Early Detection of Aquatic Invasive Species finding the ... detection of AIS Jim...
Transcript of Early Detection of Aquatic Invasive Species finding the ... detection of AIS Jim...
Early Detection of Aquatic Invasive Species—finding the needle in the
haystack
Jim Grazio, Ph.D.
PA DEP- Office of the Great Lakes
19 March 2019
Presentation Outline
• Share current AIS monitoring research
• Discuss regional AIS monitoring initiatives
Primary Sources
• Hoffman et al. 2011. Effort and potential efficiencies for aquatic non-native species early detection. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68, 2064-2079.
• Trebitz et al. 2017. Early detection monitoring for aquatic non-indigenous species: Optimizing surveillance, incorporating advanced technologies, and identifying research needs. Journal of Environmental Management 202, 299-310
Options for Finding the Needle
• Detection is only “early” if organisms are found while still few and localized (i.e., rare).
• Rare organisms are inherently difficult to find
What to Monitor
• What to Monitor
– Target Species Monitoring/ “Active” Surveillance
• Look for a needle
– Broad Spectrum Monitoring/ “Passive” Surveillance
• Look for Anything that’s not hay
Where to Monitor
• Where to Monitor
– Consider
• Ecology
• Known ranges
• Pathways– Needles occur in hay
bales, not alfalfa bales
How to Monitor
• No survey can prove something absent
• Goal should be reasonable certainty that effort was sufficient to detect rare species
• Early Detection can be resource intensive– Risk v. resources
• Sampling Design– Usually random (stratified
cluster) or grid (spatially balanced)
• When Detection becomes easier, control becomes harder
Like searching for a needle using point-intercept design
Species-Effort Curves
• How many times do you need to look before you find all of the different types of needles?– To detect 95% of:
• Zooplankton- 750 samples
• Benthic inverts- 150 samples
• Fish- 100 samples
Source: Hoffman et al. 2011. Effort and potential efficiencies for aquatic non-native species early detection. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 68, 2064-2079.
What to Look For• Look for an organism directly
or indirectly?– Entire organism v. eDNA
• Taxonomic approach– Limited effectiveness and efficiency
– “Gold Standard”
• eDNA– Efficient and Effective
– Limitations• Organism alive or dead?
• Quantification?
• DNA persistence?
eDNA
• Two eDNA based approaches:
– DNA target marker approach
• PCR-based
• Species-specific primers
– DNA barcoding
• Determine base-pair sequences
• Compare against reference sequences in database (e.g., GenBank)
• Metabarcoding examines sequences across a broad number of taxa
Zebra mussel gel
Assessing Survey Performance
• Aspects to assess include:
– detection probability attained for a given effort (i.e., sensitivity)
– efficiency with which detection is achieved,
– uncertainty in the survey outcome
• Quantifying and communicating why you didn’t find the needle
Conclusions
• The effort required for high-probability, early detection of aquatic non-native species is substantial
• Proper sampling design can increase efficiencies
– For early detection, targeted area/stratified cluster sampling (SCS) is (relatively) more efficient
• Consider and communicate uncertainty
– Create rarefaction curves
Regional AIS Surveillance Program
Regional AIS Surveillance Project
• GLRI-funded initiative
– MIDEQ sponsor, TNC facilitator, 8 State writing team
• Goals:
– 1) detect and track aquatic invasive species in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes,
– 2) provide up to date information needed by decision makers for evaluating potential response actions
• Supports the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Governors
and Premiers signed Mutual Aid Agreement
2014 Mutual Aid Agreement
The Plan• Incorporates recent research
• Scope
– Fishes; Benthic Inverts, Plants
– US Waters of Great Lakes Basin, including St. Lawrence Seaway
Plan Content• Content
– Develops a species watch list.
– Identifies 25 priority locations for surveillance.
– Provides guidance on monitoring protocols for surveillance.
– Establishes a process for regional decision making and coordination across state agencies.
– Establishes protocols for sharing information.
– Identifies a collaborative adaptive management process
Species Watch Lists
• Species Watch Lists based on NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System (GLANSIS)
• 138 species across three taxonomic groups (fish, invertebrates, and plant/algae)
• Conventional sampling using multiple gears plus eDNA for high-risk target species (e.g., Asian Carp and ruffe)
Priority Surveillance Sites
• 25 throughout the Great Lakes
• Selected primarily based on propagule pressure and human population
Site Rank Location State Averaged Index Score
1 Chicago/Chicago River Mouth IL 151
2 Toledo/Maumee River Mouth OH 108
3 West Harbor/Marblehead/Lake Erie OH 79
4 Oswego/Oswego River Mouth NY 75
5 Saginaw Bay/Saginaw River Mouth MI 69
6 Portage/Portage-Burns Waterway IN 68
7 Sandusky/Sandusky Bay OH 68
8 Buffalo/Niagara River NY 65
9 Benton Harbor/Saint Joseph River Mouth MI 65
10 Grosse Pointe Shores/Lake St. Clair MI 64
11 Calumet River Mouth/Lake Michigan IN 63
12 Lake St. Clair/Clinton River Mouth MI 57
13 Cleveland/Cuyahoga River Mouth OH 55
14 East Chicago/Indiana Harbor Canal IN 54
15 Evanston/North Shore Channel Mouth IL 53
16 Lakeside/ Lake St. Clair MI 50
17 Rochester/Genesee River Mouth NY 50
18 Detroit River/Rouge River Mouth MI 48
19 Grand Haven/Grand River Mouth MI 45
20 Green Bay/Fox River Mouth WI 44
21 Fairport Harbor/Grand River Mouth OH 39
22 Milwaukee/Kinnickinnic River Mouth WI 38
23 Erie/Presque Isle Bay PA 37
24 Toussaint River Mouth OH 36
25 Lorain/Black River Mouth OH 34
Priority Plant Surveillance Sites
Plant Invasion Risk
Survey Methods• Stratified random (SCS) design
• Uses a variety of sampling gears to sample a variety of habitats (stratification variable)
• Fishes
– Fyke nets, boat electrofishing, bottom trawls
• Invertebrates
– Ponars, sweep nets, Hester-Dendy
• Plants
– Rake Toss, videography, diving
• Adaptive- Assess and modify as appropriate
Regional AIS Surveillance Program
Other Great (Lakes) Stuff
• Post-Delisting Monitoring Year
• Collaborative Science Monitoring year on Lake Erie
• Lake Erie LAMP 5-year report
• PA Sea Grant Mock AIS response workshop 21 March 2019
Contact Information
• Jim Grazio, PhD
Great Lakes Biologist
814-217-9636