Draft Assessment of import risk of Garra rufa

For Department of Environment

25/5/2014

Table of ContentsSummary 4

1. Taxonomy 5

2. Conservation Status 5

3. Ecology 6

3.1 Description 6

3.2 Size and weight range 7

3.3 Lifespan 7

3.4 Habitat 7

3.5 Geographic range 8

3.6 Diet 9

3.7 Social groupings 9

3.8 Aggressive behaviour 9

3.9 Natural predators 9

3.10 Risk to humans 10

4. Reproductive Biology 10

4.1 Reproductive biology: characteristics, parental care and age at maturity 10

4.2 Spawning behaviour: timing, habitat requirements, frequency 11

4.3 Fecundity: Number of eggs 11

4.4 Hybridization 11

5. Feral Populations 12

6. Completed Risk Assessments13

6.1 Australia 13

6.2 Canada 13

6.3 New Zealand 14

7. Likelihood of establishment in Australia 14

7.1 Tolerance to environmental conditions 14

7.2 Ability to find food 15

7.3 Susceptibility to predation 15

7.4 Life history characteristics 16

2

7.5 Characteristics that favour establishment 16

8. Potential impacts of establishment 16

8.1 Effects on native fauna 17

8.2 Effects on prey/food sources 17

8.3 Effects on habitats/ local environments 17

8.4 Effects on primary industries/ property 18

8.5 Effects on humans 18

8.3 Introduction of bacteria, parasites or disease 18

9. Recommended Import Conditions 19

9.1 Conditions on the animals 19

9.2 Conditions on the importer 19

10. Purpose of Garra rufa 20

10.1 Aquarium Use 20

10.2 Medicinal Use 21

10.3 Aesthetic Use 21

10.4 Health risks of Aesthetic/Medical Use 22

11. Guidelines for keeping Garra rufa 22

11.1 Transport 23

11.2 Housing and care 23

11.3 Unwanted specimens 23

12. Australian Laws 24

References 25

Appendixes (electronic files attached)

1. Conditions for the Importation of Live Ornamental Finfish to Australia

2. Pet Industry Association of Australia National Code of Practice

3. Guidance on the Management of Public Health Risks from Fish Pedicures

3

Summary

Freshwater habitats and biodiversity are especially vulnerable to human activities and

environmental change (Dudgeon et al. 2006). The deliberate or unintentional release of

non-native species has negatively affected Australian freshwater biodiversity (Humphries

and Walker 2013, {Arthington, 1997 #95)}. It is of upmost importance that the potential risk

and reward of any species be evaluated before allowing that species to be imported into

Australia.

Invasive fishes face many challenges in a new environment. Environmental tolerances,

predation, nutrition, reproduction, dispersal and physical barriers all present challenges

(Humphries and Walker 2013). Narrow tolerances (e.g. temperature, salinity, oxygen,

turbidity, water velocity) limit a species’ ability to establish populations (Kolar and Lodge

2002).

Garra rufa is a benthoplagic, non-migratory freshwater fish indigenous to the Middle East.

Although this species has wide temperature, oxygen density, and pollution tolerances, they

have low fecundity and are found in streams with salinity levels practically unheard of in

Australia.

There has been no previous risk assessments completed for the importation of G. rufa in

Australia. However, they pose similar risks as other ornamental species which are regularly

brought in to the country. Australian quarantine procedures are already in place to limit the

biosecurity risks.

G. rufa are most commonly referred to as “Doctor Fish”, as they can feed on dead skin and

hence have been used for the treatment of psoriasis and by the spa industry for pedicures

(Ozcelik et al. 2000; Grassberger and Hoch 2006; Ozcelik and Akyol 2011). They have been

imported to dozens of countries for this purpose as well as for the aquarium industry. There

are no records of G. rufa establishing feral populations anywhere in the world.

4

1. Taxonomy

(Term of Reference: Provide information on the taxonomy of the species.)(ITIS 2013)

Kingdom Animalia

Phylum Chordata

Class Actinopterygii

Order Cypriniformes

Family Cyprinidae

Genus + Species Garra rufa (Heckel 1843)

Trade name Doctor Fish

Synonyms: Discognathus crenulatus Heckel, 1847

Discognathus obtusus Heckel, 1843

Discognathus rufus Heckel, 1843

Garra rufa crenulata (Heckel, 1847)

Garra rufa gymnothorax Berg, 1949

Subspecies: There are no recognized subspecies.

2. Conservation Status

(Terms of Reference: Provide information on the status of the species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES). For example, is the species listed on CITES Appendix I, II or III, and if so, are there any specific restrictions on the movement of this species? Include information on the conservation value of the species.)

5

This species is not one of the 5600 animals listed on CITES Appendix I, II or III (CITES 2014).

Nor has it been listed or assessed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(IUCN 2014).

G. rufa is one of the most common species within its distribution (Okur and Yalçin-Özdilek

2008) and is not thought to be under any specific threat (Coad 2014). It is however, listed as

locally vulnerable in Turkey due to a significant regional decline resulting from human

disturbances (Fricke et al. 2007). However, due to the commercial value of the species,

there are many breeders/suppliers around the world making the import of wild-caught

species from at risk populations unnecessary.

3. Ecology

(Terms of Reference: Provide information about the ecology of the species. Include, but do not restrict your response to: - lifespan of the species- size and weight range- the natural geographic range- habitat - diet, including potential to feed on agricultural plants- social behaviour and groupings- territorial and aggressive behaviours- natural predators- characteristics that may cause harm to humans and other species)

3.1 Description

G. rufa (Figure 1) is one of the smallest members of the family Cyprinidae (carp & minnows),

and is one of about 73 members of the genus Garra (Esmaeili et al. 2009; Coad 2014). It is

characterized by a scaleless head, two pairs of barbels, a well-developed adhesive disc and a

crescent-shaped, toothless, ventral mouth (Coad 2014). The typical body shape is a relatively

thin and long cylindrical structure with a complete lateral line, extending along the middle of

the depth of the tail. Scales are cycloid and moderate to large. Considerable colour variation

is known to exist in G. rufa, as some individuals are pale while others are very dark. Typically,

overall color is brownish-olive to dark green with darkly mottled flanks and a yellowish to

6

whitish belly (Coad 2014). Males and females display a limited form of external sexual

dimorphism, Large males become heavily tuberculate on the front and sides of the snout

and in a band from the eye to the nostril and across to the other nostril and eye (Fowler and

Steinitz 1956).

Figure 1: Adult Garra rufa

3.2 Size and weight range

Maximum length has been determined as 14.0cm (Krupp and Schneider 1989; Fishbase

2011) although there have been some claims of individuals up to 23cm in total length (Coad

2014). Studies on the length-weight relationship for this species determined a value of

a=0.015, and b= 3.15 (Hamidan and Britton 2013). Using these values in the formula W=aLb ,

we gain a theoretical maximum weight of 61g.

3.3 Lifespan

A recent study of wild populations of G. rufa in Iran found a maximum age of 4 years (Abedi

2011). While another study recorded individuals of five years (Patimar et al. 2010). Captive

bred individuals may have longer lifespans with most suppliers reporting lifespans of 6-7

years (garrarufa.com 2014).

3.4 Habitat

7

G. rufa is found in a range of different lotic (moving water) habitats such as rivers, lakes, and

small muddy streams in the Middle East (Coad 2014). It is a non-migratory bottom dwelling

species, generally found hiding under and among stones and vegetation in swiftly flowing

water (Coad 2014). They have been found in both perennial and intermittent mountain

streams (Okur and Yalçin-Özdilek 2008). Environmental conditions of the streams in which

G. rufa was recorded were observed as follows: largely of coarse substrates, water depths

typically ranged from 30 to 50 cm, pH ranged from 7.0-9.0, dissolved oxygen ranging from

2.9-14.8 mg·l-1, temperatures usually ranging from 15-28°C (although some found at the

extremes of 5.8-37°C), water velocities from 1.0 - 34.5 m3·s-1, conductivity values ranging

from 4.2-36.5 µS·cm-1, and salinities ranging from 100-800mg·L-1 (Yalçin-Özdilek and

Ekmekçi 2006; Okur and Yalçin-Özdilek 2008; Ozcelik and Akyol 2011). Additionally, G. rufa

appear to be able to persist in environments contaminated by heavy metals (Gümgüm et al.

1994). One study found G. rufa in an Iranian stream in which only two other species were

encountered, indicating the ability of this species to tolerate poor conditions (listed as

pollution, habitat destruction and drought) (Yazdanpanah 2005).

3.5 Geographic range

The natural geographic range includes the Ceyhan, Jordan, Orontes (=Asi), Quwayq and

Tigris- Euphrates river basins and coastal drainages of the eastern Mediterranean (Coad

2014) found in the countries of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Fishbase

2014). The global distribution and known collection sites for this species can be viewed in

Figures 2a and 2b.

Figure 2a & 2b: Garra rufa distribution (GBIF 2014).

8

G. rufa is considered a common species across its native range, for example, it is one of the

most widespread species and the most common benthic grazer in the Asi River system in

Syria and Turkey (Yalçin-Özdilek and Ekmekçi 2006; Okur and Yalçin-Özdilek 2008), was the

most common fish collected from a system in Southwest Iran (Esmaeili et al. 2006), and the

second most common in the Amanos system in Turkey (Okur and Yalçin-Özdilek 2008).

3.6 Diet

The G. rufa diet consists of aufwuchs (Fishbase 2011), the benthic community growing on

open surfaces. Gut content analysis on fish caught in the Asi River and its tributaries

(Turkey) found mostly benthic plant material, dominated by Chrysophta, Cyanobacteria and

Chlorophyta, with rotifers and protozoa also being recorded (Yalçin-Özdilek and Ekmekçi

2006).

3.7 Social Groupings

Information concerning social behaviour and groupings is rare, although they are generally

considered a schooling species and have an even sex ratio of 1:1 (Abedi 2011).

3.8 Aggressive Behaviour

No information indicating aggressive behaviours could be found. There is no evidence of this

species causing harm to any other species.

3.9 Natural Predators

The streams in which G. rufa is found are fairly low in diversity. One study of the Amanos

river system in the mountains of Turkey found only nine species. This suggests that G. rufa

will have limited experience with predation. Suggested predators of G. rufa include the

9

European Eel (Anguilla anguilla), several species of catfish (e.g., Clarias gariepinus, Silurus

triostegus) (Yalçin-Özdilek and Ekmekçi 2006; Okur and Yalçin-Özdilek 2008), as well as other

piscivorous cyprinids, such as Aspius vorax (Coad 2014) and Carasobarbus canis) (Spataru

and Gophen 1985).

G. rufa, like most other cyprinids, have few defences and can be expected to be susceptible

to predation by a variety of animals at all stages of life. Predation by the Western

Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) may have caused the extirpation of G. rufa from the Qishon

River basin, the largest coastal river in Israel (Goren and Galil 2005). A loss of shelter due to

eutrophication and modification of the riverbed for flood prevention deprived the larvae and

post-larvae of shelter and exposed them to Mosquitofish predation.

3.10 Risk to humans

This species has been determined harmless to humans (Fishbase 2011). It has no teeth or

spines that could damage a human. There have been fears over the risks to human health

involved with this species’ use as a therapeutic tool in the salon industry. As these risks

concern the manner in it which G. rufa is kept and used, rather than the animal itself, health

risks will be addressed in section 10.

4. Reproductive Biology

(Terms of Reference: Provide information on the reproductive biology of the species, including- the age at maturity (first breeding) - how frequently breeding occurs- if the female can store sperm- how many eggs or live-born young are produced at each breeding event- if the species has hybridised with other species (both in the wild and in captivity) or

has the potential to hybridise with any other species- if the species can hybridise, are the progeny fertile)

4.1 Reproductive biology: characteristics, parental care and age at maturity

10

G. rufa are broadcast spawners, so nest building, egg guarding, parental care and sperm

storage do not appear to occur with this species (Ünlü 2006). Individuals are single-sexed,

with no records of sex change or hermaphrodism. They reach sexual maturity at 2-3 years,

10 cm in length and a weight of 50 g (Al-Rudainy 2008). This is comparable with other Garra

species such as G. rossica (Coad 2014).

4.2 Spawning behaviour: timing, habitat requirements, frequency

Spawning occurs annually in the spring, between April and July in different parts of the

geographical range, with a requirement for clean, shallow gravel beds for spawning (Ünlü

2006). Different individuals release eggs and sperm at different times (Coad 2014). Studies

of the oocyte development and variation in gonadosomatic index (GSI) indicate an extended

spawning period (Abedi 2011, Yazdanpanah 2005, (Bardakci et al. 2000)) which could be an

adaptation to unstable environmental conditions. Generally, all mature oocytes are

spawned at once, although up to 20% may be retained for later spawning (Abedi 2011).

4.3 Fecundity: Number of eggs

The fecundity of G. rufa in wild populations (283–3,794 oocytes) (Yazdanpanah 2005; Abedi

2011) is low compared to other cyprinids, for example Barbus grypus (16,000–235,784

oocytes) (Oymak et al. 2008), Labeo senegalensis (12,948–74,832 oocytes) (Montchowui et

al. 2010), and Labeo parvus (8,723–124,363 oocytes) (Montchowui et al. 2007). High

temperatures and poor food conditions in some habitats may be limiting factors in

reproduction for this species. Depression of vitellogenesis was noted in a hot spring

population in Turkey, perhaps due to temperature and starvation (Bardakci et al. 2000).

4.4 Hybridization

There are G.rufa hybrids advertised online, however, the consensus is that this is a scam.

They are advertised as ‘Chin Chin fish’ a G. rufa hybrid species from China, but they are

11

actually juveniles of tilapia species (Jo 2008; Ng 2009). There are no credible reports of

hybrid species.

There are no other members of the Garra genus in Australia, making hybridization with

native species highly unlikely.

5. Feral Populations

(Term of Reference: Provide information on whether this species has established feral populations, and if so, where those populations are. Include information on whether this species has been introduced to other countries, even if it has not established feral populations.)

G. rufa has been imported into more than 60 countries around the world, and yet there have

been no records of feral populations anywhere in the world. These countries include but are

not limited to: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Croatia, China,

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal,

Poland, the Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Greece,

Slovakia, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Hong Kong,

Bucharest, Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Israel, France, Sweden, Bahrain,

Iceland, Mexico, Abu Dhabi, Aruba, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Curacao,

Dubai, Egypt, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, South Africa and Norway (garrarufa.com 2014).

Within the natural geographical range of G. rufa there have been no translocations or mixing

of populations due to human disturbance. All the populations from the Tigris, Euphrates and

Mediterranean basins have unique haplotypes. None of the populations across these basins

share any mtDNA haplotypes with each other. High level of genetic structuring between

these populations provides evidence of a complete isolation of the basins to which they

belong (Durna et al. 2010).

12

6. Completed Risk Assessments

(Term of Reference: Provide information on, and the results of any other environmental risk assessments undertaken on the species both in Australia and overseas, including any Import Risk Analyses undertaken by Biosecurity Australia.)

6.1 Australia

There has been no Import Risk Analysis undertaken by Biosecurity Australia to date for this

particular species.

According to Biosecurity Australia’s Import Risk Analysis (IRA) Handbook, they only

undertake a full IRA when:

relevant risk management measures have not been established or

relevant risk management measures for a similar good and pest/disease

combination do exist, but the likelihood and/or consequences of entry,

establishment or spread of pests or diseases could differ significantly from

those previously assessed (DAFF 2011).

In this case, the risk level is similar to that of other permitted live ornamental fish and

Biosecurity Australia already has risk management measures in place with the ‘Conditions

for the importation of live freshwater ornamental finfish into Australia’ (AQIS 1999)

(Appendix 1).

6.2 Canada

The Canadian government commissioned a biological summary of Garra rufa from the

Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment, Central and Arctic Region, Fisheries and

Oceans Canada (Jarvis 2011) as a Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences. This report contains no concrete recommendations, however, this species is

currently available in Canada.

13

6.3 New Zealand

New Zealand has approved Garra ceylonsis, a close relative of G. rufa, for import

(Biosecurity-NZ 2011) .

7. Likelihood of establishment in Australia

(Term of Reference: Assess the likelihood that the species could establish a breeding population in the Australian environment should it ever be released from effective human control. Include at least the following factors:- ability to find food sources- ability to survive and adapt to different climatic conditions (e.g. temperatures, rainfall

patterns)- ability to find shelter- rate of reproducing- any characteristics that the species has which could increase its chance of survival in

the Australian environment)

At least 1181 exotic freshwater species have been imported for the aquarium trade (McNee

2002); 34 of these species have escaped into waterways, establishing invasive populations

(Arthington and McKenzie 1997). Invading fishes may be at any trophic level, from herbivore

to detritivore to top predator, but most alien invaders, aside from the common carp, have

been carnivores (Humphries and Walker 2013).

7.1 Tolerance to environmental conditions

G. rufa is tolerant of a wide range of temperatures, oxygen levels, and even pollutants.

However, it has failed to establish wild populations in any of the dozens of countries that

have imported it.

There is limited data concerning the threshold levels of conductivity and salinity of G. rufa,

but the levels of the streams where they are found is extremely low (conductivity of 4.2-36.5

µS·cm-1 and salinity of 100 - 800mg/l; section 3).

14

The soil in Australia naturally contains salt, having accumulated over thousands of years. This

salt may come from prevailing winds carrying ocean salt, the evaporation of inland seas, and

from weathered parent rocks. This salt is picked up by rain seeping through the soil, into

ground water and carried into streams (Humphries and Walker 2013). As such, salinity levels

are highly variable. The variable salinity levels and lack of threshold data make determining

the area of Australia that meets the environmental needs of G.rufa problematic.

G. rufa would likely find suitable habitat in at least a few areas of Australia. The ideal habitat

being shallow (<50cm), swift-flowing, slightly alkaline streams (pH 7.0-9.0), with a coarse

substrate of clean gravel required for successful spawning and generally low salinity.

7.2 Ability to find food

Provided G. rufa were released into one of these ideal habitats, it would most likely be able

to find sufficient benthic algae to survive. Benthic algae is generally common, and their

survival in Turkish hot springs demonstrates an ability to thrive in low nutrient conditions.

7.3 Susceptibility to predation

Establishment would be limited by predation. Limited exposure to predators in native

populations, and their fearless behaviour towards humans, likely means that G. rufa has not

evolved sufficient predator avoidance behaviour. The introduction of the Western

Mosquitofish, Gambesia affinis, combined with habitat changes, resulted in extirpation of G.

rufa from a river system in Israel (Goren and Galil 2005). The Eastern Mosquitofish,

Gambesia holbrooki, was introduced in Australia in the 1920’s and has since spread around

Australia and been declared a noxious species (Humphries and Walker 2013). The current

distribution of G. holbrooki coincides with much of G. rufas potential habitat, and may serve

to keep any introductions from establishing.

G. rufa has limited experience with predators. G. rufa may be able to adapt some innate

predator avoidance strategies in order to escape the Australian versions of their natural

predators, like Australian eels and catfish. However, Australian waters host a series of

15

predators which G. rufa would not have encountered before, including but not limited to:

perch, cod, bass, trout, saratoga, tarpon, long tom, snapper, barramundi, sharks, and rays

(Pusey et al. 2004).

7.4 Life history characteristics

If a population were to establish itself in Australia, G. rufas life history characteristics would

act to limit its dispersal. G. rufa is non-migratory, and has a relatively short lifespan, as well

as a relatively high age at sexual maturity. It also has very low reproductive rates, no

parental care, and highly specific spawning requirements (section 3 & 4).

7.5 Characteristics that favour establishment

G. rufa may be able to establish an alien population in specific areas despite these hardships,

were it released in large numbers. Unfortunately, the manner in which G. rufa is kept for the

spa industry means that owners of this fish are likely to have a minimum of several hundred

individuals.

8. Potential impacts of establishment

(Term of Reference: Provide a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of the species should it establish feral population/s in Australia. Include, but do not restrict your assessment to the impact of this species on: - similar niche species (i.e. competition with other species for food, shelter etc.)- is the species susceptible to, or could transmit any pests or disease- probable prey/food sources, including agricultural crops- habitat and local environmental conditions- any control/eradication programs that could be applied in Australia if the species was

released or escaped- any characteristic or behaviour of the species which may cause land degradation i.e.

soil erosion from hooves, digging- any potential threat to humans)

16

8.1 Effects on native fauna

As G. rufa is unknown as an invasive species, direct observation or measurement of

ecological impact is uncertain. Due to the modest size and largely herbivorous tendency of

G. rufa, its sole direct impact is likely to be in competition for food resources with resident

bottom-dwelling species that live in compatible habitats and have similar dietary

requirements and feeding habits. However, the exigencies of life in Australian inland waters,

over many eons, have ensured that most of the modern native fishes are hardy,

opportunistic, often highly mobile species with life cycles attuned to an erratic climate.

Generalists tend to predominate in Australia, broadly reflecting the nature of the

environment (Humphries and Walker 2013). All species examined as potential competitors

for G. rufa had wide dietary niches, and thus would be most likely to adapt to competition

from this species.

8.2 Effects on prey/food sources

G. rufa generally feeds on benthic algae and microorganisms found on hard substrates. This

type of food source is not rare, and is quick to reproduce. G. rufa predation/feeding would

likely have negligible impact on the ecosystem.

8. 3 Effects on habitats/local environments

G. rufa has not been observed conducting any digging or burrowing behaviour that could

impact local environments. They are non-migratory and thus unlikely to spread pests, weeds

or infections along waterways. The majority of G. rufa’s diet consists of unicellular algae, so

they are unlikely to affect vegetation or wetlands. Although they are a numerous and

schooling species, their small size renders them unlikely to contribute to pollution through

bioloading.

17

8. 4 Effects on primary industries/property

This species is unlikely to have any effects on primary industries through direct impacts.

Their small size and harmless, toothless status make it highly unlikely they could damage any

type of livestock or crop, even other fish or invertebrate stocks. The only potential effect

would be as a vector for disease or infections.

8. 4 Effects on humans

Feral populations of this species are highly unlikely to cause any risk or nuisance to humans.

The behaviour of G. rufa feeding on human skin is harmless, although it could be considered

a nuisance to some. This behaviour only occurs in nature in the hot springs where nutrient

levels are extremely low. The species would almost certainly find better sources of food

than bathers were it released in Australian streams.

8.3 Introduction of bacteria, parasites or disease

The most plausible possible risk of G.rufa would be in the introduction of pests or disease.

All fish species can carry bacteria, parasites and diseases. While there are many records of

bacteria, viruses and parasites in G. rufa, none are unique to the species and they are all

already present in Australian waters or other ornamental fish in the country.

Introductions of species from the family Cyprinidae to Australian waterways, including

goldfish (Crassius auratus) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio), have had devastating effects

on native populations, including via the transmission of diseases and parasites to native fish

species. These two species are well known for their role in the spread of diseases around

the world and many countries have targeted them as high risk species.

The Cyprinidae family is large however, and no information regarding the spread of disease

to other wildlife from either G. rufa specifically or from any member of the genus Garra

could be found, although the incidence of parasites and virus’ in this species are well

documented. This list includes: various Dactylogyrus spp. Monogeneans (Jalali and Molnár

18

1990; Gussev et al. 1993), Gyrodactylus spp. (Jalali 2005), Cucullanus spp. (Nematoda)

(Moravec and Rahemo 1993), and small-sized nematode larvae (of the family Cucullanidae)

(Yalçin-Özdilek and Ekmekçi 2006), a digenean (Pseudochetosoma salmonicola); Aeromonas

sobria (Majtán et al. 2012); Group B Streptococcus agalactiae; and a fish virus belonging to

the aquabirnavirus group, serogroup C (Ruane et al. 2013).

It is possible that G. rufa with a healthy appearance may be carrying diseases that would be

harmful to native Australian wildlife. These are the same risks associated with importing any

species of live fish. Health regulations and quarantine procedures are in place in Australia to

minimize these risks.

9. Recommended Import Conditions

(Term of Reference: What conditions or restrictions, if any, could be applied to the

import of the species to reduce any potential for negative environmental impacts (e.g.

single sex imports, desexing animal prior to import etc.)

9.1 Conditions on the animals

G.rufa presents only a limited form of external sexual dimorphism prior to spawning, making

single sex imports nearly impossible (Coad 2014). Meanwhile sterile imports would increase

the required number of imports of G. rufa, thus increasing the associated risks of importing

noxious species or disease.

Importation of G. rufa should follow the AQIS Conditions for the importation of live

freshwater ornamental finfish to Australia (Appendix 1). These conditions include: import

permits, health certificates and quarantine procedures.

9.2 Conditions on the importer

The minimal likelihood of establishment in Australian waters suggest responsible ownership

of this species is sufficient. However, due to the growth rate of the industry, and the

inexperience of many salon owners in the care and identification of fish, as well as a number

19

of online suppliers are providing not only insufficient care instructions but incorrect species,

it is recommended that importers hold permits.

G. rufa has been specially selected as a toothless, relatively harmless species. Yet there are

many reports of shipments of alternative juvenile fish species (Jo 2008; Ng 2009). The

species provided in lieu of G. rufa is often juvenile Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, a

toothed, noxious species, increasing both the health risks of treatment, as well as the

biosecurity risk for Australia.

Allowing limited import permits would minimize these risks by limiting imports to those with

some knowledge of the species they are expecting, as well as limiting the number of orders

from less reputable overseas dealers that may be shipping noxious species into Australia.

This would also encourage Australian standards of care instructions and advice for the

industry providers. Licensed importers and breeders will be responsible for educating their

customers on the importance of keeping G.rufa away from natural waterways. Keepers of

large amounts of fish should be encouraged to join the Pet Industry Association of Australia

(PIAA) and to follow their guidelines regarding the care and keeping of fish for commercial

purposes (Appendix 2).

10. Purpose of Garra rufa

(Term of Reference: Provide a summary of the types of activities that the specimen may be used for if imported into Australia (e.g. pet, commercial, scientific). You must discuss:- the benefit of this species for these activities- potential trade in the species- why this species has been chosen)

10.1 Aquarium Use

The tolerance of lower water quality and grazing behaviour of G. rufa make them a popular

aquarium species, as they keep surfaces in the tank clean. There is also some evidence that

20

juveniles act as cleaner fish, removing parasites from other members of the tank community

(Coad 2014). However, aquariums are not the most common place to find G. rufa.

10.2 Medicinal use

G.rufa is most commonly known as Doctorfish, for their treatment of skin conditions. These

fish are found in hot springs in the municipality of Kangal, in the Sivas region of Turkey. Hot

springs in the region have been frequented for their health benefits since Roman times

(Ozcelik and Akyol 2011). Legend claims that shepherds in the region found their skin

ailments cured after wading in the water. Spas have been offering the treatment in Kangal

since 1942, and the treatment has gained widespread attention in the media and

dermatological research since the early 1980’s (Ozcelik and Akyol 2011).

The small, toothless, fish nibble the dead skin of bathers in their pools as a source of protein.

Nearly 1000 people visit these pools every day (Appendix 3). This treatment has been found

to help sufferers of a variety of skin disorders including psoriasis, vitiligo, eczema, and other

skin diseases belonging to the icthyosis family (Ozcelik and Akyol 2011). An early study had

patients spend 3-4 hours in the pools twice a day for 2-3 weeks (Ozcelik et al. 2000). These

participants noted a significant reduction (decline in PASI score of 80-100%) in their psoriasis

symptoms that lasted approximately 9 months. The fish removed the scaly squamae and

promoted healing. Researchers have since acknowledged that the selenium levels in the

water, the UV exposure and the psychological stress relief of a spa holiday may have been

significant factors promoting these improvements (Ozcelik and Akyol 2011).

Since this initial study, laboratory experiments have proven that fish treatments for 2 hours

per day in individual tubs over several weeks combined with UV treatment produce similar

results (Grassberger and Hoch 2006). While this treatment is undoubtedly more time

consuming than topical steroids or other forms of psoriasis treatment, this method enjoys

the benefits of being completely natural, free of side effects, and long lasting. More

research in a clinical setting is necessary to determine the benefits of this treatment.

21

10.3 Aesthetic use

Commercially, treatment by Doctorfish has expanded outside the realm of skin disorders

into the general spa industry, being very popular as a pedicure treatment in the removal of

calluses from feet. Fish pedicures can be found in dozens of countries (section 5), and are in

high demand. Within two years of the first fish pedicure in the United Kingdom, nearly 300

salons across the country were offering the service (Wallop 2012).

10.4 Health Risks of Aesthetic/Medical use

Growth of the fish pedicure industry in the United States and the UK has been slowed by

mass negative media attention speculating that fish pedicures could spread infections and

even viruses like HIV. A number of states have banned fish pedicures due to non-compliance

with by-laws associated with allowing animals in salons and not being able to disinfect the

fish properly between clients, as well as animal welfare concerns.

This prompted an inquiry by the UK’s Health Protection Industry in cooperation with a series

of other health organisations which found the risk of infection to be ‘very low’.

Nevertheless, they provided guidelines on responsible treatment procedures that would

reduce the risk even further (Appendix 3). They also recommended that individuals that

were immunocompromised or had underlying medical conditions including diabetes and

psoriasis avoid these treatments.

Since the publication of the Health risk assessment, a scientific study has determined that

G.rufa is tolerant of two types of disinfectant, chloramine T and peracetic acid (Sirri et al.

2013). Although further testing is required, the possibility of disinfection may make G.rufa

treatment safer for those who suffer from skin infections.

This may require further review of the industry if it becomes established in Australia.

11. Guidelines for keeping Garra rufa

22

(Term of Reference: Provide detailed guidelines on the way in which the species should be kept, transported and disposed of in accordance with the types of activity that the species may be used for if imported into Australia. You must include:- the containment (e.g. cage, enclosure) and management standards for this species to

prevent escape or release. This should also talk about the security standards for this specimen

- the disposal options for surplus specimens)

11.1 Transport

Fish should be transported according to International Air Transport Association (IATA)

regulations (available online https://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/live-animals.aspx).

The basic guidelines are outlined in the PIAA guidelines in Appendix 2.

11.2 Housing and care

Fish should be kept in aquaria with suitable access to shelter, clean water, light/dark and

food. This is a schooling species that shows no aggressive behaviour as long as they are well

fed. Owners of G.rufa for commercial purposes should be encouraged to follow the PIAA

guidelines regarding keeping of ornamental fish. These guidelines include housing and care

instructions as well as stocking density and water quality recommendations (Appendix 2).

Membership includes training on many subjects relevant to the keeping of animals for

commercial purposes.

Animal welfare groups have voiced concerns surrounding the fear that salons starve the G.

rufa in order to ensure their voracious appetite for dead skin. However, human skin does

not contain all the nutrients that G. rufa needs to thrive and it is in a business’ best interest

to keep healthy fish. General advice for spa owners is for tanks to have sufficient fish for

some of them to be resting at any given time and includes providing high quality food.

G.rufa are algal grazers and naturally feed almost constantly throughout the day.

11.3 Unwanted specimens

23

Any unwanted fish should be offered back to the in-country supplier or a local fish retailer.

Diseased specimens should be humanely euthanized and disposed of inside a plastic bag in

the rubbish bin.

12. Australian Laws

(Term of Reference: Provide information on all other Commonwealth, state and territory legislative controls on the species, including:- the species’ current quarantine status, or - pest or noxious status, or - whether it is prohibited or controlled by permit or licence in any state or territory)

As this species has never been permitted in Australia to date, I could find no evidence of any

laws currently governing its use/status.

24

References

Abedi MAHS, Hamid MOHAMMADI, Rokhsareh MALEKPOUR (2011) Reproductive biology and age determination of Garra rufa Heckel, 1843 (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) in central Iran. Turkish Journal of Zoology 35:317-323

Al-Rudainy AJ (2008) Atlas of Iraqi Fresh Water Fishes. In: Environment IMot (ed), Baghdad 107AQIS (1999) Conditions for the importation of live freshwater ornamental finfish into Australia. In: Service

AQaI, Department of Agriculture FaF (eds), AustraliaArthington A, McKenzie F (1997) State of the Environment: Review of impacts of displaced/introduced fauna

associated with inland waters, Australia. In: Environment Dot (ed), Canberra, AustraliaBardakci F, Ozansoy U, Koptagel E (2000) A comparison of oogenesis under constant and fluctuating

temperatures in Doctor fish, Garra rufa Heckel, 1843 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). The World Wide Web Journal of Biology 5

Biosecurity-NZ (2011) Import Health Standard for Ornamental Fish and Marine Invertebrates from All Countries. In: Forestry NZMoAa (ed) 72

CITES (2014) CITES appendices I, II, and III. Convention on International Trade of Endangered SpeciesCoad B (2014) Freshwater fishes of IranDAFF (2011) Import Risk Analysis Handbook In: Australian Government Department of Agriculture FaF (ed),

CanberraDudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard

A-H, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163-182

Durna S, Bardakci F, Degerli N (2010) Genetic diversity of Garra rufa Heckel, 1843 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Anatolia. Biochem Syst Ecol 38:83-92

Esmaeili HR, Teimory A, Z. G, Hosseinie F, 19-24. IJAB (2006) Range extension of Barbus sublimus Coad and Najafpour, 1997 (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) and its sympatric species in Southwest of Iran. Iranian Journal of Animal Biosystematics 2:19-24

Esmaeili HR, Ebrahimi M, Ansari TH, Teimory A, Gholamhosseini G (2009) Karyotype analysis of Persian stone lapper, Garra persica Berg, 1913 (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) from Iran. Curr Sci 96:959-962

Fishbase (2011) Garra rufa. In: Froese R, Pauly D (eds)Fowler HW, Steinitz H (1956) Fishes from Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Oman. Bulletin of the Research Council

of Israel 5B:260-292Fricke R, Bilecenoglu M, Sari HM (2007) Annotated checklist of fish and lamprey species (Gnathostomata and

Petromyzontomorphi) of Turkey, including a Red List of threatened and declining species. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde Serie A (Biologie) 706:169pp

garrarufa.com (2014) Garra rufa fish spa solutionsGBIF (2014) Global Biodiversity Information FacilityGoren M, Galil BS (2005) A review of changes in the fish assemblages of Levantine inland and marine

ecosystems following the introduction of non‐native fishes. J Appl Ichthyol 21:364-370Grassberger M, Hoch W (2006) Ichthyotherapy as alternative treatment for patients with psoriasis: a pilot study.

Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM 3:483-488Gümgüm B, ünlü E, Tez Z, Gülsün Z (1994) Heavy metal pollution in water, sediment and fish from the Tigris

River in Turkey. Chemosphere 29:111-116Gussev AV, Jalali B, Molnár K (1993) New and known species of Dactylogyrus Diesing, 1850 (Monogenea,

Dactylogyridae) from Iranian freshwater cyprinid fishes. Syst Parasitol 25:221-228Hamidan N, Britton JR (2013) Length‐weight relationships for three fish species (Capoeta damascina, Garra

rufa, and Nemacheilus insignis) native to the Mujib Basin, Jordan. J Appl Ichthyol 29:480-481Humphries P, Walker KF (2013) Ecology of Australian freshwater fishes. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VicITIS (2013) Garra rufa. In: database ITISo-l (ed). Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-line databaseIUCN (2014) International Union for the Conservation of NatureJalali B, Molnár K (1990) Occurrence of monogeneans on the freshwater fishes of Iran: Dactylogyridae from

fish of natural waters and description of Dogielius mokhayeri sp.n. Parasitologia Hungarica 23:27-32Jalali B, Shamsi, Sh. and Barzegar, M. 2005. .4(2):19-30, 114. (2005) Occurrence of Gyrodactylus spp.

(Monogenea: Gyrodactylidae) from Iranian freshwater fishes. Iran J Fish Sci 4:19-30

25

Jarvis PL (2011) Biological Synopsis of Garra rufa In: Assessment SBCoEfAR, Region CaA (eds). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic  Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 867 Lakeshore Rd., P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6

Jo S (2008) Understanding spa fishKolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America.

Science (New York, NY) 298:1233-1236Krupp F, Schneider W (1989) The fishes of the Jordan River drainage basin and Azraq Oasis Fauna of Saudi

Arabia vol 10, pp347-416Majtán J, Cerny J, Ofúkaná A, Takáč P, Kozánek M (2012) Mortality of therapeutic fish Garra rufa caused by

Aeromonas sobria. Asian Pacific journal of tropical biomedicine 2:85-87McNee A (2002) A national approach to the management of exotic fish species in the aquarium trade: an

inventory of exotic freshwater fish species. In: Department of Agriculture FaF, Fund RfFRR (eds), Canberra, Australia

Montchowui E, Lalèye P, Philippart JC, Poncin P (2007) Biologie de la reproduction de Labeo parvus Boulenger, 1902 (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) dans le bassin du fleuve de l’Ouémé au Bénin (Afrique de l’Ouest). Cahiers d'Ethologie 22:61-80

Montchowui E, Lalèyè P, Poncin P, Philippart JC (2010) Reproductive strategy of Labeo senegalensis valenciennes 1842 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in the Ouémé basin, Benin. Afr J Aquat Sci 35:81-85

Moravec F, Rahemo Z (1993) Pericardium of Garra rufa (Pisces, Cyprinidae) as the site of infection of cucullanus larvae (Nematoda). Folia Parasitol 40:145-146

Ng J (2009) Dr Fish Spa TherapyOkur E, Yalçin-Özdilek Ş (2008) Preliminary study of fish community structure in Amanos Mountain streams

(Hatay-Turkey). Biologia 63:427-438Oymak AS, Dogan N, Uysal E (2008) Age, growth and reproduction of the Shabut Barbus grypus (Cyprinidae)

in Atatürk dam lake (Euphrates river), Turkey. Cybium 32:145-152Ozcelik S, Akyol M (2011) KANGAL HOT SPRING WITH FISH (KANGAL FISHY HEALTH SPA) &

PSORIASIS TREATMENT La Presse thermale et climatique 148:141-147Ozcelik S, Polat HH, Akyol M, Yalcin AN, Ozcelik D, Marufihah M (2000) Kangal hot spring with fish and

psoriasis treatment. Journal of Dermatology 27:386-390Patimar R, Chalanchi MG, Chamanara V, Naderi L (2010) Some life history aspects of Garra rufa (Heckel,

1843) in the Kangir River, western Iran. Zool Middle East 51:57-66Pusey BJ, Kennard MJ, Arthington AH, Griffith University. Centre for Riverine L, Publishing C (2004)

Freshwater fishes of north-eastern Australia. CSIRO Pub, Collingwood, VicRuane NM, Collins EM, Geary M, Swords D, Hickey C, Geoghegan F (2013) Isolation of Streptococcus

agalactiae and an aquatic birnavirus from doctor fish Garra rufa L. Irish veterinary journal 66:16Sirri R, Zaccaroni A, Di Biase A, Mordenti O, Stancampiano L, Sarli G, Mandrioli L (2013) Effects of two

water disinfectants (chloramine T and peracetic acid) on the epidermis and gills of Garra rufa used in human ichthyotherapy. Polish journal of veterinary sciences 16:453-461

Spataru P, Gophen M (1985) Feeding behaviour of silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val. and its impact on the food web in Lake Kinneret, Israel. Hydrobiologia 120:53-61

Ünlü E (2006) Tigris River ichthyological studies in Turkey: A review with regard to the Ilisu hydroelectric project. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Report IDaH (ed), Turkey 35

Wallop H (2012) Fish Pedicures catch on fast The Daily Telegraph, UKYalçin-Özdilek S, Ekmekçi FG (2006) Preliminary data on the diet of Garra rufa (Cyprinidae) in the Asi basin

(Orontes), Turkey. . Cybium 30:177-186Yazdanpanah M (2005) Reproductive biology of Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843) (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae) in a

spring-stream system, Zanjiran, Fars province. Shiraz University, p136

26