement

3

Alkmaria romijni

 

11

Expert judgement

4

Amphibalanus improvisus

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

5

Anguillicoloides crassus

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

6

Boccardiella ligerica

 

11

Expert judgement

7

Bonnemaisonia hamifera

9a

 

 TBD

8

Carassius gibelio

9a,b

 

Zaiko et al 2011; Lusk et al. 2004; Vetemaa et al. 2005

9

Cercopagis (Cercopagis) pengoi

6c; 8a,b

 

Ojaveer, Kotta 2015

10

Chaetoceros cf. lorenzianus

8b

 

 TBD

11

Chaetogammarus warpachowskyi

9b

 

 Zaiko et al 2011

12

Chara connivens

9a

 

Ojaveer, Kotta 2015

13

Chelicorophium curvispinum

8a; 9a

 

Ojaveer, Kotta 2015; Grabowski et al. 2007

14

Cordylophora caspia

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

15

Dasya baillouviana

8a; 9a

 

 Zaiko et al 2011

16

Dikerogammarus haemobaphes

9b

 

 Grabowski et al. 2007; Zaiko et al. 2011

17

Dikerogammarus villosus

8a; 9a

 

Grabowski et al. 2006, 2007; Van der Velde et al. 2000

18

Dreissena polymorpha

7a; 8a,b

 

 Ojaveer, Kotta 2015; Zaiko et al. 2011

19

Elodea canadensis

 

3b

 TBD

20

Ensis directus

9a; 11a

 

Gollasch et al. 2015

21

Evadne anonyx

9a

 

Zaiko et al. 2011

22

Ficopomatus enigmaticus

7a; 9a

 

Schwindt, Obenat 2005; Jenner et al., 1998

23

Fucus evanescens

9a

 

 Zaiko et al 2011

24

Gammarus tigrinus

8a

 

Grabowski et al. 2007; Ojaveer, Kotta 2015

25

Gmelinoides fasciatus

8a

 

 TBD

26

Gracilaria vermiculophylla

8a

 

 TBD

27

Hemimysis anomala

9a

 

 Dick et al., 2013; Ketelaaars et al., 1999; Zaiko et al. 2011

28

Karenia mikimotoi

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

29

Laonome sp.

8a,b

 

Kotta et al. 2015

30

Limnomysis benedeni

8a

 

Zaiko et al. 2011

31

Lithoglyphus naticoides

 

2

AquaNIS 2015

32

Marenzelleria spp.

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

33

Mnemiopsis leidyi

7a; 9a

 

Oguz et al. 2008

34

Mya arenaria

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

35

Mytilopsis leucophaeata

9a

 

 Zaiko et al. 2011

36

Neogobius melanostomus

8a,b; 9a

 

Ustups et al. 2015; Ojaveer et al., 2015

37

Obesogammarus crassus

8a

 

Grabowski et al. 2006; Zaiko et al. 2011

38

Oncorhynchus mykiss

 

2

AquaNIS 2015

39

Orchestia cavimana

 

2

AquaNIS 2015

40

Palaemon elegans

9a,b

 

Katajisto et al. 2013; Zaiko et al. 2011

41

Paramysis (Mesomysis) intermedia

9a

 

 TBD

42

Paramysis (Serrapalpisis) lacustris

8a

 

 Zaiko et al. 2011

43

Paranais frici

 

11

Expert judgement

44

Paratenuisentis ambiguus

7b; 9b

 

 TBD

45

Penilia avirostris

 

11

Expert judgement

46

Perccottus glenii

9a

 

 Zaiko et al. 2011

47

Petricolaria pholadiformis

 

11

Expert judgement

48

Platorchestia platensis

 

2

AquaNIS 2015

49

Pontogammarus robustoides

8a

 

Grabowski et al. 2007; Ojaveer, Kotta 2015

50

Potamopyrgus antipodarum

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

51

Potamothrix bedoti

 

11

Expert opinion

52

Potamothrix heuscheri

 

11

Expert opinion

53

Potamothrix vejdovskyi

 

11

Expert opinion

54

Prorocentrum minimum

 

3a

AquaNIS 2015

55

Pseudodactylogyrus anguillae

7a; 8a

 

 Buchmann et al. 1987

56

Pseudodactylogyrus bini

7a; 9a

 

 Buchmann et al. 1987

57

Rangia cuneata

9b

 

 Janas et al. 2014

58

Rhithropanopeus harrisii

8a,b

 

Forsström et al. 2015, Nurkse et al. 2015, Aarnio et al. 2015

59

Sargassum muticum

 

3b

 TBD

60

Telmatogeton japonicus

 

2

AquaNIS 2015

61

Teredo navalis

6a

 

 TBD

62

Thalassiosira punctigera

 

3b

 TBD

63

Tubificoides pseudogaster

 

11

Expert judgement

64

Victorella pavida

 

11

Expert judgement


References

Aarnio K, Törnroos A, Björklund C, Bonsdorff E (2015) Food web positioning of a recent coloniser: the North American Harris mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould, 1841) in the northern Baltic Sea (in press) Aquatic Invasions 10(4).

AquaNIS. Editorial Board, 2015. Information system on Aquatic Non-Indigenous and Cryptogenic Species. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.corpi.ku.lt/databases/aquanis. Version 2.36+. Accessed 2015-08-04. www.corpi.ku.lt/databases/aquanis

Buchmann, K., Mellegaard S., and Koie, M. 1987. Pseudodactylogyrus infections in eel: a review. Diseases of aquatic organisms 3: 51-57

Dick JTA, Gallagher K, Avlijas S, Clarke HC, Lewis SE, Leung S, Minchin D, Caffrey J, Alexander ME, Farnsworth KD, Penk M, Ricciardi A (2012). Ecological impacts of an invasive predator explained and predicted by comparative functional responses. Biological Invasions 15: 837-846.

Forsström, T., Fowler, A.E., Manninen I. and Vesaskoki, O., 2015. An introduced species meets the local fauna: predatory behavior of the crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii in the Northern Baltic Sea. Biological Invasions (in press)

Gollasch, S., Kerckhof, F., Craeymeersch, J., Goulletquer, P., Jensen, K., Jelmert, A. and Minchin, D. 2015. Alien Species Alert: Ensis directus. Current status of invasions by the marine bivalve Ensis directus. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 323. 32 pp.

Grabowski M, Konopacka A, Jazdzewski K, Janowska E. 2006. Invasions of alien gammarid species and retreat of natives in the Vistula Lagoon (Baltic Sea, Poland) Helgoland Marine Research 60; 90-97.

Grabowski M, Krzysztof Jażdżewski and Alicja Konopacka. 2007. Alien Crustacea in Polish waters – Amphipoda. Aquatic Invasions 2 25-38.

Haas G, Brunke M, Strei B, 2002. Fast turnover in dominance of exotic species in the Rhine River determines biodiversity and ecosystem function: an affair between amphipods and mussels. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe: Distribution, Impacts and Management [ed. by Leppakoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin] Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 426-432.

Janas U, Halina Kendzierska, Anna H. Dąbrowska and Anna Dziubińska. 2014. Non-indigenous bivalve − the Atlantic rangia Rangia cuneata − in the Wisła Śmiała River (coastal waters of the Gulf of Gdańsk, the southern Baltic Sea). Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies 43: 427-430

Katajisto, T., Jonne Kotta, Maiju Lehtiniemi, Stanislaw A. Malavin and Vadim E. Panov. 2013. Palaemon elegans Rathke, 1837 (Caridea: Palaemonoidea: Palaemonidae) established in the Gulf of Finland. Bioinvasion Records.

Ketelaars HAM, Lambregts-van de Clundert FE, Carpentier CJ, Wagenvoort AJ, Hoogenboezem W. 1999. Ecological effects of the mass occurrence of the Ponto-Caspian invader, Hemimysis anomala G.O. Sars, 1907 (Crustacea: Mysidacea), in a freshwater storage reservoir in the Netherlands, with notes on its autecology and new records. Hydrobiologia, 394:233-248.

Kotta J, Bick A, Bastrop R, Väinölä R and Kotta I. 2015. Description and ecology of the invasive polychaete Laonome armata sp. nov. (Sabellida, Sabellidae) in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Invasions 10 (in press).

Lusk S., Koščo J., Lusková V., Halačka K. & Košuth P. 2004: Alien fish species in the floodplains of the Dyje and the Bodrog rivers. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 4: 199–205.

Nurkse, K., Jonne Kotta, Helen Orav-Kotta, Merli Pärnoja and Ivan Kuprijanov. 2015. Laboratory analysis of the habitat occupancy of the crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould) in an invaded ecosystem: The north-eastern Baltic Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 154:152-257

Oguz, T, Fach, B and Salihoglu, B. 2008. Invasion dynamics of the alien ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its impact on anchovy collapse in the Black Sea. Journal of Plankton Research, 30: 1385-1397.

Ojaveer, H., Bella S. Galil, Maiju Lehtiniemi, Mads Christoffersen, Sally Clink, Ann-Britt Florin, Piotr Gruszka, Riikka Puntila and.Jane W. Behrens. 2015. Twenty five years of invasion: management of the round goby Neogobius melanostomus in the Baltic Sea. Management of Biological Invasions (in press)

Ojaveer H, Kotta J 2015. Ecosystem impacts of the widespread non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea: literature survey evidences major limitations in knowledge. Hydrobiologia 750: 171–185

Ustups, D., U. Bergströmb, A.B. Florin, E. Kruze, D. Zilniece, D. Elferts, E. Knospina and D. Uzars. 2015. Diet overlap between juvenile flatfish and the invasive round goby in the central Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research (in press).

Van der Velde G, Rajagopal S, Kelleher B, Musko IB, Bij de Vaate A (2000) Ecological impact of crustacean invaders: General cosiderations and examples from the Rhine River. In: von Vaupel Klein JC, Schram FR (eds) The biodiversity crisis and Crustacea, Proceedings of the 4th International Crustacean Congress 2, Brill, Leiden, Crustacean issues 12:3–34.

Vetemaa, M., Eschbaum, R., Albert, A., Saat, T., 2005. Distribution, sex ratio and growth of Carassius gibelio (Bloch) in coastal and inland waters of Estonia (north-eastern Baltic Sea). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 21, 287–291.

Zaiko A., Lehtiniemi M., Narscius A. and Olenin S. 2011. Assessment of bioinvasion impacts on a regional scale: a comparative approach. Biological Invasions 13: 1739-1765.


Yüklə 252,73 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə