Poisoning for production: how effective is fox baiting in south-eastern Australia?

1. The European red fox Vulpes vulpes represents a continuing threat to both livestock and native vertebrates in Australia, and is commonly managed by setting ground-level baits impregnated with 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) poison. However, the long-term effectiveness of such control campaigns is likely to be limited due to the ability of foxes to disperse over considerable distances and to swiftly recolonize areas from where they had been removed. 2. To investigate the effectiveness of fox baiting in a production landscape, we assessed the potential for foxes to reinvade baited farm property areas within the jurisdiction of the Molong Rural Lands Protection Board (RLPB), an area of 815 000 ha on the central tablelands of New South Wales, Australia. The spatial distribution and timing of fox baiting campaigns between 1998 and 2002 was estimated from RLPB records and mapped using Geographical Information System software. The effectiveness of the control campaign was assessed on the basis of the likely immigration of foxes from non-baited farms using immigration distances calculated from published relationships between dispersal distance and home range size. 3. Few landholders undertook baiting campaigns in any given year, and the area baited was always so small that no baited property would have been sufficiently far from an unbaited property to have been immune from immigrating individuals. It is likely, therefore, that immigration onto farms negated any long-term effects of baiting operations. This study highlights some of the key deficiencies in current baiting practices in south-eastern Australia and suggests that pest management programmes should be monitored using such methods to ensure they achieve their goals.

Surveillance protocols for management of invasive plants: modelling Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana) in Australia

Aim: To develop a surveillance support model that enables prediction of areas susceptible to invasion, comparative analysis of surveillance methods and intensity and assessment of eradication feasibility. To apply the model to identify surveillance protocols for generalized invasion scenarios and for evaluating surveillance and control for a context-specific plant invasion. Location: Australia. Methods: We integrate a spatially explicit simulation model, including plant demography and dispersal vectors, within a Geographical Information System. We use the model to identify effective surveillance protocols using simulations of generalized plant life-forms spreading via different dispersal mechanisms in real landscapes. We then parameterize the surveillance support model for Chilean needle grass [CNG; Nassella neesiana (Trin. & Rupr.) Barkworth], a highly invasive tussock grass, which is an eradication target in south-eastern Queensland, Australia. Results: General surveillance protocols that can guide rapid response surveillance were identified; suitable habitat that is susceptible to invasion through particular dispersal syndromes should be targeted for surveillance using an adaptive seek-and-destroy method. The search radius of the adaptive method should be based on maximum expected dispersal distances. Protocols were used to define a surveillance strategy for CNG, but simulations indicated that despite effective and targeted surveillance, eradication is implausible at current intensities. Main conclusions: Several important surveillance protocols emerged and simulations indicated that effectiveness can be increased if they are followed in rapid response surveillance. If sufficient data are available, the surveillance support model should be parameterized to target areas susceptible to invasion and determine whether surveillance is effective and eradication is feasible. We discovered that for CNG, regardless of a carefully designed surveillance strategy, eradication is implausible at current intensities of surveillance and control and these efforts should be doubled if they are to be successful. This is crucial information in the face of environmentally and economically damaging invasive species and large, expensive and potentially ineffective control programmes.

Interactions between a Trawl fishery and spatial closures for biodiversity conservation in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Australia.

Background: The Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (ECOTF) for penaeid shrimp fishes within Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). The past decade has seen the implementation of conservation and fisheries management strategies to reduce the impact of the ECOTF on the seabed and improve biodiversity conservation. New information from electronic vessel location monitoring systems (VMS) provides an opportunity to review the interactions between the ECOTF and spatial closures for biodiversity conservation. Methodology and Results: We used fishing metrics and spatial information on the distribution of closures and modelled VMS data in a geographical information system (GIS) to assess change in effort of the trawl fishery from 2001-2009 and to quantify the exposure of 70 reef, non-reef and deep water bioregions to trawl fishing. The number of trawlers and the number of days fished almost halved between 2001 and 2009 and new spatial closures introduced in 2004 reduced the area zoned available for trawl fishing by 33%. However, we found that there was only a relatively minor change in the spatial footprint of the fishery as a result of new spatial closures. Non-reef bioregions benefited the most from new spatial closures followed by deep and reef bioregions. Conclusions/Significance: Although the catch of non target species remains an issue of concern for fisheries management, the small spatial footprint of the ECOTF relative to the size of the GBRWHA means that the impact on benthic habitats is likely to be negligible. The decline in effort as a result of fishing industry structural adjustment, increasing variable costs and business decisions of fishers is likely to continue a trend to fish only in the most productive areas. This will provide protection for most benthic habitats without any further legislative or management intervention.