Cargando…
The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe
Numerous examples exist of successful mammalian invasive alien species (IAS) eradications from small islands (<10 km(2)), but few from more extensive areas. We review 15 large‐scale removals (mean area 2627 km(2)) from Northern Europe since 1900, including edible dormouse, muskrat, coypu, Himalay...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248632/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26733319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.4224 |
_version_ | 1782497301770534912 |
---|---|
author | Robertson, Peter A Adriaens, Tim Lambin, Xavier Mill, Aileen Roy, Sugoto Shuttleworth, Craig M Sutton‐Croft, Mike |
author_facet | Robertson, Peter A Adriaens, Tim Lambin, Xavier Mill, Aileen Roy, Sugoto Shuttleworth, Craig M Sutton‐Croft, Mike |
author_sort | Robertson, Peter A |
collection | PubMed |
description | Numerous examples exist of successful mammalian invasive alien species (IAS) eradications from small islands (<10 km(2)), but few from more extensive areas. We review 15 large‐scale removals (mean area 2627 km(2)) from Northern Europe since 1900, including edible dormouse, muskrat, coypu, Himalayan porcupine, Pallas' and grey squirrels and American mink, each primarily based on daily checking of static traps. Objectives included true eradication or complete removal to a buffer zone, as distinct from other programmes that involved local control to limit damage or spread. Twelve eradication/removal programmes (80%) were successful. Cost increased with and was best predicted by area, while the cost per unit area decreased; the number of individual animals removed did not add significantly to the model. Doubling the area controlled reduced cost per unit area by 10%, but there was no evidence that cost effectiveness had increased through time. Compared with small islands, larger‐scale programmes followed similar patterns of effort in relation to area. However, they brought challenges when defining boundaries and consequent uncertainties around costs, the definition of their objectives, confirmation of success and different considerations for managing recolonisation. Novel technologies or increased use of volunteers may reduce costs. Rapid response to new incursions is recommended as best practice rather than large‐scale control to reduce the environmental, financial and welfare costs. © 2016 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5248632 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52486322017-02-03 The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe Robertson, Peter A Adriaens, Tim Lambin, Xavier Mill, Aileen Roy, Sugoto Shuttleworth, Craig M Sutton‐Croft, Mike Pest Manag Sci In Focus: Review Numerous examples exist of successful mammalian invasive alien species (IAS) eradications from small islands (<10 km(2)), but few from more extensive areas. We review 15 large‐scale removals (mean area 2627 km(2)) from Northern Europe since 1900, including edible dormouse, muskrat, coypu, Himalayan porcupine, Pallas' and grey squirrels and American mink, each primarily based on daily checking of static traps. Objectives included true eradication or complete removal to a buffer zone, as distinct from other programmes that involved local control to limit damage or spread. Twelve eradication/removal programmes (80%) were successful. Cost increased with and was best predicted by area, while the cost per unit area decreased; the number of individual animals removed did not add significantly to the model. Doubling the area controlled reduced cost per unit area by 10%, but there was no evidence that cost effectiveness had increased through time. Compared with small islands, larger‐scale programmes followed similar patterns of effort in relation to area. However, they brought challenges when defining boundaries and consequent uncertainties around costs, the definition of their objectives, confirmation of success and different considerations for managing recolonisation. Novel technologies or increased use of volunteers may reduce costs. Rapid response to new incursions is recommended as best practice rather than large‐scale control to reduce the environmental, financial and welfare costs. © 2016 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2016-02-09 2017-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5248632/ /pubmed/26733319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.4224 Text en © 2016 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | In Focus: Review Robertson, Peter A Adriaens, Tim Lambin, Xavier Mill, Aileen Roy, Sugoto Shuttleworth, Craig M Sutton‐Croft, Mike The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe |
title | The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe |
title_full | The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe |
title_fullStr | The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe |
title_full_unstemmed | The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe |
title_short | The large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe |
title_sort | large‐scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in northern europe |
topic | In Focus: Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248632/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26733319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.4224 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT robertsonpetera thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT adriaenstim thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT lambinxavier thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT millaileen thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT roysugoto thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT shuttleworthcraigm thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT suttoncroftmike thelargescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT robertsonpetera largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT adriaenstim largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT lambinxavier largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT millaileen largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT roysugoto largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT shuttleworthcraigm largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope AT suttoncroftmike largescaleremovalofmammalianinvasivealienspeciesinnortherneurope |