European Alien Species (DAISIE) Database europe-aliens

1. Development of an ecological quality classification system for aquatic bioinvasionsSergej Olenin, Klaipeda University, Lithuania

2. European Alien Species (DAISIE) Databasewww.europe-aliens.org Aquatic species 14%n = 1512 • Data coverage: • >50 countries/regions and coastal seas Terrestrial species (plants animals etc) 86% n = 9288 • Marine species total # 1016 (747 established) • inland species total # 693 (313 established) • 4290 introduction records (events) • A record of an alien species in a country/region

3. The number of introduced species tells little about the real threat of bioinvasions • What matters is the MAGNITUDE of the impacts! • Examples of the Mediterranean (>620 NIS known) and the Black (165 NIS recorded) Seas. • In the later, just one species (the American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi) caused catastrophic, ecosystem wide impacts!

4. How to assess“levels (of NIS) that do not adversely alter the ecosystems”? Promising approach: Olenin et al 2007, Marine Pollution Bulletin , 55 (7-9), 379-394

5. XVI Congresso della Società Italiana di Ecologia - Ancona 2007 BIOPOLLUTION AND ALIEN SPECIES: AN INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR THE NORTHERN ADRIATIC SEA D. Savini, A. Occhipinti Ambrogi

6. Aim: We apply to the Northern Adriatic Sea, recognized as a major hotspot of xenodiversity in the Mediterranean, the method “Assessment of biopollution in aquatic ecosystem” proposed byOlenin et alii (2007)for the Baltic Sea

7. Presentation outline: • Rationale of the AS Biopollution Index (BPL) • A selected study case: the predatory gastropod Rapana venosa • Biopollution in the Northern Adriatic Sea • Final remarks

8. Biopollution index (BPL) - rationale • Postulates: • Abundance, distribution range and magnitude of AS impact can vary over time • AS produce measurable effects only after they have attaining a particular level of abundance and when occupying a sufficiently large area • Prerequisites for BPL: • Data on AS abundance and distribution range • Ecological, biological knowledge of AS • Impact magnitude: • Community • Habitat • Ecosystem

9. BPL- rationale 1) Ranking abundance (low, moderate, high) and distribution range (one, several, many, all localities)

10. The study area should be defined One locality for a Sea Several localitiesfor a coastal zone Many localities for a lagoon within the coastal zone All localities for a zone of a coastal lagoon

11. Impact on species & community level - rationale • Impacts: • Hybridisation • Competition with native sp (food, nutrients, light, space) • Grazing • Predation • Parasitism • Toxin production • Change in species ranking • Displacement of native species • Loss of type specific community • Loss of keystone species

12. Impact on species & community level - score

13. Impact on habitat - rationale • Impacts: • Substrate alteration (physical, chemical) • Sediment transport, water flow • Nutrients regime, water turbidity • Replacement ofkeystone habitat forming species • Structural alteration • Spatial reduction • Habitat loss • Key habitat loss

14. Impact on habitat - score

15. Impact on ecosystem functioning - rationale • Impacts: • Shift in trophic nets • Alteration of energy and organic material flow • Alteration of benthic-pelagic coupling Addition or loss of ecosystem functions

16. Impact on ecosystem functioning - score

17. BPL integrated matrix Biopollution levels (0-4) based on abundance and distribution range (A-E) out of 75 possible combinations only 50 make sense e.g. if an AS occurs in low numbers in one locality (A), is highly unlikely that it causes large scale displacement of native species (C2), but is highly possible it causes local displacement of native species, weak structural alteration of the habitat and localised changes in ecosystem functioning

18. BPL total score • BPL should be assessed for a defined water body (assessment unit) and for a defined period of time (assessment period) • Assessment should be performed for each AS known in the assessment unit • BPL Score is determined according to the greatest impact level (conservative approach) • e.g.if an AS causes: Weak impact on species- community level (C=1) • Moderate impact on habitat (H= 2) • Weak impact on ecosystem functioning (E= 1) • The Overall BPL score (for the assessment unit/study area) is determined according to the greatest impact level for at least one species during the evaluation period • e.g. in a five years assessment period, BPL score is 1 for 19 AS and = 3 for one species. Tot BPL = 2 Tot BPL = 3

19. Selected study case: the predatory gastropod Rapana venosa Neogastropoda: Muricidae Origin: Japan and adiacent seas First report: 1973 Vectors: Ballast waters, no target species associated with bivalve cultures Max size (Italy): 14 cm SL Max weight (Italy): 470 g FTwt A SUCCESSFULL INVADER – WHY? • Tolerant to: • salinity • temperature • water pollution • low oxygen concentration • high reproduction rates • high diffusion capabilities • no efficient competitors • no efficient predators • no commercial value (?)

20. 1. Abundance and distribution range (ADR) Lagoons ADR CODE: A Low numbers in several localities: Grado, Marano, Venice, Goro Coast ADR CODE: C moderate numbers in many localities (Cesari & Pellizzato, Savini et al. 2007)

21. 2. Impact on species community M.galloprovincialis A. inaequivalvis T. philippinarum 50 45 40 35 total n. eaten 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 d1 d3 d7 d9 d13 d15 d17 d21 d28 d31 d35 d37 d39 d44 time Code C1 (week) local (Cesenatico) displacement of native species, dominant species unchanged, type specific community present (Predation rates on bivalve community- Savini, Occhipinti 2006) Av. daily ingestion rate: 1.2 g day-1 (fresh body wt) • the preferred prey is a non native (A. inaequivalvis) • native natural mussel beds develop on artificial structures (breakwaters)

22. 3. Impact on habitat Gastropod predation removes mussels (habitat structuring species) from hard bottom (mainly artificial structures) (Savini et al 2004) Code H2 (moderate) structural alteration, local reduction of spatial extent

23. 4. Impact on ecosystem functioning Functional alteration: 1)Rapana is a top predator of bivalves (Harding, Mann 1998, Savini et al 2002, Savini et al 2006) 2) Strong predation can alter local benthic-pelagic coupling (Harding, Mann 1998) 3)Young gastropods and egg cases are potential prey for crab and fishes (Savini, Occhipinti 2004) 4) Live and empty shells of Rapana provide substrata for epibionts (Savini et al. 2004) Code: E2 (Moderate)Moderate modifications of ecosystem performance, addition or reduction of existing functional group(s) in some part of the assessment unit

24. R. venosa BPL score Assessment unit: lagoon (BPL = 1 weak impact) Assessment unit: coast (BPL = 2 moderate impact)

25. Biopollution in the Northern Adriatic Sea Summarising……

26. Assessment period: 34 years Assessment unit: Lagoons 7 Algae 7 Bivalves 1 Gastropod 3 Crustaceans 1 Bryozoan tot: 19 established AS Impact info : 11 AS TOT BPL = 3 - Strong (R. philippinarum, M. senhousia) Assessment unit: Coast 1 Algae 4 Bivalves 1 Gastropod 1 Amphipod tot: 7 established AS Impact info : 6 AS TOT BPL = 2 - Moderate

27. Final remarks • BPL index appears to be an easy straightforward method for quantifying AS impact and compare study sites at different geographical scales • Despite the “gap of knowledge” on AS distribution, abundance and impact in the Northern Adriatic Sea, the application of BPL index discriminates between lagoons and coastal areas (assessment units) • BPL index confirms that lagoons and brackish waters ecosystems are preferential sites of AS species introduction and biopollution • A national cooperative effort between researchers is necessary to fill gaps of knowlege, in order to: increase confidence in results, answer to EU reccomandations, provide administrators with convincing decision support systems.

28. Confidence levelapplied for assessing the impacts

29. The decision support scheme for assessment of Biopollution Level(BPL) Used to develop the Computerized Biopollution Assessment Tool

30. Biopollution assessment toolhttp://corpi.ku.lt/~biopollution/ • Provides a uniform approach for assessment of alien species impacts enabling comparison between different alien species and different areas. • May be used for: • acquiring baseline information on alien species • monitoring of biopollution impacts • prioritizing impacting species (target species lists) • evaluation of effectiveness of bioinvasion management.

31. Thank you for your attention!