Personality influences wildlife responses to aversive conditioning

Abstract

Ungulate species around the world are habituating to humans and human infrastructure, which can cause the loss of migratory behavior, local overpopulation, ecosystem damage, and human-wildlife interactions. Wildlife managers sometimes attempt to reduce habituation by subjecting ungulates to aversive conditioning, comprised of negative stimuli in association with specific locations or behaviors, but high variability in the responsiveness of animals has limited the utility of this technique. We studied this limitation using 20 wild elk (Cervus canadensis) inhabiting a mountain town by identifying and comparing the responses of individuals categorized along a personality gradient from shy to bold, subjecting animals to aversive conditioning that either isolated animals or let them remain in a group, and then comparing their wariness via flight response distances before, during, and after conditioning. Bolder elk had significantly greater increases in wariness during conditioning and greater decreases in wariness once the conditioning period was complete. Isolation versus group-based treatment did not affect responsiveness during the conditioning period, but isolated animals retained more wariness after conditioning ended. These results suggest that wildlife managers could increase the efficacy of aversive conditioning by identifying and targeting specific personality types and individuals to modify behavior and mitigate the broader ecological effects of habituated wildlife.

Intermediate frequency of aversive conditioning best restores wariness in habituated elk (Cervus canadensis)

“…However, they are consistent with some subsequent work of our own in which elk with bolder personalities were more likely to exploit human-disturbed landscapes [ 17 ]. These animals were also more responsive to both the onset of conditioning and its removal [ 45 ]), and exhibited more behavioural flexibility [ 46 ].…”

The effectiveness of hazing African lions as a conflict mitigation tool: implications for carnivore management

“…, VerCauteren et al. , Found and St. Clair ). Failures in these applications have been attributed in part to the challenges of implementation, such as the deterrent being insignificant to the animal in terms of fitness cost, or having insufficient reinforcement between the behavior and the punishment, that ultimately lead to habituation, or extinction of the neophobic effect (Shivik et al.…”

“…, Schultz et al. ), personality (Found and St. Clair ), or ecological context (e.g., availability of suitable alternatives to the undesired behavior; Blumstein ). Two key limitations in gaining proper inference on the effectiveness of aversive conditioning for mitigating conflict include (1) low sample sizes, in terms of the number of offending animals, the number of conditioning trials per individual, and replication (Rauer et al.…”

“…Applications of aversive conditioning in conflict situations have met with varying degrees of success for free-ranging omnivores (Rauer et al 2003, Beckmann et al 2004, Mazur 2010, carnivores (Andelt et al 1999, Schultz et al 2005, Hawley et al 2009), and ungulates (Kloppers et al 2005, VerCauteren et al 2005, Found and St. Clair 2018. Failures in these applications have been attributed in part to the challenges of implementation, such as the deterrent being insignificant to the animal in terms of fitness cost, or having insufficient reinforcement between the behavior and the punishment, that ultimately lead to habituation, or extinction of the neophobic effect (Shivik et al 2003, Shivik 2006, Blumstein 2016.…”

“…Failures in these applications have been attributed in part to the challenges of implementation, such as the deterrent being insignificant to the animal in terms of fitness cost, or having insufficient reinforcement between the behavior and the punishment, that ultimately lead to habituation, or extinction of the neophobic effect (Shivik et al 2003, Shivik 2006, Blumstein 2016. Other suggested drivers of mixed outcomes included variation among individuals in terms of their degree of previous positive reinforcement of undesired behaviors (Rauer et al 2003, Beckmann et al 2004, Mazur 2010, social status (Rauer et al 2003, Schultz et al 2005, personality (Found and St. Clair 2018), or ecological context (e.g., availability of suitable alternatives to the undesired behavior; Blumstein 2016). Two key limitations in gaining proper inference on the effectiveness of aversive conditioning for mitigating conflict include (1) low sample sizes, in terms of the number of offending animals, the number of conditioning trials per individual, and replication (Rauer et al 2003, Beckmann et al 2004, van Eeden et al 2018b, and (2) lack of robust experimental design, including the presence of controls and ability to separate treatment effects (Andelt et al 1999, Schultz et al 2005, Hawley et al 2009, van Eeden et al 2018b.…”