29 research outputs found
Can sacrificial feeding areas protect aquatic plants from herbivore grazing? Using behavioural ecology to inform wildlife management
Effective wildlife management is needed for conservation, economic and human well-being objectives. However, traditional population control methods are frequently ineffective, unpopular with stakeholders, may affect non-target species, and can be both expensive and impractical to implement. New methods which address these issues and offer effective wildlife management are required. We used an individual-based model to predict the efficacy of a sacrificial feeding area in preventing grazing damage by mute swans (Cygnus olor) to adjacent river vegetation of high conservation and economic value. The accuracy of model predictions was assessed by a comparison with observed field data, whilst prediction robustness was evaluated using a sensitivity analysis. We used repeated simulations to evaluate how the efficacy of the sacrificial feeding area was regulated by (i) food quantity, (ii) food quality, and (iii) the functional response of the forager. Our model gave accurate predictions of aquatic plant biomass, carrying capacity, swan mortality, swan foraging effort, and river use. Our model predicted that increased sacrificial feeding area food quantity and quality would prevent the depletion of aquatic plant biomass by swans. When the functional response for vegetation in the sacrificial feeding area was increased, the food quantity and quality in the sacrificial feeding area required to protect adjacent aquatic plants were reduced. Our study demonstrates how the insights of behavioural ecology can be used to inform wildlife management. The principles that underpin our model predictions are likely to be valid across a range of different resource-consumer interactions, emphasising the generality of our approach to the evaluation of strategies for resolving wildlife management problems
Recommended from our members
The compensatory potential of increased immigration following intensive American mink population control is diluted by male-biased dispersal
Attempts to mitigate the impact of invasive species on native ecosystems increasingly target large land masses where control, rather than eradication, is the management objective. Depressing numbers of invasive species to a level where their impact on native biodiversity is tolerable requires overcoming the impact of compensatory immigration from non-controlled portions of the landscape. Because of the expected scale-dependency of dispersal, the overall size of invasive species management areas relative to the dispersal ability of the controlled species will determine the size of any effectively conserved core area unaffected by immigration from surrounding areas. However, when dispersal is male-biased, as in many mammalian invasive carnivores, males may be overrepresented amongst immigrants, reducing the potential growth rate of invasive species populations in re-invaded areas. Using data collected from a project that gradually imposed spatially comprehensive control on invasive American mink (Neovison vison) over a 10,000 km2 area of NE Scotland, we show that mink captures were reduced to almost zero in 3 years, whilst there was a threefold increase in the proportion of male immigrants. Dispersal was often long distance and linking adjacent river catchments, asymptoting at 38 and 31 km for males and females respectively. Breeding and dispersal were spatially heterogeneous, with 40 % of river sections accounting for most captures of juvenile (85 %), adult female (65 %) and immigrant (57 %) mink. Concentrating control effort on such areas, so as to turn them into “attractive dispersal sinks” could make a disproportionate contribution to the management of recurrent re-invasion of mainland invasive species management areas