Search

While globalisation is often viewed as a contemporary transformation and symptom of the modern world, textual, archaeological, genetic, and other sources increasingly demonstrate significant interconnectivity – and linked biological exchange – in the ancient world. Already by the Bronze Age, major commercial networks existed in several parts of the Old World, leading to the human-mediated exchange of domesticated crops, animals, and other biological species. Trade links increased in the Iron Age, resulting in longer-distance commercial and biological exchanges. Species translocations in this period diversified subsistence but also resulted in the spread of deleterious species such as the black rat and the plague. Biological exchange further intensified in the Medieval period, with the emergence of expanded and intensified trade networks, particularly in the Indian Ocean. These brought a vast number of new breeds and species to societies across the Old World. Species moved for a whole variety of reasons, from the mundane to the symbolic, and were both intentionally and unintentionally transported by people. While introduced species are often vilified today, it is clear that the creation of increasingly cosmopolitan assemblages of organisms across the Old World not only at times transformed ecologies in negative ways, but also enriched diets, improved human health, made challenging landscapes habitable, and in many cases increased biodiversity. Keywords : Biological exchange, invasive species, novel ecosystems, species translocation, Silk Road, trade, Indian Ocean Globalisation tends to be seen as a contemporary phenomenon. Those of us alive today have the sense of living in a world that is undergoing profound change, as new technologies enable the collapse of age-old barriers to communication, travel, and economic integration. Linked to the globalisation of technology, ideas, culture, and commodities is a globalisation of the biological world, with intensive connectivity facilitating the spread of species beyond their native range. Like globalisation, the transfer of such ‘invasive’ species is seen as a recent phenomenon, a dangerous and costly corollary of a seemingly over-connected modern world. ‘Bioinvasions’ are described as ‘pathogens of globalization’ (Bright 1999), and scientists talk about the potential risk of invasive species as a feature of ‘bioterrorism’ and the need for ‘biosecurity’ (Meyerson and Reaser 2003). But, in reality, the idea that either globalisation or invasive species are new is profoundly inaccurate. While the speed of communication and transport, and the degree of economic integration today may be greatly increased, we live in a world that has long been ‘globalising’.

Summary New Zealand is home to a small but strange set of land-birds and is world-renowned as a hotspot of sea-bird diversity. This unique assemblage of species is the result of the fact that the New Zealand landmass is continental in origin but island-like in nature, being isolated from other countries by a large extent of ocean. A lack of mammalian predators means that many New Zealand birds have evolved remarkable features, including gigantism, flightlessness, ground-nesting habits and physiology which protects them from aerial avian predators. Unfortunately, these features have made New Zealand birds highly susceptible to the impacts of introduced mammalian predators and many species are now threatened. The high levels of extinction and rates of decline have spurred the development of highly innovative and revolutionary conservation techniques. New Zealand conservation efforts have paved the way for international conservation projects, in particular with regard to the use of offshore islands, pest control methodologies, species translocation and breeding manipulation. The use of these interventions has led to the recovery of numerous highly endangered species and the discipline continues to evolve, with New Zealand scientists contributing to ongoing development and discussion of conservation methods. While New Zealand is home to one of the largest public conservation organisations in the world, dwindling governmental and financial support is putting many successful conservation projects at risk and private initiatives are becoming increasingly vital for the ongoing protection of New Zealand’s unique species. The history and origin of New Zealand’s avifauna New Zealand has long been recognised as an environment which hosts a remarkable avian assemblage. During its history New Zealand has contained 245 species in 110 genera representing 46 families. Like Australia, New Zealand has a high level of endemism in its avifauna, with 176 (72%) of the 245 resident species endemic to the archipelago (Holdaway et al . 2001). Species diversity is dominated by three groups, the Procellariiformes (53 species), Charadriiformes (30 species) and Passeriformes (44 species) and the country has a global reputation as a hot-spot of sea-bird diversity, with almost a quarter of the 359 sea-bird species worldwide occurring as breeding populations in New Zealand, of which 36 (42%) are endemic (Gaskin and Rayner 2013). The prevalence of sea-birds, shore-birds and forest-birds reflects New Zealand’s unique environment as an isolated archipelago with a very recent history of human occupation and consequent destruction.

Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century and early portion of the twentieth century, there were widespread declines in wildlife species in North America due to unregulated harvest for commercial, regulatory, and private uses as well as dramatic changes in land-use practices (Moulton & Sanderson 1999). Despite recognition of the grave situation facing many of the most popular and common wildlife species, resulting in the initiation of continent-wide conservation and management programs for both game and nongame species, many of these species were critically imperiled by the time such programs were initiated (Mackie 2000). The history of wildlife management and conservation programs in the United States is intrinsically tied to this point in time, in that many of the practices and values that are in existence today stem from the recognition that wildlife resources are not inexhaustible and that active management and protection efforts must be implemented to offset the negative impacts that our species exerts on natural resources. One of the most effective and widely used tools employed by wildlife management and conservation organizations to recover and redistribute wildlife species within suitable habitats is the practice of species translocation (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 1987). Indeed, species-translocation programs targeted at reintroducing or introducing wildlife species to areas of suitable or reclaimed habitat were used extensively in attempts to recover decimated species across North America beginning in the early portion of the twentieth century (Griffith et al. 1989; Fischer & Lindenmayer 2000). Early in the development of these translocation programs, most emphasis was placed on elucidating the ecology of species targeted for recovery; locating potential source populations from which to draw individuals for translocation; identifying areas of habitat suitable for population establishment; and developing viable capture, handling, and veterinary protocols for species targeted for translocation (IUCN 1998). As the logistical considerations of translocation have been optimized for growing numbers of species, the utilization of this tool has grown to encompass not only species recovery and reintroduction programs but also numerous additional applications, including population supplementation, population expansion, and nuisance-animal management (Griffith et al. 1989; Linnell et al. 1997).