Impacts of exclusion fencing on target and non-target fauna : a global review
© 2020 Cambridge Philosophical Society..
Exclusion fencing is a common tool used to mitigate a variety of unwanted economic losses caused by problematic wildlife. While the potential for agricultural, ecological and economic benefits of pest animal exclusion are often apparent, what is less clear are the costs and benefits to sympatric non-target wildlife. This review examines the use of exclusion fencing in a variety of situations around the world to elucidate the potential outcomes of such fencing for wildlife and apply this knowledge to the recent uptake of exclusion fencing on livestock properties in the Australian rangelands. In Australia, exclusion fences are used to eliminate dingo (Canis familiaris dingo) predation on livestock, prevent crop-raiding by emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and enable greater control over total grazing pressure through the reduction of macropods (Macropodidae) and feral goats (Capra hircus). A total of 208 journal articles were examined for location, a broad grouping of fence type, and the reported effects the fence was having on the study species. We found 51% of the literature solely discusses intended fencing effects, 42% discusses unintended effects, and only 7% considers both. Africa has the highest proportion of unintended effects literature (52.0%) and Australia has the largest proportion of literature on intended effects (34.2%). We highlight the potential for exclusion fencing to have positive effects on some species and negative effects on others (such as predator exclusion fencing posing a barrier to migration of other species), which remain largely unaddressed in current exclusion fencing systems. From this review we were able to identify where and how mitigation strategies have been successfully used in the past. Harnessing the potential benefits of exclusion fencing while avoiding the otherwise likely costs to both target and non-target species will require more careful consideration than this issue has previously been afforded.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2020 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:95 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society - 95(2020), 6 vom: 02. Dez., Seite 1590-1606 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Smith, Deane [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Agriculture |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.10.2021 Date Revised 18.07.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/brv.12631 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM313014620 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM313014620 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225145646.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/brv.12631 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1043.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM313014620 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)32725786 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Smith, Deane |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Impacts of exclusion fencing on target and non-target fauna |b a global review |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.10.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 18.07.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2020 Cambridge Philosophical Society. | ||
| 520 | |a Exclusion fencing is a common tool used to mitigate a variety of unwanted economic losses caused by problematic wildlife. While the potential for agricultural, ecological and economic benefits of pest animal exclusion are often apparent, what is less clear are the costs and benefits to sympatric non-target wildlife. This review examines the use of exclusion fencing in a variety of situations around the world to elucidate the potential outcomes of such fencing for wildlife and apply this knowledge to the recent uptake of exclusion fencing on livestock properties in the Australian rangelands. In Australia, exclusion fences are used to eliminate dingo (Canis familiaris dingo) predation on livestock, prevent crop-raiding by emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and enable greater control over total grazing pressure through the reduction of macropods (Macropodidae) and feral goats (Capra hircus). A total of 208 journal articles were examined for location, a broad grouping of fence type, and the reported effects the fence was having on the study species. We found 51% of the literature solely discusses intended fencing effects, 42% discusses unintended effects, and only 7% considers both. Africa has the highest proportion of unintended effects literature (52.0%) and Australia has the largest proportion of literature on intended effects (34.2%). We highlight the potential for exclusion fencing to have positive effects on some species and negative effects on others (such as predator exclusion fencing posing a barrier to migration of other species), which remain largely unaddressed in current exclusion fencing systems. From this review we were able to identify where and how mitigation strategies have been successfully used in the past. Harnessing the potential benefits of exclusion fencing while avoiding the otherwise likely costs to both target and non-target species will require more careful consideration than this issue has previously been afforded | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a agriculture | |
| 650 | 4 | |a barrier | |
| 650 | 4 | |a biodiversity conservation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a dispersal | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fence effects | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gene flow | |
| 650 | 4 | |a movement | |
| 650 | 4 | |a predator-proof | |
| 650 | 4 | |a reserves | |
| 650 | 4 | |a wildlife management | |
| 700 | 1 | |a King, Rachel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Allen, Benjamin L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society |d 1945 |g 95(2020), 6 vom: 02. Dez., Seite 1590-1606 |w (DE-627)NLM000038326 |x 1469-185X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:95 |g year:2020 |g number:6 |g day:02 |g month:12 |g pages:1590-1606 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/brv.12631 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 95 |j 2020 |e 6 |b 02 |c 12 |h 1590-1606 | ||