Search

Brodifacoum is the most common rodenticide used for the eradication of invasive rodents from islands. It blocks the vitamin K cycle, resulting in hemorrhages in target mammals. Non-target species may be incidentally exposed to brodifacoum, including marine species. A case study conducted on the Italian Marine Protected Area of Tavolara Island was reported after a rodent eradication using the aerial broadcast of a brodifacoum pellet. Brodifacoum presence and effects on non-target marine organisms were investigated. Different fish species were sampled, and a set of analyses was conducted to determine vitamin K and vitamin K epoxide reductase concentrations, prothrombin time, and erythrocytic nuclear abnormalities (ENA) assay. In all the examined organisms, brodifacoum was not detected. The results obtained showed differences in vitamin K and vitamin K epoxide concentrations among the samples studied, with a positive correlation for three species between vitamin K, vitamin K epoxide, and fish weight. The prothrombin time assay showed a good blood clotting capacity in the fish. Higher abnormality values were recorded for four species. The results of this study suggest that it is possible to hypothesize that the sampled fish were not likely to have been exposed to brodifacoum and that consequently there are no negative issues concerning human consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invasive rodents are one of the greatest threats to island biodiversity. Eradicating these species from islands has become increasingly practicable in recent decades, primarily using anticoagulant rodenticides. However, this approach also poses risks to native wildlife, and there has been corresponding development in the management of risks to non-target wildlife species. Here we review strategies and tactics used in operational management of non-target risk, using examples from rodent eradication projects conducted on 178 islands where non-target risk assessment and mitigation was a component of the rodent eradication campaign. We identified 17 different tactics within a framework of three strategic approaches: avoidance of risk, minimization of risk, and remediation of the impact of non-target wildlife mortality. We summarize these tactics in terms of their applicability, strengths, and weaknesses for rodent eradication projects in general, plus the potential interactions with achieving rodent eradication. There remains great potential for further innovation in reducing non-target wildlife risks from rodenticide used for invasive rodent eradications on islands, supporting advancement of the social acceptability of the toolset and biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invasive mice (Mus spp.) can negatively impact island species and ecosystems. Because fewer island rodent eradications have been attempted for mice compared to rats (Rattus spp.), less is known about efficacy and palatability of rodenticide baits for mouse eradications. We performed a series of bait acceptance and efficacy cage trials using a standard formulation of brodifacoum-based rodenticide on wild-caught mice from Sand Island, Midway Atoll, to help inform a proposed eradication there. Mice were offered ad libitum brodifacoum pellets along with various alternative food sources, and a "no choice" treatment group received only bait pellets. Mortality in the no choice trial was 100%; however, when offered alternative foods, mice preferred the alternative diets to the bait, leading to low mortality (40%). Because there was concern that the bittering agent Bitrex® in the formulation may have reduced palatability, we conducted a subsequent trial comparing brodifacoum bait with and without Bitrex. Mortality in the with-Bitrex treatment group was slightly higher, indicating that the bittering agent was not likely responsible for low efficacy. Laboratory trials cannot account for the numerous environmental and behavioral factors that influence bait acceptance nor replicate the true availability of alternative food sources in the environment, so low efficacy results from these trials should be interpreted cautiously and not necessarily as a measure of the likelihood of success or failure of a proposed eradication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eleven years after invasive Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) were eradicated from Hawadax Island, in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, the predicted three-level trophic cascade in the rocky intertidal, with native shorebirds as the apex predator, returned, leading to a community resembling those on rat-free islands with significant decreases in invertebrate species abundances and increases in fleshy algal cover. Rats had indirectly structured the intertidal community via their role as the apex predator in a four-level trophic cascade. Our results are an excellent example of an achievable and relatively short-term community-level recovery following removal of invasive animals. These conservation successes are especially important for islands as their disproportionately high levels of native biodiversity are excessively threatened by invasive mammals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets a framework of universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address challenges to society and the planet. Island invasive species eradications have well-documented benefits that clearly align with biodiversity conservation-related SDGs, yet the value of this conservation action for socioeconomic benefits is less clear. We examine the potential for island invasive vertebrate eradications to have ecological and socioeconomic benefits. Specifically, we examine: (1) how SDGs may have been achieved through past eradications; and (2) how planned future eradications align with SDGs and associated targets. We found invasive vertebrate eradication to align with 13 SDGs and 42 associated targets encompassing marine and terrestrial biodiversity conservation, promotion of local and global partnerships, economic development, climate change mitigation, human health and sanitation and sustainable production and consumption. Past eradications on 794 islands aligned with a median of 17 targets (range 13–38) by island. Potential future eradications on 292 highly biodiverse islands could align with a median of 25 SDG targets (range 15–39) by island. This analysis enables the global community to explicitly describe the contributions that invasive vertebrate management on islands can make towards implementing the global sustainable development agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invasive species have led to precipitous declines in biodiversity, especially in island systems. Brown (Rattus norvegicus) and black rats (R. rattus) are among the most invasive animals on the planet, with eradication being the primary tool for established island populations. The need for increased research for defining eradication units and monitoring outcomes has been highlighted as a means to maximize success. Haida Gwaii is an archipelago ~100 km off the northern coast of British Columbia, Canada, that hosts globally significant breeding populations of seabirds that are at risk due to invasive rats. Here, we paired sampling of brown (n = 287) and black (n = 291) rats across the Haida Gwaii archipelago with genotyping by sequencing (10,770–27,686 SNPs) to investigate patterns of population connectivity and infer levels/direction of gene flow among invasive rat populations in Haida Gwaii. We reconstructed three regional clusters for both species (north, central and south), with proximate populations within regions being largely more related than those that were more distant, consistent with predictions from island biogeography theory. Population assignment of recently detected individuals post‐eradication on Faraday, Murchison and the Bischof Islands revealed all were re‐invaders from Lyell Island, rather than being on‐island survivors. Based on these results, we identified six eradication units constituting single or clusters of islands that would limit the potential for reinvasion, some of which will need to be combined with biosecurity measures. Overall, our results highlight the importance of targeted research prior to conducting eradications and demonstrate a framework for applying population genomics for guiding invasive species management in island systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than US$21 billion is spent annually on biodiversity conservation. Despite their importance for preventing or slowing extinctions and preserving biodiversity, conservation interventions are rarely assessed systematically for their global impact. Islands house a disproportionately higher amount of biodiversity compared with mainlands, much of which is highly threatened with extinction. Indeed, island species make up nearly two-thirds of recent extinctions. Islands therefore are critical targets of conservation. We used an extensive literature and database review paired with expert interviews to estimate the global benefits of an increasingly used conservation action to stem biodiversity loss: eradication of invasive mammals on islands. We found 236 native terrestrial insular faunal species (596 populations) that benefitted through positive demographic and/or distributional responses from 251 eradications of invasive mammals on 181 islands. Seven native species (eight populations) were negatively impacted by invasive mammal eradication. Four threatened species had their International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List extinction-risk categories reduced as a direct result of invasive mammal eradication, and no species moved to a higher extinction-risk category. We predict that 107 highly threatened birds, mammals, and reptiles on the IUCN Red List--6% of all these highly threatened species--likely have benefitted from invasive mammal eradications on islands. Because monitoring of eradication outcomes is sporadic and limited, the impacts of global eradications are likely greater than we report here. Our results highlight the importance of invasive mammal eradication on islands for protecting the world's most imperiled fauna. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Islands harbor a disproportionate amount of the earth's biodiversity, but a significant portion has been lost due in large part to the impacts of invasive mammals. Fortunately, invasive mammals can be routinely removed from islands, providing a powerful tool to prevent extinctions and restore ecosystems. Given that invasive mammals are still present on more than 80% of the world's major islands groups and remain a premier threat to the earth's biodiversity, it is important to disseminate replicable, scaleable models to eradicate invasive mammals from islands. We report on a successful model from western México during the past decade. A collaborative effort between nongovernmental organizations, academic biologists, Mexican government agencies, and local individuals has resulted in major restoration efforts in three island archipelagos. Forty-two populations of invasive mammals have been eradicated from 26 islands. For a cost of USD 21 615 per colony and USD 49 370 per taxon, 201 seabird colonies and 88 endemic terrestrial taxa have been protected, respectively. These conservation successes are a result of an operational model with three main components: i) a tri-national collaboration that integrates research, prioritization, financing, public education, policy work, capacity building, conservation action, monitoring, and evaluation; ii) proactive and dedicated natural resource management agencies; and iii) effective partnerships with academic researchers in México and the United States. What is now needed is a detailed plan to eradicate invasive mammals from the remaining islands in the region that integrates the needed additional financing, capacity, technical advances, and policy issues. Island conservation in western México provides an effective approach that can be readily applied to other archipelagos where conservation efforts have been limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Simple Summary: Anticoagulant rodenticides are a mainstay of rodent management in many domestic, municipal, agricultural, and conservation settings. Anticoagulant poisoning has poor welfare outcomes for mammals and birds and, worldwide, this means potentially very large numbers of animals are poisoned annually consequent (intended or not) to rodenticide use. Critical differences in use patterns of anticoagulants applied for ongoing rodent control, versus application for rodent eradication especially on islands, have clear implications for animal welfare costs measured as cumulative number of animals affected over time. Here we outline these differences and discuss how animal welfare considerations can be weighed in decisions to use anticoagulant rodenticides for island eradication attempts. Anticoagulant rodenticides are used to manage rodents in domestic, municipal, agricultural, and conservation settings. In mammals and birds, anticoagulant poisoning causes extensive hemorrhagic disruption, with the primary cause of death being severe internal bleeding occurring over days. The combined severity and duration of these effects represent poor welfare outcomes for poisoned animals. Noting a lack of formal estimates of numbers of rodents and nontarget animals killed by anticoagulant poisoning, the ready availability and worldwide use of anticoagulants suggest that very large numbers of animals are affected globally. Scrutiny of this rodent control method from scientific, public, and regulatory perspectives is being driven largely by mounting evidence of environmental transfer of residual anticoagulants resulting in harmful exposure in wild or domestic animals, but there is also nascent concern for the welfare of targeted rodents. Rodent control incurs a cumulative ledger of animal welfare costs over time as target populations reduced by poisoning eventually recover to an extent requiring another reduction. This 'rolling toll' presents a critical contrast to the animal welfare accountancy ledger for eradication scenarios, where rodent populations can be completely removed by methods including anticoagulant use and then kept from coming back (e.g., on islands). Successful eradications remove any future need to control rodents and to incur the associated animal welfare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invasive species pose a major threat to biodiversity on islands. While successes have been achieved using traditional removal methods, such as toxicants aimed at rodents, these approaches have limitations and various off-target effects on island ecosystems. Gene drive technologies designed to eliminate a population provide an alternative approach, but the potential for drive-bearing individuals to escape from the target release area and impact populations elsewhere is a major concern. Here we propose the "Locally Fixed Alleles" approach as a novel means for localizing elimination by a drive to an island population that exhibits significant genetic isolation from neighboring populations. Our approach is based on the assumption that in small island populations of rodents, genetic drift will lead to alleles at multiple genomic loci becoming fixed. In contrast, multiple alleles are likely to be maintained in larger populations on mainlands. Utilizing the high degree of genetic specificity achievable using homing drives, for example based on the CRISPR/Cas9 system, our approach aims at employing one or more locally fixed alleles as the target for a gene drive on a particular island. Using mathematical modeling, we explore the feasibility of this approach and the degree of localization that can be achieved. We show that across a wide range of parameter values, escape of the drive to a neighboring population in which the target allele is not fixed will at most lead to modest transient suppression of the non-target population. While the main focus of this paper is on elimination of a rodent pest from an island, we also discuss the utility of the locally fixed allele approach for the goals of population suppression or population replacement. Our analysis also provides a threshold condition for the ability of a gene drive to invade a partially resistant population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]