1

Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission

ALIENSNumber 23 2006

Sponsored by:

Landcare ResearchManaaki Whenua

ISSN: 1173-5988

Eradicating invasive species in the United KingdomOverseas T erritory of T rist an da Cunha

IntroductionThe United Kingdom Overseas Territory of Tristan da Cunha, which lies in themid South Atlantic, consists of four volcanic islands, of which the largest,Tristan, is the only one permanently inhabited. Two of the uninhabited islands,Gough and Inaccessible, are IUCN Category 1a nature reserves and togetherwith their territorial waters, form the Gough and Inaccessible Islands WorldHeritage Site. Along with Nightingale Island, the Territory is home to hugenumbers of breeding seabirds and to several species of endemic land birds,including the world’s smallest flightless bird, the Inaccessible Rail Atlantisiarogersi.

A new Tristan Conservation Ordinance has been enacted in January 2006,which offers full protection to all indigenous species of flora and fauna, bothterrestrial and marine, and result in approaching 50% of the Territory fallingwithin declared nature reserves. As at many oceanic island groups, one of thelargest conservation problems is that caused by the presence of invasive spe-cies. Tristan is taking a active role in attempting the eradication of the worstinvasives within the island group, and has in the last few years being success-ful in obtaining funding from various United Kingdom agencies (most espe-cially the Overseas Territories Environment Programme - OTEP) to this end.Eradication efforts are now underway, or are being actively planned, for each ofthe islands as set out below.

TristanThe vegetated habitats in the lowland of Tristan have been largely altered bytwo hundred years of human occupation, although at higher altitudes morenatural conditions exist. Feral Domestic Cats Felis catus disappeared sometime in the second half of the 20th century, leaving Black Rats Rattus rattus andHouse Mice Mus musculus as the remaining alien mammals (other than domes-tic species). Rats are an agricultural pest as well as having, in all likelihood,substantially contributed to the loss of much of the seabird and land birdfauna. With OTEP funding, an eradication feasibility study was undertaken inSeptember 2005 by Derek Brown, a New Zealand rodent eradication specialist.Field research is currently [early 2006 – ed note] being undertaken by EricaSommers on aspects of the biology of Tristan’s rodents, from which an opera-tional plan for eradication by the aerial dispersal of poison bait will be drawn upin the second half of 2006 (Angel et al. 2006). Tristan (9,837 ha) will be muchlarger than any island at which the eradication of Black Rats has been at-tempted by aerial poisoning to date, although the closely related NorwegianRat R. norvegicus has been successfully eradicated from Campbell island, whichat 11,300 ha is bigger than Tristan.

Continued page 3

ANTARCTIC AND SUB-ANTARCTIC SPECIAL ISSUE

2

CONTENTS

GENERAL DISCLAIMERAll material appearing in Aliens is the work of individual authors, whose names are listed at the foot of eacharticle. Contributions are not refereed, as this is a newsletter and not an academic journal. Ideas and commentsin Aliens are not intended in any way to represent the view of IUCN, SSC or the Invasive Species SpecialistGroup or the sponsors, unless specifically stated to the contrary.

From the editor:We regret the delays

in the production of Aliens 23 andapologise for any inconvenience

caused.

Eradicating IAS in Tristan da Cunha 1Disclaimer 2Workshop on non-native species in Antarctica 5Non-native species at the ATCM 6Accidental transfer into Antarctica of aliens 8Publications 10Pacific Invasives Learning Network (PILN) 11South Georgia pipits return after rat eradication12We need your support 13Macquarie Island mammalian pests 14Notes 17IUCN initiative on IAS in French OverseasTerritories 182006 IUCN Red List and IAS 18TNC’s Global Invasive Species Initiative 19Notes 20Publications 21Notes 21Invasive Plants in Mediterranean type regions22Subscription Form 23Publications 23

3

Inaccessible IslandWith funding from the UK Foreign &Commonwealth Office, two visits weremade to Inaccessible in late 2004 byplant eradication experts from SouthAfrica to eradicate New Zealand FlaxPhormium tenax. The plant is thoughtto have been introduced deliberatelyin the 1930s to provide thatching ma-terial during an unsuccessful attemptto colonize the island from Tristan. Itis confined to cliffs around the oldsettlement, but previous visits to theisland had confirmed that the specieswas invasive, greatly increasing innumbers and spreading into unaltered

habitats over the last decade. All largeplants (an estimated 2,000-3,000) weresuccessfully removed from the coastalcliffs, which necessitated the eradica-tion team using ropes to reach theplants in safety. Plants were cut off attheir bases using axes and a brushcutter. Herbicide was used on somevery large plants to prevent regrowth.Not all seedlings could be removed sofollow-up visits are planned at three-to five-year intervals to ensure that flaxis finally eradicated from the island.

Nightingale IslandNightingale has been regularly visitedby Tristan Islanders for many years to“harvest” seabirds, eggs and penguinguano. Such activities still continuebut at lower levels than in the past,when the Tristan community was muchmore dependent on subsisting on theislands group’s natural products. Theislanders have erected a number ofsmall shacks on the island, and in theearly 1900s introduced New Zealand

Flax near one of the central ponds, withthe idea of making string from its fi-bres. Although less abundant than onInaccessible, the flax is spreading intosurrounding vegetation, includingamong dense Spartina tussock andunder Phylica woodland. Theseponds offer breeding habitat for largenumbers of Atlantic Yellow-nosed Al-batrosses Thalassarche chloro-rhynchos, whereas the Phylica treesare essential habitats for the Wilkin’ sBunting Nesospiza wilkinsi , bothendemic to the Territory and listed asVulnerable.

Efforts are now underway by staff ofthe Tristan Natural Resources Depart-ment, armed with OTEP funding

(which also allows for the monitoringof seabirds and the production of anisland management plan), to eradicateflax from around one of the ponds onthe island. In late 2005 a number oflarge plants was uprooted with the aidof axes, brush cutters and a 25kg winchand then treated with herbicide. Thisongoing project has been facilitatedby the appointment in September 2005of a full-time Conservation Officerwithin the Tristan Natural ResourcesDepartment.

Gough IslandRecent research has shown, com-pletely unexpectedly, that the intro-duced House Mouse (the only alienmammal on the island) is causing sub-stantial mortality to several species ofwinter-breeding seabirds, includingthe Endangered Tristan AlbatrossDiomedea dabbenena (Angel et al.2006). Modeling has shown that,coupled with the effects of longline-induced mortality at sea, the reducedbreeding success caused by mice kill-ing chicks is pushing this Tristan daCunha endemic species towards ex-tinction (Cuthbert et al. 2004).

It is intended to conduct an on-sitevisit in September 2006 to conduct afeasibility study, from which it is ex-pected an operational plan will follow.At 6,400 ha, Gough is three times largerthan any Southern Ocean Island at

Andrea Angel examines a severely wounded Tristan Albatross on Gough island that wasbeing attacked nightly by house mice. It died soon after.

Photo by Ross Wanless, copyright Angel/Wanless.

Jaco Barendse attacking a particularly large flax plant with a trimmer/weed-whackerPhoto by Peter Ryan

Continued from page 1

4

which the eradication of mice has beenattempted to date, and nine timeslarger than the largest island (EnderbyIsland, Auckland Islands) where suc-cess has been achieved. The presenceof endemic land birds, uncertainweather and rugged terrain will all makethe aerial broadcast of poisoned bait adifficult (and expensive) operation. Inthe meantime, research on the biologyof mice and the birds they prey uponhas continued on the island by threesuccessive teams of South African andUnited Kingdom scientists.

Yet another OTEP-funded project isattempting to eradicate an invasiveplant, the Procumbent PearlwortSagina procumbens, from the vicinityof the South African meteorologicalstation on Gough Island. First discov-ered in 1998, various attempts at eradi-cation have proven unsuccessful todate (Gremmen et al. 2001). A dedicatedteam of two (Ivan Green, a Tristan Is-lander and Given Moreku, a SouthAfrican veteran of the Inaccessible flaxteam with the necessary rope-han-dling skills to work on Gough’s treach-erous coastal cliffs) have been attack-ing the problem during the 2005/06summer with a suite of methods, in-cluding physical removal, use of her-bicides and heating the soil with boil-ing water and gas flames to kill theseed load. A second team will continuethe intensive eradication effort duringthe 2006/07 summer, but it is expectedthat follow-up visits for a number ofyears will prove essential to cause thefinal eradication of this invasive spe-cies.

Quarantine proceduresThe above eradication projects areessential to help maintain the naturalbiodiversity of the Tristan islands.However, they are reactive in natureand need to be coupled with proac-tive activities and procedures to re-duce the risks of further introductionsof invasive species. The new Conser-vation Ordinance gives the legalframework for quarantine measuresfrom outside the island group (andbetween islands within it), and man-agement plans for each island allowsfor actual protocols to be defined. Thegrowing conservation knowledge ofthe Tristan community, the develop-ment of its Natural Resources Depart-

ment, and the continued support fromoutside the Territory by scientists andconservationists, should result inTristan da Cunha remaining one of theworld’s most significant natural envi-ronments.

AcknowledgementsWe thank our many colleagues, bothwithin Tristan and outside it, who havehelped conserve the biodiversity andnatural habitats of Tristan da Cunhaover the years. The support of CoreInitiatives, the Foreign & Common-wealth Office, the Overseas TerritoriesEnvironment Programme, the RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds, theTristan Natural Resources Depart-ment, the University of Cape Townand Working for Water is gratefullyacknowledged. This article is dedi-cated to the memory of Nigel Wace(1929-2005) who pioneered research

into invasive species within Tristan daCunha.

ReferencesAngel, A., Brown, D.A., Cooper, J., Hilton,

G. & Sanders, S. 2006. The IntroducedRodents of Tristan da Cunha andGough Islands (South Atlantic): Im-pacts and Management Options.RSPB Research Report No. 17. RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds,Sandy, UK. x + 120 pp.

Cuthbert, R.[J.], Sommer, E., Ryan, P.[G.],Cooper, J. & Hilton, G. 2004. Demog-raphy and conservation of the Tristan

Albatross Diomedea [exulans]dabbenena. Biological Conservation117: 471-481.

Gremmen, N.[J.M.], Barendse, J. & Orr, I.2001. Invasion and eradication of Saginaprocumbens L. (Procumbent Pearlwort)on Gough Island. Aliens 14: 19-20.

Given Moreku going to work on the ropesfor the day with his trusty axe.

Photo by Peter Ryan

John Cooper, Avian DemographyUnit, Department of Statistical Sci-ences & Peter Ryan,Percy Fitzpatrick Institute,University of Cape Town,Rondebosch 7701 South AfricaEmail: jcooper@adu.uct.ac.za.

James Glass,Tristan Natural Resources Depart-ment,Edinburgh of the Seven Seas,Tristan da Cunha.

5

WORKSHOP: “NON-NA TIVE SPECIES IN THE ANTARCTIC”10-12 APRIL 2006, CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND

The “Non-native Species in the Antarctic” Workshop washosted by Gateway Antarctica at the University of Canter-bury, Christchurch, New Zealand, on 10 – 12 April 2006.The Workshop was co-convened by Dr. Maj De Poorter(Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity - University ofAuckland, and Invasive Species Specialist Group – Spe-cies Survival Commission, IUCN), Professor Bryan Storey(Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury) and Dr.Neil Gilbert (Antarctica New Zealand), with Ms. MichelleRogan-Finnemore (Gateway Antarctica, University of Can-terbury) as Workshop Project Manager. Mick Clout (ChairISSG) gave a key note address on the global context ofbiodiversity impacts caused by invasive alien species andMaj De Poorter (ISSG coordinator) gave a presentation onthe challenges of dealing with alien species in the Antarc-tic international context.

The aim of the workshop was to bring together relevantnational and international experts to discuss conservation,management and research issues relating to the introduc-tion of non-native species in the Antarctic, in order to fos-ter increased understanding and awareness. The workshophighlighted key lessons learned globally and confirmedthe significance of non-native species issues in the Ant-arctic context. Based on the presentations and discussions,participants put forward several conclusions and recom-mended actions to improve practical measures to addressthe non-native species issue in the Antarctic context. Theseare:1) The key lesson from elsewhere in the world is that in

view of the complexity of ecological effects, non-na-tive species issues need a preventative and precau-tionary approach. Prevention of introduction must bea priority and we must consider any species “guiltyuntil proven innocent”.

2) Whilst Antarctica has natural environmental advantages,these are not enough to stop invasive species, pestsand diseases.

3) Invasive alien species have already significantly affectedthe sub-Antarctic islands. There is a strong correlationbetween introduced species and human activity on thesub-Antarctic islands with most alien species being ofEuropean origin.

4) Introductions of non-native species into the Antarcticresulting from human activity far outweigh natural dis-persal of species.

5) Whilst the Antarctic continent itself has, so far, escaped

the ravages of biological invasion, non-native organ-isms, including terrestrial invertebrates and plants, anda marine crustacea have been found in the AntarcticTreaty region.

6) Increasing travel and transport of goods and people,together with shorter transport times and increasinglydirect links between sub-Antarctic and Arctic areas andthe Antarctic, increase the likelihood of introductionsand risk to Antarctic values.

7) Increased human activity on the continent also riskstransferring species across natural biogeographicboundaries with the subsequent breakdown of regionalendemism, and genetic distinctness. Antarctica is oneof the few areas of the planet where such boundariesand regions still hold.

8) Human activities will inevitably lead to some introduc-tions, but the aim of management should be to minimiseas much as possible the unintentional as well as inten-tional introductions of any non-native species.

9) A changing more benign climate, particularly in the Ant-arctic Peninsula, is likely to increase the risks of alienspecies establishing themselves.

10) There is a pressing need for increased and coordinatedsurvey, monitoring and research across the continentand Southern Ocean. Good baseline information shouldbe developed for all taxa and all environments, withspecial emphasis on closing the gaps in knowledge onmicrobes and on marine environments. With regards tobaseline surveys, however, several marine species thatare found in Antarctic waters (notably bryozoans andascidians) are found elsewhere in the world and it isnot appropriate to assume that marine species found inthe Antarctic are native.

11) Antarctic Treaty parties have not ignored the issue ofnon-native species, but provisions, have been largelyaimed at intentional introductions of non-native spe-cies. The Antarctic Treaty’s Committee for Environ-mental Protection (CEP) is well placed to take action.Consideration could be given to making non-nativespecies issues a separate agenda item.

12) All the values in Article 3 of the Protocol need to beprotected from non-native species introductions; theAntarctic requires the highest standard of protection.

13) National Antarctic Programmes have demonstrated amixed response to the management of non-native spe-cies. It will be important to ensure that practical mea-sures are implemented consistently among all opera-

Pho

tos:

M

D

e P

oort

er

6

tors in the Antarctic. In addition to the considerationof new or additional procedures to address non-nativespecies, existing procedures, such as EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) and Protected Areas man-agement should incorporate, as appropriate, compo-nents to address non-native species concerns. Infor-mation sharing should be encouraged and maximisedon practices and/or procedures used. Interagency co-operation will be beneficial.

14) The principle components of any managementprogramme are prevention, surveillance and response,with prevention being the most effective means of mini-mizing any impact.

15) Increasing awareness on the risks posed by non-na-tive species and on the need to prevent their introduc-tion is a key requirement for successful management.

Based on the workshop, a working paper was presentedby the delegation of New Zealand to the 29th AntarcticTreaty Consultative Meeting (June 2006, UK). It is hopedthat full proceedings can be published later.

For further information on the workshop contact:Maj De PoorterCentre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity (and ISSG)University of AucklandNew ZealandEmail: m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz

Neil GilbertAntarctica New ZealandChristchurchNew Zealand.Email: n.gilbert@antarcticanz.govt.nz

Michelle Rogan-FinnemoreGateway AntarcticaUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand.Email: michelle.finnemore@canterbury.ac.nz

Final report and presentations online at:http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/non-native%20species%20in%20the%20antarctic/non-native%20species.shtml

Non-native species at theAntarctic T reaty Consult ative Meetings

Whilst Antarctica has natural environmental advantages(i.e. remoteness and a harsh climate), these are not enoughto stop invasive species, pests and diseases. There areseveral examples of non native species of Northern hemi-sphere origin already occurring and surviving in Antarc-tica, including on the continent proper. These include:grasses and other vascular plants that have been observedgrowing near to Russia’s Progress II Station in theLarseman Hills, the North Atlantic spider crab (Hyasaraneus) that has been observed in samples taken fromthe northern Peninsula region, Poa annua surviving sev-eral seasons, and increasing in density around Arctowskistation. In addition, several invertebrate species survivedseveral seasons in discarded soils in the Schirmacher Oa-sis in the 1980s.

In the context of the Antarctic, it must be noted that alienspecies that are not, strictly speaking “invasive alienspecies” according to the IUCN definition, will neverthelessoften be very undesirable because they are a a threat toAntarctica’s wilderness or intrinsic values. Those valuesinclude more than impacts on biodiversity only, including“pristineness”, “existence value” and last but not least,scientific values. It can be argued that the threshold atwhich action must be taken against alien (= non-native)species in the Antarctic is, hence, much lower than in therest of the world, and that as much as possible, ANYintroduction of alien species should be prevented.

IUCN, through the IUCN Antarctic Advisory Committeeand ISSG, has been active in bringing the issue of non-native species to the Antarctic Treaty System since 1998.More recently, the Global Marine Programme has also be-come involved. IUCN’s input into the Antarctic TreatySystem has focused on:

√ raising awareness√ encouraging action√ highlighting the need for a precautionary approach√ making available the lessons learned elsewhere in

the world

Pho

tos::

M

D

e P

oort

er

7

It is heartening to see that this persis-tence has contributed significantly tothe increased awareness of this issuewithin this system.

Antar ctic Tr eaty Consultative Meeting(ATCM) - Edinburgh (UK) 12-16 June2006

Based on the April 2006 workshop (seeelsewhere in this issue), a workingpaper was presented by New Zealandto the 29th Antarctic Treaty Consulta-tive Meeting in June 2006, inEdinburgh (UK). The Committee forEnvironmental Protection (CEP) con-sidered and strongly supported the sixkey recommendations arising from theworkshop, including that:(1) the issue of non-native speciesshould be given the highest priorityconsistent with the high environmentalstandards set out in the Protocol;(2) a “zero tolerance approach”(3) the CEP should take the lead onthis issue;(4) the CEP should give considerationto sharing information with, andseeking advice from, other bodies(including the Scientific Committee onAntarctic research (SCAR) and IUCN)(5) dedicated research is required toimprove understanding of, inter alia,existing biological and geneticdiversity, species distributions and biogeographic zones, the potentialimplications of a warming climate andidentification of high risk areas andecosystems; particular researchattention needs to be given tomicrobial communities and marineecosystems;(6) to the extent possible, non-native

species issues concerns should bebuilt into existing procedures andpractices; notably EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA)proceduresand the protected areas system; anda set of comprehensive and stan-dardised guidance and/or proceduresshould be developed, aimed at alloperators in the Antarctic, based on a“Prevention, Surveillance, Response”approach.

In addition, the New Zealand delega-tion offered to work with the CEP toidentify the greatest risks posed bynon-native species, and also to in-vestigate the possiblilities offered bythe ISSG-coordinated database of IASworldwide.

The United Kingdom presented aworking paper Practical Guidelinesfor Ballast Water Exchange in theAntarctic Treaty Area. The aim of theguidelines was to support earlyimplementation of the ‘InternationalConvention for the Control andManagement of Ships’ Ballast Waterand Sediments, 2004’ (IMO BallastWater Management Convention). Thepractical guidelines set out in theWorking Paper would reduce the riskof introduction of non-native marinespecies into Antarctica through ballastwater. The Committee agreed to submitthe guidelines to the ATCM foradoption, and subsequent submissionto the 55th session of the IMO’s MEPCfor consideration of their extension toall shipping activities.

The ATCM report and full draft En-glish version of the CEP IX Report isnow available at the website:

www.ats.org.ar/29atcm under the link“Final Report”. The CEP report is oneof the attachments of Part III of the29th ATCM Final Report (Opening andClosing Addresses and Reports fromXXIX ATCM)

Maj De PoorterCoordinator ISSG andChair, IUCN Antarctic AdvisoryCommitteeEmail:m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz

Pho

tos:

M

D

e P

oort

er

zzzzz

8

ACCIDENTAL TRANSFER INTO ANTARCTICA OF ALIEN SPECIESWITH SOIL ON CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES

IntroductionAntarctica is a vast continent dominated by extreme envi-ronmental conditions. However, life does exist in ice-freeareas. Terrestrial ecosystems are characterised by rela-tively simple species (lichens, mosses, micro-invertebratesand microorganisms) that have specific behavioural andphysiological adaptation to the severe conditions. Thesesimple, isolated ecosystems have limited capacity to adaptto rapid change and the introduction of alien species maycause irreversible damage or disruption.

Until recently, human visits to Antarctica were rare, andman had little direct impact upon the Antarctic environment.However, the situation is changing, and in the last 50 yearshuman activity in Antarctica has increased dramatically:(1) Tourist visits have increased three-fold in the last 10

years from 9,604 in 1997 to an estimated 28,826 for the2007/8 season (IAATO, 2006). Activities may includeregular shore-landings from cruise ships, particularlyin the Antarctic Peninsula region, or climbingexpeditions on remote mountains deep within thecontinent.

(2) Antarctic national operators now regularly occupyforty-nine stations in Antarctica, each of which isperiodically re-supplied with personnel, food, cargo andbuildings (COMNAP, 2006).

Inevitably, wherever humans travel, non-native specieshitch a ride too. Seeds and biological material have beenfound in transit to Antarctica on individuals’ clothing andfootwear (Whinam et al., 2004), but non-native speciesmay also be transported on ship hulls and in ballast water,and on cargo, building materials and scientific equipment.There are large gaps in our knowledge, particularly withregard to the importation of microorganisms and marineorganisms (Lewis et al, 2005). In addition, rapid regionalwarming in the Antarctic Peninsula (3 oC in the last 50 years)is likely to increase the chances of introduced aliens be-coming established (Barnes et al., 2006).

As far as we know, relatively few non-native species have becomeestablished in the Antarctic as a resultof human activity. Examples includePoa trivialis which has survived nearSyowa station for a number of seasons(Japan, 1996), the North Atlantic spidercrab Hyas araneus which has beenobserved in samples taken from thenorthern Antarctic Peninsula region(Tavares and De melo) and Poa annuawhich has increased in density aroundArctowski station (Olech, 1996). Sofar no terrestrial species are known tobe invasive. However, we cannotafford to be complacent. The sub-Antarctic provides us with a warning

of what might happen in Antarctica: in the last 200 years,human activity has introduced over 200 alien plants andanimals to the sub-Antarctic islands. Unless the wholeAntarctic community introduces practical quarantinemeasures, Antarctica may see a similar level of invasionsover the coming years.

Despite the presence of safeguards to stop transfer of alienspecies into Antarctic, accidental importations can occurdue to human error. This article describes a recent incidentat the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) Rothera ResearchStation were non-native species were transported toAntarctica on soil attached to construction vehicles.Almost all Antarctic national operators, at sites throughoutAntarctica, use construction vehicles (Figure 1), and wehope others can learn from our experiences.

Description of the incidentThe British Antarctic Survey research station at RotheraPoint (67o 34’ W, 167o 08’S; Antarctic Peninsula) is currentlyundergoing a programme of building redevelopment. Dur-ing the 2005/06 season, four construction vehicles wereshipped to Rothera aboard the BAS research vessel RRSJames Clark Ross. Three vehicles came from South Geor-gia (54o 00' S, 38o 03' W, sub-Antarctic), and one from theFalkland Islands (51° 40’S 59° 51’W, South Atlantic). Bymistake, the vehicles were not cleaned by the constructioncontractor before transportation. This breached the con-tract between BAS and the contractor, which stated thatall vehicles should be cleaned, and free of soil, before im-portation into Antarctica. An investigation was initiatedto identify any alien species that had been transportedinto Antarctica with the vehicles.

Investigation resultsApproximately 132 kg of non-Antarctic soil were removedfrom the vehicles. Several non-native species were foundin the soil and many had survived the journey to Antarc-tica (Table 1; Figure 2). Laboratory cultivation experiments

Figure 1. Construction vehicles are used routinely at most Antarctic research stations.Photo: Kevin Hughes

9

showed that several bacterial and fungal strains, andsome of the plants, could grow under simulated Antarc-tic conditions (4 oC, continuous light). Following exami-nation, all non-Antarctic soil, plants and microbial strainswas either autoclaved or removed from Antarctica.

This investigation identified vehicles as a significant po-tential route for transport of soil and associated biotainto Antarctica. In particular, the diversity of speciesintroduced suggests that the utmost care should be takento prevent similar accidental transfers occurring againanywhere in Antarctica.

ConclusionsAs a result of this incident, BAS has reviewed andstrengthened its procedures to prevent the introductionof non-native species.

Actions taken:1. Before being accepted for transport on BAS ships, all

vehicles will be inspected and certified clean by theship Chief Officer.

2. Better information will be supplied to contractors aboutAntarctic Treaty regulations concerning transporta-tion of soil and non-native species. Contractors willalso be reminded that, under the UK Antarctic Act,they could be prosecuted if the regulations are

breached (up to a maximum of two years imprisonmentand an unlimited fine).

3. Contingency plans will be reviewed to deal with acci-dental importation of non-native species at each sta-tion.

4. Rothera Point will be monitored for establishment ofalien species brought in with the soil.

This incident shows that the importation of constructionvehicles can be a major transport route for non-native spe-cies to Antarctica. BAS recognises this risk and hasstrengthened its procedures to ensure such an incidentdoes not happen again. However, unless the whole Ant-arctic community - including tour companies, national op-erators and private expeditions - introduce similar practicalquarantine measures then other introductions are inevi-table.

The best way for improved, strengthened and practicalquarantine control measures to be agreed and implemented,which will be used across Antarctica, is through the Ant-arctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) on the adviceof the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP).Diplomats at the ATCM need to give the issue of non-native species urgent attention and prevent the invasionsthat have so significantly impacted the sub-Antarctic is-lands.

ReferencesInternational Association of Antarctic

Tour Operators (IAATO). (2006).Tourism Statistics. www.iaato.org[Accessed 17 July 2006].

Council of Managers of National Antarc-tic Programs (COMNAP). (2006).Antarctic Operations.www.comnap.aq/operations [Ac-cessed 17 July 2006]

Barnes DKA, Hodgson DA, Convey P,Allen CS, Clarke A. (2006). Incur-sion and excursion of Antarctic biota:past, present and future. Global Ecol-ogy and Biogeography 15: 121-142.

Frenot Y, Chown SL, Whinam J, SelkirkPM, Convey P, Skotnicki M,Bergstrom DM. (2005). Biologicalinvasions in the Antarctic: extent, im-

Table 1. Non-Antarctic biota associated with the vehicles at Rothera Research Station

Group Details Viable Grasses Juncus scheuzerioides, Holcus lanatus Many Cryptogams Moss species Many Meifauna Nematodes Many Microfauna Springtails and mites Some Microorganisms Cold tolerant bacteria and fungi Many Propagules Seeds, moss propagules and plant roots Some Other Insect exoskeletons, unidentified larvae, seal hairs Larvae

Figure 2. Non-native grass found in digger bucket at Rothera Research Station.Photo: Kevin Hughes

10

pacts and implications. Biological Reviews 80: 45-72Japan (1996). A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa Station area,

East Antarctica. XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meet-ing, Information Paper 66.

Lewis PN, Riddle MJ, Smith SDA. (2005). Assisted passage orpassive drift: a comparison of alternative transport mecha-nisms for non-indigenous coastal species into the SouthernOcean. Antarctic Science 17: 183-191.

Olech M. (1996). Human impact on terrestrial ecosystems inWest Antarctica. NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology, Pro-ceedings, 9: 299-306. National Institute of Polar Research,Tokyo, Japan.

Tavares M, de Melo GAS. (2004). Discovery of the first knownbenthic invasive species in the Southern Ocean; the NorthAtlantic spider crab Hyas araneus found in the AntarcticPeninsula. Antarctic Science 16: 129-131.

Whinam J, Chilcott N and Bergstrom DM (2004) Subantarctichitchhikers: expeditioners as vectors for the introduction ofalien organisms. Biological Conservation 121: 207-219

Kevin A. HughesBritish Antarctic Survey,High Cross,Madingley Road,Cambridge,UK CB3 0ET.Fax: 01223 362616,Email: kehu@bas.ac.uk

PUBLICATIONSFIELD GUIDE TO MUSTELID TRAPPING

The Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust are based in Dunedin, NewZealand and their mission statement is “To work towardsan increase in the number of yellow-eyed penguins(Megadyptes antipodes) on a self-sustaining basis withintheir natural coastal ecosystem”. Trapping mustelids(stoats, weasels and ferrets) is a large part of the Trust’swork and the latest edition of their publication Field Guideto Mustelid Trapping by David Blair is aimed at both ama-teur and experienced trappers in New Zealand. The book-let contains specifics needed by private trappers begin-ning work on habitat protection, with sections on mustelidbiology, and the technical aspects of trapping. For the ex-perienced trapper, the booklet contains ways of utilisingstandard recording procedures and an extensive referencesection.

The Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust hopes this Guide may as-sist in the practical eradication of one of the threats to therare yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) andother endemic species in New Zealand. The guide costsNZD 7.50 and can be purchased by emailingyept@clear.net.nz.

More informationhttp://www.yellow-eyedpenguin.org.nz/index.html.

Source: The Yellow-eyed Penguin Trustyept@clear.net.nz

SOUTH AFRICAN GUIDE ON CONTROLOF PROBLEM PLANTS

This new guide “Control of Unwanted Plants”. comprises238 pages, containing information on herbicides registeredfor the control of declared weeds, invader and other prob-lem plants. It also includes a list of herbicides registeredfor total weed control.

Features of this guide: more than 60 herbicide formula-tions with trade names; 120 plant species (common names(where available) in English, Afrikaans, North Sotho,Tswana, Xhosa and Zulu; a list of products registered fortotal weed control; toxicology and environmental facts for28 active ingredients; a list of companies providing theproducts in the guide, with their contact details. This guideis available in A5 size and will be updated every two years.

For more information contact XACT Information at:pesticides@telkomsa.net

or visithttp://www.pesticides.co.za/Publications.html.

Source: Publisher

11

THE PACIFIC INVASIVES LEARNING NETWORK

BackgroundInvasive species are one of the greatest threats tobiodiversity in island ecosystems. When a species isaccidentally or intentionally introduced into a newlandscape or seascape, the consequences can bedevastating, posing a large threat to agriculture, publichealth, tourism, and other economic activities. Invasiveplants and animals can spread unchecked, disruptingnatural cycles, and costing billions.

Invasives are a priority for Pacific Island nations becauseislands are highly vulnerable to invasions that can resultin catastrophic loss of biodiversity and other impacts.However, the relatively small size and isolation of mostislands offer important opportunities for preventing newinvasions and eradicating existing pest species. In someparts of the Pacific, experienced conservation professionalshave developed model programs to prevent, eradicate, orcontrol certain high-priority invaders, such as rodents, feralanimals, and invasive weeds. However, according to theGlobal Invasive Species Programme, “In most Pacific Islandcountries, there is a profound lack of awareness about theissue and an almost complete absence of capacity to dealwith invasive species.” Conservation practitioners in thePacific represent a host of different agencies and countries,and most are geographically and professionally isolated.As a result, few Pacific conservationists currently havethe information, expertise, and support they need tomanage invasive species effectively.

Peer Learning NetworksPeer learning networks are a proven strategy for improv-ing conservation skills and building cooperation betweentrained professionals. By bringing peers together with con-servation experts, learning networks foster new ideas andpractical, site-specific solutions. Multi-disciplinary projectteams can work together on strategies with critical inputfrom other teams and experts, resulting in a common visionand a plan for effective conservation action.

In 2005 The Nature Conservancy joined with the Secre-tariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, theCooperative Island Initiative on Invasive Species, IUCNInvasive Species Specialist Group, National Park of Ameri-can Samoa, Conservation International, the Palau Office ofEnvironmental Response and Coordination, University ofthe South Pacific, USDA Forest Service, and the Secre-tariat of the Pacific Community to establish the PacificInvasives Learning Network (PILN). Collaborating closelywith the initiative is the Pacific Invasives Initiative.

The network serves teams of Pacific Island agencies re-sponsible for invasives management, including agenciesresponsible for agriculture, international trade and othereconomic interests, as well as conservation and naturalresource management. It’s mission is to empower effectiveinvasive species management through a participant-

driven network that meets priority needs, rapidly sharesskills and resources, provides links to technical exper-tise, increases information exchange, and accelerates on-the-ground action.

Founding teams come from all over the Pacific region, withrepresentatives from all three sub-regions, Melanesia,Micronesia, Polynesia and include members with a long-term commitment to conservation, strong cultural under-standing, and the potential to act as innovators to increaseinvasive species management and prevention in their na-tions. Participating teams determine the specific invasivespecies issues that they will address using the network.PILN’s activities and agenda are determined by the indi-vidual and shared needs of the participants.

Network launchThe official launch of the network and first annual meetingtook place from 22 to 26 May 2006, hosted by Palau.Members of the initial group of six founding teams fromAmerican Samoa, Guam, Niue, Palau, Pohnpei and Samoaparticipated, together with Critical Ecosystem PartnershipFund grantees working on invasive species managementdemonstration projects from Palau, Samoa, FSM, the CookIslands, Fiji, and French Polynesia, and representatives ofthe eight partners and two close collaborators. In total 42people from 11 countries attended. The Honorable EliasCamsek Chin, Vice President of the Republic of Palau, gavethe network its unofficial motto with his concluding remarksat the opening ceremony: “Failure is not an option”.

Of the 34 participants who completed a meeting evaluationform, all expressed themselves “satisfied” or “very satis-fied” with the meeting. Among the benefits gained fromparticipating were: sharing and learning, a stronger team,awareness of just how much is going on in the region, anda sense of momentum that urgently needs building on.

Considerable momentum has now been generated, bothwithin the meeting participants as a result of the weeksactivities and also more widely thanks to the wide mediacoverage for the meeting, locally, regionally andinternationally.

Jill KeyPILN CoordinatorEmail: Jillk@SPREP.orgwww.SPREP.org/PILN/

12

SOUTH GEORGIA PIPITS RETURN: RAT ERADICATION SUCCESS ATGRASS ISLAND

The South Georgia pipit is one of the most southerlybreeding passerines in the world and is found only at SouthGeorgia. Its distribution around the island has beensignificantly reduced by the spread of Norway rats whichfirst arrived in the late 1700s on-board sealing vessels.Rats now occupy about two thirds of the island’s coastline,and pipits along with most burrowing petrel species arenow restricted to offshore tussock-covered islands andthe few remaining sections of suitable rat-free tussockcoastline.

Restoring rat-infested habitat so that it is once more suit-able for these birds is an on-going conservation priorityfor the South Georgia Government. The first step towardsthe intended goal (eradication of the entire South Georgiarat population) came in 2000 when a two year rat eradica-tion feasibility study and trial began. Commissioned bythe government, this programme was coordinated by SallyPoncet in collaboration with habitat restoration expertsfrom New Zealand’s Department of Conservation and Is-lands Eradications Advisory Group (IEAG). Andy Cox andIan McFadden from DOC joined Sally and team on theresearch vessel Golden Fleece for five weeks at SouthGeorgia in November 2000, during which time baiting trialswere carried out on a 30 hectare island, Grass Island inStromness Bay. Grant Dixon (on leave from Tasmania’sDPIWE), Ken Passfield, Leiv Poncet, Dion Poncet, Markand Fraser Carpenter completed the field team.

Grass Island is separated from the nearest mainland shoreby approx 360 metres of kelp-strewn water, which was as-sumed to be greater than the swimming range of rats atSouth Georgia. The island’s lower slopes are prime rat habi-tat, being covered in dense tussock grass (Parodiochloaflabellata), replaced by Festuca contracta grassland onthe 80m high summit.

The aim of the Grass Island trial wasto determine the effectiveness of NewZealand eradication methodology un-der South Georgian conditions. Thebait was a cereal-based pellet contain-ing 20ppm of Brodifacoum, broadcastby hand following a grid system toensure complete coverage as in anaerial application. Oil-soaked pinewood gnaw sticks were positioned tomonitor the post-baiting presence ofrats. Pre- and post-baiting surveys ofthe island’s resident bird populationshowed no measurable impacts onabundance and distribution of anyspecies, including those that wereconsidered most vulnerable to sec-ondary poisoning: brown skua(Catharacta lonnbergi), snowy

sheathbill (Chionis alba), kelp gull (Larus dominicanus)and South Georgia pintail (Anas georgica).

The research programme also included studies to assessthe feasibility of rat eradication at more extensive mainlandareas such as Greene Peninsula, considered to be the mostsuitable site for further eradications. The range of ratsinland over non-vegetated ground and the effectivenessof glaciers as barriers to migration were also investigated,with fieldwork carried out by Mark and Fraser Carpenter.Analyses of rat skull morphology by Palaecol ResearchNZ, and of DNA by the University of Canterbury NZ, fromtissue samples collected from two sites separated by gla-ciers, indicate that should rats be successfully eradicatedfrom Greene Peninsula, or any glacially isolated site onSouth Georgia, there is a very low probability of re-inva-sion.

The research also highlighted the threat that current gla-cial retreat may pose to South Georgia’s remaining rat-freemainland areas and their populations of pipits and sea-birds. Over the last 100 years, global warming has resultedin a 1°C rise in South Georgia’s average annual tempera-ture and a recession of most glaciers. As icecaps shrinkand new shorelines are exposed, the likelihood of invasionof rat-free areas by rats may only be a matter of time.

The Grass Island trial was declared a success in 2002 afterno signs of rats were recorded on the annual inspectionvisit. The first pipit was seen on the island in 2003 and thisyear came the crowning success: the first pair of nestingpipits.

The lessons learned from this eradication trial and associ-ated research have provided valuable insights into baiting

Pho

to:

Tony

M

arti

n (B

AS

)

13

techniques and dealing with re-inva-sions, opening the way for furthereradications on mainland South Geor-gia. Grass Island is now not only a rat-free site but a new breeding locationfor South Georgia pipits and the fu-ture looks good for further successesin the restoration of tussock habitat. Sally PoncetFalkland IslandsEmail: sallyponcet@yahoo.com

We need YOUR support!

The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC)of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The goals of the ISSG are to reduce threats to natural ecosystemsand the native species they contain - by increasing awareness of alien invasions and of ways to prevent,control or eradicate them.

The office of ISSG is based at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. For more information on ouractivities, see back cover. The staff of the ISSG office are financially supported solely through our ownefforts at fundraising – we need YOUR support.

Cheques can be made payable to “IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group – University of Auckland” andsent to Maj De Poorter, ISSG/SGGES, University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus), Private Bag 92019,Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. Please write “Donation to ISSG” on the back.

If you wish to use a Credit Card, please email the ISSG office with the following details: Credit Card numberand type, i.e. Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc. Expiry date on Card. Name on Card.

Donations may be tax deductible (depending on your country), given that our legal entity is through theUniversity of Auckland.

14

MACQUARIE ISLAND - MAMMALIAN PESTSPAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Macquarie Island is one of a smallgroup of islands in the mid-50 degreesouth latitudes - and one of the veryfew in the Pacific Ocean sector of theSouthern Ocean. It lies 1000 kmsouthwest of Bluff and 1500kmsoutheast of Hobart, roughly halfwaybetween Antarctica and Australia. Theisland is the exposed crest of theMacquarie Ridge complex, an area ofthe oceanic crust on the boundary ofthe Indian-Australian and Pacifictectonic plates. Part of the state ofTasmania, the island was accordedWorld Heritage Site status in 1997,based partly on geological values. Theisland covers about 12 800 hectaresand is long and narrow in shape – 33kilometres long and three to fivekilometres wide. Weather conditionsexperienced at the island reflect itslocation in the midst of the SouthernOcean – heavily influenced by galesand with frequent precipitation. Beingone of the few specks of land in thenutrient-rich southern ocean though,means that the island is heavily reliedupon by animals which need to breedon land. As a result Macquarie is abreeding Mecca for sea birds andpinnipeds that disperse across thecircumpolar region during theirseasonal life cycles.

Discovered by sealers in 1810,Macquarie Island was immediatelytargeted by sealers working out ofHobart and Sydney. Within 15 yearsthe fur seal population was decimated,and although there are currently threespecies of fur seal at the island(Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalusgazella, sub-Antarctic fur sealArtocephalus tropicalis and NewZealand fur seal Arctocepahlusforsteri ), it is uncertain which speciespredominated at the time of sealharvesting, or even if it was a differentspecies not now found on the island.Following the decimation of fur seals,elephant seals (Mirounga leonina)were targeted for their oil, and later inthe 19th century penguins (Kingpenguins Aptenodytes patagonicusand royal penguins Eudyptesschlegeli) were also harvested for theiroil.

With the arrival of Europeans the usualcamp followers soon made anappearance. Early explorers such asBellinghausen mentioned feral dogsand cats on the island, the“innumerable wild dogs” having beenrecorded by 1815 as causing greatdestruction to the birdlife. Feral dogsapparently died out by 1820 after thedestruction of the easily available

winter food such as albatross (Taylor1979). Cats had presumably beenintroduced to control mouse numbers,which in turn had arrived in shipsstores and bred around the mainsealers camps. The New Zealandoperators of the expanding penguin-oiling industry had introduced bothweka (1872) and rabbits (1879) as foodsources to the island. Cat and wekapopulations were both reported tohave expanded significantly after theintroduction of rabbits. By theearly1900’s rats were present on theisland (Taylor 1979). Cattle, goats,pigs, geese, chickens, sheep andhorses were brought to the islandeither as working animals or to supplyfood. During this period alien plantspecies were also introduced to theisland, either deliberately orinadvertently. These include:Cerastium fontanum subsp. fontanum- introduced and naturalised; Stellariamedia - introduced and naturalised;Poa annua - introduced andnaturalised; Rumex cripsus -introduced and eradicated;Anthoxanthum odoratum- introducedand naturalised; (Frenot et al 2004).Starlings, mallard ducks and redpollsare self-introduced and naturalised,and several other non-indigenous birdspecies are occasionally sighted.

Many of the introduced species didnot thrive in the wild, although some,including the dogs, probably had asignificant adverse effect on the localwildlife before dying out. However fiveintroduced mammal species developedsustainable wild populations, withvarying but detrimental effects on theisland ecosystem.

The following section discusses thesefive species, the impacts or likelyimpacts of them on the native faunaand flora of the island, and themanagement regimes aimed at reducingtheir impact.

1) Weka Gallirallus australis scottiWeka were introduced by the sealersin 1872 as a food source, and weremostly found around the coastal

Finch Creek rabbit damage. Photo: Keith Springer

15

fringes of the island. They were often found fossicking forinvertebrates in the kelp beds thrown up on the shoreline.However weka were contributing to the reduction ofburrowing seabirds and penguins and are thought to havecontributed to the extinction of two ground dwellingendemic birds by 1895; the Macquarie Island parakeet, C.erythrotis erythrotis by 1890 (Reischek’s parakeet,Cyanoramphus erythrotis hochstetteri, is classified as thesole surviving subspecies) and the Macquarie Island buff-banded (Pacific) rail (Rallus philippinensis macquariensis)by 1894 (Taylor 1979). Both parakeets and rails were verycommon until about 1879, when both species began todecline rapidly in numbers. Taylor (1979) considered thatthe introduction of rabbits dramatically increased both catand weka numbers and the increased predation by these

species jointly caused the extinction of the parakeet. WhileBellinghausen reported collecting specimens of theparakeet in 1820, the only recent specimen known is aparakeet skull found in a cave by Georgie Hedley in 2001and now displayed in the Tasmanian Museum in Hobart.

Weka were long recognized as a threat to native species(Falla [1937] and Carrick [1957] in Taylor 1979) but effortsto control their numbers did not gain much traction untilthe 1980’s. While recorded sightings were numerous in thelate 1970’s, the reduction in rabbit numbers following theintroduction of myxomatosis in the late 1970’s meant thatcats – which preyed on rabbits – probably turned to wekaas an alternate food source, reducing their numberssignificantly. Targeted hunting of weka from 1985 resultedin the last known bird being eradicated from the island inDecember 1988.

2) CatsCats (Felis catus) arrived with early sealing parties andwere established within 10 years of discovery. Prolific birdpopulations at that time provided easy prey and the catsgained a local reputation for size and numbers. Theintroduction of rabbits in 1879 provided an additional preysource and enabled further expansion of the cat population.By the 1970’s cats were estimated to be killing around 60,000seabirds per annum (Jones 1977) – largely the burrow-nesting petrels and prions. Cat control was a regular work

component for the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Servicerangers on Macquarie from the mid-1970’s on, however, itbecame apparent that this only kept numbers containedbut did not significantly reduce the population. Fundingfrom the Australian government via the Natural HeritageTrust, with logistical support from the Australian AntarcticDivision, enabled consistent pressure from 1997 until 2001,and during this period teams of six rangers were on theisland hunting cats with the goal of eradication. Methodsused included poisoning, gassing burrows (after cats wereobserved going into them), spotlighting and the use ofcage and leghold traps. Dogs trained to detect cats weredeployed in late 2000, however the last known cat wasshot in June 2000 and the dogs found no further trace intwo subsequent years of searching. The rapid collapse inthe cat population by the end of 1999 had immediate results,with grey petrels (Procellaria cinerea) confirmed breedingon the main island in April 2000. This was the first confirmedbreeding success there since the 1890’s – as a burrow-nesting bird breeding in winter grey petrels were earlycasualties to cat predation and thought to be locally extinctby 1900.

3) RabbitsEuropean rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) were introducedaround 1880 as a food source for oiling gangs who livedon the island. The severity of their impact in changingvegetation types and associations on the island isdocumented (Costin and Moore 1960), cannot beoverestimated – in fact, little is documented of the extentof vegetation cover on the upper parts of the island beforethe late 19th Century. While tussock cover does not nowgrow on the uplifted plateau, the presence of healthytussock within exclosure plots in upper basins indicatestussock once grew on higher regions of the island and thatsignificant changes are evident from the pre-Europeansituation.

Rabbit control began with the introduction of the Europeanrabbit flea in December 1968, to act as a vector for themyxoma virus, which was introduced in 1978 once fleaswere widespread through the rabbit population. Themyxoma virus took some time to establish but during the1980’s resulted in dramatic reductions in the rabbit

Exclosure (excluding rabbit damage). Photo: Keith Springer

Rabbit damage. Photo: Keith Springer

16

population, followed by partialrecovery of some vegetationassociations (Copson and Whinam1998, Scott 1988). Successfuleradication of cats by 2000 plus warmerwinter temperatures contributed toexpanding numbers of rabbits, and asmyxomatosis began to decline ineffectiveness rabbit populations haveincreased significantly, withovergrazing now leading to seriouslevels of vegetation die-off and slopeinstability. No current controlmeasures are effective as myxomavirus stocks are no longer obtainableand available resources do not meetthose required for temporary controlby alternate methods. Very few areasof the island now have a healthyvegetation cover and all are modifiedto some degree and continue todeteriorate at an accelerated rate.

4) House mouse.House mice (Mus musculus) areconsidered to have arrived onMacquarie Island within the first fewyears of European discovery – havingcome ashore in the stores andequipment landed by sealing gangs.Despite sporadic work on the impactsof mice on Macquarie Island, little isknown of their direct ecological impact.Research on their typical food sourcesshows that they feed on invertebratesplus some plants and seeds (Pye 1993)– the overall impact on which has notbeen widely quantified. They aredistributed throughout the islandincluding the upland fellfield andgrassland communities. Despite videoevidence of mice eating albatrosschicks on (sub-Antarctic) GoughIsland, this behaviour has not beenrecorded on Macquarie Island.However mice are not a part of a naturalecological system on Macquarie Islandand are likely to have their main effecton invertebrate populations and plantassociations.

5) Ship (black) rat.Ship rats (Rattus rattus) were notrecorded as being in large numbers onMacquarie until the early 20th Century,and their arrival date is not determined– nor their method of introduction.With the number of rats aboard 19th

century sailing and steam ships, it isprobable that some came ashore with

ships stores or equipment or via oneof the numerous shipwrecks onMacquarie Island’s coast. Rats have asignificant on native flora and faunaon Macquarie Island. Studies haveshown that they can consume up to90% of the racemes of Pleurophyllumhookeri (Shaw et al 2005), a nativemega-herb. They also eat the seeds ofother native plant species as well asforaging on native invertebrates (Pye2000) – often being seen in the inter-tidal zone at night foraging for insects.Their ability to enter burrows too smallfor cats means that since introductionthey have preyed on burrowingseabirds – eating the eggs, chicks andoften adults as well. The criticallyendangered blue petrel (Halobaenacaerulea) is now extinct on the mainisland due primarily to rat predation,although it still breeds on off-shorerock stacks with sufficient soildevelopment to sustain burrowing.Rats can also disrupt the breedingsuccess of larger ground-nestingseabirds such as giant petrels andalbatross, by disturbing the adult birdsso that they do not return to the nest.

What future pest management isenvisaged?Currently it is clear that the island andits fauna are being severely degraded,especially by rabbits and rats. Theaccelerated rates of erosion anddestruction of vegetation mean thatat current rates little healthy

vegetation can be expected on theisland by the time a fully fundederadication programme is underway.That said, planning for an eradicationoperation targeting rats, mice andrabbits is well advanced. In basic termsthe plan prescribes an aerial baitingoperation in the winter months (whenfood resources for the target speciesare at their lowest and many non-target species have left the island)using up to four helicopters to spreadup to 250 tonnes of bait over two tothree drops. The recommended poisonis brodificoum, in pellet form (Pestoff20R). Sowing rates are calculated tobe sufficient to provide all rodents andrabbits with an opportunity toencounter bait in their foraging rangeand consume a lethal quantity. Whilerabbits do eat the baits experience withprevious eradication attempts showedthat a small percentage will notconsume them, meaning that while ahigh percentage of rabbits will die fromthe poisoning drop – total eradicationwill be dependant on intensive follow-up by hunting teams using firearms,trapping and dogs. The early stagesof this phase will be critical to keepintense pressure on the remainingrabbit population and removeindividuals faster than they can breed.An operation of this scale is not cheap– with increasing costs for shippingand helicopters it will become moreexpensive with further delays –however the costs of doing nothing

Rabbit damage (Stony Creek). Photo: Keith Springer

17

are very high in terms of loss of biodiversity and continueddegradation of the island. While the planning process sofar has produced a range of documents, including a detailedoperational plan, funding support is yet to be committedby Australian state or federal agencies for thecommencement of the eradication operation. Publicawareness of the degraded condition of the island isincreasing as a number of scientists and also tourist visitorshave expressed dismay at the visual deterioration ofvegetation on the island. The degree of damage is nowwidely apparent with large areas of dead vegetation orbare ground, and increasing frequency of landslides asthe water-laden slopes release without plant roots to bindthem together. These slips are increasingly occurring onslopes where albatross and burrow-nesting petrels breed,further threatening their survival. Control measures areconsidered to be more expensive and less effective in thelong term, with few practical options for controlling rodents,and significant resources required to control rabbits.Eradication, while expensive in the short term, is cheaperin the long term and has far greater benefits to the islandand its’ inhabitants.

ReferencesCopson, G. R. and Whinam, J. 1998. Response of vegetation

on subantarctic Macquarie Island to reduced rabbitgrazing. Australian Journal of Botany Vol. 46 No. 1:15-24.

Costin, AB, and DM Moore. 1960. The effects of rabbitgrazing on the grasslands of Macquarie Island. J. Ecol.48:729-732.

Frenot Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey,P., Skotnicki, M. and Bergstrom, D.M. 2005. Biologicalinvasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts andimplications. Biol. Rev. 80, 45–72.

Jones, E. 1977. Ecology of the Feral cat Felis catus (L.),(Carnivorus Felidae) on Macquarie Island. AustralianWildlife Research 4 (4): 249-262.

Pye, T. 1993a. Reproductive biology of the feral housemouse (Mus musculus) on subantarctic MacquarieIsland. Australian Wildlife Research 20(6): 745-758.

Pye, T. 2000. Ecology and Reproductive Biology of theFeral Black Rat (Rattus rattus) on subantarcticMacquarie Island. Unpublished MSc thesis, Universityof Tasmania, Hobart.

Scott, J. J 1988. Rabbit distribution history and related landdisturbance on Macquarie Island. Papers andProceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 122(1).255-263.

Taylor, R. H. 1979. How the Island Parakeet became extinct.New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 2: 42-45.

Shaw, J.D Hovenden, M.J and Bergstrom, D The impact ofintroduced ship rats (Rattus rattus) on seedlingrecruitment and distribution of a subantarctic megaherb(Pleurophyllum hookeri) Austral Ecology Volume30 Page 118 - February 2005

Keith SpringerChristchurchEmail: springerkeith@hotmail.comOctober 2006.

NOTES

ALIEN SPECIES - ENVIRONMENT, BIORISKS,FUTURE, 18-19 JANUARY 2007, TURKU, FINLAND

Tor Nessling (1901-1971) was one the pioneers of theFinnish motor industry. Tor and his wife Maj (1901-1974)wished that their estate should be used in the promotionof research aimed at protecting the environment. Theobjective of the 5th Symposium is to provide a forum for amulti- and interdisciplinary discussion of threats andbenefits related to alien species. The main topics are theimpacts of aliens on biotic communities in aquatic andterrestrial ecosystems, the effects of climate change andincreasing global trade on aliens, various biorisks causedby aliens, and visions for the future. The topics will beaddressed in separate sessions, featuring leading Finnishand international scientists and experts as invited speakers.To our knowledge this is the first alien species symposiumin the Baltic Sea area with such a wide approach. In additionto researchers, the Symposium is intended also forstudents, decision makers, NGOs and media. The postersession of the Symposium is open to anyone interested inpresenting research related to the topics.

The Symposium will be organised in collaboration withUniversity of Turku and Åbo Akademi University. For moreinformation on the symposium programme and registrationplease visit the symposium homepage at www.nessling.fi/symposiot/2007/ or contact the symposium secretary PälviSalo (pakisa@utu.fi).

zzzzz

INVASIVE MOLLUSCS CONFERENCEAPRIL 2007 (UK)

The Malacological Society of London, InvasiveMolluscs Conference is taking place at the University ofCambridge, UK, on April 2nd 2007. The conference willdraw together those interested in both terrestrial andaquatic invasive molluscs, from both academia andindustry.

Further details can be found at:http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/aldridge/Mollusc/MolCon.html

or contact:Philine zu ErmgassenAquatic Ecology GroupDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeEmail: psez2@cam.ac.uk

18

IUCN INITIATIVE ON INVASIVEALIEN SPECIES IN THE FRENCH

OVERSEAS TERRITORIES

French overseas regions and territories host a biodiversityof worldwide importance, with 3450 endemic plants and380 endemic vertebrates. They are however very sensitiveto introductions of species, in particular in islands, wherefauna and the flora often evolved without the pressure ofpredators or competitors. With the arrival of humans, manyplant and animal species were introduced (for example 2200plants in Réunion island, 1350 in New Caledonia, 1700 inFrench Polynesia), and more are still being introduced cur-rently. Some of them are very invasive and aggressive, andbecome a major cause of biodiversity loss. A large numberof international cases of combating invasive species showthat success is possible. French overseas territories mustbe mobilized to defend their natural wonders, which are akey element of their cultural identities and economic as-sets.

In spite of their geographical and ecological differences,French overseas territories are often confronted with com-mon difficulties: weak awareness of the public, poorly ac-cessible scientific data, lack of tools for coordination, un-suited legal instruments, etc. Each territory has a differentset of stakeholders interested in the future of the territoryand these need to be mobilised against invasive species.

This program aims to support exchange of information andcoordination between all stakeholders involved (NGOs,researchers, national and local authorities). It will be car-ried out in collaboration with IUCN’s Invasive SpeciesSpecialists Group (ISSG), and will also be a contribution toa key priority of the French Strategy for the Biodiversityadopted in 2004. The three main objectives of the programare:

♦ Carry out a review of available scientific, technical andlegal information

♦ Improve the transfer of information by publishing asynthesis and best practice guide, sharing data throughand online database, and organising an exchange net-work

♦ Propose recommendations to increase awareness of theissue, to improve the legal framework and to increasefunding to combat invasive species

Further information about the project (titled Initiativeespèces envahissanter outre-mer in French) can be foundat http://www.uicn.fr/index.html. Alternatively you cancontact the Program officer:

Yohann SoubeyranProgram Officer on Invasive SpeciesIUCN French CommitteeEmail: yohann.soubeyran@uicn.fr

IAS AND THE 2006 IUCN REDLIST OF THREATENED SPECIES

Widely recognized as the most authoritative assessmentof the global status of plants and animals; the 2006 IUCNRed List of Threatened Species was released in on May2nd, 2006. The number of known threatened species hasreached 16,119 and some of the most recognisable animalsin the world have been added. As ever, the Red List islikely to underestimate the number of species at risk asonly a small percentage of the total number of species inthe world have so far been assessed. Despite this the cur-rent Red List shows that one in three amphibians; one infour mammals and one in eight bird species are at risk ofextinction. Invasive Alien Species have contributed to thedecline of a number of species worldwide, and several casestudies of are included. The forest on the islands of theSeychelles have been invaded by introduced plant spe-cies such as cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) which hasled to the degradation of the forest and in turn has leftnative forest species at risk. The endemic tiger chameleon(Calumma tigirs) is listed as Endangered and the entirepopulation is thought to number only 2,000 individuals.The giant bronze gecko (Ailuronyx trachgaster) is listedas Vulnerable due to a decrease in insect prey caused byintroduced plant species altering the structural and spe-cies diversity of the forests. These examples are just someof the many treats posed by IAS worldwide.

On the positive side, addressing IAS can have markedpositive effects on threatened species, and this is alsoillustrated with a case study: the rarest duck in the world,the Campbell Island teal (Anas nesiotis). The CampbellIsland teal is classified as Critically Endangered on theRed List and it was driven almost to extinction followingthe accidental introduction of Norway rats (Rattusnorvegicus) to these New Zealand Subantarctic island. Ratshave now been eradicated and the island is beginning torecover. It is hoped that over time the Campbell Island tealwill recover and return to its original range across the wholeisland.

For more information about the 2006 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species see:ht tp : / /www. iucn .o rg / themes/ssc / red l i s t2006 /redlist2006.htm

Ph

oto

© G

arr

y N

orm

an

/D

ep

art

me

nt

of

Co

nse

rva

tio

n,

19

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TNC’S GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIESINITIATIVE

At the beginning of 2006, The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Global Invasive Species Initiative complemented its rankswith two new policy positions. The first, Catherine Hazlewood is focusing both on U.S. domestic policy as well asbroader North American issues. Stas Burgiel is concentrating on multilateral fora related to environment and trade. Bothpositions also provide support to TNC’s state and country offices in North, Central and South America, the Caribbean,and the Asia-Pacific region. These additional staff bolster the TNC’s existing expertise in forest pests and disease policyand on-the-ground prevention, management and control, and reflect the broader notion that sound policy frameworksat all levels are essential for the prevention of new introductions of invasive species.

The North American efforts are focused on eliminating or minimizing invasions via several key pathways of introduc-tion. Key areas of work include aquatic ballast water regulations to reduce freshwater, estuarine and marine invasions,voluntary and regulatory approaches minimizing invasions with plants imported for planting, vectors of forest pest anddiseases, particular invasive species of national and regional concern, as well as funding for control and management ofhigh priority invaders. Beyond working with authorities in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, these efforts also address theNorth American Plant Protection Organization and NAFTA’s Commission on Environmental Cooperation.

The overarching focus for TNC’s international work is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and upcomingdiscussions at its ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) on gaps and inconsistencies in the international frameworkand an in depth review of the implementation of CBD decisions taken to date on invasive species. This agenda allowsfor a top-down approach coordinated with other international organizations to look at and eventually develop guidancethat is lacking at the international level (e.g., civil aviation, hull fouling, animals that are not plants pests). COP-9 alsopresent a bottom-up opportunity to look at national capacity needs, which is particularly important for those countrieslaboring to implement existing commitments. Hopefully, COP-9’s outcomes will provide for a strong joint work programmethat will support and integrate efforts to counter invasive species at the national, regional and international levels.

This CBD COP-9 agenda informs TNC’s work in other areas including its role as a founding partner in the Global InvasiveSpecies Programme, efforts to develop a model national framework starting with countries in South and Central America,interactions with and in-kind support for the development of regional GEF projects on invasive species, and support forother projects and tools such as the Pacific Invasives Learning Network and an economic assessment framework. It alsoprovides the opportunity to work on pathways and with organizations closely related to trade, including the transportand food production sectors. We hope these efforts will lead to an increased focus on promoting clean trade by ensuringharmony between trade laws and measures to regulate critical pathways in order to prevent introduction of invasivespecies.

This work is designed to support and build upon national level efforts and will reinforce existing activities by TNC, itspartners and government agencies in a number of countries and regions. Such efforts include training on surveys anddatabase development throughout South America, assisting in the assessment of needs and gaps in national legislationin Brazil and Mexico and supporting the development of invasive species strategies at national and regional levels in theCaribbean and Pacific. The ultimate goal is to develop a synergistic relation between on the ground efforts and support-ing policy measures that catalyzes further work to prevent new invasions and counter the threats posed by establishedinvasive species in all of these regions.

For additional information on TNC’s activities, please contact:Stas Burgiel, Ph.D.Senior International Policy AdvisorThe Nature Conservancy – Global Invasive Species InitiativeEmail: sburgiel@tnc.org;http://www.nature.org/initiatives/invasivespecies/

20

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ADDRESSES THREATOF IAS TO ISLANDS

In recognition of the unique characteristics, particular needs and threats and their importance to global biodiversityconservation, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), decided to dedicate a Programme of Work (POW) to IslandBiodiversity. This was adopted as Decision number VIII/1 entitled Island Biodiversity, at the 8th Conference of Parties(COP8) of the CBD which took place in Curitiba, Brazil in March 2006.

The vulnerability of island species to Invasive Alien Species (IAS) can be illustrated with the following two examplesfrom the IUCN Red List Assessment (2004): 1) 67% of oceanic-island globally threatened birds are affected by IAS and2) Since 1970, seventy-two percent of the Partula snail species native to the Society Islands (French Polynesia) havegone extinct as a result of the introduction of the predatory wolf snail (Euglandina rosea). Invasive alien species arebelieved to be the most significant driver of the decline of plant and animal populations and species extinctions in islandecosystems. Their impacts on human health and local economies are also considerable While islands have beenparticularly affected by IAS, they also present special opportunities for prevention and for fighting back - rolling backthe tide of biological invasion. However, many island nations and territories lack the scientific and technical information,infrastructure, and human and financial resources necessary to carry out this fight. Many priority actions to the POWon Island Biodiversity have relevance to IAS and, if they are supported and implemented, will start to address this, thusproviding a critical contribution to the conservation of island biodiversity and island communities’ livelihoods.

The full text of the Decision is accessible in English at http://www.cbd.int/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-08&id=11013&lg=0.

Further information can be obtained from:Maj De Poorter (ISSG)Email: m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz

and

Pippa Heylings, Chair, IUCN WCPA Task Force on Island Conservation and Protected Areas (TAFICOPA)Email:pippahey@interactive.net.ec

SOS INVASIVES CONFERENCE, BRUSSELS (BELGIUM), MARCH 2006

The Belgian Biodiversity Platform hosted the SOS Invasives Conference in Brussels (Belgium) in march 2006. The aimof the conference was to raise awareness of the problems posed by invasive species and to look to the future andsuggest methods to control and eradicate invasive species. Amongst other questions; scientists in Beligium want toestablish how many invasive species there are in Belgium, how often new species arrive and what effect invasivespecies have on biodiversity. The conference ran over two days, encompassing a day of scientific workshops and a dayof public talks. The science day abstracts in English are available at http://www.biodiversity.be/static/thematic_forums/invasive_species/invasions/EN/workshop_en.htm. The sciencific workshop was divided into 4 main sessions titled“Survey and monitoring of invasive species in Belgium”, “Prediction of invasion success”, “Dispersal at landscapelevel” and “Impacts of invasive species on ecosystems and biodiversity”.

The talks in the scientific workshop focussed on results from the INPLANBEL project (http://www.fsagx.ac.be/ec/inplanbel/); a project looking at invasive plant species in Belgium.

The public day was much broader in scope and brought in information from other countries in addition to a Belgianperspective. ISSG co-ordinator Dr. Maj De Poorter gave a talk about the need to address IAS at a national strategic level.Abstracts from the public day are available in French, Dutch or English from http://www.biodiversity.be/static/thematic_forums/invasive_species/invasions/EN/conference_en.htm.

NOTES

21

PUBLICATIONS

GISP Newsletter Issue 6 out now

Issue 6 of the GISP Newsletter GISP News is now avail-able. A number of topical issues are covered includingpreparations for the next Convention of the Parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity in 2008 in Germanyand an article about the threat of the HN51 strain of avianinfluenza. The newsletter can be downloaded from: http://w w w. g i s p . o rg / p u b l i c a t i o n s / n e w s l e t t e r /GISPnewsletter6.pdf

Global Advances in Ecology and Man-agement of Golden Apple Snail

Edited by Dr. Ravindra C. Joshi and Dr. Leocadio S.Sebastian

In this publication all the information so far known aboutgolden apple snails (GAS) and the rice systems and coun-tries they have invaded is identified. 24 chapters covervarious aspects of snail taxonomy (traditional as well asmolecular tools, impacts of GAS on aquatic ecosystemsand farmers’ health, and pesticide abuse/misuse. GAS-in-vaded countries have submitted their separate countryreports. Some chapters are dedicated to the utilization ofGAS as food and as natural paddy weeder, with some in-formation available on the biorational approach in its man-agement and control

Written by experts from around the world the book willbenefit researchers, extension workers, students as well asorganizations and libraries. Price: Developed countriesUS$102, Developing countries US$52

For more information on ordering:http://www.philrice.gov.ph

Source: Dr. R. C. Joshi, Chief Science Research SpecialistPhilippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice)PhilippinesEmail: joshiraviph@gmail.com

NOTES

Introduced Alien S pecies as a Parasitein the Globally Threatened European

Bison

The European bison (Bison bonasus) is a globally threat-ened species which was on the verge of extinction by theend of World War II. Since then the species has recoveredslightly but is still not out of danger. They are found inforested areas of eastern Europe, and can be consideredas a key example of European “charismatic mega-fauna”.It is, therefore, of concern that they are now found to beparasited by an introduced gut parasite which has spreadacross Europe following the introduction of an alien deerspecies (sika deer, Cervus nippon) to Lithuania and theUkraine from Japan.

A publication by Drózdz et al indicates that the parasiteAshworthius sidemi, which lives in the gut of ruminantanimals and feeds on blood, has infected Polish nativepopulations of deer and has now spread to European bi-son. 13 out of 13 bison stomachs examined in the BieszczadyMountains in Poland had infestations of A. sidemi andone individual had 4000 worms in its stomach. The para-site was also found in all roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)and red deer (Cervus elaphus) stomachs examined in thesame area. Bison examined in the Bialowieza Forest alsocontained a few parasites, suggesting that the parasite isgradually moving into this area.

Reference: Drózdz, J.; Demiaszkiewicz, A.W. & Lachowicz,J. (2003). Expansion of the Asiatic parasite Ashworthiussidemi (Nematoda, Trichostrongylidae) in wild ruminantsin Polish territory. Parasitology Research 89: 94-97.

22

International Workshop -Invasive plants in Mediterranean type regions of the world

May 2005 – Mèze (Hérault) – France

In May 2005, over 100 plant scientists,conservationists and other expertsfrom 24 countries met in Mèze, Franceto discuss the threats to biodiversity,the environment and the economyposed by invasive alien species (IAS)(definitions according to the COPmeeting of 26 March 2002: UNEP/CBD/COP/6/18/Add.1/Rev.1) of plants in theworld’s five Mediterranean-typeclimate regions – southern Australia,California, Chile, the Cape region ofSouth Africa and the Mediterraneanbasin – and to search for possibleways to address these threats.

In the Declaration of Mèze, theparticipants of the Workshop:

1) Urge governments, scientificinstitutions, NGOs and all otherstakeholders, as part of theircontinuing efforts to conservebiological diversity, to apply thebest known practices for theprevention, eradication, andcontrol of plant IAS, building onexisting knowledge and controland prevention systems wherethese exist.

2) Call upon governments to ensurethat national legislation andregulations effectively address themanagement and control of plantIAS and limit the spread and furtherintroductions of such plants andof those that are potentiallyinvasive because of their knownimpacts elsewhere.

3) Encourage plant IAS practitionersand experts in the countriesconcerned to share experiences,skills, technologies and data on theinventory, monitoring,management, control anderadication of such plants.

4) Recommend the preparation of‘Codes of Conduct’ for stakeholdergroups, including both the publicand the private sector, that takeinto account, adapt, and build on

existing guidelines where theseexist.

5) Urge governments and donoragencies to increase funding tofacilitate the development ofprevention, management andmonitoring programmes, essentialresearch, and economic analysison invasive alien plants.

6) Encourage the development ofnational inventories of invasivealien plants in the Mediterranean-type climate countries, usingappropriate information tech-nology; suggest the GlobalInvasive Alien Database as a

clearing house mechanism; furtherthe development of spatial toolsto assist in the management ofplant IAS; and encouragegovernments to support theexchange of information,methodologies and staff inbiological control programmes.

7) Call upon the countries to cooperatein the development anddistribution of materials for publicawareness and education.

Michael BrowneDatabase ManagerISSGEmail: m.browne@auckland.ac.nz

Announcement - First InternationalPacific Invasive Ant Conference

23-25 May 2007, Hawai’i

The first International Pacific Invasive Ant Conferencewill be held in Hawaii on May 23-25 2007. The conferencewill be focussing on the Pacific Rim and Pacific Islandcountries and territories and aims to create a network ofshared information to help combat the problem of inva-sive ant species. This conference is hosted by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health In-spection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDAAPHIS PPQ), and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

For further informationCarol E. RussellEmail: Carol.E.Russell@aphis.usda.gov

23

ALIENS Subscriptions

We rely heavily on the support of our membership and the support of our sponsors to keep the Aliensnewsletter being published. Please complete, cut out and send this panel to receive further copies of thenewsletter. Cheques should be made payable to “IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group – University ofAuckland” and sent to Maj De Poorter, ISSG/SGGES, University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus), PrivateBag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

I wish to subscribe to Aliens (2 issues per year): 1 year US$18 … 2 years US$35 … 3 years US$50 …

Postal Address:

Additional donation to support the production of Aliens ........

Waiver of subscription fees are available on application

For back copies: contact the ISSG office

If you wish to subscribe by Credit Card, please email with the following details: Credit Card number and type,i.e. Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc. Expiry date on Card. Name on Card and the mailing details fordelivery of the newsletter.

Receipt required Yes/No Further information on ISSG requested Yes/No

ISSG office Email: ISSG@auckland.ac.nz

PUBLICATION:THE ECOLOGY OF TRANSPORTATION

Invasive alien species are transported around the worldby many different pathways. More people and items arebeing moved around the globe at any one time than everbefore leading to considerable ecological effects, many ofthe detrimental to environmental sustainability. This vol-ume brings together experts from a wide range of fields toreview the ecological effects (in general – not just fromIAS) of increased transportation of goods and people.

Citation: The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mo-bility for the Environment . Environmental Pollution , Vol.10 . Davenport, John; Davenport, Julia L. (Eds.) 2006, 392p., Hardcover.ISBN-10: 1-4020-4503-4, ISBN-13: 978-1-4020-4503-5.$129.00 – available from website below.

For additional information see: http://www.springer.com/west/home/geosciences/geo+bestsellers?SGWID=4-40340-22-107940445-0

Source: Publisher

PUBLICATIONS

24

The following organisations are gratefully acknowledged for theirsupport of the work of the Invasive Species Specialist Group:Critical Ecosystem Partnership FundUS State Department

NZAID (New Zealand Agency for International Development)Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research LimitedUniversity of Auckland, Centre for Biodiversity and BiosecurityThe New Zealand Department of ConservationNational Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), USA

Aliens is the bi-annual newsletter of the Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group (ISSG). Its role is to put researchers,managers and/or practitioners in contact with each otherand to publish information and news of alien invasive spe-cies and issues. Contributions should focus on conserva-tion issues rather than economic, health or agriculturalaspects of alien invasions. News of upcoming conferences,reports, and news of publications are also welcome, espe-cially where they are of major international relevance. Pleasesend your contributions, marked “for consideration forAliens” to m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz

The New Zealand-based Invasive Species Specialist Group(ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species Survival Com-mission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Itis chaired by Mick Clout. The goals of the ISSG are toreduce threats to natural ecosystems and the native spe-cies they contain - by increasing awareness of alien inva-sions and of ways to prevent, control or eradicate them.

Aliens-L is a listserver dedicated to invasive species. Itallows users to freely seek and share information on alieninvasive species and issues, and the threats posed by themto the Earth’s biodiversity. To subscribe, send an emailwithout a subject header to: Aliens-L-join@indaba.iucn.org OR listadmin@indaba.iucn.orgwith the message: subscribe Aliens-L. When you havesubscribed you will receive a message with instructionsfor using the list.

The Cooperative Initiative on Invasive Alien Species onIslands (CII) is a global initiative. With requests from Pacificcountries for more coordinated and cooperative approachesto addressing invasive species threats the, “PacificInvasives Initiative” or PII became the first programme ofthe CII to be funded. The goal of the PII is to conserveisland biodiversity and enhance the sustainability oflivelihoods of men, women and youth in the Pacific.Activities are focused on raising awareness of invasivespecies issues, building capacity in the region to manageinvasives and facilitating cooperative approaches toachieve and sustain desired outcomes. Website: http://www.issg.org/cii/PII/index.html. An important objectiveof the PII is to enhance and augment the activities of otherinitiatives and programmes in the Pacific and elsewhere.The CII will be expanded beyond the South Pacific incollaboration with other countries, programmes andpartners. As of late 2005 a number of demonstration Projects

will have been initiated as part of the PII.

The Global Invasive Species Database is freely availableonline at www.issg.org/database and mirrored atwww.invasivespecies.net/database. The development ofthe database, and the provision of content for it, is on-going. Priorities range from a focus on some of the world’sworst invasive species to a focus on areas where infor-mation and resources are comparatively scarce, includ-ing small-island developing states and other islands. Thedatabase has images and descriptions for a wide varietyof invasive species. Records for these species includeinformation on the ecology, impacts, distribution andpathways of the species, and most importantly, informa-tion on management methods as well as contact detailsof experts that can offer further advice. The databasealso provides links to numerous other sources of infor-mation. A major contribution is provided by IAS experts,researchers and managers who provide information oract as reviewers on a voluntary basis.

IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity LossCaused by Alien Invasive Species: http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htmGuías para la Prevención de Pérdidas de DiversidadBiológica Ocasionadas por Especies Exóticas Invasoras:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesSp.htmLignes directrices de l’UICN pour la prévention de laperte de diversité biologique causée par des espècesexotiques envahissantes:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesFr.htm

ISSG Office: Centre for Biodiversity and BiosecurityUniversity of Auckland (Tamaki Campus)Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, 1142, New ZealandPhone: #64 9 3737 599 x85210Fax: #64 9 3737 042 (Attention: ISSG)E-mail: ISSG@auckland.ac.nz for general inquiries.E-mail: m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz to contact AliensEditor;E-mail: a.saunders@auckland.ac.nz for more informa-tion on the CII;E-mail: m.browne@auckland.ac.nz to contact the Glo-bal Invasive Species Database Manager.Websites: ISSG: www.issg.org IUCN: www.iucn.org

I U C NThe World Conservation Union

SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION