Search the SPREP Catalogue

Given the importance of hatchling survival for sea turtles, we assessed the relative importance of nest predation for green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting at a major rookery on an isolated island where harvesting or poaching of eggs is zero but where there are a range of potential predators, both natural and introduced. In this way, our work helps identify the importance of managing and / or removing invasive predators that may have several negative ecosystem consequences.

We have prepared this report following a call for information about the herbicide glyphosate, issued by the EPA between April and October 2021. This call for information was carried out in recognition of the many concerns that surround glyphosate, whether they be concerns about its possible impact on human health and the environment or concerns about the effects of glyphosate being unavailable on agriculture and the larger economy. The use of glyphosate is a divisive topic, and unsurprisingly, we received a wide range of comments around glyphosate use in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Seabird biomass was particularly important for terrestrial and near-shore subsidies and enhancing fish biomass, while seabird diversity was associated with nutrient subsidies further offshore. The positive effects of diversity were likely driven by high functional complementarity among seabird species in traits related to nutrient storage and provisioning. However, introduced rats and non-native vegetation reduced seabird biomass and diversity, with rats having a stronger effect on biomass and vegetation having a stronger effect on diversity.

The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur.

Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions, and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%) and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.

Biological invasions are responsible for tremendous impacts globally, including huge economic losses and management expenditures. Efficiently mitigating this major driver of global change requires the improvement of public awareness and policy regarding its substantial impacts on our socio-ecosystems. One option to contribute to this overall objective is to inform people on the economic costs linked to these impacts; however, until now, a reliable synthesis of invasion costs has never been produced at a global scale. Here, we introduce InvaCost as the most up-to-date, comprehensive, harmonised and robust compilation and description of economic cost estimates associated with biological invasions worldwide. We have developed a systematic, standardised methodology to collect information from peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, while ensuring data validity and method repeatability for further transparent inputs. Our manuscript presents the methodology and tools used to build and populate this living and publicly available database. InvaCost provides an essential basis (2419 cost estimates currently compiled) for worldwide research, management efforts and, ultimately, for datadriven and evidence-based policymaking.

Indicators for tracking conservation efforts at a global scale are rare but important tools for understanding trends and measuring progress towards global conservation targets. Eradication of invasive species from islands is an increasingly used conservation intervention in countries and territories around the world. With a goal of collating these efforts, the Database of Islands and Invasive Species Eradications (DIISE) holds records of the location, target species, year and outcome of invasive mammal and bird eradications on islands from around the world. The database is publicly available in Spanish and English, at , and represents a partnership between the University of California at Santa Cruz, University of Auckland, IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group, Landcare Research and Island Conservation. The database holds records for more than 1,200 eradication attempts. This database will continue to be added to and evolve as new opportunities for its application arise; thus, we expect these numbers to change over time as new events are added and knowledge about existing events improves.

As part of the Isles of Scilly Seabird Recovery Project, and directed by Wildlife Management International Ltd, the eradication of brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) from the inhabited islands of St Agnes & Gugh, Isles of Scilly was completed between October 2013 and April 2014 with the assistance of volunteers, and staff from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust and Natural England. Bait stations with cereal-based wax blocks containing bromadiolone at 0.005% w/w were established on a 40–50 metre grid over the island. With the presence of 85 residents on the 142 ha islands, this is the largest community-based brown rat eradication globally to date. Given the fact that a community is based on these islands, community engagement and advocacy was a vital and fundamental part of the eradication. Consultation for eradication began three years prior to the operation to explain the requirements for the proposed project and to assess support, but this built on many years of wider community engagement with seabird conservation. All of the residents supported the eradication of rats and vision of the project. The consultation and inclusion of the community in decision-making and management of the Isles of Scilly Seabird Recovery Project was a critical part of the operation and key to the success of the eradication. The community took ownership of the project and has committed to the on-going biosecurity requirements following the eradication of rats. The removal of brown rats from St Agnes and Gugh was a major achievement and provided the opportunity to restore the islands' communities of seabirds and other native species. This project provided an example of the effectiveness of ground-based rodent eradication techniques on an inhabited island and the lessons learnt during this operation can be used to help proposed eradications on other islands with communities and with terrain suitable for ground-based techniques.

Eradication techniques using ground-based devices were developed in New Zealand in the early 1970s to target invasive rodents. Since then, different bait station designs, monitoring tools and rodenticide baits have been developed, and changes in field techniques have improved and streamlined these operations. The use of these techniques has been taken around the world to eradicate rodents from islands. Eradication technology has moved rapidly from ground-based bait station operations to aerial application of rodenticides. However, regulations, presence of and attitudes of island-communities and presence of a variety of non-target species precludes the aerial application of rodenticides on islands in many countries. As such, ground-based operations are the only option available to many agencies for the eradication of invasive rodents from islands. It is important to recognise that the use of ground-based operations should be a valid option during the assessment phase of any eradication proposal even in countries that can legally apply bait from the air; in many instances the use of ground-based techniques can be as economic and rapid. The use of ground-based operations can also facilitate opportunities for in-depth monitoring of both target and non-target species. Using examples of the techniques and developments used in five ground-based rat eradication operations from the UK demonstrates how these methods can be used safely and successfully around the world, even on islands in the order of hundreds of hectares and those with communities.

The papers in this volume were, with a few exceptions, presented at the third Island Invasives conference, held in Dundee, Scotland in July 2017. The papers demonstrate up-scaling in several aspects of eradication operations – not least in ambition, land area, operational size, global reach and of course financial cost. In the space of a few decades, the size of islands treated for invasive species has increased by five orders of magnitude – from a few hectares to over 100,000 ha or 1,000 km2. Meanwhile, the diversity of species being tackled has increased, as has the range of countries now actively carrying out island restoration work. Inspired by pioneers from New Zealand and Australia, principally, today the movement has spread to islands in all oceans and off all continents. This expansion has been informed by, and has in turn produced, growing experience in all aspects of this field, from non-target impacts to ecological responses to factors affecting eradication success. A major aim of publishing these Proceedings is to inform people who are, or will in the future be, planning new projects to free islands of invasive species. Regardless of its location or the target species involved, each successive operation builds on the experience of those who have gone before, and the papers in this volume represent an invaluable wealth of such experience.