An invasive appetite: Combining molecular and stable isotope analyses to reveal the diet of introduced house mice (Mus musculus) on a small, subtropical island.

House mice (Mus musculus) pose a conservation threat on islands, where they adversely affect native species' distributions, densities, and persistence. On Sand Island of Kuaihelani, mice recently began to depredate nesting adult moli (Laysan Albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis). Efforts are underway to eradicate mice from Sand Island, but knowledge of mouse diet is needed to predict ecosystem response and recovery following mouse removal. We used next-generation sequencing to identify what mice eat on Sand Island, followed by stable isotope analysis to estimate the proportions contributed by taxa to mouse diet. We collected paired fecal and hair samples from 318 mice between April 2018 to May 2019; mice were trapped approximately every eight weeks among four distinct habitat types to provide insight into temporal and spatial variation. Sand Island's mice mainly consume arthropods, with nearly equal (but substantially smaller) contributions of C3 plants, C4 plants, and moli. Although seabird tissue is a small portion of mouse diet, mice consume many detrital-feeding arthropods in and around seabird carcasses, such as isopods, flesh flies, ants, and cockroaches. Additionally, most arthropods and plants eaten by mice are non-native. Mouse diet composition differs among habitat types but changes minimally throughout the year, indicating that mice are not necessarily limited by food source availability or accessibility. Eradication of house mice may benefit seabirds on Sand Island (by removing a terrestrial, non-native predator), but it is unclear how arthropod and plant communities may respond and change. Non-native and invasive arthropods and plants previously consumed (and possibly suppressed) by mice may be released post-eradication, which could prevent recovery of native taxa. Comprehensive knowledge of target species' diet is a critical component of eradication planning. Dietary information should be used both to identify and to monitor which taxa may respond most strongly to invasive species removal and to assess if proactive, pre-eradication management activities are warranted.

Harnessing island-ocean connections to maximize marine benefits of island conservation.

Islands support unique plants, animals, and human societies found nowhere else on the Earth. Local and global stressors threaten the persistence of island ecosystems, with invasive species being among the most damaging, yet solvable, stressors. While the threat of invasive terrestrial mammals on island flora and fauna is well recognized, recent studies have begun to illustrate their extended and destructive impacts on adjacent marine environments. Eradication of invasive mammals and restoration of native biota are promising tools to address both island and ocean management goals. The magnitude of the marine benefits of island restoration, however, is unlikely to be consistent across the globe. We propose a list of six environmental characteristics most likely to affect the strength of land-sea linkages: precipitation, elevation, vegetation cover, soil hydrology, oceanographic productivity, and wave energy. Global databases allow for the calculation of comparable metrics describing each environmental character across islands. Such metrics can be used today to evaluate relative potential for coupled land-sea conservation efforts and, with sustained investment in monitoring on land and sea, can be used in the future to refine science-based planning tools for integrated land-sea management. As conservation practitioners work to address the effects of climate change, ocean stressors, and biodiversity crises, it is essential that we maximize returns from our management investments. Linking efforts on land, including eradication of island invasive mammals, with marine restoration and protection should offer multiplied benefits to achieve concurrent global conservation goals.

On nonepistemic values in conservation biology.

Conservation biology is a uniquely interdisciplinary science with strong roots in ecology, but it also embraces a value-laden and mission-oriented framework. This combination of science and values causes conservation biology to be at the center of critique regarding the discipline's scientific credibility-especially the division between the realms of theory and practice. We identify this dichotomy between seemingly objective (fact-based) and subjective (value-laden) practices as the measure-value dichotomy, whereby measure refers to methods and analyses used in conservation biology (i.e., measuring biodiversity) and value refers to nonepistemic values. We reviewed and evaluated several landmark articles central to the foundation of conservation biology and concepts of biodiversity with respect to their attempts to separate measures and values. We argue that the measure-value dichotomy is false and that conservation biology can make progress in ways unavailable to other disciplines because its practitioners are tasked with engaging in both the realm of theory and the realm of practice. The entanglement of measures and values is by no means a weakness of conservation biology. Because central concepts such as biodiversity contain both factual and evaluative aspects, conservation biologists can make theoretical progress by examining, reviewing, and forming the values that are an integral part of those concepts. We suggest that values should be included and analyzed with respect to the methods, results, and conclusions of scientific work in conservation biology.