Impacts of Introduced Predators on Seabirds

Towns,; Byrd, G. Vernon; Hp, Jones; Rauzon, M J; Russell, James C.; Wilcox, Chris

doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199735693.003.0003

Cited by 36 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(110 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Invasive plants can take some time to naturalise [30], and may require an equally lengthy time to eradicate or control [31], but invasive mammalian predators, even in low densities, can have an immediate and drastic impact on native biota [32,33]. For this reason, many restoration projects in New Zealand prioritise mammal control, even though such strategies seldom have definite end-points unless eradication is achievable [34] and even then, reinvasion may remain a perpetual risk [35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Community-Conservation Conundrum: Is Citizen Science the Answer?

Galbraith

Bollard-Breen

Towns

2016

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public participation theory assumes that empowering communities leads to enduring support for new initiatives. The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, approved in 2000, embraces this assumption and includes goals for community involvement in resolving threats to native flora and fauna. Over the last 20 years, community-based ecological restoration groups have proliferated, with between 600 and 4000 identified. Many of these groups control invasive mammals, and often include protection of native species and species reintroductions as goals. Such activities involve the groups in "wicked" problems with uncertain biological and social outcomes, plus technical challenges for implementing and measuring results. The solution might be to develop a citizen science approach, although this requires institutional support. We conducted a web-based audit of 50 community groups participating in ecological restoration projects in northern New Zealand. We found great variation in the quality of information provided by the groups, with none identifying strategic milestones and progress towards them. We concluded that, at best, many group members are accidental scientists rather than citizen scientists. Furthermore, the way community efforts are reflected in biodiversity responses is often unclear. The situation may be improved with a new approach to data gathering, training, and analyses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Community-Conservation Conundrum: Is Citizen Science the Answer?

Galbraith

Bollard-Breen

Towns

2016

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although eradication is likely to be beneficial for the remnant seabird colonies, defining the restoration goal for Rakitu will be challenging, given differences in various stakeholder interests. For example, North Island weka ( Gallirallus australis ), a native species, were introduced to Rakitu and depredate small burrowing seabirds (Towns et al ). The Weka Recovery Group would like weka to remain on Rakitu (Wilson ); however, their presence likely would counteract active seabird recovery efforts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, seabirds are among the most threatened marine vertebrates; globally, 29% of species are at risk of extinction (Croxall et al ; Birdlife International ). Life history traits such as coloniality, low reproductive output, extended periods of parental care, and slow growth to maturity make seabirds vulnerable to introduced predators (Jones et al ; Towns et al ; Croxall et al ; Spatz et al ). Over 90% of the world's islands have been invaded by rats ( Rattus spp.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A GIS‐based decision‐making approach for prioritizing seabird management following predator eradication

Borrelle

Buxton

Jones

et al. 2015

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given that 29% of seabird species are threatened with extinction, protecting seabird colonies on offshore islands is a global conservation priority. Seabirds are vulnerable to non-native predator invasions, which reduce or eliminate colonies. Accordingly, conservation efforts have focused on predator eradication. However, affected populations are often left to passively recover following eradications. Although seabirds are highly mobile, their life history traits such as philopatry can limit passive recolonization of newly predator-free habitat. In such cases, seabird colonies can potentially be re-instated with active restoration via chick translocations or social attraction methods, which can be risky and expensive. We used biogeographic and species-specific behavioral data in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand, a global hotspot of seabird diversity and predator eradications, to illustrate the use of geographic information systems multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize islands for active seabird restoration. We identified nine islands with low observed passive recovery of seabirds posteradication over a 50-year timeframe, and classified these as sites where active seabird management could be prioritized. Such spatially explicit tools are flexible, allowing for managers to choose case-specific criteria such as time, funding, and goals constrained for their conservation needs. Furthermore, this flexibility can also be applied to threatened species management by customizing the decision criteria for individual species' capacity to passively recolonize islands. On islands with complex restoration challenges, decision tools that help island restoration practitioners decide whether active seabird management should be paired with eradication can optimize restoration outcomes and ecosystem recovery.

show abstract

“…Their high reproductive potential, omnivorous foraging strategy, and aggressive predatory behavior have led to the endangerment or extinction of numerous native island species, especially birds (Moors and Atkinson 1984;Witmer et al 1998;Veitch and Clout 2002;Engeman et al 2006;Towns et al 2011). While their impacts to seabirds have been long known, invasive rodents also impact seeds and seedlings, invertebrates, sea turtle eggs and hatchings, and other parts of the ecosystem (Witmer et al 2007a;Caut et al 2008;Angel et al 2009;Towns et al 2009;St Clair 2011;Drake et al 2011).…”

Section: Issues and Damage Caused By Invasive Rodentsmentioning

confidence: 99%