Study

Population responses of small and medium sized mammals to fox control at Jervis Bay, southeastern Australia

  • Published source details Dexter N., Meek P., Moore S., Hudson M. & Richardson H. (2007) Population responses of small and medium sized mammals to fox control at Jervis Bay, southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology, 13, 283-292

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove/control non-native mammals

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Remove/control non-native mammals

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Remove/control non-native mammals

    A before-and-after study in 1995­–2002 in heath and forest habitats in New South Wales, Australia (Dexter et al. 2007) found that after controlling invasive red foxes Vulpes vulpes, one of seven mammal species increased. After four years of fox control, more common ringtail possums Pseudocheirus peregrinus were detected than before control (after: 1.8; before: 0.7 individuals/100 m). However, numbers remained similar between fox control and pre-control periods for long-nosed bandicoots Perameles nasuta (1.5 vs 0/transect), bush rats Rattus fuscipes (1.5 vs 0/transect), brown antechinus Antechinus stuartii (3.8–7.6 vs 3.2-3.6/transect), sugar gliders Petaurus breviceps (0.1–0.3 vs 0.1-0.2/100 m), black rats Rattus rattus (0.9–3.9 vs 2.6-5.8/transect) and common brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecula (0.1–0.3 vs 0.0-0.1/100 m). Control, initiated in 1996, was performed over two weeks, in March and August, using FOXOFF® baits containing 3 mg of 1080 poison. Baits were placed 300–900 m apart. Terrestrial mammals were surveyed two years prior to fox control starting (1995-1996) and up to six years afterwards (in 1999, 2000, 2002). Trapping was over four nights between January and March, along five transects, using 20–25 Elliott live traps/transect and 3–4 possum traps/transect, set 20 m apart. Arboreal mammals were surveyed one year prior to fox control starting (1995) and up to 6 years afterwards (in 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002), along five 500-m-long spotlight transects, 1–2 hours after dark.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

  2. Remove/control non-native mammals

    A site comparison study in 1999–2003 in New South Wales, Australia (Dexter et al. 2007) found that controlling invasive red foxes Vulpes vulpes increased abundances of four out of five small mammal species. After four years of fox control, numbers of brown antechinus Antechinus stuartii, bush rat Rattus fuscipes, black rat Rattus rattus and long-nosed bandicoot Perameles nasuta, but not of common brushtail possum Trichosurus Vulpecula, were higher than in a site where foxes were not controlled (antechinus: 35 vs 17; bush rat: 29 vs 1; black rat: 1 vs 0; bandicoot: 3 vs 0; possum: 0 vs 4; results not tested for statistical significance). At Booderee National Park, fox control was conducted twice a year between 1999 and 2003 in March and August, using 3 mg 1080 FOXOFF® poison baits, 300–1,000 m apart. No control occurred at Jervis Bay National Park. In both parks, mammals were surveyed over five days in May 2003, along eight 120 m transects, using six Elliott live traps, three possum cage traps and three wire bandicoot traps, spaced 10 m apart. Transects were located at least 500 m apart.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust