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; LLLawson187@ufl.edu.

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.