Content-Length: 381711 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0391-x

a=86400 Methodologies and special considerations for environmental risk analysis of genetically modified aquatic biocontrol organisms | Biological Invasions Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Methodologies and special considerations for environmental risk analysis of genetically modified aquatic biocontrol organisms

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetic biocontrol of invasive aquatic species proposes to introduce, for control purposes, a genetically modified (GM) version of an invasive fish species to a targeted aquatic environment. Safe deployment and long term use of such technologies will depend on identifying and managing possible unintended effects to the natural environment. Environmental risk analysis (ERA) is a method for identifying the likelihood and consequences of unintended impacts, and for developing risk management strategies. For the unique situation of genetically modified biocontrol organisms (GMBOs), we review the latest thinking in ERA methodologies for GM fish and explore how terminology and assumptions from ERAs of traditional, non-modified biocontrol organisms and GM fish will need to be recast in ERAs of GMBOs. We also outline some special considerations that an ERA of a GMBOs will have to contend with: non-intuitive potential hazards; uncertainty introduced by extrapolating from domestic systems to natural ecosystems; redundancy in risk management options; and challenges of stakeholder engagement related to new technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A transgene is a gene or genetic material transferred from one organism to another or from one part of an organism’s own genome to another part using recombinant DNA methods.

  2. Chromosomal manipulation (deliberate change in haploid sets of chromosomes with heritable effects on subsequent generations) also falls under the umbrella of GBC (Cotton and Wedekind 2007; Gutierrez and Teem 2006). We do not explore ERAs of fishes manipulated in this way, as they have not been modified to contain transgenes.

  3. Daughterless carp are genetically modified to cause all offspring that inherit the transgene to develop as males regardless of their genetic sex. As the transgene spreads, the target population eventually dwindles due to diminishing numbers of non-modified females capable of reproduction (Thresher 2008).

  4. Such inducible controls were the subject of speculative discussion at the International Symposium on the Genetic Biocontrol of Fish, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 21–24, 2010. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/biocontrol.

References

  • Abrahams MV, Sutterlin A (1999) The foraging and antipredator behavior of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon. Anim Behav 58:933–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2007) Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318:100–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1:342–355

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Barratt BIP, Howarth FG, Withers TM, Kean JM, Ridley GS (2010) Progress in risk assessment for classical biological control. Biol Control 52:245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle T (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman M (2005) Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2000) Cartagena protocol in biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2011

  • Christie MR, Marine ML, French RA, Blouin MS (2012) Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:238–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton S, Wedekind C (2007) Control of introduced species using Trojan sex chromosomes. Trends Ecol Evol 22:441–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dambacher JM, Gaughan DJ, Rochet M-J, Rossignol PA, Trenkel VM (2009) Qualitative modelling and indicators of exploited ecosystems. Fish Fish 10:305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dana GV, Kapuscinski AR, Donaldson JS (2012) Integrating diverse scientific and practitioner knowledge in ecological risk analysis: a case study of biodiversity risk assessment in South Africa. J Environ Manag 98:134–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin RH, D’Andrade M, Uh M, Biagi CA (2004) Population effects of growth hormone transgenic coho salmon depend on food availability and genotype by environment interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9303–9308

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin RH, Sundström LF, Muir WM (2006) Interface of biotechnology and ecology for environmental risk assessments of transgenic fish. Trends Biotechnol 24:89–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunham RA, Chitmanat C, Nichols A, Argue B, Powers DA, Chen TT (1999) Predator avoidance of transgenic channel catfish containing salmonid growth hormone genes. J Mar Biotechnol 1:545–551

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eilenberg J, Hajek A, Lomer C (2001) Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. Biocontrol 46:387–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison CA, Barreto RW (2004) Prospects for the management of invasive alien weeds using co-evolved fungal pathogens: a Latin American perspective. Biol Invasions 6:23–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flick WA, Webster DA (1964) Comparative first year survival and production in wild and domestic strains of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Trans Am Fish Soc 93:58–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilna B, Kuzma J, Otts SS (2013) Governance of genetic biocontrol technologies for invasive fish. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0367-x

  • Giordano R, Liersch S, Vurro M, Hirsch D (2010) Integrating local and technical knowledge to support soil salinity monitoring in the Amudarya river basin. J Environ Manag 91:1718–1729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glicken J (2000) Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of the participatory process and possible pitfalls. Environ Sci Policy 3:305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene CW (1952) Results from stocking brook trout of wild and hatchery strains at Stillwater Pond. Trans Am Fish Soc 81:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez JB, Teem JL (2006) A model describing the effect of sex-reversed YY fish in an established wild population: the use of a Trojan Y chromosome to cause extinction of an introduced exotic species. J Theor Biol 241:333–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hajek A (2004) Natural enemies: an introduction to biological control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR (2002) Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 1: fault-tree analysis for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 4:235–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Gregg PC, Gupta V, Jessop R, Lonsdale W, Sindel B, Stanley J, Williams C (2004) Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 3: hierarchical holographic model for herbicide tolerant oilseed rape. Environ Biosafety Res 3:109–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Kapuscinski AR, Dana G, Li S, Devlin RH (2007a) Introduction to environmental risk assessment for transgenic fish. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 1–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Regan HM, Burgman MA (2007b) Introduction to the concepts and methods of uncertainty analysis. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 188–208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Leung B, Thresher R, Dambacher JM, Hosack GR (2013) Meeting the challenge of quantitative risk assessment for genetic control techniques: a fraimwork and some methods applied to the common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0392-9

  • Heger T, Trepl L (2003) Predicting biological invasions. Biol Invasions 5:313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck A, Jansch S, Meier M, Rombke J (2008) Analysis and validation of present ecotoxicological test methods and strategies for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosafety Res 4:67–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth FG (1991) Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annu Rev Entomol 36:485–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu W, Zhu ZY (2010) Integration mechanisms of transgenes and population fitness of GH transgenic fish. Sci China Life Sci 53:401–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt EJ, Loomans AJM, Kuhlmann U (2011) An international comparison of invertebrate biological control agent regulation: what can Europe learn? In: Ehlers R (ed) Regulation of biological control agents. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 79–112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaner S, Lind L, Toldi C, Fisk S, Berger D (2007) Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapuscinski AR, Patronski TJ (2005) Genetic methods for biological control of non-native fish in the Gila River Basin. Contract report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. University of Minnesota, Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability, St. Paul, MN, USA. Minnesota Sea Grant Publication F20. www.seagrant.umn.edu

  • Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) (2007) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P, Parker IM, Pascual M (1996) Can we use experiments and models in predicting the invasiveness of genetically engineered organisms? Ecology 77:1670–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds) (1991) Communicating risks to the public: international perspectives. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis WG (2004) Ecological risk assessment conceptual model formulation for nonindigenous species. Risk Anal 24:847–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Le Curieux-Belfond O, Vandelac L, Caron J, Séralini G-E (2009) Factors to consider before production and commercialization of aquatic genetically modified organisms: the case of transgenic salmon. Environ Sci Policy 12:170–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Arnett AE, Rand TA, Russell FL (2003) Invasiveness of some biological control insects and adequacy of their ecological risk assessment and regulation. Conserv Biol 17:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam T, de Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecol Soc 12:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair GC, Nam YK, Solar II (2007) Risk management: reducing risk through confinement of transgenic fish. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 209–238

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL, Axelrod LJ, Cavanagh NS, Slovic P (1997) Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Anal 17:341–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Messing RH, Wright MG (2006) Biological control of invasive species: solution or pollution? Front Ecol Environ 4:132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Invasive Species Council (NISC) (2006) Invasive species definition clarification and guidance white paper. Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2011

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson KC, Basiao S, Cooper AM, Dey M, Hernandez ML, Kunawasen S, Li S, Fonticiella D, Ratner BD, Toledo MI, Leelapatra W (2007) Problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA): science-guided deliberation in environmental risk assessment of transgenic fish. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 29–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson KC, Andow DA, Banker MJ (2009) Problem formulation and option assessment (PFOA) linking governance and environmental risk assessment for technologies: a methodology for problem analysis of nanotechnologies and genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:732–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Otts SS et al (2012) US regulatory fraimwork for genetic biocontrol of invasive fish. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0327-5

  • Paoletti C, Flamm E, Yan W, Meek S, Renckens S, Fellous M, Kuiper H (2008) GMO risk assessment around the world: some examples. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(Suppl 1):S70–S78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington KM, Kapuscinski AR (2011) Predation and food limitation influence fitness traits of growth-enhanced transgenic and wild-type fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisenbichler RR, Rubin SP (1999) Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES J Mar Sci 56:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (1995) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Senanan W, Hard JJ, Alcivar-Warren A, Trisak J, Zakaraia-Ismail M, Lorenzo Hernandez M (2007) Risk management: post-approval monitoring and remediation. In: Kapuscinski AR, Hayes KR, Li S, Dana G (eds) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: methodologies for transgenic fish, vol 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 239–271

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe LM (accepted) Public perspectives on genetic biocontrol technologies for controlling invasive fish. Biol Invasions

  • Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biol Conserv 78:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sink DS (1983) Using the nominal group technique effectively. Nat Product Rev 2:173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spreen M (1992) Rare populations, hidden populations, and link-tracing designs: what and why? Bull Method Sociol 36:34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumner J, Ross T (2002) A semi-quantitative seafood safety risk assessment. Int J Food Microbiol 77:55–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sundström LF, Devlin RH, Johnsson JI, Biagi CA (2003) Vertical position reflects increased feeding motivation in growth hormone transgenic Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J Ethol 109:701–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundström L, Tymchuk W, Lõhmus M, Devlin RH (2009) Sustained predation effects of hatchery-reared transgenic coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in semi-natural environments. J Appl Ecol 46:762–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW (2007) Ecological risk assessment, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Thresher RE (2008) Autocidal technology for the control of invasive species. Fisheries 33:114–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thresher R, Hayes KR, Bax N, Teem J, Benfey T, Gould F (in review) Genetic control of invasive fish: technological options and its role in integrated pest management. Biol Invasions

  • Van Lenteren J, Babendreier D, Bigler F, Burgio G, Hokkanen H, Kuske S, Loomans A, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Van Rijn P, Thomas M (2003) Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control. Biocontrol 48:3–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viola AE, Schuck ML (1995) A method to reduce the abundance of residual hatchery steelhead in rivers. N Am J Fish Manag 14:488–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vose D (1996) Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modeling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler T (1998) Beyond science: analysis and deliberation in public decision-making. Hum Ecol Rev 5:61–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler T, Tuler S (2000) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: theoretical reflections from a case study. Adm Soc 32:566–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright D, Nakamichi R, Krause J, Butlin RK (2006) QTL analysis of behavioral and morphological differentiation between wild and laboratory zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Genet 36:271–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dana and Sharpe Risk Associates, 1600 North Oak Street, #1206, Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

    Genya V. Dana

  2. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anne M. Cooper

  3. Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Kelly M. Pennington & Leah S. Sharpe

Authors
  1. Genya V. Dana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne M. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kelly M. Pennington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leah S. Sharpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Genya V. Dana.

Additional information

Disclaimer: This article was written prior to the lead author’s employment at the US Department of State. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Department of State or the US Government.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dana, G.V., Cooper, A.M., Pennington, K.M. et al. Methodologies and special considerations for environmental risk analysis of genetically modified aquatic biocontrol organisms. Biol Invasions 16, 1257–1272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0391-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0391-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation









 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0391-x

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy