Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Rodenticide Activity of Three Agro Waste Materials in Combat of Rattus norvegicus Under Laboratory Conditions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nowadays, the use of natural and eco-friendly compounds for control of synanthropic rodents instead of chemical rodenticides is an important step in integrated pest management (IPM). Three by-products, namely corn cobs, rice straw and sugarcane bagasse, consisting of cellulose as the main active ingredient, were investigated to combat the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) under laboratory conditions. Different baits: five from corn cobs; two from rice straw; and two from sugarcane bagasse; were explored. A series of bioassay detection methods of no-choice and choice feeding trials were used. For the no-choice feeding test, all the five tested corn cob baits, together with one of each of the rice straw and sugarcane bagasse gave 100% mortality. However, in the choice feeding test, only the 65% corn cob wood fraction bait (65% CCW) exhibited 100% mortality with 16.37% acceptance. The changes related to ingestion of cellulose-based baits were mainly due to the dehydration, which was confirmed by a significant reduction in body weight, lethargy, tremors and intensive bowel impaction. Although 65% CCW caused 100% mortality, its acceptance is still below the level for a rodenticide material to be approved. Hence, further efficacy studies are required, targeting amelioration of attractiveness of cellulose-based baits for rodents and development of palatable products to ensure better outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heuser E, Fischer S, Ryll R, Mayer-Scholl A, Hoffmann D, Spahr C et al (2017) Survey for zoonotic pathogens in Norway rat populations from Europe. Pest Manag Sci 73(2):341–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Neena S, Babbar B (2010) Rodent damage and infestation in wheat and rice crop fields: district wise analysis in Punjab State. Ind J Ecol 37(2):184–188

    Google Scholar 

  3. Samir A, Soliman R, El-Hariri M, Abdel-Moein K, Hatem ME (2015) Leptospirosis in animals and human contacts in Egypt: broad range surveillance. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 48(3):272–277. https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0102-2015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Meerburg BG, Singleton GR, Kijlstra A (2009) Rodent-borne diseases and their risks for public health. Crit Rev Microbiol 35(3):221–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408410902989837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maudlin I, Eisler MC, Welburn SC (2009) Neglected and endemic zoonoses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364(1530):2777–2787. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0067

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Shore R, Birks J, Afsar A, Wienburg C, Kitchener A (2003) Spatial and temporal analysis of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide residues in polecats (Mustela putorius) from throughout their range in Britain, 1992–1999. Environ Pollut 122(2):183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00297-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Runge M, von Keyserlingk M, Braune S, Becker D, Plenge-Bönig A, Freise JF et al (2013) Distribution of rodenticide resistance and zoonotic pathogens in Norway rats in Lower Saxony and Hamburg, Germany. Pest Manag Sci 69(3):403–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sud D, Mahajan G, Kaur M (2008) Agricultural waste material as potential adsorbent for sequestering heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions: a review. Bioresour Technol 99(14):6017–6027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lim S-F, Matu SU (2015) Utilization of agro-wastes to produce biofertilizer. Int J Energy Environ Eng 6(1):31–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-014-0147-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jokić G, Vukša M, Đedović S, Kljajić P (2014) Laboratory testing of wood mouse and common vole sensitivity to bromadiolone, sodium selenite, and cellulose. J Pest Sci 87(2):309–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-014-0554-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanney PW (1975) Rodents, their lives and habits. Taplinger Pubishing Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schuerch C (1968) Methods of wood chemistry. vol. II. BL Browning, Ed., Wiley, New York, 1967. 498 pp. $18.75. J Polym Sci A 6(11):1943–1944. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.1968.160061112

  13. TAPPI. (1999) TAPPI test methods. T203 Cm-99. Alpha-, beta-and gamma-cellulose in pulp: Technical Association of Pulp Paper Industry

  14. Kumar AK, Sharma S (2017) Recent updates on different methods of pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks: a review. Bioresour Bioprocess 4(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0137-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson RA, Prescott C (1994) The laboratory evaluation of rodenticides. In: Buckle AP, Smith RH (eds) CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRo 4YY

  16. WHO (1982) WHO vector biology and control series, vol 843. World Health Organization: Instructions for determining the susceptibility or resistance of rodents to anticoagulant rodenticide, p 9

  17. OEPP/EPPO (2004) Laboratory tests for evaluation of the toxicity and acceptability of rodenticides and rodenticide preparations, PP 1/113 (2). In: EPPO Standards PP1. Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products miscellaneous, vol 5, 2nd edn. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, Paris, pp 23–35

  18. Sokal RR (1995) The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Biometry, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman, New York,  pp 451–554

  19. Guidobono JS, León V, Gómez Villafañe IE, Busch M (2010) Bromadiolone susceptibility in wild and laboratory Mus musculus L. (house mice) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Pest Manag Sci 66(2):162–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1850

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dawson A, Garthwaite D (2004) Pesticide usage survey report 185: rodenticide usage by local authorities in Great Britain 2001. DEFRA, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anonymous (2007) Registration decision-RD2007-08: cellulose from powdered corn cobs. In: Canada PMRA, editor

  22. Jokić G, Vukša P, Vukša M (2010) Comparative efficacy of conventional and new rodenticides against Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778) in wheat and alfalfa crops. Crop Prot 29(5):487–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.11.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ashour A, Amer M, Marzouk A, Shimizu K, Kondo R, El-Sharkawy S (2013) Corncobs as a potential source of functional chemicals. Molecules 18(11):13823–13830. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules181113823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Barl B, Biliaderis CG, Murray ED, Macgregor AW (1991) Combined chemical and enzymic treatments of corn husk lignocellulosics. J Sci Food Agric 56(2):195–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740560209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Matsushima J, Dowe TW, Arthaud VH (1957) Evaluation of ground corncobs and corncob components as nutritive materials in rations for beef cattle. Hist Res Bull Neb Agric Exp 185:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guilherme A, Dantas P, Santos E, Fernandes F, Macedo G (2015) Evaluation of composition, characterization and enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated sugar cane bagasse. Braz J Chem Eng 32(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-6632.20150321s00003146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. El-Tayeb T, Abdelhafez A, Ali S, Ramadan E (2012) Effect of acid hydrolysis and fungal biotreatment on agro-industrial wastes for obtainment of free sugars for bioethanol production. Braz J Microbiol 43(4):1523–1535. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822012000400037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmolz E (2010) Efficacy of anticoagulant-free alternative bait products against house mice (Mus musculus) and brown rats (Rattus norvegicus). Integr Zool 5(1):44–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00191.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Salmon TP, Dochtermann NA (2006) Rodenticide grain bait ingredient acceptance by Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae). Pest Manag Sci 62(7):678–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Miller JG (1974) The significance of preference in laboratory bait acceptance studies. In: Proceedings of the vertebrate pest conference, vol 6, issue 6, pp 78–81

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Dr. Sawsan Dakrory, National Research Center, Egypt.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, 11562, Egypt

    Marwa Y. Issa & Essam Abdel-Sattar

  2. Research Institute of Medical Entomology, The General Organization for Institutes and Teaching Hospitals, Ministry of Health and Population, Dokki, Egypt

    Walaa S. Nasser & Micheal William Mikhail

Authors
  1. Marwa Y. Issa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walaa S. Nasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Micheal William Mikhail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Essam Abdel-Sattar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marwa Y. Issa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Significance Statement An evidence for the potential activity of three cellulose-based agro-waste by-products as rodenticides through a series of bioassay methods of choice and no-choice feeding tests to combat the wild Norway rat under laboratory conditions is provided.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Issa, M.Y., Nasser, W.S., Mikhail, M.W. et al. Comparative Rodenticide Activity of Three Agro Waste Materials in Combat of Rattus norvegicus Under Laboratory Conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 91, 855–863 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-021-01271-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-021-01271-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation