Study

Arid recovery - a comparison of reptile and small mammal populations inside and outside a large rabbit, cat and fox-proof exclosure in arid south Australia

  • Published source details Moseby K.E., Hill B.M. & Read J.L. (2009) Arid recovery - a comparison of reptile and small mammal populations inside and outside a large rabbit, cat and fox-proof exclosure in arid south Australia. Austral Ecology, 34, 156-169

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area

    A site comparison study in 1997–2005 in a dune and shrubland site in South Australia, Australia (Moseby et al. 2009) found that in a fenced area where invasive cats Felis catus, red foxes Vulpes vulpes and European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus were removed, native mammal species richness and abundance, and abundance of two out of four small mammal species, were greater than outside the fenced area. Two to six years after the removal of cats, foxes and rabbits began, native mammal species richness and overall abundance was higher inside than outside the fenced removal area (data presented on log scales). Also, more spinifex hopping mice Notomys alexis and Bolam’s mice Pseudomys bolami were caught in removal areas (spinifex: 13-51; Bolam’s: 5-38) than in non-removal areas (spinifex: 3-4; Bolam’s: 1-2). Numbers caught did not significantly differ in removal vs non-removal areas for fat-tailed dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata (0.3 vs 0.8) and stripe-faced dunnart Sminthopsis macroura (0.3-2.8 vs 1.1). Between 1997 and 2005, a 78-km2 exclosure was established in five stages, inside which rabbits, cats and foxes were removed from 1999. Locally extinct mammals were reintroduced into the first area (14-km2) in 1999-2001. Twelve locations inside the exclosure and 12 outside (60-7,000-km apart) were sampled over four nights annually, in 1998–2005, using a line of six pitfall traps and 15 Elliott live traps.

    (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