The (Non)Effects of Lethal Population Control on the Diet of Australian Dingoes

Top-predators contribute to ecosystem resilience, yet individuals or populations are often subject to lethal control to protect livestock, managed game or humans from predation. Such management actions sometimes attract concern that lethal control might affect top-predator function in ways ultimately detrimental to biodiversity conservation. The primary function of a predator is predation, which is often investigated by assessing their diet. We therefore use data on prey remains found in 4,298 Australian dingo scats systematically collected from three arid sites over a four year period to experimentally assess the effects of repeated broad-scale poison-baiting programs on dingo diet. Indices of dingo dietary diversity and similarity were either identical or near-identical in baited and adjacent unbaited treatment areas in each case, demonstrating no control-induced change to dingo diets. Associated studies on dingoes' movement behaviour and interactions with sympatric mesopredators were similarly unaffected by poison-baiting. These results indicate that mid-sized top-predators with flexible and generalist diets (such as dingoes) may be resilient to ongoing and moderate levels of population control without substantial alteration of their diets and other related aspects of their ecological function.

Does lethal control of top-predators release mesopredators? A re-evaluation of three Australian case studies

Top-predators can sometimes be important for structuring fauna assemblages in terrestrial ecosystems. Through a complex trophic cascade, the lethal control of top-predators has been predicted to elicit positive population responses from mesopredators that may in turn increase predation pressure on prey species of concern. In support of this hypothesis, many relevant research papers, opinion pieces and literature reviews identify three particular case studies as supporting evidence for top-predator control-induced release of mesopredators in Australia. However, many fundamental details essential for supporting this hypothesis are missing from these case studies, which were each designed to investigate alternative aims. Here, we re-evaluate the strength of evidence for top-predator control-induced mesopredator release from these three studies after comprehensive analyses of associated unpublished correlative and experimental data. Circumstantial evidence alluded to mesopredator releases of either the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) or feral Cat (Felis catus) coinciding with Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) control in each case. Importantly, however, substantial limitations in predator population sampling techniques and/or experimental designs preclude strong assertions about the effect of lethal control on mesopredator populations from these studies. In all cases, multiple confounding factors and plausible alternative explanations for observed changes in predator populations exist. In accord with several critical reviews and a growing body of demonstrated experimental evidence on the subject, we conclude that there is an absence of reliable evidence for top-predator control-induced mesopredator release from these three case studies. Well-designed and executed studies are critical for investigating potential top-predator control-induced mesopredator release.

Non-target species interaction with sodium fluoroacetate (1080) meat bait for controlling feral pigs (Sus scrofa)

Fresh meat baits containing sodium fluoroacetate (1080) are widely used for controlling feral pigs in Queensland, but there is a potential poisoning risk to non-target species. This study investigated the non-target species interactions with meat bait by comparing the time until first approach, investigation, sample and consumption, and whether dying bait green would reduce interactions. A trial assessing species interactions with undyed bait was completed at Culgoa Floodplain National Park, Queensland. Meat baits were monitored for 79 consecutive days with camera traps. Of 40 baits, 100% were approached, 35% investigated (moved) and 25% sampled, and 25% consumed. Monitors approached (P < 0.05) and investigated (P < 0.05) the bait more rapidly than pigs or birds, but the median time until first sampling was not significantly different (P > 0.05), and did not consume any entire bait. A trial was conducted at Whetstone State Forest, southern Queensland, with green-dyed and undyed baits monitored for eight consecutive days with cameras. Of 60 baits, 92% were approached and also investigated by one or more non-target species. Most (85%) were sampled and 57% were consumed, with monitors having slightly more interaction with undyed baits than with green-dyed baits. Mean time until first approach and sample differed significantly between species groups (P = 0.038 and 0.007 respectively) with birds approaching sooner (P < 0.05) and monitors sampling later (P < 0.05) than other (unknown) species (P > 0.05). Undyed bait was sampled earlier (mean 2.19 days) than green-dyed bait (2.7 days) (P = 0.003). Data from the two trials demonstrate that many non-target species regularly visit and sample baits. The use of green-dyed baits may help reduce non-target uptake, but testing is required to determine the effect on attractiveness to feral pigs. Further research is recommended to quantify the benefits of potential strategies to reduce the non-target uptake of meat baits to help improve the availability of bait to feral pigs.