Rodenticide Use in Rodent Management in the United States: An Overview (original) (raw)
Related papers
The use of rodenticides for conservation efforts
Proc. Wildlife Damage …, 2007
Non-native rats (Rattus spp.) and mice have been introduced to more than 80% of the island groups around the world. They have caused ecosystem-wide impacts, including the extirpation and extinction of many native and endemic species which evolved in a mammalian predator-free environment. Fortunately, practitioners have developed techniques to eradicate introduced rodents, allowing ecosystems to recover. Rodenticides have proven an effective tool in eradications, having been used in over 300 successful eradications worldwide. Careful planning, adequate resources, and a sustained effort by competent field staff are needed to help ensure a successful eradication program. Island eradications are logistically complex and often quite expensive, requiring that once initiated, removal of 100% of rodents is paramount to facilitate support for future projects. However, efforts must be made to reduce potential rodenticide impacts to non-target animals, especially native birds and mammals. Standard considerations include confirming the species present, their behavioral characteristics and scale of risk, the legal status of species present, and population levels and distributions. To minimize risks, the type of rodenticide used, bait formulation, placement (stations or broadcast), timing of application, number of applications, and weather needs to be considered. It is important to recognize the great value of a successful invasive rodent eradication to island resources; recovery of native flora and fauna is usually rapid and remarkable.
2016
Rodents have caused havoc with human's economy as they destroy all food items in field, godown, storage house, poultry farm and premises. Due to its closeness to man habitation, it spreads number of diseases like plague etc. Rodents are estimated to cause around 5-15% damages, losses to cereals and other areas. Rodenticide is one of the important ways of controlling rodent damage. However, limitations with present rodenticides are accidental or secondary poisoning, risk to non-target organisms and probable development of resistances. Under such circumstances, there is need for awareness generation among the farm growers and manufacturers, who are involved in using and developing these rodenticide technologies. Possible new innovative rodenticide formulations like spreading oil, encapsulated bait etc may be successful to combat rodent resistance.
A California without Rodenticides: Challenges for Commensal Rodent Management in the Future
Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference
Rodenticides are an essential tool in the integrated pest management (IPM) of infestations of commensal rodents. With the introduction of Assembly Bill 2422 California Natural Predator Protection Act, the State of California is potentially facing a future with serious restrictions on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to manage commensal rodents in urban areas. Assembly Bill 2422 has been proposed to protect predators from rodenticide poisoning and seeks to significantly restrict the application of first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides for use in many urban and no-urban areas of California. Exclusion and cultural practices, such as landscape management and sanitation, are important and successful tools for managing rodent populations. However, quick and efficient control of commensal rodent infestations often necessitates the use of rodenticides. While rodenticide is an important tool, exposure of wildlife to anticoagulant rodenticides has been evident for many years in the state of California. When rodents are consumed by predators, second generation anticoagulant rodenticides can be detected as residues in the livers of predators. Many species of animals are documented as having succumbed to rodenticide toxicosis, however the effects of chronic, sub-lethal exposure to predators are not well understood. This paper will discuss the current and proposed changes to rodenticide legislation in California, impacts of the legislation on communities across California, and gaps in research preventing the adoption of evidence-based best management strategies for rodent control. In order to improve the success of commensal rodent control programs in California, effective strategies for rodent management must be developed.
The new alternative different rodenticides for control rodent
The main of objectives of this studies aim to develop an effective strategy for implementation of rodent management programs in ecosystems by used the new alternative to control rodent without rodenticides such as chemostralisation, antifertility, vitamins with wheat in different ratios, protozoa, anti feeding and natural plant materials and other methods. Because. The main options available for non chemical control and non lethal chemical control methods may be cost effective, but they rarely achieve the rapid knockdown of a pest population that is possible with properly used chemical rodenticides. However, they can be integrated with chemical control, except perhaps vertebrate predators which may be vulnerable to secondary poisoning from some persistent chemical rodenticides. (Keshta 2003).
Use of anticoagulant rodenticides by pest management professionals in Massachusetts, USA
Ecotoxicology, 2016
Secondary exposure to chemical rodenticides, specifically second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), poses a threat to non-target wildlife including birds of prey. Federal regulations in the United States currently limit homeowner access to SGARs as a way of minimizing this threat. With legal access to SGARs, pest management professionals (PMPs) represent a potential linkage to non-target exposure. There is limited research focused on rodent control practices, chemical rodenticide preferences, level of concern and awareness, or opinions on rodenticide regulations as they relate to PMPs. An online survey was sent to PMP companies across Massachusetts, USA, between October and November 2015. Thirty-five responses were obtained, a 20 % response rate. The preferred rodent control method among responding PMP companies was chemical rodenticides, specifically the SGAR bromadiolone. Respondents varied in their level of concern regarding the impact of chemical rodenticides on non-target species and showed a low level of awareness regarding SGAR potency and half-life. All responding companies reported using integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, with nearly all utilizing chemical rodenticides at some point. Enhanced education focused on SGAR potency, bioaccumulation potential, exposure routes, and negative impacts on non-target wildlife may improve efforts made by PMPs to minimize risk to wildlife and decrease dependence on chemical rodenticide use. Future studies evaluating use of anticoagulant rodenticide (ARs) by PMPs and the association with AR residues found in nontarget wildlife is necessary to determine if current EPA regulations need to be modified to effectively reduce the risk of SGARs to non-target wildlife.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019
The extensive use of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) results in widespread unintentional exposure of non-target rodents and secondary poisoning of predators despite regulatory measures to manage and reduce exposure risk. To elucidate on the potential vectoring of ARs into surrounding habitats by non-target small mammals, we determined bromadiolone prevalence and concentrations in rodents and shrews near bait boxes during an experimental application of the poison for 2 weeks. Overall, bromadiolone was detected in 12.6% of all small rodents and insectivores. Less than 20 m from bait boxes, 48.6% of small mammals had detectable levels of bromadiolone. The prevalence of poisoned small mammals decreased with distance to bait boxes, but bromadiolone concentration in the rodenticide positive individuals did not. Poisoned small mammals were trapped up to 89 m from bait boxes. Bromadiolone concentrations in yellow-necked mice (Apodemus flavicollis) were higher than concentrations in bank vole (Myodes glareolus), field vole (Microtus agrestis), harvest mouse (Micromys minutus), and common shrew (Sorex araneus). Our field trials documents that chemical rodent control results in widespread exposure of non-target small mammals and that AR poisoned small mammals disperse away from bating sites to become available to predators and scavengers in large areas of the landscape. The results suggest that the unintentional secondary exposure of predators and scavengers is an unavoidable consequence of chemical rodent control outside buildings and infrastructures.
Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2012
We compared capture rates and exposure to SGARs of wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) and house mice (Mus domesticus) in autumn/winter on farms that currently used, had previously used, and never used SGARs. 6-10 weeks after baiting programmes began, 15 % of 55 wood mice and 33 % of 12 house mice had detectable liver SGAR residues. Wood mice with residues occurred on farms not using rodenticides, reflecting the high mobility of these animals, and four had multiple liver residues, possibly due to cross-contamination of baits. The winter decline in wood mouse numbers was similar on farms that did and did not use SGARs, suggesting little long-term impact of SGARs on populations on farms. Our results indicate residual levels of rodenticides will be ever present in small mammal prey across the agricultural landscape unless all farms in a locality cease application. The implications for secondary exposure and poisoning of predators are discussed.
Unintentional Wildlife Poisoning and Proposals for Sustainable Management of Rodents
Conservation Biology, 2014
In Europe, bromadiolone, an anticoagulant rodenticide authorized for plant protection, may be applied intensively in fields to control rodents. The high level of poisoning of wildlife that follows such treatments over large areas has been frequently reported. In France, bromadiolone has been used to control water voles (Arvicola terrestris) since the 1980s. Both regulation and practices of rodent control have evolved during the last 15 years to restrict the quantity of poisoned bait used by farmers. This has led to a drastic reduction of the number of cases of poisoned wildlife reported by the French surveillance network SAGIR. During the autumn and winter 2011, favorable weather conditions and high vole densities led to the staging of several hundreds of Red Kites (Milvus milvus) in the Puy-de-Dôme department (central France). At the same time, intensive treatments with bromadiolone were performed in this area. Although no misuse has been mentioned by the authorities following controls, 28 Red Kites and 16 Common Buzzards (Buteo buteo) were found dead during surveys in November and December 2011. For all these birds, poisoning by bromadiolone as the main cause of death was either confirmed or highly suspected. Other observations suggest a possible impact of bromadiolone on the breeding population of Red Kites in this area during the spring 2011. French regulation of vole control for plant protection is currently under revision, and we believe this event calls for more sustainable management of rodent outbreaks. Based on large-scale experiments undertaken in eastern France, we propose that direct control of voles at low density (with trapping or limited chemical treatments) and mechanical destruction of vole tunnels, mole control, landscape management, and predator fostering be included in future regulation because such practices could help resolve conservation and agricultural issues. Envenenamiento No Intencional de Fauna Silvestre y Propuestas para un Manejo Sustentable de Roedores