Island differences in population size structure and catch per unit effort and their conservation implications for Komodo dragons

Jessop, Tim S.; Madsen, Thomas; Ciofi, Claudio; Imansyah, M. Jeri; Purwandana, Deni; Rudiharto, Heru; Arifiandy, Achmad; Phillips, John A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.025

Cited by 35 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, Komodo dragons survived alongside various species of hominin (including H. sapiens and H. floresiensis) on the island of Flores, situated next to Komodo Island, for nearly a million years. The late Holocene geographic range contraction of Komodo dragons is most likely a result of habitat loss through the spread of agriculture and prey removal, rather than direct extermination (Ciofi, 2002;Jessop et al, 2007). If humans are implicated in their extinction in Australia, the contrast between island Southeast Asia and continental Australia is all the more remarkable given the ecological impacts humans famously have had on island ecosystems.…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 97%

Temporal overlap of humans and giant lizards (Varanidae; Squamata) in Pleistocene Australia

Price

Louys

Cramb

et al. 2015

Quaternary Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 97%

Temporal overlap of humans and giant lizards (Varanidae; Squamata) in Pleistocene Australia

Price

Louys

Cramb

et al. 2015

Quaternary Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Considered "vulnerable" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN, 2012], V. komodoensis is a keystone and umbrella species for the Monsoon forest ecosystem [Mills et al, 1993;Roberge and Angelstam, 2004] and plays an important role in the Lesser Sunda ecotourism development. A number of studies have been conducted on the population ecology, genetics, physiology, microbiology, management, and conservation of both captive and wild populations [e.g., Auffenberg, 1981;Ciofi et al, 1999;Montgomery et al, 2002;Murphy et al, 2002;Ciofi and de Boer, 2004;Watts et al, 2006;Ciofi et al, 2007;Jessop et al, 2007;Fry et al, 2009;Laver et al, 2012;Purwandana et al, 2014Purwandana et al, , 2015Ariefiandy et al, 2015;Bishop et al, 2017]. However, information on cytogenetics and genomics of this species is limited.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolating Chromosomes of the Komodo Dragon: New Tools for Comparative Mapping and Sequence Assembly

Iannucci

Altmanová

Ciofi

et al. 2019

Cytogenet Genome Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed new tools to build a high-quality chromosomal map of the Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) available for cross-species phylogenomic analyses. First, we isolated chromosomes by flow sorting and determined the chromosome content of each flow karyotype peak by FISH. We then isolated additional Komodo dragon chromosomes by microdissection and amplified chromosome-specific DNA pools. The chromosome-specific DNA pools can be sequenced, assembled, and mapped by next-generation sequencing technology. The chromosome-specific paint probes can be used to investigate karyotype evolution through cross-species chromosome painting. Overall, the set of chromosome-specific DNA pools of V. komodoensis provides new tools for detailed phylogenomic analyses of Varanidae and squamates in general.

show abstract

“…The importance of estimating changes in the abundances of rusa deer, feral pig and water buffalo populations will depend on their relative importance as prey for Komodo dragons. Demographic and diet studies suggest that rusa deer are the most important ungulate prey species for Komodo dragons (Auffenberg 1981, Jessop et al 2006Jessop et al , 2007. Our results indicate that distance sampling is a useful technique for estimating rusa deer density on large island sites, especially on Komodo Island where CVs were 21%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Continued annual monitoring of ungulate prey would provide valuable information for the management of Komodo dragon populations both inside and outside of KNP. Ungulates, particularly rusa deer, are the primary prey of large Komodo dragons (Auffenberg 1981), and Jessop et al (2006Jessop et al ( , 2007 showed that the maximum size of Komodo dragons increased with increasing ungulate prey density. Subsequent work will further investigate the relationships between Komodo dragon population dynamics and ungulate prey density, including annual and seasonal changes in hunting efficiency and kill rates.…”

Section: Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey method choice for wildlife management: the case of moose Alces alces in Sweden

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We need to monitor wildlife populations to determine whether management goals are achieved and to improve future decisions. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the cost and accuracy of monitoring strategies in the context of management. Using a computer simulation of a harvested population, we tested the relative performance of three survey methods: aerial survey, pellet-group counts and hunters' observations, to inform about the management of Swedish moose Alces alces populations. Where more than one survey method was used in a single year, we used Bayes' theorem to combine information and estimate population size. We used two measures of performance: the fraction of time in which the population had an 'undesirable' size and inter-annual variation in harvest. Furthermore, we traded these performance measures against their cost. An annual aerial survey was the most costly monitoring method (27,000E) and maintained the population within the desired range 72% of the time. The least expensive monitoring strategy (hunters' observations; 1,600E) maintained the population within a desired range of 66% of the time. A combination of two relatively inexpensive survey methods (i.e. pellet-group counts and hunters' observations; at an expense of 10,000E) maintained the population within the desired range in 76% of the simulated years. Thus, a combination of annual pellet-group counts and hunters' observations performed better than annual aerial surveys, but was considerably less expensive. Furthermore, the annual combination of pellet-group counts and hunters' observations also performed best regarding the inter-annual harvest variation. Management actions only maintained the population within the desired range 81% of the time, even when population size was observed without error, mainly due to variable net growth rates. In wildlife management systems, where a variety of monitoring methods are used, the overall performance generally improves with monitoring expenditure, but very few studies explicitly account for expenditure. However, our study shows that combinations of inexpensive methods can reduce monitoring costs substantially while yielding an equal or an increased performance.

show abstract

Island differences in population size structure and catch per unit effort and their conservation implications for Komodo dragons

Cited by 35 publications

References 33 publications

Temporal overlap of humans and giant lizards (Varanidae; Squamata) in Pleistocene Australia

Temporal overlap of humans and giant lizards (Varanidae; Squamata) in Pleistocene Australia

Isolating Chromosomes of the Komodo Dragon: New Tools for Comparative Mapping and Sequence Assembly

Survey method choice for wildlife management: the case of moose Alces alces in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About