Biocide treatment of invasive signal crayfish: successes, failures and lessons learned

Peay, S., Johnsen, S. I., Bean, C. W. , Dunn, A. M., Sandodden, R. and Edsman, L. (2019) Biocide treatment of invasive signal crayfish: successes, failures and lessons learned. Diversity, 11(3), 29. (doi: 10.3390/d11030029)

187818.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.



Signal crayfish, as an invasive alien species in Europe, have caused impacts on aquatic communities and losses of native crayfish. Eradication of recently established populations may be possible in small ponds (<2.5 ha) and short lengths of small watercourses using a nonselective biocide. Between 2004 and 2012, a total of 13 sites in the U.K. were assessed for suitability. Six were treated with natural pyrethrum and crayfish were successfully eradicated from three. In Norway, five sites were assessed and two sites were treated with a synthetic pyrethroid, cypermethrin, both successfully. In Sweden, three sites were treated with another synthetic pyrethroid, deltamethrin, all successfully. Defining the likely extent of population was critical in determining the feasibility of treatment, as well as the ability to treat the whole population effectively. Important constraints on projects included site size, habitat complexity, environmental risks, cooperation of landowners and funding availability. Successful projects were manageably small, had good project leadership, had cooperation from stakeholders, had access to resources and were carried out within one to three years. Factors influencing success included treating beyond the likely maximum geographical extent of the population and taking care to dose the treated area thoroughly (open water, plus the banks, margins, inflows and outflows). Recommendations are given on assessing the feasibility of biocide treatments and project-planning.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:The projects in Sweden were funded by the Swedish National Board of Fisheries and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, treatments were undertaken by the County Administrative Board on Gotland and additional information was provided by Rolf Gydemo (County Administration). The projects in Norway were financed by the County Governor of Telemark, the County Governor of Oslo and Akershus, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and the Directorate for Nature Management. Contributions to funding of the projects in the U.K. were made by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the Scottish Executive, Environment Agency (EA), the Tay Foundation, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Highland Council, English Nature (now Natural England) and also the Yorkshire Dales National Park, Esme Fairburn Foundation and Countryside Council for Wales.
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Bean, Professor Colin
Creator Roles:
Bean, C. W.Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review and editing
Authors: Peay, S., Johnsen, S. I., Bean, C. W., Dunn, A. M., Sandodden, R., and Edsman, L.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine
Journal Name:Diversity
ISSN (Online):1424-2818
Published Online:26 February 2019
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2019 The Authors
First Published:First published in Diversity 11(3): 29
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record