Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Non-Lethal Control of Wildlife: Using Chemical Repellents as Feeding Deterrents for the European Badger Meles meles

Sandra E. Baker, Stephen A. Ellwood, Richard Watkins and David W. MacDonald
Journal of Applied Ecology
Vol. 42, No. 5 (Oct., 2005), pp. 921-931
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3505752
Page Count: 11
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($18.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Non-Lethal Control of Wildlife: Using Chemical Repellents as Feeding Deterrents for the European Badger Meles meles
Preview not available

Abstract

1. Non-lethal methods of controlling wildlife foraging damage may offer conservation, ethical, legal and efficacy advantages over lethal control. Chemical repellents present a potential non-lethal approach, but have not been adequately researched in natural environments. Many previous studies have been poorly designed and a lack of data on individual behavioural responses has limited the practical development of repellents. We aimed to identify effective repellents for resolving feeding conflict with wild mammals, using European badgers Meles meles as models. 2. We tested the relative efficacy of capsaicin, cinnamamide and ziram, in a multichoice paradigm, using remote video-surveillance to obtain detailed behavioural observations of known free-ranging individuals. Treatment nights were alternated with control nights over 56 nights. 3. Badgers discriminated precisely between the four treatments, demonstrating a clear preference for untreated baits, followed by cinnamamide and capsaicin (in no particular order) and then ziram. 4. All untreated baits, and baits treated with capsaicin or cinnamamide, were eaten throughout the trial. 5. Ziram baits were fully consumed on treatment nights 1 and 2. Ziram consumption then declined to zero between treatment nights 3 and 9, this coinciding with a sharp rise in bait patch rejection. This 'learning curve' peaked at treatment night 7. We conclude that badgers developed conditioned taste aversion towards ziram-treated baits at this point. Ziram bait consumption was practically zero over the last 20 treatment nights (40 trial nights) and individuals avoided ziram baits, without sampling, for the last 12-22 treatment nights (24-44 trial nights). Observed changes in badger behaviour suggested that avoidance at a distance was facilitated by odour cues. 6. Synthesis and applications. This study provides proof of the concept that ziram has clear potential for reducing badger feeding damage through conditioned taste aversion to an odour. Our detailed observations allowed us to elucidate the behavioural mechanism involved, crucial for directing future development of this approach, thus demonstrating the importance of studying individual responses in wildlife management research. Second-order conditioning, such as this, might be applicable to managing other wild mammals. The next step will be to develop a strategy for use in wildlife damage situations.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[921]
    [921]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
922
    922
  • Thumbnail: Page 
923
    923
  • Thumbnail: Page 
924
    924
  • Thumbnail: Page 
925
    925
  • Thumbnail: Page 
926
    926
  • Thumbnail: Page 
927
    927
  • Thumbnail: Page 
928
    928
  • Thumbnail: Page 
929
    929
  • Thumbnail: Page 
930
    930
  • Thumbnail: Page 
931
    931