Remove/control non-native invertebrates

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

67%
Certainty

25%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Non-native invertebrates can affect mammals in a number of ways. Alterations to habitats and predation on other species could reduce feeding resources available to mammals and, in some cases, direct predation on mammals can occur (Masser & Grant 1986). Such effects can lead to mammals avoiding areas occupied by non-native invertebrates (Killion & Grant 1993). Control of such species may be carried out in an attempt to reverse these impacts.

Masser M.P. & Grant W.E. (1986) Fire ant-induced trap mortality of small mammals in east-central Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 31, 540–542.

Killion M.J. & Grant W.E. (1993) Scale effects in assessing the impact of imported fire ants on small mammals. The Southwestern Naturalist, 38, 393–396.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invertebrates. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study the USA found that after the control of red imported fire ants, capture rates of northern pygmy mice increased.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1989–1990 in coastal grassland and shrubland in Texas, USA (Killion et al. 1995) found that after the control of red imported fire ants Solenopsis invicta, capture rates of northern pygmy mice Baiomys taylori increased. Northern pygmy mouse capture rates increased more where red fire ants were controlled (from 6–9/plot during first three months (over winter) of ant control to 19–25/plot nine months later) than in uncontrolled areas (8–9/plot during first three months of ant control to 11–15/plot nine months later). Captures were similar between plots in the summer before treatments began (19–27 mice/plot). In June 1989, two 110 × 130-m plots were established at the Welder Wildlife Foundation refuge. Each plot was divided into a treatment area and an untreated area. In treatment areas, an aerosol insecticide (active ingredient 0.7% pyrethrin) was injected directly into ant mounds while a bait insecticide (active ingredient 0.88% amidinohydrazone) was deployed monthly, from November 1989 to October 1990. Between June 1989 and October 1990, mice were sampled for four days/month using 108 baited Sherman live traps/plot. Animals were marked at first capture, and only included in analysis when caught for a second time.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Killion M.J., Grant W.E. & Vinson S.B. (1995) Response of Baiomys taylori to changes in density of imported fire ants. Journal of Mammalogy, 76, 141-147.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Remove/control non-native amphibians (e.g. cane toads) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove/control non-native species that could interbreed with native species Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove/control non-native invertebrates Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link