Moving mammals – looking backwards, looking forwardSarah Legge, Uni Qld and ANU; on behalf of large author team

Mike Bode, Andrew Burbidge, Nicki Mitchell, Jim Radford, Jeremy Ringma, Brendan Wintle, John Woinarski

Adrian Manning, Australian National University, Woodlands Trust

Andrew BurbidgeAnnika Everaardt, Tasmania DPIPWEBrendan Wintle, University of MelbourneBrydie Hill, NT Dept Environment and Natural ResourcesChris Dickman, University of SydneyChris Johnson, University of Tasmania

David Pannell, University of Western AustraliaErin McCreless, UQGraeme Gillespie , NT Dept Environment and Natural ResourcesJeremy Ringma, University of QueenslandJim Radford, Bush Heritage AustraliaJohn Kanowski , Australian Wildlife ConservancyJohn Woinarski, Charles Darwin University

Joss Bentley, NSW Office of Environment and HeritageKatherine Moseby, Ecological Horizons / Arid RecoveryKatherine Tuft, Arid RecoveryKeith Morris, WA DBCAManda Page, WA DBCAMarcus Baseler, Dept of the Environment, ERINMichael Bode, University of MelbourneMike Letnic, University of NSWNick Dexter, Parks Australia (Booderee National Park)Nicki Mitchell, University of Western Australia

Peter Copley, SA Dept of Environment, Water and Natural ResourcesPeter Latch, Dept of the EnvironmentPeter Menkhorst, Artur Rylah Institute for Environmental ResearchRussell Palmer, WA DBCA

Looking backwards:• Brief history of translocations• Why do we need to move mammals?• Development of the ‘ark’ or ‘haven’ concept for threatened mammals

Looking forwards: Strategic planning for future translocations to havens• Which species need havens?• How well are they currently protected?• Where should the next havens go?

Comparisons between plant and animal translocations

Moving mammals – looking backwards, looking forward

• Translocations is an ancient practice (eg cuscus, dingo); for food, ceremony, medicine, mind-altering…hunting aid and companionship

• Colonising Europeans also moved animals around (egrabbits, foxes, cats)

• Early settlers formalised this tradition with acclimatisation societies (eg kookaburras:

…“merit, as vermin-destroying animals”……“robust, jovial humour of their merry pleasant

notes and quaint manners”…)

Animal translocationsAncestral being and dingo, LauraFillios and Tacon 2016

The Snake Destroyer, the Laughing JackassIllustrated Australian News, 27 December 1876.

Conservation translocations to islands began late 1800s:• Koalas to French Is; late 1800s• Tammars to Greenly Is, SA; 1905• Red-bellied Pademelon to Wilsons Prom; 1911• Lyrebirds to Tasmania; 1934-49

Conservation translocations increased from c. 1960s

Lyrebird; GouldBritish Museum

Animal translocations for conservation

pre 1970 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-17

num

ber o

f ver

tebr

ate

trans

loca

tions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Animal translocations for conservation

Short 2009 ‘The characteristics and success of vertebrate translocations within Australia’Legge et al 2018 Wildlife Research

Translocations have increased over time Most animal translocations involve mammals

mammals

birds

frogsreptiles

Australian mammal extinction rate worst in world• >35 taxa extinct, representing• 35% of all global mammalian extinctions since 1500

• Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA, Harrison PL (2015) PNAS 112, 4531-40.• Johnson C (2006) Australia's Mammal Extinctions. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Why do we need to move mammals?

Photos: wiki CC

Cats and foxes are main drivers, exacerbated by habitat change from fire, grazing, other ferals (eg. rabbits)

Evidence• The timing of fox/cat arrival vs

population decline• Correspondence between cat/fox prey

with severity of population decline• Correspondence of ecological and life

history attributes with severity of decline• Contrast in translocation success to sites

with/without cats/foxes• Some pops of some species only

survived where cats/foxes remained absent

Greater stick-nest rats became extinct on the mainland, surviving only on the Franklin Islands

Some species only survived because they occurred on islands that remained free of cats/foxes

WA DBCA H. McGregor, Arid Recovery

Boodies were extirpated on the

mainland, surviving only on three islands

off the WA coast

Natural IslandArks

…first using islands that were naturally cat and fox free, and later using islands from which cats/foxes were eradicated

Natural island arks were augmented by deliberate translocations to islands…

Cumulative increase in island number and area used for mammal translocations

Dirk Hartog Is, 628 km2; Largest island in world for cat eradication

Total area of islands projected to increase substantially over coming years:

French, Bruny, Christmas, Kangaroo, Phillip Islands add 5184 km2

Extending the island concept -mainland islands

First mainland islands created by Earth Sanctuaries Limited (Wamsley) from 1980s

Cat/fox fence at Mulligan’s Flat, Canberra (A. Manning)

Extending the island concept -mainland islands

Cumulative increase in number and area of fenced exclosures used for mammal translocations

New fence currently being constructed at Wandiyali-Environa(C. Larcombe)

Wandiyali-Environa, Tiverton, Mallee Refuge, Pilliga, Goorooyarroo, Newhaven, Mallee Cliffs, Wild Desert add 914 km2

Total areas of fences projected to increase substantially over coming years

Strategic planning for mammal translocations

1. Which species need complete protection from cats and foxes?2. Where are the existing island and fenced havens?3. Which species do they protect?4. Where should the next island and fenced havens go?

H. McGregor/Arid Recovery Wildlife Centre

1. Which species need protection from cats and foxes?

• Assessed 246 mammal taxa (excluding bats)• Categorised by ~30 experts according to

susceptibility to cats/foxes

H. McGregor

Wiki CC

Wiki CC

Zoos Vic

Extreme

High

Low

Not

EXTREME = Don’t persist with cats/foxes

HIGH = May just persist, but heavily reduced pop size or viability; or only if cat/fox density is much reduced

LOW = persists, but with some reduction in pop size or viability

NO = pop size and/or viability unaffected by cats/foxes

Predator susceptibility of all terrestrial mammal species

37

42

112

52Wiki CC

Radford et al. (2018) Wildlife Research

Taxa that are more susceptible to cats and foxes show the greatest level of decline

Radford et al. (2018) Wildlife Research

Digression – cats and faunal attrition

McKenzie et al 2007Legge et al (2017) Bio Cons

1. Which mammals need protection from cats and foxes?

37

42

112

52

53 taxa(40 species)

14 taxa(12 species)

Strategic planning for mammal translocations 1. Which species need complete protection from cats and foxes?2. Where are the existing island and fenced havens?3. Which species do they protect?4. Where should the next island and fenced havens go?

Used ERIN Island database, DEWHA feral animals on islands database, Mammal Action Plan, additional references, pers comms from agencies, NGOs

H. McGregor, Arid RecoveryKimberley islands, Wiki CC

UNKNOWN

ABSENT

PRESENT

PRESENT

ABSENT

UNKNOWN

Number of islands

Area of islands

Where are the existing island and fenced havens?

Island havens – cat/fox-free

590 islands cat/fox-free

Covering 5468 km2,or 16% island area, or 0.06% of Australia’s land area(range 1 ha – 628 km2)

5442 islands > 1 ha (32,969 km2)

Island size>10 000 km2

1000 to 10 000 km

2

100 to 1 000 km

2

10 to 100 km

2

1 to 10 km

2

0.1 to 1 km

2

0.01 to 0.1 km

2

Num

ber o

f isl

ands

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

% is

land

s w

ith c

ats

0

20

40

60

80

100

# islands% withCats/foxes

Cat and fox-free islands

1/293%

10/7913%

66/16041%

24/8927%

0/21

0/94

0/12

0/106

• 101 islands, covering 2152 km2

• Range 1 ha – 235 km2 (Barrow) and now 628 km2 (DHI)• Median = 6 km2

89

94160

79

29

106

12

Commonwealth21

Cat/fox-free with susceptible taxa

In situ, or natural pops vs translocated island pops

‘Natural’ havens• Concentrated in the north

Havens by translocation • More common south of tropics• WA and SA govs most active • 22 islands; 30 translocations

Golden-backed tree-rats occur on at least 10 islands (A. Hartsthorne)

Mainland havens (fenced areas)

• 19 fenced areas• 17 with threatened

mammal taxa susceptible to cats/foxes

• Cover 346 km2

• Range 0.5-123 km2

• Median 4 km2

Woylie release at Perup fenced reserve, WA. (O’Rourkes/Dept. Biodiversity, Conservation, Attractions)

Excludes small fenced areas with pops maintained by supplementary feeding, or constant restocking

Wandiyali-Environa

Island havens outnumber fences, and cover much larger total area

Islands protect more populations, but not more taxa…

Greater redundancy of pops (per taxa) across islands

islandsfencesboth

areanumber

populationstaxa

17

101

346

2152

49

139

15

1112

Islands and fences – some vital stats

Islands reach much larger areas:• Median fence area = 4 km2, max = 123 km2

• Median island area = 6 km2, max = 628 km2

number of taxa in the haven

1 2 3 4 5

rela

tive

prop

ortio

n

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

islandfence

Compared to islands, fenced areas are more likely to have multiple taxa

Numbers of taxa within havens

Islands and fences – some vital stats

fenceisland

• Islands have played an important role in protecting in situ pops• Fenced areas are important havens for translocated pops

In situ pops vs translocated populations

The eastern barred bandicoot exists only within three fenced areas and two islands Photo: Wiki CChaven

island fence

num

ber o

f pop

ulat

ions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 translocationsin situ

Islands and fences – some vital stats

Islands and fences - success rates

• Success rates are probably increasing; island translocations more successful than to fences• Translocation success overwhelming influenced by cat/fox predation (habitat quality,

disease, animal husbandry, small founder number much less important)• Most failures to fenced areas were from cat/fox incursion, but also small area in some cases• Without adequate investment in construction & ongoing maintenance, security of fenced

areas is inevitably compromised

Haven Short 2009 Legge et al 2018

Open site Ranges from 0% to <<50%

Island 82% (n = 17) 86% (n = 35)

Fence 59% (n = 41) 70% (n = 60)

Time periods 1880-2009 1980-2017

Short J (2009) The characteristics and success of vertebrate translocations within Australia. Legge et al (2018) Wildlife Research

Taxon

Rat

tus

tunn

eyi t

unne

yi

Das

yuru

s ha

lluca

tus

Isoo

don

aura

tus

Betto

ngia

pen

icilla

taM

esem

brio

mys

mac

ruru

sBe

ttong

ia le

sueu

r les

ueur

Le

poril

lus

cond

itor

Para

ntec

hinu

s ap

ical

is

Tric

hosu

rus

vulp

ecul

a ar

nhem

ensi

sM

acro

tis la

gotis

Myr

mec

obiu

s fa

scia

tus

Pera

mel

es b

ouga

invi

lleBe

ttong

ia le

sueu

r (Ba

rrow

-Boo

die

Is)

Petro

gale

con

cinn

a m

onas

tria

Petro

gale

late

ralis

pea

rson

i La

gost

roph

us fa

scia

tus

Pera

mel

es g

unni

i sub

sp (V

ic)

Pseu

dom

ys fi

eldi

iIs

oodo

n ob

esul

us o

besu

lus

(Sth

Aus

t)Po

toro

us g

ilber

tii

Petro

gale

late

ralis

hac

ketti

Pe

troga

le la

tera

lis la

tera

lis

Seto

nix

brac

hyur

us

Das

yuru

s vi

verr

inus

Pseu

doch

eiru

s oc

cide

ntal

is

Lago

rche

stes

con

spic

illatu

s co

nspi

cilla

tus

Lago

rche

stes

hirs

utus

ber

nier

i La

gorc

hest

es h

irsut

us ('

mal

a')

Pseu

dom

ys n

ovae

holla

ndia

ePh

asco

gale

cal

ura

Phas

coga

le ta

poat

afa

wam

beng

erIs

oodo

n ob

esul

us o

besu

lus

(SE

Aust

)Be

ttong

ia g

aim

ardi

Po

toro

us tr

idac

tylu

s tri

sulc

atus

O

nych

ogal

ea fr

aena

taPe

troga

le p

enic

illata

C

onilu

rus

peni

cilla

tus

peni

cilla

tus

Pseu

dom

ys a

ustra

lisD

asyu

roid

es b

yrne

i

Das

yuru

s ge

offro

iiPh

asco

gale

pira

taPh

asco

gale

tapo

ataf

a ta

poat

afa

Phas

coga

le ta

poat

afa

kim

berle

yens

isSm

inth

opsi

s ai

tken

iBu

rram

ys p

arvu

s Be

ttong

ia tr

opic

a Po

toro

us lo

ngip

esPo

toro

us tr

idac

tylu

s tri

dact

ylus

La

gorc

hest

es c

onsp

icilla

tus

leic

hard

ti Pe

troga

le c

onci

nna

cane

scen

s Pe

troga

le la

tera

lis (M

acD

onne

ll R

a)Pe

troga

le la

tera

lis (W

est K

imbe

rley)

Petro

gale

xan

thop

us c

eler

is

Petro

gale

xan

thop

us x

anth

opus

Con

iluru

s pe

nici

llatu

s m

elib

ius

Mas

taco

mys

fusc

us m

ordi

cus

Mes

embr

iom

ys g

ould

ii go

uldi

iM

esem

brio

mys

gou

ldii

mel

ville

nsis

M

esem

brio

mys

gou

ldii

ratto

ides

N

otom

ys a

quilo

N

otom

ys fu

scus

Pseu

dom

ys fu

meu

s Ps

eudo

mys

ora

lis

Pseu

dom

ys s

hortr

idge

iZy

zom

ys m

aini

iZy

zom

ys p

alat

alis

Zyzo

mys

ped

uncu

latu

s

Num

ber o

f pop

ulat

ions

in h

aven

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

islands fences

Progress so far - representation across havens

Central rockrat in the West Macs. (P. McDonald/NT Dept Environment and Natural Resources)

Bilby, in 6 havens, with 5 more planned in near future

Legge et al. (2018) Wildlife Research

The last 10 haven areas have increased protection for some species, but have not added any new species to the haven network

Many players create havens (state gov, local gov, NGO, community groups, private individuals). Decentralisation:• Creates resilience• Improves community buy-in• Challenges national coordination

Ringma et al. (2017), Nature Ecol Evol 2: 410-411

Progress so far - representation across havens

Strategic planning for mammal translocations 1. Which species need complete protection from cats and foxes?2. Where are the existing island and fenced havens?3. Which species do they protect?4. Where should the next island and fenced havens go?

H. McGregor, Arid RecoveryKimberley islands, Wiki CC

Systematic planning for future havens

Aim: How should we expand the haven network to reduce extinction riak for mammal taxa threatened by cats and foxes

• 67 taxa• Historical distribution to guide where each taxon could be protected• Weighted taxa according to their existing protection• Prioritised subregions by iteratively re-weighted taxa

Compared performance of this approach with • ‘Random’ – subregions selected at random• ‘Business as usual’ - extrapolate from past network growth

Ringma et al. (2018) Cons Letts “Systematic planning can rapidly close the protection gap in Australian mammal havens.”

Systematic planning for future havens

Determined the minimum number of new havens required for different levels of population redundancy• At least one pop of every taxa• To at least 6 pops of every taxa

To achieve one or more pops…we need as few as 12 new havens.

The next 12 havens…to achieve protection for at least one pop of every mammal taxon susceptible to cat/fox predation

Performance with systematic planning

Ringma et al. (2018) Cons Letts “Systematic planning can rapidly close the protection gap in Australian mammal havens.”

Objective: to reduce extinction risk across all 67 taxa susceptible to predation by cats and foxes

Strategic planning outperforms other approaches.

Random selection of future sites outperforms Business-As-Usual

Supporting national coordination for future haven expansion

Support partnerships:• Funded species, even multi-species, recovery teams• Brokered partnerships, even tied to government investment

Whilst recognising that locally-focussed groups have immense value!

Broad-faced potorooDesert rat-kangaroo White-footed rabbit-rat Lesser Stick-nest rat

Crescent nailtail wallabyPig-footed BandicootLesser Bilby

Eastern Hare-wallaby Short-tailed Hopping Mouse

Long-tailed Hopping Mouse

Large-eared Hopping Mouse Darling Downs Hopping Mouse

Broad-cheeked Hopping Mouse

Desert bandicootGould’s MouseSome of the mammals sent extinct by cats and foxes

13 taxa have avoided extinction because of natural or ‘created’ havens

Photos: H. McGregor; Wiki CC; R. Francis; D. Walker; Parks Australia; DBCA; J. Lochman

Rufous Hare-wallaby (2 subspecies)

Boodie (2 subspecies)

Eastern Barred Bandicoot

Spectacled Hare-wallaby (Barrow Is)

Western Barred Bandicoot

Gilbert’s Potoroo

Rock-wallaby(2 island subspecies)

Banded Hare-wallaby

Greater Stick-nest rat

Shark Bay Mouse

This is what avoided extinction looks like ….

WA DBCA

H. McGregor, Arid Recovery

H. McGregor

Even with multiple havens, distribution and ecological roles have collapsed

….and could make return to open landscapes harder• Loss of local adaptation• Loss of predator recognition and response

• Northern quolls translocated in 2003 to NT island without cats or dingoes

• After 13 generations, island quolls and their captive born offspring lost recognition of cats/dingoes, compared with mainland quolls and their captive-born offspring

Jolly et al 2018 Biol Letters 14: 20180222

Jonno Webb

Feral cat with bandicoot; WA DEC

• The existence of mammal pops on offshore islands prevented extinctions

• Islands and fenced areas continue to play a critical role in conservation of mammals highly susceptible to cats/foxes

• But they are a stop-gap…

pre 1970 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-17

num

ber o

f ver

tebr

ate

trans

loca

tions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1976

1977

1980

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Mammal versus plant translocations (Courtesy Jen Silcock et al)

Animals translocations began ramping up about a decade earlier than plants, but are fewer, and involve fewer species

All animals: >400 translocations involving >230 taxaMammals: >310 translocations involving > 50 taxa

>1000 translocations involving >375 taxa

Mostly to less populated areas

Mostly reintroductions (within known range) 65%

DRIVER = PREDATION FROM CATS/FOXES

Main reason for failure = predation

Mammal versus plant translocations (Courtesy Jen Silcock et al)

Mostly near most populated areas

Mostly introductions (but within known range) 80%

DRIVER = HABITAT LOSS FROM DEVELOPMENT

Main reason for failure = small founder size

Mammals Plants Green Stars = conservation translocations

Red Crosses = development mitigation translocations

Moving mammals – looking backwards, looking forwardSarah Legge, Uni Qld and ANU; on behalf of large author team

Mike Bode, Andrew Burbidge, Nicki Mitchell, Jim Radford, Jeremy Ringma, Brendan Wintle, John Woinarski

Adrian Manning, Australian National University, Woodlands Trust

Andrew BurbidgeAnnika Everaardt, Tasmania DPIPWEBrendan Wintle, University of MelbourneBrydie Hill, NT Dept Environment and Natural ResourcesChris Dickman, University of SydneyChris Johnson, University of Tasmania

David Pannell, University of Western AustraliaErin McCreless, UQGraeme Gillespie , NT Dept Environment and Natural ResourcesJeremy Ringma, University of QueenslandJim Radford, Bush Heritage AustraliaJohn Kanowski , Australian Wildlife ConservancyJohn Woinarski, Charles Darwin University

Joss Bentley, NSW Office of Environment and HeritageKatherine Moseby, Ecological Horizons / Arid RecoveryKatherine Tuft, Arid RecoveryKeith Morris, WA DBCAManda Page, WA DBCAMarcus Baseler, Dept of the Environment, ERINMichael Bode, University of MelbourneMike Letnic, University of NSWNick Dexter, Parks Australia (Booderee National Park)Nicki Mitchell, University of Western Australia

Peter Copley, SA Dept of Environment, Water and Natural ResourcesPeter Latch, Dept of the EnvironmentPeter Menkhorst, Artur Rylah Institute for Environmental ResearchRussell Palmer, WA DBCA