Jul

31

2007
 
 

Dog days for evidence



Knowing what went right and what went wrong are key to better practice

packWhen you’ve got a self-sustaining, minimally managed population, your reintroduction project has been a success. Sadly, most fail, yet we haven’t learned much from our mistakes. What we need, according to a study published recently in the Journal of Applied Ecology, is a methodology based on evidence and not belief. To illustrate what they mean, the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Markus Gusset, the University of California, Berkeley’s Sadie Ryan and a pack of colleagues analysed the intensive efforts to restore populations of wild dogs Lycaon pictus to an increasingly fragmented South African landscape. Looking at a wide range of factors that might affect the survival of introduced dogs and their ability to produce pups, the researchers found just two of major importance. The length of time dogs spend social bonding in a boma — their cohesiveness is crucial to survival — and the boundary security of the area into which they are released should be foremost among management decisions. Minimal management might be some way off, but in the meantime at least we can concentrate on what’s important. Source: Gusset M, Ryan SJ, Hofmeyr M, Van Dyk G, Davies-Mostert HT, Graf JA, Owen C, Szykman M, Macdonald DW, Monfort SL, Wildt DE, Maddock AH, Mills MGL, Slotow R & Somers MJ (2007) Efforts going to the dogs? Evaluating attempts to re-introduce endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01357.x

Related story in Conservation magazine: Where the Wild Things Were

Image © Peter Malsbury

Filed Under Endangered species, Restoration, Monitoring, Economics and conservation, Community-based conservation, Socio-political issues | 

Email This Post Email This Post

Comments

One Response to “Dog days for evidence”

  1. eoqt moqvcwt on December 29th, 2007 4:06 am

    aitlqxvj prunlz qjni hfmdcs ctpk tkgipqh ktfscoja

Leave a Reply