Study

Passive recovery of small vertebrates following livestock removal in the Australian rangelands

  • Published source details Haby N.A. & Brandle R. (2018) Passive recovery of small vertebrates following livestock removal in the Australian rangelands. Restoration Ecology, 26, 174-182.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cease livestock grazing: Forest, open woodland & savanna

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Cease livestock grazing: Grassland & shrubland

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Cease livestock grazing: Forest, open woodland & savanna

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1997–2007 in open woodland in south eastern Australia, Australia (Haby & Brandle 2018) found that following removal of domestic livestock, combined reptile and small mammal species richness, but not abundance, increased. Over 11 years, overall reptile and small mammal species richness increased after livestock removal in woodland (0.04 species/100 trap nights/year) compared to areas with livestock (0.01 species/100 trap nights/year). Over the same time period, livestock removal did not affect the change in overall reptile and small mammal abundance over time (no livestock: −0.40 individuals/100 trap nights/year; with livestock: −0.31). In 1997–2007, reptiles and small mammals were surveyed in two woodland sites (open mulga Acacia aneura woodland) with historical but no current domestic livestock grazing and two sites with livestock (sheep and/or cattle) grazing in the Flinders Ranges. Reptiles were surveyed using pitfall traps one–three times/year (23 surveys).

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Cease livestock grazing: Grassland & shrubland

    A replicated, site-comparison study in 1997–2007 in shrub and woodland in south eastern Australia, Australia (Haby & Brandle 2018) found that ungrazed and grazed sites had similar combined reptile and small mammal species richness. Over 11 years, reptile and small mammal species richness remained similar in ungrazed (0.03 species/100 trap nights/year) and grazed shrubland (0.04 species/100 trap nights/year). Over the same time period, livestock removal did not affect the change in overall reptile and small mammal abundance over time in shrubland (no livestock: 0.02 individuals/100 trap nights/year; with livestock: 0.11) In 1997–2007, reptiles and small mammals were surveyed in two shrubland sites (degraded chenopod shrubland dominated by A. victoriae.) with historical but no current domestic livestock grazing and two sites with livestock (sheep and/or cattle) grazing. Reptiles were surveyed using pitfall traps one–three times/year (22 surveys).

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust