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.

Feral horse impacts on threatened plants and animals in sub-alpine and montane environments in Victoria, Australia

Authors: Rebecca C Cherubin, Susanna E Venn, Don A Driscoll, Tim S Doherty, and Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Ecological Management & Restoration

Summary

Feral herbivores are a major driver of biodiversity loss globally and can alter the structure, composition and functioning of ecosystems. The direct impacts of feral herbivores on plant communities are well studied, but the direct and indirect effect they have on wildlife is not well understood.

In Victoria (south‐eastern Australia), a large feral Horse (Equus caballus) population coincides with highly sensitive and nationally endangered Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens communities, and several threatened animal species.

We assessed the impact of feral horses on this ecological community and the Alpine Water Skink (Eulamprus kosciuskoi) and the Broad‐toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus) at 20 sites with varying levels of horse disturbance. We used scat counts to determine an index of feral horse abundance and quantified impacts associated with their presence in the landscape. Active searches were used for Alpine Water Skink and scat and runway surveys for Broad‐toothed Rat. We also measured the vegetation structure and the abundance of different vegetation types (life forms).

Our results suggest that feral horses are associated with vegetation types and characteristics that negatively influence the presence or abundance of Alpine Water Skink and Broad‐toothed Rat. Sites with high horse activity had more low‐growing forbs, and the abundance of Alpine Water Skink was negatively related to this vegetation type. Grasses, sedges, rushes and shrubs were also less dense and lower in height in high horse activity sites, and Broad‐toothed Rat was less likely to be present in areas with these habitat attributes.

We recommend that feral horses are controlled to protect these threatened vertebrate species and their Sphagnum bog habitat.

Cherubin RC, Venn SE, Driscoll DA, Doherty TS, Ritchie EG (2019) Feral horse impacts on threatened plants and animals in sub-alpine and montane environments in Victoria, Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration PDF DOI

Impacts of feral horses in the Australian Alps and evidence-based solutions

Authors: Don A Driscoll, Graeme L Worboys, Hugh Allan, Sam C Banks, Nicholas J Beeton, Rebecca C Cherubin, Tim S Doherty, C Max Finlayson, Ken Green, Renée Hartley, Geoffrey Hope, Chris N Johnson, Mark Lintermans, Brendan Mackey, David J Paull, Jamie Pittock, Luciana L Porfirio, Euan G Ritchie, Chloe F Sato, Ben C Scheele, Deirdre A Slattery, Susanna Venn, David Watson, Maggie Watson, and Richard M Williams

Published in: Ecological Management & Restoration

Summary

New evidence of impacts by feral horses in Australia’s alpine parks systems confirms they endanger threatened species and extensively damage critically endangered bog communities that could take millennia to recover. These impacts are not confounded by effects of deer and accumulate over time, even when only a small number of feral horses (∼100) are present.

With protected areas representing only a small proportion of the area of the Australian states of New South Wales (9.3%) and Victoria (17%), allowing feral horses to degrade reserves is not a reasonable management compromise, is contrary to the purpose of the protected area system and conflicts with international obligations.

Modelling and decades of management experience indicate that trapping alone does not control feral horse numbers. Trapping and fertility control can work in small populations, but not when there are several thousand horses in remote areas. Aerial culling is needed to cost‐effectively and humanely control feral horse populations.

The relatively small amount of suffering feral horses experience during a cull is outweighed by

  1. avoiding suffering and death of horses from starvation and thirst,
  2. avoiding the suffering of native animals displaced by horses, and
  3. avoiding the ethical concerns of driving threatened species towards extinction.

Objections to aerial culling on welfare and cultural grounds are contradicted by evidence.

Improving knowledge in the general community about what is at stake is long overdue because without this knowledge, small groups with vested interests and unfounded claims have been able to dominate debate and dictate management actions.

As a result of ineffective management, horse populations are now expanding and causing well‐documented damage to Australia’s alpine parks, placing at risk almost $10M spent on restoration after livestock grazing ended. The costs of horse control and restoration escalate the longer large horse populations remain in the alpine parks.

It is crucial that feral horse numbers are rapidly reduced to levels where ecosystems begin to recover. Aerial culling is needed as part of the toolbox to achieve that reduction.

Driscoll DA, Worboys GL, Allan H, Banks SC, Beeton NJ, Cherubin RC, Doherty TS, Finlayson CM, Green K, Hartley R, Hope G, Johnson CN, Lintermans M, Mackey B, Paull DJ, Pittock J, Porfirio LL, Ritchie EG, Sato CF, Scheele BC, Slattery DA, Venn S, Watson D, Watson M, Williams RM (2019) Impacts of feral horses in the Australian Alps and evidence-based solutions. Ecological Management & Restoration PDF DOI 

Animal movements in fire-prone landscapes

Authors: Dale G Nimmo, Sarah Avitabile, Sam C Banks, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Kate Callister, Michael F Clarke, Chris R Dickman, Tim S Doherty, Don A Driscoll, Aaron C Greenville, Angie Haslem, Luke T Kelly, Sally A Kenny, José J Lahoz‐Monfort, Connie Lee, Steven Leonard, Harry Moore, Thomas M Newsome, Catherine L Parr, Euan G Ritchie, Kathryn Schneider, James M Turner, Simon Watson, Martin Westbrooke, Mike Wouters, Matthew White, and Andrew F Bennett.

Published in: Biological Reviews

Abstract

Movement is a trait of fundamental importance in ecosystems subject to frequent disturbances, such as fire‐prone ecosystems. Despite this, the role of movement in facilitating responses to fire has received little attention.

Herein, we consider how animal movement interacts with fire history to shape species distributions. We consider how fire affects movement between habitat patches of differing fire histories that occur across a range of spatial and temporal scales, from daily foraging bouts to infrequent dispersal events, and annual migrations.

We review animal movements in response to the immediate and abrupt impacts of fire, and the longer‐term successional changes that fires set in train.

We discuss how the novel threats of altered fire regimes, landscape fragmentation, and invasive species result in suboptimal movements that drive populations downwards.

We then outline the types of data needed to study animal movements in relation to fire and novel threats, to hasten the integration of movement ecology and fire ecology.

We conclude by outlining a research agenda for the integration of movement ecology and fire ecology by identifying key research questions that emerge from our synthesis of animal movements in fire‐prone ecosystems.

Nimmo DG, Avitabile S, Banks SC, Bliege Bird R, Callister K, Clarke MF, Dickman CR, Doherty TS, Driscoll DA, Greenville AC, Haslem A, Kelly LT, Kenny SA, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Lee C, Leonard S, Moore H, Newsome TM, Parr CL, Ritchie EG, Schneider K, Turner JM, Watson S, Westbrooke M, Wouters M, White M, Bennett AF (2018) Animal movements in fire-prone landscapes. Biological Reviews PDF DOI

ABC Science: If extinct animals could be brought back from the dead, should we do it?

We’re living in the middle of an extinction crisis, on par with what wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But an asteroid isn’t responsible this time; we are.

Imagine walking into the most beautiful museum, taking all the artworks off the shelves and burning them or throwing them in the bin. That’s what we’re doing. We’re losing species every day all over the world.

De-extinction science can never replicate the wonder of evolution, nor how long it takes for species to evolve…

Read the full article on the ABC website

The secret life of possums: data loggers reveal the movement ecology of an arboreal mammal

Authors: Blake M Allan, Dale G Nimmo, John P Y Arnould, Jennifer K Martin, and Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Journal of Mammalogy

Abstract

Understanding animal movement patterns is fundamental to ecology, as it allows inference about species’ habitat preferences and their niches. Such knowledge also underpins our ability to predict how animals may respond to environmental change, including habitat loss and modification. Data-logging devices such as GPS trackers and accelerometers are rapidly becoming cheaper and smaller, allowing movement at fine scales to be recorded on a broad range of animal species.

We examined movement patterns of an arboreal mammal (bobuck, Trichosurus cunninghami) in a highly fragmented forest ecosystem.

The GPS data showed males travelled greater distances than females in linear roadside strip habitats, but not in forest fragments. The accelerometer data showed that both sexes exhibited higher activity levels in roadside habitats compared to forest fragments. By coupling GPS and accelerometer data, we uncovered for this species an ecological pattern similar to other mammals: that male bobucks had higher activity levels than females for a given distance travelled.

Our findings also suggest that habitat fragmentation changes the amount and type of activity bobucks perform while moving, and that linear forest strips could be considered “energetically challenging” habitats, which informs how we should manage the spatial distribution of key supplementary resources for this species such as nest sites and minimum fragment sizes.

Allan BM, Nimmo DG, Arnould JPY, Martin JK, Ritchie EG (2018) The secret life of possums: data loggers reveal the movement ecology of an arboreal mammal. Journal of Mammalogy PDF DOI

Diversity in Australia’s tropical savannas: An integrative taxonomic revision of agamid lizards from the genera Amphibolurus and Lophognathus (Lacertilia: Agamidae)

Authors: Jane Melville, Euan G Ritchie, Stephanie N J Chapple, Richard E Glor And James A Schulte II

Published in: Memoirs of Museum Victoria, volume 77

Abstract

The taxonomy of many of Australia’s agamid lizard genera remains unresolved because morphological characters have proved to be unreliable across numerous lineages. We undertook a morphological study and integrated this with a recent genetic study to resolve long-standing taxonomic problems in three genera of large-bodied Australian agamid lizards: Amphibolurus, Gowidon and Lophognathus. We had broad geographic sampling across genera, including all currently recognised species and subspecies.

Using an integrative taxonomic approach, incorporating mitochondrial (ND2) and nuclear (RAG1) genetic data, and our morphological review, we found that both generic and species-level taxonomic revisions were required. We revise generic designations, creating one new genus (Tropicagama gen. nov.) and confirming the validity of Gowidon, giving a total of four genera. In addition, we describe a new species (Lophognathus horneri sp. nov.) and reclassify two other species.

Our results provide a significant step forward in the taxonomy of some of Australia’s most iconic and well-known lizards and provide a clearer understanding of biogeographic patterns across Australia’s monsoonal and arid landscapes.

Melville J, Ritchie EG, Chapple SNJ, Glor RE Schulte II JA (2018) Diversity in Australia’s tropical savannas: An integrative taxonomic revision of agamid lizards from the genera Amphibolurus and Lophognathus (Lacertilia: Agamidae). Memoirs of Museum Victoria PDF DOI

Towards meaningful monitoring: A case study of a threatened rodent

Authors: Hayley M Geyle, Gurutzeta Guillera‐Arroita, Hugh F Davies, Ronald S C Firth, Brett P Murphy, Dale G Nimmo, Euan G Ritchie, John C Z Woinarski, and Emily Nicholson

Published in: Austral Ecology

Abstract

Detecting trends in species’ distribution and abundance are essential for conserving threatened species, and depend upon effective monitoring programmes. Despite this, monitoring programmes are often designed without explicit consideration of their ability to deliver the information required by managers, such as their power to detect population changes.

Here, we demonstrate the use of existing data to support the design of monitoring programmes aimed at detecting declines in species occupancy. We used single‐season occupancy models and baseline data to gain information on variables affecting the occupancy and detectability of the threatened brush‐tailed rabbit‐rat Conilurus penicillatus (Gould 1842) on the Tiwi Islands, Australia. This information was then used to estimate the survey effort required to achieve sufficient power to detect changes in occupancy of different magnitudes.

We found that occupancy varied spatially, driven primarily by habitat (canopy height and cover, distance to water) and fire history across the landscape. Detectability varied strongly among seasons, and was three times higher in the late dry season (July–September), compared to the early dry season (April–June). Evaluation of three monitoring scenarios showed that conducting surveys at times when detectability is highest can lead to a substantial improvement in our ability to detect declines, thus reducing the survey effort and costs.

Our study highlights the need for careful consideration of survey design related to the ecology of a species, as it can lead to substantial cost savings and improved insight into species population change via monitoring.

Geyle HM, Guillera-Arroita G, Davies HF, Firth RSC, Murphy BP, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG, Woinarski JCZ, Nicholson E (2018) Towards meaningful monitoring: A case study of a threatened rodent. Austral Ecology, PDF DOI

Dingo dinners: what’s on the menu for Australia’s top predator?

By Tim Doherty (Deakin University), Chris Dickman (University of Sydney), Dale Nimmo (Charles Sturt University), Euan Ritchie (Deakin University) and Thomas Newsome (University of Sydney).

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

The dingo is Australia’s largest land-based predator, occurring across most of the mainland and on many nearshore islands.

Our new research, published in the journal Mammal Review, reveals the breadth and diversity of dingo diets across the continent.

We compiled and analysed 73 sets of data, containing details of more than 32,000 dingo droppings or stomach contents, to document the range of different species that dingoes eat, and how their diets vary between different environments.

A wide-ranging diet

We found that dingoes eat at least 229 vertebrate species. This includes 62 small mammals (less than 500 grams in mass), 79 medium-sized and larger mammals, 10 species of hoofed mammals, 50 birds and 26 reptiles. Dingoes also eat insects, crustaceans, centipedes, fish and frogs.

The true number of species is likely to be much higher because dingo diets have been poorly studied in many parts of Australia, such as Cape York Peninsula.

Large (at least 7 kg) and medium-sized (0.5 to 6.9 kg) mammals were the most common components of dingo diets, followed by small mammals, rabbits, arthropods, reptiles, birds and hoofed animals.

Average occurrence of eight food types in the diet of dingoes. Values represent the percentage of droppings/stomachs that contained each food type.

A range of introduced pest species also feature in dingo diets, including deer, goats, rabbits, hares, black rats, house mice, foxes and cats. In recent decades, the occurrence of sambar deer in dingo diets has increased as this invasive species has expanded its range.

Dingoes also eat sheep and cattle, although dietary samples are unable to distinguish between predation and scavenging, and hence tell us little about dingo impacts on livestock production. Dietary samples also do not reveal instances of dingoes killing livestock without eating them.

Regional variation

We found that what dingoes eat depends on where they live. For instance, in arid central Australia, birds, reptiles, rabbits, small mammals and insects form major parts of dingo diets. In contrast, these food groups are less important in temperate and subtropical eastern Australia, where medium-sized and large mammals such as kangaroos, bandicoots and possums are more important.

Frequency of different food groups in dingoes’ diet. Each circle represents a study and is scaled proportionally with dietary occurrence; larger circles represent a higher frequency of that food type. Top row: arthropods and small mammals (less than 500 g); middle row: reptiles and medium-sized mammals (0.5-6.9kg); bottom row: rabbits and large mammals (at least 7 kg).

The higher occurrence of medium-sized mammals in dingo diets in eastern Australia may be due to the lower extinction rates of native mammals there. In contrast, central Australia is a global mammal extinction hotspot, which probably accounts for the low occurrence of medium-sized mammals in dingo diets in arid and semi-arid areas.

Nonetheless, one medium-sized mammal was a major food item for dingoes in arid areas: the European rabbit. In some areas, more than 50% of dingo droppings or stomachs contained the remains of this invasive species. It is possible that native medium-sized mammals previously constituted a major part of dingo diets in arid Australia, but have since been replaced by rabbits.

Local prey availability plays a major role in determining what dingoes eat. For instance, in the Tanami Desert, reptiles were most common in dingo diets during warmer months when they are most active. However, very few studies have collected data on prey availability, partly because of the sheer number of different animals that dingoes eat.

Threatened species

Dingoes kill or eat at least 39 native species that are classed as threatened or near-threatened on the IUCN Red List. These include the northern quoll, golden bandicoot and bridled nailtail wallaby.

This tally is higher than the number of threatened species in feral cat diets (based on a previous study that used similar methods), even though cats eat almost twice as many different species overall as dingoes (400 and 229, respectively).

Today’s threatened native species co-existed with dingoes for a long time before European colonisation, which means they were able to withstand dingo predation without going extinct.

But now a combination of small population sizes of some threatened species and exacerbating factors such as habitat loss, foxes and cats means some threatened species could be vulnerable to even low levels of dingo predation. Predation by dingoes should therefore be a key consideration when attempting to conserve or restore threatened species.

Dietary studies are one way we can understand how dingoes interact with other species. Our study also highlights that we still have much to learn about our native top predator. In many parts of Australia, the favourite foods of dingoes are still a mystery.

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Naomi Davis, Dave Forsyth, Mike Letnic, Russell Palmer, Joe Benshemesh, Glenn Edwards, Jenny Lawrence, Lindy Lumsden, Charlie Pascoe, Andy Sharp, Danielle Stokeld, Cecilia Myers, Georgeanna Story, Paul Story, Barbara Triggs, Mark Venosta and Mike Wysong to this research.
The Conversation

Continental patterns in the diet of a top predator: Australia’s dingo

Authors: Tim S Doherty, Naomi E Davis, Chris R Dickman, David M Forsyth, Mike Letnic, Dale G Nimmo, Russell Palmer, Euan G Ritchie, Joe Benshemesh, Glenn Edwards, Jenny Lawrence, Lindy Lumsden, Charlie Pascoe, Andy Sharp, Danielle Stokeld, Cecilia Myers, Georgeanna Story, Paul Story, Barbara Triggs, Mark Venosta, Mike Wysong, and Thomas M Newsome

Published in: Mammal Review

Abstract

Conserving large carnivores is controversial because they can threaten wildlife, human safety, and livestock production. Since large carnivores often have large ranges, effective management requires knowledge of how their ecology and functional roles vary biogeographically.

We examine continental‐scale patterns in the diet of the dingo – Australia’s largest terrestrial mammalian predator. We describe and quantify how dingo dietary composition and diversity vary with environmental productivity and across five bioclimatic zones: arid, semi‐arid, tropical, sub‐tropical, and temperate.

Based on 73 published and unpublished data sets from throughout the continent, we used multivariate linear modelling to assess regional trends in the occurrence of nine food groups (arthropods, birds, reptiles, European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus, medium‐sized (25–125 kg) and large (169–825 kg) exotic ungulates (including livestock), and other small (<0.5 kg) medium‐sized (0.5–6.9 kg) and large (≥7 kg) mammals) in dingo diets. We also assessed regional patterns in the dietary occurrence of livestock and the relationship between dietary occurrence of rabbits and small, medium‐sized and large mammals.

Dingoes eat at least 229 vertebrate species (66% mammals, 22% birds, 11% reptiles, and 1% other taxa). Dietary composition varied across bioclimatic zones, with dingo diets in the arid and semi‐arid zones (low‐productivity sites) having the highest occurrence of arthropods, reptiles, birds, and rabbits. Medium‐sized mammals occurred most frequently in temperate and sub‐tropical zone diets (high‐productivity sites), large mammals least in the arid and sub‐tropical zones, and livestock most in the arid and tropical zones. The frequency of rabbits in diets was negatively correlated with that of medium‐sized, but not small or large mammals.

Dingoes have a flexible and generalist diet that differs among bioclimatic zones and with environmental productivity in Australia. Future research should focus on examining how dingo diets are affected by local prey availability and human‐induced changes to prey communities.

Doherty TS, Davis NE, Dickman CR, Forsyth DM, Letnic M, Nimmo DG, Palmer R, Ritchie EG, Benshemesh J, Edwards G, Lawrence J, Lumsden L, Pascoe C, Sharp A, Stokeld D, Myers C, Story G, Story P, Triggs B, et al. (2018) Continental patterns in the diet of a top predator: Australia’s dingo, Mammal Review, PDF DOI

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.

 

Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection

Authors: Lily M van Eeden, Ann Eklund, Jennifer R B Miller, José Vicente López-Bao, Guillaume Chapron, Mikael R Cejtin, Mathew S Crowther, Christopher R Dickman, Jens Frank, Miha Krofel, David W Macdonald, Jeannine McManus, Tara K Meyer, Arthur D Middleton, Thomas M Newsome, William J Ripple, Euan G Ritchie, Oswald J Schmitz, Kelly J Stoner, Mahdieh Tourani, Adrian Treves

Published in: PloS Biology

Abstract

Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods.

Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods.

For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation.

An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations.

van Eeden LM, Eklund A, Miller JRB, López-Bao JV, Chapron G, Cejtin MR, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Frank J, Krofel M, Macdonald DW, McManus J, Meyer TK, Middleton AD, Newsome TM, Ripple WJ, Ritchie EG, Schmitz OJ, Stoner KJ, Tourani M, Treveset A (2018) Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection, PLOS Biology PDF DOI 

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

ABC News: Dingoes to remain classified as non-native wild dogs under reform to Western Australian law

Widespread reforms to WA’s Biodiversity Conservation Act, expected next year, will not consider a change to the existing classification of a dingo as a wild dog, not native to Australia.

The iconic animals are considered no different to wild dogs and can be trapped or killed without permission in many places.

Dingoes are currently classed as unprotected native fauna and a declared pest, but the animals will be listed as non-fauna under widespread reform to the Act…

Continue reading on the ABC News website

The Conversation: A numbers game: killing rabbits to conserve native mammals

Controlling rabbit populations has a key role in conserving Australia’s native plants and animals

By Euan Ritchie (Deakin University), Damien Fordham (University of Adelaide), and Miguel Lurgi, (Centre national de la recherche scientifique)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Invasive species have a devastating effect on biodiversity. In Australia, introduced red foxes and feral cats have been implicated in the majority of the extinctions of the native mammal fauna, which has been decimated since European arrival.

But there’s a herbivore that also causes eco-catastrophe. Rabbits both compete with native animals for food and shelter and act as easy prey for abundant populations of cats and foxes. By over-grazing vegetation and reducing habitat complexity, they make hunting easier for introduced predators.

Food webs are complex. Because of this, once an invasive species is embedded in a food web, simply eradicating them without considering the potential knock-on effects to other species they interact with, could cause unintended and undesirable consequences. We modelled different rates of rabbit population reduction to assess what level of control might be best for aiding the conservation of native mammals and not causing negative outcomes.

Rabbit numbers boom and crash

Rabbits, famously, reproduce rapidly and can cope with a relatively high predation rate. This can cause “hyper-predation”, where rabbit-inflated cat and fox populations indirectly increase the predation pressure on native mammals. This is especially so when rabbit populations intermittently crash due to, for example, extreme environmental events (like severe and prolonged droughts) or disease. This causes predators to switch their diet and eat more native mammals.

This logically suggests that reducing rabbit numbers might thus help reduce cat and fox populations, by removing their abundant prey. Collectively this should benefit native plants and animals, including many threatened mammal species. However, ecosystem and pest management is a complex game.

When controlling rabbits we need to look beyond one or two species. We should consider the potential consequences for the entire ecological community, which ultimately depend on how changes in one species percolate through the network of ecological interactions between them.

Our new research, recently published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, set out to examine these questions in more detail. We consider other key players in Australia’s arid regions, such as kangaroos and dingoes, when looking at the effects of rabbit control on small native mammals. Our aim was to provide a better understanding of how changes in rabbit populations might affect other species via the food web.

We developed a multi-species ecological network model to describe and quantify how changing rabbit abundance can affect species on different feeding levels. In addition to rabbits, small native mammals, and mesopredators (cats and foxes), our model also considers apex predators (dingo) and large herbivores (kangaroo) as part of the Australian arid food web. This model allowed us to examine changes in predator-prey interactions (including potential prey switching and hyper-predation) and how these could affect the survival of native prey through time.

We found that removing rabbits at rates between 30-40% appeared to benefit small mammals. This is approximately the rate at which rabbits are currently managed in Australia using biocontrol agents (introduced diseases).

Rabbit control in Australia typically involves a “press and pulse” approach. Rabbit populations are suppressed via biocontrol (press) and periods of warren destruction and poisoning (pulse). Finding that reducing rabbit populations by around 40% seems most beneficial to small mammals is important, as it informs how and when we combine these strategies.

The 40% rate corresponds well with the disease-induced (press) mortality rate in rabbit populations due to rabbit haemorrhagic disease and myxomatosis. These are the primary biocontrol agents used in arid Australia to control rabbit populations.

Our study supports rabbit-reduction strategies that involve sustained “press” control, that kill a moderate portion of a rabbit population, with less frequent removal at higher proportions of the population.

To effectively manage invasive species, it’s important to focus on entire communities. Targeting single species might not be enough – every animal exists within a complex web of interactions.

There has been much focus by the current government on controlling feral cats, as a way to conserve many of Australia’s unique and threatened mammal species.

However, more focus could be devoted to protecting habitat cover and complexity, by reducing the land clearing and over-grazing that makes hunting easier. We can also manage rabbits sensibly to reduce competition for resources, and indirectly control cats and foxes.
The Conversation