Risk screening of non‐native, translocated and traded aquarium freshwater fishes in Greece using Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit

Abstract

The invasion of non‐indigenous freshwater fish species is one of the most important threats to aquatic biodiversity. Similar to other Mediterranean countries, Greece is considered a hot spot for freshwater biodiversity, with many range‐restricted endemics of high conservation concern. The aim of this study was to undertake a risk screening assessment to evaluate the invasive potential of non‐native, translocated and traded aquarium fishes in Greece by applying the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK). In total, 73 freshwater fish species were evaluated by two assessors. FISK was able to discriminate reliably between invasive and non‐invasive species with a threshold of 15.25. Based on mean scores, 30 species were classified as ‘high risk’, of which 17 as ‘moderately high risk’, six as ‘high risk’ and seven as ‘very high risk’. There was a high coincidence rate for the species categorisation between the two assessors, but significant differences in certainty. The results suggest that FISK is a useful tool for assessing risks posed by non‐native, translocated and traded aquarium fish species in Greece.

Comparison of Taxon‐Specific and Taxon‐Generic Risk Screening Tools to Identify Potentially Invasive Non‐native Fishes in the River Neretva Catchment (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia)

“…In its application to the Balkans Region (Simonović et al , ), a high rate of fish translocations into newly constructed reservoirs was reported, and this was the likely cause of the relatively low threshold FISK score achieved (Copp, ), which distinguishes between ‘medium‐risk’ and ‘high‐risk’ species, compared with areas with a similar level of endemism, namely, the Iberian Peninsula (threshold = 20.25: Almeida et al , ) and Turkey (threshold = 23: Tarkan et al , ). In two other FISK‐based risk screenings for Croatia and Slovenia (threshold = 11.75: Piria et al , ) and for Greece (threshold = 15.25: Perdikaris et al , ), threshold values were also strongly affected by the impact of fish translocated from the Danube Basin to inland waters of the Mediterranean Region. Certain ‘exotic’ non‐native fish species from more distant zoogeographic areas were categorized as posing a ‘very‐high risk’, such as Asian gibel carp Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782), gin‐buna Carassius langsdorfii Temminck and Schlegel, 1846, and goldfish Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758), as well as the North American ictalurids black bullhead Ameiurus melas Rafinesque, 1820, and brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Lesueur, 1819.…”

Handling Big Data of Alien Species in Europe: The European Alien Species Information Network Geodatabase

“…The EASIN Geodatabase has been used to support scientific research on biological invasions, addressing (a) distribution patterns (Katsanevakis et al, 2013b,c), (b) pathways and gateways of introduction (Katsanevakis et al, 2013cNunes et al, 2014Nunes et al, , 2015Essl et al, 2015;Roques, 2015;Pergl et al, 2017;Tsiamis et al, 2017a), (c) risk and impact assessments of invasive species Perdikaris et al, 2016), and (d) Horizon Scanning exercises (Roy et al, 2015). European Alien Species Information Network constitutes the core information system supporting MS in the implementation of the IAS Regulation (EU, 2014, Art.…”

Alien freshwater fish species in the Balkans—Vectors and pathways of introduction

“…In the current study, 33.17% of all introduced fishes were found to be widespread. The most widespread species are gibel carp, pumpkinseed, brown bullhead ( Ameiurus nebulosus , Ictaluridae), Eastern mosquitofish and topmouth gudgeon, due to their high invasive potential (Perdikaris et al., ; Piria et al., b; Simonović et al., ). Species with a moderate distribution (15.38%) include the monkey goby ( Neogobius fluviatilis , Gobiidae) and bighead goby ( Ponticola kessleri , Gobiidae) in Croatia, the goldfish in Albania and Greece and the silver and bighead carp in most countries.…”

“…Outside its natural distribution range, the pirapitinga is most common in the open waters of the USA, due to aquarium related releases and fish farm escapes (Nico & Fuller, ). Pirapitinga have also been recorded in Europe: in Spain (Leunda, ), Slovakia (Hensel, ), Poland (Nowak, Szczerbik, Tatoj, & Popek, ), Croatia (Ćaleta, Tutman et al., ), Montenegro (D. Mrdak, personal communication) and Greece (2012), where it was possibly misidentified as red piranha Pygocentrus nattereri Kner, 1858 (Perdikaris et al., ), which still requires clarification (L. Vardakas, pers comm). All these individuals are assumed to have been released by aquarists, and their establishment and impact are completely unknown (Froese & Pauly, ).…”

“…where it was possibly misidentified as red piranha Pygocentrus nattereri Kner, 1858 (Perdikaris et al, 2016), which still requires clarification (L. Vardakas, pers comm). All these individuals are assumed to have been released by aquarists, and their establishment and impact are completely unknown (Froese & Pauly, 2015).…”