Download Invasive species control

CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS
400
Invasive species control: understanding
conflicts between researchers and the
general community
Richard Shine1* and J Sean Doody2
Understanding the reasons for disagreements about conservation issues can facilitate effective engagement
between the people involved. Invasive species are often central to such debates, with researchers and members of the public frequently disagreeing about the nature and magnitude of problems posed by the
invaders, and the best ways to deal with them. The spread of non-native cane toads (Rhinella marina)
throughout Australia has stimulated research on toad impact and control, and has mobilized local communities to reduce cane toad numbers through direct action. Biologists and community groups have disagreed
about many toad-related topics, providing an instructive case history about impediments to consensus.
Debates about the ecological impacts of cane toads mostly reflect poor communication of available research
results (ie scientists have been largely unsuccessful in transmitting their findings to community groups),
whereas disagreements about toad control reflect an information vacuum about the effectiveness of alternative methods, such as trapping, biocontrol, and predator training to induce toad aversion, among others.
Many other disagreements have arisen from the differing motivations of scientists and community groups.
Although the debates are superficially about evidence, the deeper divergence reflects differing social
pressures, the ways that information is transmitted, and how people evaluate the validity of information.
Front Ecol Environ 2011; 9(7): 400–406, doi:10.1890/100090 (published online 12 Oct 2010)
B
iologists fondly imagine that the data they gather and
the conclusions that they draw from those data will play
a central role in conservation and management decisions.
Often, however, science plays only a minor role in these
decisions, especially if the issue attracts the attention of the
general public; in such instances, debates about how to mitigate environmental threats can occur with surprisingly little
input from biologists. Instead, conservation decisions are
often driven by the organism’s public appeal (eg pandas,
koalas, and whales attract more conservation funding than
spiders, bats, and snakes; Leader-Williams and Dublin 2000)
In a nutshell:
• Invasive species often arouse considerable alarm among ecologically concerned members of the public
• Effective management of invasive species requires integration
of scientific expertise with community support
• Differing views on invasive species impacts and control are driven partly by communication problems and partly by different
social pressures on researchers and community-group leaders
• Understanding the pressures faced by other participants in
these debates can facilitate cooperation among the parties
involved
1
Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
([email protected]); 2School of Biological Sciences,
Monash University, Clayton, Australia
*
Beyond the Frontier: Listen to Richard Shine discussing this research on Frontiers’ monthly podcast, at www.frontiersinecology.org.
www.frontiersinecology.org
and by ethical or cultural priorities (Tear and Forester 1992)
or competing land-use agendas (Sayre 2005).
Understanding the interaction between such competing
influences is critical if biologists are to be heard in debates
about wildlife management and to play a role in achieving
outcomes that make scientific sense. Unfortunately, the
problem is a complex one. Scientists are often advised to
put more effort into communicating with the general public, but this is not easy to do; even if all parties to the
debate understand the scientific evidence, they may still
disagree vigorously about the best way forward. For example, debates about culling feral animals often pit the welfare of individual animals against the persistence of endangered assemblages, and people may disagree passionately
about the relative importance of these two criteria (Muth
and Jamison 2000; Bertolino and Genovesi 2003).
Cane toads (Rhinella marina, formerly Bufo marinus; see
nomenclatural scheme of Pramuk 2006) in Australia provide an interesting case history. These large toads (Figure
1) were first brought to Australia in 1935, and have since
spread over more than a million square kilometers (Urban
et al. 2008). Rarely has an invasive animal been so widely
reviled by the general populace, to the point that organized
community groups have sprung up to fight the toad invasion. The expenditure of more than AU$20 million in
attempts to eradicate cane toads from Australia has been
largely unsuccessful, and efforts are now being redirected
toward mitigating toad impacts rather than eliminating the
animals (Australian Government 2010).
© The Ecological Society of America
R Shine and JS Doody
The debate about cane toads in Australia
has revolved around two issues: how much
ecological damage do the toads cause, and
how should we try to reduce those impacts?
The debates have often been heated. The
two authors of this paper are ecologists
who have conducted separate research programs on toad impacts; between us, we
have gathered the most extensive data on
the toads’ Northern Territory invasion.
Inevitably, we disagree about some issues.
We both attended a recent forum on cane
toad control, organized by a community
group in tropical Western Australia
(www.canetoads.com.au), and the interactions at that meeting led us to reflect on
the nature of disagreements about cane
toads – disagreements among and within
scientific research groups, community
organizations, and governmental wildlife
management authorities. These disagreements impede progress, because successful
collaboration requires joint decision making through consensus-based approaches
(Gray 1989). Below, we outline the important issues and the reasons why disagreements arise, and suggest how groups may
reach consensus.
Community perspectives on invasive species
401
Figure 1. The cane toad (Rhinella marina) ranks among the largest and most
toxic anurans worldwide, and its invasion of Australia – even into arid areas near
Longreach in the Queensland desert, where this individual was photographed – has
generated major public concern as well as scientific research.
n The ecological impact of cane toads
Researchers now have a reasonably clear understanding of
the direct ecological impact of cane toads in tropical
Australia (eg Letnic et al. 2008; Doody et al. 2009; see
review by Shine 2010). The main way that cane toads
affect the native fauna is by poisoning predators that
attempt to eat the invader (cane toads are highly toxic,
and many Australian predators are killed by their poisons),
with the victims composed primarily of a small subset of
large predator species (certain reptiles and mammals).
Direct effects on most other vertebrates (including fishes,
amphibians, and birds) are relatively minor and may even
be positive if the toads provide a new food source or if toadinduced predator mortality enhances prey survival rates
(Doody et al. 2009; Shine 2010). There is continuing
uncertainty about the indirect effects of removing top
predators (eg Doody et al. 2006; Nelson et al. 2010) and
about the duration of these impacts. Such disagreements
among scientists mainly reflect a paucity of data on these
difficult-to-study topics and a diversity of ecological
responses to toads. For example, mortality of freshwater
crocodiles (Figure 2) was massive in one river system, but
negligible in an adjacent drainage (Letnic et al. 2008;
Doody et al. 2009). Some native species have adapted to
the toads’ arrival (Phillips and Shine 2006), but the extent
of their recovery remains unclear; this is because data on
pre-toad densities in areas invaded long ago are lacking
© The Ecological Society of America
and there has been insufficient time for these generally
longer-lived species to recover in areas where data on pretoad densities are available (Shine 2010).
Community groups tend to view the toads’ impact as
more severe, wide-ranging, and long-lasting than do scientists. This disparity partly reflects the fact that toads
fatally poison individual animals of many species that are
not affected at a population level, and a person finding a
dead animal is likely to believe that this vulnerability will
translate into larger (ie population-level) impacts
(Doody et al. 2009). Scientists are under pressure to
quickly modify their attitudes if new data show that a
specific hypothesis is in error, whereas the lag in opinion
adjustment to new findings is likely to be longer for nonscientists. Also, “attitude dimensions” (ways of viewing
conservation issues; sensu Kellert 1996) differ between
scientists and non-scientists. A biologist’s chief attitude
dimension might be “scientific” (interested in the biological functioning of animals), whereas a community-group
member’s main attitude dimension might be “naturalistic” or “humanistic” (interested in direct experience with
animals and exploration of nature, or a strong affection
for animals; sensu Kellert 1996). Both groups would
claim to be “ecologistic” (concerned for the environment
as a system; sensu Kellert 1996).
The divergence in opinion between the two groups also
reflects communication problems. Some scientists have
made up-to-date research results accessible through the
media and websites (eg www.canetoadsinoz.com), but
www.frontiersinecology.org
Community perspectives on invasive species
G Brown
402
Figure 2. A freshwater crocodile (Crocodylus johnstoni) that
has seized a cane toad (Rhinella marina) at Fogg Dam, in the
Northern Territory. The toxins of these invasive anurans are deadly
to many native Australian predators, and some populations of
freshwater crocodiles have plummeted dramatically as a result of
toad invasion. However, other populations of the same species have
been virtually unaffected.
community-group spokespeople have been more prominent contributors to the media (eg www.canetoads.
com.au; www.stopthetoad.org.au; www.frogwatch.org.au).
As a result, non-scientists searching for reliable information are offered a wide range of “facts”. Newsworthy stories from community groups often spread more widely
than those produced by scientists, perhaps reflecting better communication skills by community leaders (such
skills likely lend themselves more to leadership positions
in the community than to leadership positions in science). Community groups are not constrained by the
time needed to gather large volumes of data, so they can
produce such stories more quickly and thus more frequently than scientists can. For example, a claim by a
community spokesperson that a native frog species was
able to eat cane toads with no ill effects was widely
reported internationally, whereas a scientific analysis
published two years later showing the claim to be false
attracted less attention (Shine et al. 2009).
Although cane toads directly affect only a small number of native taxa, community groups often portray more
dire scenarios. In the extreme (Clarke et al. 2009), memwww.frontiersinecology.org
R Shine and JS Doody
bers of the general public in some areas believe that cane
toad invasion will decimate faunal groups that research
has identified as being resilient to toad invasion (Shine
2010). How can a non-scientist decide between such
conflicting views? Scientists generally claim to evaluate
the validity of a proposition based on available evidence,
and/or on the expertise (training, experience, professional standing, etc) of the person making the statement,
or the nature of available evidence. In practice, however,
other criteria are often more important. For example,
people are most likely to accept “information” from individuals with whom they have a personal relationship or
who are part of their own social group (Ungar 2000). The
leaders of local community groups may therefore have
more immediate credibility than scientists.
If the views of “rank-and-file” members of community
groups reflect the opinions of their leaders, what shapes
the views of those leaders? Although such people may lack
scientific training, they are more often than not personally committed to wildlife conservation. In order to maintain strong community involvement, they need to build
enthusiasm – and this requires their members to believe
strongly in the importance of the activities being promoted. A community-group leader who prevaricates is
unlikely to attract enthusiastic support, creating a strong
incentive to take a relatively extreme view of the dangers
posed by cane toads. In the same way, political pressure
(and thus, funding opportunities) is maximized by convincing the local community that the cane toad invasion
is an ecological disaster. This situation has generated spatial heterogeneity in opinions: people who have lived with
the toads for many years are less concerned about their
impact than those who have not (Clarke et al. 2009).
Clearly, scientists face some of the same pressures. A
research program on toad impacts is more likely to be
funded if toads are viewed as catastrophic than if they are
seen as a minor issue. However, the magnitude of exaggeration is curtailed by scientific conventions that
require evidence in support of conclusions. The end
result has been a divergence between scientists and the
general community in terms of their statements about the
severity and breadth of toad impacts. This gap has proved
difficult to bridge. Members of the public believe that
toads are “bad” because they harm native wildlife,
whereas biologists focus on understanding how bad toads
are. One recent stimulus to a rapprochement comes from
legislation that specifically restricts government priorities
to impacts for which there is peer-reviewed evidence
(Australian Government 2010). That restriction may
push community groups toward closer liaison with scientists and a greater acceptance of evidence-based criteria;
alternatively, it may simply place management authorities and scientists on one side of the debate and community groups on the other.
In summary, disagreement about the ecological impacts
of cane toads stems mostly from a lack of communication
between scientists and community groups. This partly
© The Ecological Society of America
R Shine and JS Doody
reflects the difficulties of making scientific information
easily accessible, but the problem has been exacerbated by
the pressures on community groups to build enthusiasm by
presenting simplified and relatively extreme views.
n Mitigating cane toad impact
In contrast to their opinions on impacts, community
groups are more optimistic than scientists about the ability to control cane toads on a broad scale. Most scientists
would agree that stopping the toads from entering the
Kimberley region of northwestern Australia would be
comparable to stopping a cyclone from doing the same. In
contrast, community groups have operated on the
premise that the spread of toads can be prevented, as evidenced by their slogans: “keep WA [Western Australia]
cane toad free” (www.stopthetoad.org.au) or “if everyone
was a toad-buster, the toads would be busted” (www.cane
toads.com.au).
Relative to the extensive research on the ecological
impacts of cane toads, we have little empirical data on
the effectiveness of alternative control methods – such as
physical removal, biocontrol, predator aversion training,
and so forth – mainly because the methods implemented
have been developed by community groups, with little
scientific involvement. Understandably, community
groups have been more concerned with urgently applying
these techniques to halt or slow toad invasion, rather
than with evaluating their effectiveness. The major types
of control methods suggested for cane toads are outlined
in the following sections.
“Toad-busting”, or physical removal by handcollecting and trapping
Although millions of dollars and thousands of hours of
community effort have been allocated to direct physical
removal (Figure 3), no scientific attempts have been made
to measure its effectiveness. Groups report the numbers of
toads collected, but not the results of those removals on
toad densities in the same areas at later times (ie postculling). Given the ability of cane toads to produce 30 000
eggs per clutch (Lever 2001), even massive removal rates
may not substantially affect toad densities in the long term
(modeling suggests that about 25% of the toads present
would need to be removed every month to eventually eliminate the population; McCallum 2006).
An approximate constancy in the rate of toad invasion
over recent years suggests that physical removal has had
little effect on the rate of toad spread (Peacock 2007;
Australian Government 2010), although some community groups dispute that conclusion. One encouraging
recent sign involves a presentation by Letnic and colleagues at the recent Kununurra forum, describing collaboration between researchers and a community group
(Stop The Toad Foundation) to evaluate the impacts of
fencing waterholes on toad survival rates. However, we
© The Ecological Society of America
Community perspectives on invasive species
are still a long way from any data on long-term consequences of toad-busting on the abundance of remaining
toads or (critically) on the magnitude of the ecological
impacts of the remaining animals. Even a low density of
toads may be enough to cause catastrophic mortality in
predators, given that it only takes one encounter with a
toad to kill a predator (O’Donnell et al. 2010). Despite
the difficulty of doing so, the only robust way to monitor
the impacts of toad-busting is to monitor its effects on
the abundance of native predators. Again, however, we
note the quandary facing leaders of community groups:
unless they are upbeat about the effectiveness of their
actions, they are unlikely to attract funding or followers.
Broad-scale self-disseminating biocontrol
An Australian governmental research agency (the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation) conducted a major (AU$11 000 000) program to search for toad-specific viruses and subsequently to
develop genetically modified viruses for the same purpose.
Both initiatives generated considerable knowledge of toad
biology and pathogens but were unsuccessful in toad control and have now been abandoned (Shanmuganathan et
al. 2010). Another program investigated “sterile male
release” as a biocontrol method (Mahony and Clulow
2006), but this approach would require the release of a very
large number of toads to achieve results (McCallum 2006).
Other funding has gone toward searches for toad-specific
poisons and a toad genome project. Although most scientists are pessimistic about the prospects for toad-self-disseminating control, some community groups – and indeed the
public and local, state, and federal governments – continue
to hope for a “silver bullet” for toad control, analogous to
the success of myxoma virus and calicivirus in reducing rabbit abundance in Australia (Saunders et al. 2010).
Local control methods to target toad-specific
vulnerabilities
Recent research has devised a range of new approaches –
through toad-specific pheromones, parasites (rhabditoid
lungworms, Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala), native predators (meat ants, Iridomyrmex reburrus), and pond-side
habitat manipulation – that negatively affect toad populations (Hagman and Shine 2006; Hagman et al. 2009;
Kelehear et al. 2009; Ward-Fear et al. 2010). However,
the work has yet to progress beyond “proof of concept” (a
short demonstration of a method or idea to establish its
feasibility). Concern about potential collateral damage to
native fauna has delayed any implementation on a landscape scale. Despite the lack of experimental evidence,
pond-side habitat manipulations to discourage toad
breeding are now required by some local council regulations. Delays in providing new control methods have
frustrated some community groups, whose expectations
about the time frame and effectiveness of biocontrol
www.frontiersinecology.org
403
Community perspectives on invasive species
K Hands
404
R Shine and JS Doody
cane toad control (eg use of native
predators, such as meat ants; Shine
2009; Ward-Fear et al. 2010) or impact
mitigation (eg by releasing juvenile
cane toads immediately in advance of
the toad invasion front, to enable
predators to learn toad avoidance by
having their first encounter involve a
toad that is too small to be lethal;
O’Donnell et al. 2010). Opposition by
community groups to such approaches
has made implementation more difficult. By promulgating the belief that
existing direct-removal methods can
control cane toad populations, despite
a lack of evidence (and even despite
evidence to the contrary), community
groups can maintain their funding and
support for continuing existing activities. Recent signs of increasing cooperFigure 3. A volunteer “toad-busting” group. Well-organized local groups arrange ation among community groups, and
communal toad-collecting sessions; captured toads are euthanized.
between those groups and scientists,
are encouraging, because community
measures may be unrealistic (eg Saunders et al. 2010; involvement will be essential for any successful implemeneffective control is rarely achieved, and even successful tation of control methods.
cases require many years and vast sums of money). Other
In summary, the vigorous public debates about cane
community groups have been highly critical of new toads in Australia arise from multiple sources. Some disresearch-based ideas proposed for toad control, further agreements reflect a lack of information (eg on the duraimpeding rapid implementation.
tion of impact, on indirect impacts, and on the effectiveness of alternative approaches to toad control), whereas
others (eg regarding the direct impact of toads) arise from
Local deployment of baits to induce toad aversion in
a lack of communication between stakeholders, driven in
native predators
part by conflicting pressures, as discussed earlier.
The northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), a cat-sized marHow can we best move the “Great Toad Debate” forsupial predator vulnerable to toads, can persist in toad- ward? Clearly, science has a critical role to play: more
infested areas if captive-raised quolls are trained to avoid information – both on cane toad biology/ecology and on
toads prior to release into the wild (O’Donnell et al. the effectiveness of toad-control measures – is urgently
2010). Similar methods could potentially enable other needed. Work on toads could focus on replicating existing
vulnerable predators to persist, but the methods used in impact studies in other parts of the toads’ expanding
the quoll study are too time intensive for landscape-scale range, at clarifying indirect impacts, and at assessing rates
deployment. Current research is exploring modifications of faunal recovery. Research on toad control should
of predator training for deployment at the landscape scale. explore newly suggested approaches (eg pheromones, parasites, predators) as well as traditional ones (eg toad-busting, trapping, fencing). Community groups have achieved
Public
debates
on
toad
control
n
many useful outcomes, including marked reductions in
Reactions of community groups to new research-based toad numbers in some areas, education of the public and
approaches to toad control and impact mitigation have stakeholders about cane toads, facilitation of scientific
been mixed. Typically, one group embraces the research research (eg by providing fine-scale maps of the toad invaresults (eg on parasites) as a way forward for toad control, sion front), and the bringing together of diverse commuwhereas “rival” groups deny any relevance. Antagonism nities and stakeholders. However, our primary goal must
between the groups (who compete for limited funding and be to reverse or reduce the damage caused by toads instead
media exposure) forces them into opposing camps when it of the unrealistic objective of elimination. Thus, commucomes to any new scientific finding or other issue, such as nity groups (and scientists) should evaluate the effectivethe effectiveness of toad-busting versus trapping versus ness of control efforts by monitoring the persistence of
fencing for toad control. Such disagreements can have vulnerable native taxa, not just the effect of toad-control
direct implications for management actions. For example, activities on toad densities. By itself, however, research
recent research has generated several new ideas about and monitoring will not be enough. If they want their
www.frontiersinecology.org
© The Ecological Society of America
R Shine and JS Doody
voices to be heard, scientists will need to convey their
findings to interested members of the general public using
whatever means are available (eg websites, radio, television, public addresses), and will need to tread a fine line
between insisting on evidence-based evaluations while at
the same time recognizing and respecting the passions and
commitment of the public (Linklater et al. 2002).
The issues raised by cane toad politics are not unique.
Invasive species cause environmental and economic damage in many parts of the world, and arouse strong public
interest (eg Vilà et al. 2010). Local ecological and cultural
features affect the nature of the debates, and some alien
species may be perceived as attractive or valuable, even if
they cause substantial ecological damage. For example,
introduced salmonid fishes threaten the viability of native
aquatic fauna in many areas, but are prized by sports fishermen (Tilzey 1976; Gillespie 2001). Similarly, attempts by
scientists to cull “attractive” invasive species have encountered public opposition (see Bremner and Park [2007]
regarding invasive birds in Scotland and Bertolino and
Genovesi [2003] regarding gray squirrels [Sciurus carolinensis] in Italy). Prioritization of management effort based on
the popular appeal (or lack thereof) of the invasive organism has obvious perils. If the invader is seen as repugnant
(eg the cane toad in Australia), the consequently high
investment of management efforts and funds into control
of such organisms may reduce resources available to combat other, less high-profile invaders that are potentially
more ecologically harmful. If the invader is seen as attractive or valuable, efforts to control invader numbers may
encounter strong public opposition (eg Linklater et al.
2002). The public may also hold strong opinions about the
specific forms of control measures that are ethically acceptable for invasive-species control (Barr et al. 2002). A person’s age, gender, and belief systems (as well as attitudes
toward the organism in question) also affect levels of opposition to lethal control programs (Dougherty et al. 2003).
Regardless of whether the threats that specific invaders
pose to native species are overestimated (as occurs with
cane toads in Australia) or underestimated (as occurs with
invasive taxa that are prized for other reasons) by the public, the broad societal pressures upon community leaders
and wildlife researchers are likely to be similar to those we
have encountered during the “Great Toad Debate” in
Australia. Appreciating the pressures faced by other participants in these debates can lead to a more constructive and
cooperative atmosphere, and ultimately to more effective
understanding and control of the impacts of invasive
species.
n Acknowledgements
We thank our fellow scientists and the deeply committed
members of “toad-busting” community groups. Our
thinking has benefited from the free exchange of views
with the Kimberley Toad-Busters and the Stop the Toad
Foundation at the March 2010 Kimberley Biodiversity
© The Ecological Society of America
Community perspectives on invasive species
workshop. We also thank the members of our respective
research teams, and our collaborators, for their many and
varied perspectives on cane toads in Australia. All opinions are our own, and not necessarily those of our home
institutions or funding bodies.
n References
Australian Government. 2010. Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane
toads. Canberra, Australia: Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Barr JJF, Lurz PWW, Shirley MDF, and Rushton SP. 2002.
Evaluation of immunocontraception as a publicly acceptable
form of vertebrate pest species control: the introduced grey
squirrel in Britain as an example. Environ Manage 30: 342–51.
Bertolino S and Genovesi P. 2003. Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biol
Conserv 109: 351–58.
Bremner A and Park K. 2007. Public attitudes to the management
of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Conserv 139:
306–14.
Clarke R, Carr A, White S, et al. 2009. Cane toads in communities:
talking toads in northern Australia. Executive Report to the
Australian Government. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Rural
Sciences.
Doody JS, Green B, Rhind D, et al. 2009. Population-level declines
in Australian predators caused by an invasive species. Anim
Conserv 12: 46–53.
Doody JS, Green B, Sims R, et al. 2006. Indirect impacts of invasive
cane toads (Bufo marinus) on nest predation in pignosed turtles
(Carettochelys insculpta). Wildlife Res 33: 49–54.
Dougherty EM, Fulton DC, and Anderson DH. 2003. The influence of gender on the relationships between wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and the acceptability of lethal deer control in
Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Soc Natur Resour 16: 603–23.
Gillespie GR. 2001. The role of introduced trout in the decline of
the spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) in south-eastern
Australia. Biol Conserv 100: 187–98.
Gray B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hagman M, Hayes RA, Capon RJ, and Shine R. 2009. Alarm cues
experienced by cane toad tadpoles affect post-metamorphic
morphology and chemical defences. Funct Ecol 23: 126–32.
Hagman M and Shine R. 2006. Spawning-site selection by feral
cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical
Australia. Austral Ecol 31: 551–58.
Kelehear C, Webb JK, and Shine R. 2009. Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala infection in Bufo marinus: lung nematodes reduce viability of metamorph cane toads. Parasitology 136: 919–27.
Kellert SR. 1996. The value of life: biological diversity and human
society. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Leader-Williams N and Dublin H. 2000. Charismatic megafauna as
“flagship species”. In: Entwistle A and Dunstone N (Eds).
Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: has the
panda had its day? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Letnic M, Webb JK, and Shine R. 2008. Invasive cane toads (Bufo
marinus) cause mass mortality of freshwater crocodiles
(Crocodylus johnstoni) in tropical Australia. Biol Conserv 141:
1773–82.
Lever C. 2001. The cane toad: the history and ecology of a successful colonist. Otley, UK: Westbury Academic Publishing.
Linklater WL, Stafford KJ, Minot EO, and Cameron EZ. 2002.
Researching feral horse ecology and behavior: turning political
debate into opportunity. Wildlife Soc B 30: 644–50.
Mahony M and Clulow J. 2006. Control of cane toads by sterile
www.frontiersinecology.org
405
Community perspectives on invasive species
406
male release and inherited sterility. In: Molloy K and
Henderson WR (Eds). Science of cane toad invasion and control. Proceedings of the Invasive Animals CRC/CSIRO/QLD
NRM&W Cane Toad Workshop; Brisbane, Australia.
Canberra, Australia: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research
Centre.
McCallum H. 2006. Modelling potential control strategies for cane
toads. In: Molloy K and Henderson WR (Eds). Science of cane
toad invasion and control. Proceedings of the Invasive
Animals CRC/CSIRO/QLD NRM&W Cane Toad Workshop;
Brisbane, Australia. Canberra, Australia: Invasive Animals
Cooperative Research Centre.
Muth RM and Jamison WV. 2000. On the destiny of deer camps
and duck blinds: the rise of the animal rights movement and
the future of wildlife conservation. Wildlife Soc B 28: 841–51.
Nelson D, Crossland MR, and Shine R. 2010. Indirect ecological
impacts of an invasive toad on predator–prey interactions
among native species. Biol Invasions 12: 3363–69.
O’Donnell S, Webb JK, and Shine R. 2010. Conditioned taste
aversion enhances the survival of an endangered predator
imperiled by a toxic invader. J Appl Ecol 47: 558–65.
Peacock T. 2007. Community on-ground cane toad control in the
Kimberley. Review for Western Australia Department of
Environment and Conservation. Canberra, Australia: Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Phillips BL and Shine R. 2006. An invasive species induces rapid
adaptive change in a native predator: cane toads and black
snakes in Australia. P R Soc B 273: 1545–50.
Pramuk J. 2006. Phylogeny of South American Bufo (Anura:
Bufonidae) inferred from combined evidence. Zool J Linn SocLond 146: 407–52.
Saunders G, Cooke B, McColl K, et al. 2010. Modern approaches
for the biological control of vertebrate pests: an update on
R Shine and JS Doody
Australian research. Biol Control 52: 288–95.
Sayre NE. 2005. Interacting effects of landownership, land use, and
endangered species on conservation of southwest US rangelands. Conserv Biol 19: 783–92.
Shanmuganathan T, Pallister J, Doody S, et al. 2010. Biological
control of the cane toad in Australia: a review. Anim Conserv;
13 (1 suppl): 16S–23S.
Shine R. 2009. Controlling cane toads ecologically. Australasian Sci
30: 20–23.
Shine R. 2010. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo
marinus) in Australia. Q Rev Biol 85: 253–91.
Shine R, Greenlees M, Crossland MR, and Nelson D. 2009. The
myth of the toad-eating frog. Front Ecol Environ 7: 359–61.
Tear TH and Forester D. 1992. Role of social theory in reintroduction planning: a case study of the Arabian oryx in Oman. Soc
Natur Resour 5: 359–74.
Tilzey RDJ. 1976. Observations on interactions between indigenous Galaxiidae and introduced Salmonidae in the Lake
Eucumbene catchment, New South Wales. Aust J Mar Fresh
Res 27: 551–64.
Ungar S. 2000. Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole. Public Underst Sci 9:
297–312.
Urban M, Phillips BL, Skelly DK, and Shine R. 2008. A toad more
traveled: the heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in
Australia. Am Nat 171: E134–48.
Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, et al. 2010. How well do we understand
the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A panEuropean, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8: 135–44.
Ward-Fear G, Brown GP, and Shine R. 2010. Using a native predator (the meat ant, Iridomyrmex reburrus) to reduce the abundance of an invasive species (the cane toad, Bufo marinus) in
tropical Australia. J Appl Ecol 47: 273–80.
Senior Forest Ecologist
The Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center at Ichauway invites nominations or letters of inquiry for a Senior Forest
Ecologist (Associate or Full level). The Center is interested in highly experienced individuals with integrative skills willing to contribute to a field-oriented and multidisciplinary long-term research program in Longleaf Pine ecosystems. A senior candidate is
sought to pursue ecosystem and landscape-scale studies in integrated forest and wildlife management with particular interest in
linking ecological forest management to restoration, disturbance, and fire ecology. Experience and inclination to apply basic
ecological principles to regional conservation and management priorities are essential, as well as a willingness to work in a collaborative team-oriented setting.
The successful candidate is expected to have a successful track record obtaining extramural funding and will be expected to
support their research, in part, from external sources. The Center is affiliated with several regional universities, as well as numerous state and federal natural resource agencies. The position is a 12-month appointment, includes a permanent research technician (M.S. level), graduate assistantship support, and internal research funds to support research related to the Jones Center
mission. Compensation is competitive and commensurate with experience, including excellent health care benefits and 403b
retirement. More information can be found at: www.jonesctr.org.
Applicants must be a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident.
Letters of nomination or inquiry should be sent electronically to:
Dr. Lindsay Boring, Director, Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, directly by email to:
[email protected]
with attention noted on the subject line as: Senior Forest Ecologist.
All communications will be treated confidentially. Inquiries will be accepted
until the position is filled. The Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center
is an equal opportunity employer.
www.frontiersinecology.org
© The Ecological Society of America