Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Of very high management importance is devising effective means of locating
and removing alien reptiles and amphibians once introduced. Doubtless a large array
of different methods will need to be investigated and developed, in accordance with
the wide diversity of lifestyles adopted by the target species themselves. The need
for such a diversity of approaches has been made clear in the case of the brown
treesnake, for which we earlier saw that trapping, barrier, luring, repellent, toxicant,
and toxicant-delivery methods have all proven useful and undergone extensive
research. Technique diversity will no doubt expand as additional species become
targets of concern. But response to herpetological incursions so far has largely
relied on existing methods already used by herpetologists to sample their species,
and many control attempts have foundered because of initial lack of reliable and
efficient tools. A more concerted effort is needed to test and improve current sam-
pling tools and supplement them with novel ones. The sooner that a wide suite of
reliable control tools is available for off-the-shelf application, the fewer instances
of failed eradication we will have.
It may be that the notion that we need improved means of exterminating certain
reptiles and amphibians will be viewed by many people, including herpetologists,
as heretical and repugnant. Vociferous opposition to alien mammal eradications by
animal-rights activists is frequent (e.g., Simberloff, 2001; Bertolino and Genovesi,
2003; Howald et al., 2005), but I have occasionally witnessed similar resistance to
amphibian eradication and control operations as well. I am by no means certain
how widespread such sentiments may be among the herpetological research com-
munity, but discomfort with killing our favorite organisms may be one reason why
some of the most innovative proposals in herpetological management (toxicants
and toxicant-delivery systems for brown treesnakes, genetic sterilization for cane
toads) have come from non-herpetologists. Although emotional clouding of judge-
ment is to be expected from a certain portion of the general public, one could hope
that the herpetological research community would suspend emotional attachment to
their study organisms, recognize that several of these are damaging interlopers, and
accept that its skills and knowledge are valuable for remedying that ecological
hazard. At the very least, one could hope that professional herpetologists would
at least abstain from censure or uninformed dismissal of such activities, as has
sometimes occurred (e.g., Holden, 2003).
Important too will be further research on the demographic parameters of inva-
sive herpetofauna. Such research, in addition to its intrinsic scientific interest, has
the potential to identify stages in a species' life cycle at which it may be especially
susceptible to control. Govindarajulu et al. (2005) provide an excellent illustration
of how such research may be of practical application.
On a broader note, I suggest that professional herpetologists bear another
responsibility that has heretofore been ignored. As I've mentioned before, much
literature on invasive herpetofauna is less informative than it could be. Information
of broad scientific utility is absent from many (most?) reports. All new reports of
introductions or naturalizations should at least address the questions of when the
introduction occurred, how many separate introductions were involved, what the
relevant pathways were, what personal motives inspired the introduction (if any can
