Karl J. Campbell

Santa Cruz Island Foundation, Carpinteria, California, United States

Are you Karl J. Campbell?

Claim your profile

Publications (32)168.95 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Projects to eradicate invasive species from islands are a high priority for conservation. Here we describe the process used to successfully eradicate an introduced carnivore on an island where a native carnivore of similar size was also present. We primarily used padded leg-hold live trapping to capture feral cats (Felis silvestris catus). Trapped feral cats were transported off-island and housed in a permanent enclosure on the continent. We used additional methods, such as tracking dogs and spotlight hunting, to detect and remove more-difficult individuals. Project implementation caused no significant negative impacts to the endemic San Nicolas Island fox (Urocyon littoralis dickey) population. Mitigation measures included on-site veterinary resources, modified padded leg-hold live traps, conditioned trap aversion, a trap monitoring system and personnel training. To confirm eradication, we utilized camera traps and sign search data in a model to predict project success. A key part of the success of this project was the partnerships formed between NGOs, and government organizations. With support from the partnership, the use of innovative technology to improve traditional trapping methods allowed feral cats to be removed effectively in the presence of a native species occupying a similar niche. This project shows that strong partnerships, innovative methods, and use of technology can provide the conditions to eradicate invasive species when major barriers to success exist.
    Biological Invasions 04/2015; 17(4). DOI:10.1007/s10530-014-0784-0 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rodents remain one of the most widespread and damaging invasive alien species on islands globally. The current toolbox for insular rodent eradications is reliant on the application of sufficient anticoagulant toxicant into every potential rodent territory across an island. Despite significant advances in the use of these toxicants over recent decades, numerous situations remain where eradication is challenging or not yet feasible. These include islands with significant human populations, unreceptive stakeholder communities, co-occurrence of livestock and domestic animals, or vulnerability of native species. Developments in diverse branches of science, particularly the medical, pharmaceutical, invertebrate pest control, social science, technology and defense fields offer potential insights into the next generation of tools to eradicate rodents from islands. Horizon scanning is a structured process whereby current problems are assessed against potential future solutions. We undertook such an exercise to identify the most promising technologies, techniques and approaches that might be applied to rodent eradications from islands. We highlight a Rattus-specific toxicant, RNA interference as species-specific toxicants, rodenticide research, crab deterrent in baits, prophylactic treatment for protection of non-target species, transgenic rodents, virus vectored immunocontraception, drones, self-resetting traps and toxicant applicators, detection probability models and improved stakeholder community engagement methods. We present a brief description of each method, and discuss its application to rodent eradication on islands, knowledge gaps, challenges, whether it is incremental or transformative in nature and provide a potential timeline for availability. We outline how a combination of new tools may render previously intractable rodent eradication problems feasible.
    Biological Conservation 03/2015; 185:47-58. DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.016 · 4.04 Impact Factor
  • David J. Will, Karl J. Campbell, Nick D. Holmes
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context. Worldwide, invasive vertebrate eradication campaigns are increasing in scale and complexity, requiring improved decision making tools to achieve and validate success. For managers of these campaigns, gaining access to timely summaries of field data can increase cost-efficiency and the likelihood of success, particularly for successive control-event style eradications. Conventional data collection techniques can be time intensive and burdensome to process. Recent advances in digital tools can reduce the time required to collect and process field information. Through timely analysis, efficiently collected data can inform decision making for managers both tactically, such as where to prioritise search effort, and strategically, such as when to transition from the eradication phase to confirmation monitoring. Aims. We highlighted the advantages of using digital data collection tools, particularly the potential for reduced project costs through a decrease in effort and the ability to increase eradication efficiency by enabling explicit data-informed decision making. Methods. We designed and utilised digital data collection tools, relational databases and a suite of analyses during two different eradication campaigns to inform management decisions: a feral cat eradication utilising trapping, and a rodent eradication using bait stations. Key results. By using digital data collection during a 2-year long cat eradication, we experienced an 89% reduction in data collection effort and an estimated USD42 845 reduction in total costs compared with conventional paper methods. During a 2-month rodent bait station eradication, we experienced an 84% reduction in data collection effort and an estimated USD4525 increase in total costs. Conclusions. Despite high initial capital costs, digital data collection systems provide increasing economics as the duration and scale of the campaign increases. Initial investments can be recouped by reusing equipment and software on subsequent projects, making digital data collection more cost-effective for programs contemplating multiple eradications. Implications. With proper pre-planning, digital data collection systems can be integrated with quantitative models that generate timely forecasts of the effort required to remove all target animals and estimate the probability that eradication has been achieved to a desired level of confidence, thus improving decision making power and further reducing total project costs.
    CSIRO Wildlife Research 01/2014; 41(6):499. DOI:10.1071/WR13178 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Invasive species are the greatest threat to island ecosystems, which harbour nearly half the world’s endangered biodiversity. However, eradication is more feasible on islands than on continents. We present a global analysis of 1,224 successful eradications of invasive plants and animals on 808 islands. Most involve single vertebrate species on uninhabited islands, but plant and invertebrate eradications occur more often on inhabited islands. Inhabited islands are often highly modified and support numerous introduced species. Consequently, targeting a single invasive species can be ineffective or counterproductive. The impacts of other pests will continue and, in some cases, be exacerbated. The presence of people also creates regulatory, logistical and socio-political constraints. Real or perceived health risks to inhabitants, pets and livestock may restrict the use of some eradication tools, and communities or individuals sometimes oppose eradication. Despite such challenges, managing invasive species is vital to conserve and restore the unique biodiversity of many inhabited islands, and to maintain or improve the welfare and livelihoods of island residents. We present a brief case study of the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile, and discuss the feasibility of eradicating large suites of invasive plants and animals from inhabited islands while managing other invaders for which eradication is not feasible or desirable. Eradications must be planned to account for species interactions. Monitoring and contingency plans must detect and address any ‘surprise effects’. Above all, it is important that the local community derives social, cultural and/or economic benefits, and that people support and are engaged in the restoration effort.
    Biological Invasions 12/2013; 15(12). DOI:10.1007/s10530-013-0495-y · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A great part of the Earth’s biodiversity occurs on islands, to which humans have brought a legion of invasive species that have caused population declines and even extinctions. The domestic cat is one of the most damaging species introduced to islands, being a primary extinction driver for at least 33 insular endemic vertebrates. Here, we examine the role of feral cats in the context of the island biodiversity crisis, by combining data from reviews of trophic studies, species conservation status reports, and eradication campaigns. The integration of these reviews permits us to identify priority islands where feral cat eradications are likely to be feasible and where cats are predicted to cause the next vertebrate extinctions. Funding agencies and global conservation organizations can use these results to prioritize scarce conservation funds, and national and regional natural resource management agencies can rank their islands in need of feral cat eradication within a global context.
    BioScience 10/2013; 63(10):804-810. DOI:10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.7 · 5.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
  • Source
    Nature 11/2011; 475:36-36. · 42.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Invasive alien mammals are the major driver of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation on islands. Over the past three decades, invasive mammal eradication from islands has become one of society's most powerful tools for preventing extinction of insular endemics and restoring insular ecosystems. As practitioners tackle larger islands for restoration, three factors will heavily influence success and outcomes: the degree of local support, the ability to mitigate for non-target impacts, and the ability to eradicate non-native species more cost-effectively. Investments in removing invasive species, however, must be weighed against the risk of reintroduction. One way to reduce reintroduction risks is to eradicate the target invasive species from an entire archipelago, and thus eliminate readily available sources. We illustrate the costs and benefits of this approach with the efforts to remove invasive goats from the Galápagos Islands. Project Isabela, the world's largest island restoration effort to date, removed >140,000 goats from >500,000 ha for a cost of US$10.5 million. Leveraging the capacity built during Project Isabela, and given that goat reintroductions have been common over the past decade, we implemented an archipelago-wide goat eradication strategy. Feral goats remain on three islands in the archipelago, and removal efforts are underway. Efforts on the Galápagos Islands demonstrate that for some species, island size is no longer the limiting factor with respect to eradication. Rather, bureaucratic processes, financing, political will, and stakeholder approval appear to be the new challenges. Eradication efforts have delivered a suite of biodiversity benefits that are in the process of revealing themselves. The costs of rectifying intentional reintroductions are high in terms of financial and human resources. Reducing the archipelago-wide goat density to low levels is a technical approach to reducing reintroduction risk in the short-term, and is being complemented with a longer-term social approach focused on education and governance.
    PLoS ONE 05/2011; 6(5):e18835. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0018835 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Science 04/2011; 332(6028):419. DOI:10.1126/science.332.6028.419-a · 31.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is usually uncertain when to declare success and stop control in pest eradication operations that rely on successive reductions of the population. We used the data collected during a project to eradicate feral cats from San Nicolas Island, California to estimate both the number of cats remaining towards the end of the project, and the amount and type of surveillance effort required to declare successful eradication after the last known cat was removed. Fifty seven cats were removed between June 2009 and April 2010 and our model estimated that there was a 95% chance that a further 1 to 4 cats remained, with 1 cat being the most likely number. After this time a further two cats were detected and removed and the model predicted this outcome with a probability of 0.25. If managers wished to confirm eradication success at this point, we estimated that 55 km of effort searching for recent evidence of cats over the whole island without detecting any would provide 99% certainty that no cats remained (stoppi
    New Zealand Journal of Ecology 01/2011; · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Supplementary information to: Non-natives: 141 scientists object Full list of co-signatories to a Correspondence published in Nature 475, 36 (2011); doi: 10.1038/475036a. Daniel Simberloff University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. dsimberloff@utk.edu Jake Alexander Institute of Integrative Biology, Zurich, Switzerland. Fred Allendorf University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. James Aronson CEFE/CNRS, Montpellier, France. Pedro M. Antunes Algoma University, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Sven Bacher University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. Richard Bardgett Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Sandro Bertolino University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy. Melanie Bishop Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Tim M. Blackburn Zoological Society of London, London, UK. April Blakeslee Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Dana Blumenthal USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Alejandro Bortolus Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Argentina. Ralf Buckley Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia. Yvonne Buckley CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and The University of Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence in Environmental Decisions, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. Jeb Byers The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA. Ragan M. Callaway University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. Faith Campbell The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Karl Campbell Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, California, USA. Marnie Campbell Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia. James T. CarltonWilliams College — Mystic Seaport, Mystic, Connecticut, USA. Phillip Cassey University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Jane Catford The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Laura Celesti-Grapow Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. John Chapman Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon, USA. Paul Clark Natural History Museum, London, UK. Andre Clewell Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida USA. João Canning Clode Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland USA Andrew Chang Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Milan Chytrý Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Mick Clout University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Andrew Cohen Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, Richmond, California, USA. Phil Cowan Landcare Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Robert H. Cowie University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Alycia W. Crall Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Jeff Crooks Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Imperial Beach, California, USA. Marty Deveney South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre,West Beach, Australia. Kingsley Dixon Kings Park and Botanic Garden,West Perth, Australia. Fred C. Dobbs Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA. David Cameron Duffy University of Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Richard Duncan Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Lucius Eldredge Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Neal Evenhuis Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Kurt D. Fausch Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Heike Feldhaar University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. Jennifer Firn Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Amy Fowler Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Bella Galil National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel. Emili Garcia-Berthou Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain. Jonathan Geller Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, California, USA. Piero Genovesi Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rome, Italy. Esther Gerber CABI Europe, Delemont, Switzerland. Francesca Gherardi Universita’ di Firenze, Firenze, Italy. Stephan Gollasch Hamburg, Germany. Doria Gordon University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Jim Graham Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Paul Gribben University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Blaine Griffen Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Edwin D. Grosholz University of California, Davis, California, USA. Chad Hewitt Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia. José L. Hierro CONICET-Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, La Pampa, Argentina. Philip Hulme Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. Pat Hutchings Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia. Vojtěch Jarošík Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Jonathan M. Jeschke Technische Universität München, Freising- Weihenstephan, Germany. Chris Johnson University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Ladd Johnson Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Quebec, Canada. Emma L. Johnston University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Carl G. Jones Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey, Channel Islands, UK. Reuben Keller University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Carolyn M. King University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Bart G. J. Knols Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; K&S Consulting, Dodewaard, the Netherlands. Johannes Kollmann Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany. Thomas Kompas The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Peter M. Kotanen University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Ingo Kowarik Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Ingolf Kühn Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle, Germany. Sabrina Kumschick Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Brian Leung McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Andrew Liebhold USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. Hugh MacIsaac University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Richard Mack Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA. Deborah G. McCullough Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. Robbie McDonald The Food and Environmental Research Agency, Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, Stonehouse, UK. David M. Merritt United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Laura Meyerson University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA. Dan Minchin Marine Organism Investigations, Killaloe, Ireland. Harold A. Mooney Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Jeffrey T. Morisette United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Peter Moyle University of California, Davis, California, USA. Heinz Müller-Schärer Université de Fribourg/Pérolles, Fribourg, Switzerland. Brad R. Murray University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Stefan Nehring Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany. Wendy Nelson National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand. Wolfgang Nentwig University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Stephen J. Novak Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA. Anna Occhipinti Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy. Henn Ojaveer University of Tartu, Pärnu, Estonia. Bruce Osborne University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Richard S. Ostfeld Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA. John Parker Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Judith Pederson Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. Jan Pergl Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Pruhonice, Czech Republic. Megan L. Phillips University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Petr Pyšek Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic. Marcel Rejmánek University of California, Davis, California, USA. Anthony Ricciardi McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Carlo Ricotta University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy. David Richardson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa. Gil Rilov National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel. Euan Ritchie Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. Peter A. Robertson Food and Environment Research Agency, York, UK. Joe Roman University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. Gregory Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Hanno Schaefer Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Britta Schaffelke Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Kristina A. Schierenbeck California State University, Chico, California, USA. Don C. Schmitz Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Evangelina Schwindt Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Argentina. Jim Seeb University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. L. David Smith Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA. Gideon F. Smith University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. Thomas Stohlgren Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. David L. Strayer Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA. Donald Strong University of California, Davis, California,USA. William J. Sutherland University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK. Thomas Therriault Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. Wilfried Thuiller Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France. Mark Torchin Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama. Wim van der Putten Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Montserrat Vilà Estación Biológica de Doñana, Sevilla, Spain. Betsy Von Holle University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA. Inger Wallentinus University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden. David Wardle Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden. Mark Williamson University of York, York, UK. John Wilson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa. Marten Winter Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle, Germany. Lorne M. Wolfe Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA. Jeff Wright The University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia. Marjorie Wonham Quest University, Squamish, British Columbia, Canada. Chela Zabin Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
    Nature 01/2011; 475:36. · 42.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    A Barun, CC Hanson, KJ Campbell, D Simberloff
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A three-year programme to eradicate Feral Cats Felis catus from the island of Baltra in the Galapagos archipelago achieved good results by Initially poisoning with sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) then trapping or shooting the remaining cats. The poisoning campaign removed 90% of the cats, its success being attributable to pre-baiting with unpolsoned baits to accustom cats to eating baits and placing enough baits to ensure that all cats encountered several baits within their home range. This, together with the use of metaclopromide (Pileran) as an anti-emetic, overcame a problem associated with poor retention of 1080 in thawed fish baits that limited the dose available to 1 mg 1080lbait, a quality Insufficient to kill large cats. Removal of the remaining cats was delayed by a weather-Induced irruption of Black Rats Rattus rattus and House Mice Mus musculus that enabled recruitment of kittens in 2002, but made cats more susceptible to trapping and shooting in 2003 when rodent populations collapsed. Since July 2003 no sign of a cat has been detected on Baltra despite extensive searching and monitoring throughout 2004. As cat abundance has decreased there have been more locally-bred Juvenile iguanas (Conolophus subcristatus) seen during annual censuses. However, such recruitment may reflect the increasing maturity and higher fecundity of iguanas repatriated from 1991 onwards rather than being a direct result of reduced cat predation alone. More time is necessary to determine the benefits of reduced cat predation on the Iguana population.
    Pacific Conservation Biology 01/2011; 11(4):257 - 267.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Starting in the late 1970s, ecologists began unraveling the role of recently extinct large vertebrates in evolutionary ecology and ecosystem dynamics. Three decades later, practitioners are now considering the role of ecological history in conservation practice, and some have called for restoring missing ecological functions and evolutionary potential using taxon substitutes - extant, functionally similar taxa - to replace extinct species. This pro-active approach to biodiversity conservation has proved controversial. Yet, rewilding with taxon substitutes, or ecological analogues, is now being integrated into conservation and restoration programmes around the world. Empirical evidence is emerging that illustrates how taxon substitutions can restore missing ecological functions and evolutionary potential. However, a major roadblock to a broader evaluation and application of taxon substitution is the lack of practical guidelines within which they should be conducted. While the International Union for Conservation of Nature's reintroduction guidelines are an obvious choice, they are unsuitable in their current form. We recommend necessary amendments to these guidelines to explicitly address taxon substitutions. A second impediment to empirical evaluations of rewilding with taxon substitutions is the sheer scale of some proposed projects; the majority involves large mammals over large areas. We present and discuss evidence that large and giant tortoises (family Testudinidae) are a useful model to rapidly provide empirical assessments of the use of taxon substitutes on a comparatively smaller scale. Worldwide, at least 36 species of large and giant tortoises went extinct since the late Pleistocene, leaving 32 extant species. We examine the latent conservation potential, benefits, and risks of using tortoise taxon substitutes as a strategy for restoring dysfunctional ecosystems. We highlight how, especially on islands, conservation practitioners are starting to employ extant large tortoises in ecosystems to replace extinct tortoises that once played keystone roles. 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Ecography.
    Ecography 06/2010; 33:272-284. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06305.x · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Invasive mammals are premier drivers of extinction and ecosystem change, particularly on islands. In the 1960s, conservation practitioners started developing techniques to eradicate invasive mammal populations from islands. Larger and more biologically complex islands are being targeted for restoration worldwide. We conducted a feral goat (Capra hircus) eradication campaign on Santiago Island in the Galápagos archipelago, which was an unprecedented advance in the ability to reverse biodiversity impacts by invasive species. We removed >79,000 goats from Santiago Island (58,465 ha) in <4.5 years, at an approximate cost of US$6.1 million. An eradication ethic combined with a suite of techniques and technologies made eradication possible. A field-based Geographic Information System facilitated an adaptive management strategy, including adjustment and integration of hunting methods. Specialized ground hunting techniques with dogs removed most of the goat population. Aerial hunting by helicopter and Judas goat techniques were also critical. Mata Hari goats, sterilized female Judas goats induced into a long-term estrus, removed males from the remnant feral population at an elevated rate, which likely decreased the length and cost of the eradication campaign. The last 1,000 goats cost US$2.0 million to remove; we spent an additional US$467,064 on monitoring to confirm eradication. Aerial hunting is cost-effective even in countries where labor is inexpensive. Local sociopolitical environments and best practices emerging from large-scale, fast-paced eradications should drive future strategies. For nonnative ungulate eradications, island size is arguably no longer the limiting factor. Future challenges will involve removing invasive mammals from large inhabited islands while increasing cost-effectiveness of removing low-density populations and confirming eradication. Those challenges will require leveraging technology and applying theory from other disciplines, along with conservation practitioners working alongside sociologists and educators.
    Journal of Wildlife Management 02/2009; 73(2). DOI:10.2193/2007-551 · 1.61 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

426 Citations
168.95 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2011–2015
    • Santa Cruz Island Foundation
      Carpinteria, California, United States
  • 2007–2015
    • University of Queensland
      • School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management
      Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    • Charles Darwin University
      Palmerston, Northern Territory, Australia
  • 2003–2011
    • Charles Darwin Foundation
      Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador
  • 2004
    • Cornell University
      • Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
      Ithaca, New York, United States