Home range, activity and sociality of a top predator, the dingo: a test of the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis

Abstract

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.

Space use by resident and transient coyotes in an urban–rural landscape mosaic

“…1A and B). Although they lived in close proximity to humans, avoidance of human development and human activity, expressed through negative selection, confirmed previous research on coyotes (Riley et al 2003;Atwood et al 2004;Gehrt et al 2009;Gehrt et al 2011;Hinton et al 2015), but also on foxes (Gloor et al 2001;Marks and Bloomfield 2006) and dingoes (Newsome et al 2013). Especially during the day, coyotes used brushland-wetland and forest, all of which provide protective cover, disproportionate to the availability of these habitats.…”

Response of the red fox to expansion of human habitation in the Trans-Himalayan mountains

“…Garbage dumps and other human wastes attract and serve as food sources for several carnivores such as spotted hyena Crocuta (Abay et al 2011), dingo Canis lupus dingo (Newsome et al 2013), coyote Canis latrans (Ditchkoff et al 2006), red fox Vulpes (Gloor et al 2001) and golden jackal Canis aureus (Macdonald 1979) and for the even larger ones such as black bear Ursus americanus (Rogers et al 1976), grizzly bear Ursus arctos (Blanchard 1987), and polar bear Ursus maritimus (Stempniewicz 2006;Dyck and Romberg 2007).…”

Environmental effects are stronger than human effects on mammalian predator-prey relationships in arid Australian ecosystems

“…The mechanism by which dingoes switch between prey was described as 'alternation of predation' by Corbett and Newsome (1987), where dingoes in desert areas switch between rodents and rabbits depending on their relative availability and the prevailing environmental conditions. Later findings by Newsome (2011); but see also Newsome et al (2013) concur, demonstrating an elevated risk of decline to desert mice (Pseudomys desertor; 25 g) where dingoes were provided alternative food subsidies. Pavey et al (2008) likewise report that rodents (including N. alexis) were the main prey for dingoes when available, occurring in over 70% of dingo scats, or at a rate of two rodents per dingo per day.…”