Assessing the risks of aquatic species invasions via European inland waterways: from concepts to environmental indicators.

Assessing the Risks of Aquatic Species Invasions via
European Inland Waterways: From Concepts to
Environmental Indicators
Vadim E Panov,*� Boris Alexandrov,` Ke˛stutis Arbacˇiauskas,§ Rosa Binimelis,jj Gordon H Copp,#
Michal Grabowski,�� Frances Lucy,`` Rob SEW Leuven,§§ Stefan Nehring,jjjj Momir Paunovic´,##
Vitaliy Semenchenko,��� and Mikhail O Son`
�St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
`Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Odessa Branch, Odessa, Ukraine
§Institute of Ecology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
jjAutonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
#Cefas, Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Team, Lowestoft, Bournemouth University, School of Conservation Sciences, Poole, Dorset,
United Kingdom
��Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, University of Ło´dz´, Ło´dz´, Poland
``Environmental Services Ireland and Institute of Technology, Sligo, Ireland
§§Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
jjjjAeT umweltplanung, Koblenz, Germany
##Institute for Biological Research ‘‘Sinisa Stankovic,’’ Belgrade, Serbia
���Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources, Minsk, Belarus
(Received 30 August 2008; Accepted 2 October 2008)
EDITOR’S NOTE:
This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop ‘‘Risk Assessment in European River Basins—State of the Art and
Future Challenges’’ held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European
Commission’s Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European
Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/
sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.
ABSTRACT
Over the past century, the potential for aquatic species to expand their ranges in Europe has been enhanced both as a
result of the construction of new canals and because of increased international trade. A complex network of inland
waterways now connects some previously isolated catchments in southern (Caspian, Azov, Black, Mediterranean seas) and
northern (Baltic, North, Wadden, White seas) Europe, and these waterways act as corridors for nonnative species invasions.
We have developed a conceptual risk assessment model for invasive alien species introductions via European inland
waterways, with specific protocols that focus on the development of environmental indicators within the socioeconomic
context of the driving forces–pressures–state–impact–response framework. The risk assessment protocols and water quality
indicators on alien species were tested for selected ecosystems within 3 main European invasion corridors, and these can be
recommended for application as part of the Common Implementation Strategy of the European Commission Water
Framework Directive, which aims to provide a holistic risk-based management of European river basins. The conceptual
structure of the online Risk Assessment Toolkit for aquatic invasive alien species is provided and includes 3 main interlinked
components: online risk assessment protocols, an early warning system, and an information transmitter for risk
communication to end users.
Keywords: Alien species Risk analysis Ecological status River basin management Water Framework Directive
INTRODUCTION
European inland waterways have provided opportunities
for the spread of nonnative aquatic species (see Table 1 for
glossary of terms and abbreviations) for many centuries
(Copp et al. 2005a). Canals can provide conduits for species
to spread between previously separate biogeographic regions
by either active movement, drift, and/or as a result of ship
transport (Bij de Vaate et al. 2002; Galil et al. 2007). Over the
past century, the potential for species to expand their range
has been enhanced as a result of both the construction of new
canals and increased trade. At present, the complex European
network of inland waterways is made up of .28000 km of
navigable rivers and canals, connecting 37 countries in Europe
and beyond. This aquatic network now connects the
previously isolated catchments of the southern European seas
(Caspian, Azov, Black, Mediterranean) and the northern
European seas (Baltic, North, Wadden, White), providing
invasion corridors for alien species. In Europe, there are 30
main canals with .100 branch canals and .350 ports (Bij de
Vaate et al. 2002; Ketelaars 2004; Galil et al. 2007). There are
plans to deepen many of these canals to accommodate larger
vessels and to prepare for the lower anticipated water levels
arising from climate change.
The current invasion corridors and the projected future
developments of the European network of inland waterways
may highly facilitate the transfer of alien species across
European inland waters and coastal ecosystems. Appropriate
risk assessment–based management options are required to
* To whom correspondence may be addressed: vpanov@mail.ru
Published on the Web 10/13/2008.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 5, Number 1—pp. 110–126
110 � 2009 SETAC
S
p
e
ci
a
l
S
e
ri
e
s

address risks posed by human-mediated introductions of these
species (Gollasch and Leppa¨koski 2007; Panov et al. 2007).
During the development of methods to assess the risks of
alien species introductions via European inland waterways, we
considered the relevant provisions of international legal
instruments on invasive alien species, specifically the Con-
vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) guiding principles for
the prevention, introduction, and mitigation of impacts of
alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species
(CBD COP6 Decision VI/23 2002), which includes 3 main
guiding principles (1–3) and associated principles (13–15): 1)
precautionary approach—‘‘The precautionary approach
should also be applied when considering eradication, contain-
ment and control measures in relation to alien species that
have become established. Lack of scientific certainty about
the various implications of an invasion should not be used as a
reason for postponing or failing to take appropriate eradica-
tion, containment and control measures’’; 2) 3-stage hier-
archical approach—‘‘Priority should be given to preventing
the introduction of invasive alien species, between and within
States. If an invasive alien species has been introduced, then
early detection and rapid action are crucial to prevent its
establishment. The preferred response is often to eradicate
the organisms as soon as possible (Principle 13 [e.g., Britton
and Brazier 2006; Copp et al. 2007b; Britton et al. 2008]). In
the event that eradication is not feasible, or resources are not
available for its eradication, then containment (Principle 14)
and long-term control measures (Principle 15) should be
implemented’’; and 3) ecosystem approach—‘‘Measures to
deal with invasive alien species should, as appropriate, be
based on the ecosystem approach.’’
Also, we considered relevant recommendations of the
European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (Genovesi and
Shine 2004), specifically those on the listing system for alien
species. The European Environmental Agency’s ‘‘Typology of
Indicators’’ and the driving forces–pressures–state–impact–
response (DPSIR) framework were used to structure devel-
oped environmental indicators in the socioeconomic context
(Smeets and Weterings 1999; Gabrielsen and Bosch 2003;
Maxim et al. 2007) (Figure 1). In addition, considering the
current gap in addressing invasive alien species in European
river basin management, our goals were also to develop
relevant risk assessment protocols and water quality indicators
for alien species to gain possible consideration in the Common
Implementation Strategy of the European Commission Water
Framework Directive (European Commission 2000; Cardoso
and Free 2008) and as part of a holistic (cumulative) risk-based
management of European river basins (Brack et al. 2009).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF RISK ANALYSIS OF ALIEN
SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS VIA EUROPEAN INLAND
WATERWAYS
Modern risk analysis takes its root from radiology and the
development of the nuclear power industry. These protocols
were subsequently adapted to assess a range of hazards, most
recently alien species. Many risk analysis schemes exist;
however, all of them normally consist of 4 main components:
1) risk identification, 2) risk assessment (of the likelihood of
introduction, establishment, dispersal, and impact), 3) risk
management, and 4) risk communication (Van Leeuwen and
Vermeire 2007). Various parts of the risk analysis process may
be employed as required in different decision-making contexts,
ranging from specific case studies to strategic regulation and
policymaking. In terms of risk identification and assessment,
there are 2 main types of approach: qualitative and quantitative.
Quantitative risk assessment normally requires much numer-
ical data, which may not always be available. It may therefore be
better to examine issues and convey conclusions (and the
associated uncertainties) in qualitative terms. Because of the
high degree of scientific uncertainty when dealing with such a
global and complex ecological issue as large-scale interconti-
nental and intracontinental introductions of nonnative species,
the qualitative model was selected for risk analysis of alien
species introductions via European inland waterways. Initially,
the developed conceptual model included 2 main specific
methodologies—an environmental matching risk assessment
and a species-specific risk assessment—and this model was
tested for selected ecosystems (risk areas or assessment units) of
one of the largest European navigable waterways, linking the
Black and Caspian seas with the Baltic and White seas via the
Volga River (Panov et al. 2007). The present variant of this
qualitative model of risk analysis of alien species introductions
via navigable waterways includes 7 main components:
1. Identification of main invasion gateways, routes, and cor-
ridors in Europe
2. Selection of ecosystems as assessment and management
units (assessment units) within invasions corridors/inva-
sion network
3. Identification and analysis of pathways of alien species
introductions within the ecosystem—‘‘driving forces’’
according to the DPSIR framework
4. Assessment of inoculation rates (propagule pressure)
within the ecosystem—DPSIR ‘‘pressures’’
5. Assessment of biological contamination of the ecosys-
tem—DPSIR ‘‘state’’
6. Assessment of invasiveness of alien species, established in
the ecosystem (biological pollution risk)—DPSIR ‘‘im-
pacts’’
7. Development of an online Risk Assessment Toolkit with
early warning service for reporting of environmental
indicators and recommendations for risk management to
stakeholders—DPSIR ‘‘responses’’
For the purpose of testing this model, we selected a 10-y
observation period (1997–2007) for analysis of pathways and
assessment of propagule pressure within the selected ecosys-
tems (assessment unit), and an observation period of time
since 1900 for the assessment of biological contamination
levels of the ecosystem. The observation period since 1900
corresponds to the European Environmental Agency SEBI
2010 indicator ‘‘‘Invasive Alien Species in Europe,’’ element
‘‘Cumulative Number of Alien Species in Europe since 1900’’
(European Environment Agency 2007). For developing
indicators for DPSIR ‘‘Impacts,’’ we considered generally the
grey, white, and black listing system used in the European
strategy on invasive alien species (Genovesi and Shine 2004;
Nehring and Klingenstein 2008).
IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN INVASION GATEWAYS,
ROUTES, AND CORRIDORS IN EUROPE
Four principal invasion corridors exist in Europe (Figure 2):
1. Northern corridor: Has 6500 km of navigable waterways
and 21 inland ports of international importance. The
corridor links the Black and Azov seas with the Caspian
Sea via the Azov–Caspian waterway, including the
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 111

Table 1. Definitions and abbreviations of key terms for risk assessment of aquatic nonnative species
Terms and abbreviations Definition Reference
Alien species Refers to a species, subspecies, or lower taxon, introduced
outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any
part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species
that might survive and subsequently reproduce
CBD COP6 Decision VI/23
Nonnative, nonindigenous
species
Synonyms for ‘‘alien species’’ Present study
Invasive species Means indigenous or nonindigenous species that spreads,
with or without the aid of humans, in natural or seminatural
habitats, producing a significant change in composition,
structure, or ecosystem processes or causing severe eco-
nomic losses to human activities
Copp et al. (2005a)
Introduction Refers to the movement by human agency, indirect or direct,
of an alien species outside its natural range (past or present);
this movement can be either within a country or between
countries or areas beyond national jurisdiction
CBD COP6 Decision VI/23
Establishment Refers to the process of an alien species in a new habitat
successfully producing viable offspring with the likelihood of
continued survival
CBD COP6 Decision VI/23
Risk analysis Refers to 1) the identification of risks and their assessment
with regard (in nonnative species terms) to the likelihood
and consequences of the introduction, establishment,
spread, and impact of an alien species using science-based
information (i.e., risk assessment) and 2) the identification of
measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage
these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into account
socioeconomic and cultural considerations
CBD COP6 Decision VI/23
Assessment unit Part of aquatic ecosystem, serving as assessment and
management unit
Present study
Biological contamination
(biocontamination)
The introduction of alien species that may or may not result
in noticeable or measurable effects
Modified from Elliott
(2003)
Biological contamination
rate
The number of recorded alien species in the assessment unit
per reporting period
Present study
Pathway-specific biological
contamination rate
The number of recorded alien species in the assessment unit
by specific pathway during reporting period
Present study
Biological contamination
level
The number of established alien species in assessment unit
since 1900
Present study
Site-specific biological
contamination
Index for estimation of biological contamination of the
specific location (sampling site) within the assessment unit
and ecological status of the specific location within the
water body
Present study
Integrated biological
contamination
Index for estimation of biological contamination of the
assessment unit and ecological status of the water body
Present study
Biological pollution
(biopollution)
The introduction of alien species with noticeable effects on
individuals, populations and communities of native species
and/or resulting in adverse socioeconomic consequences
Modified from Elliott
(2003)
Biological pollution level Index for estimation of actual impacts of alien species in
assessment units
Olenin et al. (2007)
Species-specific biological
pollution risk
Index for estimation of potential invasiveness of the species Present study
Integrated biological
pollution risk (IBPR)
Index for estimation of potential impacts of alien species in
the assessment unit and ecological status of the water
body
Present study
112 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.

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.
2. Central corridor: Connects the Black Sea with the Baltic
Sea region via Dnieper and Bug–Pripyat Canal, with the
Nemunas River branch connected to Pripyat and Bug by
the Oginsky and Augustov canals, respectively.
3. Southern corridor: Links the Black Sea basin with the
North Sea basin via the Danube–Main–Rhine waterway,
including the Main–Danube Canal. The length of the
corridor from the Black Sea (Sulina Arm) up to the
North Sea is about 3500 km. More than 125 harbors and
67 locks are situated along the waterway.
4. Western corridor: Links the Mediterranean Sea with the
North Sea via the Rho˚ne River and the Rhine–Rho˚ne
Canal.
These principal corridors are interlinked via 2 additional
invasion corridors: The Southern Meridian corridor linking
the Northern, Central, and Southern corridors on the south
and the Northern Meridian corridor linking the Northern,
Central, and Southern corridors on the north (Figure 2). Also,
other corridors exist, such as the Canal du Midi linking the
Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic, and there are also
navigable canals in Britain, Finland, and Ireland, representing
local national networks of inland waterways that are linked
with the main European intracontinental invasion corridors
primarily by international shipping. This complex system of
navigable waterways and invasion corridors can be considered
a European inland water invasion network (Figure 2).
Estuaries of large European rivers (Don, Danube, Dnieper,
Neva, Odra, Rhine and lagoons, Curonian, Vistula) serve as
entries to the main invasion corridors and can be considered
‘‘invasion gateways.’’ Invasion gateways represent a transi-
tional type of ecosystem (brackish-to-freshwater estuary,
coastal lagoon, or lake) that, because of its salinity regime
and high level of human activity (ship transportation and
hydromorphological modification), may serve as an ‘‘acclima-
tization chamber’’ for potentially euryhaline species, enhanc-
ing their ability to colonize inland waters.
SELECTION OF ECOSYSTEMS AS ASSESSMENT AND
MANAGEMENT UNITS
In general, the term ‘‘assessment and management unit’’
(assessment unit) could be used to describe each part of an
aquatic habitat, the evaluation criterion for the level of
biological pollution or contamination (sensu Elliott 2003).
The selection method for appropriate assessment units depends
mainly on 2 elements: the aim of the assessment and the type of
Table 1. Continued
Terms and abbreviations Definition Reference
Invasibility The probability of establishment of alien species as a complex
function of abiotic and biotic resistance by the ecosystem to
introductions under a specific level of propagule pressure
Present study
Invasiveness The degree to which an organism is able to spread from site
of primary introduction, to establish a viable population
in the ecosystem, to negatively affect biodiversity on the
individual, community, or ecosystem level and cause
adverse socioeconomic consequences
Present study
Pathways Principal human activities involved in the spread of alien
species
Minchin et al. (2007)
Low-risk pathway A pathway with low certainty of the existence of a specific
pathway for a specific assessment unit
Present study
High-risk pathway A pathway with a high level of certainty of its existence in the
assessment unit (operating pathway) but with no evidence
existing of the introduction of alien species into the assess-
ment unit by this pathway during the observation/reporting
period
Present study
Extreme-risk pathway An operating pathway responsible for an introduction of
specific alien species into an assessment unit during an
observation/reporting period
Present study
Invasion route The route between the source region of alien species and its
location of introduction
Present study
Invasion gateway Refers to a transitional type of ecosystem (brackish to fresh
water estuary, coastal lagoon, or lake) that, because of its
salinity regime and high level of human activity (ship
transportation), may serve as an ‘‘acclimatization chamber’’
for potentially euryhaline species, enabling them further to
colonize inland waters
Present study
Vector Specific human transport or natural carrier that transmits
alien species to the recipient ecosystem
Present study
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 113

water body. With regard to assessment aims, 3 main levels can
be identified: management, monitoring, and research.
The management level of assessment, which is the main
subject of this conceptual model, requires the overall
evaluation of large areas in addition to information of
basinwide importance. Accordingly, the assessment units
should be defined as larger units of water bodies, and
delineation should be based on general criteria, mostly those
that are not affected by human influence or that are slightly
sensitive to human disturbance. The main criteria for
delineation of assessment units for management level assess-
ment are 1) alteration in geology and hydromorphology, 2)
altitude change and lake or coastal area depth, and 3)
biogeographical criteria. The ‘‘ecoregion’’ approach could be
the option, especially taking into consideration the necessity
of linking nonnative species risk analysis with management of
ecological status of water bodies, as required by the Water
Framework Directive (European Commission 2000).
For monitoring programs, assessment units should in
general be smaller than those used for management-level
assessments, and additional selection criteria should be used:
the influence of point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the
impact of major hydraulic structures, the influence of
tributaries, and so on. Assessment units involved in research
activities are the most flexible category. At this level,
assessment units could be of different sizes, ranging from a
sampling site, a part of the water body, or an entire drainage
basin. A sampling site is defined in various ways for different
ecological groups of aquatic organisms as well as for different
types of aquatic habitats.
The monitoring and research levels of assessment should
provide the necessary data for evaluating the management-
level evaluations of nonnative species and for testing, applying,
and further development of the risk assessment model. For the
monitoring of alien species, assessment units are equal to a
water body or group of water bodies that are the object of
routine biological monitoring. The data generated for invasive
species, primarily from surveillance monitoring sites, and
extrapolated to relevant water bodies could be an important
input for management-level assessments of alien species.
In our study, we selected 33 assessment units within 3 main
invasion corridors (Northern, Central, and Southern) in order
to consider an ecosystem approach to the management of
invasive species using river basins as the main management
units (Figure 2).
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF PATHWAYS OF
ALIEN SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS WITHIN THE
ECOSYSTEM
Pathways involved in the introductions of alien species can
be considered ‘‘driving forces’’ according the DPSIR frame-
work (Figure 1). Driving forces are changes in the social,
Figure 1. Environmental indicators and Risk Assessment Toolkit (RAT) for introductions of aquatic alien species in the driving forces–pressures–state–impact–
response (DPSIR) framework. RBMP ¼ river basin management plans, DSS ¼ decision support system on aquatic alien species (for description of specific
environmental indicators, see text). Indicators recommended for assessment of ecological status of aquatic ecosystems are in bold.
114 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.

economic, and institutional systems that directly or indirectly
trigger the creation of invasion corridors resulting in the
introduction of alien species (Maxim et al. 2007). Principal
pathways and the dispersal vectors of invading aquatic species
in Europe have been identified (Minchin et al. 2007), as have
qualitative descriptors of principal human activities involved
in nonnative species dispersal (Table 2). For the purpose of
the present qualitative risk assessment of alien species
introductions via inland waterways, all these principal human
activities were considered potential pathways for any selected
ecosystem (as an assessment unit). Pathways are defined
according to 3 classifications (Table 3):
1. A pathway with low certainty of the existence of a specific
pathway for a specific assessment unit can be defined as a
‘‘low-risk pathway.’’
2. A pathway with a high level of certainty of its existence in
the assessment unit (as defined by the descriptors for the
operating pathway in Table 2) but with no evidence
existing of the introduction of alien species into the
assessment unit by this pathway during the observation
period (for the past 10 y in the present study), can be
defined as a ‘‘high-risk pathway.’’
3. Where the operating pathway can be defined as respon-
sible for an introduction of specific alien species into an
assessment unit during the past 10 y (even if only 1 record
of alien species within this period can be accounted for
with some level of certainty to the specific pathway), it can
be defined as an ‘‘extreme-risk pathway.’’
The 2nd stage of pathways analysis includes the estimation
of potential species-specific pathways for alien aquatic species
introduced into European inland, transitional, and coastal
waters via inland waterways that can be further used for es-
timation of species invasiveness (see the following discus-
sion).
The following DPSIR environmental indicators can be used
for the assessment of ‘‘driving forces’’ with regard to alien
species:
1. List of extreme-risk pathways for the assessment unit
2. List of high-risk pathways for the assessment unit
3. List of high-risk donor areas for the assessment unit
The high-risk donor areas for the assessment unit can be
defined in the process of the predictive environmental match
risk assessment coupled with an analysis of invasion routes
associated with shipping, canals, leisure activities, and some
other pathways, which is a matter for further studies and is
not considered in this paper.
Figure 2. The European inland water invasion network. Main European invasion corridors for the spread of aquatic species are indicated by solid lines: The
Northern corridor (NC), the Central corridor (CC), the Southern corridor (SC), the Western corridor (WC), the Southern Meridian corridor (SMC), and the
Northern Meridian corridor (NMC). Black crosses indicate main canals: 1 Volga–Don Canal, 2 Volga–Baltic Canal, 3 White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal, 4 Bug–Pripyat
Canal, 5 Vistula–Oder Canal (Bydgoski 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–Rho˚ne Canal, 12 Canal du Centre, 13 Canal de Briar, 14 Rhine–Marne Canal, 15 Kiel Canal, and 16 Gliwice Canal (after Galil et al.
2007, modified). Boxes indicate assessment units along main invasion corridors: NC1¼Don River and Azov Sea, NC2¼ lower part of Volga River and Caspian
Sea, NC3¼upper and middle parts of Volga River, NC4¼ Lake Ladoga, NC5¼Neva River Estuary, NC6¼Severnaya Dvina River, CC1¼Dnieper–Bug Liman, CC2¼
Dnieper River delta, CC3 ¼ Kahovka Reservoir, CC4 ¼ Zaporozhje and Dneprodzerzhinsk reservoirs, CC5 ¼ Kremenchug reservoirs, CC6 ¼ Kiev Reservoir, CC7 ¼
Kanev Reservoir, CC8¼ lower part of Pripyat River, CC9¼middle part of Pripyat River, CC10¼ Bug–Pripyat Canal, CC11¼middle part of Nemunas River, CC12¼
lower part of Nemunas River, CC13¼Curonian Lagoon, CC14¼middle and lower parts of Vistula River, CC14a¼Bug River, CC15¼Vistula Lagoon, CC16¼Oder
River with Bydgoski Canal and Szczecin Lagoon, SC1¼Danube River delta, SC2¼ lower part of Danube River, SC3¼middle part of Danube River, SC3a¼ Sava
River, SC3b ¼ Tisa River, SC4 ¼ upper part of Danube River, SC5 ¼ Main–Danube Canal, SC6 ¼ Main River, SC7 ¼ Rhine River, SC8 ¼ Rhine River delta.
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 115

ASSESSMENT OF INOCULATION RATES (PROPAGULE
PRESSURE) WITHIN THE ECOSYSTEM—DPSIR
‘‘PRESSURES’’
At the present, it is mainly indirect estimations of
inoculation rates (propagule pressure) that are possible via
proxies in relation to the quantitative estimations of specific
pathway strength. For instance, this approach can be applied
to shipping as a case study (cargo turnover for relative
estimations of inoculation via ballast water, ships hulls, and so
on). An alternative means of measuring propagule pressure is
via fish imports, which for England has been demonstrated to
provide a statistically significant means of estimating the
number of nonnative species (regulated species and orna-
mental varieties) in the wild from imports both at the regional
level and at the finer scale of 100 km2 (Copp et al. 2007a).
Direct estimations of the ‘‘absolute’’ inoculation rate are
possible in specific cases for intentional introductions if the
exact number of introduced species is known. In this study we
suggest assessing inoculation rate indirectly via the biological
contamination rate (‘‘biological contamination’’ of the eco-
system means the introduction of alien species regardless of
their abilities to cause negative ecological and/or socio-
economic impacts; in a case where impacts of introduced
alien species are measurable, the ‘‘biological pollution’’ of the
ecosystem should be evaluated—see the following sections
and definitions in Table 1).
The biological contamination rate (BCR) of the ecosystem
or any assessment unit can be estimated as a number of
recorded alien species in the assessment unit per reporting
period (e.g., total number of recorded alien species per year or
per 10 y). BCR values for the last reporting period (1997–
2007 in this study) were lowest for selected assessment units
within the Central invasion corridor, ranging from 0 to 7 alien
species per 10 y, and highest for water bodies of the Northern
and Southern invasion corridors, ranging from 2 to 12 and
from 3 to 14 alien species per 10 y, respectively (Table 4). The
BCR can be used as a DPSIR environmental indicator for
‘‘pressures.’’
The pathway-specific biological contamination rate (PBCR)
reflects the inoculation rate in the assessment unit by specific
pathways and can be estimated by the number of recorded
alien species in the assessment unit by a specific pathway
during the reporting period. The PBCRs for selected assess-
ment units for the last reporting period are provided in Table
4. The PBCR can be used as a DPSIR environmental indicator
for ‘‘pressures.’’ Where this rate ¼ 0, there is no biological
contamination by the existing pathway (high-risk pathway),
whereas if PBCR . 0, then the extreme-risk pathway can be
classified.
ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION OF
THE ECOSYSTEM—DPSIR ‘‘STATE’’
The biological contamination level (BCL) of the assessment
unit (ecosystem) reflects the invisibility of the ecosystem
(probability of establishment of alien species as a complex
function of abiotic and biotic resistance of the ecosystem to
biological invasions under a specific level of propagule
pressure). This feature of the ecosystem can be assessed via
estimation of the number of established alien species and
their relative roles in the structural organization of plant and
animal communities. For the purposes of our study, the BCL
is estimated as a number of established alien species in the
Table 2. List of pathways of invasive alien species introductions in Europe with descriptors for assessment of pathways,
currently operating in the assessment unit (AU) (modified from Minchin et al. 2007)
Nr Pathway Descriptors of operating pathway in AU
1 Shipping Regular passage of ships or port within the AU
2 Canals Presence of the canal within assessment unit or within river basin
3 Wild fisheries Commercial fishery exists in the area (stock movements, population
reestablishment, releases of organisms intended as living fish food
supplements, movement of fishing equipment)
4 Culture activities Aquaculture is practiced within the catchment area, or aquaculture
industry is present (including live bait trade)
5 Ornamental and live food trade Ornamental industry (including garden centers, ornamental ponds,
public aquaria) or live food trade exists in the area
6 Leisure activities Marina or marinas within AU or leisure craft visit AU or high human
activity with festivals and sporting events (including angling) with pro-
vided access via public parks; SCUBA diving
7 Alteration to natural water flow Changes of habitats during hydrotechnical activities (creation of
reservoirs, dams, dredging activities)
8 Thermal pollution Regular discharges of heated waters (power plants, untreated
wastewater discharges)
9 Research and education Experimental research activities with alien organisms are taking place,
or demonstration cultures of alien organisms exist
10 Biological control Biological control activities are known
11 Other Organic and chemical pollution, other habitat modification, discharged
live packing material used for nonliving products
116 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.

Table 3. Identification of potential (0, low risk) and operational (1, high risk; 2, extreme risk) pathways in assessment units
(AUs). NC ¼ Northern corridor, CC ¼ Central corridor, SC ¼ Southern corridor (for descriptors of pathways, see Table 2).
Numbers in parentheses indicate pathway-specific biological contamination rates (species per the period 1997–2007) for
the extreme-risk pathways
Code
of AU
Pathway
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8–11
Shipping Canals
Wild
fisheries
Culture
activities
Ornamental and
live food trade
Leisure
activities
Alteration to
natural water flow
Other
pathways
NC1 2 (2) 2 (5) 1 1 1 1 1 1
NC2 2 (12) 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
NC3 1 2 (2) 1 1 1 1 1 1
NC4 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 1
NC5 2 (4) 2 (1) 1 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 1 2 (1)
NC6 2 (1) 2 (4) 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1
CC1a 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
CC2a 1 1 1 1 2 (5) 1 1 1
CC3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CC4a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CC5 1 1 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1
CC6a 1 1 1 1 2 (3) 1 1 1
CC7a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CC8 2 (2) 1 1 2 (1) 1 1 1 1
CC9 2 (4) 1 1 2 (1) 1 1 1 0
CC10 2 (2) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
CC11 1 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 0
CC12 1 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 0
CC13 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 0
CC14 0 2 (5) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 1 2 (5) 1
CC14a 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 1
CC15 2 (3) 2 (4) 1 1 1 1 1 1
CC16 2 (5) 2 (4) 2 1 1 1 2 (5) 2 (3)
SC1a 1 1 1 1 2 (3) 1 1 1
SC2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
SC3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1
SC3a 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
SC3b 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
SC4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
SC5 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
SC6 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
SC7 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
SC8 2 (2) 2 (11) 1 1 1 1 2 1
a Assessment units with natural dispersal as dominating vector of alien species introductions.
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 117

assessment unit since 1900 (see Table 4). The BCL can be
used as a DPSIR Environmental indicator of ‘‘state.’’
The site-specific biological contamination (SBC) index has
been elaborated to assess biological contamination of the
specific sampling site within the assessment unit with respect
to ‘‘richness’’ and ‘‘abundance’’ contamination (see also
Arbacˇiauskas et al. 2008). In accordance to proportion of
alien taxonomic orders in the community (ordinal richness
contamination) and the relative abundance of alien individ-
uals in the community (abundance contamination), the
ecological status of specific location in the assessment unit
may decline from ‘‘high status’’ (SBC index ¼ 0, alien species
absent) to ‘‘bad status’’ (SBC index ¼ 4, ordinal richness
contamination and/or abundance contamination are higher
than 50%) (see Table 5 for biological contamination classes).
An example of assessment of SBC index for macrozoobenthic
communities and the corresponding ecological quality for 13
locations in 3 assessment units of River Pripyat are provided
(Figure 4). The SBC index can be used as a DPSIR
environmental indicator of ‘‘state’’ and for assessment of
ecological status of the specific location in a water body
(assessment unit) (Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 4).
The SBC index can be used to compare the biological
contamination of different locations within the assessment
unit (e.g., at or between specific sites, in different parts of an
invasion corridor) as well as for estimation of the integrated
biological contamination (IBC) index for the assessment unit
by averaging ‘‘richness’’ and ‘‘abundance’’ contamination of
study sites (within the assessment unit). The IBC index can be
ranked in the same way as the SBC index (Table 5; see also
example for macrozoobenthos of River Pripyet in Figure 4). If
the IBC indices for different communities of the assessment
unit (i.e., benthos, fish, macrophytes, and so on) are available,
an integrated estimation of biological contamination of the
whole ecosystem of the assessment unit may be obtained as a
median of the IBC indices of studied communities. The IBC
index can be used both as the DPSIR environmental indicator
(Figure 1) and for the assessment of ecological status of the
entire assessment unit (aquatic ecosystem) (Figure 4). The
IBC index estimates for selected assessment units indicate
high and severe biocontamination (low or bad ecological
status, respectively) of most studied ecosystems within the
European inland waterways (Table 4).
ASSESSMENT OF INVASIVENESS OF ALIEN SPECIES,
ESTABLISHED IN THE ECOSYSTEM (BIOLOGICAL
POLLUTION RISK)—DPSIR ‘‘IMPACTS’’
Actual impacts of established invasive alien species on
native species, communities, habitats, and ecosystem func-
tioning can be assessed using a biological pollution level (BPL)
index—an index developed to classify impacts of alien species
to 5 different levels (for detailed protocols, see Olenin et al.
2007). However, estimations of actual impacts of alien species
in specific aquatic ecosystems (e.g., assessment units) are not
always possible and usually require costly long-term research
efforts in the specific 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 indicators for ‘‘impacts’’ in the DPSIR framework.
For this purpose, we have developed a species-specific
biological pollution risk (SBPR) index, which is based on
the general assessment of the level of invasiveness of the
specific alien species according to the estimates of 3 such
descriptors of the species as potential to spread, potential for
establishment in a new environment, and potential to cause
ecological and negative socioeconomic impacts.
The species potential to spread is defined by many species
traits that can be species and life stage specific. Because of the
high level of complexity of these traits and uncertainty in
their relative ranking, the risk of rapid species dispersal can be
estimated qualitatively via such integrated descriptors as the
known diversity of species-specific pathways of introduction.
This knowledge is generally available from publications on
invasion histories of introduced aquatic species. Records of
alien species in more than 1 assessment unit can also be used
Table 4. Selected environmental indicators on alien species
for selected assessment units (AUs). BCR ¼ biological
contamination rate, records of alien species per 10 y (1997–
2007); BCL ¼ biological contamination level, number of
established alien species since 1900; IBC ¼ integrated
biological contamination index (estimated formacrozooben-
thos, after Arbacˇiauskas et al. 2008), BPL¼biopollution level
index (see Olenin et al. 2007), IBPR¼ integrated biopollution
risk index (estimated for macrozoobenthos) (see also Table 1
for definitions). N/A¼not assessed. Colors of cells for IBC and
IBPR indices correspond to ecological status estimates (see
classes in Table 5)
118 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.

as a qualitative indicator of high dispersal risk (see examples
in Table 6).
The potential for establishment in a new environment is
defined by biological traits of the species, such as their
euryhalinity, temperature tolerance, habitat generalism and
some other traits. Generally, the risk of rapid establishment in
a new environment can be attributed to a species if found at
high abundances in 2 or more invaded areas (assessment units).
The ecological impact of an invasive alien species can be
defined as the quantifiable negative effect on the recipient
environment, which can be measured using the existence of
scientific reports and publications (peer reviewed or not)
associated with a particular species introduction (Gozlan
2008). For example, if an aquatic alien species, following its
introduction into any particular country (within any water
body or the assessment unit), has been reported to cause
habitat degradation, to compete with native species for
spawning habitat, to hybridize with native species threatening
species integrity, and/or to prey on native species population
resulting in their decline or a depletion of native food
resources, such alien species can be considered as possessing
a high risk of causing ecological and socioeconomic impacts.
The risks of these adverse impacts can be also estimated
using the ‘‘ecosystem service approach for socioeconomic
impacts.’’ The following classification of impacts is adapted
from the ecosystem services approach described in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) (see also Binimelis
et al. 2007). By affecting the ecological processes, biological
invasions modify the provision of ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services are defined as ‘‘the conditions and the
processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species
that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life’’ (Daily
1997), encompass both ecological and socioeconomic
aspects, illustrating human dependence on ecosystem func-
tioning.
A species can be considered as likely to cause adverse
impacts if the answer to any of 8 following questions is ‘‘yes’’:
1. Does it cause loss of native biodiversity at species/
population, community, or ecosystem level?
2. Does it cause significant changes in ecosystem functions?
3. Does it cause loss in trophic production (e.g., food,
energy supply)?
4. Does it have an impact in terms of human access to
natural resources (e.g., biodiversity, wild fish, water
supply)?
5. Does it impact on human or domestic (cultured) animal
and plant health?
6. Does it cause impacts to recreational and aesthetic
activities?
7. Does it cause damage to infrastructure (including shore
erosion)?
8. Does it cause economic control costs?
This approach to the risk-based assessment of invasiveness
of the alien species, established in the aquatic ecosystem
(assessment unit), was further used in the formal procedure of
listing of alien species into the grey, white, and black lists
(Figure 3). According this procedure, if information on the
potential risks of rapid species dispersal, establishment, and
adverse impacts is not available, alien species should be
attributed to the grey list of species with ‘‘unknown risk’’
(unknown level of invasiveness, and the SBPR index remains
unidentified—‘‘N/A’’). In the cases where information is
available only on the risks of rapid species dispersal or
establishment, alien species can be specified as white-list
species with low biopollution risk (SBPR index ¼ 1, low level
of invasiveness). If information is available on both the risks of
rapid dispersal and establishment, then alien species can be
specified as white-list species with moderate biopollution risk
(SBPR index ¼ 2, moderate level of invasiveness). If
information is available on the risks of adverse impacts,
regardless of the existence of information on dispersal and
establishment risks, then the nonnative species can be
specified as a black-list species with high risk (SBPR index ¼
3, high level of invasiveness).
The black list of alien species for the assessment unit should
include all invasive species (i.e., all alien species that have high
potential to cause ecological impacts and/or high potential to
cause negative socioeconomic impacts).
Grey, white, and black lists can be specific to an assessment
unit: water body, river basin, country or region (sea basin)
specific, or pan-European. A preliminary list of alien benthic
macroinvertebrates for European inland waterways consists of
Table 5. Assessment of site-specific biological contamination
(SBC) index in relation to ratio of alien species in the
taxonomic composition of the specific aquatic plant or
animal community (richness contamination) and/or in total
abundance of aquatic organisms (abundance contamina-
tion). SBC index classes: 0, no biological contamination, blue
cell; 1, low biological contamination, green cell; 2, moderate
biological contamination, yellow cells; 3, high biological
contamination, orange cells; 4, severe biological contami-
nation, red cells, corresponding to high, good, moderate,
poor, and bad ecological status, respectively (modified from
Arbacˇiauskas et al. 2008)
Figure 3. Procedure for listing alien species according their potential
invasiveness. ‘‘Yes’’ in this scheme means that information on potential
invasiveness of the species is available, and ‘‘no’’ means ‘‘unknown,’’ or
information is not available (HRD ¼ high risk of dispersal, HRE ¼ high risk of
establishment in new environment, HRI¼high risk of adverse ecological and/
or socioeconomic impacts). See results of application of this procedure for
benthic macroinvertebrate species in Table 6.
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 119

48 species with 9, 15, and 24 organisms belonging to the grey,
white, and black lists, respectively (Table 6).
This ranking of alien species, according to their invasiveness
along with information on the relative abundance of invasive
alien species in specific locations of the assessment unit, can
be further used for estimation of the integrated biological
pollution risk (IBPR) index. Where no alien species are
present in the assessment unit, the IBPR index ¼ 0 (reference
conditions, or ‘‘high’’ ecological status sensu the Common
Implementation Strategy of the European Commission Water
Framework Directive). If alien species from the grey or white
list are present in relatively low abundances (less than 20% of
total abundance of alien and native species in the commun-
ity), then the IBPR index ¼ 1 (this may correspond to ‘‘good’’
ecological status of a water body). Relatively high abundance
of alien species (exceeding 20%) from the grey or white list
corresponds to an IBPR index of 2 (‘‘moderate’’ ecological
status). Where alien species from the black list are present in
the community, the IBPR index can be estimated as 3 in a
situation with relatively low abundance of these species
(‘‘poor’’ ecological status) or 4 in a situation with relatively
high abundance of black-list species (‘‘bad’’ ecological status)
with the same 20% threshold for ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ relative
abundances. Compared with the SBC and IBC indices, the
ecological status estimates based on the IBPR indices generally
are lower, as black-list species are found at all studied
locations in selected assessment units, and the presence (even
within 1 location of an assessment unit) of a ‘‘high’’ relative
abundance of these species will attribute the highest value of
IBPR index to this assessment unit (Figure 4 and Table 4).
Grey, white, and black lists of invasive species, species-
specific, and IBPR indices can be used as DPSIR Environ-
mental indicators of ‘‘impacts’’ (Figure 1). Also, the black list
can be used as the European Environmental Agency SEBI
2010 indicator ‘‘invasive alien species in Europe,’’ element
‘‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity in
Europe’’ (European Environment Agency 2007). In addition,
the IBP index can be recommended for the risk-based
estimation of ecological status of water bodies considering
alien species introductions as a specific pressure. The IBPR-
based estimates of ecological status of assessment units within
European inland waterways are generally lower than the
estimates based on the IBC indices, and the ecological status
of most of these ecosystems with regard to biopollution can
be estimated as ‘‘bad’’ (Figure 4 and Table 4).
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE RISK ASSESSMENT
TOOLKIT WITH AN EARLY WARNING SERVICE FOR
REPORTING OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT TO
STAKEHOLDERS—DPSIR ‘‘RESPONSES’’
Development of an online Risk Assessment Toolkit (Figure
1) for user-friendly risk assessment and risk communication
purposes is a part of the EC FP6 Integrated Project ALARM
Description of Work (WP 5.2). The component of the Risk
Assessment Toolkit relevant to nonnative species introduc-
tions via European inland waterways will include risk assess-
Figure 4. Assessment of site-specific biological contamination (SBC), integrated biological contamination (IBC), and integrated biological pollution risk (IBPR)
indices in 3 assessment units: Lower Pripyat River (CC8), middle Pripyat River (CC9) and Pripyat–Bug Canal (CC10), Belarus (rationale for ranking of SBC, IBC, and
IBPR indices for assessment of ecological status of specific locations and assessment units is provided in the text). Numbers in boxes, in %, indicate ordinal
richness contamination (RC), abundance contamination (AC), and maximal relative abundance of black-list species (AB) as estimate of the IBPR index.
120 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.

ment protocols, supporting information systems, the elec-
tronic journal Aquatic Invasions (www.aquaticinvasions.ru),
and transmitting information to the level of end users (Figure
5). Aquatic Invasions is serving as an instrument for protecting
authors’ rights on alien species information stored in the
database and as an early warning tool (Panov and Gollasch
2006). Also, the aquatic part of the Risk Assessment Toolkit
will be serving as the decision-support system, the online
transmitter of essential information needed for decision
making (Figure 1), and will provide links to nonnative species
risk assessment protocols and databases developed in frame-
works of other projects via the Regional Euro-Asian Biological
Invasions Centre Web portal (www.reabic.net). For instance,
the risk assessment protocols for aquaculture are currently
under development in the Sixth European Framework
Programme (FP6) IMPASSE project (www.hull.ac.uk/hifi/
IMPASSE).
In addition, the Risk Assessment Toolkit will provide links to
the developing ‘‘predictive’’ risk assessment tools aimed at
identifying potential invaders such as those developed for
freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, marine fish, marine
invertebrates, and amphibia (Copp et al. 2005b; www.cefas.co.
uk/4200.aspx). Although these tool kits are stand-alone pack-
ages, they are intended to be used within risk analysis frame-
works. For example, FISK and its related tool kits for aquatic
species have an integral (hazard identification) role in the GB
nonnative species risk assessment framework (www.defra.gov.
uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/non-native-risks/
index.htm). FISK has been calibrated and is currently being
tested in Belgium (Vandenbergh 2007), and these hazard
identification tools will be an integral part of the risk analysis
framework being developed by the FP6 IMPASSE project
(www.hull.ac.uk/hifi/IMPASSE) for the EU regulation on the
use of alien species in aquaculture. The various adaptations of
the risk assessment tool kits for aquatic organisms are FISK—
Freshwater Fish Invasiveness Scoring Kit, MFISK—Marine Fish
Invasiveness Scoring Kit, MI-ISK—Marine Invertebrate Inva-
siveness Scoring Kit, FISK—Freshwater Invertebrate Invasive-
ness Scoring Kit, and AmphISK—Amphibian Invasiveness
Scoring Kit (www.cefas.co.uk/4200.aspx).
CONCLUSIONS
The developed DPSIR environmental indicators for alien
species (‘‘drivers’’—list of extreme-risk pathways for assessment
units, list of high-risk pathways for assessment units, and list of
high-risk donor areas for assessment units; ‘‘pressures’’—
biological contamination rate (BCR) and pathway-specific
biological contamination rate (PBCR); ‘‘state’’—biological
contamination level (BCL) and the site-specific biological
contamination index (SBC) and integrated biological contam-
ination index (IBC); and ‘‘impacts’’—species-specific biological
pollution risk index (SBPR) and integrated biological pollution
risk index (IBPR) and grey, white, and black lists of alien species;
Figure 1) 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 manage-
ment of extreme-risk and high-risk pathways. The BCR and
PBCR can be used as indicators of the effectiveness of this
preventive management. In contrast, the management actions
Figure 5. Conceptual structure of the online Risk Assessment Toolkit (RAT) for aquatic alien species. EC ¼ European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu), EEA ¼
European Environment Agency (www.eea.europa.eu), CIESM¼ International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea (www.ciesm.
org), OSPAR ¼ OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (www.ospar.org), HELCOM ¼ Baltic Marine
Environment Protection Commission (www.helcom.fi), Cefas ¼ Cefas Risks and impacts of nonnative species decision support tools (www.cefas.co.uk/4200.
aspx), REABIC ¼ Regional Euro-Asian Biological Invasions Centre information system (www.reabic.net).
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 121

Table 6. Listing of alien species for selected assessment units within European inland waterways (only benthic
macroinvertebrates included). Numbers in cells for grey, white, and black lists indicate the species-specific biological
pollution risk index (N/A¼nonassessed). HRD¼high risk for dispersal of the species, HRE¼high risk for establishment, HRI¼
high risk of causing ecological and/or socioeconomic impacts
Higher taxon and
species name
Assessment
units
Grey
list White list Black list References
Hydrozoa
Cordylophora caspia
(Pallas, 1771)
NC5, CC7 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Paavola et al. 2005
Entoprocta
Urnatella gracilis
(Leidy, 1851)
CC1, SC1 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Paavola et al. 2005
Turbellaria
Dugesia tigrina Girard SC8 N/A Present study
Oligochaeta
Branchyura sowerbyi
(Beddard,1892)
SC2, SC3, SC3a,
SC3b
2 (HRD, HRE) Paunovic´ et al. 2005
Polychaeta
Ficopomatus enigmaticus
(Fauvel, 1923)
NC1, NC2 2 (HRD, HRE) Panov et al. 2007
Hypania invalida
(Grube, 1860)
CC4, CC5, CC6,
CC7, SC3, SC3a,
SC3b, SC4, SC8
2 (HRD, HRE) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Karatayev et al. 2008
Hypaniola kowalewskii
(Grimm, 1877)
CC4, CC5, CC7 2 (HRD, HRE) Alexandrov et al. 2007
Hirudinea
Cystobranchus fasciatus
(Kollar, 1842)
CC5 2 (HRD, HRE) Alexandrov et al. 2007
Archaeobdella esmonti
(Grimm, 1876)
NC3, CC5, CC7 2 (HRD, HRE) Alexandrov et al. 2007
Gastropoda
Lithoglyphus naticoides
(C. Pfeiffer, 1828)
NC2, NC3, CC8,
CC9, CC10,
CC11, CC12,
CC15, CC16,
SC2, SC3, SC3a,
SC3b, SC4, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Karatayev et al. 2008
Potamopyrgus antipodarum
(J.E. Gray, 1853)
NC1, CC1,
CC14, CC14a,
CC15, CC16,
SC1, SC3, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Present study
Theodoxus danubialis
(C. Pfeiffer, 1828)
SC3, SC3a 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Present study
Physella acuta
(Draparnaud 1805)
SC1, SC8 2 (HRD, HRE) Son 2007
Physella integra
(Haldeman, 1841)
SC1 2 (HRD, HRE) Son 2007
Ferrissia fragilis (Tryon,
1863)¼ Ferrissia
wautieri (Mirolli, 1960)
CC2, CC9,
CC10, SC1, SC8
2 (HRD, HRE) Son 2007
122 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.

Table 6. Continued
Higher taxon and
species name
Assessment
units
Grey
list White list Black list References
Bivalvia
Dreissena polymorpha
(Pallas, 1771)
CC9, CC10,
CC12, CC14,
CC14a, CC15,
CC16, SC2,
SC3, SC3a, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Karatayev et al. 2008
Dreissena rostriformis
bugensis (Andrusov,
1897)
SC1, SC2, CC3,
CC4, CC5, CC6,
CC7
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Son 2007
Hypanis colorata
(Eichwald, 1829)
CC4, CC5 2 (HRD, HRE) Son 2007
Corbicula fluminalis
(O.F. Mu¨ller, 1774)
CC16, SC1,
SC3, SC3a,
SC3b, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Haas et al. 2002
Corbicula fluminea
(O.F. Mu¨ller, 1774)
CC16, SC1, SC2,
SC3, SC3a,
SC3b, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) McMahon 2000;
Paunovic´ et al. 2007
Sinanodonta woodiana
(Lea, 1834)
SC3, SC3a,
SC3b
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Paunovic´ et al. 2006
Mya arenaria
(Linnaeus, 1758)
SC1, CC1, CC15 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Present study
Sessilia
Balanus improvisus
(Darwin, 1854)
NC2, CC15,
CC16
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Alexandrov et al. 2007;
Present study
Isopoda
Proasellus meridianus
(Racovitza, 1919A)
SC8 N/A Present study
Proasellus coxalis
(Dollfus, 1892)
SC8 N/A Present study
Jaera istri (Veuille, 1979) SC3, SC3b,
SC4, SC8
1–2 (HRD, HRE) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002
Jaera sarsi (Valkanov, 1936) CC4, CC5, CC7 N/A Alexandrov et al. 2007
Amphipoda
Chelicorophium
curvispinum
(Sars, 1895)
CC8, CC9, CC10,
CC11, CC12,
CC14, CC14a,
CC15, CC16,
SC2, SC3, SC3a,
SC3b, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Van Den Brink et al. 1993;
Bij de Vaate et al. 2002
Corophium robustum
(Sars, 1895)
SC3, SC3a, SC8 N/A Present study
Chaetogammarus
warpachowskyi
(Sars, 1894)
CC4, CC6, CC7,
CC11, CC12
2 (HRD, HRE) Present study
Chaetogammarus ischnus
(Stebbing, 1899)
CC8, CC9,
CC14, CC14a,
CC15, CC16,
SC2, SC3, SC4,
SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002
Risk Assessment of Aquatic Species Invasions—Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009 123

Table 6. Continued
Higher taxon and
species name
Assessment
units
Grey
list White list Black list References
Gammarus roeselii
(Gervais, 1835)
CC14, CC16 N/A Present study
Gammarus tigrinus
(Sexton, 1939)
CC14, CC15,
CC16, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Jazdzewski et al. 2004
Gmelinoides fasciatus
(Stebbing, 1899)
NC4, NC5 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Panov and Berezina 2002
Pontogammarus
robustoides
(G.O. Sars, 1894)
NC5, CC11,
CC12, CC14,
CC14a, CC15,
CC16
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Arbacˇiauskas and
Gumuliauskaite˙ 2007
Pontogammarus maeoticus
(Sowinsky,1894)
CC4, CC5, CC7 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Alexandrov et al. 2007;
Present study
Dikerogammarus
haemobaphes
(Eichwald,1841)
CC5, CC6, CC7,
CC8, CC9,
CC10, CC14,
CC14a, CC15,
CC16, SC2,
SC3, SC4, SC8,
SC3b
2 (HRD, HRE) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Present study
Dikerogammarus villosus
(Sowinsky, 1894)
CC5, CC6, CC7,
CC8, CC9,
CC14, CC14a,
CC16, SC3,
SC3a, SC3b,
SC4, SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002
Obesogammarus obesus
(Sars, 1894)
CC5, CC6, CC7,
SC4
N/A Present study
Obesogammarus crassus
(Sars, 1894)
CC5, CC6,
CC7, CC8,
CC12, CC15,
CC16
2 (HRD, HRE) Konopacka 2003
Mysida
Paramysis lacustris
(Czerniavsky, 1882)
NC1, CC12 N/A Present study
Limnomysis benedeni
(Czerniavsky, 1882)
NC1, CC8, CC9,
CC12, SC2, SC3,
SC3b, SC8
2 (HRD, HRE) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Present study
Hemimysis anomala
(G.O. Sars, 1907)
SC2, SC3, SC8 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Ketelaars et al. 1999
Katamysis warpachowskyi
(G.O. Sars, 1893)
CC4 3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Wittmann 2005
Decapoda
Orconectes limosus
(Rafinesque, 1817)
CC11, CC12,
CC14, CC14a,
CC15, CC16,
SC3, SC3b,
SC8
3 (HRD, HRE, HRI) Westman 2002
Athyaephyra desmarestii
(Millet, 1831)
CC16, SC8 N/A Present study
124 Integr Environ Assess Manag 5, 2009—VE Panov et al.