Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums, or south­ern bobucks, are na­tive to south­east­ern Aus­tralia, rang­ing from Vic­to­ria to Cen­tral Queens­land. (Lin­den­mayer, et al., 2002)

• Biogeographic Regions
• australian
  • native

Habi­tat

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums are semi-ar­bo­real mar­su­pi­als found in wet scle­ro­phyll forests of south­east­ern Aus­tralia (Lin­den­mayer, Dubach, and Vig­gers, 2002). They usu­ally live in above-ground dens (ei­ther tree hol­lows or nest boxes). A re­cent study by J.K. Mar­tin found that adult bobucks use mul­ti­ple den-trees. How­ever, they also oc­ca­sion­ally den in thick ground veg­e­ta­tion (Mar­tin, 2006). Due to log­ging, farm­ing, and other human ac­tiv­i­ties, the pri­mary habi­tat of most pop­u­la­tions is now frag­mented for­est in agri­cul­tural land (Mar­tin and Han­dasyde, 2007). (Lin­den­mayer, et al., 2002; Mar­tin and Han­dasyde, 2007; Mar­tin, 2006)

• Habitat Regions
• temperate
• terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• forest
• scrub forest

• Range elevation

  0 to 1300 m

  0.00 to 4265.09 ft

• Average elevation

  300-1300 m

  ft

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums are medium-sized (2.6 to 4.2 kg) mar­su­pi­als. They have thick, light gray-brown fur, and long, dark gray, bushy tails. They dif­fer mor­pho­log­i­cally from their close rel­a­tives, short-eared pos­sums (Tri­chosu­rus can­i­nus), which is found di­rectly to the north of moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums. No sex­ual di­mor­phism is ap­par­ent (Lin­den­mayer, Dubach, and Vig­gers, 2002). (Lin­den­mayer, et al., 2002)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• homoiothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• sexes alike

• Range mass

  2.5 to 4.5 kg

  5.51 to 9.91 lb

• Range length

  81 to 93 cm

  31.89 to 36.61 in

Re­pro­duc­tion

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums ap­pear to be so­cially monog­a­mous. Adults are strongly paired and re­main very close to each other, stay­ing in the same den on ap­prox­i­mately 70% of the days dur­ing mat­ing sea­son. Fe­males form a pair-bond at 2 to 5 years of age and the bonds only end at the death of one pair mem­ber. How­ever, ge­netic ev­i­dence sug­gests that moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums are not monog­a­mous; mol­e­c­u­lar pa­ter­nity analy­sis has shown that 35% of young re­sult from ex­tra-pair cop­u­la­tions. Males that sired more than one off­spring a year, out­side of the pair bond, are gen­er­ally larger, in­di­cat­ing that dom­i­nance re­sults in re­pro­duc­tive suc­cess. Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums have a short, syn­chro­nous breed­ing sea­son. Fe­males have one young per year. Young are in the pouch for ap­prox­i­mately 6 months, and then spends 1 to 2 months rid­ing on its mother’s back. Males play al­most no part in rais­ing the young (Mar­tin, Han­dasyde, Tay­lor, and Coul­son, 2007). (Mar­tin, et al., 2007)

• Mating System
• monogamous
• polygynous

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums breed once yearly, in Jan­u­ary and Feb­ru­ary. Off­spring re­main in the pouch for ap­prox­i­mately 6 months and then ride on their mother’s back for an­other 1 to 2 months. Off­spring are usu­ally weaned around Sep­tem­ber. Ju­ve­niles re­main close to their moth­ers until they are ap­prox­i­mately 18 months old. Fe­males be­come sex­u­ally ma­ture be­tween 2 and 5 years of age; males be­tween 2 and 3 years (Mar­tin, Han­dasyde, Tay­lor, and Coul­son, 2007). (Mar­tin, et al., 2007)

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous
• seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• viviparous

• Breeding interval

  Mountain brushtail possums breed once yearly.

• Breeding season

  The breeding season is January to February.

• Range number of offspring

  0 to 1

• Average number of offspring

  1

• Range gestation period

  15 to 17 days

• Range weaning age

  5 to 6 months

• Range time to independence

  17 to 18 months

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  2 to 5 years

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  2 to 3 years

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  3 years

Most moun­tain brush­tail pos­sum fe­males give birth to one baby a year. The off­spring spend ap­prox­i­mately 6 months in the pouch, then 1 to 2 months rid­ing on the mother’s back. Males spend the least amount of time with their fe­male part­ners when the fe­males are car­ry­ing young on their back, and are there­fore much less in­volved in the care of off­spring. Ju­ve­niles re­main with their moth­ers until they are ap­prox­i­mately 18 months old. (Mar­tin, et al., 2007)

• Parental Investment
• female parental care
• pre-fertilization
  • provisioning
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-hatching/birth
  • provisioning
    • female
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-weaning/fledging
  • provisioning
    • female
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-independence
  • protecting
    • female
• post-independence association with parents
• extended period of juvenile learning

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Both male and fe­male moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums ap­pear to be long-lived, reach­ing at least 12 years of age. How­ever, it ap­pears as though fewer males reach that age than fe­males (Mar­tin and Han­dasyde, 2007). They are per­haps the longest lived mar­su­pial (Vig­gers and Lin­den­mayer, 2002). (Mar­tin and Han­dasyde, 2007; Vig­gers and Lin­den­mayer, 2002)

• Range lifespan
  Status: wild

  12 (high) years

Be­hav­ior

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums are noc­tur­nal, stay­ing in dens dur­ing the day and leav­ing at night to for­age. They are seden­tary, often re­main­ing in the same small home range for their en­tire lives. Adults form strong pair-bonds and often share the same suite of dif­fer­ent dens with their off­spring. The home ranges of paired in­di­vid­u­als over­lap as well, as op­posed to non-paired in­di­vid­u­als, who re­main more ex­clu­sive in their home ranges. (Mar­tin, et al., 2007)

• Key Behaviors
• arboreal
• terricolous
• nocturnal
• motile
• sedentary
• social

• Range territory size

  0.056 to 0.064 km^2

Home Range

Both male and fe­male adult moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums have a mean home range size of 6.0 hectares, plus or minus 0.4 hectares. The home ranges of subadults are sig­nif­i­cantly smaller. How­ever, this data was gath­ered in a for­est set­ting. There­fore, the home ranges of those pop­u­la­tions liv­ing in scrub set­tings is un­stud­ied and un­known (Mar­tin, 2006). (Mar­tin, 2006)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

Like other pos­sums, Tri­chosu­rus cun­ning­hami re­lies on sight, hear­ing, touch, smell, and taste. Its whiskers en­hance it's per­cep­tion. (Mar­tin, 2006)

• Communication Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

• Other Communication Modes
• scent marks

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums are her­biv­o­rous and fru­giv­o­rous. They mainly eat aca­cia leaves, fungi, lichens, buds, fruit, and some­times bark. Aca­cia is an in­te­gral part of their sea­sonal diet, with dif­fer­ent species of the plant con­sumed at dif­fer­ent times of the year. (Irl­beck and Hume, 2003)

• Primary Diet
• herbivore
  • folivore

• Plant Foods
• leaves
• wood, bark, or stems
• fruit
• bryophytes
• lichens

• Other Foods
• fungus

Pre­da­tion

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sum preda­tors have not been well-re­ported. They are preyed on by non-na­tive foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and may also be taken by large snakes or rap­tors. The main threat to pop­u­la­tions is human ac­tion – the clear­ance of land for forestry and agri­cul­ture. (Menkhorst, et al., 2011)

• Known Predators

  • red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)

Ecosys­tem Roles

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums may in­flu­ence veg­e­ta­tion com­mu­nity struc­ture through their her­bivory. Al­ler­gic re­ac­tions to ec­topar­a­sites on the skin may be one of the main causes of the dis­ease 'rump­wear' in moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums (Huf­schmid, Han­dasyde, and Bev­eridge, 2010). (Huf­schmid, et al., 2010; Menkhorst, et al., 2011)

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Tri­chosu­rus cun­ning­hami does not ap­pear to be of pos­i­tive eco­nomic im­por­tance to hu­mans.

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

Moun­tain brush­tail pos­sums are some­times de­scribed as a de­struc­tive pest in south­east­ern Aus­tralian pine plan­ta­tions (IUCN Red List). (Menkhorst, et al., 2011)

• Negative Impacts
• crop pest

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

The con­ser­va­tion sta­tus of Tri­chosu­rus cun­ning­hami is of least con­cern, ac­cord­ing to the IUCN, and pop­u­la­tions are con­sid­ered sta­ble. (Menkhorst, et al., 2011)

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  No special status

• State of Michigan List

  No special status

Other Com­ments

Tri­chosu­rus cun­ning­hami was not de­scribed as a sep­a­rate species from Tri­chosu­rus can­i­nus until 2002. (Vig­gers and Lin­den­mayer, 2002)

Con­trib­u­tors

Helen Mc­Creary (au­thor), Yale Uni­ver­sity, Eric Sar­gis (ed­i­tor), Yale Uni­ver­sity, Rachel Raci­cot (ed­i­tor), Yale Uni­ver­sity, Tanya Dewey (ed­i­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan-Ann Arbor.

Ref­er­ences

Huf­schmid, J., K. Han­dasyde, I. Bev­eridge. 2010. The role of host and en­vi­ron­men­tal fac­tors in the epi­demi­ol­ogy of rump­wear in brush­tail pos­sums. Aus­tralian Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 58: 250-262. Ac­cessed May 09, 2012 at http://​www.​publish.​csiro.​au/?​act=view_​file&​file_​id=ZO10030.​pdf.

Irl­beck, N., I. Hume. 2003. The role of Aca­cia in the diets of Aus­tralian mar­su­pi­als – a re­view. Aus­tralian Mam­mal­ogy, 25: 121-134.

Lin­den­mayer, D., J. Dubach, K. Vig­gers. 2002. Ge­o­graphic di­mor­phism in the moun­tain brush­tail pos­sum T. can­i­nus: the case for a new species. Aus­tralian Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 50: 369-393.

Mar­tin, J. 2006. Den-use and home-range char­ac­ter­is­tics of bobucks, Tri­chosu­rus cun­ning­hami, res­i­dent in a for­est patch. Aus­tralian Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 54: 225-234.

Mar­tin, J., K. Han­dasyde. 2007. Com­par­i­son of Bobuck de­mog­ra­phy in two habi­tat types in the Strath­bo­gie Ranges, Aus­tralia. Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 271: 375-385.

Mar­tin, J., K. Han­dasyde, A. Tay­lor, G. Coul­son. 2007. Long-term pair-bonds with­out mat­ing fi­delity in a mam­mal. Be­hav­iour, 144: 1419-1445.

Menkhorst, P., D. Tag­gart, M. Ellis, R. Mar­tin. 2011. "The IUCN Red List of Threat­ened Species" (On-line). Ac­cessed April 10, 2012 at http://​www.​iucnredlist.​org/​apps/​redlist/​details/​136256/​0.

Vig­gers, K., D. Lin­den­mayer. 2002. The Other Brush­tail Pos­sum. Na­ture Aus­tralia, Spring 27: 46.