Where do livestock guardian dogs go? Movement patterns of free-ranging Maremma sheepdogs

In many parts of the world, livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are a relatively new and increasingly popular method for controlling the impact of wild predators on livestock. On large grazing properties in Australia, LGDs are often allowed to range freely over large areas, with minimal supervision by their owners. How they behave in this situation is mostly unknown. We fitted free-ranging Maremma sheepdogs with GPS tracking collars on three properties in Victoria, Australia; on two properties, four sheep were also fitted with GPS collars. We investigated how much time the Maremmas spent with their livestock, how far they moved outside the ranges of their stock, and tested whether they use their ranges sequentially, which is an effective way of maintaining a presence over a large area. The 95% kernel isopleth of the Maremmas ranged between 31 and 1161 ha, the 50% kernel isopleth ranged between 4 and 252 ha. Maremmas spent on average 90% of their time in sheep paddocks. Movements away from sheep occurred mostly at night, and were characterised by high-speed travel on relatively straight paths, similar to the change in activity at the edge of their range. Maremmas used different parts of their range sequentially, similar to sheep, and had a distinct early morning and late afternoon peak in activity. Our results show that while free-ranging LGDs spend the majority of their time with livestock, movements away from stock do occur. These movements could be important in allowing the dogs to maintain large territories, and could increase the effectiveness of livestock protection. Allowing LGDs to range freely can therefore be a useful management decision, but property size has to be large enough to accommodate the large areas that the dogs use.The research was funded by the Hermon Slade Foundation and the Australian Research Council. Linda van Bommel was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award

LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS TODAY: POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO PERCEIVED LIMITATIONS

Exchanging experience and finding solutions to problems facing the use of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) in modern societies were among the goals of a meeting organized in Portugal from 20th to 21st October 2015 within the scope of the LIFE MedWolf Project (www.medwolf.eu). The meeting was attended by 16 specialists from around Europe (Portugal, Spain, France, Switzerland, Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and Bulgaria), as well as from Australia and the USA. In this article we outline constraints on the use of LGDs identified during the meeting and summarize the main solutions proposed. We have grouped the issues into 10 main topics ranging from a lack of quality dogs to personal, social, cultural, economic, time, management, technical, legal and political constraints. Guidelines on the proper raising and caring of LGDs are not the focus of this article, since a great deal of information is already available, including on specific solutions to common problems

Olfactory communication to protect livestock: Dingo response to urine marks of livestock guardian dogs

The behavioural mechanisms by which livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) protect livestock from wild predators are not yet fully understood. LGD urine could play a part, as scent-marking the boundaries of a territory could signal occupation of the area to predators. Past selection for dogs that were most effective in deterring predators could have resulted in LGDs that produce urine with predator-deterrent properties. In this research, 28 captive dingoes (14 male and 14 female) were tested for their response to urine marks of LGDs (Maremma sheepdogs), herding dogs (Border Collies) and other dingoes, with distilled water used as a control. The response of the dingoes to the scents was measured using eight variables. For most variables, the response to the test scents was not statistically different from the response to the control. Test minus control was calculated for each test scent category, and used to compare responses between different test scents. The response to Maremma urine was similar to the response to Border Collie urine, and resembled a reaction to a conspecific. We found no evidence of predator-repellent properties of LGD urine. Our results suggest that dingoes readily engage in olfactory communication with Maremmas. It therefore seems likely that they would recognise territorial boundaries created by working Maremmas.We thank the Hermon Slade Foundation for research funding, the Dingo Discovery and Research Center for allowing us to use their dingoes in this experiment, and Rosemarie McCarroll and Heike Hahner for volunteering their dogs for urine collection

Livestock guardian dogs as surrogate top predators? How Maremma sheepdogs affect a wildlife community

Use of livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) to reduce predation on livestock is increasing. However, how these dogs influence the activity of wildlife, including predators, is not well understood. We used pellet counts and remote cameras to investigate the effects of free ranging LGDs on four large herbivores (eastern gray kangaroo, common wombat, swamp wallaby, and sambar deer) and one mesopredator (red fox) in Victoria, Australia. Generalized mixed models and one- and two-species detection models were used to assess the influence of the presence of LGDs on detection of the other species. We found avoidance of LGDs in four species. Swamp wallabies and sambar deer were excluded from areas occupied by LGDs; gray kangaroos showed strong spatial and temporal avoidance of LGD areas; foxes showed moderately strong spatial and temporal avoidance of LGD areas. The effect of LGDs on wombats was unclear. Avoidance of areas with LGDs by large herbivores can benefit livestock production by reducing competition for pasture and disease transmission from wildlife to livestock, and providing managers with better control over grazing pressure. Suppression of mesopredators could benefit the small prey of those species. Synthesis and applications: In pastoral areas, LGDs can function as a surrogate top-order predator, controlling the local distribution and affecting behavior of large herbivores and mesopredators. LGDs may provide similar ecological functions to those that in many areas have been lost with the extirpation of native large carnivores.We thank the Australian Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation for funding

Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia's extensive grazing systems

Context Wild predators are a serious threat to livestock in Australia. Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) may be able to reduce or eliminate predation, but their effectiveness in Australian grazing systems has not been systematically evaluated. In particular, little is known about the effectiveness of LGDs in situations where they range freely over large areas in company with large numbers of livestock. Aims We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LGDs as currently used in Australia and determine the factors influencing effectiveness, in particular in relation to scale of management. We also documented how LGDs are managed in Australia, evaluated their cost effectiveness, and identified factors that influence the number of dogs required in different property situations. Methods We conducted a telephone survey of 150 livestock producers with LGDs in Australia, including all livestock types and property situations, in all States. Ten producers were visited, of which one is detailed as a case study. Key results Effectiveness was apparently high: 65.7% of respondents reported that predation ceased after obtaining LGDs, and a further 30.2% reported a decrease of predation. When the number of stock per dog exceeds 100, LGDs might not be able to eliminate all predation. Dogs are often kept free-ranging on large properties where wild dogs are the main predator, but are usually restricted in their movements on smaller properties or with smaller predators. The cost of obtaining a LGD is returned within 13 years after the dog starts working. The number of dogs required for a property mainly depends on the number of livestock needing protection, and the main type of predator in the area. Conclusions Provided a sufficient number of LGDs are used, they can be as effective in protecting livestock from predators in Australia when ranging freely on large properties with large numbers of livestock as they are in small-scale farming systems. Implications LGDs can provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional predator control methods in Australia's extensive grazing enterprises, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for other forms of control. LGDs could play a major role in securing the viability of livestock businesses and reconciling peoplepredator conflict in Australia

How guardian dogs protect livestock from predators: Territorial enforcement by Maremma sheepdogs

Context Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs, Canis familiaris) can be highly effective in protecting livestock from predators; however, how they accomplish this, is poorly understood. Whereas it is clear that these dogs spend a high proportion of their time accompanying livestock, and confront predators that approach closely, it is unknown whether they also maintain territories around the areas used by their livestock and exclude predators from those territories. Aims We aimed to determine whether LGD behaviour towards predators is consistent with defence of a larger territory that encompasses the stock, or is based on repelling predators that closely approach livestock. Methods We used audio playbacks and scent placements to simulate incursions by dingoes (Canis dingo) at different locations with the LGD ranges, and used GPS tracking and automatic cameras to monitor responses to these incursions. Key results The LGD responses depended on location of the incursion. When simulated incursions were a significant distance inside the range (about the 50th kernel isopleth), they responded by vocalising, leaving their livestock, and travelling up to 570m away from the stock to approach the incursion point and display challenging behaviour; when incursions were at the boundary of the range (at or beyond the 90th kernel isopleth), they vocalised but did not approach the incursion point, regardless of the location of the sheep. The LGDs in this study worked in groups. Group members responded differently to simulated incursions, some moving to challenge, whereas others remained close to the sheep. Conclusions Our results showed that protection by LGDs extends beyond the immediate vicinity of livestock, and is consistent with the defence of a larger territory. Implications If predators are excluded from this territory, LGDs enforce a spatial separation of predators and livestock. This would reduce risk of attack, but also prevents the disturbance and stress to livestock that would be caused by frequent approaches of predators. Where possible, training and management of LGDs should allow them to range freely over large areas so that they can develop and exhibit territorial behaviour, and they should be deployed in groups so that group members can assume complementary roles

Median tortuosity values of movement paths of Maremmas inside and outside of livestock areas at four different scales of analysis (10 Maremmas in total).

<p>Inside livestock areas tortuosity values were significantly higher for all four scales of analysis (0.1 km: F_{1, 9} = 11.25, P<0.01; 0.25 km: F_{1, 9} = 14.08, P<0.01; 0.5 km: F_{1, 9} = 40.71, P<0.01 and 1 km: F_{1, 9} = 31.96, P<0.01). Median values of tortuosity for individual dogs within each livestock area were only included in the overall calculation if the number of line segments that was used to calculate that median was equal to or greater than 10.</p

Mean median tortuosity values.

<p>A. Maremmas on the three properties within each kernel isopleth area for all scales of analysis (14 Maremmas in total). Tortuosity values decreased significantly towards the edge of the home range at all scales of analysis (0.1 km: F_{2, 26} = 4.67, P<0.05, 0.25 km: F_{2, 26} = 16.58, P<0.01, 0.5 km: F_{2, 26} = 16.17, P<0.01, 1 km: F_{2, 18} = 16.44, P<0.01). B. Maremmas compared to sheep when they were collared at the same time for the 1km scale of analysis (9 Maremmas and 8 sheep). The other scales of analysis showed a similar trend, the differences between sheep and Maremmas were not significant. Median values of tortuosity for individual dogs within each kernel isopleth area were only included in the overall calculation if the overall number of line segments used to calculate that median was equal to or greater than 10.</p

Livestock guardian dogs establish a landscape of fear for wild predators: implications for the role of guardian dogs in reducing human-wildlife conflict and supporting biodiversity conservation

&lt;ol&gt; &lt;li&gt;Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are increasingly used to protect livestock from predators, but their effects on the distribution and behaviour of wild predators are mostly unknown. A key question is whether LGDs exclude predators from grazing land, or if predators continue to use areas with LGDs but modify their behaviour in ways that reduce impacts on livestock.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;We studied effects of LGDs (Maremma sheepdogs) on distribution and behaviour of red foxes Vulpes vulpes in north-eastern Victoria, Australia. We mapped the activity of LGDs across the study areas using GPS tracking and measured fox activity using remote cameras. We also measured risk-sensitive foraging in foxes to test if they reduced feeding time at sites regularly used by LGDs.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Foxes occurred throughout areas occupied by LGDs, but their probability of detection was negatively related to probability of LGD presence. Foxes extracted fewer food items from experimental food stations in proportion to the intensity of local activity of LGDs. This indicates that though foxes overlapped with LGDs, they responded to risk of encountering LGDs by allocating less time to foraging. &lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;While LGDs do not necessarily exclude wild predators from areas used for livestock production, they can have strong effects on predator behaviour. Reduction in time allocated to foraging in areas regularly used by LGDs could lead to suppression of hunting behaviour and therefore a reduction in attacks on livestock. The flexible response of predators to LGDs should facilitate coexistence of wild predators with livestock farming, by allowing predators to continue to use areas occupied by livestock while still preventing attacks on those livestock. Our results therefore strengthen the case for use of LGDs in the conservation of predators threatened by conflict with farming. Suppression of hunting behaviour should also mean that prey species experience reduced rates of predation on farmland with LGDs. This effect could be valuable for conservation of threatened species of prey.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p&gt;Funding provided by: Australian Research Council&lt;br&gt;Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/05mmh0f86&lt;br&gt;Award Number: LP150100220&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For detailed description of the methods, please see our paper: 'Livestock guardian dogs establish a landscape of fear for wild predators: implications for the role of guardian dogs in reducing human-wildlife conflict and suppporting biodiversity conservation', published in Ecological Solutions and Evidence. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Data was collected on four properties in north-east Victoria, Australia; two were used as experimental sites (Heatherlie and Riversdale) and two were used as controls (Mullenmeah and Wagonbark). The experimental sites ran Maremma sheepdogs, guarding sheep, and the control sites ran livestock without livestock guardian dogs. Each experimental site was paired with its own control site (Riversdale and Wagonbark, 10 km apart; Heatherlie and Mullameah, 45 km apart) due to the fox surveys and experiments taking place in different seasons for each pair of properties; fox activity and behaviour is seasonally highly variable.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;GPS tracking collars of two types (Lotek, Havelock North, New Zealand; and Telemetry Solutions, Concord, USA) were fitted on all LGDs between July 2017 and March 2018, the two types being interspersed across properties. One collar failed at Heatherlie and could not be replaced due to the dog's shyness. Collars took a location every 30 minutes and were fitted a minimum of four weeks before collection of data on foxes. Only locations with a HDOP (horizontal dilution of precision) &lt;10 (Lotek collars) or &lt;4 (Telemetry Solution collars) were retained for analysis. HDOP values were chosen as those that offered the best balance between filtering out inaccurate locations and data retention, based on a pilot study of stationary GPS collars. A mean (± SE) of 3.0% &lt;a&gt;±&lt;/a&gt; 0.4% locations was deleted from the datasets collected by the Lotek collars, resulting in a mean (± SE) HDOP of 2.0 ± 0.05 of the retained sample of locations. A mean (± SE) of 2.4%± 0.8% was deleted from the datasets collected by the Telemetry Solution collars, resulting in a mean (± SE) HDOP of 1.2 ± 0.09 in the retained sample. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Forty-eight Reconyx PC800 HyperFire Professional IR cameras (Reconyx, Holmen, WI, USA) were distributed over each pair of trial and control properties for a 6-week survey (2,016 trap nights). Cameras were set to take three images in rapid succession when triggered, with a minimum one-minute delay between consecutive triggers to reduce repeat triggers by the same individual. On Riversdale and Wagonbark, this survey ran in August and September 2017; on Heatherlie and Mullameah it ran in December 2017 and January 2018. Half of the 48 cameras were allocated to the control site and were evenly distributed over the chosen area in a grid pattern. The remaining 24 cameras were distributed over each trial site, according to the intensity of use of different areas by the Maremmas (see below).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; A minimum of four weeks of data from the GPS tracking collars were used to calculate a fixed kernel home range (Worton 1989) for each dog group by pooling the locations of all members. We used an &lt;em&gt;ad hoc&lt;/em&gt; smoothing parameter designed to prevent under- or over-smoothing, which involved choosing the smallest increment of the reference bandwidth (Href) that resulted in a 95% home-range polygon that was as contiguous as possible (Jacques&lt;em&gt; et al.&lt;/em&gt; 2009; Kie&lt;em&gt; et al.&lt;/em&gt; 2010). The package 'adehabitat HR' (version 0.4.19) in R statistical software (Calenge 2006; R Core Team 2013) was used for all home range calculations. The 10%, 50%, 90%, 95% and 99% isopleths were extracted from this home range calculation, and the area covered by each incremental isopleth was determined. The 24 cameras were distributed in order to equalise camera density for each incremental area, with a higher density in the 10% and 50% isopleth areas to maintain a minimum of two cameras per isopleth zone.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Experimental fox feeding trials exploited the propensity of foxes to dig for food items and were designed to yield a measurement equivalent to a giving-up density (GUD). At each site we dug a 30-cm deep hole approximately 2 m in front of the camera and filled it in while placing a chicken neck at each 5-cm depth interval, the top chicken neck being buried just below the surface. Chicken necks were chosen based on a pilot study that showed they are favoured by wild foxes. The cameras monitoring the foraging behaviour of foxes at trial sites were set to take three images in rapid succession at each trigger, with no delay between consecutive triggers.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;When analysing the data in the paper, two measures of Maremma presence were calculated for each camera site. The first was the probability of Maremma occurrence based on home range calculations. We obtained this probability from a long-term (eight-month) home range calculation of each dog group on each property using the Brownian bridge approach of the kernel method (Bullard 1991; Horne&lt;em&gt; et al.&lt;/em&gt; 2007). Locations at the control sites were allocated a value of zero. To enable statistical analysis with these values, they were transformed with the following formula: (log10(&lt;em&gt;probability value&lt;/em&gt;+1))*10000. The second measure was the number of days on which Maremmas were detected at each camera site during the survey. As Maremmas were rarely detected on camera (N=9), we identified all instances in which a GPS collar from a Maremma logged a location within 30 m of a camera, and added these to the camera detection data (N=76) to calculate 'days of Maremma detection'. This measure proved to have a greater effect in all models used in our analysis than 'probability of Maremma occurrence', so only 'days of Maremma detection' was used as an indicator of Maremma presence. At Mullameah, all camera locations that fell within 300 m of their wild dog exclusion fence were excluded from analysis because of poison baiting along the fence just prior to the research. At Riversdale and Heatherlie all camera locations beyond the 95% isopleth were excluded due to continuing lethal fox control on the edge and outside the experimental properties.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The uploaded data includes:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;For each trial/control site combination; the results from the wildlife survey, the two measures of Maremma presence at each camera site (as above) and the covariates for each camera site used in the analysis in the paper&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;For each trial/control site combination; the results from the fox feeding trial, with the covariates for each camera site as used in the analysis in the paper. &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt