Movement patterns of female feral camels in central and northern Australia

Abstract

Movement patterns of female feral camels were studied over four years (February 1993 to December 1996) in central and northern Australia using satellite telemetry. Areas used over 12-month periods (calculated using the fixed kernel method) were large (449–4933 km 2 ) and increased with increasing aridity as measured by long-term mean annual rainfall. No consistent pattern of variation was detected in movement rates of camels across seasons. Data collected over several years are needed to classify movements in feral camels. The only telemetered camel that has been monitored for longer than two years (this study) appeared to move within a large home range over the concluding 3.5 years that it was tracked. Because the areas used are large, extensive buffer zones will be needed in arid regions to protect environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts of feral camels.

Genetic relationships within social groups influence the application of the Judas technique: A case study with wild dromedary camels

“…In our study, social genetic data elucidated the existence of a fission–fusion system, whereby social units are transient and dynamic, and are not defined by genetic relatedness. These genetic data support field observations of the fluidity of camel group size and structure between breeding and non‐breeding seasons (Edwards et al ). A trial of the Judas control method in this species further supported the social genetic data by revealing that wild dromedary camels could be reliably detected in similarly sized social groups before and after the culling of cohort animals.…”

Re-conceptualising desert landscapes: unpacking historical narratives and contemporary realities for sustainable livelihood development in central Australia

“…Since the Horn Expedition in 1894 there has been rapid land degradation, extinction of species and a noticeable change in vegetation communities and animal populations. The introduction of feral animals such as foxes, horses, cats, camels and donkeys has greatly affected the biota of the region, such as through the impact of higher order predators on endemic mammals (Edwards et al 2001;Paltridge 2002). Changed fire regimes resulting from a reduction in the number of people walking the country burning as they went, the spread of introduced plant species, notably buffel grass (Friedel et al 2006), and the increased ability of people to travel much further in a shorter length of time have had further marked impact upon the landscape.…”

The odyssey of managing feral camels and their impacts—is there an Achilles' heel?

“…Feral camels are highly mobile (Edwards et al 2001;Edwards et al 2004) and distributed across four states and territories of Australia, so a cross-jurisdictional approach is needed to manage the species and its impacts. The first attempt to foster cross-jurisdictional ('nation-wide') management was a workshop held in Alice Springs in April 2005 (Edwards 2008a).…”

“…Water, feed and supplementary salt are basic dietary needs for camels. Scarce sources of these dietary needs are actively sought out by feral camels over geographic ranges in excess of 4,900 km 2 (Edwards et al 2001). Under particular conditions, sources of water, fresh feed and salt could be used as attractants to concentrate numbers of feral camels, or to locate groups of feral camels for strategic management activities.…”

“…-Nielsen 1964;Grigg et al 1995) in search of food. In areas where rainfall has a low long-term mean or is patchy and sporadic, feral camel movements tend to have a large range (Edwards et al 2001) and erratic direction (Grigg et al 1995). The camels' long appendicular skeleton enables them to travel with minimal muscular effort over these vast distances, and the (long) anatomy of their neck enables camels to not only graze low bushes and ground forbs, but also access tree foliage 3.5 metres off the ground (Phillips et al 2001; Department of the Environment and Heritage 2004).…”