Uptake of ‘Eradicat’ feral cat baits by non-target species on Kangaroo Island

Abstract ContextPredation by feral cats (Felis catus) threatens a range of vertebrate species across Australia, and cat-free islands increasingly act as safe havens for biodiversity. A feral cat eradication program has begun on Kangaroo Island (4405km2) in South Australia, and poison baiting is likely to be one of the main methods used. Aims Here, we trial a non-toxic version of a cat bait, ‘Eradicat’, on western Kangaroo Island, to examine its potential impact on non-target species. MethodsNon-toxic baits containing the biomarker Rhodamine B were deployed across four sites in early August and late November in 2018, with bait take and consumption assessed both by remote cameras and by the presence of Rhodamine B in mammalian whisker samples taken post-baiting. Key resultsCats encountered baits on very few occasions and took a bait on only one occasion in August (<1% of 576 baits deployed). Non-target species accounted for over 99% of identifiable bait takes. In both seasons, >60% of all baits laid was taken by either the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) or Australian raven (Corvus coronoides). In November, Rosenberg’s goanna (Varanus rosenbergi) and southern brown bandicoot (south-eastern subspecies; Isoodon obesulus obesulus), listed nationally as Endangered, also took baits (3% and 1% respectively). The Kangaroo Island dunnart (Sminthopsis fuliginosus aitkeni), listed nationally as endangered, approached a bait on only one occasion, but did not consume it. Evidence of bait consumption was visible in the whiskers of captured common brushtail possums (100% of post-baiting captured individuals in August, 80% in November), bush rats (59% in August and 50% in November), house mice (Mus musculus) (45% in November) and western pygmy-possums (Cercartetus concinnus) (33% in November). ConclusionsAlthough feral cat baiting has the potential to significantly benefit wildlife on Kangaroo Island, impacts on non-target species (particularly the bush rat and common brushtail possum) may be high. ImplicationsAlternative cat baits, such as those containing a toxin to which native species have a higher tolerance or that are less readily consumed by native wildlife, will be more appropriate.

Reintroducing the dingo: the risk of dingo predation to threatened vertebrates of western New South Wales

Context The reintroduction of dingoes into sheep-grazing areas south-east of the dingo barrier fence has been suggested as a mechanism to suppress fox and feral-cat impacts. Using the Western Division of New South Wales as a case study, Dickman et al. (2009) recently assessed the risk of fox and cat predation to extant threatened species and concluded that reintroducing dingoes into the area would have positive effects for most of the threatened vertebrates there, aiding their recovery through trophic cascade effects. However, they did not formally assess the risk of dingo predation to the same threatened species. Aims To assess the risk of dingo predation to the extant and locally extinct threatened vertebrates of western New South Wales using methods amenable to comparison with Dickman et al. (2009). Methods The predation-risk assessment method used in Dickman et al. (2009) for foxes and cats was applied here to dingoes, with minor modification to accommodate the dietary differences of dingoes. This method is based on six independent biological attributes, primarily reflective of potential vulnerability characteristics of the prey. Individual-attribute scores were used to derive an overall risk score. Key results Up to 75 (94%) of the 80 extant species were predicted to be at risk of dingo predation (71% at high risk) regardless of any effect dingoes might have on foxes or cats. Up to 17 of the 21 (81%) locally extinct species were predicted to be at high risk of dingo predation using this approach. The re-establishment of even low-density dingo populations may have negative effects on at least 22% of extant threatened vertebrates. Conclusions The generic risk-assessment method was insensitive, and experienced difficulty in describing the true nature of canid predation risk. Despite this weakness, however, it is clear that several threatened vertebrates are susceptible to dingo predation. Prior to the re-establishment of dingoes, we recommend that dingo predation risks to all vertebrates (threatened or otherwise) be assessed using more sensitive and descriptive techniques, and we strongly caution against the positive management of dingoes under current ecological conditions. Implications The results of this study imply that dingoes present similar levels of direct risk to threatened species as foxes and feral cats, and dingo predation of threatened species should be formally considered in any proposal encouraging dingo populations in western New South Wales.

Assessment of risks to non-target species from an encapsulated toxin in a bait proposed for control of feral cats

Context The CURIOSITY® bait is the name coined for a variation of the existing sausage-style cat bait, ERADICAT®. The latter is used under experimental permit in Western Australia for research associated with cat control. The CURIOSITY bait differs from ERADICAT by providing a pH-buffered (less acidic) medium and has been proposed to reduce the risk to non-target species by encapsulating a toxin in a pellet. We trialled a prototype pellet proposed for encapsulation of 1080 and/or alternative toxins, with delivery proposed through the CURIOSITY bait. Aim Our aim was to determine whether the pellet was consumed by non-target native species from south-west of Western Australia. Methods Trials involved use of a non-toxic biomarker, Rhodamine B, encapsulated within the pellet and inserted into the CURIOSITY® bait. Uptake of the encapsulated biomarker was assessed in captive trials for the target species, the feral cat (Felis catus) and two non-target species of varanid lizard, Rosenberg’s goanna (Varanus rosenbergi) and Gould’s goanna (V. gouldii) and the non-target mammal species chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii) and southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus). Uptake of the encapsulated biomarker was also assessed in field trials for a range of native species. Key results Captive trials demonstrated feral cats will consume the CURIOSITY bait and pellet. However, results from captive and field trials indicated several non-target species also consumed the bait and pellet. We also found the pellet itself was not sufficiently robust for use in a bait. As with previously reported studies, we found Rhodamine B to be an effective biomarker for use in cats. We also developed a technique whereby Rhodamine B can be used as a biomarker in reptiles. However, its use as a biomarker in other mammalian species was confounded by what appeared to be background, or pre-existing, levels of fluorescence, or banding, in their whiskers. Conclusion The prototype pellet is unsuitable in its current form for use with the CURIOSITY bait. We caution that the CURIOSITY bait has non-target issues in south-west of Western Australia and any proposed variations to this bait, or the ERADICAT® bait, need to be rigorously assessed for their potential risk to non-target species and assessed for the level of uptake by cats, irrespective of their suitability/unsuitability as a medium for delivery of an encapsulated toxin. We believe the threat to biodiversity-conservation values from unmitigated feral-cat predation of native fauna poses a significant and real threat and we recommend urgent investment of resources to address the issue of cat predation in a coordinated and collaborative manner within Australia and New Zealand.