Fertility Control of Eastern Grey Kangaroos: Do Levonorgestrel Implants Affect Behavior?

Poiani, Aldo; Coulson, Geoff; Salamon, Dylan; Holland, Sarah; Nave, C

doi:10.2307/3802871

Cited by 30 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chambers et al 1999;Poiani et al 2002;Kirkpatrick et al 2011;Table 2). A few studies have suggested that changes in socio-sexual behaviour involving decreased libido, decreased sexual activity and aggressiveness could lead to disruption of social structure and spacing behaviour.…”

Section: Fertility-control Impact On Wildlife Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beringer et al 2002;Cowan and Quy 2003;Sharp and Saunders 2008;McLeod and Saunders 2014). This growing antipathy toward lethal methods places increasing constraints on wildlife management options, particularly for high-profile, iconic species (Barr et al 2002;Poiani et al 2002;Druce et al 2011). Consequently, there has been growing interest in non-lethal methods such as translocation and fertility control (Duka and Masters 2005;Barfield et al 2006;Fagerstone et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fertility control to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts: a review

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. As human populations grow, conflicts with wildlife increase. Concurrently, concerns about the welfare, safety and environmental impacts of conventional lethal methods of wildlife management restrict the options available for conflict mitigation. In parallel, there is increasing interest in using fertility control to manage wildlife. The present review aimed at analysing trends in research on fertility control for wildlife, illustrating developments in fertility-control technologies and delivery methods of fertility-control agents, summarising the conclusions of empirical and theoretical studies of fertility control applied at the population level and offering criteria to guide decisions regarding the suitability of fertility control to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. The review highlighted a growing interest in fertility control for wildlife, underpinned by increasing numbers of scientific studies. Most current practical applications of fertility control for wild mammals use injectable single-dose immunocontraceptive vaccines mainly aimed at sterilising females, although many of these vaccines are not yet commercially available. One oral avian contraceptive, nicarbazin, is commercially available in some countries. Potential new methods of remote contraceptive delivery include bacterial ghosts, virus-like particles and genetically modified transmissible and non-transmissible organisms, although none of these have yet progressed to field testing. In parallel, new species-specific delivery systems have been developed. The results of population-level studies of fertility control indicated that this approach may increase survival and affect social and spatial behaviour of treated animals, although the effects are species-and context-specific. The present studies suggested that a substantial initial effort is generally required to reduce population growth if fertility control is the sole wildlife management method. However, several empirical and field studies have demonstrated that fertility control, particularly of isolated populations, can be successfully used to limit population growth and reduce human-wildlife conflicts. In parallel, there is growing recognition of the possible synergy between fertility control and disease vaccination to optimise the maintenance of herd immunity in the management of wildlife diseases. The review provides a decision tree that can be used to determine whether fertility control should be employed to resolve specific human-wildlife conflicts. These criteria encompass public consultation, considerations about animal welfare and feasibility, evaluation of population responses, costs and sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Fertility-control Impact On Wildlife Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fertility control to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts: a review

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sterilization resulted in no difference in territory size, overlap or territorial behavior between controls and treated coyote packs (Bromley & Gese 2001). Consequently, most studies suggest that contraception had minimal impact on home range size and movement patterns, but there was some evidence that male kangaroos alter their movement patterns to be in groups of untreated females, or with treated females during the nonbreeding season (Poiani et al 2002).…”

Section: Are Home Ranges and Movement Patterns Altered?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MGA treatment in tamarins caused a decrease in affiliative and sexual interactions, with a subsequent increase in aggression towards other females (De Vleeschouwer et al 2000. Poiani et al (2002) found that progesterone treatment altered the amount of time males spent with females, as males preferred to be in groups with untreated females. In elephants, the matriarch remained in place after treatment with PZP (Delsink et al 2002), but changes occurred with hormonal treatments (unpublished study described in Fayrer-Hosken et al (2000)).…”

Section: Does Rank and Dominance Change In Treated Females?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With PZP treatment, no changes were detected in activity budgets of elk, horses, elephants, and whitetailed deer females (McShea et al 1997, Heilmann et al 1998, Powell 1999, Delsink et al 2002, although the increased number of estrous cycles resulted in PZP treated white-tailed does being more active than control females (McShea et al 1997). GNRH did not change activity budgets in treated kangaroo females (Woodward et al 2006), nor did progesterone implants in kangaroos (Poiani et al 2002), or fruit bats (Hayes et al 1996). However, MGA treatment caused baboons to decrease their time foraging (Portugal & Asa 1995).…”

Section: Do Activity Patterns Change In Treated Individuals?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does contraceptive treatment in wildlife result in side effects? A review of quantitative and anecdotal evidence

Gray

Cameron²

2010

Reproduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of contraceptive treatments has been extensively tested, and several formulations are effective at reducing fertility in a range of species. However, these formulations should minimally impact the behavior of individuals and populations before a contraceptive is used for population manipulation, but these effects have received less attention. Potential side effects have been identified theoretically and we reviewed published studies that have investigated side effects on behavior and physiology of individuals or population-level effects, which provided mixed results. Physiological side effects were most prevalent. Most studies reported a lack of secondary effects, but were usually based on qualitative data or anecdotes. A meta-analysis on quantitative studies of side effects showed that secondary effects consistently occur across all categories and all contraceptive types. This contrasts with the qualitative studies, suggesting that anecdotal reports are insufficient to investigate secondary impacts of contraceptive treatment. We conclude that more research is needed to address fundamental questions about secondary effects of contraceptive treatment and experiments are fundamental to conclusions. In addition, researchers are missing a vital opportunity to use contraceptives as an experimental tool to test the influence of reproduction, sex and fertility on the behavior of wildlife species.Reproduction (2010) 139 45-55

show abstract

Do fecal odors from native and non‐native predators cause a habitat shift among macropods?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predator-odor-based repellents have benefits as humane, non-lethal management tools that may reduce the need for lethal control in some areas. Macropods (such as kangaroos and wallabies) are iconic Australian native marsupials; however, some are considered important rangeland pests, and their presence in the urban and peri-urban environment often results in conflict. The management of these macropods is a contentious and volatile issue. We evaluated lion (Panthera leo), Sumatran tiger (P. tigris sumatrae), and dingo (Canis lupus dingo) fecal odors as short-term odor-based repellents for wild eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) and red-necked wallabies (M. rufogriseus). These odors were used to 'protect' highly palatable food sources; with any food not consumed (residue) collected and weighed each day. Trials were conducted at Long Grass Nature Reserve in Queensland, Australia from 9-29 January 2009. Both eastern grey kangaroos and red-necked wallabies relocated a minimum of 100 m away from the food station treated with lion odors on the first day of the trial. As a result of this spatial shift, more food was consumed at the control food stations than at any food station treated with predator odors (regardless of predator). In particular, eastern grey kangaroos never fed from a single predator-odor food station. An increase in vigilance behaviors was observed for both macropod species, and red-necked wallabies were more likely to exhibit vigilance behaviors than feeding behaviors at predator odor food stations. There was no difference in food residue between any predator odors and these food stations were only visited on the first day of the study. Use of predator fecal odors may repel macropods from highly palatable food sources, and predator fecal odors also may be useful for macropod relocation. Ó

show abstract

Fertility Control of Eastern Grey Kangaroos: Do Levonorgestrel Implants Affect Behavior?

Cited by 30 publications

References 24 publications

Fertility control to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts: a review

Fertility control to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts: a review

Does contraceptive treatment in wildlife result in side effects? A review of quantitative and anecdotal evidence

Do fecal odors from native and non‐native predators cause a habitat shift among macropods?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About