A note on the question of biological control following the publication of an opinion piece by Professor David Bowman of our School of Plant Science in Nature, vol 482, p.30, 2 Feb 2012 titled: “Conservation: Bring elephants to Australia?"

David’s comments were grounded in concerns about the inability to control one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds, African gamba grass, which could transform north Australian landscapes such as World heritage listed Kakadu wetlands, into landscapes of greatly reduced biodiversity. Native Australian animals (kangaroos, euros, wallabies, etc) cattle, and other introduced feral animals (camels, horses, pigs) are unable to control the spread of this exotic plant, finding it unpalatable. As gamba grass takes over, populations and diversity of native animals and birds are significantly reduced. And as its biomass increases the risk of devastating bushfires, with consequential increased ‘collateral’ damage to native wildlife, also intensifies. Fire apparently increases its spread through vigorous re-growth instead of destroying it. David’s left-of-field idea was that since gamba grass is standard fare for elephants and rhinos one element of land management might be accomplished by bringing them into affected areas (and incidentally: i) diversifying conservation efforts for these endangered species because of Australia’s ability to control poaching; and ii) establishing a form of African safari tourism). But David’s concerns are much wider than this, and in response to the worldwide barrage of comments that his Nature piece evoked, he has prepared a rejoinder covering these much broader and very serious issues that affect all land management authorities globally. These can be found here, and I would be interested in any views/comments by members. 

 Trevor Sofield (PhD) Professorial Research Adviser University of Tasmania; and Professor, International Tourism Planning and Ecotourism, Sun Yat Sen University, Guangzhou, China