Hybridization between domesticated animals and their wild counterparts can disrupt adaptive gene combinations, reduce genetic diversity, extinguish wild populations and change ecosystem function. The dingo is a free-ranging dog that is an iconic apex predator and distributed throughout most of mainland Australia. Dingoes readily hybridize with domestic dogs, and in many Australian jurisdictions, distinct management strategies are dictated by hybrid status. Yet, the magnitude and spatial extent of domestic dog-dingo hybridization is poorly characterized. To address this, we performed a continent-wide analysis of hybridization throughout Australia based on 24 locus microsatellite DNA genotypes from 3637 free-ranging dogs. Although 46% of all free-ranging dogs were classified as pure dingoes, all regions exhibited some hybridization, and the magnitude varied substantially. The southeast of Australia was highly admixed, with 99% of animals being hybrids or feral domestic dogs, whereas only 13% of the animals from remote central Australia were hybrids. Almost all free-ranging dogs had some dingo ancestry, indicating that domestic dogs could have poor survivorship in nonurban Australian environments. Overall, wild pure dingoes remain the dominant predator over most of Australia, but the speed and extent to which hybridization has occurred in the approximately 220 years since the first introduction of domestic dogs indicate that the process may soon threaten the persistence of pure dingoes.

Camera trapping is a relatively new addition to the wildlife survey repertoire in Australia. Its rapid adoption has been unparalleled in ecological science, but objective evaluation of camera traps and their application has not kept pace. With the aim of motivating practitioners to think more about selection and deployment of camera trap models in relation to research goals, we reviewed Australian camera trapping studies to determine how camera traps have been used and how their technological constraints may have affected reported results and conclusions. In the 54 camera trapping articles published between 1991 and 2013, mammals (86%) were studied more than birds (10%) and reptiles (3%), with small to medium-sized mammals being most studied. Australian camera trapping studies, like those elsewhere, have changed from more qualitative to more complex quantitative investigations. However, we found that camera trap constraints and limitations were rarely acknowledged, and we identified eight key issues requiring consideration and further research. These are: camera model, camera detection system, camera placement and orientation, triggering and recovery, camera trap settings, temperature differentials, species identification and behavioural responses of the animals to the cameras. In particular, alterations to animal behaviour by camera traps potentially have enormous influence on data quality, reliability and interpretation. The key issues were not considered in most Australian camera trap papers and require further study to better understand the factors that influence the analysis and interpretation of camera trap data and improve experimental design.

The idea that groups of individuals may develop around resource patches led to the formulation of the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis (RDH). We tested the predictions of the RDH, within a quasi‐experimental framework, using Australia’s largest terrestrial predator, the dingo Canis lupus dingo. Average dingo group sizes were higher in areas with abundant focal food sources around two mine sites compared with those in more distant areas. This supports the notion that resource richness favours larger group size, consistent with the RDH. Irrespective of season or sex, average home range estimates and daily activity for dingoes around the mine sites were significantly less than for dingoes that lived well away. Assuming that a territory is the defended part of the home range and that territory size is correlated with home range size, consistent with the RDH, the spatial dispersion of food patches therefore determined territory size for dingoes in our study. However, although sample size was small, some dingoes that accessed the supplementary food resource at the mines also spent a large proportion of their time away, suggesting a breakdown of territorial defence around the focal food resource. This, in combination with the large variation in home range size among dingoes that accessed the same supplementary food resource, limits the predictive capabilities of the RDH for this species. We hypothesize that constraints on exclusive home range occupancy will arise if a surfeit of food resources (in excess of requirements for homeostasis) is available in a small area, and that this will have further effects on access to mates and social structure. We present a conceptual model of facultative territorial defence where focal resources are available to demonstrate our findings.