Use conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Animals may be trapped for a variety of reasons. In cases, such as where trapping is aimed at non-native species, a large number of traps might be set across the landscape. If there is a risk of catching non-target species, these will typically be live traps, from which individuals of non-target species can be released. However, trapping of animals usually entails at least some risk of injury to the animal as well as further risks, such as keeping parents away from their young. Furthermore, a trap holding a non-target animal is generally not then available for capturing the target animal until next visited by an operator. Conditioned taste aversion may be attempted, to try to make non-target mammals that are at risk of capture avoid traps because they associate them with an unpleasant taste or sensation.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that using bait laced with lithium chloride reduced the rate of entry of San Clemente Island foxes into traps set for feral cats.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled study in 1992–1993 on an island in California, USA (Phillips & Winchell 2011) found that lacing bait with lithium chloride reduced the rate of entry of San Clemente Island foxes Urocyon littoralis clementae into traps for feral cats Felis catus. In the first year, fewer foxes were recaptured using lithium chloride bait in traps (at 200 mg dose/kg of fox - 9% recaught) than using unlaced bait (52% recaught). In the second year, fewer foxes were recaptured in traps using lithium chloride bait (3% recaught) than using unlaced bait (30% recaught). In sites where lithium chloride bait was used for 41 days and then switched to non-laced baits, recapture rates remained low for around 10 days after the switch, and then increased. Baits were placed in cage traps on a 146-km² island. In 1992, two areas received lithium chloride baits (which induce gastrointestinal discomfort) and unlaced baits were used in three areas. In 1993, two areas received lithium chloride baits which were then switched to unlaced baits after 41 days and seven areas received unlaced baits throughout. Eight to 20 traps were used/area. Baits comprised 50 g of mixed cat food, tuna and raw hamburger, placed in traps from February through to July–August in 1992–1993.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Phillips R.B. & Winchell C.S. (2011) Reducing nontarget recaptures of an endangered predator using conditioned aversion and reward removal. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1501-1507.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Control non-native/problematic plants to restore habitat Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Modify traps used in the control/eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammal Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Use reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link