Measuring Biodiversity and Extinction – Present and Past

How biodiversity is changing in our time represents a major concern for all organismal biologists. Anthropogenic changes to our planet are decreasing species diversity through the negative effects of pollution, habitat destruction, direct extirpation of species, and climate change. But major biotic changes – including those that have both increased and decreased species diversity – have happened before in Earth’s history. Biodiversity dynamics in past eras provide important context to understand ecological responses to current environmental change. The work of assessing biodiversity is woven into ecology, environmental science, conservation, paleontology, phylogenetics, evolutionary and developmental biology, and many other disciplines; yet, the absolute foundation of how we measure species diversity depends on taxonomy and systematics. The aspiration of this symposium, and complementary contributed talks, was to promote better understanding of our common goals and encourage future interdisciplinary discussion of biodiversity dynamics. The contributions in this collection of papers bring together a diverse group of speakers to confront several important themes. How can biologists best respond to the urgent need to identify and conserve diversity? How can we better communicate the nature of species across scientific disciplines? Where are the major gaps in knowledge about the diversity of living animal and plant groups, and what are the implications for understanding potential diversity loss? How can we effectively use the fossil record of past diversity and extinction to understand current biodiversity loss

Negative impacts of invasive predators used as biological control agents against the pest snail Lissachatina fulica: the snail Euglandina ‘rosea’ and the flatworm Platydemus manokwari

Since 1955 snails of the Euglandina rosea species complex and Platydemus manokwari flatworms were widely introduced in attempted biological control of giant African snails (Lissachatina fulica) but have been implicated in the mass extinction of Pacific island snails. We review the histories of the 60 introductions and their impacts on L. fulica and native snails. Since 1993 there have been unofficial releases of Euglandina within island groups. Only three official P. manokwari releases took place, but new populations are being recorded at an increasing rate, probably because of accidental introduction. Claims that these predators controlled L. fulica cannot be substantiated; in some cases pest snail declines coincided with predator arrival but concomitant declines occurred elsewhere in the absence of the predator and the declines in some cases were only temporary. In the Hawaiian Islands, although there had been some earlier declines of native snails, the Euglandina impacts on native snails are clear with rapid decline of many endemic Hawaiian Achatinellinae following predator arrival. In the Society Islands, Partulidae tree snail populations remained stable until Euglandina introduction, when declines were extremely rapid with an exact correspondence between predator arrival and tree snail decline. Platydemus manokwari invasion coincides with native snail declines on some islands, notably the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, and its invasion of Florida has led to mass mortality of Liguus spp. tree snails. We conclude that Euglandina and P. manokwari are not effective biocontrol agents, but do have major negative effects on native snail faunas. These predatory snails and flatworms are generalist predators and as such are not suitable for biological control

Biological Control of Pest Non-Marine Molluscs: A Pacific Perspective on Risks to Non-Target Organisms

Classic biological control of pest non-marine molluscs has a long history of disastrous outcomes, and despite claims to the contrary, few advances have been made to ensure that contemporary biocontrol efforts targeting molluscs are safe and effective. For more than half a century, malacologists have warned of the dangers in applying practices developed in the field of insect biological control, where biocontrol agents are often highly host-specific, to the use of generalist predators and parasites against non-marine mollusc pests. Unfortunately, many of the lessons that should have been learned from these failed biocontrol programs have not been rigorously applied to contemporary efforts. Here, we briefly review the failures of past non-marine mollusc biocontrol efforts in the Pacific islands and their adverse environmental impacts that continue to reverberate across ecosystems. We highlight the fact that none of these past programs has ever been demonstrated to be effective against targeted species, and at least two (the snails Euglandina spp. and the flatworm Platydemus manokwari) are implicated in the extinction of hundreds of snail species endemic to Pacific islands. We also highlight other recent efforts, including the proposed use of sarcophagid flies and nematodes in the genus Phasmarhabditis, that clearly illustrate the false claims that past bad practices are not being repeated. We are not making the claim that biocontrol programs can never be safe and effective. Instead, we hope that in highlighting the need for robust controls, clear and measurable definitions of success, and a broader understanding of ecosystem level interactions within a rigorous scientific framework are all necessary before claims of success can be made by biocontrol advocates. Without such amendments to contemporary biocontrol programs, it will be impossible to avoid repeating the failures of non-marine mollusc biocontrol programs to date

Correction: Diverse Gastropod Hosts of Angiostrongylus cantonensis, the Rat Lungworm, Globally and with a Focus on the Hawaiian Islands.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094969.]

Infection rates for gastropod species that tested positive in this study.

<p>Levels of infection vary considerably from 68% infection in <i>Parmarion martensi</i> to 1% in <i>Tornatellides</i> sp.</p

The extent of gastropod sampling throughout the main Hawaiian Islands.

<p>To show the broad geographic coverage, the map includes only sites 10 km or more away from each other.</p