Loss of Predator Discrimination by Critically Endangered Vancouver Island Marmots Within Five Generations of Breeding for Release

Conservation translocations, which involve the intentional movement and release of organisms for conservation benefit, are increasingly required to recover species of conservation concern. In order to maximize post-release survival, and to accomplish conservation translocation objectives, animals must exhibit behaviors that facilitate survival in the wild. The Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) is a critically endangered endemic in Canada which has been captive-bred for 24 years for reintroductions and reinforcements that have increased the wild population from ~30 to more than 200 individuals. Despite this success many marmots are killed by predators after release and predation represents a major hurdle to full marmot recovery. To better understand if captive-bred marmots are prepared for the novel environment into which they will be released, and to determine whether such suitability changes over time, we presented taxidermy mounts of mammalian predators and non-predators to marmots that were wild-caught, and captive born for between one and five generations. We also examined mortality of offspring from marmots we tested that had been released to the wild. A minimum of 43% of offspring were killed by predators in the wild over 17 years, most by cougars. Marmots in captivity generally responded to taxidermy mounts by decreasing foraging and increasing vigilance, and overall responded more strongly to predators than non-predators, especially wolves. However, marmots in captivity for more than two generations lacked discrimination between cougars, non-predators, and controls, suggesting a rapid loss of predator recognition. This study was only possible because predator-recognition trials were initiated early in the conservation translocation program, and could then be repeated after a number of generations. The finding that changes occurred relatively rapidly (within five generations during which changes in genetic diversity were negligible) suggests that behavioral suitability may deteriorate more rapidly than genetics would suggest. Strategies addressing potential behavior loss should be considered, including sourcing additional wild individuals or pre-release training of captive-born individuals. Subsequently, post-release survival should be monitored to determine the efficacy of behavior-optimization strategies.

Switching from mesopredator to apex predator: how do responses vary in amphibians adapted to cave living?

The effective detection of both prey and predators is pivotal for the survival of mesopredators. However, the condition of being a mesopredator is strongly context dependent. Here we focus on two aquatic caudate species that have colonised caves: the Pyrenean newt (Calotriton asper) and the olm (Proteus anguinus). The former maintains both surface and subterranean populations, while only cave-adapted populations of the latter exist. Both species are apex predators in underground waterbodies, while the Pyrenean newt is a mesopredator in surface waterbodies. Shifting to a higher level of the trophic web through colonising caves may promote the loss of anti-predator response against surface apex predators, and an increase in the ability to detect prey. To test these two non-exclusive hypotheses, we integrated classical behavioural characterisations with a novel approach: the assessment of lateralisation (i.e. preference for one body side exposure). Behavioural experiments were performed using laboratory-reared individuals. We performed 684 trials on 39 Pyrenean newts and eight olms. Under darkness and light conditions, we tested how exposure to different chemical cues (predatory fish, prey and unknown scent) affected individuals’ activity and lateralisation. Both cave and surface Pyrenean newts responded to predator cues, while olms did not. In Pyrenean newts, predator cues reduced the time spent in movement and time spent in lateralisation associated with hunting. Our results show that predator recognition is maintained in a species where recently separated populations inhabit environments lacking of higher predators, while such behaviour tends to be lost in populations with longer history of adaptation. Significance statement Predator recognition can be maintained in animals adapted to predator free habitats, but varies with their history of adaptation. Species that are not at the apex of the food web can become top predators if they colonise subterranean environments. We compared the behavioural responses of the olm, a strictly cave species with a long underground evolutionary history, and of the Pyrenean newt, a facultative cave species that also has stream-dwelling populations. Moreover, we integrated a classical behavioural characterisation, such as movement detection, with a novel approach: the assessment of lateralisation. While olms do not respond to external predators scent, cave-dwelling newts still recognise it. This clearly indicates that predator recognition is still maintained in species that have colonised predator-free environments more recently.

Training fails to elicit behavioral change in a marsupial suffering evolutionary loss of antipredator behaviors

Attempts to reintroduce threatened species from ex situ populations (zoos or predator-free sanctuaries) regularly fail because of predation. When removed from their natural predators, animals may lose their ability to recognize predators and thus fail to adopt appropriate antipredator behaviors. Recently, northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus; Dasyuromorpha: Dasyuridae) conserved on a predator-free “island ark” for 13 generations were found to have no recognition of dingoes, a natural predator with which they had coevolved on mainland Australia for about 8,000 years. A subsequent reintroduction attempt using quolls acquired from this island ark failed due to predation by dingoes. In this study, we tested whether instrumental conditioning could be used to improve predator recognition in captive quolls sourced from a predator-free “island ark.” We used a previously successful scent-recognition assay (a giving-up density experiment) to compare predator-scent recognition of captive-born island animals before and after antipredator training. Our training was delivered by pairing live predators (dingo and domestic dog) with an electrified cage floor in repeat trials such that, when the predators were present, foraging animals would receive a shock. Our training methodology did not result in any discernible change in the ability of quolls to recognize and avoid dingo scent after training. We conclude either that our particular training method was ineffective (though ethically permissible); or that because these quolls appear unable to recognize natural predators, predator recognition may be extremely difficult to impart in a captive setting given ethical constraints. Our results point to the difficulty of reinstating lost behaviors, and to the value of maintaining antipredator behaviors in conservation populations before they are lost.

The Influence of the eyespots of peacock butterfly (Aglais io) and caterpillar on predator recognition

The main purpose of this study is to verify or refute the famous existing theory that the eyespots found on the wings of various insects are a kind of imitation which triggers birds, the predator of insects, to have a sense of avoidance by making them recognize the insects as their predator. The first experiment was conducted on the peacock butterfly using models with eyespots and those without eyespots. A single butterfly model without eyespots was used as the control group, and a pair of a butterfly models with eyespots and another without eyespots was used as the treated group. The butterfly models were attached to trees and the survival rate of the models without eyespots was checked every hour. According to the results of the experiment, it is difficult to conclude that the eyespots of peacock butterfly trigger a sense of avoidance for birds as there was no significant difference in the numbers of the attacked peacock butterfly models without eyespots between the control group and the treated group. The second experiment was conducted using caterpillar models with eyespots and those without eyespots arranged in the same way as the first experiment. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the numbers of attacked caterpillar models between the control group of a caterpillar model without eyespots only and the treated group composed of a pair of caterpillar models without eyespots and the one with eyespots. Thus, the second experiment shows that the caterpillar with eyespots does not imitate the eyes of the predator and it indirectly supports the findings of the first experiment. Through the results of the two experiments, it is possible to refute the existing theory that the eyespots actually imitate the eyes of the natural enemy of the predator.