Search

Despite our growing understanding of the impacts of invasive plants on ecosystem structure and function, important gaps remain, including whether native and exotic species respond differently to plant invasion. This would elucidate basic ecological interactions and inform management. We performed a meta-analytic review of the effects of invasive plants on native and exotic resident animals. We found that invasive plants reduced the abundance of native, but not exotic, animals. This varied by animal phyla, with invasive plants reducing the abundance of native annelids and chordates, but not mollusks or arthropods. We found dissimilar impacts among "wet" and "dry" ecosystems, but not among animal trophic levels. Additionally, the impact of invasive plants increased over time, but this did not vary with animal nativity. Our review found that no studies considered resident nativity differences, and most did not identify animals to species. We call for more rigorous studies of invaded community impacts across taxa, and most importantly, explicit consideration of resident biogeographic origin. We provide an important first insight into how native and exotic species respond differently to invasion, the consequences of which may facilitate cascading trophic disruptions further exacerbating global change consequences to ecosystem structure and function., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Australian constitution makes no mention of native animals. Responsibility for animal welfare is largely retained by the states and territories via a fragmented, complex, contradictory, inconsistent system of regulatory management. Given that most jurisdictions have expressly made the possession of wildlife unlawful, the action of taking and possessing an animal, to rehabilitate it, defies the regulatory process. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to microchip, band, or mark an animal, meaning that no reliable method is available to monitor an animal. Each year, a minimum of 50,000 rehabilitated native animals are released back to the wild, with little post-release monitoring. Where required, the assessments of behavioural and health requirements to confirm suitability for release may be undertaken by people with either negligible or questionable qualifications. Whilst it can be appropriate to rehabilitate and release injured native animals back to the wild, there may be moral, ethical, and practical reasons for not releasing hand-reared orphan native animals. This article examines the evolution, and explains the consequences, of decentralised regulation on wildlife carers and rehabilitating animals. It recommends that the practice of placing hand-reared native animals into the wild, and the regulatory framework that provides for it, should be reviewed.