Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Author "Campbell, Tim"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Aquatic invasive species prevention: getting the best bang for the buck!
    (2023) Angell, Nichole; Bajzc, Alex; Brady, Valerie; Campbell, Tim; Doll, Adam; Dumke, Josh; Kinsley, Amy; Keller, Reuben; Phelps, Nicole
    Common AIS prevention efforts focus on public education, watercraft inspection, and watercraft decontamination. While these prevention efforts are currently widely implemented, little is understood about the cost-effectiveness of these methods.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Data in support of Quantifying the effectiveness of three aquatic invasive species prevention methods
    (2023-05-04) Angell, Nichole R; Campbell, Tim; Brady, Valerie; Bajcz, Alex; Kinsley, Amy; Doll, Adam; Dumke, Josh; Keller, Reuben; Phelps, Nicholas BD; nangell@glc.org; Angell, Nichole R; Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center (MAISRC)
    Efforts to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) have been widely implemented at many scales to mitigate economic and environmental harms. Boater education, watercraft inspection, and hot water decontamination are popular strategies for prevention of AIS moving through the recreational boating pathway. However, few studies have actually quantified the effectiveness of these strategies under field conditions. We estimated their effectiveness based on the performances of boaters, watercraft inspectors, and hot water decontaminators. Participants (n=144) were recruited at 56 public water access sites in Minnesota and 1 in Wisconsin. Each participant was asked to inspect and remove AIS from a boat staged with macrophytes, dead zebra mussels, and spiny water fleas. The types and amounts of AIS removed were used to estimate the effectiveness of each prevention method. We observed that removal varied by type of AIS, with macrophytes being most commonly removed for all participants. There were also regional (metro and outstate) differences for some species perhaps due to awareness and education. Hot water decontamination was the most effective (83.7%) intervention but was not significantly better at reducing risk of spread than was watercraft inspection (79.2%). Boaters were less effective at AIS removal (56.4%). Our results suggest that watercraft inspection is an effective prevention method for most boats, and that hot water decontamination is an important tool for high-risk boats. However, robust decontamination protocols are difficult to effectively execute. Furthermore, our results provide insights into how to increase boater awareness of often-overlooked locations and help reduce risk when inspectors cannot be present at a public water access site.