Author Archives: Euan Ritchie

About Euan Ritchie

I apply ecological theory with good doses of field work to seek solutions to the challenges of conserving biodiversity.

Species definitions shape policy

Authors: Euan G Ritchie, Bradley P Smith, Lily M van Eeden, and Dale G Nimmo

Published in: Science, volume 361, issue 6,409 (September 2018)

The names we assign to organisms, and why, have important ramifications for our understanding of Earth’s diversity and, more practically, how it is managed. For example, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, and other canids are often considered distinct (1), but their members can, and frequently do, interbreed (2). Differing concepts of species—which might take into account morphology, ecology, behaviour, genetics, or evolutionary history (3) —could describe canids as very few or many species, depending on which concepts are used and how strictly they are applied. Which definition scientists adopt can have political and ecological consequences.

The dingo (Canis dingo) has traditionally been considered native in Australia, given evidence of its presence before the year 1400 (4) and indications that it has lived in Australia for at least 5,000 years (5). This designation meant that Western Australia had to have a management strategy in place for the dingo, along with other native fauna. However, a recent paper (6) argues that dingoes are in fact C. familiaris because they don’t satisfy zoological nomenclature protocols nor sufficiently differ genetically or morphologically from other canids, including domestic dogs.

The Western Australian government cited this work in justifying its recent decision to declare the dingo a non-native species under the state’s Biodiversity Conservation Act (BCA) (7). The new order removesthe government requirement to manage the species. As a result, dingoes can now be killed anywhere in the state without a BCA license. A potential increase in lethal control of dingoes could have dire consequences for Australia’s ecosystems. The dingo is Australia’s largest terrestrial top predator (adults typically weigh 15 to 20 kg (8)), it fulfils a crucial ecological role, and it has strong cultural significance for Australia’s Indigenous people (8).

Taxonomy serves a critical purpose for cataloguing and conserving biodiversity, but different interpretations and applications of species concepts can affect management decisions. Policy-makers may use the interpretations that justify their preferred values, such as prioritizing livestock more than biodiversity protection. It is therefore imperative that scientists carefully engage in the policy decision-making process. Scientists must work with policy-makers to convey the multiple dimensions and values that can affect species delineation and make clear the potential consequences of applying such classifications.

  1.  J.Clutton-Brocketal.,Bull.Br.Mus.Nat.Hist.Zool. 29,117 (1976).
  2. Z.Fanetal.,Gen.Res.26,163(2016).
  3. F.E.Zachos, Mammal Rev.10.1111/mam.12121(2018).
  4. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government, “Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)” (1999); http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc
  5. K.M.Cairns, A.N.Wilton, Genetica 144,553(2016).
  6. S.M.Jackson et al., Zootaxa 4317,201(2017).
  7. M.Bamford, “Dingoes to remain classified as non-native wild dogs under reform to Western Australian law,” ABC News (2018); http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-28/dingoes-will-no-longer-be-native-animals-in-western-australia/10172448
  8. M.Letnic et al., Biol.Rev. 87,390(2012).

Ritchie EG, Smith BP, van Eeden LM, Nimmo DG (2018) Species definitions shape policy, Science PDF DOI

The Conservation: Guardian dogs, fencing, and ‘fladry’ protect livestock from carnivores

Livestock guardian dog breeds, such as Maremma, are often raised with and trained to consider themselves part of a livestock herd and so protect their herd from threats. Image via Shutterstock.

By Lily van Eeden (University of Sydney), Adrian Treves (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Euan Ritchie (Deakin University).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Farmers have struggled for millennia to protect their livestock from wolves, lions, bears, and other large carnivores. It’s expensive and time-consuming for farmers, governments and related agencies. Many current approaches have led to dramatic reductions or the complete loss of some apex predators from many regions of the globe.

Despite these substantial costs and their long history, we have remarkably little understanding of what methods best reduce livestock attacks.

A recent synthesis study, led by Lily van Eeden, Ann Eklund, Jennie Miller, and Adrian Treves with a total of 21 authors from 10 countries, found that there’s a worldwide dearth of rigorous experimental studies testing the effectiveness of interventions to protect livestock from carnivores.

Where studies do exist, results were mixed. Some management interventions did reduce livestock losses, some made little to no difference, and some resulted in increased livestock losses. This means that for some methods, farmers would be better off doing nothing at all than using them.

Poor evidence, poor outcomes

The scant evidence is cause for concern. Aside from financial waste, preventable livestock attacks cause economic, emotional, and social costs for farmers. And both livestock and carnivores may be left maimed and suffering by human failures to separate the two sets of animals.

Too often, studies and management programs measure success based on money spent or saved, numbers of community members who contributed, or carnivores killed. None of these factors necessarily mean livestock loss is prevented or reduced.

In fact, livestock owners, policy makers, and scientists should work together to build an evidence base and discover what works best to reduce attacks on livestock under different conditions.

What works and why

Where we found rigorous studies quantifying livestock loss, three methods were consistently effective: livestock guardian dogs, some kinds of fencing, and a deterrent called “fladry” (a Polish word for strips of cloth or plastic flagging hung at regular intervals along a rope or fence line).

Livestock guardian dogs have been used successfully in Europe for centuries and are now seeing a revival elsewhere, including in North America and Africa.

Livestock guardian dog breeds, such as Maremma and Komondor, are typically much larger than herding dogs. They are raised with and trained to consider themselves part of a livestock herd and so protect their herd from threats.

While dogs are most common, they’re not the only guardian animals: llamas, alpacas, and donkeys are also used to protect livestock from smaller predators like coyotes and foxes, but more research is needed to determine how effective they are.

Fencing can be simple post-and-wire, an electric fence, or corrals, kraals or bomas (circular enclosures used in some parts of Africa) constructed from stones or wood.

Livestock can be kept within fenced areas all the time, or only at night when they are most vulnerable to carnivores (who often hunt at night, dawn, or dusk).

Our study didn’t find sufficient evidence to show that all kinds of fencing work, but there was enough that they should be considered generally effective and adapted to local conditions.

“Fladry” is a Polish word for strips of cloth or plastic flagging hung at regular intervals along a rope or fence line. Fladry is usually red, which is considered the most effective colour for scaring away carnivores. This method has been proven effective at deterring predators like grey wolves and coyotes from entering pastures.

Interestingly, all three of the methods we found to be generally effective do not involve killing carnivores.

This is good news for carnivore conservation, because it means that management can simultaneously protect livestock and carnivores. Large carnivores can play crucial roles in ecosystem regulation, so removing them can cause cascading consequences for landscapes and biodiversity.

Given the damage that ineffective management can cause to farming communities, animal welfare, and ecosystems, we hope our research serves as a catalyst for policy-makers and practitioners to think critically about the methods they use and why.

Too often, we continue to use a particular method due to habit and history, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way to protect assets.

Governments that continue to fund and encourage ineffective management are not giving farming communities the best chance of success.

The Conversation

Expanding the role of targets in conservation policy

Authors: Tim S Doherty, Lucie M Bland Brett A Bryan, Timothy Neale, Emily Nicholson, Euan G Ritchie, and Don A Driscoll

Published in: Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Conservation targets perform beneficial auxiliary functions that are rarely acknowledged, including raising awareness, building partnerships, promoting investment, and developing new knowledge. Building on these auxiliary functions could enable more rapid progress towards current targets and inform the design of future targets.

Doherty TS, Bland LM, Bryan BA, Neale T, Nicholson E, Ritchie EG, Driscoll DA (2018) Expanding the Role of Targets in Conservation Policy, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, PDF DOI 

YouTube: Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection

A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS Biology reveals certain nonlethal methods are effective for managing predators in agricultural landscapes. Twenty-one authors from 10 nations reviewed 114 peer-reviewed scientific studies measuring the effectiveness of lethal and non-lethal methods for reducing carnivore predation on livestock. Livestock guardian dogs, livestock enclosures and fladry all were scientifically shown to be effective conflict deterrents.

 

Reblog: Minister, why is the dingo no longer ‘fauna’ ?

ConservationBytes.com

dead dingoSo, a few of us have just submitted a letter contesting the Western Australia Government’s recent decision to delist dingoes as ‘fauna’ (I know — what the hell else could they be?). The letter was organised brilliantly by Dr Kylie Cairns (University of New South Wales), and she and the rest of the signatories have agreed to reproduce the letter in full here on ConservationBytes.com. If you feel so compelled, please voice your distaste of this decision officially by contacting the Minister (details below).

CJA Bradshaw

Honourable Stephen Dawson MLC
Minister for Environment; Disability Services
Address: 12th Floor, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street, WEST PERTH WA 6005
(minister.dawson@dpc.wa.gov.au)

cc: Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (biodiversity@dbca.wa.gov.au)
cc: Brendan Dooley (brendan.dooley@dpc.wa.gov.au)

Dear Minister,

The undersigned welcome the opportunity to comment on and recommend alteration of the proposed section (9)(2) order of the Biodiversity Conservation Act…

View original post 1,247 more words

Australian Geographic: The extinction crisis: Australians call for a radical re-haul of environmental laws

Australia is failing to meet international obligations to protect our unique wildlife, experts say.

Recounting a list of Australian animals on the brink of extinction comes all too easily to Euan Ritchie, an Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at Deakin University.

“Obvious examples include the orange-bellied parrot, which only has a few individuals left in the wild,” he says, referring to the multi-coloured grass parrot with a total population of less than 50 that migrates between Tasmania and mainland Australia…

Continue reading on the Australian Geographic website

The Conversation: Why the WA government is wrong to play identity politics with dingoes

Western Australian Minister for the Environment Stephen Dawson has declared that the dingo, Australia’s native canine, will no longer be classified as native. Image credit Leo via Flickr.

By Bradley Smith (CQUniversity Australia), Euan Ritchie (Deakin University) and Lily van Eeden, (University of Sydney).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia’s Commonwealth Coat of Arms depicts two iconic native animals – the kangaroo and the emu. Both are unquestionably fair dinkum Aussies, unique to this continent and having lived here for a very long time. A “very long time”, according to Australian legislation (the EPBC Act 1999), is any species having been present since before the year 1400.

But in Western Australia, under the state’s Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, no native animal is guaranteed protection. The Act includes a caveat whereby the relevant minister may determine that a native species is in fact, not.

This week, WA’s environment minister Stephen Dawson did just that, declaring that from January 1, 2019, the dingo, Australia’s native canine, will no longer be classified as native fauna.

The dingo does meet the federal government’s criterion, having lived in Australia as a wild canid for an estimated 5,000 years. But under the planned changes in WA, the dingo will lose its current listing as “unprotected fauna”, and will from next year be considered indistinguishable from either the common domestic dog or feral dogs.

What is a species anyway?

According to the biological species concept, a species is a group that has the ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. Dingoes, dogs and other canids do interbreed (or “hybridise”), and indeed this is one of the key reasons why the pure dingo is listed as vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

But this ability to hybridise is also one of the main justifications cited by the WA government in its decision to revoke the dingo’s citizenship (the fact sheet has since been removed from the website, but can be accessed here). The rationale is that if dingoes and dogs are technically the same species, why should dingoes get special treatment?

However, the biological species concept is problematic when applied to canids. If you lump dingoes and dogs together because they readily interbreed, then logically we must do the same for wolves, coyotes, jackals or other canids that can also interbreed (and have done for millenia).

It’s hard to imagine anyone seriously suggesting that a grey wolf and a pug are the same species. This suggests that this criterion alone is insufficient to solve the conundrum. Indeed, there are at least 32 different species concepts, clearly illustrating the difficulty of defining a single rule by which all organisms should abide.

Despite this, a recent paper that argues the biological species concept should be applied to dingoes, was cited as supporting evidence by the WA government. Adopting this narrow interpretation of taxonomy is perhaps somewhat premature. It ignores other investigations that provide evidence to the contrary. Given the contention around defining species, it seems unwise to determine the species status of dingoes independently of other, more comprehensive evidence and argument.

Distinguishing dingoes

All canids share similarities, but their differences are also many and marked. The dingo can be distinguished from other dogs in various ways: their appearance, anatomy, behaviour, their role in ecosystems, and their genetics (their evolutionary history and degree of relatedness to other species). Dingoes seem to be largely devoid of many of the signs of domestication.

It is therefore reasonable for the dingo to be considered separately from wolves and domestic dogs, while also acknowledging that they all occupy the same broad species classification, Canis lupus.

Having lived in Australia as free-living, wild populations for around 5,000 years almost exclusively under the forces of natural selection, and separately from any other dog lineage until European arrival, there is no notion of the dingo as a domestic animal gone feral. To classify dingoes as nothing more than “feral domestic dogs” expunges their unique, long and quintessentially wild history. Dingoes are not ecologically interchangeable with any other type of dog, either wild or domesticated.

Labelling the dingo as a feral domestic dog changes their legal status and removes any current obligations for developing appropriate management plans. This demotion of status could lead to intensified lethal control. Indeed, control may even be legally mandated.

In the absence of thylacines, mainland Tasmanian devils, and other apex predators, the ecological role that the dingo plays in the Australian landscape is vital. Dingoes help to control kangaroo and feral goat populations, and in some cases foxes and cats as well.

Given WA’s remoteness, it remains one of the few bastions of pure dingoes, and as such it presents an opportunity to seek ways to protect them rather than pave the way for their removal. The WA government’s decision also sets a dangerous precedent for the management of dingoes, and indeed other contentious native wildlife, elsewhere in Australia.

How we choose to classify plants and animals might sound like dry science. But it has genuine implications for policy, management and conservation. Our scientific naming systems are vital for helping to organise and understand the rich biological diversity with which we share the planet, but it is important to remember that these systems are informed not just by biology but also by our values.

In this case, economic and political interests appear to have been favoured over wildlife preservation, and given Australia’s unenviable conservation record this is deeply concerning.
The Conversation