Search

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Anecdotal reports in 2001 suggested that the European Red Fox ( Vulpes vulpes) had been deliberately released in Tasmania and thereafter an eradication programme using buried fluoroacetic acid (1080) baits was believed to be a necessary precautionary action until mid-2013. Prerequisites for the successful eradication of foxes relate to the scale of the undertaking and the ability to collect in situ data such as the distribution and abundance of the target population and measures of the efficacy of the control technique. Previously, 1080 baiting has demonstrated only limited potential as a fox eradication technique on islands when used on a scale between 685 and 2141 times smaller than Tasmania. In the absence of empirical monitoring data confirming the distribution or abundance of extant foxes, buried baiting was targeted to specific landscapes believed to be preferred by foxes. No empirical data was collected concerning the in situ effectiveness of baiting in Tasmania, yet an a priori assumption of lethal efficacy was extrapolated from four heterogeneous mainland studies to suggest that foxes would have only a 0.23 probability of surviving each bait treatment. We show that these studies were unrepresentative of Tasmanian baiting methods used and influenced by imprecise fox population surveys and misreported data. Overall, in the absence of key population monitoring and efficacy data, the 'precautionary' baiting strategy adopted did not have a realistic potential to eradicate fox incursions in Tasmania, nor is it an appropriate risk management strategy for other large offshore Australian islands. Contingency plans to counter fox incursions on offshore islands must address the currently inadequate technical capacity to reliably detect and monitor low-density fox populations, which is an essential component of successful fox eradication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Models used for resource allocation in eradication programmes must be based on replicated data of known quality and have proven predictive accuracy, or they may provide a false indication of species presence and/or distribution. In the absence of data corroborating the presence of extant foxes Vulpes vulpes in Tasmania, a habitat-specific model based upon mt DNA data (Sarre et al. 2012. Journal Applied Ecology, 50, 459-468) implied that foxes were widespread. Overall, 61 of 9940 (0·6%) surveyed scats were assigned as mt DNA fox positive by the fox eradication programme ( FEP)., We investigated the spatiotemporal distribution of the 61 mt DNA-assigned fox scats and modelled the probability of replicating scat detection in independent surveys using detection dogs based upon empirically derived probabilities of scat detection success obtained by the FEP using imported fox scats., In a prior mainland study, fox genotypes were recurrently detected in a consecutive four-day pool of scats. In Tasmania, only three contemporaneously collected scat pairs of unknown genotype were detected by the FEP within an area corresponding to a conservatively large mainland fox home range (639 ha) in a decade. Nearest neighbour pairs were widely spaced (mean = 7·0 km; circular area = 153 km2) and generated after a mean of 281 days., The majority of assigned mt DNA positive scats were found in urban and peri-urban environments corresponding to small mainland fox home ranges (30-45 ha) that imply higher scat density and more certain replication. Using the lowest empirically determined scat detection success for dogs, the failure to replicate fox scat detection on 34 of 36 occasions in a large (639 ha) home range is highly improbable ( P = 0·00001) and suggestive of Type I error., Synthesis and applications. Type I error, which may have various sources, should be considered when scat mt DNA data are few, accumulated over many years, uncorroborated by observations of extant specimens, inadequately replicated in independent surveys within an expected spatiotemporal scale and reported in geographically isolated environments unlikely to have been colonized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European fallow deer are an introduced species classified as partly protected wildlife in Tasmania, Australia. Current management practices are primarily governed under the Quality Deer Management regime, in which animals are harvested during designated hunting seasons. Among populations, prominent morphological differences have been reported; however, the genetic relationship of these populations has until now been poorly understood. Representative animals were sampled from three key areas across their range and genotyped at ten polymorphic microsatellite loci to investigate genetic diversity, population structure, and genetic bottlenecks. Allelic richness was low in all three populations and ranged between 2.20 and 2.49 alleles/locus. A genetic bottleneck was detected in two of the three populations ( P < 0.001). Population differentiation was evident between Lake Echo and Benham (q = 0.122; P < 0.001) and Benham and Connorville (q = 0.110; P < 0.001), but not between Lake Echo and Connorville (q = 0.0235), with individuals being identified as belonging to two genetic clusters. The pattern of population differentiation from the three study populations suggests that deer from the western region of their range are genetically distinct to those from the eastern region. This correlates with morphological variation within Tasmanian fallow deer, in which differences between the regions maybe attributable to geographical barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]