Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement
Identifieur interne : 000E89 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000E88; suivant : 000E90Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement
Auteurs : Andrew Carter ; Gary W. Luck ; Simon P. McdonaldSource :
- Ecological Management & Restoration [ 1442-7001 ] ; 2011-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Summary In south‐eastern Australia, the introduced Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of native wildlife and livestock. Fox control in agricultural landscapes is heavily reliant on the laying of poisoned baits by private landholders, yet there have been few assessments of the application or success of landholder‐baiting practices. We evaluated a community‐based fox‐baiting campaign, typical of programs employed throughout the agricultural regions of south‐eastern Australia to control foxes. We recorded the spatial coverage of 1080 baits deployed by landholders, assessed baiting procedures, monitored the survival of six radio‐collared foxes during and after baiting, and compared the spatial coverage and likely effectiveness of the baiting program with two alternative (theoretical) baiting strategies. Relative to other baiting programs, coordination among neighbours was reasonably high, with 37.5% of baited properties (n = 40) adjoining ≥3 neighbouring properties that also contained baits. Nevertheless, the maximum distance from the centre of a baited property to the nearest edge of an unbaited property was <750 m (mean = 380 m ± 147 m SD). On average, 33% (±17% SD) of each fox’s home range overlapped with baited properties, but only two foxes died during the baiting program. The remaining four foxes were still alive 10 weeks after baiting ceased. Modelling of simulated fox home ranges showed that 13.5% contained no bait stations based on the community baiting program, whereas alternative roadside‐ and grid‐baiting strategies (theoretically) delivered baits to all simulated home ranges. Some landholders employed practices that could reduce the effectiveness of baiting programs such as not removing decayed baits before deploying new ones or placing bait stations too close together. Our research illustrates the difficulties of managing a coordinated baiting program on private land that effectively controls foxes. Alternative baiting strategies such as roadside baiting need to be considered to improve fox control in agricultural landscapes.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title><author><name sortKey="Carter, Andrew" sort="Carter, Andrew" uniqKey="Carter A" first="Andrew" last="Carter">Andrew Carter</name></author><author><name sortKey="Luck, Gary W" sort="Luck, Gary W" uniqKey="Luck G" first="Gary W." last="Luck">Gary W. Luck</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mcdonald, Simon P" sort="Mcdonald, Simon P" uniqKey="Mcdonald S" first="Simon P." last="Mcdonald">Simon P. Mcdonald</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000E89</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000E89</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title><author><name sortKey="Carter, Andrew" sort="Carter, Andrew" uniqKey="Carter A" first="Andrew" last="Carter">Andrew Carter</name></author><author><name sortKey="Luck, Gary W" sort="Luck, Gary W" uniqKey="Luck G" first="Gary W." last="Luck">Gary W. Luck</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mcdonald, Simon P" sort="Mcdonald, Simon P" uniqKey="Mcdonald S" first="Simon P." last="Mcdonald">Simon P. Mcdonald</name></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Ecological Management & Restoration</title><idno type="ISSN">1442-7001</idno><idno type="eISSN">1442-8903</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-12">2011-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="214">214</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="223">223</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1442-7001</idno></series><idno type="istex">F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">EMR604</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1442-7001</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>community involvement</term><term>conservation management</term><term>exotic species</term><term>monitoring and evaluation</term><term>pest animals</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Summary In south‐eastern Australia, the introduced Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of native wildlife and livestock. Fox control in agricultural landscapes is heavily reliant on the laying of poisoned baits by private landholders, yet there have been few assessments of the application or success of landholder‐baiting practices. We evaluated a community‐based fox‐baiting campaign, typical of programs employed throughout the agricultural regions of south‐eastern Australia to control foxes. We recorded the spatial coverage of 1080 baits deployed by landholders, assessed baiting procedures, monitored the survival of six radio‐collared foxes during and after baiting, and compared the spatial coverage and likely effectiveness of the baiting program with two alternative (theoretical) baiting strategies. Relative to other baiting programs, coordination among neighbours was reasonably high, with 37.5% of baited properties (n = 40) adjoining ≥3 neighbouring properties that also contained baits. Nevertheless, the maximum distance from the centre of a baited property to the nearest edge of an unbaited property was <750 m (mean = 380 m ± 147 m SD). On average, 33% (±17% SD) of each fox’s home range overlapped with baited properties, but only two foxes died during the baiting program. The remaining four foxes were still alive 10 weeks after baiting ceased. Modelling of simulated fox home ranges showed that 13.5% contained no bait stations based on the community baiting program, whereas alternative roadside‐ and grid‐baiting strategies (theoretically) delivered baits to all simulated home ranges. Some landholders employed practices that could reduce the effectiveness of baiting programs such as not removing decayed baits before deploying new ones or placing bait stations too close together. Our research illustrates the difficulties of managing a coordinated baiting program on private land that effectively controls foxes. Alternative baiting strategies such as roadside baiting need to be considered to improve fox control in agricultural landscapes.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Andrew Carter</name></json:item><json:item><name>Gary W. Luck</name></json:item><json:item><name>Simon P. McDonald</name></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>community involvement</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>conservation management</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>exotic species</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>monitoring and evaluation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>pest animals</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>EMR604</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>meetingReport</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Summary In south‐eastern Australia, the introduced Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of native wildlife and livestock. Fox control in agricultural landscapes is heavily reliant on the laying of poisoned baits by private landholders, yet there have been few assessments of the application or success of landholder‐baiting practices. We evaluated a community‐based fox‐baiting campaign, typical of programs employed throughout the agricultural regions of south‐eastern Australia to control foxes. We recorded the spatial coverage of 1080 baits deployed by landholders, assessed baiting procedures, monitored the survival of six radio‐collared foxes during and after baiting, and compared the spatial coverage and likely effectiveness of the baiting program with two alternative (theoretical) baiting strategies. Relative to other baiting programs, coordination among neighbours was reasonably high, with 37.5% of baited properties (n = 40) adjoining ≥3 neighbouring properties that also contained baits. Nevertheless, the maximum distance from the centre of a baited property to the nearest edge of an unbaited property was >750 m (mean = 380 m ± 147 m SD). On average, 33% (±17% SD) of each fox’s home range overlapped with baited properties, but only two foxes died during the baiting program. The remaining four foxes were still alive 10 weeks after baiting ceased. Modelling of simulated fox home ranges showed that 13.5% contained no bait stations based on the community baiting program, whereas alternative roadside‐ and grid‐baiting strategies (theoretically) delivered baits to all simulated home ranges. Some landholders employed practices that could reduce the effectiveness of baiting programs such as not removing decayed baits before deploying new ones or placing bait stations too close together. Our research illustrates the difficulties of managing a coordinated baiting program on private land that effectively controls foxes. Alternative baiting strategies such as roadside baiting need to be considered to improve fox control in agricultural landscapes.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 779.528 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>2081</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7056</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>45242</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>293</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title><genre><json:string>conference</json:string></genre><host><volume>12</volume><publisherId><json:string>EMR</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>10</total><last>223</last><first>214</first></pages><issn><json:string>1442-7001</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><subject><json:item><value>RESEARCH REPORT</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1442-8903</json:string></eissn><title>Ecological Management & Restoration</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1442-8903</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>natural sciences</json:string><json:string>biology</json:string><json:string>ecology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x</json:string></doi><id>F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4</id><score>0.036872588</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2011 Ecological Society of Australia</p></availability><date>2011</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Andrew</forename><surname>Carter</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Gary W.</forename><surname>Luck</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Simon P.</forename><surname>McDonald</surname></persName></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Ecological Management & Restoration</title><idno type="pISSN">1442-7001</idno><idno type="eISSN">1442-8903</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1442-8903</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="214">214</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="223">223</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">EMR604</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2011</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Summary In south‐eastern Australia, the introduced Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of native wildlife and livestock. Fox control in agricultural landscapes is heavily reliant on the laying of poisoned baits by private landholders, yet there have been few assessments of the application or success of landholder‐baiting practices. We evaluated a community‐based fox‐baiting campaign, typical of programs employed throughout the agricultural regions of south‐eastern Australia to control foxes. We recorded the spatial coverage of 1080 baits deployed by landholders, assessed baiting procedures, monitored the survival of six radio‐collared foxes during and after baiting, and compared the spatial coverage and likely effectiveness of the baiting program with two alternative (theoretical) baiting strategies. Relative to other baiting programs, coordination among neighbours was reasonably high, with 37.5% of baited properties (n = 40) adjoining ≥3 neighbouring properties that also contained baits. Nevertheless, the maximum distance from the centre of a baited property to the nearest edge of an unbaited property was <750 m (mean = 380 m ± 147 m SD). On average, 33% (±17% SD) of each fox’s home range overlapped with baited properties, but only two foxes died during the baiting program. The remaining four foxes were still alive 10 weeks after baiting ceased. Modelling of simulated fox home ranges showed that 13.5% contained no bait stations based on the community baiting program, whereas alternative roadside‐ and grid‐baiting strategies (theoretically) delivered baits to all simulated home ranges. Some landholders employed practices that could reduce the effectiveness of baiting programs such as not removing decayed baits before deploying new ones or placing bait stations too close together. Our research illustrates the difficulties of managing a coordinated baiting program on private land that effectively controls foxes. Alternative baiting strategies such as roadside baiting need to be considered to improve fox control in agricultural landscapes.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>community involvement</term></item><item><term>conservation management</term></item><item><term>exotic species</term></item><item><term>monitoring and evaluation</term></item><item><term>pest animals</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article-category</head><item><term>RESEARCH REPORT</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2011-12">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1442-8903</doi><issn type="print">1442-7001</issn><issn type="electronic">1442-8903</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="EMR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT RESTORATION">Ecological Management & Restoration</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12103"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/emr.2011.12.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="12">12</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-12">December 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="meetingReport" position="9" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="EMR604"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="10"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">RESEARCH REPORT</title><title type="articleCategory">RESEARCH REPORT</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 Ecological Society of Australia</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.0.1 mode:FullText" date="2011-12-20"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-11-29"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-11-29"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-24"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="214">214</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="223">223</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Andrew Carter</b> <i>is a research officer and <b>Gary Luck</b> is an Associate Professor with the Institute for Land, Water and Society at Charles Sturt University (PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia; Tel: +61 2 6051 9945; Email: </i><email>galuck@csu.edu.au</email><i>).</i> <b>Simon McDonald</b> <i>is a spatial analysis officer with Charles Sturt University’s Spatial Data Analysis Network (PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia; Tel: +61 2 6051 9922; Email: </i><email>smcdonald@csu.edu.au</email><i>). This research was part of Andrew Carter’s Doctoral Thesis which aimed to improve the management of foxes in agricultural landscapes inhabited by Bush Stone‐curlews.</i></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:EMR.EMR604.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="3"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title><title type="short"><b>RESEARCH REPORTS</b></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1"><personName><givenNames>Andrew</givenNames><familyName>Carter</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2"><personName><givenNames>Gary W.</givenNames><familyName>Luck</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3"><personName><givenNames>Simon P.</givenNames><familyName>McDonald</familyName></personName></creator></creators><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">community involvement</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">conservation management</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">exotic species</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">monitoring and evaluation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">pest animals</keyword></keywordGroup><supportingInformation><p><b>Appendix S1.</b> Description of home‐range areas used for simulated home‐range modelling.</p><supportingInfoItem><mediaResource alt="supporting info item" href="urn-x:wiley:14427001:media:emr604:EMR_604_sm_AppendixS1"></mediaResource><caption>Supporting info item</caption></supportingInfoItem></supportingInformation><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Summary </b> In south‐eastern Australia, the introduced Red Fox (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>) is a major predator of native wildlife and livestock. Fox control in agricultural landscapes is heavily reliant on the laying of poisoned baits by private landholders, yet there have been few assessments of the application or success of landholder‐baiting practices. We evaluated a community‐based fox‐baiting campaign, typical of programs employed throughout the agricultural regions of south‐eastern Australia to control foxes. We recorded the spatial coverage of 1080 baits deployed by landholders, assessed baiting procedures, monitored the survival of six radio‐collared foxes during and after baiting, and compared the spatial coverage and likely effectiveness of the baiting program with two alternative (theoretical) baiting strategies. Relative to other baiting programs, coordination among neighbours was reasonably high, with 37.5% of baited properties (<i>n </i>=<i> </i>40) adjoining ≥3 neighbouring properties that also contained baits. Nevertheless, the maximum distance from the centre of a baited property to the nearest edge of an unbaited property was <750 m (mean<i> </i>=<i> </i>380 m ± 147 m SD). On average, 33% (±17% SD) of each fox’s home range overlapped with baited properties, but only two foxes died during the baiting program. The remaining four foxes were still alive 10 weeks after baiting ceased. Modelling of simulated fox home ranges showed that 13.5% contained no bait stations based on the community baiting program, whereas alternative roadside‐ and grid‐baiting strategies (theoretically) delivered baits to all simulated home ranges. Some landholders employed practices that could reduce the effectiveness of baiting programs such as not removing decayed baits before deploying new ones or placing bait stations too close together. Our research illustrates the difficulties of managing a coordinated baiting program on private land that effectively controls foxes. Alternative baiting strategies such as roadside baiting need to be considered to improve fox control in agricultural landscapes.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>RESEARCH REPORTS</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Andrew</namePart><namePart type="family">Carter</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gary W.</namePart><namePart type="family">Luck</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Simon P.</namePart><namePart type="family">McDonald</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="conference" displayLabel="meetingReport"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">3</extent><extent unit="tables">3</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Summary In south‐eastern Australia, the introduced Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of native wildlife and livestock. Fox control in agricultural landscapes is heavily reliant on the laying of poisoned baits by private landholders, yet there have been few assessments of the application or success of landholder‐baiting practices. We evaluated a community‐based fox‐baiting campaign, typical of programs employed throughout the agricultural regions of south‐eastern Australia to control foxes. We recorded the spatial coverage of 1080 baits deployed by landholders, assessed baiting procedures, monitored the survival of six radio‐collared foxes during and after baiting, and compared the spatial coverage and likely effectiveness of the baiting program with two alternative (theoretical) baiting strategies. Relative to other baiting programs, coordination among neighbours was reasonably high, with 37.5% of baited properties (n = 40) adjoining ≥3 neighbouring properties that also contained baits. Nevertheless, the maximum distance from the centre of a baited property to the nearest edge of an unbaited property was <750 m (mean = 380 m ± 147 m SD). On average, 33% (±17% SD) of each fox’s home range overlapped with baited properties, but only two foxes died during the baiting program. The remaining four foxes were still alive 10 weeks after baiting ceased. Modelling of simulated fox home ranges showed that 13.5% contained no bait stations based on the community baiting program, whereas alternative roadside‐ and grid‐baiting strategies (theoretically) delivered baits to all simulated home ranges. Some landholders employed practices that could reduce the effectiveness of baiting programs such as not removing decayed baits before deploying new ones or placing bait stations too close together. Our research illustrates the difficulties of managing a coordinated baiting program on private land that effectively controls foxes. Alternative baiting strategies such as roadside baiting need to be considered to improve fox control in agricultural landscapes.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>community involvement</topic><topic>conservation management</topic><topic>exotic species</topic><topic>monitoring and evaluation</topic><topic>pest animals</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Ecological Management & Restoration</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><note type="content"> Appendix S1. Description of home‐range areas used for simulated home‐range modelling.Supporting Info Item: Supporting info item - </note><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>RESEARCH REPORT</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">1442-7001</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1442-8903</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1442-8903</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">EMR</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>12</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>214</start><end>223</end><total>10</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00604.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">EMR604</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2011 Ecological Society of Australia</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000E89 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000E89 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:F21DDC13C4A2118CA2B7A83AAC3FA5C8F51CB8C4
|texte= Fox‐baiting in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia: a case‐study appraisal and suggestions for improvement
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |