Page 324 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

296 12 Training Animals so They Can Return to the Wild

These examples show that it is possible to
VetBooks.ir their native geographic range (Griffin et al. train predator‐naive animals to identify
2000), which has contributed to the poor
success rate of reintroductions involving
encounter multiple predators in the wild,
such animals (Fischer and Lindenmayer single predators. However, most animals
2000; Jule et al. 2008). To overcome this which raises an important question for
problem, there has been a renewed interest conservation biologists: how can we train
in training captive reared or wild animals to predator‐naive animals to avoid or respond
recognise predators prior to reintroducing appropriately to multiple predators? The
them to the wild (McLean et al. 2000; phenomenon known as ‘generalisation of
Blumstein et al. 2002; Crane and Mathis learned predator recognition’ provides a
2011; Gaudioso et al. 2011; Teixeira and potential serendipitous solution to this
Young 2014). problem (Ferrari et al. 2007, 2008). Several
Numerous studies have demonstrated that studies have demonstrated that when pred-
predator‐naive fish, birds, and mammals can ator‐naive prey encounter a dangerous
be trained to recognise predators as danger- predator paired with an aversive stimulus,
ous by pairing the sight or smell of the the prey subsequently generalise their anti-
predator (the conditioned stimulus) with a predator response not only to the dangerous
frightening stimulus or conspecific alarm predator, but also, to ecologically similar
call (the unconditioned stimulus). For exam- predators (Ferrari et al. 2007, 2008). For
ple, in a pioneering study, Ian McLean and example, the tammar wallabies that Andrea
colleagues trained wild New Zealand robins Griffin and colleagues trained to avoid the
(Petroica australis) to respond fearfully to model fox subsequently generalised their
invasive ferrets. The researchers located antipredator behaviours in the presence of a
wild female robins with chicks, and simu- model cat, but not in the presence of a non‐
lated an attack from a stuffed ferret by mov- threatening herbivore, a stuffed goat (Griffin
ing it on a string in the presence of a stuffed et al. 2001). Likewise, fathead minnows that
robin in an aggressive posture paired with were trained to recognise the odour of lake
robin alarm and distress calls. After the trout as a predator (by pairing the odour of
training, robins reacted fearfully to the pred- lake trout with minnow skin extracts) sub-
ator (McLean et al. 1999). In another study, sequently generalised their antipredator
Andrea Griffin and colleagues trained pred- responses to odours of brook trout and rain-
ator‐naive tammar wallabies (Macropus bow trout, but not to odours of the more
eugenii) to associate the sight of a model fox distantly related pike (Ferrari et al. 2007).
(a taxidermic mount) on a trolley with an The key concept here is that prey often per-
aversive stimulus (a hooded human chasing ceive ecologically similar predator species
the wallaby with a net). After one or two tri- (i.e. species that share similar visual or
als, the wallabies learnt to associate the chemical cues) as dangerous (Blumstein
model fox with danger (Griffin et al. 2001). It 2006). For example, prey may show similar
is also possible to train fish to avoid preda- antipredator responses to raptors that share
tors. Many fish possess chemicals in the epi- the same silhouettes, or venomous snakes
dermis (alarm chemicals) that are released from the same family that share similar
after attacks by predators, and these chemi- chemical cues (Webb et al. 2009). As long as
cals elicit dramatic antipredator responses we use suitable predator cues during the
by prey when they are detected (Chivers and training trials, then predator‐ naive prey are
Smith 1998). Thus, predator‐naive fish can likely to extend their predator recognition
learn to identify novel predators as danger- to multiple predators.
ous when the sight or smell of the predator is Before embarking on predator training, it
paired with the odour of injured conspecif- is important to identify the key predators
ics (Wisenden 2003). that are responsible for causing mortality of