Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Are Botanical Gardens A Risk For Zooplankton Invasions
Are Botanical Gardens A Risk For Zooplankton Invasions
DOI 10.1007/s10530-011-9984-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 29 November 2010 / Accepted: 10 March 2011 / Published online: 23 March 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract A number of zooplankton invasions have movement of plants, while the increasing focus on ex-
been linked with the movement of plants to botanical situ conservation and science rather than aesthetics by
and other public gardens. Although most of these botanical gardens means that fewer aquatic plants are
records are historical, several recent examples indicate being moved.
that aquatic fauna may still be transported by plant
movements among gardens, or that there are unrec- Keywords Botanical gardens Craspedacusta
ognised long-standing established populations in gar- Historic vector Incidental fauna
den ponds around the world. We sampled 40 ponds
from 10 gardens, in the United Kingdom and United
States, to determine whether there is a high prevalence Introduction
of non-indigenous zooplankton in garden ponds that
could spread more widely if provided opportunity. No Botanical gardens, first developed in the 1500s, have
non-indigenous species were recorded from any of been responsible for extensive movement of plants
the gardens visited. We conclude that most well- for medicinal, crop, and ornamental purposes, and
established gardens do not pose a major threat for more recently for education, scientific research and
zooplankton invasions, mainly due to the destruction of ex situ conservation (Heywood 1987). Due to this
ponds and associated populations through time, which widespread dispersion, botanical and other public
apparently occurs commonly. In addition, ponds are gardens have been extremely important sites for the
regularly cleaned, insecticides are used on plants introduction of non-indigenous plant species that
that may enter the water, and small fish are fre- have subsequently established populations more
quently added to conservatory ponds, further reducing widely (Mack and Lonsdale 2001; Reichard and
the probability of zooplankton survival. Extirpation White 2001). A commonly cited example is ‘‘Oxford
of populations may be occurring at a greater rate Ragwort’’ (Senecio squalidus), native to Sicily, which
than re-introduction, due to greater restrictions on invaded the United Kingdom (UK) from the Univer-
sity of Oxford Botanical Gardens (Mack 2005).
Gardens also have been responsible for the move-
ment of small animals as accidental hitchhikers on
I. C. Duggan (&) K. S. Duggan plants. For example, the 1906 publication ‘‘The wild
Department of Biological Sciences, Centre
fauna and flora of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew’’
for Biodiversity and Ecology Research, The University
of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand provided a compilation of life recorded in Kew
e-mail: [email protected] Gardens that was not intentionally stocked there;
123
2998 I. C. Duggan, K. S. Duggan
examples included various insects, myriopods, spiders, at Kew Gardens (London, UK) and Missouri Botan-
annelids, and even frogs, not native to the UK, which ical Gardens (St. Louis, USA). Samples were col-
had arrived there accidentally in association with plant lected using a 2 l measuring jug, immersed into the
introductions (e.g., Beddard 1906; Günther 1906; pond up to 0.5 m multiple times, with the water
Pocock 1906). Similar incidental introductions have passed through a 40 lm mesh. Volumes collected
included aquatic invertebrates. For example, the ranged between 4 and 20 l (average 12.1 l), with the
freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii was first final volume dependent on how easily the water
recorded and described from the ‘Victoria regia’ passed through the mesh. Material retained on the
(Victoria amazonica) tank at the Royal Botanic Soci- mesh was preserved in ethanol ([50% final concen-
ety’s Gardens in Regent’s Park, London (Lankester tration). Rotifers, cladocerans and copepods were
1880), while the cladoceran Daphnia ambigua was identified using various standard identification guides
similarly first described from a pond in Kew Gardens, (e.g., Lang 1948; Harding and Smith 1974; Koste
London (Scourfield 1947). Craspedacusta is now 1978; Pennak 1978; Segers 1995).
considered to be a native of China (Sowerby 1941),
while D. ambigua, now widespread in Europe, origi-
nated from the east coast of the United States (USA; Results
Hebert et al. 2003). Similarly, the Japanese calanoid
copepod species Sinodiaptomus valkanovi was first All ponds sampled were man-made. Twenty-one
described in 1938 from a population in the botanical ponds sampled were indoors, with the remaining
gardens in Sofia, Bulgaria (Ueda and Ohtsuka 1998), nineteen located outside (Table 1). Seventy-one roti-
was recorded again soon after in a lily pond in fer, 19 cladoceran and 15 copepod (ten cyclopoid,
California, USA (Light 1939), and more recently was three calanoid, and two harpacticoid) taxa were
recorded in a greenhouse pond in New Zealand identified (Table 2). Rotifers were recorded in all
(Duggan et al. 2006; Makino et al. 2010). The New but one of the 40 ponds (97.5%), while copepods
Zealand finding, along with the North American (including nauplii) were found in 35 ponds (87.5%)
Skistodiaptomus pallidus in another garden there and cladocerans in 24 (60%). Species most frequently
(Duggan et al. 2006), is recent, indicating the possibil- encountered ([25%) were the littoral rotifers Lecane
ity of either continued movement of species by hamata (21 of 40 ponds), L. closterocerca (20 ponds),
gardens, or that there may be long-standing established L. bulla (17 ponds), L. luna and Lepadella ovalis (11
populations in garden ponds around the world, avail- ponds), and the cladoceran Chydorus sphaericus (11
able to be spread more widely if provided opportunity. ponds). Fifty species were recorded only once. None
Such ponds are apparently no longer common zoo- of the species recorded represented non-indigenous
plankton collection sites, so little is known of the species in the areas sampled.
biodiversity inhabiting these ponds. In this study we
visited ten botanical and public gardens, three in the
UK and seven in the USA, to determine whether there Discussion
is a widespread presence of non-indigenous zooplank-
ton in garden ponds. We recorded no non-indigenous species during our
surveys, indicating that the threat of zooplankton
invasions from botanical garden ponds does not appear
Methods to be great. This finding was surprising, given the rich
history of botanical gardens in spreading non-indige-
Forty man-made ponds from ten well-established nous species, but may be indicative of two factors.
botanical and public gardens in the UK and USA Firstly, many zooplankton populations that have estab-
were sampled between 24 August 2010 and 28 lished in gardens are likely to have died out or had their
September 2010 (Table 1). Four ponds were sampled habitats destroyed in the intervening period. Secondly,
from most gardens, although three were sampled the probability of new non-indigenous species being
at Oxford University Gardens (Oxford, UK) and introduced to gardens from their native ranges by this
Lincoln Park (Chicago, USA), and five were sampled vector is now likely smaller than it was in the past.
123
Are botanical gardens a risk for zooplankton invasions? 2999
Table 1 Gardens and ponds sampled, showing location (I = inside, O = outside), code (#), sampling date, approximate date of
construction of ponds, and temperature at the time of sampling
Garden Pond/greenhouse L # Sample date Age 8C
Populations of non-indigenous species may have of populations of the calanoid copepod Sinodiaptomus
been eliminated through destruction or cleaning of valkanovi from gardens in California and Bulgaria;
ponds. One well recorded example of this occurring is sampling of these populations was clearly fortuitous, as
123
3000 I. C. Duggan, K. S. Duggan
123
Are botanical gardens a risk for zooplankton invasions? 3001
Table 2 continued
ponds responsible for both of these records have Dodson 1965). Finally, insecticides used to protect
subsequently been destroyed (Ueda and Ohtsuka plants, if these enter the ponds, may also be responsible
1998). Similar destruction and re-creation of ponds for the destruction of crustacean populations (e.g.,
within gardens is apparently common, such as during Onbasili and Duman 2010).
refurbishment and restoration of greenhouses. The Lily While populations of non-indigenous species are
House at the University of Oxford Botanic Gardens, seemingly being extirpated from gardens, they are
and the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory at New York likely not being replaced at a commensurate rate.
Botanical Gardens, for example, have each been Conservation and science are increasing in impor-
refurbished and reconstructed on several occasions tance, with many gardens beginning to place a greater
since their openings in 1851 and 1902, respectively focus on native plants, resulting in a decline in the
(Soderstrom 2001; Mayou and Matthews 2010). Dur- value of aesthetics and the display of plants of
ing our surveys, the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory was interesting or unusual morphology (Soderstrom 2001;
again closed for refurbishment, as was the Linnean Pennisi 2010). As such, the introduction to botanical
House at Missouri Botanical Gardens, and at the Sarah gardens of new plants from foreign countries is not
P. Duke Gardens an entire outdoor pond had been generally a major concern (Heywood 2011). Codes of
drained and was in the process of reconstruction. Even conduct have also been introduced by botanical
the relatively new Climatron at the Missouri Botanical gardens that tighten the restrictions on movement
Gardens, built in 1960, had extensive renovations and sale, particularly for plants that may spread or
undertaken between 1988 and 1990, which involved become harmful (Baskin 2002; Reichard 2004). As
re-landscaping almost the entire interior (M. Gray, such, new aquatic plants are likely not entering
Mobot, pers. comm.; www.mobot.org). Ponds are also botanical gardens from the wild, and their display has
occasionally emptied and cleaned, and therefore the declined in importance. Many gardens do, however,
number of non-indigenous populations in gardens, still display Victoria lilies, although these will now be
such as those of S. valkanovi, may steadily decrease sourced from other gardens rather than being wild
through time. The presence of small zooplanktivorous- collected (the most commonly displayed variety
sized fish was commonly observed in conservatory being the Longwood hybrid). However, although
ponds. When this became common practice is unclear, reduced in importance, this is not to say that new
although such fish are likely to exert strong predation plants do not still enter some botanic gardens from
pressure on crustacean zooplankton (Brooks and wild caught collections (Heywood 2011).
123
3002 I. C. Duggan, K. S. Duggan
123
Are botanical gardens a risk for zooplankton invasions? 3003
Koste W (1978) Rotatoria Die Radertiere Mitteleuropas Reichard SH (2004) Conflicting values and common goals:
(Uberordnung Monogononta). Stuttgart, Berlin, Borntraeger codes of conduct to reduce the threat invasive species.
Lang K (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden. Håkan Ohls- Weed Technol 18:1503–1507
sons Boktryckeri, Lund Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of
Lankester ER (1880) On Limnocodium (Craspedacusta) sow- invasive plant introductions in the United States. Biosci-
erbii, a new trachomedusa inhabiting fresh water. Q J ence 51:103–113
Micros Sci 20:351–371 Reid JW (1999) New records of Bryocyclops from the conti-
Light SF (1939) New American subgenera of Diaptomus nental U.S.A., Puerto Rico, and Brazil (copepoda: cyc-
Westwood (Copepoda, Calanoida). Trans Am Microsc lopoida: cyclopidae). J Crustacean Biol 19:84–92
Soc 58:473–484 Reid JW (2001) A human challenge: discovering and under-
Mack RN (2005) Predicting the identity of plant invaders: standing continental copepod habitats. Hydrobiologia
future contributions from horticulture. HortScience 40: 453(454):201–226
1168–1174 Reid JW (2008) Arctodiaptomus dorsalis (Marsh): a case his-
Mack RN, Lonsdale WM (2001) Humans as global plant dis- tory of copepod dispersal. Banisteria 30:3–18
persers: getting more than we bargained for. Bioscience Reid JW, Hribar LJ (2006) Records of some Copepoda
51:95–102 (Crustacea) from the Florida Keys. Proc Acad Nat Sci
Makino W, Knox MA, Duggan IC (2010) Invasion, genetic Philadelphia 155:1–7
variation and species identity of the calanoid cope- Scourfield DJ (1947) A short-spined Daphnia presumably
pod Sinodiaptomus valkanovi. Freshwater Biol 55: belonging to the ‘‘longispina’’ group - D. ambigua n.sp.
375–386 J Quekett Micros Club 11:127–131
Mayou R, Matthews J (2010) The buildings of the botanic Segers H (1995) Rotifera vol. 2: the Lecanidae. In: Dumont HJ
garden. Botanic Garden News (Oxford) 73:4–7 (ed) Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates
Onbasili D, Duman F (2010) Acute toxicity of some insecti- of the continental waters of the World 6. SPB Academic
cides on Artemia salina and Daphnia magna. Fresenius Publishing bv, The Hague
Environ Bull 19:2608–2610 Soderstrom M (2001) Recreating Eden : a natural history of
Pennak RW (1978) Freshwater invertebrates of the United botanical gardens. Véhicule Press, Montréal
States. Wiley, New York, p 803 Sowerby AD (1941) The romance of the Chinese fresh-water
Pennisi E (2010) Tending the global garden. Science 329: jellyfish. Hong Kong Naturalist 10:186–189
1274–1277 Ueda H, Ohtsuka S (1998) Redescription and taxonomic status
Pocock RI (1906) The wild fauna and flora of the Royal of Sinodiaptomus valkanovi, a common limnoplanktonic
Botanic Gardens, Kew. Amphibia. Bull Misc Inf, R Bot calanoid copepod in Japan, with comparison to the closely
Gard Kew Addit Ser 5:21–22 related S. sarsi. Hydrobiologia 379:159–168
123