Removal of introduced predators, but not artificial refuge supplementation, increases skink survival in coastal duneland
-
Published source details
Lettink M., Norbury G., Cree A., Seddon P.J., Duncan R.P. & Schwarz C.J. (2010) Removal of introduced predators, but not artificial refuge supplementation, increases skink survival in coastal duneland. Biological Conservation, 143, 72-77.
Published source details Lettink M., Norbury G., Cree A., Seddon P.J., Duncan R.P. & Schwarz C.J. (2010) Removal of introduced predators, but not artificial refuge supplementation, increases skink survival in coastal duneland. Biological Conservation, 143, 72-77.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Remove or control predators using fencing and/or aerial nets Action Link |
 |
|
|
Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites Action Link |
|
-
Remove or control predators using fencing and/or aerial nets
A randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2004–2006 on a coastal dune site on South Island, New Zealand (Lettink et al. 2010) found that use of predator exclosure fences did not result in increased survival of McCann’s skink Oligosoma maccanni compared to when no exclosure fencing was used. Average change in skink survival before and after installation of exclosure fences did not differ between sites with exclosures (survival changed by 1%) and sites without exclosures (survival changed by -1%). Four sites each were assigned to one of four treatments: exclosure fences (25 x 25 m area, 1 m high chicken wire fence, bird netting on top), exclosure fence and artificial refuges (32 refuges/site); artificial refuges only; and no treatment. Skinks were sampled annually using 4-day pitfall trapping sessions in February and March 2004–2006 with fencing and refuges placed into randomly allocated grids immediately before the second year.
(Summarised by: Maggie Watson, William Morgan)
-
Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites
A randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2004–2006 on a coastal duneland site on South Island, New Zealand (Lettink et al. 2010) found that providing artificial refuges for McCann’s skink Oligosoma maccanni did not lead to an increase in survival compared to when no refuges were provided. Average change in skink survival before and after refuges were provided did not differ from zero. Change in survival was also no different from zero when artificial refuges and exclosure fencing were provided together. Four sites each were assigned to one of four treatments: artificial refuges (32 refuges/site, 16 each of two designs); artificial refuges and exclosure fences (25 x 25 m area, 1 m high chicken wire fence, bird netting on top); exclosure fences only; and no treatment. Refuges were made of corrugated roofing and cladding. Skinks were sampled annually using a 4-day pitfall trapping session in February and March 2004–2006 with fencing and refuges placed into randomly allocated sites immediately before the second year.
(Summarised by: Maggie Watson)
