Prognosis for ecosystem recovery following rodent eradication and seabird restoration in an island archipelago

Jones, Holly P.

doi:10.1890/09-1172.1

Cited by 58 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some species naturally recolonized abandoned breeding colonies or habitats from which they had been extirpated [42,43], whereas others needed assisted re-introduction [42] or formed new colonies at suitable sites [41]. In some cases, eradication of rats, foxes, raccoons or other humanintroduced predators was necessary to restore seabird colonies [42,44]. Another important factor in the recovery of many birds was the ban of DDT during the 1970s [40].…”

Section: Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems

Lotze¹,

Coll²,

Magera³

et al. 2011

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

358

316

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many marine populations and ecosystems have experienced strong historical depletions, yet reports of recoveries are increasing. Here, we review the growing research on marine recoveries to reveal how common recovery is, its magnitude, timescale and major drivers. Overall, 10-50% of depleted populations and ecosystems show some recovery, but rarely to former levels of abundance. In addition, recovery can take many decades for long-lived species and complex ecosystems. Major drivers of recovery include the reduction of human impacts, especially exploitation, habitat loss and pollution, combined with favorable life-history and environmental conditions. Awareness, legal protection and enforcement of management plans are also crucial. Learning from historical recovery successes and failures is essential for implementing realistic conservation goals and promising management strategies.A new focus on recovery An increasing number of studies have reported strong declines in marine animal populations and the degradation of ocean ecosystems over past decades and centuries around the world [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], leading to a widespread perception of empty oceans and polluted waters. Yet, throughout history, humans have responded to declining resource abundance and ecosystem degradation by implementing management and conservation measures. Some of these have been successful and resulted in recovery, whereas others have failed [3,8,9].Therefore, an important question to science and management is: how common is recovery among depleted populations and degraded ecosystems in the ocean? Today, many marine mammal, bird, reptile and fish populations are at low abundance, and several species are endangered or extinct on regional or global scales [5,[10][11][12]. However, despite long periods of intense human impacts, most marine species persist and some populations do show signs of recovery [3,8,9]. Similarly, many coastal habitats, including wetlands, seagrass beds, mangrove and kelp forests, and oyster and coral reefs, have been severely reduced or degraded [2][3][4]6], yet partial recovery has been achieved in some regions in response to protection and pollution controls [3,13]. Restoration attempts at an ecosystem level have often been followed by the return and recovery of former species assemblages and ecosystem functions [13][14][15][16][17], but some ecosystems have remained in an altered state [18]. Such successes could serve as important guides for efforts to prevent further biodiversity loss and enhance future recoveries.Despite a growing number of case studies on the recovery of specific populations or ecosystems, an overview of the general patterns and drivers of marine recoveries over historical timescales is lacking. A recent review on the recovery of damaged ecosystems found that many terrestrial and marine ecosystems can recover on timescales of a few years to a few decades after major perturbations [19]. However, most case studies in the review, especially among marine and brackish examples, included small, short-...

show abstract

Section: Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems

Lotze¹,

Coll²,

Magera³

et al. 2011

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

358

316

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Invasive species are detrimental to native island species, communities, and ecosystems (Blackburn et al 2004;Kurle et al 2008;Jones 2010). Rats (Rattus spp.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative isotopic natural history of two native passerines (Troglodytes cobbi and Cinclodes antarcticus) and the invasive rats (Rattus norvegicus) that extirpate them

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While several studies have shown that invasive rats can have negative effects on island birds through predation (both direct predation and nest predation), other mechanisms for the effects of invasives on island biota have been given less attention. Here we explore another potential mechanism by which invasive rats can affect native island birds: the competitive use of common resources. We used stable isotope analyses to estimate the fraction of marine and terrestrial sources incorporated into the tissues of two species of passerines (Troglodytes cobbi, Troglodytidae; and Cinclodes antarcticus, Furnariidae) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus, Muridae) in the Falkland Islands. These two passerines are absent on islands where rats are present. We found significant incorporation of marine resources in the three species, with the highest incorporation in tissues of T. cobbi. This species appears to be one of the passerines most reliant on marine sources and the most marine member of the family Troglodytidae. We also used the results of these isotopic analyses to estimate the isotopic niche breadth of each of these species and the isotopic niche overlap among them. Rattus norvegicus had a large isotopic niche that overlapped broadly with those of the two passerine species. We propose that different ways of both depicting and estimating isotopic niche widths are complementary rather than alternative.Our results are consistent with the notion that invasive rats might have an impact on these two species of Falkland Island passerines by using common resources, but do not rule out the possibility that part of their effect is through direct predation.

show abstract

“…Thus, an increase in burrow density and distribution after rat eradication may reflect a rapid change in soil dynamics. It has been postulated that a burrow density of 0.3-1 burrow/m 2 is needed to promote ecosystem recovery to never-invaded levels Jones 2010a). We found that mean burrow density on restored islands was less than half (<0.1 burrow/m 2 ) that on the never-invaded Ruamaahuanui (>0.2 burrow/m 2 ).…”

Section: Conservation Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Because petrels engineer island habitat, population response will likely play a disproportionately large role in the recovery of ecosystem functioning. Yet only now are factors driving petrel colony recovery being studied (Jones 2010a;Buxton et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-temporal changes in density and distribution of burrow-nesting seabird colonies after rat eradication

Buxton¹,

Taylor²,

Jones³

et al. 2016

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The size and distribution of colonies of burrow-nesting petrels is thought to be limited partly by the availability of suitable breeding habitat and partly by predation. Historically, the availability of safe nesting habitat was restricted in New Zealand, due to the introduction of rats by humans. More recently, however, habitat has been restored by rat eradication. Petrel colony growth is mediated by both positive and negative density dependence, although it is unclear if, or how, density dependence will affect patterns in post-eradication colony recovery. Here, using burrow density as a proxy for relative abundance, we tested whether petrel colonies increase in density or area after rat eradication by sampling along a chronosequence of (1) five islands from which rats were eliminated 1 to 26 years ago, (2) two islands that never had rats, and (3) an island with rats still present, while controlling for habitat availability. We also measured a time series of burrow densities in plots on each island to compare temporal changes after rat eradication. Using Bayesian hierarchical modelling, after controlling for nesting habitat, we found that mean burrow density increased with time since rat eradication. Burrows remained clustered (i.e. spatially structured), but became more randomly distributed on islands with more time since eradication. Point density mapping indicated that colony extent increased with time since rat eradication, with colonies filling over 70% of surveyed areas on islands by 25 years after eradication. Increases in burrow density and colony area, but maintenance of clustered distribution, suggest both positive and negative density dependence may operate during colony expansion. Understanding patterns in petrel colony recovery is important, not only due to the indispensable role of petrels as island ecosystem engineers, reflecting the recovery of ecosystem functioning, but also to help guide post-eradication monitoring strategies.

show abstract

Prognosis for ecosystem recovery following rodent eradication and seabird restoration in an island archipelago

Cited by 58 publications

References 37 publications

Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems

Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems

Comparative isotopic natural history of two native passerines (Troglodytes cobbi and Cinclodes antarcticus) and the invasive rats (Rattus norvegicus) that extirpate them

Spatio-temporal changes in density and distribution of burrow-nesting seabird colonies after rat eradication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About