Risk assessment of aquatic invasive species introductions via European inland waterways

140 A T L A S O F B I O D I V E R S I T Y R I S K C H A P T E R 6
Aquatic RAT
(risk-based DSS)
early warning service for reporting
of environmental indicators and
recommendations for risk manage-
ment to stakeholders – DPSIR
“Responses”.
For the purpose of testing this
model, we selected a 10-year obser-
vation period (1997-2007) for analy-
sis of pathways and assessment of
propagule pressure within the select-
ed ecosystems (Assessment Unit),
and an observation period of time
since 1900 for the assessment of bio-
logical contamination level of the
ecosystem.
Identification of main invasion
gateways, routes and corridors
in Europe
There are four principal invasion corri-
dors in Europe (Figure 1):
◙ The Northern corridor: linking
the Black and Azov seas with the
Caspian Sea via the Azov – Caspian
waterway including the Volga-Don
Canal, and with the Baltic and
White seas via the Volga-Baltic
waterway including the Volga-Baltic
Canal, and the White Sea – Baltic
Sea waterway, including the White
Sea – Baltic Sea Canal.
◙ The Central corridor: connecting
the Black Sea with the Baltic Sea
region via Dnieper and Bug-Pripyat
Canal, with Nemunas River branch
connected to Pripyat and Bug by
Oginsky and Augustov canals, cor-
respondingly.
Introduction
European inland waterways have provid-
ed opportunities for the spread of inva-
sive alien aquatic (IAS) species for many
centuries. Over the past century, the
potential for species to expand their
range has been enhanced both as a result
of the construction of new canals and
due to increased trade. At present, the
complex European network of inland
waterways is made up of > 28,000 km
of navigable rivers and canals, connect-
ing 37 countries in Europe and beyond
(Figure 1). This aquatic network con-
nects the previously isolated catchments
changes. The future developments of
the European network of inland water-
ways will highly facilitate the transfer of
IAS across European inland waters and
coastal ecosystems. Appropriate risk
assessment-based management options
are required to address risks posed by
human-mediated introductions of these
species (Panov et al. 2007).
Considering the current gap in
addressing invasive alien species in
European river basin management, our
goal was to develop relevant risk assess-
ment protocols and water quality indica-
tors on IAS for possible consideration in
Conceptual model of risk assess-
ment of IAS introductions via
European inland waterways
Owing to the high degree of scientif-
ic uncertainty when dealing with such
a global and complex ecological issue
as large-scale intercontinental and
intra-continental introductions of
IAS, the qualitative model of risk
assessment was selected for risk
assessment of IAS introductions via
European inland waterways (Panov et
al. 2007, 2009). The present variant
of this qualitative model of risk
assessment of IAS introductions via
navigable waterways includes six main
components:
◙ Identification of main invasion
gateways, routes and corridors in
Europe, and selection of ecosys-
tems as assessment and manage-
ment units (AUs) within invasions
corridors/invasion network.
◙ Identification and analysis of path-
ways of IAS introductions within
the ecosystem – “Driving forces”
according to the DPSIR framework.
◙ Assessment of inoculation rates
(propagule pressure) within the
ecosystem– DPSIR “Pressures”;
◙ Assessment of biological contami-
nation level of the ecosystem –
DPSIR “State”.
◙ Assessment of invasiveness of alien
species, established in the ecosys-
tem (potential biopollution risk) –
DPSIR “Impacts”.
◙ Development of an online Risk
Assessment Toolkit (RAT) with
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Invasive Species’ Introductions via
European Inland Waterways
VADIM E. PANOV, BORIS ALEXANDROV, KESTUTIS ARBACIAUSKAS, ROSA BINIMELIS, GORDON H. COPP, MICHAL GRABOWSKI, FRANCES LUCY, ROB S.E.W. LEUVEN,
STEFAN NEHRING, MOMIR PAUNOVIĆ, VITALIY SEMENCHENKO & MIKHAIL O. SON
�
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Mediterranean Sea
Black Sea
Caspian
Sea
Danube
North Sea
Baltic
Sea
White
Sea
Dnieper
Pripyat
Vist
ula
OderElbe
Rhine
Seine
Marne
R
hô
ne
Loire
Azov
Sea
Neva
Volga
Do
n
9
11
10
8 7
6
5
4
15 1
3
2
Western
corridor
Southern corridor
Central corridor
Northern corridor
14
13
12
Trunk waterways
Other main waterways
Important shipping canals
Main watersheds
"
"
Figure 2. Environmental indicators and Risk Assessment Toolkit (RAT) for introductions of aquatic invasive species
in the DPSIR framework (after Panov et al. 2009, modified). RBMP – River Basin Management Plans, DSS – Decision
Support System on aquatic invasive species (for description of specific environmental indicators see text).
Figure 1. Important European waterways and invasion corridors for the spread of aquatic species (after Galil
et al. 2007, modified). Main canal number: 1 – Volga-Don Canal, 2 – Volga-Baltic Canal, 3 – White Sea – Baltic
Sea Canal, 4 – Bug-Pripyat Canal, 5 – Vistula-Oder Canal, 6 – Havel-Oder Canal, 7 – Mittelland Canal, 8 –
Dortmund-Ems Canal, 9 – Rhine-Herne Canal, 10 – Ludwig Canal and Main-Danube Canal, 11 – Rhine-Rhône
Canal, 12 – Canal du Centre, 13 – Canal de Briar, 14 – Rhine-Marne Canal, 15 – Kiel Canal. Solid red arrows
indicate the Southern meridian invasion corridor and the Northern meridian invasion corridor.
of the southern European seas
(Caspian, Azov, Black, Mediterranean)
and the northern European seas (Baltic,
North, Wadden, White), to provide cor-
ridors for IAS. In Europe, there are thir-
ty main canals with >100 branch canals
and > 350 ports (Galil et al. 2007).
There are plans to deepen many of
these canals to accommodate larger ves-
sels and to prepare for the lower antici-
pated water levels arising from climate
the Common Implementation Strategy
of the EC Water Framework Directive
and as part of a holistic (cumulative) risk-
based management of European river
basins. The European Environmental
Agency (EEA) ‘Typology of indicators’
and the Driving forces–Pressures–State–
Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework
was used to structure developed environ-
mental indicators in the socio-economic
context (Figure 2).
Responses
(measures within RBMP)
Driving forces
Pressures
Impacts
State
Environmental indicators:
1. Biological Contamination Rate (BCR)
2. Pathway-specific Biological
Contamination Rate (PBCR)
Environmental indicators:
1. Biological Contamination Level (BCL)
2. Site-specific Biological Contamination index (SBC index)
3. Integrated Biological Contamination index (IBC index)
Environmental indicators:
1. List of Extreme Risk
pathways
2. List of High Risk pathways
3. List of High Risk donor
areas
Environmental indicators:
1. Species-specific Biopollution
Risk index (SBPR index)
2. Integrated Biopollution Risk
index (IBPR index)
3. Grey, White and Black list of
alien species

ture of the ecosystem can be assessed
via estimation of the number of estab-
lished alien species and their relative
roles in the structural organization of
plant and animal communities. For the
purposes of our study, BCL is estimat-
ed as the number of established alien
species in AU since 1900 (BCL esti-
mates for selected assessment units are
provided in Figure 3). BCL can be
used as a DPSIR Environmental indi-
cator of “State”.
The Site-specific Biological
Contamination (SBC) index has
been elaborated to assess biological
contamination of the specific sam-
pling site within AU with respect to
“taxonomic” and “abundance” con-
tamination (Arbačiauskas et al. 2008).
For ranking of SBC index see
Table 1; an example of assessment
of SBC indices for macrozoobenthic
communities and the corresponding
ecological quality for 13 locations in
three assessment units of River
Pripyat are provided in Figure 5.
The Integrated Biological
Contamination (IBC) index for the
units for last reporting period (1997-
2007 in the present study) are provid-
ed in Figure 3.
The Pathway-specific Biological
Contamination Rate (PBCR) reflects
the inoculation rate in AU by specific
pathways and can be estimated by the
number of recorded alien species in
AU by specific pathway during the
reporting period. PBCR can be used as
a DPSIR Environmental indicator for
“Pressures”. Where PBCR = 0, there is
no biological contamination by existing
pathway, whereas if PBCR > 0, then
the Extreme Risk pathway (ER path-
way) can be distinguished.
Assessment of biological
contamination level of the
ecosystem
Biological contamination level
(BCL) of the AU (ecosystem) reflects
the invasibility of the ecosystem (prob-
ability of establishment of alien spe-
cies as a complex function of abiotic
and biotic resistance of the ecosystem
to biological invasions under a specific
level of propagule pressure). This fea-
be attributed with some level of
certainty to the specific pathway), it
can be defined as “Extreme Risk
(ER) pathway”.
Assessment of inoculation rates
within the ecosystem
In the present study we suggest
assessing inoculation rate indirectly
via the Biological Contamination Rate
(BCR). “Biological contamination”
of the ecosystem means the introduc-
tion of alien species regardless of
their abilities to cause negative eco-
logical and/or socio-economic
impacts; in a case where impacts of
introduced alien species are measur-
able, the “biological pollution” of
the ecosystem should be evaluated
(see in Panov et al. 2009).
The Biological Contamination
Rate (BCR) of the ecosystem or any
assessment unit (AU) can be estimated
as the number of recorded alien spe-
cies in AU per observation/reporting
period (e.g., total number of recorded
alien species per year or per 10 years).
BCR values for selected assessment
◙ The Southern corridor: linking
the Black Sea basin with the North
Sea basin via the Danube-Main-
Rhine waterway including the Main-
Danube Canal.
◙ The Western corridor: linking the
Mediterranean with the North Sea
via the River Rhône and the Rhine-
Rhône Canal.
These principal corridors are inter-
linked via two additional invasion cor-
ridors: the Southern meridian corri-
dor linking the Northern, Central and
Southern corridors on the south, and
the Northern meridian corridor,
linking the Northern, Central,
Southern and Western on the north
(Figure 1). This complex system of
navigable waterways and invasion cor-
ridors can be considered as an
European inland water invasion
network (Figure 1), with estuaries of
large European rivers (Don, Danube,
Dnieper, Neva, Odra, Rhine) and
lagoons (Curonian, Vistula) serving as
entries to the main invasion corridors
and considered as “invasion gate-
ways” (Panov et al. 2009). In our
study, we selected assessment units
within three main invasion corridors
(Northern, Central and Southern) in
order to consider an ecosystem
approach to the management of IAS
using river basins as the main man-
agement units (Figure 3).
Identification and analysis of
pathways of IAS introductions
within the ecosystem
Pathways involved in the introduc-
tions of IAS can be considered as
“Driving forces” according DPSIR
framework (Figure 2). Principal path-
ways of aquatic IAS spread in Europe
and qualitative descriptors of princi-
pal human activities involved in the
spread of IAS have been identified
(see in Panov et al. 2009). For the
purpose of the present qualitative risk
assessment of IAS introductions via
inland waterways, these principal
human activities were considered as
potential pathways for any selected
ecosystem (assessment unit – AU).
Pathways are defined according to
three classifications:
◙ A pathway with low certainty of
the existence of a specific pathway
for a specific AU, can be defined as
“Low Risk (LR) pathway”.
◙ A pathway with a high level of cer-
tainty of its existence in the AU,
but with no evidence existing of
the introduction of alien species in
AU by this pathway during the past
10 years, can be defined as “High
Risk (HR) pathway”.
◙ Where the operating pathway can
be defined as responsible for an
introduction of specific alien spe-
cies into a AU during the past 10
years (even if only one record of
alien species within this period can
R I S K A S S E S S M E N T O F A Q U A T I C I N V A S I V E S P E C I E S ’ I N T R O D U C T I O N S V I A E U R O P E A N I N L A N D W A T E R W A Y S 141
SC8
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 12
= 59
= 4
= 4
CC16
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 7
= 27
= 4
= 4
CC12
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 1
= 8
= 4
= 4
SC4
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 10
= 73
= 4
= 4
SC3
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 14
= 38
= 4
= 4
SC2
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 11
= 24
= 4
= 4
CC14
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 6
= 24
= 2
= 4
CC9
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 5
= 16
= 2
= 4
CC10
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 2
= 12
= 2
= 4
NC4
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 2
= 4
= 4
= 4
NC5
BCR
BCL
IBC
IBPR
= 1
= 8
= 4
= 4
NC3
BCR
BCL
IBPR
= 2
= 82
= 4
NC1
BCR
BCL
IBPR
= 7
= 41
= 4
NC6
BCR
BCL
IBPR
= 6
= 13
= 3
NC2
BCR
BCL
IBPR
= 12
= 47
= 4
Figure 3. Assessment units selected within the Northern, Central and Southern inland water invasion corridors (NC, CC and SC, respectively): NC1 – River Don and
Azov Sea, NC2 – lower part of River Volga and Caspian Sea, NC3 – upper and middle parts of River Volga, NC4 – Lake Ladoga, NC5 – River Neva estuary, NC6 –
River Severnaya Dvina, CC9 – middle part of River Pripyat, CC10 – Dnieper-Bug canal, CC 12 – lower part of River Nemunas, CC14 – River Vistula, CC16 – River
Oder, SC2 – lower part of River Danube, SC3 – middle part of River Danube, SC4 – upper part of River Danube, SC8 – lower part of River Rhine. The Integrated bio-
logical pollution risk (IBPR) is indicated both by numbers and colours of area boundaries (High biopollution risk and Very high biopollution risk are in orange and red,
respectively).

142 A T L A S O F B I O D I V E R S I T Y R I S K C H A P T E R 6
“White” lists corresponds to IBPR =
2 (Moderate biopollution risk:
“Moderate” ecological status). Where
alien species from the “Black list” are
present in the community, the IBPR
can be estimated as 3 in a situation
with relatively low abundance of these
species (High biopollution risk:
“Poor” ecological status), or 4 in a sit-
uation with relatively high abundance
of “Black list” species (Very high bio-
pollution risk: “Bad” ecological status)
with the same 20 % threshold for
“low” and “high” relative abundances
(see Figures 3 and 5 for examples).
Grey, White and Black Lists of
IAS, SBPR and IBPR indices can be
used as DPSIR Environmental indica-
tors of “Impacts” (Figure 2). Also,
the Black List can be used as the
EEA SEBI 2010 indicator “Invasive
alien species in Europe”, element
‘Worst invasive alien species threaten-
ing biodiversity in Europe’’
(European Environment Agency
2007). In addition, the IBPR index
can be recommended for the risk-
based estimation of ecological status
of water bodies considering alien spe-
cies introductions as a specific pres-
sure (Panov et al. 2009).
Development of an online risk
assessment toolkit with an early
warning service for reporting of
environmental indicators and
recommendations for risk
management to stakeholders
The aquatic component of the online
Risk Assessment Toolkit (RAT)
includes risk assessment protocols for
IAS introductions via European inland
waterways, supporting database and
electronic journal “Aquatic Invasions”
(Figure 6). The latter serves as an
instrument to protect authors’ rights
on IAS information stored in the data-
base and as an early warning tool
(Panov et al. 2008, see also Figures 6
and 7). The aquatic part of RAT will
also serve as the decision-support sys-
cific locations of the AU can be fur-
ther used for estimation of the
Integrated Biopollution Risk
(IBPR) index. Where no alien species
are present in the AU, IBPR = 0 (No
biopollution risk: reference condi-
tions, or “High” ecological status sensu
the Common Implementation Strategy
of the EC Water Framework
Directive). If alien species from
“Grey” or “White” lists are present in
relatively low abundances (less than
20 % of total abundance of alien and
native species in the community), then
IBPR = 1 (Low biopollution risk: this
may correspond to “Good” ecological
status of a water body). Relatively
high abundance of alien species
(exceeding 20 %) from “Grey” or
framework. For this purpose we have
developed a Species-specific
Biopollution Risk (SBPR) index,
which is based on the general assess-
ment of the level of invasiveness of
the specific alien species according to
the estimates of three such descrip-
tors of the species as High risk for
dispersal (HRD), High risk for estab-
lishment in a new environment
(HRE), and High risk to cause eco-
logical and negative socio-economic
impacts (HRI). The knowledge on
HRD, HRE and HRI of the alien
species is generally available from sci-
entific reports and publications asso-
ciated with a particular species intro-
duction (Panov et al. 2009). This
approach to the risk-based assess-
ment of invasiveness of the alien
species, established in the aquatic
ecosystem (AU), was further used in
the formal procedure of listing of
alien species into the Grey, White and
Black Lists (Figure 4).
This ranking of alien species
according their invasiveness along
with information on relative abun-
dance of invasive alien species in spe-
AU can be estimated by averaging “tax-
onomic” and “abundance” contamina-
tion of study sites (within AU), and
can be ranked in the same way as SBC
index (see Table 1 and example for
macrozoobenthos of Pripyet River in
Figure 5). The IBC index can be used
both as DPSIR Environmental indica-
tor of “State” (Figure 2) and for
assessment of ecological status of the
whole AU (aquatic ecosystem)
(Figure 5). IBC indices for selected
assessment units are provided in
Figure 3.
Assessment of invasiveness of
alien species (potential
biopollution risk)
Estimations of actual impacts of
alien species in specific aquatic eco-
systems (e.g., AUs) are not always
possible and usually require costly
long-term research efforts in the spe-
cific water body. In this regard, a risk-
based assessment of invasiveness of
the established alien species can be
considered the most cost-effective
way for developing practicable indica-
tors for “Impacts” in the DPSIR
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
9
78
6
54
321
13
12
1110
CC10 CC9 CC8
IBPR
IBC
SBC
B e l a r u s
SBC, IBC,
IBPR scoring
Ecological
status
0
1
2
3
4
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
TCI
ACI
none 0.01 – 0.10 0.11 – 0.20 0.21 – 0.50 >0.50
none none
0.01 – 0.10 1 2 3 4
0.11 – 0.20 2 2 3 4
0.21 – 0.50 3 3 3 4
>0.50 4 4 4 4
Figure 4. Procedure for listing alien species according their potential invasiveness (after Panov et al. 2009,
modified). “Yes” in this scheme means that information on potential invasiveness of the species is available,
“No” means “Unknown”, or information is not available (HRD – High risk of dispersal, HRE – High risk for
establishment in new environment, HRI – High risk to cause ecological and negative socio-economic impacts).
Figure 5. Assessment of ecological status of three assessments units and specific locations in the River Pripyat basin based on estimations of Site-specific biological
contamination (SBC), Integrated biological contamination (IBC) and Integrated biological pollution risk (IBPR) indices (after Panov et al. 2009, modified).
Table 1. Scoring of Site-specific and Integrated Biological Contamination indices (SBC and IBC) with respect
to abundance contamination index (ACI) and taxonomic contamination index (TCI). SBC or IBC ranks: 0 (high
status, no biological contamination (BC), blue cell), 1 (good status, low BC, green cell), 2 (moderate status,
moderate BC, yellow cells), 3 (low status, high BC, orange cells), 4 (bad status, very high BC, red cells) (after
Arbacˇiauskas et al. 2008).
HPE
HPS HPE HPI
No
No Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
HPI
White list
Grey list
Black list

tem (DSS), the online transmitter of
essential information needed for deci-
sion-making (Figure 2, Panov et al.
2008), and will provide links to other
IAS risk assessment protocols (http://
www.reabic.net and http://www.cefas.
co.uk/4200.aspx).
Conclusions
The developed DPSIR environmental
indicators for alien species (“Drivers”
– List of Extreme Risk pathways for
AUs, List of High Risk pathways for
AUs, List of High Risk Donor Areas
for AUs; “Pressures” – Biological
Contamination Rate (BCR), Pathway-
specific Biological Contamination Rate
(PBCR); “State” – Biological
Contamination Level (BCL), Site-
specific Biological Contamination
(SBC) index, Integrated Biological
Contamination (IBC) index;
“Impacts” – Species-specific
Biopollution Risk (SBPR) index, Grey,
White and Black lists of alien species
and Integrated Biopollution Risk
(IBPR) index, Figure 2) can be useful
for risk management at the local, river
basin, national and regional levels.
Management measures for the
DPSIR “Driving forces” and
“Pressures” may include preventive
actions toward management of
Extreme Risk and High Risk path-
ways. Biological Contamination Rate
(BCR) and Pathway-specific Biological
Contamination Rate (PBCR) can be
used as indicators of the effectiveness
of preventive management. In con-
trast, the management actions for
“State” and “Impacts” may involve
the control and eradication of estab-
lished species from Black List
(according to CBD provisions), and
Site-specific and Integrated Biological
Contamination indices. Along with
the Integrated Biopollution Risk
index, these can be used as compara-
tively simple indicators of the effec-
tiveness of these measures.
Three environmental indicators
from this list can be recommended as
cost-effective “Quality Elements”
(QEs) according to the Common
Implementation Strategy of the Water
Framework Directive for assessment
of ecological status of aquatic ecosys-
tems: Site-specific Biological
Contamination (SBC) index, Integrated
Biological Contamination (IBC) index
and, specifically, based on precaution-
ary approach, the Integrated
Biopollution Risk (IBPR) index.
References
ARBAČIAUSKAS K, SEMENCHENKO V, GRABOWSKI
M, LEUVEN RSEW, PAUNOVIĆ M, SON MO,
CSÁNYI B, GUMULIAUSKAITĖ S, KONOPACKA
A, VAN DER VELDE G, VEZHNOVETZ V,
PANOV VE (2008) Assessment of biological
contamination of benthic macroinvertebrate
communities in European inland waterways.
Aquatic Invasions 3: 206-224.
Figure 6. Conceptual structure of the online Risk Assessment Toolkit (RAT) for aquatic alien species with
early warning functions (after Panov et al. 2009, modified). EC – European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/),
EEA – European Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/), CIESM – International Commission for the
Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea (http://www.ciesm.org), OSPAR – OSPAR Commission for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (http://www.ospar.org), HELCOM – Baltic
Marine Environment Protection Commission (http://www.helcom.fi), Cefas – Cefas Risks and impacts of non-
native species Decision support tools (http://www.cefas.co.uk/4200.aspx), REABIC – Regional Euro-Asian
Biological Invasions Centre information system (http://www.reabic.net).
GALIL BS, NEHRING S, PANOV VE (2007)
Waterways as invasion highways – Impact
of climate change and globalization. – In:
Nentwig W, editor. Biological Invasions.
Ecological Studies Nr. 193. Berlin,
Germany: Springer, 59-74.
PANOV V, DGEBUADZE Y, SHIGANOVA T,
FILIPPOV A, MINCHIN D (2007) A risk
assessment of biological invasions: inland
waterways of Europe – the northern inva-
sion corridor case study. – In: Gherardi F,
editor. Biological Invaders in Inland Waters:
Profiles, Distribution and Threats. Invading
Nature – Springer Series in Invasion
Ecology, Vol. 2. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer, 639-656.
PANOV VE, GOLLASCH S, ALEXANDROV B,
ARBACIAUSKAS K, GRABOWSKI M, LUCY F,
MINCHIN D, OLENIN S, PAUNOVIĆ M, SON
M (2008) New electronic journal “Aquatic
Invasions”: an important part of the devel-
oping European early warning system on
aquatic invasive species. Deliverable D 5.1.7
(The second volume of “Aquatic
Invasions”) to the EC FP6 Integrated
Project ALARM, 8 p. Available online at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/
invasivealien/docs/alarm_deliverable.pdf
PANOV VE, ALEXANDROV B, ARBACIAUSKAS K,
BINIMELIS R, COPP GH, GRABOWSKI M,
LUCY F, LEUVEN RSEW, NEHRING S,
PAUNOVIĆ M, SEMENCHENKO V, SON MO
(2009) Assessing the risks of aquatic species
invasions via European inland waterways:
from concepts to environmental indicators.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Management 5: 110-126.
Figure 7. Selected new geo-referenced records of invasive alien species in European coastal and inland waters in 2007, published in the second volume of Aquatic
Invasions (2007): 1 – the tubenose goby Proterorhinus marmoratus from the River Neva estuary, Russia (Antsulevich 2007), 2 – the tubenose goby Proterorhinus marmora-
tus from the Pripyat River, Belarus (Rizevsky et al. 2007), 3 – the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis from the River Volga, Russia (Shakirova et al. 2007), 4 – the
Ponto-Caspian mysid Limnomysis benedeni from the River Pripyat, Belarus (Semenchenko et al. 2007), 5 – the Indo-Pacific humpnose big-eye bream, Monotaxis grandoculis
in the Mediterranean Sea (Bilecenoglu 2007), 6 – the Red Sea mussel Brachidontes pharaonis from the Turkish coasts (Dogˇan et al. 2007), 7 – the Asian clam Sinanodonta
woodiana from Eastern Romania (Popa et al. 2007), 8 – the Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (“killer shrimp”) in Lac du Bourget, France (Grabowski et
al. 2007), 9 – the Quagga mussels Dreissena bugensis in Ukraine (Son 2007), 10 – the Quagga mussels Dreissena bugensis in the River Main, Germany (van der Velde and
Platvoet 2007), 11-12 – the Asian amphipod Caprella mutica in coastal waters of UK and Norway (Cook et al. 2007), 13 – the American oyster drill, Urosalpinx cinerea in
The Netherlands (Faasse and Ligthart 2007), 14 – the Asian tunicate Styela clava from the central German Bight (Krone et al. 2007), 15-21 – the North-American
ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Oslofjorden, Norway (Oliveira 2007), in Danish waters (Tendal et al. 2007), in south-western Baltic Sea (Kube et al. 2007), in the
Gulf of Gdan´sk, southern Baltic Sea (Janas & Zgrundo 2007), in the central Baltic, Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland, respectively (Lehtiniemi et al. 2007).
R I S K A S S E S S M E N T O F A Q U A T I C I N V A S I V E S P E C I E S ’ I N T R O D U C T I O N S V I A E U R O P E A N I N L A N D W A T E R W A Y S 143
11
12
15
21
19
1817
16
14
13
10
8
2 4
3
9
7
6
5
120
Decision-makers, managers, general public and other interested stakeholders
(EC, EEA, OSPAR, ICES, CIESM, HELCOM)
Information on records of alien species from monitoring and biological surveys,
alien species checklists and biology research
RAT
information
transmitter
system
Online risk assessment
protocols and supporting
information systems
(Cefas and REABIC)
E-jornal
Aquatic Invasions
(protection of author's rights
on primary data and early
warning)
8
7
13
6
3 4 51, 2
15-21
14
11, 12
9, 10