Control of pest mammals for biodiversity protection in Australia. II. Reliability of knowledge
Ben Reddiex A and David M. Forsyth B CA Landcare Research, PO Box 69, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand. Present address: Department of Conservation, Wellington Conservancy, PO Box 5086, Wellington, New Zealand.
B Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, PO Box 137, Heidelberg, Vic. 3084, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: dave.forsyth@dse.vic.gov.au
Wildlife Research 33(8) 711-717 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR05103
Submitted: 16 November 2005 Accepted: 20 October 2006 Published: 19 December 2006
Abstract
Foxes, wild dogs, feral cats, rabbits, feral pigs, and feral goats are believed to have deleterious impacts on native biodiversity in Australia. However, although considerable resources have been expended controlling these six pest species, there are few reliable estimates of the effects of pest control on native biodiversity. We first show why reliable knowledge of the effects of pest animal control operations can be gained only by adopting proper experimental designs (i.e. treatment and non-treatment areas, replication, and random assignment of treatment and non-treatment areas) and monitoring of both the pest and biodiversity. We then review the design of 1915 pest control actions conducted with the aim of protecting native biodiversity in Australia during 1990–2003. Most (67.5%) pest control actions consisted of a single treatment area without monitoring of either the pest or biodiversity. Only 2.4% of pest control actions had one or more treatment and non-treatment areas, and very few treatment and non-treatment areas (0.3%) were randomly assigned. Replication of treatment and non-treatment areas occurred in only 1.0% of pest control actions. The field of wildlife management has been strongly criticised for its slow adoption of the tenets of experimentation to examine the effects of management actions, and our results show that this criticism applies to mammalian pest control in Australia. Until the principles of experimental design are adopted, knowledge of the effects of mammalian pest control in Australia will remain unreliable.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Victoria. We thank all the organisations, and individuals within those organisations, who patiently answered our questions. We thank E. McDonald-Madden, L. Einoder, R. Chick, A. Robley, P. Macak, K. Long, G. Swanson, and G. Heard for assisting with data collection and entry. P. Griffioen customised the database used to store data. H. Moller provided several useful references, and comments by P. Cowan, T. Clancy and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript.
Choquenot, D. , Lukins, B. , and Curran, G. (1997). Assessing lamb predation by feral pigs in Australia’s semi-arid rangelands. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 1445–1454.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hone, J. (1999). Fox control and rock-wallaby population dynamics – assumptions and hypotheses. Wildlife Research 26, 671–673.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Macnab, J. (1983). Wildlife management as scientific experimentation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11, 397–401.
Murtaugh, P. A. (2002). On rejection rates of paired intervention analysis. Ecology 83, 1752–1761.
Oksanen, L. (2001). Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue? Oikos 94, 27–38.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parkes, J. , Robley, A. , Forsyth, D. M. , and Choquenot, D. (2006). Adaptive management experiments in vertebrate pest control in New Zealand and Australia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 229–236.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Reddiex, B. , Forsyth, D. M. , McDonald-Madden, E. , Einoder, L. , Griffioen, P. A. , Chick, R. R. , and Robley, A. J. (2006). Control of pest mammals for biodiversity protection in Australia. I. Patterns of control and monitoring. Wildlife Research 33, 691–709.
Stewart-Oaten, A. , Murdoch, W. W. , and Parker, K. R. (1986). Environmental impact assessment: “pseudoreplication” in time? Ecology 67, 929–940.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |