The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: a review on management and methodological progress in the tropics

The global importance of grasslands is indicated by their extent; they comprise some 26% of total land area and 80% of agriculturally productive land. The majority of grasslands are located in tropical developing countries where they are particularly important to the livelihoods of some one billion poor peoples. Grasslands clearly provide the feed base for grazing livestock and thus numerous high-quality foods, but such livestock also provide products such as fertilizer, transport, traction, fibre and leather. In addition, grasslands provide important services and roles including as water catchments, biodiversity reserves, for cultural and recreational needs, and potentially a carbon sink to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions. Inevitably, such functions may conflict with management for production of livestock products. Much of the increasing global demand for meat and milk, particularly from developing countries, will have to be supplied from grassland ecosystems, and this will provide difficult challenges. Increased production of meat and milk generally requires increased intake of metabolizable energy, and thus increased voluntary intake and/or digestibility of diets selected by grazing animals. These will require more widespread and effective application of improved management. Strategies to improve productivity include fertilizer application, grazing management, greater use of crop by-products, legumes and supplements and manipulation of stocking rate and herbage allowance. However, it is often difficult to predict the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of such strategies, particularly in tropical developing country production systems. Evaluation and on-going adjustment of grazing systems require appropriate and reliable assessment criteria, but these are often lacking. A number of emerging technologies may contribute to timely low-cost acquisition of quantitative information to better understand the soil-pasture-animal interactions and animal management in grassland systems. Development of remote imaging of vegetation, global positioning technology, improved diet markers, near IR spectroscopy and modelling provide improved tools for knowledge-based decisions on the productivity constraints of grazing animals. Individual electronic identification of animals offers opportunities for precision management on an individual animal basis for improved productivity. Improved outcomes in the form of livestock products, services and/or other outcomes from grasslands should be possible, but clearly a diversity of solutions are needed for the vast range of environments and social circumstances of global grasslands.

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.

As clear as mud: A critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes

Top-predators have been reported to have an important role in structuring food webs and maintaining ecological processes for the benefit of biodiversity at lower trophic levels. This is thought to be achieved through their suppressive effects on sympatric mesopredators and prey. Great scientific and public interest surrounds the potential use of top-predators as biodiversity conservation tools, and it can often be difficult to separate what we think we know and what we really know about their ecological utility. Not all the claims made about the ecological roles of top-predators can be substantiated by current evidence. We review the methodology underpinning empirical data on the ecological roles of Australian dingoes (Canis lupus dingo and hybrids) to provide a comprehensive and objective benchmark for knowledge of the ecological roles of Australia's largest terrestrial predator. From a wide variety of methodological flaws, sampling bias, and experimental design constraints inherent to 38 of the 40 field studies we assessed, we demonstrate that there is presently unreliable and inconclusive evidence for dingoes role as a biodiversity regulator. We also discuss the widespread (both taxonomically and geographically) and direct negative effects of dingoes to native fauna, and the few robust studies investigating their positive roles. In light of the highly variable and context-specific impacts of dingoes on faunal biodiversity and the inconclusive state of the literature, we strongly caution against the positive management of dingoes in the absence of a supporting evidence-base for such action.