SARDI Aquatics Sciences
PO Box 120 Henley Beach SA 5022
May 2014

DRAFT
May 2014
II

DRAFT
This publication may be cited as:
Deveney, M. and Beyer, K. (2014). Assessing the risks associated with the Australian trade in live ornamental fish species: development of a risk assessment tool. Report to Freshwater
Fish Working Group of National Biosecurity Committee. South Australian Research and
Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2014/000000-
1. SARDI Research Report Series No. ###. ###pp.
South Australian Research and Development Institute
SARDI Aquatic Sciences
2 Hamra Avenue
West Beach SA 5024
Telephone: (08) 8207 5400
Facsimile: (08) 8207 5406
http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au
DISCLAIMER
The authors warrant that they have taken all reasonable care in producing this report. The report has been through the SARDI internal review process, and has been formally approved for release by the Research Chief, Aquatic Sciences. Although all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure quality, SARDI does not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions. SARDI does not accept any liability for the contents of this report or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. The SARDI Report Series is an Administrative Report Series which has not been reviewed outside the department and is not considered peer-reviewed literature. Material presented in these Administrative Reports may later be published in formal peer-reviewed scientific literature.
© 2014 SARDI
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owner. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission.
Printed in Adelaide: #### 2014
SARDI Publication No. F2014/000000-1
SARDI Research Report Series No. ###
Author(s):
Reviewer(s):
Approved by:
Marty Deveney, Kathleen Beyer
Signed:
Date:
Distribution:
Circulation:
SAASC Library, University of Adelaide Library, Parliamentary Library,
State Library and National Library
Public Domain
III

DRAFT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................
VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................
1
1.
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................
2
2.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................
3
2.1.
Background..................................................................................................................
3
3.
DEVELOPMENT OF RISK QUERIES .................................................................................
7
3.1. Assessment of the likelihood of release .......................................................................
7
3.2. Assessment of the likelihood of invasion ......................................................................
8
3.3.
Assessment of consequence ......................................................................................
13
3.4. Scoring and risk analysis methodology .......................................................................
18
4.
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................
20
4.1.
Likelihood of release ...................................................................................................
20
4.2.
Likelihood of invasion ..................................................................................................
21
4.3.
Consequence assessment ..........................................................................................
22
5.
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................
25
6.
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................
26
7.
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................
33
7.1. Appendix 1: Risk queries, significance and guidance. .................................................
33
7.2.
Appendix 2: Scoring. ...................................................................................................
43
IV

DRAFT
Table 1. The 11 fish species initially screened…………………………………………………...5
Table 2. The 6 fish species chosen by the TWG…………………………………………………6
Table 3. Results of the assessments and the total score for test species used to calibrate the risk assessment tool……………………………………………………………………………19
V

DRAFT
We are grateful to the former Ornamental Fish Management and Implementation Group
(OFMIG: now Freshwater Fish Working Group) and the OFMIG Technical Working Group
(TWG) for their support of this project. This project was funded through OFMIG by the
Australian State and Territory Governments and the Commonwealth Department for
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC), and the
Department for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) through the Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council. Phill Cassey and Pablo Garcia Diez (The University of
Adelaide) provided valuable input on this project. We are grateful to [Reviewer 1] and
[Reviewer 2] at SARDI for comments on a draft of this report.
VI

DRAFT
In 2006 a working group of Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council
(NRMMC) released a document called the Strategic Approach to the Management of
Ornamental Fish in Australia that included two lists, a national noxious fish list, and a grey list. The grey list of species originally consisted of 778 non-native fish species, believed to already be in circulation in Australia. The NRMMC established the
Ornamental Fish Management Implementation Group (OFMIG), which with its
Technical Working Group (TWG) has evaluated grey list using the BRS Grey List
Review Methodology. The resulting high risk and/or borderline species were prioritised for further detailed and robust risk assessment. This project was initiated by the OFMIG, whose functions and responsibilities, including oversight of the development and application of this risk assessment tool, were taken over by the national Freshwater Fish Working Group in 2011.
This project aimed to develop a robust risk assessment tool for the assessment of grey listed species believed to be in the Australian ornamental fish trade. The
Freshwater Invasiveness Scoring Kit (FISK) and the Invasive Fish Risk Assessment
(IFRA) were used as guidelines, and an industry and hobby based Technical
Working Group was consulted through the development of the tool. A set of risk queries was developed and 11 ornamental fish species: Carassius auratus, Anabas testudineus, Paracheirodon axelrodi, Scleropages formosus , Betta splendens ,
Geophagus brasiliensis , Labidochromis ceruleus , Pterogoplichthys pardalis ,
Synodontis eupterus , Polypterus ornatipinnis and Amatitlania nigrofasciata , reflecting a spread of taxa and perceived risk profiles were assessed. Scores generated by the tool for ornamental fish species across a range of perceived invasiveness suggests that species naturally fall into three levels of risk. It is acknowledged that this may be problematic, and the thresholds may require some adjustment for management applications. The tool identified C. auratus , Anabas testudineus and P. pardalis as high risk, G. brasiliensis and Amatitlania nigrofasciata as moderate risk and
Paracheirodon axelrodi, S. formosus , B. splendens , L. ceruleus , Synodontis eupterus and Polypterus ornatipinnis as low risk. The scoring system in the assessment can be utilised to provide a robust management tool to facilitate development of management strategies for ornamental fish in Australian States and Territories.
1

Term
Colonisation
Dispersal
Establishment
Fish introduction
Introduction
Invasion
Invasive species
Lag phase
Migration
Definition
Dissemination of a species from its point of introduction.
The process by which an introduced species reproduces and forms populations.
DRAFT
Natural dispersal of an established population resulting in its range expansion.
Processes by which a novel fish species is released into a water body.
The deliberate or accidental release of a species into a locality in which it did not occur.
The process whereby an introduced species has established and spread.
An introduced species that has completed its invasive pathway; it has been introduced, survived, established and dispersed.
Period between first introduction and start of invasion.
Fish migrate on a regular basis, on daily to annually or longer time scales, and over distances from a few metres to thousands of the fulfilment of their life cycle.
kilometres. Fish migrate because of diet or reproductive as part of
Native Species
A species that occurs in a locality as the result of only natural processes and is a member of the natural biotic community.
Naturalisation
The process whereby an established species develops persistent populations.
A species species foreign to the geographic area under discussion
Non-native species (often used synonymously with the terms exotic , non-indigenous
Spreading and alien ).
A species expanding its range.
Stocking
The release of a species into a specific water (i.e. river, lake, pond etc.) following its initial introduction.
Translocation The human assisted movement of a species.
2

DRAFT
The risks posed by non-native species associated with the live ornamental fish trade are a growing concern at a global scale (Whittington and Chong 2007). Non-native species introductions threaten biodiversity, the integrity of ecosystems, economically important industries and the communities that rely on them (Diamond 1985;
Williamson 1996; Gozlan and Newton 2009). The ecological and economic costs of invasion are high (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Davis et al. 2011). The economic value of the ornamental fish industry is huge (Whittington and Chong 2007) and pets have great social value (Fitzgerald 1986), providing strong incentives for ongoing trade (Gozlan 2008; Gozlan and Newton 2009). World Trade Organisation Members, furthermore, are obliged not to arbitrarily interrupt trade, although the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (United Nations 1992) and the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) (WTO 1995) provide a framework in which traderestrictive measures can be introduced in response to defined risks. To inform management responses that mitigate risks associated with the live ornamental fish trade, a variety of risk assessment frameworks for non-native species have been developed (Leung and Dudgeon 2008; Copp et al. 2009).
In Australia, a working group of Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council developed the ‗ Strategic Approach to the Management of Ornamental Fish in
Australia’ (DAFF 2006) incorporating two lists of species: a list of noxious species
(the Prohibited List), for which importation and possession is proscribed, and a list of species and genera which are potentially noxious (the ‗Grey List‘). Grey List species regarded as likely to be in circulation in Australia by industry and technical experts were deemed to require further scientific and technical consideration to inform appropriate management of risks associated with trading them. The review of these species is considered a matter of national priority. OFMIG was originally tasked with addressing this issue. In 2011, after OFMIG ceased to exist, the National Freshwater
Fish Working Group (which reports to the Vertebrate Pest Committee), was tasked to complete the ornamental fish tasks formerly under the OFMIG, including finalisation of the development of this risk assessment tool.
A basic pre-assessment tool developed by The Bureau of Rural Sciences was used to allocate scores and a subsequent risk level to non-native fish species (Fredberg and McNeil 2010). This tool has been used to assess species listed in the Grey List
3

DRAFT currently containing 778 non-native fish species. The TWG prioritised the Grey List species that were identified as high risk and/or borderline according to user group interest. High priority species are to undergo a detailed and robust risk assessment to clarify their risk status.
This project developed a robust risk assessment tool to assess species in the
Australian ornamental fish trade.
A risk analysis estimates risk associated with a hazard using a quantitative, semiquantitative or qualitative approach. The risk, in this context, is a combination of the likelihood of a negative event occurring (such as the establishment of a population of non-native fish or new disease agent in Australia) and the consequence of that event. Assessments compare the overall risk to the level of risk deemed acceptable.
For import risk analysis this is the importing country or region‘s appropriate level of protection (ALOP) (WTO 1995; Biosecurity Australia 2011). Mitigation measures and their efficacy also need to be considered when assessing risk. Achieving zero risk for any hazard is not tenable (Biosecurity Australia 2011) and the SPS Agreement requires informed risk management (WTO, 1995) rather than arbitrary controls that reduce risk to zero. Australian States and Territories generally use the National interpretation of the ALOP to ensure equivalence in risk mitigation measures between different levels of government. Australia‘s ALOP is not substantially relevant to this assessment, but we use ―very low risk‖ as a base level of acceptability to inform guidelines for interpretation of risk and its mitigation.
This risk assessment follows the framework in the Australia and New Zealand
Standard for Risk Management (AS/NZS ISO 31000-2009) (the Standard). The methodology used in this analysis also considers the methodology used by the
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS - now Department of Agriculture
Biosecurity) in its import risk analyses on aquatic animal commodities (AQIS 1999).
The risk assessment was tailored to the Australian domestic ornamental fish trade and examines environmental and associated risks and provides an assessment of the overall level of risk associated with individual ornamental fish species. The risk assessment tool is environmentally based, but considers social, human health and commercial implications. It is ISO standard compliant, incorporating appropriate considerations (including those resulting from consultation with the user groups through the former OFMIG and its TWG) to achieve well informed, supportable results.
4

DRAFT
The tool we developed was tested using 11 fish species, which were chosen because they were perceived to span the range of risk from low to high and data were available to calibrate and validate the tool. This demonstrated if the tool required modification, facilitated calibration of the score ranges using fish that have well-described invasive traits and whose biology is sufficiently well understood to be able to respond to all the risk queries. The risk assessment tool can be used to assess the risk posed by any fish species associated with the ornamental fish trade.
The risk assessment incorporates an estimation of the likelihood of release, the likelihood of invasion and an assessment of consequence (EPPO 2000; Copp et al
2009). By using this combined, ISO standard compliant methodology, with calibrated ranges for the risk query score, we removed some biases inherent in other risk analysis systems for fish invasiveness which incorporate multiple queries that score the same risk factors. It also maintains clear separation between likelihood and consequence rather than including queries that include components of both factors, making the analysis more likely to be compliant with administrative requirements that justify trade restrictive measures.
During the development of queries and coding (weighting) of the answer categories
11 fish species (Table 1) were initially investigated for assessment and the five most suitable species were analysed using all risk queries.
Table 1. The 11 fish species initially screened.
Common name
Asian arowana
Climbing perch
Cardinal tetra
Goldfish
Red devil
Harlequin rasbora
Scientific name
Scleropages formosus
Anabas testudineus
Paracheirodon axelrodi
Status in Full
Australia analysis
Grey list
Black list


Permitted 
 Carassius auratus
Amphilophus citrinellus
Permitted
Grey list
Trigonostigma heteromorpha Permitted
Zebrafish Danio rerio
Siamese fighting fish Betta splendens
Permitted
Permitted 
Perch cichlid Crenicichla reticulata
Butterfly peacock bass Cichla ocellaris
Grey list
Grey list
Malawi eyebiter Domidiochromis compressiceps Permitted
Further consultation during 2012 identified a further six species that the TWG requested to be assessed. These are outlined in Table 2.
5

DRAFT
Table 2. The 6 fish species chosen by the TWG.
Scientific name Common name
Pearl cichlid Geophagus brasiliensis
Status in Australia
Grey list
Electric yellow Labidochromis ceruleus Grey list
Amazon sailfin catfish Pterogoplichthys pardalis
Featherfin squeaker Synodontis eupterus
Grey list
Grey list
Ornate bichir
Convict cichlid
Polypterus ornatipinnis Grey list
Grey list Amatitlania nigrofasciata
6

DRAFT
The questions used in the assessment of invasiveness were adapted from first principles and the hazard assessment developed by EPPO (2000) with consideration of FISK (Copp et al. 2009). It was determined early in the development of this tool that these systems were not compliant with the ISO standard and that some queries in those assessments were unclear, so they served as a guide only. The weighting of the score associated with the response to each risk query was developed from scientific principles supported by published literature as outlined below.
The questions in this part of the assessment address the likelihood that the assessed fish species will be released.
Risk query 1: Is the species a high, medium or low volume trade species?
Risk of release into the environment is proportional to how many animals are present. It is difficult to gauge the population sizes of these animals in Australia but the volume of trade can be estimated by wholesale, retail and hobby experts.
Invasion success is proportional to propagule pressure (Duggan et al. 2006) and volume of trade is used here as a proxy for propagule pressure. A species that has been introduced only once is less likely to establish than a species that has been introduced on multiple individual occasions (Simberloff and Von Holle 1999). The categories and scores were developed by the TWG for this query, to reflect the
TWG‘s assessment of the full range of volumes at which fish species are traded in
Australia. For further application of this assessment consideration should be given to ongoing engagement with industry experts to obtain an accurate reflection of the volume and value of species in the trade.
Risk query 2: Is the species a high, medium or low value trade species?
A species traded at high value is less likely to be deliberately released (Marston et al.
2004; Marston et al. 2006; Fawcett 2008). This assumes that the value of an individual fish is proportional to the owner‘s attachment to it, as well as that the financial loss incurred by releasing a valuable fish is greater. The categories and scores were developed by the TWG for this query, to reflect their assessment of the full range of values at which individual fish are traded.
Risk query 3: Does the species have a history of deliberate release?
7

DRAFT
Species that have a history of deliberate release are more likely to be deliberately released again. This query targets fish that have a history of deliberate release from aquaria, rather than those deliberately propagated and released for food, angling or biocontrol (Arthington and McKenzie 1997). The scores reflect escalating levels of likelihood of deliberate release.
Risk query 4: Does the species have a history of accidental release?
Species with a history of accidental release are more likely to be accidentally released again (Deacon et al. 2011). While this is not well documented for many species, it is described in some, such as the topmouth gudgeon ( Pseudorasbora parva ). The scores reflect the possible range of likelihood of accidental release.
Risk query 5: Does the species have characteristics that make it more likely to be accidentally released?
Species that can be easily confused with native species, those that are commonly kept in systems that facilitate escape and those that can attach to equipment
(Lintermans 2004) are more likely to be accidentally released.
Risk query 6: Does the species have characteristics that make it more likely to be deliberately released?
Species with large growth potential are increasingly common in the live fish trade
(Gertzen et al. 2008) and are more likely to out grow their housing and be released
(Duggan et al. 2006). Species with high fecundity and high survival, or aggression in aquaria and/or ponds are also likely to be deliberately released.
The questions in this part of the assessment address the likelihood that the assessed fish species will successfully invade a new habitat.
Risk query 7: Is the species domesticated or reared in a way that makes it more or less likely to survive if released?
Domestication, including selective breeding and genetic modification can enhance fitness by modifying growth rate, mating success and/or fecundity over wild strains
(Muir and Howard 1999). Changes that make individuals of the species in question more likely to survive if released increase the likelihood of invasion. Domestication has been reported to facilitate successful invasion in some species of freshwater fish, including common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), goldfish ( Carassius auratus ), sunbleak
( Leucaspius delineates ) and topmouth gudgeon ( Pseudorsabora parva ) (see Balon,
8

DRAFT
1995; Gozlan et al. 2002). The scores reflect the range of possibilities about whether the taxon has been selectively bred for traits of benefit to humans (domesticated) or subjected to other selection or genetic modification that may make it more or less likely to be a successful invader.
Risk query 8: Are the individuals in question of an invasive race/variety/sub-species?
If released individuals belong to a described invasive strain/race/subspecies the likelihood of invasion is increased, although absence of invasive races/varieties or subspecies does not preclude a species from being invasive (Ricciardi 2003). The scores reflect whether or not the species is of an invasive race/variety/sub-species.
Risk query 9: Has the species established populations outside their native range?
A history of invasiveness of the assessed species is the most robust predictor of invasiveness (Ricciardi 2003; Marchetti et al. 2004; Bomford 2008). If a species has successfully established self-sustaining populations outside its native range the likelihood that the same species will be invasive in Australia is increased. This query assesses if there are records of established populations of the species outside its native range.
Risk query 10: Is species reproductive tolerance suited to climates in the risk assessment area?
The likelihood of invasion increases as the number of climate zones in the species' native range matching with Australian climate zones increases. The similarity of climatic conditions between the source area and Australia increases the likelihood of invasion (Reichard 2001; Bomford 2008). This score assesses if climatic zones in the species‘ native range match the climate zones in Australia.
Risk query 11: What is the quality of the climate match data?
The likelihood of invasion rises as the quality of climate match data improves. The scores reflect an estimate of the quality of the data used to generate the climate match, and whether specific environmental requirements are present in the species‘ native environment that are not present in Australia. This score assesses how much of Australia is comprised of climatic zones that match those in the species‘ native range.
Risk query 12: Is the species environmentally versatile?
Invasion success is influenced by the ability of the introduced species to utilize the available resources in a novel environment (Guo 2006). Species that are tolerant of a
9

DRAFT wide range of environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, salinity, oxygen, water velocity, and water quality or environmental disturbance) are more likely to be successful invaders (Moyle and Light 1996; Jackson et al. 2001; Kolar and Lodge
2002; Garcia-de-Lomas et al. 2009). The increasing environmental versatility of a non-native species is directly proportional to the species' likelihood of invasion. For this risk query the relevant traits that drive versatility in fish are tolerance of: salinity, desiccation, water quality, habitat variability, oxygen depletion and temperature and the variety of food items taken. A good indicator of environmental versatility is if habitats already invaded are a poor match for those in a species‘ native range.
Risk query 13: Is the species' native range well defined?
Natural range extensions and new locality records may be mistaken for invasions.
Increasing uncertainty about a species‘ native range decreases the likelihood that records are invasions and as such lowers the risk. For fish such as cyprinids that were widely translocated before recorded history and whose native range without anthropogenic influence is uncertain, their earliest described natural range is adequate for the purposes of the analysis. Many of these species have been transported intercontinentally more recently and these introductions are well defined.
Risk query 14: Does the species have invasive congeners?
The status as a member of an invasive genus adds to the likelihood of invasion.
Invasive history of a species and its congeners is a good predictor of potential invasiveness (Ruesink et al. 1995; Reichard 2001).
Risk query 15: Is the species unpalatable to predators?
A system under pressure from a new fish species may provide resistance against such invasion, for example, in the form of strong predation pressure (Elton 1958;
Robinson and Wellborn 1988). Biological resistance affects the probability of establishment of introduced species (Moyle and Light 1996). If the species is unpalatable to predators the biological resistance in the system is likely to be lower, and the likelihood of invasion is therefore increased.
Risk query 16: Are predators absent from waters where the species is likely to become invasive?
The likelihood of successful invasion is lower in species-rich communities due to resource availability and predator abundance (Fox and Fox 1986; Baltz and Moyle
1993; Byers and Noonburg 2003). If predators are absent in or have been removed
10

DRAFT from the environment where a new species has been introduced there is an increased likelihood of invasion. This risk query requires consideration of where the species is likely to be present in Australia and if predation pressure in those systems is likely to be low or absent. Small alpine (Tilzey 1976) and desert (Kodric-Brown and
Brown 1993) streams in Australia are likely to have low or no predation pressure.
Risk query 17: Does the species exhibit parental care, is it a mouthbrooder or livebearer?
In some fish species one or both parents care for the eggs and/or young (Clutton-
Brock 1991), including post-spawning clutch protection and mouthbrooding in which fish hold eggs and/or newly hatched young in their mouths. Viviparity has evolved in several groups of fish which bear live young rather than depositing eggs. Parental care and viviparity enhance survivorship during early life, provide protection from predators and facilitate invasion success (Jeschke and Strayer 2008). Species that express parental care and/or are viviparous are more likely to be successful invaders
(García-Bertou 2007).
Risk query 18: Is the species known to reduce age-at-maturity in response to environment?
A species that has the ability to adapt its age-at-maturity in response to environmental variables is more likely to successfully invade a new environment
(Guo 2006). Early maturation aids invasion success by facilitating rapid population size increase which is linked to establishment success (Gozlan et al. 2010).
Risk query 19: Is the species hermaphroditic?
Some fish are simultaneous hermaphrodites and are or can be both sexes at the same time, and are able to mate with any individual of their species.
Hermaphroditism facilitates successful establishment (Ho 2004) and the likelihood of invasion success.
Risk query 20: Is the species dependent on the presence of another species to complete its life cycle?
A species‘ life history traits affect the ability of the species to successfully invade a new environment (Bruton 1986). A species that depends on another species to complete its life cycle is less adaptable to a new environment than a species that does not have such requirements. The European bitterling ( Rhodeus sericeus ), for example, requires a mussel ( Anodonta cygnea ) to incubate its eggs (Smith et al.
2004).
11

DRAFT
Risk query 21: Is the species dependent on the presence of a specific habitat feature to complete its life cycle, and is this particular habitat feature present in the areas susceptible to invasions?
Some species require specific habitat features (e.g. fast-flowing water, particular types of substrates) to reproduce. A species that depends on specific habitat features to complete its life cycle is less adaptable to a new environment than a species that does not have such requirements. Grass carp ( Ctenopharyngodon idella ) for example, has specific water flow requirements to cue its spawning (Stanley et al. 1978). If a species is dependent on the presence of a specific habitat feature to complete its life cycle, and that feature is likely to be limiting or absent, the likelihood of successful invasion is reduced.
Risk query 22: Does the species have reproductive characteristics other than parental care that increase its likelihood of being invasive?
Reproductive characteristics that increase the species' likelihood of being invasive include high fecundity (>10,000 eggs/kg), batch spawning, serial (multiple) spawning and extended spawning season (Alcaraz et al. 2005). If a species possesses such reproductive traits then this will increase its likelihood of invasion.
Risk query 23: Is the species' generation time facilitative of invasions?
Generation time is the average time from hatching to full maturity of an individual (i.e. active reproduction, not just presence of gonads). Early maturation, short generation time and high reproductive effort aids rapid establishment and the creation of high population density in new environments (Theoharides and Dukes 2007; Gozlan et al.
2010). The likelihood of establishment is related to the average time to maturity; the shorter the generation time the greater the likelihood of invasion.
Risk query 24: What is the likelihood of compliance activity preventing deliberate release?
Compliance effort preventing deliberate release is inversely proportional to the risk of release. Compliance activities that can prevent deliberate release include quarantine procedures, rules and regulation regarding the movement of fish, legal frameworks that proscribe the release of non-native fish, education programs or information about deliberate release that are widely disseminated, and/or active compliance programs that attempt to detect deliberate releases when they occur or as soon as possible after they occur. For the purpose of this risk query it is necessary to determine what compliance activities are in place that can deter or prevent the
12

DRAFT deliberate release of the species in question in the area in which the species is likely to establish.
Risk query 25: What is the likelihood of compliance activity preventing accidental release?
Compliance activities that can prevent accidental release include improvement of identification expertise, public awareness, legal frameworks that proscribe activities that can inadvertently release non-native fish (such as controls on the location of fish farms and ponds, licensing or registration processes), education programs or information to aid in preventing accidental release that are widely disseminated, and/or active compliance programs that attempt to prevent inadvertent releases before they occur or as soon as possible after they occur. The greater the compliance activity preventing accidental release the lower the likelihood of invasion.
The risk queries in this part of the assessment cover factors that influence the consequence of establishment of the assessed fish species.
Risk query 26: Where the species occurs outside its native range are there impacts on native aquatic species?
History of impacts on native aquatic species outside its native range is expected to increase the probable consequence (further impact). A history of impacts on wild aquatic species is a good predictor of future invasion and its impacts (Ricciardi
2003).
Risk query 27: Where the species occurs outside its native range are there impacts on farmed aquatic species?
This query assesses if there is documented evidence of a species having impacts on aquaculture. A history of impacts on farmed aquatic species outside a species‘ native range indicates a category of impact additional to those on wild native species and the probable consequence of invasion is therefore greater. A history of impacts on farmed aquatic species outside the native range of the assessed species is a good predictor of the consequences of new invasions (Ricciardi 2003).
Risk query 28: In the species' non-native range is there documented evidence that the species has altered the structure or function of a natural ecosystem?
A species‘ ability to alter ecosystem function (Moyle 1986; Arthington 1991; Simon and Townsend 2002) increases the probable consequence of establishment. If the
13

DRAFT species has altered the structure or function of a natural ecosystem it is more likely that ecosystem level impacts will occur for new invasions and the probable consequence of invasion is higher.
Risk query 29: Does the species pose a risk to human health?
Characteristics that endanger human health or make environmental amenities hazardous to human health are undesirable. A species that is known to cause harm to humans by being poisonous, venomous or traumatogenic (Schofield 2010) or increases hazards associated with environmental amenity (Horsch and Lewis 2009) has a greater consequence of invasion than a species that is harmless.
Risk query 30: Where established outside its native range does the species out compete native species?
Competition between invasive and native species is complex and can occur by a variety of mechanisms (Mills et al. 2004). It is important to determine if invaded systems show changes in resource use or patterns of population change because of competitive interactions between the native and introduced species. If a species has a history of out-competing native species where it has established outside its native range, this is more likely to occur in new invasions and the probable consequence of an invasion is increased.
Risk query 31: Is the species parasitic or micropredatory?
Parasites are species that are obligately dependant on a non-mutual relationship with another species (Combes 2005). Micropredators consume parts of other species without killing them (Trombitskiy and Kakhovskiy 1987). The probable consequence of invasion is increased if the species is parasitic (Clemens et al. 2010) or micropredatory (Rowe et al. 2007), and suitable hosts are available in the new environment.
Risk query 32: Does the species prey on a native species, particularly those previously subjected to low (or no) predation?
An invasion by a predatory species that is likely to establish in a hydrosystem that is devoid of predatory fish or from which predatory fish have been removed or extirpated for a lengthy period is likely to have increased consequences (Simon and
Townsend 2002; Pusey and Arthington 2003). Predation in these environments is expected to increase the likely consequence of an invasion.
Risk query 33: Does the species host, and/or is it a vector, for recognised pests and pathogens, especially non-native?
14

DRAFT
The dispersal of non-native pathogens and parasites through non-native fish hosts poses a threat to freshwater fish diversity (Boxshall and Frear 1990; Kennedy 1994;
Beyer et al. 2005; Gozlan et al. 2005). Such organisms may harm, and cause decline in, native fishes that have not co-evolved with them. The parasitic nematode
Anguillicola crassus , the native host of which is the Japanese eel, Anguilla japonicus , is pathogenic to the European eel Anguilla anguilla (see Kennedy and Fitch 1990;
Kirk 2003). The most significant risks are posed by non-native pathogens and parasites with low host specificity, or where a suitable host or a closely related species occurs in the invaded habitat (AQIS 1999). The best vector for disease is an infected host although equipment, transport water, and organisms that mechanically vector pathogens also pose a risk (AQIS 1999; OIE 2013). It is acknowledged that disease import risk analysis is a separate system of risk analysis beyond the scope of this report, and that adequate data to fully assess this risk are likely to be lacking for many or most species. A species that is the host, and/or a recognised vector, for described pests and pathogens, especially non-native ones, has increased probable consequence of invasion. The scores for this query are weighted heavily to reflect the importance of an association with disease and to better differentiate disease loads in the fish traded.
Risk query 34: Do behaviours of the species reduce habitat quality for native species?
If an invasive species displays behaviours that reduce habitat quality, for example increasing turbidity, the probable consequence of invasion is increased. For example, the vigorous benthic foraging behaviour of carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) is associated with substantial decrease in macrophyte and macroinvertebrate abundance, and increased re-suspension of sediments and zooplankton biomass
(Lougheed et al. 1998; Parkos et al. 2003; Miller and Crowl 2006). Such behaviours increase the consequences of invasion.
Risk query 35: Does the species feed on a broad range of diet items?
Fish species that feed on a broad range of diet items (omnivorous) are more likely have broader impacts on ecosystems where they establish (Ricciardi and
Rasmussen 1998). Species that are generalist feeders include those that take plant and animal and are likely to have a greater impact in invaded habitats than specialists.
Risk query 36: Can the species hybridize with native species?
15

DRAFT
Interspecific hybridization with native species under natural conditions increases the likely consequence of establishment. Hybridisation can drive substantial impacts, for example, introductions of goldfish Carassius auratus threaten native crucian carp
Carassius carassius through hybridization in the U.K. (Wheeler 2000; Hänfling et al.
2005). The score reflects whether there are records of interspecific hybridization under natural conditions with native Australian species.
Risk query 37: Is the receiving environment facilitative of species dispersal?
If the receiving environment in which a species is likely to establish is facilitative of dispersal the probable consequence of invasion is increased. If a species that is a pelagic spawner is introduced into an open fast flowing water body dispersal of eggs or larvae is likely to occur naturally. If a species is introduced into closed water bodies natural dispersal is unlikely.
Risk query 38: Is the species migratory?
If there is evidence of migratory behaviour this will increase the probable consequence of invasion. Fish migrate on a regular basis, on a range of time scales, and over distances from a few metres to thousands of kilometres. Species that display migratory behaviour, which aids the spread of the species have increased probable consequence of invasion (Consuegra et al. 2011).
Risk query 39: Is the species susceptible to control measures?
Susceptibility to control measures is inversely proportional to the probable consequence of a species invasion. Most control programs targeting invasive fish use piscicides. Susceptibility to these is variable and resistance has been recorded in some species (Ling 2003). The score reflects whether the species in question is resistant to control agents or if no control options are available.
Risk query 40: Does the species tolerate or benefit from environmental disturbance?
The success of invasion for some species is enhanced by disruptions or unusual events, particularly human disturbance, and anthropogenic alteration can enhance the impacts of some invasive species (Byers 2002). The ability of a fish to tolerate or benefit from environmental disturbance increases the probable consequence of invasion.
Risk query 41: Is there a history of economic loss caused by the fish species in its naturalised range?
16

DRAFT
Species invasions have resulted in economic losses worldwide (Diamond 1985;
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Williamson 1996; Gozlan and Newton 2009).
Economic impacts include reduced productivity, costs of mitigation, remediation and eradication, impacts to export markets and regulation of trade. Economic losses can be caused by displacement of more valuable native species, closure of fishing areas, increased biosecurity or management requirements, or decreased quality of commercially valuable water. A history of economic loss increases the probable consequence of a species invasion. The scores are heavily weighted and reflect different levels of described economic loss.
Risk query 42: Are there any icon species, high value environmental assets, or other environmentally significant values in Australia placed at risk by the establishment of this species?
High value assets and icon species include listed threatened species, habitats or ecosystem types, native species with public appeal, promotional and publicity value, or which have been used to harness conservation activity. If high value assets, icon species or other environmentally significant resources are likely to be exposed to, and threatened by, the invasive species, the probable consequence of an invasion will increase (Finoff et al. 2005; Barbier and Shogren 2004). Impacts include predation, competition, reduced habitat quality, genetic effects such as hybridization or introgression, introduction of parasites or pathogens, changes in disturbance regimes, resource pools and supply rates. If the species threatens any icon species, high value assets or other environmentally significant values then the probable consequence of invasion is increased. The scores are heavily weighted and reflect the differences in different levels of economic loss or environmental damage.
Risk query 43: Are there any socially significant assets or amenities (not related to human health) threatened by the establishment of this species?
A threat to socially significant assets or amenities (not related to human health) increases the species‘ probable consequence in Australia (Carlton 2002; Finoff et al.
2005; Barbier and Shogren 2004). Social impacts include changed patterns of human use of the invaded environment, with special relevance to prominent vistas, famous natural landmarks and other notable features that have social value. The scores are heavily weighted and reflect the differences in different levels of impact on social assets and/or amenities (Low to High).
17

DRAFT
The field of risk assessment for invasive species is in its infancy but demand for situation specific empirical evidence consistently outstrips supply (Andersen et al.
2004). Risk analyses using standard matrices are inherently susceptible to poor resolution, production of errors, suboptimal resource allocation and ambiguous inputs and outputs (Cox 2008). The guidance and response notes included in this tool improve resolution and limit ambiguity. Explanation of embedded judgments and referencing data aid resolution and further control ambiguity. We identified no hazards whose likelihood and consequence are quantitatively negatively correlated when assessing fish invasiveness. This assessment is intended to guide and improve existing biosecurity measures and does not rank fish invasiveness comparatively to other biosecurity risks, and therefore cannot indicate a relative importance for resourcing ornamental freshwater fish biosecurity.
This analysis uses specific queries to score release, invasiveness and consequence categories. The scores in each category are added, converted to a score out of 10 to prevent any single category from having an excessive result on risk assignment, and multiplied, rounding to the nearest whole number. Validation and calibration are based on scoring fish with a perceived range of invasiveness and including some species with well-described invasive characteristics. Some scores are mutually exclusive so the theoretical maximum risk score is not achievable in assessments.
Invasive species risk assessments often use a fixed time frame over which release is estimated (e.g. see Biosecurity Australia 2011). In this assessment, queries (and their guidance) that could be interpreted as temporally variable have been described using criteria that are absolute. There are no criteria that exert risk differently provided that the species is present in Australia. Factors associated with release are particularly difficult to estimate for ornamental species, and we judged that attempting to estimate likelihood of release occurring did not improve the accuracy of the system.
The risk for the eleven species tested are presented in Table 3. Further details are presented in Appendix 1, where the score given for each query for each species is presented. Thresholds for total risk were allocated as follows: Low risk - total score
<50; moderate risk - total score 51-99; high risk – total score >100. High risk species pose a substantial invasion risk, and should be subject to risk management.
18

DRAFT
Table 3. Results of the rounded scores for likelihoods of release, invasion and consequence, and the total score for all five test species used to calibrate the risk assessment tool for the Australian live fish trade.
ID Species Release Invasion Consequence Total Risk
Maximum score
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
10
Carassius auratus
Anabas testudineus
Scleropages formosus
Paracheirodon axelrodi
7
4
4
8
Betta splendens 7
Geophagus brasiliensis 4
Labidochromis caeruleus 4
9
8
10
11
Pterygoplichthys pardalis 7
Synodontis eupterus 3
Polypterus ornatipinnis 3
Amatitlania nigrofasciata 8
19
10
5.88
5.58
2.94
4.71
5.29
7.06
2.94
5
2.94
2.06
6.18
10
5.43
6.96
1.09
0.87
1.09
2.17
0.22
3.26
0.65
0.87
1.3
1000
224 H
155 H
13 L
33 L
40 L
61 M
3 L
114 H
6 L
5 L
64 M

DRAFT
Non-native species invasions threaten the biodiversity of ecosystems on a global scale (Diamond 1985; Bøhn et al. 2004). Introductions often lead to irreversible ecological impacts on native ecosystems with concomitant biological, social and economic impacts (Gozlan et al. 2010). The risk of intentional introduction can be mitigated by informing risk management frameworks with suitable risk assessments and improving education, while the risk of accidental introductions can be mitigated by improving basic biosecurity. The use of a robust, scientifically-sound risk assessment framework will facilitate proactive management of the risks posed by fish species believed to be in the Australian live ornamental fish trade. The tool developed here, tested using 11 fish species, effectively describes invasiveness and provides managers with suitable information to support decision-making for management of ornamental fish species.
The parameters that are used by the risk assessment tool were chosen based on their role in affecting either the likelihood of release, the likelihood of invasion, or the probable consequence of invasion. Scoring is based on the presence or absence of specific parameters and encompasses different contributions to risk posed by each parameter. Risk assessments often utilise a precautionary approach where data deficient (poorly studied) species are allocated high scores, or by acknowledging gaps in knowledge with ‗Unknown‘ answers to allow calculations of uncertainty
(Copp et al. 2009). This risk assessment tool is designed so that data gaps and uncertainty are scored neutrally because it is expected that adequate data will not always be available. Scoring systems where data deficient species are assigned the highest values assess data deficient species as of higher risk than known invaders
(Fredberg and McNeil 2010). These systems are problematic for informed decision making. The framework presented here acknowledges that data gaps do not mean that the risk posed by a species is automatically increased because it is data deficient. Such species are therefore not ranked as higher risk than species for which data are available.
The risk assessment incorporates value (hobby/commercial) and volume
(hobby/commercial) of trade. Volume of trade is a proxy for propagule pressure, which is an accurate predictor of a species' invasion success (Duggan et al. 2006).
Species traded in high volumes are more likely to be released, and are more likely to
20

DRAFT establish than a species that is traded and released rarely (Simberloff and Von Holle
1999). The value of trade is an effective proxy for the fish keeper‘s attachment to an individual fish. High value individual pets are less likely to be released (Marston et al.
2004; Marston et al. 2006; Fawcett 2008), due to raised attachment to the pet and likely rarity or apparent value that makes such fish more likely to be sold or traded than released.
A history of deliberate and accidental release and a species‘ characteristics that make it more likely to be deliberately and/or accidentally released (rapid growth to a large size, very high fecundity, aggressive behaviour) increase the likelihood of release (Gertzen et al. 2008) and is reflected in this component of the analysis.
Ornamental fish that attain large ultimate size may out-grow their housing and are subsequently more likely to be deliberately released into the wild than species growing to smaller maximum body sizes (Duggan et al. 2006).
Identification of domesticated, selectively bred and genetically modified or transgenic strains of fish is included in the risk assessment because it can enhance or reduce fitness in domesticated strains over wild strains (Muir and Howard 1999).
Domestication has been reported to facilitate successful invasion in some species of freshwater fish (Balon 1995; Gozlan et al. 2002). Some species have identified invasive strains/races/subspecies, and if these are present the likelihood of invasion increases (Ricciardi 2003).
Invasive history of a species and its congeners is the most reliable predictor of potential invasiveness of fish (Ruesink et al. 1995; Reichard 2001). Invasion success is greatly influenced by the ability of the introduced species to adapt to and utilize the available resources (e.g. habitat) in a novel environment (Guo 2006). Species that are highly tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions are more likely to be successful invaders (Moyle and Light 1996; Jackson et al. 2001; Kolar and Lodge
2002). The similarity of climatic conditions between the source area and Australia increases the likelihood of successful reproduction and therefore invasion (Reichard
2001).
A system under pressure from a new fish species may provide resistance against an invasion (Elton 1958; Robinson and Wellborn 1988). Biological resistance affects the probability of establishment of introduced species (Moyle and Light 1996).
Successful invasion is inhibited in environments with abundant predators and
21

DRAFT species-rich communities that limit available resources (Fox and Fox 1986; Baltz and
Moyle 1993; Byers and Noonburg 2003). If an invader is unpalatable (Webb et al.
2008) or if predators are absent where the species is likely to be released (Adams et al. 2001), successful invasion is more likely.
A species‘ life history traits, including fecundity, spawning requirements, gamete viability, reproductive strategy and phenotypic plasticity, directly influence its ability to successfully invade a new environment (Bruton 1986). Early maturation, short generation time and high reproductive output aids rapid establishment and the creation of high population density in new environments (Adams et al. 2001;
Theoharides and Dukes 2007; Gozlan et al. 2010). A species that has the ability to adapt its life-history traits in a new environment is more likely to successfully establish (Guo 2006). Parental care enhances survivorship during early life, provides protection from predators and facilitates invasion success (Jeschke and Strayer
2008). Hermaphroditism facilitates successful establishment, thus the likelihood of invasion increases (Ho 2004). These factors combine to influence the likelihood of successful establishment.
A species that depends on the presence of another species to complete its life cycle is less adaptable to a new environment, particularly where the facilitative species is absent (Smith et al. 2004). A species that requires specific habitat features to complete its life cycle is less adaptable to a new environment than a species that does not have such requirements, and may be unable to reproduce if those habitat features are absent in the receiving environment.
To appropriately assess the invasion risk associated with a fish species it is necessary to determine what compliance activities are in place that can deter or prevent deliberate or accidental release in the area where the species is likely to establish. Compliance effort preventing deliberate and accidental release is inversely proportional to the risk of release.
A history of impacts on wild and farmed aquatic species is a good predictor of such impacts in future invasions (Ricciardi 2003). A species‘ ability to alter habitat quality and/or ecosystem function (Moyle 1986; Arthington 1991; Simon and Townsend
2002) increases the likely consequence of its establishment. A species that is known to cause harm to humans by being poisonous, venomous, traumatogenic or is known
22

DRAFT out compete native species will have higher probable consequence of invasion than species that are harmless (Sytsma et al. 2004).
The introduction of non-native pathogens and parasites with non-native fish is a substantial hazard (Boxshall and Frear 1990; Kennedy 1994; Beyer et al. 2005;
Gozlan et al. 2005). Such organisms may harm and cause decline in fish that have not co-evolved with them (Kennedy and Fitch 1990; Kirk 2003). Assessing the likely impacts of disease introduction, however, is difficult, and disease risk analysis is a separate specialist field. This risk analysis, therefore, uses history and published data about a fish species‘ capacity to vector disease as a component of consequence.
Changes in the abundance and diversity of species, particularly those that control nutrient dynamics and trophic interactions, or disturbance regimes, affect the structure and function of ecosystems (Chapin et al. 1997). S pecies invasions that change relative abundances in ecosystems alter trophic dynamics in the receiving environment, but assessing impacts of invasive species is difficult (Leung et al. 2002) and often relies on assumption-heavy modelling (Kulhanek et al. 2011). There are, therefore, few comprehensive impact assessments for aquatic invasive species.
Invasions, do, however, also make ecosystems more vulnerable to further change including further invasions (Chapin et al. 1997).
Species invasions cause economic loss (Diamond 1985; Ricciardi and Rasmussen
1998; Williamson 1996; Gozlan and Newton 2009), and a species‘ history of economic loss increases the probable consequence of its invasion. Similarly, a species that threatens any icon species, high value environmental assets, or other environmentally significant values (Finoff et al. 2005; Barbier and Shogren 2004) or socially significant assets or amenities (Carlton 2002; Finoff et al. 2005; Barbier and
Shogren 2004) will increase the probable consequence of invasion.
Biological characteristics of invasive species often determine the impact of invasions.
Parasites and micropredators are likely to have greater consequences of invasion than comparable species that are free-living. Predatory species that establish in systems that are devoid of predatory fish are more likely to establish (Mills et al.
2004) and have more serious impacts (Simon and Townsend 2002) while those that invade ecosystems with more trophic diversity face resistance and are less likely to establish (Pusey and Arthington 2003; Vila-Gispert et al. 2005). Omnivorous species are more likely to have ecosystem-level impacts (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998).
Hybridisation with native species has a major influence on impact (Wheeler 2000;
23

DRAFT
Hänfling et al. 2005) although few aquarium species are sufficiently closely related to
Australian native species present in environments subject to invasion to consider hybridisation a major risk.
Capacity for appropriate control activities to be available and successful influences the consequence of invasions. The best way to reduce the probability that an introduced species will become invasive is to eliminate it before it has time to become abundant and widespread and to out-compete native species (Allendorf and
Lundquist 2003). Susceptibility to control methods is therefore inversely proportional to the species' probable consequence (Sakai et al. 2001).
The receiving environment also influences the likely consequences of invasions. If the receiving environment facilitates dispersal (Leuven et al. 2009), and the invader displays migratory behaviour (Consuegra et al. 2011), the invasion is more likely to spread rapidly and the likely consequences of invasion are greater. The ability of a fish to tolerate or benefit from environmental disturbance is directly proportional to the probable consequence.
All risk assessments are susceptible to both a lack of, or oversupply of data. Risk may be comparatively overestimated for very well studied invasive species and underestimated for poorly studied species. While taking a conservative approach is often used to manage data gaps, this decreases resolution and introduces errors.
The approach taken here appears to fit the system being analysed, given that the biology of many ornamental fish species is poorly studied and that variables associated with invasiveness are difficult to quantify.
24

DRAFT
This risk assessment tool has been developed for the national Freshwater Fish
Working Group (and formerly OFMIG) with input from key ornamental fish industry and hobby members from the national Ornamental Fish Technical Working Group.
This tool will enable a robust and transparent risk assessment process to be applied to the remaining ornamental fish species on the National Grey List, all of which have been identified as of interest to the hobby and industry ornamental fish sector.
Thresholds for risk were allocated as follows: Low risk - total score <50, moderate risk 51-99 high risk - total score >100. High risk species pose a substantial invasion risk, and should be subject to risk management. Moderate risk species should be considered for risk management. Low risk species can be traded freely with little risk of an invasion occurring. Thresholds can be reinterpreted if adequate data are available, and the tool needs to be understood in the context of understanding the limitations of data and the inherent difficulty in assessing invasiveness.
This risk assessment framework is designed to provide support for policy and legislation that regulates non-native species. To be effective, however, the results of this work should feed into a framework, which incorporates risk communication and risk management. The result of such an assessment will provide data that can be used by managers to assess grey listed ornamental fish species to underpin decisions relating to management of ornamental fish in Australian States and
Territories.
25

DRAFT
Adams, S.B., Frissell, C.A. and Rieman. R.E. (2001) Geography of invasion in mountain streams: consequences of headwater lake fish introductions. Ecosystems
4, 296 –307.
Alcaraz, C., VilaGispert, A. and García-Berthou, E. (2005) Profiling invasive fish species: the importance of phylogeny and human use. Diversity and Distributions 11,
289-298.
Allendorf, F.W. and Lundquist, L.L. (2003) Introduction: population biology, evolution and control of invasive species. Conservation Biology 17, 24-30.
Andersen, M.C., Adams, H., Hope, B. and Powell, M. (2004) Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Analysis 24, 787-793.
Arthington, A.H. (1991) Ecological and genetic impacts of introduced and translocated freshwater fishes in Australia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 48(S1), 33-43.
Arthington, A.H. and McKenzie, F. (1997) Review of Impacts of Displaced/Introduced
Fauna Associated with Inland Waters. State of the Environment Technical Paper
Series (Inland Waters), Department of the Environment, Canberra, Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Standards (2009) AS/NZS ISO 31000-2009 Risk management. Standards Australia, Canberra.
AQIS (1999) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service: Import Risk Analysis on
Live Ornamental Finfish. Online resource. URL: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/16362/finalornamental.pdf
Accessed 14 May 2014 .
Balon, E.K. (1995) Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio : from
Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129, 3-48.
Baltz, D.M. and Moyle, P.B. (1993). Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of stream fishes. Ecological Applications 3, 246-55.
Barbier, E. and Shogren, J. (2007) Growth with endogenous risk of biological invasion. Economic Inquiry 42, 587-601.
Beyer K., Kochanowska, D., Longshaw, M., Feist, S.W. and Gozlan, R.E. (2005) A potential role for invasive sunbleak in the further dissemination of a non-native parasite. Journal of Fish Biology 67, 1730-1733.
Biosecurity Australia (2011) Import risk analysis. Online resource. URL: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/1897554/import-risk-analysis- handbook-2011.pdf Accessed: 14 May 2014.
Bøhn, T., Terje Sandlund, O., Amundsen, P-A. and Primicerio, R. (2004) Rapidly changing life history during invasion. Oikos 106, 138 –150.
Bomford, M. (2008) Risk assessment models for establishment of exotic vertebrates in Australia and New Zealand. Online resource. URL: http://www.feral.org.au/wp-
26

DRAFT content/uploads/2010/03/Risk_Assess_Models_2008_FINAL.pdf Accessed 14 May
2014.
Boxshall, G.A. and Frear, P.A. (1990) Tracheliastes macaulatus , 1836, (Crustacea:
Lernaeopodidae) a new species from Britain. Journal of Fish Biology 37, 489 –491.
Bruton, M.N. (1986) Life history styles of invasive fishes in southern Africa. In: The ecology and management of biological invasions in southern Africa. Macdonald,
LA.W., Kruger, F.J. and Ferrar, A.A. (Eds). Oxford University Press, Cape Town:
201-208.
Byers, J.E. (2002) Impact of non-indigenous species enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes. Oikos 97, 449-458.
Byers, J.E. and Noonburg, E.G. (2003) Scale dependent effects of biotic resistance to biological invasion. Ecology 84, 1428 –1433.
Carlton. J.T. (2002) Bioinvasion Ecology: Assessing Invasion Impact and Scale. In:
Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe: Distributions, Impacts and Management.
Leppakoski, E., Olenin, S. and Gollasch, S. (eds.). Monographiae Biologicae Series,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht, The Netherlands.
Chapin, F.S., Walker, B.H., Hobbs, R.J., Hooper, D.U., Lawton, J.H., Sala, O.E. and
Tilamn, D. (1997) Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277,
500-504.
Clemens, B.J., Binder, T.R., Docker, M.F., Moser, M.L. and Sower, S.A. (2010)
Similarities, differences and unknowns in biology and management of three parasitic lampreys of North America. Fisheries 35, 580-594.
Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University
Press, Princeton. 352 pp.
Combes, C. (2005) The art of becoming a parasite. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago. 280 pp.
Consuegra, S., Phillips, N., Gajardo, G. and Garcia de Leaniz, C. (2011) Winning the invasion roulette: escapes from fish farms increase admixture and facilitate establishment of non-native rainbow trout. Evolutionary Applications 4, 660-671.
Copp, G.H., Vilizzi, L., Mumford, J., Fenwick, G.V., Godard, M.J. and Gozlan, R.E.
(2009) Calibration of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for nonnative freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis 29, 457-467.
Cox, L.A. (2008) What‘s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis 28, 497-512.
DAFF (2006) A strategic approach to the management of ornamental fish in
Australia. Available online. URL: http://data.daff.gov.au/anrdl/metadata_files/pe_brs90000004189.xml Accessed 14
May 2014.
Davis, M.A., Chew, M.K., Hobbs, R.J., Lugo, A.E., Ewel, J.J., Vermeji, G.J., Brown,
J.H., Rosenweig, M.L., Gardener, M.R., Carroll, S.P., Thompson, K., Pickett, S.T.A.,
Stromberg, J.C., Del Tredici, P., Suding, K.N., Ehrenfeld, J.G., Grime, J.P., Mascaro,
J. and Briggs, J.C. (2011) Don‘t judge species on their origins. Nature 474, 153-154.
27

DRAFT
Deacon, A.E., Ramnarine, I.W. and Magurran, A.E. (2011) How reproductive ecology contributes to the spread of globally invasive fish. PloS ONE 6(9): e24416.
Diamond, J.M. (1985) Overview: introductions, extinctions, exterminations and invasions. In: Community ecology. Case, T.J. and Diamond, J.M., eds. Harper &
Row, New York. pp 65-79.
Duggan, I.C., Rixon, C.A.M. and MacIsaac, H.J. (2006) Popularity and propagule pressure: determinants of introduction and establishment of aquarium fish. Biological
Invasions 8, 377 –382.
Elton, C.S. (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago. 196pp.
EPPO, 2000. EPPO Standards: Pest Risk Analysis. European and Mediterranean
Plant Protection Organization, PM 5/1-4 English.
Fawcett, A. (2008) Why do cats enter shelters? Shelter Research 6, 1-3.
Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Leung, B. and Lodge, D. (2005) The importance of bioeconomic feedback in invasive species management. Ecological Economics 52,
367-381.
Fitzgerald, F.T. (1986) The therapeutic value of pets. Western Journal of Medicine
144, 103-105.
Fredberg, J. and McNeil, D.G (2010). Review of non-native ornamental fish species grey listed in Australia. Report to the Ornamental Fish Management Implementation
Group (OFMIG). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic
Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000631-1. SARDI Research
Report Series No. 492. 44pp.
Fox, M.D. and Fox, B.J. (1986) The susceptibility of natural communities to invasion.
In: Groves, R.H. and Burdon, J.J., eds. Ecology of biological invasions: an Australian perspective. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Academy of Science pp. 57-66.
García-Berthou, E. (2007) The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far? Journal of Fish Biology 71 (Supplement D), 33-55.
Garcia-de-Lomas, J., Dana, E.D., Lopez-Santiago, J., Gonzalez, R., Ceballos, G. and Ortega, F. (2009) First record of the North American black bullhead Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque, 1820) in the Guadalquivir Estuary (Southern Spain). Aquatic
Invasions 4, 719-723.
Gertzen, E., Familiar, O and Leung, B. (2008) Quantifying invasion pathways: fish introductions from the aquarium trade. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 65, 1265-1273.
Gozlan, R.E. (2008). Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish and
Fisheries 9, 106 –115.
Gozlan, R.E., Pinder, A.C. and Shelley, J. (2002) Occurrence of the Asiatic cyprinid
Pseudorasbora parva in England. Journal of Fish Biology 61, 298-300.
28

DRAFT
Gozlan, R.E., St-Hilaire, S., Feist, S.W., Martin, P. and Kent, M.L. (2005).
Biodiversity - Disease threat to European fish. Nature 435, 1046.
Gozlan, R. E., Andreou, D, Asaeda, T., Beyer, K., Bouhadad, R., Burnard, D., Caiola,
N., Cakic, P., Djikanovic, V., Esmaeili, H.R.,Falka, I., Golicher, D., Harka, A., Jeney,
G., Kovac, V., Musil, J., Nocita, A., Povz, M., Poulet, N., Virbickas, T., Wolter, T.,
Tarkan, S., Tricarico, E., Verreycken, H., Witkowski, A., Zhang, C.G., Zweimuelle, I. and Britton, J.R., (2010) Pan-continental invasion of Pseudorasbora parva : towards a better understanding freshwater fish invasions. Fish and Fisheries 11, 12-33.
Gozlan, R.E., and Newton, A.C. 2009. Biological invasions: benefits versus risks.
Science 324, 1015.
Guo, Q. (2006) Intercontinental biotic invasions: what can we learn from native populations and habitats? Biological Invasions 8, 1451 –1459.
Hänfling, B., Bolton, P., Harley, M. and Carhalho, G.R. (2005) A molecular approach to detect hybridisation between crucian carp ( Carassius carassius ) and non indigenous carp species ( Carassius spp. and Cyprinus carpio ). Freshwater Biology
50, 403 –417.
Ho, L. (2004) Hermaphroditism — a tale of two sexes. Online resource. URL: http://www.reefscapes.net/articles/articles/2002/hermaphroditism.html Accessed 14
May 2014.
Horsch, E.J. and Lewis, D.J. (2009) The effects of aquatic invasive species on property values: evidence from a quasi experiment. Land Economy 85, 391 –409.
Jackson, D.A., Peres-Neto, P.R. and Olden, J.D. (2001) What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities - the roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, 157 –170.
Jeschke, J.M. and Strayer, D.L. (2008) Are threat status and invasion success two sides of the same coin? Ecography 31, 124-130.
Kennedy, C. R. (1994). The ecology of introductions. In Pike, A. W. and Lewis, J. W., eds. Parasitic Diseases of Fish. Otley: Samara Publishing Limited. pp. 189 –208.
Kennedy, C. R. and Fitch, D. J. (1990). Colonization, larval survival and epidemiology of the nematode Anguillicola crassus , parasitic in the eel, Anguilla anguilla , in Britain. Journal of Fish Biology 36, 117-131.
Kirk, R. S. (2003). The impact of Anguillicola crassus on European eels. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 10, 385-394.
Kodric-Brown, A. and Brown, J.H. (1993) Highly Structured Fish Communities in
Australian Desert Springs. Ecology 74, 1847
–1855.
Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. (2002) Ecological Predictions and Risk Assessment for
Alien Fishes in North America. Science 298, 1233-1236.
Kulhanek, S.A., Leung, B., Ricciardi, A. (2011) Using ecological niche models to predict the abundance and impact of invasive species: application to the common carp. Ecological Applications 21, 203-213.
29

DRAFT
Leung, K.M.Y. and Dudgeon, D. (2008) Ecological risk assessment and management of exotic organisms associated with aquaculture activities. In Bondad-Reantaso,
M.G., Arthur, J.R. and Subasinghe, R.P. (eds). Understanding and applying risk analysis in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 519.
Rome, FAO. pp. 67 –100.
Leung, B., Lodge, D.M., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Lewis, M.A. and Lamberti, G.
(2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269, 2407-2413.
Leuven, R.S.E.W., van der Velde, G., Baijens, I., Snijders, J., van der Zwart, C.,
Lenders, H.J.R. and bij de Vaate, A. (2009) The River Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive species. 11, 1989-2008.
Ling, N. (2003) Rotenone —a review of its toxicity and use for fisheries management.
Science for Conservation 211, 1-40.
Lintermans, M. (2004) Human-assisted dispersal of alien freshwater fish in Australia.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 38, 481-501.
Lougheed, V.L., Crosbie, P. and Chow-Fraser, P. (1998) Predictions on the effect of common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton and submerged macrophytes in a Great Lakes Wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55, 1189 –1197.
Marchetti, M.P., Moyle, P.B. and Levine, R. (2004) Invasive species profiling?
Exploring the characteristics of non-native fishes across invasion stages in California.
Freshwater Biology 49: 646
–661.
Marston, L.C., Bennett, P.C., & Coleman, G.J. (2004) What happens to shelter dogs?
An analysis of data for one year from three Australian shelters. Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 7, 27 –47.
Marston, L.C., Bennett, P.C., & Coleman, G.J. (2006) What happens to shelter dogs?
Part 2. Comparing three Melbourne welfare shelters for nonhuman animals. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8, 25
–45.
Miller, S.A. and Crowl, T.A. (2006) Effects of common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) on macrophytes and invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51,
85 –94.
Mills, M.D., Rader, R.B. and Belk, M.C. (2004) Complex interactions between native and invasive fish: the simultaneous effects of multiple negative interactions.
Oecologia 141, 713 –721.
Moyle, P.B. (1986) Fish introductions into North America: patterns and ecological impact. In: H.A. Mooney & J.A. Drake (eds.) Ecology of biological invasions of North
America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp 27-43.
Moyle, P.B. and Light, T. (1996) Biological invasions of fresh water: Empirical rules and assembly theory. Biological Conservation 78, 149 –161.
Muir, W.M. and Howard, R.D. (2002) Assessment of possible ecological risks and hazards of transgenic fish with implications for other sexually reproducing organisms.
Transgenic Research 11, 101-114.
30

DRAFT
OIE (2013) Aquatic animal health code. Online resource. URL: http://www.oie.int/international-standard-setting/aquatic-code/access-online/
Accessed 14 March 2014
Parkos, J.J., Santucci, J.V.J. and Wahl, D.H. (2003) Effects of adult common carp
( Cyprinus carpio ) on multiple trophic levels in shallow mesocosms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60, 182-192.
Pusey, B.J. & Arthington, A.H. (2003) Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fishes: a review with special emphasis on tropical Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 54, 1-16.
Reichard, S.H. (2001) The search for patterns that enable invasion prediction. In:
Groves, R.H., Panetta, F.D. and Virtue, J.G. (eds.) Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO
Publishing, Canberra, Australia pp 10-19.
Ricciardi, A. (2003) Predicting the impacts of an introduced species from its invasion history: an empirical approach applied to zebra mussel invasions. Freshwater
Biology 48, 972-981.
Ricciardi, A. and Rasmussen, J.B. (1998) Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science 55, 1759-1765.
Robinson, J.V. and Wellborn, G.A. (1988) Ecological resistance to the invasion of a freshwater clam, Corbicula fluminea : fish predation effects. Oecologia 77, 445-452.
Rowe, D. K., Smith, J. P. and Baker, C. (2007) Agonistic interactions between
Gambusia affinis and Galaxias maculatus : implications for whitebait fisheries in New
Zealand rivers. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23, 668 –674.
Ruesink, J.l., Parker, I.M., Groom, M.J. and Kareiva, P.M. (1995) Reducing the risks of nonindigenous species introductions: guilty until proven innocent .
Bioscience 45,
475-477.
Sakai, A.K., Allendorf, F.W., Holt, J.S., Lodge, D.M., Molofsky, J., With, K.A.,
Baughman, S., Cabin, R.J., Cohen, J.E., Ellstrand, N.C., McCauley, D.E., O‘Neil, P.,
Parker, I.M., Thompson, J.N. and Weller, S.G. (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32, 305 –332.
Schofield, P.J. (2010) Update on geographic spread of invasive lionfishes ( Pterois volitans [Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1828]) in the Western North Atlantic
Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Invasions 5(S1), 117-122.
Simberloff, D. and Von Holle, B. (1999) Positive Interactions of Nonindigenous
Species: Invasional Meltdown? Biological Invasions 1, 21-32.
Simon, K.S. and Townsend, C.R. (2002) The impacts of freshwater invaders at different levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem consequences. Freshwater Biology 48, 982-994.
Smith, C., Reichard, M., Jurajda, P. and Przybylski, M. (2004) The reproductive ecology of the European bitterling ( Rhodeus sericeus ). Journal of Zoology, London
262, 107 –124.
31

DRAFT
Stanley, J.G., Miley, W.W. and Sutton, D.L. (1978) Reproductive requirements and likelihood for naturalization of escaped grass carp in the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107, 119-128.
Sytsma, M.D., Cordell, J.R., Chapman, J.W. and Draheim, R.C. (2004) Lower
Columbia River aquatic nonindigenous survey 2001 –04. Final technical report prepared for the United States Coast Guard and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. 78pp.
Theoharides, K.A. and Dukes, J.S. (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New
Phytologist 176, 256 –273.
Tilzey, R.D.J. (1976) Observations on interactions between indigenous Galaxiidae and introduced Salmonidae in the Lake Eucumbene catchment, New South Wales.
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27, 551-564.
Trombitskiy, I.D. & Kakhovskiy, A.E. (1987). On the facultative parasitism of the chebachok, Pseudorasbora parva , in fish ponds. Journal of Ichthyology 27, 180-182.
United Nations (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Online resource. URL: http://www.cbd.int/ Accessed 14 May 2014.
Vila-Gispert, A. Alcaraz, C., Gar a-Berthou, E. (2005) Life history traits of invasive fish in small Mediterranean streams. Biological Invasions 7, 107 –116.
Webb J.K., Brown G.P., Child T., Greenlees M.J., Phillips B.L. and Shine R. (2008) A native dasyurid predator (common planigale, Planigale maculata ) rapidly learns to avoid a toxic invader. Australian Ecology 33, 821 –9.
Wheeler A. (2000) Status of the crucian carp, Carassius carassius (L.) in the U.K.
Fisheries Management and Ecology 7, 315 –322.
Whittington, R.J. and Chong, R. (2007) Global trade in ornamental fish from an
Australian perspective: The case for revised import risk analysis and management strategies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 81 (SI1-3), 92-116.
Williamson M. H. (1996) Biological Invasions. Chapman & Hall, London 244 pp.
WTO (1995) Sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Online resource. URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm Accessed 14 May 2014.
32

ID Risk query Significance
1 Is the species a high,
Guidance
Why this is important for the analysis?
Explanation of how the risk query should be answered.
Assessment of the likelihood of release
It is expected that a species traded at high Assess at which volume the species is traded. The answer should be based on medium or low volume trade species?
volumes is more likely to be released into a new the response from stakeholder surveys and/or other suitable data sources.
environment. This is related to the concept of propagule pressure, which postulates that the greater the propagule pressure the more likely a
2 Is the species a high, medium or low value trade species' the invasion success.
It is expected that a species traded at high value Assess at which value an individual of the species is traded at. The answer is less likely to be released. This question should be based on the response from stakeholder surveys and/or other species?
assumes that with increasing value of individuals suitable data sources.
of the species the likelihood of release decreases.
3 Does the species have a If a species has a history of deliberate release Assess if the species has been deliberately translocated and/or introduced.
history of deliberate then this will increase likelihood of release.
This typically occurs in species with value as food or angling fish, bait or a release?
perceived environmental benefit, such as mosquito larvae control.
4 Does the species have a If a species has a history of accidental release Evidence of accidental translocation and introduction should be well history of accidental then this will increase likelihood of release.
documented, and includes accidental translocation and or introduction into new release?
environments. Assess whether the species has been subject to accidental
33

5 Does the species have characteristics that make it
DRAFT
If a species has characteristics that make it more likely to be accidentally released then this translocation and/or introduction.
Assess whether the species possess characteristics that makes it more likely to be accidentally released including: difficult to identify, commonly kept in more likely to be accidentally released?
6 Does the species have characteristics that make it will increase the likelihood of release.
If a species has characteristics that make it more likely to be deliberately released then this systems that could allow them to escape, and attachment on equipment.
Assess whether the species possesses characteristics that makes it more likely to be deliberately released including: rapid growth to a large size, very high more likely to be will increase the likelihood of release.
deliberately released?
Assessment of the Likelihood of Invasion
7 Is the species Domestication has the potential to enhance fecundity, and known aggression in aquaria and/or ponds.
Assess if the taxon has been selectively bred for traits of benefit to humans domesticated or bred in a fitness (in terms of growth rate, mating success (domesticated) or subjected to other selection or genetic modification.
way that makes it more or and/or fecundity) in domesticated strains less likely to survive if (including transgenic strains) over wild strains.
released?
Domestication or rearing in a way that makes it more likely to survive if released increases the
8 Are the individuals in likelihood of invasion.
If a species has an invasive Assess whether the species is of an invasive race/variety/sub-species; i.e.
question of an invasive race/variety/sub-species?
likelihood of invasion.
9 Has the species If a species has successfully established selfas such can be allocated a three-part infraspecific name.
Assess whether there are records of established populations of the species in established populations strain/race/subspecies then this will increase the assess whether the species is of a taxonomic rank below that of species, and sustaining populations outside their native range question outside their native range.
outside their native range?
then this will increase the likelihood of invasion.
34

DRAFT
10 Is species reproductive The likelihood of invasion increases as the Using an approved climate matching approach such as Climex, GARP or tolerance suited to climates number of climate zones in the species' native Climatch (which use the Koppen-Geiger climatic zones), assess how the in the risk assessment area?
range matching with Australian climate zones increases.
climate in the species' native range matches the climate zone in Australia. The number of climate zones that occur in the species native range are to be compared with the number of climate zones present in Australia. A climate zone match is confirmed when a climate zone is found in both, the native range and Australia.
11 What is the quality of the The likelihood of invasions rises as the quality of Assess this as an estimate of the quality of the data used to generate the climate match?
12 Is the species environmentally versatile?
climate match data improves.
Environmental versatility is directly proportional to the species' likelihood of invasion.
climate match, and whether specific environmental requirements are present in the species‘ native environment that are not present in Australia.
Assess whether for the species of the following traits at least three apply: euryhaline, desiccation tolerant, takes wide range of food items, tolerates a wide range of water quality conditions, habitat variability, oxygen depletion
13 Is the species' native range If a species' native range is well defined then well defined?
this will increase the likelihood of invasion.
14 Does the species have invasive congeners?
tolerance and high temperature tolerance.
Assess whether uncertainty regarding the species' native range exists.
Uncertainty can be confirmed if the native range expansion is not well documented and/or unclear.
The status as a member of an invasive genus Assess whether the species in question belongs to a genus that contains adds to the likelihood of invasion. Invasive invasive species.
history of a species and its congeners is deemed to be a good predictor of invasiveness potential (Ruesink et al., 1995; Reichard 2001).
15 Is the species unpalatable If the species is unpalatable to predators where Assess whether the species in question is unpalatable to predators in Australia.
35

DRAFT to predators?
it is likely to be released then the likelihood of invasion (reduced potential for biological resistance in the system) is increased.
16 Are predators absent from If predators are absent then the likelihood of waters where the species is likely to become invasion is increased.
Assess if the species is suited to and likely to be introduced to environments with no natural predators.
invasive?
17 Does the species exhibit If a species expresses parental care, mouthparental care, is it a brooding and/or live-bearing behaviour, this will
Assess whether the species possesses parental care, mouth-brooding and/or live-bearing behaviour. Parental care in fish includes the protection of the livebearer or mouthbrooder?
18 Is the species known to reduce age-at-maturity in increase its likelihood of successful establishment.
If the species in question is known to reduce age-at-maturity in response to environment then clutch after spawning. Mouth-brooding fish hold eggs or newly hatched young in their mouths. Live-bearing fish bears live young rather than depositing eggs.
Assess whether the species has the ability to adapt their life-history traits such as their age-at-maturity to a new environment.
response to environment?
this will increase the likelihood of invasion.
19 Is the species Hermaphroditism is expected to facilitate hermaphroditic?
successful establishment, thus the likelihood of
Assess whether the species is hermaphroditic.
invasion increases. Some fish that exhibit this characteristic are simultaneous hermaphrodites, which means that they can be both genders at the same time and are able to mate with any individual in their species if present. Other fish species are sequential hermaphrodites, which means that they can change sex once or even
36

DRAFT multiple times in their lifetime.
20 Is the species dependent If a species is dependent on the presence of Assess whether the species requires the presence of another species to on the presence of another another species to complete its life cycle then complete its life cycle. Some species require specialist incubators (e.g. unionid species to complete its life the likelihood of invasion is reduced.
cycle?
21 Is the species dependent The presence of a habitat feature required by a Assess whether the species requires a specific habitat feature to complete its on the presence of a the species to complete its life cycle is expected mussels used by bitterling) in order to reproduce successfully.
life cycle. Some species require specific habitat features (e.g. fast-flowing specific habitat feature to complete its life cycle, and is this particular habitat to increase the species' likelihood of invasion.
water, particular species of plant or types of substrata) in order to reproduce successfully.
feature present in the areas susceptible to invasions?
22 Does the species have If a species possesses such reproductive traits Assess whether the species possesses reproductive characteristics that reproductive characteristics other than parental care then this will increase its likelihood of invasion.
increase the species' likelihood of being invasive include for example high fecundity (>10,000 eggs/kg), batch spawning, serial (multiple) spawning, that increase its likelihood of being invasive?
23 Is the species' generation Generation time is directly proportional to the time facilitative of species' likelihood of invasion.
extended spawning season or other facilitative reproductive traits.
Generation time is defined as the time from hatching to full maturity (i.e. active reproduction, not just presence of gonads). Assess what the species' average invasions?
24 What is the likelihood of compliance activity time from hatching to maturity in years is and allocate score according to the scoring method.
Compliance effort preventing deliberate release Assess if there are legal frameworks that proscribe release of exotic fish, is inversely proportional to the risk of release.
education programs or information about deliberate release that are widely
37

DRAFT preventing deliberate release?
25 What is the likelihood of compliance activity preventing accidental release?
disseminated, and/or active compliance programs that attempt to detect deliberate releases when they occur or as soon as possible after they occur.
Compliance activities preventing deliberate release include quarantine procedures, rules and regulation regarding the movement of fish.
Compliance effort preventing accidental release Assess if there are: legal frameworks that proscribe activities that can is inversely proportional to the risk of release.
inadvertently release exotic fish (controls on the location of fish farms and ponds, licensing or registration processes), education programs or information to aid in preventing accidental release that are widely disseminated, and/or active compliance programs that attempt to detect inadvertent releases when they occur or as soon as possible after they occur. Compliance activities outside its native range are there impacts on wild
Assessment of consequence
26 Where the species occurs History of impacts on wild aquatic species outside its native range is expected to increase the probable consequence (further impact).
preventing accidental release include improvement of identification expertise, public awareness.
Assess whether there is documented evidence of impacts on wild aquatic species such as the decline, endangerment or extinction of native species.
aquatic species?
27 Where the species occurs History of impacts on farmed aquatic species outside its native range are outside its native range is expected to increase
Assess whether there is documented evidence of impacts on farmed species such as costs from control of the species or productivity losses.
there impacts on farmed the probable consequence (further impact).
aquatic species?
28 In the species' non-native If the species in question has altered the Assess whether in the species' non-native range there is documented evidence range is there documented structure or function of a natural ecosystem then that the species has altered the structure or function of a natural ecosystem.
38

DRAFT evidence that the species this increases the probable consequence.
has altered the structure or function of a natural ecosystem?
29 Does the species pose a If a species is known to cause harm to humans, Assess whether the species is known to cause harm to humans for example risk to human health?
e.g. poison, venom this will increase the through, e.g. poison, venom, or whether it is otherwise traumatogenic.
probable consequence.
30 Where established outside If a species has a record of outcompeting native Assess whether the species has a record of outcompeting native species its native range does the species where it has established outside its where it has established outside its native range. Outcompeting of native species out compete native native range then this will increase the probable species takes place through, e.g. the suppression of growth, or by displacing species?
consequence.
native species from their microhabitat.
31 Is the species parasitic?
If the species is parasitic then this increases the Assess whether the species is a parasite which is obligately or facultatively probable consequence.
dependant on a non-mutual relationship with another species, or whether the species is a micropredator, consuming parts of other species without killing them.
32 Does the species prey on a The feeding on a native species is expected to Assess whether the species is likely to establish in hydrosystems normally native species, particularly result in an increase of the probable devoid of predatory fish or in river catchments in which predatory fish have those previously subjected consequence.
to low (or no) predation?
33 Does the species host, and/or is it a vector, for recognised pests and
If a species is the host, and/or a vector, for recognised pests and pathogens, especially non-native ones, this will increase the risk for never been present.
Assess whether the species is associated with non-native pathogens and parasites, with the host either being the original introduction vector of the disease or as a host of the disease brought in by another species. It is pathogens, especially nonconsequence.
acknowledged that disease Import Risk Analysis is a separate, required system
39

DRAFT native?
34 Does feeding or other of risk analysis.
Feeding or other behaviours that reduce habitat Assess whether the species exhibits feeding or other behaviours that reduce behaviours of the species quality for native species will increase the habitat quality (e.g. increase turbidity) for native species.
reduce habitat quality for probable consequence.
native species?
35 Does the species feed on a If a species feeds on a broad range of diet Assess whether the species feeds on a wide range of both plant and animal broad range of diet items?
items, the probable consequence is increased.
material as their primary food sources including insects, crustaceans, macroalgae, plankton, molluscs, brine shrimp, etc. Assess whether the species is an opportunistic, general feeder that is not specifically adapted to eating and
36 Can the species hybridize Interspecific hybridization with native species naturally with native under natural conditions increases the probable digesting either meat or plant material in particular.
Assess whether interspecific hybridization with native species under natural conditions has been recorded for this species.
species?
37 Is the receiving environment facilitative of consequence.
If the receiving environment is facilitative of the Assess whether the new environment is a catchment (open flowing water) species dispersal then the probable where natural dispersal of that eggs or larvae happens either intentionally or species dispersal?
consequence is increased.
accidentally, or whether the environment is a lake (closed water) where natural dispersal is unlikely.
38 Is the species migratory?
If there is evidence of migratory behaviour this Assess whether the species exhibits migratory behaviour. Fish migrate on a will increase the probable consequence.
regular basis, on daily to annually or longer time scales, and over distances from a few metres to thousands of kilometres. They migrate because of diet or
39 Is the species susceptible Susceptible to control measures is inversely to control measures?
proportional to the species' probable
40 reproductive as part of the fulfilment of their life cycle.
Assess whether there the species is documented to be resistant to control agents including (but not limited to) piscicides or whether no control options are

DRAFT consequence.
40 Does the species tolerate If the species tolerates or benefits from or benefit from environmental disturbance then the probable environmental consequence is increased.
disturbance?
41 Is there a history of available.
Assess whether there is documented evidence of the species' growth and spread being enhanced by disruptions or unusual events especially human impacts. Disturbance is a temporary change in the average environmental conditions and includes flooding, drought, as well as anthropogenic disturbances, etc.
History of economic loss increases the probable Assess whether the species has caused economic impacts loss of earnings economic loss caused by consequence.
the fish species within its naturalised range?
due to reduced productivity, costs of mitigation, remediation and eradication, research costs, reduced earnings, impacts to export markets, banning of sale of commercially popular species, displacement of more valuable native species that were commercially exploited, interruption of commercial aquatic activities, increased requirements for biosecurity/management in aquaculture or irrigation, decreased quality of commercially valuable water, or other relevant economic losses.
42 Are there any icon species, If the species threatens any icon species, high Assess whether the species has a history of impacts that could affect native high value environmental value environmental assets, or other species which have public appeal, promotional and publicity value, or which assets, or other environmentally significant values in Australia have been used to harness conservation for that species and other taxa.
environmentally significant values in Australia placed probable consequence will be increased.
Assess whether there are species that may be exposed to significantly increased levels of predation or competition (for food or habitat), or whether at risk by the establishment of this species?
there are any closely related taxa or species with a similar ecology/morphology that may be particularly susceptible. Impacts include predation, competition, reduced habitat quality, genetic effects such as hybridization or introgression, introduction of parasites or pathogens, changes in disturbance regimes,
41

DRAFT human health) threatened probable consequence.
resource pools and supply rates, predation etc. Icon species, high value asset
43 Are there any socially significant assets or amenities (not related to
If the species threatens any socially significant Assess whether the species has a history of impacts that affects the way assets or amenities (not related to human health) in Australia this will increase the include for example threatened species, habitats or ecosystem types that are likely to be exposed to the pest species during the invasion process.
humans use the invaded environment, with special relevance to noted vistas, famous natural landmarks and other notable features that have social value.
by the establishment of this species?
42

DRAFT
Query
Scoring method (How to score the response to the risk query?)
1 Score as follows: Volume of commercial trade/year (retail, wholesalers): N – No fish in trade (nil individuals/year): Score=0; L – Low numbers of fish in trade (≤ 5,000 individuals/year): Score=+1; M – Medium numbers of fish in trade (5,001 – 49,999 individuals/year):
Score=+2; H – High numbers of fish in trade (≥ 50,000 individuals/year): Score=+3. Volume of hobby trade/year: N
– No fish in trade (nil individuals/year): Score=0; L – Low numbers of fish in trade (≤ 100 individuals/year): Score=+1; M – Medium numbers of fish in trade (101 – 9,999 individuals/year): Score=+2; H – High numbers of fish in trade (≥ 10,000 individuals/year):
Score=+3.
2 Score as follows: No trade=0; L=3; M=2; H=1; Value of trade/individual fish (retail, wholesalers): N – No value (nil $/individual):
Score=0; L – Low value of trade (≤ 10 $/individual): Score=+3; M – Medium value of trade (11 – 999 $/individual): Score=+2; H –
High value of trade (≥ 1,000 $/individual): Score=+1.
3 Score as follows: If there is documented evidence that the species has been deliberately released then the score=+1. If there is no documented evidence that the species has been deliberately released then the score=0.
4 Score as follows: If there is documented evidence that the species has been accidentally released than the score=+1. If there is no documented evidence that the species has been accidentally released than the score=0.
5 Score as follows: If there is documented evidence that the species possesses characteristics make it more likely to be accidentally released then the score=+1. If there is no documented evidence that the species has been accidentally released then the score=0.
6 Score as follows: If there is documented evidence that the species possesses characteristics make it more likely to be deliberately released then the score=+1. If there is no documented evidence that the species has been deliberately released then the score=0.
7 Score as follows: If a species domesticated or reared in a way that makes it less likely to survive if released, this will reduce their risk of invasion (Score=-1). If the species is not domesticated or reared in a way that makes it neither more nor less likely to survive if released, the risk score is not affected (Score=0). If a species id domesticated or reared in a way that makes it more likely to survive if released, this will increase their risk of invasion (Score=+1).
8 Score as follows: If a species belongs to a defined group that makes it more likely to establish if released: Score: +1. If the species does not belong to a defined group that makes it more likely to establish if released: Score= 0.
9 Score as follows: No=0; Species has established one non-native population with defined limited range=1; Species has established numerous populations but is limited to one continent=3; Species has become broadly invasive in two or more continents=5.
10 Score as follows: 0-No; 1-Low; 2-Medium, 3-High.
43

DRAFT
11 Score as follows: 0-No; 1-Low; 2-Medium, 3-High.
12 Score as follows: If more than three traits apply: Score=+2. If not: Score=-1.
13 Score as follows: The score reflects the importance of establishment history outside native range. If populations exist that have been categorised as invasive but are present in part of the native range: Score=0. If the native range is not well defined: Score=0. If the native range is well defined: Score=+1.
14 Score as follows: The status as a member of an invasive genus adds to risk: Score=+1. If the species is not a member of an invasive genus: Score=0.
15 Score as follows: If the species is unpalatable: Score=+1. If the species is palatable: Score=0.
16 Score as follows: If predators are absent: Score=+1. If predators are present: Score=0.
17 Score as follows: If a species displays parental care, is a livebearer or mouth-brooder: Score=+1. if this the species does not display either of these behaviours: score=0.
18 Score as follows: If the species is known to reduce age-at-maturity in response to environment: Score=+2. If the species is not known to reduce age-at-maturity in response to environment: Score=0.
19 Score as follows: If the species is hermaphroditic: Score=+3. If the species is not hermaphroditic: Score=0.
20 Score as follows: If the species is dependent on the presence of another species to complete its life cycle: Score=-1. If the species is dependent on the presence of another species to complete its life cycle : Score=0.
21 Score as follows: If the species is dependent on the presence of specific habitat features to complete its life cycle, and this particular habitat feature is present in the areas susceptible to invasions: Score=+1. If the species is dependent on the presence of specific habitat features to complete its life cycle, and this particular habitat feature is not present in the areas susceptible to invasions: Score=-1. If the species is not dependent on the presence of a specific habitat features to complete its life cycle: Score=0.
22 Score as follows: If the species has other reproductive characteristics that increase its likelihood of being invasive: Score=+1. If the species has no other reproductive characteristics that increase its likelihood of being invasive: Score=-1.
23 Score as follows: With increasing generation time the likelihood of invasion decreases. 1 year: Score=+1; 2-3 years: Score=0;
≥4 years: Score=-1:
24 Score as follows: This likelihood of invasion will increase the less compliance there is. No legislative, educational, or active compliance to address deliberate release (High): Score=+3. Legal framework, some education/information, no or very limited active compliance to address deliberate release (Medium): Score=+2. Substantial legal framework, widely dispersed
44

DRAFT education/information, active compliance program to address deliberate release (Low): Score=+1.
25 Score as follows: The likelihood of invasion will increase the less compliance there is. No legislative, educational, or active compliance to address accidental release (High): Score=+3. Legal framework, some education/information, no or very limited active compliance to address accidental release (Medium): Score=+2. Substantial legal framework, widely dispersed education/information, active compliance program to address accidental release (Low): +1.
26 Score as follows: No impacts on wild aquatic species recorded: Score=0; The species has had impacts on wild aquatic species outside its native range but this impact is found in a natural ecosystem with limited range=1; The species has had impacts on wild aquatic species outside its native range in more than one natural ecosystem in one continent=3; The species has had impacts on wild aquatic species outside its native range in two or more continents=5.
27 Score as follows: No impacts on farmed aquatic species recorded: Score=0; The species has had impacts on farmed aquatic species outside its native range but this impact is found in a natural ecosystem with limited range=1; The species has had impacts on farmed aquatic species outside its native range in more than one natural ecosystem in one continent=3; The species has had impacts on farmed aquatic species outside its native range in two or more continents=5.
28 Score as follows: No=0; Species has altered the structure or function of a natural ecosystem in a limited range=1; Species has altered the structure or function of more than one natural ecosystem in one continent=3; Species has altered the structure or function of natural ecosystems in two or more continents=5.
29 Score as follows: If the species is known to pose a risk to human health: Score=+2. If the species is not known to pose a risk to human health: Score=0.
30 Score as follows: If the species out competes native species where it has established outside its native range: Score=+1. If the species does not out competes native species where it has established outside its native range: Score=0.
31 Score as follows: If the species is parasitic: Score=+1. If the species is not parasitic: Score=0.
32 Score as follows: If the species has a history of preying on native species: Score=+1. If the species has no history of preying on native species: Score=0.
33 Score as follows: Species is not known to carry a disease/pathogen: Score=0; Species is known to carry a disease/pathogen of low significance (Low): Score=+1; Species is hosting a known disease, which is not notifiable (Medium): Score=2; Species is hosting a notifiable and/or environmentally significant disease (High): Score=3.
34 Score as follows: Species is not known to possess feeding or other behaviours that reduce habitat quality for native species:
Score=0; Species is known to possess feeding or other behaviours that reduce habitat quality for native species: Score=+1.
35 Score as follows: Species is known to feed on a broad range of diet items: Score=+2; Species is not known to feed on a broad range of diet items: Score=0.
45

DRAFT
36 Score as follows: Species is known to hybridize naturally with native species: Score=+2; Species is not known to hybridize naturally with native species but there are no data: Score=0; Species is known not to hybridize naturally with native species, or where there are no native species in the same family: Score=-1
37 Score as follows: If the receiving environment is facilitative of species dispersal: Score=+1. If the receiving environment is not facilitative of species dispersal: Score=0.
38 Score as follows: If the species is migratory: Score=+1. If the species is not migratory: Score=0.
39 Score as follows: If the species is susceptible to control measures (can be eradicated): Score=0; If the species possess some resistance to control measures (can be controlled with additional or particular effort): Score=+1; If the species possess high resistance to control measures (can not be controlled): Score=+3.
40 Score as follows: If the species tolerates or benefits from environmental disturbance: Score=+1. If the species does not tolerate or benefit from environmental disturbance: Score=-1.
41 Score as follows: Consequence is proportional to the history of economic loss. No history of economic loss (No): Score=0. Some economic loss with limited geographic spread. Score=1. Substantial economic loss on one continent: Score=2 Substantial economic loss on more than one continent: Score=4
Some direct or indirect economic loss recorded (Medium): Score=+2.
Substantial economic loss or industry collapse (High): Score=+4.
42 Score as follows: Consequence is increased the greater the threat to icon species, high value environmental assets, or other environmentally significant values in Australia at risk. Impacts on icon species, high value environmental assets, or other environmentally significant values in Australia unlikely (Low): Score=0. Direct or indirect impacts on icon species, high value environmental assets, or other environmentally significant values in Australia likely (Medium): Score=+2. Substantial impacts on icon species, high value environmental assets, or other environmentally significant values in Australia likely (High): Score=+4.
43 Score as follows: Consequence is proportional to the threat to socially significant assets or amenities (not related to human health) in Australia. Impacts on socially significant assets or amenities (not related to human health) in Australia unlikely (Low): Score=0.
Direct or indirect impacts on socially significant assets or amenities (not related to human health) in Australia likely (Medium):
Score=+2. Substantial impacts on socially significant assets or amenities (not related to human health) in Australia likely (High):
Score=+4.
46