Skip to main content
Log in

Behavioural drivers of survey bias: interactive effects of personality, the perceived risk and device properties

  • Behavioral ecology – original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Detecting small mammal species for wildlife research and management typically depends on animals deciding to engage with a device, for instance, by entering a trap. While some animals engage and are detected, others do not, and we often lack a mechanistic understanding of what drives these decisions. As trappability can be influenced by traits of personality, personality has high potential to similarly influence detection success for non-capture devices (chew-track cards, tracking tunnels, etc.). We present a conceptual model of the detection process where animal behaviours which are detected by different devices are grouped into tiers based on the degree of intimacy with a device (e.g., approach, interact, enter). Each tier is associated with an increase in the perceived danger of engaging with a device, and an increase in the potential for personality bias. To test this model, we first surveyed 36 populations of free-living black rats (Rattus rattus), a global pest species, to uniquely mark individuals (n = 128) and quantify personality traits. We then filmed rat behaviour at novel tracking tunnels with different risk-reward treatments. As predicted, detection biases were driven by personality, the bias increased with each tier and differed between the risk treatments. Our findings suggest that personality biases are not limited to live-capture traps but are widespread across devices which detect specific animal behaviours. In showing that biases can be predictable, we also show biases can be managed. We recommend that studies involving small mammal sampling report on steps taken to manage a personality-driven bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amos W, Nichols HJ, Churchyard T, Brooke MDL (2016) Rat eradication comes within a whisker! A case study of a failed project from the South Pacific. Royal Society Open Science 3:160110. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ball SJ, Ramsey D, Nugent G, Warburton B, Efford M (2005) A method for estimating wildlife detection probabilities in relation to home-range use: insights from a field study on the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Wildl Res 32:217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett S (1988) Exploring, sampling, neophobia, and feeding. Rodent pest management:296–317

  • Barnett SA (1958) Experiments on ‘neophobia’ in wild and laboratory rats. Br J Psychol 49:195–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biro PA, Dingemanse NJ (2009) Sampling bias resulting from animal personality. Trends Ecol Evol 24:66–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bisi F et al (2011) The strong and the hungry: bias in capture methods for mountain hares Lepus timidus. Wildl Biol 17:311–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boon AK, Réale D, Boutin SJO (2008) Personality, habitat use, and their consequences for survival in North American red squirrels Tamiasciurus hudsonicus. Oikos 117:1321–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocke RH (1972) A live snare for trap-shy snowshoe hares. The Journal of Wildlife Management:988–991

  • Brown S, Warburton B (2015) Possum encounter and interaction rates with traps. Landcare Research

  • Burnham K, Anderson D (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd, ed. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho C, Canal D, Potti J (2017) Lifelong effects of trapping experience lead to age-biased sampling: lessons from a wild bird population. Anim Behav 130:133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell K, Donlan CJ (2005) Feral Goat Eradications on Islands. Conserv Biol 19:1362–1374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00228.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capizzi D, Bertolino S, Mortelliti A (2014) Rating the rat: global patterns and research priorities in impacts and management of rodent pests. Mammal Rev 44:148–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter AJ, Heinsohn R, Goldizen AW, Biro PA (2012) Boldness, trappability and sampling bias in wild lizards. Anim Behav 83:1051–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie JE, MacKenzie DI, Greene TC, Sim JL (2015) Using passive detection devices to monitor occupancy of ship rats (Rattus rattus) in New Zealand temperate rainforest. N Z J Ecol 39:79–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan P (1992) The eradication of introduced Australian brushtail possums, Trichosurus vulpecula, from Kapiti Island, a New Zealand nature reserve. Biological conservation, 61:217–226

  • Cox MP, Dickman CR, Cox WG (2000) Use of habitat by the black rat (Rattus rattus) at North Head, New South Wales: an observational and experimental study. Austral Ecol 25:375–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis SA, Akison LK, Farroway LN, Singleton GR, Leslie KE (2003) Abundance estimators and truth: accounting for individual heterogeneity in wild house mice. The Journal of Wildlife Management:634–645

  • Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2013) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol 82:39–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Y (1991) Behavioural responses of rats to the smell of urine from conspecifics. Animal behaviour

  • Garamszegi LZ, Eens M, Török J (2009) Behavioural syndromes and trappability in free-living collared flycatchers, Ficedula albicollis. Anim Behav 77:803–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey P et al. (2021) Leveraging personality, motivations and sensory cues for effective predator management. Trends in Ecology & Evolution

  • Gehring TM, VerCauteren KC, Provost ML, Cellar AC (2011) Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildl Res 37:715–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greggor AL, Thornton A, Clayton NS (2015) Neophobia is not only avoidance: improving neophobia tests by combining cognition and ecology. Curr Opin Behav Sci 6:82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes J, Skipworth J (1983) Home ranges of ship rats in a small New Zealand forest as revealed by trapping and tracking. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 10:99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones HP et al (2008) Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review. Conserv Biol 22:16–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kay B, Gifford E, Perry R, van de Ven R (2000) Trapping efficiency for foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in central New SouthWales: age and sex biases and the effects of reduced fox abundance. Wildl Res 27:547–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King CM, McDonald RM, Martin RD, Dennis T (2009) Why is eradication of invasive mustelids so difficult? Biol Cons 142:806–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin JGA, Réale D (2008) Temperament, risk assessment and habituation to novelty in eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 75:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina-García A, Jawor JM, Wright TF (2017) Cognition, personality, and stress in budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus. Behav Ecol 28:1504–1516

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mella VS, Ward AJ, Banks PB, McArthur C (2015) Personality affects the foraging response of a mammalian herbivore to the dual costs of food and fear. Oecologia 177:293–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3110-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mella VSA et al (2016) Effective field-based methods to quantify personality in brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Wildl Res. https://doi.org/10.1071/wr15216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran NP, Mossop KD, Thompson RM, Wong BB (2016) Boldness in extreme environments: temperament divergence in a desert-dwelling fish. Anim Behav 122:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan H (2016) Detection probability of invasive ship rats: Biological causation and management implications, ResearchSpace@ Auckland

  • Niemela PT, Lattenkamp EZ, Dingemanse NJ (2015) Personality-related survival and sampling bias in wild cricket nymphs. Behav Ecol 26:936–946. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlando CG, Tews A, Banks P, McArthur C (2020) The power of odour cues in shaping fine-scale search patterns of foraging mammalian herbivores. Biol Let 16:20200329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife monographs:3–135

  • Palma AR, Gurgel-Gonçalves R (2007) Morphometric identification of small mammal footprints from ink tracking tunnels in the Brazilian Cerrado. Revista Brasileira De Zoologia 24:333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paull DJ, Claridge AW, Barry SC (2011) There’s no accounting for taste: bait attractants and infrared digital cameras for detecting small to medium ground-dwelling mammals. Wildl Res 38:188–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price CJ, Banks PB (2017) Food quality and conspicuousness shape improvements in olfactory discrimination by mice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2629

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Réale D, Gallant BY, Leblanc M, Festa-Bianchet M (2000) Consistency of temperament in bighorn ewes and correlates with behaviour and life history. Anim Behav 60:589–597. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, McKenzie N (2000) Comparison of methods used to capture herpetofauna: an example from the Carnarvon Basin. Records of the Western Australian Museum 61

  • Rose RK, Slade NA, Honacki JH (1977) Live trap preference among grassland mammals. Acta Theriol 22:296–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell JC, Beaven BM, MacKay JW, Towns DR, Clout MN (2008) Testing island biosecurity systems for invasive rats. Wildl Res 35:215–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaniego-Herrera A et al (2018) Eradicating invasive rodents from wet and dry tropical islands in Mexico. Oryx 52:559–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirmer A, Herde A, Eccard JA, Dammhahn M (2019) Individuals in space: personality-dependent space use, movement and microhabitat use facilitate individual spatial niche specialization. Oecologia 189:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seber G (1970) The effects of trap response on tag recapture estimates. Biometrics 1970:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spurr E, Morriss G, Turner J, O’Connor C, Fisher P (2007) Bait station preferences of ship rats. DOC Research Development Series 271

  • Stokes VL (2013) Trappability of introduced and native rodents in different trap types in coastal forests of south-eastern Australia. Australian Mammalogy 35:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1071/am12002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stryjek R, Kalinowski A, Parsons MH (2019) Unbiased sampling for rodents and other small mammals: How to overcome neophobia through use of an electronic-triggered live trap—a preliminary test. Front Ecol Evol 7:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp DW, Rocke TE, Streich SP, Brown NL, Fernandez JR-R, Miller MW (2014) Season and application rates affect vaccine bait consumption by prairie dogs in Colorado and Utah, USA. J Wildl Dis 50:224–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Veitch EC, Clout MN, Towns D (2011) Island Invasives: eradication and Management Proceedings of the International Conference on Island Invasives.

  • Wat KK, Herath AP, Rus AI, Banks PB, Mcarthur C (2019) Space use by animals on the urban fringe: interactive effects of sex and personality. Behav Ecol 31:330–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams DF, Braun SE (1983) Comparison of pitfall and conventional traps for sampling small mammal populations. J Wildl Manag 47:841–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson ADM, Binder TR, McGrath KP, Cooke SJ, Godin J-GJ, Kraft C (2011) Capture technique and fish personality: angling targets timid bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:749–757. https://doi.org/10.1139/f2011-019

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to the National Parks and Wildlife Service for access to sites.

Funding

This study was funded by the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment, the Ecological Consultants Association of NSW and the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant to PBB (DP140104413).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K.C.J and P.B.B conceptualized and designed the research, K.C.J conducted the field research, K.C.J and C.M conducted the statistical analysis, K.C.J wrote the draft with critical contributions from P.B.B and C.M. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyla C. Johnstone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict or competing interests.

Ethics approval

All research was conducted in accordance with The University of Sydney Animal Ethics Approval (no. 2016/1122) and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services Scientific Licence (no. SL101865).

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

The datasets analysed during the current study have been deposited on the Figshare depository and can be publicly accessed at (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12451601).

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Communicated by Michael Sheriff.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1895 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnstone, K.C., McArthur, C. & Banks, P.B. Behavioural drivers of survey bias: interactive effects of personality, the perceived risk and device properties. Oecologia 197, 117–127 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-05021-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-05021-7

Keywords

Navigation