Modeling, mapping, and measuring the risk of freshwater invasive species across Alaska
Freshwater ecosystems of the Alaskan Arctic and Subarctic provide resources that are culturally, ecologically, and economically invaluable. Presently, these regions are relatively free of the impacts from invasive species compared to southern latitudes. To date, there have been relatively few verified introductions of aquatic invasive species (AIS) to freshwater ecosystems in Alaska. The expanding list and distribution of AIS has led to significant negative ecological and economic impacts (e.g., waterweed Elodea nuttalli ; E. canadensis and northern pike Esox Lucius introduced outside its native range in Alaska). Escalating human activity across Alaskan lands and waters, coupled with rapidly shifting environmental conditions, increases the potential for new species introductions and subsequent establishment. Creating a proactive framework for well-informed decision-making and action can improve the effectiveness of prevention efforts and bolster decision support tools that help resource managers direct limited resources. Prioritizing AIS that may be introduced and become established, as well as the locations at highest risk of invasion, is foundational to building a proactive invasive species management framework in Alaska. This project sought to identify and prioritize AIS known to be invasive in the contiguous United States, evaluate current and future habitat suitability for AIS in Alaska, and assess potential for AIS to be transported to habitats across Alaska, utilizing similar assessment methods as implemented for Bering Sea marine invasive species and non-native plants in Alaska. To accomplish this goal, the objectives of the project were to: 1) develop a formal ranked list of potential AIS to freshwater systems of Alaska; 2) assess the level of establishment risk for potential AIS by developing habitat suitability models for waterbodies across Alaska; and 3), identify potential pathways and specific vectors for high-risk AIS to invade Alaska and develop a framework for how vector analysis will be completed to understand transport risk. Overall, our goal is horizon scanning which is defined by Roy et al. (2019) as “a systematic examination of potential threats and opportunities, within a given context, and likely future developments, which are at the margin of current thinking and planning.” The scans include pathway analyses and risk screening of species present at pathway origin points, with a focus on identifying species at high risk of being introduced, becoming established, spreading, and causing harm. We refined a list of 28 AIS from a list of hundreds based on characterizations of species’ invasiveness and species’ proximity to Alaska (USGS 2020; GBIF 2022). Next, we evaluated the relative invasiveness of individual species to create an initial AIS ranking. We sought to characterize habitat suitability of AIS by selecting variables that were continental in scale, covering North America to include Alaska as well as the lower 48 states comparing natural discharge, sub-basin average terrain slope (degrees), average silt fraction, average organic carbon, lithological class, and human footprint in sub-basin in 2009. We estimated AIS habitat suitability across the entire state of Alaska using the physiological tolerances of the AIS (Appendix 2). We also evaluated pathways and vectors for the introduction of AIS (Appendix 2). Many pathways and vectors considered did not meet the criteria for Alaska or freshwater systems. Of the 28 ranked species that we categorized as very high, high, and moderate levels of invasiveness; all three risk groups included fish and mollusks (Appendix 2). One commonality of the very high-invasiveness-ranked species was the availability of Ecological Risk Screening Summary documents (USFWS, 2022) produced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), except for the goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) and the New Zealand mudsnail ( Potamopyrgus antipodarum ). The Ecological Risk Screening Summary is now available for New Zealand mudsnails. In general, fish species often ranked very high or high in invasiveness and included sportfish and aquarium fish, suggesting the importance of pathways such as aquarium trade, fishing industry, intentional (but illegal) introductions of sportfishes and aquarium fishes for establishment. The technique we used for habitat suitability models necessitated aquatic environmental datasets that were continental in scale, which was often interpolated from very coarse resolution source data layers, particularly in Alaska. Better spatial data representing aquatic environments would likely improve this approach. While the lack of introductions in Alaska and nearby provinces and states is encouraging, the lack of occurrence data for the focal species also created complications for habitat suitability modeling. Despite the challenges, the habitat suitability models indicated limited suitability for warmwater species while some species, such as Brook trout (S alvelinus fontinalis ), have high habitat suitability across Alaska no matter what threshold approach is taken. Some environmental predictors were more important than others. Specifically, the most important predictor variable, ‘frost free days,’ was critical for 15 out of 28 species as expected due to harsh winter conditions in Arctic and Subarctic regions. The second most important predictor was ‘subbasin land surface runoff’, a variable that indicates the amount of discharge and runoff, while the third most important predictor was ‘snow cover’ another indication of winter conditions. Overall, the ability to understand the effect of future climate scenarios on the establishment of AIS was challenging. A detailed dataset of freshwater temperatures and water chemistry (e.g., pH, calcium) would greatly improve the ability to predict invasiveness of freshwater species to Alaska’s ecosystems on a regional basis. Future studies may benefit from a more focused geographic scope examining a group of subbasins or a regional basin rather than the entire state. These drainages could be selected based upon the mostly likely locations of introduction pathways. The two most prevalent pathway risks for AIS are in-state transfer and stowaways/contaminants. Although there are examples of introductions from other pathways, the risk is somewhat mitigated by Alaska’s climate and regulations. However, variable application of protocols for inspection and cleaning of fishing gear, watercraft, and other similar items while traveling into Alaska as well as transferring from waterbody to waterbody within the state creates a substantial risk in introducing invasive species. We plot cumulative invasive vulnerability for all subbasins and for the top 10% of subbasins (Appendix 3).