24
1 Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission ALIENS Number 22 2005 Sponsored by: Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua ISSN: 1173-5988 Stewardship of Public Lands and ”Parknering” in the Management of Exotic Herpetofauna in Florida (USA) Florida’s state park system is one of the largest in the United States, with 159 parks spanning greater than 293,403ha, including 160.9km of pristine, sandy beach. These public or trust lands are immensely popular with residents and tourists wishing to connect with Florida’s unique and striking natural legacy. The mission of the Florida state park system is, in part, to maintain these resources as intact natural systems. The diminishment of natural areas surrounding parks and a growing accumulation of mostly tropical exotic species and plants and animals adds to the challenge of this mission in Florida. A subset of the exotic biota in Florida is the 45 species comprising the exotic herpetofauna (Meshaka et al., 2004; Meshaka, 2006). Most are lizards, especially anoles and geckos. Most are small-bodied, early-maturing, and insectivorous. Typically, they are strongly associated with humans and disturbed habitat, southern Florida is their center of distribution, and their association is somehow tied to the pet trade. Florida parks, even those with a minimum of disturbed habitats and buildings, are not immune to colonization by exotic amphibians and reptiles. Some species have received extensive study in public lands by private researchers, as in the case of the Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) (Meshaka, 2001) and two geckos of the genus Hemidactylus (Meshaka and Moody, 1996; Meshaka, 2000, 2001). Official attention has even been garnered to address large and potentially dangerous exotic species, like the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) and Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in public lands by the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of the Interior. We speak here to a recent and effective approach to the management of exotic species through a partnering, the “Parknership” program, between Florida state parks and researchers from other institutions, such as universities, who through field projects within this venue, provide peer-reviewed, published ecological information pertaining to one or more of the following questions: Why or why not a species succeeds? What are its impacts on other species, both exotic and native? How, if at all, it can be controlled or eradicated? It is precisely those sorts of data as a tangible product that provide the information necessary to make informed policy decisions, which in turn, help the public lands meet what can otherwise be a vexing mission goal of maintaining natural systems in the face of exotic species that live in and around these parks. The second tangible product of this program has been the hands-on training for young ecologists interested in Florida ecology, herpetology, colonization theory, wildlife management, and conservation. Continuedpage3

Invasive Species Specialist Gr oup of the IUCN Species Sur ... · Invasive Species Specialist Gr oup of the IUCN Species Sur vival Commission ALIENS Number 22 2005 Sponsored by: Landcare

  • Upload
    hadung

  • View
    229

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

1

Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission

ALIENSNumber 22 2005

Sponsored by:

Landcare ResearchManaaki Whenua

ISSN: 1173-5988

Stewardship of Public Lands and ”Parknering” in theManagement of Exotic Herpetofauna in Florida (USA)

Florida’s state park system is one of the largest in the United States, with 159parks spanning greater than 293,403ha, including 160.9km of pristine, sandybeach. These public or trust lands are immensely popular with residents andtourists wishing to connect with Florida’s unique and striking natural legacy.The mission of the Florida state park system is, in part, to maintain theseresources as intact natural systems. The diminishment of natural areassurrounding parks and a growing accumulation of mostly tropical exotic speciesand plants and animals adds to the challenge of this mission in Florida. Asubset of the exotic biota in Florida is the 45 species comprising the exoticherpetofauna (Meshaka et al., 2004; Meshaka, 2006). Most are lizards, especiallyanoles and geckos. Most are small-bodied, early-maturing, and insectivorous.Typically, they are strongly associated with humans and disturbed habitat,southern Florida is their center of distribution, and their association is somehowtied to the pet trade.

Florida parks, even those with a minimum of disturbed habitats and buildings,are not immune to colonization by exotic amphibians and reptiles. Some specieshave received extensive study in public lands by private researchers, as in thecase of the Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) (Meshaka, 2001) andtwo geckos of the genus Hemidactylus (Meshaka and Moody, 1996; Meshaka,2000, 2001). Official attention has even been garnered to address large andpotentially dangerous exotic species, like the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus)and Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in public lands by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of theInterior.

We speak here to a recent and effective approach to the management of exoticspecies through a partnering, the “Parknership” program, between Floridastate parks and researchers from other institutions, such as universities, whothrough field projects within this venue, provide peer-reviewed, publishedecological information pertaining to one or more of the following questions:

• Why or why not a species succeeds?• What are its impacts on other species, both exotic and native?• How, if at all, it can be controlled or eradicated?

It is precisely those sorts of data as a tangible product that provide theinformation necessary to make informed policy decisions, which in turn, helpthe public lands meet what can otherwise be a vexing mission goal of maintainingnatural systems in the face of exotic species that live in and around these parks.The second tangible product of this program has been the hands-on trainingfor young ecologists interested in Florida ecology, herpetology, colonizationtheory, wildlife management, and conservation.

Continued page 3

2

CONTENTS

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.

From the editor:We regret the delaysin the production of

Aliens 22 andapologise for any

inconvenience caused.

“ZOOM on the Invasives” photocompetition:

New, blue, and venomous: Rhopilemanomadica invades Mediterraneanbeaches. FINALIST

Mel COOPER, ISRAEL

Exotic herpetofauna in Florida 1Disclaimer 2IUCN WCC and IAS 4European IAS strategy 5Recommendations on IAS at the WCC 6Publications 7Impacts of alien house geckos (Mauritius) 8Record of horseshoe crab in North Sea 11Publications 12Scaly tree fern in New Zealand 13Feral swine in Florida 15Notes 16IUCN Sri Lanka IAS activities 17Notes 18We need your support 18Alien birds in Kruger National Park 19Precautionary Principle Guidelines 20Precautionary Principle Project 20Notes 21Aliens Subscription form 23

3

Two case studies illustrate these points. Building uponstudies on the colonization dynamics of the three exoticspecies noted above, the “Parknership” program conducteda building survey with volunteers at Savannas PreserveState Park. Results of the intensive two month study,published one year later (Meshaka et al., 2005a), quantifiedthe abundance of exotic species as well as the concomitantdearth of two native treefrogs, approximated the age ofgecko colonization, and corroborated the instability ofexotic Hemidactylus assemblages. A similar pair of studieswas subsequently conducted on buildings at FloridaAtlantic University with an FAU Wilkes Honors Collegestudent and at John U. Lloyd Beach State Park (JULBSP)with an individual who was both an undergraduate studentat Florida International University and a park ranger atJULBSP. Published within one year of completion (Meshakaet al., 2006), this study quantified building herpetofaunalabundance and corroborated patterns of exotic speciesturnover, but also noted phenomena that could serve tostall or accelerate the faunal replacement process on thesebuildings. Presently, we are designing a Florida Keys-widesurvey of geckos in nine state parks that dot the full lengthof the Florida Keys, with the goals of quantifying presenceon buildings and natural habitat as well as the rate of insulardispersal of what can be up to seven species, which rangein size from the diminutive ocellated gecko(Sphaerodactylus argus) to the brutish tokay gecko (Gekkogecko).

Our second case study concerns the far less secretive andheliothermic (sun-heat seeking) northern curlytail lizard(Leiocephalus carinatus armouri). Interest in this speciesby the “Parknership” program began with a review of itscolonization dynamics (Smith and Engeman, 2004) andsouthern tri-county survey (Smith et al., 2004), whichincluded reports of the species in state parks.Subsequently, a student intern assisted in a northerncoastal tri-county survey for this species (Meshaka et al.,2005b). Thanks to sufficient monthly samples collectedduring a full year we now have near completion a manuscriptconcerning growth and reproduction of the species in thecentre of its Florida range. Recent published notes andthose in press, document natural history observations ofthe species and noteworthy geographic records. Becausewe consider several of the coastal state parks to be at riskto the northern curlytail, we continue to pay attention to itwith the goal of being proactive rather than reactionarywith respect to its potential colonization attempts in coastalpublic lands.

What are we up to now? The green iguana (Iguana iguana),common in disturbed hammock (subtropical coastalwoodland) settings in southern Florida, is a demonstrablemenace at the 70.9ha Hugh Taylor Birch State Park, thanksin part to the floral disturbance following recent hurricanesand to the recent removal of 160 raccoons (Smith andEngeman, 2002), a super-abundant mid-level carnivore withnegligible predators of its own. We are coordinating aproject of intense life history study and removal ofspecimens, which together meet our “Parknership” goals

of public land management useful studies. We are proudto be able to share in this newsletter the status of the“Parknership” approach to remediation of exotic speciescolonization problems on public trust lands. Perhaps, ameasure of its success will be in its applicability to thetrust lands of any country with similar exotic specieschallenges as we have in the state parks of Florida.

ReferencesMeshaka, W.E., Jr. 2000. Colonisation dynamics of two exotic

geckos (Hemidactylus garnotii and H. mabouia) in EvergladesNational Park. Journal of Herpetology 34:163-168.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr. 2001. The Cuban Treefrog: Life History of aSuccessful Colonizing Species. University Press of Florida,Gainesville, FL. 191 pp.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr. 2006. An update on the list of Florida’s exoticamphibian and reptile species. Journal of Kansas HerpetologyIn Press.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr., B.P. Butterfield, and J.B. Hauge. 2004. TheExotic Amphibians and Reptiles of Florida. Krieger PublishingCompany, Malabar, FL. 155 pp.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr., and B.A. Moody. 1996. The Old Worldtropical house gecko (Hemidactylus mabouia) on the DryTortugas. Florida Scientist 59:115-117.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr., H.T. Smith, R.G. Severson, and M.A.Severson. 2005a. Spatial picture of a gecko assemblage influx. Florida Scientist 68:53-55.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr., H.T. Smith, R.M.Engeman, C.L. Dean, J.A.Moore, and W.E. O’Brien. 2005b. The geographicallycontiguous and expanding coastal range of the northerncurlytail lizard (Leiocephalus carinatus armouri) in Florida.Southeastern Naturalist 4:521-526.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr., H.L. Cress, K.L. Kingsland, H.T. Smith,S.A. Fitchett, J.A. Moore, and E.M. Cowan. 2006.Hemidactylus (exotic house geckos) assemblage dynamics onSouth Florida buildings. Journal of Kansas Herpetology 17:7-8.

Smith, M.M., H.T. Smith, and R.M. Engeman. 2004. Extensivecontiguous north-south range expansion of the originalpopulation of an invasive lizard in Florida. InternationalBiodeterioration and Biodegradation 54:261-264.

Smith, H.T., and R.M. Engeman. 2002. An extraordinary raccoon,Procyon lotor, density at an urban park. Canadian FieldNaturalist 116:636-639.

Smith, H.T., and R.M. Engeman. 2004. A review of thecolonization dynamics of the northern curly-tailed lizard(Leiocephalus carinatus armouri) in Florida. Florida FieldNaturalist 32:107-113.

Walter E. Meshaka, JrThe State Museum of PennsylvaniaSection of Zoology and BotanyHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0024USAE-mail: [email protected]

Henry T. SmithFlorida Department ofEnvironmental ProtectionFlorida Park ServiceHobe Sound,Florida 33455USA

&Florida Atlantic UniversityWilkes Honors CollegeJupiter, Florida 33458USA

Continued from page 1

4

NOVEMBER 2004 IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS (WCC) AND INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

The World Conservation Congress (WCC) is the generalassembly of IUCN members, which takes place every threeto four years. The Congress combines the business of theUnion with technical conservation fora and provides anopportunity for the sharing of information and experienceamong IUCN’s worldwide constituency of members, Com-mission members, stakeholders and partner organizations.The Congress encompasses three principal elements: con-ducting the business of the Union, assessing the work ofIUCN Commissions and taking stock of conservation. The3rd WCC took place in Bangkok, Thailand, in November2004.

The ISSG team present included Mick Clout (Chair), MajDe Poorter (Coordinator), Michael Browne (Database man-ager), Piero Genovesi (ISSG Europe) as well as many mem-bers of ISSG, in a variety of capacities. Activities whichISSG organised or participated in included:• Two presentations given during the during the SSC

Commission days, as well as a presentation in the Con-servation Commons serssion, two at the Global Syn-thesis workshop, and a \contribution to the GISPlaunch

• A booth in the Atrium zone, with information, newslet-ters and other publications, self-running presentations,and live demonstrations of the Global Invasive Spe-cies Database

• A half day Training workshop “Invasive alien speciesmanagement for practitioners in gumboots, flip flopsor suit and tie: there is always something you can do!”- an introduction to understanding various ways ofpreventing as well as fighting back against invasivealien species

The Council of Europe and ISSG (through Piero Genovesi)organised a “round table” session to discuss further op-tions for future work in the context of the European Strat-egy on Invasive Alien Species, adopted by all Europeancountries in December 2003 (see box).

The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) used the“Conservation Platform” venue to launch its new partner-ships, products and initiatives. Several GISP secretariatand Board members “manned” the eye-catching high pro-file GISP booth.

The World Conservation Forum sessions on “BiodiversityLoss and Species Extinction - Managing risk in a changingworld” had two sessions on the sub-theme Invasive alienspecies and biodiversity - Coping with aliens (see box).These were organised by Geoffrey Howard (IUCN EastAfrica Regional Office) and Imene Meliane (IUCN GlobalMarine Programme).

Recommendation: One recommendation was adopted onInvasive species: RECWCC3.090 Implementation of the

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES AND BIODIVERSITY- COPING WITH ALIENS

Subtheme of the sessions on “Biodiversity Loss andSpecies Extinction - Managing risk in a changing world”of the World Conservation Forum:- A global perspective on biological invasions -impacts on ecosystems and economies by MarkLonsdale- Management of Invasive Alien Species: An Asianperspective on the way forward by Channa N.B.Bambaradeniya- Invasive species - a global issue, with globalsolutions by Phoebe Barnard and Lynn Jackson- Special Invasive Alien Species Issues: challenges forthe marine systems by Marnie L. Campbell and Chad L.Hewitt- Prevention: Marine biodiversity threatened byBallast water transported by ships; curbing the threatby Cato C. ten Hallers-Tjabbes- Action against Invasive Species on Islands by M. N.Clout and C. M. Denny- Precaution and invasive alien species: challengesat the interface of the trade and environment regimesby Rosie Cooney- Biodiversity challenges for invaded wetlandecosystems in Africa: The case of the Kafue Flatsfloodplain system in southern Zambia by MusondaMumba- Invasive Alien Species: Agriculture and Developmentby D. K. Rangi- Aquatic Invasive Species Monitoring and EarlyWarning in Marine Managed Areas by Alexis Gutierrez,Sharanya Krishna Prasad and Linda Shaw- Invasive Alien Species Prevention Strategies andthe International Trade Regime by Greg Foote andStas Burgiel- Impacts of Mimosa pigra on wetlands of the lowerMekong Basin by Tran Triet

Proceedings at: http://www.iucn.org/congress/2004/wcforum/forum_th_biodiversity-proceed.htm

“European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species” (see page 6).

“Zoom on the Invasives”: a photo competition wasorganised by Imene Meliane of the Global Marineprogramme, called “Zoom on the Invasives,”. It drew morethan 80 entries, helping to raise awareness of the problem.The ten finalists were exhibited at the WCC and the winnerannounced. The Finalist photographs are printedthroughout this issue of Aliens.

5

European IAS Strategy Implementation - World Conservation Congress Workshop

A synthetic report on the outcomes of the roundtable concerning the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species,which took place at the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress – 18th November 2004 can be found at:http://www.iucn.org/congress/programme/forum-programme.cfm?toi=event-list&shown=KM#point7

The European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species, adopted by all European countries in December 2003, provides aunique opportunity for a coordinated approach at regional scale to address the threats posed by invasions. The aimof the roundtable was to discuss options for future work. This was organised by the Council of Europe and ISSG(Piero Genovesi).

Key conclusions• The free trade system of Europe limits the ability to respond to invasions. Inaction by many states is also due to

limited awareness and inadequacy of many legal and policy tools in this specific regard• The supranational legislative system of Europe – with centralized responsibility on trade, agriculture, fishery,

forestry etc. - provides opportunities for more effective regional action.• Europe urgently needs to revise its regulatory systems, and to develop technical tools such as inventories of

alien species, lists of experts and contact specialists, reports on cases of successful prevention

Key recommendations• European states and institutions are called to be more active on prevention and mitigation of this threat, also

supporting the implementation of the “European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species”• In the implementation of the Strategy, European States and Institutions shall consider revision of existing

regulations and development of new ones.In their actions, European States and Institutions shall promote participation of all societal sectors directly orindirectly involved in the movement and management of alien species.

“ZOOM on the Invasives” photo competition:Bald cypress smothered by Old World climbing fern, Lygodium microphyllum; Jonathan Dickinson State Park, Florida.FIRST PLACE

Scott KAM, USA

6

RECOMMENDATION ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES AT THE2004 IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS

REC 3.090 Implementation of the European Strategy onInvasive Alien Species

WELCOMING the adoption by the Standing Committee ofthe Bern Convention (Strasbourg, 4 December 2003) ofthe European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species,developed in cooperation with the Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group of the IUCN Species SurvivalCommission (SSC);

RECALLING that Recommendation 2.67 Invasive alienspecies adopted by the 2nd IUCN World ConservationCongress (Amman, 2000) expressed concern on thethreats posed by invasive alien species (IAS);

RECALLING that Recommendation 99 on the EuropeanStrategy on Invasive Alien Species adopted by theStanding Committee of the Bern Convention (4December, 2003) recommends Parties to draw-up andimplement national strategies on IAS, taking intoaccount the European Strategy on Invasive AlienSpecies;

RECALLING the recognition, at the Vth IUCN World ParksCongress – WPC (Durban, 2003), that “Managementof IAS is a priority issue and must be mainstreamedinto all aspects of Protected Area (PA) management”(WPC Emerging Issues, No. 7);

RECALLING that Paragraph 44(i) of the Plan ofImplementation of the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (Johannesburg, 2002) calls for countriesto “Strengthen national, regional and internationalefforts to control invasive alien species, which are oneof the main causes of biodiversity loss, and encouragethe development of effective work programmes oninvasive alien species at all levels”;

FURTHER RECALLING that the issue of IAS with abiodiversity impact has recently been recognized inthe context of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), International Maritime Organization (IMO), theConvention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 1971), theInternational Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) andother international instruments;

CONCERNED that IAS constitute one of the most seriousthreats to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity as wellas a threat to sustainable development;

RECOGNIZING that many nations have a growingawareness of the need to address IAS threats, but thattheir capacity to respond is often limited because ofinadequate legal and institutional frameworks; and

NOTING that a coordinated implementation of the

measures recommended by the European Strategy onInvasive Alien Species will help prevent new unwantedintroductions in Europe and will mitigate the impactscaused by IAS in the region;

The World Conservation Congress at its 3rd Session inBangkok, Thailand, 17–25 November 2004:

1. CALLS ON European countries to develop and implementnational strategies or action plans based on theEuropean Strategy on Invasive Alien Species and toincrease cooperation in addressing the threats posedby invasive alien species (IAS);

2. CALLS ON the European Union to support theimplementation of the European Strategy on InvasiveAlien Species at the regional level and to strengthenregional capacity and cooperation to deal with IASissues;

3. URGES all governments to foster increased cooperationon IAS issues between government agencies dealingwith environment and agriculture issues at national andregional levels, as well as to foster increased cooperationand consultation between government agencies andall other relevant stakeholders on these matters;

4. URGES governments, institutions and civil society toincrease their efforts to mainstream IAS managementinto conservation as well as into sustainabledevelopment programmes and initiatives; and

5. URGES all stakeholders to maximize exchanges ofinformation and expertise on IAS and to supportnational, regional and international initiatives thatcontribute to this.

The Department of State, United States, provided thefollowing statement for the record: State and agencymembers United States refrained from engaging indeliberations on this motion and took no nationalgovernment position on the motion as adopted for reasonsgiven in the US General Statement on the IUCN ResolutionProcess.

All WCC recommendations and Resolutions can be down-loaded in English, French or Spanish respectively, at:ht tp : / /www. iucn.org/congress/2004/members/submitted_motions.htmht tp : / /www. iucn.org/congress/2004/members/submitted_motions_fr.htmht tp : / /www. iucn.org/congress/2004/members/submitted_motions_es.htm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

7

PUBLICATIONSAquatic Invasions

European journal on biological invasions

Aquatic Invasions is a new online journal focusing on bio-logical invasions of the inland and coastal waters of geo-graphic Europe. The journal provides the opportunity fortimely publication of first records of biological invaders,for consideration in risk assessments, early warning sys-tems and eradication programmes. Technical reports andother accounts not publishable in regular scientific jour-nals, including large datasets of aquatic invasive speciesrecords from monitoring and biological surveys will alsobe available.

The journal is published on behalf of the InternationalAssociation of Theoretical and Applied Limnology (SIL)under the auspices of the European Research Network onAquatic invasive Species (ERNAIS) and the Editorial Boardof Aquatic Invasions represents an international team ofkey European experts in biological invasions.

Issues of Aquatic Invasions are available online athttp://www.aquaticinvasions.ruNew contributions are welcome. Manuscripts relevant toinland waters invasions may be submitted to Vadim E.Panov ([email protected]), manuscripts concerning invasionsin coastal waters to Stephan Gollasch([email protected]).

Dr. Vadim E. Panov, Editor of Aquatic Invasions (inlandwater ecosystems)Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesUniversitetskaya nab. 1199034 St.Petersburg, RussiaE-mail: [email protected]: http://www.zin.ru/rbic/personalia/panov.asp

Dr Stephan Gollasch, Editor of Aquatic Invasions (coastalecosystems)GoConsultBahrenfelder Str. 73 a22765 Hamburg, GermanyE-mail: [email protected]: http://www.gollaschconsulting.de

Invaders From the Sea – a documentaryfrom the International MaritimeOrganisation

Every day thousands of species are in transit around theglobe held in the ballast water of ships. Some of the mostdamaging Invasive Alien Species ever seen have beentransported to new areas in ballast water so this pathwayis a major concern to people involved in trying to reducethe spread of IAS. The International Maritime Organisation(IMO) is working hard to improve methods of ballast waterhandling and therefore reduce the number of organismstransported by this pathway. The latest initiative from theIMO is a DVD entitled Invaders from the Sea. This docu-mentary was filmed by the Natural History Unit at the BBCand it focuses on 3 invasive species which have had majoreffects on the ecosystems where they have been intro-duced and the people who rely on those ecosystems fortheir food and livelihoods. Invaders from the Sea is in-tended to raise public awareness about the scale of theproblem posed by marine IAS and to introduce some ofthe schemes aimed at reducing the problem.

The documentary will be distributed by IMO through theUnited Nations film distribution channels in developingcountries, while BBC Worldwide has the exclusive rightsto distribute it in the developed countries.

For further [email protected]://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1320&doc_id=6235.

“ZOOM on the Invasives” photo competition:Biocontrol - Cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae feeding onleaves and flowers of the noxious weed, tansy ragwortSenecio jacobaea, Castle Rock, Washington, USA. FINAL-IST

Kathy Keatley GARVEY, USA

8

Fig. 1 The common house gecko,Hemidactylus frenatus (Photo:N Cole)

Fig. 2 Clockwise from top left: the ornate day gecko, Phelsuma ornata; thelesser night gecko, Nactus coindemirensis; Durrell’s night gecko, N. durrelli;and the Serpent Island night gecko, N. serpensinsula (Photo:N Cole)

THE NEW NOISY NEIGHBOURSImpacts of alien house geckos on endemics in Mauritius

Anyone who has visited the tropics or sub-tropics is likelyto have heard the distinctive call of a gecko, particularlyafter the sunset. More often than not the call is being emit-ted by one or a few species of gecko that are groupedunder the general name of house gecko, because of theiraffinity with human dwellings. This anthropogenic ten-dency has meant that people have inadvertently movedthem to new locations. One of the most vocal and fre-quently moved geckos has been the common house gecko,Hemidactylus frenatus (Fig. 1), which is now establishedin at least 87 locations around the world outside of itsnatural range in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. Many of thesenew locations have been small remote islands in the Pa-cific and Indian Oceans.

Where the common house gecko has been introduced toislands of the Pacific Ocean, researchers have shown thatthis lizard has been responsible for the competitivedisplacement of other similar sized or smaller gecko speciesin urban and suburban environments. It was shown thathabitat simplification and clumped food resources aroundartificial light sources as a result of urbanisation haveenabled the common house gecko to gain an indirectcompetitive advantage over other nocturnal gecko species.However, hitherto the competitive impact of the commonhouse gecko had only been considered for generalistspecies inhabiting urban and suburban habitats. Little wasknown of the common house geckos’ impact on endemicspecies in natural and disturbed/semi-natural habitats, suchas on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius.

Mauritius once maintained one of the richest endemicreptile diversities known, but owing to extensive habitatdestruction and the impact of introduced species, mostnotably predatory mammals, more than 60% of the main

islands reptile species were lost. Yet habitat destructionand the presence of introduced predatory mammals couldnot fully explain the current abundance and distribution ofsome lizard species, which led to the suggestion that theintroduced common house gecko may be partlyresponsible. Over the past three years I have investigatedthe role of this introduced gecko in the decline of the similarsized endemic ornate day gecko, Phelsuma ornata, andthe extirpation of the endemic night geckos: the smallerlesser night gecko, Nactus coindemirensis, the similar sizedDurrell’s night gecko, N. durrelli, and the slightly largerSerpent Island night gecko, N. serpensinsula (Fig. 2).

From my initial research determining the extent to whichthe house gecko had penetrated habitats utilised by theornate day gecko, I discovered that areas of forestdominated by non-native vegetation maintained less than20% of the number of day geckos than in adjacent areasdominated by native vegetation. Conversely differencesin native and non-native vegetation had no impact uponthe abundance of the house gecko, which penetrated andutilised all habitats including those favoured by the daygecko. Whilst it was apparent that loss of native habitatwas a major factor in the decline of ornate day geckopopulations, further research established that the housegecko was having a more subtle impact. I demonstratedthat as invertebrate prey resources became more limitedover the year from the rainy to the dry season thepredominantly nocturnal house gecko increased its activityin daylight hours (Fig. 3), such that it disproportionatelydepleted food items that were shared with the ornate daygecko. The ornate day gecko was therefore forced to selectdifferent prey items, such that the overlap in diet betweenthe two gecko species decreased, however as a result ofthis, the day gecko increased its tendency for cannibalism (Fig. 3).

9

Invertebrates represented within the diets of both gecko species were sampled throughout their shared habitat and compared to give a percentage of abundance in comparison to the rainy season. Diet samples were obtained from the non-harmful method of stomach flushing. Each prey item was given an importance value calculated from the relative abundance, volume and occurrence of that prey item in the diet. The standard dietary overlap index (the percentage of dietary items shared by both gecko species) was then calculated from the importance values of each prey category in each species. Gecko activity was monitored over several 24hr periods in each season (both species were found active at all hours) and the percentage of geckos active outside of their normally assumed activity period was calculated.

0

100

Rainy Cold Dry

0

10Invertebrate abundance

Dietary overlap

House gecko daylight activity

Day gecko night activity

Importance value of day gecko cannibalism

Fig. 3 Shifting activity and dietary exploitation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rainy Cold Dry

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Die

tary

impo

rta

nce

valu

e

Season

Fig. 4 Exclusion from the safety of refugia

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Nc vs Hf Nd vs Hf Hf vs Nsp 1Lesser night gecko

Durrell’s night gecko

Common house gecko

a

b

a

a

a

b

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Mean (+SD) distances of each gecko species from the centrally placed refugium in isolation of one another (solid bars) and in the presence (open bars) of the common house gecko for the night geckos and visa versa for the common house gecko. Different italicised letters indicate significantly differences for the lesser night gecko (P<0.001) and Durrell’s night gecko (P=0.002).

I also investigated whether the geckos were exposing oneanother to potentially new and harmful parasites. Noevidence was found for cross transmission of parasitesbetween host species, despite them frequently coming intocontact with each other, their faeces and consuming similarpotential intermediate invertebrate host species. However,on islands where the two species occurred together theornate day geckos became more susceptible to infectionby their own parasites, in particular a gut nematode and anectoparasitic pterygosomatid mite. Furthermore, the mitewas also shown to have a negative impact upon geckobody condition. The long term effects of both dietaryexploitation and increased parasite susceptibility of ornateday gecko populations in the presence of house gecko isunknown, but is likely to be detrimental, particularly in theface of further habitat alteration.

Unlike the ornate day geckos, which are still found in coastalareas of Mauritius and several of the offshore islands thenight geckos have a much more restricted range. Sub-fossilremains show that the night geckos were once foundthroughout Mauritius, but had undergone a catastrophicdecline. The lesser night gecko population was fragmentedto just three offshore island populations, whilst Durrell’s

night gecko and the Serpent Island night gecko wererestricted to one offshore island each. Evidence of co-existence with mammalian predators and their existence inextremely barren habitats demonstrated that the usualimpacts were not the sole cause of their decline. In fact,given that the night geckos only existed on the few islandsthat had not yet been invaded by the house gecko indicatedthat it was the prime suspect. I therefore investigated thelikely mechanisms by which the house gecko had causedthe complete exclusion of the night geckos. For eachspecies I collected data on their macro- and microhabitatpreferences by comparing sites with and without geckos,their thermal requirements and the thermal properties oftheir habitat, and finally their diet. The house geckos wereshown to occupy the same macro- and microhabitatvariables as the night geckos, preferring west facing,sheltered, vertical rock faces. All four species chosepredominantly the same refugium type, which consistedof cavities and crevices in the bedrock and all positionedthemselves at similar distances to them when active. Theentrance size of the cavities and crevices utilised by thehouse gecko and the lesser night gecko were no differentand although the other two night gecko species choseslightly larger entrances these would not have excludedthe house gecko. The thermal behaviour of each specieswas the same and all chose microhabitats that had highersubstrate temperatures than elsewhere. The house geckoalso consumed similar prey items to the night geckos, butowing to the smaller size of the lesser night gecko the preyitems it consumed were smaller than those selected by thehouse gecko. It therefore appeared that following the initialinvasion of the house gecko competition would havepossibly been intense at the microhabitat scale particularlyin terms of positions from refugia, refugium type and thermalproperties of the substrate. It is also likely that competition

10

for similar prey items with the two larger night geckos mayhave existed. Identification of all prey items in the dietshighlighted the tendency for the house gecko to predateupon lizards, such as juvenile shore skinks,Cryptoblepharus boutoni. This skink is roughly the samesize as the lesser night gecko and juveniles of the othertwo night geckos, which could have also posed as potentialprey items for the house gecko.

Interaction experiments were then set up in outdoor arenas,each with a centrally placed refugium, to test whether thehouse gecko did indeed compete with the night geckos forspace. Positions of each gecko species from each centrallyplaced refugium were recorded in isolation of and with thehouse gecko. Given the potential sensitivity of removingSerpent Island night geckos from the population for thisexperiment they were not included. In the presence of thehouse gecko the night geckos were forced from their refugiaand occupied positions more than twice the distance fromthe refugia than when on their own (Fig. 4). The housegeckos caused these shifts through aggressiveinteractions, with no detectable change in their ownpreferred positions from refugia or use of refugia. Theseaggressive interactions caused the loss of tails, toes andskin of the night geckos. The lesser night geckos werealso predated upon. This suggested that when housegeckos first invaded Mauritius they would have excludedthe night geckos from their preferred habitats increasingtheir risk to predation by native birds and reptiles, andintroduced mammals. Being forced from refugia would havealso exposed them to adverse weather conditions, such asheavy rains and cyclones that frequent the region. Even inthe absence of predators house geckos would havepredated the smaller night geckos.

The ability of the house gecko to persist outside of itsnatural range in both disturbed and undisturbed habitats

poses a great threat to the survival of ecologically similarendemic geckos within some of the most important globalbiodiversity hotspots. Unfortunately there are no availabletechniques for eradicating small invasive geckos, such ashouse geckos, particularly once they have established.Nevertheless, the discovery of a new lesser night geckopopulation on an island inhabited by the house gecko mayhold the key in preventing its colonisation of particularhabitats. The night gecko population was restricted to justover 200m2 of volcanic tuff rock, which was surrounded,but not occupied by house geckos. I found that the toepads of house geckos, which grip through van der Waalsforces, became clogged with the numerous loose particleson the rock surface preventing adequate grip. The lessernight geckos, which have slender clawed toes penetratedall the loose particles to the underlying more stable rockallowing them access to this habitat type. Similar rocks ormanmade substrates with a loose particulate surface couldbe used to replicate habitats or to build barriers to excludethe house gecko. This discovery offers the first means ofenabling night geckos and possibly other small saxicolouslizards that are potentially threatened from the ongoingspread of the house gecko to survive its impact. Howeverthe best conservation measure available is to prevent theintroduction in the first place.

Nik ColeUniversity of BristolEmail: [email protected]

“ZOOM on the Invasives” photocompetition:

Jellyfish aplenty, but no fish - alienjellyfish, Rhopilema nomadica,swarming in the Mediterranean coastoff Haifa Bay, Israel.THIRD PLACE

Bella GALIL, ISRAEL

11

AN ADDITIONAL RECORD OF THE HORSESHOE CRAB LIMULUS POLYPHEMUSIN THE NORTH SEA

The horseshoe crab Limuluspolyphemus (Linnaeus, 1758) is nativeto the Atlantic coast of North America,from Nova Scotia to Yucatan(Holthuis, 1950). It was introduced intothe North Sea with an initial findingeither off Terschelling (TheNetherlands) or from the coast ofNorth Wales in 1873 (Southwell 1873,Holthuis 1950, Wolff 1977). It tookmore than 100 years for additionalfindings, off the German and Danishcoasts (Wolf f 1977, Nehring &Leuchs, 1999, Jensen & Knudsen

2005). So far, more than 20 individualshave been caught, but it is assumedthat these represent only a smallfraction of the original numbersreleased (Wolff 1977). Recent recordshave not been reported (Wolff 2005).

The introduction vector is not clear.Larvae of L. polyphemus could havebeen transported by ballast water andsubsequently released into the NorthSea. Wolff (1977) mentioned that larvaeof L. polyphemus are able to swim, butdo not usually occur pelagically andhe concludes that ballast watertransport is highly improbable. Larvaeof the horseshoe crab were neverfound in ballast water samplingstudies (Gollasch et al. 2002).

Jensen & Knudsen (2005) state thatthe species was imported foraquaculture purposes at Helgoland(German Wadden Sea) around 1860.Another suggestion is that a Mr.Hagenbeck (who later founded theHagenbeck Zoo in Hamburg,Germany) imported quantities of thespecies in the 1860s for the aquariumtrade (Nehring & Leuchs 1999). Lloyd(1874) states that he and othersimported individual species from NewYork to Hamburg for the same reason.Not all animals could be sold so theremainder were deliberately releasednear Helgoland, Germany, in 1866

(Lloyd 1874, Holthuis 1950). For therecords, in the 1960s/70s, Wolff (1977)assumed that several individuals werebrought from the coast of the USA byseaman and then thrown overboardwhen the vessel passed through theNorth Sea. The individuals may havereached the coast due to activemigration resulting in single records(Nehring & Leuchs 1999).

The two distinct findings in the 1870sand 1960s/70s of a few individuals inthe region indicate that the species was

likely introduced twice withoutestablishment (Nehring & Leuchs1999). Wolff (1977) assumes that theWadden Sea poses a suitable habitatfor the species and that reproductionseems likely.

This account is meant to add to ourknown records of horseshoe crabs inthe North Sea. In August 1970 one liveindividual of the species was foundon a beach south of Westerland onthe west coast of the German Island,Sylt, near to the Danish border. Thisrepresents the only finding from thisisland. The finding was made by theauthor when 10 years old. Speciesidentification by a school boy may bequestioned; however, the species isvery different from all other speciesfound in the area and prior to thisfinding Gollasch spent many vacationson this island “studying” theinvertebrate fauna. It is, therefore,believed that the finding could not bemisinterpreted.

Lastly, since it became clear that thehorseshoe crab is not native in Germanwaters, the basis for the author’sinterest in biological invasions wasinitiated. He continued to follow thisinterest by studying marine biologyand eventually became the firstresearcher to carry out a shippingstudy to proof biological introductions

into Europe which resulted in his PhD(Gollasch 1996) which is the first thesisworld-wide based on ballast watersampling.

Literature citedGollasch, S. 1996. Untersuchungen des

Arteintrages durch den internationalenSchiffsverkehr unter besondererBerücksichtigung nichtheimischerArten. Diss., Univ. Hamburg; VerlagDr. Kovac, Hamburg, 314 pp.

Gollasch, S., Macdonald, E., Belson, S.,Botnen, H., Christensen, J., Hamer,J., Houvenaghel, G., Jelmert, A.,Lucas, I., Masson, D., McCollin, T.,Olenin, S., Persson, A., Wallentinus,I., Wetsteyn, B. & Wittling, T. (2002):Life in Ballast Tanks. 217-231 pp. In:Leppäkoski, E., Gollasch, S. & Olenin,S. (eds.): Invasive Aquatic Species ofEurope: Distribution, Impacts andManagement. KLUWER AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, TheNetherlands. 583 pp. Holthuis, L.B.1950. Decapoda. A. Natantia, MacruraReptantia, Anomura en Stomatopoda.Fauna van Nederland 15, 1-120

Jensen, K. & Knudsen, J. 2005. A summaryof alien marine invertebrates in Danishwaters. Oceanological andHydrobiological Studies. Vol. XXXIV,Supplement 1, 137-162

Lloyd, W.A. 1874. On the occurrence ofLimulus polyphemus off the coast ofHolland, and on the transmission ofaquarium animals. Zoologist, Series2(9), 3845-3855

Nehring, S. & H. Leuchs 1999. Neozoa(Makrobenthos) an der deutschenNordseeküste. Eine Übersicht.Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde,Koblenz. 131 pp.

Southwell, T. 1873. King crab off the Dutchcoast. Zoologist 2(8), 3740

Wolff, T. 1977. The Horseshoe Crab(Limulus polyphemus) in NorthEuropean waters. Vidensk. MeddrDansk Naturh. Foren. 140, 39-52

Wolff, W.J. 2005. Non-indigenous marineand estuarine species in The Nether-lands. Zoologische Mededelingen. 79-1, 1-116

The finding was made by the author when 10 years old...........the basis for the author’s interest in biological invasions wasinitiated.

Stephan GollaschGoConsult, Bahrenfelder Str. 73a,22765 Hamburg,Germanywww.gollaschconsulting.deE-mail: [email protected]

12

IAS in Europe – IUCN Regional Officefor Europe Newsletter 8

The Regional Office for Europe (ROfE) is a branch of TheWorld Conservation Union (IUCN) global network. TheOffice publishes regular newsletters featuring contribu-tions from IUCN members. Newsletter 8 (2005) focuses it’sattention on the issue of IAS in Pan-Europe and containsarticles from many European members of the ISSG. PieroGenovesi (Chair of the European section of the ISSG) drawsattention to some of the IAS threatening biodiversity inEurope and Dr Ruth Waters (Senior Species Officer forEnglish Nature) outlines some of the issues specificallyfaced in England and how English Nature plans to tacklethem over the next five years, while Maj De Poorter (Coor-dinator ISSG) highlights several IAS examples.

The newsletter is availableonline at:http://www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/documents/Rofe%20News_Vol8_english.pdf.

Print copies from:IUCN RoFELouis Schmidt Boulevard 641040 BrusselBelgium.

GISP Guide to Invasive Species inSouth America

The continent of South America has a huge variety of dif-ferent habitats and is home to more than 20% of the World’splant species. All this is under threat from invasive alienspecies yet to date the presence of IAS has largely beenignored. South America Invaded is the latest in the seriesof reports on IAS around the continents of the world pub-lished by the GISP and has a Foreword by ISSG member Dr.Silvia Ziller. In addition to detailing IAS that are threaten-ing South America the publication also contains a sectionhighlighting species that started out in South America andare now invasive in other areas of the World.

South America Invaded can be downloaded from http://www.gisp.org/publications/invaded/index.asp.

PUBLICATIONS

Brussels in Brief: Invasive SpeciesPolicy in Europe

Brussels in Brief is a regular publication from the IUCNproduced by the Institute for European EnvironmentalPolicy (IEEP). Volume 8 of Brussels in Brief focuses on theissue of IAS in Europe and the legislation that is in place tohelp halt their spread and reduce their effects. The issuealso highlights some of the worst invasives in Europe andthe threat of marine IAS.

The newsletter can be downloaded from http://www. iucn.org /p laces/europe/ ro fe /documents /BrusselsInBrief_vol8_2005.pdf.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Our Global Environment

“Our Global Environment – A health perspective” hasbeen published as a resource for courses in environmentalhealth and/or human ecology.

The book focuses mainly on how human health is affectedby the impact of humans in the 21st century. It includes asection on the introduction of invasive species and howthey have directly or indirectly affected people’s livelihoodsand health

The book is available from:Waveland press, Inc at:http://www.waveland.com/Titles/Nadakavukaren.htm

13

STRAW OR SCALY TREE FERN CYATHEA COOPERI (HOOK. EX F. MUELL.) DOMININ NEW ZEALAND

IntroductionThe New Zealand botanical region has10-11 native tree fern species. Theseplants form a characteristic part of thevegetation and are very much part ofthe national psyche. For example, theponga or silver fern (Cyatheadealbata (G. Forster) Swartz) is the NZnational emblem favoured by sportsteams.

These plants are often regarded asprimaeval in appearance and indeedthe fossil record suggests that the treefern form has been present since be-fore the Triassic (Large & Braggins2004). Yet terms like primaeval or primi-tive should not imply that these plantsare unsuccessful in terms of dispersaland as colonisers of humid disturbedsites. For example, the native Cyatheamedullaris (G Forster) Swartz may forma monoculture and inhibit competingplants. Like many other plant groups,certain tree ferns can become weedspecies outside of their natural range.

Internationally, the AustralianCyathea cooperi (Hook. ex F. Muell.)Domin is arguably the second mostcommon tree fern in cultivation afterDicksonia antarctica Labillardière.This popularity is a reflection of itsease of cultivation and aesthetic ap-peal. Cultivars of C. cooperi are evenrecognised, including names such asBrentwood, Robusta, Kalgoorie Goldand Emerald Beauty.

Cyathea cooperi naturally rangesfrom north-eastern Queensland toNew South Wales and is naturalisedin Western Australia. Although thehabitat of this tree fern is warmer tem-perate to subtropical rainforest, thisspecies grows in a wide variety of con-ditions, including dryer slopes thanmost other tree ferns. It has even beenover wintered in the United Kingdom,although it is not regarded as coldhardy. Heavy frosts may kill off allfronds but plants have been known torecover (Jones and Clemesha 1976,Chaffey 1999)

With its relatively wide tolerance,Cyathea cooperi has becomenaturalised in Mauritius, South Africa

and Hawai’i (arriving on the island ofO’ahu most likely during the 1950’s).Since its advent this tree fern has be-come one of Hawai’i’s more importantinvasive species (see Medeiros et al1992 and Loope et al 1992) with thepotential to seriously alter habitat. Al-though the species has been formallydeclared a noxious weed by the stateand its horticultural distributionhalted, this species continues to bean aggressive invasive. Efforts to con-trol its dispersal and growth until re-cently were limited to Haleakala Na-tional Park. In the Pacific Cyatheacooperi is naturalised in FrenchPolynesia where it is also regarded asan environmental threat.

Over the last 15 -20 years many newtree fern species have been introducedto New Zealand as garden and land-scape plants (see Van der Mast &Hobbs 1998). This is particularly truein the Auckland region where Cyatheabrownii Domin, C. tomentossisimaCopeland and Dicksonia antarcticaare now found in garden centres. In-deed many of these tree ferns makegood garden specimens. However, theintroduced Cyathea cooperi shouldbe regarded with caution.

This species has been regarded asnaturalised in New Zealand since themid 1990’s (see Heenan et al 1998) yetin Auckland it is still a frequent plantin garden centres. Its use in horticul-

ture is also promoted in the literature(e.g. Van der Mast & Hobbs 1998) andit has even been used in nativeplantings instead of seemingly suit-able native species (It might be as-sumed that this is because it has beenwrongly identified as native).

ConclusionIt is not always first apparent whethernew garden introductions have a po-tential to become invasive. The inter-national record of C. cooperi suggeststhat it is a prime candidate given aninitial critical mass. Future climaticchange particularly in the north of NewZealand may also enhance its abilityto establish.

In the course of a season a mature treefern may produce up to 2kg of sporematerial (see Large & Braggins, 2004).Given this prolific production of sporesfrom each plant, it is likely that it isonly a matter of time before this fernwill be seen more frequently in the wild.

Clearly correct identification of thisspecies and its distinction from thenative taxa is important, as is the rec-ognition of young plants. Prohibitionof material for sale in garden centres(as in Hawai’i) may also be desirable ifwe are to prevent further spread.

Description and identificationCyathea cooperi (W. J. Hooker ex F.von Mueller) Domin, 1929.Sphaeropteris cooperi (W. J. Hookerex F. von Mueller) Tryon, 1970.Alsophila cooperi W. J. Hooker ex F.von Mueller, 1866.

Adult Description: A medium to large,fast growing tree-fern, named after SirDaniel Cooper, first speaker of theNSW legislature and curator of theBotanical Society of London in the19th century.

The trunk is tall and erect, slender tostout 10–12 m in height and ca. 15 cmin diameter. The trunk is often coveredin ovoid scars left by fallen fronds.Stipe bases do not usually persist (ex-cept in fast growing plants). Frondsare bi- to tri-pinnate and may reach ca.4–6 m long. In older plants the fronds

Photo: Mark Large

14

tend to form a tight rosette at the top of the trunk. Thestipe and rachis are greenish to dark brown-black and mayhave regular wart-like protrusions. Scales may be smalldark red to pale brown with spiny margins or are moreusually large and silky-white with smaller red to black mar-ginal spines. Sori occur singularly, or in rows of up to 10.Indusia are absent.

Key characteristicsCyathea cooperi may be distinguished from the nativeNew Zealand species of tree fern by the presence of longwhite and short red-brown scales covering stipe bases,particularly towards the crown. These scales may bearvery small reddish to blackish spines along the edges.Unfurling crosiers are also conspicuously covered in silkywhite scales.

Within New Zealand the only likely confusion could bewith the also introduced, C. brownii from Norfolk Island.The latter species tends to be somewhat more robust (how-ever individual plants may vary). It also differs from C.cooperi in having pale light brown scales with marginalspines or with white to brown edges.

ReferencesChaffy, C.H. 1999: Australian Ferns: growing them successfully.

Kangaroo Press NSW.Heenan, P.B.; Breitwieser, I.; Glenny, D.S.; de Lange, P.J. &

Brownsey, P.J. 1998: Checklist of dicotyledons and pteri-dophytes naturalised or casual in New Zealand: additionalrecords 1994-1996. New Zealand Journal of Botany 36: 155–162.

Jones, D.L. & Clemesha, S.C. 1976: Australian Ferns and FernAllies. Reed, Wellington.

Large, M.F. & Braggins, J.E. 2004: Tree Ferns. Timber Press,Oregon USA.

Loope, L. L., Nagata, R. J. & Medeiros, A. C. 1992: Alien plantsin Haleakala National Park. Pages 551-576 in C. P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J. T. Tunison, eds. Alien plant invasion innative ecosystems of Hawai’i: Management and Research.Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit, Univer-sity of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu.

Medeiros, A. C., Loope, L. L. Flynn, T. Anderson, S. J. Cuddihy,L. W. & Wilson, K. A. 1992: Notes on the status of aninvasive Australian tree fern (Cyathea cooperi) in Hawaiianrain forests. American Fern Journal 82 (1):27-33.

Van der Mast, S. & Hobbs, J. 1998: Ferns for New ZealandGardens. Godwit, Auckland.

Associate Professor Mark LargeSchool of Natural SciencesUnitec New ZealandEmail: [email protected]

“ZOOM on the Invasives” photo competition:

Tension of pre-predation, Ohau, New Zealand. FINALISTDavid J. MUDGE, NEW ZEALAND

A Mountain of Kudzu, North Carolina, USA. FINALISTMartin BERGOFFEN, USA

z

zzz

zzzzz

15

SCIENCE-BASED “PARKNERSHIP” T O EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELYPROTECT SPECIAL HABITATS IN FLORIDA FROM FERAL SWINE

Swine adversely affect the environment in most of theplaces around the world where they have been introducedinto the wild, often making their removal the key to pro-tecting many special habitats, particularly wetlands. Theirinitial introduction to Florida in 1539 by DeSoto was fol-lowed by many others. Today, swine flourish and causewidespread damage. A highly successful collaborative“Parknership” approach among UDSA/APHIS/WildlifeServices - Florida Operations, UDSA/APHIS/Wildlife Ser-vices - National Wildlife Research Center, and the FloridaPark Service has produced practical and valuable methodsfor enhancing swine removal efforts. We highlight thoseresearch thrusts here.

Monitoring swine populations is vital to their management.The logistical and theoretical difficulties associated withdensity estimation methods typically make indices of abun-dance the only practical means to operationally monitorswine (e.g., Choquenot et al. 1996). We have been usingan easily-applied passive tracking index (PTI) with goodstatistical properties to monitor swine distribution and rela-tive abundance (Engeman et al. 2001). This low-techmethod places tracking plots throughout the area of inter-est. At each plot, the number of swine intrusions into theplot is recorded for two consecutive days (the plots areresurfaced between days). The PTI and associated vari-ance are calculated according to Engeman (2005), where amixed linear model describes the number of intrusions oneach plot each day. The mean number of track intrusionson each plot is calculated for each day, and the index valueis the mean of the daily means. Adding to index’s robust-ness, the variance formula was derived without assumingindependence among plots or days (Engeman 2005). Ap-plications of the method have included 1) optimizing thetiming and strategy for swine removal, 2) minimizing laborby identifying areas where swine removal would have maxi-mal effect, 3) assessing efficacy of removal efforts, and 4)detecting re-invasion and identifying directions from whichre-invasion occurs.

Reduction in swine damage is the ultimate objective forswine removal, making quantification of damage neces-sary to evaluate control success. Variability among habi-tats required different damage sampling methods for dif-ferent circumstances. A quadrat sampling methodologywas used in conjunction with the PTI population surveysto estimate the amount of swine damaged habitat (Engemanet al. 2003). Each tracking plot location defined the loca-tion for 2 damage assessment plots, 1m outward from eachroad edge. Each damage plot was a 5x1 m rectangle, estab-lished by folding a 1x1m PVC pipe square. String placed ina “+” sign across the square divided it into 4 equal quad-rants. Thus, damage was measured over 20 0.25m2 quad-rants for each of the 5x1m plots, providing repeatabilitywithin 5%.

Where it was possible to follow a straight-line transect,damage was sampled on transects spaced through the area.This was particularly effective for assessing damage tothe exposed portion of an imperiled basin marsh system.Tape measure transects were placed perpendicularly fromthe water’s edge to the interface with surrounding uplandvegetation (Engeman et al. 2004b). Each transect’s totaldistance was measured, as was the distance directly onthe transect that was damaged by swine. This amount couldrepresent a single damage patch or combined distancesfrom multiple patches. The estimated damage was the dam-age length’s proportion of the transect length.

Besides estimating the quantity of swine damaged habitat,we monetarily valued the damage. Determining values forprotected habitats is not straight-forward (nor precise).Engeman et al. (2004a) discussed a variety of ways to ap-ply monetary values to rare animal species and habitats.Special habitats such as wetlands have limited “marketvalue”, and if such habitat is selectively protected, themarket value diminishes further (King 1998). The use ofcontingent valuation surveys tend to provide abstract ap-praisals of value (King 1998), and rarely form the basis forpolicy decisions (Adamowicz 2004). The most defensible,logical, and applicable valuation for swine damaged habi-tat was expenditure data for permitted wetland mitigationprojects in the United States. Such data represent an em-pirical demonstration of willingness-to-pay value. King(1998) presented the dollar amounts per unit-area spent inrestoration attempts for a spectrum of wetland habitats.Those numbers represent the dollar amounts that environ-mental regulators, and to a degree elected governments,have allowed permit applicants to spend to replace lostwetland services and values (King 1998). For our economicassessments, we identified the dollar value for habitats inour swine damage circumstances from the studies cited inKing (1998).

Estimation of the amount and value of swine damage al-lowed economic evaluations of swine control using ben-efit-cost analyses (BCA). The BCA approach involvedestimating the monetary value of the benefits of damagesaved versus the costs measured in damage lost plus con-trol costs. Benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) were calculated us-ing the standard format of the ratio of benefits to costs(e.g., Boardman et al. 1996). BCR>1 implies the rewards forswine removal exceeded the costs. Universally, the eco-nomic analyses demonstrated enormous benefit-cost ra-tios for swine removal.

Each area of research has contributed positively to theefficacy, efficiency, and perception of swine removal ef-forts. The PTI is an effective tool for planning and assess-ing swine removal efforts, and for follow-up monitoring todetermine if and where additional control is needed. Pro-

16

tection and improvement of habitats have been the ultimate goals of our swineremoval efforts. Therefore, reliable and practical means to estimate damagelevels have provided true evaluations of the need and efficacy of swine con-trol. The ability to value the habitat has provided an effectual tool for evaluat-ing conservation approaches. Economic analyses can greatly assist managerson how most efficiently and effectively to allocate limited funds towards habi-tat conservation. Ultimately, many conservation funding decisions are madeon a political level by people without high levels of training in biological sci-ences. Placing conservation issues in an economic context can greatly en-lighten the political decision making process.

References:Adamowicz, W. 2004. What’s it Worth? An Examination of Historical Trends and

Future Directions in Environmental Valuation. Australian Journal of Agriculturaland Resource Economics 48:419-443.

Boardman, A. E., D.H. Greenberg, A.R. Vining and D.L. Weimer. 1996. Cost-BenefitAnalysis: Concepts and Practice. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Choquenot, D., J. McIlroy and T. Korn. 1996. Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Pigs.Canberra, ACT, Australia: Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service

Engeman, R.M. 2005. A methodological and analytical paradigm for indexing animalpopulations applicable to many species and observation methods. Wildlife Re-search. 32:203-210.

Engeman, R.M., B. Constantin, M. Nelson, J. Woolard, J. Bourassa, 2001. Monitoringchanges in feral swine population and spatial distribution of activity. Environmen-tal Conservation. 28:235-240

Engeman, R.M., S.A. Shwiff, H.T. Smith and B. Constantin. 2004a. Monetary valua-tion of rare species and imperiled habitats as a basis for economically evaluatingconservation approaches. Endangered Species Update. 21:66-73.

Engeman, R.M., H.T. Smith, R. Severson, M.A. Severson, J. Woolard, S.A. Shwiff, B.Constantin and D. Griffin. 2004b. Damage reduction estimates and benefit-costvalues for feral swine control from the last remnant of a basin marsh system inFlorida. Environmental Conservation. 31:207-211.

Engeman, R.M., H.T. Smith, S.A. Shwiff, B. Constantin, M. Nelson, D. Griffin and J.Woolard. 2003. Prevalence and economic value of feral swine damage to nativehabitat in three Florida state parks. Environmental Conservation 30:319-324.

King, D. 1998. The dollar value of wetlands: trap set, bait taken, don’t swallow. Na-tional Wetlands Newsletter. July-August: 7-11.

Richard M. Engeman,National Wildlife Research Cente4101 LaPorte AveFort Collins,CO 80521-2154USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Henry T. SmithFlorida Department of Environmen-tal ProtectionFlorida Park Service13798 S.E. Federal HighwayHobe Sound ,FL 33455USA

Bernice ConstantinUSDA/APHIS/WS2820 East University Ave.Gainesville, FL 32641USA

Stephanie A. ShwiffFlorida Department of Environmen-tal ProtectionFlorida Park Service13798 S.E. Federal HighwayHobe Sound FL 33455USA

John WoolardUSDA/APHIS/WS2820 East University Ave.Gainesville, FL 32641USA

Mark NelsonJonathan Dickinson State Park,16450 S.E. Federal HighwayHobe Sound, FL 33455USA

NOTES

NOBANIS: A new tool tocombat invasive alienspecies

The NOBANIS Internet portal oninvasive alien species was opened inNovember 2005.

The new portal is an important gatewayto data on invasive alien species inNorthern and Central Europe. Theportal is based on the latest scientificknowledge about invasive alienspecies. The portal can be used by allinterested parties - administrators,journalists and scientists alike.

The new searchable database answersquestions such as what alien speciesare present as well as how, when andwhy a species was introduced to theregion. Information on the status,invasiveness and impact of the alieninvasive species is available for eachcountry that is a member of theNOBANIS portal (see below). Mapscovering the entire region are availableto show the distribution of specieswhich are a particular problem to theenvironment and livelihoods.

NOBANIS is a network ofenvironmental administrators from theNorthern, Baltic and Central Europeancountries working with invasive alienspecies. The current members of theNOBANIS project are: Denmark,Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland,Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Latvia,Lithuania, Norway, Poland andSweden. NOBANIS is financed by theNordic Council of Ministers and theparticipating countries’ environmentalauthorities.

In the future, details on managementand control of the most invasivespecies will be included on the portal.

Visit the portal at: http://www.artportalen.se/nobanis/

Source: Inger R. WeidemaDanish Forest and Nature AgencyMinistry of the EnvironmentEmail: [email protected]

17

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIESIMPLEMENTED BY IUCN IN SRI LANKA

Sri Lanka, though being a small island of 65,610 km2, a widerange of topographic and climatic variation has resulted ina multitude of ecosystems, and a high species diversity.The island has been recognized as one of the ‘biodiversityhotspots’ of global significance, due to the presence ofmany unique species whose natural habitats have beenlost to a great extent. Several anthropogenic factors havecontributed to the degradation and deterioration of naturalhabitats and ecosystems. The threats to naturalbiodiversity in the island have been further aggravated bythe introduction and spread of invasive alien plant andanimal species. Observations made during the past decadehave enabled to document about 25 species of invasivealien animals and 40 species of invasive alien plantsspreading in natural and semi-natural ecosystems in thedifferent biogeographic zones of Sri Lanka. The impacts ofthese alien invaders include direct destruction of nativespecies, replacement of native vegetation and pests/weedsof agricultural crops. At present, aqua-culturists, aquariumtraders and horticulturists are the main sources thatcontribute to the introduction and spread of new IAS inthe island.

Several activities related to the management of IAS in SriLanka have been initiated by IUCN over the past five years.These could be briefly explained under the following sub-topics:

Compilation of information on IAS in Sri LankaInformation on IAS, including their current spread/

distribution, biological/socio-economic impacts andecological aspects is being compiled and updated on aregular basis, through the review of secondary information,and also through primary field observations of ecologistsattached to IUCN. This has also enabled to prepare andupdate lists/inventories of IAS in Sri Lanka

Awareness raisingIUCN has conducted several awareness programmes onIAS for various stakeholders over the past five years,including NGOs, school/university students, governmentofficials, aquarists, horticulturists and the media. Awarenessmaterial on IAS have been developed in the local language,and circulated among the above stakeholders. IUCN wasalso able to organize several national and regionalworkshops on IAS, which has helped to generate furtherawareness and support from relevant government agenciesto implement IAS management activities.

Development of proposals to manage IASAt present, a proposal on strengthening partnerships foreffective management of IAS in Sri Lanka is beingdeveloped by IUCN, as a PDF A medium scale project to befunded by UNDP GEF. The project focuses on developingthe capacity of relevant institutions to manage IAS, raiseawareness and implement pilot research on the control ofprioritized IAS in the island.

Provision of technical assistance for IAS control projectsStaff members attached to IUCN are also providing

“ZOOM on theInvasives” photocompetition:

Water hyacinthE i c h h o r n i acrassipes infestingriver Oueme, Benin.SECOND PLACE.

Fen BEED, UK

18

technical support to the Department of WildlifeConservation, who have initiated IAS control programmesin two national parks in Sri Lanka; the Udawalawe NationalPark (control of Lantana camara) and the Bundala NationalPark (control of Opuntia dillennii and Prosopis juliflora).Similar support is being provided to the Coast ConservationDepartment, who have initiated a programme to controlOpuntia and Prosopis in the southern coastal zone. NGOsalso contact IUCN on a regular basis, for technical guidanceon IAS control projects implemented at a local level.

Implementation of research on IASResearch projects on the ecology and impacts of IAS isalso coordinated and supervised by IUCN staff, incollaboration with local universities. These include bothundergraduate and post-graduate research projects.

Support policy initiatives related to IASIUCN is currently working in close collaboration with theMinistry of Environment and Natural Resources, todevelop relevant policies to facilitate the management ofIAS, and promote inter-agency collaboration to addressthis issue. A National Invasive Alien Species ManagementCommittee has already been established under the aboveMinistry, to coordinate the IAS management activities inSri Lanka. A national strategy and action plan for themanagement of IAS is currently being developed. The needto manage IAS has been incorporated and clearlyhighlighted in recent policy documents related toconservation, including the national wetland conservationpolicy, and the revised biodiversity conservation actionplan.

Channa BambaradeniyaIUCN Sri Lanka Country [email protected]

International Plant Health Risk Analysis W ork-shop, 24 - 28 October 2005, Niagara Falls, Canada

An international workshop on plant health Pest Risk Analy-sis (PRA) was held to address issues and find solutions toproblems faced by people involved in PRA around theworld. The workshop was attended by 145 delegates rep-resenting 63 different countries.The workshop provided an opportunity to:

- explore methods and procedures for applying theIPPC’s PRA standards

- share experiences on how to use PRA as a decisionmaking tool

- present tools for completing PRAs - strengthen international PRA expertise and communi-

cation - build a collaborative international PRA network.

Presentations and break-out group exercises from the 2005International Plant Health Risk Analysis workshop havebeen posted at: https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND01ODQ1NSY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z

You can also navigate to this page by:1. Going to www.ippc.int2. Clicking on the tab “IPPC Publications”3. In the list of topics on the left-hand side of the page,click on “Workshop papers”4. Clicking on the sub-topic “2005 - Plant health risk analy-sis” If you experience any difficulties in accessing the presen-tations, please e-mail [email protected]

NOTES

We need YOUR support!

The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC)of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The goals of the ISSG are to reduce threats to natural ecosystemsand the native species they contain - by increasing awareness of alien invasions and of ways to prevent,control or eradicate them.

The office of ISSG is based at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. For more information on ouractivities, see back cover. The staff of the ISSG office are financially supported solely through our ownefforts at fundraising – we need YOUR support.

Cheques can be made payable to “IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group – University of Auckland” andsent to Maj De Poorter, ISSG/SGGES, University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus), Private Bag 92019,Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. Please write “Donation to ISSG” on the back.

If you wish to use a Credit Card, please email the ISSG office with the following details: Credit Card numberand type, i.e. Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc. Expiry date on Card. Name on Card.

Donations may be tax deductible (depending on your country), given that our legal entity is through theUniversity of Auckland.

19

Sucker-mouth Catfish, Florida, USA Adam STERN, USA

&

Caulerpa taxifolia invading Mediter-ranean Seascapes, Cap Martin, FranceDavid LUQUET, FRANCE

FINALISTS

The Kruger National Park (KNP) is well known for its birddiversity, with over 500 species having been recorded todate. However, three species of less desired birds havealso been observed. These include the Indian myna(Acridotheres tristis), house sparrow (Passer domesticus)and Indian house crow (Corvus splendens) In the February2001 issue (Number 1, Volume 3) of the Prickly Pearnewsletter we reported on the first observation of Indianmynas in KNP. Although efforts have been made to controlthe mynas where observed in the KNP, the house sparrowis not subject to control measures. As none of the specieshave been listed as major biodiversity threats to the KNPcurrently, no research is being conducted on either impactsor control measures. However, early detection anderadication of Indian mynas will remain a high priority, andvigilance is required from all.

Three sightings of Indian mynas have been recorded inthe KNP. The first two were during October 2000 and bothsightings were of a single pair. Two birds were again seen(by I. J. Whyte) in September 2003 at the Game Capturebomas at Skukuza. Repeated searches for them thereafterwere unsuccessful. Indian mynas are indigenous to theIndian subcontinent and have been exported to many partsof the world. They compete aggressively with manyindigenous species for nesting and feeding sites and greatly

affect the biodiversity of an area. Although currently not aproblem in the KNP, the increase in numbers in townssurrounding the KNP and number of sightings reported iscause for concern.

The house sparrow was introduced to Southern Africa, viaDurban and East London, from Europe. The house sparrowis now widespread throughout the subcontinent,particularly in cities, towns and settlements. In the KNPthe house sparrow is found in most tourist rest camps,bushveld camps and larger picnic spots; in fact at almostevery site where people live. They are reported to besedentary and therefore do not roam far from their nestingsites. Thus these birds are only likely to compete withbirds in the built up areas for nesting sites.

An Indian house crow was seen in Satara Rest Camp inFebruary 1988 and destroyed by the ranger. No furtherrecords of house crows have been made from the KNP.

Llewellyn Foxcroft,Email: [email protected]

Excerpt from: Alien bird species in the Kruger NationalPark, In: A status report of invasive alien species andmanagement in the Kruger National Park.

ALIEN BIRDS IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK REVISITED

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

20

GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Over the last few years IUCN has been working with Fauna& Flora International, Resource Africa, and TRAFFIC inthe Precautionary Principle Project - exploring the meaningand implementation of precaution across biodiversity con-servation and Natural Resource Management (NMR). Weare now delighted to announce that final Guidelines forApplying the Precautionary Principle to BiodiversityConservation and Natural Resource Management are nowavailable in English, French and Spanish atwww.pprinciple.net, and copies of a more detailed, printedcolour brochure can be sent on request. It is hoped thatthese will be widely adopted and used in a broad range ofbiodiversity conservation and NRM contexts where un-certainty and precaution are relevant issues, including in-vasive alien species; sustainable use, management andtrade of wildlife; forestry; fisheries; wetlands managementand protected area management.

In the invasive species context, as in other areas, deci-sion-makers must grapple with poor or incomplete data,inherent unpredictability, and ignorance. There is frequentlya high level of uncertainty surrounding the risks of entry,invasiveness, and the threats of environmental, economicor social damage posed by particular species or pathways.Providing clear scientific evidence in advance of the inva-sive potential of a specific alien species, or of the range ofspecies which could enter unintentionally, will often beunfeasible. For obvious reasons, once there is empiricalinformation available on the invasiveness of an organismin a particular country or area, it will usually be too late toprevent invasion. Prediction of the impacts of introducinga new organism (often poorly understood itself) into anecosystem is inherently problematic: uncertainty derivesnot just from incomplete, inaccurate or missing data butfrom the inherently unpredictable behaviour of complex

OUTPUTS OF PRECAUTIONARYPRINCIPLE PROJECT

1) Guidelines for Applying the Precautionary PrincipleIllustrated and annotated guidance for decision-makers,researchers, and practitioners in conservation and NRM.http://www.pprinciple.net/PP%20Guidelines_espanol.pdfhttp://www.pprinciple.net/PP%20Guidelines_francais.pdfhttp://www.pprinciple.net/PP%20Guidelines_english.pdf

2) Book: Biodiversity and the Precautionary PrincipleCase studies and analyses on application of the PP fromaround the world, by specialists in biology, conservation,resource policy, economics, and law.

Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk andUncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use (Ed byCooney and Dickson), Published by Earthscan, London(http://shop.earthscan.co.uk). Paperback ISBN 1844072770,Hardback ISBN 1844072762, Publication date: November2005, 272 pages; 234 x 156mm; Figures, tables, maps, index

3) Issues paper for policy-makers, researchers and prac-titionersInvestigating the practical and theoretical issues surround-ing the application and impacts of the precautionary prin-ciple.

The Precautionary Principle in Biodiversity Conserva-tion and Natural Resource Management: An issues paperfor policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xi + 51pp. ISBN: 2-8317-0810-9

21

systems such as ecosystems. Whileresearch has focussed for some de-cades on seeking to understand thebiology of invasiveness, this is cur-rently not a reliably predictive science,and is unlikely to be in the foreseeablefuture.

How decision-making responds to thisuncertainty has a major impact on itssuccess in achieving environmentaland sustainable development objec-tives, in the context of invasives as inmany other areas. Waiting until thereis clear or unambiguous evidence of athreat will often mean it is too late toprevent serious, costly or irreversibleenvironmental harm. The precaution-ary principle/approach is a majorpolicy response to recognition of thissituation. It urges action in advanceof certainty about threats, supportinganticipatory, preventative actionagainst potential harm. In theinvasives context the precautionaryapproach has been widely incorpo-rated into international guidance oninvasives, including the CBD GuidingPrinciples, its “Jakarta Mandate” onmarine and coastal biodiversity, andguidance developed by the Bern Con-vention and the African-EurasianWaterbird Agreement. However, pre-caution remains controversial, particu-larly in the context of trade measures.More broadly, despite widespreadobligations to apply the precaution-ary principle in many areas of conser-vation and NRM, there often appearslittle evidence that it is being applied,and in some cases evidence that isbeing applied in a counter-productiveor inequitable manner. Guidance on itsapplication into practice has beenbadly needed

These new Guidelines represent thefirst set of guidance for the precau-tionary principle in biodiversity con-servation and NRM. They have beendeveloped by The Precautionary Prin-ciple Project with extensive input froma wide range of experts and stakehold-ers from different regions, sectors, dis-ciplines and perspectives They were

finalised at an international workshopin Florida in July 2005, after over twoyears of work and consultation includ-ing regional workshops in Africa, Asiaand Latin America (see regional work-shop reports at www.pprinciple.net/publications_outputs.html). A largeset of case studies was carried out,including studies on Weed Risk As-sessment in Australia (authored byTim Low, a member of ISSG), the inter-national forest regime, Impact Assess-ment, trophy hunting in Central Asia,sea turtles in Costa Rica, parrots inArgentina, and forest management inthe USA and Uganda, as well as analy-ses which highlight issues of equity,economics, livelihoods, science andpolitics. The case studies and Guide-lines form the book Biodiversity andthe Precautionary Principle: Riskand Uncertainty in Conservation andSustainable Use (ed by Cooney andDickson), can be obtained fromEarthscan, London (http://shop.earthscan.co.uk).

These Guidelines seek to provide clear,coherent guidance on precaution anddealing with uncertainty.

Please note that the Guidelines shouldnot be taken as necessarily repre-senting the view of IUCN or other col-laborating organisations, and are cur-rently under review by the IUCN Coun-cil.

Rosie CooneyE-mail:[email protected](Current E-mail:[email protected]

Barney DicksonE-mail:[email protected]

Editorial note: Rosie Cooney’spresentation “Precaution andinvasive alien species: challenges atthe interface of the trade andenvironment regimes” is availableonline (see box on page 4)

...In the invasive species context, as in other areas, decision-makers must grapple with poor or incomplete data...

NOTES

£3.3 MILLION FOR RUDDY DUCKERADICATION

A £3.34 million, five-year project toaddress the threat to European wildlifeposed by ruddy duck populationssettled in Britain was announced inoctober 2005. It has been jointlyfunded by the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs(DEFRAand the European Com-mission, with Defra contributing £2.03million of the total costs. BiodiversityMinister Jim Knight stated that thecontrol program would make a majorcontribution to protecting thedeclining populations of white-headedducks. “Non-native invasive speciesare a major problem throughoutEurope, and ruddy ducks are noexception,” he said. “If the threat ofruddy ducks is removed, Spain’sglobally-threatened white-headedducks will have a much brighter future.

Ruddy ducks were introduced to theUK from North America in the 1940s,and the current population in the wildis estimated to be around 6000 birds.There are an estimated 500,000 ruddyducks in their native North America.Ruddy ducks interbreed with white-headed ducks, whose WesternEuropean population of around 2700birds are all found in Spain. Theinterbred offspring are fertile, andtherefore pose an increasing threat tothe white-headed duck, which couldlead to its extinction. Without thepresence of ruddy ducks, the White-headed duck population in Spain isthought to be self-sustaining.Evidence suggests that most, if notall, ruddy ducks found in the rest ofEurope are derived from the UKpopulations so eradicating the UKpopulation of ruddy ducks will removethe source and make futureeradications in the rest of Europeeasier.

Source: News release,UK Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 12 October2005

22

NOTESWorkshop on ragweed inBraunschweig, Germany

On 28 November 2005 an interdisciplinary workshop withcirca 30 participants from Germany and Switzerland fromthe sectors plant protection, allergology, meteorology andpollen warning, nature protection and University researchtook place in the Federal Biological Research Centre forAgriculture and Forestry (BBA) Braunschweig. It wasorganised and chaired by the Department of Plant Health.The aim of the workshop was the exchange of scientificinformation and discussion between the concerneddisciplines and especially the discussion on the necessityof specific measures against ragweed (Ambrosiaartemisiifolia), their feasibility in Germany and how thesemeasures could be implemented.

A. artemisiifolia originated in North America. In Germanyit occurs only sporadically and mostly inconstantly untilnow. An increase is suspected as the species - especiallyin the last decade - has spread in several neighbouringcountries, primarily by human activities. In the USA and inHungary it is an economically important weed, furthermoreit is very problematic that pollen of ragweed are triggers ofallergies.

In particular the following questions have been discussed:• What are the consequences?

• Estimation of the dispersal and establishment in Germanynow and in future?

• What are the pathways for dispersal?

• Are control measures necessary?

• Are there appropriate methods for measures?

ConclusionsThe participants of the workshop agree that because ofdamaging effects on human health and on agriculture afurther entry and spread must be guarded. Research intothe biology of the species and into control methods isneeded to prevent the further spread of the species and toreduce it’s effects on the environment and human health.

Shortened from text provided by:

Uwe Starfinger and Gritta SchraderTranslation: Elke Vogt-Arndt

Further information: Email: [email protected]

Extra AUS$1 million for 1 1 project sto Defeat the Weed Menace

The Australian Government is continuing to target weedsacross Australia with the announcement in October 2005of nearly a million dollars in funding for 11 projects underits new Defeating the Weed Menace Program. The projectsare in addition to 25, worth $1.8 million, already announced.

Australian Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell,and Conservation Minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, statedthat the list of projects was the second under theGovernment’s $40million election commitment to tackleweeds. Senator Macdonald said the extra eight, on-groundprojects, and three national research projects, would receive$1million. “Defeating the Weed Menace is targetingAustralia’s most significant weeds in the field and, at thesame time, supporting significant Research & Developmentinto the weeds problem,” Senator Macdonald said. “Weedsare a significant cost to the economy, something like$4 billion a year, and pose one of the greatest threats toAustralia’s unique plants and animals.”

Senator Campbell stated that the new projects would helpmanage and control a number of Australia’s most significantweeds, including lantana, rubber vine, serrated tussock,Mimosa pigra, parthenium weed, blackberry and bridalcreeper. “Although land management, including weeds, isthe responsibility of the States and Territories, theAustralian Government is providing national leadership inthis important area,” Senator Campbell said. “This is toobig a problem for governments to leave to chance.”

Source: Joint Media Release Australian Minister for theEnvironment and Heritage Senator the Hon. Ian Campbelland Senator Ian Macdonald Australian Minister forFisheries, Forestry and Conservation, 7 September 2005

23

ALIENS Subscriptions

We rely heavily on the support of our membership and the support of our sponsors to keep the Aliensnewsletter being published. Please complete, cut out and send this panel to receive further copies of thenewsletter. Cheques should be made payable to “IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group – University ofAuckland” and sent to Maj De Poorter, ISSG/SGGES, University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus), PrivateBag 92019, Auckland, 1142, 23New Zealand.

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

Postal Address:

Additional donation to support the production of Aliens ........

Waiver of subscription fees are available on application

For back copies: contact the ISSG office.If you wish to subscribe by Credit Card, please email with the following details: Credit Card number and type,i.e. Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc. Expiry date on Card. Name on Card and the mailing details fordelivery of the newsletter.

Receipt required Yes/No Further information on ISSG requested Yes/No

ISSG office Email: [email protected]

“ZOOM on the Invasives” photo competition:Dam and Doom – Aerial view of water hyacinth carpet in the Kafue Gorge Dam,Zambia. FINALIST

Musonda MUMBA, ZAMBIA

24

I U C NThe World Conservation Union

The following organisations are gratefully acknowledged for theirsupport of the work of the Invasive Species Specialist Group:Critical Ecosystem Partnership FundUS State Department

NZAID (New Zealand Agency for International Development)Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research LimitedUniversity of Auckland, Centre for Biodiversity and BiosecurityThe New Zealand Department of ConservationNational Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), USA

Aliens is the bi-annual newsletter of the Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group (ISSG). Its role is to put researchers,managers and/or practitioners in contact with each otherand to publish information and news of alien invasive spe-cies and issues. Contributions should focus on conserva-tion issues rather than economic, health or agriculturalaspects of alien invasions. News of upcoming conferences,reports, and news of publications are also welcome, espe-cially where they are of major international relevance. Pleasesend your contributions, marked “for consideration forAliens” to [email protected]

The New Zealand-based Invasive Species Specialist Group(ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species Survival Com-mission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Itis chaired by Mick Clout. The goals of the ISSG are toreduce threats to natural ecosystems and the native spe-cies they contain - by increasing awareness of alien inva-sions and of ways to prevent, control or eradicate them.

Aliens-L is a listserver dedicated to invasive species. Itallows users to freely seek and share information on alieninvasive species and issues, and the threats posed by themto the Earth’s biodiversity. To subscribe, send an emailwithout a subject header to: [email protected] OR [email protected] the message: subscribe Aliens-L. When you havesubscribed you will receive a message with instructionsfor using the list.

The Cooperative Initiative on Invasive Alien Species onIslands (CII) is a global initiative. With requests from Pacificcountries for more coordinated and cooperative approachesto addressing invasive species threats the, “PacificInvasives Initiative” or PII became the first programme ofthe CII to be funded. The goal of the PII is to conserveisland biodiversity and enhance the sustainability oflivelihoods of men, women and youth in the Pacific.Activities are focused on raising awareness of invasivespecies issues, building capacity in the region to manageinvasives and facilitating cooperative approaches toachieve and sustain desired outcomes. Website: http://www.issg.org/cii/PII/index.html. An important objectiveof the PII is to enhance and augment the activities of otherinitiatives and programmes in the Pacific and elsewhere.The CII will be expanded beyond the South Pacific incollaboration with other countries, programmes andpartners. As of late 2005 a number of demonstration Projects

will have been initiated as part of the PII.

The Global Invasive Species Database is freely availableonline at www.issg.org/database and mirrored atwww.invasivespecies.net/database. The development ofthe database, and the provision of content for it, is on-going. Priorities range from a focus on some of the world’sworst invasive species to a focus on areas where infor-mation and resources are comparatively scarce, includ-ing small-island developing states and other islands. Thedatabase has images and descriptions for a wide varietyof invasive species. Records for these species includeinformation on the ecology, impacts, distribution andpathways of the species, and most importantly, informa-tion on management methods as well as contact detailsof experts that can offer further advice. The databasealso provides links to numerous other sources of infor-mation. A major contribution is provided by IAS experts,researchers and managers who provide information oract as reviewers on a voluntary basis.

IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity LossCaused by Alien Invasive Species: http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htmGuías para la Prevención de Pérdidas de DiversidadBiológica Ocasionadas por Especies Exóticas Invasoras:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesSp.htmLignes directrices de l’UICN pour la prévention de laperte de diversité biologique causée par des espècesexotiques envahissantes:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesFr.htm

ISSG Office: Centre for Biodiversity and BiosecurityUniversity of Auckland (Tamaki Campus)Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, 1142, New ZealandPhone: #64 9 3737 599 x85210Fax: #64 9 3737 042 (Attention: ISSG)E-mail: [email protected] for general inquiries.E-mail: [email protected] to contact AliensEditor;E-mail: [email protected] for more informa-tion on the CII;E-mail: [email protected] to contact the Glo-bal Invasive Species Database Manager.Websites: ISSG: www.issg.org IUCN: www.iucn.org

SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION