Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:32:33.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short-term welfare implications of capture-mark-recapture trapping of medium-sized mammals: the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) as a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

P Cowan ,
G Forrester  and
B Warburton
P Cowan*
Affiliation:
Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand
G Forrester
Affiliation:
Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand
B Warburton
Affiliation:
Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Capture-mark-recapture (CMR) repeated at intervals is a commonly used method of population estimation of mammals. Most guidelines for the use of wild mammals recommend adequate measures to ensure a captured animal has food and water available, as needed, until it is released. Small mammals are often highlighted as needing special care, but recommendations are either less clear or absent for medium- and large-sized mammals. We therefore examined the short-term welfare implications of CMR trapping of medium-sized mammals, using the marsupial, brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) as a case study. Possums were caught in cage traps baited with circa 30 g of food and set for three consecutive days at monthly intervals. Timing devices on the traps measured when traps were sprung. Possums were confined in traps for, on average, 89% of each night they were trapped, plus a further 2-6 h between sunrise and the actual time of release from the traps. They lost 3-8% of their bodyweight on average, depending on the number of captures in a trapping session. A recently developed framework for humaneness assessment, based on five welfare domains, gave an overall welfare impact of mild-moderate for cage trapping of possums. The short-term solutions to these welfare impacts would be, at a minimum, to provide trapped possums with adequate additional food and water, and minimise their time spent in the traps. Guidelines for the use of wild animals in research and management could also be more prescriptive regarding the provision of food and water in studies of medium-sized mammals that involve repeated capture.

Keywords

activity patternsanimal welfaremark recapturepossumTrichosurus vulpeculaweight loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , November 2013 , pp. 423 - 428
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 2012 Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behavior 83: 301–309. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamford, JM 1970 Estimating fat reserves in the brush-tailed possum, Trichosurus vulpecula Kerr (Marsupialia: Phalangeridae). Australian Journal of Zoology 18: 415–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO9700415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattet, M, Boulanger, J, Stenhouse, G, Powell, RA and Reynolds-Hogland, MJ 2008 An evaluation of long-term capture effects in ursids: implications for wildlife welfare and research. Journal of Mammalogy 89: 973–990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-095.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCAC 2003 Guidelines on the Care and Use of Wildlife. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Clinchy, M, Krebs, CJ and Jarman, PJ 2001 Dispersal sinks and handling effects: interpreting the role of immigration in common brushtail possum populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 515–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00510.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, TH and Pemberton, JM 2004 Soay Sheep; Dynamics and Selection in an Island Population. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Cowan, PE 1987 The influence of lures and relative opportunity for capture on catches of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 14: 149–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03014223.1987.10422986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P 2005 Brushtail possum. In: King, CM (ed) The Handbook of New Zealand Mammals, 2nd Edition pp 56–80. Oxford University Press: Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P and Forrester, G 2012 Behavioural responses of brushtail possums to live trapping and implications for trap-catch correction. Wildlife Research 39: 343–349Google Scholar
Cowan, P, Clark, J, Heath, D, Stankiewicz, M and Meers, J 2000 Predators, parasites and diseases of possums. In: Montague, T (ed) The Brushtail Possum: Biology, Impact and Management of an Introduced Marsupial pp 82–91. Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Dennis, TE and Shah, SF 2012 Assessing acute effects of trapping, handling, and tagging on the behavior of wildlife using GPS telemetry: a case study of the common brushtail possum. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 15: 189–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2012.683755Google ScholarPubMed
Efford, MG and Cowan, PE 2004 Long-term population trend of the common brushtail possums Trichosurus vulpecula in the Orongorongo Valley, New Zealand. In: Goldingay, RT and Jackson, SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders pp 471–483. Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton, UKGoogle Scholar
Flynn, EM, Munks, SA and Jones, SM 2011 Influences of forest type and disturbance on reproduction of the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Journal of Mammalogy 92: 1050–1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-277.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelling, M, McLaren, GW, Matthews, F, Mian, R and Macdonald, DW 2009 Impact of trapping and handling on leucocyte coping capacity in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) and wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) Animal Welfare 18: 1–7Google Scholar
Glen, AS, Byrom, AE, Pech, RP, Cruz, J, Schwab, A, Sweetapple, PJ, Yockney, I, Nugent, G, Coleman, M and Whitford, J 2012 Ecology of brushtail possums in a New Zealand dryland ecosystem. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36: 29–37Google Scholar
Godfrey, JD and Bryant, DM 2003 Effects of radio transmitters: review of recent radio-tracking studies. Conservation applications of measuring energy expenditure in New Zealand birds. Assessing habitat quality and costs of carrying radio transmitters. Science for Conservation 214: 83–95Google Scholar
Herbert, PA and Lewis, RD 1999 The chronobiology of the brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula (Marsupialia: Phalangeridae): tests of internal and external control of timing. Australian Journal of Zoology 47: 579–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO99035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
How, RA and Hillcox, SJ 2000 Brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula, populations in south-western Australia: demography, diet and conservation status. Wildlife Research 27: 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR98064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iossa, G, Soulsbury, CD and Harris, S 2007 Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Animal Welfare 16: 335–352Google Scholar
Isaac, JL 2005a Mass loss during the mating season in male common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula); implications for age-specific variation in mating strategy. Journal of Zoology (London) 266: 181–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095283690500676XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, JL 2005b Life history and demographics of an island possum population. Australian Journal of Zoology 53: 195–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO05018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, JL 2006 Sexual dimorphism in a marsupial: seasonal and lifetime differences in sex-specific mass. Australian Journal of Zoology 54: 45–50. Isaac JL http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO05060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenness, CA and Ward, GD 1985 A versatile timer for field studies in animal ecology. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 1025–1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3801389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLennan, DG 1984 The feeding behaviour and activity patterns of the brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula, in an open eucalypt woodland in southeast Queensland. In: Goldingay, RT and Jackson, SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders pp 155–161. Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton, UKGoogle Scholar
McLaren, GW, Matthews, F, Fell, R, Gelling, M and Macdonald, DW 2004 Body weight change as a measure of stress: a practical test. Animal Welfare 13: 337–341Google Scholar
McMahon, CJ, Collier, N, Northfield, JK and Glen, F 2011 Taking the time to assess the effects of remote sensing and tracking devices on animals. Animal Welfare 20: 515–521Google Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Reid, CSW 1994 Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker, RM, Jenkin, G and Mellor, DJ (eds) Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment pp 3–18. ANZCCART: Glen Osmond, South AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 2012 Malnutrition and Starvation. www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12150_12220-26946—,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
Montague, T 2000 The Brushtail Possum: Biology, Impacts and Management of an Introduced Marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Moorhouse, TP and Macdonald, DWJ 2005 Indirect negative impacts of radio-collaring: sex ratio variation in water voles. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 91–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.00998.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nugent, G, Sweetapple, P, Coleman, J and Suisted, P 2000 Possum feeding patterns; dietary tactics of a reluctant folivore. In: Montague, T (ed) The Brushtail Possum: Biology, Impact and Management of an Introduced Marsupial pp 10–19. Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Otis, DL, Burnham, KP, White, GC and Anderson, DR 1978 Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62: 1–135Google Scholar
Parmenter, CA, Yates, TL, Parmeter, RR, Mill, JN, Childs, JE, Campbell, ML, Dunnum, JL and Milner, J 1998 Small mammal survival and trappability in mark-recapture monitoring programs for hantavirus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, and the R Development Core Team 2012 nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-105. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2012 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Sharp, T and Saunders, G 2011 A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods, Second Edition. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, ACT, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Sikes RS, Gannon WL and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists 2011 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild animals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 92: 235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Macdonald, DW and Roddam, AW 2003 Response to Delahay, Mallinson, Spyvee, Handoll, de Leeuw and Cheeseman. Journal of Zoology (London) 260: 120–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903233562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, B, Gregory, N and Bunce, M 1999 Stress response of Australian brushtail possums captured in foothold and cage traps. In: Proulx, G (ed) Mammal Trapping pp 53–66. Alpha Wildlife Research and Management Ltd: Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Ward, GD 1978 Habitat use and home range of radio-tagged opossums, Trichosurus vulpecula in New Zealand lowland forest. In: Montgomery, GG (ed) The Ecology of Arboreal Folivores pp 267–287. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Winter, JW 1976 The behaviour and social organization of the brush-tail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar