Eradication Feasibility Research Articles

Balancing ecology and practicality to rank waterbodies for preventative invasive species management

Abstract ‘Early detection and rapid response’ (EDRR) is the most successful framework for preventative invasive species management, but prioritizing localized EDRR actions with limited resources is challenging. An approach that ranks individual locations, such as waterbodies, for EDRR by combining an invasive species' establishment risk with the practicality of managing it could help set reasonable priorities. Here, we worked with regional practitioners in Arkansas, USA, and the broader Southeastern USA to co‐produce a workflow for preventative aquatic invasive species management that (1) estimates establishment risk under current and future climates with a species distribution model, (2) scores waterbodies according to difficulty of eradicating an aquatic invasive species if it were introduced and (3) combines establishment risk and eradication difficulty scores to rank waterbodies according to preventative management priority. As our focal species, we used giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta), a floating aquatic fern ranked among the worst weeds in the world due to its negative socio‐ecological impacts and difficulty to eradicate once established. Current establishment risk is low for much of our study area, but under future climate scenarios (RCP 8.5), areas with >60% giant salvinia establishment risk increased from 546 km2 to 30,219 km2 between 2023 and 2040 in Arkansas. We found giant salvinia establishment risk and eradication difficulty are independent of each other (r = 0.28), and it follows that, alone, early detection tools such as species distribution models are insufficient for managers to prioritize sites for EDRR. Practical implication: We envision our approach fitting into a potential EDRR workflow that cascades from broad‐ to local‐scale. To illustrate, (1) horizon scanning and/or climate matching generates lists of high‐risk invasive species; (2) species lists are narrowed according to eradication feasibility scores; (3) for all remaining species, all waterbodies across a geography of interest receive prioritization rankings based on establishment risk and eradication difficulty scores. Given that climate change makes predicting invasive species' distributions a moving target, combining co‐produced eradication difficulty scoring with species distribution modelling will balance rigour with practicality when prioritizing locations for EDRR.

Impacts, Potential Benefits and Eradication Feasibility of Aquatic Alien Species in an Integral Natural State Reserve.

Riverine wetlands are stepping-stone environments for the protection of local biodiversity, but they are particularly vulnerable to biological invasions. In order to take action against biological invasions, it is crucial to assess the impacts of alien species. However, it is also important to assess the potential benefits on ecosystem services that alien species could have. Once it has been verified that negative impacts are higher than potential benefits, it is important to propose feasible actions to contrast them. In this study, we assessed eight freshwater alien species recorded in an integral protected wetland using the Invasive Species Effects Assessment Tool (INSEAT) to quantify their negative impacts and potential benefits on ecosystem services. Moreover, for each species, we evaluated the feasibility of the main eradication techniques currently proposed in the literature using the Non-Native Risk Management scheme (NNRM), with the final aim of suggesting effective actions for their management. The INSEAT results indicated that all the assessed species had more impacts than benefits while NNRM provided useful indications on the best practical conservation actions to use for reducing the density, and therefore, the negative impacts on ecosystem services and the local biodiversity of the assessed alien species.

Unified system describing factors related to the eradication of an alien plant species.

BackgroundIn the field of biological invasions science, a problem of many overlapping terms arose among eradication assessment frameworks. Additionally there is a need to construct a universally applicable eradication evaluation system. To unify the terminology and propose an eradication feasibility assessment scale we created the Unified System for assessing Eradication Feasibility (USEF) as a complex tool of factors for the analysis of eradications of alien (both invasive and candidate) plant species. It compiles 24 factors related to eradication success probability reported earlier in the literature and arranges them in a hierarchical system (context/group/factor/component) with a possibility to score their influence on eradication success.MethodologyAfter a literature survey we analyzed, rearranged and defined each factor giving it an intuitive name along with the list of its synonyms and similar and/or related terms from the literature. Each factor influencing eradication feasibility is ascribed into one of four groups depending on the context that best matches the factor: location context (size and location of infestation, ease of access), species context (fitness and fecundity, detectability), human context (knowledge, cognition and resources to act) and reinvasion context (invasion pathways). We also devised a simple ordinal scale to assess each factor’s influence on eradication feasibility.ConclusionsThe system may be used to report and analyze eradication campaign data in order to (i) prioritize alien species for eradication, (ii) create the strategy for controlling invasive plants, (iii) compare efficiency of different eradication actions, (iv) find gaps in knowledge disabling a sound eradication campaign assessment. The main advantage of using our system is unification of reporting eradication experience data used by researchers performing different eradication actions in different systems.

Using structured eradication feasibility assessment to prioritize the management of new and emerging invasive alien species in Europe.

Prioritizing the management of invasive alien species (IAS) is of global importance and within Europe integral to the EU IAS regulation. To prioritize management effectively, the risks posed by IAS need to be assessed, but so too does the feasibility of their management. While the risk of IAS to the EU has been assessed, the feasibility of management has not. We assessed the feasibility of eradicating 60 new (not yet established) and 35 emerging (established with limited distribution) species that pose a threat to the EU, as identified by horizon scanning. The assessment was carried out by 34 experts in invasion management from across Europe, applying the Non-Native Risk Management scheme to defined invasion scenarios and eradication strategies for each species, assessing the feasibility of eradication using seven key risk management criteria. Management priorities were identified by combining scores for risk (derived from horizon scanning) and feasibility of eradication. The results show eradication feasibility score and risk score were not correlated, indicating that risk management criteria evaluate different information than risk assessment. In all, 17 new species were identified as particularly high priorities for eradication should they establish in the future, whereas 14 emerging species were identified as priorities for eradication now. A number of species considered highest priority for eradication were terrestrial vertebrates, a group that has been the focus of a number of eradication attempts in Europe. However, eradication priorities also included a diverse range of other taxa (plants, invertebrates and fish) suggesting there is scope to broaden the taxonomic range of attempted eradication in Europe. We demonstrate that broad scale structured assessments of management feasibility can help prioritize IAS for management. Such frameworks are needed to support evidence-based decision-making.

Long term monitoring of recruitment dynamics determines eradication feasibility for an introduced coastal weed

Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata) is a Weed of National Significance in Australia and has impacted a significant portion of the eastern coastline. Its discovery in Western Australia was, therefore, a cause for concern. Assessment and control of the isolated and well-defined population began in 2012. To assess the feasibility of eradication in Western Australia as a management outcome for bitou bush, we applied a rigorous data-driven quantification and prediction process to the control program. Between 2012 and 2018 we surveyed over 253 ha of land and removed 1766 bitou bush plants. Approximately 97 person-days were spent over the six years of survey. We measured the seed bank viability for five years starting in 2013, with the 2017 survey results indicating a decline of mean viable seeds/m2from 39.3 ± 11.4 to 5.7 ± 2.2. In 2018 we found only ten plants and no newly recruited seedlings in the population. No spread to other areas has been recorded. Soil core studies indicate that the soil seed bank is unlikely to persist beyond eight years. Eradication of the population in Western Australia, defined as five years without plants being detected, therefore remains a realistic management goal. The information generated from the documentation of this eradication program provides invaluable insight for weed eradication attempts more generally: novel detection methods can be effective in making surveys more efficient, all survey methods are not entirely accurate and large plants can escape detection, bitou bush seeds persist in the soil but become effectively undetectable at low densities, and migration of seed was unquantifiable, possibly compromising delimitation. Continued monitoring of the Western Australian population will determine how much of a risk these factors represent to eradication as the outcome of this management program.

Social assessment of inhabited islands for wildlife management and eradication

ABSTRACTEradication of introduced species from inhabited islands requires consideration of both technical and social feasibility. Historically, biologists have struggled to engage successfully in the social components of eradication planning. Island communities have unique features that require consideration in eradication planning. Social impact assessment is a powerful planning tool used widely outside of wildlife management. We outline the core components of a social impact assessment as it could be applied to eradication planning on inhabited islands. We summarise previous experience in social impact assessment and community engagement for introduced predator eradication on inhabited islands, and as an example develop a social profile for inhabited islands of the Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand. We conclude that social impact assessment has great potential to improve eradication feasibility assessment, and should be applied routinely in eradication scoping on inhabited islands.

Rapid prioritization of alien plants for eradication based on climatic suitability and eradication feasibility

AbstractIdentifying which introduced species have the greatest potential for establishment, spread and impact is critical for prioritizing pre‐ and post‐border control. Using species distribution modelling and existing species locations we assessed the establishment risk based on the climatic suitability areas of 25 plant species listed as eradication targets under South African regulations. To improve confidence, three bioclimatic models were used to predict the potential distribution of each species. This information was combined with the number of localities and the “eradication feasibility syndromes” in a scoring‐categorical system to rank the species. Three management groups were identified. Group “A” includes species with medium‐high establishment risk and higher likelihood to be eradicated, these species should be a priority for eradication. Group “B” includes species with a medium‐low establishment risk but given the low number of known population and the species characteristics, eradication is likely to be feasible. Finally species in group “C” scored a medium‐high establishment risk but the eradication would be difficult due to the high number of known localities. This ranking provides a rapid method to prioritize the management towards the eradication of new potential invasive plant species in the country combining the establishment risk, known number of localities and the inferred eradication success.

Social Assessment of Inhabited Islands for Wildlife Management and Eradication

Eradication of introduced predators from inhabited islands requires consideration of both technical and social feasibility. Historically, biologists have struggled to successfully engage in the social components of eradication planning. Island communities have unique features which require consideration in eradication planning. Social impact assessment is a powerful planning tool used widely outside of wildlife management. We outline the core components of a social impact assessment as it could be applied to eradication planning on inhabited islands. We summarise previous experience in social assessment and community engagement for introduced predator eradication on inhabited islands, and as an example develop a social profile for inhabited islands of the Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand. We conclude that social impact assessment has great potential to improve eradication feasibility assessment, and should be routinely applied in eradication scoping on inhabited islands.

Weed eradication feasibility: lessons of the 21st century

SummaryThe past decade has seen strong controversy concerning the upper bounds for weed eradication. Over this period, two of the most ambitious weed eradication attempts ever have failed. These have, however, provided rich data sets that have supported a productive and highly collaborative research effort. I review this research and present a new algorithm for assessing eradication feasibility, based upon time to maturation, seedbank persistence and membership of one of two contrasting dispersal functional groups. Eight ‘eradication syndromes’ are identified and their relative eradication feasibilities indicated. The syndrome with the highest feasibility includes species that combine long juvenile periods and low seedbank persistence with short‐distance and/or human‐mediated dispersal. At first glance, this may not be a common syndrome. The syndrome with the lowest feasibility comprises plants that combine a short juvenile period and high seedbank persistence with abiotic or non‐human‐mediated biotic dispersal. It includes a number of aquatic perennials that can be dispersed over large distances by floodwaters. Projected costs for a programme targeting a plant species should reflect its syndrome membership. Improved cost estimates will support better decision‐making with regard to programme initiation, maintenance and termination; models are available that can provide estimates of eradication programme duration and cost. Whether eradication has much of a future as a weed invasion management strategy will likely rest upon more timely, better‐informed and shrewder target selection.

Prioritizing islands for the eradication of invasive vertebrates in the United Kingdom overseas territories.

Invasive alien species are one of the primary threats to native biodiversity on islands worldwide. Consequently, eradicating invasive species from islands has become a mainstream conservation practice. Deciding which islands have the highest priority for eradication is of strategic importance to allocate limited resources to achieve maximum conservation benefit. Previous island prioritizations focused either on a narrow set of native species or on a small geographic area. We devised a prioritization approach that incorporates all threatened native terrestrial vertebrates and all invasive terrestrial vertebrates occurring on 11 U.K. overseas territories, which comprise over 2000 islands ranging from the sub-Antarctic to the tropics. Our approach includes eradication feasibility and distinguishes between the potential and realistic conservation value of an eradication, which reflects the benefit that would accrue following eradication of either all invasive species or only those species for which eradication techniques currently exist. We identified the top 25 priority islands for invasive species eradication that together would benefit extant populations of 155 native species including 45 globally threatened species. The 5 most valuable islands included the 2 World Heritage islands Gough (South Atlantic) and Henderson (South Pacific) that feature unique seabird colonies, and Anegada, Little Cayman, and Guana Island in the Caribbean that feature a unique reptile fauna. This prioritization can be rapidly repeated if new information or techniques become available, and the approach could be replicated elsewhere in the world.

Prioritizing Restoration Actions for the Islands of Mexico

Science-based planning and prioritization can help achieve greater return on investment of limited conservation funds. We conducted a GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis to prioritize efforts to eradicate populations of invasive alien species that threaten native biota on the islands of Mexico. We evaluated 29 Mexican islands with documented presence of invasive mammals and characterized the following attributes of each island: presence of endemic taxa, presence of threatened species, presence of important seabird nesting areas, species richness, likelihood of reinvasion, eradication feasibility, and economic cost. We categorized the islands into 4 priority categories for eradication action. The highest priority islands where eradication efforts are feasible are Socorro, Espíritu Santo, María Cleofas, and María Magdalena islands, where eradication of 11 invasive mammal populations could advance the restoration of an additional 35,813 ha, thereby reducing the extinction risk of approximately 80 endemic taxa.

Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project: Update 2009-2014

Feral nutria were established near Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (BNWR) in Dorchester County Maryland in 1943 after a failed attempt to create a fur industry. As the population expanded in number and distribution, natural resource managers began to notice an accelerating trend in wetland loss in the areas most heavily infested by nutria. By the late 1980s, an estimated 35,000 nutria occupied BNWR, which had seen approximately 5,000 acres of emergent marsh converted to shallow open water habitats and mudflats. Exclusion studies in the 1990s demonstrated a direct link between nutria and marsh loss, and by 2000 officials had procured funding to initiate an eradication feasibility study. This paper provides a historical overview of the eradication campaign that has been underway since 2002. The Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project (CBNEP) is a cooperative partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Wildlife Services program, and numerous state and non-governmental organizations. The CBNEP employs an adaptive management strategy utilizing systematic trapping carried out by salaried wildlife specialists to eliminate nutria from infested watersheds. We present a phased approach that allows us to continually expand the eradication zone and maintain nutria-free areas with a relatively small staff. Through an active research and development program, we have innovated new tools and techniques for trapping and detecting nutria including: floating trap sets, attractants, decoys, remote triggered cameras, detection platforms, hair snares, and Judas nutria. To date, we have reduced nutria populations to near-zero densities across 250,000 acres of emergent marsh. Based on extensive surveys, remaining populations should be removed by the end of 2014. Following a 2-year verification/biosecurity protocol, we hope to have nutria eradicated from the Delmarva Peninsula by 2017.

Rat Density on Diego Garcia: Implications for Eradication Feasibility

Author(s): Vogt, Scott; Vice, Daniel S.; Pitt, William C.; Guzman, Antenor Nestor; Necessario, Ernesto J.; Berentsen, Are R. | Abstract: Introduced black rats are among the most invasive species to islands worldwide. In addition to agricultural impacts, rats are vectors of disease, cause damage to native flora and fauna, and negatively impact threatened/endangered species. Eradication efforts have met with mixed success. Success or failure of an eradication effort can depend on the population density of the target species, which can influence rodenticide sowing rates. We used snap trapping grids to estimate black rat densities in two different forest types on Diego Garcia: coconut forest and mixed species forest. Individual snap traps baited with fresh coconut were placed every 10 m in a 100-m × 100-m (1 ha) grid in the mixed forest and every 20 m in a 220-m × 220-m grid (4.8 ha) in the coconut forest. Traps were checked twice daily for 7 and 11 days in the mixed and coconut forest, respectively. In total, 914 rats were captured on the coconut forest grid and 125 rats were captured on the mixed forest grid. Rat density in coconut forest was 187 rats/ha (95% CI: 176-201) and 88 rats/ha (95% CI: 82-104) in mixed forest. Stomach contents were examined in 121 rats trapped in the mixed forest: 81% contained coconut along with other vegetation or meat, and 67% contained coconut exclusively. It is likely that the high rat density is driven by an abundant coconut food source resulting in a variable distribution of rats among habitat types. Planning for eradication will need to consider the variability of rodent densities across different habitats, with management strategies developed to address this variability.

Economic aspects of post‐border weed risk management

AbstractAimDecision‐making in weed management involves consideration of limited budgets, long time horizons, conflicting priorities, and as a result, trade‐offs. Economics provides tools that allow these issues to be addressed and is thus integral to management of the risks posed by weeds. One of the critical issues in weed risk management during the early stages of an invasion concerns feasibility of eradication. We briefly review how economics may be used in weed risk management, concentrating on this management strategy.LocationAustralia.MethodsA range of innovative studies that investigate aspects of weed risk management are reviewed. We show how these could be applied to newly invading weeds, focussing on methods for investigating eradication feasibility. In particular, eradication feasibility is analysed in terms of cost and duration of an eradication programme, using a simulation model based on field‐derived parameter values for chromolaena, Chromolaena odorata.ResultsThe duration of an eradication programme can be reduced by investing in progressively higher amounts of search effort per hectare, but increasing search area will become relatively more expensive as search effort increases. When variation in survey and control success is taken into account, increasing search effort also reduces uncertainty around the required duration of the eradication programme.Main conclusionsEconomics is integral to the management of the risks posed by weeds. Decision analysis, based on economic principles, is now commonly used to tackle key issues that confront weed managers. For eradication feasibility, duration and cost of a weed eradication programme are critical components; the dimensions of both factors can usefully be estimated through simulation.

Reconstruction and prediction of invasive mongoose population dynamics from history of introduction and management: aBayesian state‐space modelling approach

Summary An understanding of the underlying processes and comprehensive history of invasive species is necessary to assess the long‐term effectiveness of invasive species management. However, continuous, long‐term labour‐intensive population surveys on invasive species are often not feasible. Thus, it is important to learn about their dynamics through management action and its consequences. Amami Island, Japan, has an ongoing large‐scale and long‐term eradication programme of invasive small Indian mongooses. To estimate the long‐term pattern of population size and the parameters determining the dynamics, including anthropogenic removal, we applied a surplus‐production model within a Bayesian state‐space formulation incorporating the initial population size, number of captures and capture effort. Using the estimated process model directly, we conducted stochastic simulations to evaluate the feasibility of eradication. Estimated 32‐year annual capture probability of mongooses has increased since their introduction. The population size started to decline in 2001; mean population size in 2000 was 6141 (95%CI: 5415–6817), and declined to 169 (95%CI: 42–408) by 2011. Parameter estimates of a Weibull catchability model indicated that there was large individual heterogeneity in the probability of being captured, and per‐effort capture probability declined with an increase in annual capture effort. The simulation study indicated that the eradication feasibility in 2023 would be over 90% if the same annual capture effort is upheld as in 2010 (2 075 760 corrected trap‐days). However, increasing annual capture effort would have little effect on shortening the time to eradication. Synthesis and applications. A hierarchical model that incorporates multiple types of data to reveal long‐term population dynamics has the potential to be updated with the outcomes of control efforts, and will enhance adaptive management of invasive species. This approach will offer valuable information about trade‐offs between time to eradication success and effort per unit time in a long‐term eradication project, and the length of time needed to continue management actions to achieve eradication success.

Weed Eradication—An Economic Perspective

AbstractThere has been recent interest in determining the upper limits to the feasibility of weed eradication. Although a number of disparate factors determine the success of an eradication program, ultimately eradication feasibility must be viewed in the context of the amount of investment that can be made. The latter should reflect the hazard posed by an invasion, with greater investment justified by greater threats. In simplest terms, the effort (and hence investment) to achieve weed eradication comprises the detection effort required to delimit an invasion plus the search and control effort required to prevent reproduction until extirpation occurs over the entire infested area. The difficulty of estimating the required investment at the commencement of a weed eradication program (as well as during periodic reviews) is a serious problem. Bioeconomics show promise in determining the optimal approach to managing weed invasions, notwithstanding ongoing difficulties in estimating the costs and benefits of eradication and alternative invasion management strategies. A flexible approach to the management of weed invasions is needed, allowing for the adoption of another strategy when it becomes clear that the probability of eradication is low, owing to resourcing or intractable technical issues. Whether the considerable progress that has been achieved towards eradication of the once massive witchweed invasion can be duplicated for other weeds of agricultural systems will depend to a large extent upon investment (> $250 million over 50 yr in this instance). Weeds of natural ecosystems seem destined to remain more difficult eradication targets for a variety of reasons, including higher impedance to eradication, more difficulty in valuing the benefits arising from eradication, and possibly less willingness to pay from society at large.

Surveillance protocols for management of invasive plants: modelling Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana) in Australia

AbstractAim To develop a surveillance support model that enables prediction of areas susceptible to invasion, comparative analysis of surveillance methods and intensity and assessment of eradication feasibility. To apply the model to identify surveillance protocols for generalized invasion scenarios and for evaluating surveillance and control for a context‐specific plant invasion.Location Australia.Methods We integrate a spatially explicit simulation model, including plant demography and dispersal vectors, within a Geographical Information System. We use the model to identify effective surveillance protocols using simulations of generalized plant life‐forms spreading via different dispersal mechanisms in real landscapes. We then parameterize the surveillance support model for Chilean needle grass [CNG; Nassella neesiana (Trin. & Rupr.) Barkworth], a highly invasive tussock grass, which is an eradication target in south‐eastern Queensland, Australia.Results General surveillance protocols that can guide rapid response surveillance were identified; suitable habitat that is susceptible to invasion through particular dispersal syndromes should be targeted for surveillance using an adaptive seek‐and‐destroy method. The search radius of the adaptive method should be based on maximum expected dispersal distances. Protocols were used to define a surveillance strategy for CNG, but simulations indicated that despite effective and targeted surveillance, eradication is implausible at current intensities.Main conclusions Several important surveillance protocols emerged and simulations indicated that effectiveness can be increased if they are followed in rapid response surveillance. If sufficient data are available, the surveillance support model should be parameterized to target areas susceptible to invasion and determine whether surveillance is effective and eradication is feasible. We discovered that for CNG, regardless of a carefully designed surveillance strategy, eradication is implausible at current intensities of surveillance and control and these efforts should be doubled if they are to be successful. This is crucial information in the face of environmentally and economically damaging invasive species and large, expensive and potentially ineffective control programmes.