To improve nature conservation we must better embrace complexity

To improve nature conservation we must better embrace complexity

The natural world is truly glorious in its diversity, and in the complexity of relationships between its many millions of species, and the environments in which they live. I was lucky enough to immerse myself in this wonder recently, while snorkelling on Heron Island with my family. The kaleidoscope of colours and chaos of movement I saw as I drifted over countless different fishes and corals was truly breathtaking. But they also inspired reflection.

How well do we account for complexities in natural systems, and to what extent are our management approaches potentially contributing to the dire situation countless species and ecosystems find themselves in? It’s a bit of a running joke with many of my colleagues that ecology isn’t rocket science… it’s much harder. But jokes aside, if we’re honest with ourselves, the application of our field’s scientific knowledge hasn’t progressed environmental management and nature conservation to the degree we would have liked.

To illustrate my point regarding the importance of recognising and accounting for complexity, let’s examine the current and typical management of dingoes, foxes, feral cats, kangaroos, and fire, across a large area of mainland Australia.

Invasive red foxes and feral cats have ravaged much of our wildlife, and are implicated in the extinction of numerous native mammals. For this reason, cat and fox populations are actively controlled in many areas. Notably, there is currently a prominent government-sponsored program to tackle feral cats, with the stated aim of killing two million cats by 2020.

Some of Australia’s iconic large kangaroo species have profited from post-European land use change, through land clearing that has created more grass and increased water supply. Additionally, due to livestock loss, the main predator of kangaroos, the dingo, is suppressed. The result is overabundant kangaroo populations, particularly in southern and eastern Australia, and they are periodically culled in some cases. These culls are highly contentious to say the least.

Fire occurs throughout Australia, both naturally (e.g. lightning strike) and more frequently as a deliberate management action. Managers conduct regular fuel-reduction or ecological burns with the aim of protecting human assets and lives, or to promote certain species known to require specific fire regimes (e.g. fire frequency, pattern, season, and severity).

One problem with these actions is that they often occur in isolation from each other, with little regard for how one might affect the outcome and success of another. Research suggests cat and fox control can be ineffective at large geographic scales and through time, unless considerable effort and resources are applied long-term. But even more challenging is the fact that where fox control has been very effective it has been associated with an increase in cat numbers and activity in some areas. Perhaps in some instances we may be better off leaving foxes alone in order to let them control cats for us, given how hard the latter is to manage. Some might consider such an idea conservation heresy.

What can naturally control fox and kangaroo populations? Research in a number of different ecosystems suggests dingoes can do a pretty good job in this regard, but like everything in ecology it’s complex, and depends where and when. As mentioned before, dingoes are actively controlled or excluded from many parts in order to protect livestock, especially in sheep-grazing areas.

The picture I’m painting is already complex, but we must also consider the added effects of fire. Fire is definitely required in certain ecosystems at certain times. But when applied, it consumes vegetation, typically reducing structural (habitat) complexity and encouraging grass growth. Reduced habitat complexity can mean cats and foxes can find and kill native prey such as bandicoots more easily, and more grass may mean even more kangaroos. More kangaroos may also mean less habitat complexity, as their booming numbers and overgrazing suppress vegetation recovery post-fire. But, the extent to which this occurs could be mediated by the presence or absence of dingoes, as they can also locate and kill cats, foxes and kangaroos in burnt landscapes. Dingoes could therefore dampen the effects of invasive predators and herbivores on ecosystems and biodiversity.

So what does this all mean and how could we do things better? In short, we need to work with, not against, nature a lot more. Maintaining a top predator, such as the dingo in landscapes could help manage our issues with smaller predators such as cats and foxes, as well as keep a lid on herbivore numbers. And, if we apply fire in a way that maintains more habitat structure, we may further reduce the exposure of smaller native animals to predation.

But how do we manage conflict between livestock producers and dingoes? There are better solutions for this too, such as using livestock guardian dogs to protect sheep.

Finally, we must also take greater advantage of existing opportunities to learn. Where fire, and pest or wildlife control is currently being applied in the same areas, with more forethought these actions could be more frequently applied in an integrated, experimental fashion. Monitoring the short- and long-term outcomes of experiments would allow us to answer important ecological questions regarding species interactions and the role of disturbance such as fire.

Euan Ritchie

Euan Ritchie is a Senior Lecturer in Ecology at Deakin University. He applies ecological theory with good doses of field work to seek solutions to the challenges of conserving biodiversity.

There are 8 comments on this post
  1. Lyndal
    October 19, 2017, 2:49 pm

    The richer and more complex landscape can only be achieved with time. Unfortunately an acre or two of good quality bushland can be flattened in a day using modern equipment but a mature and complex plot of bush could take a century to regrow.

    Observing the waves of bush regeneration practices over the last 20 years, we seem to have moved on from thick tree planting along waterways and fence lines, to the development of a sense that we need plants that serve all levels and so there is a stronger emphasis on grasses and shrubs. Much bush regeneration takes place in small areas so that edge effects are created, with the bushland borders being weed affected and often providing a transitional shelter to the feral animals.

    More recently concepts of corridor connectivity, joining large areas of fairly intact bushland by planting and preserving strips of vegetation and even stepping stones through farmland seem to be doing a good job. However, we are also having to accept that in many areas the landscape will never be fully restored.

  2. October 21, 2017, 10:25 am

    Fantastic observations, Lyndal, thanks for sharing!

  3. Chris Chandler
    October 21, 2017, 4:29 pm

    Thanks Euan, a good explanation of the need to better understand and embrace the complexity of ecosystems. I can’t understand why conservation policy makers are so slow to accept the obvious! In a large and isolated park like Wilson Prom, for example, instead of spending scarce resources on deer and Fox control and worrying about feral cats and rising wallaby numbers, why not reintroduce Dingos?

  4. David
    October 28, 2017, 9:05 pm

    When I read this article I related immediately.
    Many ppl react to events use to emotive & not logical reasons, that that emotions aren’t valid just not subjective usually.
    I think that the complexity of the environment has also been used by certain groups to push their agendas by giving only one-sided arguments An example would be the outrage when a small area is set alight in a native State Forest after it is harvested about the effects of ‘climate change’. However there is no outcry when thousands or tens of thousands of h/acres burn in bush fires.
    To further complicate actions the economy also affects many decisions. While ppl may argue that there will be no economy if the planet is dead most of these decisions will lead to such a fate or close to it however if there isn’t a healthy economy the environment is usually one of the first cuts to be made.
    Enjoy your point of view, as always.

  5. Kris
    October 29, 2017, 3:47 am

    Fascinating and thought-provoking article Euan. Its incredible how often it appears that a targeted nudge is a better solution than heavy handed manscaping of nature and the environment.

  6. Kristian
    October 29, 2017, 3:48 am

    Fascinating and thought-provoking article Euan. Its incredible how often it appears that a targeted nudge is a better solution than heavy handed manscaping of nature and the environment.

  7. Kristian
    October 29, 2017, 3:50 am

    Interesting and thought-provoking article. Its incredible how often it appears that a targeted nudge is a better solution than heavy handed manscaping of nature and the environment.

  8. Maria
    October 30, 2017, 8:53 pm

    Australia has the second worse land clearing rate of any country – NSW recently passed catastrophic land clearing laws to appease agribusiness, miners and developers.
    Loss of habitat , interupted eco systems is impacting our native animals
    The Eastern Grey kangaroo is a Threatened Species trying to survive in 1% of remaining habitat

Leave a reply