DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of Potential Methods to Control and Eradicate the Invasive Gammarid, Dikerogammarus Villosus from UK Waters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of Potential Methods to Control and Eradicate the Invasive Gammarid, Dikerogammarus Villosus from UK Waters Cefas contract report C5525 A review of potential methods to control and eradicate the invasive gammarid, Dikerogammarus villosus from UK waters Paul Stebbing, Stephen Irving, Grant Stentiford and Nicola Mitchard For Defra, Protected Species and Non-native Species Policy Group Commercial in confidence Executive Summary The killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus (Dv) is a large gammarid of Ponto-Caspian origin Dv has invaded and spread over much of mainland Europe where it has out-competed a number of native species. Dv was discovered at Grafham Water, Cambridgeshire, England, in September 2010 and subsequently in Wales in Cardiff Bay and Eglwys Nunydd near Port Talbot. In early 2012 it was found in the Norfolk Broads, the full extent of its distribution in the area is still being determined. The main objective of this work was to review the potential approaches for the control/eradication of invasive Dv populations in the UK. The approaches reviewed include physical removal (e.g. trapping), physical control (e.g. drainage, barriers), biological control (e.g. predation, disease), autocides (e.g. male sterilization and pheromone control) and biocides (the use of chemical pesticides). It should be noted that there have been no specific studies looking at the control and/or eradication of this particular species. The examples presented within this study are therefore primarily related to control of other invasive/pest species or are speculative. Recommendation made and potential applications of techniques are therefore based on expert opinion, but are limited by a relative lack of understanding of the basic life history of D. villosus within its invasive range. Following a review of the literature directly associated with Dv, and broader, including the control of other invasive aquatic invertebrates, we highlight the following areas that may form effective control and/or eradication mechanisms: 1. The examination of the effects of electricity on Dv 2. Investigation of methods to increase trap effectiveness 3. Exploration of approaches for the use of habitat modification as a method of reducing population size 4. Investigation into the potential for population control using Dv pathogens currently absent from UK populations 5. Investigate delivery methods for six biocides that have been shortlisted due to their suitability. It is unlikely that a single control mechanism will result in the eradication of Dv. It is more likely that a range of mechanisms will be required, especially given the variety of environments that Dv are found. 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2. Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0. Dikerogammarus villosus life history, behaviour and habitat preference ................................. 7 2.1. Growth and reproduction ............................................................................................................ 7 2.2. Habitat preference ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Feeding ......................................................................................................................................... 9 3.0. Physical removal ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.1. Bank side applications ........................................................................................................... 10 3.2. Trapping ................................................................................................................................ 10 4.0. Physical Control ......................................................................................................................... 13 4.1. Habitat modification ............................................................................................................. 13 4.2. Physical Barriers .................................................................................................................... 13 4.3. Chemical and electrical barriers............................................................................................ 14 4.4. De-watering .......................................................................................................................... 15 5.0. Biological control ...................................................................................................................... 16 5.1. Predation ............................................................................................................................... 17 5.2. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 17 6.0. Autocidal ................................................................................................................................... 23 6.1. Semiochemicals and pheromones ........................................................................................ 23 6.2. Male sterilisation. ................................................................................................................. 29 7.0. Biocidal control ......................................................................................................................... 33 7.1. Compounds warranting further evaluation .......................................................................... 36 8.0. Synopsis and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 44 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 48 References ............................................................................................................................................ 54 3 1.0. Introduction The killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus (Dv) is a large gammarid of Ponto-Caspian origin (Tricarico et al. 2010). Dv exhibits several biological characteristics which contribute to its environmental impact: long reproductive period, early sexual maturity, short generation time, high growth rates, short duration of embryonic development, large number of eggs, large reproductive capacity, highly predatory and tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions (Dick and Platvoet, 2000; Devin et al. 2004; Kley and Maier, 2006; Pockel 2009). These biological characteristics have made Dv an effective invasive species with only a few individuals required to establish new populations in recipient ecosystems (Devin et al., 2004). Dv has invaded and spread over much of mainland Europe where it has out-competed a number of native species (Van den Brink and Van der Velde 1991; Dick and Platvoet 2000; Kinzler and Maier 2003; Kley and Maier 2003; Grabowski et al. 2007) including Britain (MacNeil et al. 2010). Ponto-Caspian macro-invertebrate species entering mainland Europe has mainly been facilitated by the interconnection of river basins through man-made canals and intentional introductions (Bij de Vaate et al. 2002). A southern corridor connecting the Danube and Rhine rivers is likely to have been the route of spread of D. villosus via the hulls of ships or in ballast water (Casellato et al. 2007). The reopening of the Main– Danube Canal in 1992 matches with the recorded spread of this species across Europe, with water supplied from the Danube basin flowing into the Rhine facilitating migration. In its natural range, D. villosus is not the most abundant species of amphipod and does not behave as aggressively as it does in areas it has invaded. Wattier et al. (2007) stated that all major harbours of western continental Europe are likely colonized by D. villosus (including Rotterdam, Le Havre, Nantes and Marseille), and that further expansion in the range by commercial shipping activity is only a matter of time (Bollache et al. 2004). Dv was discovered at Grafham Water, Cambridgeshire, England, in September 2010 and subsequently in Wales in Cardiff Bay and Eglwys Nunydd near Port Talbot. In early 2012 it was found in the Norfolk Broads, the full extent of its distribution in the area is still being determined. The prevention of the species further spread has been one of the main priorities of the Science and Technical Advisory Group (STAG), which was established to address immediate containment, associated risks, and long term risk management of Dv. All of the invaded sites in the UK are used for a number of recreational activities including sailing and angling, with members of the public using equipment at these sites that may subsequently be used at other freshwater venues in Great Britain. Dv has been found to readily attach to equipment that is used in water, such as sailing vessels, wetsuits, and fishing nets. These fomites (inanimate objects capable of carrying organisms and hence transferring them between water bodies) pose the 4 potential risk of spreading Dv to un-invaded ecosystems. Given the ease with which Dv can be spread, and the impact that the species has on invaded environments, there is a requirement to investigate methods by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Killer Shrimp, Dikerogammarus Villosus (Sowinsky, 1894), Is Spreading in Italy
    Aquatic Invasions (2010) Volume 5, Issue 2: 211-214 This is an Open Access article; doi: 10.3391/ai.2010.5.2.14 Open Access © 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2010 REABIC Short communication The killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894), is spreading in Italy Elena Tricarico, Giuseppe Mazza, Gabriele Orioli, Claudia Rossano, Felicita Scapini and Francesca Gherardi* Dipartimento di Biologia Evoluzionistica “Leo Pardi”, Università di Firenze, via Romana 17, 50125 Firenze, Italy E-mail: [email protected] (ET), [email protected] (GM), [email protected] (GO), [email protected] (CR), [email protected] (FS), [email protected] (FG) * Corresponding author Received: 23 November 2009 / Accepted: 11 January 2010 / Published online: 21 January 2009 Abstract In 2008, the killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus, native to the Ponto-Caspian region, was found for the first time in Central Italy, in Bilancino, an artificial lake situated in the watershed of the River Arno (Tuscany). This new record shows that this species’ range is expanding in Italy. It is thus imperative to identify the pathways and vectors of spread of this species in order to halt this invasion process. Key words: Dikerogammarus villosus, inland waters, Italy Because of its predatory voracity and aggressive Devin et al. 2003; Brooks et al. 2009) and adapts behaviour, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, to several types of substrate (Devin et al. 2003), 1894) is called the ‘‘killer shrimp’’. It is a favoured in this by its polymorphic pigmentation crustacean amphipod native to the Ponto-Caspian (Devin et al. 2004a). Its aggressive behaviour region. After the opening of the Danube-Main- and voracity cause the replacement of indigenous Rhine canal in 1992, as the result of both natural gammarids (Dick and Platvoet 2000; Van Riel et expansion and transportation in ballast waters al.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Aquatic Dikerogammarus Villosus a 'Killer Shrimp'
    Is the aquatic Dikerogammarus villosus a ‘killer shrimp’ in the field? – a case study on one of the most invasive species in Europe Dr. Meike Koester1,2, Bastian Bayer1 & Dr. René Gergs3 1Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Germany 2Institute of Natural Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz, Germany 3Federal Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany Introduction 143 animal 58 invasive 2 Introduction Bij de Vaate et al. (2002) 3 Introduction 1994/95 first record from the River Rhine Colonised most major European rivers within 2 decades www.aquatic-aliens.de 4 Introduction Larger than native amphipods High reproductive potential & growth rate Colonises different substrates Highly tolerant towards various environmental conditions (e.g. T, O2, salinity) Feeding behaviour 5 Introduction River Rhine species of number Mean Schöll, BfG-report Nr. 172 other gamarids Dikerogammarus villosus Gammarus roeselii Gammarus pulex/fossarum after Rey et al. 2005 6 Introduction 7 Hypothesis D. villosus is also strongly predacious in the field 8 Stable Isotope Analyses (SIA) 12 13 Carbon C C 13C/12C 98,89 % 1,11 % 14 15 Nitrogen N N 15N/14N 99,64 % 0,36 % δ15N: strong accumulation Predator 1 Trophic Level ca. 3.4 ‰ Secondary consumer N 13 15 δ C: less accumulated δ Primary consumer C-source of the food Producer δ13C 9 Sampling areas of the River Rhine and its tributaries B Bulk analyses δ13C and δ15N SIBER-Analyses comparing amphipod species Genetic gut content analyses with group-specific C B rDNA primers (Koester Aet al. 2013) A C 10 A. Feeding river vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishment of a Taxonomic and Molecular Reference Collection to Support the Identification of Species Regulated by the Wester
    Management of Biological Invasions (2017) Volume 8, Issue 2: 215–225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.2.09 Open Access © 2017 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2017 REABIC Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions (19–21 January 2016, Sydney, Australia) Research Article Establishment of a taxonomic and molecular reference collection to support the identification of species regulated by the Western Australian Prevention List for Introduced Marine Pests P. Joana Dias1,2,*, Seema Fotedar1, Julieta Munoz1, Matthew J. Hewitt1, Sherralee Lukehurst2, Mathew Hourston1, Claire Wellington1, Roger Duggan1, Samantha Bridgwood1, Marion Massam1, Victoria Aitken1, Paul de Lestang3, Simon McKirdy3,4, Richard Willan5, Lisa Kirkendale6, Jennifer Giannetta7, Maria Corsini-Foka8, Steve Pothoven9, Fiona Gower10, Frédérique Viard11, Christian Buschbaum12, Giuseppe Scarcella13, Pierluigi Strafella13, Melanie J. Bishop14, Timothy Sullivan15, Isabella Buttino16, Hawis Madduppa17, Mareike Huhn17, Chela J. Zabin18, Karolina Bacela-Spychalska19, Dagmara Wójcik-Fudalewska20, Alexandra Markert21,22, Alexey Maximov23, Lena Kautsky24, Cornelia Jaspers25, Jonne Kotta26, Merli Pärnoja26, Daniel Robledo27, Konstantinos Tsiamis28,29, Frithjof C. Küpper30, Ante Žuljević31, Justin I. McDonald1 and Michael Snow1 1Department of Fisheries, Government of Western Australia, PO Box 20 North Beach 6920, Western Australia; 2School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009, Western Australia; 3Chevron
    [Show full text]
  • Cucumispora Ornata N. Sp. (Fungi: Microsporidia) Infecting Invasive 1 ‘Demon Shrimp’
    This is a repository copy of Cucumispora ornata n. sp. (Fungi: Microsporidia) infecting invasive 1 ‘demon shrimp’. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85921/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Bojko, J, Dunn, A, Stebbing, PD et al. (3 more authors) (2015) Cucumispora ornata n. sp. (Fungi: Microsporidia) infecting invasive 1 ‘demon shrimp’. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 128. 22 - 30. ISSN 0022-2011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2015.04.005 © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ *Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 Cucumispora ornata n.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutria Nuisance in Maryland in This Issue: and the Search for Solutions Upcoming Conferences by Dixie L
    ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species Volume 4 No. 3 August 2001 FRESHWATER DIGEST FOUNDATION Providing current information on monitoring and controlling the spread of harmful nonindigenous species. Predicting Future Aquatic Invaders; the Case of Dikerogammarus villosus By Jaimie T.A. Dick and Dirk Platvoet he accumulation of case studies of invasions has led to for- mulations of general ‘predictors’ that can help us identify Tpotential future invaders. Coupled with experimental stud- ies, assessments may allow us to predict the ecological impacts of potential new invaders. We used these approaches to identify a future invader of North American fresh and brackish waters, the amphipod crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus. Why Identify D. villosus as Invasive? Dikerogammarus villosus (see Figure 1) originates from an invasion donor “hot spot”, the Ponto-Caspian region, which com- prises the Black, Caspian, and Azov Seas’ basins (Nesemann et al. 1995; Ricciardi & Rasmussen 1998; van der Velde et al. 2000). This species has already invaded western Europe, has moved through the Main-Danube canal, which was formally opened in 1992 (Tittizer 1996), and appeared in the River Rhine at the German/Dutch border in 1994-5 (bij de Vaate & Klink 1995). D. villosus is currently sweeping through Dutch waters (Dick & Platvoet 2000) and has Dikerogammarus villosus continued on page 26 Figure 1. Dikerogammarus villosus Photograph by Ivan Ewart The Nutria Nuisance in Maryland In This Issue: and the Search for Solutions Upcoming Conferences By Dixie L. Bounds, Theodore A. Mollett, and Mark H. Sherfy and Meetings . 27 utria, Myocastor coypus, is an invasive lished in 15 states nationwide, all reporting Nuisance Notes.
    [Show full text]
  • Dikerogammarus Villosus)
    Management of Biological Invasions (2018) Volume 9, Issue 2: 101–113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2018.9.2.04 Open Access © 2018 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2018 REABIC Research Article A preliminary investigation into biosecurity treatments to manage the invasive killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus) Marion Sebire*, Georgina Rimmer, Ruth Hicks, Sarah-Jane Parker and Paul D. Stebbing Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK Author e-mails: [email protected] (MS), [email protected] (GR), [email protected] (RH), [email protected] (SJP), [email protected] (PDS) *Corresponding author Received: 11 April 2017 / Accepted: 18 December 2017 / Published online: 4 February 2018 Handling editor: Calum MacNeil Abstract Following the detection of the invasive killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus (Dv) at two sites in the UK in September 2010, an effective biosecurity system is required to prevent further spread. This study investigated the application of several treatments as potential biosecurity measures with a view to their application on Dv-infected fomites. For each treatment, adult Dv were submerged for 15 minutes at different concentrations to determine the maximum lethal concentration, and for each effective treatment for different times to assess a minimal lethal time (LT50). Sodium hypochlorite (50,000 mg/Lmg/L), FAM30® (6 ml/l), Virkon S® (1% solution) and water at high temperature (45 °C) were found to cause 100% mortality within 15-min exposure, while carbonated water caused narcosis in 100% of animals within a few seconds of exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Present Absent D
    Alien macro-crustaceans in freshwater ecosystems in Flanders Pieter Boets, Koen Lock and Peter L.M. Goethals Pieter Boets Ghent University (UGent) Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology Jozef Plateaustraat 22 B9000 Gent, Belgium pieter.boets@ugent. be Aquatic Ecology Introduction Why are aquatic ecosystems vulnerable to invasions ? • Ballast water • Attachment to ships • Interconnection of canals • Vacant niches as consequence of pollution Impact of invasive macroinvertebrates ? • Ecological: decrease of diversity destabilization of ecosystem • Economical: high costs for eradication decrease of yield in aquaculture Aquatic Ecology Introduction pathways Deliberatly introduced + aquaculture Shipping (long distance) Shipping (short distance) + interconnection of canals Aquatic Ecology The process of Potentialinvasion donor region Transport (e.g. through ballast water of ships) Introduction Biotic and abiotic factors Establishment & reproduction Interactions between species (competition, predation, …) Dispersal & dominant behavior Aquatic Ecology Overview of freshwater macrocrustaceansFirst occurence in in Family Species FlandersOrigin Flanders Gammaridae Gammarus pulex Gammarus fossarum Southern Gammarus roeseli Europe 1910 EchinogammarusGammarus tigrinus IberianUSA 1993 Dikerogammarusberilloni Peninsula 1925 villosus Ponto-Caspian 1997 CrangonictidTalitridae CrangonyxOrchestia cavimana Ponto-Caspian 1927 ae Chelicorophiumpseudogracilis USA 1992 Corophidae curvispinum Ponto-Caspian 1990 Asellidae Asellus aquaticus Southern
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Evidence of Invasion Facilitation in the Zebra Mussel-Killer
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/626432; this version posted May 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Experimental evidence of invasion facilitation in the 2 zebra mussel-killer shrimp system 3 4 5 Matteo Rolla1, Sofia Consuegra1, Ellie Carrington1, David Hall2, 6 Carlos Garcia de Leaniz*1 7 8 1Department of BioSciences, Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Research, Swansea University, 9 Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK 10 11 2Cardiff Harbour Authority, Queen Alexandra House, Cargo Road, Cardiff CF10 4LY 12 *corresponding author: [email protected] 13 14 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/626432; this version posted May 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 15 Abstract 16 Invasion facilitation, whereby one species has a positive effect on the establishment of another 17 species, could help explain the rapid colonisation shown by some freshwater invasive species, 18 but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We employed two-choice test arenas to test 19 whether the presence of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) could facilitate the establishment 20 of the killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus). Killer shrimp preferred to settle on mats of zebra 21 mussel, but this was unrelated to mat size, and was not different from attraction shown to 22 artificial grass, suggesting that zebra mussel primarily provides substrate and refuge to the killer 23 shrimp.
    [Show full text]
  • Dikerogammarus Villosus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Killer Shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 2014 Revised, June 2015 and September 2016 Web Version, 09/14/2017 Photo: S. Giesen, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 1 Native Range, and Status in the United States Native Range From CABI (2015): “The amphipod is native to the lower reaches of the rivers discharging into the Black Sea and Caspian Sea (Dedju, 1967; Nesemann et al., 1995; Vaate et al., 2002).” Status in the United States From Dettloff et al. (2015): “Not established in North America” Means of Introductions in the United States From Dettloff et al. (2015): “Due to its high tolerance to varying levels of salinity, oxygen and temperature, D. villosus is considered a highly likely candidate for introduction to the Great Lakes through ballast water 1 transport from European ships ([Bruijs] et al. 2001, Dick and Platvoet 2001, Dick et al. 2002, Grigorovich et al. 2002, MacIsaac 1999, Mills et al. 1993, Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998).” Remarks From Dettloff et al. (2015): “Dikerogammarus bispinosus was originally described as a subspecies of D. villosus (Martynov 1925), but a more recent genetic study by Müller et al. (2002) demonstrated that these two taxa should be considered to be separate species.” “Obesogammarus aralensis, listed by Grigorovich et al 2003 as having a high probability of invading the Great Lakes, is most likely a synonym for Dikerogammarus villosus.” 2 Biology and Ecology Taxonomic Hierarchy and Taxonomic Standing From CABI (2015): “Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Metazoa Phylum: Arthropoda Subphylum: Crustacea Class: Malacostraca Subclass: Eumalacostraca Order: Amphipoda Suborder: Gammaridea Family: Gammaridae Genus: Dikerogammarus Species: Dikerogammarus villosus Dikerogammarus villosus Sowinsky 1894 is a valid amphipod species.” Size, Weight, and Age Range From CABI (2015): “The maximum reported body length is 30 mm.” From Dettloff et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Horizon Scan of Invasive Alien Species for the Island of Ireland
    Management of Biological Invasions (2020) Volume 11, Issue 2: 155–177 CORRECTED PROOF Research Article Horizon scan of invasive alien species for the island of Ireland Frances E. Lucy1,*, Eithne Davis1,*, Roy Anderson2, Olaf Booy3, Ken Bradley4, J. Robert Britton5, Colin Byrne6, Joseph M. Caffrey7, Neil E. Coughlan8, Kate Crane8, Ross N. Cuthbert8, Jaimie T.A. Dick8, James W.E. Dickey8, Jeffrey Fisher9, Cathal Gallagher10, Simon Harrison11, Matthew Jebb12, Mark Johnson13, Colin Lawton13, Dave Lyons14, Tim Mackie4, Christine Maggs5, Ferdia Marnell14, Tom McLoughlin15, Dan Minchin16, Oonagh Monaghan15, Ian Montgomery8, Niall Moore3, Liam Morrison13, Rose Muir4, Brian Nelson14, Art Niven17, Colette O’Flynn18, Bruce Osborne19, Ruth M. O’Riordan11, Neil Reid8, Helen Roy20, Rory Sheehan1, Dorothy Stewart15, Monica Sullivan21, Paula Tierney22, Paula Treacy23, Elena Tricarico24 and Wayne Trodd15 1Centre for Environmental Research, Innovation and Sustainability, Dept. of Environmental Science, Institute of Technology, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland, 2Royal Entomological Society, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 3GB Non-native Species Secretariat, Sand Hutton, York, UK, 4Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Dundonald House, Upper Newtownards Road, Ballymiscaw, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 5University of Bournemouth, Poole UK, 6Dept of Housing, Planning and Local Govt., Custom House, Dublin, Ireland, 7INVAS Biosecurity Ltd., 82 Lakelands Close, Stillorgan, Co Dublin, Ireland, 8Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences,
    [Show full text]
  • Options for the Control of Dikerogammarus Villosus (Killer Shrimp) and Other Invasive Amphipods
    Management of Biological Invasions (2021) Volume 12, Issue 3: 662–684 CORRECTED PROOF Management in Practice Options for the control of Dikerogammarus villosus (killer shrimp) and other invasive amphipods Louisa E. Wood1,#,*, Emily R.C. Smith2,#, Jamie Bojko3,4 and Paul Stebbing1,5 1Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 8UB, UK 2Angling Trust, The Old Police Station, Wharncliffe Rd, Ilkeston, DE7 5GF, UK 3National Horizons Centre, Teesside University, Darlington, DL1 1HG, UK 4School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK 5APEM Ltd, A17 Embankment, Business Park, Heaton Mersey, Manchester, SK4 3GN, UK #These authors contributed equally to the writing of this manuscript *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] Citation: Wood LE, Smith ERC, Bojko J, Stebbing P (2021) Options for the control Abstract of Dikerogammarus villosus (killer shrimp) and other invasive amphipods. Aquatic invasions are a major ecological and socio-economic concern. Management Management of Biological Invasions 12(3): of invasive aquatic populations requires a robust understanding of the effectiveness 662–684, https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2021.12.3.10 and suitability of control methods. In this review, we consider multiple control options Received: 17 December 2020 for the management of invasive aquatic amphipods, exploring their efficacy and Accepted: 25 March 2021 application constraints. Technological opportunities (pheromone, RNAi, biotechnologies) and gaps in our understanding around control mechanisms are identified, with the Published: 27 April 2021 aim to improve management success of this order. Within this review, the UK Thematic editor: Calum MacNeil invasion of the killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) is used as Copyright: © Wood et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of the Invasive Amphipod Dikerogammarus Villosus on Trophic Interactions Under Field Conditions”
    Impact of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus on trophic interactions under field conditions by Meike Koester from Zweibrücken, Germany Accepted Dissertation thesis for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctor of Natural Sciences Fachbereich 7: Natur- und Umweltwissenschaften Universität Koblenz-Landau Thesis examiners: Dr. René Gergs, Berlin Prof. Dr. Andreas Martens, Karlsruhe Date of the oral examination: 05.02.2016 In der Wissenschaft gleichen wir alle nur den Kindern, die am Rande des Wissens hie und da einen Kiesel aufheben, während sich der weite Ozean des Unbekannten vor unseren Augen erstreckt. (Sir Isaac Newton, 1643-1727) ______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ The following parts of this thesis are published: Chapter II: René Gergs (RG) considered the application of this method to investigate freshwater food webs. Silke Claßen provided the majority of specimens for the spectrum of 130 taxa. Meike Koester (MK) established the majority of primers (diploma thesis: 16, doctoral thesis: 5). Sample processing and optimisation of laboratory protocols were exclusively performed by MK. The first author wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript. Koester, M., Claßen, S. & Gergs, R. (2013) Establishment of group-specific PCR primers for the identification of freshwater macroinvertebrates. Conservation Genetics Resources, 5, 1091-1093. Chapter III: Sample processing and statistical analyses of the data were performed by MK. The first author wrote the first draft. Both authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript. Koester, M. & Gergs, R. (2014) No evidence for intraguild predation of Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) at an invasion front in the Untere Lorze, Switzerland.
    [Show full text]