Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
ABSTRACT Most human‐carnivore conflicts arise from the impact of predation on livestock. In Australian rangelands, considerable resources are allocated to constructing exclusion fences and implementing control measures to manage dingo populations for sustainable livestock enterprise. Assessing the e...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71328 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1839649702158532608 |
|---|---|
| author | Moses I. Omogbeme Malcolm S. Kennedy Tracey L. Kreplins Halina T. Kobryn Patricia A. Fleming |
| author_facet | Moses I. Omogbeme Malcolm S. Kennedy Tracey L. Kreplins Halina T. Kobryn Patricia A. Fleming |
| author_sort | Moses I. Omogbeme |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT Most human‐carnivore conflicts arise from the impact of predation on livestock. In Australian rangelands, considerable resources are allocated to constructing exclusion fences and implementing control measures to manage dingo populations for sustainable livestock enterprise. Assessing the effectiveness of these measures is crucial for justifying the investment. We used a replicated experimental design to examine the effect of landscape‐scale dingo‐proof exclusion fences (‘cell‐fencing’) on activity and population density of dingoes in the Southern Rangelands of Western Australia. We monitored dingo populations for 22–24 months across six study sites nested within a landscape of about 75,000 km2 and defined ‘fence level’ as the number of dingo‐proof fences enclosing each study site. We used camera trap capture rate (number of independent capture events per 100 trap nights) as a metric for dingo activity (including the availability of resources as other potential covariates), estimated dingo density using spatially explicit mark‐resight models, and tested the relationship between capture rate and estimated density of dingoes for each study site. Significant variation in both metrics was observed between sites and across time. Fence level and prey occurrence significantly influenced dingo activity. The annual mean dingo density estimate across study sites was below two dingoes per 100 km2 (i.e., 0.02 dingoes per km2; the maximum value believed to be compatible with small livestock) at only one study site in the first year, but it was higher across all sites during the second year of monitoring. Dingo activity correlated with estimated dingo density at only two sites, suggesting differences in dingo behaviour and detection across the six study sites. This study provides experimental evidence that camera trap capture rate is not a reliable method for assessing variations in the population size of dingoes. These results have implications for monitoring outcomes of dingo control programs across Australia. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cdf16eb23e1640a492d35c31db7f221d |
| institution | Matheson Library |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj-art-cdf16eb23e1640a492d35c31db7f221d2025-06-27T10:07:16ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582025-04-01154n/an/a10.1002/ece3.71328Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐FencingMoses I. Omogbeme0Malcolm S. Kennedy1Tracey L. Kreplins2Halina T. Kobryn3Patricia A. Fleming4Centre for Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Harry Butler Institute Murdoch University Murdoch Western Australia AustraliaDepartment of Primary Industries and Regional Development Perth Western Australia AustraliaDepartment of Primary Industries and Regional Development Northam Western Australia AustraliaSchool of Environmental and Conservation Sciences Murdoch University Murdoch Western Australia AustraliaCentre for Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Harry Butler Institute Murdoch University Murdoch Western Australia AustraliaABSTRACT Most human‐carnivore conflicts arise from the impact of predation on livestock. In Australian rangelands, considerable resources are allocated to constructing exclusion fences and implementing control measures to manage dingo populations for sustainable livestock enterprise. Assessing the effectiveness of these measures is crucial for justifying the investment. We used a replicated experimental design to examine the effect of landscape‐scale dingo‐proof exclusion fences (‘cell‐fencing’) on activity and population density of dingoes in the Southern Rangelands of Western Australia. We monitored dingo populations for 22–24 months across six study sites nested within a landscape of about 75,000 km2 and defined ‘fence level’ as the number of dingo‐proof fences enclosing each study site. We used camera trap capture rate (number of independent capture events per 100 trap nights) as a metric for dingo activity (including the availability of resources as other potential covariates), estimated dingo density using spatially explicit mark‐resight models, and tested the relationship between capture rate and estimated density of dingoes for each study site. Significant variation in both metrics was observed between sites and across time. Fence level and prey occurrence significantly influenced dingo activity. The annual mean dingo density estimate across study sites was below two dingoes per 100 km2 (i.e., 0.02 dingoes per km2; the maximum value believed to be compatible with small livestock) at only one study site in the first year, but it was higher across all sites during the second year of monitoring. Dingo activity correlated with estimated dingo density at only two sites, suggesting differences in dingo behaviour and detection across the six study sites. This study provides experimental evidence that camera trap capture rate is not a reliable method for assessing variations in the population size of dingoes. These results have implications for monitoring outcomes of dingo control programs across Australia.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71328exclusion fencelivestockpopulation densitypredator controlspatially explicit capture–recapturewild dog |
| spellingShingle | Moses I. Omogbeme Malcolm S. Kennedy Tracey L. Kreplins Halina T. Kobryn Patricia A. Fleming Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing Ecology and Evolution exclusion fence livestock population density predator control spatially explicit capture–recapture wild dog |
| title | Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing |
| title_full | Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing |
| title_fullStr | Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing |
| title_short | Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing |
| title_sort | activity may not reflect the numbers an assessment of capture rate and population density of dingoes canis familiaris within landscape scale cell fencing |
| topic | exclusion fence livestock population density predator control spatially explicit capture–recapture wild dog |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71328 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mosesiomogbeme activitymaynotreflectthenumbersanassessmentofcapturerateandpopulationdensityofdingoescanisfamiliariswithinlandscapescalecellfencing AT malcolmskennedy activitymaynotreflectthenumbersanassessmentofcapturerateandpopulationdensityofdingoescanisfamiliariswithinlandscapescalecellfencing AT traceylkreplins activitymaynotreflectthenumbersanassessmentofcapturerateandpopulationdensityofdingoescanisfamiliariswithinlandscapescalecellfencing AT halinatkobryn activitymaynotreflectthenumbersanassessmentofcapturerateandpopulationdensityofdingoescanisfamiliariswithinlandscapescalecellfencing AT patriciaafleming activitymaynotreflectthenumbersanassessmentofcapturerateandpopulationdensityofdingoescanisfamiliariswithinlandscapescalecellfencing |