Eradicating an invasive mammal requires local elimination and reduced reinvasion from an urban source population

Invasive mammal eradications are increasingly attempted across large, complex landscapes. Sequentially controlled management zones can be at risk of reinvasion from adjacent uncontrolled areas, and managers must weigh the relative benefits of ensuring complete elimination from a zone or minimizing reinvasion risk. This is complicated in urban areas, where habitat heterogeneity and a lack of baseline ecological knowledge increase uncertainty. We applied a spatial agent-based model to predict the reinvasion of a well-studied species, the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), across an urban area onto a peninsula that is the site of an elimination campaign in Aotearoa New Zealand. We represented fine-scale urban habitat heterogeneity in a land cover layer and tested management scenarios that varied four factors: the density of possums remaining following an elimination attempt, the maintenance trap density on the peninsula, and effort expended toward preventing reinvasion by means of a high-density trap buffer at the peninsula isthmus or control of the source population adjacent to the peninsula. We found that achieving complete elimination on the peninsula was crucial to avoid rapid repopulation. The urban isthmus was predicted to act as a landscape barrier and restrict immigration onto the peninsula, but reliance on this barrier alone would fail to prevent repopulation. In combination, complete elimination, buffer zone, and source population control could reduce the probability of possum repopulation to near zero. Our findings support urban landscape barriers as one tool for sequential invasive mammal elimination but reaffirm that novel methods to expose residual individuals to control will be necessary to secure elimination in management zones. Work to characterize the urban ecology of many invasive mammals is still needed.

Underlying beliefs linked to public opinion about gene drive and pest-specific toxin for pest control

Abstract ContextDeveloping a new tool for wide-scale rat eradication is necessary for significant biodiversity gains. Underlying beliefs linked to public opinion can help guide policy makers to understand public concern and inform an effective discourse. AimsWe investigated underlying beliefs linked to levels of support for a potentially disruptive tool, gene drive, compared with a traditional stepwise tool, aerial distribution of a new pest-specific toxin. MethodsUsing the theory of planned behaviour, we surveyed (n=1200) a representative sample of New Zealanders to assess the level of support for the tool related to attitude, normative and control beliefs. Key resultsAttitude (e.g. gene drive is good/bad and gene drive is risky/safe) and two norms (e.g. people like me and people in my household) were key contributors to level of support for gene drive. Behavioural beliefs (if scientific evidence can prove it works, concern there are unknown consequences, a humane way to rid New Zealand of rats, and gene drive goes against natural way of life) were also significant. For aerial distribution of a new pest-specific toxin, the same attitudes and normative beliefs identified for gene drive also contributed significantly to the model. Four behavioural beliefs, namely, aerial delivery could affect areas outside the target zones, if there is scientific evidence, and it is impossible to make a pest-specific toxin that would not harm our native wildlife were also significant. The impact either tool may have on biodiversity was not significant in either model. ConclusionsDecision making about both gene drive (a disruptive technology) and aerial distribution of a pest-specific toxin (a stepwise technology) is primarily influenced by attitudes, with a few beliefs also influencing decision making. Novelty of the tool does not affect the underlying beliefs that are influencing levels of support. ImplicationsPublic engagement that acknowledges and responds to these underlying beliefs, rather than a traditional campaign based on biodiversity and environmental gains, may be more effective at creating a constructive dialogue about if and how these tools should be used, and to avoid replicating the polarised debate about 1080.