Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
1 January 2014 Ecosystem Restoration on Santa Catalina Island: A Review of Potential Approaches and the Promise of Bottom-Up Invader Management
Denise A. Knapp
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Restoring large, complex landscapes can be challenging, especially given that some threats to native diversity and ecological function cannot be wholly eliminated. Santa Catalina Island, California, provides a valuable case study because its challenges include a variety of ecosystem threats, legal restrictions, and cultural attachments, as well as a vocal resident human population that often does not agree with conservation actions. Catalina Island has been highly modified by numerous invasive species, fragmentation and erosion from roads, altered hydrology from dams, and increased fire frequency. In this paper, I build on a previously published review of resources and threats and discuss potential management actions for those threats. Although the island's large size, rugged topography, and pervasive human influence limit management options, several feasible actions could have an important restorative effect. In particular, “bottom-up” invader management may be a relatively noncontroversial way to produce multiple positive outcomes. Reducing fragmentation, restoring natural hydrologic regimes, and augmenting native plant cover could disadvantage invasive plant and animal species while promoting the native flora and fauna.

Challenges of large-scale ecological restoration include technical issues such as ubiquitous and tenacious invasive species, institutional constraints such as funding and legal restrictions, and social challenges such as public resistance. Given these challenges, some threats to native species and ecoystems cannot be wholly eliminated. Santa Catalina Island, California, provides a case study of such land management challenges. The island has experienced a variety of anthropogenic stressors, including invasion by numerous transformative nonnative species, fragmentation and erosion from roads, altered hydrology from dams, and increasing fire frequency, which have left the ecosystem highly modified. The island's large size, rugged topography, and pervasive human influence reduce the likelihood that many transformer species can be eradicated. Thus, the island's land managers need to develop cost-effective, alternative means of reducing the adverse impacts of such species. A focus on species interactions, community dynamics, and ecosystem processes can be especially important for identifying those management alternatives (Zavaleta et al. 2001, Rayner et al. 2007).

Here, I discuss restoration alternatives for the major threats to Catalina Island's resources that were reviewed in Knapp (2010a), and I highlight how land managers might benefit from undertaking “bottom-up invader management” actions. Bottom-up invader management (sensu McEvoy and Coombs 1999) emphasizes the use of resource limitation to control invaders instead of top-down control methods, such as hunting. It may involve mitigation of stressors on native taxa, manipulation of disturbance regimes, soil conditions, and other abiotic factors, or increasing competition through actions such as seeding native plants (D'Antonio and Chambers 2006). Such activities on Catalina Island may also include dam and road removal, which are relatively noncontroversial actions that would not only ease the immediate stressors of hydrologic alteration, fragmentation, and denudation but would also have the secondary benefit of putting many of the island's plant and animal invaders at a disadvantage.

Setting and Management History

At 194 km2, Catalina Island is the third largest of the 8 California Channel Islands and is located approximately 32 km from the southern California mainland coast (Schoenherr et al. 1999). The island is characterized by numerous steep canyons; perennial streams are limited to a few dominant canyons near the center of the island. The island has a long history of human use, from native Tongva settlements to Spanish missionaries, Yankee traders, and otter hunters in the early 1800s, and squatters, miners, and Union soldiers in the mid-1800s (Moore 2009). Between the mid- 1800s and mid-1900s, multiple ungulates were introduced, including feral goats (Capra hircus), feral pigs (Sus scrofa), American bison (Bison bison), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus californicus), domestic sheep (Ovis aries), and cattle (Bos taurus), resulting in the deterioration of habitat (Coblentz 1980). Sheep and cattle were the first nonnative animals to be eliminated on the island by the mid-1920s and late 1950s, respectively (O'Malley 1994). Cumulatively, browsers have reduced the extent of shrubland on the island, which has been replaced with introduced annual grasses (Minnich 1982). Introduced ungulates have also caused the open understory of much of the island's oak stands. The consequent reduction of vegetation structure and diversity has undoubtedly reduced the abundance and diversity of the wildlife that depend on it, from invertebrates (Lawton 1983, Bennett 1993) to native vertebrates (Tietje and Vreeland 1997, Sillett et al. 2012).

Catalina Island is the only one of the 8 California Channel Islands with an incorporated city (Avalon), and the island receives about one million visitors per year (Catalina Island Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau 2012), the majority of whom remain in Avalon. The founding of Avalon led to increased development of the rest of the island, including a stagecoach route and hunting lodge; a World War II camp; ranch settlements, dams, and camps in the majority of the island's coves; and an airport carved off of one of the tallest peaks on the island. Today, the Catalina Island Conservancy (hereafter, Conservancy) owns and manages 88% of the island; its mission is to be a responsible steward of the land through a balance of conservation, education, and recreation.

The Conservancy has taken important steps to recover the island from centuries of human impacts. Feral goats and pigs have been removed, a hunting program is maintained for mule deer, and bison are managed through a contraception program. The most transformative nonnative plant species have been identified, and they are being managed throughout the island by focusing simultaneously on eradication of limited-abundance, high-impact species and control of more widespread species in priority areas (Knapp 2010b, Knapp et al. 2011). The Catalina Island fox (Urocyon littoralis catalinae) has been brought back from the brink of extinction, following an outbreak of canine distemper virus, through a combination of translocations, captive breeding, and vaccinations (Coonan et al. 2010). Yet much more remains to be done to ensure the persistence of at least 42 taxa found only on Catalina Island (as well as a number of other Channel Island endemic taxa) and to maintain diverse, resilient communities. Herein I review management alternatives for threats stemming from invasive species and habitat alteration and discuss how managing the latter may be a means to help manage the former.

Threat Management Options and Feasibility

Mule Deer

The impacts of introduced deer species are especially severe on islands, where deer lower species richness, change community composition, endanger rare plants, and reduce wildlife populations of various trophic levels (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). On Catalina Island, mule deer reduce shrub and tree cover and survivorship, particularly postfire (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). In contrast to many of the other invasive wildlife species on the island, mule deer eradication on Catalina Island is technically feasible, as evidenced by the prior removal of both feral goats and feral pigs (Schuyler et al. 2002a, 2002b), the recent removal of deer and elk (Cervus elaphus) on nearby Santa Rosa Island (Kettmann 2011), and improvements in the technology available to detect and dispatch ungulates, thus ensuring their complete removal (Morrison et al. 2007). An increase in native perennial grasses and shrubs, as well as a decrease in exotic annual grasses, was found on Santa Rosa Island following removal of cattle and reduction of both Roosevelt elk and mule deer herds, although effects vary by taxa, functional group, and physical environment (Christian et al. 2008, Corry and McEachern 2008, Dow et al. 2008).

Mule deer eradication would require either permission from the California Department of Fish and Game, which has legal jurisdiction over the deer, or a change in state law. The Conservancy has sought permission for private control over management efforts with little success to date. A change in state regulation would likely be required. Mule deer have been harvested almost annually on the island from 1949 through the present, most recently as part of the Private Lands Management Program of the California Department of Fish and Game. However, recreational hunting alone is unlikely to sufficiently control an invasive mammal such as mule deer (Mack et al. 2000).

American Bison

American bison reduce plant diversity and cover on Catalina Island, simplify habitat structure, trample woody species such as oak trees, and facilitate the dispersal of nonnative plants. However, they also appear to have the beneficial effect of controlling invasive annual grass densities (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Bison are currently managed to approximately 150-200 individuals on roughly one-half of the island via immunocontraception (Duncan et al. 2013). Their complete removal would be technically feasible, given prior success of roundup efforts on the island and removal of ungulates on multiple other islands. There would be social obstacles, however, as the bison are a beloved feature of the Catalina Island landscape and a source of ecotourism dollars. Restriction of their range to a location most visible to tourists could be a viable solution and is the option favored by research scientists (Sweitzer et al. 2003). Restricting bison presence to the most heavily toured area of the island would balance maintenance of the ecological integrity of the island with cultural and economic considerations.

Cats and Rats

Cats (Felis catus) and rats (Rattus spp.) are believed to be responsible for the extinction of hundreds of taxa, including birds, small mammals, herpetofauna, and invertebrates (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). In addition, rats can restrict plant regeneration and abundance, and cats are believed to compete with the Catalina Island fox (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). The ecological effects of these 2 species on Catalina Island are not well understood, however, and it is possible that the presence of a native predator, the fox, moderates feral cat impacts (McChesney and Tershy 1998).

Management of introduced cats and rats on Catalina Island is complicated by their combined presence, as well as the presence of multiple nontarget species, such as native rodents, birds, and foxes. Removal of cats without control of introduced rats could have the unintended consequence of reducing native wildlife populations even further through mesopredator release (Courchamp et al. 1999, Rayner et al. 2007). Fan et al. (2005) recommend controlling the rodents first and the cats second, or controlling both simultaneously. Although eradication of rodents first may further increase predation by cats on threatened native species (Courchamp et al. 1999), the benefits of eventual removal of the superpredator may outweigh the immediate costs of mesopredator release (Russell et al. 2009).

Transformer rodents such as rats have been eradicated from 284 islands, the largest of which is 11,300 hectares (Howald et al. 2007). Aerially applied rodenticide is used in the majority of those eradications (Howald et al. 2007), and captive management or translocation of native species in danger of nontarget poisoning can reduce impacts to those species (e.g., Shah 2001, Merton et al. 2002, Howald et al. 2005). Feral cats have been removed from at least 48 islands globally, the largest of which is Marion Island, at 290 km2, or 71,660 acres (reviewed in Nogales et al. 2004). However, that removal was accomplished only with 19 years of sustained effort and multiple methods on an island with no permanent human population (Bester et al. 2002). This long-term commitment and lack of public op position was undoubtedly critical to that project's success. Cats were recently removed on San Nicolas Island, California, primarily through live capture (Hanson et al. 2010, Stephenson-Pino 2012). However, the modified padded leghold traps used on that project are only legal on federally owned lands in California (Hanson et al. 2010).

The eradication of both cats and rats on the entire Catalina Island would be hindered by the presence of vocal opponents, the existence of extensive cat colonies on public land, the large size and ruggedness of the island, and the presence of nontarget native species. Localized control in priority areas could be a viable management alternative to eradication (Jouventin et al. 2003, Ogden and Gilbert 2009); however, long-term efforts can be prohibitively costly (Howald et al. 2005) and toxin buildup in the environment or evolution of toxin resistance is a concern (Innes and Barker 1999). Rat-proof exclosures, such as those described by Campbell and Atkinson (2002) or Day and MacGibbon (2007), have been used successfully and can minimize the need for ongoing control. They are being used to protect areas up to 250 ha in New Zealand (McLennon 2006) and could conceivably be altered to exclude cats as well.

Habitat restoration could limit the impacts of invasive rats. In Madagascar, rats were more abundant in smaller habitat fragments, while endemic rodents declined in such fragments (Ganzhorn 2003). Unnecessary roads could be removed and revegetated in order to provide the contiguous habitat that favors native species over these invaders. Additionally, immunocontraception, including that vectored by species-specific viruses, may be a promising technique (Courchamp et al. 2003, Hardy et al. 2006).

European Starlings

European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) have negative effects on other members of the woodpecker family, as well as on some birds in other families (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). They also preferentially disperse seed of nonnative plant species over natives (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Due to the starling's status as an agricultural pest, much effort and funding has been expended on its deterrence and control (e.g., Garner 1978). Harassment using both visual and sonic frightening devices has been utilized in the United States, but with little success (Brough 1969, Clark 1976, Garner 1978, Belant et al. 1998, Seamans et al. 2001, Blackwell et al. 2002). Such deterrents are not successful in the long term and only move the problem elsewhere (Feare et al. 1981, Dinetti 2006). Several methods of lethal control have been used, including application of a chemical avian stressing agent (Starlicide), dynamiting, and shooting (Clark 1976, Garner 1978, Feare 1991). The avian stressing agent reduced the starling population to varying degrees, from <1% to 99% (Garner 1978). Killing programs for bird pests are expensive and generally unsuccessful, due to both immigration from neighboring areas and compensatory reproduction (Feare 1991). Furthermore, some of the methods are particularly inhumane.

The most promising avenue for starling control is through habitat management. Generally, starlings favor disturbed, homogeneous habitat (such as agricultural fields or invaded monocultures); therefore, their concentrations could be limited by enhancing native habitat cover and heterogeneity (Clergeau and Fourcy 2005). One component of this approach may be herbivore removal. Diamond and Veitch (1981) have reported that browsers and grazers are a factor in bird invasion, along with habitat fragmentation.

Wild Turkeys

It is not known if Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) still occur on Catalina Island. However, if they do still exist, they are expected to have negative effects on plant regeneration, particularly oaks (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Under the precautionary principle, land managers have eradicated Wild Turkeys from Santa Cruz Island (Morrison 2007). Wild turkey removal on Catalina would be relatively feasible, given their limited distribution and large size.

Brown-headed Cowbirds

Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are brood parasites and may have a substantial adverse effect on rare passerine bird populations (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Like the European Starling, the Brown-headed Cowbird is favored by human-modified habitats and fragments (Lowther 1993). Trapping at important breeding areas has been the only means of successful control of Brown-headed Cowbirds to date (Lowther 1993). Research conducted by Staab and Morrison (1999) suggests that riparian management favoring greater understory cover can help to reduce parasitism by this species. This objective could be promoted by ungulate removal and habitat restoration, as with starlings.

American Bullfrogs

American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) are believed to be at least partly responsible for the decline or extinction of 7 native frogs in the Southwest, along with many other native amphibians elsewhere in the world. They pose a risk to snake and fish populations (reviewed in Knapp 2010a), and they have also been the causal agents of diseases such as chytridiomycosis, which is implicated in global amphibian declines (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). No islandspecific data have been collected regarding their impacts, but bullfrogs occupy reservoirs throughout the island.

It is widely agreed that bullfrogs are extremely difficult to eradicate due to their high fecundity, density dependence, and evasiveness (Schwalbe and Rosen 1988, Lever 2003, Adams and Pearl 2007). Eradication and control methods used to date include electrification of pond water followed by manual removal of both adults and larvae; chemical and biological control methods; funnel traps; lethal control with air rifles or gigs; and the clearing of vegetation and addition of lime to eliminate eggs and tadpoles (Schwalbe and Rosen 1988, Lever 2003). However, population reductions have been small and shortlived, even in relatively isolated desert ponds (Schwalbe and Rosen 1988). Results of bullfrog population models suggest that they may be most effectively controlled by culling juvenile frogs in the fall (Govindarajulu et al. 2005) or with a combination of lethal control of adults and pond draining at least every 2 years (Doubledee et al. 2003). However, a combination of adult capture, pond drainage, pond excavation, and capping did not fully eradicate the frogs in one British pond, presumably because frogs are able to remain deep in burrows and vegetation (Lever 2003).

The best prospects for invasive bullfrog control appear to be habitat management (Adams and Pearl 2007). Because bullfrogs overwinter as larvae (tadpoles) in the water, they generally cannot live in water sources that frequently dry up (Orchard 1999, Maret et al. 2006). The Conservancy could actively manage ponds and reservoirs on the island to favor native wildlife by promoting more ephemeral wetland habitats over permanent ponds (Adams 1999, 2000, Maret et al. 2006) and by encouraging shallow water, sloping banks, and emergent vegetation (Kiesecker et al. 2001, Porej and Hetherington 2005, Adams and Pearl 2007, Minowa et al. 2008). Dam removal would facilitate these goals.

European Honey Bees

The balance of evidence suggests that European honey bees (Apis mellifera) have a negative impact on native bees and that they reduce pollination services, decrease the seed set of native plants, and preferentially pollinate the flowers of nonnative plants (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Oldroyd (1998) reviewed the known methods for controlling honey bees, which include manual hive location or pheromone lures and insecticide application or remote application of insecticide through trained forager bees. Honey bees have been declining in North America due to a combination of pesticides, parasitic mites, and invasion of the African honey bee (Sugden et al. 1996); and such natural stressors have been used to the advantage of honey bee management on Santa Cruz Island (Wenner et al. 2000). Prior to this action, honey bee colonies were identified by their foraging patterns and ranges (Wenner and Thorp 1994) then removed by closing off all entrances to the colony, inducing suffocation (after anesthetization; Wenner et al. 2000). Swarm traps baited with pheromones were also used to attract the bees (Wenner et al. 2000).

Habitat restoration could also be practiced to moderate the effects of introduced honey bees. Ongoing removal of transformer plants used by honey bees, such as fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and flax-leaf broom (Genista linifolia), would remove any facilitation between these invasive species. In addition, native nectar- and pollen-producing plants could be supplemented, particularly those that will increase diversity, to ensure that floral resources are not limiting for native species (e.g., Paton 2001) and to increase native bee diversity (Hopwood 2008). Lastly, habitat clearing and fragmentation could be minimized, as this favors honey bees (Aizen and Feinsinger 1994), and all island landowners could adopt a policy that prohibits managed honey bee hives.

Argentine Ants

Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) are associated with reduced arthropod diversity and abundance and native bee foraging, as well as the disruption of mutualistic and parasitic relationships (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). The presence of ants can shift entire food webs and may also impact small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). On Catalina Island, Argentine ants are associated with reduced native ant diversity, particularly of endemic species (Backlin et al. 2005). There is a large amount of literature on chemical control methods for Argentine ants, particularly in urban settings and agricultural areas (reviewed in Rust et al. 2003, Soeprono and Rust 2004, Klotz et al. 2007). Some eradication attempts have recently been successful for a variety of invasive ants on islands, including the Argentine ant (reviewed in Silverman and Brightwell 2008). Factors that have contributed to the success of these efforts have been the presence of only small, localized infestations; the use of a helicopter to spread bait; and a combination of techniques, including the removal of alternative food sources (Silverman and Brightwell 2008). A combination of synthetic trail pheromones and insecticide can also be effective (Sunamura et al. 2011). Recently, an experimental bait distributed in hydrated polyacrylamide beads has been applied in a trial area on Santa Cruz Island with great success and minimal disturbance (Boser et al. 2014a), and this bait is currently being applied to other locations on the island via helicopter.

A variety of techniques other than chemical means could be investigated to limit Argentine ant abundance. Promoting increased aggression within Argentine ant supercolonies by adding individuals of different genotypes may reduce densities of this social species (Suarez et al. 1999, although see Tsutsui et al. 2003, Buczkowski and Silverman 2006, and Thomas et al. 2006). Alternative approaches to pesticides include the use of disruptive hormones and pheromones (Krushelnycky et al. 2002, Suckling et al. 2008). Biological control may also be successful, if an appropriate natural enemy can be identified (Silverman and Brightwell 2008). Lastly, bottom-up approaches could help favor native taxa over Argentine ants. Because fragmentation of natural habitat increases the success of Argentine ants, maintenance of unfragmented habitat blocks is particularly important to invasion resistance (Bolger 2007), as is limiting urban runoff and irrigation (Menke and Holway 2006).

Invasive Plants

The Conservancy has supported extensive management of transformer plants. This has involved a thorough mapping of all manageable invaders then eradication of high-impact, low-abundance species and control of highimpact, high-abundance taxa in priority areas (Knapp and Knapp 2005, Knapp 2010b). Treatment along dispersal corridors and prevention of new introductions are integral components of this effort (Knapp 2010b). In areas of extensive invasion, control could be combined with revegetation efforts to ensure that these areas are not colonized by undesirable species. Integrated vegetation management, which combines invasive plant control with native outplantings and manipulation of biotic and abiotic factors that control plant establishment and growth, can be effective (Sheley and Krueger-Mangold 2003, D'Antonio et al. 2004, Erskine-Ogden and Rejmánek 2005).

Nonnative annual grasses are not currently addressed in the Conservancy's invasive plant management program because they are ubiquitous throughout the island and consequently difficult to manage. These grasses—including bromes (Bromus spp.), wild oats (Avena spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), barley (Hordeum spp.), Arabian or Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.), and fescue (Vulpia spp.)—have many deleterious impacts. They hinder woody plant regeneration; suppress the growth of native shrubs, forbs, and perennial grasses; shift nutrient cycling regimes; change hydrologic and geomorphic processes; reduce forage quality for small mammals; facilitate insect pests and diseases; and promote increased fire frequency (reviewed in Knapp 2010a).

Invasive annual grasses cannot be eradicated from the island, but localized control can be accomplished with some effort. A diversity of species and functional groups will enhance establishment, persistence, and resistance to invasion (Levine 2000, Pokorny et al. 2005, Sheley and Half 2006). In particular, early-season forbs would best match the phenology of the annual grasses and potentially limit their abundance (Cleland et al. 2013).

Roads

Roads can impact ecosystem function and biodiversity by increasing runoff, erosion, and stream sedimentation; altering stream flow and duration; reducing and altering habitat; increasing wildlife disturbance and mortality; promoting invasion of exotic plants and animals; increasing pollution; promoting fire ignition; and forming a barrier to dispersal for smaller species, such as invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). The fragmentation caused by roads creates extensive stretches of edge habitat that favor invasive wildlife species, such as rats, starlings, Argentine ants, and honey bees (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Vehicles were the predominant source of island fox mortalities during a recovery program for the endangered species (Carlos de la Rosa, Catalina Island Conservancy, personal communication).

Two actions that would minimize the effects of roads on Catalina Island are (1) removing some roads and (2) posting and enforcing maximum speed laws. Road removal is used more and more frequently as a restoration technique (Havlick 2002), but few published research studies exist on this technique (Switalski et al. 2004). However, a number of road reclamation handbooks exist (e.g., wildlandscpr.org). Road restoration typically involves decompacting, or “ripping,” the road surface and recontouring hillslopes (Switalski et al. 2004). Recontouring can accelerate recovery, while simply abandoning a road does not recover belowground properties (Lloyd et al. 2013). Soil amendments may be added to increase nutrient cycling, and then the area is revegetated (Switalski et al. 2004). Silt fences, check dams, and other erosion control structures are used to reduce erosion and landslide risk (Switalski et al. 2004).

Water Impoundments

Water impoundments artificially homogenize water flow regimes, decrease valuable sediment loads downstream, and alter water tables, water temperatures, and stream channel morphology (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). The ecological consequences of these effects can include reduced cover, connectivity, and diversity of riparian vegetation; facilitation of exotic species such as bullfrogs, tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), and predatory fish; and alteration of entire food webs (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). While these impacts have predominantly been determined in larger river systems than those on Catalina Island, even a portion of these impacts would be cause for concern. The majority of Catalina Island's watercourses have water impoundments (a total of 27 impoundments exist: 2 are concrete dams, the remainder are earthen), and some have several.

Water impoundment removal has become more common worldwide over the past 2 decades in an attempt to restore river and stream processes (e.g., Hansen and Hayes 2012, Kil and Bae 2012, Renofalt et al. 2013). Reestablishing natural hydrologic processes aids in invasive species control and restoration in desert river and riparian oak ecosystems (Stromberg and Chew 2003, Bossard and Randall 2007). Due to an initial increase in sedimentation downstream, macroinvertebrate richness and densities may actually be reduced following dam removal (Chiu et al. 2013, Renofalt et al. 2013). However, this undesirable response diminishes with time, and complete recovery to preimpound states can be achieved after several decades (Hansen and Hayes 2012, Chiu et al. 2013). In addition, the abundance of nonnative invertebrate taxa may be reduced, which could have positive food web effects (Cross et al. 2011). Unassisted recovery rates can vary by proximity to source populations of native taxa. For example, benthic invertebrates may only recover when the source populations of desired taxa are found within 5 km of the restoration site (Sundermann et al. 2011).

Fire

Fire is a natural disturbance in Mediterranean- type ecosystems; however, high fire frequency can eliminate woody plants and cause a type conversion to nonnative annual grassland (reviewed in Knapp 2010a). Fire size has been increasing on Catalina Island over the last century, and the fire season has been expanded (Catalina Island Conservancy, unpublished data). Given that fires are exceedingly difficult to prevent and control, the only ways to limit the recurring frequency of fire on the island are to minimize ignitions to the extent possible and continue to manage burns as they occur. Strategies could include limiting human use of high-risk areas and conducting prefire planning (Keeley 2002).

Although a draft fire management plan has been produced (“Firewise 2000” 2003), it advocated prescription burning as a means for preventing large wildfires. This type of mosaic rotational burning may not be appropriate for the habitat types and conditions on Catalina Island (Moritz 2003, Keeley and Zedler 2009). In addition, slope stability is of concern following a burn (Keeley 2004). Rotational burning may also degrade shrublands by increasing the fire frequency (Zedler and Seiger 2000, Keeley 2002). An updated, ecologically sound fire management plan is necessary, and it should identify wildland areas that have recently burned or in which a new burn would have particularly detrimental effects, as well as potential defense locations and preferred burn perimeters. The plan could be used by island firefighters and the Conservancy to quickly identify priority areas for wildland fire control in the event of an ignition. To be effective, however, the plan must be adopted by island fire officials and updated regularly.

Discussion

While there are many constraints to ecosystem restoration on Catalina Island (not the least of which are high human visitation and public opposition to control of some invasive animals), this review highlights a number of opportunities as well, with a potential myriad of cascading positive effects. Removing and revegetating selected roads would not only reduce fragmentation, erosion and stream sedimentation, road kill, pollution, and fire ignition, it may also disadvantage invaders such as rats, Argentine ants, honey bees, starlings, and Brown-headed Cowbirds in those areas. Similarly, restoring natural stream flow regimes by removing dams and revegetating waterways would not only enhance riparian and oak woodlands but would also put invasive bullfrogs and tamarisk at a disadvantage. In both cases, native wildlife species would be provided the maximum natural resources possible and given the best chance of successfully competing with or evading predation by invasive animals, such as cats, that cannot be otherwise managed. This concept has been called “bottom-up invader management” (D'Antonio and Chambers 2006) and is an appealing alternative on a degraded island such as Catalina Island where eradication of some transformative invasive species is unlikely.

Mule deer have a strong negative impact on the island's biota; their eradication would be technically feasible but would require a change in state law. Bison have similar negative effects on woody plant species but may also have the positive effect of controlling exotic annual grasses and are an important ecotourism attraction. Perhaps deer removal would reduce the pressure on woody plant species enough that the effects of bison would be less critical. Deer removal would have the additional benefit of recovering plant cover and structural diversity, which would further decrease the disturbance and fragmentation that favors other invaders, both plant and animal.

For most other invaders, including cats, rats, bullfrogs, starlings, cowbirds, and Argentine ants, successful eradication is unlikely for both logistical and social reasons. Bottom-up invader management might be the best way to disadvantage those species and, equally important, to support healthy populations of native wildlife that are better able to withstand their effects. As an example, ground squirrels may be depredated by feral cats. However, ground squirrel populations are more limited by bottom-up factors, such as burrow site availability and food plant abundance (Van Horne 2007), than by the presence of predators (Byrom et al. 2000). Increasing the amount of food and habitat available to the squirrels may counter some population effects of predation by feral cats.

In contrast to these other species, European honey bees could feasibly be eradicated, as has been accomplished on nearby Santa Cruz Island. Island-specific data regarding their impacts and ecological interactions, as well as their distributions, would help to both justify and prepare for such an undertaking. Even if impacts have not been determined, eradication of potentially harmful introduced species can be justified under what is called the “precautionary principle” (IUCN 2000, Clergeau et al. 2004, Hulme 2006). This same reasoning could be applied to the eradication of the wild turkey.

Continued diligence is important to ensure the long-term success of the Conservancy's invasive plant management program, as aboveground populations are eliminated but seed banks remain. Maintaining such commitment when the problem is visually reduced is one of the main challenges to successful plant eradication (Mack and Lonsdale 2002). Periodic remapping should be undertaken to accomplish early detection of and rapid response to new invaders and reemerging species from seed banks. Aerial surveys are a powerful, low-impact tool for detecting small populations of new invaders (Mack et al. 2000). Helicopter transport can also be used very effectively to remove remote infestations of transformer plants (Knapp et al. 2011). Further, expanded invasive plant control combined with native outplantings would not only benefit native biodiversity but may also disfavor European honey bees.

The order of any management actions undertaken by the Conservancy should take into account cascading trophic effects and the need for access in order to avoid unintended consequences (Zavaleta et al. 2001, Morrison 2011). As a hypothetical example, if cats and rats were to be excluded from a limited area, this should happen first while the vegetation is degraded and open and trapping is more feasible. Dam removal and mule deer eradication would initiate substantial vegetation recovery and should logically occur after removal of cats and rats. Lastly, selected roads should be re moved only when this access is no longer needed.

Considering the high risk of additional future introductions and the complexity of eradication and control programs, prevention should be one of the highest priorities for future conservation efforts on Catalina. It is widely agreed that the most desirable scenario is to prevent species introductions before they occur (e.g., IUCN 2000, Rejmánek and Pitcairn 2002, Courchamp et al. 2003); therefore, biosecurity measures are needed (e.g., Boser et al. 2014b). Even species that are already present, such as rats, could either introduce deadly new pathogens or gain the genetic variation necessary to become more successful (Suarez and Tsutsui 2008). Catalina Island is no stranger to the risks of introduced pathogens, as the island fox population declined by 95% after exposure to canine distemper virus (Timm et al. 2009).

Extensive education and outreach efforts are needed to obtain the community support that is critical to the success of invasive species prevention, eradication, and control programs (IUCN 2000, Morrison et al. 2011). Legal action may sometimes be required (Myers et al. 1998). Although conservation efforts on Catalina Island are constrained by many factors, some of those same constraints are also key assets. The high level of visitation to Catalina makes it an ideal educational and outreach center for the southern Channel Islands. The Conservancy's Nature Center and Botanical Garden provides a venue for outreach regarding the uniqueness of the islands, the threats that face them, and the benefits of restoration. The island's residents also gain from the Conservancy's conservation actions in the form of ecotourism dollars (Wilson 2000).

In conclusion, although ecosystem restoration of Catalina Island will not be quick, cheap, or easy, the potential returns in ecological resilience may be substantial. Given real logistical and social constraints on some restoration options, the managers of Santa Catalina Island might best pursue options that will enhance this resilience from the bottom up. By restoring natural hydrologic processes and habitat connectivity, native species would be favored over invaders that benefit from fragmentation, altered disturbance regimes, and reduced biodiversity. Combined with expanded efforts to educate the public about these threats and to prevent future nonnative species introductions, the island could be a model for management of altered ecosystems.

Acknowledgments

John Knapp and Darcee Guttilla were invaluable in providing information, brainstorming sessions, and editorial comments that greatly improved the paper. Peter Schuyler and Carla D'Antonio also reviewed prior versions of this work and provided helpful feedback. This paper was also vastly improved through the suggestions of 3 anonymous reviewers and the journal's editors.

Literature Cited

1.

M.J. Adams 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 1162–1171. Google Scholar

2.

M.J. Adams 2000. Pond permanence and the effects of exotic vertebrates on anurans. Ecological Applications 10: 559–568. Google Scholar

3.

M.J. Adams , and C.A. Pearl . 2007. Problems and opportunities managing invasive bullfrogs: is there any hope? Pages 679–693 in F. Gherardi , editor, Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution, and threats. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Google Scholar

4.

M.A. Aizen , and P. Feinsinger . 1994. Forest fragmentation, pollination, and plant reproduction in a Chaco dry forest, Argentina. Ecology 75:330–351. Google Scholar

5.

A.R. Backlin , S.L. Compton , Z.B. Kahancza , and R.N. Fisher . 2005. Baseline biodiversity survey for Santa Catalina Island: herpetofauna and ants with remarks on small mammals and others. U.S. Geological Survey final report submitted to the Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon, CA. 45 pp. Google Scholar

6.

J.L. Belant , P.P. Woronecki , R.A. Dolbeer , and T.W. Seamans . 1998. Ineffectiveness of five commercial deterrents for nesting starlings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:264–268. Google Scholar

7.

S.G. Bennett 1993. The effects of feral animals on soil mites recovered from Catalina ironwood groves (Lyonothamnus floribundus) on Santa Catalina Island, California. Pages 155–170 in F.G. Hochbert , editor, Third California Islands Symposium: recent advances in research on the California Islands. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. Google Scholar

8.

M.N. Bester , J.P. Bloomer , R.J. Van Aarde , B.H. Erasmus , P.J.J. Van Rensburg , J.D. Skinner , P.G. Howell , and T.W. Naude . 2002. A review of the successful eradication of feral cats from sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Southern Indian Ocean. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 32:65–73. Google Scholar

9.

B.F. Blackwell , G.E. Bernhardt , and R.A. Dolbeer . 2002. Lasers as nonlethal avian repellents. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:250–258. Google Scholar

10.

D.T. Bolger 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in the Argentine ant edge effect: implications for the mechanism of edge limitation. Biological Conservation 136:295–305. Google Scholar

11.

C.L. Boser , C. Hanna , K.R. Faulkner , C. Cory , J.M. Randall , and S.A. Morrison . 2014a. Argentine ant management in conservation areas: results of a pilot study. Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 7:518–530. Google Scholar

12.

C.L. Boser , C. Cory , K.R. Faulkner , J.M. Randall , J.J. Knapp , and S.A. Morrison . 2014b. Strategies for biosecurity on a nearshore island in California. Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 7:412–420. Google Scholar

13.

C.C. Bossard , and J.M. Randall . 2007. Non-native plants of California. Pages 107–123 in M.G. Barbour , T. Keeler-Wolf , and A.A. Schoenherr , editors, Terrestrial vegetation of California. 3rd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar

14.

T. Brough 1969. The dispersal of starlings from woodland roosts and the use of bio-acoustics. Journal of Applied Ecology 6:403–410. Google Scholar

15.

G. Buczkowski , and J. Silverman . 2006. Geographical variation in Argentine ant aggression behaviour mediated by environmentally derived nestmate recognition cues. Animal Behaviour 71:327–335. Google Scholar

16.

A.E. Byrom , T.J. Karels , C.J. Krebs , and R. Boonstra . 2000. Experimental manipulation of predation and food supply of arctic ground squirrels in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1309–1319. Google Scholar

17.

D.J. Campbell , and I.A.E. Atkinson . 2002. Depression of tree recruitment by the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans Peale) on New Zealand's northern offshore islands. Biological Conservation 107:19–35. Google Scholar

18.

Catalina Island Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau. 2012. Monthly visitor count report, June 2012. Avalon, CA. Google Scholar

19.

M.C. Chiu , C.H. Yeh , Y.H. Sun , and M.H. Kuo . 2013. Short-term effects of dam removal on macroinvertebrates in a Taiwan stream. Aquatic Ecology 47: 245–252. Google Scholar

20.

J.A. Christian , P.H. Zedler , et al. 2008. Native shrub recovery nine years after reduction of intensive grazing on Santa Rosa Island, California. Presentation given at the 7th California Islands Symposium, February 5-7, Oxnard, CA. Google Scholar

21.

D.O. Clark 1976. An overview of depredating bird damage control in California. Proceedings of the Bird Control Seminar 7:21–27. Google Scholar

22.

E.E. Cleland , L. Larios , and K.N. Suding . 2013. Strengthening invasion filters to reassemble native plant communities: soil resources and phenological overlap. Restoration Ecology 21:390–398. Google Scholar

23.

P. Clergeau , and D. Fourcy . 2005. Effects of landscape homogeneity on starling roost distribution. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 110:300–306. Google Scholar

24.

P. Clergeau , A. Levesque , and O. Lorvelec . 2004. The precautionary principle and biological invasion: the case of the House Sparrow on the Lesser Antilles. International Journal of Pest Management 50:83–89. Google Scholar

25.

B.E. Coblentz 1980. Effects of feral goats on the Santa Catalina Island ecosystem. Pages 167–170 in D.M. Power , editor, The California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. Google Scholar

26.

T.J. Coonan , C.A. Schwemm , and D.K. Garcelon . 2010. Decline and recovery of the island fox: a case study for population recovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

27.

P.M. Corry , and A.K. McEachern . 2008. Patterns in post-grazing vegetation changes among species and environments, San Miguel and Santa Barbara islands. Presentation given at the 7th California Islands Symposium, February 5-7, Oxnard, CA. Google Scholar

28.

F. Courchamp , J.L. Chapuis , and M. Pascal . 2003. Mammal invaders on islands: impact, control and control impact. Biological Reviews 78:347–383. Google Scholar

29.

F. Courchamp , M. Langlais , and G. Sugihara . 1999. Cats protecting birds: modeling the mesopredator release effect. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:282–292. Google Scholar

30.

W.F. Cross , C.V. Baxter , K.C. Donner , E.J. Rosimarshall , T.A. Kennedy , R.O. Hall , H.A.W. Kelly , and R.S. Rogers . 2011. Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon. Ecological Applications 21:2016–2033. Google Scholar

31.

C.M. D'Antonio , and J.C. Chambers . 2006. Using ecological theory to manage or restore ecosystems affected by invasive plant species. Pages 260–279 in D.A. Falk , M. Palmer , and J. Zedler , editors, Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

32.

C.M. D'Antonio , N.E. Jackson , C.C. Horvitz , and R. Hedberg . 2004. Invasive plants in wildland ecosystems: merging the study of invasion processes with management needs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:513–521. Google Scholar

33.

T.D. Day , and R. MacGibbon . 2007. Multiple-species exclusion fencing and technology for mainland sites. Pages 418–433 in G.W. Witmer , W.C. Pitt , and K.A. Fagerstone , editors, Managing vertebrate invasive species: proceedings of an international symposium. USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. Google Scholar

34.

J.M. Diamond , and C.R. Veitch . 1981. Extinctions and introductions in the New Zealand avifauna: cause and effect? Science 211:499–501. Google Scholar

35.

M. Dinetti 2006. Urban avifauna: Is it possible to live together? Veterinary Research Communications 30 (Supplement 1):3–7. Google Scholar

36.

R.A. Doubledee , E.B. Muller , and R.M. Nisbet . 2003. Bullfrogs, disturbance regimes, and the persistence of California red-legged frogs. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:424–438. Google Scholar

37.

S.T. Dow , R.D. Hiebert , et al. 2008. Predicting alien plant distributions in natural landscapes following disturbance removal. Presentation given at the 7th California Islands Symposium, February 5-7 , Oxnard, CA. Google Scholar

38.

C. Duncan , J. King , J. Kirkpatrick , and P. Stapp . 2013. Romance without responsibilities: the use of the immunocontraception vaccine porcine zona pellucida to manage free ranging bison on Catalina Island, California. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44(4s):S123–S131. Google Scholar

39.

J.A. Erskine Ogden , and M. Rejmánek . 2005. Recovery of native plant communities after the control of a dominant invasive plant species, Foeniculum vulgare: implications for management. Biological Conservation 125:427–439. Google Scholar

40.

M. Fan , Y. Kuang , and Z. Feng . 2005. Cats protecting birds revisited. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 67:1081–1106. Google Scholar

41.

C.J. Feare 1991. Control of bird pest populations. Pages 463–478 in C.M. Perrins , J.-D. Lebreton , and G.J.M. Hirons , editors, Bird population studies: relevance to conservation and management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

42.

C.J. Feare , A.J. Isaacson , P.A. Sheppard , and J.M. Hogan . 1981. Attempts to reduce starling Sturnus vulgaris damage at dairy farms. Protection Ecology 3:173–182. Google Scholar

43.

FIREWISE 2000. 2003. Santa Catalina Island conceptual fuel management plan. Draft report prepared for the Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon, CA. Google Scholar

44.

J.U. Ganzhorn 2003. Effects of introduced Rattus rattus on endemic small mammals in dry deciduous forest fragments of western Madagascar. Animal Conservation 6:147–157. Google Scholar

45.

K.M. Garner 1978. Management of blackbird and starling winter roost problems in Kentucky and Tennessee, USA. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 8:54–59. Google Scholar

46.

P. Govindarajulu , R. Altwegg , and B.R. Anholt . 2005. Matrix model investigation of invasive species control: bullfrogs on Vancouver Island. Ecological Applications 15:2161–2170. Google Scholar

47.

J.F. Hansen , and D.B. Hayes . 2012. Long-term implications of dam removal for macroinvertebrate communities in Michigan and Wisconsin rivers, United States. River Research and Applications 28:1540–1550. Google Scholar

48.

C.C. Hanson , D.J. Will , J.E. Bonham , and B.S. Keitt . 2010. The removal of feral cats from San Nicolas Island, California to protect native and endemic species: 2009 annual report. Unpublished report to the U.S. Navy prepared by Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, CA. 19 pp. Google Scholar

49.

C.M. Hardy , L.A. Hinds , P.J. Kerr , M.L. Lloyd , A.J. Redwood , G.R. Shellam , and T. Strive . 2006. Biological control of vertebrate pests using virally vectored immunocontraception. Journal of Reproductive Immunology 71:102–111. Google Scholar

50.

D. Havlick 2002. Removing roads: the redwood experience. Conservation in Practice 3:28–33. Google Scholar

51.

J.L. Hopwood 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Conservation 141:2632–2640. Google Scholar

52.

G. Howald , C.J. Donlan , J.P. Galvan , J.C. Russell , J. Parkes , A. Samaniego , Y. Wang , D. Veitch , P. Genovesi , M. Pascal , et al. 2007. Invasive rodent eradication on islands. Conservation Biology 21: 1258–1268. Google Scholar

53.

G.R. Howald , K.R. Faulkner , B. Tershy , B. Keitt , H. Gellerman , E.M. Creel , M. Grinnell , S.T. Ortega , and D.A. Croll . 2005. Eradication of black rats from Anacapa Island: biological and social considerations. Pages 299–312 in D.K. Garcelon and C.A. Schwemm , editors, Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium. National Park Service Technical Publication CHIS-0501, Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA. Google Scholar

54.

P.E. Hulme 2006. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:835–847. Google Scholar

55.

J. Innes , and G. Barker . 1999. Ecological consequences of toxin use for mammalian pest control in New Zealand: an overview. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23:111–127. Google Scholar

56.

[IUCN] INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE. 2000. IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Google Scholar

57.

P. Jouventin , J. Bried , and T. Micol . 2003. Insular bird populations can be saved from rats: a long-term experimental study of white-chinned petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis on Ile de la Possession (Crozet Archipelago). Polar Biology 26:371–378. Google Scholar

58.

J.E. Keeley 2002. Fire management of California shrubland landscapes. Environmental Management 29:395–408. Google Scholar

59.

J.E. Keeley 2004. Ecological impacts of wheat seeding after a Sierra Nevada wildfire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 13:73–78. Google Scholar

60.

J.E. Keeley , and P.H. Zedler . 2009. Large, high-intensity fire events in southern California shrublands: debunking the fine-grain age patch model. Ecological Applications 19:69–94. Google Scholar

61.

M. Kettmann 2011. Pro hunters hit Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara Independent, Santa Barbara, CA. Google Scholar

62.

J.M. Kiesecker , A.R. Blaustein , and C.L. Miller . 2001. Potential mechanisms underlying the displacement of native red-legged frogs by introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 82:1964–1970. Google Scholar

63.

H.K. Kil , and Y.J. Bae . 2012. Effects of low-head dam removal on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a Korean stream. Animal Cells and Systems 16: 69–76. Google Scholar

64.

J.H. Klotz , M.K. Rust , L. Greenberg , H.C. Field , and K. Kupfer . 2007. An evaluation of several urban pest management strategies to control Argentine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 50:391–398. Google Scholar

65.

D.A. Knapp 2010a. Oak ecosystem restoration on Santa Catalina Island, California: a synthesis of resources and threats. Pages 135–215 in D. Knapp , editor, Oak ecosystem restoration on Catalina Island, California. Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon, CA. Available from:  http://www.catalinaconservancy.org Google Scholar

66.

D.A. Knapp , and J.J. Knapp . 2005. Ecosystem protection through watershed-level prioritization on Catalina Island. Pages 39–46 in G. Skurka , editor, Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council Symposium. Volume 9. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar

67.

J. Knapp 2010b. Catalina Island's invasive plant management program, with an emphasis on invasion and protection of oak ecosystems. Pages 35–46 in D. Knapp , editor, Oak ecosystem restoration on Catalina Island, California. Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon, CA. Google Scholar

68.

J. Knapp , P.T. Schuyler , K.N. Walker , N.L. MacDonald , and S.A. Morrison . 2011. Benefits of supporting invasive plant and animal eradication projects with helicopters. Pages 188–191 in C.R. Veitch , M.N. Clout , and D.R. Towns , editors, Island invasives: eradication and management. Proceedings of the International Conference on Island Invasives. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and CBB, Auckland, New Zealand. Google Scholar

69.

P.D. Krushelnycky , E. Van Gelder , L.L. Loope , and R. Gillespie . 2002. The status of invasive ant control in the conservation of island systems. Page 408 in C.R. Veitch and M.N. Clout , editors, Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

70.

J.H. Lawton 1983. Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 28:23–29. Google Scholar

71.

C. Lever 2003. Naturalized reptiles and amphibians of the world. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Google Scholar

72.

J.M. Levine 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288:852–854. Google Scholar

73.

R.A. Lloyd , K.A. Lohse , and T.P.A. Ferre . 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:75–81. Google Scholar

74.

P.E. Lowther 1993. Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Number 47 in A. Poole and F. Gill , editors, The birds of North America. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

75.

R.N. Mack , and W.M. Lonsdale . 2002. Eradicating invasive plants: hard-won lessons for islands. Pages 164–172 in C.R. Veitch and M.N. Clout , editors. Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

76.

R.N. Mack , D. Simberloff , W.M. Lonsdale , H. Evans , M. Clout , and F.A. Bazzaz . 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710. Google Scholar

77.

T.J. Maret , J.D. Snyder , and J.P. Collins 2006. Altered drying regime controls distribution of endangered salamanders and introduced predators. Biological Conservation 127:129–138. Google Scholar

78.

G.J. McChesney , and B.R. Tershy . 1998. History and status of introduced mammals and impacts to breeding seabirds on the California Channel and Northwestern Baja California Islands. Colonial Waterbirds 21:335–347. Google Scholar

79.

P.B. McEvoy , and E.M. Coombs . 1999. Biological control of plant invaders: Regional patterns, field experiments, and structured population models. Ecological Applications 9:387–401. Google Scholar

80.

J.A. McLennon 2006. Strategies to reduce predation on bird populations. Pages 371–387 in R.B. Allen and W.G. Lee , editors, Biological invasions in New Zealand. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Google Scholar

81.

S.B. Menke , and D.A. Holway . 2006. Abiotic factors control invasion by ants at the community scale. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:368–376. Google Scholar

82.

D. Merton , G. Climo , V. Laboudallon , S. Robert , and C. Mander . 2002. Alien mammal eradication and quarantine on inhabited islands in the Seychelles. Pages 182–198 in C.R. Veitch and M.N. Clout , editors, Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

83.

R.A. Minnich 1982. Grazing, fire, and the management of vegetation on Santa Catalina Island, CA. Pages 444–449 in C.E. Conrad and W.C. Oechel , editors, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Dynamics and Management of Mediterranean-type Ecosystems. PSW-GTR-58, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Google Scholar

84.

S. Minowa , Y. Senga , and T. Miyashita . 2008. Microhabitat selection of the introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in paddy fields in eastern Japan. Current Herpetology 27:55–59. Google Scholar

85.

P.A. Moore 2009. A brief history of Catalina Island. Available from:  http://www.catalina.com/history Google Scholar

86.

M.A. Moritz 2003. Spatiotemporal analysis of controls on shrubland fire regimes: age dependency and fire hazard. Ecology 84:351–361. Google Scholar

87.

S.A. Morrison 2007. Reducing risk and enhancing efficiency in non-native vertebrate removal efforts on islands: a 25-year multi-taxa retrospective from Santa Cruz Island, California. Pages 398–409 in G.W. Witmer , W.C. Pitt , and K.A. Fagerstone , editors, Managing vertebrate invasive species: proceedings of an international symposium. USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. Google Scholar

88.

S.A. Morrison 2011. Trophic considerations in eradicating multiple pests. Pages 208–212 in C.R. Veitch , M.N. Clout , and D.R. Towns , editors, Island invasives: eradication and management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Google Scholar

89.

S.A. Morrison , K.R. Faulkner , L.A. Vermeer , L. Lozier , and M.R. Shaw . 2011. The essential non-science of eradication programmes: creating conditions for success. Pages 461–466 in C.R. Veitch , M.N. Clout , and D.R. Towns , editors, Island invasives: eradication and management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Google Scholar

90.

S.A. Morrison , N. MacDonald , K. Walker , L. Lozier , and M.R. Shaw . 2007. Facing the dilemma at eradication's end: Uncertainty of absence and the Lazarus effect. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 271–276. Google Scholar

91.

J.H. Myers , A. Savoie , and E. Van Randen . 1998. Eradication and pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 43:471–491. Google Scholar

92.

M. Nogales , A. Martin , B.R. Tershy , C.J. Donlan , D. Witch , N. Puerta , B. Wood , and J. Alonso . 2004. A review of feral cat eradication on islands. Conservation Biology 18:310–317. Google Scholar

93.

J. Ogden , and J. Gilbert . 2009. Prospects for the eradication of rats from a large inhabited island: community- based ecosystem studies on Great Barrier Island, New Zealand. Biological Invasions 11:1705–1717. Google Scholar

94.

B.P. Oldroyd 1998. Controlling feral honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) populations in Australia: methodologies and costs. Australian Journal of Entomology 37:97–100. Google Scholar

95.

P.G. O'Malley 1994. Animal husbandry on the three southernmost Channel Islands: a preliminary overview, 1820-1950. Pages 157–164 in W.L. Halvorson and G.J. Maender , editors, The Fourth California Islands Symposium: update on the status of resources. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA. Google Scholar

96.

S.A. Orchard 1999. The American bullfrog in British Columbia: the frog who came to dinner. Pages 289–296 in R. Claudi and J.H. Leach , editors, Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: vectors, biology, and impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Google Scholar

97.

D.C. Paton 2001. Disruption of bird-plant pollination systems in southern Australia. Conservation Biology 14:1232–1234. Google Scholar

98.

M.L. Pokorny , R.L. Sheley , C.A. Zabinski , R.E. Engel , T.J. Svejcar , and J.J. Borkowski . 2005. Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restoration Ecology 13:448–459. Google Scholar

99.

D. Porej , and T.E. Hetherington . 2005. Designing wetlands for amphibians: the importance of predatory fish and shallow littoral zones in structuring of amphibian communities. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:445–455. Google Scholar

100.

M.J. Rayner , M.E. Hauber , M.J. Imber , R.K. Stamp , and M.N. Clout . 2007. Spatial heterogeneity of mesopredator release within an oceanic island system. PNAS 104: 20862–20865. Google Scholar

101.

M. Rejmánek , and M.J. Pitcairn . 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? Pages 249–253 in C.R. Veitch and M.N. Clout , editors, Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

102.

B.M. Renofalt , A.G.C. Lejon , M. Jonsson , and C. Nilsson . 2013. Long-term taxon-specific responses of macroinvertebrates to dam removal in a mid-sized Swedish stream. River Research and Applications 29:1082–1089. Google Scholar

103.

J.C. Russell , V. Lecomte , Y. Dumont , and M. Lecorre . 2009. Intraguild predation and mesopredator release effect on long-lived prey. Ecological Modelling 220: 1098–1104. Google Scholar

104.

M.K. Rust , D.A. Reierson , and J.H. Klotz . 2003. Pest management of Argentine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Entomological Science 38:159–169. Google Scholar

105.

A.A. Schoenherr , C.R. Feldmeth , M.J. Emerson , and D. Mooney . 1999. Natural history of the islands of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar

106.

P.T. Schuyler , D.K. Garcelon , and S. Escover . 2002a. Control of feral goats (Capra hircus) on Santa Catalina Island, California, USA. Pages 412–413 in C.R. Veitch and M.N. Clout , editors, Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

107.

P.T. Schuyler , D.K. Garcelon , and S. Escover . 2002b. Eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on Santa Catalina Island, California, USA. Pages 274–286 in C.R. Veitch and M.N. Clout , editors, Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

108.

C.R. Schwalbe , and P.C. Rosen . 1988. Preliminary report on effects of bullfrogs on wetland herpetofaunas in southeastern Arizona. Pages 166–173 in R.C. Szaro , K.E. Steverson , and D.R. Patton , editors, Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. GTR-RM-166, USDA Forest Service, Flagstaff, AZ. Google Scholar

109.

T.W. Seamans , C.D. Lovell , R.A. Dolbeer , and J.D. Cepek . 2001. Evaluation of mirrors to deter nesting starlings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1061–1066. Google Scholar

110.

N.J. Shah 2001. Eradication of alien predators in the Seychelles: an example of conservation action on tropical islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1219–1220. Google Scholar

111.

R.L. Sheley , and M.L. Half . 2006. Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using a rich seed mixture. Restoration Ecology 14:627–635. Google Scholar

112.

R.L. Sheley , and J. Krueger-Mangold . 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed Science 51:260–265. Google Scholar

113.

T.S. Sillett , R.B. Chandler , J.A. Royle , M. Kery , and S.A. Morrison . 2012. Hierarchical distance-sampling models to estimate population size and habitat-specific abundance of an island endemic. Ecological Applications 22:1997–2006. Google Scholar

114.

J. Silverman , and R.J. Brightwell . 2008. The Argentine ant: challenges in managing an invasive unicolonial pest. Annual Review of Entomology 53:231–252. Google Scholar

115.

A.M. Soeprono , and M.K. Rust . 2004. Strategies for controlling Argentine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 44:669–682. Google Scholar

116.

C.A. Staab , and M.L. Morrison . 1999. Managing riparian vegetation to control cowbirds. Pages 18–22 in M.L. Morrison , L.S. Hall , S.K. Robinson , S.I. Rothstein , D.C. Hahn , and T.D. Rich , editors, Research and management of the Brown-headed Cowbird in western landscapes. Studies in Avian Biology no. 18. Cooper Ornithological Society, Camarillo, CA. Google Scholar

117.

S. Stephenson-Pino 2012. New home for feral cats restores natural order to San Nicolas Island. U.S. Navy, San Diego, CA. Available at:  http://www.navyregionsouthwest.com/go/doc/4275/1422927/Google Scholar

118.

J.C. Stromberg , and M. Chew . 2003. Foreign visitors in riparian corridors of the American Southwest. Pages 24–46 in B. Tellman , editor, Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Google Scholar

119.

A.V. Suarez , and N.D. Tsutsui . 2008. The evolutionary consequences of biological invasions. Molecular Ecology 17:351–360. Google Scholar

120.

A.V. Suarez , N.D. Tsutsui , D.A. Holway , and T.J. Case . 1999. Behavioral and genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations of the Argentine ant. Biological Invasions 1:43–53. Google Scholar

121.

D.M. Suckling , R.W. Peck , L.M. Manning , L.D. Stringer , J. Cappadonna , and A.M. El-Sayed . 2008. Pheromone disruption of Argentine ant trail integrity. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34:1602–1609. Google Scholar

122.

E.A. Sugden , R.W. Thorp , and S.L. Buchmann . 1996. Honey bee-native bee competition: focal point for environmental change and apicultural response in Australia. Bee World 77:26–44. Google Scholar

123.

E. Sunamura , S. Suzuki , K. Nishisue , H. Sakamoto , M. Otsuka , Y. Utsumi , F. Mochizuki , T. Fukumoto , Y. Ishikawa , M. Terayama , and S. Tatsuki . 2011. Combined use of a synthetic trail pheromone and insecticidal bait provides effective control of an invasive ant. Pest Management Science 67:1230–1236. Google Scholar

124.

A. Sundermann , S. Stoll , and P. Haase . 2011. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications 21:1962–1971. Google Scholar

125.

R.A. Sweitzer , J.M. Constible , et al. 2003. Population ecology and ecological effects of bison on Santa Catalina Island, California. Unpublished report prepared for the Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon, CA. 113 pp. Google Scholar

126.

T.A. Switalski , J.A. Bissonette , T.H. Deluca , C.H. Luce , and M.A. Madej . 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21–28. Google Scholar

127.

M.L. Thomas , C.M. Payne-Makrisa , A.V. Suarez , N.D. Tsutsui , and D.A. Holway . 2006. When supercolonies collide: territorial aggression in an invasive and unicolonial social insect. Molecular Ecology 15:4303–4315. Google Scholar

128.

W.D. Tietje , and J.K. Vreeland . 1997. Vertebrates diverse and abundant in well-structured oak woodland. California Agriculture 51:8–11. Google Scholar

129.

S.F. Timm , L. Munson , B.A. Summers , K.A. Terio , E.J. Dubovi , C.E. Rupprecht , S. Kapil , and D.K. Garcelon . 2009. A suspected canine distemper epidemic as the cause of a catastrophic decline in Santa Catalina Island foxes (Urocyon littoralis catalinae). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45:333–343. Google Scholar

130.

N.D Tsutsui , A.V. Suarez , and R.K. Grosberg . 2003. Genetic diversity, asymmetrical aggression, and recognition in a widespread invasive species. PNAS 100: 1078–1083. Google Scholar

131.

B. Van Horne 2007. Conservation of ground squirrels. Pages 463–471 in J.O. Wolff and P.W. Sherman , editors, Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar

132.

A.M. Wenner , and R.W. Thorp . 1994. Removal of feral honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies from Santa Cruz Island. Pages 513–522 in W.L. Halvorson and G.J. Maender , editors, The Fourth California Islands Symposium: update on the status of resources. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. Google Scholar

133.

A.M. Wenner , R.W. Thorp , and J.F. Barthell . 2000. Removal of European honey bees from the Santa Cruz Island ecosystem. Pages 256–260 in D.R. Browne , K.L. Mitchell , and H.W. Chaney , editors, Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. Google Scholar

134.

E.O. Wilson 2000. On the future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 14:1–3. Google Scholar

135.

E.S. Zavaleta , R.J. Hobbs , and H.A. Mooney . 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:454–459. Google Scholar

136.

P.H. Zedler , and L.A. Seiger . 2000. Age mosaics and fire size in chaparral: a simulation study. Pages 9–18 in J.E. Keeley , M.B. Keeley , and C.J. Fotheringham , editors, Second interface between ecology and land development in California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-62, Sacramento, CA. Google Scholar
© 2014
Denise A. Knapp "Ecosystem Restoration on Santa Catalina Island: A Review of Potential Approaches and the Promise of Bottom-Up Invader Management," Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 7(1), 421-434, (1 January 2014). https://doi.org/10.3398/042.007.0132
Received: 12 April 2013; Accepted: 30 May 2014; Published: 1 January 2014
JOURNAL ARTICLE
14 PAGES


Share
SHARE
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top