Factors leading to successful island rodent eradications following initial failure

Samaniego‐Herrera, Araceli; Kappes, Peter J.; Broome, Keith; Cranwell, Steve; Griffiths, Richard; Harper, Grant A.; McClelland, Pete; Palmer, Russell; Rocamora, Gérard; Springer, Keith; Will, David; Siers, Shane R.

doi:10.1111/csp2.404

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Identifying barriers based on past experience is an important step toward achieving success (e.g., Samaniego et al, 2021). Therefore, here we focus on Western Indian Ocean (WIO) islands (where the lead and senior authors are based), including the SIDS of Seychelles and Mauritius.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and bridging the barriers to more effective conservation of island ecosystems: A practitioner's perspective

Burt

Nuño

Bunbury

2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The failure to meet global biodiversity targets clearly indicates the need for biodiversity management and conservation efforts to be more effective, and this in turn requires better understanding of the current barriers to success. Islands are known as biodiversity hotspots but nowhere has biodiversity loss been so acute as in island ecosystems. To identify the barriers to effective island ecosystem conservation, we conducted 32 semistructured interviews with conservation and management practitioners from island nations in the Western Indian Ocean region. Practitioners described 33 barriers to meeting their objectives under 12 overarching topics and suggested 14 solutions to these. Most barriers described by interviewees existed at organization level (55%), followed by national (24%) and site/project level (21%). Of the 33 barriers described by practitioners, the most commonly associated cause was limited capacity (23.5%), followed by lack of government coordination and limited resources (both 21.6%), lack of incentives (11.8%), poor leadership (11.7%), and finally interpersonal issues interfering with progress (9.8%). Most solutions centered around bridging capacity gaps. By defining these barriers, we can bring them forward for discussion and allocate resources and efforts to bridging them. Only by doing so can we increase the effectiveness of our management efforts and maximize our chances of achieving global biodiversity targets.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and bridging the barriers to more effective conservation of island ecosystems: A practitioner's perspective

Burt

Nuño

Bunbury

2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5). This outcome mimics rates identified for optimal learning 28 , where low failure rates provide learning opportunities that drive successes on subsequent attempts and can lead to ground-breaking conservation innovations 29,30 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool

Spatz

Holmes

Will³

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Islands are global hotspots for biodiversity and extinction, representing ~ 5% of Earth’s land area alongside 40% of globally threatened vertebrates and 61% of global extinctions since the 1500s. Invasive species are the primary driver of native biodiversity loss on islands, though eradication of invasive species from islands has been effective at halting or reversing these trends. A global compendium of this conservation tool is essential for scaling best-practices and enabling innovations to maximize biodiversity outcomes. Here, we synthesize over 100 years of invasive vertebrate eradications from islands, comprising 1550 eradication attempts on 998 islands, with an 88% success rate. We show a significant growth in eradication activity since the 1980s, primarily driven by rodent eradications. The annual number of eradications on islands peaked in the mid-2000s, but the annual area treated continues to rise dramatically. This trend reflects increases in removal efficacy and project complexity, generating increased conservation gains. Our synthesis demonstrates the collective contribution of national interventions towards global biodiversity outcomes. Further investment in invasive vertebrate eradications from islands will expand biodiversity conservation while strengthening biodiversity resilience to climate change and creating co-benefits for human societies.

show abstract

“…We found that a 25 m × 25 m grid was needed to consistently achieve a high probability of eradication of ship rats in urban areas in Wellington. This is a greater density of devices than is common practice for rodent eradications on islands (40–50 m 78 ; but see 79 for 20–40 m grids), suggesting that our results are heavily influenced by those individuals with very small home ranges. Furthermore, even with this high-resolution grid, some individuals may not encounter bait stations if their home ranges are solely focused on features like compost bins 53 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Detection parameters for managing invasive rats in urban environments

Mackenzie

Latham

Anderson

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective mitigation of the impacts of invasive ship rats (Rattus rattus) requires a good understanding of their ecology, but this knowledge is very sparse for urban and peri-urban areas. We radiomarked ship rats in Wellington, New Zealand, to estimate detection parameters (σ, ε0, θ, and g0) that describe the process of an animal encountering a device (bait stations, chew cards and WaxTags) from a distance, and then approaching it and deciding whether to interact with it. We used this information in simulation models to estimate optimal device spacing for eradicating ship rats from Wellington, and for confirming eradication. Mean σ was 25.37 m (SD = 11.63), which equates to a circular home range of 1.21 ha. The mean nightly probability of an individual encountering a device at its home range center (ε0) was 0.38 (SD = 0.11), whereas the probability of interacting with the encountered device (θ) was 0.34 (SD = 0.12). The derived mean nightly probability of an individual interacting with a device at its home range center (g0) was 0.13 (SD = 0.08). Importantly, σ and g0 are intrinsically linked through a negative relationship, thus g0 should be derived from σ using a predictive model including individual variability. Simulations using this approach showed that bait stations deployed for about 500 days using a 25 m × 25 m grid consistently achieved eradication, and that a surveillance network of 3.25 chew cards ha−1 or 3.75 WaxTags ha−1 active for 14 nights would be required to confidently declare eradication. This density could be halved if the surveillance network was deployed for 28 nights or if the prior confidence in eradication was high (0.85). These recommendations take no account of differences in detection parameters between habitats. Therefore, if surveillance suggests that individuals are not encountering devices in certain habitats, device density should be adaptively revised. This approach applies to initiatives globally that aim to optimise eradication with limited funding.

show abstract

Factors leading to successful island rodent eradications following initial failure

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Defining and bridging the barriers to more effective conservation of island ecosystems: A practitioner's perspective

Defining and bridging the barriers to more effective conservation of island ecosystems: A practitioner's perspective

The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool

Detection parameters for managing invasive rats in urban environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About