Review and analysis of Australian macropod translocations 1969–2006

Abstract

Translocations have become an increasingly popular tool in threatened macropod conservation in Australia. Although previous evaluations of Australian macropod translocations have been published, the number of contemporary translocation programmes awaiting analysis, and new data regarding historic translocations, required a new assessment of macropod translocation programmes. We aimed to assess trends in the way macropod translocations were conducted during the period 1969–2006, determine the number of successful translocations and identify factors common to successful translocations. Data regarding macropod translocations were obtained from a wide variety of sources, including peer‐reviewed journals, ‘grey’ literature and popular interest publications. Questionnaires were also sent to translocation managers to acquire detailed information. Specific aspects of macropod translocation methodology were analysed, and classification tree analysis was conducted to identify methodological and environmental factors common to successful translocations. We identified 109 macropod translocations for which sufficient data could be collected to permit analysis. Using the presence of a population on 1 January 2007 as a simple criterion, 61% of translocations were successful. Of these translocations, 66% were also considered successful by Short et al.'s criteria (population persisted for five years and is deemed likely to continue to persist); the remainder could not be assessed due to lack of data or insufficient elapsed time since release. Classification tree analysis suggested methodological and environmental factors common to successful translocations; the overriding factor determining success was the absence of cats and foxes at the release site. Although Australian macropod translocation proponents are faced with myriad methodological options when designing a translocation protocol, the primary consideration should be whether or not cats or foxes are present at the release site. Managers should be aware that there may be no safe population level of such predators for some translocation candidate species. Ignoring this fact will inevitably lead to a repeat of past translocation failures.

Impacts and management of feral cats Felis catus in Australia

“…f) and woylie (reviewed by Clayton et al. ). In contrast, removal and exclusion of feral cats and foxes from fenced areas and islands allows stable or increasing populations of these and many other species to exist (Fig.…”

Harnessing natural selection to tackle the problem of prey naïveté

“…In taxa such as macropodids (kangaroos, wallabies, and rat kangaroos), their susceptibility to introduced predators is so great that no safe density of introduced predators is thought to exist (Clayton et al. ). However, native predators can also cause reintroduction failure, particularly in captive‐bred animals, with predation and prey naivety cited as primary reasons for the failure of bird reintroductions in the Caribbean (White et al.…”

“…In Australia, predation by introduced predators, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and feral cat was the reason for failure of approximately 80% of unsuccessful mammal introductions (Short 2009). In taxa such as macropodids (kangaroos, wallabies, and rat kangaroos), their susceptibility to introduced predators is so great that no safe density of introduced predators is thought to exist (Clayton et al 2014). However, native predators can also cause reintroduction failure, particularly in captive-bred animals, with predation and prey naivety cited as primary reasons for the failure of bird reintroductions in the Caribbean (White et al 2005) and Saudi Arabia (van Heezik et al 1999).…”

Australian birds could benefit from predator exclusion fencing

“…Australia has trialed numerous methods of predator control to combat the impact of feral predators on native birds. Predator control methods like poison baiting, trapping and shooting have had mixed success (Marlow et al, ), but fencing to exclude predators has high efficacy (Clayton, Pavey, Vernes, & Tighe, ) and is well received by the public (van Eeden, Newsome, Crowther, Dickman, & Bruskotter, ). Fencing is an attractive management option because it offers a consistent and highly effective control mechanism, albeit at a high initial investment (Bode, Brennan, Morris, Burrows, & Hague, ).…”