1
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
2
1. Methods
3
Macropodid faecal aversion experiment
4
We created a 24 x 48 m rectangular grid with 40 4 x 4 m squares, each marked out with a specific
5
combination of coloured bamboo garden stakes. Across this area, the mean natural faecal cover was 11%.
6
Using a random number generator we assigned each square as either contaminated or uncontaminated.
7
We removed all macropod faeces by hand from the area and pooled them before replacing faeces on the
8
contaminated squares to provide 22% cover to represent a higher than average risk. We dropped handfuls
9
of pellets in groups of 3 to 10, as this was observed to be the average size of an individual’s droppings. To
10
minimize edge effects, we included a buffer of experimentally treated squares on all sides of the grid, but
11
did not use these squares in the analysis. Each day we removed any new faeces prior to observations.
12
We observed wallabies from a 5 m high, elevated platform, approximately 50 m from the
13
experimental squares, using a Kowa spotting scope (20x60). The observer was blind to square
14
contamination type. We noted the time when an individual entered the grid, and recorded the number of
15
steps and bites, and time they spent foraging using the Voice Memos app on an iPhone (behaviours
16
defined after Watson and Dawson 1993). Observations lasted until 5 min had elapsed, or when the animal
17
left the grid. We transcribed voice recordings using the event recording software JWatcher V 1.0
18
(Blumstein and Daniel 2007). We also conducted scan samples every 5 min using 10 x 50 Zeiss
19
binoculars, panning from left to right across the squares to record the position and identity of all wallabies
20
currently on the grid.
21
We transformed behavioural durations into a proportion of time spent per cell type. We combined
22
‘bite’ and ‘step’ data to gain a measure of bite-to-step ratios (number of bites/number of steps). We
23
compared these metrics across contaminated and uncontaminated squares using paired student’s t-tests.
24
We analysed positional data from scan samples using a REML analysis, with treatment and time of day as
25
main effects, and sampling block as a random effect.
26
Parasite fauna
27
We confirmed that the parasite fauna of the wallabies was similar to that reported previously
28
(Aussavy et al. 2011) by collecting the gastrointestinal tracts of two road-killed red-necked wallabies, a
29
male and a female, obtained from the immediate vicinity of the airbase. We dissected the tracts, collected
30
helminth parasites (by hand or using sedimentation) and identified the species microscopically, following
31
Beveridge et al. (1979).
–1 –
32
2. RESULTS
33
Macropodid faecal aversion
34
Wallabies were recorded more frequently in uncontaminated squares than in contaminated squares (F1,
35
270 = 154.5, p < 0.0001) and stayed significantly longer in uncontaminated (214  11 s) than
36
contaminated (51  9 s; F1, 141 = 10.5, p < 0.0001) squares. Wallabies took over 30 times more bites per
37
step in uncontaminated squares (9.1 ± 1.7) than in contaminated squares (0.3 ± 0.1; t141 = 3.38, p <
38
0.001).
39
Parasite fauna
40
Combined, the studies reveal considerable diversity of gastrointestinal parasite populations both between
41
and among the different locations of the gastrointestinal tract (see table S1). Yet despite this diversity,
42
remarkably only two parasite species are reported in both red-necked wallabies and grey kangaroos:
43
Globocephaloides trifidospicularis and Austrostongylus macropodis, both occurring in the small intestine. We
44
identified fewer species of gastrointestinal parasites than Aussavy et al (2011), with four species common
45
to both studies.
46
Experiments
47
Statistical models exploring the variation in foraging behaviour in the faecal aversion experiment and the
48
combined faecal aversion experiments are given in Table S2, and Table S3 respectively.
49
References
50
Aussavy M, Bernardin E, Corrigan A, Hufschmid J, Beveridge I. 2011 Helminth parasite communities in four
51
52
53
species of sympatric macropodids in western Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 33, 13-20.
Beveridge I, Arundel JH. 1979 Helminth parasites of grey kangaroos, Macropus giganteus Shaw and M.
fuliginosus (Desmarest), in Eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 6, 69–77.
54
Blumstein DT, Daniel JC. 2007 Quantifying behavior the JWatcher way. Sinauer Associates Inc.
55
Watson DM, Dawson TJ. 1993 The effects of age, sex, reproductive status and temporal factors on the time use
56
of free ranging red kangaroos. Wildlife Research 20, 785–801.
–2 –
57
58
59
60
61
62
Table S1. The gastrointestinal fauna found in two red-necked wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus) from
the Victoria valley airbase in the Grampians National Park compared to those found by Aussavy et al.
(2011) in wallabies and western and eastern grey kangaroos (M. giganteus and M. fuliginosus) from
the surrounding areas.
Gastrointestinal
location of
parasites
Parasites
identified in the
present study
Parasites identified by Aussavy et al. 2011
Macropus
rufogriseus
M. rufogriseus
M. fuliginosus and
M. giganteus
Cyclostrongylus alatus
Cy. perplexus
Filarinema
asymmetricum
Labiosimplex australis
Pararugopharynx
protemnodontis
Rugopharynx epsilon
R. spratti
R. longibursaris
Wallabinema australe
W. labiatum
Cyclostrongylus wallabiae
Not investigated
Cloacina annulata
C. castor
C. edwardsi
C. eos
C. littoralis
C. mawsonae
C. papillata
C. pollux
C. sp. nov.
C. wallabiae
Filarinema asymmetricum
Macropostrongyloides
dissimilis
Parazoniolaimus collaris
Rugopharynx epsilon
R. mu
Wallabinema australe
Small Intestine
Austrostongylus
chandleri
A. macropodis
A. smalesae
A. wallabiae
Large Intestine
Hypodontus macropi
Austrostrongylus
victoriensis
Globocephaloides
trifidospicularis
Progamotaenia macropodis
P. ualabati
Triplotaenia undosa
Hypodontus macropi
Alocostoma clelandi
Cloacina artemis
C. expansa
C. hera
C. herceus
C. hermes
C. obtusa
C. pelops
C. selene
L. kungi
L. laterilabellosus
L. major
Labiosimplex bipapillosus
Labiosimplex spp.
Paramacropostrongylus typicus
Pharyngostrongylus kappa
Popovastrongylus pearsoni
Rugopharynx macropodis
R. rosemariae
Austrostrongylus chandleri
A. macropodis
Austrostrongylus sp. nov.
Globocephaloides
trifidospicularis
Oesophagus
Stomach
–3 –
Macropostrongyloides baylisi
Macropostr. yamagutii
Macropoxyuris brevigularis
Macropox. longigularis
Macropox. spp.
Table S2. REML models explaining variation in the foraging behavour of wallabies in the predator faecal
aversion experiment. The reported reduced models are derived by sequentially removing non-significant
(p > 0.1) interaction terms from the original full factorial model.
Estimate
a) Log (Approach time) (r2 = 0.86, n = 97)
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
Predator faeces [Control]
Predator faeces [Kangaroo]
Predator faeces [Possum]
Predator faeces [Rabbit]
Predator faeces [Sheep]
Fixed Effects Tests
Main effects
Predator faeces [control, wallaby, kangaroo,
sheep, possum, rabbit]
Time of day [morning, afternoon]
Distance from cover
3.328
-2.314
1.222
-0.164
-0.285
0.207
SE
0.124
0.117
0.121
0.122
0.125
0.127
df
Statistics
P
t Ratio
> |t|
20.4
88.8
88.9
89.0
87.9
87.2
26.86
-19.83
10.14
-1.35
-2.28
1.62
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.18
0.0252
0.11
86.8
F ratio
106.2
>F
< 0.001
88.4
54.5
0.141
0.531
0.71
0.47
t Ratio
> |t|
24.7
83.5
83.88
83.98
77.4
82.65
7.71
-5.37
3.37
0.33
-0.67
1.00
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0011
0.7415
0.5024
0.3201
81.9
F ratio
7.340
>F
< 0.001
83.6
58.2
0.048
2.532
0.83
0.12
82.4
2.643
0.0288
t Ratio
> |t|
51.5
81.7
83.7
81.7
83.5
81.8
9.64
9.32
-4.78
0.69
1.42
-0.71
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.4935
0.1584
0.4768
81.8
F ratio
24.484
>F
< 0.001
83.4
82.7
2.485
0.413
0.12
0.52
82.5
2.488
0.0379
b) Vigilance time (r2 = 0.41, n = 97)
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
Predator faeces [Control]
Predator faeces [Kangaroo]
Predator faeces [Possum]
Predator faeces [Rabbit]
Predator faeces [Sheep]
Predator faeces x distance from cover
Fixed Effects Tests
Main effects
Predator faeces [control, wallaby, kangaroo,
sheep, possum, rabbit]
Time of day [morning, afternoon]
Distance from cover
Interaction
Predator faeces x distance from cover
1.643
-1.079
0.707
0.069
-0.165
0.222
Included
0.213
0.201
0.210
0.208
0.245
0.222
c) Amount eaten (r2 = 0.67, n = 97)
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
Predator faeces [Control]
Predator faeces [Kangaroo]
Predator faeces [Possum]
Predator faeces [Rabbit]
Predator faeces [Sheep]
Predator faeces x Time of day
Fixed Effects Tests
Main effects
Predator faeces [control, wallaby, kangaroo,
sheep, possum, rabbit]
Time of day [morning, afternoon]
Distance from cover
Interaction
Predator faeces x Time of day
61.293
52.998
-28.186
4.025
8.997
-4.731
Included
–4 –
6.356
5.684
5.900
5.851
6.322
6.620
Table S3. REML models explaining variation in the foraging behavour of wallabies in the combined
predator and herbivore faecal aversion experiment. The reported reduced models are derived by
sequentially removing non-significant (p > 0.1) interaction terms from the original full factorial model.
Estimate
a) Log (Approach time) (r2 = 0.51, n = 68)
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
Predator faeces [kangaroo]
Predator faeces [possum]
Parasite [kangaroo]
Predator faeces x Parasite x Time of day
Parasite x Distance from cover x Time of day
3.402
0.311
-0.610
-0.084
Included
Included
SE
0.151
0.070
0.065
0.047
Fixed Effects Tests
Main effects
Predator faeces [wallaby, kangaroo, possum]
Parasite [wallaby, kangaroo]
Time of day [morning, evening]
Distance from cover
Interaction
Predator faeces x Parasite x Time of day
Parasite x Distance from cover x Time of day
df
Statistics
P
t Ratio
> |t|
48.8
58.5
58.5
58.6
22.58
4.42
-9.34
-1.81
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.08
57.1
58.6
59.0
58.3
F ratio
43.85
3.272
1.210
0.180
>F
< 0.0001
0.08
0.28
0.67
52.1
58.2
7.858
5.260
0.0010
0.0255
t Ratio
> |t|
58.7
60.0
59.7
59.4
5.31
3.55
-3.56
3.77
< 0.0001
0.0008
< 0.0007
0.0004
58.1
59.4
59.6
58.4
F ratio
8.085
14.230
0.452
3.990
>F
0.0008
0.0004
0.50
0.0504
59.1
8.638
0.0005
t Ratio
> |t|
58.0
62.0
60.4
61.7
60.2
3.09
0.32
2.73
5.31
2.06
0.0030
0.75
0.0082
< 0.0001
0.0434
59.2
61.7
61.0
60.2
F ratio
5.742
28.196
1.747
4.257
>F
0.005
< 0.001
0.19
0.0434
b) Log (Vigilance time) (r2 = 0.57, n = 61)
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
Predator faeces [kangaroo]
Predator faeces [possum]
Parasite [kangaroo]
Predator faeces x Parasite x Distance from
cover
1.559
0.518
-0.499
0.358
Included
0.293
0.146
0.140
0.095
Fixed Effects Tests
Main effects
Predator faeces [wallaby, kangaroo, possum]
Parasite [wallaby, kangaroo]
Time of day [morning, evening]
Distance from cover
Interaction
Predator faeces x Parasite x Distance from
cover
c) Amount eaten (r2 = 0.46, n = 68)
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
Predator faeces type [kangaroo]
Predator faeces type [possum]
Parasite [kangaroo]
Distance from cover
Fixed Effects Tests
Main effects
Predator faeces [wallaby, kangaroo, possum]
Parasite [kangaroo, wallaby]
Time of day [morning, evening]
Distance from cover
36.823
1.779
14.725
20.819
1.076
–5 –
11.904
5.564
5.388
3.921
0.522