Protecting prey by deceiving predators: A field experiment testing chemical camouflage and conditioned food aversion

Selonen, Vesa; Banks, Peter B.; Tobajas, Jorge; Laaksonen, T.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109749

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Behavior changes of wildlife as a result of camera traps was also observed by Meek et al (2016) and Selonen et al (2022) who argue that the flash light causes animals to avoid the camera stations (Table 1 Weakness 1). Dealing with these changed reactions is critical as this will influence time spent in front of the camera, and can therefore result in bias.…”

Section: Strengths and Weaknessessupporting

confidence: 58%

Camera traps as a research method for carnivore population estimation: Strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, analysis and improvements

Kalandarishvili,

Heltai

2023

Columella

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera traps have been gaining popularity in population estimation studies. Based on 149 scientific journals review we evaluated the strengths, weaknesses and improvements of the camera trap method to better understand its effectiveness for studying population parameters. Camera traps have a strong advantage of being a non-invasive method, requiring minimal labor and because of its ability detect multiple species per sampling effort. However, theft and time-consuming data analyses, poor sensor performance and potential behavioral changes of wildlife due to noise and flashlights, prevent the camera traps from being the optimal population estimation method. The population parameter studied depends strongly on the behavior and biology of the target species, although the most common opportunity for development is all related to sensor performance (better triggering response and higher sensitivity) as well as extreme weather condition resistance.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Weaknessessupporting

confidence: 58%

Camera traps as a research method for carnivore population estimation: Strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, analysis and improvements

Kalandarishvili,

Heltai

2023

Columella

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While behavioural interventions show promise (e.g. Norbury et al., 2021; Selonen et al., 2022), there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude whether they are reliable nest protection methods and the effectiveness of such approaches may be highly context‐specific, for example using snake slough to deter Swinhoe's striped squirrels Tamiops swinhoei from nest boxes (Liu & Liang, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting wild bird nests against predators: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of non‐lethal methods

Gautschi,

Čulina,

Heinsohn

et al. 2024

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing effective, affordable and ethical conservation management will be crucial for minimising future biodiversity losses. Such management requires reliable foundational evidence to help managers make informed choices about how to address the needs of their target species. Unfortunately, such evidence is still lacking for many species and management scenarios. One major global challenge is improving the reproductive success of threatened species in the context of predation. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of in situ experiments that used non‐lethal methods to protect bird nests against predators, with the aims of summarising global trends in nest protection efforts, comparing the effectiveness of different protection measures and informing future research and management. We considered peer‐reviewed studies in English. We detected a large geographic and taxonomic bias in the evidence base with 58% of articles conducted in North America and 76% on ground‐nesting birds. Less than 3% of articles involved taxa listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered and 51% of study units lasted just a single breeding season. Nests protected with exclosures, fences and guards were more likely to be successful than their unprotected controls. Interventions involving deterrents, conditioned taste aversion, chemical camouflage and diversionary feeding did not have a significant positive effect on nest success, but the interventions in these categories were less common and more diverse in nature. Synthesis and applications. To increase their conservation value, future non‐lethal nest protection experiments should whenever possible clearly state overall aims, take place over multiple seasons, use a comparable control and test non‐lethal protection methods independently of lethal predator control. Greater focus is required on under‐studied taxa such as cup‐nesting songbirds and birds in South America, Africa and Asia, and novel protection techniques such as deterrents and chemical camouflage. Practitioners should consider the evidence we synthesise here when deciding whether non‐lethal nest protection approaches are optimal for their study system, to increase conservation success and reduce ethical and financial costs.

show abstract

“…Other mitigation methods were not included in our meta‐analysis because of a lack of published studies evaluating them, such as fertility control (Ransom et al 2014), evolutionary traps attracting a target species to a fitness‐negative resource or situation, thus reducing survival or reproductive success (Robertson et al 2017), chemical camouflage by covering a naturally attractive odor with non‐rewarding odors (Selonen et al 2022), or translocation (Massei et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts involving common mesopredators: a meta‐analysis

Lazure,

Weladji

2023

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts between humans and mesopredators are frequent and widespread. Over the last decades, conflicts have led to the development and application of different mitigation methods to diminish the costs and damage caused by such conflicts. We conducted a systematic literature search and meta‐analysis to assess the influence of different mitigation methods on 3 common nuisance species: raccoons (Procyon lotor), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis). A majority of the studies, from 1963‒2022, were conducted in North America, followed by Australia and Europe. The predation of wildlife species of conservation concern by nuisance species is the main reported source of conflict in the published literature. Lethal control is the most commonly tested method and is generally effective at reducing conflicts based on the calculated effect size. Barriers have mixed effects, with electric fences and nest exclosures both being effective, whereas conventional fences seem to be less effective. Repellents mimicking predators (e.g., guard animal, predator smell) are also effective. Conditioned taste aversion is a promising approach, but no precise product or chemical has proven to be effective. Many interventions suffered from a lack of validation through experimental approach. Research on human–mesopredator conflict mitigation would benefit from repeated studies using the same methods in similar contexts, thus reducing heterogeneity in the results, and by testing new and innovative methods.

show abstract

Protecting prey by deceiving predators: A field experiment testing chemical camouflage and conditioned food aversion

Cited by 10 publications

References 42 publications

Camera traps as a research method for carnivore population estimation: Strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, analysis and improvements

Camera traps as a research method for carnivore population estimation: Strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, analysis and improvements

Protecting wild bird nests against predators: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of non‐lethal methods

Methods to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts involving common mesopredators: a meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About