Exotic Aquatic Organisms - International Development Research ...

140
In the article "Strategies for reducing risk from introductions of aquatic organisms" by C.C.
Kohler (Fisheries 11(2): 2-3 (1986)), the definitions used, which were those of Shafland, P.L.
and W.M. Lewis 1984 (Terminology associated with introduced organisms. Fisheries 9(4): 17-
18), were explained thus:
For the present purposes, the terminology associated with introduced organisms follows
that of Shafland and Lewis (1984). They define introduced as a plant or animal moved
from one place to another by man (i.e., an individual, group, or population cr organisms
that occur in a particular locale due to man's actions). They define exotic as an organism
introduced from a foreign country (i.e., one whose entire range is outside the country
where found), and a transplant as an organism moved outside its native range but within
a country where it occurs naturally (i.e., one whose native range includes at least a
portion of the country where found). The above terminology was adopted by the AFS
Exotic (Introduced) Fish Section, but not without some debate. There is some
disagreement with respect to the "fish nationality" context inherent within the
terminology. Some scientists argue that since fish can't possibly recognize national
boundaries that the inclusion of "nationality" in terminology should be avoided. On the
other hand, man does recognize national boundaries, and since a fishery is defined as a
system composed of habitat, biota and man (Lackey 1974), the "nationality" usage would
seem to have validity. The term introduction implies man's involvement (Kohier and
Stanley 1984), and therefore should not be confused with natural migratory or
invasionary movements. Fortunately, the definition quandary can be effectively resolved
by referring to "introduced species" (exotics and transplants) when dealing with the topic
in an ecological context, and incorporating the "political" terminology when addressing
the international concerns.