Ecology of Problem Individuals and the Efficacy of Selective Wildlife Management

Swan, George J. F.; Redpath, Stephen M.; Bearhop, Stuart; McDonald, Robbie A.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.011

Cited by 89 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 96 publications

(228 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These effects of personality likely influence the relative success of individuals or populations in the face of traps, depending on how cues have changed. When HIREC produces novel dangers, the bolder species and individuals would be more likely to commit an error in approaching human-influenced stimuli, as can be the case for the individuals within populations that contribute to heightened human-wildlife conflict (Swan et al, 2017). In contrast, where HIREC produces novel, beneficial cues, such as access to new habitats, the less bold species and individuals would be more likely to commit avoidance errors.…”

Section: Animal Personalities and Learning In Response To Hirecmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of Learning to Escape Evolutionary Traps

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many animals respond well behaviorally to stimuli associated with human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC), such as novel predators or food sources. Yet others make errors and succumb to evolutionary traps: approaching or even preferring low quality, dangerous or toxic options, avoiding beneficial stimuli, or wasting resources responding to stimuli with neutral payoffs. A common expectation is that learning should help animals adjust to HIREC; however, learning is not always expected or even favored in many scenarios that expose animals to ecological and evolutionary traps. We propose a conceptual framework that aims to explain variation in when learning can help animals avoid and escape traps caused by HIREC. We first clarify why learning to correct two main types of errors (avoiding beneficial options and approaching detrimental options) might be difficult (limited by constraints). We then identify and discuss several key behavioral mechanisms (adaptive sampling, generalization, habituation, reversal learning) that can be targeted to help animals learn to avoid traps. Finally, we discuss how individual differences in neophobia/neophilia and personality relate to learning in the context of HIREC traps, and offer some general guidance for disarming traps. Given how devastating traps can be for animal populations, any breakthrough in mitigating trap outcomes via learning could make the difference in developing effective solutions.

show abstract

Section: Animal Personalities and Learning In Response To Hirecmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of Learning to Escape Evolutionary Traps

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional consideration is the complexity of relationships between predator and prey abundance. A reduction in cat numbers may not directly translate into reductions in predation rates, nor increases in prey populations (Spencer, Van Dyke, & Thompson, , ), especially if control does not remove “problem” individuals that have a disproportionate impact on prey populations (Moseby, Peacock, & Read, ; but see Swan, Redpath, Bearhop, & McDonald, ). Finally, in order for cat control to directly benefit threatened species, it also needs to be concentrated on high‐priority areas that contain—or could contain—populations of threatened species that are negatively affected by cats (Dickman, Denny, & Buckmaster, ).…”

Section: Is the Target Being Met?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation or politics? Australia's target to kill 2 million cats

Doherty

Driscoll

Nimmo

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Australian Government's 5‐year Threatened Species Strategy contains four priority action areas and associated targets. Here, we argue that the well‐publicized target to cull 2 million feral cats has a weak scientific basis because: (1) reliable estimates of Australia's cat population size did not exist when the target was set; (2) it is extremely difficult to measure progress (numbers of cats killed) in an accurate, reliable way; and, most importantly, (3) the cull target is not explicitly linked to direct conservation outcomes (e.g., measured increases in threatened species populations). These limitations mean that the cull target fails to meet what would be considered best practice for pest management. The focus on killing cats runs the risk of distracting attention away from other threats to biodiversity, most prominent of which is widespread, ongoing habitat loss, which has been largely overlooked in the Threatened Species Strategy. The culling target is a highly visible symbol of a broader campaign around feral cat research and management in Australia, rather than a direct indicator of conservation action and success. We are concerned that progress toward the 2 million target could be misinterpreted as progress toward conserving threatened species, when the link between the two is not clear.

show abstract

“…As such, perhaps predator-friendly farming could be used to protect livestock (e.g., livestock guardian animals, appropriate animal husbandry), as a reduction in lethal control may reduce further opportunities for introgression (Johnson and Wallach 2016). Selective removal might also be undertaken to prevent further attacks on livestock by problem individuals (Swan et al 2017) which may have a lesser impact on disrupting pack structures and exacerbating hybridisation than localised eradication attempts.…”

Section: Management and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

What should we do with wild dogs? Taxonomic tangles and the management of dingo-dog hybridisation

Eeden

Dickman

Newsome

et al. 2019

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomy plays an important role in defining biodiversity and shaping conservation efforts. However, the biological species concept is a human construct and organisms that do not abide by the rules do not fit easily into conservation and policy frameworks. Organisms that are hybrids are one such example. Indeed, hybridisation can result in both the protection and persecution of wild organisms, especially if the hybrid status is uncertain. Here, we outline the issue of hybridisation between dingoes and dogs in Australia, revealing the multidimensional problems that arise when defining and addressing the issue. Before we can decide if and how we should manage hybridisation, we must define the issue and our management goals. For the dingo (and other hybridising species), any resolution of the hybridisation dilemma must consider not only genetics, but also biology, ecology, social values, and ethics. In order to progress dingo management in Australia, we provide a new framework that aims to assist rather than jeopardise dingo conservation. Andersone, Ž., Lucchini, V., and Ozoliņš, J. 2002. Hybridisation between wolves and dogs in Latvia as documented using mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA markers. Mammalian Biology -Zeitschrift Für Säugetierkunde 67(2): 79-90. http://doi.

show abstract

Ecology of Problem Individuals and the Efficacy of Selective Wildlife Management

Cited by 89 publications

References 96 publications

Challenges of Learning to Escape Evolutionary Traps

Challenges of Learning to Escape Evolutionary Traps

Conservation or politics? Australia's target to kill 2 million cats

What should we do with wild dogs? Taxonomic tangles and the management of dingo-dog hybridisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About