Search the SPREP Catalogue

Invasive alien species represent one of the most significant threats to Arctic ecosystems and their inhabitants. Rapidly changing environmental conditions and a growing interest in resource extraction, settlement and tourism make the Arctic region particularly vulnerable to biological invasion. For this reason, invasive alien species are of substantial concern to the Arctic Council, a multi-national body comprised of Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States, as well as six international organisations that represent Arctic indigenous peoples as Permanent Participants. The Arctic Council’s Arctic Invasive Alien Species (ARIAS) Strategy and Action Plan includes the priority to: “actively facilitate the eradication of invasive alien species from island ecosystems throughout the Arctic, as well as the recovery of native island species and habitats that have been impacted by invasive alien species.” A multi-national team of governmental and non-government partners is collaborating in the development of an action plan (hereafter ‘islands plan’) for the eradication of invasive alien species from Arctic island ecosystems. The intent of the plan is to provide a vision and strategy for a region-wide approach to the eradication of island invasive alien species as a multi-national commitment. The islands plan will set forth a strategy for prioritising island eradications consistent with the growing pressures on ecological and cultural systems. We have a unique opportunity in the Arctic to take decisive action to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of invasive alien species that plague much of the rest of the world. The eradication of invasive alien species from islands in other parts of the world provides useful insights into best practices, including approaches to prioritisation and cost-effectiveness.

We are on the edge of the sixth mass extinction on Earth. Islands represent ca. 5% of the earth’s land area yet are home to 61% of extinctions in the past 500 years, and currently support 39% of critically endangered species. Invasive species are a leading cause of extinction and endangerment on islands. Invasive vertebrates, particularly mammals, are among some of the most damaging invasive species on islands. Eradicating invasive mammals is an increasingly utilised conservation tool. Nevertheless, conservation intervention needs greatly outstrip the island restoration community’s capacity. There are thousands of islands where invasive vertebrates are driving species toward extinction. So, how can the effort be matched to the scale of the problem? One approach is to improve outreach and communications to increase the resources available for projects. There are great stories; but these need to be told compellingly and repeatedly. Increasing social acceptance and support for invasive species eradications will reduce project costs associated with stakeholder engagement. Broadening the funding base can be accomplished by building stronger cost benefit valuations as well as engaging funders of climate change, marine conservation, human wellbeing, and food security. Furthermore, it is important to build upon existing partnerships to create or grow coalitions that can access these resources as part of broader, holistic efforts to address multiple conservation issues.

Invasive alien species represent one of the greatest threats to native plants and animals on islands. Rats (Rattus spp.) have invaded most of the world’s oceanic islands, causing lasting or irreversible damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. To counter this threat, techniques to eradicate invasive rats from islands have been developed and applied across the globe. Eradication of alien rats from large or complex island ecosystems has only been successful with the use of bait containing a rodenticide. While effective at eradicating rats from islands, rodenticide can persist in the ecosystem longer than the time required to eradicate the target rat population and can potentially harm non-target species. However, the persistence of rodenticides in ecosystems following rat eradication campaigns is poorly understood, though predictions can be made based on the chemical properties of the rodenticide and the environment it is applied in. Brodifacoum, a relatively persistent second-generation anticoagulant, was used to successfully eradicate rats from Palmyra Atoll. With this study, we evaluated the persistence of brodifacoum residues in terrestrial and marine species at Palmyra Atoll (Northern Line Islands) three years after rat eradication. We collected 44 pooled samples containing 121 individuals of the following: mullet (Moolgarda engeli), cockroaches (Periplaneta sp.), geckos (Lepidodactylus lugubris), hermit crabs (Coenobita perlatus), and fiddler crabs (Uca tetragonon). Despite detection of brodifacoum residue in all five of the species sampled in this study 60 days after the application of bait to Palmyra Atoll in 2011, brodifacoum residue was not found in any of the pooled samples collected three years after bait application. Our study demonstrates how brodifacoum residues are unlikely to persist in the marine and terrestrial food web, in a wet tropical environment, three years after rat eradication.

Rat eradication is a highly effective tool for conserving biodiversity, but one that requires considerable planning eff ort, a high level of precision during implementation and carries no guarantee of success. Overall, rates of success are generally high but lower for tropical islands where most biodiversity is at risk. We completed a qualitative comparative review on four successful and four unsuccessful tropical rat eradication projects to better understand the factors influencing the success of tropical rat eradications and shed light on how the risk of future failures can be minimised. Observations of juvenile rats surviving more than four weeks after bait application on two islands validate the previously considered theoretical risk that unweaned rats can remain isolated from exposure to rodent bait for a period. Juvenile rats emerging after bait was no longer readily available may have been the cause of some or all the project failures. The elevated availability of natural resources (primarily fruiting or seeding plants) generated by rainfall prior to project implementation(documented for three of the unsuccessful projects) may also have contributed to project failure by reducing the likelihood that all rats would consume sufficient rodent bait or compounding other factors such as rodent breeding. Our analysis highlights that rat eradication can be achieved on tropical islands but suggests that events that cannot be predicted with certainty in some tropical regions can act individually or in concert to reduce the likelihood of project success. We recommend research to determine the relative importance of these factors in the fate of future tropical projects and suggest that existing practices be re-evaluated for tropical island rodent eradications.

Aerial broadcast application is currently one of the most common methods for conducting rodent eradications on islands, particularly islands greater than 100 ha or with complex and difficult topography where access by ground teams is difficult. Overall, aerial broadcast applications have a high success rate, but can be burdened by logistical, regulatory, and environmental challenges. This is particularly true for islands where complex shorelines, sheer terrain, and the interface with the marine environment pose additional risks and concerns. Using data collected during ten eradication projects we investigate the influence that operational realities have on broadcast applications. We tested the association between the amount of bait used and island size, topography, and the desire to reduce bait application into the marine environment and then compared planned bait application to actual bait application quantities. Based on our results, islands of decreasing size and increasing coastal complexity tended to use more bait than anticipated and experienced greater variability in localised bait densities. During operations, we recommend analysing flight data to identify treated areas with localised bait densities that fall below the target application rate. We recommend that areas with low localised bait densities may result in biologically significant gaps that should receive an additional application of bait based on project risk variables such as target home range size, non-target bait competitors, and alternative foods. We also recommend a common language for discussing aerial broadcast applications and where future work can be done to improve operational decision making.

Sand Island, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (MANWR), is home to 21% of all nesting black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and 47% of all nesting Laysan albatross (P. immutabilis) worldwide. During the 2015–2016 nesting season predation and disturbance by non-native house mice (Mus musculus), here documented for the first time, resulted in 70 abandoned nests, 42 adult birds killed and 480 wounded. In the following nesting season the affected area increased, resulting in 242 dead adults, 1,218 injured birds and 994 abandoned nests. Mouse predation activities triggered a mouse control response to reduce mouse densities in the affected areas using multi-catch live traps, kill traps, and limited use of anticoagulant rodenticides in bait stations. In 2016–2017 we applied a pelleted cholecalciferol rodenticide, AGRID (Bell Laboratories, Madison, WI), at a rate of 20 kg/ha in all affected areas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of using AGRID to reduce mouse density and rate of mouse attacks on nesting albatrosses on Sand Island. Mouse attacks decreased and mouse abundance was reduced following rodenticide applications in the plots treated in December but changes in attack rates in the plots treated in January were not detectable and mouse abundance increased subsequent to treatment. The plots in the December treatments were much larger than those used in January and rainfall rate increased after December. A minimum size of treatment area may be necessary to achieve a reduction in injury rates in albatrosses. No deleterious effects were observed in non-target organisms. The casualties resulting from mouse predation (mostly Laysan albatross) represent a small proportion of the 360,000 pairs nesting on Sand Island. However, the risk to adult breeding albatrosses representing such a large fraction of the global population prompted the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to prioritise mouse control efforts.

The inextricable links between climate change and sustainable development have been increasingly recognised over the past decade. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 concluded with very high confidence that climate change would impede the ability of many nations to achieve sustainable development by mid-century and become a security risk that would steadily intensify, particularly under greater warming scenarios. Article 4.8 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) lists several groups of countries that merit particular consideration for assistance to adapt to climate change “especially: (a) small island countries, (b) countries with low-lying coastal areas, c) countries with areas prone to natural disasters.” Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have characteristics which make them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea level rise (SLR) and extreme events, including: relative isolation, small land masses, concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal areas, limited economic base and dependency on natural resources, combined with limited financial, technical and institutional capacity for adaptation.2

The nations of CARICOM16 in the Caribbean together with Pacific island countries contribute less than 1% to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (approx. 0.33%17 and 0.03%18 respectively), yet these countries are expected to be among the earliest and most impacted by climate change in the coming decades and are least able to adapt to climate change impacts. These nations’ relative isolation, small land masses, their concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal areas, limited economic base and dependency on natural resources, combined with limited financial, technical and institutional capacity all exacerbates their vulnerability to extreme events and climate change impacts. Stabilising global GHG emissions and obtaining greater support for adaptation strategies are fundamental priorities for the Caribbean Basin and Pacific island countries. CARICOM leaders recently unveiled their collective position that global warming should be held to no more than 1.5°C19 and continue to develop a Climate Change Strategic Plan. The Pacific island countries have expressed their priorities for addressing climate change regionally through the Pacific Leaders’ Call to Action on Climate Change20 and the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006-2015.21