Monitoring of three translocated species on Dirk Hartog Island using the remote, automated RFID system 'WildTrack'

Full description

Data used for publication:

RFID system improves post-release monitoring of three difficult-to-monitor threatened species in conservation translocations

Kelly S. Williams-Kelly^1,2*, Ben Anderson³, Robert Ross^3,4, Kelly Rayner⁵, Saul Cowen⁵, Kylie A. Robert^1,2

¹School of Agriculture, Biomedicine & Environment, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

²Research Centre for Future Landscapes, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

³School of Computing, Engineering & Mathematical Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

⁴RAMPS Research and Development group, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

⁵ Government of Western Australia Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT

1. Post-release monitoring of wildlife is an essential management aspect of conservation translocations. However, many species are difficult to monitor using common methods, from cryptic and ‘trap shy’ behaviours limiting trapping rates, trapping and radiocollar welfare issues, remote locations and resource limitations. Methods that are effective and less invasive and laborious are needed to improve monitoring outcomes. A contactless and automated Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system is one such innovative method with potential to improve translocation monitoring.
2. ‘WildTrack’ RFID modules deployed throughout a target area remotely monitor by detecting an individual’s PIT tag (i.e., microchip, which has been implanted under the skin via a minimally invasive procedure) when in close range, subsequently collecting and sending this real-time data remotely via the cellular network and internet. A multi-species translocation program at Dirk Hartog Island, a remote location in Western Australia, has encountered challenges monitoring some of its species. We deployed WildTrack to target greater stick-nest rats (GSNR, Leporillus conditor), incidentally detecting Shark Bay bandicoots (SBB, Perameles bougainville) and rufous hare-wallabies (RHW, Lagorchestes hirsutus). We evaluated WildTrack’s effectiveness to detect individual-level post-translocation persistence and estimate diel activity patterns (compared to camera trap estimates) for the three species, plus estimate home-range sizes for Shark Bay bandicoots.
3. WildTrack detected 52 individuals: 13 GSNRs (51 detections), 2 RHWs (75 detections) and 37 SBBs (1339 detections), providing important post-translocation data. The longest persisting individual from each species was detected 423 days, 1291 days and 1052 days after their respective translocation dates. Most detections occurred in the first five months of WildTrack’s 16-month deployment, with male-biased detections also observed. Diel activity estimates from WildTrack and cameras detections similarly showed peaks before sunrise and after sunset, with some species-specific variations in peak periods. Shark Bay bandicoot home-range size estimates by WildTrack were comparable to other studies using more invasive and laborious methods.
4. Solution: Our study highlights the utility of the WildTrack RFID system as a minimally invasive monitoring method with low operational labour for small, cryptic, and traditionally difficult-to-monitor species. WildTrack has broad potential for conservation and translocation practitioners looking to optimise conservation efforts.