Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 329–338 | Cite as

Landholder participation in regional-scale control of invasive predators: an adaptable landscape model

  • A. S. Glen
  • M. C. Latham
  • D. Anderson
  • C. Leckie
  • R. Niemiec
  • R. P. Pech
  • A. E. Byrom
Original Paper


Control of invasive predators is necessary for the conservation of many endemic species. Invasive predator management tends to focus on priority sites, which often comprise only a small fraction of the impacted area. Landscape-scale ecological recovery requires threatening processes to be managed not only in these priority areas, but also in the matrix between them. However, wide-scale control of invasive species can be logistically, economically and socially challenging. We developed a spatially explicit model to estimate the effects of varying levels of landholder participation in landscape-scale programs to control invasive predators. We demonstrate the use of this model with a case study from the North Island of New Zealand in which the results of predator control are projected over a 6 year period. Under various scenarios for landholder participation, we estimated how the participation rate, and size and location of non-participating properties, would influence effectiveness of predator trapping. We also modelled how trap deployment could be adjusted to limit reinvasion from non-participating properties. Under all modelled scenarios, predator populations remained below pre-control levels throughout the 6 years. Non-participation by owners of small properties (≤25 ha) had a negligible effect on the efficacy of predator control. If owners of large properties (>800 ha) failed to participate, reinvasion by predators from these properties reduced the efficacy of control; however, this could be largely offset by placing additional traps on the nearest participating properties. Predator control will thus be effective even if some landholders choose not to participate. Our model can be readily adapted to other invasive species and landscapes worldwide.


Agro-ecosystem Community support Feral cat Ferret Social-ecological models Stoat 



Funding was provided by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. We thank M. Barron, P. Cowan and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Supplementary material

10530_2016_1282_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1540 kb)


  1. Alterio N (1996) Secondary poisoning of stoats (Mustela erminea), feral ferrets (Mustela furo), and feral house cats (Felis catus) by the anticoagulant poison, brodifacoum. N Z J Zool 23:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aslan CE, Hufford MB, Epanchin-Niell RS, Port JD, Sexton JP, Waring TM (2009) Practical challenges in private stewardship of rangeland ecosystems: yellow starthistle control in Sierra Nevadan foothills. Rangel Ecol Manag 62:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura A (1998) Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Adv Psychol Sci 1:51–71Google Scholar
  4. Barlow ND, Barron MC (2005) Modelling the dynamics and control of stoats in New Zealand forests. Sci Conserv 252:1–39Google Scholar
  5. Barlow ND, Norbury GL (2001) A simple model for ferret population dynamics and control in semi-arid New Zealand habitats. Wildl Res 28:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrom AE (2002) Dispersal and survival of juvenile ferrets Mustela furo in New Zealand. J Appl Ecol 39:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cialdini EB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Personal Soc Pyschol 58:1015–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clapperton BK, Byrom AE (2005) Feral ferret Mustela furo Linnaeus, 1758. In: King CM (ed) The handbook of New Zealand mammals, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 294–307Google Scholar
  9. Clayton R, Cowan P (2010) Management of animal and plant pests in New Zealand: patterns of control and monitoring by regional agencies. Wildl Res 37:360–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett JB (2002) Motivations to participate in riparian improvement programs: applying the theory of planned behavior. Sci Commun 23:243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin F, Holling C (2013) Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:1139–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derenne P (1976) Notes sur la biologie du chat haret de Kerguelen. Mammalia 40:531–595Google Scholar
  13. Dickman CR (1996) Impact of exotic generalist predators on the native fauna of Australia. Wildl Biol 2:185–195Google Scholar
  14. Efford M (2004) Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM (2009) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler JH, Christakis NA (2010) Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:5334–5338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentle MN, Saunders GR, Dickman CR (2007) Poisoning for production: How effective is fox baiting in south-eastern Australia? Mammal Rev 37:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillies CA, Fitzgerald BM (2005) Feral cat, Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758. In: King CM (ed) The handbook of New Zealand mammals, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 308–326Google Scholar
  19. Glen AS, Byrom AE (2014) Implications of landholder buy-in for the success of regional-scale predator control. Part 1: review of predator movements. Contract Report LC1956 for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Landcare Research, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  20. Glen AS, Pech RP, Byrom AE (2013) Connectivity and invasive species management: towards an integrated landscape approach. Biol Invasions 15:2127–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrerias PR, Garcia PJ, Cruz RS (2003) A note on the reasonableness of PERT hypotheses. Oper Res Lett 31:60–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Innes J, Kelly D, Overton JM, Gillies C (2010) Predation and other factors currently limiting New Zealand forest birds. N Z J Ecol 34:86–114Google Scholar
  23. Innes J, Burns B, Sanders A, Hayward MW (2015) The impact of private sanctuary networks on reintroduction programs. In: Armstrong D, Hayward M, Moro D, Seddon P (eds) Advances in reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand Fauna. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp 185–200Google Scholar
  24. Jackson T (2005) Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behavior and behavioral change. Sustainable Development Rersearch Network, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Karali E, Brunner B, Doherty R, Hersperger A, Rounsevell M (2014) Identifying the factors that influence farmer participation in environmental management practices in Switzerland. Hum Ecol 42:951–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kendal JR, Laland KN (2000) Mathematical models for memetics. J Memet 4.
  27. King CM (1983) Mustela erminea. Mammalian Species 195:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King CM, Murphy EC (2005) Stoat Mustela erminea Linnaeus, 1758. In: King CM (ed) The handbook of New Zealand mammals, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 261–287Google Scholar
  29. Kinnear JE, Onus ML, Bromilow RN (1988) Fox control and rock-wallaby population dynamics. Aust Wildl Res 15:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K, Rinta-Jaskari T (1991) Responses of stoats and least weasels to fluctuating food abundances: Is the low phase of the vole cycle due to mustelid predation? Oecologia 88:552–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lade SJ, Tavoni A, Levin SA, Schlüter M (2013) Regime shifts in a social-ecological system. Theor Ecol 6:359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacLeod LJ, Hine DW, Please PM, Driver AB (2015) Applying behavioral theories to invasive animal management: towards an integrated framework. J Environ Manage 161:63–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Montanari A, Saberi A (2010) The spread of innovations in social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20196–20201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy EC, Dowding JE (1994) Range and diet of stoats (Mustela erminea) in a New Zealand beech forest. N Z J Ecol 18:11–18Google Scholar
  35. Norbury G, Byrom AE, Pech R, Smith J, Clarke D, Anderson DP, Forrester G (2013) Invasive mammals and habitat modification interact to generate unforeseen outcomes for indigenous fauna. Ecol Appl 23:1707–1721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Norbury GL, Pech RP, Byrom AE, Innes J (2015) Density-impact functions for terrestrial vertebrate pests and indigenous biota: guidelines for conservation managers. Biol Conserv 191:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prinbeck G, Lach D, Chan S (2011) Exploring stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs regarding behaviors that prevent the spread of invasive species. Environ Educ Res 17:341–352Google Scholar
  38. Rebaudo F, Dangles O (2013) An agent-based modeling framework for integrated pest management dissemination programs. Environ Model Softw 45:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell JC, Innes JG, Brown PH, Byrom AE (2015) Predator-free New Zealand: conservation country. BioScience 65:520–525CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Salo P, Korpimäki E, Banks PB, Nordström M, Dickman CR (2007) Alien predators are more dangerous than native predators to prey populations. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 274:1237–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanson R, Cook A, Fairweather J (2004) A study of smallholdings and their owners. MAF Information Paper No. 53. Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Short J, Turner B (2005) Control of feral cats for nature conservation. IV. Population dynamics and morphological attributes of feral cats at Shark Bay, Western Australia. Wildl Res 32:489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simberloff D (2010) Invasive species in New Zealand. In: Sodhi NS, Ehrlich PR (eds) Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 132–133Google Scholar
  44. Sinclair ARE (1996) Mammal populations: fluctuation, regulation, life history theory and their implications for conservation. In: Floyd RB, Sheppard AW, De Barro PJ (eds) Frontiers of population ecology. CSIRO Pubslishing, Collingwood, pp 127–154Google Scholar
  45. Thompson SD (1987) Body size, duration of parental care, and the intrinsic rate of natural increase in eutherian and metatherian mammals. Oecologia 71:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Aarde RJ (1984) Population biology and the control of feral cats on Marion Island. Acta Zool Fenn 172:107–110Google Scholar
  47. Ward-Smith T (2011) Translocations to Cape Sanctuary: What has been learnt? Notornis 58:180Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Landcare ResearchAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Landcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand
  3. 3.Hawke’s Bay Regional CouncilNapierNew Zealand
  4. 4.School of Earth, Energy & Environmental SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations