Category Archives: Publications

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

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 

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 

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

Eradicating abundant invasive prey could cause unexpected and varied biodiversity outcomes: The importance of multispecies interactions

Authors: Miguel Lurgi, Euan G Ritchie, and Damien A Fordham

Published in: Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Abundant and widely distributed invasive prey can negatively affect co‐occurring native species by competing for food and/or shelter, removing vegetation cover and reducing habitat complexity (changing predation risk), and by sustaining elevated abundances of invasive mesopredators. However, information regarding the community and trophic consequences of controlling invasive prey and their temporal dynamics remain poorly understood.

We used multispecies ecological network models to simulate the consequences of changing European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus abundance in an arid mammalian community. We quantified how changes in the dominant prey (rabbits) affected multiple trophic levels, examining changes in predator–prey interactions through time and how they affected native prey persistence.

Our results suggest that removal of rabbits can benefit native biodiversity immediately at removal rates between 30% and 40%. However, beyond these levels, densities of small native mammals will decline in the short term. The processes underpinning these declines are: (a) increased competition for resources (vegetation) with kangaroos Macropus spp., whose numbers increase due to their release from competition with rabbits and (b) increased predation (prey switching) by feral cats Felis catus. Both effects are mediated by dingoes Canis dingo, a native apex predator.

Importantly, native mammal abundance recovers after a time delay, which is prolonged when high rates of rabbit control are applied. This is likely due to a reduction in hyperpredation by invasive feral cats and red foxes Vulpes vulpes following rabbit removal.

Continued eradication of rabbits in arid Australia will benefit native species due to a decrease in apparent competition for resources and by alleviating hyperpredation from invasive mesopredators. Furthermore, ecosystem‐level conservation benefits of reducing invasive prey abundance are as important as direct control of invasive mesopredators.

Synthesis and applications: Multispecies ecological network models provide wildlife managers with tools to better understand and predict the complex effects of species removal and control on both intact and modified ecosystems. Our results show that management of the Australian arid zone can benefit from controlling invasive prey as well as invasive predators. However, invasive species control can cause unexpected outcomes on native biodiversity. This extends to other systems where dominant prey may play fundamental roles in ecosystem structure and function.

Lurgi M, Ritchie EG, Fordham DA (2018) Eradicating abundant invasive prey could cause unexpected and varied biodiversity outcomes: The importance of multispecies interactions, Journal of Applied Ecology, PDF DOI 

Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world

Authors: Robert J Lennox, Austin J Gallagher, Euan G Ritchie, and Steven J Cooke

Published in: Biological Conservation, volume 224 (August 2018)

Abstract

Predators shape ecosystem structure and function through their direct and indirect effects on prey, which permeate through ecological communities. Predators are often perceived as competitors or threats to human values or well-being. This conflict has persisted for centuries, often resulting in predator removal (i.e. killing) via targeted culling, trapping, poisoning, and/or public hunts. Predator removal persists as a management strategy but requires scientific evaluation to assess the impacts of these actions, and to develop a way forward in a world where human-predator conflict may intensify due to predator reintroduction and rewilding, alongside an expanding human population.

We reviewed literature investigating predator removal and focused on identifying instances of successes and failures. We found that predator removal was generally intended to protect domestic animals from depredation, to preserve prey species, or to mitigate risks of direct human conflict, corresponding to being conducted in farmland, wild land, or urban areas. Because of the different motivations for predator removal, there was no consistent definition of what success entailed so we developed one with which to assess studies we reviewed. Research tended to be retrospective and correlative and there were few controlled experimental approaches that evaluated whether predator removal met our definition of success, making formal meta-analysis impossible. Predator removal appeared to only be effective for the short-term, failing in the absence of sustained predator suppression. This means predator removal was typically an ineffective and costly approach to conflicts between humans and predators.

Management must consider the role of the predator within the ecosystem and the potential consequences of removal on competitors and prey. Simulations or models can be generated to predict responses prior to removing predators. We also suggest that alternatives to predator removal be further developed and researched.

Ultimately, humans must coexist with predators and learning how best to do so may resolve many conflicts.

Lennox RJ, Gallagher AJ, Ritchie EG, Cooke SJ (2018) Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world, Biological Conservation, PDF DOI

Crowdfunded campaigns are conserving the Earth’s environment

Crowdfunded campaigns to save the orange-bellied parrot are a rare ray of hope. Image credit: Fatih Sam

By Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao (University of Queensland), Carla Archibald (University of Queensland), Euan Ritchie (Deakin University), Rachel Friedman (University of Queensland), Richard Fuller (The University of Queensland), Rochelle Steven (University of Queensland), and Tiffany Morrison (James Cook University)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article, including reader comments.

If not for the public’s generosity, the iconic Statue of Liberty might not have the solid and impressive footing she does today. In the late 1800s, government funds for the monument were exhausted. Yet through a fundraising campaign, the New York World newspaper garnered support from over 160,000 residents to cover the pedestal costs.

Just as large monuments need solid bases to ensure their long-term existence, so too does the environment. In the case of nature conservation, it requires money to support diverse research projects, on-ground activities, and outreach aimed at protecting and managing species and habitats.

While the health of the environment continues to decline globally, in most regions government funding falls short of what is required to stem the losses. Crowdfunding plays an important and under-appreciated role for biodiversity conservation.

Our new research presents a global analysis of how crowdfunding, still a relatively novel and minor financial mechanism in the conservation community, is contributing to conservation around the world.

Show me the money. What’s being funded and why?

Crowdfunding offers a powerful mechanism for mobilising resources for conservation across borders. We recorded 577 conservation-oriented projects (from 72 crowdfunding platforms), which have raised around US$4.8 million since 2009. The people leading these projects were based in 38 countries, but projects took place across 80 countries.

This pattern has important implications for conservation, because there is often a mismatch between high-priority areas for global conservation and countries with the greatest financial and technical capacity. For instance, we discovered that a third of the projects were delivered in different countries to where their proponents were based. The USA, UK and Australia were the countries with the highest outflow of projects (“project exporters”). Indonesia, South Africa, Costa Rica and Mexico had the highest inflow (“project importers”).

Crowdfunding could be supporting conservation work of actors that do not have as much capacity for raising funds.

The people leading projects were primarily from non-governmental organisations (35%) or universities (30%), or were freelancers (26%). Importantly, among non-governmental organisations, we discovered organisations operating at sub-national levels proposed a majority of projects.

Additionally, crowdfunding for conservation is not all about research. While most of the projects we reviewed focused on research (40%), many tackled raising awareness of conservation-related issues (31%) or boots-on-the-ground activities (21%). This expands the sphere of anecdotal evidence and commentary about crowdfunding related to conservation, which has so far revolved around research. For the first time, we’ve systematically unpacked how these funds are being used for additional activities to support conservation.

Crowdfunding can also support innovative projects that traditional funding agencies deem too risky or unconventional. For example, one project supported buying and training two Maremma sheepdogs to protect penguins against predatory foxes in southeastern Australia. (That might sound familiar to those who’ve seen the movie Oddball.)

Such opportunities for innovation can have important consequences for conservation worldwide; crowdfunding could be considered an incubator for novel ideas before widespread dissemination.

More than half of the projects we recorded (around 58%) largely focused on species. These included a disproportionate number of threatened bird and mammal species.

Prominent projects to save orange-bellied parrots or Papua New Guinea’s endangered tree kangaroos are important success stories.

This is not to underplay crowdfunding’s importance for ecosystems – whether land-based (20%), marine (9%) or freshwater (4%). Crowfunding is supporting projects ranging from protection of wilderness areas in remote Tasmania to research informing the conservation of the Californian coast.

Crowdfunding benefits extend beyond dollars and cents

The amount of money for conservation via crowdfunding has so far been relatively modest compared to more traditional conservation finance mechanisms. However, the benefits of crowdfunding extend well beyond dollars and cents. Crowdfunding helps communicate environmental issues and empower researchers and communities.

The figure below shows the reach of a single tweet during the Big Roo Count campaign. It shows how conservation-related messages can spread widely and engage communities via social media.

Crowdfunding is an exciting new tool in the conservation toolbox. But, ultimately, traditional funding sources, like government agencies, still have a major role and duty to invest adequately in environmental protection and nature conservation. Considering the current extinction crisis, governments must avoid further outsourcing of such responsibilities.

The discussion over novel sources and recipients of conservation funding continues. At the same time, transparency and oversight remain critical for managing expectations and overall effectiveness of funding. Crowdfunding contributes one more building block to democratising conservation funding and increasing transparency.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Edward Game.
The Conversation