Foreign aquatic animal introduction breeding risk assessment system and method application based on local conditions

Abstract

The invention discloses establishment and application of a risk assessment system in an introduction process of foreign aquatic animals, and relates to a foreign aquatic animal introduction risk assessment model with 6 first-level indexes and 38 second-level indexes. When the model is used for carrying out risk assessment on foreign aquatic animals, scoring each secondary index, and adding the product of the score of each secondary index corresponding to the primary index and the weight of the corresponding preset secondary index to obtain the score of the primary index; adding the products of the scores of the first-level indexes and the weights of the corresponding preset first-level indexes to obtain a total evaluation score introduced by the aquatic animals; and evaluating the introduction risk of the foreign aquatic animals according to the total score. According to the method, the risk of potential diseases of aquatic animals to be introduced can be evaluated, and the existing foreign aquatic animal introduction related risk evaluation system can be optimized; a risk assessment system for introduction of foreign aquatic animals in the aspects of aquatic species risks, epidemic disease carrying risks, consequences caused by the risks, subsequent breeding conditions and the like is constructed, and a technical support is provided for a management department to explore aquatic animal resource introduction classification supervision system innovation.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of aquatic animal introduction management, and more specifically, to a risk assessment method for the introduction of aquatic animals. Background Technology

[0002] This assessment system focuses on aquatic animals introduced by humans. Based on relevant literature and internationally widely used animal disease assessment and control systems, we have constructed a risk assessment system for the introduction of exotic aquatic animals, considering aspects such as the inherent risks of the aquatic species, the risk of transmitting diseases, and the resulting consequences. Firstly, we consider three levels: the characteristics of the potential impact of the species itself, the impact of diseases the species may carry, and the subsequent aquaculture management. Secondly, we assess whether the environment and management policies can effectively control the introduced species, the ecological, economic, and health impacts, and the ability to control and restore the species to a normal state. This aquatic animal introduction risk system can be referenced and judged based on the assigned values. Referring to the introduction of advanced risk assessment systems both domestically and internationally, we have determined the indicators for the risk assessment system of exotic aquatic animal introduction. We have constructed an aquatic animal introduction risk assessment model with 6 primary indicators and 38 secondary indicators. Quantitative risk assessment of the aquatic animals to be introduced through this risk assessment model can efficiently and accurately provide theoretical support for scientific introduction and healthy aquaculture, and also provide a basis for decision-making in introduction risk management. Summary of the Invention

[0003] This invention addresses the risk assessment system for the introduction of exotic aquatic animals, considering factors such as the inherent risks of aquatic species, the risk of transmitting diseases, and the consequences. It combines the actual introduction of aquatic animals with relevant policies and regulations, optimizes the existing risk assessment system for the introduction of exotic aquatic animals, and fills the research gap in the classification and supervision system for the introduction of aquatic animal resources.

[0004] The specific technical solution of the present invention is as follows: An assessment model for a potential disease risk assessment system for aquatic animals, the method comprising: A technical indicator system is constructed, comprising multiple primary indicators, each with multiple secondary indicators. The primary indicators include modules for the biological characteristics of invasive species carrying diseases, disease exposure assessment, comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management, disease control assessment, and disease outbreak consequences assessment. The primary indicator module for assessing the inherent characteristics of invasive species includes two secondary indicators: whether it is an invasive species and the impact of the external environment on the pathogen. The biological characteristics module for aquatic animals includes seven secondary indicators: morphological characteristics, life cycle and reproductive strategies, dietary habits, environmental adaptability, ecological impact, genetic diversity, and behavioral characteristics. The primary indicator module for assessing the biological characteristics of invasive species carrying diseases includes six secondary indicators: pathogen characteristics, host adaptability, disease transmission routes, environmental transmission impact, disease control strategies, and long-term impact assessment. The primary indicator of disease exposure assessment includes five secondary indicators: exposure routes, disease transmission speed and range, pathogen survival and reproduction conditions, and early disease identification. The primary indicator of disease outbreak consequences assessment includes six secondary indicators: economic impact, environmental impact, social and public health, response and recovery capacity, and legal, information and communication. The primary indicator of comprehensive aquaculture and management assessment includes seven secondary indicators: aquaculture environment and ecosystem, aquaculture technology and efficiency, disease management and control, economic benefits and market, social and cultural impact, and compliance with regulations and policies, and food safety and health. The primary indicator of disease prevention and control assessment includes seven secondary indicators: disease identification and monitoring, risk assessment and management, aquaculture environment management, biosecurity measures, personnel training and awareness, disease screening and detection, and drug and vaccine use.

[0005] Each secondary indicator is scored, and the score of the primary indicator is obtained by multiplying the score of each secondary indicator corresponding to the primary indicator by the product of the corresponding preset weight of the secondary indicator. The total evaluation score of the introduction of aquatic animals is obtained by multiplying the score of each primary indicator by the product of the corresponding preset weight of the primary indicator. The risk of introducing exotic aquatic animals is assessed based on the total score.

[0006] Furthermore, the scoring of each secondary indicator includes: Morphological characteristics are scored as follows: 1 point is given if the appearance is similar to that of native species and is unlikely to be dominant; 2 points are given if there are slight differences but not enough to affect the survival of native species; 3 points are given if there are some obvious morphological advantages and it may be dominant under certain conditions; 4 points are given if the morphological characteristics are significantly better than those of native species and may lead to competition and exclusion; and 5 points are given if the morphological characteristics are significantly superior, such as large size and fast growth rate, and can significantly compete with and exclude native species.

[0007] Morphological characteristics are scored as follows: Life cycle and reproductive strategy are scored as follows: 1 point for slow reproduction, long life cycle and easy control; 2 points for reproduction rate comparable to native species; 3 points for short life cycle, fast reproduction cycle and beginning to show competitive potential; 4 points for multiple reproductions, rapid growth and high reproduction rate; 5 points for extremely high reproduction rate, short life cycle, and ability to quickly establish large populations and occupy ecological niches.

[0008] The scoring method for dietary habits is as follows: 1 point is given if the diet is highly specialized, with limited food sources and unlikely to affect native species; 2 points are given if the diet sources slightly overlap with native species; 3 points are given if the diet is omnivorous and has moderate food source overlap with native species; 4 points are given if the diet has a wide range of food sources and may directly compete with native species; and 5 points are given if the diet is highly omnivorous, with food sources highly overlapping with native species and may lead to food shortages for native species.

[0009] The scoring method for environmental adaptability is as follows: if the requirements for environmental conditions are high and the ability to survive only under specific conditions is 1 point; if the adaptability is poor and the ability to survive is easily affected by environmental changes, 2 points are awarded; if the adaptability is average and the ability to survive under various environmental conditions is 3 points; if the adaptability is wide and the ability to tolerate large environmental fluctuations is 4 points; and if the adaptability is high and the ability to survive and reproduce under extreme environmental conditions is 5 points.

[0010] The scoring method for ecological impact is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the impact on native species and the environment is minor and the ecological niche is isolated; 2 points are awarded if there is a slight ecological impact but it is not enough to change the ecosystem structure; 3 points are awarded if it poses a threat to some native species and may change food chain relationships; 4 points are awarded if it poses a threat to multiple native species and can change the food web structure and ecosystem function; and 5 points are awarded if it poses a serious threat to the ecosystem, leading to the extinction of native species and disrupting the ecological balance.

[0011] The scoring method for genetic diversity is as follows: 1 point is awarded if genetic diversity is low, reducing the ability to adapt to environmental changes and spread; 2 points are awarded if genetic variation exists but is not significant, indicating low hybridization potential with native species; 3 points are awarded if genetic diversity is moderate, indicating possible hybridization with native species, but with limited impact; 4 points are awarded if genetic diversity is high, increasing hybridization potential and potentially affecting the genetic structure of native species; and 5 points are awarded if genetic diversity and hybridization potential are extremely high, significantly affecting the purity and adaptability of native species.

[0012] The scoring method for behavioral characteristics is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the behavioral pattern is simple and does not exhibit territorial or aggressive behavior; 2 points are awarded if the behavior is similar to that of native species and has little impact on native species; 3 points are awarded if some territorial behavior is exhibited and the behavior may compete with native species in a local area; 4 points are awarded if strong territorial or aggressive behavior can change the behavior and habitat selection of native species; and 5 points are awarded if highly aggressive and territorial behavior can significantly displace native species and control important habitat resources.

[0013] The characteristics of pathogens are scored as follows: 1 point is given if the pathogen is harmless or has very low virulence to aquatic animals and humans; 2 points are given if the pathogen may be harmful to aquatic animals with weak immune systems but poses a low risk to humans; 3 points are given if the pathogen poses a moderate risk to a specific aquatic animal population and may have an indirect impact on human health; 4 points are given if the pathogen can cause serious disease, poses a high risk to aquatic animal population, and increases the risk to human health; and 5 points are given if the pathogen is highly pathogenic, easily transmissible, and poses a high risk to both aquatic animals and human health.

[0014] Host adaptability is scored as follows: 1 point is given if the pathogen has weak survival ability in a specific host and is not easy to spread in the breeding environment; 2 points are given if the pathogen has moderate adaptability to a specific host and has limited transmission ability; 3 points are given if the pathogen can survive in multiple hosts and the risk of transmission gradually increases; 4 points are given if the pathogen is highly adapted to multiple hosts and has strong transmission ability; and 5 points are given if the pathogen is highly adapted to a wide range of hosts, has an extremely high risk of transmission, and is difficult to control.

[0015] The transmission routes of diseases are scored as follows: 1 point is given if the pathogen is difficult to transmit and requires specific conditions; 2 points are given if the pathogen can transmit under specific conditions but its universality is limited; 3 points are given if the pathogen can be transmitted through some common routes; 4 points are given if the pathogen has diverse transmission routes and a relatively fast infection rate; and 5 points are given if the pathogen has a wide range of transmission routes, an extremely fast infection rate, and is difficult to control.

[0016] The environmental impact of the disease is scored as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease has no significant long-term environmental impact and the pathogen rapidly decays in natural waters; 2 points are awarded if the disease may cause minor environmental disturbances but are insufficient to lead to long-term changes in ecological balance; 3 points are awarded if the disease has a moderate environmental impact and may lead to short-term changes in local ecosystem functions; 4 points are awarded if the disease causes significant environmental changes, affects multiple species, and may lead to long-term changes in ecological relationships and food webs; and 5 points are awarded if the disease causes widespread environmental damage, threatens the survival of multiple species, causes large-scale loss of biodiversity, and long-term damage to ecosystem services.

[0017] Disease control strategies are scored as follows: 1 point is given if the pathogen is sensitive to environmental changes and easily treated with existing drugs; 2 points are given if the pathogen has some resistance but low mutation ability; 3 points are given if the pathogen can resist treatment to some extent and has moderate mutation ability; 4 points are given if the pathogen has strong resistance and is prone to developing drug resistance; and 5 points are given if the pathogen is highly adaptable, develops drug resistance rapidly, and is difficult to control with drugs.

[0018] The long-term impact assessment is scored using the following method: 1 point is awarded if the disease has a minor impact on both farmed and wild populations; 2 points are awarded if the disease may cause a slight decrease in the productivity of farmed populations; 3 points are awarded if the disease has a significant impact on the productivity of farmed populations and may cause local economic losses; 4 points are awarded if the disease can cause high mortality rates and have a major economic impact on the aquaculture industry and related industries; and 5 points are awarded if the disease has a fatal impact on both farmed and wild populations and may trigger a widespread ecological and socio-economic crisis.

[0019] The five secondary indicators for disease exposure assessment are scored as follows: the exposure pathway is scored as follows: 1 point is given if the disease has almost no possibility of being exposed through any pathway; 2 points are given if the risk of the disease being exposed through a specific pathway is low; 3 points are given if the possibility of the disease being exposed through multiple pathways is moderate; 4 points are given if the disease is very likely to be exposed through multiple pathways; and 5 points are given if the disease is very easy to be exposed through multiple pathways and the risk is extremely high.

[0020] The spread speed and range of the disease are scored as follows: 1 point for slow spread and limited range, 2 points for relatively slow spread and limited range, 3 points for moderate spread and range, 4 points for fast spread and wide range, and 5 points for fast spread and wide range.

[0021] The survival and reproduction conditions of pathogens are scored as follows: 1 point is given if the conditions for the survival and reproduction of pathogens in the breeding environment are extremely poor; 2 points are given if the pathogens can only survive and reproduce under specific conditions; 3 points are given if the pathogens can survive and reproduce under multiple conditions; 4 points are given if the pathogens can survive and reproduce under most conditions; and 5 points are given if the pathogens can survive and reproduce under almost all conditions.

[0022] Early disease identification is scored as follows: 1 point for very early identification, 2 points for early identification, 3 points for mid-stage identification, 4 points for late identification, and 5 points for difficulty or inability to identify until the disease reaches a severe stage.

[0023] The following method is used to score the disease prevention and control preparation: 1 point is given if the prevention and control preparation is complete and can effectively deal with the disease; 2 points are given if the prevention and control preparation is good and can deal with the disease in most cases; 3 points are given if the prevention and control preparation is average and can deal with the disease in some cases; 4 points are given if the prevention and control preparation is insufficient and it is difficult to deal with the disease; and 5 points are given if there is almost no prevention and control preparation and the ability to deal with the disease is extremely poor.

[0024] The economic impact is scored as follows: 1 point for minor economic impact on the livestock industry and easy recovery from losses; 2 points for limited economic impact that may lead to a short-term decline in production; 3 points for moderate economic losses that affect production and sales; 4 points for significant economic losses that may lead to long-term market and production impacts; and 5 points for causing huge economic losses that threaten the sustainability of the entire livestock industry.

[0025] The environmental impact is scored as follows: 1 point for minor environmental impact with no long-term ecological impact; 2 points for minor environmental impact with slight impact on local ecosystems; 3 points for moderate environmental impact that may alter local ecological balance; 4 points for serious impact on ecosystems affecting multiple species; and 5 points for far-reaching impact on ecosystems that threaten biodiversity and ecological balance.

[0026] Social and public health are scored as follows: 1 point for diseases with little or no impact on public health and society; 2 points for diseases with limited impact on the public health of a specific group or region; 3 points for diseases with moderate impact on public health requiring public health measures; 4 points for diseases with serious impact on public health that may attract widespread attention and response measures; and 5 points for diseases that lead to a major public health crisis requiring urgent and large-scale response measures.

[0027] The following methods are used to score coping and recovery capabilities: 1 point for easy control and management of the disease and rapid recovery; 2 points for good overall recovery ability of the disease that requires some management; 3 points for moderate recovery period of disease control and recovery; 4 points for long time and significant resources of recovery of disease that is difficult to control; and 5 points for extremely difficult disease control, long recovery process and high cost.

[0028] The legal and policy consequences are scored as follows: 1 point if the disease outbreak does not require special legal or policy changes; 2 points if it may require local policy adjustments or minor legal responses; 3 points if it requires significant policy adjustments and legal responses; 4 points if the disease outbreak triggers major legal and policy changes; and 5 points if it leads to a comprehensive legal and policy overhaul that may involve national-level responses.

[0029] Information and communication are scored as follows: 1 point is awarded if information is rapidly and accurately delivered to all farmers, and an efficient communication mechanism exists, including disease warnings, treatment methods, and prevention and control measures. 2 points are awarded if information is delivered to most farmers in a timely manner, and communication channels are relatively effective, but there may be some areas with insufficient information delivery. 3 points are awarded if information delivery is delayed or partially inaccurate, communication channels are average, and some farmers fail to receive key information in a timely manner. 4 points are awarded if there are significant problems with information delivery and communication, resulting in information delays and many farmers lacking timely and accurate disease information. 5 points are awarded if information delivery and communication are extremely insufficient or erroneous, causing confusion and panic among farmers and seriously hindering the implementation of effective disease control and prevention measures.

[0030] The aquaculture environment and ecosystem are scored as follows: 1 point is awarded for a well-maintained aquaculture environment with minimal impact on the surrounding ecosystem, such as high-quality water management and waste disposal; 2 points are awarded for a relatively good aquaculture environment with minimal impact on the ecosystem, such as appropriate feed management and waste discharge; 3 points are awarded for a generally poor aquaculture environment with some impact on the ecosystem, such as intermittent water quality problems and waste discharge; 4 points are awarded for a poor aquaculture environment with significant impact on the ecosystem, such as frequent water quality problems and improper waste disposal; and 5 points are awarded for extremely poor aquaculture environment management that seriously affects the ecosystem, such as continuous water quality deterioration and waste pollution.

[0031] The following scoring method is used to evaluate aquaculture techniques and efficiency: 1 point is awarded for using the most advanced aquaculture techniques, such as intelligent management systems, which result in extremely high efficiency and excellent productivity; 2 points are awarded for relatively advanced aquaculture techniques, such as good water circulation systems, which result in relatively high efficiency; 3 points are awarded for average aquaculture techniques, such as traditional pond aquaculture, which result in moderate efficiency and productivity; 4 points are awarded for backward aquaculture techniques, such as a lack of effective water management, which result in low efficiency; and 5 points are awarded for very backward aquaculture techniques, such as uncontrolled intensive aquaculture, which result in extremely low efficiency.

[0032] The following scoring method is used to evaluate disease management and control: 1 point is given if disease management and control measures are very effective and the incidence of disease is extremely low, such as regular health check-ups and vaccinations; 2 points are given if disease management and control are relatively effective and the incidence of disease is low; 3 points are given if disease management and control are average and disease occurs occasionally; 4 points are given if disease management and control are poor and disease occurs frequently; and 5 points are given if disease management and control are very poor and disease occurs frequently.

[0033] Economic benefits and market performance are scored as follows: 1 point is awarded for high economic benefits and popular products in the market, such as successful breeding of high-value varieties; 2 points are awarded for good economic benefits and stable market demand; 3 points are awarded for average economic benefits and fluctuating market demand, which may be affected by seasonality and market prices; 4 points are awarded for poor economic benefits and unstable market demand, which may be due to insufficient product quality, variety, or marketing; and 5 points are awarded for very poor economic benefits and sluggish market demand, which may be due to low product quality or marketing failure.

[0034] The social and cultural impacts of aquaculture are scored as follows: 1 point is awarded if aquaculture has a significant positive impact on local society and culture, such as providing employment opportunities, supporting the local economy, and maintaining traditional aquaculture culture; 2 points are awarded if it has a good positive impact on society and culture; 3 points are awarded if the impact on society and culture is moderate; 4 points are awarded if the positive impact on society and culture is limited; and 5 points are awarded if it has almost no positive impact on society and culture, or may even have a negative impact, such as destroying traditional aquaculture methods.

[0035] Food safety and health are scored using the following method: 1 point is awarded if food safety standards are strictly implemented and the product is healthy and safe, such as the compliant use of feed and drugs; 2 points are awarded if food safety standards are implemented well and the product is healthy and safe; 3 points are awarded if food safety standards are implemented moderately and the product is healthy and safe; 4 points are awarded if food safety standards are not implemented sufficiently and the product's health and safety are questionable; and 5 points are awarded if food safety standards are implemented extremely poorly and the product's health and safety risks are high.

[0036] The following scoring method is used to evaluate disease identification and monitoring: 1 point is awarded if the farm can take effective measures immediately and quickly control the spread of disease once it is identified; 2 points are awarded if the farm can usually take action quickly after disease identification, but the speed of response and the effectiveness of the measures may fluctuate; 3 points are awarded if the farm's response to disease is average, sometimes timely and sometimes slow; 4 points are awarded if the farm's response to disease is slow and often takes a long time to take action; and 5 points are awarded if the farm's response to disease is extremely slow or ineffective, and usually only takes action after the disease has caused serious losses.

[0037] Risk assessment and management are scored as follows: 1 point for comprehensive risk assessment and highly effective management strategies that can effectively prevent and control diseases; 2 points for relatively comprehensive risk assessment and effective management strategies in most cases; 3 points for average risk assessment and management strategies that are effective in some cases; 4 points for insufficient risk assessment and limited effectiveness of management strategies; and 5 points for almost ineffective risk assessment and management strategies that cannot effectively prevent and control diseases.

[0038] The following scoring method is used to evaluate the management of the breeding environment: 1 point for excellent breeding environment management that effectively prevents disease occurrence; 2 points for good breeding environment management that can prevent disease in most cases; 3 points for average breeding environment management that can only prevent disease in certain situations; 4 points for poor breeding environment management that makes it difficult to prevent disease occurrence; and 5 points for very poor breeding environment management that is almost of no help in disease prevention and control.

[0039] Biosecurity measures are scored as follows: 1 point for strict biosecurity measures that effectively isolate and control diseases; 2 points for good biosecurity measures that are effective in most cases; 3 points for average biosecurity measures that are effective in some cases; 4 points for insufficient biosecurity measures that result in poor disease prevention; and 5 points for almost no biosecurity measures that result in extremely high disease control risks.

[0040] The following methods will be used to score personnel training and awareness: 1 point will be awarded if personnel receive comprehensive training, have a high level of awareness and responsibility for disease prevention and control, and can effectively implement prevention and control measures; 2 points will be awarded if most personnel receive good training and have improved awareness, and can correctly implement prevention and control measures in most cases; 3 points will be awarded if personnel have general training and awareness, but their implementation is not strict enough in practice and the effect is average; 4 points will be awarded if personnel lack sufficient training and awareness of prevention and control, implement prevention and control measures improperly, and the effect is limited; and 5 points will be awarded if personnel have received almost no relevant training, lack basic awareness and responsibility for disease prevention and control, and their implementation of prevention and control measures is extremely inadequate.

[0041] Disease screening and detection are scored using the following method: For pathogen monitoring, prevention, and control measures, briefly summarized as follows: monitoring involves regular testing and early identification of pathogens; prevention measures include biosafety and hygiene practices; and control measures rely on disease management and treatment strategies. Based on factors such as difficulty, effectiveness, and cost, the risk level score may range from 1 (high difficulty, poor effectiveness, high cost) to 5 (low difficulty, good effectiveness, low cost).

[0042] The use of drugs and vaccines is scored as follows: 1 point is awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used rationally and have a significant effect on disease control; 2 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used rationally in most cases and have a good effect on disease control; 3 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used moderately and are effective in some cases; 4 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used improperly and have a poor effect on disease control; and 5 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used improperly or are lacking and have almost no effect on disease control.

[0043] Furthermore, the sum of the weights of each of the first indicators is theoretically equal to the maximum value of the total evaluation score of 5 points or equal to 100%.

[0044] Furthermore, the sum of the weights of each of the second indicators is theoretically equal to the maximum value of the total evaluation score of 5 points or equal to 100%.

[0045] Furthermore, assuming the maximum score for the total assessment is 5 points, the assessment of the pathogen risk level based on the total assessment score includes: When the score is between 0 and 1, the evaluation level is extremely low, indicating that there is no significant risk in introducing the species and it can be safely introduced.

[0046] When the score is between 1 and 2, the evaluation level is low, indicating that an appropriate risk assessment and management plan should be carried out before the species is introduced.

[0047] When the score is between 2 and 3, the evaluation level is medium, indicating that there is a certain risk in introducing the species and introduction should be considered. If it complies with the policy, it can be introduced normally.

[0048] When the score is between 3 and 4, the evaluation level is high, indicating that the species should be avoided from being introduced unless there are adequate control measures and monitoring plans.

[0049] When the score is between 4 and 5, the evaluation level is extremely high, indicating that the introduction of this species carries an extremely high risk, and it is strongly recommended not to introduce it.

[0050] The beneficial effects are: The aquatic animal introduction risk system model proposed in this invention uses quantitative analysis to assess the potential consequences of introducing aquatic animals with introduction needs. It combines the assessment object with the local aquaculture situation after introduction, and after full introduction, based on the specific local conditions and factors, finally determines the indicators of the potential risk assessment system for the introduced aquatic animals, and proposes a quantitative assessment system for the potential risks of introduced aquatic animals with introduction needs. Attached Figure Description

[0051] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a risk assessment model for the introduction of aquatic animals based on the analytic hierarchy process, according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0052] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the indicator system according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0053] The technical solution of the present invention will be further explained below through embodiments, but the technical solution of the present invention is not limited in any form by the embodiments.

[0054] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of the invention and are not intended to limit the invention.

[0055] The invention will now be further described with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0056] This invention provides a risk assessment model for the introduction of aquatic animals based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), such as... Figure 1 The method includes the following steps: Step S100: Construct a technical indicator system.

[0057] like Figure 2 As shown, the technical indicator system 100 includes multiple primary indicators, and the primary indicators include multiple secondary indicators. The primary indicators include a biological characteristic module 101 of aquatic animals, a biological characteristic module 102 of diseases carried by alien species, a disease exposure assessment module 103, a comprehensive assessment module for breeding and management 104, a disease prevention and control assessment module 105, and a disease outbreak consequence assessment module 106. The pathogen characteristic assessment module includes seven secondary indicators: morphological characteristics 1011, life cycle and reproductive strategies 1012, dietary habits 1013, environmental adaptability 1014, ecological impact 1015, genetic diversity 1016, and behavioral characteristics 1017. The invasive species-borne disease biological characteristic assessment module includes six secondary indicators: pathogen characteristics 1021, host adaptability 1022, disease transmission route 1023, environmental transmission impact 1024, disease control strategies 1025, and long-term impact assessment 1026. The disease exposure assessment includes five secondary indicators: exposure route 1031, disease transmission speed and range 1032, and disease transmission speed and range 1033. 033. Pathogen survival and reproduction conditions 1034. Early disease identification 1035. Disease prevention and control preparation 1036; The disease outbreak consequence assessment module includes 6 secondary indicators: economic impact 1041, environmental impact 1042, social and public health 1043, response and recovery capacity 1044, legal and policy consequences 1045, and information and communication 1046; The comprehensive aquaculture and management assessment module includes 7 secondary indicators: aquaculture environment and ecosystem 1051, aquaculture technology and efficiency 1052, disease management and control 1053, economic benefits and market 1054, social and cultural impact 1055, regulatory compliance and policy 1056, and food safety and health 1057. The disease prevention and control assessment module includes 7 secondary indicators: disease prevention and control assessment 1061, risk assessment and management 1062, aquaculture environment management 1063, biosecurity measures 1064, personnel training and awareness 1065, disease screening and detection 1066, and drug and vaccine use 1067.

[0058] This embodiment provides six primary indicators. Among them, the biological characteristics of introduced aquatic animals (101) reflect the various habits and physiological characteristics of the introduced aquatic species. The biological characteristics assessment module for diseases carried by introduced species (102) reflects the structural characteristics of diseases that the introduced aquatic animals may carry, the consequences of infection, and prevention measures. The pathogen exposure assessment module (103) reflects the discovery and control of pathogens. The disease outbreak consequence assessment module (104) assesses the impact and consequences of diseases at various levels. The comprehensive aquaculture and management assessment module (105) reflects the local aquaculture management practices for the introduced aquatic animals. The disease control assessment module (106) reflects the local control measures for diseases that may be carried by the introduced aquatic animals.

[0059] This experiment proposes the following weights for 6 primary indicators and 38 secondary indicators: Primary indicators: biological characteristics of introduced aquatic animals (0.3566), assessment of biological characteristics of diseases carried by introduced species (0.2335), assessment of disease exposure (0.1286), assessment of the consequences of disease outbreaks (0.0830), comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management (0.0593), and assessment of disease prevention and control (0.1390).

[0060] Secondary indicators: Morphological characteristics (0.0318), life cycle and reproductive strategies (0.1590), dietary habits (0.1056), environmental adaptability (0.2375), ecological impact (0.3504), genetic diversity (0.0696), behavioral characteristics (0.0462), pathogen characteristics (0.3794), host adaptability (0.2488), disease transmission routes (0.1604), environmental transmission impact (0.0434), disease control strategies (0.1024), long-term impact assessment (0.0655), exposure routes (0.0624), disease transmission speed and range (0.1611), pathogen survival and reproduction conditions (0.2). 618) Early disease identification (0.0986) Disease prevention and control preparedness (0.4162) Economic impact (0.2488) Environmental impact (0.3794) Social and public health (0.1604) Response and recovery capacity (0.1024) Legal and policy consequences (0.0655) Information and communication (0.0434) Aquaculture environment and ecosystem (0.3523) Aquaculture technology and efficiency (0.0319) Disease management and control (0.1605) Economic benefits and market (0.0727) Social and cultural impact (0.0463) Regulatory compliance and policy (0.1066) Food safety and health (0.2297) Disease identification and monitoring (0.1964) Risk assessment and management (0.1216) Aquaculture environment management (0.0764) Biosecurity measures (0.3140) Personnel training and awareness (0.0476) Disease screening and detection (0.1964) Drug and vaccine use (0.0476).

[0061] It should be noted that the scores in parentheses after each of the above indicators represent the weight scores of the corresponding indicators. The weight scores of all primary indicators are added together to equal 1, and the weight scores of secondary indicators included in a primary indicator are added together to equal 1.

[0062] Step S200: Score each of the three-level indicators, calculate the sum of the products of each secondary indicator's score and the corresponding preset weight of the secondary indicator, which is the score of the primary indicator. Then calculate the sum of the products of each primary indicator's score and the corresponding preset weight of the primary indicator to obtain the total score of the risk assessment for the introduction of the aquatic animal.

[0063] The biological characteristics of introduced aquatic animals include seven secondary indicators, with risk weights for the secondary indicators as follows: (1) morphological characteristics (indicator weight: 0.0318); (2) life cycle and reproductive strategies (indicator weight: 0.1590); (3) dietary habits (indicator weight: 0.1056); (4) environmental adaptability (indicator weight: 0.2375); (5) ecological impact (indicator weight: 0.3504); (6) genetic diversity (indicator weight: 0.0696); and (7) behavioral characteristics (indicator weight: 0.0462).

[0064] Data collected through literature review, expert consultation, and field observation were used to calculate risk scores for secondary indicators using the following methods. The scoring method for morphological characteristics (secondary indicator) is as follows: 1 point for appearance similar to native species and unlikely to be dominant; 2 points for slight differences that are insufficient to affect the survival of native species; 3 points for some obvious morphological advantages that may lead to dominance under certain conditions; 4 points for significantly superior morphological characteristics that may lead to competition and exclusion; and 5 points for significantly superior morphological characteristics, such as large size and fast growth rate, which can significantly compete with and exclude native species. The scoring method for life cycle and reproductive strategy (secondary indicator) is as follows: 1 point for slow reproduction, long life cycle, and ease of control; 2 points for reproduction rate comparable to native species; 3 points for short life cycle, fast reproductive cycle, and initial competitive potential; 4 points for multiple reproductions, rapid growth, and high reproduction rate; and 5 points for extremely high reproduction rate, short life cycle, and the ability to quickly establish large populations and occupy ecological niches. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of dietary habits is as follows: 1 point for strong specialization, limited food sources, and low likelihood of impacting native species; 2 points for slight overlap with native species' food sources; 3 points for omnivorousness with moderate overlap with native species' food sources; 4 points for a wide range of food sources, potentially competing directly with native species; and 5 points for high omnivorousness with highly overlapping food sources, potentially leading to food shortages for native species. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of environmental adaptability is as follows: 1 point for high environmental requirements, surviving only under specific conditions; 2 points for poor adaptability, easily affected by environmental changes; 3 points for moderate adaptability, surviving in various environmental conditions; 4 points for a wide range of adaptability, tolerating significant environmental fluctuations; and 5 points for high adaptability, surviving and reproducing in extreme environmental conditions. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of ecological impact is as follows: 1 point for minimal impact on native species and the environment, resulting in niche isolation; 2 points for minor ecological impact, insufficient to alter ecosystem structure; 3 points for threatening some native species and potentially altering food chain relationships; 4 points for threatening multiple native species and altering food web structure and ecosystem function; and 5 points for posing a serious threat to the ecosystem, leading to the extinction of native species and disrupting ecological balance. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of genetic diversity is as follows: 1 point for low genetic diversity, reducing the ability to adapt to environmental changes and spread; 2 points for the presence but insignificant genetic variation and low hybridization potential with native species; 3 points for moderate genetic diversity, potentially hybridizing with native species but with limited impact; 4 points for high genetic diversity, increased hybridization potential, and potential impact on the genetic structure of native species; and 5 points for extremely high genetic diversity and hybridization potential, significantly affecting the purity and adaptability of native species.The scoring method for the secondary indicator behavioral characteristics is as follows: if the behavioral pattern is simple and does not show territorial or aggressive behavior, it is scored as 1 point; if the behavior is similar to that of native species and has little impact on native species, it is scored as 2 points; if it shows some territorial behavior and may compete with native species in a local area, it is scored as 3 points; if it shows strong territorial or aggressive behavior and can change the behavior and habitat selection of native species, it is scored as 4 points; if it is highly aggressive and territorial, can significantly displace native species and control important habitat resources, it is scored as 5 points.

[0065] The assessment of the biological characteristics of diseases carried by alien species includes six secondary indicators, and the risk weights of the secondary indicators are as follows: (1) pathogen characteristics (indicator weight: 0.3794); (2) host adaptability (indicator weight: 0.2488); (3) disease transmission route (indicator weight: 0.1604); (4) environmental transmission impact (indicator weight: 0.0434); (5) disease prevention and control strategies (indicator weight: 0.1024); (6) long-term impact assessment (indicator weight: 0.0655).

[0066] The scoring method for the secondary indicator, pathogen characteristics, is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the pathogen type is harmless or has extremely low virulence to aquatic animals and humans; 2 points are awarded if the pathogen may be harmful to aquatic animals with weak immunity but poses a low risk to humans; 3 points are awarded if the pathogen poses a moderate risk to a specific aquatic animal population and may have an indirect impact on human health; 4 points are awarded if the pathogen can cause serious disease, poses a high risk to aquatic animal population, and increases the risk to human health; and 5 points are awarded if the pathogen is highly pathogenic, easily transmissible, and poses a high risk to both aquatic animals and human health. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, host adaptability, is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the pathogen has weak survival ability in a specific host and is not easily transmitted in the aquaculture environment; 2 points are awarded if the pathogen has moderate adaptability to a specific host and limited transmission ability; 3 points are awarded if the pathogen can survive in multiple hosts and the transmission risk gradually increases; 4 points are awarded if the pathogen is highly adaptable to multiple hosts and has strong transmission ability; and 5 points are awarded if the pathogen is highly adaptable to a wide range of hosts, poses an extremely high transmission risk, and is difficult to control. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease transmission routes is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the pathogen is difficult to transmit and requires specific conditions; 2 points are awarded if the pathogen spreads under specific conditions but its prevalence is limited; 3 points are awarded if the pathogen can spread through some common routes; 4 points are awarded if the pathogen has diverse transmission routes and a relatively fast infection rate; and 5 points are awarded if the pathogen has widespread transmission routes, an extremely fast infection rate, and is difficult to control. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of environmental transmission impact is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease has no significant long-term environmental impact and the pathogen rapidly decays in natural water bodies; 2 points are awarded if the disease may cause minor environmental disturbances but are insufficient to lead to long-term changes in ecological balance; 3 points are awarded if the disease has a moderate environmental impact and may lead to short-term changes in local ecosystem functions; 4 points are awarded if the disease causes significant environmental changes, affects multiple species, and may lead to long-term changes in ecological relationships and food webs; and 5 points are awarded if the disease causes widespread environmental damage, threatens the survival of multiple species, causes large-scale loss of biodiversity, and long-term damage to ecosystem services. The scoring method for secondary indicator disease prevention and control strategies is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the pathogen is sensitive to environmental changes and easily treated with existing drugs; 2 points are awarded if the pathogen has some resistance but low mutation rate; 3 points are awarded if the pathogen is resistant to treatment to some extent and has moderate mutation rate; 4 points are awarded if the pathogen is highly resistant and easily develops drug resistance; and 5 points are awarded if the pathogen is highly adaptable, develops drug resistance rapidly, and is difficult to control with drugs. Long-term impact assessments are scored using the following method: 1 point is awarded if the disease has a minor impact on farmed and wild populations; 2 points are awarded if the disease may cause a slight decrease in farmed population productivity; 3 points are awarded if the disease has a significant impact on farmed population productivity and may lead to local economic losses; 4 points are awarded if the disease can cause high mortality rates and has a significant economic impact on the aquaculture industry and related industries; and 5 points are awarded if the disease has a fatal impact on both farmed and wild populations and may trigger a widespread ecological and socio-economic crisis.

[0067] The disease exposure assessment includes five secondary indicators, with risk weights for the secondary indicators as follows: (1) exposure route (indicator weight: 0.0624); (2) disease transmission speed and range (indicator weight: 0.1611); (3) pathogen survival and reproduction conditions (indicator weight: 0.2618); (4) early identification of disease (indicator weight: 0.0986); (5) disease prevention and control preparation (0.4162).

[0068] The scoring method for the secondary indicator of exposure pathways is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease has almost no possibility of exposure through any route; 2 points are awarded if the risk of exposure through a specific route is low; 3 points are awarded if the possibility of exposure through multiple routes is moderate; 4 points are awarded if the disease is very likely to be exposed through multiple routes; and 5 points are awarded if the disease is extremely likely to be exposed through multiple routes and the risk is extremely high. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease transmission speed and range is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease spreads slowly and to a limited extent; 2 points are awarded if the disease spreads relatively slowly and to a limited extent; 3 points are awarded if the disease spreads at a moderate speed and to a moderate extent; 4 points are awarded if the disease spreads quickly and to a wide extent; and 5 points are awarded if the disease spreads quickly and to a wide extent. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of pathogen survival and reproduction conditions is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the conditions for pathogen survival and reproduction in the breeding environment are extremely poor; 1 point is awarded if the pathogen can only survive and reproduce under specific conditions. For the early identification of secondary indicator diseases, the scoring method is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease can be identified very early; 2 points are awarded if it can be identified in the early stage of disease development; 3 points are awarded if it can be identified in the middle stage of disease development; 4 points are awarded if it can usually be identified in the late stage of disease development; and 5 points are awarded if the disease is difficult or impossible to identify until it develops into a severe stage.

[0069] The consequences of disease outbreaks include six secondary indicators, with risk weights for the secondary indicators as follows: (1) economic impact (indicator weight: 0.2488); (2) environmental impact (indicator weight: 0.3794); (3) social and public health (indicator weight: 0.1604); (4) response and recovery capacity (indicator weight: 0.1024); (5) legal and policy consequences (indicator weight: 0.0655); and (6) information and communication (indicator weight: 0.0434).

[0070] The scoring method for the secondary indicator of economic impact is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the economic impact of the disease outbreak on the aquaculture industry is minor and the losses are easily recoverable; 2 points are awarded if the economic impact is limited and may lead to a short-term decline in production; 3 points are awarded if there is a moderate level of economic loss affecting production and sales; 4 points are awarded if there is a significant economic loss that may lead to long-term market and production impacts; and 5 points are awarded if there are huge economic losses that threaten the sustainability of the entire aquaculture industry. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of environmental impact is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease has a minor environmental impact with no long-term ecological impact; 2 points are awarded if the environmental impact is small and the local ecosystem is slightly affected; 3 points are awarded if there is a moderate level of environmental impact that may alter the local ecological balance; and 5 points are awarded if the disease has a serious impact on the ecosystem, affecting multiple... For the species, a score of 4 is given; if it has a profound impact on the ecosystem, threatening biodiversity and ecological balance, a score of 5 is given. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, environmental impact, is as follows: if the disease has minimal environmental impact and no long-term ecological impact, a score of 1 is given; if the environmental impact is small and the local ecosystem is slightly affected, a score of 2 is given; if the environmental impact is moderate and may alter the local ecological balance, a score of 3 is given; if it has a serious impact on the ecosystem and affects multiple species, a score of 4 is given; if it has a profound impact on the ecosystem and threatens biodiversity and ecological balance, a score of 5 is given. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, social and public health, is as follows: if the disease has almost no impact on public health and society, a score of 1 is given; if it has a limited impact on the public health of a specific group or region, a score of 2 is given; if it has a significant impact on public health... A score of 3 is given for moderate impact requiring public health measures; 4 is given for severe impact on public health potentially leading to widespread attention and response measures; and 5 is given for causing a major public health crisis requiring urgent and large-scale response measures. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of social and public health is as follows: 1 point for minimal impact on public health and society; 2 points for limited impact on public health of a specific group or region; 3 points for moderate impact requiring public health measures; 4 points for severe impact potentially leading to widespread attention and response measures; and 5 points for causing a major public health crisis requiring urgent and large-scale response measures. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of response and recovery capacity is as follows: if the disease is easily controlled... The scoring method for the secondary indicator of legal and policy consequences is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the disease outbreak does not require special legal or policy changes; 2 points are awarded if it may require local policy adjustments or minor legal responses; 3 points are awarded if it requires significant policy adjustments and legal responses; 4 points are awarded if the disease outbreak triggers major legal and policy changes; and 5 points are awarded if it leads to a comprehensive legal and policy overhaul that may involve national-level responses.The scoring method for the secondary indicator, information and communication, is as follows: 1 point is awarded if information is rapidly and accurately transmitted to all livestock farmers, and an efficient communication mechanism exists, including disease warnings, treatment methods, and prevention and control measures. 2 points are awarded if information is promptly transmitted to most livestock farmers, and communication channels are relatively effective, but there may be some areas with insufficient information transmission. 3 points are awarded if information transmission is delayed or partially inaccurate, communication channels are average, and some livestock farmers fail to receive key information in a timely manner. 4 points are awarded if there are significant problems with information transmission and communication, resulting in information lag and many livestock farmers lacking timely and accurate disease information. 5 points are awarded if information transmission and communication are extremely insufficient or erroneous, causing confusion and panic among livestock farmers and seriously hindering the implementation of effective disease control and prevention measures.

[0071] The comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management includes seven secondary indicators, with risk weights for the following: (1) Aquaculture environment and ecosystem (indicator weight: 0.3523); (2) Aquaculture technology and efficiency (indicator weight: 0.0319); (3) Disease management and control (indicator weight: 0.1605); (4) Economic benefits and market (indicator weight: 0.0727); (5) Social and cultural impact (indicator weight: 0.0463); (6) Compliance with laws and regulations and policies (indicator weight: 0.1066); and (7) Food safety and health (indicator weight: 0.2297).

[0072] The scoring method for the secondary indicator, "Aquaculture Environment and Ecosystem," is as follows: Please briefly describe the source of pathogen infection and common transmission methods, and score according to the degree of risk. If the aquaculture environment is well-maintained and has minimal impact on the surrounding ecosystem (e.g., high-quality water source management and waste disposal), score 1 point. If the aquaculture environment is relatively good and has a small impact on the ecosystem (e.g., appropriate feed management and waste disposal), score 2 points. If the aquaculture environment is poorly managed and has some impact on the ecosystem (e.g., intermittent water quality problems and waste disposal), score 3 points. If the aquaculture environment is poorly managed and has a significant impact on the ecosystem (e.g., frequent water quality problems and improper waste disposal), score 4 points. Extremely poor environmental management, severely impacting the ecosystem, such as continuous water quality deterioration and waste pollution, scores 5 points. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, aquaculture technology and efficiency, is as follows: 1 point for using the most advanced aquaculture technology, such as intelligent management systems, resulting in extremely high efficiency and excellent productivity; 2 points for relatively advanced aquaculture technology, such as a good water circulation system, resulting in high efficiency; 3 points for average aquaculture technology, such as traditional pond aquaculture, resulting in moderate efficiency and productivity; 4 points for outdated aquaculture technology, such as a lack of effective water management, resulting in low efficiency; and 5 points for extremely outdated aquaculture technology, such as uncontrolled intensive aquaculture, resulting in extremely low efficiency. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, disease management and control, is as follows: The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease management and control is as follows: If disease management and control measures are highly effective and the disease incidence rate is extremely low (e.g., regular health checkups and vaccinations), 1 point is awarded; if disease management and control are relatively effective and the disease incidence rate is low, 2 points are awarded; if disease management and control are average and disease occurs occasionally, 3 points are awarded; if disease management and control are poor and disease occurs frequently, 4 points are awarded; if disease management and control are very poor and disease occurs frequently, 5 points are awarded. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease management and control is as follows: If disease management and control measures are highly effective and the disease incidence rate is extremely low (e.g., regular health checkups and vaccinations), 1 point is awarded; if disease management and control are relatively effective and the disease incidence rate is low, 2 points are awarded. If disease management and control are average and diseases occur occasionally, a score of 3 is given; if disease management and control are poor and diseases occur frequently, a score of 4 is given; if disease management and control are very poor and diseases occur frequently, a score of 5 is given. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease management and control is as follows: if disease management and control measures are very effective and the disease incidence rate is extremely low, such as regular health check-ups and vaccinations, a score of 1 is given; if disease management and control are relatively effective and the disease incidence rate is low, a score of 2 is given; if disease management and control are average and diseases occur occasionally, a score of 3 is given; if disease management and control are poor and diseases occur frequently, a score of 4 is given; if disease management and control are very poor and diseases occur frequently, a score of 5 is given.The scoring method for the secondary indicator of economic benefits and market is as follows: 1 point is awarded for high economic benefits and popular products in the market, such as the successful breeding of high-value breeds; 2 points are awarded for good economic benefits and stable market demand; 3 points are awarded for average economic benefits and fluctuating market demand, possibly affected by seasonality and market prices; 4 points are awarded for poor economic benefits and unstable market demand, possibly due to insufficient product quality, breed, or marketing; and 5 points are awarded for very poor economic benefits and sluggish market demand, possibly due to low product quality or marketing failure. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of social and cultural aspects is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the aquaculture industry has a significant positive impact on local society and culture, such as providing employment opportunities, supporting the local economy, and maintaining traditional aquaculture culture; 5 points are awarded for... A score of 2 is given for a positive social and cultural impact; 3 points for a moderate impact; 4 points for a limited positive impact; and 5 points for almost no positive impact, or even potential negative impacts such as disrupting traditional farming methods. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of food safety and health is as follows: 1 point for strict adherence to food safety standards and product health and safety, such as compliant use of feed and medications; 2 points for relatively good adherence to food safety standards and product health and safety; 3 points for moderate adherence to food safety standards and moderate product health and safety; 4 points for insufficient adherence to food safety standards and questionable product health and safety; and 5 points for extremely poor adherence to food safety standards and high product health and safety risks.

[0073] The disease control assessment includes seven secondary indicators, with the following risk weights: (1) Disease identification and monitoring (indicator weight: 0.1964); (2) Risk assessment and management (indicator weight: 0.1216); (3) Aquaculture environment management (indicator weight: 0.0764); (4) Biosecurity measures (indicator weight: 0.3140); (5) Personnel training and awareness (indicator weight: 0.0476); (6) Disease screening and detection (indicator weight: 0.1964); and (7) Drug and vaccine use (indicator weight: 0.0476).

[0074] The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease identification and monitoring is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the farm can immediately take effective measures to quickly control the spread of disease once it is identified; 2 points are awarded if the farm usually takes action relatively quickly after disease identification, but the speed of response and the effectiveness of measures may fluctuate; 3 points are awarded if the farm's response to disease is average, sometimes timely and sometimes slow; 4 points are awarded if the farm's response to disease is slow and often takes a long time to take action; and 5 points are awarded if the farm's response to disease is extremely slow or ineffective, usually only taking action after the disease has caused serious losses. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of risk assessment and management is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the risk assessment is comprehensive and the management strategy is very effective. For disease prevention and control, the scoring method is as follows: 1 point for comprehensive risk assessment and effective management strategies in most cases; 2 points for average risk assessment and management strategies, effective in some cases; 3 points for insufficient risk assessment and limited management strategy effectiveness; 4 points for almost ineffective risk assessment and management strategies, unable to effectively prevent and control diseases. For the secondary indicator of aquaculture environment management, the scoring method is as follows: 1 point for excellent aquaculture environment management, effectively preventing disease; 2 points for good aquaculture environment management, preventing disease in most cases; 3 points for average aquaculture environment management, only preventing disease in some cases; 4 points for poor aquaculture environment management, making it difficult to prevent disease; 5 points for very poor aquaculture environment management. A score of 5 is given for poor performance, offering almost no benefit to disease control. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, biosafety measures, is as follows: 1 point for strict biosafety measures effectively isolating and controlling diseases; 2 points for relatively good biosafety measures, effective in most cases; 3 points for average biosafety measures, effective in some cases; 4 points for insufficient biosafety measures and poor disease prevention; and 5 points for almost no biosafety measures and extremely high disease control risk. The scoring method for the secondary indicator, personnel training and awareness, is as follows: 1 point is given for the rational use of drugs and vaccines, resulting in significant disease control effects; 1 point is given for personnel receiving comprehensive training, having a high level of awareness and responsibility for disease control, and effectively implementing control measures. If most personnel receive good training and awareness, and can correctly implement prevention and control measures in most cases, a score of 2 is given. If personnel are generally trained and aware, but their implementation is not strict enough in practice, and the effect is average, a score of 3 is given. If personnel lack sufficient training and awareness of prevention and control, and implement prevention and control measures improperly, and the effect is limited, a score of 4 is given. If personnel have received almost no relevant training, lack basic understanding and responsibility for disease prevention and control, and their implementation of prevention and control measures is extremely inadequate, a score of 5 is given. The scoring method for the secondary indicator of disease screening and detection is as follows: For pathogen monitoring, prevention and control measures, in short, monitoring involves regular testing and early identification of pathogens, prevention measures include biosafety and hygiene practices, and control measures rely on disease management and treatment strategies.Depending on factors such as difficulty, effectiveness, and cost, the risk level score may range from 1 point (high difficulty, poor effectiveness, high cost) to 5 points (low difficulty, good effectiveness, low cost). The scoring method for the secondary indicator of drug and vaccine use is as follows: if drugs and vaccines are used rationally and have a significant effect on disease control, a score of 1 is given; if drugs and vaccines are used rationally in most cases and have a good control effect, a score of 2 is given; if drugs and vaccines are used moderately and are effective in some cases, a score of 3 is given; if drugs and vaccines are used improperly and have a poor control effect, a score of 4 is given; and if drugs and vaccines are used improperly or are lacking and have almost no effect on disease control, a score of 5 is given.

[0075] Step S300: Assess the risk of introducing aquatic animals based on the total score.

[0076] Further evaluation is conducted based on the total score. Assuming a maximum score of 5 points, the establishment and application of the risk assessment system for introducing aquatic animals are evaluated based on this total score. Specifically, when the score is between 4 and 5 points, the risk level is extremely high, indicating a very high risk of introducing the species, and it is strongly recommended not to introduce it. When the score is between 3 and 4 points, the risk level is high, indicating that the introduction of the species should be avoided unless there are sufficient control measures and monitoring plans. When the score is between 2 and 3 points, the risk level is medium, indicating that there is some risk in introducing the species, and introduction should be considered, but can be carried out normally if it complies with policies. When the score is between 1 and 2 points, the risk level is low, indicating that an appropriate risk assessment and management plan are required before introducing the species. When the score is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1 point, the risk level is extremely low, indicating that there is no significant risk in introducing the species, and it can be safely introduced.

[0077] To verify the correctness and rationality of the above risk assessment model in the actual introduction of aquatic animals, we selected the Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) here. Litopenaeus vannamei Largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), Pacific oyster ( Crassostrea gigas These three types of aquatic animals were assessed for risk. In this assessment, we used methods such as literature review, expert consultation, and field observation to score various indicators.

[0078] Based on the calculation results, we can draw the following conclusions: the risk level of whiteleg shrimp is low; the risk level of largemouth bass is high; and the risk level of Pacific oyster is medium. The order of risk level from highest to lowest is: largemouth bass > Pacific oyster > whiteleg shrimp.

[0079] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some or all of the technical features therein. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, and they should all be covered within the scope of the claims and specification of the present invention.

Claims

1. A risk assessment model for the introduction of alien aquatic organisms, characterized in that, The model includes 6 primary indicators and 38 secondary indicators.

2. The primary indicator as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The model includes six primary indicators: biological characteristics of aquatic animals, biological characteristics of diseases carried by invasive species, disease exposure assessment, comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management, disease prevention and control assessment, and disease outbreak consequences assessment.

3. The primary indicator as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The primary indicator module for biological characteristics of aquatic animals includes seven secondary indicators: morphological characteristics, life cycle and reproductive strategies, dietary habits, environmental adaptability, ecological impact, genetic diversity, and behavioral characteristics. The primary indicator assessment of the biological characteristics of invasive diseases carried by alien species includes six secondary indicators: pathogen characteristics, host adaptability, disease transmission routes, environmental transmission impact, disease control strategies, and long-term impact assessment. The primary indicator disease exposure assessment includes five secondary indicators: exposure routes, disease transmission speed and range, pathogen survival and reproduction conditions, and early disease identification. The primary indicator disease outbreak consequences assessment module includes six secondary indicators: economic impact, environmental impact, social and public health, response and recovery capacity, and legal, information, and communication aspects. The primary indicator comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management includes seven secondary indicators: aquaculture environment and ecosystem, aquaculture technology and efficiency, disease management and control, economic benefits and market, social and cultural impact, regulatory compliance and policy, and food safety and health. The primary indicator disease control assessment includes seven secondary indicators: disease identification and monitoring, risk assessment and management, aquaculture environment management, biosecurity measures, personnel training and awareness, disease screening and detection, and drug and vaccine use. The model of claim 1 is characterized in that when conducting risk assessment for the introduction of aquatic animals, each secondary indicator is scored, the score of the primary indicator is obtained by multiplying the score of each secondary indicator corresponding to the primary indicator with the weight of the corresponding preset secondary indicator, and the total score of the aquatic animal introduction assessment is obtained by multiplying the score of each primary indicator with the weight of the corresponding preset primary indicator. The risk level of introducing the species is assessed based on the total score.

4. The scoring method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The biological characteristics of invasive aquatic animals are scored using seven secondary indicators, including: Morphological characteristics are scored as follows: 1 point for appearance similar to native species and unlikely to be dominant; 2 points for slight differences but not enough to affect the survival of native species; 3 points for some obvious morphological advantages that may lead to dominance under certain conditions; 4 points for significantly superior morphological characteristics that may lead to competition and exclusion; and 5 points for significantly superior morphological characteristics, such as large size and fast growth rate, which can significantly compete with and exclude native species. Life cycle and reproductive strategy are scored as follows: 1 point for slow reproduction, long life cycle, and easy control; 2 points for reproduction rate comparable to native species; 3 points for short life cycle, fast reproduction cycle, and initial competitive potential; 4 points for multiple reproductions, rapid growth, and high reproduction rate; and 5 points for extremely high reproduction rate, short life cycle, and ability to quickly establish large populations and occupy ecological niches. The scoring method for dietary habits is as follows: 1 point for strong specialization, limited food sources, and low likelihood of impacting native species; 2 points for slight overlap with native species' food sources; 3 points for omnivorousness with moderate overlap with native species' food sources; 4 points for a wide food range, potentially competing directly with native species; and 5 points for highly omnivorousness, with significant overlap with native species' food sources, potentially leading to food shortages for native species. The scoring method for environmental adaptability is as follows: 1 point for high environmental requirements, surviving only under specific conditions; 2 points for poor adaptability, easily affected by environmental changes; 3 points for moderate adaptability, surviving in various environmental conditions; 4 points for a wide range of adaptability, tolerating significant environmental fluctuations; and 5 points for high adaptability, surviving and reproducing in extreme environmental conditions. The scoring method for ecological impact is as follows: 1 point for minimal impact on native species and the environment, resulting in niche isolation; 2 points for minor ecological impact, insufficient to alter ecosystem structure; 3 points for threatening some native species and potentially altering food chain relationships; 4 points for threatening multiple native species and altering food web structure and ecosystem function; and 5 points for posing a serious threat to the ecosystem, leading to the extinction of native species and disrupting ecological balance. The scoring method for genetic diversity is as follows: 1 point for low genetic diversity, reducing the ability to adapt to environmental changes and spread; 2 points for the presence of genetic variation but not significant, with low hybridization potential with native species; 3 points for moderate genetic diversity, potentially hybridizing with native species but with limited impact; 4 points for high genetic diversity, increased hybridization potential, and potential impact on the genetic structure of native species; and 5 points for extremely high genetic diversity and hybridization potential, significantly affecting the purity and adaptability of native species.The scoring method for behavioral characteristics is as follows: 1 point is awarded if the behavioral pattern is simple and does not exhibit territorial or aggressive behavior; 2 points are awarded if the behavior is similar to that of native species and has little impact on native species; 3 points are awarded if some territorial behavior is exhibited and the behavior may compete with native species in a local area; 4 points are awarded if strong territorial or aggressive behavior can change the behavior and habitat selection of native species; and 5 points are awarded if highly aggressive and territorial behavior can significantly displace native species and control important habitat resources.

5. The scoring method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The assessment of the biological characteristics of diseases carried by invasive species is scored using six secondary indicators, including: Pathogen characteristics are scored as follows: 1 point for a pathogen that is harmless or has very low virulence to aquatic animals and humans; 2 points for a pathogen that may be harmful to aquatic animals with weakened immune systems but poses a low risk to humans; 3 points for a pathogen that poses a moderate risk to a specific aquatic animal population and may have an indirect impact on human health; 4 points for a pathogen that can cause serious disease, poses a high risk to aquatic animal population, and increases the risk to human health; and 5 points for a pathogen that is highly pathogenic, easily transmissible, and poses a high risk to both aquatic animals and human health. Host adaptability is scored as follows: 1 point for a pathogen with weak survival ability in a specific host and difficulty in spreading in aquaculture environments; 2 points for a pathogen with moderate adaptability to a specific host and limited transmissibility; 3 points for a pathogen that can survive in multiple hosts but with gradually increasing transmissibility risk; 4 points for a pathogen that is highly adaptable to multiple hosts and has strong transmissibility; and 5 points for a pathogen that is highly adaptable to a wide range of hosts, poses an extremely high transmissibility risk, and is difficult to control. The disease transmission pathways are scored as follows: 1 point for high transmission difficulty requiring specific conditions; 2 points for transmission under specific conditions but limited prevalence; 3 points for transmission through common routes; 4 points for diverse transmission routes and rapid infection; and 5 points for widespread transmission, extremely rapid infection, and difficulty in control. Environmental impacts are scored as follows: 1 point for no significant long-term environmental impact and rapid decay in natural waters; 2 points for minor environmental disturbances insufficient to cause long-term changes in ecological balance; 3 points for moderate environmental impact potentially leading to short-term changes in local ecosystem functions; 4 points for significant environmental changes affecting multiple species and potentially causing long-term changes in ecological relationships and food webs; and 5 points for widespread environmental damage threatening the survival of multiple species, resulting in large-scale biodiversity loss and long-term damage to ecosystem services. Disease control strategies are scored as follows: 1 point is given if the pathogen is sensitive to environmental changes and easily treated with existing drugs; 2 points are given if the pathogen has some resistance but low mutation ability; 3 points are given if the pathogen can resist treatment to some extent and has moderate mutation ability; 4 points are given if the pathogen has strong resistance and is prone to developing drug resistance; and 5 points are given if the pathogen is highly adaptable, develops drug resistance rapidly, and is difficult to control with drugs.The long-term impact assessment is scored using the following method: 1 point is awarded if the disease has a minor impact on both farmed and wild populations; 2 points are awarded if the disease may cause a slight decrease in the productivity of farmed populations; 3 points are awarded if the disease has a significant impact on the productivity of farmed populations and may cause local economic losses; 4 points are awarded if the disease can cause high mortality rates and have a major economic impact on the aquaculture industry and related industries; and 5 points are awarded if the disease has a fatal impact on both farmed and wild populations and may trigger a widespread ecological and socio-economic crisis.

6. The scoring method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The five secondary indicators for disease exposure assessment are scored as follows: Exposure pathways are scored as follows: 1 point for almost no possibility of exposure through any pathway; 2 points for low risk of exposure through a specific pathway; 3 points for moderate possibility of exposure through multiple pathways; 4 points for likely exposure through multiple pathways; and 5 points for extremely high risk of exposure through multiple pathways. Disease spread speed and range are scored as follows: 1 point for slow spread and limited range; 2 points for relatively slow spread and limited range; 3 points for moderate spread speed and range; 4 points for fast spread and wide range; and 5 points for fast spread and wide range. The survival and reproduction conditions of pathogens are scored as follows: 1 point for extremely poor survival and reproduction conditions in the breeding environment; 2 points for survival and reproduction only under specific conditions; 3 points for survival and reproduction under multiple conditions; 4 points for survival and reproduction under most conditions; and 5 points for survival and reproduction under almost all conditions. Early disease identification is scored as follows: 1 point for very early identification; 2 points for identification in the early stages of disease development; 3 points for identification in the middle stages of disease development; 4 points for identification usually in the late stages of disease development; and 5 points for difficulty or inability to identify the disease until it reaches a severe stage. The following method is used to score the disease prevention and control preparation: 1 point is given if the prevention and control preparation is complete and can effectively deal with the disease; 2 points are given if the prevention and control preparation is good and can deal with the disease in most cases; 3 points are given if the prevention and control preparation is average and can deal with the disease in some cases; 4 points are given if the prevention and control preparation is insufficient and it is difficult to deal with the disease; and 5 points are given if there is almost no prevention and control preparation and the ability to deal with the disease is extremely poor.

7. The scoring method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The assessment of the consequences of disease outbreaks is scored using six secondary indicators, including: Economic impact is scored as follows: 1 point for minimal economic impact on the aquaculture industry with easily recoverable losses; 2 points for limited economic impact, potentially leading to a short-term decline in production; 3 points for moderate economic losses affecting production and sales; 4 points for significant economic losses potentially leading to long-term market and production impacts; and 5 points for causing enormous economic losses and threatening the sustainability of the entire aquaculture industry. Environmental impact is scored as follows: 1 point for minimal environmental impact with no long-term ecological effects; 2 points for minor environmental impact with slight effects on local ecosystems; 3 points for moderate environmental impact that may alter local ecological balance; 4 points for severe impact on the ecosystem affecting multiple species; and 5 points for profound impact on the ecosystem, threatening biodiversity and ecological balance. Environmental impact can be scored as follows: 1 point for minimal environmental impact and no long-term ecological effects; 2 points for minor environmental impact with slight effects on local ecosystems; 3 points for moderate environmental impact that may alter local ecological balance; 4 points for severe impact on ecosystems affecting multiple species; and 5 points for profound impact on ecosystems threatening biodiversity and ecological balance. Social and public health impact can be scored as follows: 1 point for minimal impact on public health and society; 2 points for limited impact on public health of a specific group or region; 3 points for moderate impact on public health requiring public health measures; 4 points for severe impact on public health that may attract widespread attention and response measures; and 5 points for leading to a major public health crisis requiring urgent and large-scale response measures. The following methods will be used to score response and recovery capabilities: 1 point for easy disease control and management, and rapid recovery; 2 points for good overall recovery despite some management; 3 points for moderate recovery time despite significant effort in disease control and recovery; 4 points for long-term and resource-intensive recovery despite difficult disease control; and 5 points for extremely difficult disease control, lengthy recovery process, and high costs. The following methods will be used to score legal and policy consequences: 1 point for disease outbreaks requiring no special legal or policy changes; 2 points for potential localized policy adjustments or minor legal responses; 3 points for significant policy adjustments and legal responses; 4 points for major legal and policy changes leading to a complete overhaul of laws and policies, potentially involving national-level responses; and 5 points for information and communication: Information will be rapidly and accurately communicated to all livestock farmers; an efficient communication mechanism will exist, including disease warnings, treatment methods, and prevention and control measures.If information is delivered to most farmers in a timely manner and communication channels are relatively effective, but there may be some areas where information is not delivered, then score 1 point. If information is delivered in a timely manner or is inaccurate in some areas, and communication channels are average, and some farmers fail to receive key information in a timely manner, then score 3 points. If there are significant problems with information delivery and communication, resulting in information lag and many farmers lacking timely and accurate disease information, then score 4 points. If information delivery and communication are extremely insufficient or erroneous, causing confusion and panic among farmers and seriously hindering the implementation of effective disease control and prevention measures, then score 5 points.

8. The scoring method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management is scored using seven secondary indicators, including the following methods for scoring the aquaculture environment and ecosystem: 1 point is awarded for a well-maintained aquaculture environment with minimal impact on the surrounding ecosystem, such as high-quality water source management and waste disposal; 2 points are awarded for a relatively good aquaculture environment with minimal impact on the ecosystem, such as appropriate feed management and waste discharge; 3 points are awarded for average aquaculture environment management with some impact on the ecosystem, such as intermittent water quality problems and waste discharge; 4 points are awarded for poor aquaculture environment management with significant impact on the ecosystem, such as frequent water quality problems and improper waste disposal; and 5 points are awarded for extremely poor aquaculture environment management that seriously affects the ecosystem, such as continuous water quality deterioration and waste pollution. The following methods will be used to score aquaculture techniques and efficiency: 1 point for using state-of-the-art techniques, such as intelligent management systems, resulting in extremely high efficiency and excellent productivity; 2 points for relatively advanced techniques, such as a good water circulation system, resulting in high efficiency; 3 points for average techniques, such as traditional pond aquaculture, resulting in moderate efficiency and productivity; 4 points for outdated techniques, such as a lack of effective water management, resulting in low efficiency; and 5 points for extremely outdated techniques, such as uncontrolled intensive aquaculture, resulting in extremely low efficiency. The following methods will be used to score disease management and control: 1 point for highly effective disease management and control measures, resulting in extremely low disease incidence, such as regular health checks and vaccinations; 2 points for relatively effective disease management and control, resulting in low disease incidence; 3 points for average disease management and control, resulting in occasional disease occurrences; 4 points for poor disease management and control, resulting in frequent disease occurrences; and 5 points for very poor disease management and control, resulting in frequent disease occurrences. Economic benefits and market performance are scored as follows: 1 point for high economic benefits and popular products (e.g., successful breeding of high-value breeds); 2 points for good economic benefits and stable market demand; 3 points for average economic benefits and fluctuating market demand (potentially affected by seasonality and market prices); 4 points for poor economic benefits and unstable market demand (potentially due to product quality, breed, or insufficient marketing); and 5 points for very poor economic benefits and sluggish market demand (potentially due to low product quality or marketing failure). Social and cultural impacts are scored as follows: 1 point for significant positive impacts on local society and culture (e.g., providing employment, supporting the local economy, and maintaining traditional breeding practices); 2 points for positive impacts; 3 points for moderate impacts; 4 points for limited positive impacts; and 5 points for almost no positive impacts or even negative impacts (e.g., disrupting traditional breeding methods).Food safety and health are scored using the following method: 1 point is awarded if food safety standards are strictly implemented and the product is healthy and safe, such as the compliant use of feed and drugs; 2 points are awarded if food safety standards are implemented well and the product is healthy and safe; 3 points are awarded if food safety standards are implemented moderately and the product is healthy and safe; 4 points are awarded if food safety standards are not implemented sufficiently and the product's health and safety are questionable; and 5 points are awarded if food safety standards are implemented extremely poorly and the product's health and safety risks are high.

9. The scoring method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The evaluation of disease control is scored using seven secondary indicators, including the following methods for scoring disease identification and monitoring: 1 point is awarded if the farm can immediately take effective measures to quickly control the spread of the disease once it is identified; 2 points are awarded if the farm usually takes action relatively quickly after identifying the disease, but the speed of response and the effectiveness of the measures may fluctuate; 3 points are awarded if the farm's response to the disease is average, sometimes timely and sometimes slow; 4 points are awarded if the farm's response to the disease is slow and often takes a long time to take action; and 5 points are awarded if the farm's response to the disease is extremely slow or ineffective, usually taking action only after the disease has caused serious losses. Risk assessment and management will be scored as follows: 1 point for comprehensive risk assessment and highly effective management strategies that effectively prevent and control diseases; 2 points for relatively comprehensive risk assessment and effective management strategies in most cases; 3 points for average risk assessment and management strategies that are effective in some cases; 4 points for insufficient risk assessment and limited management strategy effectiveness; and 5 points for almost ineffective risk assessment and management strategies that cannot effectively prevent and control diseases. Aquaculture environment management will be scored as follows: 1 point for excellent aquaculture environment management that effectively prevents disease; 2 points for good aquaculture environment management that prevents disease in most cases; 3 points for average aquaculture environment management that can only prevent disease in some cases; 4 points for poor aquaculture environment management that makes it difficult to prevent disease; and 5 points for very poor aquaculture environment management that offers almost no benefit to disease control. Biosafety measures will be scored as follows: 1 point for strict biosafety measures effectively isolating and controlling diseases; 2 points for good biosafety measures, effective in most cases; 3 points for average biosafety measures, effective in some cases; 4 points for insufficient biosafety measures and poor disease prevention; and 5 points for almost no biosafety measures and extremely high disease control risks. Personnel training and awareness will be scored as follows: 1 point for comprehensive training, high awareness and responsibility for disease prevention, and effective implementation of control measures; 2 points for mostly good training and improved awareness, and correct implementation of control measures in most cases; 3 points for general training and awareness, but insufficient implementation and mediocre results; 4 points for insufficient training and awareness, improper implementation of control measures, and limited results; and 5 points for almost no training, lack of basic awareness and responsibility for disease prevention, and extremely inadequate implementation of control measures. Disease screening and detection are scored using the following method: For pathogen monitoring, prevention and control measures, in brief, monitoring involves regular testing and early identification of pathogens, prevention measures include biosafety and hygiene practices, and control measures rely on disease management and treatment strategies. Depending on factors such as difficulty, effectiveness, and cost, the risk level rating may range from 1 point (high difficulty, poor effectiveness, high cost) to 5 points (low difficulty, good effectiveness, low cost). The use of drugs and vaccines is scored as follows: 1 point is awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used rationally and have a significant effect on disease control; 2 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used rationally in most cases and have a good effect on disease control; 3 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used moderately and are effective in some cases; 4 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used improperly and have a poor effect on disease control; and 5 points are awarded if the drugs and vaccines are used improperly or are lacking and have almost no effect on disease control.

10. The method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The weights of each primary indicator are as follows: biological characteristics of alien aquatic animals (0.3566), assessment of biological characteristics of diseases carried by alien species (0.2335), assessment of disease exposure (0.1286), assessment of the consequences of disease outbreak (0.0830), comprehensive assessment of aquaculture and management (0.0593), and assessment of disease prevention and control (0.1390). The method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The weights of each secondary indicator are as follows: morphological characteristics (0.0318), life cycle and reproductive strategies (0.1590), dietary habits (0.1056), environmental adaptability (0.2375), ecological impact (0.3504), genetic diversity (0.0696), behavioral characteristics (0.0462), pathogen characteristics (0.3794), host adaptability (0.2488), disease transmission routes (0.1604), environmental transmission impact (0.0434), disease control strategies (0.1024), long-term impact assessment (0.0655), exposure routes (0.0624), disease transmission speed and range (0.1611), and pathogen survival and reproduction conditions (0.2618). Early disease identification (0.0986) Disease prevention and control preparedness (0.4162) Economic impact (0.2488) Environmental impact (0.3794) Social and public health (0.1604) Response and recovery capacity (0.1024) Legal and policy consequences (0.0655) Information and communication (0.0434) Aquaculture environment and ecosystem (0.3523) Aquaculture technology and efficiency (0.0319) Disease management and control (0.1605) Economic benefits and market (0.0727) Social and cultural impact (0.0463) Regulatory compliance and policy (0.1066) Food safety and health (0.2297) Disease identification and monitoring (0.1964) Risk assessment and management (0.1216) Aquaculture environment management (0.0764) Biosecurity measures (0.3140) Personnel training and awareness (0.0476) Disease screening and detection (0.1964) Drug and vaccine use (0.0476). The method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The establishment and application of the risk assessment system for potential diseases of introduced aquatic animals, based on the total assessment score, are as follows: When the score is between 4 and 5, the risk level is extremely high, indicating a very high risk of introducing the species, and it is strongly recommended not to introduce it. When the score is between 3 and 4, the risk level is high, indicating that the species should be avoided unless there are sufficient control measures and monitoring plans. When the score is between 2 and 3, the risk level is medium, indicating that there is some risk in introducing the species, and introduction should be considered, but can be carried out normally if it complies with policies. When the score is between 1 and 2, the risk level is low, indicating that an appropriate risk assessment and management plan are required before introducing the species. When the score is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1, the risk level is extremely low, indicating that there is no significant risk in introducing the species, and it can be safely introduced.

Images