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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robertson, Peter A, Adriaens, Tim, Lambin, Xavier, Mill, Aileen, Roy, Sugoto, Shuttleworth, Craig M, Sutton‐Croft, Mike
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