Evaluating wildlife management by using principles of applied ecology

Case studies and implications

Jim Hone, V. Alistair Drake, Charles J. Krebs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Context The broad concepts and generalisations that guide conduct of applied ecology, including wildlife management, have been reviewed and synthesised recently into 22 prescriptive and three empirical principles. Aims The aim of this study was to use these principles to evaluate three on-ground wildlife management programs and assess the utility of the principles themselves. Key results Case studies of long-term management of national park biodiversity impacted by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and of conservation and harvest of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and mallards (Anas platyrhnchos), were selected to provide a representative range of management objectives, spatial scales and land tenures, and to include both native and introduced species. Management documents and a considerable scientific literature were available for all three programs. The results highlight similarities and differences among management activities and demonstrate the 25 principles to differing degrees. Most of the prescriptive principles were demonstrated in both the management and the scientific literature in all three programs, but almost no use was made of the three empirical principles. We propose that use of the prescriptive principles constitutes evidence that these programs meet both societal and scientific expectations. However, the limited use of the empirical principles shows gaps in the three programs. Conclusions The results suggest that evaluating other wildlife management programs against the principles of applied ecology is worthwhile and could highlight aspects of those programs that might otherwise be overlooked. Little use was made of the empirical principles, but the the Effort-outcomes principle in particular provides a framework for evaluating management programs. Implications The effort-outcomes relationship should be a focus of future applied research, and both prescriptive and empirical principles should be integrated into wildlife management programs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)436-445
Number of pages10
JournalWildlife Research
Volume45
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 Aug 2018

Fingerprint

wildlife management
case studies
ecology
Macropus rufus
land tenure
range management
Anas
Macropodidae
Sus scrofa
Anas platyrhynchos
national parks
indigenous species
programme
applied ecology
biodiversity
swine
introduced species
pig
native species
national park

Cite this

Hone, Jim ; Drake, V. Alistair ; Krebs, Charles J. / Evaluating wildlife management by using principles of applied ecology : Case studies and implications. In: Wildlife Research. 2018 ; Vol. 45, No. 5. pp. 436-445.
@article{fbde3a3c616047f0a99c4c83b5a9a156,
title = "Evaluating wildlife management by using principles of applied ecology: Case studies and implications",
abstract = "Context The broad concepts and generalisations that guide conduct of applied ecology, including wildlife management, have been reviewed and synthesised recently into 22 prescriptive and three empirical principles. Aims The aim of this study was to use these principles to evaluate three on-ground wildlife management programs and assess the utility of the principles themselves. Key results Case studies of long-term management of national park biodiversity impacted by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and of conservation and harvest of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and mallards (Anas platyrhnchos), were selected to provide a representative range of management objectives, spatial scales and land tenures, and to include both native and introduced species. Management documents and a considerable scientific literature were available for all three programs. The results highlight similarities and differences among management activities and demonstrate the 25 principles to differing degrees. Most of the prescriptive principles were demonstrated in both the management and the scientific literature in all three programs, but almost no use was made of the three empirical principles. We propose that use of the prescriptive principles constitutes evidence that these programs meet both societal and scientific expectations. However, the limited use of the empirical principles shows gaps in the three programs. Conclusions The results suggest that evaluating other wildlife management programs against the principles of applied ecology is worthwhile and could highlight aspects of those programs that might otherwise be overlooked. Little use was made of the empirical principles, but the the Effort-outcomes principle in particular provides a framework for evaluating management programs. Implications The effort-outcomes relationship should be a focus of future applied research, and both prescriptive and empirical principles should be integrated into wildlife management programs.",
keywords = "conservation, feral pig, mallard, pest control, principles, red kangaroo, sustainable harvesting, wildlife management",
author = "Jim Hone and Drake, {V. Alistair} and Krebs, {Charles J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1071/WR18006",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "436--445",
journal = "Australian Wildlife Research",
issn = "1035-3712",
publisher = "CSIRO",
number = "5",

}

Evaluating wildlife management by using principles of applied ecology : Case studies and implications. / Hone, Jim; Drake, V. Alistair; Krebs, Charles J.

In: Wildlife Research, Vol. 45, No. 5, 29.08.2018, p. 436-445.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating wildlife management by using principles of applied ecology

T2 - Case studies and implications

AU - Hone, Jim

AU - Drake, V. Alistair

AU - Krebs, Charles J.

PY - 2018/8/29

Y1 - 2018/8/29

N2 - Context The broad concepts and generalisations that guide conduct of applied ecology, including wildlife management, have been reviewed and synthesised recently into 22 prescriptive and three empirical principles. Aims The aim of this study was to use these principles to evaluate three on-ground wildlife management programs and assess the utility of the principles themselves. Key results Case studies of long-term management of national park biodiversity impacted by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and of conservation and harvest of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and mallards (Anas platyrhnchos), were selected to provide a representative range of management objectives, spatial scales and land tenures, and to include both native and introduced species. Management documents and a considerable scientific literature were available for all three programs. The results highlight similarities and differences among management activities and demonstrate the 25 principles to differing degrees. Most of the prescriptive principles were demonstrated in both the management and the scientific literature in all three programs, but almost no use was made of the three empirical principles. We propose that use of the prescriptive principles constitutes evidence that these programs meet both societal and scientific expectations. However, the limited use of the empirical principles shows gaps in the three programs. Conclusions The results suggest that evaluating other wildlife management programs against the principles of applied ecology is worthwhile and could highlight aspects of those programs that might otherwise be overlooked. Little use was made of the empirical principles, but the the Effort-outcomes principle in particular provides a framework for evaluating management programs. Implications The effort-outcomes relationship should be a focus of future applied research, and both prescriptive and empirical principles should be integrated into wildlife management programs.

AB - Context The broad concepts and generalisations that guide conduct of applied ecology, including wildlife management, have been reviewed and synthesised recently into 22 prescriptive and three empirical principles. Aims The aim of this study was to use these principles to evaluate three on-ground wildlife management programs and assess the utility of the principles themselves. Key results Case studies of long-term management of national park biodiversity impacted by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and of conservation and harvest of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and mallards (Anas platyrhnchos), were selected to provide a representative range of management objectives, spatial scales and land tenures, and to include both native and introduced species. Management documents and a considerable scientific literature were available for all three programs. The results highlight similarities and differences among management activities and demonstrate the 25 principles to differing degrees. Most of the prescriptive principles were demonstrated in both the management and the scientific literature in all three programs, but almost no use was made of the three empirical principles. We propose that use of the prescriptive principles constitutes evidence that these programs meet both societal and scientific expectations. However, the limited use of the empirical principles shows gaps in the three programs. Conclusions The results suggest that evaluating other wildlife management programs against the principles of applied ecology is worthwhile and could highlight aspects of those programs that might otherwise be overlooked. Little use was made of the empirical principles, but the the Effort-outcomes principle in particular provides a framework for evaluating management programs. Implications The effort-outcomes relationship should be a focus of future applied research, and both prescriptive and empirical principles should be integrated into wildlife management programs.

KW - conservation

KW - feral pig

KW - mallard

KW - pest control

KW - principles

KW - red kangaroo

KW - sustainable harvesting

KW - wildlife management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053032794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/evaluating-wildlife-management-using-principles-applied-ecology-case-studies-implications

U2 - 10.1071/WR18006

DO - 10.1071/WR18006

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 436

EP - 445

JO - Australian Wildlife Research

JF - Australian Wildlife Research

SN - 1035-3712

IS - 5

ER -