In Situ Training of Brushtail Possums to use Microchip‐automated Doors

Individually targeted resource supplementation for wildlife is difficult to achieve when other non-target, free-living animals can access the resource. The use of microchip-automated technology has the potential to improve conservation outcomes globally. Microchip-automated technology can facilitate targeted food and nesting supplementation, while offering a refuge from predators and competitors. Eight adult wildborn brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) were trained in situ to use commercially available microchip-automated doors installed on nest boxes placed within 5 m of their most used nesting site. Training to use the microchip-automated door was conducted in three stages where the position of the door was lowered in sequential stages until it was fully closed at stage 3. Training was deemed complete at each stage when the possum entered the nest box on 2 separate nights. Seven of the 8 possums completed training. Successful training demonstrated that free living possums can be trained to use microchip-automated technology in situ, thus avoiding stress, costs, and biosecurity risks associated with bringing wild animals into captivity for training. Training methods can be extrapolated to a wider range of species to assist with wildlife management from reintroductions to sustaining reduced populations.

[1]  J. Hoy,et al.  First use of a microchip-automated nest box in situ by a brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) , 2021 .

[2]  B. D. Taylor,et al.  Nest box contentions: Are nest boxes used by the species they target? , 2020 .

[3]  J. Hoy,et al.  Bandicoot bunkers: training wild-caught northern brown bandicoots (Isoodon macrourus) to use microchip-automated safe refuge , 2020, Wildlife Research.

[4]  L. Romero,et al.  Chronic captivity stress in wild animals is highly species-specific , 2019, Conservation physiology.

[5]  R. Heinsohn,et al.  Photosensitive automated doors to exclude small nocturnal predators from nest boxes , 2018, Animal Conservation.

[6]  J. Hoy,et al.  Microchips for macropods: First use of a microchip-automated door by a bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata). , 2018, Zoo biology.

[7]  S. Kark,et al.  Nest-site competition between invasive and native cavity nesting birds and its implication for conservation. , 2016, Journal of environmental management.

[8]  B. D. Taylor,et al.  Specific nest box designs can improve habitat restoration for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals , 2015 .

[9]  P. Harrison,et al.  Ongoing unraveling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Jeff Short,et al.  Successful reintroduction of the brushtail possum to Wadderin Sanctuary in the eastern wheatbelt of Western Australia , 2014 .

[11]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Hollow futures? Tree decline, lag effects and hollow‐dependent species , 2013 .

[12]  L. Leung,et al.  Den use, home range and territoriality of the koomal (Trichosurus vulpecula hypoleucus) with implications for current forest management strategies , 2012, Australian Journal of Zoology.

[13]  R. Arlettaz,et al.  Massive Nest-Box Supplementation Boosts Fecundity, Survival and Even Immigration without Altering Mating and Reproductive Behaviour in a Rapidly Recovered Bird Population , 2012, PloS one.

[14]  Corey J. A. Bradshaw,et al.  Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization , 2012 .

[15]  G. Mason.  Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  J. Hoy,et al.  The potential for microchip-automated technology to improve enrichment practices. , 2010, Zoo biology.

[17]  A. Zerger,et al.  Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  M. Fisher,et al.  Invasive pathogens threaten species recovery programs , 2008, Current Biology.

[19]  D. Naugle,et al.  Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Energy Development and Habitat Loss , 2007 .

[20]  Chris T. Tromborg,et al.  Sources of stress in captivity , 2007 .

[21]  M. McCarthy,et al.  The use of nest boxes in urban natural vegetation remnants by vertebrate fauna , 2005 .

[22]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  The use of nest boxes by arboreal marsupials in the forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria , 2003 .

[23]  Geoffrey C. Smith,et al.  The value of ‘bat boxes’ for attracting hollow‐dependent fauna to farm forestry plantations in southeast Queensland , 2002 .

[24]  S. Beissinger,et al.  Limitations of Captive Breeding in Endangered Species Recovery , 1996 .

[25]  J. Hoy,et al.  Training a wild-born marsupial to use microchip-automated devices: the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) as proof of concept , 2019, Australian Mammalogy.

[26]  O. Kiss,et al.  The effectiveness of nest-box supplementation for the conservation of european rollers (Coracias garrulus) , 2017 .

[27]  B. Minteer,et al.  Ecological ethics in captivity: balancing values and responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. , 2013, ILAR journal.

[28]  M. W. Butler,et al.  Nest box design for the study of diurnal raptors and owls is still an overlooked point in ecological, evolutionary and conservation studies: a review , 2011, Journal of Ornithology.

[29]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  The use of nest trees by the mountain brushtail possum (Trichosurus caninus) (Phalangeridae : Marsupialia). V. Synthesis of studies , 1998 .

[30]  J. Coleman,et al.  Den Sites of Possums, Trichosurus-Vulpecula, and Frequency of Use in Mixed Hardwood Forest in Westland, New-Zealand , 1987 .