Finding Nemesis: Study Eyes Aquarium Trade’s Role in Invasive Species

A new UC Davis report concludes that data and education, and not regulation, were the best options for managing the risk of potential invasive aquatic species in the aquarium trade becoming established off the California coast.

“Unlike some other vectors, we can easily prevent unwanted introductions from the aquarium trade,” said the report’s lead author, Susan Williams, of UC Davis’s Bodego Marine Laboratory. “Aquarium hobbyists can follow some simple practices — like ‘Don’t dump your aquarium’ — to avoid releasing aquarium species into natural water where they can become an expensive and harmful pest.”

Aquatic Invasive Species Vector Risk Assessments: A Vector Analysis ofthe Aquarium and Aquascape (‘Ornamental Species’) Trades in California, completed in July 2012 and released this week to the California Ocean Protection Council, a state agency charged with maintaining healthy coastal ecosystems, offered several recommendations, most of which fall under a broader goal of centralizing data for industry, government and researchers.

Moreover, the report stated that is was “critical” to involve the ornamental aquarium industry in shaping and implementing recommendations.

The report was one of six coordinated by the Ocean Science Trust, a non-profit organization, looking at relatively un-understood potential pathways for invasive species. The other reportsfocused on recreational boating, fishing (both recreational and commercial), aquaculture and live seafood. More common pathways such as ballast water from freighters are considered well understood and were not part of this OST project.

That the ornamental aquarium trade is a potential pathway should not surprise anyone in the pet industry. Indeed, the trade is frequently, and sometimes unfairly (for example, by animal rights advocates that believe fish-keeping is inherently cruel), blamed for invasive species introductions.

What may surprise some is how few aquatic invasive species introductions were associated with the trade. This report found 13 species in the aquarium trade had been introduced to California waters in the 158 years between 1853 and 2011. Of those 13 introductions, only two were definitively linked (by the study) to the ornamental trade. In the other introductions, the report noted that other pathways could have been the cause.

However, because the species in nine of those 13 introductions became firmly established, the report concluded that the aquarium trade pathway warranted attention.

“Although relatively few aquarium species have been introduced compared to species in other pathways, such as ballast water, they are highly successful because they’re grown to be hardy and robust,” Williams said. “They have to be tough to survive in the trade.”

Not sure how may fish keepers and dealers are smirking at that thought as they read it, but such hardy species would seem to be a boon for the hobby, where early success is considered critical to keeping novices in the hobby. And while the aquatics sector may be rebounding from recent lulls, it is by no means robust by historical standards.

In a statement that strained credibility, the report said aquarium-keeping was the second most popular hobby, following only photography. Again, fish dealers are likely wondering just how “hobby” was defined and why video games, wild bird feeding and watching, and gardening, to name just three, didn’t dwarf aquarium-keeping.

The report identified 34 species of concern for California, compared with 179 species identified shipping into San Francisco on one single day. The reason for this is that most species in the aquarium trade are tropical and could not survive the “temperate” water temperatures of California. The water is too darn cold. It should also be noted that a tremendous amount of ornamental aquatic organisms ship through California due to trade routes of air freight around the Pacific Rim.

 

Study authors fear the lionfish could become
established as far north as San Francisco.

Of those 34 species, the authors were mostly concerned with Caulerpa taxifolia, a seaweed that can be found on live rock, and lionfish, which has become established off the East Coast.  
 

The aquarium industry has been blamed for the East Coast infestation, despite reports of dive operators supplementing the population to boost business (i.e., seeing an unexpected and exotic species on a dive generates more dives). While the lionfish has not been introduced in California waters, the report speculated that it would be able to establish itself as far north as San Francisco if it were.

The aquarium industry has also been blamed for two Caulerpa introductions off California, both eradicated but at significant expense (an estimated $6 million, plus loss of significant native flora and fauna).

Needless to say, invasive species are a major concern for the pet industry and it needs to cooperate and participate in efforts to manage risk.

“From the hobbyist or industry side, it is really hard to figure out the rules and regulations for holding live organisms in the state — for importing, possessing and trading them,” Williams said. “So one of our conclusions is that a more centralized information and permitting system would benefit the regulators, industry and hobbyists, and enable scientists to collect more information and better assess the risk.”

Among the report’s specific short-term recommendations (within two years) are enforcing labeling requirements for importations, enhancing the visibility and accessibility of web information on importation of live species to California, implementing a ‘Don’t release’ campaign, cross-training inspection agents on Caulerpa taxifolia; listing lionfish as a restricted species by all of its Latin and common names; and enhancing regulation of internet sales through the use of web crawlers.

The report noted that the Habitattitude program, an industry-government effort designed to educate hobbyists not to release aquatic specimens into native waters, fell short of expectations primarily because smaller aquarium shops were less likely to be members of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council  and were not aware of the program and did not participate.

The report also found that government inspectors were generally unaware that Caulerpa taxifolia could grow on live rock, so even though it’s illegal to import the plant into the state, inspectors didn’t know what to look for.

But a bigger problem, according to the report, is internet sales of restricted species. These transactions generally avoid inspection or detection. Moreover, because of the lack of centralized information regarding regulated species, participants in these sales may not know they’re engaged in unlawful activities.

The report’s intermediate-term recommendations (2-5 years) included requiring reporting volume of importations in standard units, preferably as individuals; requiring information on trans-shipping of importations on state and federal permits; requiring reporting of Restricted Species in possession; digitizing and centralizing a database on species regulated within both California (including local to state level) and the U.S.;  centralizing authority for regulation of invasive species in California; and providing sufficient resources to support agency mandates (e.g., a surcharge for importations of live organisms or purchases of non-indigenous species).

These intermediate recommendations would increase the cost of doing business for the trade and, presumably, the cost of aquarium species.

The report’s longer-term recommendations included conducting a cross-vector risk assessment;

providing more support for, and higher numbers of, USFWS inspection and enforcement

agents in California and nationally; collaborating with the ornamental industry to certify aquarium stores for sustainable collecting and best management practices; and rectifying California non-indigenous species listings with federal listings to streamline agency workloads and foster highly successful cooperation across agencies.

The report also recommended further research into a variety of issues, including

internet availability of ornamental marine species;the feasibility of ‘white lists’ and ‘black lists’ for ornamental marine species; analyzing marine aquarist behaviors in California to estimate the probabilities of release and other determinants of the probability of introduction and possible incentives to reduce the risk; regular surveys of non-indigenous marine species in California, with better coverage of critical habitats (seagrass, kelp); investigating the diversity (richness, numbers of individuals) of species imported or trans-shipped as live rock; and economic impact assessments of the aquarium trade.

 

The aquarium trade represents a $1 billion a year global industry, the report said.