Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||A global review and meta-analysis of applications of the freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit|
Forneck S.C., S.C.
Kim J.-E., J.-E.
|Publisher:||Springer International Publishing|
|Citation:||Rev Fish Biol Fish 2019;29(3):529-568.|
|Abstract:||The freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) has been applied in 35 risk assessment areas in 45 countries across the six inhabited continents (11 applications using FISK v1; 25 using FISK v2). The present study aimed: to assess the breadth of FISK applications and the confidence (certainty) levels associated with the decision-support tool’s 49 questions and its ability to distinguish between taxa of low-to-medium and high risk of becoming invasive, and thus provide climate-specific, generalised, calibrated thresholds for risk level categorisation; and to identify the most potentially invasive freshwater fish species on a global level. The 1973 risk assessments were carried out by 70 + experts on 372 taxa (47 of the 51 species listed as invasive in the Global Invasive Species Database www.iucngisd.org/gisd/), which in decreasing order of importance belonged to the taxonomic Orders Cypriniformes, Perciformes, Siluriformes, Characiformes, Salmoniformes, Cyprinodontiformes, with the remaining ≈ 8% of taxa distributed across an additional 13 orders. The most widely-screened species (in decreasing importance) were: grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, common carp Cyprinus carpio, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. Nine ‘globally’ high risk species were identified: common carp, black bullhead Ameiurus melas, round goby Neogobius melanostomus, Chinese (Amur) sleeper Perccottus glenii, brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus, eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki, largemouth (black) bass Micropterus salmoides, pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus and pikeperch Sander lucioperca. The relevance of this global review to policy, legislation, and risk assessment and management procedures is discussed.|
|Sponsorship:||Support for participation was provided to: GHC by Cefas and the UK Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; BA by the Belarus Republican Foundation for Fundamental Research; ?F by a Bolyai J?nos Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; SMM by the NRF Professional Development Programme (Grant No. 1010140); RM by the Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), Mexico; MP by grants from the Croatian Science Foundation (IP-06-2016) and the University of Zagreb (1-28-121); FR by FRISK Project (FCT Ref. PTDC/AAG-MAA/0350/2014) and by the strategic plan of MARE (Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre: UID/MAR/04292/2013); PS by grants from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia (OI173025) and the Croatian Science Foundation (IP-06-2016); OLFW by the National Research Foundation?South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology (Grant No. 110507).|
|Appears in Collections:||Статьи биологического факультета|
Files in This Item:
|Vilizzi2019_Article_AGlobalReviewAndMeta-analysisO.pdf||829,51 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.