First use of a microchip-automated nest box in situ by a brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa)

Microchip-automated devices have the potential to provide individual free-living animals with safe nesting areas and act as a method of targeted food delivery, while excluding competitors and predators. Wildlife have been successfully trained to use such devices in captivity but never in the wild. Bringing animals into captivity may not always be feasible or appropriate due to the high cost, likely increased stress on the animals, and potential biosecurity risk. Therefore to demonstrate proof of concept that wildlife could be trained in situ to use commercially available microchip-automated devices, a brush-tailed phascogale in the wild was exposed to a microchip-automated door attached to a nest box. The phascogale was successfully trained within 15 days to use the microchip-automated door.

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

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

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

[4]  V. Pravosudov,et al.  An Arduino-Based RFID Platform for Animal Research , 2019, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[5]  R. Goldingay,et al.  Outcomes of decades long installation of nest boxes for arboreal mammals in southern Australia , 2018, Ecological Management & Restoration.

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

[8]  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.

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

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

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

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

[13]  A. Bennett,et al.  Nest-tree selection by the threatened brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) (Marsupialia : Dasyuridae) in a highly fragmented agricultural landscape , 2006 .

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

[15]  J. S. Bradley,et al.  The effect of drought on body size, growth and abundance of wild brush-tailed phascogales (Phascogale tapoatafa) in south-western Australia , 2002 .

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

[17]  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.

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