Abstract
As of the end of 2008, 25 species of non-native fishes have been documented in the Republic of Belarus. Of these, 17 (68%) species were deliberately introduced for aquaculture, six (24%) species invaded from the adjacent territories by natural dispersal, and two (8%) species were likely introduced accidentally. During the 20th century, the number of non-native fishes in Belarus increased exponentially, resulting in significant shifts in taxonomic composition of the country's ichthyofauna. For the first time, we assessed the invasive potential of the introduced fishes by applying a uniform protocol, the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK). Based on the total FISK scores, all the non-native fishes in Belarus were classified into two groups: high and medium risk of becoming invasive. In terms of the economic sectors at risk ('aquacultural/fisheries', 'environmental', and 'nuisance'), all species were classified into three distinct groups. The highest risk to all of these sectors wa s posed by the brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Le Sueur, 1819, gibel carp Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782), round goby Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814), Amur sleeper Perccottus glenii Dybowski, 1877, and topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846). The two risk categories identified in the present study can be used in prioritizing the resources for the management of non-native fish species of Belarus and in countries with similar environmental conditions.
Highlights
The translocations of non-native fishes that have already been introduced in Belarus are on the official agenda of the government, which aims at increasing the volume of fish production (The Republican Programme 2006)
We first reviewed current knowledge on the diversity and distribution of non-native fishes of Belarus, and classified the list of existing non-native species according to their invasiveness potential as defined using scores produced by FISK, the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (Copp et al 2005b, 2009)
Twelve species (48%) have established selfsustaining populations, including the brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Le Sueur, 1819, gibel carp Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782), common carp Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758), Amur sazan Cyprinus carpio haematopterus Temminck et Schlegel, 1846, threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus, 1758, monkey goby Neogobius fluviatilis (Pallas, 1814), racer goby Neogobius gymnotrachelus (Kessler, 1857), round goby Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814), Amur sleeper Perccottus glenii Dybowski, 1877, tubenose goby Proterorhinus marmoratus (Pallas, 1814), topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846), and ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius (Linnaeus, 1758)
Summary
The Republic of Belarus is currently subject to introductions of many non-native species (Semenchenko and Pugachevskiy 2006; Karatayev et al 2008), including fishes (Rizevsky and Ermolaeva 2002; Rizevsky 2004; Semenchenko and Pugachevskiy 2006; Rizevsky et al 2007; Mastitsky and Veres 2008). The main aim of the present study was to identify which of the existing non-native fishes of Belarus are potentially invasive This is intended to assist environmental managers in deciding which of the existing non-native species would be suitable for use in aquaculture without posing a substantial risk to the environment. To achieve this aim, we first reviewed current knowledge on the diversity and distribution of non-native fishes of Belarus, and classified the list of existing non-native species according to their invasiveness potential as defined using scores produced by FISK, the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (Copp et al 2005b, 2009). Species that are found to pose high risks to Belarus should be subjected to subsequent full risk assessment (Copp et al 2005b)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
