Field assessment of the risk of feral cat baits to nontarget species in eastern Australia

Feral cats (Felis catus) pose a significant threat to wildlife, agriculture, and human health through predation, disease transmission, and competition with native animals. Controlling feral cats and their impacts, however, is challenging. New and emerging 1080-based feral cat baits have shown promising results in western and central Australia; however, the safety of these new baits for nontarget species in eastern Australia, where many native animals are more sensitive to compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) than their western conspecifics, has not been assessed. We investigated the uptake of 499 toxic Eradicat^® baits by nontarget animals across five different eastern Australian environs and the uptake of nontoxic Eradicat and Hisstory^® baits at an additional two sites. Using field-based observations of species eating or removing baits, we determined that 13 nontarget species (eight mammals, four birds, and one reptile) were at high risk of individual mortality, with individuals of 11 of those 13 species (seven mammals, four birds) observed consuming enough toxic Eradicat in a single visit to ingest a lethal dose of 1080. Feral cats (the target species) consumed only 3.1% of monitored baits, which was only 52% of the 31 baits they encountered. We recommend undertaking targeted population monitoring of species identified at high risk of individual mortality, to determine whether Eradicat baits present a population-level risk to these species. Our findings suggest that the small-sized Eradicat baits present a greater risk to nontarget species in eastern Australia than the larger traditional 1080-based meat baits used for the control of wild dogs and foxes. Our study highlights the importance of performing risk assessments for different bait types, even when the same toxin is used, and of performing site-specific nontarget risk assessments of new baits such as Eradicat to assist developing guidelines for their safe and effective use in different environs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:224-244. © 2021 State of Queensland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2021 SETAC.

Underlying beliefs linked to public opinion about gene drive and pest-specific toxin for pest control

Abstract ContextDeveloping a new tool for wide-scale rat eradication is necessary for significant biodiversity gains. Underlying beliefs linked to public opinion can help guide policy makers to understand public concern and inform an effective discourse. AimsWe investigated underlying beliefs linked to levels of support for a potentially disruptive tool, gene drive, compared with a traditional stepwise tool, aerial distribution of a new pest-specific toxin. MethodsUsing the theory of planned behaviour, we surveyed (n=1200) a representative sample of New Zealanders to assess the level of support for the tool related to attitude, normative and control beliefs. Key resultsAttitude (e.g. gene drive is good/bad and gene drive is risky/safe) and two norms (e.g. people like me and people in my household) were key contributors to level of support for gene drive. Behavioural beliefs (if scientific evidence can prove it works, concern there are unknown consequences, a humane way to rid New Zealand of rats, and gene drive goes against natural way of life) were also significant. For aerial distribution of a new pest-specific toxin, the same attitudes and normative beliefs identified for gene drive also contributed significantly to the model. Four behavioural beliefs, namely, aerial delivery could affect areas outside the target zones, if there is scientific evidence, and it is impossible to make a pest-specific toxin that would not harm our native wildlife were also significant. The impact either tool may have on biodiversity was not significant in either model. ConclusionsDecision making about both gene drive (a disruptive technology) and aerial distribution of a pest-specific toxin (a stepwise technology) is primarily influenced by attitudes, with a few beliefs also influencing decision making. Novelty of the tool does not affect the underlying beliefs that are influencing levels of support. ImplicationsPublic engagement that acknowledges and responds to these underlying beliefs, rather than a traditional campaign based on biodiversity and environmental gains, may be more effective at creating a constructive dialogue about if and how these tools should be used, and to avoid replicating the polarised debate about 1080.

On the right track: placement of camera traps on roads improves detection of predators and shows non-target impacts of feral cat baiting

Abstract ContextTo understand the ecological consequences of predator management, reliable and accurate methods are needed to survey and detect predators and the species with which they interact. Recently, poison baits have been developed specifically for lethal and broad-scale control of feral cats in Australia. However, the potential non-target effects of these baits on other predators, including native apex predators (dingoes), and, in turn, cascading effects on lower trophic levels (large herbivores), are poorly understood. AimsWe examined the effect that variation in camera trapping-survey design has on detecting dingoes, feral cats and macropodids, and how different habitat types affect species occurrences. We then examined how a feral cat poison baiting event influences the occupancy of these sympatric species. MethodsWe deployed 80 remotely triggered camera traps over the 2410-km2 Matuwa Indigenous Protected Area, in the semiarid rangelands of Western Australia, and used single-season site-occupancy models to calculate detection probabilities and occupancy for our target species before and after baiting. Key resultsCameras placed on roads were ~60 times more likely to detect dingoes and feral cats than were off-road cameras, whereas audio lures designed to attract feral cats had only a slight positive effect on detection for all target species. Habitat was a significant factor affecting the occupancy of dingoes and macropodids, but not feral cats, with both species being positively associated with open woodlands. Poison baiting to control feral cats did not significantly reduce their occupancy but did so for dingoes, whereas macropodid occupancy increased following baiting and reduced dingo occupancy. ConclusionsCamera traps on roads greatly increase the detection probabilities for predators, whereas audio lures appear to add little or no value to increasing detection for any of the species we targeted. Poison baiting of an invasive mesopredator appeared to negatively affect a non-target, native apex predator, and, in turn, may have resulted in increased activity of large herbivores. ImplicationsManagement and monitoring of predators must pay careful attention to survey design, and lethal control of invasive mesopredators should be approached cautiously so as to avoid potential unintended negative ecological consequences (apex-predator suppression and herbivore release).

Aerial baiting for feral cats is unlikely to affect survivorship of northern quolls in the Pilbara region of Western Australia

Abstract ContextFeral cats (Felis catus) are known predators of northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus). Management to suppress feral cat densities often uses the poison sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) in baits broadcast aerially. Eradicat® baits have demonstrated efficacy at reducing feral cat densities in some environments. However, these are not registered for use in northern Australia because their risk to non-target northern quolls remains unknown. AimsWe investigated the risks of aerially deployed feral cat Eradicat® baits containing 4.5mg of the poison 1080 on the survival of free-ranging northern quolls. MethodsThe study was conducted over a 20000-ha area in the Pilbara bioregion in Western Australia. Twenty-one wild northern quolls from a baited area and 20 quolls from a nearby reference area were fitted with radio-collars, and their survivorship was compared following the aerial deployment of over 9700 feral cat baits. Survivorship of quolls was assessed before and after the baiting campaign. Key resultsFive radio-collared quolls died at the baited area; four mortalities were due to feral cat predation, and the cause of one death was uncertain. At the reference area, seven radio-collared quolls were confirmed dead; three mortalities were due to feral cat predation, two from wild dog predation, and the cause of death of two could not be determined. Evidence for sublethal poison impacts on quolls, inferred by monitoring reproductive output, was lacking; average litter size was higher in quolls from the baited area than in those from the unbaited area, and within range of litters reported elsewhere, suggesting that acute effects of 1080 (if ingested) on reproductive success were unlikely. ConclusionsRadio-collared northern quolls survived the trial using Eradicat® baits, and females showed no acute effects of sublethal poisoning on the basis of reproductive output. A lack of quoll deaths attributed to 1080 poisoning suggests that the use of Eradicat® poses a low risk to northern quolls in the Pilbara. Importantly, the high level of mortalities associated with predation by feral cats, and to a lesser extent, canids, validates the threats of these introduced predators on quolls, suggesting that their control in areas where quolls are present is likely to be beneficial for the recovery of this species. ImplicationsLand managers aiming to conserve northern quolls in the Pilbara would see conservation benefits if they introduced an operational landscape-scale feral cat baiting program using Eradicat® baits, with appropriate monitoring.

High variation in camera trap-model sensitivity for surveying mammal species in northern Australia

Context The use of camera traps as a wildlife survey tool has rapidly increased, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the technology is imperative to assess the degree to which research objectives are met. Aims We evaluated the differences in performance among three Reconyx camera-trap models, namely, a custom-modified high-sensitivity PC850, and unmodified PC850 and HC550. Methods We undertook a controlled field trial to compare the performance of the three models on Groote Eylandt, Northern Territory, by observing the ability of each model to detect the removal of a bait by native mammals. We compared variation in detecting the known event, trigger numbers, proportion of false triggers and the difference in detection probability of small to medium-sized mammals. Key results The high-sensitivity PC850 model detected bait take 75% of the time, as opposed to 33.3% and 20% for the respective unmodified models. The high-sensitivity model also increased the detection probability of the smallest mammal species from 0.09 to 0.34. However, there was no significant difference in detection probability for medium-sized mammals. Conclusions Despite the three Reconyx camera models having similar manufacturer-listed specifications, they varied substantially in their performance. The high-sensitivity model vastly improved the detection of known events and the detection probability of small mammals in northern Australia. Implications Failure to consider variation in camera-trap performance can lead to inaccurate conclusions when multiple camera models are used. Consequently, researchers should carefully consider the parameters and capabilities of camera models in study designs. Camera models and their configurations should be reported in methods, and variation in detection probabilities among different models and configurations should be incorporated into analyses.