Anthropogenic resource subsidies determine space use by Australian arid zone dingoes: an improved resource selection modelling approach

Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) were introduced to Australia and became feral at least 4,000 years ago. We hypothesized that dingoes, being of domestic origin, would be adaptable to anthropogenic resource subsidies and that their space use would be affected by the dispersion of those resources. We tested this by analyzing Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) developed from GPS fixes (locations) of dingoes in arid central Australia. Using Generalized Linear Mixed-effect Models (GLMMs), we investigated resource relationships for dingoes that had access to abundant food near mine facilities, and for those that did not. From these models, we predicted the probability of dingo occurrence in relation to anthropogenic resource subsidies and other habitat characteristics over ∼ 18,000 km(2). Very small standard errors and subsequent pervasively high P-values of results will become more important as the size of data sets, such as our GPS tracking logs, increases. Therefore, we also investigated methods to minimize the effects of serial and spatio-temporal correlation among samples and unbalanced study designs. Using GLMMs, we accounted for some of the correlation structure of GPS animal tracking data; however, parameter standard errors remained very small and all predictors were highly significant. Consequently, we developed an alternative approach that allowed us to review effect sizes at different spatial scales and determine which predictors were sufficiently ecologically meaningful to include in final RSF models. We determined that the most important predictor for dingo occurrence around mine sites was distance to the refuse facility. Away from mine sites, close proximity to human-provided watering points was predictive of dingo dispersion as were other landscape factors including palaeochannels, rocky rises and elevated drainage depressions. Our models demonstrate that anthropogenically supplemented food and water can alter dingo-resource relationships. The spatial distribution of such resources is therefore critical for the conservation and management of dingoes and other top predators

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves (Canis lupus) and dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments, and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science

Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

1. Response to Bruskotter and colleagues We recently described the following six interrelated issues that justify questioning some of the discourse about the reliability of the literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores (Allen et al., in press): 1. The overall paucity of available data, 2. The reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, 3. The general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, 4. The lack of applied science studies, 5. The frequent use of logical fallacies, 6. The generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We thank Bruskotter et al. (2017) for responding to our concerns and engaging with this important issue. We agree completely that nonexperimental studies can and do often have great value, and we recognize that in many (most) cases these types of studies may provide the only data that are available. We acknowledge the many challenges of working on large, cryptic, dangerous, and highly-mobile animals in the wild. However, the absence of more robust data and the reality of these challenges do not excuse weak inference or overstating conclusions – a practice apparent in many studies (and communication of those studies) adopting only observational or correlative methods to infer the roles of large carnivores (reviewed in Allen et al., in press)

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research,education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour. Animal ethics Conservation biology Culling Factory farmingpublishedVersio

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research,education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour. Animal ethics Conservation biology Culling Factory farmingpublishedVersio

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Data from: Death by sex in an Australian icon: a continent-wide survey reveals extensive hybridization between dingoes and domestic dogs

Hybridization between domesticated animals and their wild counterparts can disrupt adaptive gene combinations, reduce genetic diversity, extinguish wild populations and change ecosystem function. The dingo is a free-ranging dog that is an iconic apex predator and distributed throughout most of mainland Australia. Dingoes readily hybridize with domestic dogs, and in many Australian jurisdictions, distinct management strategies are dictated by hybrid status. Yet, the magnitude and spatial extent of domestic dog–dingo hybridization is poorly characterized. To address this, we performed a continent-wide analysis of hybridization throughout Australia based on 24 locus microsatellite DNA genotypes from 3637 free-ranging dogs. Although 46% of all free-ranging dogs were classified as pure dingoes, all regions exhibited some hybridization, and the magnitude varied substantially. The southeast of Australia was highly admixed, with 99% of animals being hybrids or feral domestic dogs, whereas only 13% of the animals from remote central Australia were hybrids. Almost all free-ranging dogs had some dingo ancestry, indicating that domestic dogs could have poor survivorship in nonurban Australian environments. Overall, wild pure dingoes remain the dominant predator over most of Australia, but the speed and extent to which hybridization has occurred in the approximately 220 years since the first introduction of domestic dogs indicate that the process may soon threaten the persistence of pure dingoes

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

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 controlinduced 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

Chapter 4: Top-Predators as Biodiversity Regulators: Contemporary Issues Affecting Knowledge and Management of Dingoes in Australia

1. Introduction Large predators have an indispensable role in structuring food webs and maintaining ecological processes for the benefit of biodiversity at lower trophic levels. Such roles are widely evident in marine and terrestrial systems [1, 2]. Large predators can indirectly alleviate predation on smaller (and often threatened) fauna and promote vegetation growth by interacting strongly with sympatric carnivore and herbivore species (e.g. [3-5]). The local extinction of large predators can therefore have detrimental effects on biodiversity [6], and their subsequent restoration has been observed to produce positive biodiversity outcomes in many cases [7]. Perhaps the most well-known example of this is the restoration of gray wolves Canis lupus to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of North America. Since the reintroduction of 66 wolves in 1995 [8], wolf numbers in the area have climbed to ~2000, some large herbivores and mesopredators have substantially declined, and some fauna and flora at lower trophic levels have increased (see [4], and references therein). Similar experiences with some other large predators mean that they are now considered to be of high conservation value in many parts of the world [1, 2, 7], and exploring their roles and functions has arguably been one of the most prominent fields of biodiversity conservation research in the last 10–15 years. Large terrestrial predators are often top-predators (or apex predators), but not all top predators are large or associated with biodiversity benefits [5, 9]. For example, feral cats Felis catus or black rats Rattus rattus may be the largest predators on some islands, but their effects on endemic fauna are seldom positive [10-13]. In geographically larger systems, coyotes (Canis latrans) [14] or dingoes (Canis lupus dingo and other free-roaming Canis) [15], for example, can exacerbate wildlife management problems in highly perturbed ecosystems, where they have the capacity to devastate populations of smaller prey [5, 16-18]. Hence, it is not the trophic position of a predator that determines their ecological effects, but rather their behavior, impact and function [9]. This is most important for small- and medium-sized predators which can have positive, negative or neutral effects depending on a range of context-specific factors. Excluding humans, dingoes are the largest terrestrial predator on mainland Australia but, at an average adult body weight of only 15–20 kg [19], are atypical top-predators [20-22]. No other continent has such a small top-predator, and canids have rarely (if ever) been a continent’s largest predator, a role typically filled by ursids or felids. Australia’s former terrestrial top-predator, a similar-sized marsupial known as the thylacine or Tasmanian Tiger Thylacinus cynocephalus, was quickly replaced by dingoes as the largest predator as thylacines became extinct coincident with the introduction of dingoes to Australia about 4000–5000 years ago [23-25]. Like all dogs, dingoes are derived from wolves by human selection [26-29], yet it is a mistake to equate dingoes with wolves (sensu [30, 31]) simply because they share a common origin [9, 22, 32] and display some wolf-like behaviors [19]. Hence, the net effects of dingoes on biodiversity might not be readily deduced from studies of other top-predators. Regardless of their derivation and exotic origin, dingoes are common across most of Australia’s mainland biomes [33, 34], although their densities have been reduced to very low levels in some regions (\u3c25% of Australia) where sheep Ovis aries and goats Capra hircus are farmed [15, 34]