Abstract
Perceptions related to the importance of genetic research influence the mobilization of genetic tools and concepts to inform conservation actions. Research characteristics, stakeholders’ perspectives, knowledge, and social linkages with geneticists influence the outcome of genetic information for management practices. We surveyed a broad range of aquatic invasive species (AIS) specialists whose opinions, perspectives, and decisions influence AIS decision-making. We assessed perceptions related to the importance of genetic tools and concepts, as well as the appropriateness of genetic biocontrol, and tested whether their expertise, background, and experience influenced perceptions in a predictable way. While perceptions towards genetic tools and concepts were generally heterogeneous, there was a high consensus (84%) related to the importance of eDNA. Most predictors were weakly correlated with importance ratings. Specialists’ genetic knowledge was the strongest predictor of higher importance ratings: the odds of AIS specialists giving higher ratings increased by up to 1.5-fold with increasing genetic knowledge. When evaluating the appropriateness of genetic biocontrol, level of support was lower for approaches based on gene editing (58%) than those relying on traditional hatchery techniques (70%). Support for gene editing varied by geographic location and with specialists’ knowledge of genetics and AIS management. These findings suggest that perceptions towards genetic research vary between genetic tools and concepts and are shaped by the interplay of individual’s values, expertise, experience, and background. To collaborate more effectively, genetic scientists must understand the extent of genetic knowledge of their AIS management partners and recognize that their conceptions of the conservation genetics research-practice space may vary.
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-022-02758-x/MediaObjects/10530_2022_2758_Fig1_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-022-02758-x/MediaObjects/10530_2022_2758_Fig2_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-022-02758-x/MediaObjects/10530_2022_2758_Fig3_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-022-02758-x/MediaObjects/10530_2022_2758_Fig4_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-022-02758-x/MediaObjects/10530_2022_2758_Fig5_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-022-02758-x/MediaObjects/10530_2022_2758_Fig6_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
R scripts are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 16:613–622
Beaulieu M, Costantini D (2014) Biomarkers of oxidative status: missing tools in conservation physiology. Conserv Physiol 2:1–16
Beever EA, Leary JO, Mengelt C, West JM, Julius S, Green N et al (2016) Improving conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for understanding species ’ fundamental and realized adaptive capacity. Conserv Lett 9:131–137
Bernos A, Jeffries KM, Mandrak NE (2020) Linking genomics and fish conservation decision making: a review. Rev Fish Biol Fish 1–18 (in press)
Britt M, Haworth SE, Johnson JB, Martchenko D, Shafer ABA (2018) The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap. Biol Conserv 218:118–123
Buschke FT, Botts EA, Sinclair SP (2019) Post-normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation. Conserv Sci Pract 1:1–9
Buxton RT, Nyboer EA, Pigeon KE, Raby GD, Rytwinski T, Gallagher AJ et al (2021) Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science, 1–11
Carim KJ, Bean NJ, Connor JM, Baker WP, Jaeger M, Ruggles MP et al (2020) Environmental DNA sampling informs fish eradication efforts: case studies and lessons learned. North Am J Fish Manag 40:488–508
Cayuela H, Rougemont Q, Prunier JG, Moore J, Clobert J, Bernatchez L (2018) Demographic and genetic approaches to study dispersal in wild animal populations: a methodological review. Mol Ecol 27:3976–4010
Christensen R (2019a) Cumulative link models for ordinal regression with the R Package ordinal
Christensen R (2019b) Ordinal-regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019b 12-10
Christensen RHB (2019c). A tutorial on fitting cumulative link mixed models with clmm2 from the ordinal Package. 1, 1–10
Cook CN, Sgrò CM (2018) Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation. Evol Appl 11:1371–1388
Cook CN, Sgro CM (2019) Conservation practitioners’ understanding of how to manage evolutionary processes. Conserv Biol 33:993–1001
Cook CN, Sgrò CM (2019) Poor understanding of evolutionary theory is a barrier to effective conservation management. Conserv Lett 12:1–14
Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW, Hugh P, Fuller RA (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conserv Biol 27:669–678
Cristescu ME (2015) Genetic reconstructions of invasion history. Mol Ecol 24:2212–2225
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation(CSIRO) (2019) Inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads
Darling JA (2015) Genetic studies of aquatic biological invasions: closing the gap between research and management. Biol Invas 17:951–971
Darling JA, Jerde CL, Sepulveda AJ (2021) What do you mean by false positive? Environ DNA 3:879–883
Dunker KJ, Sepulveda AJ, Massengill RL, Olsen JB, Russ L, Wenburg JK, Antonovich A (2016) Potential of Environmental DNA to evaluate Northern Pike (Esox lucius) eradication efforts: an experimental test and case study. PLoS ONE 11:e0162277
Estoup A, Guillemaud T (2010) Reconstructing routes of invasion using genetic data: why, how and so what? Mol Ecol 19:4113–4130
Fitzpatrick BM, Fordyce JA, Niemiller ML, Reynolds RG (2012) What can DNA tell us about biological invasions ? Biol Invas 14:245–253
Frewer LJ, Van Der Lans IA, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, Van Der Berg I, Zimmermann K (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30:142–152
Goldberg CS, Turner CR, Deiner K, Klymus KE, Thomsen PF, Murphy MA et al (2016) Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1299–1307
Guyen AN, Hirsch PE, Adrian-kalchhauser I, Burkhardt-holm P (2016) Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio 45:280–289
Harzing A (2006) Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. Int J Cross Cult Manag 6:243–266
Hendry AP, Kinnison MT, Heino M, Day T, Smith TB, Fitt G et al (2011) Evolutionary principles and their practical application. Evol Appl 4:159–183
Hoban SM, Hauffe HC, Perez-Espona S, Arntzen JW, Bertorelle G, Bryja J et al (2013) Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conserv Genet Resour 5:593–598
Holderegger R, Balkenhol N, Bolliger J, Engler JO, Gugerli F, Hochkirch A et al (2019) Conservation genetics: linking science with practice, 3848–3856
Jerde CL (2019) Can we manage fisheries with the inherent uncertainty from eDNA ? Fish Biol 98:1–13
Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2020) Conservation genomics from a practitioner lens: evaluating the research-implementation gap in a managed freshwater fishery. Biol Conserv 241:108350
Kohl PA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA (2019) Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation. Conserv Biol 33:1286–1295
Lamb CT, Ford AT, Proctor MF, Royle JA, Mowat G, Boutin S (2019) Genetic tagging in the Anthropocene: scaling ecology from alleles to ecosystems. Evol Appl 29:1–17
Li M, Yang T, Bui M, Gamez S, Wise T, Kandul NP et al (2021) Eliminating mosquitoes with precision guided sterile males. BioRxiv, 1–33
Low GW, Km BC, Irestedt GM, Ericson PGP, Tang GYQ, Fe SW (2018) Urban landscape genomics identifies fine-scale gene flow patterns in an avian invasive. Heredity 120:138–153
Lundmark C, Andersson K, Sandstrom A, Laikre L (2017) Effectiveness of short-term knowledge communication on Baltic Sea marine genetic biodiversity to public managers. Reg Environ Change 17:841–849
Maas B, Toomey A, Loyola R (2019) Exploring and expanding the spaces between research and implementation in conservation. Biol Conserv 108290:1–6
Macdonald EA, Neff MB, Edwards E, Medvecky F, Balanovic J (2021) Conservation pest control with new technologies: public perceptions. J R Soc N Z, 1–13 (in press)
Mahon AR, Jerde CL, Galaska M, Bergner JL, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM et al (2013) Validation of eDNA surveillance sensitivity for detection of Asian Carps in controlled and field experiments. PLoS ONE 8:1–6
Mahon AR, Nathan LR, Jerde CL (2014) Meta-genomic surveillance of invasive species in the bait trade. Conserv Genet Resour 6:563–567
Martinez B, Reaser JK, Dehgan A, Zamft B, Baisch D, Mccormick C et al (2020) Technology innovation: advancing capacities for the early detection of and rapid response to invasive species. Biol Invas 22:75–100
Mathieu C, Hermans SM, Lear G, Buckley TR, Lee KC, Buckley HL (2020) A systematic review of sources of variability and uncertainty in eDNA data for environmental monitoring. Front Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00135
Moorhouse TP, Macdonald DW (2015) Are invasives worse in freshwater than terrestrial ecosystems? WIREs Water 21:1–8
Newell BR, Mcdonald RI, Brewer M, Hayes BK (2014) The psychology of environmental decisions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:443–467
Nunan F, Cepić D, Mbilingi B, Odongkara K, Yongo E, Owili M et al (2018) Community cohesion: social and economic ties in the personal networks of fisherfolk. Soc Nat Resour 31:306–319
Olds BP, Jerde CL, Renshaw MA, Li Y, Evans NT, Turner CR et al (2016) Estimating species richness using environmental DNA. Ecol Evol 6:4214–4226
Phelps MP, Seeb LW, Seeb JE (2019) Transforming ecology and conservation biology through genome editing. Conserv Biol 34:1–12
Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M, Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M et al (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–518
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Reed M, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J et al (2009) Who’ s in and why ? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949
Ricciardi A, Blackburn TM, Carlton T, Dick JTA, Hulme PE, Iacarella C et al (2017) Invasion science: a horizon scan of emerging challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 32:464–474
Richardson DM, Hellmann JJ, Mclachlan JS, Sax DF, Schwartz MW, Gonzalez P et al (2009) Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. PNAS 106:9721–9724
Rius M, Bourne S, Hornsby HG, Chapman MA (2015) Applications of next-generation sequencing to the study of biological invasions. Curr Zool 61:488–504
Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS (2019) Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: a systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob Ecol Conserv 17:e00547
Sandstrom A, Lundmark C, Jansson E, Edman M, Laikre L (2016) Assessment of management practices regarding genetic biodiversity in Baltic Sea marine protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 25:1187–1205
Sandstrom A, Lundmark C, Andersson K, Johannesson K, Laikre L (2018) Understanding and bridging the conservation-genetics gap in marine conservation. Conserv Biol 33:725–728
Scheufele BDA, Xenos MA, Howell EL, Rose KM, Brossard D, Hardy BW (2017) U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357:553–554
Schill DJ, Meyer KA, Hansen MJ (2017) Simulated effects of YY-Male stocking and manual suppression for eradicating nonnative Brook Trout populations. North Am J Fish Manag 37:1054–1066
Seebens H (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:1–9
Shafer AB, Wolf JB, Alves PC, Bergström L, Bruford MW et al (2015) Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice. Trends Ecol Evol. 30:78–87
Sharpe LM (2014) Public perspectives on genetic biocontrol technologies for controlling invasive fish. Biol Invas 16:1241–1256
Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66
Simmons M, Tucker A, Chadderton WL, Jerde CL, Andrew R (2015) Active and passive environmental DNA surveillance of aquatic invasive species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:76–83
Taft HR, Mccoskey DN, Miller JM, Pearson SK, Coleman MA, Fletcher NK et al (2020) Research–management partnerships: an opportunity to integrate genetics in conservation actions. Conserv Sci Pract 2:1–8
Taylor HR, Dussex N, Heezik YV (2017) Bridging the conservation genetics gap by identifying barriers to implementation for conservation practitioners. Glob Ecol Conserv 10:231–242
Teem JL, Alphey L, Descamps S, Edgington MP, Edwards O, Gemmell N et al (2020) Genetic biocontrol for invasive species. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 8:1–18
Thalinger B, Deiner K, Harper LR, Rees HC, Blackman RC, Sint D et al (2021) A validation scale to determine the readiness of environmental DNA assays for routine species monitoring. Environ DNA 3:823–836
Thomsen PF, Rask P, Sigsgaard EE, Knudsen W, Ankjær O, Willerslev E (2016) Environmental DNA from seawater samples correlate with trawl catches of subarctic, deepwater fishes. PLoS ONE 11:1–22
Thresher RE, Jones M, Drake DAR (2019) Stakeholder attitudes towards the use of recombinant technology to manage the impact of an invasive species: Sea Lamprey in the North American Great Lakes. Biol Invas 21:575–586
Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow J (2017) Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conserv Lett 10:619–625
Toomey AH (2016) What happens at the gap between knowledge and practice? Spaces of encounter and misencounter between environmental scientists and local. Ecol Soc 21
Turnbull C, Lillemo M, Hvoslef-eide TAK, Schiemann JH, Kühn-institut J (2021) Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom—a review. Front Plant Sci 12:1–19
Vimal R, Morgans C (2020) Using knowledge mapping to rethink the gap between science and action. Conserv Biol 34:1433–1443
Williams JL, Snyder RE, Levine JM (2016) The influence of evolution on population spread through patchy landscapes. Am Nat 188:15–26
Woodford DJ, Richardson DM, Macisaac HJ, Mandrak NE, Van Wilgen BW, Wilson JRU, Weyl OLF (2016) Confronting the wicked problem of managing biological invasions. NeoBiota 31:63–86
Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to the many AIS specialists and organizations who responded to, and helped distribute, our survey. We also thank Dr. Rollinson and Dr. Cadotte for their early feedback on this work.
Funding
This work was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship to T.A.B., a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant (#05479) to K.M.J., an NSERC Discovery (#05226) and NSERC Strategic Project (#506528) Grants to N.E.M., and a Genome Canada Large-Scale Applied Research Project grant to K.M.J. and N.E.M.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by T.A. Bernos. The first draft of the manuscript was written by T.A. Bernos and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethics approval
This work complies with Canadian ethics in human research. It obtained ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Board of the University of Toronto (Protocol 40532).
Consent to participate
Survey participants were made aware that they did not have to participate in the study, and that it is fully voluntary and anonymous.
Consent for publication
Survey participants were made aware that the authors aimed to publish the results of the survey.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bernos, T.A., Jeffries, K.M. & Mandrak, N.E. Aquatic invasive species specialists’ perceptions on the importance of genetic tools and concepts to inform management. Biol Invasions 24, 1863–1879 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02758-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02758-x