Within the realm of conservation science, effective mechanisms exist for charting the detriment invasive species inflict upon an ecosystem. These measurable variables encompass population counts, extinction timelines, and distribution maps, all of which are duly quantified and visually represented.
Instances of individual animals interacting detrimentally with other species have rarely been documented. Take, for example, the scenario of a seabird losing digits due to an attack by fire ants, and the precise duration required for that animal to succumb. A recent study has established the inaugural formal framework for tracking such occurrences.
This research was spearheaded by Thomas Evans, a biologist from the Free University of Berlin (FU Berlin), alongside Professor Michael Mendl from the University of Bristol. The findings of this investigation have been published in the journal Nature Communications.
For years, Evans monitored how introduced avian species pushed native fauna toward extirpation. Collaborating with Mendl, who specializes in animal welfare science, he frequently noted that this field of inquiry was narrowly confined to tracking population scales.
The factual reality that individual creatures were being preyed upon, infested by parasites, or starved was essentially overlooked. As a remedy, they devised an assessment structure termed AWICIS, the Animal Welfare Impact Classification for Invasive Species.
This system quantifies the degree to which an introduced species affects the physical and psychological condition of a solitary animal. This metric is distinct from species survival, as the concepts of welfare and biodiversity are not interchangeable.
Biological invasions can precipitate species extinction, yet they also subject individuals to profound suffering that remains entirely absent from population data. AWICIS categorizes the consequences for societal well-being across five severity grades, differentiating between minor and severe degrees of impact.
Evidence substantiating these impacts must originate from one of three defined sources. The criteria include observable injuries, documented behaviors, or physiological indicators, such as elevated stress hormone levels. A swollen, closed eye qualifies as an indicator, as does excessive feather preening. An increase in cortisol levels detected in blood analysis is also considered, even if the animal appears outwardly unharmed.
This newly developed methodology borrows its structure from an existing instrument utilized for evaluating biodiversity damage. Where the older tool tracks extinction risk, AWICIS keeps a record of the fate of the individual animal under the researchers’ observation.
Evans and Mendl applied this framework to two vastly different sets of introduced species: non-native birds and non-native ants. Both groups have been subjects of study for decades. The results concerning the ants proved particularly striking. Approximately 92% of recorded adverse impacts on animal welfare linked to introduced ants fell into the highest severity classifications.
The resulting harm spanned six classes and 27 orders of fauna, encompassing turtles, lizards, crabs, bats, seabird hatchlings, and even domestic cats and dogs. Red fire ants were identified as primary agents of disruption, particularly the invasive red variety. Trailing closely were the yellow crazy ants. On Christmas Island, native red crabs suffered blindness and maiming.
In Hawaiian petrel colonies, shearwaters exhibited missing toe digits, developed malformed beaks, and had eyes partially obscured by encroaching skin. On Minami-Daito Island, a shrike fledgling attacked by yellow crazy ants suffered severe eye inflammation and died within days from the resulting trauma.
What makes this menace so perilous? The answers lie in both the physical size of the victims and the chemical composition of the attackers. A single fire ant delivers a minute dose of venom or acid, but a large aggregation achieves devastating effect.
To cause the demise of a vertebrate, hundreds or thousands of stings are necessary, delivered over a span of several hours. Generally, the larger the organism, the more protracted its death process and the greater the perceived agony.
While native predators also kill, certain introduced ant species are distinguished by the prolonged duration of suffering they inflict. Studies on the impact of red fire ants on humans reveal that their stings can trigger anaphylactic shock, resulting in adult mortality.
When this principle is extrapolated to thousands of stings being administered to a bird chick or a lizard, the outcome is analogous. The situation with introduced birds was relatively less severe. Only about 9% of the negative welfare impacts associated with them reached more serious thresholds, largely stemming from competition over sustenance and nesting sites.
Islands lacking native predatory birds presented an exception. When predatory birds are introduced to control rats, they then commence preying on seabirds that never evolved defensive behaviors against aerial hunters. It is in these scenarios that the severity escalates.
The authors pointed out a critical finding: physiological evidence was only discerned in 2% of ant impact cases and only a small fraction of bird impact cases. Stress hormones and other subtle chemical markers of distress were almost entirely absent from existing records.
The preponderance of animal welfare data relied upon visible injuries and observable behaviors, as these were the data points field biologists were already collecting. For cases involving overt wounds, this proves adequate.
When suffering is less conspicuous, physiological data possesses the capability to bridge observational gaps that the naked eye might miss. A recent publication focusing on wild animal welfare physiology is beginning to substantiate this viewpoint.
The established findings lean heavily toward high-income territories such as North America, Europe, and Australia, where the bulk of biodiversity research is published.
The impact of these social afflictions on quality of life in low-income regions is almost certainly being underestimated, and the absence of documentation should not be misinterpreted as an absence of such harm.
Prior to this endeavor, the scientific community lacked a standardized method for tracking how introduced species affect individual organisms. Declines in population size and outright extinction can be accounted for, unlike protracted physical or emotional injuries.
A practical implication arising from this is the introduction of a second parameter for nature management decisions. An ant species might pose a low risk of causing species extinction but still inflict monumental suffering.
A 2023 study indicated that only 17 out of over 500 introduced ant species had caused significant biodiversity damage. This new perspective suggests that the negative consequences for animal welfare could be dramatically more widespread.
Evans is now urging field researchers to gather data on animal welfare concurrently with biodiversity surveys, paying particular attention to low-income areas where data collection has been most scarce.
About the Author
