Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 2707–2716 | Cite as

Effecting compliance with invasive species regulations through outreach and education of live plant retailers

  • Daniel L. Oele
  • Kelly I. Wagner
  • Alison Mikulyuk
  • Chrystal Seeley-Schreck
  • Jennifer A. Hauxwell
Original Paper


Movement of organisms through the horticultural trade explains the majority of nonindigenous aquatic invasive plant introductions. Prevention is the most promising approach to reducing the spread of nonindigenous species, but key vectors persist. To better understand the risk posed by trade in aquatic plants, we surveyed all known aquatic plant retail locations in Wisconsin and quantified the prevalence of nonindigenous species in retail stock. We conducted an educational program that utilized in-person educational visits and mailed informational packets to inform vendors of existing regulations, increase accuracy of species identification, and create awareness of best management practices. We compared the change in prevalence of regulated nonindigenous species in trade following education. Educational visits and mailed informational packets were both associated with a decrease in the number of nonindigenous species available for sale. However, in-person education increased vendor compliance more than a single informational mailing. We observed an initial noncompliance rate of 51 % but even after education, 27 % of stores remained noncompliant. Our results suggest that education can improve compliance with invasive species regulations, but additional steps may be necessary to further reduce the rate of noncompliance.


Invasive species Invasive species management and policy Outreach and education 



We thank Scott Van Egeren, Elizabeth Haber and Diane Menuz for their invaluable contributions to study design, GIS support, and field work, and Paul Rasmussen for statistical support. We also thank Ryan Thum and his lab at Grand Valley State University for conducting our genetic and molecular identifications. This work was funded through US EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Grant No. 00E00804. We thank two anonymous reviewers for suggestions that greatly improved this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10530_2015_907_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (885 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 884 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (5.5 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 5659 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (419 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 419 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (555 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 554 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (277 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 277 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (260 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 259 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (72 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 71 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (60 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 59 kb)
10530_2015_907_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (439 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (PDF 438 kb)


  1. Aiken SG (1981) A conspectus of myriophyllum (haloragaceae) in North America. Brittonia 33:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbier EB, Knowler D, Gwatipedza J, Reichard SH, Hodges AR (2013) Implementing policies to control invasive plant species. Bioscience 63:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7.
  4. Bradley BA, Blumenthal DM, Early R, Grosholz ED, Lawler JJ, Miller LP, Sorte CJ, D’Antonio CM, Diez JM, Dukes JS, Ibanez I, Olden JD (2012) Global change, global trade, and the next wave of plant invasions. Front Ecol Environ 10:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt JW, Muir AA, Piovia-Scott J, Veblen KE, Chang AL, Grossman JD, Weiskel HW (2007) Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biol Invasions 9:909–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen J, Mirotchnick N, Leung B (2007) Thousands introduced annually: the aquarium pathway for non-indigenous plants to the St Lawrence Seaway. Front Ecol Environ 5:528–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diaz S, Smith JR, Zaleski SF, Murray SN (2012) Effectiveness of the California state ban on the sale of Caulerpa species in aquarium retail stores in Southern California. Environ Manag 50:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drew J, Anderson N, Andow D (2010) Conundrums of a complex vector for invasive species control: a detailed examination of the horticultural industry. Biol Invasions 12:2837–2851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duggan IC (2010) The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna. Biol Invasions 12:3757–3770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon DR, Gantz CA, Jerde CL, Chadderton WL, Keller RP, Champion PD (2012) Weed risk assessment for aquatic plants : modification of a New Zealand System for the United States. PLoS One 7:e40031PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groves RH (1998) Recent incursions of weeds to Australia 1971–1995. Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management System technical series no 3, pp 1–74Google Scholar
  14. Holeck KT, Mills EL, Macisaac HJ, Margaret R, Colautti RI, Ricciardi A (2004) Bridging troubled waters: biological invasions, transoceanic shipping, and the Laurentian Great Lakes. Bioscience 54:919–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  16. Hungerford HR, Volk T (1990) Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J Environ Educ 21(3):8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Israel GD, Easton JO, Knox GW (1999) Adoption of landscape management practices by Florida residents. HortTechnology 9:262–266Google Scholar
  18. June-Wells M, Vossbrinck CR, Gibbons J, Bugbee G (2012) The aquarium trade: a potential risk for nonnative plant introductions in Connecticut, USA. Lake Res Manag 28:37–41Google Scholar
  19. Keller RP, Lodge DM (2007) Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. Bioscience 57:428–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knapp D (2000) Memorable experiences of a science field trip. Sch Sci Math 100:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koop AL, Fowler L, Newton LP, Caton BP (2012) Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson BC, Israel GD, Knox GW, Finch CR, Butler J (2005) Evaluating landscape education programs: examples from Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania. In: Kiefer GK, Kirschner RJ (eds) Proceedings of the 4th national conference in nonpoint source and stormwater pollution education programs, Chicago, IL, October 17–20, Chicago Botanic Garden, pp 211–218Google Scholar
  23. Mack MC, Antonio CMD (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mack RN, Erneberg M (2002) The United States naturalized flora: largely the product of deliberate introductions. Ann Mo Bot Gard 89:176–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maki K, Galatowitsch S (2004) Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biol Conserv 118:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenzie-Mohr D (2013) Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BCGoogle Scholar
  27. Moody ML, Les DH (2010) Systematics of the aquatic angiosperm genus Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae). Syst Bot 35:121–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Padilla DK, Williams SL (2004) Beyond ballast water : aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 2:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perrings C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Williamson M (2005) How to manage biological invasions under globalization. Trends Ecol Evol 20:212–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peters JA, Lodge DM (2009) Invasive species policy at the regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Skawinski PM (2011) Aquatic plants of the upper midwest: a photographic field guide to our underwater forests. Skawinski, Stevens Point, WIGoogle Scholar
  33. Thum RA, Mercer AT, Wcisel DJ (2012) Loopholes in the regulation of invasive species: genetic identifications identify mislabeling of prohibited aquarium plants. Biol Invasions 14:929–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vander Zanden MJ, Olden JD (2008) A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1512–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wisconsin Administrative Code (2009) Invasive species identification, classification and control, chap 40. Legislative Reference Bureau, MadisonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Oele
    • 1
  • Kelly I. Wagner
    • 1
  • Alison Mikulyuk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chrystal Seeley-Schreck
    • 1
  • Jennifer A. Hauxwell
    • 3
  1. 1.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin Center for LimnologyMadisonUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin Aquatic Sciences CenterMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations