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.

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.

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.

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.