Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subterranean Rodents as Pests: The Case of the Pocket Gopher

  • Chapter
Subterranean Rodents

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alsager DE (1977) Impact of pocket gophers on the quantitative productivity of rangeland vegetation in southern Alberta: a damage assessment tool. In: Jackson W (ed) Test methods for vertebrate pest control and management materials, ASTM STP 625, Am Soc Test Mat, Philadelphia, pp 47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony RM, Barnes VG Jr (1984) Plot occupancy for indicating pocket gopher abundance and conifer damage. In: Kaukeinen DE (ed) Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: Fourth Symposium, ASTM STP 817, Am Soc Test Mat, Philadelphia, pp 247–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker RJ, Bradley RD, McAliley LR (2003) Pocket gophers. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore, pp 276–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker RO (2004) Field efficacy of Fumitoxin (55% aluminum phosphide) tablets for controlling valley pocket gophers. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 21:253–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocek B (1992) The Jasper Ridge reexcavation experiment: rates of artifact mixing by rodents. Am Antiq 57:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowerman AG, Redente EF (1998) Biointrusion of protective barriers at hazardous waste sites. J Environ Qual 27:625–632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caid RD (1959) Taltuza investigations in Guatemala. Res Newsl (Department of Fruit, United Fruit Company, Boston) 6:15–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Case RM (1989) Managing damage to alfalfa caused by plains pocket gophers. Proc Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop 9:160–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Case RM, Jasch BA (1994) Pocket gophers. In: Hygnstrom SE, Timm RM, Larson GE (eds) Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Nebraska Cooperative Extension, Lincoln, pp B-17–B-29

    Google Scholar 

  • Case RM, Timm RM (1984) Economic model of pocket gopher control. Proc Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop 6:53–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly RA, Landstrom RE (1969) Gopher damage to buried cable materials. Mater Res Stand 9:13–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings MW, Marsh RE (1978) Vertebrate pests of citrus. The citrus industry, vol IV, Publication 4088, Univ California, Div Agr Sci, Davis, pp 237–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Campbell DL (1999) Pocket gopher reoccupation of burrow systems following population reduction. Crop Prot 18:523–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Witmer GW (2000) Integrated management tactics for predicting and alleviating pocket gopher damage to conifer reforestation plantings. Integr Pest Manag Rev 5:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Campbell DL, Evans J (1993) A comparison of 2 activity measures for northern pocket gophers. Wildl Soc Bull 21:70–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Anthony RM, Barnes V, Krupa HW, Evans J (1998) Double-stocking for overcoming damage to conifer seedlings by pocket gophers. Crop Prot 17:687–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Anthony RM, Barnes V, Krupa HW, Evans J (1999a) Evaluations of plastic mesh tubes for protecting conifer seedlings from pocket gophers in three western states. jWestern J Appl For 14:86–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Nolte DL, Bulkin SP (1999b) Optimization of the open-hole method for assessing pocket gopher activity. Can Field Nat 113:241–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch HS, Bentley JR (1949) Use of California annual-plant forage by range rodents. Ecology 30:306–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster MA, Stubbendieck J (1980) Effects of the plains pocket gopher on rangeland. J Range Manag 33:74–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham RT, Kingery JL (1990) Seedling damage and mortality of conifer plantations on transitory ranges in northern and central Idaho. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 14:209–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakonson TE, Marinez JL, White GC (1982) Disturbance of low-level waste burial site cover by pocket gophers. Health Phys 42:868–871

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty PJ (1984) Effects of the plains pocket gopher on hay meadows and irrigated alfalfa in the Nebraska sandhills. MSc Thesis, Univ Nebraska, Lincoln

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegdal PL, Harbour AJ (1991) Prevention and control of animal damage to hydraulic structures. US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA (1991) Effects of rainfall variability and gopher disturbance of serpentine annual grassland dynamics. Ecology 72:59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac RL (1959) Pocket gopher damage to underground telephone wire in Caddo County, Oklahoma. USDA Division of Wildlife Services, Oklahoma City

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasch B, Case RM, Luchsinger JC (1992) Pocket gopher damage and alfalfa root structure. Proc Nebraska Acad Sci 102:28

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith JO, Hansen RM, Ward AL (1959) Effect of 2,4-D on abundance and foods of pocket gohers. J Wildl Manag 23:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis SR, O’Brien JM (1990) Survey of rodent and rabbit damage to alfalfa hay in Nevada. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 14:116–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce DG, Case RM, Stubbendieck JL (1981) Damage to alfalfa fields by plains pocket gopher. J Wildl Manag 45:258–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh RE (1988) Rodent problems on the North American continent. In: Prakash I (ed) Rodent pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh RE (1992) Reflections on current (1992) pocket gopher control in California. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 15:289–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh RE (1998) One hundred years of pocket gopher traps and trapping. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 18:221–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Matschke GH, Sterner RT, Engeman RM, O’Brien JM (1994) Limitations of open-hole and plot occupancy indices in field efficacy studies with Townsend’s pocket gophers. Proc 15th Annual SETAC meeting, Denver, 15:245

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevo E (1999) Mosaic evolution of subterranean mammals: regression, progression and global convergence. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak RM (1999) Mammals of the world. Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipas MJ, Matschke GH, McCann GR (2000) Evaluation of the efficacy of three types of traps for capturing pocket gophers. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 19:385–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash I (1988) Rodent pest management. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Proulx G (1997) A preliminary evaluation of four types of traps to capture northern pocket gophers. Can Field Nat 111:640–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Proulx G (2002) Effectiveness of trapping to control northern pocket gophers in agricultural lands in Canada. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 20:26–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramey A, McCann GR (1997) Evaluatingcable resistance to pocket gopher damage-a review. Proc Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Conf 13:107–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Richens VB (1967) The status and use of gophacide. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 3:118–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Sejkora KJ (1989) Influence of pocket gophers on water erosion and surface hydrology. Dissertation. Colorado State Univ, Fort Collins

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton GR, Leirs H, Hinds LA, Zhang Z (1999) Ecologically-based management of rodent pests — re-evaluating our approach to an old problem. In: Singleton G (ed) Ecologically-based management of rodent pests. Austr Centre Intl Agricult Res, Canberra, pp 17–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton GR, Hind LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM (2003) Rats, mice, and people: rodent biology and management. Austr Centre Intl Agricult Res, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood KS (1999) Abating pocket gophers to regenerate forest clearcuts. Environ Conserv 26:59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood S, Geng S (1997) Multiscale influence of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Res 49:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood KS, Morrison ML (1999) Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers. Southwest Nat 44:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood KS, Morrison ML, Beyea J (1998) Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environ Manag 22:831–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan TP, Hogue EJ (1987) Influence of orchard floor management on vole and pocket gopher populations and damage in apple orchards. J Am Soc Hort Sci 112:972–977

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan TP, Krebs JA, Kluge HA (1987) Survey of mammal damage to tree fruit orchards in the Okanogan Valley of British Columbia. Northwest Sci 61:23–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietjen HP, Halvorson CH, Hegdal PL, Johnson AM (1967) 2,4-D herbicide, vegetation, and pocket gopher relationships, Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology 48:634–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timm RM (1994) Active ingredients. In: Hyngstrom S, Timm RM, Larson GE (eds) Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln, pp G-23–G-61

    Google Scholar 

  • Timm RM (2003) Devices for vertebrate pest control: are they of value? Proc Wildl Damage Manage Conf 10:152–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa Cornejo B (2000) Pocket gopher damage in sugarcane fields in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 19:358–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Whisson D, Villa Cornejo B (1996) The pocket gopher as a pest inMexico. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 17:151–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsor TF, Whicker FW (1980) Pocket gophers and redistribution of plutonium in soil. Health Phys 39:257–262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer GW, Fall MW, Fiedler LA (1995a) Rodent control, research needs, and technology transfer. In: Bissonette J (ed) Integrating people and wildlife for a sustainable future. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, pp 693–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer GW, Matschke GH, Campbell DL (1995b) Field trials of pocket gopher control with cholecalciferol. Crop Prot 14:307–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer GW, Sayler RD, Pipas MJ (1997) Repellent trials to reduce reforestation damage by pocket gophers, deer, and elk. In: Mason JR (ed) Repellents in wildlife management, USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 321–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer GW, Marsh RE, Matschke GH (1999) Trapping considerations for the fossorial pocket gopher. In: Proulx G (ed) Mammal trapping. Alpha Wildlife Research and Management, Ltd., Sherwood Park, pp 131–139

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521-2154, USA

    Gary W. Witmer & Richard M. Engeman

Authors
  1. Gary W. Witmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard M. Engeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. General Zoology Institute of Biology, Faculty of Bio- and Geosciences, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 5, 45117, Essen, Germany

    Sabine Begall  & Hynek Burda  & 

  2. Laboratorio de Ecofisiología Departamento de Biología Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Casillo de correo 1245, Funes 3250, 7600, Mar del Plata, Argentina

    Cristian E. Schleich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Witmer, G.W., Engeman, R.M. (2007). Subterranean Rodents as Pests: The Case of the Pocket Gopher. In: Begall, S., Burda, H., Schleich, C.E. (eds) Subterranean Rodents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69276-8_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation