Other Alien Invertebrates
Insects, by their massive diversity and ecological variety, almost inevitably dominate many accounts of invasive invertebrates, but numerous other invertebrates are also commonly aliens – and, as for insects, some have considerable ecological or applied importance. Some are vectors of parasites or diseases that can affect native hosts, as in some examples noted below, and their control may entail other impacts. Even for many which pose few assessable impacts on native insects or others, ramifications of controlling them may still cause concerns. Drenches used to rid domestic stock of intestinal parasites (including alien species), for example, may lead to pesticide residues persisting in dung, with possible effects on the dung-feeding community. Residues of the broad spectrum antiparasitic drug ivermectin, amongst others, have been implicated in disrupting development of dung-breeding flies. It has used widely against ectoparasites of stock, but concerns have been raised since the late 1980s, and ivermectin has also been shown to prevent emergence of some alien dung beetles in Australia. Some coprophagous scarabaeoids may avoid dung from treated cattle, whilst others may be attracted to it. A single cattle injection of ivermectin was effective in killing larvae of the dung-breeding fly Orthelia cornicina (Muscidae) for up to 32 days after treatment (Wardhaugh and Rodriguez-Menendez 1988), mirroring outcomes reported elsewhere for several related Diptera, and also killed dung beetle larvae.
KeywordsAlien Species Pine Wood Nematode Native Insect Native Earthworm Native Bumblebee
- Toth A (2011) Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, the pinewood nematode: its significance and a historical review. Acta Biol Szeged 55:213–217Google Scholar
- Wardhaugh KG, Rodriguez-Menendez H (1988) The effects of the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin, on the development and survival of the dung-breeding fly, Orthelia cornicina (F.) and the scarabaeine dung beetles, Copris hispana L., Bubas bubalus (Oliver) and Onitis belial F. J Appl Ecol 106:381–389Google Scholar