Increasing the target-specificity of the M-44 ejector by exploiting differences in head morphology between foxes and large dasyurids
Evelyn Nicholson A and Frank Gigliotti B
A Wildlife Ecology Research Group, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia.
B Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 48, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia.
Wildlife Research 32(8) 733-736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR05015
Submitted: 15 February 2005 Accepted: 28 September 2005 Published: 20 December 2005
The M-44 ejector (ejector) is a more target-specific means of lethal control of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) than conventional meat baits, which may expose a wide range of non-target species to the bait toxicant. Owing to the threshold pulling force required to activate the ejector, undesired exposure is eliminated in many smaller animals that cannot generate this force. However, the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) remain potential non-target species because of their larger size. In this study, we report on the development of a collar that excludes devils and quolls by exploiting differences in their head morphology relative to that of red foxes. The collar potentially prevents bait removal by larger non-target species, while still allowing all adult foxes access to the bait to trigger the ejector mechanism. Spotted-tailed quolls small enough to access the bait are theoretically too small to trigger the ejector mechanism set at a threshold pulling force of 2.7 kg.
Bennett A. F., Lumsden L. F., and Menkhorst P. W. (1982). Mammals of the Mallee region of south eastern Australia. In ‘Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and their Management’. (Eds J. C. Noble and R. A. Baverstock.) pp. 191–220. (CSIRO: Melbourne.)
Conservation values and management of Australian islands for non-volant mammal conservation.
Connolly G., and Simmons G. D. (1984). Performance of sodium cyanide ejectors. In ‘Proceedings of the Eleventh Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Ed. D. O. Clark.) pp. 114–121. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
EPA/QPWS (2004). Dingoes. Environment Protection Authority and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/native_animals/living_with_wildlife/dingoes/ [verified 28 October 2005]
Observations of the behaviour of free-living bush rat, Rattus fuscipes, and southern brown bandicoot, Isoodon obesulus, at buried bait stations.
Bait uptake by free-living brush-tailed phascogales, Phascogale tapoatafa, and other non-target mammals during simulated buried fox baiting.
Fleming P. J. S., Corbett L., Harden R., and Thompson P. (2001). ‘Managing the Impact of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs.’ (Australian Government Publishing: Canberra.)
Mansergh I., and Marks C. A. (1993). Predation of native wildlife by the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Action Statement No. 44. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Victoria.
Bait-delivered cabergoline for the reproductive control of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes): estimating mammalian non-target risk in south eastern Australia.
Reproduction, Fertility and Development
Predicting mammalian target-specificity of the M-44 ejector in south eastern Australia.
Saunders G., Coman B., Kinnear J., and Braysher M. (1995). ‘Managing Vertebrate Pests: Foxes.’ (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.)
Triggs B. (1984). ‘Mammal Tracks and Signs – a Field Guide for South Eastern Australia.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)