MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313012103 · doi:10.1071/wr22070

Evaluation of oral baits and distribution methods for Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii)†

2022· article· en· W4313012103 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Dempsey, Ruth J. Pye, Amy T. Gilbert, Nicholas M. Fountain‐Jones, Jennifer M. Moffat, Sarah Benson‐Amram, Timothy J. Smyser, Andrew S. Flies

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaptivityWildlifeBiologyRodenticideContext (archaeology)PalatabilityPopulationWildlife managementWildlife conservationZoologyEcologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Diseases are increasingly contributing to wildlife population declines. Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) populations have locally declined by 82%, largely owing to the morbidity and mortality associated with two independent transmissible devil facial tumours (DFT1 and DFT2). Toxic baits are often used as a management tool for controlling vertebrate pest populations in Australia, but in other areas of the world, oral baits are also used to deliver vaccines or pharmaceuticals to wildlife. Aim Our goal was to evaluate the potential use of edible baits as vehicles for vaccine delivery to Tasmanian devils. Method We first tested bait palatability with captive devils. Bait interactions were recorded, and consumption and bait interaction behaviours were quantified. We next trialled baits containing inert capsules as potential vaccine containers in captivity. After confirming bait palatability in captivity, ground baiting was trialled at six field sites and monitored using camera traps. Finally, an automated bait dispenser was trialled at field sites to attempt to limit bait consumption by non-target species. Key results Captive devils consumed all types of placebo baits, but consumed a higher percentage of ruminant- and fish-based baits than cereal-based baits. Captive devils also consumed inert capsules inserted into placebo baits. Ground-baiting trials in the field showed that 53% of baits were removed from bait stations, with 76% of the removals occurring on the first night. Devils were suspected or confirmed to remove about 7% of baits compared with 93% by non-target species. We also evaluated an automated bait dispenser, which reduced bait removal by non-target species and resulted in over 50% of the baits being removed by devils. Conclusions This study demonstrated that captive and wild devils will accept and consume placebo versions of commercial baits. Bait dispensers or modified baits or baiting strategies are needed to increase bait uptake by devils. Implications Bait dispensers can be used at a regional scale to deliver baits to devils. These could potentially be used as vaccine-delivery vehicles to mitigate the impacts of disease on devil populations.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207