Chapter 4: Abstracts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 4: Abstracts These abstracts are for papers which were presented at the conference, either as oral presentations or poster papers, but for which the authors have chosen not to prepare and publish a full written paper. These abstracts are given in the alphabetical order of the prime author of the paper with the address of only that fi rst author included. 703 Aguirre-Muñoz, A.; F. Méndez-Sánchez, L. Luna-Mendoza, A. Ortiz-Alcaraz, J. Hernández-Montoya, Y. Bedolla-Guzmán, M. Latofski-Robles, E. Rojas-Mayoral, N. Silva-Estudillo, F. Torres-García, M. Félix-Lizárraga, A. Fabila-Blanco, A. Hernández-Ríos, E. Bravo-Hernández, F. Solís-Carlos, C. Jáuregui-García and D. Munguía-Cajigas. Mexico’s progress and commitment to comprehensive island restoration Mexico’s progress and commitment to comprehensive island restoration A. Aguirre-Muñoz, F. Méndez-Sánchez, L. Luna-Mendoza, A. Ortiz-Alcaraz, J. Hernández-Montoya, Y. Bedolla-Guzmán, M. Latofski-Robles, E. Rojas-Mayoral, N. Silva-Estudillo, F. Torres-García, M. Félix-Lizárraga, A. Fabila-Blanco, A. Hernández-Ríos, E. Bravo-Hernández, F. Solís-Carlos, C. Jáuregui-García and D. Munguía-Cajigas Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas, A.C., Avenida Moctezuma 836 Zona Centro, Ensenada, Baja California 22800 Mexico. <[email protected]> For the past 18 years, Mexico has taken bold steps to systematically eradicate invasive mammals. Mexico´s 4,111 islands host 8.3% of the country’s plants and land vertebrates. They harbour one in three seabirds worldwide, placing Mexico as the third most diverse country. Invasive mammals have had a big toll on Mexico’s biodiversity, with 17 out of 21 confi rmed vertebrate extinctions occurring on islands. The Mexican conservation organisation Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas (GECI), in collaboration with Mexico’s federal government, and a wide network of national and international donors, has been leading the National Programme for Island Restoration that has grown in scope. The fi rst eradications on small islands fostered trust amongst partners, setting the foundations for complex eradications on bigger islands requiring innovation, capacity development, and research. Island biosecurity is now a priority for long-term tangible results. This programme evolved to be truly comprehensive, including post-eradication restoration to strengthen island resilience, and the social construction of a cultural approach integrating interests from conservation and local fi shing communities. Results to date include: (1) eradication of 58 populations of invasive mammals from 37 islands; (2) publication of both a National Island and Invasive Species Strategy, identifying conservation priorities; (3) ongoing active restoration of seabird colonies and native plant communities; (4) original applied research and ad hoc infrastructure and equipment to support restoration; (5) legal protection of all Mexican islands; (6) assessing the eff ects of climate change on islands’ biodiversity and human populations; and (7) formation of in-house specialists through postgraduate studies in collaboration with research institutes and universities from Mexico and elsewhere. As for the future, we foresee two priorities: (1) remove invasive mammals from all Mexican islands by 2030; and (2) promote the creation of an “International Islands Institute” that could operate under a wide international collaboration and interdisciplinary approach. A. Aguirre-Muñoz, F. Méndez-Sánchez, L. Luna-Mendoza, A. Ortiz-Alcaraz, J. Hernández-Montoya, Y. Bedolla-Guzmán, M. Latofski-Robles, E. Rojas-Mayoral, N. Silva-Estudillo, F. Torres-García, M. Félix-Lizárraga, A. Fabila-Blanco, A. Hernández-Ríos, E. Bravo-Hernández, F. Solís-Carlos, C. Jáuregui-García and D. Munguía-Cajigas Andreozzi, P.C.; R. Griffi ths, D. Moverley, J. Wainiqolo, R. Nias, S. Boudjelas, D. Stewart, S. Cranwell, M. Smith and P. Cowan. The Pacifi c invasives partnership – a model for regional collaboration on invasive alien species The Pacifi c invasives partnership – a model for regional collaboration on invasive alien species P.C. Andreozzi, R. Griffi ths, D. Moverley, J. Wainiqolo, R. Nias, S. Boudjelas, D. Stewart, S. Cranwell, M. Smith and P. Cowan U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington DC, USA. <[email protected]> Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are a fundamental challenge facing Pacifi c Island Countries and Territories (PICTS), impacting economies, habitats, food security, biodiversity, livelihoods and quality of life. These negative and substantial impacts are being acknowledged by PICTs leaders as well as on the international stage. As the inter-relatedness of IAS and other fundamental challenges such as climate resilience, oceans and sustainability are understood and acknowledged, strategies to integrate IAS and biosecurity concepts into international eff orts will require invasive species expertise and guidance. The Pacifi c Invasives Partnership (PIP) is a group created by the Pacifi c Roundtable for the Conservation of Nature that has evolved into a broad advocate for IAS outreach and an incubator for collaborative IAS eff orts in the Pacifi c. PIP comprises volunteer IAS experts from regional, national, NGO and international groups that work in two or more PICTS and want to advance IAS issues. By taking a “rising tide fl oats all boats” approach, PIP members work to raise the profi le and understanding of IAS as a fundamental, underpinning issue to PICT economies, environments and future sustainability. PIP successes over the past fi ve years include reports and briefi ng materials prepared for the Pacifi c Islands Forum Leaders meeting, provision of advice and assistance for Pacifi c invasive species Global Environment Facility projects, leading and supporting regional and sub-regional projects on regional biosecurity, invasive ant and rodent eradication and prevention, and the successful raising of the IAS profi le at various international fora. PIP is a successful model of regional collaboration on invasive alien species and could be used as a model for similar eff orts in other island regions of the world. P.C. Andreozzi, R. Griffi ths, D. Moverley, J. Wainiqolo, R. Nias, S. Boudjelas, D. Stewart, S. Cranwell, M. Smith and P. Cowan 704 Bird, J.; J. Shaw, R. Alderman and R. Fuller. A review of monitoring of biodiversity responses to island invasive species eradications A review of monitoring of biodiversity responses to island invasive J. Bird, J. Shaw, R. Alderman and R. Fuller species eradications J. Bird, J. Shaw, R. Alderman and R. Fuller Centre for Biodiversity & Conservation Science, University of Queensland, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072 Australia. <[email protected]> A recent review examined the benefi ts from invasive species eradications on islands worldwide. While the review concluded that island eradications are overwhelmingly benefi cial for native biodiversity, a response to eradication was only demonstrated for 22 of the 532 islands treated. While many studies advocate monitoring, there appears to be a gap, either between eradication eff ort and monitoring eff ort, or between monitoring and analysing/reporting responses. We focussed on regions of the Pacifi c, Australia and the Caribbean to document the level of monitoring on islands where eradications have taken place. We collated published and unpublished literature and spoke to key practitioners in the region to investigate targets for monitoring, duration and frequency of monitoring, and the ability of implemented monitoring work to detect responses. We also investigated drivers of monitoring such as type of funder or implementing organisation behind the eradication operation. The study’s fi ndings highlight apparent biases in monitoring eff ort, they provide a benchmark of current monitoring eff ort, and open the debate on when and where monitoring should be undertaken and how best to develop optimal monitoring strategies. Booker, H.; D. Appleton, D. Bullock, R. MacDonald, E. Bell, D. Price, P. Slader, T. Frayling, A. Taylor and S. Havery. A review of seabird recovery on Lundy Island, England, over a decade following the eradication of brown and black rats A review of seabird recovery on Lundy Island, England, over a decade following the eradication of brown and black rats H. Booker, D. Appleton, D. Bullock, R. MacDonald, E. Bell, D. Price, P. Slader, T. Frayling, A. Taylor and S. Havery Species and Habitats, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, RSPB, Headquarters, the Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK. <[email protected]> Lundy, a 450 ha island situated 19 km off the Devon coast in the UK’s Bristol Channel, is internationally important for its marine life and its waters were established as the UK’s fi rst Marine Nature Reserve in 1971. Lundy is home to eleven seabird species, including Manx shearwater (Puffi nus puffi nus), for which the UK has a global responsibility and Atlantic puffi n (Fratercula arctica), a globally threatened species. Steep declines in Lundy’s seabird populations, with puffi ns nearing extinction and low numbers of Manx shearwaters, led to the establishment of the Seabird Recovery Project in 2001. The project aimed to improve the conditions for these burrow-nesting seabirds through the eradication of brown and black rats. From 2002–2004 a ground-based operation was undertaken, and in 2006 Lundy was offi cially declared rat-free. The seabird populations of Lundy have been well studied with detailed regular data spanning the last 35 years. Over the last decade, as a result of rat removal, seabird numbers on the island have doubled and storm petrels have colonised. By 2013, the breeding population of Manx shearwaters increased more than ten-fold to an estimated 3,451 pairs. In 2004, the puffi n population on Lundy fell to an all-time low with only fi ve individuals, but in 2013, more than 80 individuals were recorded. Here we discuss the observed seabird responses to the eradication and present the most recent results of the monitoring surveys from 2017. These impressive results highlight the importance of and need for eff ective biosecurity to reduce the risk of re-incursion of rats.