|
To reference
this article:
Browne RK. 2006.
Imported
Aquarium Fish Threaten Aquatic Biodiversity.
www.seadragonfoundation.org
This article was updated
from a publication in the Marine Life of South Australia, Journal, 2003.
This article talks about aquariums for the Leafy Seadragon. The Seadragon
Foundation would like to see the establishment of a public seadragon
aquarium.
IMPORTED AQUARIUM FISH THREATEN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY
Dr Robert
Browne and Neville Skinner
The import of
Aquarium Fish to Australia threatens the endemic aquatic biodiversity of
both freshwater band marine eco-systems, and could devastate Australia’s
aquaculture industry. This trade is mostly unnecessary and can threaten
Australian species through the introduction of disease, escapees
establishing feral populations, and discouraging the establishment of
Australian endemics as aquarium species.
The risks
associated with both pathogens and feral species demands the highest
quarantine standards and a very high justification of the importation of any
aquatic species. These requirements are not mandate in Australia’s
quarantine practices. The legislation and implementation of these
requirements should be a high priority for any aquatic conservation
organization. To fail will inevitably mean the devastation of whole groups
of Australia’s aquatic species.
Each year
8-10million ornamental aquarium fish are imported into Australia from about
100 countries. The hazards of the import of these fish are little known
with few scientific publications on ornamental fish disease, compared to
farmed fish disease, and much fewer when compared to disease in terrestrial
species. In 2006, 22 species of feral ornamental fish were established in
Australian waterways with numerous freshwater plants and mollusks. These
aquatic organisms can provide direct transmission for establishing pathogens
in native fish and other aquatic life (ABC 2007).
Australia has
a stringent policy relative to other countries which includes pre-border
health certification and a mandatory quarantine period at border of 1-3
weeks in registered government supervised quarantine premises. Nevertheless
many diseases have been established from ornamental fish in farmed native
Australian and free living introduced fish. These include viral, bacterial,
fungal, protozoal and metazoan pathogens with recent escapees including
Aeromonas salmonicida. Aeromonas salmonicida has the capacity to
devastate the salmon and trout industry and unknown species of native fish
(Whittington and Chong 2007).
Australia’s
stringent quarantine policies for imported ornamental fish have been shown
to be inadequate for the prevention disease incursions and exotic pathogens
will become established as a result of the ornamental fish trade. Prof
Whittington said (sic), “The number of ornamental fish traded and permitted
sources need dramatic reduction to facilitate hazard identification, risk
assessment and import quarantine controls”. Although a quarantine period of
three weeks is mandatory for imported fish, many introduced diseases have
passed quarantine (ABC 2007). Quarantine requirements to prevent the
establishment of any possible disease should be mandatory, irrelevant of the
quarantine period required.
Neville
Skinner, MLSSA secretary says “I understand Prof Whittington was talking
about the potential diseases carried in on these exotic imports; but I would
like to extend the point to why we allow these species in the first place!
Perhaps a good starting point for fish quarantine would be a valid
justification in terms of public benefit to import a species.”
Quarantine
requirements should also include strict provisions to justify the import of
any aquatic species to lower the risk of feral species. Imported species
continue to offer a threat to aquatic biodiversity. A good example being the
European carp now widely spread in Australian freshwaters. Besides disease
prevention the restriction of the import of fish would also encourage the
keeping of native fish and the establishment of attractive varieties to
establish captive populations in case of crashes in wild stocks (Ziemann
2001). The creation of a dynamic and substantial aquarium and aquaculture
industry with native Australian fish is essential to the maintenance of
their biodiversity. Current aquarium species can be produced in Australia,
with the need for novel types being generated from native species.
Images of AQIS
officer Melissa Danielse with a red piranha.
These and other exotic fish could become a nightmare in our waterways.
There have
been a number of instances of close calls and failures to prevent the spread
of disease from imported fish. Professor Richard Whittington says “...the
gourami iridovirus killed 90 per cent of Murray cod on a farm in Victoria
and could have been devastating if it infected wild Murray cod, which is
considered a threatened species. Fortunately the farm did not discharge its
effluent into a river, a common industry practice” (ABC 2007).
Another
example of the ease with which fish escapees or associated disease could
affect precious freshwater systems. Skinner says “And then consider this
point in the light that a trout farm adjacent to Ewens Ponds discharges its
water into Ewens Pond 3, which contains 6 to 7 species of protected &/or
endangered native fish. What if either the trout or their diseases escaped
into the Ewens Ponds/Eight mile Creek system.” Even if imports are allowed
why can’t they be managed to prevent reproduction. There are a number of
ways to prevent the reproduction of fish, including chemicals, sterile
hybrids, or the legal importation of fish of only one sex.
Disease
through imported fish also threatens Australia diverse range of unique and
freshwater crustaceans. These include the well known aquaculture and
recreation species yabbies, redclaw and marron. However, Australia is also
home to the largest freshwater crustacean the encouraged Tasmanian giant
crayfish (Wikipedia 2007: IUNC 2007), and a range of large beautiful species
of aquarium potential found along the eastern coast of Australia (NFA 2007).
There are also many terrestrial crayfish of great biological significance.
In Europe,
the crayfish plague fungus Aphanomyces astaci has eliminated many
native European stocks of crayfish. The crayfish plague is believed to have
originated in the 1860’s in Lombardy, Italy from introduced North American
freshwater crayfish and then the disease spread through Europe. Crayfish
plague entered Britain in 1981 and also now infests Turkey, Greece and
Norway. What is to stop similar diseases entering Australia through imported
water or fish. The 21 day quarantine period would not necessarily expose
such pathogens.
 Environmental
tragedy on a global scale has occurred to amphibians through the release by
inadequate quarantine practices of aquatic Chytrid fungus. This disease is
responsible for many frog extinctions in Australia, and is currently wiping
frogs out on mass in South America.
The Green and
Golden Bell Frog
Litoria aurea
almost died out mainly from Chyrid fungus. The Motorbike frog L.
moorei is now part of extensive research program to gene bank Western
Australian threatened frogs.
Nearly
one-third of the world's 5,743 amphibian species are classified as
threatened with extinction and the amphibian fungal disease chytridiomycosis
is the worst infectious disease ever recorded among vertebrates in terms of
number of species impacted and threat of extinction (Browne et al. 2007: CI
2006).
 
The Lake
Titicaca frogs
Telmatotobium
spp. live in the cold mountain lakes in Bolivia, South America. Their
numbers have dropped to a critical level. The last of the frogs are being
taken for amphrodisiacs, to be blended up with banana. These totally aquatic
frogs have loose skin through which they respire. The cold water with high
oxygen enables these slow frogs to get enough oxygen without surfacing.
This could have begun as an adaptation to overwintering under ice. Image by
Dante Fenolio, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
Problems with
the importation of unsanitised aquatic products have already extended to the
marine environment. These include both the possibility of aquarium supplies
and unknown sources. Caulerpa taxifolia was probably introduced into
South Australia, and other countries, from aquariums. This invasive marine
weed has the potential to reduce fisheries production and reduce marine
biodiversity (NOAH 2007).
In southern
Australia the mass die offs of pilchards followed a pathology pattern
consistent with a novel exotic pathogen. However, no direct evidence was
obtained to determine the possible method for any introduction (Fletcher et
al. 2007).

A novel type
the Willyama seahorse was the victim of mass stranding over the last few
years. There were particularly large strandings in 2006 with the sea “to
thick with the bodies to cast a line”. These strandings are the largest
ever recorded in human history. Their strrandings cause is still unknown.
Skinner says
another example of poor quarantine in general is the importation of
unfumigated wooden pallets. Australian manufacturers exporting to Europe are
compelled to use clearly marked ‘Fumigated Pallets’ in accordance with the
“ISPM15” international standard, but the same companies when importing goods
on wooden pallets are not required to specify ‘Fumigated Pallets’ indicating
a general malaise in quarantine laws in Australia.
Even though
the quarantine regulations need improvement the Australian Quarantine and
Inspection service is vigorously pursuing offenders. In 2007 offenders
imported aquarium fish in Perth, a 45 year old female was fined more than
$30,000 for attempting to smuggle 51 exotic aquarium fish through Melbourne
airport, and as a consequence of a two year investigation a Brisbane
aquarium fish importer was sentenced to two and a half years prison for
attempted fish smuggling. A 2.5 kilogram red piranha that may have been
imported legally in the past as a fingerling was seized in Adelaide (AQIS
20/04/07).
All four cases
illustrate the importance of Australia’s quarantine laws. Prohibited fish
could introduce exotic viruses, fungi or parasites that could threaten
Australia’s native fish and amphibians and aquaculture industries. Escaped
aquarium fish could also prey on native species, compete for food or destroy
river and lake habitats (AQIS-20/04/07).
References:
ABC Science
Online. 2007. Aquarium fish ‘threaten biodiversity’, Anna Salleh,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1927246.htm
AQIS Press
release 20/04/07 AQIS 20710. Media contact Carson Creagh: 02 8334 7645, 0414
577 427.
Browne, R.K.,
Zippel, K., Odum A.R., Herman, T. 2007. Physical facilities and associated
services. Use of amphibians in research, laboratory, or classroom settings.
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR), Volume 48, 3 (in press).
CI. 2006.
Conservation International. Science: Global Action Team Needed to Stem
Amphibian Extinction Crisis. http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2006/070606.xml
NFA. 2007.
Native Fish Australia. Spiny Freshwater Crayfish. http://www.nativefish.asn.au/spiny.html
NOAA. 2007.
Facts about Caulerpa taxifolia. NOAA. National Marine Fisheries
Service. Southwest Regional Office.
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/caulerpa/factsheet203.htm
Fletcher WJ, Jones B, Pearce AF, Hosja W. 2007. Western Australian
Department of Fisheries. Environmental and biological aspects of the mass
mortality of Pilchards (Autumn 1995) in Western Australia. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/frr/frr106/index.php?0401
Whittington
RJ, Chong R. 2007. Global trade in ornamental fish from an Australian
perspective: The case for revised import risk analysis and management
strategies. Previews of Veterinary Medicine. Epub ahead of print.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/sarahferriss/article/1296825
Wikipedia.
2007. Tasmanian giant freshwater crayfish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astacopsis_gouldi
AQIS ISPM15
Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.daffa.gov.au/aqis/import/timber/ispm-15-faq
http://www.daffa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/114236/ispm15.pdf
Ziemann DA.
2001. The Potential for the Restoration of Marine Ornamental Fish
Populations through Hatchery Releases. Aquarium Science and Conservation.
3(1-3): 107-117.
|