Search the SPREP Catalogue

Following the incursion of rats (Rattus rattus) on Taukihepa (Big South Cape Island; 93.9 km²) off southern New Zealand in 1963, and the subsequent extirpation of several endemic species, the New Zealand Wildlife Service realised that, contrary to general belief at the time, introduced predators do not reach a natural balance with native species and that a safe breeding habitat for an increasing number of ‘at risk’ species was urgently needed. Off shore islands offered the best option for providing predator free habitat but there was a limited number of predator-free islands available and most were very small. Eradicating rodents on larger islands to provide a wider range and greater area of habitats was required and hand treating these larger areas using trapping and hand application of toxicants, the only methods available at the time, proved problematic and often impossible. Helicopters had been used to distribute bait for the control of rabbits and brushtail possums in the past but eradication of any particular predator species was considered ‘not feasible’. The development of a GPS-based aircraft guidance system, a suitable bait product, specialised bait delivery systems and second-generation anti-coagulant toxicants changed that. Now islands as large as South Georgia (3,900 km²) have been treated using this method

The impacts of house mice (Mus musculus), one of four invasive rodent species in New Zealand, are only clearly revealed on islands and fenced sanctuaries without rats and other invasive predators which suppress mouse populations, influence their behaviour, and confound their impacts. When the sole invasive mammal on islands, mice can reach high densities and influence ecosystems in similar ways to rats. Eradicating mice from islands is not as difficult as previously thought, if best practice techniques developed and refined in New Zealand are applied in association with diligent planning and implementation. Adopting this best practice approach has resulted in successful eradication of mice from several islands in New Zealand and elsewhere including some of the largest ever targeted for mice; in multi-species eradications; and where mouse populations were still expanding after recent invasion. Prevention of mice reaching rodent-free islands remains an ongoing challenge as they are inveterate stowaways, potentially better swimmers than currently thought, and prolific breeders in predator-free habitat. However, emergent mouse populations can be detected with conventional surveillance tools and eradicated before becoming fully established if decisive action is taken early enough. The invasion and eventual eradication of mice on Maud Island provides a case study to illustrate New Zealand-based lessons around mouse biosecurity and eradication.

Attempts to eradicate invasive terrestrial arthropods are often regarded as gambles. They o?er the possibility of long term freedom from a pest but are usually confronted with substantial uncertainty and come with a range of technical, economic, environmental, social and political risks. Few guidelines are available for evaluating eradication attempts against terrestrial arthropods. Here, we build on scienti?c literature, including six criteria previously developed to evaluate the feasibility of vertebrate eradications, and our own experiences to de?ne nine criteria that are intended to both assist experts to evaluate proposed arthropod eradication attempts and guide attempts that are underway. The criteria are straight forward and easily interpreted, though evaluating them for a particular programme relies on expert group assessment that will often benefit from rigorous supporting statistical and/or modelling analyses.

Pieris brassicae, large white butter?y, was ?rst found in New Zealand in Nelson in May 2010. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) responded with a monitoring programme until November 2012 when the Department of Conservation (DOC) commenced an eradication programme. DOC was highly motivated to eradicate P. brassicae by the risk it posed to New Zealand endemic cress species, some of which are already nearly extinct. DOC eliminated the butter?y from Nelson in less than four years at a cost of ca. NZ$5 million. This is the ?rst time globally that a butter?y has been purposefully eradicated. Variation in estimates of bene?ts, costs, the e?cacy of detection and control tools, and the probability of eradication success all contributed to uncertainty about the feasibility. Cost bene?t analyses can contribute to assessing feasibility but are prone to inaccurate assumptions when data are limited, and other feasibility questions are equally important in considering the best course of action. Uncertainty does not equate to risk and reducing uncertainty through data gathering can inform feasibility and decision making while increasing the probability of eradication success.

Invasive alien species (IASs) on islands have broad impacts across biodiversity, agriculture, economy, health and culture, which tend to be stronger than on continents. Across small-island developing states (SIDSs), although only a small number of IASs are widely distributed, many more, including those with greatest impact, are found on only a small number of islands. Patterns of island invasion are not consistent across SIDS geographic regions, with differences attributable to correlated patterns in island biogeography and human development. We identify 15 of the most globally prevalent IASs on islands. IAS impacts on islands are exacerbated through interactions with a number of other global change threats, including over-exploitation, agricultural intensification, urban development and climate change. Biosecurity is critical in preventing IAS invasion of islands. Eradication of IASs on islands is possible at early stages of invasion, but otherwise is largely restricted to invasive mammals, or otherwise control is the only option. Future directions in IAS management and research on islands must consider IASs within a broader portfolio of threats to species, ecosystems and people’s livelihoods on islands. We advocate for stronger collaborations among island countries and territories faced with the same IASs in similar socio-ecological environments.

Lying about three-quarters of the way from Hawaii to Australia, Vanuatu represents the main bulk of an island chain which continues into the eastern Solomon Islands. The islands are volcanic rock or uplifted carbonate structures and there is ongoing volcanic activity in a number of locations. Fringing reefs predominate. Crown-of-thorns sea star (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks have been reported. Up to the present time the larger islands have remained forested, however, increased logging threatens to destroy Vanuatu’s rainforests. Rising pollution from sewage inputs and sediment run off and overharvesting of some non-motile reef species are also concerns.

The Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS) presents validated and verified checklists (inventories) of introduced (alien) and invasive alien species at the country, territory, and associated island level. Phase 1 of the project focused on developing validated and verified checklists of countries that are Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Phase 2 which is on-going, aims to achieve global coverage including non-party countries and all overseas territories of countries e.g. Netherlands, France and United Kingdom. Species belonging to all Kingdoms are covered as well as occurring in all Environment/systems. Country/ Territory/ Island checklists are reviewed and verified by networks of country or species experts. Verified checklists/ species records as well as those under review are presented on the online GRIIS website (www.griis.org). Individual species records are flagged with a ‘yes’ for verification. Only verified checklists/ species records are presented on the GBIF Portal. This annotated checklist is of introduced (alien) and invasive alien species known to occur in New Caledonia, an Overseas Territory of France. Purpose: The resource will be a support to countries to make progress to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 9 -in the development of their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, their National Invasive Alien Species Strategy and Action Plan, target setting and monitoring.