The impacts and management of foxes Vulpes vulpes in Australia

1. The successful introduction of the red fox Vulpes vulpes into Australia in the 1870s has had dramatic and deleterious impacts on both native fauna and agricultural production. Historical accounts detail how the arrival of foxes in many areas coincided with the local demise of native fauna. Recent analyses suggest that native fauna can be successfully reintroduced to their former ranges only if foxes have been controlled, and several replicated removal experiments have confirmed that foxes are the major agents of extirpation of native fauna. Predation is the primary cause of losses, but competition and transmission of disease may be important for some species. 2. In agricultural landscapes, fox predation on lambs can cause losses of 1–30%; variation is due to flock size, health and management, as well as differences in the timing and duration of lambing and the density of foxes. 3. Fox control measures include trapping, shooting, den fumigation and exclusion fencing; baiting using the toxin 1080 is the most commonly employed method. Depending on the baiting strategy, habitat and area covered, baiting can reduce fox activity by 50–97%. We review patterns of baiting in a large sheep-grazing region in central New South Wales, and propose guidelines to increase landholder awareness of baiting strategies, to concentrate and coordinate bait use, and to maximize the cost-effectiveness of baiting programs. 4. The variable reduction in fox density within the baited area, together with the ability of the fox to recolonize rapidly, suggest that current baiting practices in eastern Australia are often ineffective, and that reforms are required. These might include increasing landholder awareness and involvement in group control programs, and the use of more efficient broadscale techniques, such as aerial baiting.

Are high-impact species predictable? An analysis of naturalised grasses in northern Australia

Predicting which species are likely to cause serious impacts in the future is crucial for targeting management efforts, but the characteristics of such species remain largely unconfirmed. We use data and expert opinion on tropical and subtropical grasses naturalised in Australia since European settlement to identify naturalised and high-impact species and subsequently to test whether high-impact species are predictable. High-impact species for the three main affected sectors (environment, pastoral and agriculture) were determined by assessing evidence against pre-defined criteria. Twenty-one of the 155 naturalised species (14%) were classified as high-impact, including four that affected more than one sector. High-impact species were more likely to have faster spread rates (regions invaded per decade) and to be semi-aquatic. Spread rate was best explained by whether species had been actively spread (as pasture), and time since naturalisation, but may not be explanatory as it was tightly correlated with range size and incidence rate. Giving more weight to minimising the chance of overlooking high-impact species, a priority for biosecurity, meant a wider range of predictors was required to identify high-impact species, and the predictive power of the models was reduced. By-sector analysis of predictors of high impact species was limited by their relative rarity, but showed sector differences, including to the universal predictors (spread rate and habitat) and life history. Furthermore, species causing high impact to agriculture have changed in the past 10 years with changes in farming practice, highlighting the importance of context in determining impact. A rationale for invasion ecology is to improve the prediction and response to future threats. Although our study identifies some universal predictors, it suggests improved prediction will require a far greater emphasis on impact rather than invasiveness, and will need to account for the individual circumstances of affected sectors and the relative rarity of high-impact species.

Dingoes at the Doorstep: Home Range Sizes and Activity Patterns of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs around Urban Areas of North-Eastern Australia

Top-predators around the world are becoming increasingly intertwined with humans, sometimes causing conflict and increasing safety risks in urban areas. In Australia, dingoes and dingo � domestic dog hybrids are common in many urban areas, and pose a variety of human health and safety risks. However, data on urban dingo ecology is scant. We GPS-collared 37 dingoes in north-eastern Australia and continuously monitored them each 30 min for 11–394 days. Most dingoes were nocturnal, with an overall mean home range size of 17.47 km2. Overall mean daily distance travelled was 6.86 km/day. At all times dingoes were within 1000 m of houses and buildings. Home ranges appeared to be constrained to patches of suitable vegetation fragments within and around human habitation. These data can be used to reallocate dingo management effort towards mitigating actual conflicts between humans and dingoes in urban areas.

Spatial and temporal patterns of feral pig diggings in rainforests of north Queensland

Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are believed to have a severe negative impact on the ecological values of tropical rainforests in north Queensland, Australia. Most perceptions of the environmental impacts of feral pigs focus on their disturbance of the soil or surface material (diggings). Spatial and temporal patterns of feral pig diggings were identified in this study: most diggings occurred in the early dry season and predominantly in moist soil (swamp and creek) microhabitats, with only minimal pig diggings found elsewhere through the general forest floor. The overall mean daily pig diggings were 0.09% of the rainforest floor. Most diggings occurred 3-4 months after the month of maximum rainfall. Most pig diggings were recorded in highland swamps, with over 80% of the swamp areas dug by pigs at some time during the 18-month study period. These results suggest that management of feral pig impacts should focus on protecting swamp and creek microhabitats in the rainforest, which are preferred by pigs for digging and which have a high environmental significance.

The value of having no wild rabbits in south-east Queensland

Rabbits released in Australia in 1859 spread to most areas of suitable habitat by 1910 causing great damage to the environment and primary industries. Measurement of damage is essential to justify spending money and utilising resources to remove rabbits. Damage to pasture and biodiversity may be irreversible and therefore difficult to measure without comparison with an area that has never suffered such damage. A rabbit proof fence completed in 1906 protected a large part of south east Queensland from rabbits. The Darling Downs Moreton Rabbit Board (DDMRB) continues to maintain the fence and keep the area relatively free of rabbits. This area is unique because it is highly suitable for rabbits and yet it has never ‘experienced’ the damage caused by plagues of uncontrolled rabbits. A study site was established where the DDMRB fence separates an area heavily used by rabbits (‘dirty side’) from an area that has never been infested by rabbits (‘clean side’). The number and location of all rabbit warrens and log piles were recorded. The absence of warrens from the ‘clean side’ shows clearly that the rabbit proof fence has prevented rabbits from establishing warren systems. The ‘dirty side’ is characterised by a high number of warrens, a high density of rabbits, fewer pasture species and low macropod activity. Future work will determine whether the rabbit populations are viable in the absence of rabbit warrens. We plan to radio collar rabbits on both sides of the fence to measure their survival rate. In selected warrens and log piles of varying degrees of complexity and size, rabbits will be trapped and information on reproduction and age structure will be collected. This will allow better targeting of the source of rabbits during control operations. Once the initial comparative analysis of the site has been completed, all rabbit warrens will be destroyed on the dirty side of the fence. After rabbits are removed from this area, monitoring will continue to determine if pasture and biodiversity on opposite sides of the fence begin to mirror each other.

Can feral pig harvesting and co-ordinated control reduce damage to grain crops?

Commercial and recreational harvesting of pigs is often encouraged by pest managers because it is essentially a ‘free’ reduction in pest density. However, the reduction in numbers may provide minimal damage mitigation and may be inappropriately allocated in space and time. Additionally, more effective control (e.g. baiting) may not occur because of the incorrect perception that harvesting is effective or because pigs are valued for recreational use.

Ecological impacts of feral pig diggings in north Queensland rainforests

This two-year study examined the impacts of feral pig diggings on five ecological indicators: seedling survival, surface litter, subsurface plant biomass, earthworm biomass and soil moisture content. Twelve recovery exclosures were established in two habitats (characterised by wet and dry soil moisture) by fencing off areas of previous pig diggings. A total of 0.59 ha was excluded from further pig diggings and compared with 1.18 ha of unfenced control areas. Overall, seedling numbers increased 7% within the protected exclosures and decreased 37% within the unprotected controls over the two-year study period. A significant temporal interaction was found in the dry habitat, with seedling survival increasing with increasing time of protection from diggings. Feral pig diggings had no significant effect on surface litter biomass, subsurface plant biomass, earthworm biomass or soil moisture content.

Revised benefits and costs of eradicating the red imported fire ant

The paper revisits estimates of cost/benefit for eradication in Australia provided in 2001 which were based largely on information about a US ecosystem. The study had two major components; spread modelling using a cellular automation model provided by Joe Scanlan and an impact analysis undertaken by the remaining authors. The revised figures provided in this study increased the damage estimate from $2.8 billion to $45 billion and the benefit-cost ratio of eradication efforts improved from 25:1 to 390:1.

Buffel grass in Queensland's semi-arid woodlands: response to local and landscape scale variables, and relationship with grass, forb and reptile species.

Buffel grass [Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link] has been widely introduced in the Australian rangelands as a consequence of its value for productive grazing, but tends to competitively establish in non-target areas such as remnant vegetation. In this study, we examined the influence landscape-scale and local-scale variables had upon the distribution of buffel grass in remnant poplar box (Eucalyptus populnea F. Muell.) dominant woodland fragments in the Brigalow Bioregion, Queensland. Buffel grass and variables thought to influence its distribution in the region were measured at 60 sites, which were selected based on the amount of native woodland retained in the landscape and patch size. An information-theoretic modelling approach and hierarchical partitioning revealed that the most influential variable was the percent of retained vegetation within a 1-km spatial extent. From this, we identified a critical threshold of similar to 30% retained vegetation in the landscape, above which the model predicted buffel grass was not likely to occur in a woodland fragment. Other explanatory variables in the model were site based, and included litter cover and long-term rainfall. Given the paucity of information on the effect of buffel grass upon biodiversity values, we undertook exploratory analyses to determine whether buffel grass cover influenced the distribution of grass, forb and reptile species. We detected some trends; hierarchical partitioning revealed that buffel grass cover was the most important explanatory variable describing habitat preferences of four reptile species. However, establishing causal links - particularly between native grass and forb species and buffel grass - was problematic owing to possible confounding with grazing pressure. We conclude with a set of management recommendations aimed at reducing the spread of buffel grass into remnant woodlands.

Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents

We review key issues, available approaches and analyses to encourage and assist practitioners to develop sound plans to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents at various phases throughout a program. Assessing the effectiveness of prospective agents before release assists the selection process, while post-release evaluation aims to determine the extent that agents are alleviating the ecological, social and economic impacts of the weeds. Information gathered on weed impacts prior to the initiation of a biological control program is necessary to provide baseline data and devise performance targets against which the program can subsequently be evaluated. Detailed data on weed populations, associated plant communities and, in some instances ecosystem processes collected at representative sites in the introduced range several years before the release of agents can be compared with similar data collected later to assess agent effectiveness. Laboratory, glasshouse and field studies are typically used to assess agent effectiveness. While some approaches used for field studies may be influenced by confounding factors, manipulative experiments where agents are excluded (or included) using chemicals or cages are more robust but time-consuming and expensive to implement. Demographic modeling and benefit–cost analyses are increasingly being used to complement other studies. There is an obvious need for more investment in long-term post-release evaluation of agent effectiveness to rigorously document outcomes of biological control programs.

Efficacy of exclusion fencing to protect ephemeral floodplain lagoon habitats from feral pigs (Sus scrofa)

Foraging by feral pigs can strongly affect wetland vegetation assemblages and so too wider ecological processes, although their effects on freshwater ecosystems have seldom been tudied. We assessed the ecological effects of pig foraging in replicate fenced and unfenced ephemeral floodplain lagoons in tropical north-eastern Australia. Pig foraging activities in unfenced lagoons caused major changes to aquatic macrophyte communities and as a consequence, to the proportional amounts of open water and bare ground. The destruction of macrophyte communities and upheaval of wetland sediments significantly affected wetland turbidity, and caused prolonged anoxia and pH imbalances in the unfenced treatments. Whilst fencing of floodplain lagoons will protect against feral pig foraging activities, our repeated measures of many biological, physical and chemical parameters inferred that natural seasonal (i.e. temporal) effects had a greater influence on these variables than did pigs. To validate this observation requires measuring how these effects are influenced by the seemingly greater annual disturbance regime of variable flooding and drying in this tropical climate.

Lantana camara L. (Verbenaceae) invasion effects on soil physicochemical properties

Lantana camara is a recognized weed of worldwide significance due to its extensive distribution and its impacts on primary industries and nature conservation. However, quantitative data on the impact of the weed on soil ecosystem properties are scanty, especially in SE Australia, despite the pervasive presence of the weed along its coastal and inland regions. Consequently, mineral soils for physicochemical analyses were collected beneath and away from L. camara infestations in four sites west of Brisbane, SE Australia. These sites (hoop pine plantation, cattle farm, and two eucalyptus forests with occasional grazing and a fire regime, respectively) vary in landscape and land-use types. Significant site effect was more frequently observed than effect due to invasion status. Nonetheless, after controlling for site differences, ~50% of the 23 soil traits examined differed significantly between infested and non-infested soils. Moisture, pH, Ca, total and organic C, and total N (but not exchangeable N in form of NO3-) were significantly elevated, while sodium, chloride, copper, iron, sulfur, and manganese, many of which can be toxic to plant growth if present in excess levels, were present at lower levels in soils supporting L. camara compared to soils lacking the weed. These results indicate that L. camara can improve soil fertility and influence nutrient cycling, making the substratum ideal for its own growth and might explain the ability of the weed to outcompete other species, especially native ones.

Wild dogma: An examination of recent "evidence" for dingo regulation of invasive mesopredator release in Australia

There is growing interest in the role that apex predators play in shaping terrestrial ecosystems and maintaining trophic cascades. In line with the mesopredator release hypothesis, Australian dingoes (Canis lupus dingo and hybrids) are assumed by many to regulate the abundance of invasive mesopredators, such as red foxes Vulpes vulpes and feral cats Felis catus, thereby providing indirect benefits to various threatened vertebrates. Several recent papers have claimed to provide evidence for the biodiversity benefits of dingoes in this way. Nevertheless, in this paper we highlight several critical weaknesses in the methodological approaches used in many of these reports, including lack of consideration for seasonal and habitat differences in activity, the complication of simple track-based indices by incorporating difficult-to-meet assumptions, and a reduction in sensitivity for assessing populations by using binary measures rather than potentially continuous measures. Of the 20 studies reviewed, 15 of them (75%) contained serious methodological flaws, which may partly explain the inconclusive nature of the literature nvestigating interactions between invasive Australian predators. We therefore assert that most of the “growing body of evidence” for mesopredator release is merely an inconclusive growing body of literature only. We encourage those interested in studying the ecological roles of dingoes relative to invasive mesopredators and native prey species to account for the factors we identify, and caution the value of studies that have not done so.