Susan Knight, Alison Mikulyuk, Michelle Nault, Scott Van ... › cnr-ap › UWEXLakes ›...

58
Science to support natural resource management of aquatic invasive species Jennifer Hauxwell Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Research program Susan Knight, Alison Mikulyuk, Michelle Nault, Scott Van Egeren, Martha Balfour, Tim Asplund, and many other colleagues and partners Photo by M. Nault

Transcript of Susan Knight, Alison Mikulyuk, Michelle Nault, Scott Van ... › cnr-ap › UWEXLakes ›...

  • Science to support natural resource management of aquatic invasive species

    Jennifer HauxwellFisheries and Aquatic Sciences Research program

    Susan Knight, Alison Mikulyuk, Michelle Nault, Scott Van Egeren, Martha Balfour, Tim Asplund, and many

    other colleagues and partners

    Photo by M. Nault

  • Science as a

    perspective?Various perspectives to inform

    decision-making (?):

    -Scientific

    -Social

    -Economic

    -Political

    Science as a

    Tool!(to understanding this ―Earth

    terrarium‖ and the

    consequences of our ―mixing‖

    of species across ecosystems)

    Gary Larson – The Far Side

  • • Introducing… the trouble-makers

    • Science to support regulatory options – NR 40 - species and pathways

    • Science to understand impacts on the environment – How invasions happen, predicting vulnerable lakes

    – How much, where, variability across lakes (monitoring)

    • Science to inform management options – Focus on Eurasian watermilfoil

    • Moving forward – Important actions

    – The importance of partners

    Talk outline

  • Earl Cooke

    Pam Toshner

    Tim

    Asplund

    Laura

    Herman

    Tim

    Hoyman

    Sandy

    Gillum

    Pat Goggin

    Jeff BodeBob Korth

  • Invasives

    UN

    Spiny

    Waterflea

    “Rusty”

    Yellow-floating heart

    Rock

    Snot

    Red

    swamperRound

    goby

    Zebra

    mussel

    Eurasian water-milfoil

    Curlyleaf

    WDNR’s

    Hydrilla

    http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/2010/02/zebra-mussel-cluster-small.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/12/marine-invaders/zebra-mussel-cluster-small/&h=428&w=600&sz=65&tbnid=A5zHUSi3tbBYyM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dzebra%2Bmussel%2Bpicture&zoom=1&q=zebra+mussel+picture&hl=en&usg=__q-RJRCHEJvw3IsEnOILS6lko65A=&sa=X&ei=znqKTP2PJcLYnAfgroXBDA&ved=0CCAQ9QEwBAhttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.michigan.gov/images/spiny_water_flea-USFWS_97436_7.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3677_8314-83004--,00.html&h=435&w=640&sz=14&tbnid=kbRI9ZyYVO4QNM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dspiny%2Bwater%2Bflea%2Bpicture&zoom=1&q=spiny+water+flea+picture&hl=en&usg=__yl9yfNV4g_Q4cia1toGhWC0oerQ=&sa=X&ei=LHyKTJ_3Hs3wngeO88yxCg&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAQhttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/Graphics/Shedd_RoundGoby.gif&imgrefurl=http://seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/roundgoby.html&h=192&w=288&sz=47&tbnid=ZdIIPKg7W5qfTM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dround%2Bgoby&zoom=1&q=round+goby&hl=en&usg=__fsi00m77WTvUtvPXI_1MPfjRhaI=&sa=X&ei=7nyKTPbjJMqTnQeo0bG6Cw&ved=0CB8Q9QEwAAhttp://myds.sakura.ne.jp/z-animal-e/aquatic/red_swamp_crawfish/a.gif

  • What are some notorious examples

    of invasive species?

    Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)In WI

    Photo by John Madsen

  • In WI

    Curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)

  • Florida

  • Wisconsin, private pond, 2005

  • Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)

    Wisconsin, private pond, 2007

  • Yellow floating Heart (Nymphoides peltata)

    In WI, multiple ponds

  • Erica Shelby, AR

    Stu Sutherland, NZ

    Rock Snot

    (algae, diatom)

    (Dydimosphenia

    geminata)

    Not in inland systems?

    (ND, SD, New England)

  • Dreissena polymorpha

    (zebra mussel)

  • Osmerus mordax

    (rainbow smelt)

  • Hypophthalmichthys

    molitrix

    (silver carp)

    ―Asian carp‖ = Silver, Bighead, Black, Grass

  • Orconectes rusticus

    (rusty crayfish)

  • Procambarus clarkii

    (red swamp crayfish)

  • Neogobius

    melanostomus

    (round goby)

  • Cipangopaludina

    chinensis

    (Chinese mystery snail)

  • Bythotrephes

    longimanus

    (spiny water flea)

  • Why worry about invasive species?

    • Economic impacts

    – cost of management, tourism /

    recreational impairment, home values

    • Ecological impacts

    – loss of diversity, changes to biological, physical, and biogeochemical features of lake habitats (form and function)

    • Aesthetics

    – odors, piles of rotting vegetation

    • Health

    – toxic blue-greens, flying carp

  • How are aquatic invasive species

    regulated?

    • Federal Noxious Weed Act - prohibits importation and interstate transport of listed plants

    • NR 109, (Stat 23.24) - designates 3 aquatic plants as invasive, limits intentional introduction; can designate additional species for a water body or group of water bodies.

    • Stat 30.715 - illegal to launch with any aquatic plants or animals

    • Local or county ordinances

    • Many good programs to educate on ―voluntary‖ best management practices

    Section 23.22, Wis. Stats., orders DNR to identify, classify and control invasive species – NR 40

  • http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/classification/

    Key accomplishments

    1) Identify and list potentially harmful species

    2) Reduce likely pathways of introduction

  • 1) Identification of species

    and regulated activities

    6 Species Assessment Groups

    -Aquatic plants and algae

    -Aquatic animals (fish and invertebrates)

    -Woody plants

    -Herbaceous plants

    -Terrestrial vertebrates

    -Terrestrial invertebrates & plant

    disease-causing microorganisms

    Developed lists of harmful species –

    Cannot “transfer, transport, introduce, or possess”

  • In total…

    For submergent aquatic plants and algae, we are concerned about:

    • 3 established species (EWM, CLP, flowering rush)

    • 16 species of plants and algae not yet established statewide (e.g., hydrilla, rock snot)

    • 14 ―caution‖ speciesGoogle ―WDNR and Invasives‖

    http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/classification/

    In addition, many species of aquatic animals, and wetland plants

    http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/classification/

  • 2) Preventive measures

    • Illegal to launch or transport

    AND

    • Immediate removal and drainage required

    – Vehicle, boat, trailer, equipment or gear of any type

    – Visible ―Stuff‖ - All attached aquatic plants or animals

    – Water (algae,

    early life stages

    invertebrates)

    • Introduction prohibited

    – Non-native aquatic

    plants, algae to public

    waters

  • Process and next steps• WI Council on Invasive Species (WCIS) created by

    Legislature – advisory to DNR

    • Developed process, criteria, categories, draft regulations

    • Created species lists, conducted literature reviews

    • Species Assessment Group evaluations

    • Draft rule

    • Informal Public Listening Sessions

    • DNR responds to comments – revises rule

    • Proposed rule to Natural Resources Board

    • Formal public hearings around state

    • DNR revises rule based on public comments

    • Proposed rule to NRB for adoption

    • Legislative review and possible hearings

    • Publication—rule takes effect (Sept 2009)

    • Revision as new information becomes available

  • ―Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers‖

  • Conclusions for NR 40

    • Science plays a critical role in making good regulations

    •So do stakeholders…

    Thanks to many of you!

    Lake residents,

    Lake organizations,

    Industry reps,

    Educators,

    Local and county reps

    SAG members

  • Understanding the ecology of

    invasions as a framework for:

    From Jake Vander Zanden

    UW Center for Limnology

    “Smart Prevention”

  • Online mapping tool for lake suitabilityaka ―who can survive where?‖

    http://www.aissmartprevention.wisc.edu/

    z

  • Smart prevention maps

    Available:

    • Zebra mussels

    • Rainbow smelt

    In progress

    • Spiny water flea

    • Rusty crayfish

    • Chinese mystery snail

    • Round goby

    • Eurasian watermilfoil

  • The Milfoil story in Wisconsin

    • Once, there was snow and ice covering most of the state (c.a. 10,000 – 110,000 BP)

    • Then, there were many lakes

    • Then, over time, those lakes were colonized by 7 ―native‖ milfoils and many other species

    • Then, along came a milfoil species from another continent and it got loose in the Chesapeake (1940s)

    • Then, it showed up in the Madison lakes (1960s)

    • 50 years later, it’s made it to northern Wisconsin– Human-mediated succession

    – What do we do about this?

    – First, get our facts straight.

  • Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM)

    Recorded in:

    - 46 states

    - 539 lakes

    in WI

    We know in general:

  • Despite good tracking of EWM populations in WI

    (yes if present):

    • How much? Where in the lake? What will the lake look like in the future?

    -different lake types, different outcome?

    -different location, different outcome?

    -different management, different outcome?

    If we knew more, we could manage better.

  • 1) Develop observation system (2004-2005)

    - assess how aquatic plant communities vary in

    lakes across the state and over time

    Making the best management decisions for WI lakes using data

    (What species? Where? How much? Response to management?)

    Myriophyllum spicatum

    Enterprise Lake, Langlade

    N = 1 N = 266

  • 0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100

    Littoral EWM Frequency of Occurrence (%)

    # W

    isco

    nsin

    Lakes

    2) Ask the questions…-How much Eurasian watermilfoil is in our milfoil lakes?

    -Most EWM littoral frequencies are

  • EWM frequency varies by ecoregion (P

  • Ideally, we’d know:

    • Date of introduction

    • Acreage of EWM

    • Acreage of EWM treated

    • Chemical used

    • Amount used

    • When

    • Where

    -How does abundance and distribution of Eurasian

    watermilfoil relate to how long it’s been in the lake or

    past management?

    • Date first detected,

    • and ???

    vs

  • As we have managed in the past, any management approach can result in wide variation in current EWM = short term ―nuisance‖ control

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    0 10 20 30 40 50

    Years Since Initial Detection

    EW

    M L

    itto

    ral F

    req

    uen

    cy o

    f

    Occu

    rren

    ce (

    %)

    Heavy Management

    Light Management

    No Management

    -How does past management relate to today’s population levels?

    100 lake survey 2005-2006

  • Smart management and investment

    • An ounce of prevention…

    • Strategic vs non-strategic control?

    Past management (non strategic) outcomes =

    short term nuisance relief

    Future management (strategic) outcomes =

    long-term restoration?

    • Established EWM - Early season herbicide approachMaximize control of milfoil, minimize effects on natives?

    Targeted treatment areas based on monitoring data

    • New EWM - Rapid responseHand-pulling, targeted herbicides

    • Adaptive management based on good monitoring

  • -How does strategic management affect long-term

    EWM population levels?Tracking 24 lakes over time, 2007 – ongoing

    3 regions, established and new, managed and unmanaged

    Strategic management supported by monitoring

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    -2 0 2 4 6 8

    Years from Treatment

    EW

    M

    Managed

    Unmanaged

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    -2 0 2 4 6 8

    Years from Treatment

    EW

    M

    Managed

    Unmanaged

    ESTABLISHED populations

    Hypothetical data

    Managed

    Unmanaged

    ?

    ?

    ?

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    -2 0 2 4 6 8

    Years from Treatment

    EW

    M

    Managed

    Unmanaged

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    -2 0 2 4 6 8

    Years from Treatment

    EW

    M

    Managed

    UnmanagedNEW populations

    Hypothetical data

    Managed

    Unmanaged

    ?

    ?

    ?

  • Northern Lakes & ForestsUnmanaged

    Managed

  • North Central Hardwood ForestsUnmanaged

    Managed

  • Unmanaged

    Managed

    Southeastern Till Plains

  • Short-term Results for EWM

    Long-term Results for EWM?

    Short- and Long-term for Natives?

    Short- and Long-term Economic Costs?

  • Whole-lake herbicide treatments for Eurasian

    watermilfoil – established populations

    Q: So what’s the big deal with whole-lake treatments?

    vs

    Whole lake treatment = Whole ecosystem manipulation

    A: Spatial scale!

    -How are aquatic plant communities affected by new

    management tools?

  • Specific Questions for Whole Lake Treatments

    1) What are the primary and secondary ecological effects

    (both intended and unintended)?

    -Vegetation (exotic and native)

    -Water quality (algae)

    -Fisheries

    2) What has been done already to address those questions?

    Anecdotal

    accounts

    Technical review of DATA

    Generalize effects

  • 0.0

    10.0

    20.0

    30.0

    40.0

    50.0

    60.0

    70.0

    -1 0 1 2 3

    Years from Treatment

    Cu

    mu

    lati

    ve

    Co

    ve

    r

    20 Lakes Selected:3+ years of data

    [6 ppb] target

    Spring treatment

    Same surveyors

    Similar survey timing

    Data from MI DEQ

    Long-term effects on EWM (3+ year data sets):

    *Cumulative cover – indicates coverage and density of plants in lake

  • Coontail

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    15

    Year Year

    Elodea

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Northern Watermilfoil

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Slender Naiad

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Fre

    quency o

    f occurr

    ence

    Coontail

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    15

    Dosage (ppb)

    -Potential large decreases, regardless of dosage

    Long-term effects on susceptible native plants:

  • Effects on algae / water clarity

    Statistically significant reductions in secchi depth in 80% of treated lakes

    -Since they compete for nutrients, trade-off between plants and algae

    -Plant decay also provides nutrients for algal growth

    Fluridone Treated Lakes

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Clear Hortonia Burr Crooked Zumbra Potter Schutz Random Parkers Eagle

    Secch

    i D

    ep

    th (

    m)

    Pretreatment

    Post-treatment

  • Potter Lake 9/30/05

  • Depends on the lake:

    • Amount of susceptible vegetation

    • Amount of phosphorus

    • Shape and depth of lake (% of lake area

    that is vegetated)

    Weighing the costs and benefits:

    Shallow, eutrophic lake

    with high biomass of

    EWM, coontail, and

    elodea throughout

    Deep, oligotrophic

    lake with some EWM,

    and high biomass of

    tolerant natives

    vs

  • Deciding on the best management approach:

    1) Quantify the perceived problem! Data, data, data…-Established vs new populations, locations in lake

    2) Set reasonable expectations (ecological and economical)-Eradication(?) vs long-term management

    -Can incur unintended ecological effects – need to evaluate data

    lake by lake (physical features, plants, algae/water clarity, fisheries)

    3) Weigh the benefits with the risks

    4) Recognize that managing invasives is a long-term

    commitment with any tool (action based on data)

    5) Don’t forget about the watershed

  • -How does watershed and lakeshore development

    affect lakes?

    (DNR staff? UW Extension staff? Lake Leaders? Universities?)

    Water clarity?

    Plants?

    Fish?

    Invasives?

  • Always look both ways…

    • ―AIS! AIS!‖

    • Great energy and resources invested in our lakes surrounding our AIS challenges

    • Don’t forget to look back to the land

    “Bear! Bear!”

  • Moving Forward

    • Prevent spread of invasives through careless

    action (moving boats, equipment, sale of exotics

    for aquarium or water garden)

    • Responsible control of existing invasives (use

    best available science)

    • Reduce nutrient inputs to lakes – critical

    • Steps toward understanding effects of climate

    change

    • Foster partnerships

  • In conclusion, the importance of this partnership…

    A Collaborative Partnership for Michigan’s Lakes –

    McNALMS sponsored two luncheon conferences to…

    initiate discussion on the possibility of developing a collaborative

    partnership in Michigan to promote protection and management of

    the State’s lakes, similar to the Wisconsin Lakes Partnership.

    Given Michigan’s abundant water resources, it is unrealistic to expect

    any one agency or single entity to strategically manage the thousands

    of lakes in the State. The most realistic solution to this ―commons

    dilemma‖ is the development of collaborative management

    relationships. McNALMS is now working with the DNR, DEQ, MSUE

    and other NGOs to define how the partnership should work.