15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preventing and controlling nonnative species invasions to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity recognizes that addressing nonnative species is one of six principal actions needed to bend the curve in freshwater biodiversity loss. This is because introduction rates of nonnative species continue to accelerate globally and where these species develop invasive populations, they can have severe impacts on freshwater biodiversity. The most effective management measure to protect freshwater biodiversity is to prevent introductions of nonnative species. Should a nonnative species be introduced, however, then its early detection and the implementation of rapid reaction measures can avoid it establishing and dispersing. If these measures are unsuccessful and the species becomes invasive, then control and containment measures can minimize its further spread and impact. Minimizing further spread and impact includes control methods to reduce invader abundance and containment methods such as screening of invaded sites and strict biosecurity to avoid the invader dispersing to neighbouring basins. These management actions have benefitted from developments in invasion risk assessment that can prioritize species according to their invasion risk and, for species already invasive, ensure that management actions are commensurate with assessed risk. The successful management of freshwater nonnative species still requires the overcoming of some implementation challenges, including nonnative species often being a symptom of degraded habitats rather than the main driver of ecological change, and eradication methods often being nonspecies specific. Given the multiple anthropogenic stressors in freshwaters, nonnative species management must work with other restoration strategies if it is to deliver the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references157

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide

          Although research on human-mediated exchanges of species has substantially intensified during the last centuries, we know surprisingly little about temporal dynamics of alien species accumulations across regions and taxa. Using a novel database of 45,813 first records of 16,926 established alien species, we show that the annual rate of first records worldwide has increased during the last 200 years, with 37% of all first records reported most recently (1970–2014). Inter-continental and inter-taxonomic variation can be largely attributed to the diaspora of European settlers in the nineteenth century and to the acceleration in trade in the twentieth century. For all taxonomic groups, the increase in numbers of alien species does not show any sign of saturation and most taxa even show increases in the rate of first records over time. This highlights that past efforts to mitigate invasions have not been effective enough to keep up with increasing globalization.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan

            Abstract Despite their limited spatial extent, freshwater ecosystems host remarkable biodiversity, including one-third of all vertebrate species. This biodiversity is declining dramatically: Globally, wetlands are vanishing three times faster than forests, and freshwater vertebrate populations have fallen more than twice as steeply as terrestrial or marine populations. Threats to freshwater biodiversity are well documented but coordinated action to reverse the decline is lacking. We present an Emergency Recovery Plan to bend the curve of freshwater biodiversity loss. Priority actions include accelerating implementation of environmental flows; improving water quality; protecting and restoring critical habitats; managing the exploitation of freshwater ecosystem resources, especially species and riverine aggregates; preventing and controlling nonnative species invasions; and safeguarding and restoring river connectivity. We recommend adjustments to targets and indicators for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Sustainable Development Goals and roles for national and international state and nonstate actors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Invasive rodent eradication on islands.

              Invasive mammals are the greatest threat to island biodiversity and invasive rodents are likely responsible for the greatest number of extinctions and ecosystem changes. Techniques for eradicating rodents from islands were developed over 2 decades ago. Since that time there has been a significant development and application of this conservation tool. We reviewed the literature on invasive rodent eradications to assess its current state and identify actions to make it more effective. Worldwide, 332 successful rodent eradications have been undertaken; we identified 35 failed eradications and 20 campaigns of unknown result. Invasive rodents have been eradicated from 284 islands (47,628 ha). With the exception of two small islands, rodenticides were used in all eradication campaigns. Brodifacoum was used in 71% of campaigns and 91% of the total area treated. The most frequent rodenticide distribution methods (from most to least) are bait stations, hand broadcasting, and aerial broadcasting. Nevertheless, campaigns using aerial broadcast made up 76% of the total area treated. Mortality of native vertebrates due to nontarget poisoning has been documented, but affected species quickly recover to pre-eradication population levels or higher. A variety of methods have been developed to mitigate nontarget impacts, and applied research can further aid in minimizing impacts. Land managers should routinely remove invasive rodents from islands <100 ha that lack vertebrates susceptible to nontarget poisoning. For larger islands and those that require nontarget mitigation, expert consultation and greater planning effort are needed. With the exception of house mice (Mus musculus), island size may no longer be the limiting factor for rodent eradications; rather, social acceptance and funding may be the main challenges. To be successful, large-scale rodent campaigns should be integrated with programs to improve the livelihoods of residents, island biosecurity, and reinvasion response programs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Environmental Reviews
                Environ. Rev.
                Canadian Science Publishing
                1181-8700
                1208-6053
                June 01 2023
                June 01 2023
                : 31
                : 2
                : 310-326
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Fish Ecology and Conservation Cluster, Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, UK
                [2 ]U.S. Geological Survey, National Climate Adaptation Science Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-516, Reston, VA 20192, USA
                [3 ]Section for Environmental and Biosecurity Measure, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Pb 4024 Angelltrøa, 7457 Trondheim, Norway
                [4 ]Yorkshire Water, Western House, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD6 2SZ, UK
                [5 ]Centre for Biological Control, Botany Department, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
                [6 ]School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Distillery Fields, North Mall, Cork, Ireland
                [7 ]School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa
                [8 ]Department of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
                [9 ]Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología (IPE), CSIC, Avda. Montanana 1005, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
                [10 ]Centre for Applied Water Science, Institute of Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
                [11 ]Centre for Environmental Research, Innovation and Sustainability (CERIS), Atlantic Technological University, Ash Lane, Sligo F91 YW50, Ireland
                [12 ]Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China
                [13 ]School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
                [14 ]Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
                [15 ]Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Kochi, Kerala, India
                [16 ]Environmental Change Research Centre, Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK
                Article
                10.1139/er-2022-0103
                bb509806-8c52-4597-8269-41685ba823f7
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_GB

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article