IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing Wildlife Damage with Cost-Effective Management Programmes

Author

Listed:
  • Cheryl R Krull
  • Margaret C Stanley
  • Bruce R Burns
  • David Choquenot
  • Thomas R Etherington

Abstract

Limiting the impact of wildlife damage in a cost effective manner requires an understanding of how control inputs change the occurrence of damage through their effect on animal density. Despite this, there are few studies linking wildlife management (control), with changes in animal abundance and prevailing levels of wildlife damage. We use the impact and management of wild pigs as a case study to demonstrate this linkage. Ground disturbance by wild pigs has become a conservation issue of global concern because of its potential effects on successional changes in vegetation structure and composition, habitat for other species, and functional soil properties. In this study, we used a 3-year pig control programme (ground hunting) undertaken in a temperate rainforest area of northern New Zealand to evaluate effects on pig abundance, and patterns and rates of ground disturbance and ground disturbance recovery and the cost effectiveness of differing control strategies. Control reduced pig densities by over a third of the estimated carrying capacity, but more than halved average prevailing ground disturbance. Rates of new ground disturbance accelerated with increasing pig density, while rates of ground disturbance recovery were not related to prevailing pig density. Stochastic simulation models based on the measured relationships between control, pig density and rate of ground disturbance and recovery indicated that control could reduce ground disturbance substantially. However, the rate at which prevailing ground disturbance was reduced diminished rapidly as more intense, and hence expensive, pig control regimes were simulated. The model produced in this study provides a framework that links conservation of indigenous ecological communities to control inputs through the reduction of wildlife damage and suggests that managers should consider carefully the marginal cost of higher investment in wildlife damage control, relative to its marginal conservation return.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheryl R Krull & Margaret C Stanley & Bruce R Burns & David Choquenot & Thomas R Etherington, 2016. "Reducing Wildlife Damage with Cost-Effective Management Programmes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146765
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146765
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146765&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.