Poisoning Dingoes Has Domino Effect on Australia’s Biodiversity

Australia has a long history of poisoning its dingoes (Canis lupus dingo), which have an unfair reputation of preying on sheep and other livestock.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Australia has a long history of poisoning its dingoes (Canis lupus dingo), which have an unfair reputation of preying on sheep and other livestock. But according to a new study, killing the country's native canines may have had unintended consequences, dramatically impacting the biodiversity in regions where dingo populations have been reduced or removed.

The study, conducted by researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and other institutions, looked at 14 forested sites in that southeastern Australian province. Half of the sites experienced dingo poisoning during the prior five years. The rest had minimal dingo control efforts. The sites were divided into seven pairs, each with one poisoning site. The researchers then studied the local flora and fauna by directly observing them, identifying footprints and capturing small mammals in baited traps.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The results were striking: In each of the areas where dingoes had been poisoned, the researchers found increased numbers of large plant-eating mammals, such as kangaroos and wallabies. These places also harbored higher numbers of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), one of the worst invasive species in Australia. All of those species normally make ready prey for dingoes and they appear to have thrived in the latter's absence.

But that wasn't all. Both the herbivores and the foxes needed more food as their populations increased. The researchers found that grazing by the kangaroos and wallabies reduced the amount of vegetative ground cover available to a variety of small mammals and rodents such as possums and bandicoots. This decline then appears to have exposed the smaller animals to predation by the foxes, causing their populations to drop.

"Predation by foxes is one of the most important threats to small native mammals," the study's lead author, UNSW fellow Mike Letnic, said in a press release. "Dingoes should not be poisoned if we want to halt the loss of mammal biodiversity in Australia." He called the poisoning of dingoes "counterproductive for biodiversity conservation," although he acknowledged that either maintaining or restoring dingo populations would be controversial. "We need to develop strategies to maintain the balance of nature by keeping dingoes in the bush, while minimizing their impacts on livestock," he said.

The study was published March 11 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Dingo photo by Pavel Sigarteu. Red fox photographed in NWS by Harley Kingston. Both used under Creative Commons license

Previously in Extinction Countdown:

John R. Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications. His "Extinction Countdown" column has run continuously since 2004 and has covered news and science related to more than 1,000 endangered species. John lives on the outskirts of Portland, Ore., where he finds himself surrounded by animals and cartoonists.

More by John R. Platt

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe