Environmental effects are stronger than human effects on mammalian predator-prey relationships in arid Australian ecosystems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.051Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Hopping-mice distribution was driven by geological factors, or habitat availability.

  • Hopping-mice abundance was driven by climate, rainfall or food availability.

  • Hopping-mice abundance and distribution fluctuates independent of predator control.

  • Predator control is unlikely to increase hopping-mice distribution or abundance.

  • Small mammals may benefit most from increased habitat and food availability

Abstract

Climate (drought, rainfall), geology (habitat availability), land use change (provision of artificial waterpoints, introduction of livestock), invasive species (competition, predation), and direct human intervention (lethal control of top-predators) have each been identified as processes driving the sustainability of threatened fauna populations. We used a systematic combination of empirical observational studies and experimental manipulations to comprehensively evaluate the effects of these process on a model endangered rodent, dusky hopping-mice (Notomys fuscus). We established a large manipulative experiment in arid Australia, and collected information from relative abundance indices, camera traps, GPS-collared dingoes (Canis familiaris) and dingo scats, along with a range of related environmental data (e.g. rainfall, habitat type, distance to artificial water etc.). We show that hopping-mice populations were most strongly influenced by geological and climatic effects of resource availability and rainfall, and not land use, invasive species, or human effects of livestock grazing, waterpoint provision, or the lethal control of dingoes. Hopping-mice distribution declined along a geological gradient of more to less available hopping-mice habitat (sand dunes), and their abundance was driven by rainfall. Hopping-mice populations fluctuated independent of livestock presence, artificial waterpoint availability or repeated lethal dingo control. Hopping-mice populations appear to be limited first by habitat availability, then by food availability, then by predation. Contemporary top-predator control practices (for protection of livestock) have little influence on hopping-mice behaviour or population dynamics. Given our inability to constrain the effects of predation across broad scales, management actions focusing on increasing available food and habitat (e.g. alteration of fire and herbivory) may have a greater chance of improving the conservation status of hopping-mice and other small mammals in arid areas. Our study also reaffirms the importance of using systematic and experimental approaches to detect true drivers of population distribution and dynamics where multiple potential drivers operate simultaneously.

Introduction

Food web structure and stability in terrestrial systems are influenced by a myriad of biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic factors (Kershaw, 1969, Krebs, 2008). Commonly discussed factors include climate change, land use change, deforestation and invasive species (e.g. Petchey et al., 1999, Kinnaird et al., 2003, Tylianakis et al., 2008, Sinclair et al., 2013). While the effects of bottom-up factors (e.g. geology or habitat, climate or rainfall) on subsequent population growth within flora and fauna communities may be readily understandable (Robin et al., 2009, White, 2013), a growing body of research points to the effects that top-predators can have in shaping food web structure and stabilising the influence of other factors (Estes et al., 2013, Ripple et al., 2014). Through their suppressive effects on mesopredators and prey, top-predators might provide indirect benefits to some prey and vegetation at lower trophic levels, thereby maintaining ecosystem health and resilience. The strength of such trophic cascades is dependent on the complexity of the system and the number of trophic levels represented (Finke and Denno, 2004, Holt and Huxel, 2007), with top-predators typically exhibiting stronger effects in simpler systems with fewer trophic levels. These findings have led some to suggest that the maintenance, restoration or encouragement of top-predators is essential for the recovery of threatened fauna populations, communities and ecosystems (Ritchie et al., 2012, Ripple et al., 2014). However, there is also a large and growing body of evidence that these expectations are often not realised in situ given highly context-dependent factors and the complexities of even ‘simple’ systems (Sergio et al., 2008, Allen et al., 2014a, Haswell et al., 2017), especially those modified by humans (Linnell, 2011, Fleming et al., 2012, Wikenros et al., 2015). Understanding the relative influence of top-down and bottom-up factors on ecosystems remains a key priority for managers of predators and threatened fauna.

The complete removal of top-predators can have profound effects on ecosystem health and resilience (Estes et al., 2011), but whether or not their restoration can reverse these effects and restore ecosystems to previous benchmarks is less clear (e.g. Marshall et al., 2013). Moreover, whether or not the temporary suppression of common and widespread top-predators causes the same effects as complete predator removal is even less certain (Fleming et al., 2012, Allen et al., 2014a). Bottom-up factors, such as habitat availability, fire, rainfall or drought, are the primary drivers of fauna populations (White, 2013, Lawes et al., 2015). Top-down and bottom-up processes occur simultaneously, and also interact. For example, climate change may foster increased predation of prey fauna reliant on vegetation for food and refuge by increasing the frequency and severity of rainfall and subsequent vegetation shortages (Whetton et al., 1993, Letnic and Dickman, 2010). Such effects of climate change may be particularly important for irruptive or ‘boom and bust’ prey species, typical of desert biota, by extending the period that prey are exposed to high levels of predation (Newsome et al., 1989, Allen and Fleming, 2012). Extended periods of drought are known to exacerbate predation risks to irruptive fauna that typically persist in isolated and low-density populations (e.g. Dickman et al., 1999, Letnic and Dickman, 2006). However, there remains a dearth of studies demonstrating these expected functional relationships for many threatened fauna persisting in desert ecosystems, and identifying the strongest factors influencing prey populations has proved difficult (Holmes, 1995, Marshall et al., 2014, Peterson et al., 2014). All components of food webs interact to some extent (Allen et al., 2017), but few interactions are strong enough to shape them. Although general ecological patterns may already be apparent, the outcomes of global environmental change are highly unpredictable, and ‘the greatest single challenge will be to determine how context alters the direction and magnitude of effects on biotic interactions’ (Tylianakis et al., 2008).

In this study, we investigate the influence of multiple biotic and abiotic factors affecting predator-prey relationships in the arid Strzelecki Desert region of central Australia. The Strzelecki Desert is characterized by a depauperate mammal assemblage comprised of one top-predator (dingoes, Canis familiaris), two mesopredators (European red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, and feral cats, Felis catus) and two common mammalian prey species, European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and dusky hopping-mice (Notomys fuscus; hereafter hopping-mice). Other predator and prey species are present (Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008), but persist in variable or low densities that likely have relatively minimal influence on these mammals (Allen et al., 2014a). Beef-cattle grazing is the primary land use in this region (Allen, 2015a). Dingoes, foxes, cats and rabbits were each introduced to Australia. Dingoes arrived approximately 5000 years ago, whereas foxes, cats and rabbits were introduced soon after European colonisation in the late 1700s (Johnson, 2006); each are widespread and common (West, 2008). All three predators are relatively small (< 16 kg mean adult body weight), generalist carnivores with highly overlapping diets primarily consisting of medium and small-sized mammals (e.g. Pavey et al., 2008, Cupples et al., 2011, Glen et al., 2011, Allen and Leung, 2012). Hopping-mice are native and endemic to Australia. Their range has declined by over 90% since the arrival of Europeans and the subsequent ecological changes associated with the introduction of livestock and invasive species (e.g. foxes, cats and rabbits). The Strzelecki Desert is the last stronghold of hopping-mice (Lee, 1995, Moseby et al., 1999, Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008), which are an endangered, ‘old world’ or conilurine rodent (Muridae) with irruptive population cycles typical of many small mammals in arid areas.

Previous desktop, snap-shot and correlative studies (compiled and reviewed in Allen et al., 2013b) have developed the following hypotheses about the contemporary relationships between dingoes and hopping-mice in this study system:

  • 1.

    Dingo abundance is positively correlated with hopping-mice abundance (presumably because dingoes provide indirect refuge to hopping-mice from mesopredators).

  • 2.

    The presence of dingoes positively affects hopping-mice foraging behaviour (presumably because hopping-mice perceive foraging in the presence of dingoes to be less of a risk than foraging in their absence).

  • 3.

    The lower abundance of hopping-mice in the east of the Strzelecki Desert is due to the relative absence of dingoes there (which are excluded by the dingo barrier fence).

  • 4.

    Contemporary dingo control practices (i.e. repeated broad-scale poison-baiting, undertaken to protect cattle from dingo predation) reduces the abundance of dingoes, and increases the abundance of mesopredators, which reduces the abundance of hopping-mice.

  • 5.

    Dingoes do not eat hopping-mice in quantities sufficient to threaten the persistence of hopping-mice populations.

Alternative hypotheses for these observations have seldom been assessed, however, and limited experimental work has been undertaken to identify causal relationships driving the observed correlations between dingoes and hopping-mice (Allen, 2011a, Allen et al., 2013b, Newsome et al., 2015). Previous studies have investigated these hypotheses by undertaking snap-shot or single survey studies, collecting meagre amounts of empirical data, followed by extensive and complex post hoc modelling to try and elucidate causal mechanisms from correlative data (e.g. Moseby et al., 2006, Letnic et al., 2009, Letnic and Koch, 2010, Gordon et al., 2015, Gordon et al., 2017). In contrast to this approach, we focus on obtaining high-quality empirical data capable of addressing the above hypotheses directly. We use a variety of complimentary techniques on a variety of data obtained as part of a large-scale manipulative experiment investigating the effects of lethal dingo control on dingo abundance and ecological function (Eldridge et al., 2016). Our primary aim was to characterise the nature of the relationship between dingoes and hopping-mice by testing the five aforementioned hypotheses through assessment of 13 interrelated study questions within three relationship categories.

Section snippets

Data sources

We conducted a systematic and complimentary series of empirical studies against a background of a large-scale and long-term manipulative experiment on dingo ecology and management in northern South Australia, conducted between April 2008 and February 2012. A series of reports based on this experiment have already been published (Table 1; see also Eldridge et al., 2016). Hence here, we focus the present investigation on the behavioural, numerical, spatial, and predatory aspects of the

Results

Primary results are presented in 3.1 Behavioural relationships between dingoes and hopping-mice, 3.2 Spatial and numerical relationships between dingoes and hopping-mice, 3.3 Predatory relationships between dingoes and hopping-mice and summarised in Table 2, with additional detail available in the supplementary material.

Discussion

Drought, flood, fire, habitat availability, provision of artificial water points, competition from livestock and invasive species, predation, and the lethal control of top-predators have each been proposed as biotic and abiotic drivers of threatened fauna populations, including hopping-mice, in arid Australian ecosystems (e.g. Burbidge and McKenzie, 1989, Burbidge et al., 2008, Doherty et al., 2015, Woinarski et al., 2015). Despite many ultimate and proximate causes, the general mechanism of

Conclusions

Our study supports the general view that reductions in food and cover followed by predation (by dingoes in this case) can lead to declines of small mammals in Australia (Allen, 2011a, Lawes et al., 2015, Woinarski et al., 2015), and highlights the relative influence of multiple environmental (bottom-up) and human (top-down) effects on predator-prey interactions. These results have important implications for land managers and policy-makers responsible for the management of predators and prey.

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the generous support of S. Kidman and Co. cattle company and Mutoroo Pastoral Company, where Greg Campbell, Paul Jonas and Greg Conners granted access to the site. The work was administered by the South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board, the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, with financial support obtained from state and federal government funding programs

References (97)

  • E.G. Ritchie et al.

    Ecosystem restoration with teeth: what role for predators?

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2012)
  • T.C.R. White

    Experimental and observational evidence reveals that predators in natural environments do not regulate their prey: they are passengers, not drivers

    Acta Oecol.

    (2013)
  • B.L. Allen

    Skin and bone: observations of dingo scavenging during a chronic food shortage

    Austr. Mammal.

    (2010)
  • B.L. Allen

    A comment on the distribution of historical and contemporary livestock grazing across Australia: implications for using dingoes for biodiversity conservation

    Ecol. Manag. Restor.

    (2011)
  • B.L. Allen

    Efficacy of Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) to Control Dingoes (Canis lupus spp.) in the Strzelecki Desert of South Australia: Quinyambie Field Trial

    (2011)
  • B.L. Allen

    Do desert dingoes drink daily? Visitation rates at remote waterpoints in the Strzelecki Desert

    Aust. Mammal.

    (2012)
  • B.L. Allen

    The effect of lethal control on the conservation values of Canis lupus dingo

  • B.L. Allen

    Scat happens: spatiotemporal fluctuation in dingo scat collection rates

    Austr. J. Zool.

    (2012)
  • B.L. Allen

    Top-predator control-induced trophic cascades: an alternative hypothesis to the conclusion of Colman et al. (2014)

    Proc. R. Soc. B

    (2015)
  • L.R. Allen et al.

    Evaluating and validating abundance monitoring methods in the absence of populations of known size: review and application to a passive tracking index

    Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.

    (2014)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    Reintroducing the dingo: the risk of dingo predation to threatened vertebrates of western New South Wales

    Wildl. Res.

    (2012)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    Assessing predation risk to threatened fauna from their prevalence in predator scats: dingoes and rodents in arid Australia

    PLoS One

    (2012)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    The (non)effects of lethal population control on the diet of Australian dingoes

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • L. Allen et al.

    Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations

    Wildl. Res.

    (1996)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    Additional records of small mammals in northern South Australia

    Aust. Mammal.

    (2011)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    Intraguild relationships between sympatric predators exposed to lethal control: predator manipulation experiments

    Front. Zool.

    (2013)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    Sympatric prey responses to lethal top-predator control: predator manipulation experiments

    Front. Zool.

    (2014)
  • B.L. Allen et al.

    The short-term effects of a routine poisoning campaign on the movement behaviour and detectability of a social top-predator

    Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.

    (2014)
  • N. Blaum et al.

    Indexing small mammalian carnivores in the southern Kalahari, South Africa

    Wildl. Res.

    (2008)
  • H. Brunner et al.

    The Identification of Mammalian Hair

    (1974)
  • H. Brunner et al.

    Hair ID: An Interactive Tool for Identifying Australian Mammalian Hair

    (2002)
  • A.A. Burbidge et al.

    Conservation status and biogeography of Australia's terrestrial mammals

    Aust. J. Zool.

    (2008)
  • L.K. Corbett

    The dingo in Australia and Asia

    (2001)
  • L. Corbett et al.

    The feeding ecology of the dingo III. Dietary relationships with widely fluctuating prey populations in arid Australia: an hypothesis of alternation of predation

    Oecologia

    (1987)
  • A.J. Coutts-Smith et al.

    The Threat Posed by Pest Animals to Biodiversity in New South Wales

    (2007)
  • J.B. Cupples et al.

    Dietary overlap and prey selectivity among sympatric carnivores: could dingoes suppress foxes through competition for prey?

    J. Mammal.

    (2011)
  • C.R. Dickman et al.

    Long-term dynamics of rodent populations in arid Australia: the influence of rainfall

    Wildl. Res.

    (1999)
  • S.R. Eldridge et al.

    The Effect of Wild Dog Control on Cattle Production and Biodiversity in the South Australian Arid Zone: Final Report

    (2016)
  • R. Engeman

    Indexing principles and a widely applicable paradigm for indexing animal populations

    Wildl. Res.

    (2005)
  • R. Engeman et al.

    Overview of a passive tracking index for monitoring wild canids and associated species

    Integr. Pest Manag. Rev.

    (2000)
  • R. Engeman et al.

    Investigating the feasibility of a tracking index for monitoring wildlife in the Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia

    Afr. J. Ecol.

    (2006)
  • R.M. Engeman et al.

    Variance estimate for the activity index of Allen et al

    Wildl. Res.

    (1998)
  • J.A. Estes et al.

    Trophic downgrading of planet earth

    Science

    (2011)
  • D.L. Finke et al.

    Predator diversity dampens trophic cascades

    Nature

    (2004)
  • P.J.S. Fleming et al.

    Seven considerations about dingoes as biodiversity engineers: the socioecological niches of dogs in Australia

    Aust. Mammal.

    (2012)
  • A.S. Glen et al.

    Diets of sympatric native and introduced carnivores in the Barrington Tops, eastern Australia

    Aust. Ecol.

    (2011)
  • C.E. Gordon et al.

    Mesopredator suppression by an apex predator alleviates the risk of predation perceived by small prey

    Proc. R. Soc. B

    (2015)
  • C.E. Gordon et al.

    Shrub encroachment is linked to extirpation of an apex predator

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (2017)
  • Cited by (16)

    • The fox who cried wolf: A keywords and literature trend analysis on the phenomenon of mesopredator release

      2021, Ecological Complexity
      Citation Excerpt :

      Of major concern is the observation that the changes affect the very existence of several mesopredator populations' dynamics in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems (Glass et al., 2021; Hempson et al., 2018). For example, while in arctic environments changes in snowfall frequency and abundance, and snow characteristics can affect mesopredators such as the wolverine (Gulo gulo) (Glass T.W. et al. 2021), the frequency and severity of drought may turn Australian small mammals into easier prey (Allen et al., 2018). Moreover, in marine ecosystems, modification of the reef biodiversity and structures, due to higher temperatures, can impact piscivorous mesopredators (Hempson et al., 2018).

    • Trends and current state of research on greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis): A systematic review of the literature over a period of 33 years (1985–2018)

      2020, Science of the Total Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Climate change has also been identified as a threat to global biodiversity conservation over the last few decades (Howden et al., 2003; Heller and Zavaleta, 2009; Watson et al., 2012). Species assemblages and ecosystem dynamics have started responding to the recent global climate shift (Walther et al., 2002; Bellard et al., 2012; Allen et al., 2018). Thus, conservation in the era of climate change should not only focus on the problems of past and present but should also anticipate and prepare for the likely climate characteristics of the future (Glick et al., 2011).

    • Animal welfare considerations for using large carnivores and guardian dogs as vertebrate biocontrol tools against other animals

      2019, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Dingoes are absent from or occur in low densities across much of this zone given their historical extirpation to enable sheep and goat production (Yelland, 2001; Allen and West, 2013, 2015). Dingoes are Australia's largest non-human terrestrial predator and kill, consume and elicit fear in these prey species (Glen and Dickman, 2005; Letnic et al., 2012; Allen and Leung, 2014; Allen et al., 2018). As such, some have proposed the intentional reintroduction and active restoration of the extant dingo populations within this zone as a means of suppressing target wildlife species (e.g. Wallach, 2014; Newsome et al., 2015).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text