Risk Analysis, Vol. 33, No. 8, 2013 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01896.x
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) forits Application in Warmer Climatic Zones, with ParticularReference to Peninsular Florida
Larry L. Lawson, Jr.,1,∗ Jeffrey E. Hill,1 Lorenzo Vilizzi,2 Scott Hardin,3
and Gordon H. Copp4
[Correction added after online publication on October 4, 2012: In the title, “Scoring” was changed to“Screening”.]
The initial version (v1) of the Fish Invasiveness Scoring Kit (FISK) was adapted from theWeed Risk Assessment of Pheloung, Williams, and Halloy to assess the potential invasive-ness of nonnative freshwater fishes in the United Kingdom. Published applications of FISKv1 have been primarily in temperate-zone countries (Belgium, Belarus, and Japan), so thespecificity of this screening tool to that climatic zone was not noted until attempts were madeto apply it in peninsular Florida. To remedy this shortcoming, the questions and guidancenotes of FISK v1 were reviewed and revised to improve clarity and extend its applicabilityto broader climatic regions, resulting in changes to 36 of the 49 questions. In addition, up-grades were made to the software architecture of FISK to improve overall computationalspeed as well as graphical user interface flexibility and friendliness. We demonstrate the pro-cess of screening a fish species using FISK v2 in a realistic management scenario by assessingthe Barcoo grunter Scortum barcoo (Terapontidae), a species whose management concernsare related to its potential use for aquaponics in Florida. The FISK v2 screening of Barcoogrunter placed the species into the lower range of medium risk (score = 5), suggesting it isa permissible species for use in Florida under current nonnative species regulations. Screen-ing of the Barcoo grunter illustrates the usefulness of FISK v2 as a proactive tool serving toinform risk management decisions, but the low level of confidence associated with the assess-ment highlighted a dearth of critical information on this species.
KEY WORDS: Alien species; nonnative fishes; risk assessment; risk screening
1Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory, Program in Fisheries andAquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation,University of Florida, Ruskin, FL, USA.
2Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, PO Box 991,Wodonga, Vic, Australia.
3Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee,FL, USA.
4Salmon & Freshwater Team, Cefas, Pakefield Road, Lowest-oft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK, and School of Conservation Sci-ence, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, UK, and Environ-mental and Life Sciences Graduate Program, Trent University,Peterborough, Canada.
∗Address correspondence to Larry L. Lawson Jr., Tropical Aqua-culture Laboratory, University of Florida, 1408 24th St. SE,Ruskin, FL 33570, USA; [email protected].
1. INTRODUCTION
Risk identification tools are the front line of therisk analysis process, assisting environmental man-agers in identifying which nonnative species are morelikely to be invasive and are therefore amenable todetailed risk analysis. Building on the Weed RiskAssessment (WRA) of Pheloung et al.,(1) the FishInvasiveness Scoring Kit (FISK) was adapted foruse in the United Kingdom.(2,3) As with the WRA,FISK consists of 49 questions within two main sec-tions (Biogeography/History and Biology/Ecology),and eight categories (Domestication/Cultivation;Climate and Distribution; Invasive elsewhere; Unde-sirable traits; Feeding guild; Reproduction; Dispersal
1414 0272-4332/13/0100-1414$22.00/1 C© 2012 Society for Risk Analysis
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1415
mechanisms; Persistence attributes). The outcomescores range from −11 to 53, and these havebeen calibrated(3) into three levels of potentialrisk of a species being invasive: low (score <1),medium (1–19), high (≥19). FISK and its “sister”tools(4,5) were developed for the United Kingdom,a temperate-zone country, and subsequent applica-tions have been in other temperate-zone countriesincluding Belarus,(6) Belgium,(7,8) and Japan,(9) withadditional applications completed or in progressfor Australia,(10) Brazil,(11) Iberia (D. Almeidaet al., unpublished data), Finland (M. Lehtiniemiet al., unpublished data), and the Balkan statesof Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria(P. Simonovic et al., unpublished data).
The specificity of FISK to the temperate zonewas not appreciated until attempts were made to ap-ply this screening tool in peninsular Florida (LLL,JEH, SH, and GHC, unpublished data) and Mexico(R. Mendoza, V.S. Aguirre, and L.G. Berumen, un-published data). To address this shortcoming, the aimof this study was to improve FISK in terms of its cli-matic applicability, in particular to regions with trop-ical/subtropical environments, and of its user inter-face. The specific objectives of this study were to:(1) complete a review and revision of FISK ques-tions and related guidance; (2) undertake improve-ments to the FISK software graphical user interface(GUI) and therefore produce FISK v2; and (3) carryout a trial application of FISK v2 on a nonnative fishspecies of relevance to peninsular Florida. The re-sulting new version of FISK (v2) is applicable overa wider range of environmental conditions, is moreuser friendly and, ultimately, replaces its predecessorfor use as an invasiveness screening tool.
2. METHODS
2.1. Question and Guidance Refinement
Questions and guidance in FISK v1 were crit-ically reviewed with regard to peninsular Floridasouth of the Suwanee River, which has a subtropicalclimate. Particular attention was directed to charac-teristics that are considered to facilitate the invasionsof tropical/subtropical environments by freshwaterfishes, with the following criteria used in the revi-sion process: (1) improved clarity, where changesreduced ambiguous terminology or uncertainty ininterpretation of questions; (2) increased climaticsuitability, where changes allowed for increased flex-ibility of climate-match source information or direct
incorporation of physiological tolerances; and (3) en-hanced ecological applicability, where modificationsaddressed a wider range of ecological characteristics.
FISK question amendments were discussed andexecuted during a two-week meeting in August 2011,with four of the co-authors at the University ofFlorida (LLL, JEH, SH, GHC) and one (LV) viaelectronic correspondence. During this review pro-cess, each of the four co-authors explained his inter-pretation of the questions, the guidance, and theirlikely response under different hypothetical scenar-ios, with insights from GHC into the intent ofeach question derived from the original adaptionof FISK(2) from the WRA.(1) Once consensus wasreached, the question and guidance were revised ac-cordingly, and each of the previously listed criteriawas discussed to determine whether or not additionalchanges were necessary. As a control measure, twoproject collaborators assessed the same two species,discussed the outcomes, and made final revisions tothe questions and guidance.
2.2. Software Improvements
FISK consists of an electronic toolkit writtenin Excel R© for VBA code.(12) The code was origi-nally developed by Pheloung et al.(1) for their WRAtoolkit and later adapted for use with FISK (includ-ing its Spanish version S-FISK) to accommodate allnecessary changes for application to freshwater fish,and eventually to freshwater invertebrates (FI-ISK),marine invertebrates (MI-ISK), amphibians (AM-PHISK), and marine fish (M-FISK).(2) The softwarearchitecture of the FISK family of programs is that ofa “dictator application” (sensu Bovey et al.(13)). Thisrepresents an advanced level of Excel R© applicationdevelopment in which virtually all features are con-trolled by the application itself. In the case of FISK,the user interface consists of tightly controlled dataentry user forms that separate the user interface fromthe underlying data storage layer, resulting in a fullyfunctional application that involves a high degree ofcontrol over user interaction.
Although FISK v1 already contained all essentialfeatures for species listing, questionnaire-based userinput, and report generation, an upgrade to FISK v2was deemed essential to improve overall computa-tional speed as well as to provide for a higher levelof flexibility and user friendliness, with special em-phasis on the “interaction design”(14) of the two mainuser forms (or dialogs), namely: the Species Assess-ment Menu and the Q&A dialog. Programming was
1416 Lawson et al.
done in Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications 7.0for Excel R© 2010 for Windows R© by LV under ongo-ing advice and feedback from the rest of the projectteam, who also participated in the beta testing phasealong with an external expert (E. Tricarico, Univer-sity of Florence, Italy).
2.3. Application
An example species was screened for peninsularFlorida by SH using FISK v2. The Barcoo grunterScortum barcoo (McCulloch & Waite, 1917), familyTerapontidae, is a freshwater species endemic to theLake Eyre basin in interior Australia and has beenincreasingly used in aquaculture as a food fish.(15)
This species has been marketed as the jade perch foraquaponics (i.e., integrated fish and plant crop cul-ture), and was chosen for assessment in this studybecause of the recent emergence of small-scale com-mercial and noncommercial aquaponics in Florida.Currently, there are no regulations governing thepossession of Barcoo grunter in Florida, so FISK wasused to determine whether a full risk assessment iswarranted. The FISK assessment was reviewed byJEH to simulate a typical management agency sce-nario, where an assessment is produced and then re-viewed by either an internal or external taxonomicexpert. Thus, screening the Barcoo grunter serves toillustrate the process of assessing a fish species usingFISK v2, provides real-world answers to FISK ques-tions, and demonstrates its potential use as a practi-cal tool for proactive management in warmer climatezones.
Relatively little is published on the Barcoogrunter in its native range; however, there is a grow-ing body of literature on its husbandry. With a maxi-mum size of about 35 cm standard length, the Barcoogrunter in its native range is found in low-gradientrivers subject to extreme flooding and drying,(16)
extending over a temperature range of about 10–30 ◦C.(17) An omnivorous forager, the Barcoo grunterfeeds on a wide variety of plant material, detri-tus, invertebrates, and, occasionally, small fish.(18,19)
Spawning occurs during high-water periods.(20)
3. RESULTS
3.1. Question Refinement
Alterations were made to 36 of the 49 FISK ques-tions and/or guidance notes in accordance with therevision criteria (Table I): 27 revisions to improve
clarity, 3 to increase climatic suitability, and 14 toenhance ecological applicability. Some questions re-quired multiple changes and were placed into morethan one revision criterion.
3.1.1. Domestication/Cultivation (Table I,Section A1)
Domestication is considered to have the po-tential of enhancing the fitness of some freshwaterfishes (i.e., increased growth rate, mating success,and/or fecundity) over wild strains,(21) and commer-cial production of ornamental species may also in-crease the intensity of introductions (i.e., propag-ule pressure).(22) However, commercially producedornamental fish are often small-bodied (e.g., vari-able platyfish Xiphophorus variatus and swordtailXiphophorus hellerii) and selected for bright col-oration (e.g., transgenic zebra danio Danio rerio) orincreased fin length (e.g., long-finned zebra danio va-rieties). This has been shown to increase their vul-nerability to predation and decrease their likelihoodof establishment in nonnative environments.(23,24)
Therefore, guidance for question (henceforth “Q”)1.01 was modified to include an exception for orna-mental and commercially produced species that havebeen selected for traits that are likely to reduce theirfitness.
To reduce subjectivity, the term “naturalised”was replaced with “established self-sustaining pop-ulations” for Q 1.02 and throughout FISK v2. Theterm “naturalised” is a broad term that encompassesseveral phases of the invasion process, including es-tablishment, colonization, and a measure of persis-tence through time,(25) and also implies some level ofhuman acceptance of the nonnative fish into the na-tive fish community. The term “established” reflectsthe definition from Shafland et al.,(26) i.e., nonnativefishes that have been consistently collected from pub-lic waterways, are unlikely to be eliminated, and thathave persisted for an extended period of time relativeto their life span.
3.1.2. Climate and Distribution (Table I, Section A2)
Climate matching models use computer analy-sis to match temperature and rainfall from a species’native range with conditions of the recipient envi-ronment. FISK v1 recommended the use of climatematching software to respond to the climate and dis-tribution section with the highest level of certainty.(2)
The certainty response modifies the score given for
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1417
Tab
leI.
Lis
toft
he49
Que
stio
nsM
akin
gU
pth
eF
ish
Inva
sive
ness
Scor
ing
Kit
(FIS
K)
v2w
ith
Hig
hlig
hted
(in
Ital
ics)
Cha
nges
Rel
ativ
eto
v1(c
f.C
opp
etal
.(2) )
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)#
Cri
teri
aQ
uery
Gui
danc
e
A.B
ioge
ogra
phy/
His
tori
cal
1.D
omes
ticat
ion/
Cul
tivat
ion
1.01
(C)
1C
L,E
Isth
esp
ecie
shi
ghly
dom
esti
cate
dor
wid
ely
cult
ivat
edfo
rco
mm
erci
al,a
nglin
gor
orna
men
tal
purp
oses
?
Inor
der
tore
spon
d“Y
es,”
the
taxo
nm
usth
ave
been
grow
nde
liber
atel
yfo
rat
leas
t20
gene
rati
ons,
oris
know
nto
beea
sily
rear
edin
capt
ivit
y(e
.g.,
fish
farm
s,aq
uari
a,or
gard
enpo
nds)
.Whe
reas
,if
the
taxo
nha
sbe
ensu
bjec
ted
tosu
bsta
ntia
lhum
anse
lect
ion
that
has
led
tore
duce
dfit
ness
and/
orad
apta
bilit
y,th
enth
ere
spon
sesh
ould
be“N
o”de
spite
the
spec
ies
bein
gw
idel
ydo
mes
ticat
ed/c
ultiv
ated
.1.
02(C
)2
CL
,EH
asth
esp
ecie
ses
tabl
ishe
dse
lf-s
usta
inin
gpo
pula
tions
whe
rein
trod
uced
?T
heta
xon
mus
tbe
know
nto
have
succ
essf
ully
esta
blis
hed
self
-sus
tain
ing
popu
lati
ons
inat
leas
tone
loca
tion
outs
ide
its
nati
vera
nge
for
anex
tend
edpe
riod
oftim
e–
this
“ext
ende
dpe
riod
”is
likel
yto
besh
orte
rfo
rsh
ort-
lived
spec
ies
and
long
erfo
rlo
nger
lived
spec
ies.
1.03
(C)
3E
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sha
vein
vasi
vera
ces/
vari
etie
s/su
b-sp
ecie
s?T
his
ques
tion
emph
asiz
esth
ein
vasi
vene
ssof
dom
esti
cate
dsp
ecie
s.
2.C
limat
ean
ddi
stri
butio
n2.
01(C
)4
CL
,CM
Wha
tis
the
leve
lof
mat
chin
gbe
twee
nth
esp
ecie
s’re
prod
uctiv
eto
lera
nces
and
the
clim
ate
ofth
eR
Aar
ea?
The
inte
ntio
nof
this
ques
tion
isto
asse
ssth
elik
elih
ood
ofa
taxo
nes
tabl
ishi
ngse
lf-s
usta
inin
gpo
pula
tions
inth
eri
skas
sess
men
tare
a.If
read
ilyav
aila
ble,
then
acl
imat
em
atch
ing
appr
oach
(e.g
.,C
limex
,GA
RP
,Clim
atch
)m
aybe
used
(see
sum
mar
yin
Ven
ette
etal
.201
0;B
ioSc
ienc
e60
:349
–362
).If
acl
imat
em
atch
ing
mod
elis
nota
vaila
ble,
then
mak
ea
“bes
test
imat
e”th
roug
hco
nsul
tatio
nof
the
Kop
pen-
Gei
ger
clim
ate
regi
onsy
stem
(see
:w
ww
.hyd
rol-
eart
h-sy
st-s
ci-d
iscu
ss.n
et/4
/439
/200
7/he
ssd-
4-43
9-20
07.p
df)
and/
orlo
cal
expe
rtis
e.2.
02(C
)5
CL
,CM
Wha
tis
the
qual
ity
ofth
ecl
imat
em
atch
data
?Q
ualit
y’re
fers
toth
eas
sess
or’s
eval
uatio
nof
the
info
rmat
ion
used
tode
term
ine
the
clim
ate
mat
ch.I
fthe
rear
edo
ubts
abou
tthe
qual
ity
ofth
ein
form
atio
nav
aila
ble,
then
attr
ibut
eth
em
inim
umsc
ore
(i.e
.,lo
w).
2.03
(C)
6C
L,C
MD
oes
the
spec
ies
have
self
-sus
tain
ing
popu
latio
nsin
thre
eor
mor
e(K
oppe
n-G
eige
r)cl
imat
ezo
nes?
Out
putf
rom
clim
ate
mat
chin
gca
nhe
lpan
swer
this
,com
bine
dw
ith
the
know
nve
rsat
ility
ofth
eta
xon
asre
gard
scl
imat
ere
gion
dist
ribu
tion
.Oth
erw
ise,
the
resp
onse
shou
ldbe
base
don
natu
ralo
ccur
renc
ein
thre
eor
mor
edi
stin
ctcl
imat
eca
tego
ries
,as
defin
edby
Kop
pen-
Gei
ger
(see
:w
ww
.hyd
rol-
eart
h-sy
st-s
ci-d
iscu
ss.n
et/4
/439
/200
7/he
ssd-
4-43
9-20
07.p
df),
orba
sed
onkn
owle
dge
ofex
istin
gpr
esen
cein
area
sof
sim
ilar
clim
ate.
2.04
(C)
7C
LIs
the
spec
ies
nati
veto
,or
esta
blis
hed
self
-sus
tain
ing
popu
latio
nsin
,reg
ions
wit
hsi
mila
rcl
imat
esto
the
RA
area
?
Thi
sis
sue
rais
edby
this
ques
tion
isw
heth
eror
nott
hesp
ecie
sac
tual
lyis
esta
blis
hed
in(o
ror
igin
ates
from
)an
area
whe
reth
ecl
imat
eis
sim
ilar
toth
eri
skas
sess
men
tare
a.
2.05
(C)
8C
LD
oes
the
spec
ies
have
ahi
stor
yof
bein
gin
trod
uced
outs
ide
its
natu
ralr
ange
?Sh
ould
bere
lati
vely
wel
ldoc
umen
ted,
wit
hev
iden
ceof
tran
sloc
atio
nan
din
trod
ucti
on.A
resp
onse
of“D
on’t
know
”sh
ould
begi
ven
whe
repo
sitiv
eev
iden
ceis
nota
vaila
ble.
A“N
o”re
spon
sesh
ould
begi
ven
ifth
eta
xon
isa
nove
lint
rodu
ctio
nof
asi
ngle
spec
imen
.
(Con
tinue
d)
1418 Lawson et al.T
able
I.(C
ontin
ued)
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)#
Cri
teri
aQ
uery
Gui
danc
e
3.In
vasi
veel
sew
here
3.01
(C)
9C
LH
asth
esp
ecie
ses
tabl
ishe
don
eor
mor
ese
lf-s
usta
inin
gpo
pula
tions
beyo
ndit
sna
tive
rang
e?
Ifun
cert
aint
yex
ists
rega
rdin
gth
ees
tabl
ishe
d,se
lf-s
usta
inin
gpo
pula
tion(
s),i
.e.,
whe
ther
they
cons
titut
ea
true
intr
oduc
tion/
tran
sloc
atio
nor
sim
ply
a“r
ange
expa
nsio
nby
natu
ralm
eans
”,th
enth
ean
swer
is“D
on’t
know
”.3.
02(N
)10
CL
Inth
esp
ecie
s’in
trod
uced
rang
e,ar
eth
ere
impa
cts
tow
ildst
ocks
ofan
glin
gor
com
mer
cial
spec
ies?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
real
impa
cts
(i.e
.,de
clin
eof
nati
vesp
ecie
s,di
seas
ein
trod
ucti
onor
tran
smis
sion
),no
tjus
tcir
cum
stan
tial
orop
inio
n-ba
sed
judg
men
ts.
3.03
(A)
11C
LIn
the
spec
ies’
intr
oduc
edra
nge,
are
ther
eim
pact
sto
aqua
cult
ural
,aqu
ariu
mor
orna
men
tals
peci
es?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
real
impa
cts
(e.g
.,in
crea
sed
cont
rolc
osts
,re
duce
dyi
elds
),no
tjus
tcir
cum
stan
tialo
rop
inio
n-ba
sed
judg
emen
ts.
3.04
(E)
12C
LIn
the
spec
ies’
intr
oduc
edra
nge,
are
ther
eim
pact
sto
rive
rs,l
akes
oram
enit
yva
lues
?D
ocum
ente
dev
iden
ceth
atth
esp
ecie
sha
sal
tere
dth
est
ruct
ure
orfu
ncti
onof
ana
tura
leco
syst
em.
3.05
(C)
13C
LD
oes
the
spec
ies
have
inva
sive
cong
ener
s?O
neor
mor
esp
ecie
sw
ithi
nth
ege
nus
are
know
nto
exer
tmod
erat
eto
seve
reim
pact
s.B
.Bio
logy
/Eco
logy
4.U
ndes
irab
le(o
rpe
rsis
tenc
e)tr
aits
4.01
(C)
14C
LIs
the
spec
ies
pois
onou
s/ve
nom
ous,
orpo
ses
othe
rri
sks
tohu
man
heal
th?
App
licab
leif
the
taxo
n’s
pres
ence
iskn
own,
for
any
reas
on,t
oca
use
disc
omfo
rtor
pain
toan
imal
s.4.
02(C
)15
CL
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sou
t-co
mpe
tew
ith
nati
vesp
ecie
s?T
here
shou
ldbe
docu
men
ted
evid
ence
that
the
taxo
nis
resp
onsi
ble
for
supp
ress
ion
ofgr
owth
orsu
rviv
al,a
nd/o
rdi
spla
cem
entf
rom
mic
roha
bita
t,of
nati
vesp
ecie
s.4.
03(C
)16
NC
Isth
esp
ecie
spa
rasi
tic
ofot
her
spec
ies?
Nee
dsat
leas
tsom
edo
cum
enta
tion
ofbe
ing
apa
rasi
teof
othe
rsp
ecie
s(e
.g.,
scal
eor
finni
ppin
gsu
chas
know
nfo
rP
seud
oras
bora
parv
a,bl
ood-
suck
ing
such
asby
som
ela
mpr
eys)
.4.
04(A
)17
NC
Isth
esp
ecie
sun
pala
tabl
eto
,or
lack
ing,
natu
ral
pred
ator
s?T
his
shou
ldbe
cons
ider
edw
ith
resp
ectt
oth
elik
ely
leve
lofa
mbi
entn
atur
alor
hum
anpr
edat
ion,
ifan
y.4.
05(C
)18
ED
oes
spec
ies
prey
ona
nati
vesp
ecie
spr
evio
usly
subj
ecte
dto
low
(or
no)
pred
atio
n?T
here
shou
ldbe
som
eev
iden
ceth
atth
eta
xon
islik
ely
toes
tabl
ish
ina
hydr
osys
tem
inw
hich
pred
ator
yfis
hha
vene
ver
been
pres
ent,
orth
atis
norm
ally
devo
idof
pred
ator
yfis
h(e
.g.,
amph
ibia
npo
nds)
,or
ofa
fish
spec
ies
that
poss
esse
sa
pred
atio
n-fa
cilit
atin
gbi
olog
ical
attr
ibut
e(e
.g.,
beha
vior
,lar
gebo
dysi
ze,a
ppea
ranc
e).
4.06
(C)
19C
LD
oes
the
spec
ies
host
,and
/or
isit
ave
ctor
,for
one
orm
ore
reco
gniz
edno
nnat
ive
infe
ctio
usag
ents
?T
hem
ain
conc
erns
are
nonn
ativ
epa
thog
ens
and
para
site
s,w
ith
the
host
eith
erbe
ing
the
orig
inal
intr
oduc
tion
vect
orof
the
dise
ase
oras
aho
stof
the
dise
ase
brou
ghti
nby
anot
her
taxo
n.4.
07(N
)20
ED
oes
the
spec
ies
achi
eve
ala
rge
ulti
mat
ebo
dysi
ze(i
.e.,
>15
cmto
tall
engt
h)(m
ore
likel
yto
beab
ando
ned)
?
Alt
houg
hsm
all-
bodi
edfis
hes
may
beab
ando
ned,
larg
e-bo
died
fishe
sar
eth
em
ajor
conc
ern,
asth
eyso
onou
tgro
wth
eir
aqua
rium
orga
rden
pond
.
4.08
(E)
21C
LD
oes
the
spec
ies
have
aw
ide
salin
ity
tole
ranc
eor
iseu
ryha
line
atso
me
stag
eof
its
life
cycl
e?P
rese
nce
inlo
wsa
linit
yw
ater
bodi
es(e
.g.,
Bal
tic
Sea,
Tam
paB
ay)
does
notc
onst
itut
eeu
ryha
line,
som
inim
umsa
linit
yle
vels
houl
dbe
abou
t15%
.4.
09(E
)22
CL
Isth
esp
ecie
sab
leto
with
stan
dbe
ing
outo
fw
ater
for
exte
nded
peri
ods
(e.g
.,m
inim
umof
one
orm
ore
hour
s)?
Exa
mpl
esar
elu
ngfis
hes,
wal
king
catfi
shes
,and
spec
ies
with
desi
ccat
ion
tole
rant
eggs
.
4.10
(E)
23N
CIs
the
spec
ies
tole
rant
ofa
rang
eof
wat
erve
loci
tyco
ndit
ions
(e.g
.,ve
rsat
ilein
habi
tatu
se)?
Spec
ies
that
are
know
nto
pers
isti
nbo
thst
andi
ngan
dflo
win
gw
ater
sov
era
wid
era
nge
ofve
loci
ties
(0–0
.7m
/sec
).
(Con
tinue
d)
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1419T
able
I.(C
ontin
ued)
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)#
Cri
teri
aQ
uery
Gui
danc
e
4.11
(E)
24C
L,E
Doe
sfe
edin
gor
othe
rbe
havi
ors
ofth
esp
ecie
sre
duce
habi
tatq
ualit
yfo
rna
tive
spec
ies?
The
resh
ould
beev
iden
ceof
bioe
ngin
eeri
ngbe
havi
or,s
uch
asfo
ragi
ngth
atle
ads
toth
ede
stru
ctio
nof
mac
roph
ytes
oran
incr
ease
insu
spen
ded
solid
s,re
duci
ngw
ater
clar
ity
(e.g
.,as
dem
onst
rate
dfo
rco
mm
onca
rp),
orbu
rrow
cons
truc
tion,
whi
chun
derm
ines
bank
char
acte
ran
dst
abili
ty(e
.g.,
arm
ored
sailfi
nca
tfish
es).
4.12
(C)
25N
CD
oes
the
spec
ies
requ
ire
min
imum
popu
lati
onsi
zeto
mai
ntai
na
viab
lepo
pula
tion
?If
evid
ence
ofpo
pula
tion
cras
hor
exti
rpat
ion
beca
use
oflo
wnu
mbe
rs(e
.g.,
over
expl
oita
tion
orpo
lluti
on),
then
resp
onse
shou
ldbe
:“ye
s.”
5.F
eedi
nggu
ild5.
01(E
)26
EIf
the
spec
ies
ism
ainl
yhe
rbiv
orou
sor
pisc
ivor
ous/
carn
ivor
ous
(e.g
.,am
phib
ia),
then
isits
fora
ging
likel
yto
have
anad
vers
eim
pact
inth
eR
Aar
ea?
Obl
igat
ehe
rbiv
ores
and
pisc
ivor
es(a
sad
ults
)ar
em
ostl
ikel
yto
scor
ehe
re,e
xcep
tw
here
ther
eis
suffi
cien
tdoc
umen
ted
evid
ence
form
the
RA
area
(or
anar
eaco
nsid
ered
very
sim
ilar)
that
the
spec
ies
has
note
xert
edad
vers
eim
pact
san
dth
eref
ore
the
appr
opri
ate
resp
onse
is“N
o.”
For
ahe
rbiv
orou
ssp
ecie
sto
scor
ehe
re,i
tmus
tfee
dpr
imar
ilyon
aqua
ticm
acro
phyt
es.I
nth
eca
seof
som
efa
cult
ativ
epi
sciv
ores
,the
ym
aybe
com
em
ore
pisc
ivor
ous
whe
nco
nfro
nted
wit
hna
ıve
prey
.5.
02(C
)27
EIf
the
spec
ies
isan
omni
vore
(or
age
nera
list
pred
ator
),th
enis
itsfo
ragi
nglik
ely
toha
vean
adve
rse
impa
ctin
the
RA
area
?
The
rem
ustb
eev
iden
ceof
fora
ging
ona
wid
era
nge
offo
odty
pes,
incl
udin
gin
cide
ntal
pisc
ivor
y.F
orob
ligat
epi
sciv
ores
(as
adul
ts)
that
goth
roug
hon
toge
netic
diet
ary
chan
ges
(e.g
.,fr
omzo
opla
nkto
nto
mac
robe
ntho
sto
fish)
,res
pond
”’Y
es”
here
,but
then
resp
ond
“No”
toth
ene
xttw
oqu
estio
ns.
5.03
(C)
28E
Ifth
esp
ecie
sis
mai
nly
plan
ktiv
orou
sor
detr
itivo
rous
oral
givo
rous
,the
nis
itsfo
ragi
nglik
ely
toha
vean
adve
rse
impa
ctin
the
RA
area
?
Shou
ldbe
prim
arily
plan
ktiv
orou
s,de
triti
voro
us,o
ral
givo
rous
tosc
ore
here
.For
oblig
ate
pisc
ivor
es(a
sad
ults
)th
atgo
thro
ugh
onto
gene
ticdi
etar
ych
ange
sth
atin
clud
eth
ese
food
type
s(e
.g.,
from
zoop
lank
ton,
tom
acro
bent
hos
tofis
h),r
espo
nd“N
o”he
re.S
imila
rly,
ifth
ere
issu
ffici
entd
ocum
ente
dev
iden
cefr
omth
eR
Aar
ea(o
ran
area
cons
ider
edve
rysi
mila
r)th
atth
esp
ecie
sha
sno
texe
rted
adve
rse
impa
cts,
then
the
appr
opri
ate
resp
onse
is“N
o.”
5.04
(C)
29E
Ifth
esp
ecie
sis
mai
nly
bent
hivo
rous
,the
nis
itsfo
ragi
nglik
ely
toha
vean
adve
rse
impa
ctin
the
RA
area
?
Shou
ldbe
prim
arily
bent
hivo
rous
tosc
ore
here
.For
oblig
ate
pisc
ivor
es(a
sad
ults
)th
atgo
thro
ugh
onto
gene
ticdi
etar
ych
ange
sth
atin
clud
eth
ese
food
type
s(e
.g.,
from
zoop
lank
ton
tom
acro
bent
hos
tofis
h),r
espo
nd“N
o”he
re.
6.R
epro
duct
ion
6.01
(C)
30C
LD
oes
the
spec
ies
exhi
bitp
aren
talc
are
and/
oris
itkn
own
tore
duce
age-
at-m
atur
ity
inre
spon
seto
envi
ronm
ent?
Nee
dsat
leas
tsom
edo
cum
enta
tion
ofex
pres
sing
pare
ntal
care
,inc
ludi
ngne
stgu
ardi
ng,m
outh
broo
ding
,liv
ebe
arin
g,et
c.
6.02
(C)
31C
LD
oes
the
spec
ies
prod
uce
viab
lega
met
es?
A“Y
es”
resp
onse
requ
ires
evid
ence
that
the
taxo
npr
oduc
esvi
able
gam
etes
inth
ew
ild(n
ativ
eor
intr
oduc
edra
nge)
.Fun
ctio
nally
ster
ilehy
brid
s,su
bspe
cies
,or
vari
etie
sre
ceiv
ea
“No”
resp
onse
.6.
03(A
)32
NC
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
shy
brid
ize
natu
rally
wit
hna
tive
spec
ies
(or
uses
mal
esof
nati
vesp
ecie
sto
acti
vate
eggs
)in
the
RA
area
?
Con
side
rev
iden
ceof
hybr
ids,
occu
rrin
gin
the
RA
area
orel
sew
here
,wit
hre
late
dta
xaun
der
natu
ralc
ondi
tion
san
dw
itho
uthu
man
assi
stan
ce.
6.04
(C)
33N
CIs
the
spec
ies
herm
aphr
odit
ic?
Nee
dsat
leas
tsom
edo
cum
enta
tion
ofhe
rmap
hrod
itis
m.
6.05
(C)
34N
CIs
the
spec
ies
depe
nden
ton
the
pres
ence
ofan
othe
rsp
ecie
s(o
rsp
ecifi
cha
bita
tfea
ture
s)to
com
plet
eit
slif
ecy
cle?
Som
esp
ecie
sm
ayre
quir
esp
ecia
listi
ncub
ator
s(e
.g.,
unio
nid
mus
sels
used
byR
hode
usam
arus
)or
spec
ific
habi
tatf
eatu
res
(e.g
.,fa
st-fl
owin
gw
ater
,par
ticu
lar
spec
ies
ofpl
anto
rty
pes
ofsu
bstr
ata)
tore
prod
uce
succ
essf
ully
.
(Con
tinue
d)
1420 Lawson et al.
Tab
leI.
(Con
tinue
d)
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)#
Cri
teri
aQ
uery
Gui
danc
e
6.06
(A)
35C
L,E
Isth
esp
ecie
shi
ghly
fecu
nd(>
10,0
00eg
gs/k
g),
iter
opat
ric
orha
san
exte
nded
spaw
ning
seas
onre
lativ
eto
nativ
esp
ecie
s?
Nor
mal
lyob
serv
edin
med
ium
-to-
long
erliv
edsp
ecie
s.
6.07
(C)
36N
CW
hati
sth
esp
ecie
s’kn
own
min
imum
gene
rati
onti
me
(in
year
s)?
Tim
efr
omha
tchi
ngto
full
mat
urit
y(i
.e.,
acti
vere
prod
ucti
on,n
otju
stpr
esen
ceof
gona
ds).
Ple
ase
spec
ify
the
num
ber
ofye
ars.
7.D
ispe
rsal
mec
hani
sms
7.01
(A)
37C
LA
relif
est
ages
likel
yto
bedi
sper
sed
unin
tent
iona
lly?
Uni
nten
tion
aldi
sper
salr
esul
ting
from
hum
anac
tivi
ty(e
.g.,
bait
buck
ets,
live
eggs
onan
gler
s’ge
ar).
7.02
(C)
38C
LA
relif
est
ages
likel
yto
bedi
sper
sed
inte
ntio
nally
byhu
man
s(a
ndsu
itab
leha
bita
tsab
unda
ntne
arby
)?
Tax
onha
spr
oper
ties
that
mak
eit
attr
acti
veor
desi
rabl
e(e
.g.,
asa
food
fish
oran
angl
ing
amen
ity,
for
orna
men
tor
unus
uala
ppea
ranc
e,fo
rcu
ltura
lrea
sons
).
7.03
(A)
39N
CA
relif
est
ages
likel
yto
bedi
sper
sed
asa
cont
amin
anto
fcom
mod
itie
s?T
axon
isas
soci
ated
wit
hor
gani
sms
likel
yto
beso
ldco
mm
erci
ally
.
7.04
(C)
40N
CD
oes
natu
rald
ispe
rsal
occu
ras
afu
ncti
onof
egg
disp
ersa
l?T
here
shou
ldbe
docu
men
ted
evid
ence
that
eggs
are
take
nby
wat
ercu
rren
ts.
7.05
(E)
41N
CD
oes
natu
rald
ispe
rsal
occu
ras
afu
ncti
onof
disp
ersa
lofl
arva
e(a
long
linea
ran
d/or
“ste
ppin
gst
one”
habi
tats
)?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceth
atla
rvae
ente
r,or
are
take
nby
,wat
ercu
rren
ts,o
rca
nm
ove
betw
een
wat
erbo
dies
via
conn
ecti
ons.
7.06
(E)
42C
LA
reju
veni
les
orad
ults
ofth
esp
ecie
skn
own
tom
igra
te(s
paw
ning
,sm
olti
ng,f
eedi
ng)?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
mig
rato
rybe
havi
or,e
ven
ata
smal
lsca
le(h
undr
eds
orth
ousa
nds
ofm
eter
s).
7.07
(C)
43C
LA
reeg
gsof
the
spec
ies
know
nto
bedi
sper
sed
byot
her
anim
als
(ext
erna
lly)?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
such
mov
emen
teve
nts,
e.g.
,acc
iden
tally
byw
ater
fow
lwhe
nth
eym
ove
from
wat
erbo
dyto
wat
erbo
dy.
7.08
(C)
44N
CIs
disp
ersa
loft
hesp
ecie
sde
nsit
yde
pend
ent?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
the
taxo
nsp
read
ing
outo
rdi
sper
sing
whe
nit
spo
pula
tion
dens
ity
incr
ease
s.8.
Tol
eran
ceat
trib
utes
8.01
(C)
45N
CA
nylif
est
ages
likel
yto
surv
ive
outo
fwat
ertr
ansp
ort?
The
resh
ould
bedo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
the
taxo
nbe
ing
able
tosu
rviv
efo
ran
exte
nded
peri
od(e
.g.,
anho
uror
mor
e)ou
tofw
ater
.8.
02(C
)46
ED
oes
the
spec
ies
tole
rate
aw
ide
rang
eof
wat
erqu
alit
yco
ndit
ions
,esp
ecia
llyox
ygen
depl
etio
nan
dte
mpe
ratu
reex
trem
es?
Thi
sis
toid
enti
fyta
xath
atca
npe
rsis
teve
nin
case
sof
low
oxyg
enan
d/or
elev
ated
toxi
cle
vels
ofno
rmal
chem
ical
s(e
.g.,
amm
onia
)an
d/or
tem
pera
ture
extr
emes
.
8.03
(A)
47C
LIs
the
spec
ies
read
ilysu
scep
tibl
eto
pisc
icid
esat
the
dose
sle
gally
perm
itted
for
use
inth
eri
skas
sess
men
tare
a?
To
scor
ea
“no”
resp
onse
,the
rem
ustb
edo
cum
ente
dev
iden
ceof
the
taxo
n’s
resi
stan
ceto
chem
ical
cont
rola
gent
sat
the
dose
sle
gally
perm
itted
for
use
inth
eri
skas
sess
men
tar
ea.
8.04
(A)
48E
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sto
lera
teor
bene
fitfr
omen
viro
nmen
tald
istu
rban
ce?
Gro
wth
and
spre
adof
taxo
nm
aybe
enha
nced
bydi
srup
tion
sor
unus
uale
vent
s(fl
oods
,spa
tes,
desi
ccat
ion)
,inc
ludi
ngbo
thsh
ort-
and
long
-ter
mhu
man
impa
cts.
8.05
(C)
49C
L,E
Are
ther
eef
fect
ive
natu
rale
nem
ies
ofth
esp
ecie
spr
esen
tin
the
risk
asse
ssm
enta
rea?
Akn
own,
effe
ctiv
e,na
tura
lene
my
ofth
eta
xon
may
orm
ayno
tbe
pres
enti
nth
eri
skas
sess
men
tare
a(t
his
incl
udes
infe
ctio
usag
ents
that
wou
ldim
pede
esta
blis
hmen
t).
Unl
ess
asp
ecifi
cen
emy
(or
enem
ies)
iskn
own,
answ
er“D
on’t
know
.”
Not
e:Se
ctor
Cod
es(i
npa
rent
hese
s)ar
e:A
=A
quac
ultu
re;E
=E
nvir
onm
enta
l;N
=N
uisa
nce;
C=
Com
bine
d.C
rite
ria
indi
cate
the
reas
onfo
rm
akin
gth
ech
ange
;CL
=C
lari
ty;
CM
=C
limat
e,E
=E
colo
gica
l;N
C=
No
Cha
nge.
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1421
climate questions and weights other questions re-lated to impact and invasion history.(2) Climate mod-els use data from terrestrial locations and maynot be accurate for predicting water temperatures.Moreover, spatial gaps and differences in elevationbetween weather station locations and species occur-rences may limit usefulness. The lower lethal tem-perature is often the most important environmentalfactor limiting the distribution and spread of non-native tropical fish outside their native range, andthis has been determined for several nonnative fresh-water fishes in Florida.(27,28) We modified Qs 2.01–2.04 to allow the FISK assessor to respond to theclimate matching section with high certainty with-out requiring climate matching software (see alsoOnikura et al.(9)) and opted to allow for the use ofexpert knowledge (e.g., laboratory-determined lowerlethal temperature) or matching climate categories ofthe Koppen-Geiger climate maps.(29)
3.1.3. Invasive Elsewhere (Table I, Section A3)
A detailed and accurate account of a species’ in-troduction and invasion history may be unavailablein popular databases as a result of poor data qual-ity, e.g., limited or outdated collection data, speciesmisidentifications, or conflicting reports.(30,31) There-fore, Qs 2.05–3.05 relating to invasive history werechanged to allow assessor judgment in determin-ing what constitutes reliable data detailing a nonna-tive species’ introduction and status. For Q 3.05, theterm “serious pest” is more commonly used to de-scribe invasive plants(32) and was therefore changedto “known to exert moderate to severe impacts”because, by definition, an invasive aquatic speciesmust be known to cause or likely to cause negativeimpacts.(33)
3.1.4. Undesirable (or Persistence) Traits (Table I,Section B4)
Minor modifications were made to the termi-nology used in Qs 4.01, 4.02, 4.06, 4.08, and 4.09.Q 4.06 was amended to include a “Yes” response fora species that may act as a novel predator in a newenvironment even where other predators are alreadypresent. For example, flathead catfish Pylodictus oli-varis is a large-bodied piscivorous catfish. The intro-duction of flathead catfish into Georgia has been im-plicated in the decline of native bullhead Ameiurusspp. and redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus popula-tions, even though those species were not predator-
naive.(34) For Q 4.07, the large body size categoriza-tion was increased from 10 to 15 cm total length (TL).Although fish whose ultimate body length exceeds10 cm TL have an increased likelihood of being re-leased, the majority of nonnative fish established inFlorida typically reach an ultimate length > 15 cmTL.(35,36)
3.1.5. Feeding Guild (Table I, Section B5)
In FISK v1, species accrued an increase in scoreif categorized as a piscivore, omnivore, planktivore,or benthivore irrespective of whether the species’feeding strategy is associated with impacts withinthe risk assessment area. Therefore, a modifier wasadded to each of the feeding guild questions in FISKv1 (Qs 5.01–5.04), so that it is now explicitly statedthat a species must have a feeding behavior that is“likely to cause an adverse impact in the RA (riskassessment) area” to receive a “Yes” response.
A “Yes” response for Q 5.01 is worth two points(more than the other feeding guild questions) be-cause piscivorous fishes are often associated withimpacts.(2,37) However, there was no similar con-sideration given for herbivorous fishes that primar-ily feed on aquatic macrophytes. In many tropi-cal/subtropical environments, aquatic macrophytesare essential habitat features and herbivorous fishhave the potential to alter this habitat with pro-found consequences for native species and ecosys-tem services. For example, the herbivorous grass carpCtenopharygodon idella can cause dramatic changesto aquatic ecosystems.(38) Because of the magni-tude of these potential impacts, we included herbiv-orous fishes in Q 5.01. In peninsular Florida, fishesthat are primarily algivorous or detritivorous (e.g.,blue tilapia Oreochromis aureus and Orinoco sailfincatfish Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus) have beensuccessful in establishing populations; therefore, weincluded these categories in Q 5.03 to allow for thepossibility of impacts within the risk assessment areafor these types of fishes.
3.1.6. Reproduction, Dispersal, and ToleranceAttributes (Table I, Sections B6–8)
Q 6.01 was changed to include specific examplesof parental care that are exhibited by fishes that havesuccessfully established in Florida. The guidance forQ 6.02 now explicitly defines “produces viable ga-metes” and gives clear direction for assigning a “Yes”or “No” response.
1422 Lawson et al.
Q 7.02 was amended to include “culturalreleases” as an example of human-related disper-sal of nonnative fishes. Cultural release is the sus-pected vector of introduction for multiple non-native species,(39,40) including Asian swamp eelsMonopterus albus in Florida.(41)
The terminology in Q 8.02 was changed from“high temperature” to “temperature extremes” be-cause the lower temperature tolerance of somespecies (especially tropical fishes) is a limiting factorin their ability to establish and spread in new envi-ronments.(27) Q 8.03 was modified because virtuallyevery species is susceptible to piscicides at high con-centrations. However, some species are resistant topiscicides at legally permitted use levels or capable oflimiting exposure because of behavior; these speciesshould receive a response of “No.” Chemical controlagents are regulated differently in different regionsand countries so no specific chemicals were listed.
3.2. Software Improvements
3.2.1. Species Assessment Menu
The new, improved interface of the Species As-sessment Menu dialog was created (Fig. 1) with newfeatures that include:
(1) Five additional columns, so that for eachspecies in the list the following informationis reported: (i) Answered: number of an-swered questions from the Q&A dialog outof the total set of 49 questions making up theFISK tool; (ii) Score: final, in case of a com-plete assessment, or partial otherwise; (iii)U.K. (1; 19): risk level outcome (i.e., “Low,”“Medium,” “High”) relative to U.K. calibra-tion thresholds(3) (only upon completion ofthe assessment, that is, all 49 questions an-swered); (iv) Japan (1; 19.8): same but rela-tive to Japan calibration thresholds;(9) and (v)U-D (–;–): same but relative to user-defined(UD) calibration thresholds.
(2) Possibility to Edit details of any species in thelist, including its scientific and common nameas well as the assessor’s name.
(3) Possibility to Delete any species in the list.(4) Indication of the Total number of species as-
sessed and/or under assessment along with thenumber of species Selected for (multiple) re-port generation.
(5) Possibility to Sort (in ascending order) thespecies in the list by any of the eight columns
therein (hence, excluding the unique speciesID identifier).
(6) Possibility to set UD thresholds to distinguishbetween “Low,” “Medium,” and “High” riskspecies (e.g., as derived from a new calibrationstudy).
(7) Ability to generate a Report for one or morespecies selected from the list. If the assess-ment has not been completed for any ofthe selected species, then the user is warnedwhether a report for that species is still re-quired.
3.2.2. Q&A
The Open Q&A button in the Species AssessmentMenu dialog opens up the Q&A dialog (Fig. 2). Newfeatures in this dialog include:
(1) A title bar indicating: (i) the question beinganswered, (ii) the species name, (iii) the com-mon name, (iv) the assessor’s name, and (v)the section and corresponding category forthe question.
(2) A Go to Question combo-box control to movedirectly to any question in the assessment.
(3) A Clear button to erase all question informa-tion in the editable fields (i.e., Response, Cer-tainty, and Justification).
(4) A Close no Save button to quit all changes be-ing made to the species’ assessment.
(5) Context-sensitive coloring, with the editablefields (as per above) marked in light green foranswered questions, light red for unansweredquestions, and light yellow for questions beinganswered.
3.3. Application
The FISK score for Barcoo grunter placed thespecies into the lower range of medium risk ofbeing invasive (score = 5; Table II). Factors in-creasing the score included use in aquaculture, a cli-mate match between its native range and peninsu-lar Florida, broad climate suitability and tolerance oftemperatures between 10 and 30 ◦C, parental care,and a likelihood for introduction and dispersal byhumans. Barcoo grunter lacks a history of invasive-ness and has few undesirable attributes, character-istics that increase FISK scores. Whereas a FISKscore ≥19 would indicate unsuitability of a species foraquaponics, the medium risk score of Barcoo grunter
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1423
Fig. 1. New and improved interface of the Species Assessment Menu dialog in FISK v2 (data from Vilizzi and Copp(10)).
Fig. 2. New and improved interface of the Q&A dialog in FISK v2 (Q 1 for Barcoo grunter Scortum barcoo).
1424 Lawson et al.T
able
II.
FIS
Kv2
Pro
toco
lwit
hR
espo
nses
Giv
enfo
rB
arco
oG
runt
erSc
ortu
mba
rcoo
asa
Rea
l-W
orld
App
licat
ion
ofF
ISK
v2in
aM
anag
emen
tSce
nari
o
Spec
ies
Nam
e:Sc
ortu
mba
rcoo
Com
mon
Nam
e:B
arco
ogr
unte
rA
sses
sor:
S.H
ardi
n
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)Q
uery
Res
pons
eC
erta
inty
Com
men
tsan
dR
efer
ence
s
A.B
ioge
ogra
phy/
hist
oric
al1.
Dom
estic
atio
n/cu
ltiva
tion
1.01
(C)
Isth
esp
ecie
shi
ghly
dom
esti
cate
dor
wid
ely
cult
ivat
edfo
rco
mm
erci
al,a
nglin
gor
orna
men
talp
urpo
ses?
Y3
Seve
ralr
efer
ence
sin
Chi
nese
aqua
cult
ure
liter
atur
e(e
.g.,
Jour
nalo
fFis
heri
esSc
ienc
esof
Chi
na;
http
://en
.cnk
i.com
.cn/
Art
icle
en/C
JFD
TO
TA
L-Z
SCK
2007
0602
3.ht
m);
Aus
tral
ian
aqua
cult
ure
refe
renc
es(e
.g.
http
://w
ww
.aqu
acul
ture
quee
nsla
nd.c
om/ja
depe
rch.
htm
);po
pula
raq
uapo
nics
fish
(e.g
.htt
p://f
arm
ingw
ithfi
sh.c
om/?
p=
949)
.1.
02(C
)H
asth
esp
ecie
ses
tabl
ishe
dse
lf-s
usta
inin
gpo
pula
tion
sw
here
intr
oduc
ed?
N3
Onl
yon
ein
trod
ucti
onre
fere
nced
inF
ishB
ase
(Chi
na)
wit
hou
tcom
eun
know
nan
dpr
esum
ably
note
stab
lishe
d.1.
03(C
)D
oes
the
spec
ies
have
inva
sive
race
s/va
riet
ies/
subs
peci
es?
N4
No
subs
peci
eslis
ted
inF
ishB
ase
orIT
IS(h
ttp:
//ww
w.it
is.g
ov/s
ervl
et/S
ingl
eRpt
/Sin
gleR
pt?s
earc
hto
pic
=T
SN&
sear
chva
lue
=16
8075
).2.
Clim
ate
and
dist
ribu
tion
2.01
(C)
Wha
tis
the
leve
lofm
atch
ing
betw
een
the
spec
ies’
repr
oduc
tive
tole
ranc
esan
dth
ecl
imat
eof
the
RA
area
?
33
Nat
ive
rang
ein
Aus
tral
iafr
omN
orth
ern
Que
ensl
and
and
Nor
ther
nT
erri
tory
sout
hto
Lak
eE
yre
drai
nage
ince
ntra
lAus
tral
ia(h
ttp:
//ww
w.d
pi.q
ld.g
ov.a
u/28
1467
7.ht
m);
lati
tude
isfr
om15
◦ S–2
8◦S
(equ
ival
entl
atit
ude
isce
ntra
lFlo
rida
and
sout
h).F
ishB
ase
lists
tem
pera
ture
rang
eas
10–3
0◦C
,but
Chi
nese
liter
atur
eid
enti
fies
low
esta
ndhi
ghes
tcri
tica
lte
mpe
ratu
reof
embr
yoni
cde
velo
pmen
tas
21◦ C
and
31◦ C
,res
pect
ivel
y,an
dop
tim
alte
mpe
ratu
refr
om24
–27◦
C(C
hen
etal
.200
7).
2.02
(C)
Wha
tis
the
qual
ity
ofth
ecl
imat
em
atch
data
?2
3M
atch
base
don
lati
tude
and
aqua
cult
ure
rese
arch
rath
erth
anw
ater
tem
pera
ture
data
from
nati
vera
nge.
2.03
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sha
vese
lf-s
usta
inin
gpo
pula
tion
sin
thre
eor
mor
e(K
oppe
n-G
eige
r)cl
imat
ezo
nes?
Y3
Fis
hBas
elis
tsas
tem
pera
te.A
ustr
alia
ndi
stri
buti
onco
vers
3K
oppe
n-G
eige
rzo
nes;
how
ever
,non
eof
the
thre
eoc
cur
inF
lori
da(m
apfr
omP
eele
tal.
2007
).2.
04(C
)Is
the
spec
ies
nati
veto
,or
esta
blis
hed
self
-sus
tain
ing
popu
lati
ons
in,r
egio
nsw
ith
sim
ilar
clim
ates
toth
eR
Aar
ea?
Y3
Nat
ive
rang
eha
sla
titu
dedi
stri
buti
oneq
uiva
lent
toce
ntra
land
sout
hern
Flo
rida
;te
mpe
ratu
rera
nge
inF
ishB
ase
sim
ilar
topo
rtio
nsof
peni
nsul
arF
lori
da(s
eeea
rlie
rqu
esti
ons
for
refe
renc
es).
2.05
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sha
vea
hist
ory
ofbe
ing
intr
oduc
edou
tsid
eit
sna
tura
lran
ge?
N2
Fis
hBas
elis
tson
ein
trod
ucti
onin
Chi
naw
itho
utdo
cum
enta
tion
ofes
tabl
ishm
ent
stat
us.T
here
has
been
cons
ider
able
inve
stig
atio
nin
toaq
uacu
ltur
eof
S.ba
rcoo
inC
hina
,whi
chco
uld
beth
eso
urce
ofth
epu
tati
vein
trod
ucti
on.
3.In
vasi
veel
sew
here
3.01
(C)
Has
the
spec
ies
esta
blis
hed
one
orm
ore
self
-sus
tain
ing
popu
lati
ons
beyo
ndit
sna
tive
rang
e?N
3N
ore
fere
nce
toan
yes
tabl
ishe
d,in
trod
uced
popu
lati
ons.
Fis
hBas
ere
fere
nce
toC
hine
sein
trod
ucti
onw
itho
utdo
cum
enta
tion
.3.
02(N
)In
the
spec
ies’
intr
oduc
edra
nge,
are
ther
eim
pact
sto
wild
stoc
ksof
angl
ing
orco
mm
erci
alsp
ecie
s?N
3T
heon
lyre
fere
nce
toin
trod
ucti
on(F
ishB
ase)
has
noda
taon
esta
blis
hmen
tor
ecol
ogic
alef
fect
s.3.
03(A
)In
the
spec
ies’
intr
oduc
edra
nge,
are
ther
eim
pact
sto
aqua
cult
ural
,aqu
ariu
m,o
ror
nam
enta
lspe
cies
?N
3T
heon
lyre
fere
nce
toin
trod
ucti
on(F
ishB
ase)
has
noda
taon
esta
blis
hmen
tor
ecol
ogic
alef
fect
s.3.
04(E
)In
the
spec
ies’
intr
oduc
edra
nge,
are
ther
eim
pact
sto
rive
rs,l
akes
,or
amen
ity
valu
es?
N3
The
only
refe
renc
eto
intr
oduc
tion
(Fis
hBas
e)ha
sno
data
ones
tabl
ishm
ento
rec
olog
ical
effe
cts.
3.05
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sha
vein
vasi
veco
ngen
ers?
N4
Thr
eeco
ngen
ers
note
din
Fis
hBas
e(S
.hill
ei,S
.nei
li,an
dS.
parv
icep
s)w
ith
nore
fere
nce
toin
trod
ucti
ons.
(Con
tinue
d)
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1425T
able
II.
(Con
tinue
d)
Spec
ies
Nam
e:Sc
ortu
mba
rcoo
Com
mon
Nam
e:B
arco
ogr
unte
rA
sses
sor:
S.H
ardi
n
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)Q
uery
Res
pons
eC
erta
inty
Com
men
tsan
dR
efer
ence
s
B.B
iolo
gy/e
colo
gy4.
Und
esir
able
(or
pers
iste
nce)
trai
ts4.
01(C
)Is
the
spec
ies
pois
onou
s/ve
nom
ous,
orpo
ses
othe
rri
sks
tohu
man
heal
th?
N4
Fis
hBas
est
atus
=H
arm
less
.No
refe
renc
esto
veno
m.
4.02
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sou
tcom
pete
wit
hna
tive
spec
ies?
N3
No
docu
men
tati
onof
ecol
ogic
alef
fect
sin
the
only
intr
oduc
tion
note
din
Fis
hBas
e.N
oot
her
refe
renc
eslo
cate
d.4.
03(C
)Is
the
spec
ies
para
siti
cof
othe
rsp
ecie
s?N
4N
ore
fere
nce
toth
isin
Fis
hBas
eor
Aus
tral
ian
sum
mar
y(h
ttp:
//ww
w.d
pi.q
ld.g
ov.a
u/28
1467
7.ht
m).
4.04
(A)
Isth
esp
ecie
sun
pala
tabl
eto
,or
lack
ing,
natu
ral
pred
ator
s?N
3C
omm
onle
ngth
of25
cmw
ould
mak
eth
issp
ecie
svu
lner
able
toa
host
ofm
ediu
mto
larg
epi
sciv
ores
,wad
ing
bird
san
dcr
ocod
ilian
s.C
onsi
deri
ngit
sva
lue
asa
food
fish,
pala
tabi
lity
islik
ely
nota
nis
sue
for
non-
hum
anpr
edat
ors.
4.05
(C)
Doe
ssp
ecie
spr
eyon
ana
tive
spec
ies
prev
ious
lysu
bjec
ted
tolo
w(o
rno
)pr
edat
ion?
N3
Fis
hBas
elis
tsdi
etit
ems
asfis
hes,
crus
tace
ans,
inse
cts,
and
mol
lusk
s.In
Flo
rida
,na
tive
pred
ator
yfis
hes
occu
rin
virt
ually
ever
yw
ater
body
whe
reth
ese
prey
item
sar
efo
und.
4.06
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sho
st,a
nd/o
ris
ita
vect
or,f
oron
eor
mor
ere
cogn
ized
non-
nati
vein
fect
ious
agen
ts?
N3
No
refe
renc
esfo
und
that
addr
ess
vect
orin
gno
nnat
ive
para
site
san
ddi
seas
e.M
oreo
ver,
noda
taon
the
sing
lein
trod
ucti
on(C
hina
)lis
ted
inF
ishB
ase.
Chi
nese
aqua
cult
ure
liter
atur
edo
esno
tadd
ress
this
issu
e.4.
07(N
)D
oes
the
spec
ies
achi
eve
ala
rge
ulti
mat
ebo
dysi
ze(i
.e.,
>15
cmto
tall
engt
h)(m
ore
likel
yto
beab
ando
ned)
?
Y4
Max
size
35cm
,com
mon
size
25cm
(Fis
hBas
e).
4.08
(E)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sha
vea
wid
esa
linit
yto
lera
nce
oris
eury
halin
eat
som
est
age
ofit
slif
ecy
cle?
N3
Fis
hBas
elis
tsas
fres
hwat
er;A
ppen
dix
tabl
eto
Aus
tral
ian
fish
dist
ribu
tion
stud
ylis
tsas
fres
hwat
eron
ly(h
ttp:
//ww
w.d
ocst
oc.c
om/d
ocs/
7096
6492
/App
endi
x-I-
Fis
h-sp
ecie
s-di
stri
buti
on-a
bund
ance
-and
-tre
nds-
by-c
atch
men
t).
4.09
(E)
Isth
esp
ecie
sab
leto
wit
hsta
ndbe
ing
outo
fwat
erfo
rex
tend
edpe
riod
s(e
.g.,
min
imum
ofon
eor
mor
eho
urs)
?
N3
No
refe
renc
esm
enti
onun
usua
ldes
icca
tion
tole
ranc
e.
4.10
(E)
Isth
esp
ecie
sto
lera
ntof
ara
nge
ofw
ater
velo
city
cond
itio
ns(e
.g.,
vers
atile
inha
bita
tuse
)?Y
3N
ativ
eto
Gilb
ertR
iver
,whi
chha
sth
esi
xth-
high
estd
isch
arge
ofan
yri
ver
inA
ustr
alia
(Wik
iped
ia);
Fis
hBas
esu
gges
tsth
atfis
hsp
awn
duri
ngflo
odin
g.4.
11(E
)D
oes
feed
ing
orot
her
beha
vior
sof
the
spec
ies
redu
ceha
bita
tqua
lity
for
nati
vesp
ecie
s?N
3N
oev
iden
ceof
bioe
ngin
eeri
ngbe
havi
or.
4.12
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sre
quir
em
inim
umpo
pula
tion
size
tom
aint
ain
avi
able
popu
lati
on?
?1
No
refe
renc
esfo
und.
5.F
eedi
nggu
ild5.
01(E
)If
the
spec
ies
ism
ainl
yhe
rbiv
orou
sor
pisc
ivor
ous/
carn
ivor
ous
(e.g
.,am
phib
ia),
then
isit
sfo
ragi
nglik
ely
toha
vean
adve
rse
impa
ctin
the
RA
area
?
N3
Con
side
red
anom
nivo
reby
Fis
hBas
e.
5.02
(C)
Ifth
esp
ecie
sis
anom
nivo
re(o
ra
gene
ralis
tpre
dato
r),
then
isit
sfo
ragi
nglik
ely
toha
vean
adve
rse
impa
ctin
the
RA
area
?
N3
Fis
hBas
elis
tsas
omni
vore
;foo
dha
bits
are
sim
ilar
tona
tive
Flo
rida
fishe
san
dw
itho
utno
velp
reda
tory
beha
vior
orch
oice
inha
bita
ts,i
mpa
cts
dono
tsee
mlik
ely.
5.03
(C)
Ifth
esp
ecie
sis
mai
nly
plan
ktiv
orou
sor
detr
itiv
orou
sor
algi
voro
us,t
hen
isit
sfo
ragi
nglik
ely
toha
vean
adve
rse
impa
ctin
the
RA
area
?
N4
Spec
ies
isom
nivo
rous
(Fis
hBas
e).
(Con
tinue
d)
1426 Lawson et al.T
able
II.
(Con
tinue
d)
Spec
ies
Nam
e:Sc
ortu
mba
rcoo
Com
mon
Nam
e:B
arco
ogr
unte
rA
sses
sor:
S.H
ardi
n
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)Q
uery
Res
pons
eC
erta
inty
Com
men
tsan
dR
efer
ence
s
5.04
(C)
Ifth
esp
ecie
sis
mai
nly
bent
hivo
rous
,the
nis
its
fora
ging
likel
yto
have
anad
vers
eim
pact
inth
eR
Aar
ea?
N4
Spec
ies
isom
nivo
rous
(Fis
hBas
e).
6.R
epro
duct
ion
6.01
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sex
hibi
tpar
enta
lcar
ean
d/or
isit
know
nto
redu
ceag
e-at
-mat
urit
yin
resp
onse
toen
viro
nmen
t?
Y2
Fis
hBas
eco
nsid
ers
this
apa
rent
algu
arde
r,w
ith
mal
esfa
nnin
geg
gspe
rB
rede
ran
dR
osen
(196
6)M
odes
ofR
epro
duct
ion
inF
ishe
s.H
owev
er,C
hine
selit
erat
ure
sugg
ests
that
the
egg
isbu
oyan
t(C
hen
etal
.200
7).
6.02
(C)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
spr
oduc
evi
able
gam
etes
?Y
4R
epro
duci
ngpo
pula
tion
thro
ugh
muc
hof
Aus
tral
ia.
6.03
(A)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
shy
brid
ize
natu
rally
wit
hna
tive
spec
ies
(or
uses
mal
esof
nati
vesp
ecie
sto
acti
vate
eggs
)?N
4N
ona
tive
cong
ener
sin
Flo
rida
;Ter
apon
tida
eis
notn
ativ
eto
Flo
rida
.
6.04
(C)
Isth
esp
ecie
she
rmap
hrod
itic
?N
4N
ore
fere
nces
toth
isw
ere
foun
d.6.
05(C
)Is
the
spec
ies
depe
nden
ton
the
pres
ence
ofan
othe
rsp
ecie
s(o
rsp
ecifi
cha
bita
tfea
ture
s)to
com
plet
eit
slif
ecy
cle?
N4
No
refe
renc
esto
this
aspe
ctof
life
cycl
ew
ere
foun
d.
6.06
(A)
Isth
esp
ecie
shi
ghly
fecu
nd(>
10,0
00eg
gs/k
g),
iter
opat
ric
orha
san
exte
nded
spaw
ning
seas
onre
lati
veto
nati
vesp
ecie
s?
?2
Cou
ldno
tfind
refe
renc
eson
fecu
ndit
y;no
tlis
ted
inF
ishB
ase;
Chi
nese
and
Aus
tral
ian
aqua
cult
ure
liter
atur
edo
notm
enti
onfe
cund
ity.
6.07
(C)
Wha
tis
the
spec
ies’
know
nm
inim
umge
nera
tion
tim
e(i
nye
ars)
?2
2N
ore
fere
nces
,but
Fis
hBas
edo
ublin
gti
me
liste
das
1.4–
4.4
year
s.
7.D
ispe
rsal
mec
hani
sms
7.01
(A)
Are
life
stag
eslik
ely
tobe
disp
erse
dun
inte
ntio
nally
?N
3N
ota
bait
spec
ies;
pote
ntia
laqu
apon
ics
spec
ies.
7.02
(C)
Are
life
stag
eslik
ely
tobe
disp
erse
din
tent
iona
llyby
hum
ans
(and
suit
able
habi
tats
abun
dant
near
by)?
Y2
Pot
enti
alas
aqua
poni
csfo
odfis
hm
ayle
adto
stoc
king
;or
disc
ards
from
peop
lew
hoab
ando
naq
uapo
nics
syst
ems.
7.03
(A)
Are
life
stag
eslik
ely
tobe
disp
erse
das
aco
ntam
inan
tof
com
mod
itie
s?N
3W
ould
beve
ryun
likel
yto
beso
ldw
ith
othe
rfis
hes;
very
low
prob
abili
tyas
cont
amin
anto
fnon
-fish
com
mod
itie
s.7.
04(C
)D
oes
natu
rald
ispe
rsal
occu
ras
afu
ncti
onof
egg
disp
ersa
l?N
1F
ishB
ase
sugg
ests
pare
ntal
care
and
pela
gic
eggs
insa
me
para
grap
h;ho
wev
er,a
sno
ted
abov
e,C
hine
selit
erat
ure
sugg
ests
float
ing
eggs
.7.
05(E
)D
oes
natu
rald
ispe
rsal
occu
ras
afu
ncti
onof
disp
ersa
lof
larv
ae(a
long
linea
ran
d/or
“ste
ppin
gst
one”
habi
tats
)?
?1
No
liter
atur
eor
refe
renc
esfo
und
that
addr
ess
this
.
7.06
(E)
Are
juve
nile
sor
adul
tsof
the
spec
ies
know
nto
mig
rate
(spa
wni
ng,s
mol
ting
,fee
ding
)??
1O
nly
refe
renc
eis
inF
ishB
ase
whi
chsu
gges
tsth
issp
ecie
sm
aybr
eed
duri
ngflo
odev
ents
(Alle
net
al.(
2002
)F
ield
Gui
deto
the
Fre
shw
ater
Fis
hes
ofA
ustr
alia
).U
ncle
arif
mig
rati
onis
asso
ciat
edw
ith
this
.7.
07(C
)A
reeg
gsof
the
spec
ies
know
nto
bedi
sper
sed
byot
her
anim
als
(ext
erna
lly)?
N3
No
docu
men
tati
on,a
ndun
likel
yif
ther
eis
pare
ntal
care
orbu
oyan
tegg
s.
7.08
(C)
Isdi
sper
salo
fthe
spec
ies
dens
ity
depe
nden
t??
1N
ore
fere
nces
foun
dth
atad
dres
sst
ock
dens
itie
sin
the
wild
.8.
Tol
eran
ceat
trib
utes
8.01
(C)
Any
life
stag
eslik
ely
tosu
rviv
eou
tofw
ater
tran
spor
t?N
4N
ore
fere
nces
men
tion
desi
ccat
ion
tole
ranc
e;no
tan
air
brea
ther
.8.
02(C
)D
oes
the
spec
ies
tole
rate
aw
ide
rang
eof
wat
erqu
alit
yco
ndit
ions
,esp
ecia
llyox
ygen
depl
etio
nan
dte
mpe
ratu
reex
trem
es?
Y2
Fis
hBas
elis
tste
mpe
ratu
reof
10–4
0◦C
,alt
houg
haq
uacu
ltur
elit
erat
ure
sugg
ests
fish
are
nota
ctiv
eat
tem
pera
ture
sbe
low
20◦ C
.Spe
cies
does
cove
ra
rela
tive
lyla
rge
port
ion
ofA
ustr
alia
.
(Con
tinue
d)
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1427T
able
II.
(Con
tinue
d)
Spec
ies
Nam
e:Sc
ortu
mba
rcoo
Com
mon
Nam
e:B
arco
ogr
unte
rA
sses
sor:
S.H
ardi
n
Sect
ion/
(Cod
e)Q
uery
Res
pons
eC
erta
inty
Com
men
tsan
dR
efer
ence
s
8.03
(A)
Isth
esp
ecie
sre
adily
susc
epti
ble
topi
scic
ides
atth
edo
ses
lega
llype
rmit
ted
for
use
inth
eri
skas
sess
men
tare
a?
Y4
Rot
enon
eor
synt
heti
csh
ould
bele
thal
atm
axim
umla
beld
oes
(5pa
rts
per
mill
ion)
,whi
chis
allo
wab
lein
Flo
rida
.
8.04
(A)
Doe
sth
esp
ecie
sto
lera
teor
bene
fitfr
omen
viro
nmen
tald
istu
rban
ce?
Y2
Fis
hBas
ere
fere
nce
tosp
awni
ngdu
ring
flood
ing;
spec
ies
adap
ted
totu
rbid
rive
rs,l
ikel
ybe
caus
eof
sign
ifica
ntru
nof
f.8.
05(C
)A
reth
ere
effe
ctiv
ena
tura
lene
mie
sof
the
spec
ies
pres
enti
nth
eri
skas
sess
men
tar
ea?
Y3
Spec
ies
does
note
xhib
itun
usua
lmor
phol
ogy
orde
fens
ive
beha
vior
s.W
ould
besu
bjec
tto
nati
vepr
edat
ors.
Stat
isti
cals
umm
ary
ofsc
orin
gO
utco
me
UK
:M
ediu
m
Out
com
eJa
pan:
Med
ium
Out
com
eU
ser-
defin
ed:
Tot
alsc
ore:
5.0
Scor
epa
rtit
ion:
A.B
ioge
ogra
phy/
hist
oric
al:
4.0
1.D
omes
tica
tion
/cul
tiva
tion
1.0
2.C
limat
ean
ddi
stri
buti
on2.
03.
Inva
sive
else
whe
re1.
0B
.Bio
logy
/eco
logy
:1.
04.
Und
esir
able
trai
ts2.
05.
Fee
ding
Gui
ld0.
06.
Rep
rodu
ctio
n1.
07.
Dis
pers
alm
echa
nism
s–1
.08.
Per
sist
ence
attr
ibut
es–1
.0Q
uest
ions
answ
ered
Tot
al:
49A
.Bio
geog
raph
y/hi
stor
ical
:13
1.D
omes
tica
tion
/cul
tiva
tion
32.
Clim
ate
and
dist
ribu
tion
53.
Inva
sive
else
whe
re5
B.B
iolo
gy/e
colo
gy:
364.
Und
esir
able
trai
ts12
5.F
eedi
nggu
ild4
6.R
epro
duct
ion
77.
Dis
pers
alm
echa
nism
s8
8.P
ersi
sten
ceat
trib
utes
5Se
ctor
saf
fect
ed:
Aqu
acul
tura
l:3
Env
iron
men
tal
7N
uisa
nce
1C
erta
inty
fact
or0.
73
Sect
orC
odes
(in
Par
enth
eses
)ar
e:A
=A
quac
ultu
re;E
=E
nvir
onm
enta
l;C
=C
ombi
ned.
Scor
ing
subr
outi
nes
for
“Clim
ate
mat
chin
g”an
d“I
nvas
ive
else
whe
re,”
and
“Gen
erat
ion
tim
e”ar
ede
scri
bed
inC
opp
etal
.(2)
and
othe
rre
spon
ses
are:
Y=
Yes
;N=
No;
?=
Don
’tK
now
.Cer
tain
tyva
lues
rang
efr
om1
=V
ery
unce
rtai
nto
4=
Ver
yce
rtai
n.
1428 Lawson et al.
suggests the need for further examination of the riskfactors in Florida to determine whether mitigation(e.g., restrictions on location, system design, and de-velopment of best practices, as well as education andoutreach) is required.
Barcoo grunter was assigned broad climate suit-ability based on an Australian reference,(42) where itsdistribution overlapped three Koppen-Geiger zones.However, there is uncertainty over the extent of thespecies’ native range in Australia. Barcoo grunterprobably is endemic to the Lake Eyre drainage,a large region in central Australia. Although com-monly listed from northern regions draining into theGulf of Carpentaria (e.g., Unmack(43)) these recordslikely are misidentifications of the gulf grunter Scor-tum ogilbyi.(44,45) The taxonomy of terapontids is dif-ficult and confused. FishBase lists S. ogilbyi as a ju-nior synonym of S. hillii, but The Catalog of Fisheslists S. ogilbyi as valid.(46) Davis et al.(47) recently usedthe name S. ogilbyi in ecological studies of terapon-tid fishes in northern Australia, and among the co-authors are noted experts on Australian fishes. No-tably, Barcoo grunter is not included in the latterstudy even though the study area included the dis-puted range in Australia. Using the more conser-vative range distribution, Barcoo grunter would befound in only one Koppen-Geiger zone and its FISKscore would be reduced. Furthermore, reproductivetolerance of Barcoo grunter was considered suitedto Florida’s climate based on comparable latitudeand temperature tolerance. However, the Koppen-Geiger zone occupied by Barcoo grunter in Australia(BWh = arid, desert, hot) does not occur in Florida.
Parental care of eggs increased the FISK score,but the type of eggs laid by the Barcoo grunter is dis-puted in the literature. FishBase references Brederand Rosen’s(48) review of reproductive modes infishes and states that members of the genus Scortumhave male parental care of eggs laid in a nest on thesubstratum. However, the FishBase account for thesmall-headed grunter Scortum parviceps contradictsitself by listing pelagic eggs and male parental care ofthe eggs in the same paragraph on Biology, also refer-encing Breder and Rosen(48) in the reproduction sec-tion.(49) This casts doubt on the validity of the Fish-Base information on Scortum reproduction. Recentaquaculture references in the Chinese literature de-scribe the eggs of Barcoo grunter as free floating.(50)
Other terapontids such as the silver perch Bidyanusbidyanus clearly lay semibuoyant, pelagic eggs.(51)
Therefore, it is most likely that Barcoo grunter eggsalso float or are semibuoyant, and that dispersal of
this species occurs via this mechanism. An affirma-tive response to the FISK question on parental careof eggs was offset by a negative answer to a subse-quent question regarding egg dispersal. Accordingly,subsequent reevaluation of these questions and re-sponses did not have an appreciable impact on thetotal FISK score.
The Barcoo grunter has no clear history of in-vasiveness, an important trait in determining riskcategorization in FISK. With the exception of lim-ited translocations within Australia,(52) it is unclearwhether or not the Barcoo grunter has been intro-duced into open waters outside of its native range.This species is listed as introduced into China, but nodata are available on the year of introduction or pop-ulation status,(53) casting doubt that the introductionwas into open waters rather than simply an aquacul-ture transfer.
Two questions dealing with the likelihood of in-troduction and human-mediated dispersal influencedthe Barcoo grunter’s medium risk ranking. Specieswith an ultimate body size >15 cm are consideredmore likely to be abandoned by aquarium hobbyists(Q4.07; Section B4; Table I). Barcoo grunter’s ulti-mate body size >15 cm resulted in a “Yes” responsefor Q4.07 even though larger fish are desirable foraquaponics, and it is unlikely that the Barcoo gruntercultured for food would be released. Similarly, it isdoubtful that aquaponics operators would be moti-vated to introduce this species into public waters as afood source. However, there is a possibility of aban-doning home aquaponics systems for a variety of rea-sons, which might lead to releasing fish into publicwaters. For this reason, a “Yes” response was givenfor Q7.02 relating to the likelihood of intentional hu-man dispersal.
4. DISCUSSION
The upgrades and modifications have madeFISK v2 more functional than its predecessor (FISKv1) in terms of its use as a practical tool for iden-tifying potentially invasive fish, thus informing thedecision-making and risk management process un-dertaken by regulatory agencies. FISK v2 incorpo-rates a wider range of ecological and environmentalcharacteristics that facilitate invasion on a broaderscale of risk environments (i.e., temperate to tropicalclimates), making FISK v2 applicable to peninsularFlorida as well as other warm temperate, subtropical,and, potentially, tropical climate zones. The changesmade to questions and question guidance reduce
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1429
ambiguity in the terminology while also allowing in-creased flexibility in assessor judgment where ap-plicable (e.g., determining invasion history, climatematching, and evaluating impacts). Noteworthy up-grades were made to the FISK v2 user interface thatimproved its efficiency and reporting ability and pro-vide the assessor a greater level of control during use.
Beyond the application to the Barcoo grunterin this study, FISK v2 is being used in two sub-tropical regions, namely, Florida (United States) andsoutheastern Australia. In the later study, Vilizzi andCopp(10) evaluated 55 species in the Murray-DarlingBasin and compared the resulting scores for 53 of thespecies with those previously obtained (by LV) forthe United Kingdom using FISK v1.(3) They founddifferences in scores between the two FISK versions,with the main difference because of methodologi-cal changes in the Feeding Guild questions (mostspecies) and the question on ultimate body size(four species with TLs >10 cm but <15 cm), whichled to lower scores. Other differences were mainlyattributable to climate predictions that suggestAustralia, unlike the United Kingdom, will be drierin the future.(54) An additional objective of the Vi-lizzi and Copp(10) study was to compare the risk cate-gories from FISK v2 with those obtained from twoAustralian-based risk assessment protocols.(10) Theauthors recommended adoption of FISK v2 as Aus-tralia’s reference screening tool based on a proventrack record of the FISK tool in several countriesand regions worldwide compared to screening ap-proaches currently limited to Australia, its semiquan-titative nature as well as its antipodean origin as anadaptation of the Australian WRA.(2)
The application of FISK v2 to Barcoo grunterrepresents the first of a more extensive applicationof this screening tool to assess 98 nonnative fishes forpeninsular Florida (LLL, LV, JEH, SH, and GHC,unpublished data). Although the FISK score for Bar-coo grunter falls into the medium risk category, thespecies’ score is relatively low in that category. Re-sponses to questions were compliant with the FISKguidance and reflected a risk-averse approach appro-priate for a state conservation agency. Many FISKquestions are quantitative, but judgment is requiredin some cases, e.g., source data quality, degree of cli-mate match, and likelihood of introduction. Despiteincreasing use of Barcoo grunter in aquaculture, in-formation in databases and the literature was con-flicting or contradictory, even for basic concepts suchas native range and reproduction. Moreover, dataquality for invasion history was poor. These deficien-
cies increased uncertainty, affected answers to ques-tions, and influenced the final score. The justificationfields in the FISK summary, which detail the asses-sor’s rationale and references, are valuable for sub-sequent review and interpretation by environmentalmanagers. A strength of a risk identification (screen-ing) phase is to point out gaps in knowledge that mayrequire additional investigation in the literature, in-teraction with species experts, or original research,especially when evaluating a species that is classi-fied as medium risk. The FISK evaluation of Barcoogrunter suggests that this species may be a suitablecandidate for aquaponics in Florida and that restric-tions on possession may not be necessary.
Variability in assessor judgment is undesirablein risk assessments, in that it may introduce sub-jectivity; however, in some cases human judgmentmay improve the quality of the assessment by buffer-ing data deficiencies or inconsistencies.(55) Never-theless, where data/information are lacking, such asfor the Barcoo grunter, increased uncertainty maymotivate environmental managers/decisionmakers totake a precautionary approach. Several responses inour Barcoo grunter screening would have changed ifassessor judgment was not permitted. Alternatively,assessor subjectivity may also be introduced if thescreening questions are not specific, clearly written,or require assessor interpretation. The changes madefor FISK v2 have addressed these concerns by simul-taneously improving clarity of the questions and pro-viding the assessor with clearer guidance in selectingthe appropriate responses while also allowing the as-sessor latitude in judging the quality of data and in-formation available and responding accordingly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this research was provided by theU.S. Department of Agriculture T-STAR-C pro-gram, the University of Florida College of Agricul-tural and Life Sciences, the Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission, and the UK Departmentof Environment, Food and Rural Affairs throughcontracts to Cefas.
REFERENCES
1. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR. A weed risk assess-ment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant in-troductions. Journal of Environmental Management, 1999;57:239–251.
2. Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE. Risk identificationand assessment of non-native freshwater fishes: Conceptsand perspectives on protocols for the UK. Cefas Science
1430 Lawson et al.
Technical Report. Lowestoft, UK: Cefas, 2005. Availableat: http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/tech129.pdf,Accessed on April 25, 2012.
3. Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Mumford J, Fenwick GM, Godard MJ,Gozlan RE. Calibration of FISK, an invasiveness screen-ing tool for nonnative freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis, 2009;29(3):457–467.
4. Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE. Risk identification andassessment of non-native freshwater fishes: A summary ofconcepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Journalof Applied Ichthyology, 2005; 21:371–373.
5. Tricarico E, Vilizzi L, Gherardi F, Copp GH. Calibration ofFI-ISK, an invasiveness screening tool for nonnative fresh-water invertebrates. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(2):285–292.
6. Mastitisky SE, Karateyev AY, Burlakova LE, AdamovichBV. Non-native fishes of Belarus: Diversity, distribution, andrisk classification using the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit(FISK). Aquatic Invasions, 2010; 5:103–114.
7. Vandenbergh K. Risicoanalyse Voor Uitheemse Vissortenin Vlaanderen. PhD Thesis, Departement Biologie, Facul-teit Wetenschappen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leu-ven, Belgium, 2007.
8. Vebrugge LNH, van der Velde G, Hendriks AJ, VerreyckenH, Leuven RSEW. Risk classifications of aquatic non-nativespecies: Application of contemporary European assessmentprotocols in different biogeographical settings. Aquatic Inva-sions, 2012; 7(1):49–58.
9. Onikura N, Nakajima J, Inui R, Mizutani H, KobayakawaM, Fukuda S, Mukai T. Evaluating the potential for invasionby alien freshwater fishes in northern Kyushu Island, Japan,using the Fish Invasiveness Scoring Kit. Ichthyological Re-search, 2012; 58:382–387.
10. Vilizzi L, Copp GH. Application of FISK, an invasive-ness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, in theMurray-Darling Basin (Southeastern Australia). Risk Anal-ysis, 2013; 33(8):1432–1440.
11. Troca DFA, Vieira JP. Potential invasive non-native fishfarmed in the coastal region of Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil.Boletim do Instituto de Pesca, Sao Paulo, 2012; 38:109–120.
12. Walkenbach J. Excel R© 2007 Bible. New York: John Wileyand Sons, Inc., 2007.
13. Bovey R, Wallentin D, Bullen S, Green J. Professional Ex-cel Development: The Definitive Guide to Developing Ap-plications Using Microsoft Excel, VBA, and .NET, 2nd ed.Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.
14. Cooper A, Reimann R, Cronin D. About Face 3: The Essen-tials of Interaction Design, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: WileyPublishing, Inc., 2007.
15. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.Aquaculture Species, Barcoo Grunter, 2010. Available at:http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28 13333.htm, Accessed on April25, 2012.
16. Allen GR, Midgley SH, Allen M (eds). Field Guide to Fresh-water Fishes of Australia. Perth, Western Australia: WesternAustralian Museum, 2002.
17. Arthington AH, Olden JD, Balcombe SR, Thoms MS. Multi-scale environmental factors explain fish losses and refugequality in drying waterholes of Cooper Creek, an Aus-tralian arid-zone river. Marine and Freshwater Research,2010; 61:842–856.
18. Balcombe AR, Bunn SE, McKenzie-Smith FJ, Davies PM.Variability of fish diets between dry and flood periods inan arid zone floodplain river. Journal of Fish Biology, 2005;67:1552–1567.
19. Reid AL, Seebacher F, Ward AJW. Learning to hunt: Therole of experience in predator success. Behaviour, 2010;147:223–233.
20. Kerezsy A, Balcombe SR, Arthington AH, Bunn SE. Contin-uous recruitment underpins fish persistence in the arid rivers
of far-western Queensland, Australia. Marine and Freshwa-ter Research, 2011; 62:1178–1190.
21. Muir WM, Howard RD. Possible ecological risks of trans-genic organism release when transgenes affect mating suc-cess: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1999;96(24):13853–13856.
22. Copp GH, Templeton M, Gozlan RE. Propagule pressureand the invasion risks of non-native freshwater fishes in Eu-rope: A case study of England. Journal of Fish Biology, 2007;71(Suppl. D):148–159.
23. Hill JE, Kapuscinsk AR, Pavlowich T. Flourescent trans-genic zebra danio more vulnerable to predators than wild-type fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,2011; 140:1001–1005.
24. Thompson KA, Hill JE, Nico LG. Eastern mosquitofish re-sists invasion by nonindigenous poeciliids through agonisticbehaviors. Biological Invasions, 2012; 14(7):1515–1529.
25. Copp GH, Bianco PG, Bogutskaya and 19 more authors. Tobe, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish? Journal of Ap-plied Ichthyology, 2005; 21:242–262.
26. Shafland PL, Gestring KB, Stanford MS. Categorizing intro-duced fishes collected from public waters. Southeastern Nat-uralist, 2008; 7(4):627–636.
27. Shafland PL, Pestrak JM. Lower lethal temperatures for four-teen non-native fishes in Florida. Environmental Biology ofFishes, 1982; 7(2):149–156.
28. Gestring KB, Shafland PL, Stanford MS. Status of the ex-otic Orinoco sailfin catfish (Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus) inFlorida. Florida Scientist, 2010; 73(2):122–137.
29. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated worldmap of Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrologyand Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2007; 4(2):1633–1644.
30. Fuller PL, Nico LG, Williams JD. Nonindigenous Fishes In-troduced into Inland Waters of the United States. Bethesda,MD: Special Publication 27 American Fisheries Society,1999.
31. Froese R, Pauly D (eds). Fishbase. World Wide Webelectronic publication, 2011. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org, Accessed on March 7, 2012.
32. Richardson DM, Pysek P, Rejmanek M, Barbour MG,Panetta FD, West CJ. Naturalization and invasion of alienplants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions,2000; 6:93–107.
33. Invasive Species Advisory Committee (US). InvasiveSpecies Definition Clarification and Guidance White Pa-per, 2006. Available at: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf, Accessed on April 25, 2012.
34. Thomas ME. Monitoring the effects of introduced flatheadcatfish on sport fish populations in the Altamaha River,Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of theSoutheastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,1993; 47:531–538.
35. Nico LG, Fuller PL. Spatial and temporal patterns of non-indigenous fish introductions in the United States. Fisheries,1999; 24:16–27.
36. Nico LG. Changes in the fish fauna of the Kissimmee RiverBasin, peninsular Florida: Non-native additions. Pp. 523–556in Rinne JN, Hughes RM, Calamusso B (eds). HistoricalChanges in Large River Fish Assemblages of the Americas.Bethesda, MD: Volume 45 of American Fisheries SocietySymposium, 2005.
37. Moyle PB, Light T. Biological invasions of fresh water: Em-pirical rules and assembly theory. Biological Conservation,1996; 78:149–161.
38. Dibble ED, Kovalenko K. Ecological impact of grass carp: Areview of the available data. Journal of Aquatic Plant Man-agement, 2009; 47:1–15.
Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit 1431
39. Severinghaus LL, Chi L. Prayer animal release in Taiwan. Bi-ological Conservation, 1999; 89(3):301–304.
40. Liu X, McGarrity ME, Li Y. The influence of traditional Bud-dhist wildlife release on biological invasions. ConservationLetters, 2012; 5(2):107–114.
41. Nico LG, Sharp P, Collins TM. Imported Asian swamp eels(Synbranchidae: Monopterus) in North American live foodmarkets: Potential vectors of non-native parasites. AquaticInvasions, 2011; 6(1):69–76.
42. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.Queensland Freshwater Fish, Barcoo Grunter, 2012. Avail-able at: http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28 14677.htm, Accessedon April 25, 2012.
43. Unmack PJ. Biogeography of Australian freshwater fishes.Journal of Biogeography, 2001; 28(9):1053–1089.
44. Burrows DW, Perna C. A Survey of Freshwater Fish and FishHabitats of the Norman River, Gulf of Carpentaria. JamesCook University, Townsville, Australia: Australian Centrefor Tropical Freshwater Research, 2006.
45. Lukacs GP, Finlayson CM. General introduction. In LukacsGP, Finlayson CM (eds). A Compendium of Ecological In-formation on Australia’s Northern Tropical Rivers. Sub-Project 1 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers An Integrated DataAssessment and Analysis (DET18). A report to Land andWater Australia. Townsville, Queensland: National Centrefor Tropical Wetland Research, 2008.
46. California Academy of Sciences (CAS). Catalog of Fishes,Scortum Ogilbyi Whitley, 1951. Available at: http://research.calacademy.org/redirect?url=http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/ research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp&tbl=species&spid = 47977, Accessed on March 7, 2012.
47. Davis AM, Pearson RG, Pusey BJ, Perna C, Morgan DL,Burrows D. Trophic ecology of northern Australia’s terapon-
tids: Ontogenetic dietary shifts and feeding classification.Journal of Fish Biology, 2011; 78:265–286.
48. Breder CM, Rosen DE. Modes of Reproduction in Fishes.Garden City, NY: Natural History Press, 1966.
49. Froese R, Pauly D (eds). Fishbase. World Wide Webelectronic publication. www.fishbase.org. Barcoo GrunterScortum barcoo (McCulloch & Waite, 1917). Available at:http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Scotrum-barcoo.html, Ac-cessed on April 25, 2012.
50. Chen K, Zhu X, Du J, Xie G, Liu Y, Zheng G, ChenY. Effects of temperature and salinity on the embry-onic development of jade perch Scortum barcoo. Jour-nal of Fishery Sciences of China, 2007. English abstractavailable at: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article en/CJFDTOTAL-ZSCK200706023.htm, Accessed on March 7, 2012.
51. Rowland SJ. The hormone-induced spawning of silver perch,Bidyanus bidyanus (Mitchell) (Teraponidae). Aquaculture,1984, 42:83–86.
52. Koehn JD, MacKenzie RF. Priority management actionsfor alien freshwater fish species in Australia. New ZealandJournal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 2004; 38:457–472.
53. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations). Introduced Species Fact Sheet for Scotum Bar-coo, 2012. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/introsp/3919/en, Accessed on April 25, 2012.
54. Murphy BF, Timbal B. A review of recent climate variabilityand climate change in southeastern Australia. InternationalJournal of Climatology, 2008; 7:859–879.
55. Orr R. Generic nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk anal-ysis review process. Pp. 415–438 in Ruiz GM, Carlton JT(eds). Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies.Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.
Top Related