USING OUTREACH, PARTNERSHIPS AND RETAILER INQUIRY TO REDUCE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE AQUARIUM AND WATER GARDEN TRADE By Paige Carissa Filice A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillmen t of the requirements for the degree of Fisheries and Wildlife Master of Science 2019 ABSTRACT USING OUTREACH, PARTNERSHIPS AND RETAILER INQUIRY TO REDUCE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE AQUARIUM AND WATER GARDEN TRADE By Paige Carissa F ilice Reduce Invasive Pet and Plant Escapes (RIPPLE) is a research - driven organisms - in - trade outreach proper aquatic animal and plant handling and disposal, reducing potentially invasive aquarium and ornamental pond species from being introduced into the wild. RIPPLE is an industry - supported program based on partnerships I developed with businesses and regulatory agencies while creating program messaging and o utreach materials. Prior to RIPPLE , Michigan had no widely accepted organisms - in - trade program and independent businesses did not have tools to communicate invasive species prevention with their customers. I created partnerships with retailers, hobbyists, environmental groups and K - 12 teachers through targeted outreach and communication efforts, including articles in relevant magazines, educational presentations, exhibits at popular events and educational in - store visits. To better understand the knowledge , perceptions and behaviors of those who sell aquatic organisms and supplies regarding invasive species, I surveyed independently - owned pet stores and garden centers in Michigan . Results indicate that sellers generally understand that non - native aquatic or ganisms in trade pose an environmental risk, but do not feel a high level of responsibility for taking action to prevent organism release. While awareness of RIPPLE was low at the time of the survey, businesses did report sharing many RIPPLE recommended pr actices including discouraging customers from releasing of live organisms. This indicates that program messaging is relevant and appropriate. The survey also revealed opinion and behavior differences between business types (e.g., pet stores, garden centers ). Findings from this survey will support development of more effective invasive species prevention programs aligned with industry knowledge and attitudes. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am extre mely grateful to those who have provided assistance to me throughout my graduate program . F irst I would like to thank my adviser Dr. Jo Latimore for granting me this wonderful opportunity to grow and learn, tirelessly helping me with project questions , and inspiring me to pursue a career in outreach. I am honored to call myse lf your first graduate student. I would also like to thank my other commi ttee members. Dr. Dan Hayes for providing invaluable statistical assistance that I am certain prevented enormous frustration and for fostering a rewarding lab space that cultivated bo th academic and personal growth. An d Dr. Julie Libarkin for generously h elping me design my project and for unwavering support and encouragement. S pecial thanks to Mike Bryan for providing valuable insight and assistance. And my technicians, especially Tar a Eavy, thank you for your dedication, reliable support when it was needed most, and friendship . I also would also not be here today without the MSU Extension water team . T hank you for the encouragement and guidance , and for motivating me to be a better ed ucator. I would also like to thank the Department of Fisheries and Wildli fe , especially members of the PHLRM lab for sharing ideas and laughs, and making learning in the basement truly a fun experience . Katie , Trey, Sam , Georgie, Tyler, Corey , Halil , Jani ce and Rob , our friendships are ones I will cherish forever. I would additional ly like to t hank all my family and friends , especially my Dad Steven Filice , Shaemus Kermiet , and the Blair and Kermiet family , for believing in me and for providing much needed distraction s and conversation s that sustained and inspired me. Funding for this project was provided by: the Michigan Invasive Species Grant Program through the Departments of Natural Resources, Environmental Quality, and Agriculture and Rural Developme nt; Michigan State University Extension; the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative via the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; the Michigan State iv University Graduate School, the Michigan State Univers ity College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Alumni Association, Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Office of Academic and Student Affairs; and the United Auto Workers Cal Rapson Endowed Scholarship. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . viii PREVENTING AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES FROM AQUARIUMS AND ORNAMENTAL PONDS WITH PARTNERSHIPS AND OUTREACH: FROM DESIGN TO IMPLEMENTATION ................................ ............. 1 Introduct ion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 Addressing Organisms in Trade Through Outreach and Education ................................ ...................... 5 Development of the RIPPLE Education Program ................................ ................................ .................. 6 Implementation of the RIPPLE Education Program ................................ ................................ ............ 10 Partnerships and Outreach with Industry Members and Environmental Organization ................ 12 Aquarium and Ornamental Pond Hobbyist Outreach ................................ ................................ .... 18 Outreach and Engagement with Science Teachers ................................ ................................ ....... 21 Discussion and Outcomes of Reduce Invasive Pet and Plant Escapes Program ................................ . 23 LITERATURE CITED ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 30 KNOWLEDGE, OPINIONS, AND BEHAVIORS OF MEMBERS IN THE AQUARIUM AND ORNAMENTAL POND INDUSTRY REGARDING AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ................................ ............................... 35 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 39 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 43 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 59 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 65 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 67 LITERATURE CITED ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 77 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Outreach efforts targeting retailers, hobbyists, environmental organizations and science teachers between May 2016 - October 2018. ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 Table 1.2: Publications on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species aimed at businesses and environmental organizations, July 2016 - July 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 Table 1.3: Presentations on RIPPLE and partnership opportunities aimed at busin esses and environmental organizations, May 2016 - October 2018. ................................ ................................ ............ 13 Table 1.4: Industry and environmental organization events with a RIPPLE educational exhibit, October 2016 - October 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Table 1.5: In - person and webinar trainings about RIPPLE and risks associated with organisms in trade offered to environmental organizations, hobbyists and industry members, February 2018 - July 2018. ... 18 Table 1.6: Publications and videos on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species aimed at aquarium and ornamental pond hobbyists, July 2016 - June 2018. ................................ ................................ .................... 19 Table 1.7: Presentations on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species aimed at aquarium and ornamental pond hobbyists, April 2017 - October 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ . 20 Table 1.8: Aquarium and ornament al pond hobbyist events with a RIPPLE educational exhibit, March 2017 - August 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Table 1.9: Publications and presentations on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species to teachers, May 2016 - June 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 22 Table 1.10: Presentation and publication for teachers in the MDNR Salmon in the Classroom program, November 2016 - May 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Table 2.1: Dates of mail survey distribution ................................ ................................ ............................... 41 Table 2.2: Demographic information of responding businesses. Business category was a multi - select question, therefore, percentages total mo re than 100. ................................ ................................ ............. 43 =mean. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 44 concern about aquatic invasive species, opinions of invasion potential of organisms in trade, and confidence and knowledge of regulations by aggregate business categories: pet stores, garden centers and landscapers and supp liers , and by aggregate regulatory information sources: governmental enforcement (enfor.) and industry (ind.). =mean, [ ]= standard error, and p =p - value. ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 vii Table 2.5: Survey respondents perspective on responsibility and behaviors that could reduce invasive species introductions . =mean, [ ]= s tandard error, and p =p - value. ................................ ..................... 48 Table 2.6: Unwanted aquatic plants and animals accepted as returns or surrenders by businesses. ....... 50 aquatic plants or animals from the public. ................................ ................................ ................................ . 51 lingness to accept surrendered or returned aquatic organisms among respondents that do not currently accept unwanted aquatic organisms. .................... 51 Table 2.9: Customer concerns regarding unwanted aquati c plants and animals expressed to businesses. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 Table 2.10: Recommended practices shared with customers in the last year that are known to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species by agg regate business categories: pet stores, garden centers and landscapers and suppliers. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 53 Table 2.11: Information resources used by survey respondents regarding the life history and care of aqua tic organisms. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 54 Table 2.12: Invasive species regulatory information sources used by survey respondents. ...................... 55 Table 2.13: Survey re ................................ ....... 56 Table 2.14: Coded survey responses to hypothetical scenario regarding ornamental pond maintenance and unwanted plants and fish. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 58 Table 2.15: Coded survey responses to hypothetical scenario regarding aquariums and unwanted plants and fish. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 59 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The RIPPLE logo. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 Figure 2: Aquatic invasive species game developed for use at youth events. ................................ ........... 21 1 PREVENTING AQUATIC INVASIV E SPECIES FROM AQUARIUMS AND ORNAMENTAL PONDS WITH PARTNERSHIPS AND OUTREACH: FROM DESIGN TO IMPLEMENTATION Introduction Invasive species are plants, animals or pathogens that negatively impact ecosystems globally by decreasing biodiversity and altering ec osystem services. The United States government defines an - native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction ( United States Exec. Order 13112: Invasive Species 1992) . An estimated $120 billion is spent yearly in the United States on efforts trying to manage and eradicate them (Pimentel et al. 2005) . Invasive species also cause endangerment and extinction of native species (Wilcove et al. 1998) . One of the most invaded freshwater system s in the world is the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence basin (Ricciardi 2006) . Aquatic invasive s treams and proximity to the Great Lakes. While the shipping industry (e.g ., ballast water release, dumping of solid ballast, and hull fouling) has introduced approximately 40% of the over 180 aquatic invasive species established in the Great Lakes basin (Ricciardi 2006, Pagnucco et al. 2015, NOAA 2018) o ther human - assisted vectors exist . One vector of aquatic invasive species which has been deemed a significant threat to the Great Lakes and M is the trade and movement of live o rganisms (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2013) . This includ es plants and animals commonly sold for aquariums and ornamental ponds ( also referred to as water gardens, especially when they contain only live aquati c plants and not fish ) (Sink et al. 2014) . most damaging invasive species are related to the aquarium and ornamental pond trade, according to the Global Invasive Species Database established by the International Union for the Conservat ion of Nature (Lowe et al. 2000) . Plant s and animals from ornamental ponds and household aquariums are often relea sed when hobbyists lose interest or decide 2 organisms are too large or prolific to care for (Crossman and Cudmore 1999) , and wild release is perceived as a human e method of disposal by many hobbyists (Courtenay 1999) . A quarter of hobbyists surveyed in the Great Lakes region have released unwanted aquarium or ornamental pond organisms into the wild (Mayer et al. 2013) . Not surprisingly, the most popular fish and exotic pets found in retail stores are also the most commonly released species (Duggan et al. 2006, Stringham and Lockwood 2018) . Many s pecies in the aquarium and ornamental pond trade are tropical , requiring year - round warm temperatures , thus posing little invasion risk to the Great Lakes region. However, some characterist ics that are prized by the horticulture and aquarium industries can also increase an organism s invasive potential, such as environmental hardiness, high reproduction rates and vigorous growth (Duggan et al. 2006, Peters et al. 2006, Drew et al. 2010, Chucholl 2013) . For example, plants in the horticulture trade are produced on a massiv e scale and plant breeders can enhanc e factors that increase reproductive rates, such as eliminating seed dormancies and chilling requirements which can lead to plants becoming more successful invaders (Peters et al. 2006) . In the aquarium trade, some fish species are mainly sold as juven iles , and rarely available as adults , and d ue to their large size they are more likely to survive and reproduce if released into the wild (Padilla and Williams 2004, Holmberg et al. 2015) . A quarium fi sh introduced and established in the wild tend to be larger than individuals available in stores, which is likely due to them outgrowing their aquarium (Duggan et al. 2006) . Additionally, p lants and animals in trade are hearty and can withstand harsh collection and transportation conditions (Padilla and Williams 2004) . C arolina fanwort ( Cabomba caroliniana ), water chestnut ( Trapa natans ), European frogbit ( Hydrocharis morsus - ranae ), goldfish ( Carassius auratus ), and banded mysterysnail ( Cipangopaludina chinensis ) are among at least sixteen exotic organisms with established populations in the Great Lakes that have been introduced from una uthorized aquarium releases (NOAA 2018) . 3 Additional introductions and establishments of aquatic and ornamental pond species in the wild are expected , as both hobbies are growing in popularity (Padilla and Williams 2004, Rixon et al. 2005) . The Natio nal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (2016) identified six invasive aquatic plants of highest invasion risk to the Great Lakes and five are commonly sold in pet stores and garden centers in at least one Great Lakes state . The se five aquatic plants are B razilian waterweed ( Egeria densa ) , w ater hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes ) , p arrot feather ( Myriophyllum aquaticum ) , w ater lettuce ( Pistia stratiotes ), and w ater soldier ( Stratiotes aloides ). Although the number of species introduced via the aquarium and ornamental pond industries continues to rise, policy makers are reluctant to propose stiffer regulations on potentially nuisance species important to trade (Ricciardi and MacIsaac 2000, Rixon et al. 2005, Peters and Lodge 2009) . Worldwide the aquarium and ornamental pond trade is estimated to be worth $25 billion and its economic significance is one reason for limited regulations (Padilla and Will iams 2004). There are f ederal and state regulations in place to reduce the introduction of some potentially invasive species through live trade; however, there are inconsistencies between state and federal regulated species lists, limited communication bet ween regulators and vendors, and weak enforcement of regulations (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004, Funnell et al. 2009) . Vendors are expe cted to police themselves and to be informed of state and federal regulations, but inconsistencies between jurisdictions causes confusion . While the S tate of Michigan regulates more species than the United States Department of Agriculture and the United St ates Fish and Wildlife Service, state regulations have limited effectiveness. For example, in Michigan it is unlawful to possess, introduce, import, sell or offer Carolina fanwort due to its invasive potential, however in the adjacent state of Ohio there a re no restrictions on its sale or possession. This patchwork of inconsistent regulations across jurisdictions and their implementation have been shown to be inadequate in stopping the movement of invasive species (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004, Bu rt et al. 2007, Peters and Lodge 2009) . Lastly, e - commerce is accelerating the global trade of invasive specie s 4 (Walters et al. 2006, Humair et al. 2015) . A 2001 study found almost every invasive aquatic or wetland plant known worldwide available for sale online (Kay and Hoyle 2001) . A 2006 study of 90 online retail and auction vendors on eBay found only five websites with information pertaining to invasive plant regulations and restrictions (W alters et al. 2006) . The same study found only six online retailers had warnings about releasing live organisms into the wild. In the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) is charged with the inspection a aquatic plant list (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 1994) . Vendors possessing a nursery license are inspected by MDARD for regulated species. However, most pet stores are not inspected by MDARD because the law only applies to vendors selling perennial aquatic pla nts, a category that excludes many commonly traded aquarium plants (M. Bryan, MDARD, personal communication). Within the last three years, regulated aquatic plants have been discovered for sale in Michigan retail establishments by MDARD inspectors, includi ng Carolina fanwort and p arrot feather (M . Bryan, MDARD, personal communication). It is also common for lawful aquatic plant and animal shipments to contain potentially invasive hitchhiking species that are prohibited for sale . As defined by Keller and Lod ge (2007) , a hitchhiking species is any live organism delivered through trade but not specifically purchased. Researchers in Minnesota found 93% of aquatic plants purchased via phone, internet and in person contained hitchhiking plant or animal species (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004) . Household aquariums with aquatic plants purcha sed from retail stores have also been found to contain non - indigenous hitchhiking invertebrate species (Duggan 2010) . Many researchers have concluded that e ducating retailers and hobbyists is critical for raising awareness and preventing invasive species introductions through the pet and ornamental pond trades (Chang et al. 2009, Funnell et al. 2009, Panov et al. 2009, Strecker et al. 2011, Walters et al. 2011, 5 Stringham and Lockwood 2018) . Hobbyists vi ew retailers as experts in the maintenance and care of aquarium and ornamental pond s and believe retailers are responsible for distributing invasive species information, but report not learning about invasive species when purchasing fish or aquatic plants in the Great Lakes region (Seekamp et al. 2016) . Surveys of th e pet and garden industry have found that retailers are generally interested in, and believe they are somewhat responsible for, educating their customers about live organisms they sell (Peters et al. 2006, Chang et al. 2009) . How ever, these retailers may not have the tools or information to properly educate the public about invasive species (Peters et al. 2006, Seekamp et al. 2016) . A national invasive species prevention campaign, Habitattitude, was developed in 2014 by the Pet Indus try Joint Advisory Council, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sea Grant program . Habitattitude information is currently shared at some national pet store chains with a presence in the Great Lakes region through store signage, fish bags and on websites ; h owever, Great Lakes hobbyists have l ow awareness ( 8 %) of the campaign (Seekamp et al. 2016) . Addr essing Organisms in Trade Through Outreach and Education A more effective strateg y was needed to protect Michigan waters from aquatic invasive species introductions via aquariums and ornamental ponds . Therefore, I worked with partners to develop a new educ ation program : Reduce Invasive Pet and P lant Escapes (RIPPLE) . I ts purpose is to foster mutual understanding between retailers, hobbyists , and natural resource professionals of aquatic invasive species and handling and disposal options that can reduce the introductions of aquarium and ornamental pond s pecies . The core message of RIPPLE is: never release your aquatic plants and animals into local waterways or compost piles. For tips on how to safely contain and dispose of pond and aquarium plants and anima ls 6 healthy! RIPPLE materials give the same handling and disposal recommendations as the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network to maintain regional consistency. RIPPLE handling and d isposal recommendations are: - Give or trade unwanted fish or plants with another hobbyist, environmental learning center, aquarium or zoo. - Inspect and rinse new aquatic plants to rid them of seeds, plant fragments, snails and fish. - Seal aquatic plants for d isposal in a plastic bag in the trash. Do not compost. - Build water gardens away from other waters. - Contact a veterinarian or pet retailer for guidance on humane disposal of animals. Development of the RIPPLE Education Program The Michigan Department of A gr iculture and Rural Development (MDARD) approached Michigan State University (MSU) in September 2014 to develop outreach materials on the aquatic organisms in trade invasion pathway with financial support from the federal Great Lakes Restoration Initiativ e . I was a central member in a small team of science, outreach and invasive species management experts that developed RIPPLE. RIPPLE is currently funded by the Michigan Invasive Species Grants Program and is a partnership effort of MSU Extension, the Michi gan Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development, Natural Resources (MDNR) and Environmental Quality (MDEQ) , and dozens of Michigan businesses and organizations. was a collaborative process that drew upon expertise from MDARD regulatory experts , an MSU ecologist with experience in the ecological and economic impacts of aquatic invasive species and outreach, MSU Extension horticulture and natural resource educators , and leading retailers in t he pet and ornamental pond in dustries . MDARD and MSU Extension have strong, positive relationships with the horticulture industry and regularly provide education and information to businesses. Both MDARD and MSU Extension partners provided insight into Mic concerns about invasive species and their knowledge of 7 existing programs that were supported by the pet and pond industr ies . I also experiences concerning invasive species, regulations and public education through consultations with two leading and well - respected pet and ornamental pond retailers , and with representatives of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association , a leading industry group . These industry leaders provided their professional opinion s on the RI PPLE program, including the design of outreach materials and program messaging , and identified poten tial supporters of the program. I also reviewed literature on aquatic invasive species outreach and education programs and consulted with other state invasi ve species educators to learn about their programs, industry partnerships and challenges. While RIPPLE is a Michigan - based outreach program, it complements other organism in trade outreach initiatives such as Take AIM, Illinois - I previously worked at a large pet store chain and my experiences working with hobbyists also influenced the design of outreach materials. My partnership approach in the design of RIPPLE resulted in an industry - supported program and the development of edu cation tools aligned with retailer knowledge and regulatory needs. Working alongside a variety of partners allowed me to gain insight into retailer knowledge of invasive species, challenges associated with regulations and how information about organisms in trade is currently shared with the retail and hobbyist community. Collaborating with regulator y state agencies and industry proved to be extremely valuable in the creation of outreach materials. An issue (Hamel and Parsons 2001) echoed by our partners is the complexity of identifying aquatic plants and animals. Therefore, a brochure describing regulated plant species in Michigan was developed for RIPPLE . Understand ably, industry partners also expressed concerns about messaging that would discourage the public from purchasing non - regulated nonindigenous species . Therefore, RIPPLE materials focus on the handling and disposal of live organisms , as opposed to discouragi ng the public from purchasing legal, non - regulated species. Emphasizing disposal practices in outreach materials for retailers and hobbyists is also 8 encouraged by many studies (Odom et al. 20 14, Seekamp et al. 2016, Stringham and Lockwood 2018) . and regulation - specific materials also allow the program to have value for other audiences that deal with live organisms in trade, including formal K - 12 science teac hers , n on - formal environmental educators and environmental groups. As noted earlier, r etailers are viewed by hobbyists as experts in the maintenance and car e of aquariums and ornamental pond s and receive the majority of questions from hobbyists about what to do w ith unwanted fish and plants (Seekamp et al. 2016) . Therefore, RIPPLE was designed to be used by retailers in their stores. Information mediated through interpersonal networks (e.g., retailers and hobbyists) has been shown to be more likely to influence attitudes and behavior (Abroms and Maibach 2008, McKenzie - Mohr 2011) . While s ome large pet store chains in the Great Lakes region , including Michigan, have Habitattitude materials on display (e.g., signage near fish tanks and fish bags) , independent pet and ornamental pond stores in Michigan do not use Habitattitude materials . Habitattitude relies on the distribution of materials at large pet store chains to convey information and does not use an interpersonal network approach. I sought to fill that gap a nd engage independent businesses with RIPPLE. These businesses include d pet stores, garden centers, landscape design and installation companies and aquatic plant nurseries. RIPPLE educational materials, as well as the logo, name , and slogan , were develope d in consultation with a collaborative team of scientific, educational, agency, and business partners, with the assistance of a professional graphic design company. We designed t he RIPPLE campaign logo, color scheme, and font to catch the eye but not be di scouraging to consumers (Figure 1 ) . The RIPPLE logo includes a hand with a water droplet shape forming the thumb. It could be interpreted as a stop hand . 9 Figure 1 : The RIPPLE logo . c olor scheme is purposefully made up of natural hues (blues and greens), to coincide with aquatic and natural environments. We chose the l ant clarity and aquatic theme. Invasive spe cies have a (negative) ripple effect on aquatic ecosystems, while education can have a positive ripple effect on ecosystem p rotection (supplementary materials 1). In August 2015 six educational print products and two videos for RIPPLE were finalized . I nspe ctors and retailers did not have effective identification materials for aquatic plants. Therefore, a brochure - fold) describing regulated aquatic plant species with photographs for retailers was developed . Text focused on identificat ion and information that can be shared with customers. Another suggestion from industry partner s was educatio nal product s that could be displayed near a cash register, attached to receipt or stuffed into a shopping bag. We developed a rack card - sided) with the RIPPLE core message, and containment and disposal recommendations. A 10 ) printed on paper and on a UV - resistant vinyl was designed for retailers featuring containment and disposal methods and graphic artwork relate d to aquatic invasive species. In addition, we designed a tank cling made out of waterproof, repositionable vinyl with RIPPLE logo and program URL. The cling was designed to be placed on to aquariums and pond containers at retail locations. We also designed a RIPPLE st icker for fish bags and plant containers and for outreach to youth and hobbyists . For youth we also developed a coloring page and word search . retractable banners and a table - top banner with the RIPPLE logo, graphics and messaging was created for use at educational events . Two short videos were created for retailer and state agency websites. One video was created for aquarium hobbyists, focused on negative impacts of aquatic invasive species on Michigan waterw ays and proper disposal methods. Another video was created for ornamental pond hobbyists focused on the negative impacts of aquatic invasive species and proper siting, winterizing practices, and proper disposal methods . A detailed Marketing and Outreach Plan was also developed t o accompany RIPPLE materials , informed by research and feedback from my partners . This plan can be found in the supplementary materials section . I t provides a detailed description of RIPPLE and target audiences the progr am was designed to engage . To incre ase accessibility of RIPPLE and the associated materials I worked collaboratively with the Michigan Departments of Environment Quality, Natural Resources, and Agriculture and Rural Development to create a RIPPLE webpage. The webpage, housed on the State of Michigan Invasive Species website, includes digital media and electronic versions of RIPPLE print products (bit.ly/miripple). To increase accessibility of RIPPLE print materials I also created an online ordering form (bit.ly/getmiripple). I also manage a Facebook page for RIPPLE (www.facebook.com/miripple). Implementation of the RIPPLE Education Program I led the impl ementation and sharing of RIPPLE on behalf of Michigan State University (MSU) w i th guidance from a small team of Michigan Department of Agri culture and Rural Development 11 ( MDARD ) regulation experts , an MSU outreach specialist, MSU Extension educators and industry members . Many members of this team also assisted in the development of RIPPLE . RIPPLE was presented to partners and the public as a c ollaborative program between MSU Extension and the State of Michigan. My c ommunication and engagement efforts began in May 2016 and targeted four audiences: aquarium and ornamental pond retailers , environmental organizations , aquarium and ornamental pond hobbyists , and K - 12 science teachers . Utilizing RIPPLE, I created partnership s with retailers and hobbyists in the pet and ornamental pond industries; built understanding of aquatic invasive species, regulations and educational tools among retailer s , hobby ist s , environmental groups and teacher s ; promoted proper contain ment and disposal of live organisms to prevent their introduction into the wild; and provided RIPPLE education materials to over 100 organizations and retailers. Since May 2016 I have connecte d with over 50 retailers and 30 environmental groups , tens of thousands of hobbyists , and over 100 teachers through targeted outreach and communication efforts , including publishing articles online and in relevant magazines, giving educational presentation s, exhibiting at popular events and conducting educational in - store visits with businesses and environmental education facilities (Table 1 .1 ) . Below, I describe in detail how I engaged with Michigan pet and ornamental pond industry members, environmental o rganizations, hobbyists, and teachers to raise awareness of aquatic invasive organisms in trade and practices to prevent their release or escape into the wild. Table 1. 1 : Outreach efforts targeting retailers, hobbyists, environment al organizations and science teachers between May 2016 - October 2018 . Target audiences for engagement Outreach to date Retailers Hobbyists Environmental organizations Science teachers Advisory committee X X Publications X X X X Presentations X X X X Exhibits X X X X Outreach kits X X X X Trainings X X X 12 Partnerships and Outreach with Industry Members and Environmental Organization Establishment of a RIPPLE advisory committee In cooperation with MDARD I established a RIPPLE advisory committee made up of leading retailers, MSU Extension educators , Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) law enforcement officials and invasive species biologists , MDARD regulation experts, Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association representative s and engaged h obbyists. This committee was formed to strengthen and continu e partnerships developed during the creation of RIPPLE. Since implementation of RIPPLE began in May 2016 the advisory committee has formally met twice . Members have agreed to meet every six month s. The advisory committee was one way I maintained relationships with industry opinion leaders and ensured my outreach activities were aligned with industry and hobbyist needs. At RIPPLE advisory committee meetings, members share d their expertise and knowl edge of industry preferences and hobbyist behavior and suggest ed techniques to build stronger and better relationships with new partner s and hobbyist groups. They also provided feedback on existing outreach materials and suggested outreach products that wo uld increase industry and hobbyist support for the program . Outreach and engagement through publications, presentations and educational exhibits I wrote six articles in online and print publications which have been viewed by over 19,333 people since July 2016 t o increase awareness of RIPPLE among aquarium and ornamental pond businesses and conservation organizations (Table 1. 2 ). The se articles highlighted the RIPPLE program, handling and disposal practices for live organisms , and how retailers could integ rate RIPPLE into the ir business. I identified popular online and print resources to publish articles in based on recommendations from RIPPLE advisory committee members and business partner s . Table 1. 2 : Publications on RIPPLE and aq uatic invasive species aimed at businesses and environmental organizations , July 2016 - July 2018. Publication s # of Views Filice, P. July 2018. Twelve new online training modules added to MISIN. The AIS er. 5,7 23 1 13 Filice, P. and Eavy, T. June 2018. New online tools for aquatic invasive species identification. Michigan State University Extension News. https://www.canr. msu.edu/news/new - online - tools - for - aquatic - invasive - species - identif ication 279 1 Filice, P. and J. A. Latimore. June 2017. Partnering with pet and pond businesses to prevent aquatic invasive species. IEEE Earthzine. https://earthzine.org/partnering - with - pet - and - pond - businesses - to - prevent - aquatic - invasive - species/ 88 3 Fil ice, P. January 2017. Protect Michigan waters: support responsible water gardening with RIPPLE. The Landsculptor magazine. 4,200 2 Filice, P. November 2016. Have a RIPPLE effect by supporting responsible water gardening. The Michigan Landscape magazine. 2,500 2 Filice, P. July 2016. RIPPLE: A new education program for aquarists and water gardeners. The AIS Current : . 6,543 1 1 Based on the number of online readers 2 Based on magazine circulation 3 R eadership f rom June - October 2017 I gave 12 educational presentations to 353 people at industry workshops, MDARD inspector meetings and invasive species conferences t o further engage with businesses and environmental organizations between May 2016 - October 2018 (Tabl e 1. 3 ) . When developing presentations, I considered each and their role in the trade of live organisms . My presentations typically highlighted aquatic invasive species, RIPPLE , and partnership opportunities between RIPPLE and businesses and organizations. During presentations I also sought feedback on existing outreach materials and suggestions for new materials and audiences. Table 1. 3 : P resentation s on RIPPLE and part nership opportunities aimed at businesses and environmental organizations, May 2016 - October 2018 . Presentations Atten dees Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 2018 ( October 15) . Engaging pet and water garden retailers to reduce aquatic invasive species introdu ctions. Oral presentation : Upper Midwest Invasive Species C onference, Rochester, MN. 25 Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 2018. ( October 4) . RIPPLE: Preventing aquarium and water garden invasive species through retailer engagement and inquiry. Oral presenta tion : Michigan Inland Lakes Convention, Grand Rapids, MI. 29 Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 2018 ( May 22) . Utilizing outreach to reduce invasive species from the pet and garden trade. Oral presentation : Society for Freshwater Science C onference, Detroit, MI. 28 14 Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 2018 (May 1) . Partnering to prevent invasive species from aquariums and water gardens in Michigan . Oral presentation : Association of Natural Resource Professionals Conference, Biloxi, MS. 35 Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 2018 ( February 16) . Reducing invasive animal and plant introductions from the pet and garden trade through retailer outreach and engagement. Oral presentation : MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Graduate Student Symp osium, East Lansing, MI. 100 Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 2017 ( October 24) . Addressing AIS introductions from aquariums and water gardens using outreach and retailer inquiry in Mich igan. Poster presentation: International Conference on Aquatic Invasiv e Species, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 30 Filice, P., 2016 (December 6) . RIPPLE: reduce invasive pet and p lant escapes. Oral presentation: Michigan Invasive Species Conference, Gaylord, MI. 55 Filice, P. , 2016 (November 3) ve pet and plant escapes. Host: Michigan Department of Ag riculture and Rural Development , East Lansing, MI 17 Filice, P. , 2016 (September 12) RIPPLE past and present efforts to engage the aquarium and pond trade. Host: Michigan Aqu atic Invasive Species Co re Team , Lansing, MI. 12 Filice, P. and Latimore, J. A. , 201 6 ( October 18) aquatic invasive species escapes from pet and pond trades. Poster presentation : U pper Midwest Invasive Species Conference, La Crosse, WI. 25 I also attended 12 popular industry tradeshows a nd natural resource conferences between October 2016 - October 2018 with an educational exhibit about RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species and through these events I exposed roughly 1,000 people to the progra m (Table 1. 4 ) . I utilized trade shows and conferences to increase awareness of RIPPLE and to network and build relationships. At events I share d RIPPLE education materials and other regulatory invasive species outreach products designed by MS U Extension, M DARD and MDNR . I tailored my exhibit materials based on event attendee knowledge of invasive species and organisms in trade . For example, most Great Lakes Trade Expo attendees have landscaping businesses that exclusively focus on terrestrial environments a nd in 2017 many asked invasive species questions that I could not address. Therefore, in 2018, I partnered with the Mid - M ichigan Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area (CISMA) to share exhibit space. CISMAs are state - endorsed multi - county invasive sp ecies organizations that work with terrestrial and aquatic species. Attending industry tradeshows allowed me to efficiently network with a variety of retailers, suppliers and wholesalers that sell aquatic plants throughout Michi gan and the Great Lakes regi on. 15 Attendees at industry trade shows seemed eager to learn about RIPPLE. Many noted the same vendors attend tradeshows annually and RIPPLE was a new program they were unfamiliar with. Many of the natural resource conferences I exhibited at were attended by watershed councils, nature centers and non - formal environmental educators and I found the majority of attendees were interested in supporting RIPPLE and distributing educational materia ls. Most of these organizations noted being contacted frequently abo ut rehoming unwanted organisms but lack ed resources to address Some organizations also have educational programs about invasive species and I encouraged them to utilize RIPPLE and integrate its message into their educational programs. Table 1. 4 : Industry and environmental organization e vents with a RIPPLE educational exhibit, October 2016 - October 2018 . Event s Target Audience Contacts October 2018. Michigan Inland Lakes Convention Environmental groups 200 May 2 017/2018. MDNR State Park Explorer Guide Share - a - Thon (2) Environmental groups 95 March 2017/2018. Michigan Green Industry Association Trade Show and Convention (2) Industry 250 January 2017/2018. Great Lakes Trade Expo (2) Industry 225 December 2017. M ichigan Invasive Species Coalition conference Environmental groups 68 October 2017. MSU Extension Lake and Stream Leaders Institute Environmental groups 15 March 2017. Shoreline and Shallows conference Industry 60 March 2017. Michigan Watershed Summit E nvironmental groups 75 October 2016. Michigan Alliance for Environmental and Outdoor Education conference Environmental groups 85 Distribut ion of RIPPLE education materials I distribute d RIPPLE outreach kits at speaking engagements and events, through in - person store visits, and via mail to aquarium and ornamental pond businesses and environmental organizations . Outreach kits contained RIPPLE rack cards, brochures, aquarium tank clings, indoor/outdoor posters, coloring pages, and other regulatory invasive species outreach products designed by MSU Extension, MDARD and MDNR . A guidance document was also included with specific, easy - to - follow instructions for the most effective use of the materials. From J uly 2016 to October 2018 I distributed over 100 16 outrea ch kits to aquarium and pond retailers, distributors and service providers; Cooperative Inv asive Species Management Areas ; state parks; nature centers; schools; zoos and public aquariums . Engagement through in - store retail visits I visited 45 busi nesses in cluding pet stores, garden centers, nurseries, landscape design and installation companies and 5 nature centers between October 2016 and July 2018 . During these in - store education visits I introduced myself as an MSU Extension program assistant and s hare d RIPPLE outreach kit material s . I demonstrate d how RIPPPLE materials could be used to educate the public about proper handling and disposal of unwanted species, discuss ed invasive species regulations and share d education al materials on regulatory and watch list species. My d iscussion s were tailored to their concerns regarding invasive species. In - store educational visits were conducted on weekdays, preferably in the morning when stores were less busy. I contacted some businesses via telephone or email to al ert them of my visit, however I did not find contacting them prior to visiting impacted their willingness to accept outreach materials. The majority of retailers that currently have RIPPLE materials in their store s received an outreach kit through an in - st ore visit. I communicate d with multiple staff members and built relationship s w ith store owners and managers during i n - store education visits . At these visits r etailers would often express their opinions of invasive species regulations and ask questions t hat may otherwise go unanswered ( e.g., what website has the most up - to - date information about regulated species ). These visits also allowed me to solicit feedback on current education material s . Unlike the ornamental pond and landscape industry , pet stores in Michigan do not have a membership organization. Due to this, in - store visits were the only way for me to connect with pet retailers. In - store visits also resulted in new outreach products being developed. While visiting stores I received numerous quest ion s regarding the handling of native species (e.g., native baby turtles). It was 17 clear from these visits retailers were a source of information, but based on the number of questions I received, they were not always aware of regulations pertaining to handl ing native species. To address this and other questions I was receiving, I produced a video. It features state agency regulatory staff answering frequently asked questions pertaining to regulations, native species and invasive species. Aquatic invasive sp ecies identification and RIPPLE training To increase awareness of regulated species and improve aquatic plant and animal ide ntification skills of retailers, MDARD inspectors , MDNR law enforcement and invasive species managers, I developed 12 new online tra ining modules for the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network ( MISIN) website ( http://www.misin.msu.edu ) on regulated plant and animals species . MISIN is a popular online invasive species resource used by resea rchers, land managers, and the public in the Midwest ern United States to report and track invasions . Each species training module takes between 10 to 15 minutes to complete and includes identifiable characteristics such as : species size and shape, notable physical features and preferred habitat . The module ends with a ten question self - assessment quiz. I developed training modules for three aquatic invertebrates: r ed swamp crayfish ( Procambarus clarkii ), r usty crayfish ( Faxonius rusticus, form er ly Orconecte s rusticus ) and New Zealand mudsnail ( Potamopyrgus antipodarum ) ; three aquatic plants: African oxygen weed ( Lagarosiphon major ), g iant salvinia ( Salvinia molesta ), s tarry stonewort ( Nitellopsis obtusa ) ; and six fish: b itterling ( Rhodeus sericeus ), i de ( Leu ciscus idus ), r udd ( Scardinius erythrophthalmus ), s tone moroko ( Pseudorasbora parva ), t ench ( Tinca tinca ), and w els catfish ( Silurus glanis ). With the addition of these 12 learning modules , MISIN now features identification training on all currently regula ted aquatic plants and all but one regulated aquatic animal in Michigan. A MISIN module was not created for Zander ( Sander lucioperca ) , Sander vitreus ). It was necessary for MISIN t o have information on regulate d species, as RIPPLE materials direct retailers and hobbyists to the website . 18 In addition to developing online training modules, I also conducted three in person and online trainings that included an overview of RI PPLE and regulations, risks associated with the aquarium and pond trade, best practices, identification recommendations and resources (Table 1.5) . These trainings were attended by aquatic plant nursery and retail owners and staff, aquarium hobbyists and aq uatic invasive species educators. Table 1. 5 : In - person and webinar trainings about RIPPLE and risks associated with organisms in trade offered to environmental organizations, hobbyists and industry members , February 2018 - July 2018 . Training Audience Attendees Filice, P. , 2018 ( July 11) Reduce Aquarium and Pond Invasive Species Introductions. Host: North Central Region Water Network, webinar. University Extension educators 104 Filice, P. , 2018 ( May 10) . Michigan invasive species: prevention and solutions. Host: Motor City Aquarium Society, Detroit, M I . Hobbyists 80 Filice, P. , 2018 (February 14). RIPPLE: Partnering to reduce invasive species. Host: West Michigan Nursery and Landscape A ssociation, Zeeland, MI. Industry 22 Aquarium and Ornamental Pond Hobbyist Outreach Outreach and engagement through publications, videos, presentations and educational exhibits I published 7 articles in popular online and printed hobbyist publications bet ween July 2016 - June 2018 which have been viewed by over 42,238 people (Table 1. 6 ). My a rticles were usually seasonally - focused (i.e. fall cleanout of ornamental pond s) and featured information about aquatic invasive species regulations and identification , aquatic plant and animal handling and disposal recommendations and an overview of RIPPLE. I chose a variety of publications to publish in and m y articles were written for particular publication audiences. Some publications (e.g., Michigan Gardener) had a v ery specific audience ( garden ers), while others (e.g., MSU Extension news) had a broad er audience that included aquarium and garden hobbyists, but also industry, academics, and people generally interested in aquatic invasive species . I also produced two sh ort videos on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species prevention. These videos have been viewed by over 4,40 0 people since being published online in April 2017. One video 19 highlighted ornamental ponds and seasonal maintenance and the other highlighted aquariums and proper handling and disposal of live organisms. These videos were promoted through articles and social media. Table 1. 6 : Publications and videos on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species aimed at aquarium and ornamental pond hobb yists, July 2016 - June 2018. Publications and V ideos # of R eaders /V iewers Filice, P. and Eavy, T. June 2018. Beware: aquariums, water gardens and the wild 115 1 Filice, P. May 2018 . Consider the environment when installing and maintaining your water garden. The Michigan Gardener. https://issuu.com/Michigan gardener/docs/mg.may.18 31,000 2 Filice, P. January 2018. Released fish and plants may have a RIPPLE effect on the environment. Grand Valley Aquarium Club Tank Notes. 200 2 Filice, P. and Endert, J. December 2017. Are you gifting an aquarium for the holidays? Make sure to keep nature and your new hobby separate. Michigan State University Extension News. http://www.canr.msu.edu/news /are_you_gifting _an_aquarium _for_the_holidays_make_sure_to_keep_nature_and_y 163 1 Filice, P. and Elgin, E. June 2017. Water gardeners beware: Keep nature and your landscape separate. Michigan State University Extension News. http:// www.canr.msu.edu/news /water_gardeners_beware_keep_nature_and_ your_landscape_separate 720 1 Filice, P., Cuda, A., Richter, R., Latimore, J. A. and Kermiet, S. April 2017. Video: Tips for caring for your backyard pond. bit.ly/ripplepondvideo 1389 1 Filice, P., Cuda, A., Richter , R., Latimore, J. A. and Kermiet, S. April 2017. Video: Never release aquarium plants or animals. bit.ly/rippleaquariumvideo 3015 1 Filice, P. October 2016. Are invasive species lurking in your house? The Michigan Riparian magazine. 9,300 2 Filice, P. Ju waterways? Michigan State University Extension News. https://www.canr. msu.edu/news/is_your_water_garden_having_a_ripple_effect_on_michigans _waterways 740 1 1 Based on the number of online views 2 Based on the publication circulation Similar to my outreach and engagement with industry and environmental groups, I also gave educational presentations to aquarium and ornamental pond hobbyists (Table 1. 7 ). Si nce April 2017 I have given 6 pr esentations to roughly 150 hobbyists at ga rden and aquarium club meetings, home and garden shows and watershed council meetings . P resentations were tailored to my audience but generally covered the basics of aquatic invasive species in Michigan, aquatic pl ant and animal 20 regulations , invasive species identification and reporting resources , and best practices for the handling and disposal of unwanted plants and animals . During presentations I also encourage d hobbyists to share RIPPLE with local retailers. Ta ble 1. 7 : Presentations on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species aimed at aquarium and ornamental pond hobbyists, April 201 7 - October 2018. Presentations Attendees Filice, P. , 2018 ( October 11 ) . Preventing the spread of aquatic invasiv e species in Michigan. H ost : Clinton River Watershed Council , Lake Orion, MI. 8 Filice, P., 2018 (April 7). Aquatic invasive species in Michigan and the RIPPLE solution. Event: Lansing Home and Garden Show, East Lansing, MI. 10 Filice, P. , 2018 ( March 1 7 ) . Aquatic invasive species in Michigan and the RIPPLE solution. Event: Novi Home and Garden Show, Novi, MI. 10 Filice, P. , 2017 ( July 7) . Aquatic invasive plants and animals: origins and solutions. Host: Rainbow Lake Garden Club , Maple Rapids, MI. 27 F ilice, P. , 2017 (April 23) . Water gardening practices to prevent invasive species. Host: Lansing Koi and Water Garde n Club, Dewitt, MI. 15 To engage hobbyists and the general public with RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species, I attended 11 ev ents with an e ducational exhibit and interacted with over 1,3 00 people at events since March 2017 (Table 1. 8 ) . These e vents included open - houses hosted by retail stores, aquarium fish and plant swap - meets, science days hosted by zoos, and fish breeding sh ows. Table 1. 8 : Aquarium and ornamental pond hobbyist events with a RIPPLE educational exhibit , March 2017 - August 2018. Events Contacts August 2018. DNR Outdoor Adventure Center Aquatic Invasive Species Day 75 August 2018. Michigan Koi and Pond Club Koi breeder show 50 July 2018. Michigan Koi and Pond Club ornamental pond tour 75 June 2018. Detroit Zoo Science - to - Public portal event 50 May 2018. American Livebearer Fish Association meeting 130 January 2018. Grand Valley Aquarium Society swap - meet 74 July 2017. Potters Park Zoo Days 400 April 2017. Michigan Lake and Stream Associations conference 100 April 201 7 . MSU Kellogg Biological Station Dessert with Discussion 180 March 2017 . Wedel's Nursery spring open house 250 21 At events I distributed outreach materials and shared invasive species information . I considered knowledge and concern about aquatic invasive species and their role in the trade and movement of live organisms when determining materials t o distribute at events and information to share . For example, I created an interactive game to use at events hosted by zoos since they typically attracted young children and families (Figure 2 ). Figure 2 : Aquatic inv asive specie s game developed for use at youth events. The purpose of the game was to attract children to my booth and to teach them where aquarium pets belong and do not belong and why it is important to know the difference. C hildren were asked to place an animal pho to into the correct environment (aquarium or lake) . During the activity I discuss ed the animal in the photo and describe d why it should be placed in a particular environment . Outreach and Engagement with Science Teacher s Outreach and engagement through pub lication s , educational exhibits and curriculum Science teachers often order plants and animals for experiments or have aquariums in their classroom as learning tools . O ne in four educators admit ted to releasing organisms into the wild after they were done using them in the classroom (Chan et al. 2012) . To address this, I provide d Michigan teachers with information about proper handling and disposal of classroom pets and aquatic invasive 22 species resou rces . Since May 2016 , I published five articles in popular classroom magazine s , attended two teacher forums and conferences with an educational exhibit s and integrat ed RIPPLE into the Michigan Environmental Educational Curriculum Support (MEECS) program (T able 1. 9 ). MEECS is a MDEQ science curriculum for students in grades 3 - 9 and I worked with MEECS staff to modify an activity to include invasive species examples from the aquarium trade and added RIPPLE as an additional resource for teachers . Table 1. 9 : Publications and presentations on RIPPLE and aquatic invasive species to teachers, May 2016 - June 2018. Publications and Exhibits # of R eaders /V iewers Filice, P. and Eavy, T. June 2018. Keep classroom pets out of the wild. Michigan S tate University Extension News. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/ keep_classroom_pets_out_of_the_wild 217 1 Filice, P. April 2018. RIPPLE. Tracks magazine, Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 21,000 2 March 2018. Michigan Science Teachers Association conferen ce 225 Filice, P. and Endert, J. October 2017. Alternatives to Brazilian elodea in the classroom. Michigan Science Teacher Association newsletter. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.msta - mich.org/resource/resmgr/newsletter_ pdfs/1771117_MSTA_FALL_NEWSLETTER.pdf 1, 700 2 August 2017. MSU Kellogg Biological Station K - 12 Partnership Summer Institute. 30 Filice, P. July 2016. Preventing invasive species introduction and escape starts in the classroom. Michigan Science Teacher Association newsletter. https://cdn.ymaws. com/www.msta - mich.org/resource/resmgr/ newsletter_pdfs/1570816_MSTA_SUMMER_NEWSLETT.pdf 1,700 2 Filice, P. May 2016. Project RIPPLE. Tracks magazine, Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 21,000 1 1 Based on the number of online readers 2 Based on the public ation circulation Partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Salmon in the Classroom program Salmon in the Classroom (SIC) is a MDNR program that engages students in nearly 200 grade 3 - 12 classrooms in raising salmon to release into l ocal waterways. This program provided a natural opportunity to teach students and teachers about invasive species and the difference between releasing salmon, and releasing pets from an aquarium . I integrated RIPPLE messaging into the SIC curriculum and 23 cl assroom handbook , provided SIC classrooms with RIPPLE outreach materials, published an article about RIPPLE for the SIC newsletter , and presented at a SIC teacher workshop about best practices to reduce the introduction of aquatic invasive species from the aquarium trade into the wild (Table 1.10 ) . Table 1. 10 : Presentation and publication for teachers in the MDNR Salmon in the Classroom program , November 2016 - May 2018 . Presentation and Publication # of R eaders / Contacts Filice, P. Ma Newsletter. 480 Filice, P. November 2016. Improve your salmon in the classroom lesson plans with RIPPLE. Event: Salmon in the Classroom teacher workshop, Mattawan, MI. 80 Discussion and Out comes of Reduce Invasive Pet and Plant Escapes Program Exposure to RIPPLE RIPPLE is program designed to engage pet and ornamental pond businesses and hobbyists in preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species into the w ild . T his development, implementation and partnership approach h as informed retailers and hobbyists of proper handling and disposal methods that reduce potentially invasive aquatic organisms in trade from being introduced to Michigan wate rs. Since implemen t ing the program in May 2016 over 50 ret ailers, 8 aquarium and pond clubs, 17 environmental organizations, 3 zoos and public aquariums, 10 schools , 20 state and county park systems , and 10 Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas (CISMAs) have offered support to RIPPLE and have received materials . T hrough these supporting organizations , presentations , and exhibits I have distributed over 28,000 pieces of RIPPLE outreach materials to the public . A c tive outreach efforts (i.e., face - to - face communication) including educational exhibits, presentations, trainings, and in - store retail visits have resulted in nearly 3,200 people exposed to RIPPLE messaging . Through passive outreach efforts including articles in popular publications , videos , and social media , R IPPLE messaging has been shared with approximately 96,300 people. 24 Benefits and Challenges of Partnering Industry o pinion leaders approval of RIPPLE materials and their continued guidance via the RIPPLE advisory committee has been beneficial to the progra s implementation. Studies show engaging opinion leaders who are highly influential within a social network can encourage attitude and behavior change (Nisbet and Kotcher 2009) . because messaging and products were gu ided by opinion leaders and are relevant to retailer concerns . By involving opinion leaders, I also became aware of retailer s perceptions of regulations and issues facing their industry and provide d advice while avoid ing presumptions. Lastly their support allowed me to market RIPPLE as an industry vetted program. P artnership with MSU Extension also benefitted the implementation of RIPPLE. Because of their financial support of my work as a Program Coordinator, I was able to present myself as a representati ve from MSU Extension when conducting outreach and engagement activities such as in - store ed ucational visits with retailers and during presentations and events. Being seen as a representative from MSU Extension, as opposed to staff from a regulatory agency , allowed me t o have candid conversations about invasive species in a non - threatening manner with retailers and hobbyists . RIPPLE could also be perceived as a short - term project if I was representing the program solely as a graduate stud ent. I also found m yself being contacted by retailers and environmental organizations due to my association with MSU Extension. In general, Cooperative Extension Services are viewed as trusted sources of information (e.g., Fernandez - Gimenez et al. 2005, Ekanem et al. 2006, Arbuckle et al. 2015, Brugger and Crimmins 2015) . Surveys of the horticulture industry in Minnesota found that industry members are likely to turn to Cooperative Extension for information about plants they sell (Peters et al. 2006) and based on my experience MSU Extension has a similar relationship with the horticulture industry . MSU Extension did not have a relationship with the pet industry prior to RIPPLE . 25 I utilized my partnerships with the Michigan Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development, Natural Resour ces, and Environmental Quality to identify opinion leaders and retailers in the pet and garden industry and to d issemin ate RIPPLE messaging to a broad audience. I found many p otential retail partners of RIPPLE lack ed an online presence , making them difficult to discover on a statewide scale. I developed a list of retailer contacts using a business inspection databas e provided by MDARD . Furthermore, I use d State of Michigan agencies existing communication channels ( e.g ., The AIS ) to connect with nearly 11,000 citizens. Agency staff also frequently distribu ted RIPPLE materials at their own exhibits at industry tradeshows and public events. These partner ing state agencies also integrated RIPPLE into the Michigan Invasive Species Grants Program (MISGP) as one of the education and outreach campaign s that gran t applicants are encouraged to adopt . This increased awareness of RIPPLE among Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas ( CISMAs ), state - endorsed multi - county invasive species organizations that regularly receive funding through MISGP . It worked with C ISMAs to share RIPPLE to a broader audience , as many of them have connections to local organizations involved with invasive species . CISMA staff helped me identify retailers, co - host ed events and educational exhibits , and distribute d RIPPLE mat erials. Whi le partnering with the pet and garden industry, MSU Extension and state agencies had many benefits, it also posed some challenges. For example, I have been responsible for the majority of outreach since May 2016 ; however , as a grant - funded g raduate student some retail and environmental partners questioned the longevity RIPPLE . To date RIPPLE has been grant - funded , creating the perception among some retail and environmental partners that it is a short - term program . RIPPLE is presented as a program of MSU Ext ension and the State of Michigan, which was difficult for some organizations to understand when they needed additional outreac h materials or information about RIPPLE . Being affiliated with state agencies that oversee regulations created some challenges whe n 26 gaining the trust of new partners. Lastly, due to this network of partners the development of new materials required multiple levels of review and approval , which occasionally took a considerable amount of time and effort. Opportunities for Program Imp rovement and Expansion I consulted research on horticulture and pet retailers and consumers (Peters et al. 2006, Seekamp et al. 2016) to determine effective communication channels and techniques when addressing these audience s , however , quantifying t he impact of my outreach activities (e.g., articles, pre sentations and educational exhibits ) on behavior is challenging . While studies have shown hobbyists view retailers as experts and expect them to share information at the time of sale about aquatic invasive species (Seekamp et al. 2016) , the impact of RIPPLE materials in retail stores on retailer or hobbyist behavior has not been studied. RIPPLE was designed to be s hared with hobbyists through retailers however this assumes that retailers feel capable and responsible for sharing invasive species information. To address this , I surveyed independently owned Michigan businesses about their knowledge, behavior and attitu des regarding aquatic invasive species in May 2017 . The survey instrumen t and results are in Chapter 2. Findings from this survey will guide future RIPPLE outreach activities . As noted by others (Chang et al. 2009, Oele et al. 2015) , engaging with pet and ornamental retailers is more successful through in - store educational visits as opposed to mailing education materials or relaying information via the telephone. My experience supported their findings. In - store educational visits led to increased retailer participation in RIPPLE and stronger partnerships . When first implementing RIPPLE I c ontact ed businesses via telephone or email but I had very little success reaching store managers and owner s . At i n - store visits , r etailers always accepted RIPPLE materials , engaged in conversation and shared their experiences with unwanted organisms . There were also additional positive outcomes of in - store visits. Retailers frequently asked questions about inv asive species 27 regulations and resources, and recommended other retailers and organizations that would support RIPPLE. Overall I found in - person visits to be extremely valuable in reaching retail audiences . I also found exhibiting at public events and givin g presentations, especially at aquarium swap meets and koi clubs, to be extremely helpful in discovering retailers, clubs and other audiences with which I could engage. Through these activities I also gained a better understanding of issues hobbyists face with unwanted organisms and resources they consult for invasive species regulations and options for disposal. Overwhelmingly these audiences were supportive of RIPPLE, as they repeatedly invited me to speak at their meetings and made me an honorary member of their clubs. By attending these events I also identified activities that could introduce invasive species into the wild , and educational resources that could be developed to mitigate the risk. For example, many aquarium and koi shows use a large amoun t of water for tanks and artificial ponds and these events are generally conducted outdoors. This water could be released into nearby waterways, potentially introducing non - native organisms. Additionally, sellers at auctions and swap meets are frequently i ndividuals, rather than retail entities, and may be unfamiliar with regulations on invasive aquatic species. Other audiences and RIPPLE materials beyond the scope of this project should be developed to enhance organisms in trade education . O utreach effort s to date have engaged independently owned Michigan businesses, but RIPPLE can be expanded to other retailers. For example, chain grocery and home improvement stores sell aquatic plants and animals (e.g., Meijer) but based on my observations do not have Ha bitattitude or other information posted about not releasing aquatic organisms into the wild . suitable for display in these retail settings. A dditional engagemen t with K - 12 educators and classroom biological suppl y companies regarding t he risks associated with releasing live organisms and regulatory information is also needed. I 28 met t eachers who frequently purchase d live organisms such as tadpoles and crayfish to raise in their classrooms, and release d them into the wild at the end of the school year. This is a clear pathway for the introduction of non - native species. Also, r etailers repeatedly noted being contacted by teachers requesting a regulated invasive plant , waterweed. This issue was also observed in Wisconsin (Wagner et al. 2014) . To address this, I wrote an article for the Michigan Science Teachers Association newsletter about using a native plant instead of waterweed . However , m ore should be done to engage teachers and biological supply companies with aquatic invasive species such as developing curriculum that uses native species or activities that do not include the release of live organisms. RIPPLE could also capitalize on new science standards developed in 2016 for Michigan , req uiring teachers to address invasive species (National Research Council, 2012) . Teachers frequently asked about classroom activities regarding invasive species and RIPPLE . New outreach materials should be produced that explicitly address specific audiences including teachers , aquarium hobbyists and ornamental pond hobbyist s . RIPPLE recommendations are currently very broad and address aquariums, live animals, aquatic plants, and siting for ornamental ponds . I f ound it challenging to convince some audiences ( e.g., some aquarium hobbyist clubs) that RIPPLE is applicable because some recommendations were unrelated to their interests. It would be beneficial to have handout s (e.g., rack card, brochure, factsheet) addressing specific audience needs . RIPPLE advisory committee members have suggested materials focused on changing purchasing behavior of aquarium hobbyists (e.g., choosing the right pet messaging on aquarium products ) . This is similar to Habitattitude and has been suggested by other authors (Reaser and Meyers 2007, Chang et al. 2009) . In addition to audience specific outreach materials, RIPPLE needs to have an outreach product that addresses aquatic animal regulations. Regulatory staff, retailers and hobbyists have all requested print materials pertaining to regulated aquatic animals and identification. 29 Lastly, a database of entities that accept unwanted fis h and plants would be highly beneficial to RIPPLE and reducing the release of unwanted organisms into the wild . One RIPPLE recommendation is to ut there is no listing of organizations that accept unwanted organisms. One barrier faced by hobbyists is that not all retailers, environmental learn ing centers, aquariums or zoos are willing to take unwanted o rganisms from the public. As suggested by othe r authors, a database of entities tha t do accept unwanted organisms would remove this barrier (Seekamp et al. 2016, Stringham and Lockwood 2018) . R etail partners, hobbyist clubs, environmental organizations and RIPPLE advisory committee members have expressed support for a database . RIPPLE was designed and implemented by a strong partnership between govern mental agencies, retailers and Michigan State University to address the pathway of aquatic invasive species introductions from the aquarium and ornamental pond trade. In 4 years, the program has moved from development to implementation, and has engaged ove r 118 business and organizational partners, exposing te ns of thousands of people to its Do Not Release message . A major investment of time and resources went into the design of messaging and materials, establishment of partnerships and active outreach and e ngagement . These efforts have built a solid foundation for RIPPLE and the program can fill an important niche in protecting Michigan from further impacts of aquatic invasive species, and serve as a model for those interested in addressing this invasion pa thway in other parts of the world. 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 LITERATURE CITED Abroms, L. C., and E. W. Maibach. 2008. The effectiveness of mass communication to change public behavior. Annual Review of Public Health 29:219 234. Arbuckle, J. G. , P. Lasley, and J. Ferrell. 2015. Iowa farm and rural life p oll 2014 s ummary r eport. Iowa State University Extension. Brugger, J., and M. Crimmins. 2015. Designing institutions to support local - level climate change adaptation: insights from a case study o f the U.S. Cooperative Extension System. Weather, Climate, and Society 7:18 38. Burt, J. W., A. A. Muir, J. Piovia - Scott, K. E. Veblen, A. L. Chang, J. D. Grossman, and H. W. Weiskel. 2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potenti al efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biological Invasions 9:909 923. Chan, S., T. Siemens, J. Adams, C. Jacoby, W. Y. Wong, R. Goettel, H. Domske, S. Zaleski, P. Charlebois, L. Chilton, J. Cassell, P. Griffman, J. Brinsmead, M. Herbog, J. Lam, and J. D. O lden. 2012. Opportunity for integrated vector management: r educing the potential for schools and biological science suppliers as pathways for invasive species. Oral presentation: Ecological Society for America, Portland, OR. Chang, A. L., J. D. Grossman, T . S. Spezio, H. W. Weiskel, J. C. Blum, J. W. Burt, A. A. Muir, J. Piovia - Scott, K. E. Veblen, and E. D. Grosholz. 2009. Tackling aquatic invasions: risks and opportunities for the aquarium fish industry. Biological Invasions 11:773 785. Chuchol l, C. 2013. Invaders for sale: t rade and determinants of introduction of ornamental freshwater crayfish. Biological Invasions 15:125 141. Courtenay, W. R. 1999. Aquariums and water gardens as vectors of introduction. Pages 127 128 nonindigenous f reshwater organisms: vectors, b iology, and i mpacts. Lewis p ublishers, Boca Raton, FL. Crossman, E. J., and B. C. Cudmore. 1999. Summary of North American fish introductions through the aquarium/horticulture trade. Pages 129 134 N o nindigenous freshwater organisms: vecto rs, biol ogy and impacts. Lewis p ublishers, Boca Raton, FL. Drew, J., N. Anderson, and D. Andow. 2010. Conundrums of a complex vector for invasive species control: a detailed examination of the horticultural industry. Biological Invasions 12:2837 2851. Duggan, I. C . 2010. The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna. Biological Invasions 12:3757 3770. Duggan, I. C., C. A. M. Rixon, and H. J. MacIsaac. 2006. Popularity and propagule pressure: d eterminants of introduction and establishme nt of aquarium fish. Biological Invasions 8:377 382. Ekanem, E., M. Mafuyai - Ekanem, F. Tegegne, S. Muhammad, and S. Singh. 2006. Consumer trust in e xtension as a source of biotech food information. Journal of Extension 44. Fernandez - Gimenez, M. E., G. Ruyl e, and S. J. McClaran. 2005. An evaluation of Arizona cooperative e ra ngeland monitoring p rogram. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:89 98. 32 Funnell, E., M. Heaton, F. MacDonald, and B. Brownson. 2009. The aquarium and horticultural industry as a pathway for the introduction of aquatic invasive species outreach initiatives within the Great L akes basin. Biodiversity 10:104 112. Fusaro, A., E. Baker, W. Conards, A. Davidson, K. Dettleoff, J. Li, G. Nunez - Mir, R. Strutevant, and E. Rutherford. 2016. A risk assessment of potential Great Lakes aquatic invaders. NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL - 169. Management 39:72 75. Holmberg, R. J., M. F. Tlusty, E. Futoma, L. Kaufman, J. A. Morris, and A. L. Rhyne. 2015. The 800 - pound g rouper in the room: asymptotic body size and invasiveness of marine aquarium fishes. Marine Policy 53:7 12. Humair, F., L. Humair, F. Kuhn, and C. Kueffer. 2015. E - commerce trade in in vasive plants. Conservation Biology 29:1658 1665. Kay, S. H., and S. T. Hoyle. 2001. Mail order, the internet, and invasive aquatic weeds. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 39:88 91. Keller, R. P., and D. M. Lodge. 2007. Species invasions from commerce i n live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. BioScience 57:428 436 . species. A selection from the g lobal i nvasive species d atabase. Published by t he Invasive Species Specialist Group a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union, Auckland. Maki, K., and S. Galatowitsch. 2004. Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural tr ade. Biological Conservation 118:389 396. Mayer, J., E. Seekamp, and G. Deason. 2013. A ddressi ng aquatic invasive species in I llinois through outreach and planning: enhancing effectiveness of organismne through survey research . North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC. McKenzie - Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community - based social marketing , 3rd edition. New Society Publishers. aquatic i nvasive s pec ies state management p lan 2013 Update. Lansing, MI. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k - 12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . Committee on a conceptual framework for new K - 12 science education standards . B oard on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. 1994. Michigan Compiled Laws, Public Act 451. Nisbet, M. C., and J. E. Ko tcher. 2009. A two - step f low of i nfluence? Science Communication 30:328 354. NOAA. 2018. Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System (GLANSIS). https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glansis/glansis.html. 33 Odom, R. L., J. A . Solomon, and L . J. Walters. 2014. Alternatives to release: efficient methods for disposal of excess or unwanted aquarium macroalgae in the genus Chaetomorpha . Invasive Plant Science and Management 7:76 83. Oele, D. L., K. I. Wagner, A. Mikulyuk, C. Seeley - Schreck, and J . A. Hauxwell. 2015. Effecting compliance with invasive species regulations through outreach and education of live plant retailers. Biological Invasions 17:2707 2716. Padilla, D. K., and S. L. William s. 2004. Beyond ballast water: a quarium and ornamental t rades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:131 138. Pagnucco, K. S., G. A. Maynard, S. A. Fera, N. D. Yan, T. F. Nalepa, and A. Ricciardi. 2015. The future of species invasions in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 41:96 107. aquatic species invasions via European inland waterways: from concepts to environmental indicators. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5:110. Peters, J. A., and D. M. Lodge. 2009. Invasive species policy at the regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:373 380. Peters, W. L., M. H. M eyer, and N. O. Anderson. 2006. Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 148:75 86. Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien - invasive species in the Un ited States. Ecological Economics 52:273 288. Reaser, J. K., and N. M. Meyers. 2007. Habitattitude: getting a backbone about the pet release pathway. Pages 63 71 in G. W. Witm er, W. C. Pitt, and K. A. Fagerstone (editors). Managing vertebrate invasive spec ies: proceedings of an international symposium. Fort Collins, CO. Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Diversity and Distributions 12:425 433. Ricciardi, A., and H. J. MacIsaac. 2 000. Recent mass invasion of the North American Great Lakes by Ponto Caspian species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Evolution 15:62 65. Rixon, C. A. M., I. C. Duggan, N. M. N. Bergeron, A. Ricciardi, and H. J. Macisaac. 2005. Invasion risks posed by the aquarium trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1365 1381. Seekamp, E., J. E. Mayer, P. Charlebois, and G. Hitzroth. 2016. Effects of outreach on the prevention of aquatic invasive species spread among o rganism - in - trade hobbyists. Environmental Management 58:797 809. Sink, T., J. Gwinn, and H. Gerke. 2014. AgriLife e xtension solutions ornamental ponds and water gardens in Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Strecker, A. L., P. M. Campbell, and J. D. Olden. 2011. The aquarium trade as an invasion pathway in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 36:74 85. 34 Stringham, O. C., and J. L. Lockwood. 2018. Pet problems: b iological and economic factors that influence the release of alien reptiles and amphibians b y pet owners. Journal of Applied Ecology 00 :1 9. United States Exec utive Order 13112: Invasive Species. 1992. Wagner, K. I., C. Schreck, J. Hauxwell, A. Mikulyuk, M. Wilkinson, S. Van Egeren, and D. L. Oele. 2014. Reducing invasive organisms in trade in Gr eat Lakes watersheds. PUB - SS - 1144 2014 . Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources . Madison, WI. Walters, L. J., K. R. Brown, W. T. Stam, and J. L. Olsen. 2006. E - commerce and Caulerpa : Unregulated dispersal of invasive species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:75 79. Walters, L., R. Odom, and S. Zaleski. 2011. The aquarium hobby industry and invasive species: has anything changed? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:206 207. Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607 615. 35 KNOWLEDGE, OPINIONS, AND BEHAVIORS OF MEMBERS IN THE AQUARIUM AND ORNAMENTAL POND INDUSTRY REGARDING AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES I ntroduction Patterns of biological invasions are intimately connected to trends in trade and transport (Perrings et al. 2 005, Meyerson and Mooney 2007) . The introduction of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes can be linked to intercontinental shipping, fishing and aquaculture, canals and diversions, tourism and development activities, and the trade of live organisms (Pimentel et al. 2000, L odge and Finnoff 2008) . The trade and movement of live aquatic organisms have been identified as a significant vector of aquatic invasive species introductions in the Great Lakes (Rixon et al. 2005, Keller and Lodge 2007, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2013) . This includes plants and animals sold for aquariums and ornamental ponds. At least sixteen established aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes were introduced from unauthorized aquarium releases (NOAA 2018) and additional species from d waters (e.g., Red swamp crayfish, Procambarus clarkii ). The original introduction of an invasive ornamental species to the wild may not be directly attributed to release from an aquarium or pond, but their availability in retail stores greatly increases the risk of new introductions (Funnell et al. 2009) . A wide variety of aquatic organisms are sold in the aquarium and orn amental pond trade including aquatic plants, fish, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans, and amphibians. A 2002 survey of 20 privately owned and chain aquarium and pet stores in Ontario and Michigan found 308 freshwater fish species belonging to 50 families, an d 66 plant taxa from 25 families offered for sale (Rixon et al. 2005) . Introductions of invasive species from aquariums and ornamental ponds are expecte d to increase as both industries continuously offer new, and potentially invasive, species for the public to purchase, and a warming climate increases the probability of tropical and subtropical organisms surviving in colder climates (Rixon et al. 2005) . 36 Preventing new introductions is a cost - effective management strategy used to address invasive species (V ander Zanden and Olden 2008) . The costs associated with preventing invasions from the aquarium and pond trades, such as prohibiting the sale of certain species or enforcing quarantine periods, are often trivial in comparison to the cost and effort require d to manage established invasions (Mack et al. 2000) ; however, prevention approaches can be complicated by economic, political and social factors (Padilla and Williams 2004, Keller and Lodge 2007, Peters and Lodge 2009) . Regulation, and associated enforcement, is a common approach used to prevent invasive species introductions in the Great Lakes (e.g., regulation of ballast water release). In practice, however, policies alone often fail to prevent new invasions (Peters and Lodge 2009) . Regulations concerning the trade and movement of l ive organisms vary by industry. At the state, provincial and federal levels in the United States and Canada, the aquarium and pet trades are less regulated than aquaculture and live bait trade (Thomas et al. 2009) . The commercial importation of live organisms is regulated in all Great Lakes states and provinces; however, these regulations are not uniform across the basin (Pagnucco et al. 2015) policy (Peters and Lodge 2009) . Inconsistencies between state and federal regula ted species lists, generally weak enforcement of existing regulations and limited communication between regulators and live organism vendors lead to regulations being ineffective at preventing new invasive species (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004, Funnell et al. 2009) . Therefore, education and engagement with the aquarium and ornamental pond industry, including retailers and hobbyists, is c ritical in preventing invasive species introductions from trade (Chang et al. 2009, Funnell et al. 2009, Strecker et al. 2011, Walters et al. 2011, Stringham and Lockwood 2018) . A quarium and ornamental pond hobbyi sts in the Great Lakes region view retailers as experts and expect to learn about invasive species when making purchases; however, they report not learning about invasive species while purchasing live organisms (Seekamp et al. 2016) . This is likely because there has 37 been a lack of invasive species outreach and engage ment with the industry (Chang et al. 2009, Selge et al. 2011, Walters et al. 2011) . To engage the aquarium and ornamental pond industry in Michigan, the Reduce Invasive Pet and Plant Escapes (RIPPLE) program was developed and l aunched in May 2016. RIPPLE is a partnership between Michigan State University (MSU) Extension, the Michigan Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), Natural Resources (MDNR) and Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and dozens of Michigan busines ses and organizations. I played a central role in the development and implementation of this program through my position at MSU. RIPPLE is a statewide research - based education program designed to increase awareness of proper handling and disposal technique s for organisms in trade and to encourage retailer participation in invasive species education with hobbyists. The program fosters mutual understanding of aquatic invasive species through outreach, engagement and partnerships with retailers, hobbyists, env ironmental organizations , and teachers. Educational messages and outreach materials were developed with guidance from well - known and respected independently - owned pet and atic invasive species information through publications, presentations, educational exhibits, trainings, outreach kits and in - store visits and have engaged over 118 business and organizational partners, exposing tens of and implementation of RIPPLE can be found in Chapter 1 . Although education and engagement has been established as critical for preventing invasive species, Michigan had no organisms - in - trade outr each program targeting aquarium or pond retailers or hobbyists prior to RIPPLE. Development of an effective education program was challenging because beha viors concerning aquatic invasive species. A 2002 survey of Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association members found horticulture businesses were interested in educating consumers about 38 plants offered for sale and influencing purchases away from species t hat were harmful to the environment (Peters et al. 2006) . A 2005 survey of aquarium retailers in the San Francisco Bay Delta region suggested retailers believed the aquarium trade had the potential to introduce invasive species and that retailers play a role in preventing aquatic introduc tions (Chang et al. 2009) . These studies indicate that some sellers have an interest in preventing invasive species; however, they may not have the right tools or information to properly educ ate the public (Peters et al. 2006, Seekamp et al. 2016) . Hobbyists in the Great Lakes region expect retailers to share invasive species information (Seekamp et al . 2016) species education programs and their current business practices surrounding potential invaders. Without this critical information, providing effective e knowledge is difficult and runs the risk of being ineffective (Jacobson et al. 2006, McKenzie - Mohr 2011) . To address this need, I conducted a detailed survey of Michigan aquarium and ornamental pond businesses. Research Goals The goal of this research was to answer questions about Michigan pet and ornamental pond sellers, including their knowledge of aquatic invasive species, current preventative behavior and recommendations shared with customers, and their willingness to participate in future aquatic invasive species prevention programs. The f ive broad research questions of this study were: 1. Do businesses view aquatic animal and plant species they sell as an environmental risk? 2. Do businesses understand behaviors that can reduce aquatic invasive species introductions and do they share this info rmation with their customers? 3. Do businesses believe it is their responsibility to share species handling, containment and surrender options with their customers? 39 4. Where and how do businesses gain knowledge about the life history of species they sell and re gulations at the federal and state level? 5. Are there differences among aquatic animal and plant businesses that impact their knowledge, attitude, information sources, and information sharing capacity? M ethods I distributed 158 mail surveys to independently owned Michigan businesses that sell aquatic - Michigan. These businesses included: wholesale and distribution businesses (entities that buy large quantities of goods or live organisms and resell to other businesses), pond suppliers (entities that sell equipment or live organisms for ponds), growers (entities th at cultivate plants and sell to the public or other businesses), landscape design and installation businesses, garden centers (retail businesses that sell live organisms typically for ornamental ponds or pond supplies to the public) and pet stores (retail businesses that sell live organisms for household aquariums and ornamental ponds or aquarium and pond equipment to the public). I developed a preliminary list of businesses via internet searches (Google and Yellow Pages), wholesale websites, RIPPLE retail partners, and from an internal list provided by MDARD of licensed growers and dealers that sell aquatic plants (M. Bryan, personal communication). I used the following search terms to locate businesses on Google and Yellow Pages: pet store Michigan, aquar ium pet store, aquarium store Michigan, water garden Michigan, pond installers Michigan, backyard pond nursery Michigan, and backyard water features Michigan retailer . I also utilized three wholesaler websites: Aquascapes, Easy Pro Pond Products, and Blue Thumb Products. After identifying businesses, I reviewed their websites and social media pages for content related to aquatic plants or animals, to confirm appropriateness for inclusion in the survey. I contacted businesses directly if no information about their 40 business practices regarding aquatic organisms could be verified online. This study is a n attempt at a census of current independently owned businesses; however, it is important to note that there are other retail sources of non - native aquatic organ isms, including national chain pet stores and home improvement retailers. While every attempt was made to identify all independent businesses, it is possible some were not discovered. I designed and executed the survey with d Design Method (Dillman et al. 2014) and previous surveys of the horticulture and pet trade (Peters et al. 2006, Gagliardi and Brand 2007, Burt et al. 2007, Chang et al. 2009, Wagner et al. 2014) . The survey instrument (Appendix A) was eight pages long and featured sections on per ceptions of invasive species, the role of the pet and ornamental pond trade in invasive introductions, potential and actual participation in aquatic invasive species prevention measures, sources of regulatory and life history information, awareness of the RIPPLE program and demographics. It included 27 categorical, multiple choice, open - ended, and Likert scale questions. As a point of reference for respondents, I included the United States ( United States Exec. Order 13112: Invasive Species 1992) as well as two examples of invasive aquatic plants that have been introduced into the wild in Michigan from aquariums and ornamental ponds on the first page of the survey. Prior to distribution the survey was reviewed by two experts outside of Michigan with extensive experience in education and outreach for the prevention of aquati c invasive speci es from trade. I distributed the surveys in a four - wave mailing via the United States Postal Service beginning in May 2017 (Table 2.1). Each mailed item featured the Michigan State University logo in the upper left - hand corner and was hand stamped and sign - digit code that was printed on all mailed items. I used this code to remove businesses from the mailing list and to identify them on the online survey. An i dentical version of the mail survey was provided online via Qualtrics and a link to the survey 41 was included on the paper survey instrument. The first mailing contained an introductory letter stating the study purpose, the survey instrument, a postage - paid return envelope, and a $5.00 Amazon gift card as an incentive. I distributed a second mailing eleven days later that included a reminder letter restating the importance of the study. Regardless of their response status, I distributed the first and second m ailings to all businesses. I mailed a third reminder to non - responding businesses two weeks later which included the survey instrument, a postage paid return envelope, and a reminder letter restating the purpose of the survey. I contacted non - respondent s a week after the third mailing with a fourth and final letter. I removed all identifying information prior to data entry. The Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the survey instrument and deemed it exempt from the IRB process (IRB #: i053789). Table 2. 1 : Dates of mail survey distribution Mailing Mail Date Mailing 1: survey, introduction letter, $5 Amazon gift card 5/19/2017 Mailing 2: reminder letter 5/30/2017 Mailing 3: survey and reminder lett er 6/14/2017 Mailing 4: final reminder letter 6/23/2017 Completed surveys were returned (via the United States Postal Service or Qualtrics) to me whereupon data was entered twice and compared to eliminate entry errors. Composite scores a nd descriptive st atistics (mean , standard error, frequency and percent response) were calculated for the quantitative questions. To analyze two open - ended survey questions, each response was digitally recorded and I conducted an exploratory line - by - line analysis and identi fied recurrent themes. I developed a code book based on responses, and I coded responses into two overarching categories: recommendations shared with customers and actions taken to resolve the issue. I developed more specific codes in each category based o n survey responses. Two people coded responses and compared answers to resolve inconsistencies. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on eight attitudinal questions related to pathways of invasive species introductions and eight attitudinal responsi bility 42 questions to determine if independent latent variables were present in the data set. The factor analysis was conducted with a varimax rotation, which forced each factor to be independent of other factors. I examined the scree plot to determine the number of factors to be retained. In cases where responses were missing at random, I imputed a response using the overall average for the question. Following identification of factor(s), I evaluated whether responses to questions varied as a function of th e factor scor e using a General Linear Model. To identify differences among respondents for categorical responses, I also analyzed some questions by aggregated business category and by sources used for regulatory information, using Fishers Exact test to d etermine the significance of each category and response. Categories were determined based on the number of respondents in each category and my knowledge of the industry. Respondents identified their business category and regulatory information sources thro ugh multi - select questions, therefore these categories are not mutually exclusive. I grouped businesses into three categories: garden centers and landscapers , suppliers , and pet stores. The garden centers and landscapers category include d respondents who s elected garden center, landscape installer or landscape designer under the business category question. Suppliers include d respondents who selected distributor, wholesaler, grower, or pond supplier. Pet stores include d any b usiness that selected pet store a s a business category . Similarly, for regulatory information sources I grouped responses into four categories: government , industry , enforcement , and Michigan State University (MSU) Extension. Government sources included the Michigan Departments of Natural Resources (MDNR), Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Industry sources included industry associations, wholesalers , and other retailers. Enforcement sources included in spectors from MDARD and Conservation Officers from MDNR. The MSU Extension category refers to respondents which use MSU Extension as a source of information regarding regulations. 43 R esults Sixty - four (40.5%) surveys were completed and returned for analysis . Thirty - eight were submitted via U.S. Postal Service and 26 were submitted online via Qualtrics. A variety of businesses responded to the survey with many selecting multiple business categories (Table 2.2). The most common business category selected was p ond supplier (45%) followed by garden center (43%) and pet store (35%). Eleven respondents wrote answers into an other option and were assigned stor e categories based on my definition of store type. Thirty - four percent reported gross annual income greate r than $1 million and more than half (58%) had 1 - 25% of their annual sales from aquatic plants and animals. The average responding business ha d been in operation for 35 years with operations ranging from 2 to 90 years. Seventy - five percent of responding bu sinesses ha d one location. Table 2. 2 : Demographic information of responding businesses. Business category was a multi - select question, therefore, percentages total more than 100. Business category Frequency Distributor 6 (9%) Wholesaler 11 (17%) Grower 16 (25%) Landscape design 16 (25%) Landscape installation 20 (31%) Pet store 23 (35%) Garden center 28 (43%) Pond supplier 29 (45%) Other 11 (17%) Yearly gross income Less than $100,000 5 (8%) $100,000 - $300,000 9 (14%) $300,000 - $500,000 2 (3%) $500,000 - $1 million 11 (17%) Greater than $1 million 22 (34%) Prefer not to say 16 (25%) Percent sales from aquatic plants and animals 0% 9 (14%) 1 - 25% 38 (58%) 26 - 50% 6 (9%) 51 - 75% 5 (8%) 76 - 100% 6 (9%) Do not know 1 (2%) 44 Survey respondents were asked to rank eight known pathways of invasive species introductions on a four - (Table 2.3). Based on median responses, ship ballast water release ( =1.59, median =1) was perceived as the highest risk vector of aquatic invasive species. Live bait, pet trade, fishing or recreational boating, and aquaculture or fish farms were perceived less risky than ballast water based on the mean and median answers ( =2.16 - 2.21, median =2) . Water garden landscaping or horticulture, freshwater household aquariums and live seafood were perceived least risky ( =2.44 - 2.61, median =3) . Table 2. 3 ated with known aquatic invasive species pathways , =mean. Std. Error Median Ship ballast water release 1.59 1 0.10 1 Live bait 2.16 0.11 2 Pet trade 2.19 0.11 2 Fishing or recreational boating 2.21 0.12 2 Aquaculture or fish farms 2.29 0.10 2 Water garden landscaping or horticulture 2.44 0.10 3 Freshwater household aquariums 2.55 0.10 3 Live seafood trade 2.61 0.13 3 1 Questions measured on a four - Eight questions associated with respond evaluated by factor analysis to determine if respondent's views could be viewed as stemming from a broader underlying view. Based on scree plot and Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 associated with each potential factor (n=62), there appeared to be one latent factor that could represent all eight aquatic invasive species risk options. The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy was 0.79, above the recommended value of 0.6 and was judged to be well represented by these questions. Further, the factor patterns associated with each question were similar , rang ing from 0.44 to 0.70 , indicating similar weight for each question. A general linear model (GLM) was used to evaluate the factor score response to aggregate business ca tegory. I found no significant differences (GLM p =0.284). 45 potential of organisms in the aquarium and ornamental pond trade and their confidence and knowledge of r egulations (Table 2.4). Each question was measured on a five - point Likert scale that ran from potential of aquatic animals (2.17 ± 0.14 [mean ± Std. Err]) than aquatic plants (2.40 ± 0.14). On average aquatic plants, animals, or viruses . Respondents rank were at determining if aquatic organisms were regulated at the state of federal level (2.51 ± 0.14). Their knowledge of Michigan aquatic invasive species regulations was lower (2.81 ± 0.14) than their confidence (2.51 ± 0.14). R esponses by aggregate business category (pet stores, suppliers , garden centers and landscapers ) showed significant differences in terms of respondents concern about the release of organisms in trade into the wild, opinion regarding problems associated with release of organisms in trade, and knowledge of regulations. Pet stores were significantly more concerned about the release of ( p =0.0431) and marginally more conce rned about aquatic plants being released ( p =0.0648) than businesses that did not identify as pet stores. Garden centers and landscapers were significantly more likely to think that the release of aquatic organisms from ponds and aquariums is problematic fo r Michigan waterways than other businesses ( p = 0.0089) . Garden centers and landscapers felt the least knowledgeable (3.06 ± 0.20, p =0. 0027) about Michigan aquatic invasive species regulations while businesses identified as suppliers felt the most knowledgea ble (2.55 ± 0.22, p = 0.0348 ) about regulations. I examined whether the sources of regulatory information (MSU Extension, government , industry , and enforcement ) used was related to 46 opinions of invasion po tential of organisms in trade and their confidence and knowledge of aquatic invasive species regulations . Of all the tests conducted ( 24 ), I found one significant relationship. Respondents that utilize d MSU Extension felt more concerned about the release o f aquatic plants (2.192 ± 0.21, p = 0 .0276) than businesses that d id not utilize MSU Extension for regulatory information. Interestingly the usage of governmental resources (e.g., MDNR, MDARD, MDEQ and USDA) was not related to ledge of federal or state regulations. Table 2. 4 concern about aquatic invasive species, opinions of invasion potential of organisms in trade, and confidence and knowledge of regulations by aggregate busine ss categories: pet stores, garden centers and landscapers and suppliers , and by aggregate regulatory information sources: governmental enforcement (enfor.) and industry (ind.). =mean, [ ] = standard error , and p =p - value. [ ] median Store categories [ ] p Regulatory information sources [ ] p All Pet store Garden & landscape Supplier MSUE Enfor. Ind. How concerned are you about the release of aquatic plants i waters? 2.40 1 [.14] 2 2.52 [0.19] 0.0648 * 2.41 [0.23] 0.1095 2.45 [0.22] 0.5470 2.23 [0.15] 0.2505 2.19 2 [0.21] 0.0276 2.04 [0.19] 0.4094 2.45 [0.18] 0.9299 How concerned are you about the release of aquatic animals waters? 2.17 [.14] 2 2.52 [0.22] 0.0431 2 [0.19] 0.5664 1.97 [0.18] 0.5089 2.13 [0.16] 0.9182 1.84 [0.18] 0.0661* 1.84 [0.20] 0.0781* 2.34 [0.19] 0.5700 How likely is it for an aquatic plant, animal, or virus released from an aquarium or pond will become establ ished in Michigan waters? 3.09 [.12] 3 3.29 [0.21] 0.4821 2.94 [0.18] 0.6604 3.13 [0.17] 0.7697 3.04 [0.14] 0.6076 2.91 [0.17] 0.1768 2.88 [0.19] 0.1340 3.29 [0.15] 0.1016 47 How problematic is the release of aquarium or pond pl ants or animals on Michigan waters? 2.69 [.14] 3 2.71 [0.23] 0.0647 * 2.59 [0.21] 0.0089 2.71 [0.21] 0.2720 2.73 [0.17] 0.7363 2.44 [0.21] 0.3232 2.36 [0.24] 0.1182 2.84 [0.19] 0.3042 How confident are you in determining if an aquatic plant or animal on th e federal noxious weed list or regulated in Michigan? 2.51 [.14] 2 2.58 [0.21] 0.0868 * 2.66 [0.23] 0.1364 2.37 [0.21] 0.8828 2.28 [0.14] 0.0509 2.26 [0.20] 0.5074 2.16 [0.19] 0.4866 2.57 [0.18] 0.0815 * How knowledgeable do you feel about aquatic invasive species regulations in Michigan? 2.81 [.14] 3 2.85 [0.23] 0.5424 3.06 [0.20] 0.0027 2.55 [0.22] 0.0348 2.66 [0.16] 0.2435 2.69 [0.20] 0.7077 2.44 [0.20] 0.2641 2.71 [0.19] 0.4215 1 Questions measured on a five - 2 Bold indicates statistically significant differences between store categories or regulatory source 0 .05. * signifies marginally significant at 0.05 < 0 .10. I asked how much responsibility should lie with a business to p erform tasks that reduce the introduction of aquatic invasive species on a four - . R espondents felt most responsible for training employees about safe aquatic plant and animal di sposal options (1.17 ± 0.10, median =2; Table 2.5) and for determining if an aquatic species is leg ally regulated (1.75 ± 0.11, median =1). Respondents felt dia, and for assisting with surrender or rehoming of unwanted species (median =3). Survey respondents that identified a portion of their business as garden centers and landscapers felt significantly le ss responsible (3.33 ± 0.18, p =<.0001) for assisting cus tomers in surrendering or rehoming unwanted aquatic organisms than pet stores and suppliers . Pet store respondents felt most responsible (2.24 ± 0.22, 48 p =0.0571) for assisting with surrender and rehoming of unwanted plants and animals compared to non - pet st ores. Table 2. 5 : Survey respondents perspective on responsibility and behaviors that could reduce invasive species introductions . =mean, [ ] = standard error, and p =p - value. [ ] median Store categorie s [ ] p All Pet Stores Garden centers & landscapers Suppliers Training your employees about safe aquatic plant and animal disposal options 1.71 1 [0.10] 2 1.81 [0.16] 0.7829 1.89 [0.16] 0.4876 1.69 [0.13] 1.0000 Determining if an aquatic pl ant or animal is a legally regulated species before selling it 1.75 [0.11] 1 1.81 [0.19] 0.2075 1.90 [0.16] 0.1104 1.70 [0.15] 0.8363 Inspecting aquatic plant or animal shipments to ensure regulated invasive species are not present 1.93 [0.12] 2 1.80 [0.2 0] 0.8379 2.15 [0.17] 0.2985 1.89 [0.16] 0.8238 Removing unwanted plant fragments and other animals such as snails or eggs, from aquatic plant or animal stock prior to offering it for sale 2.15 [0.13] 2 2.33 [0.22] 0.7093 2.30 [0.20] 0.5678 2.03 [0.18] 0. 5678 Communicating to customers how aquatic plants and animals from the aquarium or water garden trade can harm the environment if released or escape 2.19 [0.12] 2 2.48 [0.16] 0.1041 2.13 [0.17] 0.9196 2.13 [0.17] 0.9196 Posting information at the point of sale regarding proper disposal of unwanted aquatic plants or animals 2.43 [0.13] 3 2.52 [0.22] 0.9729 2.63 [0.19] 0.6860 2.26 [0.19] 0.2444 Assisting customers surrender or rehome unwanted aquatic plants and aquatic animals 2.58 [0.15] 3 2.24 [0.22] 0. 0571* 3.33 2 [0.18] <.0001 2.56 [0.22] 0.8562 Posting information about safe aquatic plant and aquatic animal disposal on your website or social media account 2.67 [0.14] 3 2.90 [0.20] 0.6886 2.96 [0.18] 0.3302 2.61 [0.19] 0.7249 1 Questions measured on a four - 2 Bold < 0.05. * signifies marginally significant at 0.05 < An exploratory factor analysis (n=62) with a maximum likelihood method was conducted to explore the structure of eight responsibility questions . Based on scree plot and Eigenvalues greater than 49 1.0 associated with each potential factor, there appeared to be one latent factor that could represent all eight responsibility questions. The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy was 0.82, above the recomm ended value of 0.6 and was judged to be well represented by these questions. Further, the factor patterns associated with each question were similar , in the range of 0.63 to 0.91 , indicating similar weight for each question. I evaluated whether the factor score varied by five practices known to prevent the introduction of invasive species. There was one strong relationship ( p =0.0079) between the responsibility factor score and this recommendation: Do not release unwanted aquatic plants or aquatic animals i nto waterways . I found no other significant relationships between the responsibility factor score and practices shared with hobbyists. Survey respondents were asked if their business accepted unwanted plants and animals from the public that were originall y sold by their business or by other busines ses (Table 2.6). Nearly half (48 %) of stores accept ed unwanted aquatic plants and 42 % accept ed unwanted aquatic animals they previously sold to customers. Regarding species sold elsewhere, only 26 % of survey resp ondents accept ed unwanted plants and 32% accept ed unwanted aquatic animals. Nearly half (49%) of businesses did not accept unwanted plants or animals. Responses to this question varied significantly by aggregate business category (pet stores, garden center and landscapers , and suppliers ). Pet stores were significantly ( p =0.0001) more likely to accept returns of unwanted plants and animals regardless of where they were sold than garden centers and landscapers and suppliers . Over three quarters (81 %) of pet s tores accept ed unwanted plants and animal s sold by their business, and 43 % accept ed unwanted aquatic plants and 52% accept ed unwanted aquatic animals sold by other businesses. Only 14% of pet stores do not accept unwanted plants or animals of any kind. Gar den centers and landscapers were significantly le ss likely (72 %, p =0.0008) to accept unwanted aquatic plants or animals sold by their business or other businesses. 50 Table 2. 6 : Unwanted aquatic plants and animals accepted as ret urns or surrenders by businesses. Store categories Overall Pet Stores Garden centers & landscapers Suppliers Aquatic plants sold elsewhere 26% 1 4 3 % 2 0.0261 6% 0.0008 19% 0.5541 Aquatic animals sold elsewhere 32% 52% 0.0181 9% 0.0002 2 6 % 0.5824 Aquat ic plants sold by our business 4 8 % 8 1 % 0.0001 28% 0.0047 35% 0.1261 Aquatic animals sold by our business 4 2 % 8 1 % <.0001 1 6 % <.0001 29% 0.1196 Do not accept returns or surrenders of any aquatic plants or aquatic animals 49% 14% 0.0001 7 2 % 0.0008 61% 0.126 9 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response; reported values are the percent respondents answered yes. 2 Bold < 0 .05. I examined several possible options the could unwanted plants and animals (Table 2.7). These options included recognition of their business as conservatio n partner, participation in animal surrender events, connections with non - profit partners and free quarantine aquariums. Half (5 1 %) of businesses surveyed said connections with non - profit partners that can assist with rehoming unwanted animals would increa se their willingness to accept unwanted species from the public, and 4 8 % said recognition of their business as a partner in conservation by a state agency would do so. Less popular options were animal surrender events (3 1 %) and free quarantine aquariums (2 3%). Analyzing options by aggregated business category did not reveal any statistically significant differences at 0 .05 . A marginally significant finding was that none of these options (37%, p = 0.0898) would increase will ingness to accept unwanted aquatic plants or animals. 51 Table 2. 7 aquatic plants or animals from the public. Store categories Overall Pet Stores Garden centers & landscapers Suppliers Connections with nonprofit partners that can help rehome unwanted aquatic animals 5 1 % 1 4 3 % 0.4226 4 7 % 0.4595 58% 0.4462 Recognition of your business as a partner in conservation by a state agency 4 8 % 4 8 % 1.0000 4 1 % 0.3092 5 2 % 0.7997 Participation in animal surrender events supported by a local or state organization 3 1 % 4 3 % 0.1560 1 9 % 0.0536* 32% 1.0000 Quarantine aquariums provided to your store at no cost to you 23% 33% 0.2013 12% 0.0699 * 19% 0.7622 None of these options would increase my willingness to accept returned or surrendered aquatic plants or animals 2 8 % 14% 0.1357 37% 0.0898* 2 6 % 1.0000 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response; reported values are the percent respondents answered yes. * signifies marginally significant at 0.05 Of the nearly 50% of businesses that were unwilling to accept unwanted plants or animals sold by their business or others, I examined if there were options that would increase their willingness. These included recognizing the business as a conservation partner, participation in animal surrender events, connections with non - profits and providing free quarantine aquariums (Table 2.8). Similar to the overall responses in Table 2.7, the most popular options were connections with nonprofit partners that can assist with rehoming unwanted animals (29%) and recognizing businesses as partners in conservation (23%). However, over half (68 %) said none of these options would increase their willingness to accept unwa nted animals. Table 2. 8 organisms among respondents that do not currently accept unwanted aquatic organisms. Connections with nonprofit par tners that can help rehome unwanted aquatic animals 29 % 1 Recognition of your business as a partner in conservation by a state agency 29% Participation in animal surrender events supported by a local or state organization 16% Quarantine aquariums provid ed to your store at no cost to you 6% None of these options would increase my willingness to accept returned or surrendered aquatic plants or animals 6 8 % 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response; reported values are the percent of respondents answerin g yes. 52 I asked survey respondents to indicate customer concerns regarding unwanted plants and animals that they had heard within the last year (Table 2.9). In the past year, 89 % of respondents had been contacted by a customer who had too many fish. Other reported concerns incl uded: animals grew too large (74 %), customer is moving and cannot take animals with them (73%), aggressive fish ( 70 %) and aquatic plants that spread too much (69 %). Table 2. 9 : Customer concerns regarding unwanted aquatic plants and animals expressed to businesses. Customer has too many fish 89 % 1 Customer has an aquatic animal that has grown too large 7 4 % Customer is moving and cannot take the animal with them 73% Customer has an aggressive fish 70 % Cu stomer has an aquatic plant that has spread too much 69% Customer cannot afford to care for an aquatic animal 32% 1 Question s measured as a yes, no, I do not know, and not applicable response; reported values are the percent of respondents answering yes . Respondents were asked if they shared recommendations with customers in the last year that are known to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (Table 2.10). The recommendations included in the survey were specifically promoted by RIPPLE. Three - q uarters of respondents (75%) have told customers not to release aquatic plants or animals into waterways and 63% have told customers to give or trade unwanted aquatic plants and animals with another hobbyist, environmental learning center, aquarium or zoo. Approximately a third of respondents (32%) have recommended customers inspect and rinse aquatic plants to rid them of seeds, plant fragments, snails and fish. A fifth of respondents (20%) have told customers to contact a veterinarian for humane disposal o ptions. Comparing recommendations shared with customers by aggregate business category reveal ed significant differences among store categories (pet stores, garden centers and landscapers , and suppliers ) and invasive sp ecies prevention practices share d wi th customers. Garden centers and landscapers were significantly less likely to recommend three of the practices: tell customers not to release unwanted aquatic animals and plants into waterways (59%, p =0.0025); tell customers to give or trade unwanted aqua tic plants and animals with another hobbyist, environmental learning center, 53 aquarium or zoo (4 7 %, p =0.0091); and recommend customers inspect and rinse new aquatic plants to rid them of seeds, plant fragments, snails and fish (1 9 %, p =0.0536). Pet stores we re significantly more likely to tell customers not to release aquatic plants or animals into waterways (90%, p =0.0659). Table 2. 10 : Recommended practices shared with customers in the last year that are known to prevent the spr ead of aquatic invasive species by aggregate business categories: pet stores, garden centers and landscapers and suppliers . Store categories % p All Pet store Garden & landscape Supplier Do not release unwanted aquatic plants or aquatic animals into w aterways 75% 1 90% 0.0659* 59% 2 0.0025 81 % 0.5541 Give or trade unwanted aquatic plants or animals with another hobbyist, environmental learning center, aquarium or zoo 63% 6 7 % 0.7837 4 7 % 0.0091 74% 0.1138 Build water gardens away from waterways 386% 33% 0.5915 4 4 % 0.4436 48% 0.1919 Inspect and rinse new aquatic plants to rid them of seeds, plant fragments, snails and fish 32% 52% 0.0181 19 % 0.0536 * 29% 1.0000 Seal unwanted aquatic plants in a plastic bag in the trash 26% 2 9 % 0.7648 2 5 % 1.0000 29% 0.7723 Contact a veterinarian for guidance on humane disposal 20% 33 % 0.0858* 12% 0.2056 16% 0.7490 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response; reported values are the percent respondents answered yes. 2 Bold indicates statistically significant difference < 0.05. * signifies marginally significant at 0.05 < 0.10. Respondents were as ked to identify resources they have consulted regarding the life history and care of aquatic plants and animals (Table 2.11). The most popular resources respondents used were the internet (72 %) and growers/wholesalers (72 %). Over half of respondents also used industry resources such a publications and websites (65 %) and MSU Extension (5 7 %). The least popular resources were the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network ( 29%), plant and animal tags (29%) and industry associations (29%). I explored the relationship between business categories (pet stores, garden centers and landscapers, and suppliers ) and resources consulted and found significant relationships regarding th e 54 usage of MSU Extension. Approximately three quarters (7 9 %, p =0.0003) of suppliers and 7 2 % ( p =0.0226) of garden centers and landscapers used MSU Extension. MSU Extension was used sign ificantly less by pet stores (23 %, p =0.0001). Suppliers were the most li kely to use growers and wholesalers (8 2 %) for information regarding the life history and care of aquatic organisms. It should be noted that the supplier aggregate business category include d growers and wholesalers that participated in this survey. Only abo ut a third (28 %, p =0.0739) of garden centers and landscapers consult ed scientific literature for information on the life history and care of aquatic organisms, while half of responding pet stores (50%, p =0.2958) and 51% ( p =0.0800) of suppliers d id so. Tabl e 2. 11 : Information resources used by survey respondents regarding the life history and care of aquatic organisms. Store categories % p All Pet Stores Garden centers & landscapers Suppliers Internet search (Google) 72% 1 7 7% 0.5682 7 2 % 1.0000 6 1 % 0.0528* Growers/Wholesalers 72% 77% 0.5682 75 % 0.7816 82% 0.0962* Industry resources (publications and websites) 6 5 % 64% 1.0000 60 % 0.6029 67% 0.7952 Michigan State University Extension 5 7 % 23% 2 0.0001 7 2 % 0.0226 7 9 % 0.0003 Ind ustry peers 4 8 % 59% 0.1926 37% 0.2101 45% 1.0000 Scientific literature 41% 5 0 % 0.2958 28 % 0.0739* 51 % 0.0800* Catalogue descriptions 38% 32% 0.5918 37% 1.0000 42 % 0.4474 Midwest Invasive Species Information Network 29% 14% 0.0821* 34% 0.4048 33 % 0.4104 Plant/animal tags 29% 36% 0.3816 31% 0.7816 33 % 0.4104 Industry associations 29% 3 2 % 0.7709 1 9 % 0.1636 33% 0.4104 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response; reported values are the percent of respondents answering yes. 2 Bold indicates statistically s ignificant differences between store categories or reg ulatory source information at < 0.05. * signifies marginally significant at 0.05 55 I also asked respondents to identify sources of information they use for regulations on invasive species (Table 2.12). Over half of respondents utilize d MDARD, MDNR, MSU Extension, and whol esalers for regulatory information. The least popular resource for regulatory information (1 7 %) was other retailers. Comparing aggregate business categories (pet stores, garden centers and landscapers , and suppliers ) with regulatory information sources re vealed several significant relationships. Similar to the life history resources used by respondents, MSU Extension was least frequently (18 %, p =0.0002) used by pet stores for regulatory information but was the most popular resource for both garden centers and landscapers (6 9 %, p =0.0118) and suppliers (7 3 %, p =0.0010). Suppliers also consulted MDARD (70% , p =0.0024) and inspectors from MDARD (48%, p =0.0187) more frequently then did pet stores and garden centers and landscapers . Pet stores consult ed wholesaler s more than any other regulatory information source (7 3%, p =0.0631). Table 2. 12 : Invasive species regulatory information sources used by survey respondents. Store categories % p All Pet Stores Garden centers & landscapers S uppliers Michigan Department of Natural Resources 5 7 % 1 64% 0.4363 53% 0.8013 58% 1.0000 Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development 5 1 % 36% 0.1877 50% 1.0000 70% 2 0.0024 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 23% 14% 0.3457 2 2 % 1.00 00 27 % 0.3691 United States Department of Agriculture 3 7 % 36% 1.0000 2 2 % 0.0360 45% 0.1235 Inspectors from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development 35% 18% 0.0575* 34% 1.0000 48% 0.0187 Conservation Officers from the Michigan Depart ment of Natural Resources 2 5 % 36% 0.1193 16% 0.2374 21% 0.7711 Michigan State University Extension 52% 18% 0.0002 6 9 % 0.0118 73% 0.0010 Wholesalers 55% 73% 0.0631* 4 7 % 0.3152 48% 0.3275 56 Industry associations 26% 27% 0.7693 16% 0.1477 27% 0.7758 Other retailers 1 7 % 27 0.0797* 3% 0.0127 18% 0.7338 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response; reported values are the percent of respondents answering yes. 2 Bold indicates statistically significant differences between store cate gories or regulatory source information at The RIPPLE program was launched in May 2016, and this survey was conducted in May 2017. Thirteen survey respondents said they were familiar with t he RIPPLE program (Table 2.13). Of these thirteen respondents, seven of them learned of RIPPLE through the State of Michigan website. The most were the RIPPLE brochure and vinyl aquarium cling. Other materials on display include d stickers, posters, towels, rack cards . Table 2. 13 : Surve of the RIPPLE program. Source of awareness n State of Michigan website 7 (54%) MDARD inspector 4 (31%) MSU Extension website 3 (23%) Store visit by a RIPPLE representative 3 (23%) Belle Isle aquarium 3 (23%) Exhibit or presentation at an event 3 (23%) Magazine/newsletter article 2 (15%) From a colleague in your trade 2 (15%) RIPPLE materials on display n Brochure 7 (54%) Vinyl aquarium cling 4 (31%) Sticker 3 (23%) Poster 3 (23%) Towel 3 (23%) RIPPLE information on social media accounts 3 (23%) Rack card 2 (15%) Link to RIPPLE Facebook page on business website 2 (15%) RIPPLE program in formation on your business website 2 (15%) Link to RIPPLE program website on business website 0 Word search 0 1 Question s measured as a yes, no response. 57 Survey respondents were posed two hypothetical scenarios involving customers with aquariums and or namental ponds. Survey respondents were asked to describe what they would recommend regarding the handling of non - native species to prevent their introduction into the wild. Respondents were advised to skip the question if their business did not handle aqu ariums or water gardens. Results presented include quotes to illustrate some recommendations given by survey respondents. These quotes refer to specific respondents and cannot be generalized to a wider audience. Over a third (35%, n=23) of survey responden ts answered the hypothetical ornamental pond scenario: A customer asks about water gardens, including set - up and plant maintenance. S/he does not have a water garden, but is interested purchasing equipment, having one installed, and stocking it with plants and animals. What recommendations, if any, would you or your employees give regarding the handling of non - native plants and animals to prevent their spread into a nearby lake, stream, or river? If your business does not deal with water gardens or ornament al ponds, skip to the next question. Table 2.14 contains a summary of coded survey responses regarding unwanted plants and animals for ornamental ponds. Respondents most often would tell their customers not to release live organisms into the wild (30%), en courage d native plants for use in ornamental ponds (17%), and recommend ed building ponds away from natural waterways (17%). Quotes from selected respondents: knowledgeab - or our 58 Table 2. 14 : Coded survey responses to hypothetical scenario regarding ornamental pond maintenance and unwanted plants and fish . Information shared with customers n Discourage wild release 7 (30%) Build away from natural waterway 4 (17%) Stock ponds with native plants 4 (17%) Ponds should be lined 2 (8% Compost unwanted plants 2 (8%) Place unwanted plants in the trash 2 (8%) Purchase species from reputable sources 1 (4%) Stor e actions n Accepts unwanted species from customers 4 (17%) Store only carries certified species 3 (13%) Do not give recommendations, customers are knowledgeable 3 (13%) Educational materials posted in stores 2 (8%) Recommendations only given if aske d 1 (4%) Over half (53%, n= 34) of survey respondents answered t he hypothetical aquarium scenario: A customer is looking for advice on what to do with their unwanted aquarium, which s/he says contains fish, snails, live plants, and gravel. S/he can no lon ger care for the aquarium. What recommendations, if any, would you or your employees give regarding the handling of non - native plants and animals to prevent their spread into a nearby lake, stream or river? If your business does not deal with aquariums, sk ip to the next question. Table 2.15 contains a summary of coded survey responses regarding unwanted plants and animals from aquariums. Nearly a third (32%) of respondents said they discourage d their customers from releasing organisms into the wild and 18% recommend ed customers contact another retailer that accepts unwanted organisms. Over half of respondents (62%) accept unwanted species from the public, 35% accept unwanted plants and animals and 29% only accept unwanted animals. Quotes from selected respo ndents: 59 c. and work to rehome them. In the case of aquariums and tropical fish we will help work with - off or donation, and rehome them. If they are unsaleable, due to disease or posing a risk to handle or keep, we will euthanize them. In general, we discourage people from releasing their fish into nearby bodies of water as best we can . Table 2. 15 : Coded survey respon ses to hypothetical scenario regarding aquariums and unwanted plants and fish . Information shared with customers n Discourages wild release 11 (32%) Contact another retailer that accepts unwanted organisms 6 (18%) Find another hobbyist to give or trade with 5 (15%) Bury unwanted animals and plants outside 3 (8%) Inform customers of legal penalties for releasing organisms into wild 2 (6%) Offer euthanasia options to customer 2 (6%) Store actions n Accepts unwanted animals and plants from customers 1 2 (35%) Accepts unwanted animals only 10 (29%) Assist with rehoming species 4 (12%) Discussion This investigation into Michigan aquarium and ornamental pond sellers was guided by five research objectives. These research objectives focused on business es and their view of environmental risks associated with aquatic animals and plants; businesses understanding of behaviors that reduce aquatic invasive species introductions and preventative information shared with their customers; businesses perspective o n their responsibility for sharing species handling, containment and surrender options with their customers; where and how businesses gain knowledge about the life history of species they sell and regulations; and differences among businesses that impact t hese other four objectives. My find ings related to each of these research objectives are presented separately in detail, with differences among businesses integrated into each section. 60 Perspectives on environmental risk Scientists and state agencies agre e that the aquarium and ornamental trade is a vector for aquatic invasive species introductions (Mills et al. 1993, Padilla and Williams 2004, Keller and Lodge 2007, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2013) , however, t he independently - owned business that responded to this survey do not believe it is as much of a risk as other pathways (e.g., ballast water release, live bait, etc.). Patterns in response to risk assessment questions in this survey indicate there is a sing le latent factor which can be attributed to all respondents and their view of risk. I interpret this single factor as representing an underlying difference in their opinion of invasive species pathways and implies future surveys exploring risk perception c ould be more narrowly defined. While implementing RIPPLE, multiple pet and ornamental pond retailers requested specific examples of organisms in trade found in the wild (personal observation), indicating retailers may simply be unaware of organisms in trad e with established populations in Michigan. This knowledge gap could be addressed with outreach materials or training programs that highlight documented examples of invasive aquarium and ornamental pond species in the region with information about their en vironmental, recreational, or economic impacts. While respondents in the pet store category were the least concerned about the environmental impacts of released aquatic plants and animals from trade, they were the most likely to tell their customers not to release live organisms into the wild. Pet stores were also the most likely to accept behaviors may be motivated by concerns about animal and plant well - being, ra ther than by a desire to prevent invasive species introductions or other environmental impacts. To align with these motivations, organisms in trade outreach materials could be designed to help pet stores encourage the public to tion to sharing 61 Garden centers and landscapers were significantly less likely to recommend customers not release live organisms into the wild or to recommend customers give or trade unwanted organisms with another organiza tion. They also felt significantly less responsible for assisting customers with rehoming unwanted species, and are the least likely to accept unwanted plants and animals from the public. This may be why they are not sharing recommendations about proper di sposal with the public. It could be argued that garden centers and landscapers may be less likely to engage with aquatic plants and animals simply because it is not part of their business; however, 89% of respondents ha d been contacted in the last year by a customer with too many fish. This evidence shows that although garden and landscaping businesses may not be selling aquatic organisms, they are a source of information for the public. These businesses should be knowledgeable of behaviors that reduce the introduction of aquatic invasive species and a target audience for organisms in trade outreach. Communication and understanding of invasive species prevention practices - in - trade program, Reduce Invasive Pet and Plant Escapes (RIPPLE ), promotes six practices known to reduce the introductions of aquatic invasive species. These practices are shared with businesses and hobbyists through outreach materials designed for retail display, in - store educational visits with businesses, presentat ions, publications and exhibits. Prior to the launch of RIPPLE in May 2016, there was a lack of engagement with this industry about invasive species issues. There was relatively low awareness of RIPPLE and participation in the program at the time of this s urvey in May 2017. As others have noted (Funnell et al. 2009) , building and maintaining relationships with industry membe rs can be difficult due to high employee turnover and inexperienced seasonal staff . As such, there is a need for outreach to be an ongoing process . Also, high - level managers should be targeted during retail engagement as they have the greatest impact on s tore policies and train other employees. 62 In spite of respondents low awareness and participation in RIPPLE at the time of this survey, businesses were sharing practices consistent with RIPPLE program language. Three quarters of Michigan aquarium and orn amental pond businesses were telling their customers not to release live organisms into the wild and 63% suggest ed customers give or trade unwanted plants and animals with another organization. This indicates the terminology and messaging of suggested RIPP LE practices were familiar to businesses and they were comfortable sharing them with the public. Less frequently shared recommendations include d rinsing aquatic plants to rid them of unwanted hitchhiking species and sealing unwanted plants in a bag in the trash. Future engagement with businesses should highlight risks posed by aquatic plants, such as unwanted hitchhiking species (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004, Duggan et al. 2018) an d practices to prevent non - native aquatic plant introductions. A frequently suggested approach for preventing introductions of organisms in trade is encouraging or requiring sellers to accept returns or surrenders (Strecker et al. 2011, Stringham and Lockwood 2018) . Unfortunately, half (49%) of respondents d id not accept unwanted plants or animals f rom the public. This varie d significantly by aggregated business category as 80% of pet stores accept ed returns or surrenders. G arden centers and landscapers felt significantly less responsible for assisting customers surrender or rehome unwanted plants an d animals, while pet stores felt most responsible. Pet stores likely have equipment (e.g., heated aquariums, food) for handling unwanted animals while suppliers and garden centers and landscapers may not have the retail capacity or equipment. Some pet stor es also have store policies that could enhance a hobbyist ' s willingness to return their unwanted plant or animal , including refunds and trade - in opportunities. I discovered many businesses would be ey had connections with non - profit partners that could help with rehoming organisms , or if their business received recognition as a conservation partner. Although some (less than a third) of the respondents said none of the options offered would increase t heir willingness to accept returns or surrenders, the results indicate more can be done to 63 increase retailers interest in accepting unwanted organisms. Programs like RIPPLE should explore opportunities for providing retailers with tools, connections, and r ecognition for accepting unwanted organisms to reduce introductions into the wild. Responsibility for taking action to prevent introductions Respondents felt most responsible for activities related to regulations, such as determining if aquatic species ar e illegal to possess prior to offering them for sale and inspecting shipments to ensure regulated species are not present. Businesses can face legal penalties for selling regulated species in Michigan, and based on these survey results , respondents know it is their responsibility to ensure regulated species are not in their stores. S urvey respondents felt least responsible for activities they are not legally obligated to do. This includes posting information online and in their stores about proper disposal of unwanted plants and animals, and assisting customers surrender and rehome unwanted species. While RIPPLE and other organisms - in - trade programs encourage businesses to post information about handling and disposal in their stores, these results indicate r etailers do not believe it is necessarily their responsibility. Some ornamental pond businesses also made the argument they were not informing their customers about the handling of unwanted species because their customers are responsible. Based on these fi ndings, aquatic plant and animal businesses need to be informed they are a trusted source of information for hobbyists , and that hobbyists expect to learn about invasive species and prevention practices while making purchases (Seekamp et al. 2016) . This issue seems especially true for businesses that traditionally se ll products for ornamental ponds. Programs like RIPPLE should market themselves as opportunities for businesses to go above and beyond the status quo and what is expected of their stores. Making it as easy as possible (e.g., in - store visits to businesses, attractive free materials) for businesses to post information online and in their stores regarding unwanted species may also increase businesses willingness to participate in organisms in trade programs. 64 Sources of knowledge about species life history a nd regulations Horticulture retailers have indicated they are willing to educate their customers about plants and their invasive potential (Peters et al. 2006) ; however, this requires that they have access to information about invasive species thro ugh trusted and used sources. When outreach and information dissemination are lacking, the success of preventative invasive species programs is impacted (Burt et al . 2007) . Over half of survey respondents rely on websites, industry resources, wholesalers, and Michigan State University (MSU) Extension; indicating information such as environmental hardiness and the invasive potential of aquatic organisms should be pub lished in a variety of communication outlets. To communicate with industry members in Michigan, the RIPPLE program has been featured in popular landscaping and nursery association magazines, exhibits at popular industry tradeshows, and presented to busines ses through aquarium and garden clubs. RIPPLE materials also promote the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN), a popular invasive species resource used for reporting and tracking by researchers, land managers, and citizens. However, less th an a third of respondents and only 14% of pet stores use MISIN , indicating further communication with business members in Michigan and likely in the Midwest is needed about this invasive species resource. Not all businesses use the same resources. For exam ple, nearly three quarters of garden stores and landscapers and suppliers rely on MSU Extension for life history and care information, but MSU Extension is not a resource widely used by the pet industry. To best reach the pet industry, sharing information through growers/wholesalers and industry resources is likely to be most successful. As anticipated, retailers used government agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture and the Michigan Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development , Natural Resources, and Environmental Quality for regulatory information. Given that these agencies are responsible for the execution of invasive species r egulations, a majority of businesses are receiving accurate information about regulations. Interesti ngly, garden centers and landscapers utilize d MSU Extension the most for 65 regulatory information, however they felt the least knowledgeable among aggregated business categories about regulations. Consequently, MSU Extension should provide information about regulations for businesses or actively direct businesses to governmental agencies. Wholesalers are the most commonly used regulatory source of information for pet stores and similarly to MSU Extension, they should be informed they are a source of informati on for pet stores and organisms - in - trade programs should ensure wholesalers have accurate regulatory information for businesses. C onclusion There are many opportunities for organisms - in - trade programs like RIPPLE to improve ions, and behaviors regarding aquatic invasive species and to enhance their ability to effectively assist customers with unwanted aquatic plants and animals, thus preventing potential new invasions. My survey results suggest that while sellers generally un derstand that aquatic animals and plants in the aquarium and ornamental pond trade pose an environmental risk, they see most other vectors (ballast water, boating and fishing, etc.) as riskier. This suggests a need for continued outreach to sellers about t he risks involved with the non - native species they sell, with specific examples of known impactful invasions. Businesses are sharing RIPPLE practices, including discouraging their customers from releasing live organisms into the wild and are preventing the release of live organisms by accepting unwanted plants and animals from the public. Sellers also indicated they would be more inclined to accept unwanted species if they were provided tools, connections, and recognition. Sellers felt most responsible for ensuring regulated invasive species are not sold by their business and least responsible for posting information about safe disposal of unwanted species. Future outreach to sellers should emphasize businesses are trusted sources of information by hobbyists and programs like RIPPLE should make it simple for sellers to post information. My survey results illustrate sellers consult a variety of information sources (governmental agencies, industry associations, university cooperative extension services) when le arning about the life history and regulations of aquatic species and information sources 66 vary by store type (pet stores, garden centers). Consequently, to reach these different audiences organisms - in trade - programs must share information through a variety of communication channels. 67 APPENDIX 68 This survey is also available online at www.bit.ly/msupetandpondsurvey . Enter the code <> . Your responses are confidential and responses from all retailers will be analyzed together. 69 For the purposes of this survey the definition of invasive species (as defined by the U nited States Department of Agriculture) is a species that is : 1) non - native (or alien) to th e ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Non - native plants and animals can become invasive, causing harm. Examples of non - nat ive aquatic plants that have spread from aquariums and water gardens to Michigan lakes and rivers include Fanwort ( Cabomba caroliniana ) and Parrot Feather ( Myriophyllum aquaticum ). Both of these aquatic invasive plants threaten native animals and plants through competition , outgrowing and overtaking habitat that was once used by native species. They also form dense mats that impede recreation and can negatively impact water quality. 1. Several possible sources of invasive aquatic plants and aquatic anima ls are listed below. These sources could be described as having a high risk of introducing invasive species to Michigan, no risk of introducing invasive species to Michigan, or something in between. Select the level of risk you believe is associated with e ach source. High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk Aquaculture or fish farms Fishing or recreational boating Freshwater household aquariums Live b ait Live seafood trade Pet trade Ship ballast water release Water garden landscaping or horticulture 2. Select the option that best reflects your view . Extremely Very Somewhat A little Not at all How concerned are you about the release of aquatic plants into How concerned are you about the release of aquatic animals into How likely is it that an aquatic plant, animal , or virus released from a become established and grow/spread /reproduce in a Michigan lake or stream? How problematic is the release of an aquatic plant or aquatic animal from an aquarium or water garden to a Michigan lake or stream? 70 How confident are you in determining if a n aquatic plant or aquatic animal species is included on the federal noxious weed list or species list? How knowledgeable do you feel you are about aquatic invasive species regulations in Michigan? Read the following scenarios and respond to the accompanying questions . Only these two questions will require you to write out your answers. 3. A customer ask s about water gardens, including set - up and plant maintenance. S/he does not have a water garden, but is interested purchasing e quipment , having one installed , and stocking it with plants and animals . What recommendations , if any, would you or y our employees give regarding the handling of non - native plants and animals to prevent their spread into a nearby lake, stream, or river ? If your business does not deal with water gardens or ornamental ponds, skip to the next question . 4. A customer is looking for advice on what to do with their unwanted aquarium, which s/he say s contains fish, snails, live plants, and gravel . S/he can no longer care for the aquarium . What recommendations , if any, would you or your employees give regarding the handling of non - native plants and animals to prevent their spread into a near b y lake, stream or river? If your business does not deal with aqu ariums, skip to the next question. 71 5. How often d o your customers ask questions regarding the invasiveness of aquatic plants or aquatic animals? Never Sometimes About half the time Most of the time Always I do not know 6. How often d o your customers ask whether an aquatic plant or an aquatic animal is native to Michigan ? Never Sometimes About half the time Most of the time Always I do not know 7. How often do you explain to proper method s for handling or surrender ing unwanted aquatic plants or aquatic animals ? Never Sometimes About half the time Most of the time Always I do not know 8. How much responsib ility do you believe should lie with your business for perform ing the following tasks? Select the option that be st describes your belief . Completely Responsible Mostly Responsible Somewhat Responsible Not at all responsible Not applicable Determining if a n aquatic plant or aquatic animal is a legally regulated invasive species before offe ring it for sale Inspecting aquatic plant or aquatic animal shipments to ensure legally regulated invasive species are not present Removing unwanted plant fragments and other animals such as snails or eggs , from aquatic plant or aquatic animal stock prior to offering it for sale Communicating to customers how aquatic plants and aquatic animals from the aquarium or water garden trade can harm the environment if they are released or escape Posting information at the point of sale regarding proper disposal of unwanted aquatic plants or aquatic animals Training your employees about safe aquatic plant and 72 aquatic animal disposal options Posting information about safe aquatic plant and aquatic animal disposal on your website or social media account Assisting customers surrender or rehome unwanted aquatic plants and aquatic animals 9. In the last year , have you recommended any of the following practices to customers who have an aquarium or water garden? Select all that apply . Inspect and rinse new aquatic plants to rid them of seeds, plant fragments, snails and fish. Do not release unwanted aquatic plants or aquatic animals into waterways . Give or trade unwanted aquatic plants or animals with another hobbyist, environmental learning center, aquarium or zoo. Seal unwanted aquatic plants for disposal in a plastic bag in the trash. Build water gardens away from other waterways . Contact a veterinarian for guidance on humane disposal of animals. 10. In the last year , have your customers raised any of the following concerns related to unwanted aquatic plants or aquatic animals ? 11. Please indicate which types of aquatic plants and aquatic animals your business accepts as returns or surrenders from the general public. Select all th at apply . Aquatic plants sold by our business Aquatic plants sold elsewhere Aquatic animals sold by our business Aquatic animals sold elsewhere We do not accept returns or surrenders of any aquatic plants or aquatic animals Yes No I do not know N ot Applicable Customer has t oo many fish Customer has an aggressive fish Customer has an aquatic animal that has grown too large Customer has an aquatic plant that has spread too much Customer cannot afford to care for an aquatic animal Customer is moving and cannot take the animal with them Other, please specify: 73 12. W ould any of the following options increa se your willingness to accept returned or surrendered aquatic plants or aquatic animals ? Select all that apply. Quarantine aquariums provided to your store at no cost to you Participation in a nimal s urrender events support ed by a local or state organization Recognition of your business as a partner in conservation by a state agency Connections with nonprofit partners that can help rehome unwanted aquatic animals None of these options would increase my willingness to accept returned or surrendered aquatic plants or animals Other, please specify: 13. Where do / would you turn for information regarding the life history and care of aquatic plants or aquatic animals ? Select all that apply. Catalogue descriptions Growers/Wholesalers Industry peers Industry resources such as publications and websites Internet search (Google) Midwest Invasive Species Information Network M ichigan S tate U niversity Extension Plant /animal tags Industry associations Scientific literature Other, please specify: 14. Where do / would you turn for information on legally regulated invasive species? Select all that apply. Michigan Dep artment of Agriculture and Rural Development Michigan Dep ar t ment of Environmental Quality Michigan Dep ar t ment of Natural Resources Michigan State University Extension United States Department of Agriculture Wholesalers Other retailers Industry a ssociations Inspectors from the M ichigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Conservation Officers from the M ichigan Department of Natural Resource s Other, please specify: 74 15. Are you familiar with any of these organizations? Select all that apply. I have heard of it I am a m ember I a ttend their m eetings/ e vents I have r ead their m aterials I have not heard of it Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association Michigan Green Industry Association American Nursery and Landscape Association / AmericanHort Garden Centers of America North American Horticultural Supply NexPet Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 16. How many years has your business been in operation ? 17. How many locations does your business operate? 18. What is the zip code of the primary location? 19. What is your job title? 20. How would you describe your business? Chain Franchise Independent Other, please specify: 21. What type of business do you operate? Select all that apply. Distributor Grower Garden center Landscape design Landscape installation Pet store Pond supplier (eq uipment and/or aquatic animals and aquatic plants) Wholesaler Other, please specify: 22. Approximately what percentage of your sales in the last 12 months were aquatic plants and/ or aquatic animals? 0% 1 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 75 76 - 100% Do not know 23. What is your businesses yearly gross revenue? Less than $100,000 $100,000 - $300,000 $300,000 - $500,000 $500,000 - $1 million Greater than $ 1 million Prefer not to say 24. Are you aware of Reduce Invasive Pet & Plant Escapes) campaign? No. Skip to end of survey Yes 25. How did you hear about the RIPPLE campaign? Select all that apply . Belle Isle aquarium Exhibit or presentation at an event Magazine/newsletter article Michigan Dept artment of Agriculture and Rural Development inspector M ichigan S tate U niversity Extension website From a colleague in your trade State of Michigan website Store v isit by a RIPPLE representative Other, please specify: 26. Do you currently display RIPPLE campaign materials at your business , on your website or on social media ? No No, but I would be interested in learning more Yes 27. If YES , what RIPPLE products do you have on display? Select all that apply. Brochure Poster Rack card Sticker Towel Vinyl Aquarium Cling Word search Link to RIPPLE program website on business website Link to RIPPLE Facebook page on business website RIPPLE program information on your business website RIPPLE program information on social media accounts Other, please specify: 76 Please use this space for additional feedback regarding this study Thank you for participating! Your responses will be confidentially recorded and used as part of a research study to better understand pet and nursery retailer attitudes and beliefs regarding aquatic invasive species. Your participation is greatly appreciat ed. Please return this survey in the self - addressed stamped envelope provided. If you misplaced the envelope, return the survey by mail, fax, or email to: Paige Filice Michigan State University 480 Wilson Road, RM 13 East Lansing, MI 48824 Fax: 517.432. 1699 Email: filicepa@msu.edu 77 LITERATURE CITED 78 LITERATURE CITED Burt, J. W., A. A. Muir, J. Piovia - Scott, K. E. Veblen, A. L. Chang, J. D. Grossman, and H. W. Weiskel. 2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biological Invasions 9:909 923. Chang, A. L., J. D. Grossman, T. S. Spezio, H. W. Weiskel, J. C. Blum, J. W. Burt, A. A. Muir, J. Piovia - Scott, K. E. Veblen, and E. D. Grosholz. 2009. Tackli ng aquatic invasions: risks and opportunities for the aquarium fish industry. Biological Invasions 11:773 785. Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed - mode surveys: the tailored design method, 4th edition. J ohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Duggan, I. C., P. D. Champion, and H. J. MacIsaac. 2018. Invertebrates associated with aquatic plants bought from aquarium stores in Canada and New Zealand. Biological Invasions:1 12. Funnell, E., M. Heaton, F. MacDonald, and B. Brow nson. 2009. The aquarium and horticultural industry as a pathway for the introduction of aquatic invasive species outreach initiatives within the Great Lakes basin. Biodiversity 10:104 112. Gagliardi, J. A., and M. H. Brand. 2007. Connecticut nursery and l andscape i ndustry preferences for solutions to the sale and use of invasive plants. HortTechnology 17:39 45. Jacobson, S. K., M. D. McDuff, and M. C. Monroe. 2006. Conservation e ducation and outreach techniques , 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, New Yo rk, NY. Keller, R. P., and D. M. Lodge. 2007. Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. BioScience 57:428 436. Lodge, D., and D. Finnoff. 2008. Annual losses to Great Lakes region by ship - borne invasive spe cie s at least $200 m illion. Preliminary results. University of Notre Dame and University of Wyoming. Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, and M. Clout. 2000. Issues in e cology. Ecological Applications 86:249 250. Maki, K., and S. Galatowit sch. 2004. Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biological Conservation 118:389 396. McKenzie - Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community - based social marketing , 3rd edition. New Society Publishers. Meyerson, L. A., and H. A. Mooney. 2007. Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:199 208. aquatic invasive species state management plan 2013 u pdate. Lansing, MI. 79 Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:1 54. NOAA. 2018. Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System (GLANSIS). https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glansis/glansis.html. Padilla, D. K., and S. L. William s. 2004. Beyond ballast water: a quarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasiv e species in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:131 138. Pagnucco, K. S., G. A. Maynard, S. A. Fera, N. D. Yan, T. F. Nalepa, and A. Ricciardi. 2015. The future of species invasions in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River basin. J ournal of Great Lakes Research 41:96 107. Perrings, C., K. Dehnen - Schmutz, J. Touza, and M. Williamson. 2005. How to manage biological invasions under globalization. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:212 215. Peters, J. A., and D. M. Lodge. 2009. Invasive species policy at the regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:373 380. Peters, W. L., M. H. Meyer, and N. O. Anderson. 2006. Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 148:75 86. Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zun iga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50:53 65. Rixon, C. A. M., I. C. Duggan, N. M. N. Bergeron, A. Ricciardi, and H. J. Macisaac. 2005. Invasion risks posed by the aquarium trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1365 1381. Seekamp, E., J. E. Mayer, P. Charlebois, and G. Hitzroth. 2016. Effects of outreach on the prevention of aquatic invasive species spread among organism - i n - trade hobbyists. Environmental Management 58:797 809. Selge, S., A. Fischer, and R. Van D er Wal. 2011. Public and professional views on invasive non - native species a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biological Conservation 144:3089 3097. St recker, A. L., P. M. Campbe ll, and J. D. Olden. 2011. The aquarium trade as an invasion p athway in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 36:74 85 . Stringham, O. C., and J. L. Lockwood. 2018. Pet problems: biological and economic factors that influence the relea se of alien reptiles and amphibians by pet owners. Journal of Applied Ecology 00: 1 9. Thomas, V. G. , C. Vásárhelyi, and A. J. Niimi . 2009. Legislation and the capacity for rapid - response management of nonindigenous species of fish in contiguous waters of C anada and the USA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19:354 364. United States Exec utive Order 13112: Invasive Species. 1992. 80 Wagner, K. I., C. Schreck, J. Hauxwell, A. Mikulyuk, M. Wilkinson, S. Van Egeren, and D. L. Oele. 2014. Redu cing invasive organisms in trade in Great Lakes watersheds. PUB - SS - 1144 2014 . Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. Walters, L., R. Odom, and S. Zaleski. 2011. The aquarium hobby industry and invasive species: has anything changed? Fronti ers in Ecology and the Environment 9:206 207. Vander Zanden, M. J., and J. D. Olden. 2008. A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:1512 1522.