APP203795 Staff Assessment Report.Pdf

Home , Piaractus, Piaractus brachypomus, Piaractus mesopotamicus, Serrasalmidae

EPA Staff Assessment Report

APP203795: To determine the new organism status of Colossoma bidens

May 2019

EPA advice Application APP203795

Executive Summary

Application APP203795, submitted by the Ministry for Primary Industries, seeks a determination on the new organism status of Colossoma bidens.

After reviewing all of the available information and completing a literature search concerning the organism, EPA staff recommend that Colossoma bidens is not a new organism for the purpose of the HSNO Act based on the evidence that this organism has been identified as present in New Zealand since before 29 July 1998 when the HSNO Act came into effect.

EPA advice Application APP203795

Table of contents

Executive Summary ...... 2 Table of contents ...... 3 1 Introduction ...... 4 2 Organism description ...... 4 3 Taxonomy and evidence regarding its presence in New Zealand ...... 7 4 Comments from agencies ...... 7 5 Conclusion ...... 7 6 Recommendation ...... 7 7 References ...... 9 8 Appendix 1: Decision path for section 26 determination...... 10

EPA advice Application APP203795

1 Introduction

Application summary 1.1 On 20 December 2018, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) applied to the EPA under section 26 of the HSNO Act seeking a determination on the new organism status of Colossoma bidens. 1.2 The applicant considers this organism as not new and provided evidence to support this claim. The evidence consisted of a letter by the National Aquarium of New Zealand to MPI which confirmed the presence of C. bidens in the aquarium in 1994. In addition, two individuals of this species were donated to the aquarium in the late 1990s. The National Aquarium of New Zealand acknowledged in the letter that there are currently six individuals of C. bidens on display. 1.3 Section 2A(1) of the HSNO Act prescribes that a new organism is, in part, an organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998. It is against that criterion that we evaluated the evidence available for the organism in the application. 1.4 The application was formally received for consideration on 15 May 2019. 2 Organism description

Colossoma bidens

Taxonomic Unit Classification

Order Characiformes

Family Serrasalmidae

Genus Piaractus

Species Brachypomus (Cuvier 1818) (Fishbase, 2019)

Synonyms Colossoma bidens (Spix and Agassiz, 1829) (Catalogue of Life, 2019) Colossoma brachypomum (Cuvier, 1818) (Catalogue of Life, 2019) Myletes brachypomus (Cuvier, 1818) (Catalogue of Life, 2019) Myletes paco (Humboldt, 1821) (Catalogue of Life, 2019)

Common names Tambaqui (Bolivia), caranha and pirapitinga (Brazil), paco and cachama-blanco (Colombia), paco (Peru) and red-bellied pacu (Amazon Waters, 2019), pacu (Peru, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina)(Mulca 2003)

2.1 Colossoma bidens, more commonly known as the red-bellied pacu or pacu, is a scaled fish in the family of Serrasalmidae and was first described by Cuvier in 1818. This species is widely

EPA advice Application APP203795

distributed across whitewater1, blackwater2 and clearwater3 rivers of the Amazon and Orinoco River basins in South America but specifically in Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil (Fishbase, 2019). 2.2 Colossoma bidens is a medium-size fish with an average length of 40 – 100cm (Amazon Waters, 2019) and a maximum weight of 25kg. The oldest recorded specimen was 28 years old (Fishbase, 2019). 2.3 Mature C. bidens are solitary and inhabit main river channels and flood plains. During the rainy season, they migrate to flooded forests where they stay in shallow, slow-moving waters with overhanging or floating vegetation. Juveniles stay in groups, inhabiting flood plains in the first few months of their life where food is abundant and predation is less likely (Seriously Fish, 2019). 2.4 Sexual dimorphism occurs within the species as mature females are rounder-bellied than males (Seriously Fish, 2019). 2.5 Colossoma bidens is often mistaken for piranha as juvenile fish resemble the closely related red-bellied piranha (Serrasalmus nattereri) as a form of defence to deter predators (Fishbase, 2019; Seriously Fish, 2019). Unlike the carnivorous piranha, C. bidens is one of the largest fruit and seed eating fish in the Amazon. Its diet includes zooplankton, insects, decaying plant material and small fish. It is believed that C. bidens plays a crucial role in the transportation and dispersal of these seeds across South American waterways. 2.6 Colossoma bidens is well-known and identified for its striking dentition (Figure 1) as the teeth are cusped and resemble human molars. The powerful jaws complement the dentition of C. bidens which allows this species to crush fruit, nuts and seeds (Seriously Fish, 2019).

Figure 1: Dentition of red-bellied pacu (Piaractus brachypomus) which strongly resembles human dentition. Sourced from Nisamanee Wanmoon, Wikipedia, 18 September 2014.

Distribution, consumption and exploitation 2.7 In native waters, C. bidens suffers from gross overfishing. The depletion of C. bidens stock is forecast to cause potential implications for

1 Whitewater: fast shallow stretches of water in a river. 2 Blackwater: waste water and sewage from toilets. 3 Clearwater: solid-free wastewater.

EPA advice Application APP203795

ecosystems. C. bidens was heavily exploited in the 1960s and 1970s and consequently large individuals are now rare (Amazon Waters, 2019) in central Amazon region, with the majority of larval fish most likely migrating from the western Amazon. Young C. bidens are often exploited in floodplain lakes of the central and lower Amazon regions. The potential yield from C. bidens was estimated to be approximately 2,150 tons, with 73% of the catch coming from the central Amazon region followed by 10% from the Peruvian Amazon (Amazon Waters, 2019).

Figure 2: Regional percentage of total C. bidens Amazon catch (Amazon Waters, 2019). 2.8 Introduced populations of C. bidens are thriving in parts of the world such as Taiwan and China where it is locally farmed for consumption and to support aquaculture industries in countries such as Paraguay (International Cooperation and Development Fund, 2019; Soy

Aqua, 2002; Seriously Fish, 2019). In addition, C. bidens have been introduced in other Asian countries such as Malaysia and Thailand for commercial use as a sport fish. 2.9 Colossoma bidens was also introduced in rivers of Papua New Guinea (Australian National Geographic, 2015), the Canadian province of Ontario (Froese & Pauly, 2002) and 16 states of the United States of America (Nico, 2001), as well as in various provinces of India, where C. bidens is bred and eaten (The Hindu, 2018).

Colossoma bidens in aquariums 2.10 Colossoma bidens is a popular breed for aquarists and aquaculture projects in South America due to its tolerance to a wide range of water chemistry and ability to survive in oxygen- depleted conditions. C. bidens is adaptable and can tolerate a pH range of 4.8 to 7.5 with temperatures between 23 to 28oC. 2.11 In general, C. bidens is non-aggressive and peaceful with larger fish species, however, this species can consume smaller fish if stressed or malnourished. It may also disturb sedentary or shy fish species in aquariums with its constant activity.

Intentional releases by aquarists / owners 2.12 Due to the popularity of C. bidens as an aquarium fish species, it has made global headlines by being found in unusual areas far beyond its natural habitat. While C. bidens is considered a migratory fish in the Amazon, it has been caught by fishermen or seen by swimmers across Europe in Russia (New Zealand Herald, 2016), Sweden (The Local, 2013a), France (The

EPA advice Application APP203795

Local, 2013b), Denmark (Science Daily, 2013) and the Zelena Voda reservoir of Slovakia (Hensel, 2004). 2.13 Similarly, C. bidens is now a widespread fish species in the United States of America (Bass Fishing Gurus, 2019). All of these examples could only be explained by the intentional release of these fish by owners who could not sustain them in aquariums. However, in many cases, C. bidens has not been able to establish in Europe due to the cold winters. 3 Evidence regarding the presence of Colossoma bidens in New Zealand

Evidence for the presence of Colossoma bidens in New Zealand 3.1 Mr Kerry Hewitt, a manager at the National Aquarium of New Zealand confirmed in a letter to MPI (Appendix 2) that two individuals of C. bidens were donated by a fish keeper to the aquarium in 1994. In addition, two individuals of this species were donated to the aquarium in the late 1990s. Mr Hewitt acknowledged that the National Aquarium of New Zealand currently has six individuals of C. bidens on display which indicates an ongoing presence of this species in New Zealand since at least 1994. 3.2 In addition to Mr Hewitt’s letter, the National Aquarium of New Zealand’s YouTube channel (National Aquarium of New Zealand, 2011) includes an educational video on C. bidens which was uploaded in 2011, showing the continuous presence of C. bidens in New Zealand. 3.3 The Great India restaurant in Wellington has held C. bidens in an aquarium since at least 2008. Originally, the aquarium held 13 individual C. bidens in 2008 but due to overcrowding and cannibalism, only one (named ‘Nigel’) was left in 2018. Nigel was re-homed later in 2018 (Stuff.co.nz, 2018). 3.4 In addition, C. bidens is currently used in some New Zealand aquaponics systems4 to provide nutrients for planters (Aquaponics Services, 2017). Aquaponics systems consist of an integrated system between farmed fish and growing plants. In this instance, the waste from C. bidens provides valuable nutrients to the plants while the plants, in return, absorb the fish waste and purify the water for the fish. 4 Comments from Agencies 4.1 The EPA requested comment on the application from the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). 4.2 DOC stated that the unconfirmed donation of two pacu specimens “around 1994” is vague and does not establish beyond doubt the time when the donation occurred. DOC stated their preference for greater accuracy of the National Aquarium of New Zealand’s acquisitions and believed the two fish will have presumably been imported as part of a larger consignment of the species. DOC stated that the evidence presented is inadequate to base a decision on. 4.3 MPI did not provide any comments.

4 Aquaponics: any system that combines conventional aquaculture (raising marine life in tanks) with hydroponics (cultivating plants in water)

EPA advice Application APP203795

5 Conclusion 5.1 After completing our assessment of the information that was submitted by the applicant, as well as our own findings, we consider that C. bidens was present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998 and has had an ongoing presence in New Zealand since then. 6 Recommendation 6.1 A new organism is defined in section 2A of the Act, and includes: (a) An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998: 6.2 The following Act criteria were not applicable to this determination as the species under consideration in this application;

 has not been prescribed as a risk species (section 2A(1)(b));  has not been approved to be held in containment or released with controls (sections 2A(1)(c), (ca) and (cb));  is not a genetically modified organism (section 2A(1)(d)); and  has not been eradicated from New Zealand (section 2A(1)(e)). 6.3 Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, as well as evidence found in our own examination of this question, we conclude that C. bidens was present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998, and has had a continuing presence in New Zealand to the present date. We therefore recommend that C. bidens should be determined to be not a new organism.

EPA advice Application APP203795

References

Amazon Waters (2019). Pirapitinga. http://amazonwaters.org/fish/pirapitinga/ (Retrieved 15 February 2019)

Aquaponics Services (2017). Aquaponics / Aquariums. http://www.aquacultureservices.co.nz/aquaponics/ (Retrieved 12 February 2019)

Australian National Geographic (2015). The ‘ball-cutter’ fish – Crew, B. 15 January 2015. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/creatura-blog/2015/01/the-pacu-a-fish-with-teeth/ (Retrieved 20 February 2019)

Bass Fishing Gurus (2019). Pacu invasive species. https://bassfishing-gurus.com/pacu-invasive-species/ (Retrieved 12 February 2019)

Catalogue of Life: 2019 Annual Checklist: Colossoma bidens (Spix & Agassiz, 1829): http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/e757133e8ca3681e2fccb6755f815877/synonym/c7d491508045 039c336f6c1db2d3f0b2 (Retrieved 6 May 2019)

Fishbase (2019). Piaractus brachypomus (Cuvier, 1818): http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Piaractus-brachypomus.html (Retrieved 18 February 2019)

Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (eds) (2002). FishBase. www.fishbase.org (Retrieved 12 February 2019).

Hensel, K. (2004). First record of the pirapitinga Piaractus brachypomus (Actinopterygii: Serrasalmidae) in Slovakia. Biologia Bratislava. 59(15): 205-210.

International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF) (2019). Taiwan assisting Paraguay’s aquaculture industry with pacu http://www.icdf.org.tw/ct.asp?xItem=28781&CtNode=29823&mp=2 (Retrieved 15 April 2019)

Mulca, P. (2003). Piaractus mesopotamicus.

National Aquarium of New Zealand (2011). Pacu. 5 December 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biFVm_U3ZVk (Retrieved 12 February 2019)

New Zealand Herald (2016). Fish with human-like teeth caught in Russia. 1 July 2016. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11666824 (Retrieved 12 February 2019)

Nico, L. (2001). Non-indigenous aquatic species – Piaractus brachypomus (Cuvier 1818). http://nas.er.usgs.gov/fishes/accounts/characid/pi_branch.html (Retrieved 12 February 2019).

Science Daily (2013). Killer fish with teeth? Danish swimmers escape waters fearing killer fish. 12 August 2013. University of Copenhagen. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130812102716.htm (Retrieved 19 February 2019)

Seriously Fish (2019). Piaractus brachypomus (Red-bellied pacu): https://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/piaractus- brachypomus/ (Retrieved 16 April 2019)

Soy Aqua (2002). Pacu Piractus branchypomum production in ponds with soy-based feeds in China (2002) http://www.soyaqua.org/sites/default/files/reports/02pacutrnanjing.pdf (Retrieved 15 February 2019)

Stuff.co.nz (2018). Indian restaurant’s much-loved fish needs to move – but there’s a problem. Woolf, A-L. 9 February 2018. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/101312428/indian-restaurants-muchloved-fish-needs-to-move--but-theres-a-problem (Retrieved 12 February 2019)

The Hindu (2018). South America's Red-bellied Pacu: A delicious alien in Kerala kitchens. 14 July 2018. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/south-americas-red-bellied-pacu-a-delicious-alien-in-kerala- kitchens/article24421299.ece (Retrieved 20 February 2019)

EPA advice Application APP203795

The Local (2013a). Swedish men warned of crotch-chomping fish. 9 August 2013. https://www.thelocal.se/20130809/49558 (Retrieved 20 February 2019)

The Local (2013b). Testicle-biting cousin of piranha caught in Paris. 3 September 2013. https://www.thelocal.fr/20130903/testicle-biting-fish-found-in-paris (Retrieved 20 February 2019)

Wikipedia (2019). Pacu. Picture of pacu dentition by Nisamanee Wanmoon, 18 September 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacu (Retrieved 21 February 2019)

EPA advice Application APP203795

7 Appendix 1: Decision path for section 26 determination Context This decision pathway describes the decision-making process for applications under Section 26 for determination as to whether an organism is a new organism. Introduction The purpose of this decision pathway is to provide the HSNO decision maker5 with guidance so that all relevant matters in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996) (the Act) and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Organisms Not Genetically Modified) Regulations (1998) (the Regulations) have been addressed. It does not attempt to direct the weighting that the HSNO decision maker may decide to make on individual aspects of an application. The decision pathway has two parts –

 Flowchart (a logic diagram showing the process prescribed in the HSNO Act and the Methodology to be followed in making a decision), and

 Explanatory notes (a discussion of each step of the process).

Of necessity the words in the boxes in the flowchart are brief, and key words are used to summarise the activity required. The explanatory notes provide a description of each of the numbered items in the flowchart, and describe the processes that should be followed. For proper interpretation of the decision pathway it is important to work through the flowchart in conjunction with the explanatory notes.

5 The HSNO decision maker refers to either the EPA Board or any committee or persons with delegated authority from the Board.

EPA advice Application APP203795

Flowchart Explanatory Notes

Item 1 Review the content of the application and all relevant information Review the application, staff advice and any relevant information held by other Agencies, and advice from experts.

Item 2 Is further information required? Review the information and determine whether or not there is sufficient information available to make a decision.

Item 3 Seek additional information (Section 52 and Section 58) If the HSNO decision maker considers that further information is required, then this may be sought either from the applicant (if there is an external applicant) or from other sources. If the HSNO decision maker considers that the information may not be complete but that no additional information is currently available, then the HSNO decision maker may proceed to make a determination. If the application is not approved on the basis of lack of information (or if the organism is considered new) and further information becomes available at a later time, then the HSNO decision maker may choose to revisit this determination.

Item 4 Is it an organism (i.e. fits the “organism” definition in Section 2)? An organism

(a) does not include a human being: (ab) includes a human cell: (b) includes a micro-organism: (c) includes a genetic structure, other than a human cell, that is capable of replicating itself, whether that structure comprises all or only part of an entity, and whether it comprises all or only part of the total genetic structure of an entity: (d) includes an entity (other than a human being) declared to be an organism for the purposes of the Biosecurity Act 1993: (e) includes a reproductive cell or developmental stage of an organism

If yes, go to item 5. If no, as this is not an organism, it is not regulated under the new organism provisions of the HSNO Act.

Item 5 Is the determination about a potential GMO (Section 2A(1)(d))? If the determination relates to whether an organism is a potential GMO, go to pathway B.

EPA advice Application APP203795

If the organism is not a GMO, go to item 6.

Item 6 Does the organism belong to a species that was known to be present in NZ immediately before 29 July 1998 (Section 2A(1)(a))? Determine on the basis of the available information whether on balance of probabilities the organism is known to belong to a species that was present in New Zealand immediately prior to 29 July 1998. For the purposes of making a Section 26 determination an organism is considered to be present in New Zealand if it can be established that the organism was in New Zealand:

(a) immediately before 29 July 1998; and

(b) not in contravention of the Animals Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970 (excluding rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus). If yes, go to item 7 to test the organism against the next criterion. If no, go to item 12.

Item 7 Is the organism prescribed as a risk species and was not present in New Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation (Section 2A(1)(b))? Determine whether the organism belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been prescribed as a risk species by regulation established under Section 140(1)(h) of the Act. If the organism is prescribed as a risk species, determine whether it was present in New Zealand when it was prescribed. The organism is a new organism if it was not present in New Zealand at the time of the promulgation of the relevant regulation. Note: at this point it may become apparent that the organism is an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act. If this is the case, then MPI and DOC may be advised (they may already have been consulted under items 1, 2 and 3). If yes, go 12. If no, go to item 8 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 8 Has a containment approval been given for the organism under the Act (Section 2A(1)(c))? For the purposes of making a Section 26 determination, this will also include the following organisms which are “deemed” to be new organisms with containment approvals under the HSNO Act: (a) animals lawfully imported under the Animals Act 1967 before 29 July 1998 pursuant to Section 254 of the HSNO Act; (b) animals lawfully present in New Zealand in a place that was registered as a zoo or circus under the Zoological Garden Regulations 1977 pursuant to Section 255 of the HSNO Act (except where other organisms of the same taxonomic classification were lawfully present outside of a zoo or circus –see section 2A(2)(c));

EPA advice Application APP203795

(c) hamsters lawfully imported under the Hamster Importation and Control Regulations 1972 pursuant to Section 256 of the HSNO Act; or (d) plants lawfully imported under the Plants Act 1970 before 29 July 1998 pursuant to Section 258 of the HSNO Act. If yes, go to item 12. If no, go to item 9 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 9 Has a conditional release approval been given for the organism (Section 2A(1)(ca))? If yes, go to item 12. If no, go to item 10 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 10 Has a qualifying organism with controls approval been given for the organism (Section 2A(1)(cb))? A “qualifying organism” is an organism that is or is contained in a “qualifying medicine” or “qualifying veterinary medicine”. These terms are defined in Section 2 of the HSNO Act. If yes, go to item 12. If no, go to item 11 to test the organism against the next criterion.

Item 11 Is the organism known to have been previously eradicated (Section 2A(1)(e))? Determine whether the organism belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that is known to have been previously eradicated. Eradication does not include extinction by natural means but is considered to be the result of a deliberate act. If yes, go to item 12. If no, then the organism is not a new organism.

Item 12 Has HSNO release approval without controls been given for an organism of the same taxonomic classification under Sections 35, 38 or 38I of the Act or has an organism of the same taxonomic classification been prescribed as a not new organism (Section 2A(2)(a))? If a release approval has been given for an organism of the same taxonomic classification under Section 35 or 38 of the Act then the organism is not a new organism. If a release approval has been given for an organism of the same taxonomic classification under Section 38I of the Act without controls then the organism is not a new organism, however, if this approval has been given with controls then it is a new organism. If an organism of the same taxonomic classification has been prescribed by regulations as not a new organism6 then it is not a new organism.

6 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0143/latest/whole.html#DLM2011201

EPA advice Application APP203795

If yes, the organism is not a new organism. If no, the organism is a new organism.

Appendix 2: Letter from Kerry Hewitt to MPI on Colossoma bidens

EPA advice Application APP203795