Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T08:33:18.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The welfare of an unwanted guest in an urban environment: the case of the white-eared opossum (Didelphis albiventris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CSA Souza ,
CP Teixeira  and
RJ Young
CSA Souza
Affiliation:
Conservation, Ecology and Animal Behaviour Group, Prédio 41, Mestrado em Zoologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Av Dom José Gaspar, 500, Coração Eucarístico, 30535-610, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
CP Teixeira
Affiliation:
Conservation, Ecology and Animal Behaviour Group, Prédio 41, Mestrado em Zoologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Av Dom José Gaspar, 500, Coração Eucarístico, 30535-610, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
RJ Young*
Affiliation:
Conservation, Ecology and Animal Behaviour Group, Prédio 41, Mestrado em Zoologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Av Dom José Gaspar, 500, Coração Eucarístico, 30535-610, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
* 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.

One major problem facing wildlife is urbanisation, and the increasing contact between human city dwellers and animals. In this study, we investigated the problems of urban opossums (Didelphis albiventris), through the analysis involving responses to call-outs (n = 500) made by the environmental police of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil (2002 to 2007). Our objective was to characterise the problems faced by opossums and use this information to suggest how their welfare and urban management could be improved. Two types of call-outs were made: (i) solicitation whereby a person called them to report a problem; and (ii) the report of an injured animal. On average, one call-out was made every four days. There were no ‘time of year’ effects in relation to call-outs, or any effect of gender or age of the person making the call-out. Furthermore, we found no environmental (eg percentage of ‘green area’) or socio-economic variables (eg salary levels) associated with call-out frequency. The majority of call-outs resulted in the attempt to capture opossums, and usually only one animal was captured. Many of these animals were released into city forest fragments at a mean (± SEM) distance of 8,285 (± 727) m; (n = 312) from their point of capture. Injured animals were sent to veterinary clinics or to the Government's wildlife processing centre. From these data we were able to make recommendations regarding the welfare and management of urban opossums.

Keywords

animal welfarehuman-wildlife conflictsmarsupialstranslocationsurban wildlifewhite-eared opossums
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 2012 , pp. 177 - 183
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Almeida, AJ, Torquetti, CG and Talamoni, SA 2008 Use of space by neotropical marsupial Didelphis albiventris (Didelphimorphia: Didelphidae) in an urban forest fragment. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 25: 214–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752008000200008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cáceres, NC 2000 Population ecology and reproduction of the white-eared opossum Didelphis albiventris (Mammalia, Marsupialia) in an urban environment of Brazil. Ciência e Cultura 52: 171–174Google Scholar
Cerqueira, R 1985 The distribution of Didelphis in South America (Polyprotodontia, Didelphidae). Journal of Biogeography 12: 135–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2844837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmons, LH and Feer, F 1997 Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Fonseca, GAB, Redford, KH and Pereira, LA 1982 Notes on Didelphis albiventris (Lund, 1841) of Central Brazil. Ciência e Cultura 34: 1359–1362Google Scholar
Fuller, RA, Irvine, KN, Devine-Wright, P, Warren, PH and Gaston, KJ 2007 Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters 3: 390–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goulart, VDLR, Teixeira, CP and Young, RJ 2010 Analysis of callouts made in relation to wild urban marmosets (Callithrix penicillata) and their implications for urban species management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 641–649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-009-0362-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnthorsdottir, A 2001 Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös 14: 204–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, HA 2007 Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös 20: 7–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, MJ and Gilligan, CA 2000 Metapopulation dynamics of bubonic plague. Nature 407: 903–906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35038073CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolodinsky, J and Aleong, J 1990 An integrated model of consumer complaint action applied to services: a pilot study. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaint Behavior 3: 61–70Google Scholar
Krester, HE, Sullivan, PJ and Knuth, BA 2008 Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human-wildlife interactions in Northern New York. Landscape and Urban Planning 84: 282–292Google Scholar
Leite, GC, Duarte, MHL and Young, RJ 2011 Human-marmoset interactions in a city park. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132: 187–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maller, C, Townsend, M, Pryor, A, Brown, P and St Ledger, L 2005 Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International 21: 45–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maresova, J and Frynta, D 2008 Noah's Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: the case of bold snakes in zoos. Ecological Economics 64: 554–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, ML 2006 Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 126: 410–419Google Scholar
Ogra, M and Ruchi-Badola, R 2008 Compensating human-wildlife conflict in protected area communities: ground-level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Human Ecology 36: 717–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9189-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piasecki, T 2006 Evaluation of urban pigeon (Columba livia f. urbana) health status in relation to their threat to human's health. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 62: 531–535Google Scholar
PMBH 2003 D. anuário estatístico de Belo Horizonte 2003. Available from DIALOGUE: http://portal1.pbh.gov.br/pbh/pgedocument_visualizaconteudo_header.html?query=pp_conteudo.id=5472>. (Accessed 20 October 2006).+(Accessed+20+October+2006)>Google Scholar
Prokop, P, Fančovičová, J and Kubiatko, M 2009 Vampires are still alive: Slovakian students’ attitudes towards bats. Anthrozoös 22: 19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, LE, Lages-Silva, E, Alvarenga-Franco, F, Matos, A, Vargas, N, Fernandes, O and Zingales, B 2002 High prevalence of Trypanosoma rangeli and Trypanosoma cruzi in opossums and triatomids in a formerly-endemic area of Chagas disease in Southeast Brazil. Acta Tropica 84: 189–198. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0001-706X(02)00185-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosatte, RC and Maclnnes, CD 1989 Relocation of city raccoons. Proceedings of the Great Plains Wildlife Damage Conference 9: 87–92Google Scholar
Shartz, A, Shirley, S and Kark, S 2008 How do habitat variability and management regime shape the spatial heterogeneity of birds within a large Mediterranean urban park? Landscape and Urban Planning 84: 219–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talamoni, SA and Dias, MM 1999 Population and community ecology of small mammals in southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 63: 167–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1999.63.2.167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, CP, Hirsch, A, Perini, H and Young, RJ 2006 Marsupials from space: fluctuating asymmetry, geographical information systems and animal conservation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B273: 1007–1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3386Google Scholar
Teixeira, CP, Schetini, CA, Mendl, MT, Cipreste, CF and Young, RJ 2007 Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour 73: 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C, Nantha, HS and Wilson, C 2007 Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation? Ecological Economics 60: 627–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimberger, K and Downs, CT 2010 Annual intake trends of a large urban animal rehabilitation centre in South Africa: a case study. Animal Welfare 19: 501–513Google Scholar
Wimberger, K, Downs, CT and Boyes, RS 2010 A survey of wildlife rehabilitation in South Africa: is there a need for improved management? Animal Welfare 19: 481–499Google Scholar