Past Arctic aliens have passed away, current ones may stay

Abstract

Increased human activity and climate change are expected to increase the numbers and impact of alien species in the Arctic, but knowledge of alien species is poor in most Arctic regions. Through field investigations over the last 10 years, and review of alien vascular plant records for the high Arctic Archipelago Svalbard over the past 130 years, we explored long term trends in persistence and phenology. In total, 448 observations of 105 taxa have been recorded from 28 sites. Recent surveys at 18 of these sites revealed that alien species had disappeared at half of them. Investigations at a further 49 sites characterised by former human activity and/or current tourist landing sites did not reveal any alien species. Patterns of alien species distribution suggest that greater alien species richness is more likely to be aligned with ongoing human inhabitation than sites of transient use. The probability of an alien species being in a more advanced phenological stage increased with higher mean July temperatures. As higher mean July temperatures are positively correlated with more recent year, the latter finding suggests a clear warming effect on the increased reproductive potential of alien plants, and thus an increased potential for spread in Svalbard. Given that both human activity and temperatures are expected to increase in the future, there is need to respond in policy and action to reduce the potential for further alien species introduction and spread in the Arctic.

Prevention of microbial species introductions to the Arctic: The efficacy of footwear disinfection measures on cruise ships

“…A range of plant (Alsos et al 2015a(Alsos et al , 2017 and invertebrate non-native species (Coulson et al 2013) are already established around the archipelago, yet footwear disinfection alone is unlikely to prevent the further introduction of plant or invertebrate non-native species. While disinfectants are effective against bacteria, viruses and yeasts, they are not designed to render plant propagules or invertebrates non-viable and the act of stepping through a footbath does not reliably remove propagules (Curry et al 2005).…”

“…Impacts could include the transmission of disease to or between wildlife populations (particularly when visitors encounter landings where there is faecal material), genetic homogenisation and disruptions to ecosystem functions or impacts on native flora through the introduction of plant pathogens. Impacts from established plant and invertebrate on non-native species on Svalbard are presently highly localised (Gederaas et al 2012, Coulson et al 2013, Alsos et al 2015a), though if they should colonise the floristically diverse and nutrient rich bird cliff environments characteristic of the high Arctic (Coulson et al 2013), more substantial impacts to Svalbard's natural ecology would likely follow. Moreover, while the prevailing high-Arctic climate of Svalbard prevents the establishment of many nonnative species, the establishment of non-native microbial species will likely be favoured under future moderating climatic conditions (Cowan et al 2011).…”

“…1). Around one hundred non-native plants have been observed in Svalbard during irregular field surveys, about 40 of them during the last decade (year of first record: 1883; Elven and Elvebakk 1996, Gederaas et al 2012, Alsos et al 2015a). Also, a number of non-native invertebrates have been observed (Coulson et al 2013) and ecto-and intestinal parasites are known to be associated with the introduced sibling vole Microtus levis (the vole's survival in Svalbard is likely synanthropic).…”

“…While there are generally fewer invasive species in the Arctic and Antarctic than in more temperate regions (Frenot et al 2005, Elven et al 2011, Coulson et al 2013, Alsos et al 2015a, some sub-Arctic and sub-Antarctic environments are heavily invaded (Frenot et al 2005, Carlson andShephard 2007). Moreover, increasing human activity in the polar regions combined with the effects of ongoing climate change stands to promote the possibility of high-latitude invasions (Cowan et al 2011, Gederaas et al 2012.…”

“…Moreover, increasing human activity in the polar regions combined with the effects of ongoing climate change stands to promote the possibility of high-latitude invasions (Cowan et al 2011, Gederaas et al 2012. Concern exists that disease transmission to and between wildlife populations might occur at high latitudes (Curry et al 2005, Kerry andRiddle 2009), as might the introduction of pathogens (Cowan et al 2011, Hughes et al 2011, invertebrates (Hughes et al 2011) and invasive plants (Chown et al 2012, Alsos et al 2015a). The consequences of such introductions are as yet largely unknown, but are likely to impact on existing community structure and functioning (Litchman 2010) and may cause disease to both fauna and flora (Kerry andRiddle 2009, Hughes et al 2011).…”