Premium
The kangaroo conundrum remains
Author(s) -
VIGGERS KAREN L,
LINDENMAYER DAVID B
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of applied ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.503
H-Index - 181
eISSN - 1365-2664
pISSN - 0021-8901
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01365.x
Subject(s) - ecology , vegetation (pathology) , wildlife management , geography , wildlife , biology , medicine , pathology
Summary1 The management of kangaroo populations is a major land management and conservation issue in many parts of Australia. 2 Viggers & Hearn (2005) reported the results of a substantial radio‐tracking study of the eastern grey kangaroo ( Macropus giganteus Shaw) in south‐eastern Australia. Martin et al . (2007) critique the study design, home range analysis, biomass assessment and other aspects of the work by Viggers & Hearn (2005). 3 We reject the criticisms made by Martin et al . (2007) and believe that the study design employed by Viggers & Hearn (2005) was sound. The work also was preceded by extensive day and night‐time field assessments to enable contrasts between low and high density M. giganteus populations. We also contend that the home range analysis was not flawed: the methods employed by Viggers & Hearn (2005) were in fact the same ones recommended by Martin et al . (2007). We believe that other criticisms made by Martin et al . (2007) also cannot be sustained. 4 Synthesis and applications. Viggers & Hearn (2005) found that patches of remnant native vegetation were used as day and night‐time refuges by M. giganteus. This creates a disincentive for farmers to conserve remnant native vegetation. The criticisms by Martin et al . (2007) have no bearing on this conclusion; hence the kangaroo conundrum stands.