as a result of individuals blowing across the English Channel, but both only reached Europe in the first place as a result of human activities: the shipping of pottery from China, in the case of the hornet, and introduction as an agent of biological control, in the case of the ladybird.
On arrival, the introduced organism then has to escape and reproduce. Those that maintain a viable population, without further human intervention, are regarded as ‘established’ or ‘naturalised’, the rest dismissed as ‘casuals’. (Incidentally, the term ‘feral’, according to Sir Christopher Lever, a British author of several well-known books on introduced animals, should be reserved for creatures that have ‘lapsed into the wild from a domesticated condition’, not simply escaped from captivity. Noting that populations of the American mink established in the British countryside are often referred to as ‘feral’, Lever insists that to regard the non-native mammal as ‘domesticated’ is ‘preposterous and wrong’.)
Only around 10 per cent of organisms brought to a new country persist unaided in the wild. Disagreements over what constitutes non-native flora and fauna, along with the patchiness of data, have led to varying estimates of the number in Britain. The most recent figures, for 2017, suggest that 3,163 species were present in England, Scotland and Wales, of which 1,980 – mostly plants – had established and were reproducing in the wild. In Ireland, there are at least 1,266 non-native species, of which two-thirds are plants.
Finally, for something to be regarded as truly invasive, it needs to spread and expand its population enough to cause measurable negative impacts. On average, a minority of established non-natives register as a problem, although the likelihood of invasiveness varies: just 4 per cent of introduced insects in Britain are classed as invasive, compared with 32 per cent of non-native fish and 85 per cent of exotic plants.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that a tiny proportion of introduced species will ever earn the title ‘invasive’. According to Helen Roy’s team, which keeps a running score, in 2017 at least 275 (about 9 per cent) of the non-natives established in England, Scotland and Wales cause negative impacts. While around 5 per cent of the 1,266 introduced species recorded in Ireland are classed as invasive. These numbers will almost certainly climb.
So, let’s turn to those impacts which can be classed as environmental, economic or social. Again, there is much debate, but the number one ‘environmental’ charge against invasives is that they harm natives, through predation, competition or, perhaps, by spreading disease. Invasive species are increasingly listed alongside habitat destruction, pollution and overhunting as key threats to wildlife. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment says they’re a major driver of biodiversity loss. A recent review of 247 kinds of plants and animals around the world that had vanished since 1500 found invasives to be the second most common cause of extinction (hunting, fishing or harvesting came first). For the amphibians, mammals and reptiles on this list of the disappeared, invasives were the number one culprit. Among the most frequent offenders were rats, cats and goats, along with diseases, such as avian malaria and chytridiomycosis, a fungal condition that is wiping out amphibians around the world.
Many of the most often cited cases of extinctions caused, or at least hastened, by introduced species come from islands. Famous examples include a near-flightless wren wiped out by the lighthouse-keeper’s cat on New Zealand’s Stephen Island; the dozen sorts of birds thought to have been extirpated by the brown tree snakes on Guam in the Pacific; or the eight varieties of endemic rodent dispatched on the Galapagos Islands by ship rats. A well-known non-island case comes from Lake Victoria in East Africa where the Nile perch was released by colonial Brits for sport-fishing in the late 1950s. This fast-growing predator has since been blamed for the loss of two-thirds of the lake’s 300 types of endemic cichlid fish, although the introduction may merely have delivered the coup de grâce to dwindling populations already threatened by decades of over-harvesting and pollution.
Back here in Britain, concrete evidence for extinction is scarce, but we can’t ignore two examples where introductions have threatened other species and could lead to their demise. While grey squirrels don’t directly interfere with native red squirrels, they outcompete them for food, especially in deciduous woodland, and also pass on a lethal virus. The red’s population crashed in the wake of the grey’s arrival, so it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that grey squirrels are a big part of the problem. Disease is also a reason that signal crayfish, brought from North America in the 1970s for aquaculture, are displacing Britain’s white-clawed crayfish (which, as mentioned, may or may not be a true native). In this case, the signals pass on a fungal-like pathogen to the white-claws, which die within weeks of being infected. To be fair, ‘crayfish plague’ was already expunging the white-clawed population before signals came on the scene. Indeed, it was the signal’s resistance to the plague that had recommended the crustacean to fish farmers in the first place.
There’s no doubting, however, that even where an introduced species doesn’t kill off a native, it can contribute to significant population declines. And if the impacts are only felt locally, it’s still a concern. For instance, pirri-pirri burr, an Antipodean plant invader which reached Britain at the beginning of the twentieth century, probably as a hitch-hiker in sheep fleeces, will never trigger a national emergency, but in certain places – notably, Minsmere in Suffolk, and Lindisfarne island off the Northumberland coast – it threatens local wildlife.
Another problem, as some see it, wrought by invasive species is hybridisation. Even if non-natives seldom exterminate our home-grown wildlife, the tendency of many to interbreed with them is beyond the pale. Perhaps the best outcome is when the offspring prove sterile, although this represents, for the native, a waste of valuable breeding effort. More serious are cases where viable progeny arise and in turn back-cross with the indigenous species; this sort of thing can erode the gene pool, reducing the population’s genetic variation and leaving it vulnerable to extinction. Hybridisation between native red deer and smaller introduced sika deer – an Asian variety – in parts of Scotland is a well-known example. Over time as the genes mix, red deer are starting to get smaller and sikas larger. As the two deer approach each other in size, this facilitates further hybridisation and risks accelerating negative impacts. Occasionally, hybridisation results in a more vigorous strain, as seems to be happening with the bluebell. Half the entire global population of this much-loved wildflower is found in this country, but a fertile hybrid has also established here, the result of a cross between the native bluebell and a Spanish variety introduced by horticulturists in the late nineteenth century. Many bluebells in Britain’s gardens and urban areas turn out to be this hybrid, although even experts struggle to tell the difference and, for now at least, the hybrid bluebell does not seem to be invading woodlands. Indeed, recent research suggests that the Spanish bluebell is less fertile, and sets fewer seeds, than its British counterpart.
Ecologists also fear that invasive organisms could alter ecosystems in far more profound ways. These could include anything from changing water quality or soil nutrient levels to disrupting food webs, reducing pollination rates and generally messing about with the ‘balance of nature’. Examples at random from around the world include the Mediterranean tamarisk tree, blamed for drying up marshes and salinising the soil in California, or zebra mussels altering nitrogen and phosphorus levels in freshwater habitats. One school of thought suggests that since ecosystems are dynamic and ever-changing, perhaps we shouldn’t be too bothered. Such an attitude is simplistic and defeatist. Much of what humans – the most ‘invasive’ species of all – have done, from cutting down rainforests to spilling oil into the sea, from landfilling toxic waste to pumping out carbon dioxide, has upset ecosystems, and we need to understand and combat those negative effects however subtle. Right now – not for want of research – our understanding of how ecosystems function, how different organisms interact, and what makes these complex systems more resilient, or less, remains limited, with plenty of knowledge gaps left to fill. We are instinctively concerned each time a species is lost from a natural system through our actions (or negligence); we should also perhaps feel a similar disquiet whenever we cause a new one to be added.
If
