Familiarity breeds contempt: kangaroos persistently avoid areas with experimentally deployed dingo scents.
BACKGROUND
Whether or not animals habituate to repeated exposure to predator scents may depend upon whether there are predators associated with the cues. Understanding the contexts of habituation is theoretically important and has profound implication for the application of predator-based herbivore deterrents. We repeatedly exposed a mixed mob of macropod marsupials to olfactory scents (urine, feces) from a sympatric predator (Canis lupus dingo), along with a control (water). If these predator cues were alarming, we expected that over time, some red kangaroos (Macropus rufous), western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) and agile wallabies (Macropus agilis) would elect to not participate in cafeteria trials because the scents provided information about the riskiness of the area.


RESULTS
We evaluated the effects of urine and feces independently and expected that urine would elicit a stronger reaction because it contains a broader class of infochemicals (pheromones, kairomones). Finally, we scored non-invasive indicators (flight and alarm stomps) to determine whether fear or altered palatability was responsible for the response. Repeated exposure reduced macropodid foraging on food associated with 40 ml of dingo urine, X = 986.75+/-3.97 g food remained as compared to the tap water control, X = 209.0+/-107.0 g (P<0.001). Macropodids fled more when encountering a urine treatment, X = 4.50+/-2.08 flights, as compared to the control, X = 0 flights (P<0.001). There was no difference in effect between urine or feces treatments (P>0.5). Macropodids did not habituate to repeated exposure to predator scents, rather they avoided the entire experimental area after 10 days of trials (R(2) = 83.8; P<0.001).


CONCLUSIONS
Responses to urine and feces were indistinguishable; both elicited fear-based responses and deterred foraging. Despite repeated exposure to predator-related cues in the absence of a predator, macropodids persistently avoided an area of highly palatable food. Area avoidance is consistent with that observed from other species following repeated anti-predator conditioning, However, this is the first time this response has been experimentally observed among medium or large vertebrates - where a local response is observed spatially and an area effect is revealed over time.
Parsons
Michael H
MH
Centre for Ecosystem Diversity and Dynamics (CEDD), Department of Environmental Biology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. M.Parsons@Murdoch.edu.au
Blumstein
Daniel T
DT
D000818:Animals; D001362:Avoidance Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D004285:Dogs / Q000502:physiology*; D005239:Fear; D007614:Macropodidae / Q000502:physiology* / Q000523:psychology; D009812:Odorants; D011235:Predatory Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D013997:Time Factors
Nature. 2002 Nov 14;420(6912):171-3
12432391
Ethology. 2007 Feb;113(2):199-206
17440601
Diabet Med. 2000 Jan;17(1):7-14
10691153
Behav Neurosci. 2005 Feb;119(1):280-92
15727532
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Dec 22;272(1581):2627-34
16321785
Zoolog Sci. 2008 Apr;25(4):349-54
18459816
Am Nat. 1997 Sep;150(3):373-92
18811295
J Chem Ecol. 1994 Jul;20(7):1505-16
24242647
J Chem Ecol. 1993 Feb;19(2):225-36
24248870
J Hered. 1999 Jan-Feb;90(1):108-11
9987915
Physiol Behav. 1999 Sep;67(3):365-8
10497954
J Chem Ecol. 2008 Jul;34(7):928-42
18553119
Anim Reprod Sci. 2008 Jan 15;103(1-2):149-53
17507187
J Chem Ecol. 1986 Mar;12(3):729-39
24306911