Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions
Identifieur interne : 001508 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001507; suivant : 001509Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions
Auteurs : R. E. Gozlan ; J. R. Britton ; I. Cowx ; G. H. CoppSource :
- Journal of Fish Biology [ 0022-1112 ] ; 2010-03.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502ELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title><author><name sortKey="Gozlan, R E" sort="Gozlan, R E" uniqKey="Gozlan R" first="R. E." last="Gozlan">R. E. Gozlan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: rgozlan@bournemouth.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Britton, J R" sort="Britton, J R" uniqKey="Britton J" first="J. R." last="Britton">J. R. Britton</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Cowx, I" sort="Cowx, I" uniqKey="Cowx I" first="I." last="Cowx">I. Cowx</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Copp, G H" sort="Copp, G H" uniqKey="Copp G" first="G. H." last="Copp">G. H. Copp</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Salmon & Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001508</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001508</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title><author><name sortKey="Gozlan, R E" sort="Gozlan, R E" uniqKey="Gozlan R" first="R. E." last="Gozlan">R. E. Gozlan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: rgozlan@bournemouth.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Britton, J R" sort="Britton, J R" uniqKey="Britton J" first="J. R." last="Britton">J. R. Britton</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Cowx, I" sort="Cowx, I" uniqKey="Cowx I" first="I." last="Cowx">I. Cowx</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Copp, G H" sort="Copp, G H" uniqKey="Copp G" first="G. H." last="Copp">G. H. Copp</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Salmon & Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, U.K.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Fish Biology</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno><idno type="eISSN">1095-8649</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-03">2010-03</date><biblScope unit="volume">76</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="751">751</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="786">786</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno></series><idno type="istex">D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JFB2566</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>ecological impact</term><term>economy</term><term>invasive</term><term>management</term><term>pathways</term><term>risk</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>R. E. Gozlan</name><affiliations><json:string>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</json:string><json:string>E-mail: rgozlan@bournemouth.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J. R. Britton</name><affiliations><json:string>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>I. Cowx</name><affiliations><json:string>Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>G. H. Copp</name><affiliations><json:string>Salmon & Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, U.K.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ecological impact</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>economy</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>invasive</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>management</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>pathways</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>risk</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JFB2566</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>487.559 x 702.992 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>2045</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>19595</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>119099</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>36</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>280</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>76</volume><publisherId><json:string>JFB</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>36</total><last>786</last><first>751</first></pages><issn><json:string>0022-1112</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1095-8649</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Fish Biology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>marine & freshwater biology</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>applied sciences</json:string><json:string>agriculture, fisheries & forestry</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x</json:string></doi><id>D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E</id><score>0.022272415</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles</p></availability><date>2010</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">R. E.</forename><surname>Gozlan</surname></persName><email>rgozlan@bournemouth.ac.uk</email><affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">J. R.</forename><surname>Britton</surname></persName><affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">I.</forename><surname>Cowx</surname></persName><affiliation>Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">G. H.</forename><surname>Copp</surname></persName><affiliation>Salmon & Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, U.K.</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Fish Biology</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-1112</idno><idno type="eISSN">1095-8649</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-03"></date><biblScope unit="volume">76</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="751">751</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="786">786</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JFB2566</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>ecological impact</term></item><item><term>economy</term></item><item><term>invasive</term></item><item><term>management</term></item><item><term>pathways</term></item><item><term>risk</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2010-03">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-12-12">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-02-8">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</doi><issn type="print">0022-1112</issn><issn type="electronic">1095-8649</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JFB"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY">Journal of Fish Biology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="03004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jfb.2010.76.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="76">76</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-03">March 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="1" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JFB2566"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="36"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">REVIEW PAPER</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-03-10"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-03-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.6 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-04-20"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="751">751</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="786">786</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo> Tel.: +44 (0) 1202 966780; fax: +44 (0) 1202 965 095; email: <email>rgozlan@bournemouth.ac.uk</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JFB.JFB2566.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Received 15 July 2009, Accepted 01 October 2009</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="1"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="13"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title><title type="shortAuthors">R. E. GOZLAN <i>ET AL.</i></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>R. E.</givenNames><familyName>Gozlan</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>J. R.</givenNames><familyName>Britton</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>I.</givenNames><familyName>Cowx</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>G. H.</givenNames><familyName>Copp</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation><i>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</i></unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation><i>Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.</i></unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3"><unparsedAffiliation><i>Salmon & Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, U.K.</i></unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">ecological impact</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">economy</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">invasive</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">management</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">pathways</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">risk</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for <i>c.</i> 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">R. E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Gozlan</namePart><affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: rgozlan@bournemouth.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J. R.</namePart><namePart type="family">Britton</namePart><affiliation>Centre for Conservation Ecology and Environmental Change, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, U.K.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">I.</namePart><namePart type="family">Cowx</namePart><affiliation>Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, U.K.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">G. H.</namePart><namePart type="family">Copp</namePart><affiliation>Salmon & Freshwater Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, U.K.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-03</dateIssued><edition>Received 15 July 2009, Accepted 01 October 2009</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">1</extent><extent unit="tables">3</extent><extent unit="references">13</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>ecological impact</topic><topic>economy</topic><topic>invasive</topic><topic>management</topic><topic>pathways</topic><topic>risk</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Fish Biology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0022-1112</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1095-8649</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JFB</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>76</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>751</start><end>786</end><total>36</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02566.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JFB2566</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Eau/explor/EsturgeonV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001508 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001508 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Eau
|area= EsturgeonV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:D0925AF5A19441E7B3FDFAED00648437C10A502E
|texte= Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.27. |  |