DOCSLIB.ORG

Viewing Invasive Species Removal in a Whole-Ecosystem Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Viewing Invasive Species Removal in a Whole-Ecosystem Context 454 Review TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution Vol.16 No.8 August 2001 Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context Erika S. Zavaleta, Richard J. Hobbs and Harold A. Mooney Eradications of invasive species often have striking positive effects on native increasingly complex. Major damage caused by long- biota. However, recent research has shown that species removal in isolation established invaders, systems that are affected by can also result in unexpected changes to other ecosystem components. These multiple invaders, and systems that are affected by secondary effects will become more likely as numbers of interacting invaders both invaders and other global changes are now increase in ecosystems, and as exotics in late stages of invasion eliminate common. In these settings, straightforward deployment native species and replace their functional roles. Food web and functional role of standard eradication tools, such as poisons, trapping frameworks can be used to identify ecological conditions that forecast the and mechanical harvesting, might not accomplish the potential for unwanted secondary impacts. Integration of eradication into a desired level of recovery of native ecosystems5. holistic process of assessment and restoration will help safeguard against We suggest that, although there is a crucial need for accidental, adverse effects on native ecosystems. the continued development and application of effective eradication methodologies, a parallel need exists to Invasive alien species interact with other elements of place these methodologies in the context of the overall global change to cause considerable damage to ecosystem that is being managed. Ideally, there should managed and natural systems and to incur huge costs be both: (1) pre-eradication assessment, to tailor to society1. In response, several measures have been removal to avoid unwanted ecological effects; and developed and deployed to control, contain or (2) post-removal assessment of eradication effects, on eradicate a wide range of invasive species in affected both the target organism and the invaded ecosystem. areas. Where possible, ERADICATION (see Glossary) is The requirements for successful removal of an the favored approach. Control, which reduces the invader have been discussed recently2. We focus on presence of the invader, and containment, which the possible impacts that result from the successful limits further spread, both require indefinite removal of invasive species, regardless of the methods investments of time, tools and money to keep an employed to remove them. We reviewed recent invader at bay. Although eradication can require large literature for examples where the successful short-term investments, successful removal can be eradication of invasives had or was likely to have achieved within months or years and gives the best important secondary impacts, a task that was made chance for native biodiversity to recover. difficult by the relatively few verified eradication The results of eradication efforts so far are successes that included the monitoring of post- encouraging and have been detailed recently2. Many removal system behavior. case studies demonstrate success for a range of taxa, particularly on small islands and at local scales. Eradication: what can go wrong Additional examples include the removal of the exotic Successful eradication efforts have generally benefited little red fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata from biological diversity. However, there is also evidence that, Santa Fe Island in the Galapagos3 (which resulted in without sufficient planning, successful eradications can the increase in density of several native ant species), have unwanted and unexpected impacts on native and the nearly complete removal from Laysan Island, species and ecosystems. These inadvertent impacts are of Hawaii of the exotic annual grass Cenchrus many types. Excessive poisoning of non-target organisms echinatus, which once covered 30% of the vegetated and transfer of poisons up food chains6 are problems that area of the island (E.N. Flint, unpublished). can result from the removal method used7,8. Some Successful eradications often lead to dramatic eradication efforts fail because they do not eliminate the recovery of native species and ecosystems. Removal of target organism, because they either miss individuals or Erika Zavaleta* introduced rabbits from Pacific islands off Mexico do not include steps to reduce post-eradication Harold A. Mooney (C.J. Donlan, unpublished) and the USA have allowed susceptibility to reinvasion3. Eradication alone might not Dept of Biological recovery of two rapidly declining endemic species of allow ecosystems to recover, because some invaders Sciences, Stanford 4 University, Stanford, native succulents Dudleya linearis and D. traskiae . change the condition of the habitat so as to render it CA 94305, USA. Lowland vegetation on Santa Fe Island has recovered unsuitable for native species. For instance, in sites from *e-mail: steadily following the removal of exotic goats Capra the Middle East to the western USA, high soil salinity is [email protected] hircus nearly 30 years ago. caused by the invasive ice plant Mesembryanthemum Richard J. Hobbs However, other cases suggest that more refined and crystallinum, and tamarisk Tamarix spp., which makes School of Environmental integrated approaches to invasive removal could it difficult for salt-sensitive native species to re-establish9. Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, improve results. Successes are still largely confined to In these cases, eradication must be followed by additional WA 6150, Australia. small islands. The ecological context of eradication is site restoration. http://tree.trends.com 0169–5347/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0169-5347(01)02194-2 Review TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution Vol.16 No.8 August 2001 455 increases in exotic plant populations. Removal of one Box 1. When a harmful exotic harbors an endangered native species invader can lead to increased impacts of another invader; for example, when removal of exotic prey Exotic saltcedar Tamarix spp. shrubs have replaced much of the native riparian leads to increased predation on native prey by exotic vegetation of the arid western USA, where they consume large quantities of predators10. Finally, removal of invasive plant species water, narrow river channels, salinize soil and degrade wildlife habitata. can reduce habitat or resources available for native Saltcedar removal has been repeatedly delayed in parts of its range fauna if the removal is not accompanied by further because it provides significant nesting habitat for an endangered native restoration measures (Box 1). These unexpected songbirdb. The southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus, outcomes will become more probable both as the currently reduced to fewer than 500 breeding pairs, nested historically in variety of interacting invaders contained in an riparian cottonwood (Populus spp.)–willow (Salix spp.) stands in the ecosystem increases, and as exotics in late stages of southwestern USA (Refs c,d). Urbanization, agriculture, fire, water invasion largely or wholly eliminate native species diversion and livestock grazing all contributed to the decline of its native and replace their functional roles. Although habitatb. The replacement of much of the habitat that remained by saltcedar researchers have begun to explore the implications of required the flycatcher to make use of the invader, which it seems to prefer multiple, interacting invaders, little attention has in some areas, despite its reduced breeding successe,f. been paid to the implications of these interactions for Stepwise saltcedar removal could strongly benefit the flycatcher by giving eradication efforts. native trees the opportunity to re-establish and provide replacement habitatg. However, some saltcedar-invaded areas might no longer be able Secondary effects: a conceptual framework to support native vegetation, because lowered water tables and saline A useful basis from which to tackle when and why soils, the results of saltcedar dominance, might complicate native secondary effects of eradication occur is that systems re-establishmenth–j. Region-wide flood suppression hinders containing invasives function according to the same re-establishment of flood-associated native species such as cottonwoods basic principles as do other systems. Invaded systems and increases the likelihood of saltcedar reinvasionj,k. can, therefore, be considered using the frameworks Managers are confident that, if accompanied by planning and careful that are usually used to analyze community and restoration, saltcedar removal can benefit the endangered flycatcher as well ecosystem dynamics. as other native speciesg. However, poorly planned removal without steps such as flooding and vegetation restoration, might fail, harming an Trophic cascades in multiply invaded systems endangered species in the process. A large literature has been devoted to how food-web interactions limit populations of producers, consumers References and predators11–13. Much work has been done on the a Zavaleta, E.S. (2000) Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. In Invasive Species in a Changing World (Mooney, H.A. and Hobbs, R.J., eds), relative roles of top-down regulation of food-web pp. 261–300, Island Press components by higher-level consumers or predators, b USFWS (1997) Endangered and threatened wildlife and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Characteristics Do All Invasive Species Share That Make Them So
    Invasive Plants Facts and Figures Definition Invasive Plant: Plants that have, or are likely to spread into native or minimally managed plant systems and cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations and becoming dominant or disruptive to those systems. Where do most invasive species come from? How do they get here and get started? Most originate long distances from the point of introduction Horticulture is responsible for the introduction of approximately 60% of invasive species. Conservation uses are responsible for the introduction of approximately 30% of invasive species. Accidental introductions account for about 10%. Of all non-native species introduced only about 15% ever escape cultivation, and of this 15% only about 1% ever become a problem in the wild. The process that leads to a plant becoming an invasive species, Cultivation – Escape – Naturalization – Invasion, may take over 100 years to complete. What characteristics make invasive species so successful in our environment? Lack predators, pathogens, and diseases to keep population numbers in check Produce copious amounts of seed with a high viability of that seed Use successful dispersal mechanisms – attractive to wildlife Thrive on disturbance, very opportunistic Fast-growing Habitat generalists. They do not have specific or narrow growth requirements. Some demonstrate alleleopathy – produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants nearby. Have longer photosynthetic periods – first to leaf out in the spring and last to drop leaves in autumn Alter soil and habitat conditions where they grow to better suit their own survival and expansion. Why do we care? What is the big deal? Ecological Impacts Impacting/altering natural communities at a startling rate.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of the Nation's Lakes
    A Survey of the Nation’s Lakes – EPA’s National Lake Assessment and Survey of Vermont Lakes Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation - Water Quality Division 103 South Main 10N Waterbury VT 05671-0408 www.vtwaterquality.org Prepared by Julia Larouche, Environmental Technician II January 2009 Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 What We Measured..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quality and Trophic Status Indicators.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Acidification Indicator............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Ecological Integrity Indicators................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Nearshore Habitat Indicators
    [Show full text]
  • Food Web Invaders
    TEACHER LESSON PLAN Food Web Invaders Grade Length Subjects/strands Topics 4th–8th grade 20–30 minutes Discover how a food Observation, applica- web works by making tion, comparing similari- a live model of biotic ties and differences, gen- components, using the eralization, kinesthetic people in your class. concept development, Then explore how an psycho-motor develop- invasive species disrupts ment that balance. BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Students will have been introduced to the idea of an ecosystem, and the basic relationships in an ecosys- In this fun, active-learning, game about food webs, tem such as producers and consumers, herbivores and each student is assigned to be a plant or animal that carnivores, predator/prey pairs, and some of the inter- can be found in aquatic ecosystems. Then, they learn relationships of their behavior and adaptations. Middle about the relationships between organisms as they pass school students will have been introduced to the idea of a ball of yarn between students (organisms) that have a limiting factors, and later the idea of carrying capac- predator/prey relationship. As the ball of yarn unravels ity. Students will also be familiar with the concept of a and the string is stretched between the many predator/ food chain with a variety of trophic levels. At the inter- prey relationships in the room, the large and complex mediate level, this could include videos, field activities food web network is reveals visually and symbolically and artwork, as well as reading and writing activities in the room. In the final step, an invasive species is from student magazines and textbooks.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Cascades Emanating from Earthworm Invasions
    502 REVIEWS Side- swiped: ecological cascades emanating from earthworm invasions Lee E Frelich1*, Bernd Blossey2, Erin K Cameron3,4, Andrea Dávalos2,5, Nico Eisenhauer6,7, Timothy Fahey2, Olga Ferlian6,7, Peter M Groffman8,9, Evan Larson10, Scott R Loss11, John C Maerz12, Victoria Nuzzo13, Kyungsoo Yoo14, and Peter B Reich1,15 Non- native, invasive earthworms are altering soils throughout the world. Ecological cascades emanating from these invasions stem from rapid consumption of leaf litter by earthworms. This occurs at a midpoint in the trophic pyramid, unlike the more familiar bottom- up or top- down cascades. These cascades cause fundamental changes (“microcascade effects”) in soil morphol- ogy, bulk density, and nutrient leaching, and a shift to warmer, drier soil surfaces with a loss of leaf litter. In North American temperate and boreal forests, microcascade effects can affect carbon sequestration, disturbance regimes, soil and water quality, forest productivity, plant communities, and wildlife habitat, and can facilitate other invasive species. These broader- scale changes (“macrocascade effects”) are of greater concern to society. Interactions among these fundamental changes and broader-scale effects create “cascade complexes” that interact with climate change and other environmental processes. The diversity of cascade effects, combined with the vast area invaded by earthworms, leads to regionally important changes in ecological functioning. Front Ecol Environ 2019; 17(9): 502–510, doi:10.1002/fee.2099 lthough society usually
    [Show full text]
  • Recruitment of Three Non-Native Invasive Plants Into a Fragmented Forest in Southern Illinois Emily D
    Forest Ecology and Management 190 (2004) 119–130 Recruitment of three non-native invasive plants into a fragmented forest in southern Illinois Emily D. Yatesa, Delphis F. Levia Jr.b,*, Carol L. Williamsa aDepartment of Geography, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4514, USA bDepartment of Geography, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA Received 28 July 2003; received in revised form 10 September 2003; accepted 11 November 2003 Abstract Plant invasions are a current threat to biodiversity conservation, second only to habitat loss and fragmentation. Density and heights of three invasive plants, Rosa multiflora, Lonicera japonica, and Elaeagnus umbellata, were examined between edges and adjacent interiors of forest sites in southern Illinois. Density (stems mÀ2) and heights (cm) of invasive plants were obtained in plots along transects at edge and interior sampling locations within forest sites. The effect of species, sampling location, and site shape index on invasive plant density was investigated, as well as differences in heights of invasive plants in edge vs. interior sampling locations. Species, sampling location, and fragment shape index were significant factors influencing invasive plant density at study sites. Density for all three species ranged from 0 to 18 stems mÀ2. All three species invaded interiors of sites, however, R. multiflora and L. japonica had significantly greater densities in edge as opposed to interior transects. These two species also had significant differences in density among site shape indices. Density of E. umbellata was not significantly different between edge and interior sampling locations or among site shape indices. Mean heights of all three invasive plants were higher in edge transects, however, this relationship was only significant for L.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Nonindigenous Invasive Species on Water Quality and Quantity
    Effects of Nonindigenous Invasive Species on Water Quality and Quantity Frank H. McCormick1, Glen C. Contreras2, and Agency (EPA), more than one-third of all States have waters Sherri L. Johnson3 that are listed for invasive species under section 303d of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Nonindigenous species cause ecological damage, human health risks, or economic losses. Abstract Invasive species are degrading a suite of ecosystem services that the national forests and grasslands provide, including Physical and biological disruptions of aquatic systems recreational fishing, boating, and swimming; municipal, caused by invasive species alter water quantity and water industrial, and agricultural water supply; and forest products. quality. Recent evidence suggests that water is a vector for Degradation of these services results in direct economic the spread of Sudden Oak Death disease and Port-Orford- losses, costs to replace the services, and control costs. Losses, cedar root disease. Since the 1990s, the public has become damages, and control costs are estimated to exceed $178 billion increasingly aware of the presence of invasive species in annually (Daily et al. 2000a, 2000b). Although agriculture is the Nation’s waters. Media reports about Asian carp, zebra the segment of the economy most affected ($71 billion per mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), golden algae (Prynmesium year), costs to other segments, such as tourism, fisheries, and parvum), cyanobacteria (Anabaena sp., Aphanizomenon sp., water supply, total $67 billion per year. Although more difficult and Microcystis sp.), and New Zealand mud snail have raised to quantify, losses of these ecosystem functions also reduce public awareness about the economic and ecological costs of the quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Beltrami County
    2017 Beltrami County Lake Prioritization and Protection Planning Document RMBEL [Company22796 County name] Highway 6 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 1/1/2017 (218) 846-1465 www.rmbel.info Date: April 4, 2017 To: Beltrami County Environmental Services 701 Minnesota Ave NW # 113, Bemidji, MN 56601 Subject: Beltrami County Lake Prioritization and Planning Document From: Moriya Rufer RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc 22796 County Highway 6 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 218-846-1465 [email protected] www.rmbel.info Authors: Moriya Rufer, RMBEL, oversight and report Emelia Hauck, RMBEL, mapping and data analysis Andrew Weir, RMBEL, data analysis Acknowledgements Organization and oversight Brent Rud, Beltrami County Zach Gutknecht, Beltrami County Dan Steward, BWSR Jeff Hrubes, BWSR Funding provided by Board of Water and Soil Resources Beltrami County Organizations contributing data and information Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Beltrami County Red Lake Department of Natural Resources Beltrami County Lakes Summary 2017, RMB Environmental Laboratories 1 of 32 Table of Contents Beltrami County Data Assessment Summary Report Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Data Availability....................................................................................................................... 3 Trophic State Index ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases
    Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases The threat category ‘invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases’ (IUCN 8) includes both native and non-native plants, animals, pathogens, microbes, and genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. This definition encompasses a broad array of organisms, and the types of impacts to native species and habitats are equally variable. It includes invasive species that were not present in New Hampshire prior to European settlement, and have been directly or indirectly introduced and spread into the state by human activities. A variety of wildlife species are vulnerable to increased predation from both native and non-native animals. Many species are also affected by diseases and parasites, including white-nose syndrome in bats, fungal pathogens in reptiles, and ticks and nematodes in moose. Native and non-native insects act as forest pests, damaging or killing native tree species and causing significant changes to wildlife habitats. Native tree species can also be affected by non-native fungal pathogens. Invasive plants can compete with native species for nutrients, water and light, and can change the physical environment by altering soil chemistry. Risk Assessment Summary Invasive species affect all 24 habitats and 106 SGCN. This is second only to pollution in the number of species affected. The majority of threat assessment scores were ranked as low (n=116, 51%), followed by moderate (n = 83, 37%) and high (n = 26, 12%). Only the moderate and high-ranking threats are summarized for each category in Table 4-17.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Position Statement Invasive and Feral Species Invasive and Feral
    Final Position Statement Invasive and Feral Species Invasive and feral species present unique challenges for wildlife management. The Wildlife Society defines an invasive species as an established plant or animal species that causes direct or indirect economic or environmental harm within an ecosystem, or a species that would likely cause such harm if introduced to an ecosystem in which it is non-indigenous as determined through objective, scientific risk assessment tools and analyses. Feral species are those that have been established from intentional or accidental release of domestic stock that results in a self- sustaining population(s), such as feral horses (Equus ferus), feral cats (Felis catus), or feral swine (wild pig, Sus scrofa) in North America. Feral species are generally non-indigenous and often invasive. Whereas invasive species are typically non-indigenous, not all non-indigenous species are perceived as invasive. For example, species introduced as biological control agents and some naturalized wildlife species, provide significant economic benefits while not resulting in significant or perceived harm to native ecosystems. Similarly, some indigenous species can be perceived as invasive when population increase or range expansion beyond historical levels disrupt ecosystem processes, resulting in economic or environmental harm. Determination of an invasive species can vary across regions based on the presence of local economic or environmental harm. The extent to which invasive and feral species harm indigenous species and ecosystems can be difficult to determine, and few laws and policies deal directly with their control. Many invasive and feral species are wrongly perceived as natural components of the environment and some have the support of advocacy groups who promote their continued presence in the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Biological Invasions and The
    CHAPTER 9 Biological Invasions and the Homogenization of Faunas and Floras Julian D. Olden 1 , Julie L. Lockwood 2 , and Catherine L. Parr 3 1 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, USA 2 Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA 3 Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 9.1 THE BIOGEOGRAPHY OF however, the large majority of species are not distrib- SPECIES INVASIONS uted broadly, because individuals of most species have limited dispersal capabilities. In considering the distribution of organic beings These limitations on dispersal ability have produced over the face of the globe, the fi rst great fact which the interesting phenomenon that many, perhaps even strikes us is, that neither the similarity nor the dis- most, species do not occupy all of the areas of the world similarity of the inhabitants of various regions can in which they could quite happily thrive. Instead, they be accounted for by their climatal and other physical are restricted to certain regions, where they are able to conditions … A second great fact which strikes us in interact with only those species with which they co - our general review is, that barriers of any kind, or occur. The limited geography of species is responsible, obstacles to free migration, are related in a close and in part, for the fantastic array of diversity that presently important manner to differences between the pro- carpets the Earth, as it provides opportunity for con- ductions of various regions. vergent evolution in disparate unconnected regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services
    13 Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services Heather Charles and Jeffrey S. Dukes 13.1 Introduction The impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services have attracted world- wide attention. Despite the overwhelming evidence of these impacts and a growing appreciation for ecosystem services, however, researchers and poli- cymakers rarely directly address the connection between invasions and ecosystem services. Various attempts have been made to address the ecosys- tem processes that are affected by invasive species (e.g., Levine et al. 2003; Dukes and Mooney 2004), but the links between these mechanisms and ecosystem services are largely lacking in the literature. Assessments of the economic impacts of invasive species cover costs beyond those associated with ecosystem services (e.g., control costs), and generally do not differentiate by ecosystem service type. Additionally, while advances have been made in quantifying non-market-based ecosystem services, their loss or alteration by invasive species is often overlooked or underappreciated. Ecos ystem services are the benefits provided to human society by natural ecosystems, or more broadly put, the ecosystem processes by which human life is maintained. The concept of ecosystem services is not new, and there have been multiple attempts to list and/or categorize these services, especially as the existence of additional services has been recognized (e.g., Daily 1997; NRC 2005). For the purposes of this chapter, we address ecosystem services in the framework put forward by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). The services we list are primarily those enumerated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), with minimal variation in wording, and inclu- sion of several additional services not explicitly stated in this assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Problems of Removing One Invasive Species at a Time
    A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in PeerJ on 2 June 2016. View the peer-reviewed version (peerj.com/articles/2029), which is the preferred citable publication unless you specifically need to cite this preprint. Ballari SA, Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA. 2016. Potential problems of removing one invasive species at a time: a meta-analysis of the interactions between invasive vertebrates and unexpected effects of removal programs. PeerJ 4:e2029 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2029 Potential problems of removing one invasive species at a time: Interactions between invasive vertebrates and unexpected effects of removal programs Sebastián A Ballari, Sara E Kuebbing, Martin A Nuñez Although the co-occurrence of nonnative vertebrates is a ubiquitous global phenomenon, the study of interactions between invaders is poorly represented in the literature. Limited understanding of the interactions between co-occurring vertebrates can be problematic for predicting how the removal of only one invasive—a common management scenario—will affect native communities. We suggest a trophic food web framework for predicting the effects of single-species management on native biodiversity. We used a literature search and meta-analysis to assess current understanding of how the removal of one invasive vertebrate affects native biodiversity relative to when two invasives are present. The majority of studies focused on the removal of carnivores, mainly within aquatic systems, which highlights a critical knowledge gap in our understanding of co-occurring invasive vertebrates. We found that removal of one invasive vertebrate caused a significant negative effect on native species compared to when two invasive vertebrates were present.
    [Show full text]