Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission

Sponsored by:

Landcare ResearchManaaki Whenua

ISSN: 1173-5988

ALIENS

SPECIAL ISSUE ON ISLANDSMESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

It has become clear to most people working on alien species that islands(and other geographically and evolutionary isolated places) are differentfrom continental situations in a number of ways. They are morevulnerable to invasions and are more likely to suffer catastrophic loss ofbiodiversity as a result of invasions, but they also easier to defend byborder control and have greater potential for successful eradications ofinvasive species. As part of the focus on islands, ISSG, in cooperationwith New Zealand, is developing a worldwide Cooperative Initiative onAlien Invasive Species on Islands, in the context of the global cooperationtaking place under the umbrella of GISP (the Global Invasive SpeciesProgramme). The initiative is focussed firmly on biodiversity aspects.GISP, at its Phase 1 Synthesis meeting in September 2000, identifiedislands as a special case warranting co-operative initiatives. TheConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) also recognises the veryurgent need to deal with invasive alien species issues in isolated andvulnerable ecosystems. At the March 2001 meeting of the CBD’ssubsidiary body, the Plenary:“Endorse[d] the call for an islands cooperation initiative andwelcomes the offer of New Zealand, the IUCN Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group and the Global Invasive Species Programme toexplore means to establish such an initiative” (VI/4, 18).

Existing co-operative efforts show that even where there are majordifferences in climate, politics, language, etc, the experience of one islandcountry can provide valuable input to work in other islands. There arefour key areas where a co-operative initiative on island invasives maybe especially valuable:• Undertaking the eradication of alien species from islands.• Undertaking management of alien species populations on islands, where

eradication is not currently feasible, to low levels that allow recoveryof biodiversity values.

• Training and other capacity enhancement activities.• Undertaking quarantine and contingency response activities to prevent

the establishment of new populations of alien species that might threatenecosystems or species (including the control of movement withinnational borders).

Co-operation would span the range from formal government-to-government co-operation to informal practitioners’ or individuals’ co-operation, at whatever organisational level or scale achievements wouldresult in enhanced conservation of biological diversity on islands. Theinitiative will encompass all islands that have significant biodiversity, including

Number 14 2001

CONTENTS

small island states and offshore and oceanic islands ofcontinental states. It will include both developing anddeveloped country islands. ISSG is currently seeking fundsfor this new initiative. We need help from anyone with aninterest in islands IAS problems and solution who wouldlike to participate and anyone who can help us accessfunding.

Because of their special nature, we felt it that was timethat we had a special issue of Aliens focussing on islands.I hope that you enjoy reading this issue. Best wishes for aproductive and peaceful 2002 from myself and the ISSGstaff at Auckland. Mick Clout, ISSG Chair

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 andcomments in Aliens are not intended in any way to represent the view of IUCN, SSC or the Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group or the sponsors, unless specifically stated to the contrary.

(ctd from page 1)

Mick Clout, Maj De Poorter, Michael Browne, SouadBoudjelas, Carola Warner

Message from the Chair 1Cooperative Initiative on Island Invasive Species 3Toolkit for Prevention & Management of IAS 5Update: Global Invasive Species Database 7Jamaican iguana of Hellshire Hills 8Meanwhile in Mauritius 9Report on Eradication on Islands Conference 10Biological control on St Helena 12Impact of African Land Snails on Reunion Island 13Publications (Hawai’i) 14Report on Brown Tree Snake Symposium 15Notes (Australia, Scotland) 17Hedgehogs on Scottish Islands 18Notes (Canary Islands) 18Eradicating Sagina procumbens on Gough Island 19Developing biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand 21Publications (Australia) 22Notes (Landcare) 23Aliens subscription form 23About Aliens , ISSG, IUCN.... 24

BACKGROUND

It has become clear to most people working on alien speciesthreats to biodiversity that islands (and othergeographically and evolutionary isolated places) aredifferent from continental situations in a number of ways.They are more vulnerable to invasions, more likely tosuffer catastrophic loss of biodiversity as a result ofinvasions, but they are also more likely to respond tosuccessful eradication and border control methods toreduce or remove threats.

The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) meetingin September 2000 identified islands as a special casewarranting co-operative initiatives, and the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD) has repeatedly recognisedthe very urgent need to deal with invasive alien speciesissues in isolated and vulnerable ecosystems. Existing co-operative efforts show that even where there are majordifferences in climate, politics, language, etc, theexperience of one island country can provide valuableinput into work in other islands.

At the occasion of the meeting of the subsidiary body tothe Convention on Biological Diversity (SBSTTA 6) inMontreal, Canada, in March 2001, representatives fromsmall island states, from states with islands, and fromNGOs, gave whole-hearted support to the concept of acooperative initiative on island invasive alien species.This was subsequently formally endorsed by theSBSTTA6 in a recommendation to the CBD Secretariat.

“Endorses the call for an island cooperationinitiative and welcomes the offer of NewZealand, the IUCN Invasive Species SpecialistGroup and the Global Invasive SpeciesProgramme to explore means to establish suchan initiative.” (VI/4, 18 in report of SBSTTA6)

Facilitation/implementationISSG will undertake the facilitation of this initiative, withsupport from New Zealand (as a Party to Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD)) and under the umbrella ofthe Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP). Theemphasis for ISSG is on facilitating. There is no plan forinfrastructure- or institution building. The New ZealandDepartment of Conservation (2001) and The PacificDevelopment and Conservation Trust and New ZealandMinistry of Foreign Affairs (2002) are gratefullyacknowledged for their financial contributions.

COMPONENTS

(1) Develop and maintain a register of expertise forinvasive alien species (IAS) and their management forNew Zealand, the South Pacific, and other islands.ISSG plans to develop and maintain a comprehensive“information base” of expertise related to islands. Thiswould document “who is doing what, where”, programmeswhich have been undertaken and the lessons learnt fromthe programmes. It will draw on data in existing databases,national and regional networks, and other informationsources, including limited-circulation sources liketechnical reports, “obscure” journals (with good data), etc.The register will include practitioners, field-projects,researchers, taxonomic, logistic and methodologicalexpertise, and national, regional, and supra-nationalauthorities. The focus will be on the biodiversity threatsof IAS (rather than agricultural), but overlaps betweenbiodiversity and agricultural (and other) interests will betaken into account. It will build on ISSG’s existing networkof IAS experts. Logistical aspects will include, for example,the availability at short notice of traps or baits, as well aspersonnel trained in their safe use.

(2) Networks , “Peer review/help”The register of expertise will facilitate cooperation at allrelevant levels (policy making, government agencies, inthe field practitioners, NGOs). It will also enable accessto experts who can review the design and implementationof IAS management programmes. Work on islanderadication programmes has identified such input ascritical. With island eradication programmes it is crucialto succeed first time. Failed operations can result in pestpopulations which are more difficult to eradicate (e.g. theybecome bait shy), and can reduce the local community’sconfidence and willingness to be involved, as well as fosterfunder’s unwillingness to provided finances. Suchproblems will be avoided if a peer review process was inplace. A peer review/help process can provide a valuablemeans to identify potential problems early in the programmedesign, and rectify these before the programme is undertaken.

It is hoped that one of the practical results from theCooperative initiative will be the preparation by island

COOPERATIVE INITIATIVE ON ISLAND INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES(ISSG/IUCN/GISP/NEW ZEALAND)

AimsThe aims of the Cooperative Initiative on Island InvasiveAlien Species are• to enhance empowerment and capacity in key areas of

invasive alien species (IAS) management on islands• to facilitate cooperation and sharing of expertise.• to help enable local, national and regional entities to

identify invasive alien species problems, work outsolutions and implement them

resulting in improvement in the conservation of islandbiological diversity.

Which Islands?The initiative will encompass all islands that havesignificant biodiversity, including small island states andoffshore and oceanic islands of continental states. It willinclude both developing and developed country islands.

For further information on the islands initiative pleasecontact:

m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nzInvasive Species SpecialistGroup (ISSG)University of AucklandSEMSTamaki CampusPrivate Bag 92 019AucklandNew Zealand

practitioners, of specific proposals (under the CooperativeInitiative’s umbrella) for presentation to diverse funders,especially incorporating practical field projects orprogrammes with biodiversity conservation outputs. TheCooperative initiative will not be in a position to fund these,but it is hoped that the increased cooperation, sharing,involvement and support from “peers” will result in fundersrecognising the credibility and high probability of successof such proposals.

(3) Incorporate existing South Pacific and other islanddata on alien invasive species in the Global InvasiveSpecies Database and combine this with globallysourced information and expertise on these species:Over the next year, information will be added on morethan 400 plants and animals, which are known to beinvasive alien species in the South Pacific. Our goal is tocreate an easily accessible and integrated record frominformation that is currently widely dispersed and notnecessarily online. Sources of such information willinclude the SPREP technical review on IAS, The resultsof recent surveys carried out by the Pacific IslandEcosystems at Risk (PIER) programme, and informationthat has been collected by ISSG experts and others but notyet published. The initial focus will be on the South Pacific,but other island regions will also be covered, dependingon resources available. Information stored on the databasewill cover individual islands when available. Databaserecords for species will then be expanded to includeinformation from elsewhere in the world, includinginformation on the ecology, impacts, distribution andpathways of the species, and most importantly, informationon IAS management methods, including best practice. Forsome examples of the type of information that will beprovided, see Global Invasive Species Database (but keepin mind that work is in progress).

(4) Detailed Islands IAS management dataIt is proposed that a comprehensive database ofmanagement of invasive species that threaten islandbiodiversity be developed. This database will holdinformation on the characteristics and distribution of islandinvasives, along with an extensive (when available)coverage of prevention, eradication and control methods.It will be integrated with the Global Invasive SpeciesDatabase which already has a focus on invasive alienspecies that are of relevance to island biodiversity.

(5) Developing Better Methods and Capacity Building

An important role for a co-operative initiative would beto identify opportunities to develop improved techniques.For example, eradication expertise in New Zealand hasbeen progressively developed over the last 30 years. Workhas been undertaken on progressively larger, more rugged,or more isolated islands. Work has also progressivelytackled different and larger suites of invasive species. Thelessons learnt from earlier operations have been appliedto later ones. The development of an islands IASmanagement database and a cooperation facilitationprocess, will allow this to happen on an international scale,and to be part of capacity building.

(6) Emergency funding for new incursions

The need for a standing fund available for undertakingemergency response actions for new incursions of alienspecies has been identified as a priority by parties as wide-ranging as government representatives of small islandstates, researchers and international NGOs. Funds wouldneed to be held in such a way that they can be accessed atshort notice.

In addition to having access to emergency funds, it isimportant that islands have access to emergency responsesupport for dealing with incursions, including expertise andlogistical information such as stocks of baits, traps, herbicidesand other necessary equipment for eradication/control work,as well as personnel that is trained in their safe and effectiveuse (see section 1)

Important Notes:• It is not suggested that the Islands Co-operativeInitiative should in any way be the collector oradministrator of such funds. The initiative would, however,facilitate and encourage the coming into existence of suchstanding funds (focussing on islands) in an appropriateregional context.• While the importance of such standing emergencyfunds is recognised as one of the most frequentlymentioned necessities in the SIDS context, it is alsorecognised that this is a complex issue that will requiresome time to materialise.

RESOURCES FOR THE INITIATIVE

Seeding funding has been received for 2002, with a firstyear focus on the South Pacific, but not excluding otherregions. Further funding will be sought elsewhere and willbe critical for the long-term success of the initiative.

We need help from:

•Anyone with an interest in islands IAS problems andsolution who would like to participate

•Anyone who can help us access funding

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES: A TOOLKIT OF BESTPREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

Wittenberg, R., Cock, M.J.W. (eds.) 2001. Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and ManagementPractices. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, xii -228. ISBN: 0851995691

The overall aim of GISP is to assemble the best availabledata on various components of the invasive alien speciesproblem. This manual is one of the tools produced by GISPPhase I efforts. The toolkit was designed and partiallydrafted at an international workshop held in Kuala Lumpur,22-27 March 1999, in conjunction with the GISP EarlyWarning component. Participants at the GISP Phase ISynthesis Conference held in Cape Town, Republic ofSouth Africa in September 2000 provided further inputand review.

The main focus of the toolkit is to assist those involved inenvironment and biodiversity conservation andmanagement. It is not aimed directly at the public, policymakers, quarantine services etc., but should provideinsights for these groups in addition to conservationmanagers.

The toolkit is intended to be global in its applicability,although there is a small island focus, recognising that theimpact of invasive alien species on biodiversity is greaterin small island systems. In any case, it is anticipated thatto be most useful and effective, the toolkit will need to belocally adapted for different countries or regions

The text is illustrated with case studies of successfulprojects and examples highlighting key problems. Theimmense scope of the field of prevention and managementof invasive alien species makes it impossible to includeall aspects in depth in one manageable toolkit. Hence, theactual scope of the toolkit is not so much a “how to”document, but a “what to do” document, with case studiesto provide insights into how one might approach aninvasive alien species issue.

Development of a national strategy summarising goals andobjectives should be the first step in formulating an alienspecies plan. The ultimate goal of the strategy should bepreservation or restoration of healthy ecosystems. Thesupport of all stake holders must be engaged during theentire programme. Legal and institutional frameworks willdefine the basic opportunities for prevention andmanagement of invasive alien species. There are four majoroptions (or better, steps) for dealing with aliens species:1. prevention, 2. early detection, 3. eradication, and 4.control (See Figure).

Prevention of introductions is the first and most cost-effective option. This lesson has been learned the hardway from several cases of highly destructive and costlyinvasive organisms such as the zebra mussel in the GreatLakes. Exclusion methods based on pathways rather thanon individual species provide the most efficient way to

concentrate efforts at sites where pests are most likely toenter national boundaries and to intercept several potentialinvaders linked to a single pathway. Three majorpossibilities to prevent further invasions exist: 1.interception based on regulations enforced with inspectionsand fees, 2. treatment of material suspected to becontaminated with non-indigenous species, and 3.prohibition of particular commodities in accordance withinternational regulations. Deliberate introductions of non-indigenous species should all be subject to an import riskassessment.

Early detection of a potential invasive species is oftencrucial in determining whether eradication of the speciesis feasible. The possibility of early eradication or, at least,of effectively containing a new coloniser makes investmentin early detection worthwhile. Early detection in the formof surveys may focus on a species of concern or on aspecific site.

When prevention has failed, eradication is the preferredcourse of action. Eradication can be a successful and cost-effective solution in response to an early detection of anon-indigenous species. However, a careful analysis ofthe costs and likelihood of success must be made andadequate resources mobilised, before eradication isattempted. Successful eradication programmes in the pasthave been based on 1. mechanical control, e.g. hand-pulling of weeds or hand-picking of snails, 2. chemicalcontrol, e.g. using toxic baits against vertebrates, 3. habitatmanagement, e.g. grazing and prescribed burning, and 4.hunting of invasive vertebrates. However, most eradicationprogrammes need to employ several different methods.Each programme must evaluate its situation to find thebest methods in that area under the given circumstances.

The last step in the sequence of management options isthe control of an invasive species when eradication is notfeasible. The aim of control is to reduce the density andabundance of an invasive organism to keep it below anacceptable threshold. There are numerous specific methodsfor controlling invasive species. Mechanical control ishighly specific to the target but always very labour-intensive. In countries where human labour is costly, theuse of physical methods is limited mainly to volunteergroups. Chemical control is often very effective as a short-term solution. The major drawbacks are the high costs,the non-target effects and the possibility of the pest speciesevolving resistance. In comparison with other methods,classical biological control, when it is successful, is highlycost-effective, permanent, self-sustaining and ecologicallysafe because of the high specificity of the agents used.Biological control is particularly appropriate for use in nature

UPDATE FROM THE GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIESDATABASE

(www.issg.org/database)

The empty database shell that was created late in 2000 is now a rich resource of information thanks to the generosityof invasive species experts from all over the planet who provide expert information to our team at the University ofAuckland. The database is now packed with images and descriptions for a wide variety of invasive species, as well asinformation showing where they occur, how they travel, and the damage they can do. There is management informationexplaining how to control or eradicate them and the contact details of experts that can offer advice. The database alsoprovides links to numerous other sources of information. One year on, it is receiving an average of 140 visits per day.

The database is designed so that information for soundprevention and management strategies is easily availableand easy to understand even where English is not a firstlanguage and/or where computing and telecommunicationequipment is poor. Priorities for the Global InvasiveSpecies Database now range from a focus on the some ofthe world’s worst invasive species, to a focus on areaswhere information and resources are comparatively scarce,including small-island developing states and other islands.For example, over the next year, information will be addedon the presence and distribution in the South Pacific ofmore than 400 plant and animals, which are known to beinvasive alien species. Our goal is to create an easilyaccessible and integrated record from information that iscurrently widely dispersed and not necessarily online.Sources of such information will include:• ‘Invasive species in the Pacific: A technical review and

draft regional strategy’ (SPREP 2000). Taxa covered inthe review include land vertebrates, land plant,arthropods, land and freshwater molluscs, freshwater fish,amphibians and crustaceans, in the SPREP region.

• Information collected by Jim Space including the resultsof recent surveys carried out by the Pacific IslandEcosystems at Risk (PIER) programme for alien plantsknown to be invasive species, in Guam, Republic ofPalau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States

of Micronesia, Commonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, American Samoa, Niue, Tonga. Two additionalsurveys will be carried out in 2002 (location still to bedetermined).

• Information from regional and ISSG invasive speciesexperts

Records for these species will then be expanded to includeinformation from elsewhere in the world where the speciesis invasive, including information on the ecology, impacts,distribution and pathways of the species, and mostimportantly, information on management methods,including best practice. The aim is to increaseempowerment for local, national and regional entities toidentify their invasive alien species problems, to work outsolutions and implement them.

ISSG will also apply the experience gained during thedevelopment and maintenance of the database to supportthe Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) which isdeveloping an initiative called the Global Invasive SpeciesInformation Network. (See also Aliens 13 page 26)

Landcare Research - Manaaki Whenua (a New ZealandCrown Research Institute),are gratefully acknowledged forhosting the system on their data server.

reserves and other conservation areas because of itsenvironmentally friendly nature and the increasinginstances of prohibition of pesticide use in these areas.Integrated pest management, combining several methods,will often provide the most effective and acceptablecontrol.

Finally, there will be situations where the currenttechniques for management of invasive alien species aresimply inadequate, impractical or uneconomic. In thissituation conservation managers may have to accept thatthey cannot control the invasive alien species and the onlyrecourse is to develop ways to mitigate its impact on keyhabitats and species. This topic is introduced and discussedbriefly but merits a fuller consideration beyond the scopeof this toolkit.

Source: Preface and Toolkit Summary Chapters(shortened – by kind permission of GISP, CABI and theeditors).

Available from:CABI Publishing, CAB International, Wallingford, OxonOX10 8DE, UKTel: +44 (0)1491832111, Fax +44 (0)1491833508,Email:cabi@cabi.org Website http://www.cabi.org

CABI Publishing, 10 East 40th Street, Suite 3203, NewYork, NY, 10016, USATel: +1 212481 7018, Fax +1 2126867993, Email: cabi-nao@cabi.org

It will also be made available on the CABI and GISPwebsites in future.

Editorial comment: this publication would be my alltime favourite to receive as a Jule, Christmas, Eid,Hanukah, Diwali , Buddha Jayanti (or other) present.The text, illustrations, and 104 case studies contain amassive amount of information for practicalmanagement of invasive alien species issues.

For some examples of the type of information that will be provided,(but keep in mind that work is in progress) :Herpestes : http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=86&fr=1&sts=sss

Miconia: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=2&fr=1&sts=sssLinepithema humile: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=127&fr=1&sts=sss

Request for assistance

We rely on the kindness and generosity of expertcontributors for species information. Those of you whoare invasive species specialists, or who work in a relatedfield, are welcome to contribute to the database. ISSGinvites you to visit the Global Invasive Species Databaseat http://www.issg.org/database. You can search thedatabase by scientific or common name, or you can clickon “100 of the Worst” or the “List of species”. Youmay be able to offer additional information to existingspecies accounts, or you may have information aboutspecies that do not currently appear in the database. Ifyou are willing to contribute, please let us know atissg@auckland.ac.nz and we will provide you with atemplate designed to collect species information for thedatabase. Please note that given the resources devotedto agricultural pests elsewhere, the Global InvasiveSpecies Database focuses on species that impactbiodiversity.

A special thank you to all those who have alreadycontributed.

Michael BrowneISSG Database ManagerUniversity of Auckland (Tamaki Campus)Private Bag 92019AucklandNew ZealandE-mail: m.browne@auckland.ac.nz

You can use the search bar to find invasive species.You may wish to search for the mongoose or one ofthe many rats such as Rattus norvegicus that infest thePacific region. You might be more interested in fishsuch as Tilapia or reptiles such as the brown tree snake.In fact, you can search by any name, common orscientific, by where the species occur, by the habitatthey prefer, or by the type of species you are interestedin (aquatic plant, land invertebrate etc.). Fig.1 showsimages and some basic ecological information forMiconia calvescens (velvet tree). For each species,there are 4 more pages of information: Distribution,Habitat Matches (which shows potential distributionbased on land cover types already invaded) References/Links, and finally, Contacts.

Please have a look and tell us what you think...

The Critically Endangered Jamaican Iguana of Hellshire Hills

One of the highest priorities for the [IUCN] Iguana Specialist Group continues to be the critically endangered Jamaicaniguana, Cyclura collei. Rediscovered in 1990 after being considered extinct for nearly half a century, a remnantpopulation was found clinging to existence in the rugged and remote limestone forests of the Hellshire Hills alongJamaica’s south-eastern coast. Two active nest sites were also discovered and, given adequate protection, now providea yearly source of hatchlings for a headstarting program. This small population exists today in a roughly 100 sq. kmecosystem that is being degraded and compressed due to the charcoal burning activities of man. This factor coupledwith high juvenile mortality due to mongoose and cat predation have brought the Jamaican iguana perilously close tothe brink of extinction.

Several recent noteworthy advances provide increased cause for optimism. For the fifth time over the past four years,small groups of headstarted Jamaican iguanas have been released into their native habitat in the Hellshire Hills. Aspart of a strategy designed to restore the depleted wild population of iguanas, an ongoing series of experimentalreleases has been underway to determine not only if iguanas reared in captivity from hatching can survive in the wild,but moreover whether they can integrate into the natural breeding population. From 1996 – 2000, 26 young iguanas,hatched in the wild between 1991 – 1993 and then raised at the Hope Zoo in Kingston, were released, all equippedwith radio transmitters for monitoring. Survivorship is believed to be high, with a 30% incidental recapture rate. Thisis based on six recaptures of 20 iguanas that had been living in the wild for over a year, and involved a three-yearsurvivor that was released in 1997 and captured in 2000. These are termed incidental recaptures because the iguanaswere found in mongoose traps, and not intentionally captured. Measured attempts to capture iguanas using bettertechniques will likely boost the recapture success rate.

Fig.1

The years 1999 - 2000 also brought remarkable nesting results. At least 16 females nested in 1999 and 104 hatchlingsare known to have emerged, both record numbers since the project began in 1991. All but six of these were taggedand released to the wild. Nine females nested in 2000 and 62 hatchlings were recovered, processed and released.Efforts continue to be aimed at determining if any of the headstarted female iguanas are contributing to the breedingpopulation. A major milestone was reached in June 2000 when a female released exactly two years prior (June 1998)arrived at one of the two known nest sites and laid eggs, providing the first solid evidence that headstarted iguanas areintegrating into the wild breeding population.

For the first time in the field project’s nine-year history, several juvenile (1-2 year old) iguanas were captured in1999, and 12 were observed (six per year) in 1999 and 2000, strongly suggesting that young iguanas are benefitingfrom the predator removal program. Since 1997, Dr. Byron Wilson (University of the West Indies) has managed aprogram that systematically traps mongoose, cats and rats from the core iguana areas.

Though juvenile iguanas have not actually been recovered from mongooses stomach contents, gut analyses indicatethat mongoose prey heavily on lizards, and it is not uncommon to find the remains of 5 – 10 lizards in a singlestomach. In fact 31 blue-tailed galliwasp (Celestus duquesneyi) were identified in the 102 mongoose stomachs thatcontained food. This rare little anguid had not been seen for 50 years, and had not been reported from the HellshireHills. Efforts to quantify the positive effects of mongoose removal on the diversity and composition of forest-floorinhabitants, primarily lizards, are ongoing.

Note: Shortened from article previously published in IUCN’s Species Survival Commission’s newsletter Species(#35 - Spring 2001, page 6) by kind permission of the author and editor.

Rick Hudson,Deputy-chairIguana Specialist Group (IUCN)Conservation BiologistFort Worth ZooFax: ++1 817 871 7012E-mail: iguanhudso@aol.com

Meanwhile in Mauritius………

The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation has been managingpredators in ecologically sensitive areas to protect birdpopulations, for over a decade. This relatively large islandin the Indian Ocean has many unique plants and animalsstill surviving, such as the Mauritius kestrel, the pinkpigeon and the echo parakeet. These birds have very lowpopulations in the wild, and were classed as criticallyendangered by the IUCN in 1994. Althoughreintroductions of captive bred animals have beensuccessful in the short term, the long term survival of thespecies is dependent on delimiting predation bymongooses.(Source: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=86&fr=1&sts=sss)

Aliens sneak previewA project carried out by Sugoto Roy investigated theecology of the mongoose, impacts on native fauna, andways of improving management. He showed that

mongooses were not territorial and achieved highdensities, up to 50 animals/km2 in some habitats.Mongooses and feral cats shared very similar diets,although the latter showed a greater degree ofspecialisation on rodents. Models showed that in a systemwhere mongooses, cats and rats interact, multi-predatorcontrol is preferable to single species predator control.For more information, and for a discussion onimprovements and alternatives to current control methods,please contact Sugoto Roy (Source: Roy 2001 PhD thesis)

More information from:Sugoto RoyMammal Research UnitSchool of Biological SciencesUniversity of BristolBristol BS8 1UGE-mail: S.Roy@bristol.ac.uk

Phot

o R

. Hud

son.

Iguana equipped with radio transmitter

of 411-ha Laysan Island (Hawaii).Monica Soria (Charles DarwinResearch Station, Quito, Ecuador)described the successful eradicationof a vine, Pueraria phasioloides andcontinued efforts against two otherplants (Rubus glaucus andCitharexylum gentryi) in theGalápagos.

The ones that get away

Eradication seems elusive for at leasttwo types of organisms. Althoughferal cats have been eradicated fromseveral islands, for example, from 15islands in Northwest Mexico (Bill

Wood, Island Conservation andEcology Group, Olancha, CA, USA),there are few, if any successes forother small carnivores, such asmustelids on New Zealand islandsand the small Indian mongooseHerpestes javanicus on severalarchipelagoes worldwide. At thisconference, two posters describedtrapping programs for this mongoose[on Mauritius and on Amami,(Japan)], but neither seems likelyeven to lower the populationsignificantly, much less to eliminateit. Although a trapping program on amuch smaller island, St John (VirginIslands), achieved at least temporarysuccess (Ref 2), massive trappingprograms on Trinidad (Ref 3) werecompletely unsuccessful. Snakescould also be intractable. Despite anannual outlay of US$4.6 million (Ref4), the brown tree snake Boigairregularis on Guam is still far from

ERADICATION OF ISLAND INVASIVES: PRACTICAL ACTIONS AND RESULTSACHIEVED

The first international conference on eradication of all types of introduced species was held at the University of Auckland,New Zealand, under the auspices of the Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN, from 19 to 23 February 2001.

Auckland, New Zealand, was a fittinglocale for this conference on invasivespecies, because the most noteworthyeradications for conservationpurposes are of mammals onnumerous small New Zealand islands.Most conservation biologists perceivebiological control as the method ofchoice for managing introductions,with alternatives such as mechanicaland chemical control being, at best,stopgap measures and, at worst,environmentally harmful (Ref. 1).Eradication (elimination of the entireinvading population) often ranks evenlower in their estimation for threereasons: (1) it is seen as not feasible;(2) it is expensive; and (3) it mighthave horrendous nontarget impacts.However, a surprising number ofintroduced populations have beeneradicated, some at relatively low costand without harmful side effects.Furthermore, the technology for thisapproach has evolved. All but four ofthe 47 papers presented describedspecific eradication projects, the vastmajority on islands. Targeted taxawere diverse – 15 mammal species, areptile, five insect species, a molluscand at least 30 plant species.Remarkably, more than half thepresentations reported successes.Most of these projects are, however,reported only in the gray literature (ifat all), which could be one reason whyeradication has low visibility inconservation circles. Insecteradications, of which there havebeen many, were underrepresented atthe conference, perhaps because,historically, most have been foragricultural purposes and thisconference was about conservation.Nevertheless, John Clearwater(Clearwater Research and Consulting,Auckland, New Zealand) reportedsuccessful elimination of a moth,Orgyia thyellina in New Zealand andEma Vueti (Secretariat of the PacificCommunity, Suva, Fiji) describederadication of three fruit flies(Bactrocera dorsalis, B. cucurbitae,and B. xanthodes) from Nauru(Pacific Ocean).

Eradication of mammalsMost mammal eradications wereattempted by trapping, poisoning and/or shooting. Frequent complicationswere: (1) more than one targetspecies; and (2) a native species thatmust be protected. Simon Mowbray(New Zealand Department ofConservation, North Shore City, NewZealand) described the removal ofboth brushtail possums Trichosurusvulpecula and brush-tailed rockwallabies Petrogale penicillatapenicillata from 2300-ha RangitotoIsland (New Zealand); Curt Kessler(Zoology Unlimited, Flagstaff, AZ,USA) reported eradicating both goatsand pigs from 500-ha Sarigan Island(North Pacific). Miguel Garcia(Puerto Rico Department of Naturaland Environmental Resources, SanJuan, Puerto Rico) eradicated ratsfrom 15-ha Monito Island, whilemaintaining an endemic geckoSphaerodactylus micropithecuspopulation; and Don Merton (NewZealand Department of Conservation,Wellington, New Zealand) depictedthe eradication of rats and rabbitsfrom small islands in the Seychelles,where endangered bird populationswere taken into large aviaries for theduration of the project.

How hard is plant eradication?A major disagreement at theconference concerned the likelihoodthat widespread plants can beeradicated at a feasible cost. MarcelRejmanek (University of California,Davis, CA, USA) gave discouragingstatistics from 50 attempted planteradications in California; there wereno successes when the infested areaexceeded 100 ha. However, a broadconsensus emerged that, althoughusually more difficult than vertebrateeradication, plant eradication is notimpossible given sufficientpersistence. Beth Flint (US Fish andWildlife Service, Honolulu, HI, USA)detailed a ten-year project that hasalmost eliminated Cenchrusechinatus, an annual grass that haddominated 30% of the vegetated area

“Eradication maylargely be a victim ofan unwarranted fatal-ism – we are notdoomed to the biotichomogenisation of theearth, but we willsurely lose … if weaim too low.” DanSimberloff

being controlled. Gordon Rodda (USGeological Survey, Fort Collins, CO,USA) described a variety of snakebarriers, such as fences and walls, allproblematic. An attempt to eliminatewolf snakes, Lycodon aulicus on Îleaux Aigrettes (Mauritius) was alsounsuccessful. For small carnivoresand snakes, it seems probable that newtechnologies will be required forsubstantial progress to be made.

Winning the war with machismo

Conferences on introduced speciestend to be depressing, as the overallproblem worsens with burgeoningtravel and trade. Those dominated byconservation biologists also featureprimarily academic investigations,such as what traits make a ‘good’invader, or what ecosystems are mostinvasible (Ref 5) rather than ground-

based control projects. Thisconference was a radical departure.Although there were a few notablesummaries and overviews, mostdelegates were not only activelytrying to get rid of some pest but alsoseemed to see themselves as winninga war to the death against a dangerousenemy. Many of the animal projectsoozed machismo, with hunting,trapping, poisoning, aerial huntingand helicopter drops on rugged,inaccessible islands all featured. Thequintessential scorched earthapproach, described by Nic Bax(CSIRO, Hobart, Australia), entailedthe eradication of the Caribbeanblack-striped mussel, Mytilopsissallei from a bay in Darwin by killingall living organisms with 200 tons ofbleach. Even some of the planteradication projects were remarkablymartial – Mark Rauzon (MarineEndeavors, Oakland, CA, USA)

described trying to take out redmangrove on Oahu (Hawaii) with 26-ton amphibious assault vehicles.

Eradication and animal rightsadvocates

It is unsurprising that someeradication efforts, especially forvertebrates, have been the subject ofconfrontations with advocates ofanimal rights. Even the legendaryeradication of coypu from GreatBritain (Ref 6) faced such objections.Many mammal eradicationsdescribed at this conference were onremote and even uninhabited islands,so public antipathy on this count wasnot usually a problem. However, bothJohn Parkes (LandCare Research,Lincoln, New Zealand), reporting ongoat eradication on Lord Howe Island(Australia), and Peter Schuyler (SantaCatalina Island Conservancy, Avalon,CA, USA), detailing an ongoingattempt to eradicate feral pigs fromSanta Catalina Island (CA, USA),described public education as a usefultool for defusing such conflicts. But,the ideological rigidity of someanimal rights advocates seems insome instances to suggest that anunderstanding of the ecologicalbenefits of eradication, and therationale for the means employed,will not suffice to persuade allobjectors. The vociferous protestsagainst the long-running campaign toremove feral pigs from the Hawaiianislands are a case in point (Ref 1) .There is a dilemma here, in that themilitary ambience of many of thesereports can only inflame opponents,yet one has the sense that thebattleground spirit infusing theseprojects is partly responsible for theirsuccess in the face of dauntingphysical challenges and the wiles andreproductive powers of the invaders.Perhaps the key is to remember thatthe enemy is the invasive populationand that the component individualsare not morally responsible for theirpresence and pest status.

Unexpected results from‘uncontrolled’ experiments

Finally, these eradications are, in asense, large, uncontrolled experiments,and success often produces unexpected

results. For example, there was apopulation explosion of the exoticvine Operculina ventricosa (Fig. 1b)after removal of pigs and goats fromSarigan Island (Kessler), and asignificant increase in geckos,responding to honeydew produced bya scale insect on two plants thatflourished on Korapuki Island (NewZealand) after rabbit eradication(Dave Towns, New ZealandDepartment of Conservation). EricaZavaleta (Stanford University, CA,USA) closed the conference byembedding such surprise responses inthe context of a systematicconsideration of potential outcomeswhen one of several invaders iseradicated. However, despite somereports of troublesome sequels, theoverall sense of this conference wasthat eradication is a technology of greatpromise, which is still largely untapped.

References1) Van Driesche, J. and Van Driesche,R. (2000) Nature out of Place.Biological Invasions in the GlobalAge, Island Press2) Coblentz, B.E. and Coblentz, B.A.(1985) Control of the Indianmongoose Herpestes auropunctatuson St. John, US Virgin Islands. Biol.Conserv. 33, 281–2883) Williams, C.B. (1918) The food ofthe mongoose in Trinidad. Bull. DeptAgric. Trinidad Tobago 17, 167–1784) Pimentel, D. et al. (2000)Environmental and economic costs ofnonindigenous species in the UnitedStates. BioScience 50, 53–655) Ewel, J.J. et al. (1999) Deliberateintroductions of species: researchneeds. Bioscience 49, 619–6306) Gosling, M. (1989) Extinction toorder. New Scientist 121, 44–49

Daniel SimberloffDept of Ecology and EvolutionaryBiology,University of Tennessee, Knoxville,TN 37996, USA.e-mail: dsimberloff@utk.edu

Reprinted from TRENDS INECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, Vol16, No 6, June 2001, Simberloff D.Eradication of island invasives:practical actions and resultsachieved, pp 273-274, Copyright2001, with permission from ElsevierScience and from the author.

This project, carried out for the St Helena Agriculture &Forestry Department, was funded by the UKGovernment’s Overseas Development Administration.Simon Fowler now works for Landcare Research inAuckland. fowlers@landcare.cri.nz.

Jacqueline BeggsLandcare Researchbeggsj@landcare.cri.nz

Reprinted from “Stowaway”(October 2001 — see page23) with kind permission of the editor and the author.

St Helena: “A tropical island of unspoilt peace andbeauty”. That’s what the travel brochure says. But, in the1990s, this South Atlantic island was the scene of anhistoric battle to save St Helena’s national tree, the rareendemic gumwood Commidendrum robustum.

Originally, St Helena was well wooded between 400–600metres above sea level, gumwood being the dominantspecies. Goats, habitat clearance and firewood collectionhad whittled away the forest cover until native vegetationcovered less than 1% of the land area. By 1991, only 2500gumwood trees remained.

Then, disaster struck. A South American scale insect,Orthezia insignis, was found attacking the gumwood trees.By 1993, severe infestations had killed over 100 trees.Tests later showed that the three other members of theendemic genus Commidendrum were also at risk fromthe scale insect. The steep terrain, persistent south-easttrade winds, and the risk to endemic insects ruled out useof insecticides to control the infestations. The islanderscalled in the scientists.

Simon Fowler of CAB International suggested biologicalcontrol using the beetle, Hyperaspis pantherina. H.pantherina quickly established and spread once it wasreleased on St Helena. The number of beetles increased,coinciding with an at least 30× decrease in scale-insectdensity.

Since 1995, no further problems have been reported withthe scale insect on St Helena. The introduction of thebeetle was so successful that further culturing of H.pantherina on the island was discontinued in 1995 as therewere insufficient O. insignis to support it.

Extensive blackening from sooty moulds on survivinggumwoods indicated that introduction of the beetle wasonly just in the nick of time. If the number of dying treeshad continued to increase exponentially, this rare endemicplant would have been wiped out by 1995. Projects arenow underway on St Helena to revegetate other parts ofthe island.

Additional informationprovided by SimonFowler:

There are no nativeHomoptera on St Helenaaccording to the expertthat was consulted. Beetlelife history and literaturerecords suggests a veryhigh level of hostspecificity to the prey,Orthezia insigis. Feedingtests were carried out withadult beetles - and whereno choice of alternatives was provided they did attackseveral mealybug species. However, they almost neverlaid eggs in the absence of Orthezia. Small coccinellidsare often much more host specific than their largerrelatives, and in this case the relationship betweenHyperaspis pantherina and Orthezia insignis at timesverges on the parasitic. All these facts were judgedsufficient to demonstrate that the introduction would carryextremely low risk of any unwanted side-effects on theecology of the island.

Biological control – a success story on St Helena

H. pantherina

Phot

o: S

tow

away

s(L

andc

are)

Phot

o: S

tow

away

s (L

andc

are)

ACHATINES ATTACK! THE IMPACT OF GIANT AFRICAN LANDSNAILS ON RARE ENDEMIC PLANTS IN LA RÉUNION ISLAND

(MASCARENE IS., INDIAN OCEAN)

Giant African snails, Achatina spp. (Achatinidae), areamong the largest terrestrial molluscs (up to 20 cm inlength), and well-known as agricultural and garden pestswhich can cause important economic damage to cultivatedcrops. The most famous and voracious species is Achatinafulica Bowdich, a snail native to East Africa andintroduced to many tropical countries, often as a potentialfood source, now widely naturalised in the Pacific islands(e.g. Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Hawaii, Vanuatu), theIndian Ocean islands (e.g. Kiritimati, Maldives,Mascarenes Is., Seychelles), and the Caribbean islands(e.g. Guadeloupe, Martinique). This species can reachhigh densities and biomass (up to 780kg/ha in New Caledonia), and ischaracterised by sporadicdemographic explosions. Almost ahundred plant species are known ashost plants, including ornamentals,vegetables, leguminous crops, andfruiting trees. All ages and parts ofplants are eaten, including seedlings,leaves, bark, and even fruits. Verylittle data exist on damage to nativeand endemic plant species by thepolyphagous Achatina spp., which aremost commonly found inanthropogenic and disturbed habitats such as gardens,roadsides, wastelands, and in secondary forests.

Giant African snails (A. fulica Bowdich and A. pantherade Férussac) were introduced to the high tropical oceanicislands of Mauritius and La Réunion (Mascarene Is.) sincethe early 19th century, certainly from Madagascar.Between 1820-1850, they were already noticed to bewidespread on both islands, especially in the gardens andthe forested areas, up to 300 m elevation. Their subsequentexpansion and population dynamics are not known, andthere are no published data on their current density anddistribution on these islands. Giant African snails arenormally nocturnal or crepuscular, and hide during theday under litter leaves, rocks, and debris, though theybecome active in the daytime during rainy periods. Theyare also reported to enter a state of aestivation and cansurvive for years in this state which can make densityand control measures relatively difficult.

In March 2001, the Conservatoire Botanique National deMascarin (CBNM) launched a reinforcement (orrestocking) programme of a fragmented population ofLomatophyllum macrum (Liliaceae), an aloe-likeherbaceous endemic plant species considered asVulnerable under the 1997 IUCN Red List of ThreatenedPlants, and legally protected by a national decree votedin February 1987. The conservation operation wasconducted in a remnant of a native semi-dry forestcolonized by some alien invasive plants (such as Lantana

camara, Rhus longipes, Schinus terebinthifolius, andFucraea foetida), and located on the leeward side of LaRéunion, between 500-550 m elevation. The study-site isa rocky promontory overhanging a deep (200 m tall cliff)valley, connected by a knife-edge ridge to the main roadabove, located about 250 m away. During the first monthsof the post-monitoring survey, we observed conspicuousdamage of L. macrum by giant African snails (identifiedas A. panthera de Férussac) in the study-site. Among the168 marked individuals of L. macrum that were plantedin four 100 sq.m. study-plots, 23 were attacked byAchatina (i.e. 14%), with a mean total damage (% of the

plant eaten) of 57%. Seven of the 23plants were completely defoliated(total damage of 100%), 4 of themwere missing or uprooted, andconsidered dead.We measured the abundance ofAchatina snails on the study site bycollecting all the live individuals andthe empty shells found on our fourstudy-plots, on four otherneighbouring 100sq.m. plots, and on5 transects set up along the trail thatgoes from the road to our study-plotsand between the study plots. Mean

density of live snails was 0.03 individuals per sq.m. (i. e.300/ha). Total density including empty shells (N = 170)was 0.14 individuals per sq.m. (i.e. 1400/ha). Mean weightand length of live snail were 74.9 g ± 26.82 (N = 31) and9.4 cm ± 1.33 respectively (N = 138). Total biomass oflive snail was 19.36 kg/ha. Five live snails were directlyobserved eating a L. macrum plant, or being present nearthe plant.

The high densities of live snails and empty shells, bothon our study-plots and in the additional plots and transects,indicate that giant African snails have successfullyinvaded the remnant of semi-dry native forest above 500m elevation. Both seedlings (1 year old) and juveniles(2.5 years old) of planted L. macrum were attacked: theleaves of seedlings were completely eaten, whereas theleaves of the juvenile plants (which are more coriaceous)were cut at the base or gnawed. We did not observe attackson surrounding alien or native plant species in our fourstudy plots.

Some previous anecdotal citations indicate that giantAfrican snails attacks Obetia ficifolia (Urticaceae), a rareendemic to La Réunion, and Carissa xylopicron(Apocynaceae), an endangered endemic to the MascareneIs., by eating the seedlings and the bark of the tree, as well asthe endangered Ruizia cordata (Sterculiaceae), a monotypicgenus endemic to La Réunion. We also made a directobservation of A. panthera eating Obetia ficifolia in thegardens of the CBNM, located at about 500 m elevation.

Achatina spp.

PUBLICATIONS

invasive plants and animals in theHawaiian Islands.Staples G.W. & Cowie, R.H. (eds.) 2001. MutualPublishing & Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. xii + 116p. US$9.95. This colorful, inexpensive, popular bookdescribese the causes and consequences of theintroduction of invasive alien species of plants and animalsto the Hawaiian Islands. Almost 100 species are coveredin detail, all illustrated in color, exemplifying the negativeimpacts of invasive alien species on human health andquality of life, agriculture, commerce, and theenvironment. Hawaii may well illustrate better thananywhere, the negative effects of invasive alien species.So, while focused on Hawaii, the book should be ofinterest around the world. Much of the introductorymaterial is indeed of general relevance. The book can beobtained from Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street,Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, USA. It can be ordered on lineat: http://shop.bishopmuseum.org/

Editorial note: a greatbooklet, from the point of viewof awareness raising ingeneral, and for anyonevisiting Hawai’i. It illustratesa selection of alien invasivespecies that are likely to beseen during everydayactivities, and to their impactson native animals and plants(as well as agriculture andhealth). Attractive, nicephotographs, instructive andVERY affordable.

Hawai’i’s Invasive species. A guide to

Two hypotheses are proposed:

- The impact of giant African snails is minor andtransient: the high snail density observed on the studysite is closely related to rainfall episodes, and to soildisturbance caused by the planting of more than ahundred individuals of L. macrum and the removalof some alien invasive plants during thereinforcement operation. In this case, in situconservation projects (reintroduction, reinforcement,restoration) involving replanting of native andendemic species should take into account thepotential damage caused by Achatina, and controlmethods (e.g. hand-removal or poison baits withchemical molluscicide) should be planned during theoperation, at least during rainy periods and during the“summer” (also called “hot and wet season”) that occursin La Réunion between November and March.

- Giant African snails may have a strong and long-lasting impact on L. macrum which seems morepalatable than other native and alien plant species. Ifthis hypothesis is confirmed, Achatina may be oneof the main causes of the rarity and even theextirpation of some populations of L. macrum andsome other endangered endemic plants in La Réunion,such as Ruizia cordata (only 5 individuals known inthe wild, restricted to the semi-dry vegetation typebelow 200 m elev.). The lack of seedling recruitmentof L. macrum has been explained until now by habitatdegradation (caused by human activities, and invasionby alien plants) and to poor reproductive success dueto self-fertilisation in small fragmented populations.

Alien species, accidentally or deliberately introduced toisland ecosystems, are notorious for their detrimentaleffects on native biota. This is particularly true for animalpredators or invasive plants which are able to form densemonospecific stands. Some introduced species aregenerally considered as harmless, or restricted toanthropogenic and disturbed areas, but may haveunexpected “cryptic” impacts. Although well-known tobe a conspicuous crop pests with a voracious appetite,the role of giant African as a threat to the native andendemic plants has not received much attention. Furtherinvestigations on the distribution (geographic andelevation range) and the density of Achatina spp.throughout the island of La Réunion, as well as the hostplants, are being conducted by the CBNM.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Johnny Ferrar*, Sonia Françoise*, Jean-MariePausé*, Christophe Lavergne* and Hermann Thomas* (*CBNM)for valuable help on the field; Dr. Trevor Coote (Zoological Societyof London/Pacific Island Land Snail Group) for providing usefulreferences; and Prof. Michael Hadfield (University of Hawaii atManoa) for correcting the English on an earlier draft of this article.

Jean-Yves Meyer & Frédéric PicotConservatoire Botanique National de MascarinRD 12, Domaine des ColimaçonsF-97436 Saint-LeuILE DE LA REUNION (FRANCE)jymeyer@cbnm.org

A Guidebook of Introduced MarineSpecies in HawaiiEdited by LG Eldredge and CM Smith. BishopMuseum Technical Report 21, August 2001. 133 pages.The Report covers nonindigenous marine algae as wellas their native counterparts, giving information on whetherspecies is alien, alien invasive, alien and invasive-elsewhere or native. Some native –invasive, and native-invasive-elsewhere cases are included, which is interestingfrom a management point of view. A second section dealswith nonindigenous invertebrates. For all 57 species colorphotographs and diagrams are provided to facilitateidentification, habitat and distribution are described, as wellas ecology and impact. Further references are provided.It is anticipated that the report will be available on theHawaii Biological Survey web site very soon,http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/

BTS 2001: Summary of the 2nd Symposium onBrown Tree snake Research and Management

Around 1950, post-war military shipments brought anunwelcome new resident to Guam: the Brown Treesnake,Boiga irregularis (BTS). By then, Guam had beeninhabited for several thousand years, and multipleinvasive species were present. The arrival of additionalnon-natives, such as the skink Carlia fusca, helped createan extreme synergistic impact. By the early 1980s, thewhole island had been overrun by the snake, and mostnon-aquatic vertebrates were either gone or in profounddecline. The unprecedented declines demandedconsiderable study, before it was accepted that anintroduced snake could totally alter the island’s food web(Savidge 1987; Fritts and Rodda 1998). Today, theecological and economic impacts of the BTS are well-established (Rodda et al., 1999). Also well demonstratedis the ability of snakes to disperse by aircraft and surfaceshipping, arriving in locations as far away as Spain. Athreat of further invasions of Pacific islands, such asHawaii, is therefore of great concern. So how doscientists, managers, and conservationists deal with thisinvasive pest?

In 1998, the firstBTS symposiumconvened inHawaii to confrontthat question(Perry, 1998). Itwas clear that theBTS did not fit anyof the existingparadigms forsnakes. Aproductive alliance of researchers and managers met todiscuss technical aspects of the fight to control this costlypest and to identify high priority areas for further work.

Significant progress has been made since 1998, as over65 biologists and managers heard at the recent BTS 2001symposium, held at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.Like its predecessor, the current meeting was co-organized by agencies within the U.S. Department ofInterior’s Geological Survey and the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture’s Wildlife Services. The conferencefeatured some 35 presentations, as well as a day-longfield trip to inspect a variety of snake control and researchprojects. Most presentations were by representatives ofthe organizing agencies, with additional speakers fromlocal government agencies on Guam, Hawaii, and theCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands(CNMI), as well as several universities. Representativesfrom other federal agencies and American Samoa alsoattended, and took part in the discussions that exploredthe implications of each session. The presentations

grouped into four major themes: BTS interdiction;reproduction and population biology; capture andtoxicant strategies; and status and recovery actions forGuam’s wildlife.

One major problem posed by the BTS is the threat offurther invasions. It was not surprising, therefore, thatmany talks detailed the considerable measures taken toprevent snakes from spreading beyond Guam. Threereports summarized ongoing control efforts on Guam,Hawaii, and the CNMI. The extensive work on Guamappears to have reduced the number of arrivals of snakesat extralimital destinations. Unfortunately, thecorresponding Hawaiian and CNMI programs continueto be hampered by technical and funding difficulties.Three presentations centered on methods for snakeinterdiction. The first focused on the respectiveadvantages of three snake barrier models now in growinguse (technical details were provided as a technical report[Perry et al., 2001] circulated at the meeting). The secondpresented a new method to produce sterile males foroff-island training of detector dogs, a high priority forthe detector dog programs on Hawaii and the CNMI. Asophisticated system for automated monitoring ofindividual snake movements in field experiments, usingintegrated transponders and computerized readers, wasa focus of the third. Finally, the thermal conditions onaircraft wheel wells and cargo compartments, in whichsnakes are known to stow away, were investigated.Cargo compartments certainly pose a high risk of livearrival for stowaway snakes, whereas survival in wheelwells is more likely during short, low level flights thanduring long, high altitude flights.

As would be expected, strategies for capture andelimination of BTSs also received considerable attention.Several speakers noted that the widely used snake trapsare size-selective, and that some individuals are lesslikely to enter traps regardless of their size. Analysis ofinfrared videos of snakes approaching trapsdemonstrated that individual foraging behavior ispartially responsible for this. Another problem is thatsmall snakes mainly feed on lizards, whereas operationaltraps use mice as attractants. Trapping may be especiallydifficult in prey-rich environments, which makes earlyelimination of incipient populations a difficult task whenusing currently available tools. A high priority for futureresearch was the development of tools to identify andeliminate such incipient populations. In addition, BTSsuse both chemical and visual cues to locate prey andmates, and future traps must exploit both cue types forbest success. Poisoned baits appear to affect at least someof the snakes that are not easily trapped. In small-scaletesting, toxic baits were shown to quickly impact snakepopulations. Several studies are now testing for

direct and indirect toxic effects on non-target species, andthe results so far are encouraging. The process of gainingapproval for large-scale use is also advancing, and theexpected availability of this additional tool within the nextfew years was good news. However, in the absence ofbarriers, snake populations quickly rebound once controlefforts are stopped. The best combination of tools foreffective control will need to be experimentallydetermined. The effectiveness of poisoned baits in high-prey environments also has yet to be tested. Anotherpriority was to target the smaller size classes of snakesthat avoid the current traps. A further discussion ensuedabout the establishment of a rapid response team toinvestigate new extralimital sightings. The response tosightings of snakes away from Guam has often been lessthan optimal, and a trained team could bring practicalexpertise to these situations that has been sorely missingin the past.

Artificial attractants received less attention at this meetingthan in 1998, perhaps because operational pheromone-and carrion odor-based baits remain elusive. Several recentstudies cast doubt on the safety and effectiveness ofbiocontrol of vertebrate species. A technical reportcirculated at the meeting (Dobson and Altizer, 2001)concluded that eradication of the BTS using pathogensappears unlikely, given the biology of the snake. A likelycandidate for long-term population suppression has yetto be identified.

Snake demography and reproductive ecology wereidentified in 1998 as areas requiring focused researcheffort. Biologists have responded to this mandate, andseveral presentations helped to delimit what is known, aswell as what remains to be studied, in these areas. Recentwork on the reproductive ecology of BTS on Guam, basedon thousands of dissected snakes collected over the entireannual cycle, was presented. Reproduction appears tooccur year-round for both males and females. Obviously,that finding has important implications regarding thepotential to use reproductive inhibition for BTS control.Another presentation used empirical data to model thegrowth parameters of free-ranging snakes, based onrecaptures of marked snakes over the last decade. A thirdtalk incorporated the preliminary data on growth data,reproduction, and survival rates, into a model of snakedemography. Model projections can be used to evaluatethe likely success of potential control strategies. Thecurrent models indicate that population growth is mostsensitive to survival of large snakes. These preliminaryprojections were encouraging, because this is the size classmost accessible to current control methods.

Past discussions of the BTS problem have typicallynarrowly concentrated on the snake itself. Encouragingly,a broadened awareness of multiple invasive species wasevident at the 2001 meeting. With considerable progressachieved on snake control at various scales, the long-desired goal of ecosystem restoration seems closer to being

attainable for Guam. Discussion of related issues beganwith a review of approaches to invasive control presentedat the 2001 IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Groupmeeting in New Zealand. Four talks then focused onspecific taxa and geographic areas. Most encouraging wasevidence that populations of the endangered Vanikoroswiftlets (Aerodramus vanikorensis) have increasedfollowing concentrated trapping of BTS at the caves inwhich they nest on Guam. Although swiftlets on the nearbysnake-free island of Saipan rebounded at the same time,the increase on Guam is heartening because, prior to snakecontrol, populations have been declining for a prolongedperiod. Additional work is clearly indicated, to ascertainthat snake control was indeed an important component inthis resurgence, to identify the level of snake presencethat allows the birds to persist, and to construct a long-term strategy for maintaining it.

Where do we go from here? Many attendees felt that themost important lesson from the New Zealand eradicationmeeting was a need for a multi-species perspective at anecosystem level. In addition to BTS, Guam has skinks,rats, cats, dogs, pigs and deer as major vertebrate invasives,and a host of invertebrate and plant aliens as well.Anecdotal observations suggest that there is probably asynergistic effect among them. Therefore, when snakesare eradicated from large areas, prey whose populationsare currently depressed are likely to respond to the shiftin predation pressure. For example, rats and shrews arecurrently uncommon on Guam, away from humanhabitation, but might irrupt as predatory pressure is relaxedwith declining snake density. Development of multi-species barriers that also block rats, shrews, and cats wassuggested at the meeting, and the need to control smallmammals in snake control areas was discussed. Severaldiscussions touched on the possibility that prey-basecontrol might enhance capture rates of BTS in low-snake,high-prey environments.

Worldwide, the problem of invasive species is increasinglydealt with as a multi-species, ecosystem-wide issue(Zavaleta et al., 2001). The expanded focus of the BTS2001 meeting reflected this maturing appreciation ofinvasive species issue in general. The attitude shift is alsowarranted with the improving capacity to eradicateinvasive species, at least from islands (Simberloff, 2001),and to effectively block their dispersal. The speakerspresented evidence that development and implementationof tools to successfully eradicate the BTS is advancingsteadily, and that such actions may be feasible within thenext few years. With this encouragement, the scope ofefforts on Guam is expanding. From the immediate needto prevent further spread, attention is shifting to includelong-range plans for ecological restoration to undo at leastsome of the damage that the snake has caused. The longtime-scale, large economic cost, and partial nature of suchsolutions, however, underscore the need for more effectiveprevention.

For more information:Program abstracts are available online at http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/resources/misc/bts/abstracts.shtmlThe Brown Treesnake Online is at http://www.nbii.gov/issues/invasive/bts/index.html and additional information isavailable at http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/resources/education/bts/A CD-ROM containing meeting abstracts, as well as many of the PowerPoint presentations given, is in preparation.Copies can be obtained by contacting Teri Kman at teri_kman@usgs.gov.

Cited literatureDobson, A.P., and S.M. Altizer. 2001. Pathogens and theconservation of island biota: modeling the biological controlof invasive brown treesnakes on Guam. Technical report onfile with USGS.Fritts, T. H. and G. H. Rodda 1998. The role of introducedspecies in the degradation of island ecosystems: a case historyof Guam. Annual Revue of Ecology and Systematics 29: 113-140.Perry, G. 1998. Brown treesnake update. Aliens 8:6-7.Perry, G., G.H. Rodda, T.H. Fritts, and F.J. Qualls. 2001. Snakecontrol using barrier technology: a final report on studies todevelop barriers for blocking movement of Brown Treesnakes(Boiga irregularis). Technical report on file with USGS.Rodda, G.H., Y. Sawai, D. Chiszar, and H. Tanaka (eds). 1999.Problem snake management: the Habu and the BrownTreesnake. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Savidge, J. A. 1987. Extinction of an island forest avifauna byan introduced snake. Ecology 68: 660-668.Simberloff, D. 2001. Eradication of island invasives: practicalactions and results achieved. Trends in Ecology and Evolution16: 273-274.Zavaleta, E.S., R.J. Hobbs, and H.A. Mooney. 2001. Viewinginvasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trendsin Ecology and Evolution 16:454-459.

Gad PerryDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin430 Lincoln Drive,Madison WI 53706USA

Tony TuckerColorado State University,Brown Tree snake ProjectP.O. Box 8255MOU-3DededoGuam 96929-8255

NOTES NOTESTHE WEED PLAN FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The weed plan for western Australia, a new strategy inthe war on weeds, was launched by the Hon. Kim Chance,Minister for Agriculture, and the Hon. Dr Judy Edwards,Minister for the Environment on 8 October 2001, to markthe start of National Weedbuster Week. The State WeedPlan for Western Australia has been established with thefollowing vision and goal: Vision: Healthy and resilientlandscapes where wed impacts on environmental valuesand primary production are minimised; Goal: To achievecoordinated, collaborative and effective weedmanagement throughout Western Australia.

A pdf version of the strategy can be found at URL: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/swp/slloyd@agric.wa.gov.auExecutive Office, State Weed PlanDepartment of AgricultureLocked Bag 4BENTLEY DC WA 6983Australia

Photo: Sandy Lloyd. The Hon. Dr Judy Edwards, Ministerfor the Environment, Master of Ceremonies State WeedPlan Chairman Rob Delane and the Weedbuster mascot,the lovable but noxious Woody Weed.

Alien species in Scotland

Welch, D., Carss, D.N., Gornall, J., Manchester, S.J.,Marquiss, M., Preston,C.D., Telfer, M.G., Arnold, H. &Holbrook, J. 2001. An audit of alien species in ScotlandScottish Natural Heritage Review No 139. ISSN 1350-3111.225 pages. The audit aims to list all currently knownterrestrial and freshwater alien species present in Scotland(non-native marine species have been reviewedseparately; to give basic facts about these species, theirorigin, manner of introduction, current distribution, trendsin abundance, habitats and ratings for their current andfuture impacts; to identify particularly vulnerable habitatsor regions; to identify alien species that could potentiallybecome serious pests; to increase awareness andunderstanding of key alien species, either because they areones likely to become pests or because they typify groups ofalien species; to highlight the key issues relating to theintroduction of alien species to Scotland; and to suggest waysor measures that will reduce the adverse impacts of aliens.

Further information:Scottish Natural HeritagePublications SectionBattleby, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW 5NPUKE-mail Julian.Holbrook@snh.gov.uk

HEDGEHOGS - A THREAT TO WADERS IN THE WESTERN ISLES OF SCOTLAND

The Uists in the Western Isles of Scotland is one of themost important areas in the UK and indeed Europe fornesting waders such as lapwing, redshank and snipe. Atthe peak of the season with so much noise and excitementgenerated by lapwing, redshank, dunlin, ringed plover,snipe and oystercatcher, it is not difficult to see why. Thisgreat piece of natural theatre, however, is at risk. Sincethe early 1980s, wader numbers have undergone a seriousdecline particularly in South Uist and Benbecula. Detailedresearch has shown that the reason behind the declinescan largely attributed to predation of their eggs causedby hedgehogs.

Although hedgehogs are native to the UK they are notnative to the Uists. Hedgehogs were first brought to theSouthern part of the Uists in the mid 1970s and so theyare not a natural part of the Island environment. Thereare now estimated as many as 5000 hedgehogs throughoutthe Uists, largely concentrated in the South and Benbeculabut slowly moving northwards.

Live TrappingThe most important challenge facing the project thus faris being able to actually catch the hedgehogs. The shortseason before the hedgehogs hibernate coupled with thedifficult terrain and often-arduous weather conditionsmeans that this is far from easy. This year as part of alive-trapping trial we have been investigating the effectsof different baits and trap positions on trapping efficiency.Initial findings are not encouraging with all traps havingonly about 1% success rate. However, refinements toour live-trapping methods are being made and shouldresult in an increased success rate. The Project is alsokeen to test the ability of trained pointing dogs to locatehedgehogs in certain habitats. Any hedgehogs locatedusing this method would then be held in holding penspending translocation or re-released.

Trialing TranslocationThe issue of trailing translocation has raised considerabledebate. We have had wide-ranging discussions as to whatcriteria should be used to identify suitable release sites.The welfare of the animals being translocated, and theimpact of introduced animals on the native hedgehogpopulations at the release site have also been raised asissues which must be addressed. Finally, what criteriashould be used to assess whether translocation is deemeda success or failure. In order to advance the thinking onthese issues we have commissioned a feasibility studywhich is now underway.

Hedgehog-proof fencing in North UistWe know from previous research and trials that fencingoff an area to exclude hedgehogs resulted in nest successbeing almost two and a half times better than in areaswhere hedgehogs were present. At least in the short-termhedgehog-proof fences can play an important part inhelping to secure a brighter future for Uist waders. To

support this work traps have been placed along fences.

Future opportunitiesWe are maintaining contact with relevant recognised“experts” over techniques such as sterilisation and howthese may contribute to the project in the longer term.

Maimie ThompsonUist Wader Project Teammaimie.thompson@rspb.org.uk

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Uists refer to North Uist, Benbecula and South Uistwhich are located in the Western Isles of Scotland

During the last ten years numbers of nesting wadershave declined severely. Wader declines were, andcontinue to be, most dramatic in South Uist andBenbecula, where the population of some species hasdecreased by over 50%. Dunlin were down by 65%,ringed plover by 57%, redshank by 40% and snipe by43%. Lapwing numbers declined more moderately by17% and only oystercatcher numbers remained stable.

Source: Uist Wader Management Group, media release3 October 2000

EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES IN THECANARY ISLANDS (SPAIN)

Gobierno de Canarias have included a new section ontheir web related to exotic and invasive species in theCanary Islands.

The url is :http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/medioambiente/biodiversidad/introducidas/index.html.

At the moment it is only in Spanish but they are workingto translate it into English.

More information: Ana M. ColásGobierno de Canariasanamaria.colasrocha@gobiernodecanarias.org

NOTES

Invasion and eradication of Sagina procumbens L. (Procumbentpearlwort) on Gough Island

Gough Island (South Atlantic, 40o21’S, 9o53’W) is one ofthe least disturbed major cool-temperate island ecosystemsin the world. It is part of the Tristan-Gough group of islandsand is ca. 300 km removed from the other islands of thisgroup. Administratively Gough is part of the Dependencyof Tristan da Cunha. The island was designated a wildlifereserve in 1976 and placed on the World Heritage list in1995.

Invasions by introduced plants and animals form a majorthreat to the integrity of the ecosystems of oceanic islandslike Gough (Smith & Smith 1998, Chown et al. 1998).Such introductions often result in the replacement of native,often endemic species, by introduced, cosmopolitanspecies and can lead to significant changes in speciescomposition and structure of native plant and animalcommunities (Ernsting et al. 1995; Gremmen 1997;Gremmen et al. 1998).

In 1998 an invasive weed, Sagina procumbens L.(Procumbent Pearlwort), was recorded at Gough Island.Sagina procumbens is a small herb, spreading vegetativelyand by seed. Once established, it can form large, very densemats and on cold, oceanic islands is a serious threat tonative vegetation and to soil fauna communities in manyhabitat types. Characteristic is the short time (a few months)for Sagina seedlings to reach maturity and produce seeds,the large number of very small, easily dispersed seedsproduced per plant, and the longevity of the seeds in thesoil. On subantarctic Marion Island it was found thatSagina spreads on average by 300m per year, withoccasional jumps of several km (Gremmen & Smith 1999).

Gough Island

Gough Island measures ca. 6 by 14 km and is verymountainous. The highest peak reaches 910m above sea leveland much of the island is above 400m. On most sides theuplands fall away to the coast very steeply, but the highcoastal escarpments are dissected by numerous steep andnarrow valleys. The climate is cool and wet, with a meantemperature at sea level of ca. 11oC, mean annual precipitationin excess of 3000mm and frequent gale-force winds.

The island was visited by sealers and whalers during the19th century, as well as by egg-collectors and diamondprospectors but it was never permanently inhabited. In1955 a scientific station was established at The Glen, whichwas subsequently taken over by the South African WeatherBureau as a meteorological station. In 1963 a new weather-station was built above Transvaal Bay and the old onewas abandoned. The Gough population of Sagina appearsto be the result of a recent, accidental introduction at thesite of the Meteorological Station.

The lowlands of Gough are covered in a lush vegetation,

dominated by the island tree (Phylica arborea), tree ferns(Blechnum palmiforme), numerous other ferns and grasses,sedges and rushes. Coastal areas are covered in over 2mhigh, dense tussock grassland. More elevated areas are coveredby thick heath and grassy vegetation, rich in bryophytes. In flatupland areas mires and bogs developed, dominated partly bySphagnum, partly by other mosses and hepatics.

The slopes, which make out the larger part of the island,are characterised by a cyclic succession, where vegetationdevelops from pioneer moss and lichen communities to aclimax stage of Phylica bush or fernbush vegetation, or inupland areas to Empetrum heathland or mountain grassland(cf. Wace 1961). During the vegetation succession thickorganic soils build up. At some stage, presumably triggeredby high rainfalls, water saturated peat soils start slippingdown the steep slopes. After such peatslips little or no soilis left on the slopes, and succession starts again on therocky substratum.

The flora of Gough consists of 36 flowering plants, ofwhich 21 are endemic to the Tristan da Cunha - Goughisland group and 4 are restricted to Gough Island. Twenty-seven species of fern are known from the island, of which15 are endemic to the Tristan-Gough group. Although alarge number of bryophytes and lichens are known fromGough (Wace 1961), the knowledge of the non-vascularflora is very incomplete.

Despite our incomplete knowledge of the island’s floraand fauna, it is clear that the island’s biota is unique,containing a large proportion of endemic species. Uniquealso is the small number of introduced species (Wace1986), which makes Gough one of the very few, if not theonly major cool-temperate oceanic island which still is ina nearly pristine state.

Sagina invasion

In September 1998, during the annual relief expeditionto the weather-station, Sagina procumbens was discoveredin the logistic zone near the weather-station. In September1999, Sagina was found still to occur only within an areaof ca. 1ha near the weather-station. Within this area Saginaoccurred in all habitat types and communitiescharacterised by disturbance and/or by the presence of baresoil. From this, and from the behaviour of the species in otherareas, notably on subantarctic Marion Island (Gremmen 1997,Gremmen & Smith 1999), it was expected that Sagina wouldbe able to invade all habitat types on Gough Island characterisedby disturbance and/or the presence of bare soil. Because of thevast numbers of burrowing and ground-breeding birdsdisturbance occurs on Gough Island in a wide range of habitats.Also the cyclical vegetation succession patterns on the island’sslopes provide ample habitats for Sagina to colonise, especiallyin the early successional stages, where the vegetation is

dominated by bryophytes, lichens and low-growingvascular plants.

When unchecked, Sagina is expected to spread widely overthe island and invade a large number of habitats and nativecommunities. In several habitats Sagina is expected to formlarge, dense mats, outcompeting native species. This willresult in a reduction of the local diversity of native speciesin the vegetation and to a significant change in the structureof the vegetation (Gremmen 1997). This in turn may beexpected to affect also the faunal component of theseecosystems (cf. Gremmen et al. 1998). Eventuallybiodiversity on a whole-island scale may be affected.

Sagina eradication programme

Funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office,through the Environmental Fund for the OverseasTerritories, an eradication programme for this weed wasdesigned and implemented during 2000.

The first stage of this programme was to contain Saginato the area near the weather-station until a full-scaleeradication effort could be started. This work wasadmirably undertaken by the weather-station personnelwho removed all Sagina plants they saw and stored themin strong plastic bags for later removal from the island.

In May 2000 the second stage of the eradicationprogramme was implemented, by sending down a four-person team to Gough to complete the removal of the plantsand to try and destroy as much of the seedbank in the soilas possible. To this end the whole area around the weather-station, including the sea cliffs, was searched meticulouslyand every Sagina plant was removed, together with thesoil around it, to a depth of ca. 15cm. As most Saginaseeds fall close to the parent plants many seeds wereremoved with this soil. Subsequently the soil of areascolonised by Sagina was treated with boiling water.Germination experiments showed that the hot watertreatment reduced the number of viable Sagina seeds inthe soil by more than 99%. As a backup, herbicides wereused to quickly kill Sagina plants in inaccessible places.Of course, these areas were later treated with hot water,and whenever feasible the soil was removed.

The eradication effort so far has been successful. We haveachieved the virtual elimination of all Sagina plants in thetreated area and an enormous reduction in the number ofviable Sagina seeds present in the soil. It is inevitable,however, that some of the seeds in the soil are still viableand will germinate into new Sagina plants.

However, without a third stage to the eradicationprogramme the start that has been made with the

eradication of Sagina on Gough will have been a waste oftime, effort and money. This third stage involves a carefulmonitoring of the area and the immediate eradication ofany new Sagina plants that are found. Equally importantis a strict adherence to quarantine measures in order toprevent new introductions.

Even though the total effort involved in the monitoringand continued eradication of Sagina on Gough is estimatedto be only a few weeks per year, the short time betweengermination and seed production in Sagina requires thatthis work be spread out throughout the year and not belimited to a single, short period such as the annual reliefexpedition to the weather-station. Therefore, personnelwith the necessary skills will have to be present on theisland throughout the year and continue to monitor anderadicate Sagina on a regular basis. This means that themonitoring and eradication of Sagina (combined with otherenvironmental monitoring and conservation tasks) haveto be official tasks of the weather-station personnel. Thisrequires specialist knowledge and the allocation ofdedicated manpower within the Gough weather-stationpersonnel, as well as the continuous support from theauthorities operating the weather-station. But, with propercare, the total eradication of Sagina on Gough could beachieved within a decade or so.

References

Chown S.L., Gremmen N.J.M. & Gaston K.J. 1998.Ecological biogeography of Southern Ocean islands:species-area relationships, human impacts, andconservation. American Naturalist 152: 562-575

Ernsting, G, Block W., MacAlister H. & Todd C.(1995).The invasion of the carnivorous carabid beetle Trechisibusantarcticus on South Georgia (sub-Antarctic) and its effecton the endemic herbivorous beetle Hydromedionsparsatum. Oecologia 103: 34-42

Gremmen N.J.M. (1997) Changes in the vegetation ofsub-Antarctic Marion Island resulting from introduced vascularplants. In: Battaglia B., Valencia J. & Walton D.W.H., eds,Antarctic Communities: Species, Structure and Survival.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 417-423

Gremmen N.J.M., Chown S.L. & Marshall D.J. (1998) Impactof the introduced grass Agrostis stolonifera L. on vegetation andsoil fauna of drainage line communities at Marion Island,sub-Antarctic. Biological Conservation 85: 223-231

Gremmen, N.J.M. & Smith V.R. (1999) New records of alienvascular plants from Marion and Prince Edward Islands. PolarBiology 21: 401-409

Smith V.R. & Smith R.I.L. (1987). The biota and conservationstatus of sub-Antarctic islands. Environment International 13,95-104

Wace N.M. 1961. The vegetation of Gough Island. EcologicalMonographs 31: 337-367

Niek GremmenData Analyse Ecologie7981 AP Diever, The Netherlandsemail: gremmen@wxs.nl

Jaco BarendseMRI Whale Unitc/o South African MuseumCape Town 8000, South AfricaEmail: jbarendse@samuseum.ac.za

Iain OrrEnvironment Policy DepartmentForeign & Commonwealth OfficeLondon SW1A 2AH, UKe:iain.orr@mail.fco.gov.uk

DEVELOPING A BIOSECURITYSTRATEGY FOR NEW ZEALAND

Successive governments have recognised the importanceof biosecurity to New Zealand, and New Zealand’sbiosecurity programme has been progressivelystrengthened in response to new risks. The programme isnow complex and resource intensive, involving a range ofcentral government agencies, regional councils, industryorganisations, and sector groups. The New Zealandgovernment has agreed to the development of a biosecuritystrategy for New Zealand and to provide $0.96 million(NZD)over the next three years for its development andpublication. The Minister for Biosecurity, the Hon JimSutton, has asked the Biosecurity Council to co-ordinatethe development of a Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealandby December 2002. Implementation will commence during2003/04.

Scope

The strategy will:• reflect a New Zealand-wide perspective on biosecurity

• take account of both central and local government’sinterests

• take account of Maori interests and values

• take account of environmental, primary production,public health and trade and travel sector interests

• apply to all New Zealand, including its offshore islandsand territorial waters

• apply to New Zealand’s terrestrial, freshwater and marineenvironments

• apply to the protection of both indigenous and valuedintroduced flora and fauna

• have regard to international obligations.

An Issues Paper providing the basis for nation-wideconsultation with stakeholders and the community, waslaunched in September 2001. It summarises and integratesapproximately 400 issues identified to by a range ofbiosecurity stakeholders in sector organisations, interestgroups, regional councils and government agencies. Someissues are strategic, and focus on the objectives, principlesand policies that underpin New Zealand’s biosecurityeffort. Others concentrate on biosecurity systems, and theoperational practices of biosecurity agencies.. More issueswill no doubt be identified during the next phases ofstrategy development.

The consultation process will target five broad groups:§ the general public (through regional public meetings);§ regional biosecurity stakeholders (through focussed

regional workshops);§ Maori (through a national hui);§ national biosecurity stakeholders (through focussed

national forums);§ specialists in aspects of biosecurity (through special

‘issues groups’).

A sample of the 400 issues and questions contained in thedocument:• How could Maori participation in biosecurity

decision-making be improved?• To what extent should New Zealand seek to enhance

biosecurity partnership arrangements with othercountries?

• How should New Zealand ensure that its biosecurityinterests are appropriately incorporated intointernational trade and environmental ?

• How could the current multi-agency approach tobiosecurity be improved?

• What principles should guide decisions on who shouldmeet the cost of biosecurity programmes?

• How could biosecurity structures, legislation andprocesses be made more inclusive of Maori values?

• What additional training should be provided tobiosecurity inspectors at the border?

• What actions are required to ensure that biosecuritysurveillance programmes deliver timely and qualityinformation on new organism incursions, and theinternal movement of established organisms?

• What are the key factors for successful biosecurityeducation and awareness programmes?

The document: Biosecurity strategy for New Zealand;Issues paper . A public consultation paper, September2001, ISBN-0-478-07964-8 is distributed widely in apublished form, and is posted on the biosecurity strategywebsite – www.biostrategy.govt.nz.

Contact information:Biosecurity Strategy Development Team,PO Box 2526, Wellington,New Zealand,Fax: ++ 64 – (0)4-460-8779,bsdteam@biostrategy.govt.nzweb: www.biostrategy.govt.nz

“Protect New Zealand – TiakinaAotearoa”

At the same time of thelaunch of the Issues paper,a public education campaignwas also launched, “ProtectNew Zealand – TiakinaAotearoa” and the maintheme featured: “Everybodyhas a role to play”.

A New website has beencreated, and provides a goodentry into New Zealand’svarious Bio-securityagencies, policies etc. It alsocontains education material.For further information:www.protectnz.org.nz Partof the public educationmessage will be spread onTV adverts and elsewhere,by “Biosecurity Officer,Max the Beagle”

Noxious Weeds Of Australia - Second Edition byParsons and Cuthbertson, February 2001. Hardbackwith colour illustrations, 712 pages. ISBN 0 643 065148. RRP: $195 AUS.

Considered the bible for “weedos” around Australia - thefirst edition has been very difficult to obtain sincepublication in 1992. This second edition updates thelegislation information for noxious weeds around thecountry. Completely updated information on each stateand territory. Newly proclaimed weeds are listed in anappendix. Herbicides and their properties have beenupdated. In May 2001, Botanicus Australia Pty Ltdpublicised their price as $170.00 AUSSource: Aliens-L messages from Sandy Lloyd and fromBotanicus Australia Pty Ltd.

Available from

CSIRO Publishing sales@publish.csiro.auWeb: www.publish.csiro.au

Botanicus Australia Pty Ltdscropper@botanicus-aust.com.au

AUSTRALIAN PUBLICATIONS

Environmental Weeds: A field guide for SEAustralia- by Kate Blood, CRC for Weed ManagementSystems (2001). Published in by by C.H. Jerram &Associates and CRC for Weed Management Systems,232 pages, colour illustrations, ISBN 0957908601,price A$35.00.

This comprehensive field guide details over 175environmental weeds in south-eastern Australiaincluding emerging and potential weed species.Detailed descriptions in easy-to-understand languagesupported by excellent photography brings accurateweed identification within the reach of a broad range ofusers. Entries include weed shape and size, history anduses, taxonomic relationships, origin, weedydistribution, description, reproductive and growthcharacteristics and confusing look-alikes.Source Aliens-L message from R Richardson

Available from:RG and FJ RichardsonPO Box 42, Meredith, Victoria, 3333, AustraliaPhone/fax: ++61 3 5286 1533E-mail: richardson@weedinfo.com.au

Weed Risk Assessment, Groves, R.H., Panetta, F.D. andVirtue, J.G., 2001 CSIRO Publishing.240+ Pages $80 Australian dollars plus p&p. “Weed Risk Assessment is the first publication toexplore the discipline of risk assessment as applied to the invasion ecology of plants. Taking a global

context, it synthesises recent theories on plant invasions, introduces a variety of models for weed riskassessment, and addresses procedures for rankinginvasive species on a range of scales to determine weedsof national significance. It shows how the application ofrisk assessment to weed invasion may help reduce weedimpact and thereby improve living conditions for peoplethroughout the world. Weed Risk Assessment is aimed atinvasion ecologists, botanists, quarantine officers,policy-makers and community groups wanting to knowmore about this developing discipline. Written by someof the world’s leading authorities in the area, it will serveas a benchmark publication from which to assessprogress in this new field of endeavour.”Can be purchased via the web on: http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/bookpage.cfm?PID=2910

Source: Aliens-L message from Rod Randall ,Agriculture Western Australia,rprandall@agric.wa.gov.au

CHILDREN’S BOOK ON INTRODUCED PLANTSAND ANIMALS

A set of 5 books on the introduced plants and animals ofAustralia, aimed at age group approx. 10 to 14 years,written by Greg Pyers. They would be of interest tothose involved in community education/outreachprogrammes.Book 1 What are introduced animals and plants? ISBN1 86391 164 2Book 2 Alligator Weed to Donkey, ISBN 1 86391 155 3Book 3 European Wasp to Lantana, ISBN 1 86391 156 1Book 4 Mesquite to Rubbervine, ISBN 1 86391 157 XBook 5 Salvinia to Willow, ISBN 1 86391 158 8Enquiries to Lizzie Whyte , Sales and MarketingAssistant, Heinemann Library Australia,(Lizzie.Whyte@reededucation.com.au)

Source: Aliens-L message from Sandy Lloyd

OBITUARY : Sir Peter Blake,6 December 2001.

Sir Peter Blake, 53 years old. Killed by pirates onboard his vessel SV Seamaster, 6 December 2001,Amazon River, Brazil, during environmentalawareness campaign. Sailor, Yacht-racer,environmental ambassador, favoured kiwi son. Hisfamily and friends lost a good and decent bloke;team mates and competitors lost a true sportsman;the natural world lost a keen champion; but hisvision and legacy will endure.

NOTES

ALIENS Subscriptions

We rely heavily on the support of our membership and the support of our sponsors to keep the Aliens newsletterbeing published. Please complete, cut out and send this panel to receive Aliens. Cheques should be made payableto “IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group” and sent to Maj De Poorter, ISSG/SEMS, University of Auckland(Tamaki Campus), Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, New Zealand.

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

If you wish to subscribe by credit card, please complete the following:Credit Card number and type, i.e. Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc.

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

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

Mailing details for delivery of newsletter:

Waiver of subscription fees are available on application.

“Stowaways”

New Zealand has the highest density of invasive socialwasps (Vespula vulgaris) recorded in the world. This is adubious claim to fame, but one that has led to researchfocussing on the ecology and control of this species.Vespula wasps were accidentally introduced, and, with nonative social wasps to compete, quickly spread to becomea major threat to our native biodiversity. Nativeinvertebrates and honey-eating birds are especiallyaffected.

Work on wasps and other invasive invertebrates in NewZealand’s natural ecosystems is featured in Stowaways, aresearch newsletter produced by Landcare Research. Wealso include articles from around the world. The article ona scale insect invading St Helena (see page 12) was firstpublished in Stowaways. Our first issue was published inOctober 2001, and future issues will be produced twice ayear. We invite you to submit articles on invasiveinvertebrates to Stowaways. It is available electronically(no charge) from http://stowaways.landcare.cri.nz

Jacqueline Beggs, Editor - StowawaysLandcare ResearchPrivate Bag 6,Nelson,New ZealandE-mail: beggsj@landcare.cri.nz Ph

oto:

Sto

waw

ays

(Lan

dcar

e)

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

US State DepartmentNew Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeManaaki Whenua-Landcare Research LimitedTOTAL FoundationUniversity of Auckland, School of Environmental and Marine Sciences

I U C NThe World Conservation Union

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 invasivespecies and issues. Contributions, should focus onconservation issues rather than economic, health oragricultural aspects of alien invasions. News of upcomingconferences, reports, and news of publications are alsowelcome, especially where they are of major internationalrelevance. Please send your contributions, marked “forconsideration for Aliens” to m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz

The New Zealand-based Invasive Species SpecialistGroup (ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species SurvivalCommission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union(IUCN). It is chaired by Mick Clout. The goals of the ISSGare to reduce threats to natural ecosystems and the nativespecies they contain - by increasing awareness of alieninvasions 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 a messageto listadmin@indaba.iucn.org with no subject and themessage: “subscribe aliens-L” in the body of the text.(Note: without quotation marks). As soon as you havesubscribed to the list you will receive information on howto use the list, including sending messages to the listserverand de-subscribing yourself from the listserver. Mostsubscribers are English speaking, however, if you wouldlike your message translated into English before postingit, please contact m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz (we cancurrently deal with short messages in Spanish, Italian,Dutch, French, Arabic and Chinese).

Cooperative Initiative on Island Alien Invasive SpeciesThe aims of the Cooperative Initiative on Island InvasiveAlien Species are: to enhance empowerment and capacityin key areas of invasive alien species (IAS) managementon islands; to facilitate cooperation and sharing ofexpertise; to help enable local, national and regional entitiesto identify invasive alien species problems, work outsolutions and implement them resulting in improvement

in the conservation of island biological diversity. ISSGwill undertake the facilitation of this initiative, with supportfrom New Zealand (as a Party to Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD)) and under the umbrella of the GlobalInvasive Species Programme (GISP). This initiative is arecent development, and any interested individuals orinstitutions/agencies are encouraged to participate.

The Global Invasive Species Database is freely availableon online at www.issg.org/database. The development ofthe database, and the provision of content for it, areongoing. Priorities range from a focus on the some of theworld’s worst invasive species to a focus on areas whereinformation and resources are comparatively scarce,including small-island developing states and other islands.The database 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, informationon management methods as well as contact details ofexperts that can offer further advice. The database alsoprovides links to numerous other sources of information.

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

ISSG Office: School of Environmental and Marine

Sciences (SEMS)University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus)Private Bag 92 019Auckland, New ZealandPhone: #64 9 3737 599 x5210Fax: #64 9 3737 042 (Attention: ISSG)E-mail: issg@auckland.ac.nz : for general inquiriesE-mail: m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz: to contact Alienseditor, ISSG coordinator, or for more information on theCooperative Initiative on Island Alien Invasive SpeciesE-mail: m.browne@auckland.ac.nz to contact the databasemanager.Website: ISSG: http://www.issg.orgIUCN: http://iucn.org

The New Zealand Department of ConservationThe Pacific Development and Conservation Trust

Printed on 100% recycled paper