When Are Eradication Campaigns Successful? a Test of Common Assumptions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biol Invasions (2012) 14:1365–1378 DOI 10.1007/s10530-011-0160-2 ORIGINAL PAPER When are eradication campaigns successful? A test of common assumptions Therese Pluess • Ray Cannon • Vojteˇch Jarosˇ´ık • Jan Pergl • Petr Pysˇek • Sven Bacher Received: 7 April 2011 / Accepted: 18 December 2011 / Published online: 25 January 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract Eradication aims at eliminating popula- the following factors, proposed by others were signif- tions of alien organisms from an area. Since not all icantly related to eradication success: (1) the reaction eradications are successful, several factors have been time between the arrival/detection of the organism and proposed in the literature (mainly by referring to case the start of the eradication campaign; (2) the spatial studies) to be crucial for eradication success, such as extent of the infestation; (3) the level of biological infestation size or reaction time. To our knowledge, knowledge of the organism; and (4) insularity. Of however, no study has statistically evaluated which these, only the spatial extent of the infestation was factors affect eradication success and attempted to significantly related to the eradication outcome: local determine their relative importance. We established a campaigns were more successful than regional or unique global dataset on 136 eradication campaigns national campaigns. Reaction time, the level of against 75 species (invasive alien invertebrates, plants knowledge and insularity were all unrelated to erad- and plant pathogens) and statistically tested whether ication success. Hence, some factors suggested as being crucial may be less important than previously thought, at least for the organisms tested here. We Electronic supplementary material The online version of found no differences in success rates among taxo- this article (doi:10.1007/s10530-011-0160-2) contains nomic groups or geographic regions. We recommend supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. that eradication measures should generally concen- T. Pluess (&) Á S. Bacher trate on the very early phase of invasions when Department of Biology, Ecology and Evolution Unit, infestations are still relatively small. University of Fribourg, Chemin du Muse´e 10, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland Keywords Eradication success Á Invasive species Á e-mail: [email protected] Contingency planning Á Pest Risk Analysis Á Invasive R. Cannon species management Á Biological invasions The Food and Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK V. Jarosˇ´ık Á P. Pysˇek Introduction Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, 128 01 Prague 2, Czech Republic Despite increased research efforts about the impact of invasive species (Winter et al. 2009; Vila` et al. 2009; V. Jarosˇ´ık Á J. Pergl Á P. Pysˇek Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Nentwig et al. 2010), their economic costs (Kettunen Institute of Botany, 252 43 Pru˚honice, Czech Republic et al. 2009), and intensive exploration of management 123 1366 T. Pluess et al. options (Hulme 2006, 2009; Pysˇek and Richardson All of these reviews drew general conclusions as to 2010), little is known about how environmental why eradication campaigns fail or succeed based on settings, species traits and other contingent factors evidence from the case studies they reviewed and affect the outcome of management actions against suggested a number of factors relating to eradication invasive species. Key management options for inva- success. However, evidence from case studies can be sive species include: prevention, eradication, contain- equivocal as to which factors may be relevant for ment, and various forms of mitigation (Pysˇek and eradication success. There is thus a need to take a Richardson 2010; Shine et al. 2010). Among these, quantitative approach that assembles data on as many eradication represents the ultimate course of action, cases as possible, including both successful and failed but often also the most expensive solution. Eradication eradications. By applying statistical analyses it may be is the application of control measures aiming at possible to identify general principles or critical factors extirpating an entire population of a pest from an area associated with successful eradication campaigns. In (FAO 2007) or from a management unit (Pysˇek and the following, four of the success factors proposed in Richardson 2010). Recently, there has been a renewed the literature which can be quantified and therefore be interest in eradicating invasive species, following a subject to statistical analyses are discussed and period when the prevailing view was that the elimi- hypotheses formulated for subsequent analyses. nation of a pest population was very seldom achiev- Several authors consider that a rapid response, able (Simberloff 2009; Pysˇek and Richardson 2010). following the first detection of the invasive organism, Much research is being published suggesting deci- is crucial for eradication success, because it prevents sion-tools for an efficient application of control the organism from spreading (Clout and Veitch 2002; measures in specific situations such as the infestation Simberloff 2003b, 2009, Myers et al. 2000; Genovesi of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) in the United 2007; Bomford and O’Brien 1995). It is also assumed States (Bogich et al. 2008), the campaigns against the that small and isolated populations are easier to brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) in South Georgia, eradicate, and that a rapid reaction prevents further Southern Ocean (Robertson and Gemmell 2004)or population growth and spread (Liebhold and Basco- against bitterweed (Helenium amarum) in Australia mpte 2003; Clout and Veitch 2002; Mack and Lonsdale (Rout et al. 2009a, b; Regan et al. 2006). However, 2002; Brockerhoff et al. 2010). As a consequence, it is these are case-specific decision-aid tools that do not expected that infestations occupying a small area are allow drawing general conclusions as to which factors easier to eradicate, because measures can be applied are important for eradicating a pest population. more thoroughly and are more likely to be cost The difficulty is that it is not always clear at first effective at smaller scales. Brockerhoff et al. (2010) what is the most appropriate way to react to a new pest examine this type of approach for six moth species, all incursion. When responsible authorities are confronted forest pests in New Zealand and found a strong positive with a new infestation, they need to know which factors relationship between the size of the affected area and are most important for enhancing the likelihood of eradication costs. Furthermore, Allee effects favoring eradicating the unwanted organism so that an appro- eradication might be stronger if the pest population and priate control strategy can be designed and imple- the area it occupies are still small (Vercken et al. 2011; mented. A number of reviews of eradication campaigns Liebhold and Bascompte 2003). has been published in the last two decades, comparing Another argument often put forward is that detailed the outcomes for various taxonomic groups based on biological knowledge concerning an organism is descriptive case studies (Clout and Veitch 2002; needed in order to design appropriate control mea- Simberloff 2003b, 2009, Myers et al. 2000; Genovesi sures; the target species must be studied well enough 2007; Bomford and O’Brien 1995), or assessing to suggest vulnerabilities (Simberloff 2009). Exam- taxonomic groups separately, such as plants (Mack ples are the use of super-Judas goats (i.e. the release of and Lonsdale 2002; Rejma´nek and Pitcairn 2002; sterilized and hormone-treated female goats) to erad- Simberloff 2003a), mammals (Courchamp et al. 2003), icate goats from the Galapagos Islands or the devel- moths (Brockerhoff et al. 2010), invertebrates (Dahl- opment of pheromone lure traps against the sea sten and Garcia 1989), plant pathogens (Sosnowski lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great Lakes et al. 2009) or vertebrates and plants (Genovesi 2005). (Simberloff 2009). Another example is the eradication 123 Testing success factors of eradications 1367 of the painted apple moth (Teia anartoides) in New (ii) Small infestations are easier to eradicate than Zealand, were a combination of tactics was used, larger ones. including the sterile insect technique (Suckling et al. (iii) Biological knowledge and a high level of 2007). We assume that understanding the biology of preparedness to react to an incursion increase the species translates into better plans to eradicate it. the chances of eradication success. This implies that campaigns with species-specific (iv) Island eradications are more likely to succeed eradication or contingency plans should be more than those carried out on mainland areas. successful than those following only generic plans. It was also tested, whether there are differences in Many eradications are initiated on islands because the eradication success among organisms from differ- it is assumed that eradication campaigns carried out on ent Kingdoms and among biogeographic regions. islands might be more likely to succeed than those on mainland sites (Courchamp et al. 2003). At least for vertebrates, especially mammals, the most notable Materials and methods successes were achieved on isolated island popula- tions (Clout and Veitch 2002; Courchamp et al. 2003). Data collection Successful campaigns have also targeted insects on small islands, beginning with the tsetse fly (Glossina