MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing
Journal Article

Activity May Not Reflect the Numbers: An Assessment of Capture Rate and Population Density of Dingoes (Canis familiaris) Within Landscape‐Scale Cell‐Fencing

2025
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Most human‐carnivore conflicts arise from the impact of predation on livestock. In Australian rangelands, considerable resources are allocated to constructing exclusion fences and implementing control measures to manage dingo populations for sustainable livestock enterprise. Assessing the effectiveness of these measures is crucial for justifying the investment. We used a replicated experimental design to examine the effect of landscape‐scale dingo‐proof exclusion fences (‘cell‐fencing’) on activity and population density of dingoes in the Southern Rangelands of Western Australia. We monitored dingo populations for 22–24 months across six study sites nested within a landscape of about 75,000 km2 and defined ‘fence level’ as the number of dingo‐proof fences enclosing each study site. We used camera trap capture rate (number of independent capture events per 100 trap nights) as a metric for dingo activity (including the availability of resources as other potential covariates), estimated dingo density using spatially explicit mark‐resight models, and tested the relationship between capture rate and estimated density of dingoes for each study site. Significant variation in both metrics was observed between sites and across time. Fence level and prey occurrence significantly influenced dingo activity. The annual mean dingo density estimate across study sites was below two dingoes per 100 km2 (i.e., 0.02 dingoes per km2; the maximum value believed to be compatible with small livestock) at only one study site in the first year, but it was higher across all sites during the second year of monitoring. Dingo activity correlated with estimated dingo density at only two sites, suggesting differences in dingo behaviour and detection across the six study sites. This study provides experimental evidence that camera trap capture rate is not a reliable method for assessing variations in the population size of dingoes. These results have implications for monitoring outcomes of dingo control programs across Australia. This study addresses a critical question: How reliable is the activity metric (here we used camera trap capture rate) to assess variations in population size of dingoes across diverse habitats in Australia? Through experimental evidence, we demonstrate that activity metrics can lead to inaccuracies in assessing changes in dingo population size. Our findings highlight the need to assess dingo population size from identified individuals, which is particularly relevant for effective dingo control programs across Australia.