Introduction
Trichocera: Native Range, Life-history and Physiological Characteristics
International Agreements on Non-native Species Management in Antarctica
Methods
Study Area
Information Sources
Results
Current Distribution of T. maculipennis in Antarctica
Location | Date | Notes | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Near Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva Station, Fildes Peninsula, KGI | 2006 | Free flying adult | P. Fretwell, British Antarctic Survey, pers. comm. |
Artigas Station (Uruguay), Fildes Peninsula, KGI | 2006 (?) | Early eradication attempt in 2008 unsuccessful. Species observed in the surrounding environment. The fly has recently been observed outside the station. Joint monitoring programme in place. | |
Frei Station (Chile), Fildes Peninsula, KGI | Pre-2009/2010 season | Identification to species level not complete. Larvae still persist in the sewage treatment plant. | V. Vallejos, pers. comm., quoted in Peter et al. (2008). |
King Sejong Station (Korea) Barton Peninsula, KGI | 2013/2014 | Adults observed in station, no larvae observed. Eradication initiated in October 2015 using physical cleaning, pesticide and UV traps. The flies were detected again in December 2015 | Republic of Korea et al. (2016) |
Escudero Station (Chile), Fildes Peninsula, KGI | Jan 2015 | Adults found around station windows, no larvae observed | P. Convey, pers. obs.; T. Contador, pers. comm. |
Lake Uruguay, near Artigas Station (Uruguay) | Feb 2017 | Adults seen in the natural environment | M. Remedios-De León, pers. obs. |
Arctowski Station (Poland), Admiralty Bay, KGI | Oct 2017 | Larvae and adults of T. maculipennis were found in the station sewage system | Potocka and Krzemińska (2018) |
Great Wall Station (China) | 2018/19 | Very low numbers detected, indicating that a reproducing population may not be present on the station. | Uruguay et al. (2019) |
Bellingshausen Station (Russian Federation), Fildes Peninsula, KGI | 2018/19 | Main swarm is observed at a nearby stream and around the sewage water tank. | COMNAP (2019) |
Lieutenant Rodolfo Marsh Martin Aerodrome (Chile) | 2019 | Adult specimens were observed in bathrooms, the waiting room and loading area of the aerodrome. | M. Remedios-De León (pers. obs.) |
International Collaborative Efforts to Deliver Effective Monitoring and Control
Year | Submitting CEP Members | Title | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
2011 | UK and Uruguay | Colonisation status of known non-native species in the Antarctic terrestrial environment (updated 2011) | ATCM XXXIV IP50 (United Kingdom and Uruguay 2011) |
2016 | Republic of Korea, UK, Chile and Uruguay | Non-native flies in sewage treatment plants on King George Island, South Shetland Islands | ATCM XXXIX WP 52 (Republic of Korea et al. 2016) |
2017 | Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Chile and the UK | Inter-Parties’ Action Plan to Manage the Non-Native Flies in King George Island, South Shetland Islands | ATCM XL WP 26 (Republic of Korea et al. 2017) |
2019 | Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Germany, Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation | Report of the 2018/2019 summer campaign of the joint monitoring programme of non-native flies in King George Island/Isla 25 de Mayo | ATCM XLII IP120 (Uruguay et al. 2019) |
2019 | Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) | Report on the extent of sewage treatment plant infestations across the Antarctic Treaty area: Survey results | ATCM XLII IP38 (COMNAP 2019) |
Options for Further Action
No. | Measures |
---|---|
Education of station personnel and those arriving on King George Island | |
1 | Implementation of effective educational and training practices. Posters and information leaflets should be placed at the entry points to Antarctica and at each station on King George Island informing visitors of the presence of the invasive species and the efforts that are being made to eradicate it from Antarctica. Educational information should also be disseminated at Punta Arenas airport and other points of entry from the South American mainland. |
2 | Station personnel should be made aware of the importance of cleanliness of rooms and common spaces to ensure locations for flies to shelter or reproduce are minimized. |
Monitoring | |
3 | Monitoring activities should be put in place, or existing monitoring maintained, across the stations on King George Island, and potentially beyond. To quantify fly numbers, sticky traps and ultraviolet traps should be deployed in potential breeding areas, with these methods also having the benefit of reducing flying adult population numbers. |
4 | To track the potential spread of T. maculipennis, monitoring should also be undertaken at research stations and in the natural environment, in areas beyond the known distribution of the fly. |
5 | To ascertain the environmental requirements of T. maculipennis in Antarctica, wastewater treatment chamber and field environmental temperatures should be recorded. This would allow a comparison of temperature vs. survival rates, thereby informing management practices applied to the sewage system that would make them less favourable for reproduction and survival of the species. |
Reporting | |
6 | Personnel on stations in the South Shetland Islands should report immediately the presence of flies on station or in the natural environment to their station leader and those responsible for environmental management and protection. Steps should be taken to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent dispersal of the fly to other locations/buildings. |
Steps to reduce dispersal of the flies from colonized stations | |
7 | Sewage systems should be airtight or, failing that, be supplied with a fine mesh grid to prevent the movement of adult flies. Grills should be placed in ventilation ducts to prevent the entry and exit of adult flies. Frequent cleaning of the sewage systems should be considered, for instance monthly. |
8 | Storage areas for materials under buildings should be removed to reduce the availability of shelter locations for adult flies. |
9 | To prevent dispersal of the flies, vehicles entering and leaving stations should be rigorously cleaned, which may require a dedicated cleaning location. |
Steps to prevent re-introduction of T. maculipennis or introduction of other invertebrates from outside Antarctica | |
11 | Biosecurity measures should be implemented by all national Antarctic programmes and the tourism industry to ensure the risk of non-native species introductions is minimized. Biosecurity guidance and information can be obtained from the CEP Non-native Species Manual (Edition 2019) and the SCAR and COMNAP Inter‐continental checklists for supply chain managers of the national Antarctic programmes for the reduction in risk of transfer of non‐native species (version May 2019). |
International cooperation and coordination | |
12 | National Antarctic programmes should meet (either physically or virtually) at least annually to review progress in addressing the fly introduction and to plan further action. |
13 | Science: National Antarctic programmes should continue to work together in a coordinated manner, using comparable methodologies to monitor fly population numbers, and sharing scientific information. |
14 | Environmental management: National operators should develop common methodologies to control the fly and reduce dispersal through inter-station movement. |
Eradication | |
15 | Earlier experiences at Artigas and King Sejong stations have shown that unilateral eradication of T. maculipennis from research stations results in rapid re-colonization within a few weeks/months. Stations where the fly has been eradicated may be rapidly recolonized from populations resident in other stations or in the natural environment. Therefore, it is essential that national Antarctic progammes coordinate their eradication activities so that all populations within stations are eradicated simultaneously, thereby reducing the opportunity for re-colonization. |
Do nothing
Ongoing monitoring and local control
Action to prevent wider establishment in the natural environment
Minimize anthropogenic facilitation of movement of T. maculipennis to new locations in the South Shetland Islands, or further afield
Attempt full eradication
Discussion
‘Multilateral’ vs. ‘Unilateral’ Action to Manage Non-native Species within the Antarctic Treaty Area
Non-native species introduction type | Introduction location | Management response actiona | Example references | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unilateral | Parties in region | Many/all Parties | ||||
1 | Single or small number of plants within a limited area | Near an isolated stationb | Yes | – | – | |
Close to several research stationsc | Yes | As appropriate | – | |||
Distant from any research stationsd | Yes | As appropriate | – | – | ||
2 | Several plants spread across a wider area, potentially with seed bank present | Near an isolated station | Yes | – | – | – |
Close to several research stations | Yes | As appropriate | – | |||
Distant from any research stations | – | Yes | – | – | ||
3 | Invertebrates living synanthropically within a research station | Within an isolated station | Yes | – | – | |
Within one station close to other research stations | Yes | As appropriate | – | COMNAP 2014 | ||
Within several stations located in the same vicinity | – | Yes | As appropriate | |||
4 | Invertebrates living within the natural environment | Near an isolated station | Yes | As appropriate | As appropriate | Hughes et al. 2017 |
Close to several research stations | – | Yes | As appropriate | Enriquez et al. 2019 | ||
Distant from any research station | As appropriate | As appropriate | As appropriate | – | ||
5 | Terrestrial vertebrates (e.g. rodents) | Within or close to an isolated station | Yes | – | – | – |
Within or close to one station near other research stations | – | Yes | – | Peter et al. 2008 | ||
Within or in the local area of several stations located in the same vicinity | – | Yes | – | – | ||
6 | Marine plants and invertebrates | Near an isolated station | ?e | ? | ? | |
Close to several research stations | ?e | ? | ? | Cárdenas et al. 2020 | ||
Distant from any research station | ?e | ? | ? | |||
7 | Wildlife pathogen causing animal mass mortality events | Near an isolated station | – | Yesf | – | |
Close to several research stations | – | Yesf | – | – | ||
Remote from any research stations | – | – | Yesf | Laws and Taylor 1957 |