Invasibility doesn’t always equal impact: an example of a highly-abundant exotic that is not a damaging invader

File 20170722 28465 ngf5eh

The giant African land snail is a poster child of a global epidemic: the threat of invasive species. The snails are native to coastal East Africa, but are now found across Asia, the Pacific and the Americas – in fact, almost all tropical mainlands and islands except mainland Australia.

Yet, despite their fearsome reputation, our research on Christmas Island’s invasive snail population suggests the risk they pose to native ecosystems has been greatly exaggerated.

Giant African land snails certainly have the classic characteristics of a successful invader: they can thrive in lots of different places; survive on a broad diet; reach reproductive age quickly; and produce more than 1,000 eggs in a lifetime. Add it all together and you have a species recognised as among the worst invaders in the world.

The snails can eat hundreds of plant species, including vegetable crops (and even calcium-rich plaster and stucco), and have been described as a major threat to agriculture.

They have been intercepted at Australian ports, and the Department of Primary Industries concurs that the snails are a “serious threat”.

Despite all this, there have been no dedicated studies of their environmental impact. Some researchers suggest the risk to agriculture has been exaggerated from accounts of damage in gardens. There are no accounts of giant African land snails destroying natural ecosystems.

Quietly eating leaf litter

In research recently published in the journal Austral Ecology, we tested these assumptions by investigating giant African land snails living in native rainforest on Christmas Island.

Giant African land snails have spread through Christmas Island with the help of another invasive species: the yellow crazy ant.

Until these ants showed up, abundant native red land crabs ate the giant snails before they could gain a foothold in the rainforest. Unfortunately, yellow crazy ants have completely exterminated the crabs in some parts of the island, allowing the snails to flourish.

We predicted that the snails, which eat a broad range of food, would have a significant impact on leaf litter and seedling survival.

However, our evidence didn’t support this at all. Using several different approaches – including a field experiment, lab experiment and observational study – we found giant African land snails were pretty much just eating a few dead leaves and little else.

We almost couldn’t distinguish between leaf litter removal by the snails compared to natural decomposition. They were eating leaf litter, but not a lot of it.

We saw almost no impact on seedling survival, and the snails were almost never seen eating live foliage. In one lab trial, we attempted to feed snails an exclusive diet of fresh leaves, but so many of these snails died that we had to cut the experiment short. Perhaps common Christmas Island plants just aren’t palatable.

It’s possible that the giant African land snails are causing other problems on Christmas Island. In Florida, for example, they carry parasites that are a risk to human health. But for the key ecological processes we investigated, the snails do not create the kind of disturbance we would assume from their large numbers.

The assumption that giant African land snails are dangerous to native plants and agriculture comes from an overriding sentiment that invasive species are damaging and must be controlled.

Do we have good data on the ecological impact of all invasive species? Of course not. Should we still try to control all abundant invasive species even if we don’t have evidence they are causing harm? That’s a more difficult question.

The precautionary principle drives much of the thinking behind the management of invasive species, including the giant African land snail. The cost of doing nothing is potentially very high, so it’s safest to assume invasive species are having an effect (especially when they exist in high numbers).

But we should also be working hard to test these assumptions. Proper monitoring and experiments give us a true picture of the risks of action (or inaction).

The ConversationIn reality, the giant African land snail is more the poster child of our own knee-jerk reaction to abundant invaders.

Luke S. O’Loughlin, Research fellow, La Trobe University and Peter Green, Head of Department, Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

This article was based on research published in Austral EcologyRead the full article.

The secondary invasion of giant African land snail has little impact on litter or seedling dynamics in rainforest

In the absence of empirical evidence, invasive species are often assumed to have negative impacts because of their conspicuously high abundance. The giant African land snail Achatina(Lissachatinafulica is one such invader where its impact in natural ecosystems remains completely untested. On Christmas Island (Indian Ocean), A. fulica has become established across large tracts of rainforest following the impacts of invasive yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) in mutualism with non-native scale insects. Yellow crazy ants facilitate the secondary invasion of A. fulica by extirpating native red land crabs (Gecarcoidea natalis) that are normally effective predators of A. fulica. We used a multifaceted approach to investigate some potential impacts of abundant A. fulica in invaded rainforest. Over the course of a wet season, diel activity transects showed that A. fulica consumed detrital material almost exclusively. However, stable isotope analysis did not confidently identify A. fulica as a predominantly detritivorous species. We found no statistically significant treatment effects of A. fulica exclusion on standing leaf litter and seedling recruitment processes during a 6-month manipulative field study. However, litter cover and biomass did remain slightly higher where A. fulica were excluded, albeit with overlapping confidence intervals with control plots. Our study constitutes the first empirical test for impact of A. fulica in a natural ecosystem and suggests that for Christmas Island rainforest, this species is not a damaging invader. Other studies will need to assess the impacts of A. fulica in other natural areas before these findings could be considered broadly applicable.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s