Study

Reducing nontarget recaptures of an endangered predator using conditioned aversion and reward removal

  • Published source details Phillips R.B. & Winchell C.S. (2011) Reducing nontarget recaptures of an endangered predator using conditioned aversion and reward removal. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1501-1507

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps

    A replicated, controlled study in 1992 and 1994 on an island in California, USA (Phillips & Winchell 2011) found that providing inaccessible bait inside a perforated can conditioned San Clemente Island foxes Urocyon littoralis clementae to avoid feral cat Felis catus traps. In the first year, fewer foxes were recaptured in traps with perforated can baits (8% recaught) than with accessible baits (52%). In the second year, fewer foxes were recaptured in traps using perforated can baits (1% recaptured) than those using accessible baits (27%). When bait treatments were switched between areas, recapture rates increased in those then receiving accessible bait and fell in those with perforated cans. Cat capture efficiency remained high throughout trials. Baits were placed in 8–20 cage traps/area on a 146-km2 island. In 1992, perforated can baits were used in two areas and accessible baits were used in three areas. In 1994, two areas received perforated can baits and accessible baits were used in three areas. Treatments were swapped over in these five areas after 41 days. Inaccessible baits were perforated cat food canisters (1992) or perforated plastic canisters containing cat food, tuna, raw hamburger and a fish oil scent (1994). Accessible baits were cat food, tuna and raw hamburger. Baits were used in traps from February through to June–July in 1992 and 1994.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Use conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps

    A replicated, controlled study in 1992–1993 on an island in California, USA (Phillips & Winchell 2011) found that lacing bait with lithium chloride reduced the rate of entry of San Clemente Island foxes Urocyon littoralis clementae into traps for feral cats Felis catus. In the first year, fewer foxes were recaptured using lithium chloride bait in traps (at 200 mg dose/kg of fox - 9% recaught) than using unlaced bait (52% recaught). In the second year, fewer foxes were recaptured in traps using lithium chloride bait (3% recaught) than using unlaced bait (30% recaught). In sites where lithium chloride bait was used for 41 days and then switched to non-laced baits, recapture rates remained low for around 10 days after the switch, and then increased. Baits were placed in cage traps on a 146-km2 island. In 1992, two areas received lithium chloride baits (which induce gastrointestinal discomfort) and unlaced baits were used in three areas. In 1993, two areas received lithium chloride baits which were then switched to unlaced baits after 41 days and seven areas received unlaced baits throughout. Eight to 20 traps were used/area. Baits comprised 50 g of mixed cat food, tuna and raw hamburger, placed in traps from February through to July–August in 1992–1993.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust