DOCSLIB.ORG

A Risk Assessment of the Impacts of Pest Species in the Riverine Environment in the Murray-Darling Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Risk Assessment of the Impacts of Pest Species in the Riverine Environment in the Murray-Darling Basin A Risk Assessment of the Impacts of Pest Species in the Riverine Environment in the Murray-Darling Basin Report to the Murray- Darling Basin Commission Funded by the Strategic Investigations and Education Riverine Program - Project R2006 Freshwater Ecology, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Keith Turnbull Research Institute & Dr Jane Roberts February 2002 A Risk Assessment of the Impacts of Pest Species in the Riverine Environment in the Murray-Darling Basin. Report produced for Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Strategic Investigations and Riverine Program – Project R2006. Prepared by Pam Clunie1, Ivor Stuart1, Matthew Jones1, Di Crowther1, Sabine Schreiber1, Shanaugh McKay1, Justin O'Connor1, & David McLaren2, John Weiss2, Lalith Gunasekera2 & Dr. Jane Roberts3 1 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DNRE 2 Keith Turnbull Research Institute, DNRE 3 Consultant Published by: Department of Natural Resources and Environment Arthur Rylah Institute 123 Brown Street Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084 February 2002 Copyright State Government of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002. ISBN http://resourceweb/corpmgt/webservices/online.htm Cover Photos: Potamopyrgus antipodarum Steve Morton Salvinia molesta John Weiss Cyprinus carpio Matthew Jones Salix sp. Phil Papas This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................I LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................V CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................................ V OBJECTIVES, TASKS AND OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................... V RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................ VI EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................... VI CANVASSING EXPERT OPINION....................................................................................................................VII RESEARCH PORTFOLIO................................................................................................................................VIII 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 DEFINITIONS - WHAT IS A PEST ? .................................................................................................... 1 2 RISK ASSESSMENTS.................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN WEED RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 7 2.2 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PEST FAUNA............................................................................................. 24 3 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL.......................................................................... 28 3.1 METHODS....................................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 RESULTS/OUTPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 28 3.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 36 3.4 MURRAY-DARLING BASIN INVASIVE SPECIES EDUCATION PROGRAM ........................................ 37 4 IDENTIFICATION OF CURRENT AND POTENTIAL PEST SPECIES - FAUNA.......... 40 4.1. METHODS....................................................................................................................................... 40 4.2 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS............................................................................................................ 42 5 IDENTIFYING CURRENT AND POTENTIAL PEST PLANT SPECIES .......................... 56 5.1 IDENTIFICATION............................................................................................................................. 56 5.2 MANAGEMENT ISSUES................................................................................................................... 57 5.3 RESEARCH; INFORMATION & EDUCATION .................................................................................... 57 5.4 BUILDING ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................... 60 6 SPECIES’ PROFILES ................................................................................................................ 63 6.1 FISH........................................................................................................................................................ 64 6.1.1: Cyprinus carpio (Carp) ...............................................................................................................64 6.1.2: Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Gambusia) ..................................................................................67 6.1.3: Carassius auratus (Goldfish).......................................................................................................71 6.1.4: Perca fluviatilis (Redfin)..............................................................................................................74 i 6.1.5: Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Oriental Weatherloach) ..............................................................77 6.1.6: Salmo trutta (Brown Trout).........................................................................................................80 6.1.7: Oreochromis mossambicus (Mozambique Tilapia) ....................................................................83 6.1.8: Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) ....................................................................................85 6.1.9: Tinca tinca (Tench).....................................................................................................................88 6.1.10: Rutilius rutilius (Roach) ...........................................................................................................90 6.1.11: Poecilia reticultata (Guppy)......................................................................................................92 6.1.12: Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon) ..................................................................................................94 6.1.13: Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook Trout)..........................................................................................96 6.2 INVERTEBRATES............................................................................................................................... 98 6.2.1 Cherax tenuimanus (Marron).......................................................................................................98 6.2.2 Pseudosuccinea columella (American ribbed fluke snail).........................................................100 6.2.3 Potamopyrgus antipodarum (New Zealand mudsnail) ..............................................................102 6.2.4 Dreissena polymorpha (Zebra mussel).......................................................................................104 6.3 PLANTS .............................................................................................................................................. 106 6.3.1 Lippia Phyla canescens (Kunth) E.Greene .................................................................................106 6.3.2 Willows (Salix spp.) .....................................................................................................................109 7 RESEARCH PROJECTS: BRIEFS ...................................................................................... 113 7.1 METHODS..................................................................................................................................... 113 7.2 DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF PROJECTS .................................................................................... 113 7.3 OUTLINE AND SUMMARY OF PROJECTS ....................................................................................... 114 7.4 RESEARCH PROJECT BRIEFS .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Global Assessment of Parasite Diversity in Galaxiid Fishes
    diversity Article A Global Assessment of Parasite Diversity in Galaxiid Fishes Rachel A. Paterson 1,*, Gustavo P. Viozzi 2, Carlos A. Rauque 2, Verónica R. Flores 2 and Robert Poulin 3 1 The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685, Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway 2 Laboratorio de Parasitología, INIBIOMA, CONICET—Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, San Carlos de Bariloche 8400, Argentina; [email protected] (G.P.V.); [email protected] (C.A.R.); veronicaroxanafl[email protected] (V.R.F.) 3 Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-481-37-867 Abstract: Free-living species often receive greater conservation attention than the parasites they support, with parasite conservation often being hindered by a lack of parasite biodiversity knowl- edge. This study aimed to determine the current state of knowledge regarding parasites of the Southern Hemisphere freshwater fish family Galaxiidae, in order to identify knowledge gaps to focus future research attention. Specifically, we assessed how galaxiid–parasite knowledge differs among geographic regions in relation to research effort (i.e., number of studies or fish individuals examined, extent of tissue examination, taxonomic resolution), in addition to ecological traits known to influ- ence parasite richness. To date, ~50% of galaxiid species have been examined for parasites, though the majority of studies have focused on single parasite taxa rather than assessing the full diversity of macro- and microparasites. The highest number of parasites were observed from Argentinean galaxiids, and studies in all geographic regions were biased towards the highly abundant and most widely distributed galaxiid species, Galaxias maculatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity
    Biodiversity KEY5 FACTS as hunting), as pasture grasses or as aquarium species Introduced (in the case of some marine species). They have also • Introduced species are been introduced accidentally, such as in shipments of recognised as a leading Species imported grain or in ballast water. cause of biodiversity loss Introduced plants, or weeds, can invade and world-wide. compete with native plant species for space, light, Trends water and nutrients and because of their rapid growth rates they can quickly smother native vegetation. • Rabbit numbers: a DECLINE since Similarly to weeds, many introduced animals compete introduction of Rabbit Haemorrhagic with and predate on native animals and impact on Disease (RHD, also known as calicivirus) native vegetation. They have high reproductive rates although the extent of the decline varies and can tolerate a wide range of habitats. As a result across the State. they often establish populations very quickly. •Fox numbers: DOWN in high priority Weeds can provide shelter for pest animals, conservation areas due to large-scale although they can provide food for or become habitat baiting programs; STILL A PROBLEM in for native animals. Blackberry, for example, is an ideal other parts of the State. habitat for the threatened Southern Brown Bandicoot. This illustrates the complexity of issues associated •Feral camel and deer numbers: UP. with pest control and highlights the need for control •Feral goat numbers: DECLINING across measures to have considered specific conservation Weed affected land – Mount Lofty Ranges the State. outcomes to be undertaken over time and to be Photo: Kym Nicolson •Feral pig numbers: UNKNOWN.
    [Show full text]
  • Disease List for Aquaculture Health Certificate
    Quarantine Standard for Designated Species of Imported/Exported Aquatic Animals [Attached Table] 4. Listed Diseases & Quarantine Standard for Designated Species Listed disease designated species standard Common name Disease Pathogen 1. Epizootic haematopoietic Epizootic Perca fluviatilis Redfin perch necrosis(EHN) haematopoietic Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout necrosis virus(EHNV) Macquaria australasica Macquarie perch Bidyanus bidyanus Silver perch Gambusia affinis Mosquito fish Galaxias olidus Mountain galaxias Negative Maccullochella peelii Murray cod Salmo salar Atlantic salmon Ameirus melas Black bullhead Esox lucius Pike 2. Spring viraemia of Spring viraemia of Cyprinus carpio Common carp carp, (SVC) carp virus(SVCV) Grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella white amur Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Bighead carp Carassius carassius Crucian carp Carassius auratus Goldfish Tinca tinca Tench Sheatfish, Silurus glanis European catfish, wels Negative Leuciscus idus Orfe Rutilus rutilus Roach Danio rerio Zebrafish Esox lucius Northern pike Poecilia reticulata Guppy Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout Abramis brama Freshwater bream Notemigonus cysoleucas Golden shiner 3.Viral haemorrhagic Viral haemorrhagic Oncorhynchus spp. Pacific salmon septicaemia(VHS) septicaemia Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout virus(VHSV) Gadus macrocephalus Pacific cod Aulorhynchus flavidus Tubesnout Cymatogaster aggregata Shiner perch Ammodytes hexapterus Pacific sandlance Merluccius productus Pacific
    [Show full text]
  • Broken Hill Complex
    Broken Hill Complex Bioregion resources Photo Mulyangarie, DEH Broken Hill Complex The Broken Hill Complex bioregion is located in western New South Wales and eastern South Australia, spanning the NSW-SA border. It includes all of the Barrier Ranges and covers a huge area of nearly 5.7 million hectares with approximately 33% falling in South Australia! It has an arid climate with dry hot summers and mild winters. The average rainfall is 222mm per year, with slightly more rainfall occurring in summer. The bioregion is rich with Aboriginal cultural history, with numerous archaeological sites of significance. Biodiversity and habitat The bioregion consists of low ranges, and gently rounded hills and depressions. The main vegetation types are chenopod and samphire shrublands; casuarina forests and woodlands and acacia shrublands. Threatened animal species include the Yellow-footed Rock- wallaby and Australian Bustard. Grazing, mining and wood collection for over 100 years has led to a decline in understory plant species and cover, affecting ground nesting birds and ground feeding insectivores. 2 | Broken Hill Complex Photo by Francisco Facelli Broken Hill Complex Threats Threats to the Broken Hill Complex bioregion and its dependent species include: For Further information • erosion and degradation caused by overgrazing by sheep, To get involved or for more information please cattle, goats, rabbits and macropods phone your nearest Natural Resources Centre or • competition and predation by feral animals such as rabbits, visit www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au
    [Show full text]
  • Microalgae Schizochytrium Sp. in Feed for Piau Leporinus Friderici
    American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences Original Research Paper Microalgae Schizochytrium sp. in Feed for Piau Leporinus friderici 1Aline D.S. Prates, 1Marianne Schorer, 1Guilherme S. Moura, 2Eduardo A.T. Lanna, 3Gustavo F. Castro and 1Marcelo M. Pedreira 1Laboratory of Aquaculture and Aquatic Ecology, Federal University of the Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Highway MGT 367, km 583 Alto da Jacuba, nº 5000, zip code 30100-000 Diamantina, MG, Brazil 2Laboratory of Nutrition of Aquatic Organisms, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenue Peter Henry Rolfs, w/n - University Campus, Viçosa - MG, 36570-900 Viçosa, MG, Brazil 3Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Federal University of the Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Highway MGT 367, km 583 Alto da Jacuba, nº 5000, CEP 30100-000 Diamantina, MG, Brazil Article history Abstract: The objective of the study was to evaluate the growth of piau Received: 18-06-2018 (Leporinus friderici ) juveniles fed with diet supplemented with different Revised: 19-09-2018 levels of Schizochytrium sp. One hundred and forty juveniles of L. friderici Accepted: 31-10-2018 were stocked in 20 aquariums (35 L) at the density of 0.2 fish L −1, weighing Corresponding Author: and measuring 11.80±1.08 g and 9.68±0.31 cm, respectively. The feeds were prepared and supplemented with 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40 g of Schizochytrium sp. Marianne Schorer −1 th Laboratory of Aquaculture and kg of diet. On the 60 day, all juveniles were collected for measurement of Aquatic Ecology, Federal the following parameters: Feed intake (g day −1), weight (g), weight gain (g), University of the Jequitinhonha food conversion, total length (cm), Specific Growth Rate (SGR) and Fulton’s and Mucuri Valleys, Highway condition factor (K).
    [Show full text]
  • Common Spikerush Eleocharis Acuta
    Eleocharis acuta CYPERACEAE Common spikerush Inflorescence Avon Catchment Council Eleocharis acuta Common spikerush Plant features Growth form Perennial, spreading sedge, up to 0.7m high, with slender creeping rhizomes from which new stems arise. It often forms extensive colonies across shallow waterbodies. CYPERACEAE Leaves The stems are light to medium green, 1-3mm wide, circular in cross section and up to 0.7m in length. The leaves are reduced to one or more purplish sheaths around the base, with the upmost leaf having a needle-like blade. Flowers The inflorescence is at the top of stems and is a single spikelet 10-30mm long and 3-7mm wide, making the stem and inflorescence look somewhat like a spear. The spikelet contains several small flowers. Flowers brown and occur from Sep-Dec. Fruits The nut is smooth, brown, slightly compressed and 1mm wide by 1.5-2mm long. Distribution An common wetland species from Carnarvon to east of Esperance and Floodfringe Kalgoorlie with scattered populations Floodway in the Avon catchment. Occurs in all Normal winter level other states. Prefered habitat of Eleocharis acuta Zone, habitat Occurs in fresh, seasonally waterlogged waterways including creek banks, swamps, floodways, seeps, clay pans and lake edges. Found in most soil types. Additional information It is an excellent soil stabiliser and nutrient stripper for winter wet waterbodies due to its network of roots and dense foliage at the soil surface. It often forms dense colonies around waterbodies and can be the dominant species. Tolerates a wide range of water levels. Also has the ability to pump oxygen into the sediment, which assists with essential microbial activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwarf Galaxias
    Threatened Species Link www.tas.gov.au SPECIES MANAGEMENT PROFILE Galaxiella pusilla Eastern Dwarf Galaxias Group: Chordata (vertebrates), Actinopterygii (bony fish), Salmoniformes (salmonids), Galaxiidae Status: Threatened Species Protection Act 1995: vulnerable Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Vulnerable Endemic Found in Tasmania and elsewhere Status: A complete species management profile is not currently available for this species. Check for further information on this page and any relevant Activity Advice. Key Points Important: Is this species in your area? Do you need a permit? Ensure you’ve covered all the issues by checking the Planning Ahead page. Important: Different threatened species may have different requirements. For any activity you are considering, read the Activity Advice pages for background information and important advice about managing around the needs of multiple threatened species. Further information ​Check also for listing statement or notesheet pdf above (below the species image). Recovery Plan Cite as: Threatened Species Section (2021). Galaxiella pusilla (Eastern Dwarf Galaxias): Species Management Profile for Tasmania's Threatened Species Link. https://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au/Pages/Dwarf-Galaxias.aspx. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania. Accessed on 29/9/2021. Contact details: Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001. Phone (1300 368 550). Permit: A permit is required under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 to 'take' (which includes kill, injure, catch, damage, destroy and collect), keep, trade in or process any specimen or products of a listed species. Additional permits may also be required under other Acts or regulations to take, disturb or interfere with any form of wildlife or its products, (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Prescribed Water Resources Areas Prescribed Surface Water Areas BORDERTOWN Baroota Morambro Creek
    PORT AUGUSTA # # STREAKY BAY South Australian Arid Lands South Australian Arid Lands # WHYALLA KIMBA # # PORT PIRIE NEW SOUTH WALES Eyre Peninsula # ELLISTON CLEVE # # WALLAROO Northern and Yorke # PORT WAKEFIELD # WAIKERIE RENMARK # SPENCER GULF NORTHERN TERRITORY QUEENSLAND BLANCHETOWN # Chapmans Creek Intake ! GAWLER Far North # Middle Beach Intake ! South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Prescribed Wells Area PORT LINCOLN # ! Gawler River WESTERN Northern Intake AUSTRALIA Little Para # # WAROOKA ADELAIDE Dry Creek PWA Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges NEW River Torrens - Karrawirra Parri MURRAY BRIDGE SOUTH # WALES Onkaparinga River L a k e A l e x a n d r i n a CAPE JERVIS # # KINGSCOTE L a k e A l b e r t VICTORIA Kangaroo Island See large map for details VICTORIA SOUTHERN OCEAN Prescribed Water Resources Areas Prescribed Surface Water Areas BORDERTOWN Baroota Morambro Creek # Barossa Valley Clare Valley Notice of Intent to Prescribe Morambro Creek and Nyroca Channel Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Upper Wakefield Prescribed Watercourses including Cockatoo Lake Marne River and Saunders Creek SOUTH AUSTRALIA Western Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Watercourses PRESCRIBED WATER RESOURCES River Murray Prescribed Wells Areas ! Chapmans Creek Intake Status at 1st July 2012 South East Angas-Bremer Gawler River NARACOORTE # Central Adelaide Little Para Dry Creek ! Middle Beach Intake ´ Far North Morambro Creek and Nyroca Channel # Prescribed Watercourses including 0 20 40 60 80 100 km ROBE Lower Limestone Coast Cockatoo Lake ! Northern Intake Mallee
    [Show full text]
  • Neosiluroides Cooperensis, Cooper Creek Catfish
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ ISSN 2307-8235 (online) IUCN 2019: T122900149A123382031 Scope: Global Language: English Neosiluroides cooperensis, Cooper Creek Catfish Assessment by: Arthington, A., Sternberg, D., Cockayne, B. & Schmarr, D. View on www.iucnredlist.org Citation: Arthington, A., Sternberg, D., Cockayne, B. & Schmarr, D. 2019. Neosiluroides cooperensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T122900149A123382031. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T122900149A123382031.en Copyright: © 2019 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London. If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ Taxonomy Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Animalia Chordata Actinopterygii Siluriformes Plotosidae Taxon Name: Neosiluroides cooperensis Allen & Feinberg, 1998 Common Name(s): • English: Cooper Creek Catfish Taxonomic Source(s): Eschmeyer, W.N., Fricke, R., and Ven der Laan, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Fish
    Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened fish Guidelines for detecting fish listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Authorship and acknowledgments This report updates and expands on a report prepared in May 2004 by Australian Museum ichthyologist John Pogonoski and approved by AMBS Senior Project Manager Jayne Tipping. The current (2011) report includes updates to the 2004 report and additional information regarding recently listed species, current knowledge of all the listed species and current survey techniques. This additional information was prepared by Australian Museum ichthyologists Dr Doug Hoese and Sally Reader. Technical assistance was provided by AMBS ecologists Mark Semeniuk and Lisa McCaffrey. AMBS Senior Project Manager Glenn Muir co- ordinated the project team and reviewed the final report. These guidelines could not have been produced without the assistance of a number of experts. Individuals who have shared their knowledge and experience for the purpose of preparing this report are indicated in Appendix A. Disclaimer The views and opinions contained in this document are not necessarily those of the Australian Government. The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source materials and while reasonable care has been taken in its compilation, the Australian Government does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this document and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of the document. © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Farmers Aquaculture Production Survey—Queensland 2007–08
    Report to farmers Aquaculture production survey—Queensland 2007–08 Ross Lobegeiger and Max Wingfield Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation May 2009 PR 09– 4252 © The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2009. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part of the work may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior written permission of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The copyright owner shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Enquiries about reproduction, including downloading or printing the web version, should be directed to [email protected] or telephone +61 7 3225 1398. Report to farmers Aquaculture production survey—Queensland 2007–08 Ross Lobegeiger and Max Wingfield Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation May 2009 Contents List of acronyms iv 1. Production summary 1 2. Survey methods 5 3. Marine prawns 7 4. Barramundi 11 5. Redclaw 16 6. Freshwater fish 18 7. Eel culture 23 8. Hatchery and aquarium 25 9. Pearl oyster culture 30 10. Edible oyster production 31 11. Regional summary 35 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Phenotypic Landscape Inference Reveals Multiple Evolutionary Paths to C4 Photosynthesis
    RESEARCH ARTICLE elife.elifesciences.org Phenotypic landscape inference reveals multiple evolutionary paths to C4 photosynthesis Ben P Williams1†, Iain G Johnston2†, Sarah Covshoff1, Julian M Hibberd1* 1Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 2Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Abstract C4 photosynthesis has independently evolved from the ancestral C3 pathway in at least 60 plant lineages, but, as with other complex traits, how it evolved is unclear. Here we show that the polyphyletic appearance of C4 photosynthesis is associated with diverse and flexible evolutionary paths that group into four major trajectories. We conducted a meta-analysis of 18 lineages containing species that use C3, C4, or intermediate C3–C4 forms of photosynthesis to parameterise a 16-dimensional phenotypic landscape. We then developed and experimentally verified a novel Bayesian approach based on a hidden Markov model that predicts how the C4 phenotype evolved. The alternative evolutionary histories underlying the appearance of C4 photosynthesis were determined by ancestral lineage and initial phenotypic alterations unrelated to photosynthesis. We conclude that the order of C4 trait acquisition is flexible and driven by non-photosynthetic drivers. This flexibility will have facilitated the convergent evolution of this complex trait. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.00961.001 Introduction *For correspondence: Julian. The convergent evolution of complex traits is surprisingly common, with examples including camera- [email protected] like eyes of cephalopods, vertebrates, and cnidaria (Kozmik et al., 2008), mimicry in invertebrates and †These authors contributed vertebrates (Santos et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2012) and the different photosynthetic machineries of equally to this work plants (Sage et al., 2011a).
    [Show full text]