Ö÷²¥´óÐã

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
« Previous | Main | Next »

Rabbits: public enemy number one?

Post categories:

Jeremy Torrance web producer Jeremy Torrance web producer | 12:34 UK time, Tuesday, 21 December 2010

Can an 'invasive' species ever be a good thing? Can a non-native species ever become naturalised? Or for that matter, is there any clear way of defining what's invasive and what isn't?

Rabbit by Gary Jones

Public enemy number one?

A report released last week week (reported in and on Ö÷²¥´óÐã News) puts these questions into sharp focus. The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-native Species to the British Economy, commissioned by Defra, the Scottish government and the Welsh Assembly, says that non-native species cost the British economy £1.7bn a year. The worst culprit is, it states, the rabbit with an annual cost of £263m.

That's a lot of cash. Cue various ministers getting vocal about acting soon to save money in the long run and protecting native species.

I tweeted this story (rather early in the morning before I'd properly digested it, I must admit). The reaction was instant and intelligent.

'Invasive?' on the subject of the rabbits. 'We brought them here and they're more or less native, or 'naturalised'. They benefit land management as grazers too.'

A point backed up by : 'What about all the good rabbits do as grazers keeping habitat just right, as for stone curlews?'

It seems there's more to the story that meets the eye. Indeed some conservationists are unequivocal in their belief that rabbits are not pests. 'Rabbits are a crucial partner in our conservation work and we love 'em,' . 'They keep the grass short enough to encourage back our beloved stone curlews.'

It's not just curlews who benefit from the grazing. Other rare species like the silver spotted skipper and large blue butterflies also depend on the habitat rabbits help to create. And there's the native predators too like buzzards, foxes, polecats and stoats who like nothing better than a bunny for dinner.

The other side of this coin is that they're also predated by the dreaded American mink, a more recent invasive species. So unwittingly and unwillingly they're helping to support this species. Add to that the fact that rabbits do an estimated £115m damage to agriculture each year and it's obvious that, as ever with these matters, the truth is far more complicated than the headlines suggest.

What about the question of whether they're 'non-native'? They've been in the country since Norman times, the best part of a millennium. How long do they have to be here before we consider them native?

A recent report on invasive species by says this: 'Inconsistency and prejudice are rife in media coverage of non-native species.' And then: 'There comes a point where a non-native has been exerting its influence on native biodiversity for so long that a new community has emerged.' I'd urge anyone with an interest in conservation to read .

I'm slightly nervous about mentioning this on a blog about British wildlife but what about rabbits as food for us humans? : 'Why are we not using rabbits as a food source which was why they were brought to this country in the first place?' It was served up regularly when I was a child in the 1970s. A straw poll in the office backs this up. But now, rabbit seems to be the preserve of the foodies and some country folk.

If there's too many of them and they're cheap surely they should be a staple rather than a delicacy. Too simplistic maybe.

Rabbits weren't the only part of the report that had people questioning its findings. with the argument that the Varroa mite 'only' costs £27m a year. 'What about bees' role as pollinators and therefore financial impact on agriculture?'

In the Guardian piece's comments section one person argues that the potato cyst nematode shouldn't even be on the list in the first place: 'The potato isn't actually a native species.' Technically, of course, absolutely correct.

I'll finish on a lighter note with this from : 'Many parents paying for the upkeep of family pet bunnies may agree with the costly price tag too.' As one of them, I know exactly what she means...

The Curious Owl, a sideways look at British nature.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    There is of course a major difference between 'invasive' and 'non-native' - invasive just means that the species is spreading out, so natives are entirely capable of being invasive - look at bracken and birch on heathland, for example. Most non-natives are a long way from 'invasive' - very few non-native species become established, and very few of those go on to become invasive, especially in the wider countryside - just think how many alien plant species are in gardens, and how few go feral. The rabbit has pretty much stopped its expansion and so should no longer be considered invasive. The botanists have a system where if a species has been present since c.1500 it's an archaophyte and is accorded semi-native status.

    Personally, I used to work on the Adonis and Chalkhill Blues - neither species would survive without rabbits, and both were almost made extinct by the Myxomatosis outbreaks in the 1960s,

  • Comment number 2.

    @rimo, many thanks for that. I've had some interesting comments too on Twitter which I'll post here very soon. Maybe the cost that rabbits cause should be balanced against the benefits they bring. That might give us a figure closer to the truth.

  • Comment number 3.

    Not only do few people eat Rabbit now but many of those sold in the shops are actually imported from China !! This is a ridiculous waste of food miles and they taste like cotton wool , nothing like as good as a wild Rabbit or Grey Squirrel. I will try almost anything and regularly am given Rabbits by friends who shoot and sometimes have Hare or Muntjac that have been killed on the road, although would never wish to harm a live Hare. Many years ago when working at a Bird Observatory even tried Mute Swan as a result of a ringed bird hitting a cable and being brought dead to the Obs.

  • Comment number 4.

    Certainly in terms of fish the introduction of Pike into the Scottish Highlands has had an impact in what are already low biomass environments, and certainly impacts the traditional role of the ferox trout. But we have Zander and Danube Catfish spreading through the Engish systems.

    One of the most dramatic examples I have observed personnally is impact of Rhododendron, I believe it still has no natural predation in the UK and displaces other plants that would have supported insect life. A river I have visited in the highlands for many years was choked along its banks back in the early 90s and the trout population was very sparse and very small in size. In the second half of the 90s the Rhododendron was cleared, this resulted in the following:

    A really quite dramatic increase in the brown trout population, and their size increase was even more dramatic, watching a significant hatch of insects, never seen before, is really quite delightful, and the activity from the trout in response also good to watch.

    The now opened up banks also supports very pleasant walks for the public where they can see dippers, the odd salmon jump in addition to traditional bird life and the rising trout.

    Access is now possible for canoeists and rafters bringing yet more income to the local area.

    However when I was breeding Indian Moonmoths back in the 70s, living in Cornwall at the time, ready supplies of the food plant was a plus rather than having to make expensive purchases from suppliers, especially when you are on a pocket money budget.

  • Comment number 5.

    Yep, still virtuallyno natural biocontrol of Rhodi - there are a few psyllids, etc, which will eat it, but they're not going to roll back the invasion! It's also surprisingly difficult to kill by hand - it regenerates quickly from untreated stumps and has waxy leaves which are very difficulto spray effectively - the treatment just washes off without penetrating

  • Comment number 6.

    When I used to do work with the BTCV we used to clear Rhodedendron and would cut it at ground level and then immediately paint the cut ends with Glyphosate or Ammonium Sulphamate which are translocated herbicides which break down rapidly on the soil so are not persistent in the environment. I dont know if the latter is still available. I have heard of herbicide being mixed with diesel so as to penetrate the waxy leaves but this is environmentally undesirable. The cut material should be gathered and burnt not shredded as the plant contains phytotoxins that supress other plant growth.

Ìý

Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD

Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation

Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.