The Karoo Predator Project is glad to announce the publication of its new paper regarding the “wildlife winners and losers of entensive small-livestock farming in the Karoo”.
Wildlife winners and losers of extensive small-livestock farming: a case study in the South African Karoo
Extensive farming is an important source of food and fibre and often the only viable land use in the more arid regions of the globe. Yet, land use transformation for livestock grazing can lead to natural habitat degradation and fragmentation, identified as the main threats to biodiversity worldwide. Understanding which species are “winners” (i.e. species with a higher relative abundance index on farmland than protected area) and “losers” (i.e. species that have been extirpated or have a lower relative abundance index on farmland) in farming landscapes is crucial for the global sustainability of food production and biodiversity conservation. We used camera traps across 332 locations, over 23,796 trap nights to compare species richness and several aspects of community diversity (evenness, dominance, functional diversity and community structure) on 22 extensive small-livestock farms and a nearby protected area in the semi-arid region of the Karoo, South Africa. Species richness was not significantly different between the two land uses, but there were important differences in community structure and composition. Large carnivores were the “losers” of extensive livestock farming. Farmland displayed a lower effective number of species and functional diversity and a higher dominance than the protected area. The latter had a positive influence on the presence of large mammals and on the relative abundance of the region’s main mesopredator, the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas). Contrary to consensus, extensive small-livestock farming may be beneficial to some species and may therefore represent an important opportunity for biodiversity conservation outside of formally protected areas.
The Karoo Predator Project has also participated in a collaborative paper about the animal welfare considerations for using large carnivores and guardian dogs as vertebrate biocontrol tools against other animals, led by Benjamin L. Allen from the University of Southern Queensland, Australia and the Centre for Invasion Biology, South Africa.
Animal welfare considerations for using large carnivores and guardian dogs as vertebrate biocontrol tools against other animals
Introducing consumptive and non-consumptive effects into food webs can have profound effects on individuals, populations and communities. This knowledge has led to the deliberate use of predation and/or fear of predation as an emerging technique for controlling wildlife. Many now advocate for the intentional use of large carnivores and livestock guardian dogs as more desirable alternatives to traditional wildlife control approaches like fencing, shooting, trapping, or poisoning. However, there has been very little consideration of the animal welfare implications of deliberately using predation as a wildlife management tool. We assess the animal welfare impacts of using dingoes, leopards and guardian dogs as biocontrol tools against wildlife in Australia and South Africa following the ‘Five Domains’ model commonly used to assess other wildlife management tools. Application of this model indicates that large carnivores and guardian dogs cause considerable lethal and non-lethal animal welfare impacts to the individual animals they are intended to control. These impacts are likely similar across different predator-prey systems, but are dependent on specific predator-prey combinations; combinations that result in short chases and quick kills will be rated as less harmful than those that result in long chases and protracted kills. Moreover, these impacts are typically rated greater than those caused by traditional wildlife control techniques. The intentional lethal and non-lethal harms caused by large carnivores and guardian dogs should not be ignored or dismissively assumed to be negligible. A greater understanding of the impacts they impose would benefit from empirical studies of the animal welfare outcomes arising from their use in different contexts.