ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5295-8734
Current Organisation
WWF Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-05-2021
DOI: 10.1111/AEC.13045
Abstract: Half‐butt eucalypts (genera: Eucalyptus and Corymbia ) have both thick outer bark at the stem base (half‐butt) conferring resistance to surface fire, and thin photosynthetic canopy bark that reduces moisture stress. Here we examine how the functional ecology of dual outer bark types influences the wide distribution of Australian half‐butt species. We evaluate the proposition that half‐butts should predominate in semi‐arid environments prone to surface fires. We measured the bark thickness, butt height relative to flame/fire char height and tree height, height of first branch, and the location and prevalence of epicormic resprouting of co‐occurring Eucalyptus miniata (half‐butt) and E . tetrodonta (fibrous bark only) in iduals, across 15 sites with contrasting fire frequencies (2000–2015) in the Darwin region. Total tree height was compared with butt height for all E . miniata in iduals. The survival of half‐butt and other eucalypt species, as well as non‐eucalypts, was investigated at three sites affected by intense gamba grass ( Andropogon gayanus ) fire. The proportion of half‐butt species in each of Australia’s 85 bioregions was calculated from geographic distribution records of 618 eucalypt species. Mean annual fire frequency (1997–2010), fire type (crown or surface fires) and climate in each bioregion was determined from satellite‐derived records. Butt height at a site, including gamba grass sites, was not induced by flame height or affected by fire frequency and was approximately half the canopy height of the tree, suggesting it is internally regulated. The half‐butt E . miniata and full‐bark eucalypts were similarly resilient (survival) under surface fire conditions. Half‐butt species predominated in arid and semi‐arid bioregions characterised by surface fire, consistent with our proposition that half‐butt bark is an adaptation to surface fire, and thin photosynthetic outer canopy bark reduces moisture stress, accounting for the wide distribution of half‐butt eucalypts in arid and seasonally dry regions of Australia.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-08-2019
DOI: 10.1111/MAM.12167
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.1071/WR19182
Abstract: Abstract ContextWe recently estimated the numbers of reptiles, birds and mammals killed by cats (Felis catus) in Australia, with these assessments providing further evidence that cats have significant impacts on Australian wildlife. No previous studies have estimated the numbers of frogs killed by cats in Australia and there is limited comparable information from elsewhere in the world. AimsWe sought to (1) estimate the numbers of frogs killed by cats in Australia and (2) compile a list of Australian frog species known to be killed by cats. MethodsFor feral cats, we estimated the number of frogs killed from information on their frequency of occurrence in 53 cat dietary studies (that examined stomach contents), the mean number of frogs in dietary s les that contained frogs, and the numbers of cats in Australia. We collated comparable information for take of frogs by pet cats, but the information base was far sparser. Key resultsFrogs were far more likely to be reported in studies that s led cat stomachs than cat scats. The mean frequency of occurrence of frogs in cat stomachs was 1.5%. The estimated annual per capita consumption by feral cats in Australia’s natural environments is 44 frogs, and, hence, the annual total take is estimated at 92 million frogs. The estimated annual per capita consumption by pet cats is 0.26 frogs, for a total annual kill of one million frogs by pet cats. Thirty native frog species (13% of the Australian frog fauna) are known to be killed by cats: this tally does not include any of the 51 threatened frog species, but this may simply be because no cat dietary studies have occurred within the small ranges typical of threatened frog species. ConclusionsThe present study indicated that cats in Australia kill nearly 100 million frogs annually, but further research is required to understand the conservation significance of such predation rates. ImplicationsThe present study completed a set of reviews of the impacts of cats on Australian terrestrial vertebrates. Cat predation on Australian frogs is substantial, but is likely to be markedly less than that on Australian reptiles, birds and mammals.
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.1071/WR19174
Abstract: Research and management attention on the impacts of the introduced domestic cat (Felis catus) on Australian fauna have focussed mainly on the feral population. Here, we summarise the evidence for impacts of predation by pet cats on Australian wildlife. We collate ex les of local wildlife population decline and extirpation as a result, at least in part, of predation by pet cats. We assemble information across 66 studies of predation by pet cats worldwide (including 24 Australian studies) to estimate the predation toll of pet cats in Australia, plus the predation pressure per unit area in residential areas. We compared these estimates to those published for feral cats in Australia. The per capita kill rate of pet cats is 25% that of feral cats. However, pet cats live at much higher densities, so the predation rate of pets per square kilometre in residential areas is 28–52 times larger than predation rates by feral cats in natural environments, and 1.3–2.3 times greater than predation rates per km2 by feral cats living in urban areas. Pet cats kill introduced species more often than do feral cats living in natural environments, but, nonetheless, the toll of native animals killed per square kilometre by pet cats in residential areas is still much higher than the toll per square kilometre by feral cats. There is no evidence that pet cats exert significant control of introduced species. The high predation toll of pet cats in residential areas, the documented ex les of declines and extirpations in populations of native species caused by pet cats, and potential pathways for other, indirect effects (e.g. from disease, landscapes of fear, ecological footprints), and the context of extraordinary impacts from feral cats on Australian fauna, together support a default position that pet cat impacts are serious and should be reduced. From a technical perspective, the pet cat impacts can be reduced more effectively and humanely than those of feral cats, while also enhancing pet cat welfare. We review the management options for reducing predation by pet cats, and discuss the opportunities and challenges for improved pet cat management and welfare.
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.1071/WR19197
Abstract: Abstract ContextRecent global concern over invertebrate declines has drawn attention to the causes and consequences of this loss of bio ersity. Feral cats, Felis catus, pose a major threat to many vertebrate species in Australia, but their effect on invertebrates has not previously been assessed. AimsThe objectives of our study were to (1) assess the frequency of occurrence (FOO) of invertebrates in feral cat diets across Australia and the environmental and geographic factors associated with this variation, (2) estimate the number of invertebrates consumed by feral cats annually and the spatial variation of this consumption, and (3) interpret the conservation implications of these results. MethodsFrom 87 Australian cat-diet studies, we modelled the factors associated with variation in invertebrate FOO in feral cat-diet s les. We used these modelled relationships to predict the number of invertebrates consumed by feral cats in largely natural and highly modified environments. Key resultsIn largely natural environments, the mean invertebrate FOO in feral cat dietary s les was 39% (95% CI: 31–43.5%), with Orthoptera being the most frequently recorded order, at 30.3% (95% CI: 21.2–38.3%). The highest invertebrate FOO occurred in lower-rainfall areas with a lower mean annual temperature, and in areas of greater tree cover. Mean annual invertebrate consumption by feral cats in largely natural environments was estimated to be 769 million in iduals (95% CI: 422–1763 million) and in modified environments (with mean FOO of 27.8%) 317 million invertebrates year−1, giving a total estimate of 1086 million invertebrates year−1 consumed by feral cats across the continent. ConclusionsThe number of invertebrates consumed by feral cats in Australia is greater than estimates for vertebrate taxa, although the biomass (and, hence, importance for cat diet) of invertebrates taken would be appreciably less. The impact of predation by cats on invertebrates is difficult to assess because of the lack of invertebrate population and distribution estimates, but cats may pose a threat to some large-bodied narrowly restricted invertebrate species. ImplicationsFurther empirical studies of local and continental invertebrate ersity, distribution and population trends are required to adequately contextualise the conservation threat posed by feral cats to invertebrates across Australia.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1111/EMR.12524
Abstract: Cross‐cultural collaboration between Yawuru Country Managers (Rangers) and WWF‐Australia ecologists led to new detections of the Spectacled Hare‐wallaby (SHW), ( Lagorchestes conspicillatus ) in the west Kimberley region of Western Australia where it was presumed to be locally extirpated. This collaboration relied on the expertise of the Yawuru Country Managers to select specific locations for targeted field surveys and resulted in the confirmation of SHW on the Yawuru IPA for the first time in a decade. Subsequent remote camera trap surveys over a larger area included collaboration with two additional neighbouring Indigenous ranger groups, Karrajarri and Nyikina Mangala. These surveys investigated the spatial and temporal relationship between SHW and other mammals which may threaten (e.g., feral Cat [ Felis catus ], Dingo [ Canis familiaris dingo ]) or compete (e.g., Agile Wallaby [ Macropus agilis ] Cattle [ Bos taurus ]) with them. We found a negative relationship between SHW and cat activity, suggesting that cats may limit the activity or abundance of SHW. Temporal portioning was evident between SHW and both Cattle and Agile Wallaby suggesting that SHW may avoid times when these species are most active. Further, we found a negative relationship between SHW occurrence and distance to fire scar edge burnt in current or previous fire season. This edge habitat is likely important to SHW because they may require recently burnt areas to forage and dense unburnt areas to shelter. This project highlights the benefits of cross‐cultural research and monitoring partnerships with Indigenous rangers as active observers and managers of their traditional lands.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2017
No related grants have been discovered for Leigh-Ann Woolley.