Editor’s Note – This essay was subsequently published as:
Dillon, R.T., Jr. (2019d) To Only Know Invasives in My General Vicinity. Pp 73 - 79 in The Freshwater Gastropods of North America Volume 4,
Essays on Ecology and Biogeography.
FWGNA Press, Charleston.
A couple years ago I received a cordial email from a young
lady working with a natural resources agency in a big Midwestern state. She was looking for help developing a key to
identify invasive freshwater gastropods in her general vicinity – not the
native species, just the important ones.
Here’s what I suggested:
1a) Operculum present . . . (2)
1b) Operculum absent . . . never mind.
2a) Really big! . . Potentially devastating economic
impact.
2b) Little . . . (3)
3a) Only a few of ‘em . . . screw it.
3b) Bazillions of ‘em! . . . Potentially devastating
economic impact.
So last month we reviewed the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic
Species database [1], an open and earnest federal effort to monitor the
distribution and spread of invasive species in the nation’s lakes and rivers,
including (at this writing) 42 freshwater gastropods. This month we’ll broaden our field of view,
but sharpen our focus, looking toward state-level invasive species monitoring
programs.
State interest in invasive species is typically directed rather
narrowly toward perceived threats to agriculture or commerce or human health. At the very least, the doggone thing from
China or wherever it says it came from has got to make itself a nuisance. So for example, my home state of South
Carolina doesn’t really care about the huge populations of invasive viviparids
in our reservoirs, unless (I suppose) there’s a significant die-off, and
somebody complains about the stink
[2].
Which sounds like a problem solving itself. The South Carolina DNR does, on the other
hand, care about our invasive populations of
Pomacea, primarily because of its
potential to host the rat lungworm
[3].
More about that in a future post.
The states of California, Oregon and Washington all care
about the current range and future spread of
Potamopyrgus antipodarium, the
“New Zealand Mud Snail” because, to quote the Oregon Department of Fish &
Wildlife’s modest web page
[4], “there is concern [about] devastating effects
to recreational fishing.” So for more
information, Oregon directs its citizens to the New Zealand Mud Snail page at
the USDA National Invasive Species Information Center, from whence they might
surf over to the USGS-NAS database and report their observation.
California has developed a larger page on Potamopyrgus,
featuring the snail on one nice, colorful poster and one blunt, scary poster
(left), both available for download [5].
In addition to mentioning the USGS-NAS database, citizens of California
who have observed Potamopyrgus are asked to call or email their Department of
Fish & Wildlife directly.
Like California, the State of Washington also has a nice web
page devoted to Potamopyrgus, with a downloadable fact sheet, although no keen
posters [6]. There is, however, a “Report
online” link from the Washington Potamopyrgus page where a citizen might open a
(vanilla) online reporting form to send a potential sighting to the Washington
DNR. Or one might elect to download a
“WA Invasives” app for one’s smartphone.
Impressive.
The point I’m making here, however, is that none of these
three states apparently gives a rip about the populations of European Lymnaea
(Radix ) auricularia which have spread all over the American West in the last
100 years, but apparently have not risen to the level of a threat, or a pest,
or even a “nuisance.” You’re just a fat
little brown snail. No smartphone app for
you.
There are exceptions to this general rule. Back in 2011 we featured a “Citizen’s Watch”
initiative in the state of Wisconsin [7], broadly charged with monitoring
invasive species of all sorts, as well as general aspects of the physical
environment, water quality, and so forth, for specific lakes. The Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
[8] also features an invasive species component which, although focused on
aquatic weeds, includes a mechanism to report “suspicious” aquatic organisms of
all phyla. Click the header below for the entire form:
The high end of invasive species monitoring programs seems
to be occupied by a set of nine states (and one Canadian Province) who have
adopted a NatureServe system called “ImapInvasives.” This is an online system that rivals (and in
many respects, surpasses) the USGS-NAS database in its scope and
versatility. Open the link below in a
new window and check it out, if you’re not already familiar with the program.
If you click the “Login/Maps” button at the top of the iMapInvasives
home page you will find a list of the ten states and provinces currently
subscribing, from whence you might be tempted to follow links to try the system
out. ImapInvasives is designed as a
monitoring system for exotic biota of all sorts – weeds, bugs, slugs, stoats,
goats, giraffes, Giselles, and especially rabbits. Only four states list freshwater gastropods on
their public maps at present: Maine (Bellamya), Pennsylvania (Bellamya, Potamopyrgus),
Oregon (Bellamya, Potamopyrgus [9], Melanoides), and Arizona (Bellamya,
Melanoides, L. auricularia).
The “public maps” viewable from the several states listed
above are disappointingly low in their resolution – returning just county or
watershed (8-digit HUC) of record, not the precise locality. They also show only a subset of the species
actually tracked, in some cases. To see
a detailed map, or access locality data, or contribute fresh data to these
systems, one must be a registered user.
Over the last couple years I have developed a cordial
relationship with Ms. Amy Jewitt, the invasive species information assistant
working for the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. She offered to register me for the
Pennsylvania site, and I can report that it is as easy to use and informative
on the inside as the USGS-NAS system is on the outside.
 |
| Bellamya chinensis on iMapInvasives |
Pennsylvania actually tracks the entire rogue’s gallery of invasive
freshwater gastropods in its iMapInvasives system as implemented for registered
users, including
Bithynia and
Viviparus as well as
Bellamya and
Potamopyrgus. The
Bellamya are sorted correctly
(I have reason to think) into 33 records of
chinensis and 18 records of
japonica, with just one single record of “species uncertain.” The reason I have reason to think the Pennsylvania
identifications are correct is that most of their records are ones I forwarded
to Ms. Jewitt from the FWGNA database back in 2013. And she continues to send me jpegs for
identification, as new sightings are reported.
So how well-coordinated are the state and federal
efforts? One of my prompts to launch the
present series on invasive species came in late September when I happened to
receive emails from both Ms. Jewitt and Mr. Matt Cannister, a contractor
working with the USGS office in Gainesville, both with attached Bellamya jpegs. Mr. Cannister’s response to my question was
quite positive: “there is usually a high level of information sharing between
state and federal biologists and ourselves here at NAS.” Ms Jewitt was more guarded, albeit
hopeful:
“As of right now, we do not have any of the USGS data in PA
iMap and we have not sent any of our data to them, though we hope to change
this in the very near future. There is
one big task that needs to happen on our end first before we can begin data
sharing with them; however, once that happens, the PA iMap database will
certainly have much more useful information to provide.”
I should conclude this month’s essay by re-assuring
everybody that I thumbs-up-like online governmental programs to monitor invasive
species. They are a mixed blessing for
the FWGNA project, which is, after all, an effort to survey of an entire fauna,
and subject to the phenomenon I identified last month as invasion-biased
oversampling. But nothing I have written
in my last couple posts is intended to reflect negatively on the hardworking
public servants at any level, state or federal, who are doing their best to
deal with the rising tide of exotic species inundating our shores.
Budgets are small and personnel are few, and I certainly
understand why natural resource agencies must pick (at most!) a couple invasive
freshwater gastropods that seem the most intimidating, and (on the flip side) a
couple nominally “endangered” freshwater gastropods that seem the most pathetic,
and let the other 95% of our North American freshwater gastropod fauna fend for
itself. They’re just little brown snails.
Notes
[1] To Only Know Invasives [
16Oct15]
[2] Just Before the Bust [
5Aug14]
[3] Pomacea Spreads to South Carolina [
15May08]
Two Dispatches from the
Pomacea Front [
14Aug08]
[7] Dispatches from the Viviparid Front [
12Sept11]
[8] Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program [
html]
[9] Alert readers will notice that I just reviewed the
Oregon Potamopyrgus page about six paragraphs earlier in this essay, and said
nothing about iMapInvasives. Yep,
strange but true. I cannot find a link
from any agency of the State of Oregon to iMapInvasives. Maybe this is just an oversight? But it is consistent (I am afraid) with the
general inhospitality of the iMapInvasives system.
Posts
