Building nature’s safety net 2011 : the state of protected areas for Australia’s ecosystems and wildlife.

This report is the third in a series with the two previous reports published in 2006 and 2008. This report details major conservation initiatives that have occurred in Australia since the last report, in which data was current to 2006, and highlights emerging issues. A major enhancement on previous reports is the inclusion of ecosystem and threatened species gap analyses, and the reporting on Australia's protected area systems on both land and sea. We define a minimum standard for an adequate, representative, and comprehensive reserve system by sampling ecosystem and species level diversity. Using the latest protected area and national species and ecosystem spatial data, we quantify the gaps: those areas needing to move from the current reserve system to one which meets the minimum standard. We also use data provided by various parks agencies, from responses to a questionnaire or as published by the agencies, to detail financial investments in protected areas, and estimate the investment levels needed to fill the documented gaps. We also identify critical policy changes needed to more effectively fill the identified gaps.

Do drivers intentionally target wildlife on roads?

Despite frequent reliance on surveys to document public attitudes towards conservation issues (such as invasive-species control), only rarely do researchers assess the validity of statements made by the public in response to such surveys. Therefore, how well responses match actual behaviour remains an open question. We conducted a survey asking drivers if they had seen and/or run over (intentionally or not) snakes, native frogs or invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) on roads in the Northern Territory of Australia. To compare actual driver behaviour to the survey responses, we also carried out field experiments where we quantified the rates at which model snakes, frogs and toads (and controls) were run over on a rural highway. Our results show a discrepancy between survey responses and driver behaviour: for example, 25% of the people we surveyed indicated that they intentionally run over cane toads, yet field experiments showed that model toads were run over no more frequently than expected by chance, or than any other type of model.

The value of weeds for wildlife and implications for management

This research found that weeds provided valuable habitat for some wildlife, but that current weed management does not adequately account for such interactions. By retaining weed structure during weed management this study showed that wildlife could remain unaffected by considered weed management.

Setback distances as a conservation tool in wildlife-human interactions : testing their efficacy for birds affected by vehicles on open-coast sandy beaches

In some wilderness areas, wildlife encounter vehicles disrupt their behaviour and habitat use. Changing driver behaviour has been proposed where bans on vehicle use are politically unpalatable, but the efficacy of vehicle setbacks and reduced speeds remains largely untested. We characterised bird-vehicle encounters in terms of driver behaviour and the disturbance caused to birds, and tested whether spatial buffers or lower speeds reduced bird escape responses on open beaches. Focal observations showed that: i) most drivers did not create sizeable buffers between their vehicles and birds; ii) bird disturbance was frequent; and iii) predictors of probability of flushing (escape) were setback distance and vehicle type (buses flushed birds at higher rates than cars). Experiments demonstrated that substantial reductions in bird escape responses required buffers to be wide (> 25 m) and vehicle speeds to be slow (< 30 km h-1). Setback distances can reduce impacts on wildlife, provided that they are carefully designed and derived from empirical evidence. No speed or distance combination we tested, however, eliminated bird responses. Thus, while buffers reduce response rates, they are likely to be much less effective than vehicle-free zones (i.e. beach closures), and rely on changes to current driver behaviour

Weeds and wildlife: perceptions and practices of weed managers

Negative impacts of invasive plants or weeds on biodiversity have been well established yet their role in providing key habitats and resources for wildlife has been little understood. Weed removal thus has the potential to adversely affect wildlife but whether this is considered during weed management is poorly known. To determine the extent of this knowledge, we examined the perceptions of weed managers regarding wildlife and weed management in Victoria, Australia. We surveyed 81 weed managers of varying levels of experience from different types of organisations, including state and local government, community groups and private companies. We found 90% of managers had observed wildlife-weed interactions and that most (70%) adjusted management programmes to accommodate wildlife. Despite this, few (19%) had adopted the recommended practice of combining gradual weed removal with re-vegetation. While management programmes included monitoring of native vegetation, consideration of wildlife monitoring in weed management was rare. This highlights the need for management to better understand and respond to wildlife-weed relationships. If the improvement of wildlife habitat is included in the objectives of weed programmes, as it should be, then wildlife should also be incorporated in project monitoring. This would lead to a greater understanding of the role weeds and their management have in each situation and, ultimately, more informed decision making. Copyright: © Carlos et al. 2014.

Estimating cumulative exposure of wildlife to non-lethal disturbance using spatially explicit capture-recapture models

Impact assessments often focus on short-term behavioral responses of animals to human disturbance. However, the cumulative effects caused by repeated behavioral disruptions are of management concern because these effects have the potential to influence individuals' survival and reproduction. We need to estimate individual exposure rates to disturbance to determine cumulative effects. We present a new approach to estimate the spatial exposure of minke whales to whalewatching boats in Faxaflõi Bay, Iceland. We used recent advances in spatially explicit capture-recapture modeling to estimate the probability that whales would encounter a disturbance (i.e., whalewatching boat). We obtained spatially explicit individual encounter histories of individually identifiable animals using photo-identification. We divided the study area into 1-km2 grid cells and considered each cell a spatially distinct sampling unit. We used capture history of individuals to model and estimate spatial encounter probabilities of individual minke whales across the study area, accounting for heterogeneity in sampling effort. We inferred the exposure of individual minke whales to whalewatching vessels throughout the feeding season by estimating individual whale encounters with vessels using the whale encounter probabilities and spatially explicit whalewatching intensity in the same area, obtained from recorded whalewatching vessel tracks. We then estimated the cumulative time whales spent with whalewatching boats to assess the biological significance of whalewatching disturbances. The estimated exposure levels to boats varied considerably between individuals because of both temporal and spatial variations in the activity centers of whales and the whalewatching intensity in the area. However, although some whales were repeatedly exposed to whalewatching boats throughout the feeding season, the estimated cumulative time they spent with boats was very low. Although whalewatching boat interactions caused feeding disruptions for the whales, the estimated low cumulative exposure indicated that the whalewatching industry in its current state likely is not having any long-term negative effects on vital rates.

Application of the Ceditest® FMDV type O and FMDV-NS enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus in selected livestock and wildlife species in Uganda

Diagnosis and control of Foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) requires rapid and sensitive diagnostic tests. Two antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits, Ceditest® FMDV-NS for the detection of antibodies against the nonstructural proteins of all FMDV serotypes and Ceditest® FMDV type O for the detection of antibodies against serotype O, were evaluated under African endemic conditions where the presence of multiple serotypes and the use of nonpurified vaccines complicate serological diagnosis. Serum samples from 218 African buffalo, 758 cattle, 304 goats, and 88 sheep were tested using both kits, and selected samples were tested not only in serotype-specific ELISAs for antibodies against primarily FMDV serotype O, but also against other serotypes. The FMDV-NS assay detected far more positive samples (93%) than the FMDV type O assay (30%) in buffalo (P < 0.05), with predominant antibodies against the South African Territories (SAT) serotypes, while the seroprevalence was generally comparable in cattle with antibodies against serotype O elicited by infection and/or vaccination. However, some districts had higher seroprevalence using the FMDV type O assay indicating vaccination without infection, while 1 cattle herd with antibodies against the SAT serotypes had far more positive samples (85%) using the FMDV-NS versus the FMDV type O (10%), consistent with the latter test's lower sensitivity for antibodies against SAT serotypes. Based on the current investigation, the FMDV type O ELISA may be limited by the presence of SAT serotypes. The FMD NS assay worked well as a screening test for antibodies against all FMDV serotypes present in Uganda; however, as long as nonpurified vaccines are applied in the region, this test cannot be used to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals.

Dingoes can help conserve wildlife and our methods can tell

Management of apex predators is among the most controversial wildlife management issues globally. In Australia, some ecologists have advocated using the dingo, Canis dingo, as a tool for conservation management, due to evidence that they suppress invasive mesopredators. Hayward & Marlow (Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 2014 and 835) questioned the capacity of dingoes to provide benefits to native biodiversity due to their inability to eradicate foxes and cats. They also argued that indices of abundance commonly used in studies of mesopredator release by dingoes (namely, track-based indices) invalidate the conclusions of the studies. Hayward & Marlow caution conservation practitioners against incorporating dingoes into conservation programmes. Counter to their claims, we summarise research showing that the suppression of invasive mesopredators (cf. eradication) can enhance populations of native species and is therefore a meaningful conservation objective. We highlight literature supporting the hypothesis that dingoes suppress mesopredator abundance and activity, which in turn benefits native biodiversity. We show that Hayward & Marlow overlook many studies of carnivores that show track indices capture a large amount of the variation in the density of medium- and large-sized carnivores. Synthesis and applications. Practitioners cannot afford to wait to act given the perilous state of Australia's mammal species, and we argue that the evidence is sufficiently strong to justify managing dingoes for biodiversity conservation.

AvianBuffer: an interactive tool for characterising and managing wildlife fear responses

The characterisation and management of deleterious processes affecting wildlife are ideally based on sound scientific information. However, relevant information is often absent, or difficult to access or contextualise for specific management purposes. We describe 'AvianBuffer', an interactive online tool enabling the estimation of distances at which Australian birds respond fearfully to humans. Users can input species assemblages and determine a 'separation distance' above which the assemblage is predicted to not flee humans. They can also nominate the diversity they wish to minimise disturbance to, or a specific separation distance to obtain an estimate of the diversity that will remain undisturbed. The dataset is based upon flight-initiation distances (FIDs) from 251 Australian bird species (n = 9190 FIDs) and a range of human-associated stimuli. The tool will be of interest to a wide audience including conservation managers, pest managers, policy makers, land-use planners, education and public outreach officers, animal welfare proponents and wildlife ecologists. We discuss possible applications of the data, including the construction of buffers, development of codes of conduct, environmental impact assessments and public outreach. This tool will help balance the growing need for biodiversity conservation in areas where humans can experience nature. The online resource will be expanded in future iterations to include an international database of FIDs of both avian and non-avian species.