The Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) for Non‐Native Freshwater Fishes—A Summary of Current Applications
2013; Wiley; Volume: 33; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/risa.12095
ISSN1539-6924
Autores Tópico(s)Fish Ecology and Management Studies
ResumoRisk AnalysisVolume 33, Issue 8 p. 1394-1396 Introduction The Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) for Non-Native Freshwater Fishes—A Summary of Current Applications Gordon H. Copp, Gordon H. Copp [email protected] +44-1502527751 Search for more papers by this author Gordon H. Copp, Gordon H. Copp [email protected] +44-1502527751 Search for more papers by this author First published: 19 August 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12095Citations: 44Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES 1Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management, 1999; 57: 239–251. 10.1006/jema.1999.0297 Web of Science®Google Scholar 2Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE. Risk Identification and Assessment of Non-Native Freshwater Fishes: Concepts and Perspectives on Protocols for the UK. Lowestoft, UK: Cefas Science Technical Report, 2005. Available at: http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/tech129.pdf, Accessed on May 9, 2013. Google Scholar 3Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Mumford J, Fenwick GV, Godard MJ, Gozlan RE. Calibration of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29: 457–467. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01159.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4Vandenbergh K. Risicoanalyse voor uitheemse vissorten in Vlaanderen. PhD Thesis, Leuven, Belgium: Departement Biologie, Faculteit Wetenschappen, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, 2007. Google Scholar 5Mastitsky SE, Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Adamovich BV. Non-native fishes of Belarus: Diversity, distribution, and risk classification using the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK). Aquatic Invasions, 2010; 5: 103–114. 10.3391/ai.2010.5.1.12 Web of Science®Google Scholar 6Onikura N, Nakajima J, Inui R, Mizutani H, Kobayakawa M, Fukuda S, Mukai T. Evaluating the potential of invasion by non-native freshwater fishes in northern Kyushu Island, Japan, using the Fish Invasiveness Scoring Kit. Ichthyological Research, 2012; 58: 382–387. 10.1007/s10228-011-0235-1 Web of Science®Google Scholar 7Troca DFA, Vieira JP. 2012. Potential invasive non-native fish farmed in the coastal region of Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca do Estado de Sao Paulo, 2012; 38: 109–120. Web of Science®Google Scholar 8Mendoza R, Aguirre VS, Berúmen LG. Análisis de Riesgo de Especies Exóticas de Peces Ornamentales Dulceacuícolas Regularmente Importados en México. Mexico City: Informe técnico para el Instituto Nacional de Pesca, SAGARPA, 2010. Google Scholar 9Lawson LL, Jr, Hill JE, Hardin S, Vilizzi L, Copp GH. Revisions of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) for its application in warmer climatic zones, with particular reference to peninsular Florida. Risk Analysis, 2013; 33(8) 1414–1431. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01896.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10Vilizzi L, Copp GH. Application of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, in the Murray-Darling Basin (Southeastern Australia). Risk Analysis, 2013; 33(8): 1432–1440. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01860.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11Almeida Real D, Ribeiro F, Leunda PA, Vilizzi L, Copp GH. Effectiveness of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, to perform risk identification assessments in the Iberian Peninsula. Risk Analysis, 2013; 33(8): 1404–1413. 10.1111/risa.12050 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 12Puntila R, Vilizzi L, Lehtiniemi M, Copp GH. First application of FISK, the Freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit, in Northern Europe: Example of Southern Finland. Risk Analysis, 2013; 33(8): 1404–1413. 10.1111/risa.12069 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 13Simonović P, Tošić A, Vassilev M, Apostolou A, Mrdak D, Ristovska M, Kostov V, Nikolić V, Škraba D, Vilizzi L, Copp GH. Risk assessment of non-native fishes in the Balkans Region using FISK, the invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes. Mediterranean Marine Science Journal, in press (doi: 0.12681/mms.337). Google Scholar 14Bomford M, Glover J. Risk Assessment Model for the Import and Keeping of Exotic Freshwater and Estuarine Finfish. A Report Produced by the Bureau of Rural Sciences for the Department of Environment and Heritage. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2004. Available at: http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/finfish_risk_assessment.pdf, Accessed on January 30, 2012. Google Scholar 15Moore A, Marton N, McNee A. A Strategic Approach to the Management of Ornamental Fish in Australia: Communication Strategy and Grey List Review—A Report to OFMIG. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2010. Available at: http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_brs90000004189/OrnamentalFishManagementReport2010_ap14.pdf, Accessed on January 30, 2012. Google Scholar 16Clavero M. Assessing the risk of freshwater fish introductions into the Iberian peninsula. Freshwater Biology, 2011; 56: 2145–2155. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02642.x Web of Science®Google Scholar 17Verbrugge LNH, Van der Velde G, Hendriks AJ, Verreycken H,Leuven RSEW. Risk classifications of aquatic non-native species: Application of contemporary European assessment protocols in different biogeographical settings. Aquatic Invasions, 2012; 7: 49–58. 10.3391/ai.2012.7.1.006 Web of Science®Google Scholar 18Snyder E, Mandrak NE, Niblock H, Cudmore B. Developing a Screening-Level Risk Assessment Prioritization Protocol for Aquatic Non-Indigenous Species in Canada: Review of Existing Protocols. Research Document 2012/097, Central and Arctic Region. Ottawa: Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, 2012. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_097-eng.pdf, Accessed on June 4, 2013. Google Scholar 19Tricarico E, Vilizzi L, Gherardi F, Copp GH. Calibration of FI-ISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater invertebrates. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30: 285–292. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01255.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 20Copp GH, Britton JR, Jeney G, Joly J-P, Gherardi F, Gollasch S, Gozlan RE, Jones G, MacLeod A, Midtlyng PJ, Moissec L, Nunn AD, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Oidtmann B, Olenin S, Peeler EJ, Russell IC, Savini D, Tricarico E, Thrush M. Risk Assessment Protocols and Decision Making Tools for Use of Alien Species in Aquaculture and Stock Enhancement. Report to the European Commission, Project No.: 044142 (IMPASSE—Environmental Impacts of Alien Species in Aquaculture) for Coordination Action Priority FP6 2005-SSP-5A, Sustainable Management of Europe's Natural Resources. Brussels, 2008. Available at: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/437410/impasse_44142_d3–2.pdf, Accessed on June 4, 2013. Google Scholar 21European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. Official Journal of the European Union, 2007:L168/1–17. Google Scholar 22Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2007; 4: 439–473. 10.5194/hessd-4-439-2007 Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume33, Issue8August 2013Pages 1394-1396 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)