Responses of an island endemic invertebrate to rodent invasion and eradication

Clair, James J. H. St; Poncet, Sally; Sheehan, Danaë K.; Székely, Tamás; Hilton, Geoff M.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00391.x

Cited by 35 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found little information on invertebrate responses to eradications (35 populations of 20 species), but this lack of information is likely a consequence of limited monitoring, because invertebrate species and associated communities on islands can respond dramatically to the removal of invasive mammals (18)(19)(20).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains

Jones

Holmes²,

Butchart

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

405

379

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than US$21 billion is spent annually on biodiversity conservation. Despite their importance for preventing or slowing extinctions and preserving biodiversity, conservation interventions are rarely assessed systematically for their global impact. Islands house a disproportionately higher amount of biodiversity compared with mainlands, much of which is highly threatened with extinction. Indeed, island species make up nearly two-thirds of recent extinctions. Islands therefore are critical targets of conservation. We used an extensive literature and database review paired with expert interviews to estimate the global benefits of an increasingly used conservation action to stem biodiversity loss: eradication of invasive mammals on islands. We found 236 native terrestrial insular faunal species (596 populations) that benefitted through positive demographic and/or distributional responses from 251 eradications of invasive mammals on 181 islands. Seven native species (eight populations) were negatively impacted by invasive mammal eradication. Four threatened species had their International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List extinction-risk categories reduced as a direct result of invasive mammal eradication, and no species moved to a higher extinction-risk category. We predict that 107 highly threatened birds, mammals, and reptiles on the IUCN Red List-6% of all these highly threatened species-likely have benefitted from invasive mammal eradications on islands. Because monitoring of eradication outcomes is sporadic and limited, the impacts of global eradications are likely greater than we report here. Our results highlight the importance of invasive mammal eradication on islands for protecting the world's most imperiled fauna.conservation | restoration | invasive species | island | eradication T he rate of global species decline and extinction is rapid and likely to increase (1-4), although at least US$21.5 billion is spent annually worldwide on conservation of biodiversity (5). Improving conservation outcomes has focused largely on highlevel increases in efficiency, including the distribution of funding across countries (5), or on identifying the ecoregions, habitats, and species most in need (6). Although great strides have been made in promoting evidence-based conservation (7), systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of different actions taken to protect biodiversity at the global scale are rare, with the exception of protected areas (8).Islands occupy ∼5.5% of the terrestrial surface area but contain more than 15% of terrestrial species (9), 61% of all recently extinct species, and 37% of all critically endangered species on the International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (10). Invasive nonnative mammals (hereafter, "invasive mammals") are the main cause of animal extinctions on islands and are one of the most important threats to remaining insular biodiversity (10-12). Eradicating invasive mammals from islands is an increasingly common conservation tool and has been ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains

Jones

Holmes²,

Butchart

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

405

379

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; St. Clair et al. ). However, their effectiveness varies and they can be highly controversial (Graham et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of Active Removal to Manage Predatory Fish Populations

Michel

Smith

Lehman

et al. 2020

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Programs to control predatory fishes have successfully increased the survival of imperiled prey fishes in some cases, but efficacy depends on the population dynamics and ecological interactions between the predators, prey, and the rest of the community. In California's Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, extremely low survival of downstream‐migrating juvenile salmonids has been ascribed in part to predation by abundant nonnative fishes that have become naturalized in the system. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of removing some of these predatory fish to increase the survival of juvenile salmonids in the San Joaquin River. In 2014 and 2015, we used predation event recorders (PERs) to estimate predation rates before and after localized, experimental predatory fish removals and additions. We also estimated survival of juvenile Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha before and after predator manipulations in 2014 using acoustic tags. We found no statistically significant evidence for an effect of predator removals or additions on survival rates of Chinook Salmon (as measured by acoustic tags) or on predation rates (as measured by PERs), despite a one‐time reduction of approximately 40–70% of all predators from “removal” sites and relocation to “addition” sites. We review examples of successful predator control programs elsewhere, highlighting key differences between those programs and our study in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta.

show abstract

“…As a result, management decisions are often based on qualitative anecdotal information or management practices that have been implemented in the past (Pullin & Knight, 2005). There are several examples of studies where management actions have been tested and evaluated for their effectiveness using evidence (for example Smith et al, 2010;St Clair et al, 2011), but few have incorporated management costs (Naidoo et al, 2006) or developed return on investment relationships (but see Montgomery, Brown & Adams, 1994;Wilson et al, 2007;Busch & Cullen, 2009;Duca et al, 2009). When the effectiveness of a management action is estimated or assumed, there is no guarantee that investment in that action will achieve the conservation objective cost-effectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions

Walsh

Wilson

Benshemesh

et al. 2012

Animal Conservation

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions regarding the implementation of conservation management actions should be based on the effectiveness of past investments. However, because of limited evaluation of existing data, actions may be prescribed without evidence of producing a beneficial conservation outcome. We analysed empirical data, collected over 23 years across southern Australia, on the impact of fox baiting on malleefowl to determine its effectiveness. We employed data from extensive monitoring surveys to evaluate the observed relationships between investment in fox control, fox baiting intensity, fox presence and two alternative measures of the malleefowl's response: the number of breeding pairs and population growth. This study is the first to quantify the return on investment from fox control in a conservation context. We discovered there is limited quantitative evidence for a benefit of fox baiting on malleefowl, despite it being the main management action implemented for this nationally threatened, well-studied and iconic species. We found that fox baiting did not significantly decrease the presence of foxes and fox presence was positively correlated with malleefowl conservation. Malleefowl breeding population size increased with investment in baiting, although this relationship depended on the number of years the site had been baited. Nonetheless, most sites had a negative relationship between investment and breeding population. In contrast, malleefowl population growth did not benefit from baiting, suggesting that fox baiting is generally not a cost-effective management action for the conservation of this species. This study provides a powerful example of why management decisions should be based on evidence, rather than ecological intuition. Even though the malleefowl is one of the best-monitored species of conservation concern in Australia, we are still uncertain how to cost-effectively manage this species. We emphasize the urgent need to assess what data we have and determine which species and what actions are most in need of evaluation.

show abstract

Responses of an island endemic invertebrate to rodent invasion and eradication

Cited by 35 publications

References 18 publications

Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains

Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains

Limitations of Active Removal to Manage Predatory Fish Populations

Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About