130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Box 2. The native versus alien species debate in a wildlife comeback context
This study of species recovery sets the scene
for applying the lessons learned to a larger set
of species to achieve additional conservation
successes. Humans had a long influence on Europe’s
fauna and flora, and many species currently established
in Europe are non-native to our continent.
Because of a large number of definitions of what
constitutes a non-native species, the first challenge
consists of establishing which species of wildlife
are to be encouraged and which are seen as detrimental
to conservation.
Many species which are non-native to Europe,
or native to a restricted part of the continent, have
been widely introduced, primarily for activities
such as hunting. The Mouflon was introduced to
the Alps in the 1960s and has since expanded in
range and population size; it has also been introduced
to other parts of Europe [1, 2] . The species is
often considered native to Corsica, Sardinia and
Cyprus despite the fact that it is a semi-domesticated
sheep introduced in prehistoric times [2, 3] .
This species illustrates very neatly the difficulty of
disentangling native from non-native species in
Europe. Which species are native? Which are
non-native? For which species should recovery from
historic persecution be encouraged, or the colonisation
of new habitats (e.g. anthropogenic habitats
such as parks and cities)? Other species have been
introduced much earlier, e.g. the rabbit (a native of
the Iberian Peninsula and western France) and the
pheasant (native across Asia) most likely in Roman
times [4] . Fallow deer has been introduced in some
parts of Europe, but is native to other parts and
the debate is still ongoing as to where the species
is native [5] . Other species were introduced to new
areas in Europe for conservation purposes: the
Alpine marmot was introduced to the Pyrenees in
the 1940s in order to reduce the predation pressure
of Golden eagles on the Pyrenean chamois [6] . Since
this is the fauna that Europeans are nowadays
familiar with, many of these species (including
clearly non-native species such as Canada geese and
Ring-necked parakeets) are likely to be considered
native or unproblematic to the environment by
the general public [7, 8] . Accordingly, expansion of
non-native species populations may be seen as
positive amongst certain demographic groups and
any management to control non-native populations
may prove unpopular [7, 9] . For example, the House
crow, a native species of Asia, became established
in the Netherlands where it was originally put on
the protected species list – thus, a government-proposed
cull was successfully challenged [10] .
Uncertainty about the native versus non-native
species dichotomy is not just confined to members
of the general public [11] . Since a polarised debate is
unlikely to lead to a solution of how to approach
management of non-native species, more research
will have to be carried out, an open scientific debate
will have to take place and compromises have to
be sought in order to devise a strategy for dealing
with increases in abundance or range expansion
of (presumed) non-native species in Europe. This
is clearly also important in order to establish how
to deal with new types of reintroductions, such as
assisted colonisation and ecological replacement,
for conservation purposes [12] , and with natural
range expansions as a result of climate change or
destruction of natural barriers (e.g. Cattle egret,
Jackal [13, 14] ).
References
An Exmoor pony,
one of Europes most
original horse breeds,
genetically very close
to the now extinct
European wild horse.
1. Bertolino, S., di Montezemolo, N.C.
& Bassano, B. 2009. Food-niche
relationships within a guild of alpine
ungulates including an introduced
species. Journal of Zoology, 277 (1):
63–69.
2. Temple, H.J. & Terry, A. 2007. The
Status and Distribution of European
Mammals. Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities.
Luxembourg.
3. Hermans, W.A. 1996. The European
mouflon, Ovis musimon [article
in Dutch]. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde,
121 (18): 515–517.
4. Mitchell-Jones, A.J., Amori, G.,
Bogdanowicz, W., et al. 1999. The Atlas
of European Mammals, London, UK: T.
and A.D. Poyser.
5. Masseti, M. & Mertzanidou, D. 2008.
Dama dama. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version
2013.1. [cited 14th August 2013].
Available from: www.iucnredlist.org.
6. Barrio, I.C., Herrero, J., Guillermo
Bueno, C., et al. 2013. The successful
introduction of the alpine marmot
Marmota marmota in the Pyrenees,
Iberian Peninsula, Western Europe.
Mammal Review, 43 (2): 142–155.
7. Garcia-Llorente, M., Martin-Lopez,
B., Gonzalez, J.A., et al. 2008. Social
perceptions of the impacts and
benefits of invasive alien species:
Implications for management.
Biological Conservation, 141 (12):
2969–2983.
8. Selge, S., Fischer, A. & van der Wal, R.
2011. Public and professional views on
invasive non-native species – A qualitative
social scientific investigation.
Biological Conservation, 144 (12):
3089–3097.
9. Bremner, A. & Park, K. 2007. Public
attitudes to the management
of invasive non-native species in
Scotland. Biological Conservation, 139
(3–4): 306–314.
10. Haag, R.D. 2013. ECLI:NL:RB-
DHA:2013:BY8385. Date of judgement
14/01/2013.
11. Shackelford, N., Hobbs, R.J., Heller,
N.E., et al. 2013. Finding a middleground:
The native/non-native debate.
Biological Conservation, 158 55–62.
12. IUCN 2012. IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions
and Other Conservation
Translocations. Available from: http://
www.issg.org/pdf/publications/translocation-Guidelines-2012.pdf.
13. Arnold, J., Humer, A., Heltai, M., et al.
2012. Current status and distribution
of golden jackals Canis aureus in
Europe. Mammal Review, 42 (1): 1–11.
14. Voisin, C. 2010. The herons of Europe,
Poyser Monographs, ed. London, UK: T
& AD Poyser Ltd.
300