Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Featured Marsupial Loses Fear of Predators in 13 Generations

  1. Jun 7, 2018 #1

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Northern Quoll is endangered marsupial in Northern Australian.
    Its main problem, leading to its population decline, was eating the invasive and toxic cane toad.
    A population of them was introduced to a couple of islands (free of both cane toads and predators), where in 13 generations a large population was built up from which animals were reintroduced to the mainland.
    Problem is that the quolls lost their fear of predator scent and those that were introduced were quickly eaten.
    This is considered a genetically encoded fear of the scents which was lost due to lack of selection to maintain it during the 13 generations on the islands.
    Science news article here.

    This is not so different from problems of putting farm raised fish into wild waters, where they breed with the wild fish and introduce genetics not adapted to the local wild situations.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2018 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The solution is obvious:
    Introduce cane toads on an island where they don't have predators. There is no pressure to be toxic any more, being toxic needs unnecessary energy and is selected against, wait until they get less toxic. Introduce the less toxic cane toads to an island with marsupials, in addition introduce marsupial predators. The marsupials eat the cane toads and get sick but don't die. They learn to not eat them. After a while, relocate them to Northern Australia.
    What could go wrong?

    When do people learn that introducing new species elsewhere leads to side effects that are rarely known before?
     
  4. Jun 8, 2018 #3

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Never, but "Hope springs eternal."
     
  5. Jun 8, 2018 #4

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    Here's a link to the associated study being discussed:
    Jolly et al. (2018) The perils of paradise: an endangered species conserved on an island loses antipredator behaviours within 13 generations. Biol Lett: 14: 20180222
    http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/6/20180222

    Abstract:
    That's quite surprising that a trait can be lost from the genetics of a population in such a relatively short period of time.

    What genetic traits may have been lost or gained in the human population over the past 13 generations (since the ~ 1600s)?
     
  6. Jun 8, 2018 #5

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't know about rapid human changes, but rapid changes in captive fish populations are easy to find, some in a few generations.

    It is easy (but often not desired) for a hobbyist fish breeder to end up with genetically smaller fish populations by simply breeding the first fish from a spawn to mature for a generation or two. These are fish that became mature at a smaller size and don't get that much bigger afterwards.
    It may not be natural selection, but it is selection.
    Because there are very small populations, the changes can be very fast.
     
  7. Jun 9, 2018 #6

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Why is the fear of the predator's scent thought to be genetically encoded, as opposed to a behaviour that was learned from parents?
     
  8. Jun 9, 2018 #7

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    From the linked article:
     
  9. Jun 9, 2018 #8

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    @BillTre, thanks - what I can't seem to find in the article is what "raised in captivity" meant. At what age were the animals removed from their parents, and was that young enough to exclude that the parents had taught them the behaviour?
     
  10. Jun 10, 2018 #9

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I wrote to Chris Jolly with my questions, and he generously answered them in detail, and allowed me to share his responses here.

    Me: Were the young quolls separated early enough from their parents to exclude that the parents taught the behaviour to their children?

    Chris: The quolls were removed from their parents at the earliest stage ethically possible. But during this time their parents were in captivity with them, and they never encountered predators during this time. Since quolls don’t have language or any means of communicating learning to their young without directly showing them things to avoid, there is no way they could have transmitted this learn to their young. Any recognition the young have of predators has only been transmitted to them via their inherited experience.

    Me: Do you think it might work to teach the quolls fear of the relevant smells before reintroducing them to the wild?

    Chris: We have tried training them to fear predators, so far it hasn’t worked. I think now that the fear has been lost, it needs to be instilled into the isolated populations via natural selection. That would meaning introducing predators in the the population. Some would learn, some would be eaten and wouldn’t pass of their naive genes.

    Me: What sorts of training have you tried?

    Chris: The training we’ve trialed has been fairly basic but should theoretically work if predator-aversion is easily acquired. We used operant conditioning (pairing an electric shock with the presence of a live dingo behind a barrier) on multiple random occasions with captive-born NT quolls and then tested their responses in a repeat of the same experiment. There was no change in behaviour. This has been the findings of many people that have tried to train predator-aversion (but see van Heezik et al 1999). Either the antipredator behaviour has been unable to be stimulated or it’s been insufficient to prevent the animals being killed by the target predator.

    It may seem, from our ability to train quolls to avoid toads, that it should be easy to train them to avoid predators but it is far more complex than that. Conditioned taste aversion occurs along a very specific neural pathway than exists in all animals. It’s just one behaviour. “Don’t eat X”. Effective predator aversion is many many behaviours acting together to prevent an animal ever encounting it’s predators. By the time the encounter has occurs it’s often too late.
     
  11. Jun 10, 2018 #10

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    With regard to the genetic basis for predator avoidance, here's one of the relevant figures from the paper:
    upload_2018-6-10_15-53-44.png
    http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/6/20180222

    The effect size looks like it could be somewhat reduced in the captive-born vs wild-caught populations, suggesting that there could be some learned component to the behavior. However, the different behaviors of the quolls from the (predator-free) islands and the (predator endemic) mainland is still very strong in the captive born population. The fact that the differences manifest in time spent investigating scents could suggest that the genetic changes might have to do with the sensitivity of the quolls to certain scents (which could very plausibly have a genetic basis).

    Given that the change occurred very quickly, a DNA sequencing study that looks for genetic signatures of positive selection in the island population could potentially narrow down the genetic basis for these differences in behaviors.
     
  12. Jun 15, 2018 at 8:58 AM #11

    anorlunda

    Staff: Mentor

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted