Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission

ALIENSNumber 17 2003

Sponsored by:

Landcare ResearchManaaki Whenua

ISSN: 1173-5988

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION– THE ANOMALY

Kruger National Park (South Africa)

IntroductionMany protected areas worldwide are more know for their management focussedon protecting endangered species and other aspects which attract emotionaland sympathetic reaction from supporters. However, invasive alien species(IAS) are regarded as the second greatest threat to global biodiversity byscientists worldwide (IUCN, 1997). This, second to habitat degradation andfragmentation (i.e. deforestation). As conservation areas are often protectedand not subjected to any or large scale fragmentation and degradation, itstands to reason that the number one threat facing the core business ofbiodiversity conservation is that of Invasive Alien Species. These sentimentsare exactly those expressed by the Kruger National Park (KNP), which duringa workshop on Biodiversity conservation (1997) rated IAS as the greatestthreat to the KNP. Surely a turning point from the past where anti-poaching,fire control, water provision and other aspects were considered the mostimportant duties of a ranger or protected area manager. These are stillindisputably important and necessary (and I do not attempt to portray it inany other way). However, if the integrity of the natural system is degradedthrough the introduction of IAS to such an extent that it creates a significantnegative impact on native biodiversity, we should become concerned, as thecore business of protected area management will certainly be eroded away.

The problem with invasive species is that they are not intrinsically interestingto most people, often including protected area managers and officers. Theydo not conjure up stories of excitement or the thrill and reward of catching anarmed poacher with ivory in his hands. They do not have long flashing fangsthat can shred you and sharp claws to rip. The invasion by alien species isoften quite slow, unnoticeable and the impacts most frequently irreversibleand immense.

The problems in Kruger National ParkCurrently, the KNP has recorded approximately 363 alien plant species, Indianmyna’s have been recorded in the park on occasion, three fish species havebeen recorded as well as other insect pests etc. All of the major rivers, as wellas the larger tributaries have been invaded to some extent. Combined clearingefforts between the Working for Water programme and the SANParks fundinghave totalled approximately R35 million since 1997, in the KNP alone. Inspite of the amount of funding and the efforts being put in, we are only justmanaging to keep the levels of invasive plants down to a minimum level; in

SPECIAL ISSUE ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES ANDPROTECTED AREAS

Ctd Page 3

CONTENTS

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR(ON SABBATICAL LEAVE IN EUROPE)

In July I visited Uist in the OuterHebrides (Scotland) and learnedabout progress with the ScottishNatural Heritage (SNH) project toprotect native wildlife from invadinghedgehogs. These animals wereintroduced to South Uist several yearsago and have since spread north toBenbecula. Without preventativemeasures they are now poised tocolonise North Uist. The hedgehogsthreaten ground-nesting waders suchas dunlin by preying on their eggs. A

sustained eradication campaign isplanned, concentrating initially atpreventing further spread andreducing hedgehog densities in corehabitats. This campaign has beencontroversial, but (to their credit)SNH commenced it as planned thisyear and have had a successful firstseason. I hope that we will have afuller report in a later issue of Aliens.

Mick Clout

Kruger Park IAS 1General disclaimer 2Message from the Chair 2From the Editor 3Erratum 3Invasives at WPC 4Clans manage IAS (Cook Island) 5Parks in Peril (Fr. Polynesia) 6National Park Service (USA) 7“Mainland Islands” (New Zealand) 8Coral Reef Invasion 9Am. Samoan National Park 10Andaman & Nicobar (India) 11Vision, Energy, Commitment 12Publication 13IAS research: Experimenting 13Ruddy duck control (Spain) 14Cooperation against IAS (USA) 15IAS in Nature Reserves (China) 16Publications 17Reunion Invasions 18Rat prevention on Pribilof Isl. 18

Campbell Island rat eradication 19Search and Destroy in Kakadu 19Pacific oysters in Wadden Sea 20Invading mussels threaten Amazon 22Marine Protected Areas and IAS 24Pond apple in WH Site (Australia) 26Publications 26Management of IAS in Galapagos 27National Wildlife refuges (USA) 28Invasive alien flora (Sri Lanka) 29Rainbow trout in tropics 30Notes 31Fiordland: World Heritage (NZ) 32Notes 33Ecological weeds surveillance34Tongariro Nl. Park: biocontrol (NZ) 35Zoos against releases in wild 36Quarantine for SA Subantarctic Isl. 37Subscription form 39General information ISSG 40

GENERAL DISCLAIMERAll material appearing in Aliens is the work of individual authors, whose names are listed at the foot of eacharticle. Contributions are not refereed, as this is a newsletter and not an academic journal. Ideas and commentsin Aliens are not intended in any way to represent the view of IUCN, SSC or the Invasive Species SpecialistGroup or the sponsors, unless specifically stated to the contrary.

some areas. Other areas are reporting rapid increases inabundance and distribution. The recent invasion ofChromolaena odorata (Chromolaena or triffid weed) intothe KNP, which is now found in most rivers in the park,was one of the most rapid plant invasions experienced inthe KNP and poses a serious threat to the rivers in thefuture if follow-up control efforts are not maintained.

Control efforts make use of mechanical / chemical means,biological control and integrated control. Each techniqueappropriately determined by the particular invasive speciesand situation. Aquatic weeds are generally well controlledbiologically, which further reduces the potential dangerposed by working in and on water bodies (see figure 1 &2. Pistia stratiotes invasion on Sunset dam, Lower Sabie,

KNP. Under biological control by the weevil,Neohydronomus affinis).

SummaryIf parks are to succeed into the future, more emphasisand effort will need to be spent on issues relating tobiological invasions. The long-term success or failure ofany programme will require long-term sustainability, bothecological and economical. Careful integration of the mostappropriate methods of control will be needed to ensurethat management of invasive species is integrated intoprotected area management as one of the key issues.

Llewellyn C FoxcroftKruger National ParkSouth AfricaE-mail: Llewellynf@parks-sa.co.za

Ctd from page 1

Erratum for hard copy of IUCNGuidelines, published as insert in

Aliens 11

It has been brought to our attention that on the hardcopy of the ”IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention ofBiodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species”,published as an insert in Aliens 11, 2000, there is amistake. The last bullet, regarding Criteria to besatisfied to achieve eradication (p.14) is missing.

An additional paragraph should be included

• The socio-political environment must besupportive throughout the eradication effort.Objections should be discussed and resolved,as far as practicable, before the eradication isbegun.

If you would like an amended copy, please let us know,at ISSG@auckland.ac.nz and we will send it out to you.

Figure 1: Sunset Dam, 5th August 2002

Figure 2: Sunset Dam, 29th January 2003

Phot

ogra

phs:

Lle

wel

lyn

C F

oxcr

oft

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITORThis issue of Aliens has a focus on Invasive Alien Spe-cies (IAS) and Protected Areas - at the occasion of theWorld Parks Congress (see page 3). The aim is to illus-trate the many ways that IAS are impacting on protectedareas, as well as the many methods and processes thatcan be used to successfully fight back. Coverage extendsfrom World Heritage sites, National Parks or NationalRefuges to conservation areas in traditional ownership,and locations range from the Subantarctic and Arctic tothe temperates and tropics. IAS problem species rangefrom the usual suspects (rats, Mimosa pigra) to the moreunusual (feral elephants). Solutions range from large scalestrategies and programmes to local communities andchampions. Case studies include quarantine, surveillanceand rapid action, control, eradication, education andawareness building - and, of course, vision and committment!The next issue of Aliens will focus on Europe as well asneighbouring areas (so it can include Mediterranean orcircum-Arctic initiatives etc.). We hope for many contri-butions: contact m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz.

Maj De Poorter

KEEP THEM OUT OF PARADISE:INVASIVES AT THE WORLD PARKS

CONGRESS

The IUCN World Congress on Protected Areas, or theWorld Parks Congress as it has become known, is a 10-year event that provides the major global forum for settingthe agenda for protected areas (PAs). The Congress is amajor international event offering a unique opportunityto take stock of protected areas and biodiversitymanagement; provide an honest appraisal of progress andsetbacks; and chart the course for protected areas for thenext decade and beyond.

The 5th IUCN World Parks Congress will be held inDurban, South Africa from 8th to 17th September 2003.The theme of the Congress responds to the challenge toshow how protected areas are relevant to the broadereconomic, social and environmental agenda forhumankind in the 21st Century and the importance of suchareas in adapting to global change: “Benefits BeyondBoundaries”. It should also pose the challenge to societyas to how it will sustain this investment over time. TheWPC is an event not only for PA professionals but for thebroader conservation and develop-ment community.

Seven workshop Streams will be conducted over threedays during the Congress. One of them, “Maintainingprotected areas for now and the future: managementeffectiveness”, will be addressing threats to protected ar-eas with the necessary adaptive management. This willinclude a special day-long session on Invasive Alien Spe-cies (IAS) in relation to PA management.

It is acknowledged that invasive species are one of themajor threats to biological diversity worldwide and manystrategies for biodiversity management stress prevention,monitoring and controlling alien species - especially inand near high-risk entry points and in high valuebiodiversity areas like Protected Areas.

Examples of invasive species causing damage in PAs arenumerous in the terrestrial, freshwater and marineenvironments and invasive alien species have been a majorconcern for PA managers.The 1989 South Pacific Parksand Reserves Conference resolved that the region neededan invasive species programme that would be bestadministered by the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP). Other organizations and agenciesare now undertaking and integrating IAS surveys as partof environmental management. For example, next year(2004), NOAA has requested an increase of $1.0 millionto develop alternative technologies for the treatment ofships’ ballast water to eliminate the potential for invasionsof non-indigenous marine species in U.S. and other wa-ters and to set up a nationally a nationally coordinatedmonitoring system for aquatic nuisance species focusingon Marine Protected Areas.

The IUCN World Commission onProtected Areas (WCPA) marinegroup, WWF and NOAA have de-veloped a “Guidebook of Naturaland Social Indicators for EvaluatingMarine Protected Area Mana-gement Effectiveness”. Thisguidebook includes indicators tomanagement effectiveness specificto marine protected areas, themarine environment in general andfor coastal communities. It isimportant to note the biophysicalindicators recommended for theprevention and removal of alien andinvasive species and genotypes as aspecific objective associated with

the following MPA goals: protection of biological diversity,protection of individual species, protection of habitat andrestoration of degraded areas.

Addressing invasive alien species in the borderless ma-rine environment is a very challenging issue. Eradicationmay be possible when an introduced species is identifiedat an early stage of colonization and has limited spatialdistribution. For this reason alone it is essential to haveeffective surveys, monitoring and early warning systemslinked to any management plan for the marine environ-ment.

Very few attempts to control invasions of alien species inaquatic and marine ecosystems have been successful - oncethe AIS have become established. We will never repeatenough that PREVENTION is the key. Where intentionalintroductions of useful species to the marine and coastalenvironments are concerned, only extreme caution canprevent the spread of noxious invasions and screening ofpotential introductions for “invasibility” is essential.

Marine Protected Areas are not isolated and immune fromthe threats to the marine environment in general, as theyhave no barriers or distinct boundaries to invasion.Harbours and shipping are widespread and not limited byMPA boundaries, and even if it is hard to find a bigcommercial port within a national park or the MPA itself,it is very often easy to find it nearby. MPAs, especiallythose with multipurposes, offer a set of socio-economicactivities such as fisheries and tourism. The small craftthat visit MPAs are often vectors of secondaryintroductions of alien species which were first introducedby larger (often ocean-going) vessels in the vicinity.

The invasive species workshop in Durban will cover threemajor topics:1) Sooner or later IAS will be a management issueregardless of where you are and what type of protectedarea you manage, as few PAs are completely free fromthis threat to biodiversity and livelihoods.2)IAS issues are manageable; there are many ways toprevent and/or fight back.

3) Managing IAS in an ecosystem context is the mosteffective way to ensure PA management objectives areaddressedA special presentation will be made on Marine invasivespecies and will focus on the specific challenges posed bythe marine environment. But the integration of ideas onIAS management in all types of PA situations andecosystems will assist this WPC workshop to come upwith recommendations on collaboration and integration

for monitoring and controlling IAS whatever the context.

Geoffrey Howard,Regional Programme Coordinator for IUCN in EasternAfrica and Co-coordinator of the Invasives workshop atthe WPC.E-mail: GWH@iucnearo.org

Previously published: Global Ballast Water (BallastWater News) Issue 13, April - June 2003, p.11.

TAKITIMU CONSERVATION AREA (COOK ISLANDS) – LANDOWNING CLANS INCHARGE OF THE KAKERORI RECOVERY PROGRAMME

In 1989, the Rarotonga Flycatcher was fighting for itslife, its numbers reduced to a mere 29. It was one of theworld’s ten rarest birds, and listed as ‘criticallyendangered’. The cause:an introduced predator,the ship rat (Rattusrattus), which first madeits appearance in theCook Islands in the mid-1800s.

In 2002, more than 250 birds were alive and well inTakitumu Conservation Area on Rarotonga, the largestof the Cook Islands. Three landowning clans — theKainuku, Karika, and Manavaroa families — are workingtogether, and are in charge of the recovery programme.The community-owned reserve protects the kakerorihabitat, and the kakerori provides a flagship for growingincome-generating activities.

1987 the Kakerori Recovery Project started a Cook Islandgovernment program led by the Environment Service. In1996, the Takitumu Conservation Area, 155 hectares offorested ridges and valleys was established. Projectmanagement was transferred to the clans that own theland. It was the first time the government had ever turneda project over to landowners. The area was adopted bythe South Pacific Regional Environment Programme(SPREP) as a Conservation area within the South PacificBiodiversity Programme (SPBCP). .

The most important task in the conservation area is savingthe birds. Staff and volunteers band new birds and conducta bird census every August. Then, rat stations are stockedwith bait on a weekly basis during the bird’s breedingfrom September through December. (Intensive rat baitingbegan in 1989, spearheaded and maintained by Ed Saul,a New Zealander who is so devoted to kakerori he hascome to Rarotonga to lay rat bait for 13 years in a row).Because the growing bird population is fragile – one severecyclone could take out the entire species – the conservationarea committee decided to start a relocation programme.In 2001 and 2002, the clans moved a small number of

birds to Atiu, a small island of less than 1,000 peoplelocated 200 kilometers northeast of Rarotonga. Thespecies has recently been downgraded from “Critically

Endangered” to“Endangered” by theWorld ConservationUnion (IUCN), one rankdown from its ‘criticallyendangered’ status of adecade ago.

The other main activity in the conservation area is a naturewalk and bird-watching venture. Rarotonga is an idealplace to start an ecotourism operation, because the islandis already a popular tourist destination. Tested in 1997,the nature tours got into full swing in 1998. Income fromthe nature walks and souvenir shop is helping thecommunity and the kakerori conservation efforts- but itis not able at this stage to provide financial self-sufficiency.

Takitumu Conservation Area’s success has promptedactive interest from other places in the Cook Islands.Residents of both Mangaia and Mitiaro Islands havevisited Takitumu to get ideas for protecting their ownendemic species, and the Cook Islands TourismDepartment frequently uses Takitumu’s nature walk andbird-watching business as a case study in its ecotourismworkshops.

Shortened from “Warrior bird, warrior people – threeclans cooperate and save a species in the cook islands”in “navigating a new course – stories in community-basedconservation in the pacific islands” by Tory Read (2002).Published by UNDP. Pdf of the full article can bedownloaded:www.undp.org.ws/PDF/Stories%20Cook%20Islands%20.pdf

For more on kakerori conservation status:http://www.birdlife.net/datazone/search/species_search.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=6076&m=0

Editor’s Note:We hope to provide a more detailed updatein a future issue.

The community-owned reserve protects thekakerori habitat, and the kakerori provides aflagship for income-generating activities...

PARKS IN PERIL IN THE ISLANDS OF

FRENCH POLYNESIA(SOUTH PACIFIC OCEAN)

The current situation of parks and nature reserves in thetropical oceanic islands of French Polynesia (South PacificOcean) is critical. Natural protected areas are found inonly nine islands of the 118 that formed this Frenchoverseas territory. Seven of them are uninhabited highvolcanic islets (including Eiao, Hatutu, and Mohotani inthe Marquesas Is.) or uninhabited small atolls (includingMotu One in the Marquesas, Scilly and Bellinghausen inthe Society Is., and Taiaro in the Tuamotu Is.). The totalprotected area is ca. 7,000 ha, i.e. only 2% of the totalland surface of French Polynesia (ca. 3520 km²). All ofthese protected zones, except Taiaro which has beenrecently included (1998) in the Tuamotu BiosphereReserve (along with 5 other atolls), are characterized bya lack of active management, with no monitoring,caretaking or park guards. In the absence of humanactivities, the main threat to these protected areas remainsthe invasion by alien plant and animal species. Feral sheepare thriving on the islets of Mohotani (1,300 ha) and Eiao(4,000 ha) where less than 25% of the native vegetationis left. The understory of the native Pisonia grandis coastalforest is “cleaned up” by overgrazing and the mesicvegetation has turned into eroded bare land in some places.The native lowland rainforest of Te Faaiti Natural Park(750 ha), established in 1989 and located in the largestvalley of Tahiti (Papenoo valley), is heavily invaded bythe introduced tree Miconia calvescens (Melastomataceae)which forms dense monospecific stands and threatens rareendemic plants, such as the protected shrub Polysciastahitensis (Araliaceae) or the orchids Phaius tahitensisand Bulbophyllum tahitensis. Wild horses, cattle and goatsmake frequent incursions into the Natural Park and NatureReserve of Vaikivi (240 ha) recently established in 1997in the island of Ua Huka (Marquesas). Mohotani andVaikivi have still good populations of the criticallyendangered Marquesan flycatchers (Pomarea mendozaeand Pomarea iphis respectively) because of the absenceof black rats (Rattus rattus). Ua Huka is also one of thefew French Polynesian islands without the carnivoroussnail Euglandina rosea and has still good populations ofendemic tree snails of the genus Samoana (Partulidae).Hatutu (750 ha), another rat-free island, is the only place(along with Fatu Huku, another inhabited but unprotectedMarquesan islet) where the endangered Marquesanground-dove Gallicolumba rubescens is found. Fencingprojects were proposed on Mohotani and Vaikivi, as wellas sheep eradication on Mohotani and Eiao, but these havenot yet been achieved due to lack of strong political supportand/or of available funds.

Other natural areas of high conservation value in FrenchPolynesia that were proposed to be protected, are alsounder the immediate threat of invasive species. Forinstance, the Temehani plateaus in the island of Raiatea(Society Is.) where the endangered endemic lobeliadApetahia raiateensis (Campanulaceae) is growing, is

currently threatened by the spread of two invasive alienshrubs (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Myrtaceae, andChrysobalanus icaco, Chrysobalanaceae). The endemictree snails are vanishing on the remote island of Fatu Iva(Marquesas) due to the introduction of Euglandina rosea,as well as the Fatu Iva flycatcher (Pomarea whitneyi) andthe Ultramarine lorikeet Vini ultramarina due to the recentarrival of black rats in 2000. It is clear that if no activemanagement of invasive plant and animal species isconducted promptly in the natural protected areas ofFrench Polynesia, these areas will rapidly lose their mostvulnerable and ecologically interesting taxa !

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am grateful Dr. to David Lorence (National TropicalBotanical Garden, Kauai, Hawaii, USA) for revising theEnglish on this paper.

Dr. Jean-Yves MeyerDélégation à la RechercheB.P. 20981 PapeeteTahitiFrench Polynesia.E-mail : jean-yves.meyer@recherche.gov.pf

The “cleaned” understory of a native Pisonia grandis (Nyctaginaceae)coastal forest caused by overgrazing by feral sheep on the Nature Reserveof Mohotani. Photo: J.-Y. Meyer, Délégation à la Recherche.

National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams; An Innovative Response toHarmful Invasive Species (USA)

The national parks of the United States are home tocomplex communities of native plants and animals thathave developed over millions of years. The natural heritageprotected in parks is threatened by the invasion of exotic

plants. These exotic plants are able to reproduce rapidlybecause the animals and diseases that keep them in checkin their home ranges are missing. For example, melaleucatrees from Australia threaten to replace the wet prairiesof the Everglades. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), animport from Eurasia, easily replaces the grasslands of theNorthern Great Plains. When the populations of nativeplants are reduced, the animals that depend upon themlack the food and shelter needed for survival.

Today, exotic plants infest approximately 2.6 million acresin the national park system, reducing the natural diversityof these places. Drawing funds from the Natural ResourceChallenge, the National Park Service is establishing rapidresponse Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMT) tocontrol exotic plants. Modeled after the approach used inwildland fire fighting, EPMTs provide highly trained,mobile strike forces of plant management specialists whoassist parks in the control of exotic plants.

In 2003, seven new tactical EPMTs joined the nine existingEPMTs. These nine EPMTs have been lauded for theirwork in controlling nuisance exotic plants. These field-or park-based teams are illustrated in the mapaccompanying this article.

Each EPMT serves multiple parks within a broadgeographic area. They work through steering committeesto identify, develop, conduct, and evaluate exotic speciesremoval projects and undertake appropriate native speciesrestoration efforts. Each of the 17 established teams hasdeveloped site-specific strategies for combating exoticplants that reflect the needs and resources of the more

than 145 parks they serve.

The success of the EPMT derives from its ability to adaptto local conditions and needs. Each team employs the

expertise of local experts andthe capabilities of localagencies. Each sets its ownwork priorities based on thefollowing factors: severity ofthreat to high-quality naturalareas and rare species; extentof targeted infestation;probability of successfulcontrol and potential forrestoration; opportunities forpublic involvement; andpark commitment to follow-up monitoring andtreatment.

Since the specialized team’sinception in 2000, they havecontrolled, inventoried, orrestored over 73,000 acres.Over 12 species have beencontrolled to a maintenance

level in park units. Over $1.8 million dollars have beenleveraged with NPS partners.

This is a golden time for managing invasive species innational parks. There is broad recognition from ourpartners, visitors, and political institutions that invasivespecies are a major threat to natural heritage. Increasedfunding for invasive species management reflects thisrecognition as well as commitment. Control of invasivespecies in national parks is within our grasp if we staythe course

Linda R. DreesChief, Branch of Exotic Species and EcologicalRestorationBiological Resource Management DivisionNational Park ServiceUSAlinda_drees@nps.gov

Editor’s note: of related interest (wider than Parks)are the following publications and download sites:- Pulling Together -The National Strategy forInvasive Plant Management has been developed bythe Federal Interagency Committee for the manage-ment of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW).http://ficmnew.fws.gov/page11.html- National Early Warning and Rapid Response SystemFor Invasive Plants in the United States athttp://www.nawma.org/documents/Early%20Warning%20and%20Rapid%20Response/EarlyWarningActionPlan031502.doc

NEW ZEALAND “MAINLAND ISLANDS”: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION THROUGHINTENSIVE MULTI-PEST CONTROL

The generic term “Mainland Islands” refers to biodiversityconservation projects which are undertaken at “mainland”sites (i.e. terrestrial sites adjacent to other land rather thansurrounded by water). The goal is ecological restorationand intensive, multi-pest control is involved. Unlike “real”islands which are discrete land masses surrounded by sea,Mainland Islands are subjected to continual re-invasionpressure from pests in surrounding areas. Mainland Islandprojects are also distinctive in that they involve moreextensive result and outcome monitoring than moretraditional pest control projects. Some of them also employan adaptive management (“Learning-by-doing”) approachwhereby hypotheses about pest impacts and anticipatedchanges resulting from management are tested as part ofon-going management programmes. As such they areplaces where Best Practice can be developed anddisseminated.

Why do we need Mainland Islands?While eradicating pests from offshore islands will continueto be important, more effective control is urgently requiredon the New Zealand “mainland” if further losses andextinctions are to be averted. After only a few years ofoperation significant conservation outcomes, includingspecies recovery and habitat restoration have beendemonstrated. Because they are more accessible thanoffshore islands many Mainland Islands also have valueas “Showcases” where people can visit and see forthemselves what is involved in achieving importantconservation goals.

In 1994 and 1995 the NZ Department of Conservationinitiated six Mainland Island projects. Now, MainlandIsland-type projects are also increasingly being initiatedby agencies other than the Department of Conservation,including by private entities (see box).

Example: Northern Te Urewera Ecosystem RestorationProjectThe Northern Te Urewera Ecosystem Restoration Project(a Department of Conservation initiative in partnershipwith Ngati Tuhoe – the indigenous people of the area)covers 50,000 hectares of the Te Urewera National Park(total Park area of 213,000 hectares, North Island, NewZealand). The goal is to restore the Mauri (life force) ofthe forest. An adaptive management approach is beingemployed to determine whether a network of “coremanagement areas” within a matrix of less-intensivelymanaged forest will be sufficient to restore the entire50,000-hectare project area. Pests targeted for controlinclude possums over the entire area and variouscombinations of stoats, cats, rats, deer and pigs withinthe smaller core management areas.

One important feature of this project is that while theanticoagulant toxin Brodifacoum was used initially, trials

are now underway to establish whether trapping alone issufficient to control predators to the very low prescribedtarget densities in the core areas. Initial results areencouraging. Innovative techniques have been developedhere including the use of freeze-dried rats as bait to attractstoats to traps, and rat traps suspended on tree trunks tocatch rats while posing minimal risk to non-target species.Important outcomes have included a significant increasein the number of kokako (Callaeas cinerea ) in coremanagement areas compared to nearby less-intensivelymanaged areas and the re-appearance of spectacular scarletmistletoe blooms in the forest canopy as a result of effectivepossum control.

Alan SaundersMainland Islands Technical CoordinatorDepartment of ConservationNew ZealandE-mail: asaunders@doc.govt.nz

Karori Wildlife SanctuaryWhile the Northern Te Urewera EcosystemRestoration Project, covering 50,000 hectares is thelargest Mainland Island project in New Zealand (sofar), almost at the opposite end of the spectrum is theinitiative to restore and manage 252 hectares ofregenerating native hardwood in Wellington city as amainland island. For a start, it is a communityinitiative rather than a government project, and ratherthan be in a majestic vast wilderness area, it focuseson an area in the capital city, a few kilometres fromParliament and the Central Business District. This isan ideal location for education and awareness raising.The project has a high level of support from the public,local and regional authorities and the Department ofConservation. It is unique in that the entire area isprotected by a predator-proof fence, which encirclesthe 8.6km perimeter and which is specificallydesigned to exclude 14 species of non-nativemammals ranging from possums and feral cats torodents.

Source: www.sanctuary.org.nz

CORAL REEF INVASIONS

In the past three decades anthropogenic movements ofmarine shallow water organisms has become morefrequent and increasingly important. Since the 1970s asignificant increase in non-indigenous species have beenidentified in harbors, ports, and other man-made areasalong the temperate coasts. These studies and others havefocused on areas of substantial maritime activity mostlikely to receive introductions through ballast waterdischarge or by hull fouling. Information on introductionsinto subtropical/topical waters has been mainly based onreviews of the literature, primarily focused on speciesintentionally introduced for aquaculture purposes in thePacific. Introductions on coral reefs in the tropical Pacifichave also reported. Current numbers for marine andbrackish water species in the Hawaiian Islands is 343:287 invertebrates, 24 algae, 20 fish, and 12 floweringplants. In addition to the Hawaiian Island studies, surveyshave been conducted in Guam and Australia. The greatestnumber of introductions have arrived through hull foulingwith solid ballast and ballast water following.

Intensive biological inventories have been carried out inthe Pacific region at several locations in the HawaiianIslands (Pearl Harbor, Oahu south and west shore harbors,Kaho‘olawe, Midway Atoll, French Frigate Shoals,Johnston Atoll, Kaneohe Bay, and Waikiki), Guam,American Samoa, and Australia (Queensland ports, HayPoint Port, Mourilyan Harbour, Lucinda Port).Percentages of non-indigenous species in the HawaiianIslands vary from 23% and 17% in Pearl Harbor andHonolulu Harbor, respectively, although percentages aremisleading, since a single species can be the major invader.

In the Hawaiian Islands five species of algae are causingmajor problems. Three species—Hypnea musciformis,Gracilaria salicornia, Kappaphycus spp.—wereintentionally introduced to investigate the feasibility ofdeveloping an aquaculture industry. One—Acanthophoraspicifera—was accidentally introduced on a barge fromthe western Pacific in 1950, and the origin of one—Avrainvillea amadelphia—is unknown. Hypneamusciformis has spread to several of the main HawaiianIslands. On Maui 20,000 pounds of algae wash up onKihei beaches per week, costing more than US$100,000per year to clean. In an economic study, algal biomasscosts north Kihei more than US$20 million per year inlost of rental income, decrease in property value, and cleanup. Added impacts include smothering and overgrowthof the native biota. In Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, experimentalremoval of Kappaphycus has demonstrated that it regrowsat a rate of more than seven times within a five month-period.

Some invertebrates are also causing serious impacts. TheCaribbean snowflake soft coral—Carijoa riisei—firstobserved in the early 1970s, is rapidly spreading along

the shores of all the main Hawaiian Islands. In 2001 thespecies was observed at depths of 100 meters carpeting90% of the substrate, threatening the black coral industry,valued at US$30 million per year. A western Atlanticbarnacle—Chthamalus proteus—was first observed in themid 1995, having arrived sometime after 1970. The smallspecies is very abundant on docks and pilings, covering100% of a sea wall in Hilo Harbor on the island of Hawaii.Its impact is not known. Several sponge species thePhilippine Islands and the Caribbean are proliferating inthe bays, growing over and covering upright branchingcorals.

Several species of fish were intentionally introduced inthe mid1950s to enhance the fishery potential. One—Lutjanus kasmira—has spread to all the Hawaiian Islandsas far north as Midway Atoll. The species forms largeschools that feed of the bottom and probably compete withseveral species of native fish. A number of tilapia specieshave been introduced over a long period of time.Individuals have been observed nibbling on coral polypsat a boat harbor.

For the attempted removal of the algae, alien algal clean-up events have been held at Waikiki and Kaneohe Bay.These are community and volunteer training eventsorganized in conjunction with multi-agency partnershipswith the goal of reducing the impact of alien algae inHawaii. An “early warning system” is being developedwith the assistance of the U.S. National Oceanographicand Atmospheric Administration. This will include aweb-site checklist of the marine biota of the HawaiianIslands with search capabilities to identify variousorganisms. When used at island-entry points, a speciesnot listed, would be considered as a possible non-indigenous species. The web site would includeinformation on known non-indigenous species, includingorigin, local distribution, potential impacts, andidentification notes.

Some recommendations for action include the raising ofawareness of the problem at all levels from governmentto individuals; the building of stronger capacity for theidentification of marine biota and the establishment of apool of specialists willing to identify specimens asexpeditiously as possible; the establishing of scientificallybased risk assessment programs; and the reducing ofvulnerability by minimizing pollution, sedimentation, andphysical degradation.

Lu G. Eldredge, Executive Secretary,Pacific Science AssociationHonolulu, Hawai’iE-mail: psa@bishopmuseum.org

(see also note page 3)

DEALING WITH INVASIVES IN THE NATIONAL PARK OF AMERICAN SAMOA IAS IN AN ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

The National Park of American Samoa was officiallyestablished in 1993. Its mission includes: protection ofthe only old-world tropical rainforest in the U.S NationalPark System, protection of the only Indo-Pacific coral reefin the U.S Park System and helping the preservation ofthe 3000-year-old Samoan culture. Invasive Alien Species(IAS) problems in the park include Kerosene tree(Paraserianthes falcataria), Mafoa (Canarium harveyi),Lopa (Adenanthera pavonia) Fuelautetele (Merremiapeltata), Laau fulu (Clidemia hirta) and other.

IAS Management is carried out in an ecological andcultural context and the project goals include:

· To reduce the rate of invasion and impact ofinvasive alien plants in the Park and AmericanSamoa

· To revive traditional cultural practices andlanguage as they relate to native heritage plantsand their uses

· To involve students and the community in solvingthe problem of invasive plants

· To preserve and protect rare endangered species· To provide food and habitats for native wildlife

In practice this includes a wide range of activities, likethe girdling of 700+ tamarind which covered 20 acres ofthe park, invasive species control, coupled withreforestation (e.g. tree planting in the village of Fagasain partnership with Fagasa’s leaders), weed surveillancein village gardens followed by the opportunity for gardenowners to exchange “bad” plants for “good” plants,community outreach, partnership with community leadersto identify important invasive plants on the one hand and

native heritage trees on the other hand, field trips forstudents and community, student involvement in IASawareness and weed surveys, restoration and maintenanceof five acres of disturbed land with 1,400+ heritage treesand medicinal plants, re-introduction of rare andendangered native plants, as well as revival of traditionalpractices (e.g. carving). More recently a greenhouse hasbeen built at Le’atele school, and a Native BotanicalGarden has been established, with support ranging fromVillage Matai to students and the wider community.

Goals for the future include:· Develop a children’s guide to theNational Park and its native flora· Develop a Native Plant/Invasive Speciesunit plan to be used throughout the schoolsystem which will assist teachers inclassroom instruction· Involve high school students involunteer service to the Park· Develop a ‘plant giveaway’ programwhich will encourage members of thecommunity to assist in protecting culturallysignificant plants· Utilise all media resources foreducational purposes· Eradicate the tamarind tree within thePark boundaries by December, 2004

A brochure of the Top Ten Invasive Plantsin American Samoa will be publishedshortly, in cooperation with the principalof Le’atele Elementary school, EvelynWeileman.

The top ten invasives are:1. Kerosene tree (Paraserianthes falcataria, Fabaceae)2. Fuelautetele (Merremia peltata, Convolvulaceae)3. Pulu mamoe (Castilla elastica, Moraceae)4. Mafoa (Canarium harveyi, Burseraceae)5. Tinamoni (Cinnamomum vernum, Lauraceae)6. Laau fulu (Clidemia hirta, Melastomaceae)7. Strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum, Myrtaceae)8. Ivy gourd (Coccinia grandis, Cucurbitaceae)9. Faapasi (Spathodea campanulata, Bignoniaceae)10. Fee (Scheflera actinophylla, Araliaceae)

Source: shortened from a presentation by Tavita Togia,presented at the University of Auckland, April 2003, bypermission.

Further information: Tavita TogiaInvasive Plant SpecialistNational Park of American SamoaE-mail:Tavita_Togia@nps.gov

School children assist Tavita Togia with awareness raising and media work.

Photo Leua Aiono Frost, Samoa Post

INTRODUCED MAMMALS IN ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS (INDIA):A CONSERVATION PERSPECTIVE

The Andaman and Nicobar islands inthe Bay of Bengal are peaks of asubmerged mountain range, archingfrom Myanmar to Sumatra, betweenlatitudes 6o45’ and 13o41’N andlongitudes 92o12’ and 93o57’E. Thegroup comprises over 560 islands androcks, with a total coastline of about1962 km. The Andaman group withover 300 islands and the Nicobargroup with 23 islands. The forest typeof the Andaman and Nicobar islandscan be broadly classified as tropicalevergreen, with inland areas beingeither forest or grasslands andsignificant proportion of the coastbeing mangroves. These islands arehome to 5357 species of fauna and1454 taxa of angiosperm. Of the totalspecies of fauna, 487 are endemic andin flora a total of 221 species arereported to endemic to these islands.

For recreational purposes threespecies of deer chital Axis axis,barking deer Muntiacus muntjak andsambar Cervus unicolor wereintroduced into the Andaman Islandsaround 1915. Because of goodvegetation the population of the chitalincreased rapidly and became menaceto the agriculture. Two male leopardswere introduced for controlling thedeer population in 1952 but those twoleopards were not sighted thereafter.In 1891 domestic goats were initiallyintroduced in Barren Island and thenin Narcondam Island, which nownumber in the hundreds. Elephantswere introduced into these islands fortimber works somewhere around1960. After closing most of thetimber factories, elephants werereleased into the virgin forests ofrespective islands and now they havebecome feral with around 75individuals in 71 km2 area. Later,Striped Palm Squirrel (Funambuluspalmarumi), common palm civet(Paradoxurus hermaphroditus),domestic cat, dog, goat (feral inNarcondam and Barren Islands) andcattle were introduced to these islandsby mainlanders for various domesticpurposes.

Impacts on Insular ecosystem:

Chital (Axis deer, Axis axis) isconsidered to be the worst invasivespecies in Andaman. This species hasbeen documented to eat over 70species of plants. Great adaptabilityand high variability in foragingpattern of chital contribute to theirhighly destructive nature inAndaman. Fast maturity, high annualpregnancy rate, low fawn mortalityand good vegetation enabled itspopulation to explode in Andaman.A current geographical distributionpattern of the chital in Andaman hasnot yet been studied. I observed inAndaman that deer have no predatorsand hunting deer is prohibited by theForest Department of Andaman andNicobar Islands.

Elephants, which are gregariousbrowsers, have been damagingnative tree species by debarking anduprooting and may also affect thenative fauna. A study shows that inthe Interview Island Sanctuary,elephants were responsible for thecreation of 82% of gaps inevergreen forest by their uprootingof large trees.

Impacts of dog, cat, goat, cattle,palm squirrel, common palm civetand various species of introducedrats and birds are not yet studied,but they are all harmful to thenative fauna and flora in respect ofspace, competition, food andpredation. Unfortunately, in 1997an outbreak of epidemic aviancholera in domestic fowls (whichwere kept by Nicobarese in theGreat Nicobar Biosphere Reserve)was transmitted to the highlythreatened endemic bird species,Nicobar Megapode (Megapodiusnicobariensis).

Conservation perspectives1. There are two thoughts about

the chital in Andaman. Whetherthis species needs to beeliminated totally from islands

by culling (or relocation) ormaintaining the population atcertain levels by sterilisation ofmales. I personally feel that wehave to get back the chital freeAndaman Islands.

2. Elephants in India have a lot ofattachment with the Hindureligion and it may not beadvisable to cull this species inAndaman, however, the 80, orso, individuals could be capturedand relocated from the ProtectedAreas. It would be a verydifficult task but we have to do itbefore entire Interview IslandSanctuary gets destroyed.

3. Removing chital and elephantsfrom Andaman requires achange in the wildlife policy ofIndia, as India does not have aseparate policy on IntroducedTerrestrial Species. The StateGovernment of Andaman andNicobar Islands must be giventhe legal security to do this tasksuccessfully.

4. Introduced species like feraldog, cat, squirrel, goat etc. needto be eliminated from theProtected Areas. Local peopleneed to be aware of invasivespecies, which must be eitherthrough the forest department orlocal NGOs.

5. Since there has been no detailstudy and documentation oninvasive species in these islandsthis needs to be initiated quickly.

K. SivakumarScientistWildlife Institute Of IndiaDehra DunIndiaE-mail: ksivakumar@wii.gov.in

What do we need to control nonnativevegetation? We need vision, energy,and commitment. That’s easily said,but where do we get them? Let’s startwith vision. How many times haveyou heard something like, “You’vegot to have a plan to do the job right”?I couldn’t agree more whole-hearted-ly. A plan is like a cookbook. It showsthe way to put essential ingredientstogether to get what you want. Butthe truth is we all have cookbooks andplans that sit on shelves gatheringdust, never quite used to theirpotential. What’s the deal? Why don’tthey motivate us into action?

The simple truth is that a plan doesnot a program make. Many plans tellus which way to go, and what, where,and when to do things, but they can’tmotivate us. Maybe that should besaid of poor plans. Good plans, on theother hand, entice us with a vision ofour destiny if we follow them. That’simportant. The poet said, “Withoutvision a people perish.” We need helpto leap the chasm between inactionto action. We need encouragement forthe sustained energy that worthwhileprograms require.

What is your vision for a protectedforest, field, and waterway? Do yousee native species in tact? Do you seefunctioning ecosystems where allcreatures thrive? Do you see beauty… balance?

What gives you energy and whatrobs you of it? Perhaps the biggestenergy robber is the tyranny of theday. Those normal daily tasks canloom heavy. How can we do one morething? In the case of fighting invasivevegetation, an energy robber is theidea that nonnatives are everywhereand we can’t possibly make adifference. It’s the overwhelmingnotion that hundreds of years ofcolonization and settlement haveopened the doors too widely to protecteven a single acre. Though some ofthe data might agree, it’s not over.

Shenandoah National Park, Virginia,has a total of 1,363 plant species listedto date. Included are 318 nonnatives.That’s 23%! It’s easy to feel hopeless

VISION, ENERGY, AND COMMITMENT: KEY TO CONTROLLING INVASIVE VEGETATION

with such a view. But let’s look again.Are they covering every meter? ThePark’s invasive vegetation inventoryindicates that most invasives arewithin 75 meters of Skyline Drive andother access roads. Since the vastmajority of invasives are sunworshippers, our forests are relativelyfree of nonnatives. We can takecourage, then, in knowing we mayfocus on minimizing newdisturbances and keeping infestationsfrom spreading.

Another energy robber is wonderingwhether we’re accomplishinganything in the long run. Some mightask, “In an age of world travel andtrade, isn’t it just a matter of time untilall species are everywhere?” If allspecies could prevail everywhere wemight take comfort in the fact that nospecies would die out from our lackof action (That still leaves the problemof damaged native ecosystemfunctioning. What species inter-actions and biotic/abiotic actions canno longer take place because of theintroduction of nonnatives?). Butthere is overwhelming evidence thatthousands of species are beingsqueezed out. “Everything thrivingeverywhere” is a myth. Through time,the separation of continents and othergeographic limitations have affordedtremendous species diversity. Whatwe face with the free movement ofspecies across these barriers is animplosion of species back to an ageof virtual Pangaea (Pangaea describesa time when the current continentswere once one (). The loss of speciesto science, to human need, to worldbiological functioning could befantastic beyond understanding. Itbehooves us to protect what we can.Perhaps each of us needs to get toknow our native resource a little better– to count our forests, fields, andwaterways as friends. Friends don’tlet friends fall into the abyss.

Fighting exotics takes the long view.Indeed, invasive species managementdoes require the long view. You’renever quite done. That shouldn’tsurprise us. Farmers and gardenersunderstand that it’s not just a matterof having an end goal, planting seeds,

and taking a vacation until harvesttime. Farming and gardening requiressustained effort – year in and year out.If you want pretty flowers along yourwalkway, you need to keep after theweeds that will invade. Invadershaven’t been taught to share. Whenthey come in, your flowers do poorlyand don’t last for long. That doesn’tstop us from gardening – our visionof a pretty landscape keeps us going.

What we need is vision and hope.Do you feel like the legendary Dutchboy with his finger in the leakingdike? Do you ask, “What’s the use?”Life isn’t easy is it? We could curl upin the fetal position and wish for betterdays. Or, like the Dutch boy, we canstick it out until help arrives. Help andhope seemed awfully far away on anight when no one was near. And yethis heroics saved a village and a wayof life. Our situation is very much thesame. Our work of stemming the tideof invasive exotics will lead to thesalvation of thousands of nativespecies and the healthy functioningof whole ecosystems. There’s a lotriding on it.

Where does our practical hope lie?What will the help we’re waiting forlook like? Though controversial, ourhope may lie with the judiciousintroduction of biological controls. Aprime example of successful alienvegetation biological control inAmerica is with control of theinvasive tansy ragwort (Seneciojacobaea) with cinnabar moth (Tyriajacobaeae) and flea beetle(Longitarsus jacobaeae). Biologicalcontrol is not without risk. We canall name past bio-control efforts goneawry. But carefully done, the risks areless than with merely allowinginvasive species to dominate nativelandscapes – a green pollution thatnever goes away. The casualties willbe far greater without intervention.

When using mechanical, manual, andherbicide control methods, workingsmart and strategically tacklinginvasives is another way ofengendering hope. Don’t dive into themiddle of huge problem species/areasas your first step. Take on new

invasions, eradicate outliers, andmake a difference in discrete areas.Prove to yourself and your supportersthat you can cleanse specific areas,making them fit for native species andecosystem restoration. Brick by brick,as the Russians would say, gets thejob done, and with it comes a senseof accomplishment.

Part of our vision comes from the hopethat making people aware of the silentgreen invasion creates willingness toresist and reverse the trend. A big partof our problem today is lack ofawareness and ignorant abetting ofthe problem by the public. We’re inlove with exotica, the sense of new asbetter. Yet when confronted by thefacts, most gardeners are aghast bywhat they’ve done. People genuinelywant to protect their native forests,fields, and waterways.

Momentum requires commitment.As with marriage and faith, it’s onlywith commitment that anythingsurvives. When things get tough, it’sour commitment to keep at it thatbrings anything but chaos and failure.It gets down to individuals, you andme. Are we strong enough to keepworking at it when the hope robberstell us to give up? The measure of ourlives is all about what we do whenthings get tough. Fighting invasivevegetation, then, can be our extendedexistential moment and ouropportunity to show who we reallyare. One day, years from now, will webe able to say we saw a problem anddid our best to make a difference?

Let’s take action. Let’s be wise andstrategic about fighting invasives.Let’s build programs that protect thetremendous variety of species andhabitats entrusted to us. By all means,let’s keep moving. Our plant andanimal friends depend on us.

James ÅkersonForest Ecologist & Mid-AtlanticExotic Plant Management TeamDirectorShenandoah National ParkVirginia (USA)E-mail: james_akerson@nps.gov

IN PARKS AND ELSEWHERE

EXPERIMENTING WITH INVASIVES INCONSERVATION AREAS

Invasive species are largely seen as a problem by virtue of their devastatingeffects in high conservation value areas. However, studies of invasive speciesare for the most part limited to observational (or eradicational) within theseareas. Experimental manipulation of invasive species is generally left to areasof reduced conservation value.

Combining our high technological ability of rodent eradication on New Zealandislands, with the requirement for accurate data on the processes and effects ofinvasion on New Zealand islands, has led the New Zealand Department ofConservation to fund a research project investigating the invasion of smallislands by introduced rodents. The crux of this project being the ability toeradicate the population and replicate the entire experiment. The valuabledata will provide much needed information on:• Rodent detectability at low densities• The rate of rodent invasion (population growth)• Habitat preference during invasion• Island carrying capacity (and time to reach it)• Calibration of detection techniques• Island ‘risk-profiles’ for invasion• An idea of the ‘stochasticity’ of rodent invasion

Although the intentional release of an invasive species on conservation estate(islands no less) can be seen as a step-backwards in conservation, the benefitsfrom the project will be outweighed by the leaps forward made with regard toinvasion dynamics. The results will hopefully lead to an appreciation of theuse of ‘inshore’ islands (where reinvasion can occur) as high-valueconservation estate, provided the reinvasions can be detected early anderadicated. The islands selected for the study will be small, so that ground-based eradication is feasible, and will already have an established rodentpopulation, or recently eradicated one, so that effects on the ecosystem will beminimal. Overall the project will hopefully provide scientific information toassist managers in utilising many more islands as high-conservation areas.

James RussellE-mail: j.russell@auckland.ac.nz

PUBLICATIONS

BUSHLAND WEEDS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THEIR MAN-AGEMENT

Bushland Weeds, by K Brown and K Brooks is a practical guide to bushlandweed management, with case studies from the Swan Coastal Plain and beyond.Bushland Weeds encompasses four years of work, resulting in a 108 page, fullcolour publication including numerous tables of weeds with biological featuresand controlMethods. The book will be of particular interest to those who live inMediterranean climates, and those doing on-ground weed control in remnantvegetation.

The book will be available from the Wildflower Society of Western Australiaat a cost of A$38.50 (GST inc.) plus postage.http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wildflowers/index2.html

Source: publisher

WETLANDS: RUDDY DUCK CONTROL IN SPAIN

In the last three years, the Spanish Ministry ofEnvironment has established a new invasive speciescontrol program with the objective of to cull all RuddyDuck, Oxyura jamaicensis, and recognisable hybridsbetween Ruddy and White-Headed Duck, Oxyuraleucocephala. Environment and species management inSpain is under the exclusive jurisdiction of theAutonomous Regions of Spain.

MethodsSystematic surveys are developed three times a year onsuitable wetlands for Oxyura species, including most ofthe wetlands where White-Headed Duck reproduction wasfound in the last 30 years, and the wetlands where RuddyDucks or hybrids have been located in the past (in all,140-160 wetlands were searched per survey). The firstannual survey was undertaken in March-April, just beforethe Oxyura mating season. The second in July, whenbroods are swimming and are visible, and the third inDecember, in the middle of the Oxyura migratory season.Outside those surveys, rangers and wildlife managers ofthe Autonomous Regions of Spain with suitable wetlandsfor Oxyura species are collaborating on the projectnotifying the arrival of any suspicious birds at any timeof the year, and in some cases they directly cull the birds.When a target bird has been located, a team of severalbeaters (depending on wetland size), a professional shooterand a supervisor move to the wetland and start a controloperation that doesn’t end until the bird is eliminated orthe bird disappears from the wetland.

ResultsFrom June 2000 to June 2003, 41 Ruddy Ducks and 3hybrids have been located and eliminated in 16 wetlandslocated on 7 different Autonomous Regions of Spain. Mostof the birds (86.4%) appeared in five wetlands: ParqueNatural de El Hondo (Alicante), Embalse de Ullibarri(Álava), Albufera de Adra (Almería), Veta la Palma(Sevilla), Laguna del Tarelo (Cádiz). A total of 24 femalesand 18 males were eliminated (in two occasions thedetermination of the sex was not possible). The age of thebird was known just for 20 birds (11 adults and 9juveniles). From the data obtained, 68.2% of the invasivebirds were located by the wildlife managers of the wetlandsof the Autonomous Regions where the birds appeared (and21 of the birds were directly culled by them). During thesystematic censuses, 22.7% of the birds were located, andthe rest of the birds were located by voluntarybirdwatchers. The control operations begun within the24 hours after the location of the bird in 62.2% of theoccasions, and in just 8 occasions the start of the controloperation were delayed by more than 3 days (up to amaximum of 11 days). The time between the start of thecontrol operation and the bird elimination was less than24 hours in 70.3% of the occasions. In five occasions thecontrol operation lasted more than 5 days, up to amaximum of 44 days, due to the weather conditions thatmade it difficult to shoot the birds. On a few occasions,

the control operation ended with the bird disappearingfrom the wetland after several days trying to shoot it. Onall of these occasions a new bird with the physicalcharacteristics of the bird that had disappeared was locatedin another wetland and a new control operation wasstarted. We believe that all of the birds were eliminated.

DiscussionA high number of Ruddy Ducks are arriving every year toSpain, but the number of hybrids between Ruddy andWhite-Headed Duck is now smaller than in previous times.Control of the arrival and reproduction of Ruddy Ducksin Spain is possible if the actual control programme ismaintained, but White-Headed Duck conservation inSpain, and by extension in the Western Palearctic, needsthe establishment of similar control programmes in allthe countries where alien Ruddy Ducks occur or reproduce.

AcknowledgementsThis project was supported by the Spanish Ministry ofEnvironment (DGCONA). We would like to thank thewildlife managers of the Autonomous Regions for theircontribution to the Ruddy Duck control. We also thankthe birdwatchers, who collaborated in the alien specieslocalisation.

Javier CalzadaDepartamento de Biología Ambiental y Salud PúblicaUniversidad de Huelva.Huelva, SpainE-mail: javier.calzada@dbasp.uhu.es

T Andres, MA Bravo, M Saenz de Buruaga, F Valderaand A OnrubiaUTE CRN-Sylvática. Huelva, Spain.

C GutierrezFundación Global NaturePalencia, Spain.

Photo:Javier Calzada

COOPERATION IN THE WAR ON INVASIVES (MID ATLANTIC PARKS ,USA)

The scope of the nonnative species invasion in this countryis too big for any single agency to handle alone. In thecase of nonnative vegetation, it’s not merely a task of“weeding the garden.” It also requires the cooperation ofneighbors and other agencies to ensure long-lastingresults. Nonnative invasives know no boundaries. Nosooner might one rid their property of a pest plant thanthe very species finds its way back by hopping aboard thewind, birds or mammals. The most invasive plants havere-colonizing mechanisms including enduring seed banksin the soil, stored underground energy reserves, ortremendous stump sprouting potential. What’s a gardeneror landowner to do?

CooperationFor many, the challenge of controlling invasives seemsoverwhelming. Indeed, no agency can hope to rid theirlands of hundreds of years of nonnative introductions.The planning process, however, helped us clarify thepicture for the Virginia parks in the fledgling invasivespecies control cooperative by focusing on theopportunities for appropriate action. There is greatpotential in strategically protecting specific areas anderadicating early infestations. That’s the aim of the Mid-Atlantic cooperative.

In our early program development, the cooperative treatedover 700 forested acres in 18 months. It was through thesharing of staff and expertise that the parks were able tomove forward beyond the tyranny of normal maintenanceand protection demands. They targeted specificinfestations of kudzu (Pueraria Montana), Orientalbittersweet,(Celastrus orbiculata) tree of heaven,(Ailanthus altissima) princess tree, (Paulownia tomentosa)white poplar, (Populus alba) privet, (Ligustrum spp.)multiflora rose, (Rosa multiflora) Japanese knotweed,(Polygonum cuspidatum) autumn olive, (Elaeagnuscuneata) Johnsongrass, (Sorghum halepense) andJapanese stiltgrass, (Microstegium vimineum) amongothers. Each plant exhibits its ability to dominate nativesites and reduce species richness.

CollaborationWithin the cooperative, one park found a neighboring allyto address a common problem. Colonial NationalHistorical Park linked with Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation (CFW) in a collaborative effort to tackle athree-acre patch of kudzu (Pueraria montana) and tree ofheaven (Ailanthus altissima) that straddled bothownerships. They worked together in planning andconducting on-the-ground controls. Each contributed time,funding, and in-kind resources. The tract is along thefederal Colonial Parkway that links Jamestown Island,Colonial Williamsburg, and Yorktown Battlefield. Publicrecognition of an exotic plant helped the effort. Kudzu iswell known as a “bad boy” throughout the South. CWFbecame interested in the project because of negative publicreaction to the patch, situated very close to their world

famous historic district of restored and reconstructedcolonial buildings. The park wanted to rehabilitate thetract that contains a small perennial stream, severalsprings, and a pond. The site’s capacity for species richnessis great. Yet without treatment, kudzu vine coveredvirtually the entire area and smothered herbs, shrubs andtrees alike. Native richness was being smothered to death.

Initial control began in July 2001 using staff from bothorganizations. Kudzu in the tree canopy was severed andpulled down as possible. Herbicide was applied to the cutvines and ground-level plants. Large tree of heaven werecut down and stump-sprayed. Tree seedlings/saplings weresprayed as well. Alien plants along the stream, springs,and pond were treated with herbicide that is approved(labeled) for use around waters. Follow-up control workwas conducted in July and August by CWF staff to catchthe plants initially missed. Subsequent controls,monitoring, and site restoration was done jointly by thepark and CWF to make sure that neither the targetedspecies nor any other invasives re-colonize the area.

No Resource ImpairmentThe cooperative has given all eleven parks a shot in thearm to make substantive steps in controlling their targetedinvasives. They plan to continue working together beyondthe project period. Their hope is that the infusion ofexpertise and tactical supplies from the project can helpthem form a sustainable program that protects nativespecies and natural ecosystem functioning. The need forinvasive management funding will not go away, however,and each park is working to increase their operationalcapacity through budget base appropriations and specialproject funding.

The 1916 NPS Organic Act commissions parks to“conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objectsand the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoymentof the same in such a manner and by such means as willleave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of futuregenerations.” Shenandoah Superintendent, DouglasMorris, believes, “Invasive species are impairing thenatural resources and historical scenery of our parks. Thechallenge is before us to protect them.” Though that’s atall order, cooperation and collaboration with others ishelping broaden our effectiveness. Morris adds,“Protecting our parks is worth the fight.”

James ÅkersonForest Ecologist & Mid-Atlantic Exotic PlantManagement Team Director Shenandoah National ParkVirginiaE-mail: james_akerson@nps.gov

CONTROL OF INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES IN NATURE RESERVES IN CHINA

China is a “megadiversity country”. The most effectiveand economic way of conserving biodiversity is bymaintaining self-sustaining populations of native speciesin situ in their natural habitats. China has already madeimportant progress in in situ conservation by establishingover 1550 Nature Reserves (NRs) and 690 Scenic Spots,which cover around 14% of total terrestrial land of China.

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) occur in almost everywatershed and ecosystem, and represent many taxonomicgroups, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,fishes; arthropods and crustaceans; algae, ferns and seedplants; and fungi, viruses, bacteria, and other micro-organisms. IAS has been considered as the secondimportant threat to biodiversity in China. Under thesituation, it becomes important to reduce their impact onlocal biodiversity by ensuring security for precious andendemic species at key sites. Such sites include the nationalsystem of protected areas and other geographically criticalareas such as areas of local endemism, isolated lakes,mountains, mangroves, islands etc.

Invasive Alien Species problem in nature reserves in ChinaIAS problems in the Nature Reserves of China havebecome a big concern. IASs have been reportedeverywhere, except in a few remote reserves in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Hengduan Mountain, Xinjiang and InnerMongolia. Many NRs in China have been heavilythreatened by IASs. However, no efforts have been madeto remove them. On the contrary, a lot of activities inNRs are encouraging IAS spreading.

Many Nature Reserves in China have plans to restorevegetation with alien species. In the master plan of DafengMilu NR, which was established for reintroduction of PereDavid’s Deer (Milu) in Jiangsu Province and is severelythreatened by Spartina (Fig. 1), most of the suggestedtree species for restoration are alien to the region (such asItalian Populus, Japan cedar, conifer trees, gingko,Metasequoia). It is planned to increase 20% ~ 30% offorest coverage by planting these trees. It is also plannedto introduce alien pasture species to provide forage forMilu. In Ruoergai NR, which was established to protectan important grassland marsh that provides water to the

two main rivers of China (Yangzte River and YellowRiver), there are plans to plant high productive alien grassand even trees for reducing grazing pressure or abatingdesertification.

Dafeng NR has a plan to establish a garden that willintroduce magnolia, cherry blossom, rose, peony, lilac,redbud, trees, climbers and aquatic plants. In the plantspecies list in its master plan, there are 13 species listedin the booklet of Invasive Alien Species in China and manymore are alien species to this region.

Establishing wildlife rescue centers to breed water deer,pheasants, cranes, swans and other endangered specieshas been recognized as a key conservation action in mostNRs in China. For example, research in Yancheng NRhas focused on the red crowned crane. The research is tobreed the species to enlarge wild population and establisha non-migrating population. The NR is a wintering areafor red crowned crane and it doesn’t naturally breed there.The researchers are attempting to change the behavior ofthe species but this may pose a threat to the wildpopulation. If the artificially bred population is mixedwith the wild population it may bring diseases from thehuman area to the wild population. Red-crowned cranes,ostriches, peacocks and other birds are also kept in pensat the edge of the core area (Fig. 2).

The problem of invasive species in lakes (such asLouisiana crayfish in Dongting Lake and Poyang Lake)affect every corner of lakes and actions within NRs cando little to reduce the threat. Even duck farming causesdisease risks of transferring new diseases to wild duckpopulations. Reduction of invasive alien speciesintroductions requires new legislation and coordinationbetween several agencies.

Recommendations to IAS control for NRsThe following recommendations provided for combatingIAS in NRs by the Ecosecurity Task Force of ChinaCouncil for International Cooperation on Environmentand Development;

Fig 1: Spartina in Dafeng Milu NR. Photo: Xie Yan

Fig 2: Photo: XieYan

• Information on alien species, and their effects on naturalecosystems and local economies to be made available toall staff • Introduction of alien species anywhere inside theprotected area, including any animal and plant collectionsand staff residential areas to be prohibited, except forapproved biological control purposes• Sensible and adequate precautions to be taken in theimport of any supplies including foods and buildingmaterials• Inventories of alien species and hybrids with local speciesin the protected area to be made and the risks to theprotected area values to be assessed• Assessment of threats to protected area values from alienspecies and appropriate actions to be included in allmanagement plans• Monitoring and research programmes to include workon trends in range and population sizes for alien species• Sound ecological principles to be followed duringrestoration and eradication programmes• The practice of releasing confiscated and “rescued”wildlife into protected areas without proper assessmentto be stopped. Only healthy local species should be releasedinto protected areas.

• Captive breeding and keeping animal and plantcollections within protected areas to be discouraged toreduce chances of bringing in new alien species (such asdiseases)• Local people and visitors to be aware of regulations andthe dangers of introductions (including for examplediscarding fruit seeds) through outreach programmes• All information displays for the general public to coveralien species and dangers they pose to natural ecosystems• IAS issue to be included into national policies to ensureoperation funding• To make links with and work together with other relevantorganizations, governmental and non-governmental• Careful planning of surrounding land-use adjacent tobe made to NRs• Aggressive control and eradication programmes for alienspecies to be found in NRs or surrounding areas.

XIE YanInstitute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of ScienceChinaE-mail: xieyan@public3.bta.net.cn

PUBLICATIONSCORAL REEF NON-INDIGENOUS AND

INVASIVE SPECIES

Non-indigenous and invasive species are just recentlybeing identified and there has been little work done onthese species in relation to coral reefs.

The Mini-Symposium E8 “Coral Reef non-indigenous andinvasive species” was convened at the 9th InternationalCoral Reef Symposium held at Bali, Indonesia, on 27October 2000. Eight of the papers presented there, allpublished in the journal Pacific Science, are available aspdf files from http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/pbs/coralreefsymp.htmlBy permission from the University of Hawai’i Press.

THE MARSHALL ISLANDS: LIVINGATOLLS AMIDST THE LIVING SEA

The Marshall Islands: Living Atolls Amidst the LivingSea (Republic of the Marshall Islands biodiversity report)The first and only school textbook on botany, zoology andecology of the Marshall Islands, their relation to its peopleand their culture. This book is exceptionally accurate,authoritative and readable; it is richly illustrated with over300 biological illustrations. Following the main text ofthe report is discussion on numerous threats to theMarshalls’ biodiversity, including nuclear weaponstesting. The conclusion is that invasive species pose aworse threat than anything else.

Available now: US$45 for individual copies, $30 each inquantities of 10 up to 1,000, ($28 each in quantities ofmore than 1,000) Shipping and handling for individualcopies, U.S. domestic priority mail, additional $8.50. TheRMI Biodiversity Strategy and Action plan (32 pagebooklet) can be included upon request at no extra cost.

For orders, please contact:Nancy Vander VeldeP. O. Box 1603Majuro, MH 96960phone/fax - (692) 625-3811E-mail: vndvelde@ntamar.com

Source: Nancy Vander Velde

DYNAMICS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THEINVASION OF RURAL LANDSCAPES OF

RÉUNION ISLAND BY ACACIA MEARNSII

Invasion patches of woody plants are a main part of rurallandscapes inside of insular biomes, but knowledge ispoor concerning these patch dynamics and theirenvironmental effects. Providing large ecologicalgradients and very changeable landscapes, Réunion Islandis an appropriate model to set up a diagnostic of suchinvasions. On the island, Acacia mearnsii has a largerange and can be considered as an opportune plant model.The main objective of my thesis (undertaken last year)was to provide a diagnostic based on transposable methodsusable on other sites and plants.

This way, we have analysed the biological attributes ofA. mearnsii and the landscape turnover, which favourscolonisation. Spatial variability of breeding patterns andmain germination traits have been also observed. Then,the spatio-temporal dynamics of the plant invasion havebeen studied from aerial photographs covering about fiftyyears. On another occasion we studied the impact onbiodiversity, referring to three different organisation levels(landscapes, patch aggregates, woodlots) and using birdsand flowering plants as indicators. Multivariate analysishas been used on the data sets collected at the three levelsof organisation, which have been retained.

This work shows that breeding strategy of A. mearnsii isbased on a strong allocation of resources to fructification,a variability of phenologic patterns with elevation and afast outbreak of seed dormancy. The analysis of spatio-temporal dynamics reveals contrasts between western andsouthern regions, linked to the decline of pelargoniumcultivation and the development of animal production.These contrasts are enforced with the confrontation ofthe dynamics and the structures of landscape units. Atthe landscape level, the effects of this plant invasion onbiodiversity are hidden by the effects of a strongelevational gradient and an important dichotomy in thespatial distribution of native and exotic plants. At lowerlevels, the composition of the biotic communities ispartially determined by A. mearnsii. These points arediscussed as tools for evaluating the impact of plantinvasions in rural landscapes and setting up strategiesfor limiting the invasions.

Jacques TassinEcology PhD – University Paul Sabatier Toulouse III(France)E-mail: tassin@iac.nc

TEN YEARS OF PREVENTING RATINTRODUCTIONS TO THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS

ALASKA, USA

The year 2003 marks the 10th anniversary of the ratprevention program in the Pribilof Islands. The PribilofIslands are located in the Bering Sea, Alaska. They haveabout three million nesting seabirds, a million northernfur seals, an endemic shrew, and other wildlife. Ratintroduction would greatly reduce bird and shrewpopulations and might transfer diseases to other mammals.The islands have been inhabited since 1786, and althoughthe lack of harbors impeded rodent introduction, housemice became established on St. Paul in 1872.

In the early 1990’s harbors were constructed on both St.George and St. Paul Islands. A boom of commercialfisheries soon followed and eventual rat introductionseemed a certainty. A prevention program was initiatedby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1993. It ismaintained primarily by the local communities, andindustry. The program consists of maintaining trap andpoison stations, community education, outreach to vesselsto make them rat free, and regulations. Over 600,000 trapnights have passed and six rats have been killed on the St.Paul docks, and there is no evidence of rats becomingestablished. Improved design of preventive stations hasdecreased maintenance needs. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService also maintain shipwreck response capabilities tostop “rat spills”.

Snap traps have been more effective than poisons at killingrats, but have caused more non-target species loss. Aboutfive winter wrens (Troglodytes troglodytes) per year havebeen killed in snap traps. Six brown lemming (Lemmussibricus), native on St. George Island, have been killed,five in a snap trap and one by eating poison. While snaptraps have been the major cause of non-target loss theyare highly recommended. The rat carcass in hand (onlysix times in 10 years) has been a powerful message thatprevention measures are needed and must be maintained.It appears fewer ships using the Pribilof Islands carryrats. Unless there is a major advancement in rodentremoval technology, the prevention program will have tobe continued forever. It is too early to be certain that theprogram is adequate to protect the Pribilof Islands.Technical advice from Rowley Taylor, Joe Brooks, andPaul O’Neil was instrumental in the initiation of thisprogram.

Art Sowls and G.V. ByrdAlaska Maritime NWRHomerAlaska, 99603, USAE-mail: Art_Sowls@fws.gov

ERADICATION FOR RESTORATION INSOUTHERN OCEAN WORLD HERITAGE SITE:

CAMPBELL ISLAND RAT ERADICATION

In May 2003 Sub-Antarctic Campbell Island was officiallydeclared rat-free after the largest eradication programmeof its kind. About 120 tonnes of poison were used killingan estimated 200,000 rats on the 11,331ha (110 km2)island at a cost of around $2.6 million (NZ). The Ministerfor Conservation, Mr Carter was quoted as saying thatthe rat had been on the island for 200 years and that nowthe island’s millions of seabirds would be free from thepredator, calling it “a proud day for New Zealandconservation”. The Department of Conservation (DOC)’smission is to protect and restore the natural heritage. Itset out to protect the special terrestrial and inter-tidalecosystems so that the fields of giant leafed flowering megaherbs and colonies of seabirds like grey petrels, sootyshearwaters and the magnificent Campbell albatross onceagain would become abundant on the island. In additionit wants to re-establish endemic species such as CampbellIsland teal and Campbell Island snipe that were once foundon this island, but are now restricted to a few offshoreislets. Campbell Island had the world’s highest density ofNorway rats and it was vital that these be eradicated toachieve these restoration goals.The announcement has coincided with the release of areport led by the Department of the Prime Minister andCabinet that examines innovative practice in the NewZealand public service. In it, the Campbell Island rateradication project is cited as an example of goodinnovative practice.

Campbell Island is part of the New Zealand Sub-AntarcticIslands World Heritage Site (Inscribed 1998). The siteconsists of five island groups: the Snares, Bounty Islands,Antipodes Islands, Auckland Islands and Campbell Islandin the Southern Ocean south-east of New Zealand.

More on the New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands WorldHeritage Site:http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/doc/mainf3.htm

More on the eradication and restoration programme:http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/Offshore-Islands/Campbell-Island-Rat-Eradication.asp

Editor’s Note:There is an excellent article on the rat eradication onCampbell Island, which appears in the New ZealandGeographic magazine for July/August 2003, Number 58.Written by Pete McClelland (the project leader) and PeteTyree (logistics adviser/photographer) it outlines in detailthe complexities of the project. For overseas readers, NewZealand Geographic magazine can be obtained via thepublishers. View their website on www.nzgeographic.co.nz.Their e-mail address is: subs@nzgeographic.co.nz and thephone number is: +64 (9) 303 0126

SEARCH AND DESTROY PROGRAMME FORMIMOSA PIGRA (KAKADU NATIONAL PARK,AUSTRALIA): SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ANDSAVING MONEY BY EARLY DETECTION/RAPIDACTION

The following two approaches illustrate the crucialdifference that early detection and rapid action provide,both in terms of environmental and financial costs.

In Kakadu National Park (KNP). Due to an awareness ofmimosa’s potential threat and also a capacity to act, a‘search and destroy’ control program was instituted in1983. Since that time people have been employed full-time to undertake surveillance operations and intervenerapidly when mimosa is discovered. Consequently,although there have been about 200 outbreaks of mimosa,there are no large stands of mimosa in KNP. This programcosts in the vicinity of $2 ha-1yr-1.

In contrast, in 1983 an incursion of around 200 ha wasdiscovered on the Oenpelli floodplain in Western ArnhemLand. The infestation had grown to 1 200 ha in 1985.Short-term intermittent chemical control projects wereundertaken but in spite of this by 1990 it was estimatedthat the infestation had increased to about 8 200 ha. TheOenpelli Mimosa Control Program (1991-1996) involvedthe largest aerial herbicide application to mimosa in theWorld with over 60 tonnes of chemical applied to thewetland over five years. The spray program to control thelarge mimosa infestation at Oenpelli cost $220 ha-1yr-1

for five years and, like KNP, will require approximately$2 ha-1yr-1 to carry out follow-up work in the broaderregion.

Source: Storrs M, Ashley M & Brown M 1999. Aborigi-nal community involvement in the management of mi-mosa (Mimosa pigra) on the wetlands of the NorthernTerritory’s ‘Top End’. In 12th Australian Weeds Confer-ence: Papers and Proceedings, eds Bishop AC, BoersmaM & Barnes CD, Weed Society of Tasmania, Hobart. Pp562-565.

Editor’s note : of related interest (wider than ProtectedAreas) Australia wide weed strategies:- The Determination of Weeds of National Significanceby John R Thorp, National Weeds Strategy & Rod Lynch,Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia. It can bedownloaded from: http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/WONS/- A summary of the Australian National Weed Strategycan be downloaded from: http://www.weeds.org.au/nws-doc.htm

PACIFIC OYSTERS IN THE EUROPEAN WADDEN SEA: AN IRREVERSIBLEIMPACT IN A HIGHLY PROTECTED ECOSYSTEM

The Wadden Sea is the largest European wetland areaand its tidal flats form the largest unbroken stretch ofmudflats worldwide. Biophysically it represents aninterconnected morphological system with the adjacentNorth Sea, significant in terms of unique ecological, socio-economic, scientific and cultural characteristics. At thebeginning of the 1970s, a process began which resultedin the protection and conservation of the entire WaddenSea with nature reserves and national parks and theestablishment and extension of the trilateral Wadden Seacooperation between The Netherlands, Germany andDenmark. In parallel, parts of the area were designatedas Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Areas),Bird and Habitat Directives areas and as Man andBiosphere (MAB) Reserves.

Potential nomination as a natural World Heritage SiteAn important topic of the 9th Trilateral GovernmentalConference in Esbjerg (30 October 2001) was the potentialnomination of the Wadden Sea national parks and naturereserves or parts of them as a natural World Heritage Site.This is a follow-up of decisions of previous conferencesand a recent feasibility study has concluded that aninscription in the World Heritage List under the currentconservation and management arrangements is feasible. 

Historical status of oyster bedsUntil the beginning of the 20th century the native Europeanoyster Ostrea edulis was widely spread in the WaddenSea and formed extensive oyster beds from low tide leveldown to about -6 m. These reefs were regarded to belongto the most characteristic biotope types of the WaddenSea and provided secondary habitats to numerous species.The last living reef of the European oyster was found in1940. After that O. edulis was declared to be extinct inthe region. There has been some debate about the actualcause of the decline but more recent accounts on the subjectseem to prove that overexploitation by oyster fishery sincethe 18th century exterminated these populations. Throughthe destruction of the oyster reefs, many associatedinvertebrate populations severely declined or disappearedcompletely.

Pacific oysters invasionMore than once in the past, attempts have been made torevive exploited stocks of the European oyster withimported American Crassostrea virginica and PortugueseC. angulata at several sites on the North Sea coasts. Theseattempts largely failed. In the 1960s, Dutch oyster farmersbegan to cultivate the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas)in the Oosterschelde estuary. One assumed that theintroduction of the Pacific oyster as seed stock had to beaccepted because these oysters, native to Japan, were notable to reproduce at the latitude of the Netherlands.However, in 1975 a spatfall occurred during a very warmsummer and resulted in millions of so-called weed oysters

in the estuary. Within several years the Pacific oyster hasexpanded enormously and they nowadays interfere withthe recreational use of the estuary because of their razor-sharp shells. Since the 1980’s this alien was frequentlyobserved in the Dutch Wadden Sea. In 1996 a firstsettlement of the Pacific oyster occurred in the westernWadden Sea area of Germany as well, which may havebeen dispersed from the Netherlands by natural means(Fig. 1).

Spat and larvae of C. gigas were repeatedly introducedinto the German Wadden Sea since 1971, mostly foraquacultural experiments and studies. Since 1985commercial farming activities started up in the northernarea of the Wadden Sea near the island of Sylt (Fig. 2).These oysters reproduced successfully, too and in 1991the first oysters were found outside the culture plot. Spatsettel on any hard substrate in the intertidal zone butpreferentially upon wild banks of the blue mussel Mytilusedulis. In the following years, significant dispersal withincreasing abundances took place. It was estimated thatthe wild Pacific oyster population at Sylt was in the regionof 1 million oysters in 1995, with a mean oyster densityof 8 individuals / m² in a mussel bed. In 2002, the meanoyster density came up to 83 individuals / m² and the bluemussel beds are currently about to transform into oysterreefs (Reise pers. comm.).

Oysters as vectorsOver the last 100 years, the Wadden Sea and its estuarieshave been invaded by numerous alien species. In the pastoyster transports certainly served as an important vectorfor associated parasites and exotic species. Some of thealiens became massively abundant, such as the Americanslipper limpet Crepidula fornicata, the Japanese brownalgae Sargassum muticum and several phytoplanktonspecies. Nowadays, the worldwide scale of oyster importshas become less important for Europe. However, sincethe regular culturing of the Pacific oyster began in 1986at Sylt, five benthic species are suspected to have beeninadvertently transferred with imported spat to the WaddenSea of Sylt.

Most of the introductions by transfers occurred before theICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfersof Marine organisms was worked out in 1994. The codeis based on quarantine measures and provides a practicalset of rules to prevent introductions through the import ofoysters and other non-indigenous organisms. However,such a measure can slow down introductions of new aliensbut not prevent them completely. Aquaculture is the fastestgrowing sector within fisheries due to increasing demandfor aquatic products. Therefore, the threats of intensifiedaquaculture and increasing international transfer of exoticspecies for stocking and culture posed to naturalcommunities, needs to be pushed up to political agenda.

Ecological consequencesAmong the introduction of alien species by the oystervector with all its consequences for the native biocoenoses,the most important aspect of competition is the ability ofexotic oyster species to reproduce successfully in newenvironments. The Pacific oyster appears to be moreecologically potent, i.e. more adaptive, than the Europeanoyster O. edulis, although it requires warmer water forspawning. The recently expanding occurrence of C. gigasin the Wadden Sea makes it likely that oyster reefs,together with their associated community of organisms,will “re-establish”, at least in the intertidal zone. If theseirreversible changes in the biota of the North Sea can beclassified as a positive example of population ‘enrichment’is still under discussion. Due to the higher growth rateand the larger size of oysters, blue mussels are eventuallyovergrown and killed. In North America Pacific oystershas been known to settle in dense aggregations, excludingother intertidal species. In Dutch waters, at the same timeas C. gigas increased in the Oosterschelde estuary, thestocks of blue mussels and cockels decreased, the samegoes for an important shellfish-feeding bird, theoystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus. However, it is notyet clear if this is a causal relationship. Much remainsunknown in terms of the patterns and processes of theinvasion of the Pacific oyster in the European WaddenSea.

OutlookAlien invasions in aquatic systems are irreversible andshould be avoided wherever possible. These species posea serious impact to native biodiversity because they havethe potential to alter the natural state of an ecosystem

into which they were introduced. Such changes,and especially the example of the Pacific oysterin the highly protected Wadden Sea, mayconsequently affect nature conservation interests.At the present time, most analyses that evaluatepatterns of aquatic invasion or test specifichypotheses derive data from existing literature,which is extremely uneven in space and time.In order to establish effective management plans,much more information is needed on theprinciples of successful establishments of aquaticalien species. For the Pacific oyster, acoordinated environmental program in order todocument the spreading and effects on the nativebiocoenoses in detail, should be designed andrealized on the level of the Trilateral Cooperationon the Protection of the Wadden Sea.

Further reading- Nehring, S. 1999. Oyster beds and Sabellariareefs. In: De Jong, F. et al. (eds.) Wadden SeaQuality Status Report. Wadden Sea EcosystemNo. 9: 146-147.- Reise, K. 1998. Pacific oysters invade musselbeds in the European Wadden Sea.Senckenbergiana maritima 28: 167-175.- Wehrmann, A. et al. 2000. The distributiongap is closed First record of naturally setteldPacific Oysters Crassostrea gigas in theEas t Frisian Wadden Sea, North Sea.Senckenbergiana maritima 30: 153-160.

Stefan NehringAeT umweltplanungGermanyE-mail: stefan-nehring@web.de

Fig. 1. The invasion of the Pacific oyster in the Wadden Sea.

Fig. 2. Pacific oyster farming near the German island of Sylt. Oysters arecultivated in plastic mesh bags, called ‘poches’, fastened onto steel trestleswith rubber bands. Photo: Stefan Nehring

INVADING MUSSELS THREATEN AMAZON: GLOBALLAST - BRAZIL TAKE ACTION

In the late 1980’s the Golden Mussel Limnoperna fortunei,a native of East Asia, was found in the Rio de la Platabetween Uruguay and Argentina. A freshwater bivalve thatnormally lives attached to natural and artificial hardsubstrates in its native range, L. fortunei is most likely tohave been carried to South America by ships tradingbetween riverine/estuarine ports in Asia and the ports ofBuenos Aires and/or Montevideo.

Having been carried across the oceans in ships’ ballastwater (it would have been killed by oceanic salinity ifcarried attached to the hulls of ocean-going vessels), theGolden Mussel is now being translocated throughout SouthAmerican freshwater systems as fouling on river vessels.

Spreading rapidly into adjacent watersheds, within 10years the mussel had established 1,100 km upstreamthroughout the Plata, Parana and adjacent river systems.It is spreading northwards in South America at the rate of240 km per year (Darrigran 2001), potentially threateningthe entire Amazon basin and linked river systems withinthe next decade.

The rapid spread of this aggressive invader is causefor major ecological and economic concerns. Theaggressive rate of invasion by the Golden Mussel isexemplified by the following: In 1991, the density ofGolden Mussels in Bagliardi, Argentina was fiveindividuals per m2. By 1992, this had increased to 36,000per m2. In 1993, 80,000 per m2 and in 1998, the densitywas 150,000 mussels per m2. In Brazil, it was first foundin 1998, at the mouth of the Jacui River, near the port ofPorto Alegre. One month later, it was found 70 kmsouthward, in Guaiba River, Itapua, near Patos Lagoon.In 2000, it was also found in Arambare. After 18 monthsof invasion in Brazil, it was observed in a density of 27,275individuals per m2, mainly on the roots of aquatic plants.

The potential economic impacts of L. fortunei in SouthAmerica are very similar to those described forDreissena polymorpha, the European Zebra Mussel, inthe North American Great Lakes and adjacentwaterways (biofouling and blockage of pipes and watersystems of cities, industries, power plants and otherinfrastructure). Zebra Mussel control measures inNorth America are estimated to have cost betweenUS$750 million to US$1 billion from 1989 and 2000alone (O’Neil 2000). The cost of similar controlmeasures in remote parts of South America is likely tobe even higher.

Since 1998, the mussel has already reached the city ofCorumba, in Mato Grosso do Sul State, brought by boatsthrough the Paraguay River. In April of 2001, it wasfirst found at the massive Itaipu Hydroelectric Plant,attached to the pipes, filters and pumping systems. Thebiologists of this hydroelectric company are franticallysearching for alternatives to control the infestation toavoid the consequences experienced at the Yacyreta

hydroelectric plant (Argentina/Paraguay), which has tobe stopped for periodic cleaning, with significanteconomic losses.

Ecologically, harmful effects of the golden mussel onnative molluscs and benthic communities of Brazil,Argentina and Uruguay have also been significant.Before the Golden Mussel invasion, the macrofoulingcommunities in the neotropical region were restrictedto salt or estuarine waters. Today, due to its highfecundity and the absence of natural enemies, it ispossible to find L. fortunei and associated bio-encrustations throughout the entire Parana watershed.

The potential repeat of a Great Lakes-type ZebraMussel invasion in the sensitive Amazon system isunthinkable, and demands immediate action.Brazil was first alerted to the problems this species wascausing in Argentina and Uruguay by Calixto (2000),and in 2002 the GEF/UNDP/IMO GloBallastProgramme launched the Golden Mussel Project inBrazil.

Supervised by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment(MMA), co-ordinated by the Admiral Paulo MoreiraMarine Research Institute (IEAPM) of the BrazilianNavy, and supported by the GloBallast ProgrammeCoordination Unit at IMO in London, the mostimportant aim of this project is to offer the BrazilianGovernment and industry procedures for controllingthe spread of the mussel.

Of particular concern are potential irreversible impactson the aquatic ecology of the Pantanal ConservationComplex, declared a World Heritage Area by UNESCO.The GloBallast Golden Mussel Project therefore links withthe ‘sister’ GEF project Integrated WatershedManagement Program for the Pantanal and UpperParaguay River Basin, thereby effecting synergies andcooperative deployment of GEF resources for theprotection of the Pantanal.

The study started in October 2002 and aims to becompleted in January 2004, and is being developed in 9phases:

1) Literature review on L. fortunei (completed).2) Project planning workshop in Porto Alegre, Brazil(December 2002).3) Technical site visits to impacted areas to obtaininformation on the impacts caused by the mussel,including institutions, universities, water treatmentcompanies, ports, hydroelectric powerplants and otherindustries that depend on river water.4) Field sampling at 30 sites in rivers and lakes of south,southeast and Midwest Brazil. The field sampling willassess current distribution and densities of L. fortunei inthe plankton (larval stages) and in the benthos (settledspat and adults). The following environmental data will

be recorded: air and water temperature, conductivity,salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen and water transparency.5) Genetic analysis of molecular markers (aloenzymes)to confirm the mussel’s origin.6) Data analysis and mapping of the current distributionand density of the Golden Mussel and the speed of itsdispersion, including modelling to forecast its potentialarrival at ecologically and economically strategic sites.Procedures of control will be proposed by this work.7) Assessment of present and future environmental andeconomic impacts of the mussel, using information fromphases 1to 6 plus additional research.8) Preparation of reports in Portuguese, Spanish andEnglish.9) Seminar to present results and recommended controlmeasures to Brazilian, Argentinean, Paraguayan andUruguayan authorities, industries and academics.

To undertake such a project in so large an area, and giventhe mussel’s wide distribution across political boundaries,a multi-national team involving researchers from differentBrazilian States and also Argentina, Uruguay andParaguay, has been assembled. The project marks thepractical beginning of regional co-operation in SouthAmerica on ballast water and aquatic bio-invasion issues,a key objective of the GloBallast Programme.

The incursion of the Golden Mussel so deep into theinternal waterways of the world’s fourth largestcontinent, impacting the Pantanal and Iguacu WorldHeritage Areas, and threatening even the globallysignificant Amazon basin, clearly demonstrates thefar reaching environmental impacts of internationalshipping.

While it is hoped that the GloBallast Golden MusselProject will help develop management actions to controlthe further spread of this highly invasive species, suchmeasures can only be effective if the original source ofintroductions is also effectivelyaddressed, through the propermanagement and treatment ofships’ ballast water.

The fact that the Golden Musselinvasion has occurred, despiteobvious lessons from the ZebraMussel in North America,highlights the urgent need forindustry and governments totake immediate action to reducethe spread of harmful aquaticspecies by shipping activities.

References:- Calixto, R.J. (2000) Poluiçào Marinha: Origens e Gestào.Editora Ambiental. Brasilia: 240p- Darrigran, G. (2001) El mejillon dorado, un novedosoproblema economico/ambiental para el MERCOSUR.Pesquisa Naval. 14: 209 – 220- Mansur, M.C.D. (2000) Moluscos bivalves asiaticosintroduzidos no sul do Brasil: registros, densidadespopulacionais e conseqüencias. I Seminario Brasileirosobre Aqua de Lastro. Resumos- Mansur, M.C.D. Richinitti, L.M.Z. e SantoS, C.P. (1999)Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker, 1857), molusco bivalveinvasor, na Bacia do Guaiba, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.Biociencias. 7 (2): 147 – 150.- O’Neill, C.R. 2000. Cited in: Carlton, J.T. 2001.Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: EnvironmentalImpacts and Management Priorities. Pew OceansCommission, Arlington VA.

Further information:

Dr Flavio de Costa Fernandes, IEAPM138@ieapm.mar.mil.br

Steve RaaymakersSRAAYMAK@imo.org

Robson Jose Calixto, MMArobson-jose.calixto@mma.gov.br

Previously published in Ballast Water News,issue 12 (Jan-March 2003) – http://globallast.imo.org/newsletter; re-printed with the kind permission of theEditor, Steve Raaymakers

http://globallast.imo.org/BallastWaterNews12.pdf

WATERWAYS

1. Parana 2. Tocantis

3. Tapajos

4. Madeira

5. Amazonas

6. Negro

7. Orinoco

Fig: Main Brazilian waterwaysand connections. Red = currentextent of L. fortunei (Source:Darrigran 2000)

Designing representative and adequate Marine Protected Areas in a structuredenvironment – implications for Marine Invasive Alien Species management

Setting aside a portion of the environment for conservationpurposes has a long history. For centuries, land has beenset aside for game parks and, more recently, natural parks,a wide variety of conservation areas and smaller areasincluding streamside buffer zones. The values andfunctions of land set aside in this manner have been clearlyidentified. Underwater, there is less of an exclusiverelationship between habitat and species compared withon land. Compared to terrestrial vertebrates, most speciesof fish are carnivorous with highly flexible diets and moreflexible growth rates, suggesting that a variety of areascan provide suitable habitat (Larkin 1978). In addition,the diverse life histories of marine organisms means thatthere is not as clear a link between habitat and organisms.Consequently, it is harder to identify areas of the seabedthat have high biological conservation value.

A perceived solution to this lack of clearlyidentified conservation values is to set asiderepresentative areas. Australia isimplementing a National RepresentativeSystem of Marine Protected Areas(NRSMPA). The primary goal of theNRSMPA is to commit jurisdictions toestablish and manage a comprehensive,adequate and representative system of MPAs(ANZECC TFMPA 1999a). Comprehensiveimplies recognising the full range ofecosystems; adequate implies developingMPAs of sufficient size and appropriatespatial distribution to ensure the ecologicalviability and integrity of populations, speciesand communities; representative implies thatselected areas should reasonably reflect thebiotic diversity of the marine ecosystems theyare part of.

A hierarchy of scaled ecological units has been proposedfor the NRSMPA. These scaled ecological units are:bioregion, ecosystem, habitat, community/population andspecies/individual (ANZECC TFMPA 1999b). TwofoldShelf, a 32,198km2 bioregion, is one of 60 bioregionsidentified in the NRSMPA. Only a small percentage ofthe Twofold Shelf Bioregion has been protected to date.A series of surveys of the Twofold Shelf Bioregion areaprovide the information from which to determine whatwill be needed if MPAs in this area are to meet the goalsof the NRSMPA (Fig. 1).

Importance of alien invasive marine species in theTwofold Shelf BioregionMarine communities are not fixed in time and space –even sessile invertebrates frequently have a pelagic lifehistory stage that can lead to a wide dispersal ofreproductive products and early life history stages. Whilerepresentative MPAs can be defined throughunderstanding the spatial structure of the bioregion,

adequacy can only be achieved by understanding theprocesses that produce that spatial structure over the shortand long term.Invasive alien marine species threaten Australia’scoastline and a few threaten the continental shelf. Recentport surveys have identified over 250 alien marine speciesin Australian waters and based on their arrival over thelast century and a half, the rate of arrivals is increasingexponentially. Two invasive alien marine species are ofparticular concern to the biodiversity of the Twofold Shelfbioregion – the New Zealand screwshell Maoricolpusroseus and the North Pacific seastar Asterias amurensis –because they are already here and have the capacity toinvade much of the continental shelf in this bioregion.Maoricolpus roseus inhabits depths from the shoreline to

at least 80 m in the Twofold Shelf bioregion (Bax andWilliams 2000). In its native New Zealand it occurs downto 130 m and reaches densities in excess of 1,000individuals per square metre. It is the only known alienmarine species, anywhere in the world, that hassuccessfully invaded the continental shelf from a portenvironment. Very little is known about the biology of M.roseus, its impacts on sediment structure or its competitionwith other invertebrates. Even the empty shells may havesubstantial impact as homes for hermit crabs, as indicatedby the crabs’ frequent occurrence in areas where M. roseusis abundant. From its densities, it is likely that M. roseusmay well be the environmentally most damaging of theinvasive alien marine species present in Australia, thoughlargely out-of sight and hence unknown to the generalpublic or conservation managers.

The Northern Pacific seastar, Asterias amurensis, arrivedin the Derwent estuary, Tasmania, in the 1980s but it wasnot recognized until the 1990s when the population was

Fig. 1. Map of study area on the Twofold Shelf bioregion on the south-eastern Australiancontinental shelf, showing transects (lines), positions of depth-stratified stations (dots)and sites of intensive sampling (boxes) for the surveys from 1993-1996.

estimated to number in the 10s of thousands. Nothingwas done to reduce the risk of the seastar spreading, andin 1996 the first few specimens were collected from PortPhillip Bay, Victoria, presumably transported there by acommercial or recreational vessel. Numbers in PortPhillip Bay increased from a few occasionally collectedspecimens in 1996 to over 115 million individuals in2001 (Fig 2); it now covers 1500 km2 and its biomassequals the total biomass of fished species in the Bay.Prevailing currents can now spread it northwards alongAustralia’s east coast at least as far as Bermagui. A.amurensis is a dominant invertebrate predator thatoccupies habitats from the subtidal to 200m depth in itsnative habitat. In its presence, the abundance of shellfishis greatly reduced.

Implications for adequate MPAsMarine protected areas can be delineated by fixed linesdrawn on a two dimensional representation of a fourdimensional habitat. One of the missing dimensions –time – is critical to the adequacy of a MPA for achievingmanagement objectives. The other – the water column

and substratum interface provides the medium for time-varying processes to operate. For an MPA to be adequateit must address the four dimensions of habitat.

Over time, nearly all marine organisms will cross thelines drawn on a map. Once outside the MPA, organismswill be susceptible to deleterious events, such as fishingor loss of habitat. All an MPA can protect, by itself, isthe physical habitat and the limited number of self-recruiting populations within it. Even this protection maybe limited over the long-term, as fishing effort continuesto increase and alien marine species continue to spreadthrough Australian waters – lines drawn on a map willprovide no deterrent.

For an MPA to be adequate in protecting marine life, itmust be part of a larger process of management thatcontrols external events including invasive alien marinespecies, fishing effort, marine pollution and climatechange.

ReferencesANZECC TFMPA (1999a) Strategic plan of action forthe national representative system of marine protectedareas. Environment Australia, Canberra.

ANZECC TFMPA (1999b) Understanding and applyingthe principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy andrepresentativeness for the NRSMPA, Version 3.1. Reportgenerated by the Action Team for the ANZECC Task Forceon Marine Protected Areas. Marine Group, EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra.

Bax, N J and Williams A (2000) Habitat and fisheriesproductivity in the South East Fishery. Final Report toFisheries Research and Development Corporation, ProjectNo: 94/040, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart Tasmania,625 pp.

Larkin, PA (1978) Fisheries Management - an Essay forEcologists. Annual Review Ecology Systematics 9:57-73.

This article is condensed from: Bax, N. and Williams, A(In review). Designing representative and adequateMPAs In a structured environment. In A. Grant, D.Smith and J. Beumer [Eds.] “Aquatic Protected Areas -What works best and how do we know?” Proceedings ofthe World Congress on Aquatic Protected Areas -Cairns, Australia; August, 2002.”

Nicholas J. BaxCSIRO Marine ResearchHobartAustraliaE-mail: nic.bax@csiro.auFig. 2. Numbers of seastars (Asterias amurensis) estimated to be

in Port Phillip Bay (Victoria, Australia). Early data are numberscaught by scallop dredgers (Don Hough, Victorian DNRE, pers.comm.)

Pond apple - an increasing problem in the Wet Tropics World Heritage area of northQueensland, Australia

Pond apple, or cherimoya (Annona glabra), was importedinto north Queensland, Australia, in 1912 from Florida,USA, as root stock for custard apple trees and becamenaturalised and starting spreading at some unknown dateafter that. It is a semi-deciduous tree 12 to 15 m tall, withshiny leaves 7 to 12 cm long, and the trees start fruitingat two or three years old. The flowers are small and yellow-cream, and the fruit are green, spherical, 5 to 15 cmdiameter, and contain up to 100 fat black seeds about 1cm long. Both fruit and seed float and can remain viablefor months in fresh or salt water. Seedlings and adult treestolerate high salinity but also do well in fresh watersituations. Seedlings need light for rapid growth, and inrainforest environments a dense mat of seedlings canremain in arrested growth until the forest canopy isdamaged, usually by the cyclones and tropical stormscommon in the area. Once established, pond apple formsa dense understorey that suppresses other growth andprevents regeneration of the native rainforest or melaleucatrees. Native understorey vegetation, and rare endemicorchids and other plants that grow as epiphytes on themelaleuca trees, are all threatened by this invader.

Pond apple is rapidly invading creeks and riverbanks,wetlands, melaleuca swamps, mangrove communities andlitter zones on beaches at the edges of the World Heritage-listed Wet Tropics National Parks in north Queensland.It already infests more than 2000 ha from north ofTownsville to the tip of Cape York (a distance of about1000 km), and now the seed is being spread into therainforest by wild animals that eat the abundant fruit anddisperse the seeds in their dung. Feral pigs, anotherinvasive species, and the cassowary, a large native bird,have both been shown to be efficient dispersers of theseed, taking them several kilometres from the parent treeinto the rainforest. It is ironic that pond apple, now rarein its native range in the Florida Everglades where it isthreatened by the invasion of the very same melaleucaswhich are under attack by the pond apple invasion in northQueensland, is being spread by another endangered speciesthe cassowary!

Attempts to manage this invasion have focussed on thelocation and eradication of isolated patches, and thereduction of seed spread from larger areas. Pond applewas identified as one of the 20 worst Weeds of NationalSignificance (WONS) in Australia under the NationalWeeds Strategy. The WONS Pond Apple Strategic Plan,formulated in 2001 (see www.weeds.org.au/docs/ponstrat.pdf), calls for its eradication over a 20 year period,but the resources allocated to its control and managementare not nearly adequate even to prevent further spreadinto the rainforest or along the Queensland coast, whereseed are carried north by the predominant sea currents.Chemical control is particularly difficult because noeffective chemicals are registered for use close to water.Stem injection methods are not economic because the

simultaneous germination of numerous seeds from onefruit results in dense mats of small thin stems. In someseasonal swamps, fire can be used to kill the plants andseeds so long as sufficient grass is present to carry thefire. However, dense infestations cannot usually be burnt.At present, therefore, there is no prospect of successfulcontrol or even containment of this rapidly increasinginvasive in the World Heritage area of northern Australia.

Rachel McFadyenChief Executive OfficerCRC for Australian Weed ManagementIndooroopilly, QLD 4068AustraliaE-mail: Rachel.Mcfadyen@nrm.qld.gov.au

Alien weeds and invasive plants – A complete guide todeclared weeds and invaders in South Africa by LesleyHenderson. Descriptions, distributions and beautiful linedrawings of 234 species, colour photographs of 100species. $88 plus $10 p&p.

AusGrass: Grasses of Australia By Donovan Sharp andBryan K. Simon. CD-ROM - The largest and mostcomprehensive identification guide to a plant group everpublished. It enables quick and accurate identification ofany of the 1323 species of grass, native or naturalized, inAustralia. $99 plus $4 p&p.

Weed Manager 2002 - Software for planning, managingand controlling weeds in natural bush areas fromViperware Environmental Software solutions. $500.00 persite plus installation costs.Please note prices are in Australian dollars and postagerates apply to Australia only. For further informationplease visit www.weedinfo.com.au.

PUBLICATIONS

Pond apple fruits. Photo: Qld Department of Natural resources & Mines

Issues in the management of alien species in theGalápagos National Park, Ecuador

Alien invasive species have been identified as the principalthreat to the conservation of the unique biodiversity ofthe Galápagos Islands, a province of Ecuador 1000 kmsoff the South America coast in the Pacific Ocean. TheGalápagos is an archipelago consisting of thirteen largerislands and 115 smaller ones, with a total land area of8,000 km2; The Galápagos National Park was created in1959, comprising 95% of the archipelago. The GalápagosMarine Reserve was created in 1998, consisting of nearly138,000 km2 of near and offshore waters, the third largestmarine reserve in the world. Management of theGalápagos National Park and Marine Reserve is theresponsibility of the Galápagos National Park Service, agovernment body that works closely with the CharlesDarwin Foundation, an international NGO dedicated tocarrying out research to ensure the conservation of bio-diversity in the Galápagos.

The identification of the importance of alien invasivespecies is one of the corner stones of the law which governsthe development of the Galápagos Islands, the SpecialRegime Law for the Conservation and SustainableDevelopment of Galápagos Province, made effective inMarch 1998. Recognition of the need to establish a specialregime for what is, after all, a province of a developingcountry in Latin America, was an exceptional step to takefor the government of the time, and a clear statement ofthe governments commitment to biodiversity conservation.Core funding of management activities in the NationalPark were secured under the same law, by designating40% of the National Park entry fee paid by tourists ($100for non-national visitors) to the National Park itself. Themarine reserve receives 5%, and the GalápagosQuarantine Inspection Service, responsible for protectingthe Province from new incursions, also receives 5%. Notethat this implies that levels of core funding depend entirelyon tourist figures, making tourism critical for the effectiveconservation of the archipelago.

The National Park and Marine reserve are divided intozones, depending on their biodiversity value, and dictatingtheir use. In the terrestrial areas, there are three zones:

o Zone of absolute protection, pristine islands withno known invasive species and flora and faunain a natural state.

o Primitive zone, near-pristine islands with fewinvasive species or disturbances to the naturalstate.

o Special use zones. Visitor sites, themselves gradedin terms of numbers of visitors allowed per dayand type of use.

The Marine Reserve also has three zones;o Multiple use zone, primarily deep waters,

permitting fishing of specified methodso Limited use zone, primarily coastal areas and

including dive siteso Ports.

Management activities are concentrated mainly on theislands or sites in the primitive zone, where invasivespecies have become an issue. Eradication programmesfor pigs, goats, feral cats, and fire ants are beingundertaken on five islands, for example. The largest scalegoat eradication yet to be attempted worldwide isscheduled to begin later in 2003, clearing 250,000ha ofnorthern Isabela Island of an estimated 100,000 feral goatsin an ambitious operation that has taken several years toplan and organize. Restoration programmes follow in thetrack of successful eradications and mitigation exercises,and captive breeding programmes for several races of theGalápagos giant tortoise Geochelone elephantopus, landiguana Conolophus spp. and the Opuntia cactus O.megasperma orientalis go back more than 30 years insome cases (Bensted-Smith, 2000; Fritts et al, 2000).

Knowledge of the endemic, native and introduced floraand fauna of the terrestrial ecosystems is advancing, andthe gaps are slowly filling. Big increases in the list ofknown introductions of invertebrate and plant species inrecent years can be related more to the increase in researcheffort than to actual new introductions. However, in themarine environment research is very young, and the firstbase line report, for rocky shore ecosystems down to 20mdepth, was published in 2002 (Danulat & Edgar 2002).Identification of marine species as native or introduced,and recognition of potential or actual invasives is still inthe future.

Conservation of the Galápagos National Park iscomplicated by the fact that four of the islands areinhabited, with a total human population of around 16,100people. Three further zones in the archipelago aretherefore recognised:

o Urban zones, four coastal townso Agricultural zones, in the highlands of the four

inhabited islandso Military base, Baltra Island, site of the original

airport.Agricultural production is limited by poor soils, lack ofwater, and introduced pests and diseases. The mainincome in the islands is from fishing and tourism, witharound 80,000 visitors arriving each year (Anon. 2002).

Clearly, invasive species do not recognize barriers andzoning, and many species impact both National Park andnon-park areas. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Oneexample is the blackberry, Rubus spp. Five species arepresent in the Galápagos, and massive invasion in thehighlands of the main inhabited island, Santa Cruz, bytwo species has caused abandonment of agricultural landrapid and severe degradation of natural highland habitat,where it forms dense, impenetrable thickets up to 4 mhigh and totally replaces native vegetation. Control ofRubus is complicated by the high cost of labour in the

Islands, the fast life cycle of the plant and its ability toreproduce vegetatively, the spread of seeds by birds andother animals, and the ability of the seed bank to survivefor many years in the soil (A. Tye, pers. Com.).

Participation of the community in conservation activitiesis also seen as crucial for success; one example, the inter-institutional committees (CIMEIs) outlined in a previousAliens article (No. 16, page 21-22) address invasivespecies issues in urban areas. The interconnected natureof the different zones are recognized in the Special RegimeLaw of 1998, which states that conservation andsustainable development depend on the integratedenvironmental management of the three components,National Park, non-Park and marine. As alien invasivespecies affect the whole archipelago they need to be tackledas a coherent whole, recognizing the different zones as amosaic of bio-diversity values and threats of varyingintensities and urgencies. This is an approach increasinglybeing developed by the various actors working withinGalápagos on conservation and development programs.

AcknowledgementsI thank Cristina Paz and Howard Snell for comments onthe text, and Washington Llerena.

ReferencesAnonymous. 2002. El Turismo en Galápagos. InformeGalápagos 2001 – 2002. Fundación Natura.

Bensted-Smith R. (Ed.) 2002. A biodiversity vision forthe Galápagos Islands. Charles Darwin Foundation andWorld Wildlife Fund, CDF, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos.

Danulat E & Edgar G.J (Eds). 2002. Reserve Marina deGalápagos. Línea Base de la Biodiversidad. FundaciónCharles Darwin / Servicio Parque Nacional Galápagos,Santa Cruz, Galápagos, Ecuador. 484pp.

Fritts T.H., Snell H.L., Cayot L., MacFarland C., EarsomS., Marquez C., Llerena W., and Llerena F. 2000. Progressand Priorities in research for the conservation of reptiles.In: Science for Conservation in Galápagos. N. Sitwell

(Ed). Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturellesde Belgique. Supplement 70: 39-45.

Gillian KeyCharles Darwin Foundation,Santa Cruz, Galápagos, EcuadorE-mail: gkey@fcdarwin.org.ec

Jaime CevallosGalápagos National Park Service,Santa Cruz, Galápagos, EcuadorE-mail: jcevallos@spng.org.ec

Figure 1. Economic impact of invasive species in the Galapagosislands. The community suffers directly, from pests and diseases, whilethe National Park and Marine Reserve suffer from the cost of research

and management actions.

SILENT INVASION IN NATIONAL WILD-LIFE REFUGES (USA)

The release in the USA, of Silent Invasion (October 2002)marked the beginning of National Wildlife Refuge Weekand of the National Wildlife Refuge Association’scampaign to stop the advancement of invasive speciesbefore the problem spirals out of control and spoils someof America’s most important natural treasures. Utilizingvolunteers and mobile strike teams is a practical andaffordable use of taxpayer funds to solve a problem thatcould effect 37 million refuge visitors annually.Recognizing the problem early on and responding rapidlyare a crucial elements to this campaign - before they swellto uncontrollable proportions. To stop the Refuge invaders,a three-part strategy was identified - educating andmobilizing volunteers, deploying rapid response striketeams across the nation and implementing the strategicmanagement plan of the National Invasive SpeciesCouncil (USA). Silent Invasion profiles a “Dirty Dozen”invasive species and shows how 12 diverse refuges in asmany states are working to address this ecological crisis.

Download: http://www.refugenet.org/New%20invasives/index-silent%20invasion.htm?eCode=iktFurther information: Heather Dalsimer, ProgramAssistant, National Wildlife Refuge Association, E-mail hdalsimer@refugenet.orgSource: Press release 10 October 2002, NationalWildlife Refuge Association

Invasive Alien Flora in Sri Lanka and their management

The spread and dominance of invasive alien plants inecosystems has become an issue of national importancein Sri Lanka, an Indian Ocean island. The introductionand spread of majority of invasives are linked eitherdirectly or indirectly to human activity with an economicor aesthetic objective. Majority of these species haveentered Sri Lanka through germplasm exchange programsbetween botanic gardens. This report describes the presentstatus of some of the invasive alien flora identified in SriLanka.

(a) Salvinia molesta has been introduced to Sri Lanka inlate 1930’s for scientific interests, but currently has becomea major aquatic weed in Sri Lanka choking the irrigationcanals and water bodies, and also invading rice fields inthe north western province of the island nation. Althoughthere is no accurate information on its degree ofinfestation, in 1988, about 8000 ha of rice fields havebeen reported to infest with the weed (Amarasinghe andEkneligoda, 1997). Although the biological control withCyrtobagus salviniae has been successful in several areasin Sri Lanka, the attempt has failed in cooler climatesand areas with low water levels and high environmentaltemperature.

(b) Eichhornia crassipes has been introduced to Sri Lankadue to its horticultural value. However, two years after itsdeliberate introduction to the country, a Water HyacinthOrdinance was enacted in 1907, which indicated theunderstanding of the long-term detrimental effects alieninvasive plants by the policy makers of Sri Lanka evenmore than 90 years ago. However, E. crassipes is still amajor aquatic weed in Sri Lanka choking water bodies,and affecting the maintenance of irrigation schemes.Biological control with Neochetina eichhorniae and N.bruchi, introduced in 1980s, has not performed to theexpected levels. Thus, mechanical removal has beenpracticed to clean water bodies infested with this aquaticweed, resulting in high costs and its spread due tocontamination of the machinery used (Marambe et al.2001a).

(c) Mimosa pigra was identified in Sri Lanka in mid 1990sgrowing luxuriantly in the riverbanks of Mahaweli, whichis a major source of irrigation water that supports theagricultural crops in Sri Lanka, and in other areas in thecentral province spreading at an alarming rate(Amarasinghe and Marambe, 1997; Marambe et al.2001b). Although the pathway of entry of this plant intothe country is not well understood, it is widely believedthat this invasive alien was intentionally introduced toprotect the riverbanks. M. pigra has spread into other partsof the country via irrigation water, machinery, river sandused for construction purposes, and lopping with maturepods as a result of the use of stem of the plant as a firewoodby people.

(d) Parthenium hysterophorus is the latest recorded

invasive alien plant in Sri Lanka. The weed has occupiedabout 150 ha of fallow and agricultural land in theupcountry area and some parts of the central province,and northern province (Jayasuriya 2001). The weed wasfirst believed to have entered the country in late 1980’sthrough the goats imported from India by the Indian Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF). However, available informationindicates that seeds of P. hysterophorus have beenintroduced to Sri Lanka together with onion and chilliseeds imported from India. This is a classic example ofthe impact of open trade policies and poor quarantinemeasures on the spread of alien species. The Ministry ofAgriculture declared the species a noxious weed by anextraordinary gazette notification issued on 20th December2000 (No. 1163/23) under the Plant protection Act No.35 of 1999.

(e) Lantana camara (Lantana) was introduced to Sri Lankain 1826 due its horticultural value and attraction ofbutterflies, and planted in sugarcane growing areas in thesouthern province of Sri Lanka to protect the cane plantsfrom elephant damage. However, the weed has nowinvaded one of the major elephant sanctuaries in Sri Lankaat Uda Walawe, significantly reducing the grazing fieldsof the elephants. The plant is widespread island-wide andcommonly found in dense stands along the roadsides andabandoned lands (Marambe et al. 2001b).

(f) Ulex europaeus (Gorse weed) is presently confined tothe Horton plains, located in the upcountry region of SriLanka, and is found to change the habitat of this naturereserve. Although efforts have been taken by manyorganizations comprising environmentalists and schoolchildren to eradicate this weed, the attempts were aborteddue to the fact that endemic lizard species and amphibiansseeking protection form this thorny plant, from its naturalenemies (Bambaradeniya et al. 2001).

(g) Prosopis juliflora (Mesquite) is a species introducedto Hambantota district in the southern province of SriLanka in early 1950’s to improve the salt affected soilsand as a ground cover (Algama and Seneviratne, 2000).The species has now become invasive and a serious threatin the Bundala National Park (southern province of SriLanka), a wetland in Sri Lanka listed under the RamsaConvention. The weed has caused major habitat changein the national park and deprived large mammals such asthe elephants of important habitats. The species is alsospreading in the shore areas of Bundala thereby reducingthe area for wading birds (Bambaradeniya et al. 2001).

(h) Alternanthera philoxeroides has been an accidentalintroduction to Sri Lanka, which has spread rapidly dueto human intervention. The weed, easily misidentified toa commonly cultivated leafy vegetable Alternantherasessilis, has been reported have spread in several parts ofSri Lanka. The state Department of Agriculture has nowtaken measures to eradicate the plant from cultivated land

with the assistance of the farming community.

In many cases, frequent use of chemical or mechanicalmethods to control the invasive alien flora has resulted ina significant economic burden to the country. Failure todevelop an integrated management plan for the alieninvasive plants in Sri Lanka has become a major obstacleto overcome this environmental threat. Thus, developmentand implementation of a national action plan with theactive involvement of all stake holders is necessary toovercome the threats of these invasive plant species to theecosystems of Sri Lanka.

References

Algama, A.M.N.S and Seneviratne G,I. 2000. Nature of invasivespecies Prosopis juliflora in Sri Lanka. Proc. Symposium onAlien Invasive Species in Sri Lanka : Impact of Ecosystemsand Management (B. Marambe, ed) Joint Publication of theMinistry of Forestry and Environment and the NationalAgricultural Society of Sri Lanka, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka pp41-45.

Amarasinghe L. and Ekneligoda I.A. 1997. Some recentobservations on the biological control of Salvinia. Krushi, 16:44-50.

Amarasinghe L. and Marambe B. 1997. Mimosa pigra L: A newweed in aquatic habitats of Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Journal ofAgricultural Sciences, 34: 124-130.

Bambaradeniya CNB, Ekanayake SP and Gunawardena J.(2001). Preliminary observations on the status of alien invasivebiota in natural ecosystems of Sri Lanka. Report of theWorkshop on Alien Invasive Species. Global BiodiversityForum, South and Southeast Asia Session (Ed. P. Balakrishna),October 1999, Colombo, Sri Lanka. IUCN Publication. 67-76.

Jayasooriya M. (2001). New invasive weed in Sri Lanka:Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Asteraceae). Proc. Silver JubileeSeminar Series of the Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture,University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. (Ed. HPM Gunasena)pp 14.

Marambe B., Bambaradeniya C., Pushpa Kumara D.K. andPallewatta N. (2001a): Human dimensions of invasive alienspecies in Sri Lanka. In: The Great Reshuffling; HumanDimensions of Invasive alien Species (ed. J.A. McNeely),IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 135-142.

Marambe B., Amarasinghe L. and Dissanayake S. (2001b):Growth and development of Mimosa pigra: an alien invasiveplant in Sri Lanka. Plant Invasions: Species Ecology andEcosystem Management. pp 115-122 (eds: G. Brundu, J. Brock,I Camarda, L. Child and M. Wade). Backhuys Publishers,Leiden, The Netherlands.

Buddhi MarambeSenior Lecturer (Weed Science) and Head/Department ofCrop ScienceFaculty of AgricultureUniversity of Peradeniya,Sri LankaE-mail: bmarambe@pdn.ac.lk

TROPICAL ADAPTATION OF THERAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS

MYKISS)

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum, 1792),has its native range from Kuskokwim river, Alaska toSanto Domingo river, Baja California, Mexico and BritishColumbia (Page L.M. & B.M. Burr, 1991). Being one ofthe most valuable aquaculture and sport fishing species,rainbow trout has been introduced in more than 80countries. In many of these it has caused a decline ofnative fishes, eating their eggs as well as juvenile fish.For this reason, Rainbow trout has been classified as oneof the 100 worst invasive species by the ISSG (InvasiveSpecies Specialist Group). In tropical regions it has beenintroduced in countries such as Bolivia, Brazil, CostaRica, Guyana, Hawai’i, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela.It has also been introduced in the Dominican Republic in1985 for aquaculture in the National Park of Valle Nuevoat the Cordillera Central.

Preliminary research was carried out from September toDecember 2002 and was sponsored by the Sub-Secretaryof Coastal and Marine Resources (Secretary forEnvironment and Natural Resources), Grupo Jaragua Inc,The Nature Conservancy (by Foundacion Moscoso Puello)and Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo. Theresearch focused on tropical adaptation of rainbow troutto try to understand its potential impact on native andendemic fauna into the aquatic ecosystem.

Preliminary studies were carried out regarding:morphology, reproduction and feeding habits. Specimenfish were caught by net and lines, thus permitting us tocollect enough fish for a statistical analysis. 88 trout werecollected, at 2.600m above sea level; 48 females and 40males. These fish had a standard length of 12.7 – 28.8cm,a mean of 18cm and a standard deviation of 4cm. Thissample shows that at high density (1 trout/m2) is a greatinfluence in the trout’s size, which is smaller (length andweight) than European trout.

No others documented re-stocking of rainbow trout weremade after 1985 and the presence of mature females andmales demonstrated that this species is naturalized in thatparticular tropical aquatic ecosystem. After havinganalyzed rainbow trout we observed that 25% were matureand 25% of these had recently spawned. From literature,eggs, with a size of 4.72 – 5.43mm, found in maturefemales are considered the upper dimension beforespawning. Ovary seems to be non-synchronic: eggs had3-4 different sizes (from ready for spawning to just visible)and it isn’t a re-absorption process that could present thissituation. This doesn’t happen in temperate countries(Rounsefell G.A., 1957) but could be acceptable after 17years of adaptation in a sub-tropical country withoutmarked seasons. More than one reproduction is possiblein the Dominican water but must be confirmed by newresearch in that area. This is an example of the adaptationlevel that could be reached by an invasive species in acountry outside its native range.

The stomach contents showed drift feeding habits,classical for trout (Ivlev V.S.,1961) which have nopreference for a specific category. Diptera is the bestrepresented in the stomachs and in the environment.Percentages of taxa found in the stomachs are exactly thesame as of the environment along the river. Lizards longmore than 50% of fishes’ total length were also foundduring this study.

For this reason we can affirm that no significant impactshould exist for insects and invertebrate but a great impacthas been demonstrated for fish. Poecilia Dominicensis ,an endemic Dominican fish, collected in 1996 has nowdisappeared (in that area, but still present in other regions).Not one fish was found during the study and even if weare not sure of the role of the trout in this decline, noother reason could have the same importance in changingthe trophic chain in this isolated place. This area has, infact, a low-density population and there are no farms orfactories able to create pollution in the river. No ecologicalchanges were found during past studies to suppose a riskfor this endemic fish. So the only reason could be thepositive trend in trout population numbers. However,without evidence we are not able to confirm the trout’sinvasiveness role in this case, but it is strongly likely.

In the European Countries rainbow trout eat invertebrates,eggs and juvenile fish but mature fishes are normally toobig to be considered as prey for the trout; in the DominicanRepublic 70% of species of fish are small, which convertedthem into potential prey for all their life cycle. We onlyknow about 10% of the Dominican reptiles, but byintroducing predators we are abusing the ecosystem beforeknowing it completely. Even if sometimes we can’t besure about the negative effects of an introduction, havingtoo many variables for a sure risk assessment, in theDominican Republic the potential risk was evident beforethe introduction. An aggressive fish, such as rainbow trout,which is larger than any other Dominican freshwaterspecies, and without a natural predator is a great threat tothe aquatic ecosystem.

Introducing fish must be undertaken only if reallynecessary and under strict supervision during and afterthe introduction. There should be no introductions onislands and where every trophic relation and every nicheis the result of thousands of years of adaptation. Also the

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognises thevery urgent need to deal with invasive alien species issuesin isolated and vulnerable ecosystems as islands.

Bibliography:Ivlev V.S.,1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of

fishes. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT,302pp.

Page L.M. & B.M. Burr, 1991. A field guide of freshwaterfishes of North America and North Mexico.Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 432 pp.

Rounsefell G.A., 1957. Fecundity of North AmericanSamonidae. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish. Bull. FishWildlife Service, 122: 451-468

Alessandro Sartorio, IHD Associate Expert, AquaticEcologyE-mail: ale.sartorio@virgilio.it ORa.sartorio@ihdnetwork.com

NOTESUntil now, it has been difficult to obtain copies of the July1992 report entitled “The Alien Pest Species Invasion inHawaii: Background Study and Recommendations forInteragency Planning.”  Now a text-searchable (PDF)version of this report is available online at: http://www.hear.org/articles/tnchnrpp1992/

This report was originally jointly prepared by Susan Millerof the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) andAlan Holt of The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH).It is still widely considered to be the best document of itskind about interagency planning regarding the alien pestspecies invasion in Hawaii.

Source: Aliens-l message fromPhilip ThomasHawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project (HEAR)E-mail: pt@hear.orghttp://www.hear.org

Hawai’i

Invasive Aliens Species Management in the Fiordland National Park – WorldHeritage Area (New Zealand)

Fiordland National Park is the largestof New Zealand’s national parks,covering an area of 1,260,200 ha.The park stretches from Martins Bay,north of Milford Sound, to the SouthCoast and across to the eastern shoresof lakes Te Anau and Manapouri. Allof the islands off the coast and in thefiords are part of the National Park,including the Solander Islands, butnot the waterways of the fiords.

In 1986 Fiordland National Parkbecame a World Heritage Area. Thenin 1990 an expanded area was listedwhich included most of the Southwestcorner of the South Island south ofAoraki/Mount Cook. This area isknown as Te Waahi Pounamu SouthWest New Zealand World HeritageArea. This classificationacknowledges the internationalimportance of Fiordland NationalPark as an outstanding area ofuninterrupted natural wilderness withhigh biodiversity values. Thewilderness value of this corner of NewZealand is unsurpassed with itsspectacular mountain ranges, wild,indented and relatively unmodifiedcoastline, uninterrupted tracts ofbeech (Nothofagus spp) and podocarpforests and the network of lakes andfiords.

Some of the wildlife values thatFiordland is renowned for are thetakahe (Porphyrio mantelli), kakapo(Strigops habroptilus), blue duck/whio (hymenolaimus malaco-rhynchos), tokoeka/kiwi (Apteryxaustralis) yellowhead/mohua(Mohua ochrocephala) South IslandSaddleback/tieke (Philesturnuscarunculatus carunculatus), SouthIsland kaka (Nestor meridionalismeridionalis), kea (Nestor notabilis),short tailed bats/pekapeka (Mystacinatuberculata) and the sandfly(Simuliidae).

Fiordland has not been excluded fromthe invasion of introduced plant andanimal species that have colonised therest of New Zealand. Some species,such as moose (Alces alces andersoni)and wapiti (Cerphus elephus nelsoni),

were initially released into veryremote areas of Fiordland. The mooseis now considered extinct. The lakes,rivers and fiords combined with therugged alpine terrain have resulted ina slower rate of invasion by animalpests to some of the more remote areasof the national park

The suite of introduced animal pestsis now considered to have colonisedmost areas of suitable habitat apartfrom islands that are too far off thecoast. One exception is that possums(Trichosurus vulpecula) have yet toinvade a few of the more remotewestern areas.

Predator control has traditionallybeen focussed around protectedspecies programmes such as takaheand yellowhead but has more recentlyshifted towards an ecosystemprotection approach. Small Islandsoutside the swimming range ofanimal pests have been anotherpriority for the New ZealandDepartment of Conservation (DOC),where eradication of resident animalsis possible. In the early 1980s theNew Zealand Forest Service removedred deer (Cervus elaphus scoticus)from many of the small islands inDoubtful, Breaksea, Dusky, ChalkySounds and Preservation inlet. DOChas maintained the deer free status ofthese islands through regularmonitoring.

On Breaksea Island (170ha), off theFiordland Coast, Norway rats (Rattusnorvegicus) were removed through anintensive ground based poisonoperation (1988-1991). BreakseaIsland is now providing a life raft fora number of threatened species thathave subsequently been transferred toit, such as yellowhead, South Islandsaddleback and two weevil speciesfrom the nearby Gilbert Islands(Hadramphus stilbocarpae andAnagotus fairburni).

Richard Henry’s early conservationefforts on Resolution Island duringthe 1890s are also being mirrored onseveral other islands off the Fiordland

Coast. Te Kakahu/Chalky Island(475ha) has been cleared of stoats(Mustela erminea) and kakapo havesince been transferred. Stoats havebeen eradicated on Anchor Island,(1525ha) in Dusky Sound, and reddeer are now reduced to extremely lownumbers. Yellowhead and saddlebackhave been transferred to Anchorrecently (with plans for anotherkakapo population in the future).Secretary Island (8140ha), at theentrance to Doubtful Sound, is thenext island under consideration toreceive the same treatment. These areall islands that are within theswimming range of stoats and deer.These programmes represent amanagement by research approachwhere the ongoing control of animalpests, as they arrive, results in themaintenance of a pest free status. Ifthis style of island management iseffective, it will increase the numberof islands within New Zealand thathave the potential to be used as islandrefuges. This approach couldeventually be applied to ResolutionIsland (20860ha).

Since the discovery of the takahepopulation in the MurchisonMountains in the early 1950s, thecontrol of stoats and red deer has beenintegral to the protection programme.Deer compete with the takahe for thefood resource and stoats are capableof killing adults and chicks.

Before kakapo were discovered onSouthern Stewart Island in 1977, theonly known birds to exist were malekakapo which were still surviving inseveral glacial valleys around MilfordSound and in a single location inDoubtful Sound. The ruggedness ofthe terrain had slowed the advance ofpredators to these valleys.

The Eglinton Valley, en route fromTe Anau to Milford Sound, wasrecognised early by conservationmanagers as being one of the species-rich areas of the National Park. This,combined with its accessibility, hasresulted in the valley receiving stoat,rat and possum control in an effort to

protect the yellowhead, kaka, and batpopulations. Recent work has shownthat even with the current level ofeffort, yellowheads are still vulnerableto ship rats and stoats during plagueyears.

The work initiated in the EglintonValley has been built on over the lastfew years to expand the area receivingprotection from animal pests. Theobjective is to provide integrated pestmanagement to a large area of theland to the north of Lake Te Anau.Feral goats have been eradicated fromthe Clinton Valley and stoats arecontrolled. Sustained possum controloccurs in the Pembroke WildernessArea, the Eglinton Valley and isplanned for the Arthur, Clinton andCleddau Valleys. Whio/blue duckmonitoring in the Clinton Valleyrecently recorded a stoat killing afemale on the nest, the first irrefutableevidence of stoats predating thisspecies.

Fiordland’s cloak of native forestmakes it less susceptible to plant peststhan modified habitats, but it is stillplagued by a number of species. TheDepartment of Conservation has anumber of weed control programmesaimed at minimising the impact ofplant pests on the ecosystem.

Marram (Ammophila arenaria), gorse(Ulex europeaus) and broom (Cytisusscoparius) are controlled along theentire Fiordland coastline to maintainthe natural character of the coast anddunes. Blackberry (Rubus fruiticosis)is controlled in the Clinton Valley andcrack willow (Salix fragilis) iscontrolled whenever it getsestablished around the shore of LakeTe Anau.

Some plants intentionally brought toFiordland by early settlers are nowthreatening to spread into the nationalpark. Mature pine trees at Big Bayand both macrocarpa and eucalyptusat Martins Bay have required controlof seedlings where they have spreadonto conservation land.

Above the tree line, alpine grasslandsare susceptible to invasion byintroduced grasses. These invasionsare less noticeable to the untrained

eye, but are just as capable of alteringthe landscape and the ecosystems itsupports.

Managing invasive pest species on anarea of land the size of FiordlandNational Park requires carefulprioritising and planning. There aresome ambitious conservation projectscurrently being undertaken within thenational park in an effort to restoreand protect this unique area of NewZealand for the appreciation andenjoyment of generations to come.

David AgnewNew Zealand, Department of Conser-vationE-mail: dagnew@doc.govt.nz

NOTESInvasive Species

Symposium,Sacramento,California,

October 14-16, 2003

The United States will examine in-tended (purposeful) and unintended(accidental) animal introductions interrestrial and aquatic ecosystemswith introduced vertebrate species andtheir interactions with native animaland plant species as the central theme.This symposium may address ecologi-cal, sociological, political, economic,cultural, conservation, and policy per-spectives, with views encouragedfrom areas throughout the world. Callfor papers, preliminary program, andregistration information may be foundat www.tws-west.org, go to the Meet-ings/Workshop page and select theselect the workshop for October 2003.

Cynthia Graves PerrineAssistant CoordinatorField Training Biologist Program3201 S St, Sacramento, CA 95816(916) 227-4741 phone(916) 227-5169 fax

New weed educationwebsite

Landcare Research New Zealand hasdeveloped a new Weed EducationWebsite http://www.landcareresearch.co .nz /education/weeds/

The website aims to encourageteachers to use weeds as a learningcontext in their teaching and toencourage students to learn howweeds impact on the environment.The website includes information,resources and learning activities onweed ecology and control.

Any feedback or questions about thewebsite can be directed to:

Margaret StanleyE-mail:stanleym@landcareresearch.co.nz

Map Coutesy Department of Conservation

SURVEILLANCE FOR ECOLOGICAL WEEDS –PROTECTING THE NEW ZEALAND CONSER-VATION AREAS BY EARLY DETECTION/RAPIDACTION

Early detection and control of new incursions ofenvironmental weeds is considered highly desirablebecause it minimises both the control costs and ecologi-cal impacts of invasive weeds. In New Zealand, theDepartment of Conservation (DOC) developed a weedsurveillance system. Surveillance is about finding newweed infestations when effective action is still possibleand before the cost of control becomes too high. Thisinvolves both systematic searching and fortuitoussurveillance (the latter a by product of other activities ofDOC personnel).

Where to search: Surveillance efforts focus on Valu-able sites (sites of high conservation value) as well ason sites vulnerable to weed invasion; road ends, rubbishdumps or “waste areas” near towns may be of lowconservation value, but often this is where weeds firstappear, and subsequently spread to the areas of highconservation value. Taking action in these sites outsidethe conservation area is a crucial part of protecting theconservation areas themselves.

What weeds to look out for: Likely species (forexample an invasive species that may be newly estab-lished in a nearby area) as well as “nasty” species(known to be of conservation concern). In addition it isalso important to be watchful for species that have notbeen a concern before (e.g. they may have recentlyturned invasive, they may not have been detected inNew Zealand before, etc) and to check out any plantwhich is new to a site or “looks out of place”.

Role of the public: Weed surveillance involves DOCstaff actively hunting for weeds. But as many eyes aspossible are needed for surveillance to really work.Members of the public have been the first to spot manymajor pest invasions in New Zealand in recent years, sopublic education is crucial. In the Wellington Regionalone, over 300 new weed sightings have been recordedin less than three years. These sightings have not justcome from DOC weed staff. Other DOC staff, membersof the public, and staff from the regional council, haveall helped. Publications and public information havebeen central to surveillance success stories involvingmembers of the public: (an example is the WellingtonConservancy fact sheet “Have you seen these plants inWellington Conservancy?”) – whether walking in areserve, motoring on a lake, or driving through theneighbourhood, the public can make a huge contribu-tion to conservation by keeping a look out for weedsand notifying

Follow up action. After a reported sighting (as part ofsurveillance, fortuitous, or reported by member ofpublic), details are verified and then requirements foraction can be determined. Detailed procedures for all

surveillance activities within DOC are contained in aStandard Operating Procedure document.

How often to search?: Early detection of weedsminimises both control costs and ecological impact. Buthow often and where to search for maximum benefit?DOC developed a model to recommend appropriatesearch frequencies for different habitat types. Based ona standard search intensity of 2 hrs per 10 ha, and onfield experience, the growth, spread and visibility ofdifferent weeds in different habitats were estimated.The weed growth for most likely to be of concern ineach habitat was also determined. Results included thefollowing outcomes: Searches every two years areneeded in short vegetation to find and control shortweed early, but could be 5 years if a whole week ofcontrol work can be scheduled. Wetland surveillancefor shrubs and trees can be as infrequent as every tenyears, but for short terrestrial weeds it would berequired to search every three years to be 80% certain tofind them. If 90% certainty of finding them is required,searches would have to be every year for short weeds.(Note that the model did not include aquatic weeds –surveillance would likely have to be even more frequentfor them).

Management costs: The faster spreading a weed is, thequicker management costs rise. All environmental weedshave moderate to fast growth and spread. The cost ofenvironmental weed management increases exponentiallyover time (see figure).

Source:- Braithwaite H: Weed surveillance plan for theDepartment of Conservation 24.pp (DOC sciencePublications)- Timmins S (2002) Weed Surveillance: when to searchfor new weeds. Science Poster 55 (DOC sciencePublications)- DOC News: http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/003~Weeds/001~Weedy-Reads-(Weed-Stories-From-Around-the-Country)/Surveillance-Saves-Lake-from-Purple-Peril.asp

Editor’s note: of related interest (wider)Space-Invaders (Summary of the Department ofConservation’s Strategic Plan for Managing InvasiveWeeds) which can be downloaded from: http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/003~Weeds/004~Space-Invaders-(Summary-of-DOCs-Strategic-Plan-for-Managing-Invasive-Weeds).pdf

Figure courtesy Susan Timmins (DOC)

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Years since weed established

Co

ntr

ol c

ost

s

fast growth

slow

Weed control costs increase as a weedy shrub invades short vegetation.The faster growing the weed, the faster the costs rise.

Tongariro National Park – Biocontrol to Manage invasive heather in New Zealand

Heather, Calluna vulgaris, is aEuropean plant deliberatelyintroduced into New Zealand by anearly park warden in 1912 in anattempt to reproduce Scottish moors.Grouse were later released butthankfully did not survive; however,the heather has gone on to heavilyinfest an estimated 50,000 ha of theNorth Island’s Central Plateau,including a third of a World Heritage

Area, Tongariro National Park (TNP)(fig 1) Heather is now the mostwidespread and invasive weed in thepark and has also established and isspreading in other areas around NewZealand.

Within the park and in surroundingareas, heather impedes recreationalactivities, disturbs natural plantregeneration and succession intussock and shrublands, and threatensrare plants and insects. It alsointerferes with New Zealand Armytraining activities in areas adjacent toTNP. Within TNP, chemical controlmethods are not used because, as wellas being quite impractical at thisscale, non-target impacts are not wellunderstood and non-chemical controlmethods are ineffectual and no longerbeing attempted. On Army land,chemical control methods arecurrently used while non-targetimpacts are more thoroughlyinvestigated.

Landcare Research initiated aninvestigation into potential biologicalagents in 1986. The heather beetle,Lochmaea suturalis, was selected asthe insect with greatest potentialbecause of its reputed specificity toCalluna and the levels of damage itinflicts on heather in Europe (fig 2).In fact, the heather beetle is regardedas a pest species in its native range.

After extensive host-range testing inthe UK and NZ, which confirmed hostspecificity, and the completion of anEnvironmental Impact Assessment,the heather beetle was cleared for fieldrelease into New Zealand.

Beetles were mass-reared using linerearing techniques to eliminate amicrosporidian (protozoan) diseaseidentified while in quarantine.During 1996 and 1997 5,000 adultswere released at 15 sites throughoutTNP and adjacent areas representinga range of environmental factorsincluding rainfall, altitude, substrateas well as heather age and density.None of the releases apparentlyestablished successfully, and in latesummer 1999 (January-February), webegan a second phase of releases thatwould also tell us something about theeffect of release size and life stage onestablishment success. This involvedreleasing a further 4,500 adults, 7,000larvae and 1,200 eggs at a further 35sites between March 1999 andJanuary 2003. We plan to completethis work in 2005.

Shortly after starting this secondphase of releases we found 5 adultsand 20 larvae at one of the original15 release sites. No damage wasvisible but we were confident thatnearly 4 years after being released,and having withstood a series ofvolcanic eruptions that left the releasesite covered in a thick layer of ash,this heather beetle population hadestablished. In the following year ourexcitement turned to amazement.Within 1 year a patch of healthyheather measuring roughly 20 by 15metres appeared to be either dead ordying and heather beetles were easyto find. Ironically, while we wereexcited by the prospect that heather

beetle may at last live up to ourexpectations in New Zealand, UKnewspapers were lamenting thatplagues of hungry heather beetles hadbeen decimating heather there; up to271,350 ha of moorlands beingaffected.

Since large numbers of heather beetleswere now building up at the successfulrelease site only 2 years afterdetection, we began to followsubsequent beetle dispersal. Allheather within a 200m radius of therelease point was located, tagged, anddescribed, and GPS references weretaken during the spring of 2001(September) and again in late summer2002 (February). Sticky traps tocapture flying adults were also erectedaround the original release point.Results from this work clearlyindicate that heather beetles candisperse through areas of nativetussock/shrubland, locating anddamaging, and in some cases evenkilling, individual heather plants.Again, this good news suggests theheather beetle may be effective evenin mixed heather/tussock/shrubland.Outbreaks and subsequent damage inthe UK are often only associated withlarge homogeneous areas of heather.

Heather beetle outbreaks in Europeare usually sporadic and collapsefairly quickly. Between 6–100% oflarvae can be killed by a parasiticwasp (Asecodes mento), and up to88% of adults can be parasitised by atachinid fly (Degeeria collaris). Wealso know from earlier work that amicrosporidian disease is prevalent inheather beetle populations overseasand we now believe a combination ofparasitism and disease limits thesebeetles in Europe, not shortage offood. So far in New Zealand we haveseen no sign of any egg, larval or adultparasitism after rearing field collectedsamples in the laboratory. A nativebug (Cermatulus nasalis) feeds onlarvae, and carabid beetle larvae mayprey on eggs, but it seems unlikelythat either of these predators, oranything else we have collectedduring regular pitfall, intercept orsweep net sampling at the site, willpose much threat. Also, beetles

Fig 1. Photo Landcare

Fig 2. Photo: Landcare

collected and deliberately reared in crowded conditionsshowed no signs of the microsporidian. So we predictbeetle outbreaks may persist longer in New Zealand andperhaps be limited by other factors like food supply orclimate.

Returning to the successful release site 3 years afterestablishment was a much anticipated trip. We werepredicting a very large increase in numbers and furtherdispersal. Again we were surprised, but unfortunatelythis time we weren’t so pleased. The population haddeclined below numbers seen in the second year afterdetection. Given that we are able to discard predation,parasitism and disease as likely causes, we checkedmeteorological records to see if there was anything unusualabout the weather during spring and early summer. BothOctober and November 2002 (spring) provided the coldestmean minimum temperatures on record. In fact 2002was the only year during the past 2 decades when themean minimum temperature for October was below zero.In addition, unseasonably late snowfalls in November arelikely to have been important. Snow this late in the beetle’snative range is virtually unheard of and may be somethingheather beetles can’t cope with. Eggs and larvae especiallywould be vulnerable to freezing. We now believe thisunusual weather caused the beetle’s setback.

Fortunately, we recently found a site in the north easternNew Zealand (Bay of Plenty) where beetles were doingwell only 1 year after release, and possibly two more siteswhere they are establishing adjacent to TNP. We plan tocontinue the second phase of our release programme until2005 and will continue to monitor and document theprogress of newly established sites.

Paul PetersonLandcare Research, New ZealandE-mail: petersonp@landcareresearch.co.nz

World zoos and aquariums oppose transferand release of lions and other species into

the wild

In response to media reports on the planned transfer ofIraqi lions to game parks in South Africa, the WorldAssociation of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and the Pan-African Association of Zoological Gardens, Aquaria andBotanic Gardens (PAAZAB) state their opposition inprinciple to the indiscriminate transfer and release to thewild of animals kept in human care. The two organisationsemphasize that such actions must always be in keepingwith the provisions of the relevant Guidelines issued bythe Survival Specialist Group of the World ConservationUnion (IUCN).

From June 3 to 6, the Annual Meeting of the Pan-AfricanAssociation of Zoological Gardens, Aquaria and Botanic

Gardens (PAAZAB) took place in Oudtshoorn, SouthAfrica. The meeting was also attended by the ExecutiveDirector of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums(WAZA) and included a discussion on the uncontrolledimportation of African wildlife species for the purpose ofkeeping the animals under semi-wild conditions orreleasing them to the wild.

Concerns were expressed of the disease risk implicationsto local populations of wildlife. In addition, to this, a“genetic pollution” of the original populations by animalsof unknown or different genetic lineage would be possibleif uncontrolled breeding with such individuals is allowedto occur. According to the respective Codes of Ethicsapplied by both organisations no release-to-the-wildprogramme shall be undertaken without the animalshaving undergone a thorough veterinary examination toassess their fitness for such release and that their welfarepost release is reasonably safeguarded. Such assessmentmust be made in accordance with the quarantine andhealth screening protocols for wildlife prior totranslocation and release to the wild issued by theVeterinary Specialist Group of IUCN. Following release,a thorough monitoring programme should be establishedand maintained. In addition, the IUCN/SSC/Reintroduction Specialist Group Guidelines forreintroduction must always be followed. This implies interalia that only animals of known and demonstrable geneticstatus are returned to and released in a range state of thespecies.

As a general rule the release to the wild of animals bredby member zoos are the result of a coordinated andintensively controlled ex situ breeding programme. Theyare undertaken in compliance with the applicablelegislation and guidelines, and in close cooperation withthe local authorities and other stakeholders. If animalsdo not qualify for being included into such release-to-thewild programmes WAZA and PAAZAB stress that otheroptions must be vigorously investigated.

Source: (Press Release) Oudtshoorn, S. Africa, 5th June2003

For further informationPAAZAB Executive Office:Dave MorganPan-African Association of Zoological Gardens, Aquariaand Botanic Gardens,Tel: ++27-(0) 82-8934199

Quarantine measures to halt alien invasions of Southern Ocean islands: the SouthAfrican experience (Prince Edward Islands special Nature Reserve)Southern Ocean islands are no stranger to alien speciesinvasions. Even the most remote of these have experi-enced rates of new species introductions two to three or-ders of magnitude greater than background levels (Gastonet al. 2003). For example, conservative estimates forwinged insects only are of one successful establishmentevery three to four landings. Across Southern Ocean is-lands as a whole the total number of introduced species(of all taxa) is strongly related to the number of humanoccupants (Chown et al. 1998), and concerns have thusbeen raised about tourism to these islands (Heydenrych& Jackson 2000; Chown & Gaston 2000).

South Africa’s Prince Edward Islands (Marion, whichsupports a research station and programme and PrinceEdward, uninhabited and near-pristine) in the southernIndian Ocean also have their share of introduced species(Watkins & Cooper 1986,; Gremmen & Smith 1999;,Chown et al. 2002). Since the 1970s, South Africa hasundertaken measures to eradicate established alien speciesfrom these islands. Brown Trout Salmo trutta wereremoved from Marion Island in 1984 (Cooper et al. 1992).Feral cats Felis catus were eradicated on Marion in 1991following a long and sustained effort with fullgovernmental support and funding (Bester et al. 2002).Efforts are underway to eradicate small populations ofthe alien grass Agrostis gigantea (first recorded in 1994)and the isopod Porcellio scaber (first recorded in 2001)before they spread from founder sites (Gremmen & vander Meijden 1995, Gremmen & Smith 1999, Slabber &Chown 2002). For other alien species, eradication haseither not as yet been attempted (e.g. for the house mouseMus musculus on Marion Island; Chown & Cooper 1995,Cooper 1995) or is not considered feasible (e.g. for thewell-established grass A. stolonifera and slug Derocerascaruanae on Marion Island and the pearlwort Saginaprocumbens on both Marion and Prince Edward Islands;Smith 1992, Gremmen et al. 1998, Ryan et al. 2003).

Despite some quarantine measures, new alieninvertebrates and plants haves been discovered at MarionIsland in recent years, mainly in the vicinity of the researchstation (Hänel et al. 1998, Gremmen & Smith 1999). Eachnew incident identifies loopholes in existing quarantineprocedures, and suggests additional strategies foremployment. The development of effective quarantineprocedures is thus an ongoing process, and increasedvigilance by the islands’ management committee,biologists and annual conservation officers has helpedraise awareness In most years on Marion Island at thetime of the annual relief alien moths are noticed in andaround the research station, when immediate efforts aremade to kill the usually singletons observed (pers. obs.).These unwelcome visitors have undoubtedly arrived onthe relief vessel: it is usual for the ship to leave its port,Cape Town, with a few flying insects still aboard.Although efforts are made to kill these on the four-daysouthward journey, it is clear that these are not always

successful. Occasionally, the ship has inadvertentlycarried larger invertebrate populations to the islands, asdescribed below.

During the April 2002 relief it became apparent the dayafter sailing that the ship was infested with house crickets,Gryllus bimaculatus. It is believed that these had flownaboard one or two nights before sailing, perhaps attractedby lights. At the time Cape Town and environs wereexperiencing a plague of these crickets. Using theircharacteristic chirping as a clue to their presence, 46specimens were caught and killed by repeated searches ofinterior spaces during the southward voyage. In additionthe ship’s exterior was washed down with seawater toflush out survivors and a glutaraldehyde solution wassprayed into channels and scuppers prior to the shiparriving at Marion Island. Despite these on-the-spotefforts, a few live crickets were observed aboard after theship had spent several days at the island off-loadingpersonnel and cargo (Cooper 2002).

During the following year’s relief voyage cardboard traysholding canned drinks that were being removed fromsealed metal containers on the island, shortly after theiroffloading from the relief ship were found to be infestedwith the cockroach, Blatella germanica. The containerswere immediately resealed and flown back to the ship,where they were inspected, all discovered cockroacheskilled, the cardboard removed for incineration aboard ship,and the containers sprayed with a pyrethroid-basedinsecticide, repacked and resealed. Several days later thecontainers were returned to the island where all plastic-wrapped “six packs” of canned drinks were once moreinspected before immersion in a bleach (sodiumhypochlorite) solution. Fortunately no more cockroacheswere found. In all, c. 40 live cockroaches were collected(Cooper & de Villiers 2003).

At the time of writing (July 2003), no further observationsof crickets or cockroaches have been made at MarionIsland (where neither species previously occurred). Itwould appear that the eradication procedures devised onthe spot succeeded.

However, such “finger in the dyke” reactions are not thebest way to stop new alien species reaching the islands.Infestations should be halted at source, and for this towork successfully a comprehensive set of quarantinemeasures must be in place and rigorously and continuouslyapplied by all involved. Over the period 2003 to 2006,South Africa will be constructing a new research stationat Marion Island that will require the transport of verylarge amounts of materials and large contingents ofconstruction workers to the island. Two dedicatedconstruction voyages each year will triple the number ofannual visits. It is probable that without concerted

quarantine efforts, all this new activity will result in furtheralien species arriving and some becoming established, atMarion Island.

In terms of the islands’ management plan (PEIMPWG1996) and the environmental study for the new researchstation (Environomics 2002), strict quarantine proceduresto prevent alien invasions must be adopted during thewhole construction period. To implement and managethese procedures the senior author has been appointed asthe Environmental Project Officer. Responsibilities includeinspecting manufacturing and storage facilities on themainland and accompanying all eight plannedconstruction voyages to the island over the next threeyears. A full set of operational procedures is still beingfinalized but they are to be wide-ranging, to cover activitiesin Cape Town, aboard the ship and on the island (Tab. 1).

With the expected full commitment of all involved withthe construction of the new research station, it is hopedthat come its inauguration in 2006, Marion and PrinceEdward Islands will welcome new suites of researcherswithout the unwelcome presence of new aliens.

AcknowledgementsWe thank all who have helped keep the Prince EdwardIslands relatively alien-free over the years. Research andconservation management at the Prince Edward Islandsis supported financially and logistically by the SouthAfrican Department of Environmental Affairs andTourism.

References

BESTER, M.N., BLOOMER, J.P., VAN AARDE, R.J., ERASMUS, B.H.,VAN RENSBURG, P.J.J., SKINNER, J.D., HOWELL, P.G. &NAUDE, T.W. 2002. A review of the successful eradication of feralcats from sub-Antarctic Marion Island, southern Indian Ocean. S. Afr.J. Wildl. Res. 32: 65-73.

CHOWN, S.L. & COOPER, J. 1995. The impact of feral House Mice atsub-Antarctic Marion Island and the desirability of eradication: Reporton a workshop held at the University of Pretoria, 16-17 February 1995.Pretoria: Directorate: Antarctica & Islands, Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism. 18 pp.

CHOWN, S.L. & GASTON, K.J. 2000. Island-hopping invaders hitch aride with tourists in South Georgia. Nature 408: 637.

CHOWN, S.L., GREMMEN, N.J.M. & GASTON, K.J. 1998. Ecologicalbiogeography of southern ocean islands: species-area relationships,human impacts, and conservation. Am. Nat. 152: 562-575.

CHOWN, S.L., MCGEOCH, M.A. & MARSHALL, D.J. 2002. Diversityand conservation of invertebrates on the sub-Antarctic Prince EdwardIslands. Afr. Entomol. 10: 67-82.

COOPER, J. 1995. After the cats and trout: the mice? Removing alienvertebrates from subantarctic Marion Island. Aliens 1: 17.

COOPER, J. 2002. Marion Island Takeover, March-May 2002.Conservation Officer report. Unpublished report to the Prince EdwardIslands Management Committee, c/o Directorate: Antarctica & Islands,Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 15 pp.

COOPER, J., CRAFFORD, J.E. & HECHT, T. 1992. Introduction andextinction of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta L.) in an impoverished sub-Antarctic stream. Antarct. Sci. 4: 9-14.

COOPER, J. & DE VILLIERS, M.[S.] 2003. Conservation Report: MarionIsland Take-over, March-April 2003. Unpublished report to the PrinceEdward Islands Management Committee, c/o Directorate: Antarctica& Islands, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 23 pp.

ENVIRONOMICS 2002. Report on the scoping study for the proposednew base facility at Marion Island. Theresa Park, Pretoria:Environomics. 113 pp. + 3 appendices.

GASTON, K.J., JONES, A.G., HÄNEL, C. & CHOWN, S.L. 2003. Ratesof species introduction to a remote oceanic island. Proc. Roy. Soc.Lond. B 270: 1091-1098.

GREMMEN, N.J.M., CHOWN, S.L. & MARSHALL, D.J. 1998. Impactof the introduced grass Agrostis stolonifera on vegetation and soilfauna communities at Marion Island, sub-Antarctic. Biol. Conserv.85: 223-231.

GREMMEN, N.J.M. & SMITH, V.R. 1999. New records of alien vascularplants from Marion and Prince Edward Islands, sub-Antarctic. PolarBiol. 21: 401-409.

GREMMEN, N.J.M. & VAN DER MEIJDEN, R. 1995. IntroducedAgrostis species at sub-Antarctic Marion island. S. Afr. J. Antarctic.Res. 25: 85-86.

HÄNEL, C., CHOWN, S.L. & DAVIES, L. 1998. Records of alien insectspecies from sub-Antarctic Marion and South Georgia Islands. Afr.Entomol. 6: 366-369.

HEYDENRYCH, R. & JACKSON, S. 2000. Environmental impactassessment of tourism to Marion Island. Pretoria: Department ofEnvironmental Affairs & Tourism. 115 pp.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKINGGROUP 1996. Prince Edward Islands Management Plan. Pretoria:Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 64 pp.

RYAN, P.G., SMITH, V.R. & GREMMEN, N.J.M. 2003. The distributionand spread of alien vascular plants on Prince Edward Island. Afr. J.Mar. Sci. 25:

SLABBER, S. & CHOWN, S.L. 2002. The first record of a terrestrialcrustacean, Porcellio scaber (Isopoda, Porcellionidae) from sub-Antarctic Marion Island. Polar Biol. 25: 855-858.

SMITH, V.L. 1992. Terrestrial slug recorded from sub-Antarctic MarionIsland. J. Mollusc. Studies 58: 50-51?.

WATKINS, B.P. & COOPER, J. 1986. Introduction, present status andcontrol of alien species at the Prince Edward Islands, sub-Antarctic. S.Afr. J. Antarct. Res. 16: 86-94.

TABLE 1Quarantine measures currently in force andrecommended for implementation in 2003 (in italics)for visits to the sub-Antarctic Prince Edward Islands

A. Mainland South Africa• Regular inspections of storage facilities• Cleaning of reusable metal transport containers• No exchange of containers between Marion and GoughIslands• Fumigation, and provision of electronic fly traps, androdent bait stations at storage, packing, manufacturingand supply facilities• Packing of foodstuffs and most other supplies into sealedcontainers• No paper or cardboard-based packaging materials tobe used• Cleaning of issued and personal clothing and fieldequipment (packs, tents, etc.)• Phasing out of use of Velcro on issued protectiveclothing• Transport of materials in covered vehicles• Education of personnel

B. Aboard ship• Rodent bait stations, de-ratting exemption certification,and hawser rat guards prior to sailing• Compulsory “boot-washing ceremony” (scrubbingfootwear in bleach solution; inspection and cleaning ofprotective clothing, back packs, day packs and cameraand video bags, especially pockets and Velcro strips, for

ALIENS SubscriptionsWe rely heavily on the support of our membership and the support of our sponsors to keep the Aliens newsletter beingpublished. Please complete, cut out and send this panel to receive Aliens. Cheques should be made payable to “IUCNInvasive Species Specialist Group” and sent to Maj De Poorter, ISSG/SEMS, University of Auckland (TamakiCampus), Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, New Zealand.

I wish to subscribe to Aliens (2 issues per year): 1 year US$18 ..… 2 years US$35 …. 3 years US$50 …..

Waiver of subscription fees are available on application.If you wish to subscribe by credit card, please complete the following:

Credit Card number and type, i.e. Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc

Expiry date: …………………….. Name on card: …………………………..

Signature: (of person on card) ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Mailing details for delivery of newsletter:

plant and animal propagules),• Inspection and cleaning of helicopter interiors, landingskids and wheels• Compulsory education and information session presentedby relief voyage Conservation Officer lecture to shore-going personnel• Provision of electronic fly traps, insecticides,, fumigantsand rat traps for emergency use.

C. Ashore at Marion Island• Inspection of all off-loaded materials and supplies onarrival and during unpacking• Banning of all fresh vegetables and fruits• Supply of irradiated eggs and deboned poultry• Freezing and return to mainland of all poultry wastes,including eggshells• On-going inspections of base buildings and environsfor alien plants and invertebrates• Provision of pesticides, fumigants, rodent bait stationsand rat traps for emergency use.

D. Special provisions for Prince Edward Island• Limitation on number and size of visits (maximum ofsix persons for four days per year)• No fresh food or foods containing whole seeds allowedashore

• Provision of new or cleaned, dedicated protectiveclothing, footwear and camping equipment• All packing under supervision of a Conservation Officer• Landings from ship only and not via Marion Island• No interchange of protective clothing, footwear, backpacks, camping equipment and biotic materials betweenthe two islands• Freezing of selected items aboard ship

John Cooper,Avian Demography Unit, University of Cape TownRondebosch, South AfricaE-mail: jcooper@adu.uct.ac.za)

Marienne S. de Villiers,Avian Demography Unit, University of Cape Town,Rondebosch, South Africa

Melodie A. McGeoch,Department of Conservation Ecology, University ofStellenbosch,Matieland , South AfricaE-mail: mcgeoch@sun.ac.za

I U C NThe World Conservation Union

The following organisations are gratefully acknowledged for theirsupport of the work of the Invasive Species Specialist Group:

US State DepartmentNew Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeManaaki Whenua-Landcare Research LimitedUniversity of Auckland, School of Geography and Environmental SciencesThe New Zealand Department of ConservationThe Pacific Development and Conservation TrustNational Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), USA

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Aliens is the bi-annual newsletter of the Invasive Spe-cies Specialist Group (ISSG). Its role is to put research-ers, managers and/or practitioners in contact with eachother and to publish information and news of alien inva-sive species and issues. Contributions should focus onconservation issues rather than economic, health or agri-cultural aspects of alien invasions. News of upcomingconferences, reports, and news of publications are alsowelcome, especially where they are of major internationalrelevance. Please send your contributions, marked “forconsideration for Aliens” to m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz

The New Zealand-based Invasive Species SpecialistGroup (ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species Sur-vival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union(IUCN). It is chaired by Mick Clout. The goals of theISSG are to reduce threats to natural ecosystems and thenative species they contain - by increasing awareness ofalien invasions and of ways to prevent, control or eradi-cate them.

Aliens-L is a listserver dedicated to invasive species.It allows users to freely seek and share information onalien invasive species and issues, and the threats posedby them to the Earth’s biodiversity. To subscribe, send anemail without a subject header to: Aliens-L-join@indaba.iucn.org OR listadmin@indaba.iucn.orgwith the message: subscribe Aliens-L. When you havesubscribed you will receove a message with instructionsfor using the list. Most subscribers are English speaking,however, if you would like your message translated intoEnglish before posting it, please contactm.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz (we can currently deal withshort messages in Spanish, Italian, Dutch, French andArabic).

Cooperative Initiative on Invasive Alien Species on Is-lands. The aims of the Cooperative Initiative on InvasiveIsland Alien Species on Islands are: to enhance empow-erment and capacity in key areas of invasive alien species(IAS) management on islands; to facilitate cooperationand sharing of expertise; to help enable local, nationaland regional entities to identify invasive alien speciesproblems, work out solutions and implement them result-ing in improvement in the conservation of island biologi-

cal diversity. ISSG will undertake the facilitation of thisinitiative, in partnership with New Zealand (as a Party toConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD)) and underthe umbrella of the Global Invasive Species Programme(GISP). This initiative is a recent development, and anyinterested individuals or institutions/agencies are encour-aged to participate.

The Global Invasive Species Database is freely avail-able on online at www.issg.org/database. The develop-ment of the database, and the provision of content for it,is ongoing. Priorities range from a focus on the some ofthe world’s worst invasive species to a focus on areas whereinformation and resources are comparatively scarce, in-cluding small-island developing states and other islands.The database has images and descriptions for a wide va-riety of invasive species. Records for these species includeinformation on the ecology, impacts, distribution and path-ways of the species, and most importantly, informationon management methods as well as contact details of ex-perts that can offer further advice. The database also pro-vides links to numerous other sources of information.

IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity LossCaused by Alien Invasive Species http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htm

ISSG Office: School of Geography and EnvironmentalSciences, University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus)Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, New ZealandPhone: #64 9 3737 599 x85210, Fax: #64 9 3737 042(Attention: ISSG)E-mail: issg@auckland.ac.nz for general inquiries.E-mail: m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz to contact Alienseditor, or IAS mainstreaming or policy queries.E-mail: a.saunders@auckland.ac.nz for more informa-tion on the Cooperative Initiative on Island Alien Inva-sive Species.E-mail: m.browne@auckland.ac.nz to contact the data-base manager.

Websites: ISSG: http://www.issg.org IUCN: http://iucn.org