Analyzes feral buffalo movement patterns in relation to resources in Northern Australia, indicating the need for adaptive management strategies.
Context Feral buffalo are a problematic invasive species in northern Australia, associated with significant environmental, cultural, and economic impacts. Objectives Effective management requires understanding the environmental factors that drive their seasonal movements and distributions. Methods To support evidence-based management we GPS tracked 15 female buffalo over 15 months spanning two dry seasons and 1 wet season in the Djelk Indigenous Protected Area. We combined GPS locations with satellite data to analyse their movement responses to water availability, fire, vegetation and habitat characteristics. Results During the wet season, when resources are abundant, buffalo distribution was shaped primarily by vegetation characteristics and post-fire growth. In the wet season buffalo appeared to forage in floodplain areas and transited through dry grasslands and shrublands. In the dry season, when resources become scarcer, buffalo distribution was strongly tied to water availability. Vegetation selection patterns resembled those of the wet season but were weaker, maintaining a persistent attraction to floodplain, and with more homogenous movement characteristics among vegetation types. Conclusions These findings suggest that buffalo exhibited more variable movement behaviours among habitat types when resources were abundant but adopted more homogenous movement strategies under resource-poor conditions. Management should therefore consider prioritising control in areas of high vegetation density during the wet season, while focussing management effort near key water sources during the dry season. Seasonal variability in buffalo movement highlights the need for adaptive, flexible management strategies. These strategies should reduce environmental impacts and support Indigenous and other land managers protect cultural and ecological values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pike et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: