Smart Prevention of Aquatic Invasive
Species in Wisconsin
M Jake Vander Zanden
M.
&
Jeffrey Maxted, Norman Mercado-Silva, Pieter Johnson, Julian Olden,
Scott Higgins, Katie Hein, Gretchen Hanson, Matt Kornis, John
Magnuson
Center for Limnology, UW-Madison
This work made possible by…
Funding:
• WI Department of Natural Resources
• Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
• Wisconsin Sea Grant
• Baldwin ‘Wisconsin Idea’ Endowment
• National Science Foundation (NTL-LTER)
• UW-Madison
Partners, colleagues, collaborators:
• Wisconsin Lakes Partnership
• Citizens Lake Monitoring Network
• Water Action Volunteers
• Great Lakes Indian, Fish, & Wildlife Commission
• Many,
Many many undergraduate students at UW
UW-Madison
Madison
• David Lodge & Lab
Intro
Olden (2006)
Rainbow smelt
Shedd Aquarium
Spiny water flea
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Zebra mussel
Round goby
Photo Credit: Jody Peters
Rusty crayfish
Thomas Simon
Chinese mystery
snail
“An ounce
o nce of pre
prevention
ention is
worth a p
pound of cure”
- Benjamin Franklin
How can we apply
pp y this wisdom to
management of aquatic invasive
species in Wisconsin?
AIS research at Center for
Limnology UW
Limnology,
UW-Madison
Madison
Goals
Goals:
Understanding aquatic invasive species spread
and impact
Translate this knowledge into targeted and more
cost-effective AIS prevention and management
Example: Identifying lakes that are ‘vulnerable’
vulnerable to specific
invasive species
What do we mean by ‘vulnerable’?
1 Colonization
1.
Can it get
there?
2 Establishment
2.
Can it establish
a population and
reproduce?
d
?
3 Impact
3.
Will it have
adverse impacts
on native
ti
species?
p
Lake vulnerability
lnerabilit Combination of these three factors
S
Smart
t prevention
ti Strategically
g
y direct management
g
and p
prevention
efforts to protect lakes that are vulnerable
Workshop led by Jeff Maxted Friday @ 9 AM
Vander Zanden, M.J. and J.D. Olden 2008 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
1 Rainbow Smelt
1.
• Small forage fish
• Invaded Great
Lakes, spreading to
inland lakes of
Wisconsin
• Big teeth!
Ecological
g
role
– prey
Adult walleye
Rainbow smelt
Ecological
g
role
– predator
Adult walleye
Rainbow smelt
Young walleye
walleye, perch
perch,
lake herring, rainbow smelt
Smelt reduce walleye
reproduction
30
Average age-0-W/km
age--0-W/km
25
20
15
10
5
0
Natural No Smelt
Stocked No Smelt
Mercado-Silva et al. 2007 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
Smelt
Application of ‘smart prevention’ to
rainbow smelt in Wisconsin
Mercado-Silva et al. 2006 Conservation Biology
Colonization
Can it gett
C
there?
All Lakes
5100
lakes
Can smelt
gett there?
th ?
2200
lakes
Establishment
Can it
establish a
population?
Can smelt
gett there?
th ?
2200
lakes
Can smelt
li th
live
there?
?
553
lakes
Impact
Will it have
adverse
impacts on
native
species?
Can smelt
li th
live
there?
?
553
lakes
Will smelt
have an
impact?
180
lakes
Where are
smelt
lt now?
?
24
lakes
Take home message for rainbow
smelt
• Rainbow smelt impact fisheries in
Wisconsin
• Only a small percentage of lakes are
currently invaded or ‘highly vulnerable’
• This knowledge provides guidance for
targeting management efforts to protect
vulnerable lakes
See talk by Chris Solomon (Thurs 3:00 PM)
2. Spiny water flea
Native to Eurasia
Large and predatory on
native zooplankton
Spiny – difficult for fish to
eat
Discovered in Gile Flowage
i 2003
in
Possible stepping
g stone to
the thousands of lakes of
the Northern Highlands
Lake District
Discovered in Stormy
Lake (Vilas County) in
2006
See poster by Samantha
Mueller Thurs PM
Map gile flowage
Predicting spiny water flea in Wisconsin
100000
Lake
e area (hecta
ares)
10000
Suitable for
Spiny water flea
1000
100
10
1
1
3
5
7
9
Secchi depth (m)
Threshold based on model of MacIsaac et al. 2000
11
13
15
3. Zebra mussel
Ecology and impacts - see talk
by Scott Higgins Thurs @ 4:20
50
Zebra
Z
b mussell
n = 527 lakes
45
Can support
zebra mussels
40
Ca (mg//l)
35
30
25
20
pH limited
15
10
pH and Ca2+ limited
5
Ca2+ limited
0
40
4.0
45
4.5
50
5.0
55
5.5
60
6.0
65
6.5
70
7.0
pH
75
7.5
80
8.0
85
8.5
90
9.0
95
9.5
All Lakes
1100
Zebra Mussel
Can it live
th ?
there?
460
Zebra Mussel
Where are
th now?
they
?
>90
Zebra Mussel
4 Round Goby
4.
Photo Credit: Jody Peters
Native to Black and Caspian Seas
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2003
Discovery: spread to
inland waters of
Wisconsin
26 of 73 watersheds (36%)
54 of 119 sites (45%)
Furthest inland: 34 km
~280 km of stream documented
as invaded
Kornis and Vander Zanden in review
Where will round
goby invade next?
42% (1,369 km)
identified as suitable
44% (8,878 km)
identified as suitable
For more info, see poster by
Matt Kornis
Kornis and Vander Zanden in review
5. Rusty crayfish
Thomas Simon
Rusty Crayfish
1982
2006
1970
441 sites sampled
65% off llakes
k
57% of streams
Rusty crayfish invasions
SUITABILITY
• Rusty crayfish tend to occupy small,
productive lakes with modified
shorelines
Olden et a
al. (2006, u
unpubl.)
INTRODUCTION
• Bait bucket release is the primary
transport vectors for crayfish
Rusty crayfish invasions
Olden et a
al. (2006, u
unpubl.)
VULNERABILITY
IMPACT
• Lake-specific vulnerability to the
• Invasions by rusty crayfish is
introduction, establishment and impact
associated with the local
of invasive rusty crayfish
extirpation
ti ti off two
t
native
ti crayfishes
fi h
Example: Rusty crayfish
invasions
5,164 lakes
1,350 lakes with
1+ boat landings
553 lakes that are
environmentalsuitable
1,255 lakes with 1+
at-risk species
358 highly
vul e ab l ty
vulnerability
lakes
Low crayfish abundance
Hi h crayfish
High
fi h abundance
b d
Karen Wilson
Eight years of rusty crayfish removal in
Sparkling Lake
• 158 acre lake in Vilas Co.
• Changed fishing regulations
to favor more and larger
g
smallmouth bass
• Intensive trapping for last
eight years
– 76,656
76 656 trapping days
– 91,930 rusty crayfish
removed
Rusty CPUE
Virilis CPUE
12.00
0.03
0.02
8.00
0.02
6.00
0 01
0.01
4.00
0.01
2 00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Virrilis CPUE
Rusty CPU
UE
10.00
From This…
Wilson, Roth, & Hein
To This…
Wilson, Roth, & Hein
Lessons from Sparkling Lake
experiment
i
• Trapping and fish predation caused a
population
p
p
collapse
p of rusty
y crayfish
y
• Aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates
recovered – ‘flipped’ lake back to a nonexotic dominated state.
• Is this non-exotic state ‘stable’? What
happens when we stop removal?
– See
S ttalk
lk by
b G
Gretchen
t h Hansen
H
(TH 3
3:25
25 PM)
6. Chinese Mystery
Snail
Carpenter Lake, Wisconsin, 2006
-Survey of ~ 45
Vilas and Oneida
County lakes
-Present
P
t in
i ~50%
50%
of lakes
Association
A
i ti with:
ith
-nutrient-rich lakes
-lakes close to a population center
-lakes with high shoreline housing density
Chinese Mystery Snail
-Remarkably widespread in northern WI
-Vectors
Vectors poorly understood
-Ecological impacts subtle and unclear
-More research is needed to determine
whether CMS are of management
concern
See poster by Chris Solomon Thurs PM
Bringing it together
• Impacts unfold within broader ecological and
food web context – highly site dependent
• Interactions among
g invaders
• Interactions with other forms of
environmental change
g
Dam invaders: Are impoundments more
vulnerable to invasion?
Johnson, P.T, J.D. Olden & M.J. Vander Zanden 2008. Front. Ecol. Environ.
Impoundments
p
are
over-invaded
over-invaded
Impoundments
are overover
80
Percen
ntage Inv
vaded
N=648
70
Natural Lakes
Impoundments
N=464
60
N=80
50
40
N=331
30
N=73
20
10
0
Spiny Water
Flea
Zebra
Mussel
Rainbow
Smelt
Rusty
Crayfish
Eurasian
Milfoil
Invader
Johnson, P.T, J.D. Olden & M.J. Vander Zanden 2008. Front. Ecol. Environ.
What to take away from all of this?
Each of these ‘big
big six’
six are a unique challenge for
Wisconsin’s lakes
Highlights the need to view each lake as part of a
broader and highly inter-connected landscape
Research in WI documenting spread and impact,
forecasts of future spread
This sort of understanding
g is the foundation for a
‘smart prevention’ approach for targeting
management and prevention programs
Big questions remain
How do we best translate knowledge about
vulnerability to on-the-ground action?
How do we allocate effort between containment and
protection?
How do we allocate effort among different invasive
species?
Th k you!!!
Thank
!!!
More information at:
http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel/jakevz/
p
gy
p
j
Vander Zanden et al. 2004. Ecol. Appl. 14: 132-148
LTER Crayfish Data
18
Rusty CPUE
Virilis CPUE
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Experiment begins
Virrilis CPUE
Rusty CP
R
PUE
16
1
0.9
0.8
07
0.7
0.6
0.5
04
0.4
0.3
0.2
01
0.1
0
Vulnerable sites:
Rainbow smelt
Vulnerable sites:
Rusty crayfish
Composite
Vulnerable sites:
Spiny water flea
Vulnerable sites:
Zebra mussel
•vulnerability to suite of
invaders
•‘hotspots’ of activity?
Spiny
p y water flea
Pieter Johnson, Center for Limnology
50
Rusty Crayfish
n = 527 lakes
45
40
35
Ca (mg
g/l)
30
Can support
rusty crayfish
25
20
15
10
pH limited
5
Ca2+ limited
0
40
4.0
45
4.5
50
5.0
pH and Ca2+ limited
55
5.5
60
6.0
65
6.5
70
7.0
pH
75
7.5
80
8.0
85
8.5
90
9.0
95
9.5
Rusty
y crayfish
y
potential for
expansion
p
is high.
g
> 85% of WI lakes
Whole-lake rusty crayfish
removal Sparkling Lake
removal,
16
removal
begins
2001
12
8
4
0
16
12
8
4
0
Daily Catch Rate
e
• Massive decline in
catch rate
• Subsequent
q
recovery of
macrophytes, snails,
Lepomis, inverts
2002
16
2003
12
Males
Females
8
4
0
16
2004
12
8
4
0
16
2005
12
8
4
0
June 8
June 28
July 18
August 7 August 27
Long-term study of rusty crayfish
in Trout Lake,
Lake Vilas County
Massive declines in:
• Aquatic plants
• Bluegill and pumpkinseed
• Snails
S il
• Aquatic insects
• Native crayfish
Wilson et al. 2004 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
60
Perrcentage
e Invade
ed
Natural Lakes
50
Impoundments
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
Number of Invaders
3
Personal actions
Inspect boat and remove plants
Drain water
Dispose of bait in trash
Zebra mussel
• Fouls water intakes and equipment
• Filters
Filt
phytoplankton,
h t l kt
causes overgrowth
th off
bottom algae
• Increased
I
d blue-green
bl
algae
l
bl
blooms
• Avian botulism