TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can using an introduced animal to control another animal actually work on a large scale?

I have seen on the Internet the devastation being caused by cane toads and I was wondering if this is just a one off occurrence. If so, should this technique be used more often? Surely this biological control will actually work well if the research on the chosen animal is done properly. Also if it goes wrong surely the animals can be removed quickly so why didn't they do that for the came toad? Obviously it would be better if the animal didn't have to be introduced but it would be much more friendly way of controlling animals. No killing would be involved so it would also suit animal activists and if it works then one could focus less on controlling the actual pests population meaning it would also be cheaper.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/markavery/archive/2010/10/11/pheasants.aspx - This is a link which explains some of the effects that pheasants have caused in the uk. They have not effected the natural environment very badly even though no research was done on to the effects. Surely this shows that if we are carefully then it is possible.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 23 2013: There have been some successful introductions but it needs to be a very specific introduction. Cane toads didn't work because they are prepared to eat anything and found a whole bunch of things they like better then cane beetles. Cactoblastis was better because it is a very choosey feeder.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prickly_pears_in_Australia
    • thumb
      May 23 2013: The "success" of the moth introduction to contain the failure of the cactus introduction has an irony to it don't you think?

      If you take a peek at the Wikipedia page about the Cactoblastis moth you will find that its Caribbean introduction has resulted in it invading America, decimating the native cacti there, especially in Florida.

      Perhaps the Australian "success" is more attributable to the absence of similar native succulents and the grace that allowed the moth to not find a native species to exploit, rather than any particular genius of the practice of introducing species.
      • May 23 2013: This is the area that I am quite interested in as somehow we need to reach an equilibrium between the 2 species population size. Surely when these moths were being introduced, the scientists were in control and were able to see the effects. If the scientists wited for the equilibrium to occur then surely this would not be a problem.
      • thumb
        May 27 2013: Perhaps the Australian "success" is more attributable to the absence of similar native succulents and the grace that allowed the moth to not find a native species to exploit, rather than any particular genius of the practice of introducing species.
        Agreed. Cactoblastis only worked here because we don't have a whole lot of native cacti. Specificity is the key.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.