Conditioned taste aversion enhances the survival of an endangered predator imperilled by a toxic invader

Publisher:
Wiley-Blackwell
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Citation:
Journal Of Applied Ecology, 2010, 47 (3), pp. 558 - 565
Issue Date:
2010-01
Full metadata record
Files in This Item:
Filename Description Size
Thumbnail2011003960OK.pdfPublished Version445.04 kB
Adobe PDF
Even when we cannot eradicate an invasive species, we may be able to reduce its ecological impact. In Australia, a critically endangered predator, the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus is threatened by the invasion of the highly toxic cane toad Bufo marinus. Following toad invasion, quoll populations have become extinct across Northern Australia. Toads are continuing to spread, and will soon invade the Kimberley, one of the quoll's last strongholds. To prevent future local extinctions, we need a new approach for mitigating the impact of cane toads on this iconic predator. We investigated whether conditioned taste aversion (CTA) could be used to modify quoll predatory behaviour and mitigate toad impacts. We successfully induced an aversion to live toads in juvenile northern quolls by feeding them a dead toad containing a nausea-inducing chemical (thiabendazole). To investigate whether CTA enhanced quoll survival, we fitted radiocollars to 31 toad-smart and 31 toad-naive quolls, and monitored their survival after reintroduction to the wild. We analysed telemetry data using the program MARK to investigate whether survival was influenced by sex or experimental treatment (toad-smart vs. toad-naive). Five of 17 (29%) toad-naive male quolls died shortly after release, as soon as they encountered and attacked large cane toads. In toad-naive quolls, apparent survival rates were higher for females (0 center dot 84) than for males (0 center dot 58), reflecting a sex difference in the propensity to attack toads. In both sexes, toad-smart quolls had higher apparent survival rates than did toad-naive conspecifics (mean daily apparent survival rates for females, 0 center dot 94 vs. 0 center dot 84 respectively; for males, 0 center dot 88 vs. 0 center dot 58).
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: