Aquatic Invasive Species: Impacts and Resources: The Current Webinar 5

You know one of these times we are going to have a good amount of time for questions, so we’re gonna hit that
mark this time because we have run out of time in the past. Good afternoon, everyone, this is Rebecca Power the interim director of the
North Central Region Water Network and your hosts for this webinar the Current. This is the North Central
Region Water Network’s speed networking webinars series, its
purpose is to increase your access to excellent
extension programming and research that we hope will be useful to you and
your own work across the region or the country
wherever you happen to be joining us from. The format of the session will be four 10-minute presentations with
questions and discussion at the and all the webinars are archived on
our North Central Region Water Network website at, so you can up find them there yourself or refer other people to them if you think
it would be worth it for them to take a look at. Our topic today is Aquatic Invasive Species: Impacts and Resources and this is the fifth in our series. I’ll just give you a little preview the next webinar will take place on November 19th, it’s always the third Wednesday of
the month and always 2 p.m. Central Time, and the topic for that session will be
the 21st Century Extension Educator: Resources for Multistate
Collaboration. So there are a few tips up here and the first slide for a good experience, most of these are only useful for you if you happen
to be asking a question, so I won’t worry about asking you to
run through the audience audio set-up wizard right now but if you have an audio problem if you’re trying to talk that would be something to do. Please submit your
questions for presenters via the chat box we will
harvest those questions and use them at the end depending upon how many
people we have we’lll start with the chat box or if there
aren’t a lot of people then we’ll go ahead and ask you to ask your own question at the
end. If you want to ask a quick question verbally at the end, you can go
ahead and raise your electronic hand which should be right below your name or in the left hand column there’s a navigation bar there that has a hand for you to raise. Alright. Okay, today’s presentations: Peter Sorensen, University of Minnesota, Ashley Baldridge from the NOAA Great
Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Pat Charlebois from Illinois-Indiana
Sea Grant- I hope I said that right, Pat- and Doug Jensen from the University of Minnesota Sea Grant. So those will be our presenters today, and I’m gonna go ahead and
introduce Peter and he has a lovely bio here I am not going to read all of that bio but it was had this lovely personal touch which
I appreciated just like and he is doctor goldfish, doctor goldfish in the identifier area there so if you
have a question for him or want to chat with him that would be that
the person to go. So you know Dr. Sorensen received his bachelor’s degree from Bates College and a PhD Biological Oceanography from the University of Rhode Island, and as a postdoc at the University of
Alberta he work with Norm Stacey and identified some of the first sex pheromones in fish which has been a foundation
for his future work. He came to the University of Minnesota in 1988 to study
fish behavior, olfaction, and physiology and his enthusiasm certainly comes through in his presentation and in his bio here so he’s interested
in working both on applied and basic research topics and invites you
to contact him if you share these interests, so that’s one of the reasons we’re having these webinars is so you all, people on the webinars and in the audience can get to know one
another and figure out who might have some good information for you. So with that, Peter,
take it away. Well thank you very much. Let me move my slide thing here, I guess. Okay, so today I’m going to talk, I’ve been
working with well worked with Sea Lampray for sixteen years and then since 2006 which is about whatever that time is 8-10 years I’ve been now working with- I guess it is not that long- with carps in particular
including goldfish and that’s what I’m going to talk about today. What are carp? They are basically large
riverine minnows that taste kind of oily. There’s not really a scientific grouping of fish at all but a sort of a group of these things that happened to live in rivers, and there are three major types of carp: the Eurasian carps from Eurasia,
obviously, Black Sea, Caspian Sea area which
includes the goldfish and the common carp, the crucian carp, and then there’s the Asian carp from Asia, China, Vietnam which are now invading the US, common carp have been here though since
the eighteen hundred’s, and there are Indian carps which haven’t
made it to the US yet, fortunately. So today we’re mostly going to talk about common Eurasian carp and with
a little bit the end on Asian carp. Common carp like I said were introduced by the
predecessor of the US Fish and Wildlife Service at
the request of our citizens after a huge congressional letter-writing campaign in the 1880s, so they were successful
governmental introduction which unsuccessfully resulted in huge economic and ecological devastation across the country. I
would submit there are worse invasive fish at the present time with the possible exception of the Sea Lamprey, but
Sea Lamprey are controlled. The common carp are occupied in
largely shallow lakes and rivers and some deeper lakes across the entire US, and they can comprise
up to two-thirds of the biomass of many of these lakes and including the
Midwest, it seems like all of our present group is from
the Midwest, so this supplies Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, anyway they can be usually damaging in
those areas, and what they do is they feed on the bottom, and they’ve been doing this for a
hundred years. Most people don’t even realize the extent of the damage they
are causing, they uproot all the plants to get at the insects and so forth. Common carp are extremely fecund like Asian carp, maybe several million eggs per female. They migrate into shallows to spawn, little bit on like Asian carp spawn little river, like Asian carp the eggs and larvae then
grow very quickly, they live to be very old like Asian carp,
up to seventy years old, and they have this usually devastating effects in which they rework entire ecosystems. We’ve been studying them, people have been wondering what to do about them for a very long period of time, and they’ve been a good model for us for
frankly understanding invasive fish in general, and now I think Asian carp, but we’ll get
to that at the end. People pursued all the obvious things,
rotenone poisoning like people have tried with
other invasive fish, usually doesn’t work except for TFM
for lamprey where they’re restricted to bury special areas, fishing out, drawdowns, and anyway these have been going on for decades and decades, and in 2006 my lab started working on common carp, and we realized people didn’t even really know how many there were, what kind of damage they were causing, let
alone how to control them, so today I am going to speak just a little bit about a large sort of effort we’ve had underway for some time. Very briefly, it’s important to
understand that we felt before you could even start to control species and I got to tell you this information’s not really available for Asian carp, not in much detail. We
felt we had know how many there were, so we started out by saning entire lakes and doing mark, capture, and releasing
these fish to come up with population estimates, and that is important because if you are going to do removal you’ll never get them all out,
so you have to know what it means when you remove a certain number or not, so that’s why we did this data and that’s another story how we did that, but we’ve done that. We also felt as we need to know how they were moving across the environment, if you were to trap and remove them
where are the weak links, where the spots that they aggregate are particularly
vulnerable, where they spawn, again cutting to the chase, one of the things we discovered, we’ve discovered
the spawning area that’s another sort of seminar, but for this seminar, one of the things we discovered, and of course commercial fishermen know
about it for years, was that these fish tend to aggregate remarkably and very strongly in the
wintertime, and this slide you are looking at here right now is
an aggregation of carp in Lake Riley. You see 20 red dots those are radio tagged fish and they represent a population of about 5,000 adult carp in there, most of which were 30 to 40 years old as a matter of fact. They had no idea how to get
them out. I going to skip through this slide because I see we’re going to time. So we started the institute and the
control program and this we’re preparing to publish now, but we’ve
actually figured out how to control the recruitment, that’s
another topic, but we were able to do this with native fish as a matter of fact, and once you can control the recruitment and production of a fish then it makes sense to remove the adults because then you basically plug the whole boat and that’s
what I’m going to talk about today. So what we wondered in particular was and this was an idea we stole from the Australians was whether we could use radio tagged fish, fish that were marked as indicators of where the population was and this technique was developed for
goats actually on tropical islands to get goat herds off you know that the
Brits had left there in the 1700’s the idea that if you have a social species
you can mark and track them as they go to others and betray the
location of the group, and so that’s what we started doing with
these radio tagged fish, and we found that as I said we had already known that they aggregated and in particular in the winter months.
So we had these aggregations you see this map here of a lake, Lake Susan, and basically three quarters of the population
aggregated one spring which we located with radio tags, and we hired commercial
fishermen we were able to remove eighty percent of
the population in one afternoon there which is pretty efficient because the
alternative is chasing them around like cats or something like that in a very untargeted way. In Lake Riley very fortunately almost the entire
population actually happened to aggregate, these are just a few examples of many, in
one day we got the entire population in one afternoon and this all made sense
because when we removed in this case about 3,000 fish we knew
that was ninety-five percent of the population so we knew what that meant, we knew we didn’t have to go back, there’s no point doing this I don’t
believe unless you know how when you’re trying to get, if you don’t get a lot you go back kind of
thing, so we were able to do this with these Judas fish then to lead us to that and these systems now are under control, we’ve been able to suppress the common carp,
and I don’t show the data here but it now goes
out to 2014. We’ve got the numbers down to less than
50 kilograms per hectare which is below ecologically damaging
levels without using any poisons, just by stopping recruitment that’s
another restoring fisheries basically in this judas fish technique for the adults. So the
question was, and that was kind of how I got into this, was whether we could automate this technique because it’s a lot of work. It’s not so much radio tagging fish
but actually following them around because we still don’t understand exactly where
or when they might aggregate. So we’ve been collaborating and that’s with a Computer Science Group at the University of Minnesota is interested in search rescue and we’ve developed these robotic boats, and that’s what you see here is a little
robotic boat, you see a radio tag, a radio antenna on the top that swivels, and these boats can- there’s an address down below so you can go to that website and they’ll show you how it works but
they can go out as teams and they can do a search and basically they can find the radio tagged fish for us and report it back and it’s kind of cool frankly and so we don’t have to have lots- well we don’t have to employ students-
so they like employing students to go out and do it, and that’s the promise of this now I’ve
gotta tell you the drawback is this works they both actually have little computers on board and there’s software and algorithims that they’ve written to do search and
rescue routines or search routines and they can find these fish very effectively in all kinds of conditions. The big drawback is that they run out of
power, although they have tried solar power and they sometimes get caught in weeds, so they’re not really ready for implementation yet, we still hire
students, but you can see where this has a lot of potential and it’s pretty interesting and they have even developed a robot that
actually operates on ice because the fish tend to aggregate
mostly in the winter and so if we have robots working
ice that can work together that’s pretty effective. This is funded by the National Science
Foundation. It’s been a lot of fun and very interesting. These robots work pretty well, too,
although there’s deep snow, works in December but not January, let’s put it that way. So we’ve done that now very briefly, I guess I have run out of time I’ll just say, “What about the Asian carp?” You mean the common carp around here are the problem although most people are focusing on Asian carp, it’s so upsetting to see them jumping, but
they too are a large migratory fish, very fecund, and
they seem to aggregate although that’s not well studied, so the question is can we use these kind of techniques for the Asian carp? And we think probably, and we’re now starting to develop Judas fish
techniques using sterilized fish to release we hope in the Mississippi
River to help us find them out there, and if we had a robotic boat that would be
very useful. So take home basically is that carps are a serious problem particularly the common carp and that targeted removals if combined
with recruitment control are already proving to be very useful and interesting. So that’s my two
cents, I hang around now, right til the end? Yes, please, yes, please. That would be
great. Thank you so much, Peter. Thank you. Okay, let’s move on to Ashley Baldrigde, and I’ll advance the slides here to Ashley’s bio. Ashley is obviously not
with the university, but is with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab in Ann Arbor, NOAA has been a great partner to us on Great Lakes issues. She has a bachelor’s degree in biology from the Michigan Technological University and a master’s degree in ecology from Smith College, finally a PhD in ecology from the
University of Notre Dame. The common theme of her research is food web interactions between native and invasive species and how these interactions might be influenced by
climate. Take it away, Ashley. Okay, great. Thank you for that, Rebecca. So today in following the theme- following the theme of today’s presentation, I am going to first talk about impacts, research we’ve done on the
impacts of an invasive species, and also just present the resources that
we have here at NOAA which is invasive
species database that’s very useful tool for educators,
researchers, and managers. So from my research what I’ll present today,
the title shown here and this is actually
work I did as a post doc over this last year with the Water Center in CILER which
is housed at the University of Michigan, and I very recently started my position
here at NOAA. So the first talk about these two main stressors on the Great Lakes, the first is invasive species. There are a large number of non-indigenous species that have been
introduced to the Great Lakes basin, and this is primarily through being
introduced in ballast water of ships entering the basin, but then once species are here, the Great
Lakes can serve as kind of a beachhead for
invasions and secondary spread into the inland waters of U.S. and Canada.
So it’s very important that we understand the impacts of species once they arrive in the basin, and by knowing the impacts we can know what to anticipate and apply to secondary spread and help
prioritize species for management to prevent
that spread. Another stressor then I mentioned is climate change and in the Great Lakes we have documented increasing surface temperatures, and this map here that was produced by the GLEAM Project shows that higher temperature increases in the Upper Great Lakes area, but we still have
low levels in the southern part of the basin and
with these increasing surface temperatures they can think of it as spring as coming
earlier. We may have more mild winters with the exception of this last winter of course and spring comes earlier, those temperatures start to get warmer sooner and then once the top layer of the water warms up, distinct temperature
layers from in the lake this is known as stratification and this keeps the
whole water column from mixing, and it creates a defined thermal structure within the lake, so if the timing of this is changing, it’s just
changing the whole environment for the plankton that live in the lakes.
So plankton can have different responses to this
changing stratification. I have a simplified food web here that
shows the phytoplankton of different sizes
and zooplankton in different sizes, and when you have earlier stratification they can cause an earlier spring
phytoplankton bloom now the way the zooplankton may not be responding at the same time which can
put some species of zooplankton out of synch then with their primary food source so if the phytoplankton is blooming a lot
sooner then maybe Daphnia that come in midseason might find less food to eat, so these impacts can
move up the food chain and ultimately affect fish. So again looking at this food web diagram here in the lower left we see a Dreissenid muscle, and you can see that there are many
connections of this muscle with the different
phytoplankton groups, and for this talk and looking at the stress of invasive species, I’ve focused
a lot on the stress of Dressenid muscles in
particularly in Lake Michigan. This panel of a graph here shows the increase in Dreissenid biomass over time and this is for both zebra muscles which is the black line and quagga mussels which is the dashed
line and it’s broken up into four different
dept categories, and I just want to point out that it’s
really in this 30 to 50 meters and also the 50 to 90 meters where we
see this really extreme growth in biomass for quagga muscles and that’s sort of seen a lot of impacts from them in the lakes, and they have very well documented negative impacts on the phytoplankton. So for my question why
want to look at the relative impacts of Dreissenid and climate change on the zooplankton I really have the benefit of having access
to some great data sources through NOAA. The first I’ll point out we have this NOAA buoy as well a thermistor that’s in the middle of the Central Basin, and this allows us to track temperature the buoy has been present-we have data from 1990 to present so it really allows us to see
trends overtime. And the Thermistor String goes down into
the water which helps us understand the thermal structure of the the water throughout the season, and then we also have Benthic surveys for muscle biomass and these surveys are conducted at out
forty site throughout the southern basin and
this produces the data that I just presented on that previous slide. And then this long-term collection site as we’ve been collecting zooplankton
chlorophyll in water temperature in these areas off the coast of Muskegon since 1990’s. To analyze the data I’ve been using path analysis, it’s a way
to analyze complex causal links between variables and here
this conceptual model is reflecting a simple food web and it’s showing the relationship Dreisenids
affecting phytoplankton, the kind of predator-prey relationship
between phytoplankton and zooplankton, and then going up to predatory zooplankton, and then we also consider the temperature effects on
each of these levels in the food web, and I want to emphasize that predatory zooplankton is the top of the food chain here, we just don’t have the good data on fish
so that as predatory zooplankton as far as
we go, but that would definitely be a future direction for this research.
And from this we can get, see the relative strengths of the relationship. So main conclusions from this study and
our preliminary conclusions are that for phytoplankton both Dreissenid muscles and the duration
of stratification have negative effects on phytoplankton, and I want to emphasize that climate
change is associated with longer duration of stratification. However,
when you look at the relative strength of the two Dreissenid effect is stronger
than the climate effect. For zooplankton the higher temperatures within the season have a strong positive affect on zooplankton, and this I think is explained by the oftentimes peak temperatures during the
summer that corresponds with with peak zooplankton biomass. The Dreissenids have a negative effect
on zooplankton and it’s a little more moderate. The duration of
stratification is actually not significant on zooplankton, but I want to emphasize that this analysis
was done on zooplankton as a whole and looking to the future very
interested in combining, breaking it down, and looking at zooplankton community composition instead of also plankton and aggregates.
Another thing we like to do moving forward is to look at climate effects on Dreissenid muscles. The the temperature environment
especially in a lake, deep lake Lake Michigan is going to be pretty
consistent throughout the year but, so we don’t expect that to change as much with climate change but what will
change is the quality and quantity of food that’s going to be available to muscles as a
result of changing thermal structure. So we think that’s where we’ll find a lot of interesting answers in the future and could have
implications for the future success of Dreissenids. So with the time I have remaining, I want to
switch over to talking about resources, and a very wonderful resource that we have through, that’s hosted by NOAA is GLANSIS, the Great Lakes Aquatic
Non-indigenous Species Information System which is focused on
early detection, rapid response, and management, and I have the contact information on the bottom here. I have to give credit to Rochelle Sturtevant here who runs this program, she’s the Great Lakes Sea Grant Extension
educator, and this is an interface for accessing Great
Lakes specific content from the US Geological Survey Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Database. When you go and say all of that I realize why we talk in acronym so much because that’s definitely a mouthful, but the through this we have advanced
search capacity, so you are not just getting information about the species but you can really sort and get information a lot
different ways that allow you to see the patterns in
particular of these non-native species. There are recent enhancements for GLANSIS as a result of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and these are in the form of impact
assessments which consider environmental, socio-economic, and beneficial
aspects for each species, we look at range extension species which
are ones that are native in one portion of the basin but
expanding and having invasive populations elsewhere, we now have watch list species which
are species that are have been identified as
high risk for introduction or invasion in the Great Lakes, and I just want to point out skipping to this last point here there’s a new field for management
information which will give regulatory and control
information for each species. So I have just a moment left and I
am on my last slide here, so just to give you an idea of when you
go to GLANSIS, you see an interactive database search,
you can put in your criteria for multiple fields from this you get your customized search results for any species on that list, you can select it, and look at comprehensive techincal fact sheets, and I actually want to
give a quick credit to Pat Charlebois who’s on
this call because she did a lot of work with the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant to contribute to these fact sheets and then another useful tool you get are detailed collection records for each of these species. So overall I know we just had a brief time here but I hope I gave you a good, quick overview of the type of research we are doing at NOAA for impacts and then these tools that are really available for educators, researchers, and many, many people in the extension so if you have any questions about GLANSIS in particular you’re welcome to contact me,
I have my- again my email is on that- I have my email on this last slide again, and I definitely want to give credit to
my collaborators on these research projects as well as people who have provided additional support. Thank you. Great, thank you so much, Ashley, and just a reminder to participants in the webinar please put
any questions that you have for our speakers in the chat box, so Brian and Martha and myself will be monitoring those questions and will help facilitate the conversation after our speakers are finished, and
Ashley gave a nice nod to Pat there so we’ll
go onto Pat Charlebois our next speaker, and Pat has been conducting aquatic invasive species
outreach for Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant and the Illinois Natural History Survey
since 1996. She and her staff have developed comprehensive outreach programming for both Illinois and Indiana, focusing on
invasion pathways including recreational water use, water gardening,
and classroom use of live specimens. Pat serves on several regional committees, you can read them there, and she’s also
served as co-chair of the ANS Task Force committees
that developed the national water gardening and classroom and AIS prevention guidelines. Pat earned
her undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Notre Dame and is currently housed at the Chicago
Botanic Garden, what a beautiful place to go to work every day. So thanks, Pat, for joining us and go right ahead. Thanks, Rebecca. The project I am going to talk about is one that it comes in a good place in the agenda, I think because it bridges research and the outreach. The project Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant’s been working on together
with researchers at the University of Notre Dame, Loyola, University of Chicago, and the Nature Conservancy, it started
back in the early 2000’s in Indiana when Indiana got infested, where one lake got infested with Brazilian elodea, and then shortly thereafter another lake was infested with hydrilla. Indiana DNR was spending lots of money, lots of effort on this, and they came to us and said, “You know this isn’t sustainable. We can’t do this. We need
to pass some sort of regulation. But we also need have with these
regulations we need to have the industry, and hobbyists and NGOs on board or else, it’s not going to work.” And so in the state, we brought together the academics were working on on similar
projects at Notre Dame and the hobbyists in the industry, and we formed the Indiana Aquatic Plants in Trade Working Group. And one of the successes of this group after lots of meetings and several years is that we actually developed an Aquatic Plant Risk Assessment Tool. This tool was based on some of the criteria that we had over the years that we met in that it had to be fine-spaced, it couldn’t just be you know willy nilly,
wow, I think that this species will be bad, but had to be
actually based on science, had to be transparent, and it had to be repeatable. So we used the New Zealand Aquatic Weed Risk Assessment Tool as our starting point had all in the qualifications that were important to this group, and
it was also already in use and accepted, so it was out there already and had gone through review and was developed specifically for aquatics which was a bonus. And when we went through this we modified it only one absolutely necessary because we
didn’t want to change the or affect the integrity of the tool, and so we only changed it, like, to get rid of references to saltwater which obviously
Indiana doesn’t have any. So we use that tool, and it’s a question-and-answer tool, and this I just wanted to show you a one question example, so this question deals with feed production and if it produces no seed it gets a score of zero and if it produces a lot to seeds it gets a score of 3. So this tool is series of questions like this that are the species is assigned a score for each
of these questions, and then at the end the individual question
scores are summarized or summed and the score, this total score, gives an of the invasiveness of the species. The group developed this tool and
then Notre Dame went and used the tool to run through all of the plants that we knew of that at that time
were in trade, and they came up with scores for each of those species and a ranking for them in terms of their invasiveness, and then Indiana took this, these rankings and then created a regulatory list from this. So with our success in Indiana we thought you know could we do this for all of the
Great Lakes and each of Great Lakes states to protect the basin? And we wanted to look at this on which region wide basis because if you look at information like this that we had at that time, this is fish, invasive fish, in the text column here and then the
states across the top. So and the x’s indicate that that state has a
regulation. For instance, bighead carp here has a regulation or is regulated in every state of the Great Lakes. The concern is or the problem is that there are all these blank spots
where there are no regulations or there some regulations in some states and no regulations in other states so if you looked at Tench here it is only regulated in Michigan so the
problem comes in, in that the system is connected, right? So if Tench were to make its way into
Wisconsin because of the connectivity of the system they’re eventually going to make into Michigan, even though they’re regulated, and probably eventually all the way over hear into New York. So we wanted to
protect the whole basin, and so we wanted to develop tools that would work for all of the states in the basin. So we received funding from the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to do this, to create risk assessment tools for seven
different taxa, and these tolls are still being refined, I should say the plants
in the mollusk tool are completely finished, and they vary in their construction. The plant tool again is a question-and-answer type of tool. The mollusk tool is reciprocal with a couple of questions added on to it, and then the others are various iteration of this. So we are developed these tools for the seven taxa and then we’re assessing all of the species in trade using
these tools and then one of Sea Grant’s roles is that then we will make those assessments available to consumers. So right now only the, again, only the plants and the mollusks tools are completed with all of the assessments run. So for the plant tool, we’ve created a couple of tools or outreach tools, one of them is this water garden poster. We have funding through another Geo-land project that allowed us to do a survey of hobbyists, and these hobbyists told us that retail outlets really are important sources for information. So we developed this poster for
posting in these retail outlets, and it’s really just you know a poster, you can’t give too much
information, it’s designed just to raise the issue, and this is being distributed by the Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network. We also created this tick card that is for placement at the point of sale,
and this is a wallet size card because we wanted people to carry this with them have easy access to the information when they are making purchases. So you can see on this that it has, this is the back of the card, steps that people can take and directs to a website for more information, but more importantly on the inside it has the risk adjustment outcomes.
Those species in black that are okay to grow in the
Great Lakes region and those species in red that are likely
invasive if they were being introduced. I asked the lead PI on this project, you know, the transfer, to give me idea of the transferability of this information to other regions say the other areas in the network, and he was comfortable saying that he thought that plants likely, the plant tool and the plant assessments likely would translate as long as there was a climate match to the Great Lakes, so the
information here could be a starting point for other
areas in the region, for other states in the region. For mollusks we created this brochure and
again the inside has the risk assessment outcomes. We created this for distribution through pet/aquarium stores, we’ll also be giving this away at hobbyist events that we’re doing throughout the Great
Lakes region, and this one in particular is likely not
transferable outside of the Great Lakes because there is some species that are only found in Great Lakes at
this time and aren’t in inland waters. We also created its website, AIM standing for aquatic invaders
in the marketplace. We developed this website as a one-stop shop for OIT information for the entire nation actually, we
designed it for managers, retailers, and consumers. Managers probably are most interested in predictive tools or predictive resources that we have here. These are the Great Lakes tools developed by Notre Dame. The retailers we developed a state and federal regulations database.
We’ve heard particularly from the biological supply houses that they had
trouble keeping up to date on the regulations, and so we developed
this database of all of the state and federal regulations that deal with aquatic species put into the searchable database and then the rest of this is for consumers, you know, a little bit on the pathways, prevention steps, and alternatives. We hope to go live with this by November 1st. Help, we need help from people out there. We
would love to have updates on state regulations as well as other OIT outreach products that we can put on this website, and there are other products out there. There are products developed for classrooms and teachers, ones for bait, for water gardeners, and there’s the national habitattitude campaign which is a partnership of PIJAC the Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Sea Grant; it was developed as a campaign. There’s a website that’s being updated which hopefully will be a great resource once it’s finished and several products have been
developed as a result of this. So that’s all I have. I encourage you to use these products when you’re talking to people or develop your own and then let us
know about them, so thanks very much. Thanks, Pat, that’s so modest you know that’s all I have, just all those
great resources. Thank you so much, and we’ll move on to Doug Jensen, and again just a
reminder for folks if you do have a question please put that in the chat box and that is how we will get those questions at the end of the session for our presenters. So Doug has been coordinating University of Minnesota’s Sea Grant Aquatic Invasive Species program
for over 20 years, lots of expertise there. He specializes
in strategic planning, public outreach, and evaluation aimed at preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species through behavior intervention. Doug’s efforts support two national campaigns including Habitattitude and Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!. He has
published many papers. I am going to move through quickly
so he can present, serves as chair on several national, regional, and state task forces honored with several
awards that you can all read there, and on behalf of the Great Lakes
National Sea Grant Network he is heading the first-ever comprehensive regional
aquatic invasive species public education campaign which we’re so glad to have here in
the North Central region. He earned his master’s degree in
education and a BS in biology from the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Thank you so much, Doug. Thank you, Rebecca, can you hear me ok? You’re good. Alright. Good
afternoon, everybody, it’s my pleasure to be here with you, I appreciate the invitation and thank all of you that have tuned into the webinar covering this extremely important topic of aquatic invasive species. I am excited to be here today to share some of the latest research that shows that public
education can be successful in helping to prevent the spread of
aquatic invasive species and that someone of you know Minnesota Sea Grant has been a leader in assessment of AIS outreach for the past 20 years, and through these assessments we’ve
learned a great deal about how to improve aquatic invasive species outreach and communication. When it comes to aquatic invasive
species, it is not necessarily about managing the species as much as it is about managing the pathways and getting folks who are at risk for spreading aquatic
invasive species to take preventative action, and a campaign that Minnesota Sea Grant has been supporting since its inception is the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! National Education Campaign, and so through this presentation I am hoping that you’ll learn a little bit more about the campaign, where to get resources, and how you can implement it. When thinking about how to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species through outreach there’s no use reinventing the wheel. There’s four successful national campaigns and programs that are
already well established. Stop Aquatic Hitchhakers! targets a variety of outdoor water recreationalists, Habitattitude are those habits that’s identified that’s for aquarious water gardeners, teachers, and students aimed at preventing the release of unwanted pets, plants, and water speciemens in the environment. You have the aquatic invader as a teacher training and youth education program that’s lead by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, and I see that Allison Neubauer and Danielle Hilbrich and Kirsten Walker are also on this webinar and they’re hoping to lead that effort on behalf of Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant so quick shout out to them. The Aquatic Invasive Species Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program is for business
industry, management, and others who work in the field and who’s operations and products might potentially spread invasive species, and for more information about how to get involved and discover resources that are supportive of those projects you can check out those websites. So for today’s talk we’ll introduce you to the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign. It was launched in 2002. Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign is a national education campaign that was founded in community-based social marketing which effectively applies proven theories of human behavior. The campaign was designed to raise
awareness and change behaviors, and it was created as a “stepped down” to state watershed and local levels so that
partners can adapt or adopt resources for distribution within their communities, and today over 2,000 partners from business industry, academia, and nonprofits have joined the campaign and joining the campaign is free and there’s no obligations. The cornerstone for the campaign are the federally approved guidelines, shown here are the guidelines for motor boaters. On the left hand side is a simple
communication message: clean, drain, dry for use in simple communication tools
like billboards, signs, key floats, stickers, hats, and other marketing tools, and on the right is the complete education message designed to identify specific actions needed to ensure clean boating and that sort of information is more conducive for use in fact sheets and brochures. In addition to this set of guidelines there’s guidelines that are available for other recreational activities including non-motorized boats, anglers, scuba divers, sailors, personal watercraft users, waterfall hunters, as well as seaplane pilots, and all these
guidelines are available on the Aquatic Invasive Species task force website. Since 2006 Wildlife Forever, the old manager of the national campaign, estimates that there’s been over one billion impressions that have been generated by campaign partners. Key reasons why we’ve been able to achieve this level of exposure is because we have a very powerful brand, and I’ll come back to that in just a second. It sends a very clear message, a prevention message to the
public, and we will list some partners to be a part of the solution helping to extend the
partnership to audiences that we would not likely have been able to reach by ourselves and as a result nearly
2000 partners have joined. When it comes to Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign, Minnesota Sea Grant’s assessments have shown that strategically capitalizing on the brand, the word mark and the tagline clean, drain, dry, can not only raise awareness but also can change behaviors and based on exposure to campaign
2006-2007 it based a base survey of 2200 boaters in three states revealed that 97%+ will take action to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. A really cool result of that survey showed that even if they had not seen the campaign logo and word mark before 9 out of 10 respondents knew what it meant. In 2010 the Great Lake Sea Grant Network led by Minnesota launched the first comprehensive regional campaign on aquatic invasive species and funding for the campaign was provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Through this campaign and the network produced over 80 new tools and generated 14.5 million exposures which 300 times more anticipated based on the proposal. As a part of the campaign the first regional survey of North American Fishing Club Members was conducted in collaboration with the North America Media Group and Wildlife Forever. Our objectives for the survey were to determine if the strategic messaging used and dedicated email newsletters could effectively reach anglers, raise their awareness, and also change
desired behaviors. From a series of application approach could we use a herestical behavior approach through strategic communication to short-circuit the learning process to get anglers exposed to the message to take action. Our approach was the first time that it’s been tried. We used five dedicated e-newsletters that were sent out to 30,000 Fishin’Informer subscribers who live in the Great
Lakes states. The five pre-survey e-newsletters featured Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! each with targeted message of who, what, where, why, and how to prevent the spread of aquatic
invasive species and all communicated the message of personal responsibility. One question on the survey we asked was
how important is it that recreational water users take action to prevent the spread of
aquatic invasive species, over 97% of the respondents indicated it was very to moderately important to take action note that very few respondents felt that aquatic invasive species were somewhat to not important at all. So well some may claim that anglers don’t know about aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes, these results clearly show that anglers we surveyed perceived aquatic invasive species as a significant threat. One of the million dollar questions we wanted to ask anglers was about the level of awareness about aquatic invasive species before and after exposure to the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign. Anglers went from 46% very to moderately aware to 96% very to moderately aware following exposure. Again this shows the value of capitalizing on the campaign’s brand to extend convention messages to outdoor recreationists to promote awareness. Well, anglers can have all the information in
the world but it may not necessarily transform into desired behavior so we next ask them two questions before exposure to the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign how often did you take action
to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species and we asked them after exposure to the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign how often will
you take action in the future to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species? For comparison results showed a dramatic increase in response of report behavior change
want from 64% always to usually taking action to 97% always to usually taking action. So overall these results show strategic communication using this iristable approached can be a effective in changing behaviors and reaching a very large audience. One of the areas that I’m particularly
interested in is in the motivations behind different audiences and why they do take action and why they don’t take action. A key motivation among anglers based
on this survey for taking action was a desire to keep aquatic invasive
species out of our lakes and rivers, feeling a personal responsibility,
and their actions make a difference, social influence and seeing others take action, and word of mouth were also important. Also note that in
comparison to a couple of other surveys that we have done back in 2000 and 1994 in Minnesota that you can see that the motivations
behind threats, laws, and enforcement also have increased over time. The main reasons for not taking action: that anglers did not transport their boat out of waters and that they were not in infested waters. So the good news is that only a small segment of the
population do not believe that aquatic invasive species are a problem, that regulations won’t work, that they forgot, or that it only takes one mistake to cause an infestation. So hopefully this helps lay to rest the perception that some anglers aren’t getting the message and others aren’t motivated to take action. So we believe that the spread of Zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species have been slowed due in part to the strategic education states that have implemented the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign and conversely they have spread much more where there hasn’t as been as much of an emphasis at least historically in those states. I just like to mention
that Wisconsin and Michigan recently they have made significant
strides in public education, in part through
the Great Lakes restoration initiative funding and through the regional approach that we have been using through our Sea Grant project. So in closing I hope that if you haven’t already
please consider joining the fight to help stop aquatic hitchhikers. It’s been shown to be effective and if you do you’ll be helping to reach audiences to help protect waters in the area from the harmful impacts of aquatic invasive species on the environment, recreation,
and the economy of communities that depend upon healthy lakes and rivers. So with that, thank you very much and I’ll turn it back over to Rebecca. Excellent, thank you, Doug, so much. Now we are at the question-and-answer portion our webinar, and we do have a couple of questions that have been typed into the chat box. So our first question from Lois Wilson and before I do that I’m just
going to thank Lois. Lois Wilson is our network state coordinator for Michigan, and Lois was the person that really helped I’m get our excellent speakers into the webinars, so thank you so much, Lois, and she had
a question for Peter, “When the majority of carp were removed
from one lake what changes were observed in the lake?”, and both food web and water quality changes. For Peter. Oh, well, thank you. So we’ve done this now in several lakes, and the answer is that about half of them have responded really positively. We’ve got that published, I could send you
some of the, at least one of the publications. In one case the people could see the
bottom of the lake for the first time that they could ever recall, and it actually
was very fortunate, came back all with native, submersed plants and sports quite a good fishery, so that was a huge success story that Lake, that’s published in Hydrobiologia now. Another lake actually we saw, it’s sort of depends on the- I don’t want
too long- a deeper lake we didn’t such dramatic changes, but we now know, the way I look at it, we now know that there’s excessive nutrient loading in the sediments so they can, they can proceed to address that, because
the presence of carps negates any effects of sediment remediation, and the third lake we saw really dramatic
changes to, so overall pretty positive, not always you
know, but it’s certainly a step that has to be taken to restoring any kind of lake, because the carp
they turned the bottom over all the time, and you’re pretty stuck if you don’t get them out. Is that okay? Excellent, Peter, thank you. Sure. I think the next question that’s
not mine is from Doug for Ashley on quagga muscles, I think that was yours, Doug, right? If you just want to go ahead and ask that. So this is a great question, I am not familiar, I have not heard this estimate myself, and I’d be interested in hearing from Doug where he heard it, so to be put on the spot though about
confirming and commenting on it, I did do a back of the envelope
calculation and I came up with something more in the hundreds of trillions numbers of muscles, so the 720 quadrillion isn’t too far off from a simple estimate, but before I am willing to
confirm that I’d have to know more about where he found out, because there are a lot of different methods we use for scaling-up biomass and the density to the whole lake. So, yeah, that’s the- it’s within range. I think it’s a
plausible number, I would go as far as to say that. Okay, thanks, Ashley, and for our webinar viewers that will be joining us after the session using the link, I will just repeat the question which is that Doug had heard that quagga muscles in Lake Michigan have blossomed to something like a total of 700 or 720 quadrillion based on that number an estimate pegs the filtration rate based on lake volume to be every 9 to 11 days, can you confirm this and comment. So Ashley was able to do that. I had a question, I had a question for Ashley, is there anything, Ashley, that you can tell us about predictions for near shore algae blooms based on your research? And forgive me if you said something and I missed it because I am multitasking here. No, that’s fine. So with my research I have largely
focused on what’s happening in the offshore effects of muscles so I can comment your question but I have to say I am very much representing other
people’s research when I do. So there are a few mechanisms where muscles could facilitate harmful algal blooms, and that’s largely because muscles make more nutrients available in the
nearshore area that could be taken up and used by the
harmful algae and then also muscles selectively well they’ll actually avoid eating the harmful algae, so that
will essentially concentrate harmful algae in the water and help them be more dominant over the
other more preferred algae species for the muscles to eat. So through those mechanisms there is a potential for them to maybe make it more likely for harmful
algae blooms, but that’s still very much, a lot of research needs to be done there but those would be the mechanisms. Thank you, Ashley. Okay, other questions from our audience? Okay, you’re going to give me the floor again, so I am going to ask another question for Doug, and Doug it seemed like, again given that I might miss some details it in the organization here, did your research looked like it was mostly self-reporting of people responding to what their behaviors might be is that the case and if so you know are you looking at
other research that would more effectively- or not more effectively but document behavior change in a different way? Yeah, that’s a great question and all the surveys that we have done have been, you know, sort of place-based and situational surveys, so they have been through the mail, they have been through face-to-face surveys, and now through this last survey that I just presented of course through the internet. There’s been a lot of discussions with social scientists about this reporting issue and whether or not it’s truthful. I’ve talked with a natural resource survey designers for years, and they tend to believe that surveys that revolve around natural resource issues that people are pretty honest about
responding to that. There’s always going to be a certain amount of bias, depending upon which type of assessment tool that you use. When it comes to taking direct observations of people apparently taking actions to water access it’s very difficult to discern what their
intentions of their actions are so for example if you were watching me walk around my boat motor and trailer at the end of the day coming off of Lake Superior, you may not be able to determine based on my actions whether the actions were specifically for safety purposes or if they were specific to taking action to prevent aquatic invasive species unless you saw me actually remove aquatic vegetation or maybe pull the drain plug from my boat, so it’s an area that needs more exploration and more research. Thank you very much, that was very
helpful. Okay, we are at the end of our time, and again I want to thank our presenters for their excellent presentations and remind everyone that they will be
archived, the presentations will be archived not the presenters, they will be archived on Our next webinar will be November 19th again at 2 p.m. Central Time, and it’s called the 21st Century Extension
Educator: Resources for Multi-State Collaboration. So well many of us are already
engaged in multi-state collaboration some educators that are working more at the local level may wonder, you
know, what’s all involved in doing that, how
much time does it take, when is it worth my while, and what are some resources available to make the best use of my time, so that will be the topic of our next webinar, and we welcome you to join us and again thank you so much to our presenters and have a good afternoon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *