Decisions regarding the implementation of conservation management actions should be based on the effectiveness of past investments. However, because of limited evaluation of existing data, actions may be prescribed without evidence of producing a beneficial conservation outcome. We analysed empirical data, collected over 23 years across southern Australia, on the impact of fox baiting on malleefowl to determine its effectiveness. We employed data from extensive monitoring surveys to evaluate the observed relationships between investment in fox control, fox baiting intensity, fox presence and two alternative measures of the malleefowl's response: the number of breeding pairs and population growth. This study is the first to quantify the return on investment from fox control in a conservation context. We discovered there is limited quantitative evidence for a benefit of fox baiting on malleefowl, despite it being the main management action implemented for this nationally threatened, well-studied and iconic species. We found that fox baiting did not significantly decrease the presence of foxes and fox presence was positively correlated with malleefowl conservation. Malleefowl breeding population size increased with investment in baiting, although this relationship depended on the number of years the site had been baited. Nonetheless, most sites had a negative relationship between investment and breeding population. In contrast, malleefowl population growth did not benefit from baiting, suggesting that fox baiting is generally not a cost-effective management action for the conservation of this species. This study provides a powerful example of why management decisions should be based on evidence, rather than ecological intuition. Even though the malleefowl is one of the best-monitored species of conservation concern in Australia, we are still uncertain how to cost-effectively manage this species. We emphasize the urgent need to assess what data we have and determine which species and what actions are most in need of evaluation.

Dingoes/wild dogs (Canis dingo/familiaris) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are widespread carnivores in southern Australia and are controlled to reduce predation on domestic livestock and native fauna. We used the occurrence of food items in 5875 dingo/wild dog scats and 11,569 fox scats to evaluate interspecific and geographic differences in the diets of these species within nine regions of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. The nine regions encompass a wide variety of ecosystems. Diet overlap between dingoes/wild dogs and foxes varied among regions, from low to near complete overlap. The diet of foxes was broader than dingoes/wild dogs in all but three regions, with the former usually containing more insects, reptiles and plant material. By contrast, dingoes/wild dogs more regularly consumed larger mammals, supporting the hypothesis that niche partitioning occurs on the basis of mammalian prey size. The key mammalian food items for dingoes/wild dogs across all regions were black wallaby (Wallabia bicolor), brushtail possum species (Trichosurus spp.), common wombat (Vombatus ursinus), sambar deer (Rusa unicolor), cattle (Bos taurus) and European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). The key mammalian food items for foxes across all regions were European rabbit, sheep (Ovis aries) and house mouse (Mus musculus). Foxes consumed 6.1 times the number of individuals of threatened Critical Weight Range native mammal species than did dingoes/wild dogs. The occurrence of intraguild predation was asymmetrical; dingoes/wild dogs consumed greater biomass of the smaller fox. The substantial geographic variation in diet indicates that dingoes/wild dogs and foxes alter their diet in accordance with changing food availability. We provide checklists of taxa recorded in the diets of dingoes/wild dogs and foxes as a resource for managers and researchers wishing to understand the potential impacts of policy and management decisions on dingoes/wild dogs, foxes and the food resources they interact with.

Conserving large carnivores is controversial because they can threaten wildlife, human safety, and livestock production. Since large carnivores often have large ranges, effective management requires knowledge of how their ecology and functional roles vary biogeographically. We examine continental‐scale patterns in the diet of the dingo – Australia's largest terrestrial mammalian predator. We describe and quantify how dingo dietary composition and diversity vary with environmental productivity and across five bioclimatic zones: arid, semi‐arid, tropical, sub‐tropical, and temperate. Based on 73 published and unpublished data sets from throughout the continent, we used multivariate linear modelling to assess regional trends in the occurrence of nine food groups (arthropods, birds, reptiles, European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus, medium‐sized [25–125 kg] and large [169–825 kg] exotic ungulates [including livestock], and other small [<0.5 kg], medium‐sized [0.5–6.9 kg] and large [≥7 kg] mammals) in dingo diets. We also assessed regional patterns in the dietary occurrence of livestock and the relationship between dietary occurrence of rabbits and small, medium‐sized and large mammals. Dingoes eat at least 229 vertebrate species (66% mammals, 22% birds, 11% reptiles, and 1% other taxa). Dietary composition varied across bioclimatic zones, with dingo diets in the arid and semi‐arid zones (low‐productivity sites) having the highest occurrence of arthropods, reptiles, birds, and rabbits. Medium‐sized mammals occurred most frequently in temperate and sub‐tropical zone diets (high‐productivity sites), large mammals least in the arid and sub‐tropical zones, and livestock most in the arid and tropical zones. The frequency of rabbits in diets was negatively correlated with that of medium‐sized, but not small or large mammals. Dingoes have a flexible and generalist diet that differs among bioclimatic zones and with environmental productivity in Australia. Future research should focus on examining how dingo diets are affected by local prey availability and human‐induced changes to prey communities.

No abstract

Summary Ecosystem‐based management requires predictive models of ecosystem dynamics. There are typically insufficient empirical data available to parameterise these complex models, and so decision‐makers commonly rely on beliefs elicited from experts. However, such expert beliefs are necessarily limited because (i) only a small proportion of ecosystem components and dynamics have been observed; (ii) uncertainty about ecosystem dynamics can result in contradictory expert judgements and (iii) elicitation time and resources are limited. We use an ensemble of dynamic ecosystem models to extrapolate a limited set of stated expert beliefs into a wider range of revealed beliefs about how the ecosystem will respond to perturbations and management. Importantly, the method captures the expert uncertainty and propagates it through to predictions. We demonstrate this process and its potential value by applying it to the conservation of the threatened malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) in the Murray mallee ecosystems of southern Australia. In two workshops, we asked experts to construct a qualitative ecosystem interaction network and to describe their beliefs about how the ecosystem will respond to particular perturbations. We used this information to constrain an ensemble of 109 community models, leaving a subset that could reproduce stated expert beliefs. We then interrogated this ensemble of models to reveal experts’ implicit beliefs about management scenarios that were not a part of the initial elicitation exercises. Our method uses straightforward questions to efficiently elicit expert beliefs, and then applies a flexible modelling approach to reveal those experts’ beliefs about the dynamics of the entire ecosystem. It allows rapid planning of ecosystem‐based management informed by expert judgement, and provides a basis for value‐of‐information analyses and adaptive management.