Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1197–1213 | Cite as

Turning population viability analysis on its head: using stochastic models to evaluate invasive species control strategies

  • Brett T. van PoortenEmail author
  • Martina Beck
  • Leif-Matthias Herborg
Original Paper


Control or eradication of invasive species is costly in terms of finances, labour and ecological and economic impact; the decision of how best to affect eradication or control may have long-term implications and costs. We suggest using population viability analysis (PVA) as a tool to evaluate relative efficacy of different control options for invasive species. PVA explicitly accounts for stochastic events impacting survival of populations at low abundance, which is critically important for representing founder effects of invasive species and appropriately calculating relative eradication probabilities. We demonstrate how PVA may be used to compare control options for hypothetical invasive populations of smallmouth bass, zebra mussels and northern pike. The model is parameterized using readily available parameters from the literature and provides a time series of population projections with uncertainty, as well as outcomes such as total control cost, probability of eradication and final abundance. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the ranking of various control options may change with parameter misspecification, demonstrating the importance of evaluate sensitivity prior to a final decision. When considering the appropriate response to invasive species, there is a trade-off between acting quickly and carefully considering all options using best available knowledge. PVA provides a balance between these two choices by providing a means to compare all control options and perspective values collaboratively with agencies and stakeholders in a way that quickly builds consensus for the most appropriate option(s) and facilitates action.


Eradication Stochastic Uncertainty Zebra mussel Smallmouth bass Northern pike 

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1890_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 6 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 6 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (6 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 6 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 8 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 8 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 7 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 7 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 6 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 6 kb)
10530_2018_1890_MOESM10_ESM.docx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (DOCX 11 kb)


  1. Allendorf FW, Lundquist LL (2003) Introduction: population biology, evoluation, and control of invasive species. Conserv Biol 17:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure (2017) Northern pike suppression in the Columbia River system. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, NelsonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bair LS, Yackulic CB, Springborn CB et al (2018) Identifying cost-effective invasive species control to enhance endangered species populations in the Grand Canyon. Biol Conserv 220:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter JTA, Doutaz DJ (2017) Lower Columbia River invasive northern pike suppression—2016 update. Trail, BCGoogle Scholar
  5. Beamesderfer RCP, North JA (1995) Growth, natural mortality, and predicted response to fishing for largemouth bass and smallmouth bass populations in North America. N Am J Fish Manag 15:688–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beissinger SR (2002) Population viability analysis: past, present, future. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 5–17Google Scholar
  7. Benke KK, Steel JL, Weiss JE (2011) Risk assessment models for invasive species: uncertainty in rankings from multi-criteria analysis. Biol Invasions 13:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodamer BL, Bossenbroek JM (2008) Wetlands as barriers: effects of vegetated waterways on downstream dispersal of zebra mussels. Freshw Biol 53:2051–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buhle ER, Margolis M, Ruesink JL (2005) Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories. Ecol Econ 52:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey MP, Sanderson BL, Friesen TA et al (2011) Smallmouth bass in the Pacific Northwest: a threat to native species; a benefit for anglers. Rev Fish Sci 19:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63:215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chu C (2001) Population of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in response to habitat supply. University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  13. Clady MD (1974) Food habits of yellow perch, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass in two unproductive lakes in northern Michigan. Am Midl Nat 91:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coggins LGJ, Yard MD, Pine WEI (2011) Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: an effective program or serendipitous timing? Trans Am Fish Soc 140:456–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conides A, Koussouris T, Gritzalis K, Bertahas I (1995) Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha: population dynamics and notes on control strategies in a reservoir in western Greece. Lake Reserv Manag 11:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coulson T, Mace GM, Hudson E, Possingham H (2001) The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 16:219–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crooks JA, Soule ME (1999) Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implications. In: Sandlund OT, Schei PJ, Viken A (eds) Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Kordrecht, pp 103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis M, McCarthy C, Beazley K (2017) A risk assessment for the introduction of invasive fish for Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site, Canada. Mar Freshw Res 68:1292–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egan SP, Barnes MA, Hwang C-T et al (2013) Rapid invasive species detection by combining environmental DNA with light transmission spectroscopy. Conserv Lett 6:402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Estevez RA, Anderson CB, Pizarro JC, Burgman MA (2014) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv Biol 29:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giles N, Wright RM, Nord ME (1986) Cannibalism in pike fry, Esox luciux L.: some experiments with fry densities. J Fish Biol 29:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Govindarajulu P, Altwegg R, Anholt BR (2005) Matrix model investigation of invasive species control: bullfrogs on Vancouver Island. Ecol Appl 15:2161–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths RW, Schloesser DW, Leach JH, Kovalak WP (1991) Distribution and dispersal of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakes region. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hebert PDN, Muncaster BW, Mackie GL (1989) Ecological and genetic studies on Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas): a new mollusc in the Great Lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1381–1388Google Scholar
  25. Hoenig JM (1983) Empirical use of longevity data to estimate mortality rates. Fish Bull 82:898–903. Google Scholar
  26. Johnson LE, Padilla DK (1996) Geographic spread of exotic species: ecological lessons and opportunities from the invasion of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Biol Conserv 78:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones TS (1990) Floodplain distribution of fishes in the Bitterroot River, with emphasis on introduced populations of northern pike. University of Montana, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A et al (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kowarik I (1995) Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. In: Pysek P, Prach K, Rejmanek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 15–38Google Scholar
  31. Lee C, King L (2015) Evaluation of northern pike (Esox lucius) in upper Lake Roosevelt and the lower Kettle River, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D et al (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc B 269:2407–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Litvak MK, Mandrak NE (1993) Ecology of freshwater baitfish use in Canada and the United States. Fisheries 18:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loppnow GL, Vascotto K, Venturelli PA (2013) Invasion of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu): history, impacts, and control. Manag Biol Invasions 4:191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lorenzen K (2000) Allometry of natural mortality as a basis for assessing optimal release size in fish-stocking programmes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:2374–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackie GL (1993) Biology of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and observations of mussel colonization on unionid bivalves in Lake St. Clair of the Great Lakes. In: Nalepa TF, Schloesser DW (eds) Zebra mussels: biology, impact and control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 153–165Google Scholar
  38. Maguire LA (2004) What can decision analysis do for invasive species management? Risk Anal 24:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manchester SJ, Bullock JM (2000) The impacts of non-native species on UK biodiversity and the effectiveness of control. J Appl Ecol 37:845–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McMahon TE, Bennett DH (1996) Walleye and northern pike: boost or bane to northwest fisheries? Fisheries 21:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McPhail JD (2007) The freshwater fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  42. Messing RH, Wright MG (2006) Biological control of invasive species: solution or pollution. Front Ecol Environ 4:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miehls ALJ, Mason DM, Frank KA et al (2009) Invasive species impacts on ecosystem structure and function: a comparison of Oneida Lake, New York, USA, before and after zebra mussel invasion. Ecol Model 220:3194–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Millar RB, Kennedy WA (1948) Pike (Esox lucius) from four Northern Canadian lakes. J Fish Res Board Canada 7:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller SJ, Haynes JM (1997) Factors limiting colonization of western New York creeks by the Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). J Freshw Ecol 12:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muhlfeld CC, Bennett DH, Steinhorst RK et al (2008) Using bioenergetics modeling to estimate consumption of native juvenile salmonids by nonnative northern pike in the upper Flathead River system, Montana. N Am J Fish Manag 28:636–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Myers RA, Bowen KG, Barrowman NJ (1999) Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:2404–2419Google Scholar
  48. Nalepa TF, Wojcik JA, Fanslow DL, Lang GA (1995) Initial colonization of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron: population recruitment, density and size structure. J Gt Lakes Res 21:417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norman JD, Whitledge GW (2015) Recruitment sources of invasive Bighead carp (Hypopthalmichthys nobilis) and Silver carp (H. molitrix) inhabiting the Illinois River. Biol Invasions 17:2999–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parker JD, Torchin ME, Hufbauer RA et al (2013) Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges? Ecology 94:985–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peterman RM, Anderson JL (1999) Decision analysis: a method for taking uncertainties into account in risk-based decision making. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 5:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pierce RB, Tomcko CM, Margenau TL (2003) Density dependence in growth and size structure of northern pike populations. N Am J Fish Manag 23:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pine WEI, Healy B, Smith EO et al (2013) An individual-based model for population viability analysis of humpback chub in Grand Canyon. N Am J Fish Manag 33:626–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Core Development Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna. Accessed 12 May 2016
  56. Reed JM, Mills LS, Dunning JBJ et al (2002) Emerging issues in population viability analysis. Conserv Biol 16:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rich BA (1993) Population dynamics, food habits, movement and habitat use of northern pike in the Coeur d’Alene River system. University of Idaho, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  58. Rinella MJ, Maxwell BD, Fay PK et al (2009) Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecol Appl 19:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberts L (1990) Zebra mussel invasion threatens U.S. waters. Science 249:1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schoenebeck CW, Hansen MJ (2005) Electrofishing catchability of walleyes, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, northern pike, and muskellunge in Wisconsin lakes. N Am J Fish Manag 25:1341–1352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1998) Freshwater fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications Ltd, OakvilleGoogle Scholar
  62. Shuter BJ, Matuszek JE, Regier HA (1987) Optimal use of creel survey data in assessing population behaviour: Lake Opeongo lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), 1936–83. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44(Suppl2):29–238Google Scholar
  63. Simberloff D (2003) How much information on population biology is needed to manage introduced species? Conserv Biol 17:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal 26:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strayer DL (2009) Twenty years of zebra mussels: lessons from the mollusk that made headlines. Front Ecol Environ 7:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strayer DL, Malcolm HM (2006) Long-term demography of a zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population. Freshw Biol 51:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thompson GG (1994) Confounding of gear selectivity and the natural mortality rate in cases where the former is a nonmonotone function of age. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:2654–2664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tyus HM, Saunders JFI (2000) Nonnative fish control and endangered fish recovery: lessons from the Colorado River. Fisheries 25:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. United States Geological Survey (2017) Nonindigenous aquatic species. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
  70. Vander Zanden MJ, Hansen GJA, Niggins SN, Kornis MS (2010) A pound of prevention, plus a pound of cure: early detection and eradication of invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. J Gt Lakes Res 36:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. The Blackburn Press, CaldwellGoogle Scholar
  72. Walters C, Korman J (1999) Linking recruitment to trophic factors: revisiting the Beverton–Holt recruitment model from a life history and multispecies perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish 9:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walters C, Martell S (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  74. Zipkin EF, Sullivan PJ, Cooch EG et al (2008) Overcompensatory response of a smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) population to harvest: release from competition? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:2279–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Crown 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change StrategyVancouverCanada
  2. 2.British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change StrategyVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Fisheries and Oceans CanadaSidneyCanada

Personalised recommendations