MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367479234 · doi:10.1071/wr15040

Assessment of non-target risks from sodium fluoroacetate (1080), para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) and sodium cyanide (NaCN) for fox-incursion response in Tasmania

2016· article· en· W2367479234 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Mallick, Matthew Pauza, Charles Eason, Nick Mooney, Robbie Gaffney, Stephen Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsRichmond Hospital
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsVulpesBiologyContext (archaeology)Introduced speciesZoologyCanisRodenticideWildlifeSodium cyanideEcologyInvasive speciesToxicologyPredationChemistryCyanide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Access to effective toxicants and delivery systems that target red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are likely to be required as part of a management strategy in the event of future red fox incursions into Tasmania. Potential toxicants include sodium fluoroacetate (1080), para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) and sodium cyanide (NaCN). Aims To assess the risk of three toxicants (1080, PAPP and NaCN) to non-target native Tasmanian mammals and birds and domestic dogs and cats. Methods We identified native Tasmanian mammal and bird species that may potentially consume fox baits, by reviewing the ecological traits of native species and by monitoring 180 buried bait stations with video cameras. We also assess the potential risk to non-target species of dying from a single standard dose of each of the three toxicants. Key results Seven native mammal and 20 native bird species have the potential to consume fox bait. All vertebrates would be susceptible to a single dose of NaCN. Consumption of a single fox bait containing 3 mg 1080 may be lethal to five native mammals, three native birds, and the domestic cat (Felis catus) and dog (Canis familiaris). Consumption of a single fox bait containing 226 mg PAPP may be lethal to the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and the domestic cat and dog. Delivery of toxicants via a mechanical ejector would reduce non-target exposure to toxicants. Conclusions It appears that PAPP would provide a useful alternative to 1080 for use in lethal fox control in Tasmania, either in the event of an incursion or in the eradication of an established population. NaCN is not suitable for broadscale use in Tasmania because of the high susceptibility of all vertebrates to this toxicant. Nevertheless, NaCN would be useful in highly restricted areas in the event of an incursion where carcass recovery is important. The use of a mechanical ejector to target delivery of toxicants to red foxes would reduce non-target risks. Implications Our results clarify theoretical non-target risks from any future fox-poisoning programs in Tasmania and highlight the need for further research on the susceptibility of native species to PAPP as a potential alternative to 1080.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207