Prioritizing the world's islands for vertebrate-eradication programmes

In the last 400 years, more species have become extinct on small islands than on continents. Yet, scant attention has hitherto been paid to prioritizing island restorations. Nevertheless, considerable conservation effort is now devoted to removing a major cause of these extinctions – invasive alien vertebrates. Because modern techniques allow the clearance of invasive vertebrates from quite large islands (up to 1000 km²), many islands are candidates for restoration. A robust strategy for allocating available funds is urgently needed. It requires, for each candidate island, an objective estimation of conservation gain and a method for predicting its financial cost. Our earlier work showed that a good first-pass estimate of vertebrate eradication costs can be made using just island area and target species. Costs increase with island area, while rodents are more expensive per unit area than ungulates. Here, we develop a method for assessing the conservation benefit of a proposed eradication and apply the method to threatened birds, but not other taxa. The method, combining information on how threatened a species is, on the impact of alien vertebrates on that species and on the islands on which the species occurs, allows us to present a means of determining which islands yield the greatest conservation benefit per unit of expenditure on vertebrate eradication. In general, although greater overall benefit would accrue to birds from eradication of invasive vertebrates on larger islands, benefit per unit of expenditure is the highest on relatively small islands, and we identify those that should be priority targets for future eradications. Crucially, this quantitative assessment provides considerable efficiency gains over more opportunistic targeting of islands. The method could be adapted to prioritize islands on a regional or national basis, or with different conservation gains in mind.     

Estimating realistic costs for strategic management planning of invasive species eradications on islands

Environmental managers regularly face decisions about how to counteract threats. These decisions require an understanding of both the conservation benefits and economic costs of candidate actions. However, transparent frameworks for how to accurately calculate costs for management are rare. We worked with island managers in Australia to develop eradication protocols for six invasive species- four mammals and two weeds. We used the protocols to create an accounting framework for invasive species eradications to produce realistic cost estimates for eradications across multiple locations. We also used our models to test common cost assumptions: (1) that costs scale linearly with area, (2) that terrain does not influence costs, and (3) that eradication costs stay constant through time. By explicating testing assumptions, we found that costs largely scaled linearly with area, that terrain influences costs, and that costs decline as populations decline in response to ongoing management. Estimated mammal eradication costs were driven in large part by the area of an island and the cost of transport. However, when area alone was used as a proxy for costs, the calculated costs deviated from our modelled costs by 40–56%. Weed eradication cost estimates were driven by the size and density of an infestation as well as the terrain of the island, with the effect of terrain becoming more pronounced as area to be treated increased. We provide a method to calculate realistic costs across several sites, which can be used to guide strategic management decision-making, including prioritisation, and on-ground management actions.     

Prioritising islands in the United Kingdom and crown dependencies for the eradication of invasive alien vertebrates and rodent biosecurity

Invasive alien vertebrates (IAVs) pose a significant threat to island biodiversity worldwide, and their removal is an important nature conservation management goal. As methods advance, eradications from larger islands and of multiple species simultaneously are increasingly undertaken. Effective targeting to maximise conservation gain is important given limited resources. We build on existing prioritisation methods and use the islands of the UK and Crown Dependencies (UK) as an example of how vertebrate eradications might be prioritised and invasive-free status maintained through biosecurity. For each of the 9688 UK islands, we assessed ecological importance for native vertebrates and the anticipated impacts of the IAVs present to estimate the benefit of restoration based on the feasibility and sustainability of IAV eradications in relation to island size, human population and risk of unassisted reinvasion by swimming. As reinvasion poses a threat to the long-term benefits of eradication, we incorporated species-specific swimming distances and explored the effects of varying reinvasion probability from risk-averse to higher-risk strategies. The 25 islands that would benefit most from eradications were in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. Our prioritisation method should be seen as an initial guide to identify islands that might benefit from intervention when faced with a large list of potential sites. Feasibility studies taking account of factors such as interspecific interactions, anthropogenic reinvasion, views of residents or ‘social feasibility’ and cost need to be undertaken before planning any eradication. We prioritised biosecurity for rat-free islands to highlight where comprehensive measures might be most beneficial.     

Eradicating multiple invasive species on inhabited islands: the next big step in island restoration?

Invasive species are the greatest threat to island ecosystems, which harbour nearly half the world’s endangered biodiversity. However, eradication is more feasible on islands than on continents. We present a global analysis of 1,224 successful eradications of invasive plants and animals on 808 islands. Most involve single vertebrate species on uninhabited islands, but plant and invertebrate eradications occur more often on inhabited islands. Inhabited islands are often highly modified and support numerous introduced species. Consequently, targeting a single invasive species can be ineffective or counterproductive. The impacts of other pests will continue and, in some cases, be exacerbated. The presence of people also creates regulatory, logistical and socio-political constraints. Real or perceived health risks to inhabitants, pets and livestock may restrict the use of some eradication tools, and communities or individuals sometimes oppose eradication. Despite such challenges, managing invasive species is vital to conserve and restore the unique biodiversity of many inhabited islands, and to maintain or improve the welfare and livelihoods of island residents. We present a brief case study of the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile, and discuss the feasibility of eradicating large suites of invasive plants and animals from inhabited islands while managing other invaders for which eradication is not feasible or desirable. Eradications must be planned to account for species interactions. Monitoring and contingency plans must detect and address any ‘surprise effects’. Above all, it is important that the local community derives social, cultural and/or economic benefits, and that people support and are engaged in the restoration effort.     

Bio-economic optimisation of surveillance to confirm broadscale eradications of invasive pests and diseases

Although pest eradications from islands have been successful and impart biodiversity benefits, eradications at regional/national scales are more challenging. Such broadscale eradications incur high repeated costs (e.g. control and surveillance effort) because the entire area cannot be treated at one time, and a progressive ‘treat-evaluate-move on’ approach must be employed. We describe a two-stage model to analyse surveillance data for assessing progress and declaring success of broadscale eradications, and to identify optimal cost-efficient surveillance strategies. Stage I modelling coincides or follows population control within a subset area or management zone (MZ). Surveillance data are analysed to quantify the probability of freedom for a treated MZ (i.e. local eradication), which is used to inform an operational decision to reallocate resources to other MZs, and progress across the region. Importantly, freedom declared individually in all MZs is not necessarily equivalent to a high probability of eradication over the broadscale area, because each MZ will have a probability of being erroneously declared free. After a MZ has been operationally declared free, Stage II surveillance commences to detect MZ-level failures, and to estimate the broadscale surveillance sensitivity and a corresponding probability of eradication. We developed a computer algorithm to identify cost-optimal Stage I and II surveillance strategies for a hypothetical large area. We assessed the following: (1) the balance between local surveillance intensity and spatial coverage; (2) the number of years to declare success in Stages I and II; (3) the stopping probability of freedom (Stage I); and (4) the optimal strategy given variation in the starting-over cost, should a MZ be erroneously declared free. This two-stage approach provides an objective basis for decision-making in wildlife pest/disease eradication, and guidance for implementing optimal bio-economic surveillance strategies.     

A review of mammal eradications on Mediterranean islands

1. Impacts of alien invasive species on island communities and ecosystems may be even more detrimental than on the mainland. Therefore, since the 1950s, hundreds of restoration projects have been implemented worldwide, with the aim of controlling or eradicating alien species from islands. To date, no review has been focused on eradication on Mediterranean islands. To fill the gap, I reviewed the available information concerning mammal eradications so far carried out on Mediterranean islands, examining the details of several aspects of project implementation and monitoring.
2. I obtained data for 139 attempted eradications on 107 Mediterranean islands in eight countries, with Greece, Italy, and Spain accounting for the highest number. Eradication projects targeted 13 mammal species. The black rat Rattus rattus was the target of over 75% of the known attempted eradications in the Mediterranean Basin; other species targeted were feral goat Capra hircus, house mouse Mus musculus, European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, and domestic cat Felis catus. The most widely adopted technique was poisoning (77% of all eradications), followed by trapping (15%) and hunting (4%). However, techniques were largely target-specific.
3. The average failure rate was about 11%. However, this percentage varied according to the specific mammalian order, and eradications of Carnivora failed more often than those of other mammals. Among rodents, house mouse eradication attained a very high failure rate (75%). Reinvasion occurred after 15% of successful eradications.
4. A better understanding of the motivations of animal rights activists may improve the chance of success when eradicating charismatic or domesticated species. Furthermore, it is crucial to collect data and case studies about reinvasions, in order to strengthen biosecurity programmes following eradication. As in other parts of the world, the next frontier in alien mammal management on Mediterranean islands concerns the eradication of invasive species from inhabited islands.

     

Bio-Economics of Large-Scale Eradication of Feral Goats From Santiago Island,Galápagos

ABSTRACT Invasive mammals are premier drivers of extinction and ecosystem change, particularly on islands. In the 1960s, conservation practitioners started developing techniques to eradicate invasive mammal populations from islands. Larger and more biologically complex islands are being targeted for restoration worldwide. We conducted a feral goat (Capra hircus) eradication campaign on Santiago Island in the Galápagos archipelago, which was an unprecedented advance in the ability to reverse biodiversity impacts by invasive species. We removed >79,000 goats from Santiago Island (58,465 ha) in <4.5 years, at an approximate cost of US$6.1 million. An eradication ethic combined with a suite of techniques and technologies made eradication possible. A field-based Geographic Information System facilitated an adaptive management strategy, including adjustment and integration of hunting methods. Specialized ground hunting techniques with dogs removed most of the goat population. Aerial hunting by helicopter and Judas goat techniques were also critical. Mata Hari goats, sterilized female Judas goats induced into a long-term estrus, removed males from the remnant feral population at an elevated rate, which likely decreased the length and cost of the eradication campaign. The last 1,000 goats cost US$2.0 million to remove; we spent an additional US$467,064 on monitoring to confirm eradication. Aerial hunting is cost-effective even in countries where labor is inexpensive. Local sociopolitical environments and best practices emerging from large-scale, fast-paced eradications should drive future strategies. For nonnative ungulate eradications, island size is arguably no longer the limiting factor. Future challenges will involve removing invasive mammals from large inhabited islands while increasing cost-effectiveness of removing low-density populations and confirming eradication. Those challenges will require leveraging technology and applying theory from other disciplines, along with conservation practitioners working alongside sociologists and educators.     

A GIS‐based decision‐making approach for prioritizing seabird management following predator eradication

Given that 29% of seabird species are threatened with extinction, protecting seabird colonies on offshore islands is a global conservation priority. Seabirds are vulnerable to non‐native predator invasions, which reduce or eliminate colonies. Accordingly, conservation efforts have focused on predator eradication. However, affected populations are often left to passively recover following eradications. Although seabirds are highly mobile, their life history traits such as philopatry can limit passive recolonization of newly predator‐free habitat. In such cases, seabird colonies can potentially be re‐instated with active restoration via chick translocations or social attraction methods, which can be risky and expensive. We used biogeographic and species‐specific behavioral data in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand, a global hotspot of seabird diversity and predator eradications, to illustrate the use of geographic information systems multi‐criteria decision analysis to prioritize islands for active seabird restoration. We identified nine islands with low observed passive recovery of seabirds posteradication over a 50‐year timeframe, and classified these as sites where active seabird management could be prioritized. Such spatially explicit tools are flexible, allowing for managers to choose case‐specific criteria such as time, funding, and goals constrained for their conservation needs. Furthermore, this flexibility can also be applied to threatened species management by customizing the decision criteria for individual species' capacity to passively recolonize islands. On islands with complex restoration challenges, decision tools that help island restoration practitioners decide whether active seabird management should be paired with eradication can optimize restoration outcomes and ecosystem recovery.     

Rodent eradications as ecosystem experiments: a case study from the Mexican tropics

For effective and efficient pest management it is essential to understand the ecology of the target species and recipient ecosystems. The use of rodent eradication as a restoration tool is well established in temperate regions, but less common in the tropics, presenting an opportunity to undertake scientific learning in tandem with rodent eradications. On a dry tropical archipelago, we used a Before-After-Control-Impact framework to document (1) fluctuations in the abundance and demography of invasive Rattus rattus and Mus musculus on three different islands, (2) the trophic niche of all three invasive rodent populations, and (3) changes in the invertebrate community before and after rodent eradication, also comparing with two rodent free islands. While rat density was high and relatively stable throughout the year, the two mouse populations greatly differed in body size and seasonal dynamics, despite their proximity. The rodents in all three populations were generalist and opportunistic feeders, although stable isotope analyses results indicated major differences among them, driven by food availability and rodent species. Seasonal fluctuations in invertebrate communities depended on rodent invasion status, but recovery in the invertebrate communities one year after rodent removal was limited for all islands. Predictions for other tropical ecosystem biomes require long-term research on more tropical islands. Improving our understanding of island and species-specific contexts of rodent eradications can advance island restoration projects and assist the selection of indicator species for ecosystem recovery.     

Genetic population assignment reveals a long-distance incursion to an island by a stoat (Mustela erminea)

When new individuals from a pest species are detected after an eradication programme, it is important to determine if these individuals are survivors from the eradication attempt or reinvaders from another population, as this enables managers to adjust and improve the methodologies for future eradications and biosecurity. Rangitoto/Motutapu Islands in the Hauraki Gulf (New Zealand) had a multispecies mammalian pest eradication conducted in 2009. A year after this eradication a single stoat was trapped on the island. Using genetic population assignment we conclude that this individual was a reinvader, which probably swam a minimum distance of 3 km from the adjacent mainland. This swimming distance is greater than any previously known stoat incursions. Our results suggest that the original population on these islands was from natural dispersal rather than anthropogenic introduction and that it had some limited ongoing mixing with the mainland population. These findings highlight the invasion/reinvasion potential of stoats across large stretches of water, and will necessitate ongoing biosecurity indefinitely for these islands. The study also highlights the utility of genetic assignment techniques for assessing reinvasion, and emphasizes the need for pre-eradication genetic sampling of all pest species to enable such analyses to be carried out.