Table 1.
Examples of outcomes and benefits as identified through an informal survey of the research team and management advisory board from their respective participation in the project described herein.
| Participant | Outcomes | Examples of outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Researchers | New research topic: early detection of invasive species | Prompted and guided exploration of environmental DNA detection techniques. (Jerde et al. 2011, 2013; Nathan et al. 2015; Tucker et al. 2016; Deiner et al. 2017) |
| New research topic: trait‐based identification of high‐risk invasive species | Guided by managers toward which taxonomic groups were highest priorities, and which stage of invasion was most critical to assess (Gantz et al. 2015; Drake 2015; Howeth et al. 2016; Lodge et al. 2016; Kramer et al. 2017; Wittmann et al. 2017) | |
| New research topic: ship deballasting techniques to minimize species spread | Government agencies provided guidance that directed researchers’ work on dispersal of species by ships or currents (Sieracki et al. 2014; Beletsky et al. 2017) | |
| New research topic: risk analysis of aquatic invasive species bioeconomic impacts and management options | Guidance determined which invasive species vectors, species, and management strategies were chosen for focus of bioeconomic analysis of aquatic invasive species impacts (Zhang et al. 2016) | |
| Managers | Strengthening of ongoing efforts | Improved coordination and implementation, e.g., improvements to Ohio’s Asian carp control plan and improvements in Michigan’s and Wisconsin’s ongoing management |
| Creation of new regulations and policy | Ohio and Wisconsin’s invasive species tactical plans, Michigan and Wisconsin organisms in trade policies, interstate surveillance plans | |
| Skill in expert elicitation | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers applied lessons learned from the elicitation process in the Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Separation Study–Brandon Road report | |
| Professional development and networking | Partnerships fostered between state managers, and between state managers and researchers in a way not possible through scientific conferences | |
| Resolution of funding challenges and more efficient use of resources | Awareness of research happening in the basin was enhanced, allowing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding to be more efficiently allocated |