Cattle removal in arid Australia benefits kangaroos in high quality habitat but does not affect camels

Frank, ASK; Wardle, GM; Greenville, AC; Dickman, CR

Cattle removal in arid Australia benefits kangaroos in high quality habitat but does not affect camels

Frank, ASK Wardle, GM Greenville, AC Dickman, CR

Permalink

Publisher:: CSIRO PUBLISHING
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Rangeland Journal, 2016, 38, (1), pp. 73-84
Issue Date:: 2016-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	RJ15039.pdf	Published version	478.72 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Frank, ASK
dc.contributor.author	Wardle, GM
dc.contributor.author	Greenville, AC
dc.contributor.author	Dickman, CR
dc.date.accessioned	2022-10-24T05:04:35Z
dc.date.available	2022-10-24T05:04:35Z
dc.date.issued	2016-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Rangeland Journal, 2016, 38, (1), pp. 73-84
dc.identifier.issn	1036-9872
dc.identifier.issn	1834-7541
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162625
dc.description.abstract	Removing cattle as a management tool to conserve biodiversity may not necessarily alter grazing impacts on vegetation if other introduced or native herbivores move in and replace the cattle after removal. This study investigated whether there was a difference in the abundance of native red kangaroos (Osphranter (Macropus) rufus) and introduced feral camels (Camelus dromedarius) on arid rangelands where cattle had been recently removed compared with where cattle remained. Activity was measured by clearing and weighing dung, and by counting animal sightings. Kangaroos were encountered more frequently in high quality habitat (gidgee woodland) where cattle had been recently removed. However, kangaroo dung in newly cattle-free areas comprised only ∼1.5% of the weight of cattle dung in this habitat where cattle still grazed, indicating no grazing compensation by the native herbivore. Camels showed no clear preference for particular habitat types but used dune tops usually avoided by kangaroos and cattle. There was no indication of camels using habitats differently in areas where cattle were removed. Camel dung collected across all habitats comprised less than a tenth the weight of cattle dung, but almost five times as much as kangaroo dung. As cattle removal had occurred relatively recently, further monitoring is needed to determine its impact over longer periods, especially through low and high rainfall cycles. Methods to improve the monitoring of large herbivores in the presence and absence of livestock and to assess whether anticipated conservation goals are achieved are discussed.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	CSIRO PUBLISHING
dc.relation.ispartof	Rangeland Journal
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1071/RJ15039
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject.classification	Ecology
dc.title	Cattle removal in arid Australia benefits kangaroos in high quality habitat but does not affect camels
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	38
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Life Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-10-24T05:04:33Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	38
utslib.citation.issue	1

Abstract:

Removing cattle as a management tool to conserve biodiversity may not necessarily alter grazing impacts on vegetation if other introduced or native herbivores move in and replace the cattle after removal. This study investigated whether there was a difference in the abundance of native red kangaroos (Osphranter (Macropus) rufus) and introduced feral camels (Camelus dromedarius) on arid rangelands where cattle had been recently removed compared with where cattle remained. Activity was measured by clearing and weighing dung, and by counting animal sightings. Kangaroos were encountered more frequently in high quality habitat (gidgee woodland) where cattle had been recently removed. However, kangaroo dung in newly cattle-free areas comprised only ∼1.5% of the weight of cattle dung in this habitat where cattle still grazed, indicating no grazing compensation by the native herbivore. Camels showed no clear preference for particular habitat types but used dune tops usually avoided by kangaroos and cattle. There was no indication of camels using habitats differently in areas where cattle were removed. Camel dung collected across all habitats comprised less than a tenth the weight of cattle dung, but almost five times as much as kangaroo dung. As cattle removal had occurred relatively recently, further monitoring is needed to determine its impact over longer periods, especially through low and high rainfall cycles. Methods to improve the monitoring of large herbivores in the presence and absence of livestock and to assess whether anticipated conservation goals are achieved are discussed.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162625