Category: Publications

Authors: A Cole Burton, Christopher Beirne, Kaitlyn M Gaynor, Catherine Sun, Alys Granados, Maximilian L Allen, Jesse M Alston, Guilherme C Alvarenga, Francisco Samuel Álvarez Calderón, Zachary Amir, Christine Anhalt-Depies, Cara Appel, Stephanny Arroyo-Arce, Guy Balme, Avi Bar-Massada, Daniele Barcelos, Evan Barr, Erika L Barthelmess, Carolina Baruzzi, Sayantani M Basak, Natalie Beenaerts, Jonathan Belmaker, Olgirda Belova, Branko Bezarević, Tori Bird, Daniel A Bogan, Neda Bogdanović, Andy Boyce, Mark Boyce, LaRoy Brandt, Jedediah F Brodie, Jarred Brooke, Jakub W Bubnicki, Francesca Cagnacci, Benjamin Scott Carr, João Carvalho, Jim Casaer, Rok Černe, Ron Chen, Emily Chow, Marcin Churski, Connor Cincotta, Duško Ćirović, T D Coates, Justin Compton, Courtney Coon, Michael V Cove, Anthony P Crupi, Simone Dal Farra, Andrea K Darracq, Miranda Davis, Kimberly Dawe, Valerie De Waele, Esther Descalzo, Tom A Diserens, Jakub Drimaj, Martin Duľa, Susan Ellis-Felege, Caroline Ellison, Alper Ertürk, Jean Fantle-Lepczyk, Jorie Favreau, Mitch Fennell, Pablo Ferreras, Francesco Ferretti, Christian Fiderer, Laura Finnegan, Jason T Fisher, M Caitlin Fisher-Reid, Elizabeth A Flaherty, Urša Fležar, Jiří Flousek, Jennifer M Foca, Adam Ford, Barbara Franzetti, Sandra Frey, Sarah Fritts, Šárka Frýbová, Brett Furnas, Brian Gerber, Hayley M Geyle, Diego G Giménez, Anthony J Giordano, Tomislav Gomercic, Matthew E Gompper, Diogo Maia Gräbin, Morgan Gray, Austin Green, Robert Hagen, Robert (Bob) Hagen, Steven Hammerich, Catharine Hanekom, Christopher Hansen, Steven Hasstedt, Mark Hebblewhite, Marco Heurich, Tim R Hofmeester, Tru Hubbard, David Jachowski, Patrick A Jansen, Kodi Jo Jaspers, Alex Jensen, Mark Jordan, Mariane C Kaizer, Marcella J Kelly, Michel T Kohl, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, Miha Krofel, Andrea Krug, Kellie M Kuhn, Dries P J Kuijper, Erin K Kuprewicz, Josip Kusak, Miroslav Kutal, Diana J R Lafferty, Summer LaRose, Marcus Lashley, Richard Lathrop, Thomas E Lee Jr, Christopher Lepczyk, Damon B Lesmeister, Alain Licoppe, Marco Linnell, Jan Loch, Robert Long, Robert C Lonsinger, Julie Louvrier, Matthew Scott Luskin, Paula MacKay, Sean Maher, Benoît Manet, Gareth K H Mann, Andrew J Marshall, David Mason, Zara McDonald, Tracy McKay, William J McShea, Matt Mechler, Claude Miaud, Joshua J Millspaugh, Claudio M Monteza-Moreno, Dario Moreira-Arce, Kayleigh Mullen, Christopher Nagy, Robin Naidoo, Itai Namir, Carrie Nelson, Brian O’Neill, M Teague O’Mara, Valentina Oberosler, Christian Osorio, Federico Ossi, Pablo Palencia, Kimberly Pearson, Luca Pedrotti, Charles E Pekins, Mary Pendergast, Fernando F Pinho, Radim Plhal, Xochilt Pocasangre-Orellana, Melissa Price, Michael Procko, Mike D Proctor, Emiliano Esterci Ramalho, Nathan Ranc, Slaven Reljic, Katie Remine, Michael Rentz, Ronald Revord, Rafael Reyna-Hurtado, Derek Risch, Euan G Ritchie, Andrea Romero, Christopher Rota, Francesco Rovero, Helen Rowe, Christian Rutz, Marco Salvatori, Derek Sandow, Christopher M Schalk, Jenna Scherger, Jan Schipper, Daniel G Scognamillo, Çağan H Şekercioğlu, Paola Semenzato, Jennifer Sevin, Hila Shamon, Catherine Shier, Eduardo A Silva-Rodríguez, Magda Sindicic, Lucy K Smyth, Anil Soyumert, Tiffany Sprague, Colleen Cassady St Clair, Jennifer Stenglein, Philip A Stephens, Kinga Magdalena Stępniak, Michael Stevens, Cassondra Stevenson, Bálint Ternyik, Ian Thomson, Rita T Torres, Joan Tremblay, Tomas Urrutia, Jean-Pierre Vacher, Darcy Visscher, Stephen L Webb, Julian Weber, Katherine C B Weiss, Laura S Whipple, Christopher A Whittier, Jesse Whittington, Izabela Wierzbowska, Martin Wikelski, Jacque Williamson, Christopher C Wilmers, Todd Windle, Heiko U Wittmer, Yuri Zharikov, Adam Zorn, and Roland Kays

Published in: Nature Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Wildlife must adapt to human presence to survive in the Anthropocene, so it is critical to understand species responses to humans in different contexts.

We used camera trapping as a lens to view mammal responses to changes in human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Across 163 species sampled in 102 projects around the world, changes in the amount and timing of animal activity varied widely. Under higher human activity, mammals were less active in undeveloped areas but unexpectedly more active in developed areas while exhibiting greater nocturnality. Carnivores were most sensitive, showing the strongest decreases in activity and greatest increases in nocturnality.

Wildlife managers must consider how habituation and uneven sensitivity across species may cause fundamental differences in human–wildlife interactions along gradients of human influence.

Burton AC, Beirne C, Gaynor KM, Sun C, Granados A, Allen ML, Alston JM, Alvarenga GC, Calderón FSÁ, Amir Z, Anhalt-Depies C, Appel C, Arroyo-Arce S, Balme G, Bar-Massada A, Barcelos D, Barr E, Barthelmess EL, Baruzzi C, Basak SM, Beenaerts N, Belmaker J, Belova O, Bezarević B, Bird T, Bogan DA, Bogdanović N, Boyce A, Boyce M, Brandt L, Brodie JF, Brooke J, Bubnicki JW, Cagnacci F, Carr BS, Carvalho J, Casaer J, Černe R, Chen R, Chow E, Churski M, Cincotta C, Ćirović D, Coates TD, Compton J, Coon C, Cove MV, Crupi AP, Farra SD, Darracq AK, Davis M, Dawe K, De Waele V, Descalzo E, Diserens TA, Drimaj J, Duľa M, Ellis-Felege S, Ellison C, Ertürk A, Fantle-Lepczyk J, Favreau J, Fennell M, Ferreras P, Ferretti F, Fiderer C, Finnegan L, Fisher JT, Fisher-Reid MC, Flaherty EA, Fležar U, Flousek J, Foca JM, Ford A, Franzetti B, Frey S, Fritts S, Frýbová Š, Furnas B, Gerber B, Geyle HM, Giménez DG, Giordano AJ, Gomercic T, Gompper ME, Gräbin DM, Gray M, Green A, Hagen R, Hagen R, Hammerich S, Hanekom C, Hansen C, Hasstedt S, Hebblewhite M, Heurich M, Hofmeester TR, Hubbard T, Jachowski D, Jansen PA, Jaspers KJ, Jensen A, Jordan M, Kaizer MC, Kelly MJ, Kohl MT, Kramer-Schadt S, Krofel M, Krug A, Kuhn KM, Kuijper DPJ, Kuprewicz EK, Kusak J, Kutal M, Lafferty DJR, LaRose S, Lashley M, Lathrop R, Lee TE Jr, Lepczyk C, Lesmeister DB, Licoppe A, Linnell M, Loch J, Long R, Lonsinger RC, Louvrier J, Luskin MS, MacKay P, Maher S, Manet B, Mann GKH, Marshall AJ, Mason D, McDonald Z, McKay T, McShea WJ, Mechler M, Miaud C, Millspaugh JJ, Monteza-Moreno CM, Moreira-Arce D, Mullen K, Nagy C, Naidoo R, Namir I, Nelson C, O’Neill B, O’Mara MT, Oberosler V, Osorio C, Ossi F, Palencia P, Pearson K, Pedrotti L, Pekins CE, Pendergast M, Pinho FF, Plhal R, Pocasangre-Orellana X, Price M, Procko M, Proctor MD, Ramalho EE, Ranc N, Reljic S, Remine K, Rentz M, Revord R, Reyna-Hurtado R, Risch D, Ritchie EG, Romero A, Rota C, Rovero F, Rowe H, Rutz C, Salvatori M, Sandow D, Schalk CM, Scherger J, Schipper J, Scognamillo DG, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Semenzato P, Sevin J, Shamon H, Shier C, Silva-Rodríguez EA, Sindicic M, Smyth LK, Soyumert A, Sprague T, St. Clair CC, Stenglein J, Stephens PA, Stępniak KM, Stevens M, Stevenson C, Ternyik B, Thomson I, Torres RT, Tremblay J, Urrutia T, Vacher J-P, Visscher D, Webb SL, Weber J, Weiss KCB, Whipple LS, Whittier CA, Whittington J, Wierzbowska I, Wikelski M, Williamson J, Wilmers CC, Windle T, Wittmer HU, Zharikov Y, Zorn A, Kays R (2024) Mammal responses to global changes in human activity vary by trophic group and landscape. Nature Ecology and Evolution PDF DOI 

Published in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Authors: Melinda D Smith, Kate D Wilkins, Martin C Holdrege, Peter Wilfahrt, Scott L Collins, Alan K Knapp, Osvaldo E Sala, Jeffrey S Dukes, Richard P Phillips, Laura Yahdjian, Laureano A Gherardi, Timothy Ohlert, Claus Beier, Lauchlan H Fraser, Anke Jentsch, Michael E Loik, Fernando T Maestre, Sally A Power, Qiang Yu, Andrew J Felton, Seth M Munson, Yiqi Luo, Hamed Abdoli, Mehdi Abedi, Concepción L Alados, Juan Alberti, Moshe Alon, Hui An, Brian Anacker, Maggie Anderson, Harald Auge, Seton Bachle, Khadijeh Bahalkeh, Michael Bahn, Amgaa Batbaatar, Taryn Bauerle, Karen H Beard, Kai Behn, Ilka Beil, Lucio Biancari, Irmgard Blindow, Viviana Florencia Bondaruk, Elizabeth T Borer, Edward W Bork, Carlos Martin Bruschetti, Kerry M Byrne, James F Cahill Jr, Dianela A Calvo, Michele Carbognani, Augusto Cardoni, Cameron N Carlyle, Miguel Castillo-Garcia, Scott X Chang, Jeff Chieppa, Marcus V Cianciaruso, Ofer Cohen, Amanda L Cordeiro, Daniela F Cusack, Sven Dahlke, Pedro Daleo, Carla M D’Antonio, Lee H Dietterich, Tim S Doherty, Maren Dubbert, Anne Ebeling, Nico Eisenhauer, Felícia M Fischer, T’ai G W Forte, Tobias Gebauer, Beatriz Gozalo, Aaron C Greenville, Karlo G Guidoni-Martins, Heather J Hannusch, Siri Vatsø Haugum, Yann Hautier, Mariet Hefting, Hugh A L Henry, Daniela Hoss, Johannes Ingrisch, Oscar Iribarne, Forest Isbell, Yari Johnson, Samuel Jordan, Eugene F Kelly, Kaitlin Kimmel, Juergen Kreyling, György Kröel-Dulay, Alicia Kröpfl, Angelika Kübert, Andrew Kulmatiski, Eric G Lamb, Klaus Steenberg Larsen, Julie Larson, Jason Lawson, Cintia V Leder, Anja Linstädter, Jielin Liu, Shirong Liu, Alexandra G Lodge, Grisel Longo, Alejandro Loydi, Junwei Luan, Frederick Curtis Lubbe, Craig Macfarlane, Kathleen Mackie-Haas, Andrey V Malyshev, Adrián Maturano-Ruiz, Thomas Merchant, Daniel B Metcalfe, Akira S Mori, Edwin Mudongo, Gregory S Newman, Uffe N Nielsen, Dale Nimmo, Yujie Niu, Paola Nobre, Rory C O’Connor, Romà Ogaya, Gastón R Oñatibia, Ildikó Orbán, Brooke Osborne, Rafael Otfinowski, Meelis Pärtel, Josep Penuelas, Pablo L Peri, Guadalupe Peter, Alessandro Petraglia, Catherine Picon-Cochard, Valério D Pillar, Juan Manuel Piñeiro-Guerra, Laura W Ploughe, Robert M Plowes, Cristy Portales-Reyes, Suzanne M Prober, Yolanda Pueyo, Sasha C Reed, Euan G Ritchie, Dana Aylén Rodríguez, William E Rogers, Christiane Roscher, Ana M Sánchez, Bráulio A Santos, María Cecilia Scarfó, Eric W Seabloom, Baoku Shi, Lara Souza, Andreas Stampfli, Rachel J Standish, Marcelo Sternberg, Wei Sun, Marie Sünnemann, Michelle Tedder, Pål Thorvaldsen, Dashuan Tian, Katja Tielbörger, Alejandro Valdecantos, Liesbeth van den Brink, Vigdis Vandvik, Mathew R Vankoughnett, Liv Guri Velle, Changhui Wang, Yi Wang, Glenda M Wardle, Christiane Werner, Cunzheng Wei, Georg Wiehl, Jennifer L Williams, Amelia A Wolf, Michaela Zeiter, Fawei Zhang, Juntao Zhu, Ning Zong, and Xiaoan Zuo

Significance

Drought has well-documented societal and economic consequences. Climate change is expected to intensify drought to even more extreme levels, but because such droughts have been historically rare, their impact on ecosystem functioning is not well known.

We experimentally imposed the most frequent type of intensified drought—one that is ~1 y in duration—at 100 grassland and shrubland sites distributed across six continents.

We found that loss of aboveground plant growth, a key measure of ecosystem function, was 60% greater when short-term drought was extreme (≤1-in-100-y historical occurrence).

This drought-induced loss in function greatly exceeds previously reported losses for grasslands and shrublands, suggesting that the global impacts of projected increases in drought severity have been substantially underestimated.

Abstract

Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of short-term (~1 y) drought events—the most common duration of drought—globally. Yet the impact of this intensification of drought on ecosystem functioning remains poorly resolved. This is due in part to the widely disparate approaches ecologists have employed to study drought, variation in the severity and duration of drought studied, and differences among ecosystems in vegetation, edaphic and climatic attributes that can mediate drought impacts.

To overcome these problems and better identify the factors that modulate drought responses, we used a coordinated distributed experiment to quantify the impact of short-term drought on grassland and shrubland ecosystems. With a standardized approach, we imposed ~a single year of drought at 100 sites on six continents.

Here we show that loss of a foundational ecosystem function—aboveground net primary production (ANPP)—was 60% greater at sites that experienced statistically extreme drought (1-in-100-y event) vs. those sites where drought was nominal (historically more common) in magnitude (35% vs. 21%, respectively).

This reduction in a key carbon cycle process with a single year of extreme drought greatly exceeds previously reported losses for grasslands and shrublands. Our global experiment also revealed high variability in drought response but that relative reductions in ANPP were greater in drier ecosystems and those with fewer plant species.

Overall, our results demonstrate with unprecedented rigor that the global impacts of projected increases in drought severity have been significantly underestimated and that drier and less diverse sites are likely to be most vulnerable to extreme drought.

Smith MD, Wilkins KD, Holdrege MC, Wilfahrt P, Collins SL, Knapp AK, Sala OE, Dukes JS, Phillips RP, Yahdjian L, Gherardi LA, Ohlert T, Beier C, Fraser LH, Jentsch A, Loik ME, Maestre FT, Power SA, Yu Q, Felton AJ, Munson SM, Luo Y, Abdoli H, Abedi M, Alados CL, Alberti J, Alon M, An H, Anacker B, Anderson M, Auge H, Bachle S, Bahalkeh K, Bahn M, Batbaatar A, Bauerle T, Beard KH, Behn K, Beil I, Biancari L, Blindow I, Bondaruk VF, Borer ET, Bork EW, Bruschetti CM, Byrne KM, Cahill JF Jr, Calvo DA, Carbognani M, Cardoni A, Carlyle CN, Castillo-Garcia M, Chang SX, Chieppa J, Cianciaruso MV, Cohen O, Cordeiro AL, Cusack DF, Dahlke S, Daleo P, D’Antonio CM, Dietterich LH, S Doherty T, Dubbert M, Ebeling A, Eisenhauer N, Fischer FM, Forte TGW, Gebauer T, Gozalo B, Greenville AC, Guidoni-Martins KG, Hannusch HJ, Vatsø Haugum S, Hautier Y, Hefting M, Henry HAL, Hoss D, Ingrisch J, Iribarne O, Isbell F, Johnson Y, Jordan S, Kelly EF, Kimmel K, Kreyling J, Kröel-Dulay G, Kröpfl A, Kübert A, Kulmatiski A, Lamb EG, Larsen KS, Larson J, Lawson J, Leder CV, Linstädter A, Liu J, Liu S, Lodge AG, Longo G, Loydi A, Luan J, Curtis Lubbe F, Macfarlane C, Mackie-Haas K, Malyshev AV, Maturano-Ruiz A, Merchant T, Metcalfe DB, Mori AS, Mudongo E, Newman GS, Nielsen UN, Nimmo D, Niu Y, Nobre P, O’Connor RC, Ogaya R, Oñatibia GR, Orbán I, Osborne B, Otfinowski R, Pärtel M, Penuelas J, Peri PL, Peter G, Petraglia A, Picon-Cochard C, Pillar VD, Piñeiro-Guerra JM, Ploughe LW, Plowes RM, Portales-Reyes C, Prober SM, Pueyo Y, Reed SC, Ritchie EG, Rodríguez DA, Rogers WE, Roscher C, Sánchez AM, Santos BA, Cecilia Scarfó M, Seabloom EW, Shi B, Souza L, Stampfli A, Standish RJ, Sternberg M, Sun W, Sünnemann M, Tedder M, Thorvaldsen P, Tian D, Tielbörger K, Valdecantos A, van den Brink L, Vandvik V, Vankoughnett MR, Guri Velle L, Wang C, Wang Y, Wardle GM, Werner C, Wei C, Wiehl G, Williams JL, Wolf AA, Zeiter M, Zhang F, Zhu J, Zong N, Zuo X (2024) Extreme drought impacts have been underestimated in grasslands and shrublands globally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PDF DOI

Authors: Valerio Donfrancesco, Benjamin L Allen, Rob Appleby, Linda Behrendorff, Gabriel Conroy, Mathew S Crowther, Christopher R Dickman, Tim Doherty, Bronwyn A Fancourt, Christopher E Gordon, Stephen M Jackson, Chris N Johnson, Malcolm S Kennedy, Loukas Koungoulos, Mike Letnic, Luke K‐P Leung, Kieren J Mitchell, Bradley Nesbitt, Thomas Newsome, Carlo Pacioni, Justine Phillip, Brad V Purcell, Euan G Ritchie, Bradley P Smith, Danielle Stephens, Jack Tatler, Lily M van Eeden, Kylie M Cairns

Published in: Conservation Science and Practice

Abstract

Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision-makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too.

This study adopts a dissensus-based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty-eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation.

We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call “conflict over values” and “conflict over evidence.” We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts.

Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision-making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.

Donfrancesco V, Allen BL, Appleby R, Behrendorff L, Conroy G, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Doherty T, Fancourt BA, Gordon CE, Jackson SM, Johnson CN, Kennedy MS, Koungoulos L, Letnic M, Leung LK ‐P., Mitchell KJ, Nesbitt B, Newsome T, Pacioni C, Phillip J, Purcell BV, Ritchie EG, Smith BP, Stephens D, Tatler J, van Eeden LM, Cairns KM (2023) Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species: A case study on the Australian dingo. Conservation Science and Practice PDF DOI 

Authors: Stephen G Kearney, James EM Watson, April E Reside, Diana O Fisher, Martine Maron, Tim S Doherty, Sarah M Legge, John CZ Woinarski, Stephen T Garnett, Brendan A Wintle, Euan G Ritchie, Don A Driscoll, David Lindenmayer, Vanessa M Adams, Michelle S Ward, and Josie Carwardine

Published in: Biological Conservation

Abstract

Earth’s extinction crisis is escalating, and threat classification schemes are increasingly important for assessing the prominent drivers and threats causing species declines. However, a complementary framework for assessing the conservation responses needed to abate these threatening processes is lacking.

Here we draw on expert knowledge and published literature to develop a threat-abatement framework which groups threats based on the shared conservation goal of the actions needed to abate their impact and apply it to 1532 threatened species across the Australian continent.

Our analysis shows that the most important conservation actions across Australia are to retain and restore habitat, due to the threats posed by habitat destruction and degradation (via logging, mining, urbanisation, roads, and agriculture) to 86% of Australia’s threatened species. Most species also require the effective control of invasive species and diseases (82%) and improved fire management (66%).

Countering individual threats will not be enough to support species survival or recovery, because almost all species (89%) require multiple, integrated management responses to redress their threats. Our threat abatement framework enables rapid identification of broad conservation responses to aid recovery of threatened species and can be applied in other regions, scales and contexts.

Kearney SG, Watson JEM, Reside AE, Fisher DO, Maron M, Doherty TS, Legge SM, Woinarski JCZ, Garnett ST, Wintle BA, Ritchie EG, Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer D, Adams VM, Ward MS, Carwardine J (2023) Threat-abatement framework confirms habitat retention and invasive species management are critical to conserve Australia’s threatened species. Biological Conservation PDF DOI

Authors: William L Geary, Adrian F Wayne, Ayesha IT Tulloch, Euan G Ritchie, Marika A Maxwell, and Tim S Doherty

Published in: Wildlife Research

Abstract

Context: Invasive predators are major drivers of global biodiversity loss. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) have contributed to the decline and extinction of many native species in Australia. The deployment of poison baits to control fox populations is a widespread conservation tool, but the effects of baiting intensity, rainfall and prey abundance on baiting effectiveness remain poorly understood.

Aims: We aimed to understand what influences the association between fox baiting intensity, red fox activity and feral cat activity, to provide inferences about what might affect the effectiveness of fox baiting in reducing fox activity.

Methods: We used generalised linear models to assess how fox and cat activity changes in relation to fox baiting intensity, rainfall, native prey availability and distance to agricultural land over a 6-year period (2006–2013) in the forest ecosystems of the Upper Warren region of south-western Australia.

Key results: We found that fox activity was negatively associated with rainfall in the previous 12 months and positively associated with prey abundance and fox baiting intensity. We also found an interaction between fox baiting and prey abundance, with fox activity increasing with prey activity in areas of low and moderate baiting intensity, but remaining constant in areas of high baiting intensity. Feral cat activity was positively associated with prey abundance and fox baiting intensity. We found no clear relationship between fox and cat activity.

Conclusions: The drivers of the association between fox baiting and fox activity are unclear because intense fox baiting was targeted at areas of known high fox abundance. However, our results indicate that intense fox baiting may be effective at decoupling the positive association between fox activity and prey abundance. Our results also suggest a positive association between fox baiting intensity and feral cat activity, thus supporting the case for integrated fox and cat management.

Implications: We caution interpretation of our results, but note that management of invasive predators could be improved by adjusting the intensity of management in response to changes in environmental conditions and local context (e.g. strategically conducting intense predator management where prey abundance is highest). Improved understanding of these associations requires a monitoring program with sufficient replication and statistical power to detect any treatment effects.

Geary WL, Wayne AF, Tulloch AIT, Ritchie EG, Maxwell MA, Doherty TS (2022) Fox and cat responses to fox baiting intensity, rainfall and prey abundance in the Upper Warren, Western Australia. Wildlife Research PDF DOI

Authors: Eilysh R Thompson, Don A Driscoll, Susanna E Venn, William L Geary, and Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Austral Ecology

Abstract

Carnivores have key ecological roles in structuring and regulating ecosystems through their impacts on prey populations. When apex- and meso-predators co-occur in ecosystems, there is the potential for complex interspecific interactions and trophic dynamics that can affect the composition and functioning of ecological communities.

Investigating the diet of sympatric carnivores can allow us to better understand their ecological roles (e.g. potential suppression of herbivores) or impacts (e.g. predation of threatened species).

Australia’s alpine region provides an ideal system in which to explore spatial and temporal variation in predator and prey interactions, using the dingo (Canis dingo) and invasive red fox (Vulpes vulpes) diet.

We examined the diet of dingoes and foxes across three different mountains and seasons in Victoria’s alpine region, using macroscopic scat analysis.

There was little diet overlap between the two carnivores, with foxes having a broader diet than dingoes. Dingoes primarily consumed larger mammal species, including invasive sambar deer (Cervus unicolor, 44%), and the native common wombat (Vombatus ursinus, 34%), whereas foxes typically consumed smaller mammals, including the native bush rat (Rattus fuscipes, 55%), and the invasive European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus, 15%). Dingoes consumed more than thirty times the volume of large invasive mammals (predominantly sambar deer) than did foxes. Foxes consumed close to 15 times as many critical weight range individuals per scat than dingoes. Only one threatened critical weight range mammal species was identified within scats, the broad-toothed rat (Mastacomys fuscus), found within five fox scats.

Our results suggest that the introduction of novel prey may alter predator–predator interactions by causing a reduction in the dietary overlap. Therefore, in the context of integrated wildlife management and biodiversity conservation, any control of novel, invasive prey populations needs to consider possible flow on effects to apex- and meso-predator diets and potential secondary impacts on native prey.

Thompson ER, Driscoll DA, Venn SE, Geary WL, Ritchie EG (2022) Interspecific variation in the diet of a native apex predator and invasive mesopredator in an alpine ecosystem. Austral Ecology PDF DOI

Authors: Grant D Linley, Chris J Jolly, Tim S Doherty, William L Geary, Dolors Armenteras, Claire M Belcher, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Andrea Duane, Michael‐Shawn Fletcher, Melisa A Giorgis, Angie Haslem, Gavin M Jones, Luke T Kelly, Calvin KF Lee, Rachael H Nolan, Catherine L Parr, Juli G Pausas, Jodi N Price, Adrián Regos, Euan G Ritchie, Julien Ruffault, Grant J Williamson, Qianhan Wu, and Dale G Nimmo

Published in: Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Background: ‘Megafire’ is an emerging concept commonly used to describe fires that are extreme in terms of size, behaviour, and/or impacts, but the term’s meaning remains ambiguous.

Approach: We sought to resolve ambiguity surrounding the meaning of ‘megafire’ by conducting a structured review of the use and definition of the term in several languages in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. We collated definitions and descriptions of megafire and identified criteria frequently invoked to define megafire. We recorded the size and location of megafires and mapped them to reveal global variation in the size of fires described as megafires.

Results: We identified 109 studies that define the term ‘megafire’ or identify a megafire, with the term first appearing in the peer-reviewed literature in 2005. Seventy-one (~65%) of these studies attempted to describe or define the term. There was considerable variability in the criteria used to define megafire, although definitions of megafire based on fire size were most common. Megafire size thresholds varied geographically from > 100–100,000 ha, with fires > 10,000 ha the most common size threshold (41%, 18/44 studies). Definitions of megafire were most common from studies led by authors from North America (52%, 37/71). We recorded 137 instances from 84 studies where fires were reported as megafires, the vast majority (94%, 129/137) of which exceed 10,000 ha in size. Megafires occurred in a range of biomes, but were most frequently described in forested biomes (112/137, 82%), and usually described single ignition fires (59% 81/137).

Conclusion: As Earth’s climate and ecosystems change, it is important that scientists can communicate trends in the occurrence of larger and more extreme fires with clarity. To overcome ambiguity, we suggest a definition of megafire as fires > 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. We introduce two additional terms – gigafire (> 100,000 ha) and terafire (> 1,000,000 ha) – for fires of an even larger scale than megafires.

Linley GD, Jolly CJ, Doherty TS, Geary WL, Armenteras D, Belcher CM, Bliege Bird R, Duane A, Fletcher M, Giorgis MA, Haslem A, Jones GM, Kelly LT, Lee CKF, Nolan RH, Parr CL, Pausas JG, Price JN, Regos A, Ritchie EG, Ruffault J, Williamson GJ, Wu Q, Nimmo DG, Poulter B (2022) What do you mean, ‘megafire’? Global Ecology and Biogeography PDF DOI

Authors: Tim S Doherty, William L Geary, Chris J Jolly, Kristina J Macdonald, Vivianna Miritis, Darcy J Watchorn, Michael J Cherry, Mike L Conner, Tania Marisol González, Sarah M Legge, Euan G Ritchie, Clare Stawski, and Chris R Dickman

Published in: Biological Reviews

Abstract

Both fire and predators have strong influences on the population dynamics and behaviour of animals, and the effects of predators may either be strengthened or weakened by fire. However, knowledge of how fire drives or mediates predator–prey interactions is fragmented and has not been synthesised.

Here, we review and synthesise knowledge of how fire influences predator and prey behaviour and interactions. We develop a conceptual model based on predator–prey theory and empirical examples to address four key questions:

1. how and why do predators respond to fire;
2. how and why does prey vulnerability change post-fire;
3. what mechanisms do prey use to reduce predation risk post-fire; and
4. what are the outcomes of predator–fire interactions for prey populations?

We then discuss these findings in the context of wildlife conservation and ecosystem management before outlining priorities for future research.

Fire-induced changes in vegetation structure, resource availability, and animal behaviour influence predator–prey encounter rates, the amount of time prey are vulnerable during an encounter, and the conditional probability of prey death given an encounter. How a predator responds to fire depends on fire characteristics (e.g. season, severity), their hunting behaviour (ambush or pursuit predator), movement behaviour, territoriality, and intra-guild dynamics.

Prey species that rely on habitat structure for avoiding predation often experience increased predation rates and lower survival in recently burnt areas. By contrast, some prey species benefit from the opening up of habitat after fire because it makes it easier to detect predators and to modify their behaviour appropriately.

Reduced prey body condition after fire can increase predation risk either through impaired ability to escape predators, or increased need to forage in risky areas due to being energetically stressed. To reduce risk of predation in the post-fire environment, prey may change their habitat use, increase sheltering behaviour, change their movement behaviour, or use camouflage through cryptic colouring and background matching.Field experiments and population viability modelling show instances where fire either amplifies or does not amplify the impacts of predators on prey populations, and vice versa. In some instances, intense and sustained post-fire predation may lead to local extinctions of prey populations.

Human disruption of fire regimes is impacting faunal communities, with consequences for predator and prey behaviour and population dynamics.

Key areas for future research include:

• capturing data continuously before, during and after fires;
• teasing out the relative importance of changes in visibility and shelter availability in different contexts;
• documenting changes in acoustic and olfactory cues for both predators and prey;
• addressing taxonomic and geographic biases in the literature; and
• predicting and testing how changes in fire-regime characteristics reshape predator–prey interactions.

Understanding and managing the consequences for predator–prey communities will be critical for effective ecosystem management and species conservation in this era of global change.

Doherty TS, Geary WL, Jolly CJ, Macdonald KJ, Miritis V, Watchorn DJ, Cherry MJ, Conner LM, González TM, Legge SM, Ritchie EG, Stawski C, Dickman CR (2022) Fire as a driver and mediator of predator–prey interactions. Biological Reviews PDF DOI

Author: Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Science (Letters)

Australia is failing to meet its international obligations to conserve its unique native biodiversity and ecosystems. Most of Australia’s plants and animals are found nowhere else on Earth, but since colonization about 230 years ago, at least 100 endemic species have been driven to extinction, and 17 ecosystems spanning the continent are now showing signs of collapse. Many more species face the same grim fate, with more than 1900 species and ecological communities currently listed as of conservation concern under Australia’s centerpiece environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Numerous reports demonstrate that Australia is simply not doing enough to address key threats to biodiversity, including land clearing and urbanization, invasive species, altered fire regimes, pollution, disease, and climate change. Despite being a member of the G20, Australian federal and state government environmental spending is well short of what’s required to reverse the nation’s biodiversity extinction trajectory.

A stark example of this failure is the newly announced priority threatened species list. Just 100 threatened species — fewer than 6% of the country’s listed threatened species — are earmarked for conservation attention and AUS $10 million of new funding, equating to about $100,000 per species. Of Australia’s Critically Endangered or Endangered species, only 2 of 25 frog species (8%), 7 of 53 invertebrate species (13.2%), and 28 of 776 plant species (3.6%) make the priority list.

Stronger environmental laws, combined with a substantial increase in investment in environmental and conservation spending, will not only benefit Australia’s biodiversity but also undoubtedly deliver substantial social, cultural, and economic benefits. The international community is moving to implement a new post-2020 global biodiversity framework, and heads of state recently met at the United Nations Climate Change Conference to chart a course to avert the climate change crisis deepening. Australia must be a leader of change, not a laggard.

Ritchie EG (2022) Australia’s biodiversity crisis and opportunity. Science PDF DOI

Authors: Jake M Robinson, Nicole Redvers, Araceli Camargo, Christina A Bosch, Martin F Breed, Lisa A Brenner, Megan A Carney, Ashvini Chauhan, Mauna Dasari, Leslie G Dietz, Michael Friedman, Laura Grieneisen, Andrew J Hoisington, Patrick F Horve, Ally Hunter, Sierra Jech, Anna Jorgensen, Christopher A Lowry, Ioana Man, Gwynne Mhuireach, Edauri Navarro-Pérez, Euan G Ritchie, Justin D Stewart, Harry Watkins, Philip Weinstein, Suzanne L Ishaq

Published in: mSystems (American Society for Microbiology)

Abstract

Social and political policy, human activities, and environmental change affect the ways in which microbial communities assemble and interact with people. These factors determine how different social groups are exposed to beneficial and/or harmful microorganisms, meaning microbial exposure has an important socioecological justice context. Therefore, greater consideration of microbial exposure and social equity in research, planning, and policy is imperative.

Here, we identify 20 research questions considered fundamentally important to promoting equitable exposure to beneficial microorganisms, along with safeguarding resilient societies and ecosystems. The 20 research questions we identified span seven broad themes, including the following:

1. sociocultural interactions;
2. Indigenous community health and well-being;
3. humans, urban ecosystems, and environmental processes;
4. human psychology and mental health;
5. microbiomes and infectious diseases;
6. human health and food security; and
7. microbiome-related planning, policy, and outreach.

Our goal was to summarize this growing field and to stimulate impactful research avenues while providing focus for funders and policymakers.

Robinson JM, Redvers N, Camargo A, Bosch CA, Breed MF, Brenner LA, Carney MA, Chauhan A, Dasari M, Dietz LG, Friedman M, Grieneisen L, Hoisington AJ, Horve PF, Hunter A, Jech S, Jorgensen A, Lowry CA, Man I, Mhuireach G, Navarro-Pérez E, Ritchie EG, Stewart JD, Watkins H, Weinstein P, Ishaq SL (2022) Twenty Important Research Questions in Microbial Exposure and Social Equity. mSystems PDF DOI 

Authors: William J Sutherland, Jake M Robinson, David C Aldridge, Tim Alamenciak, Matthew Armes, Nina Baranduin, Andrew J Bladon, Martin F Breed, Nicki Dyas, Chris S Elphick, Richard A Griffiths, Jonny Hughes, Beccy Middleton, Nick A Littlewood, Roger Mitchell, William H Morgan, Roy Mosley, Silviu O Petrovan, Kit Prendergast, Euan G Ritchie, Hugh Raven, Rebecca K Smith, Sarah H Watts, and Ann Thornton

Published in: Conservation Evidence

Summary

It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions.

Sutherland WJ, Robinson JM, Aldridge DC, Alamenciak T, Armes M, Baranduin N, Bladon AJ, Breed MF, Dyas N, Elphick CS, Griffiths RA, Hughes J, Middleton B, Littlewood NA, Mitchell R, Morgan WH, Mosley R, Petrovan SO, Prendergast K, Ritchie EG, Raven H, Smith RK, Watts SH & Thornton A (2022) EDITORIAL Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions. Conservation Evidence PDF DOI

Authors: John C Z Woinarski, Alyson M Stobo-Wilson, Heather M Crawford, Stuart J Dawson, Chris R Dickman, Tim S Doherty, Patricia A Fleming, Stephen T Garnett, Matthew N Gentle, Sarah M Legge, Thomas M Newsome, Russell Palmer, Matthew W Rees, Euan G Ritchie, James Speed, John-Michael Stuart , Eilysh Thompson, Jeff Turpin and Brett P Murphy

Published in: Bird Conservation International

Abstract

Two introduced carnivores, the European red fox Vulpes vulpes and domestic cat Felis catus, have had extensive impacts on Australian biodiversity. In this study, we collate information on consumption of Australian birds by the fox, paralleling a recent study reporting on birds consumed by cats.

We found records of consumption by foxes on 128 native bird species (18% of the non-vagrant bird fauna and 25% of those species within the fox’s range), a smaller tally than for cats (343 species, including 297 within the fox’s Australian range, a subset of that of the cat). Most (81%) bird species eaten by foxes are also eaten by cats, suggesting that predation impacts are compounded.

As with consumption by cats, birds that nest or forage on the ground are most likely to be consumed by foxes. However, there is also some partitioning, with records of consumption by foxes but not cats for 25 bird species, indicating that impacts of the two predators may also be complementary. Bird species ≥3.4 kg were more likely to be eaten by foxes, and those <3.4 kg by cats.

Our compilation provides an inventory and describes characteristics of Australian bird species known to be consumed by foxes, but we acknowledge that records of predation do not imply population-level impacts. Nonetheless, there is sufficient information from other studies to demonstrate that fox predation has significant impacts on the population viability of some Australian birds, especially larger birds, and those that nest or forage on the ground.

Woinarski JCZ, Stobo-Wilson AM, Crawford HM, Dawson SJ, Dickman CR, Doherty TS, Fleming PA, Garnett ST, Gentle MN, Legge SM, Newsome TM, Palmer R, Rees MW, Ritchie EG, Speed J, Stuart JM, Thompson E, Turpin J, Murphy BP (2021) Compounding and complementary carnivores: Australian bird species eaten by the introduced European red fox Vulpes vulpes and domestic cat Felis catus. Bird Conservation International PDF DOI 

Authors: Harry A Moore, Judy A Dunlop, Chris J Jolly, Ella Kelly, John C Z Woinarski, Euan G Ritchie, Scott Burnett, Stephen van Leeuwen, Leonie E Valentine, Mitchell A Cowan, and Dale G Nimmo.

Published in: Australian Mammalogy

Abstract

In response to Australia’s current extinction crisis, substantial research efforts have been targeted towards some of the most imperilled species. One such species is the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), a marsupial predator that has recently suffered substantial declines in range and is now listed as Endangered.

We conducted a systematic review of all literature relevant to the conservation and ecology of northern quolls. We reviewed 143 studies, including research articles, government and industry reports, theses, and books, and quantified research effort in terms of topic, location, and publication period. We then summarised research relevant to northern quoll taxonomy, genetics, distribution, habitat associations, diet, reproduction, movement, threats, management, and Indigenous knowledge. Research effort was higher between 2011 and 2020 than the previous four decades combined.

Northern quolls in the Northern Territory were the most studied, followed by the Pilbara, the Kimberley, and Queensland populations. Most studies focused on northern quoll distribution and habitat, management, and threats – primarily cane toads, predation, and fire.

We conclude with a non-exhaustive list of ten future research directions. If pursued, these future research directions should provide information critical to managing and conserving northern quolls.

Moore HA, Dunlop JA, Jolly CJ, Kelly E, Woinarski JCZ, Ritchie EG, Burnett S, van Leeuwen S, Valentine LE, Cowan MA, Nimmo DG (2021) A brief history of the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus): a systematic review. Australian Mammalogy PDF DOI

Authors: Patricia A Fleming, Heather M Crawford, Alyson M Stobo-Wilson, Stuart J Dawson, Christopher R Dickman, Shannon J Dundas, Matthew N Gentle, Thomas M Newsome, Julie O’Connor, Russell Palmer, Joanna Riley, Euan G Ritchie, James Speed, Glen Saunders, John-Michael D Stuart, Eilysh Thompson, Je! M Turpin, John C Z Woinarski

Published in: Mammal Review

The red fox Vulpes vulpes is one of the world’s most widespread carnivores. A key to its success has been its broad, opportunistic diet. The fox was introduced to Australia about 150 years ago, and within 30 years of its introduction was already recognised as a threat to livestock and native wildlife.

We reviewed 85 fox diet studies (totalling 31693 samples) from throughout the species’ geographic range within Australia. Mammals were a major component of fox diet, being present in 70 ± 19% of samples across n = 160 locations. Invertebrates (38 ± 26% n = 130) and plant material (26 ± 25% n = 123) were also both staple foods and often the dominant food category recorded. Birds (13 ± 11% n = 137) and reptiles (10 ± 15% n = 132) were also commonly reported, while frogs were scarcely represented (1.6 ± 3.6% n = 111) in fox diet studies.

Biogeographical differences reveal factors that likely determine prey availability. Diet composition varied with ecosystem, level of vegetation clearing and condition, and climate zone.

Sample type (i.e. stomach versus scat samples) also significantly influenced reporting of diet composition. Livestock and frogs were underrepresented in records based on analysis of scats, whereas small mammals (native rodents, dasyurid marsupials, and bats) were more likely to be recorded in studies of scats than in studies of stomach contents.

Diet varied seasonally, reflecting activity patterns of prey species and food availability. This synthesis also captures temporal shifts in fox diet over 70 years (1951–2020), as foxes have switched to consuming more native species in the wake of successful broadscale biological control of the invasive European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus.

Diet analyses, such as those summarised in this review, capture the evidence required to motivate for greater control of foxes in Australia. This synthesis also highlights the importance of integrated pest species management to meet biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Fleming PA, Crawford HM, Stobo‐Wilson AM, Dawson SJ, Dickman CR, Dundas SJ, Gentle MN, Newsome TM, O’Connor J, Palmer R, Riley J, Ritchie EG, Speed J, Saunders G, Stuart JD, Thompson E, Turpin JM, Woinarski JCZ (2021) Diet of the introduced red fox Vulpes vulpes in Australia: analysis of temporal and spatial patterns. Mammal Review PDF DOI