The acute oral toxicity, repellency, and hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more species of wild and domestic birds

  • E. W. SchaferJr.
  • W. A. BowlesJr.
  • J. Hurlbut
Article

Abstract

The acute oral toxicity, repellency, and hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more of 68 species of wild and domestic birds was determined by standardized testing procedures. Red winged blackbirds were the most sensitive of the bird species tested on a large number of chemicals, and an index based on redwing toxicity and repellency may provide an appropriate indication of the probability of acute avian poisoning episodes. Avian repellency and toxicity were not positively correlated (i.e. toxicity varied independently with repellency).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. DeCino, T. J., D. J. Cunningham, and E. W. Schafer: Toxicity of DRC-1339 to starlings. J. Wildl. Manage.30, 249 (1966).Google Scholar
  2. Frank, F. R., E. W. Schafer, Jr., and J. L. Guarino: Laboratory and field studies with an avian repellent for sprouting seeds. Proc. Bird Control Seminar5, 86 (1970).Google Scholar
  3. Friedman, M.: The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc.32, 675 (1937).Google Scholar
  4. Litchfield, J. T., and E. W. Wilcoxon: A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J. Pharmacol. Exptl. Therap.96, 99 1949.Google Scholar
  5. Schafer, E. W., Jr.: The acute oral toxicity of 369 pesticidal, pharmaceutical and other chemicals to wild birds. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.21, 315 (1972).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Schafer, E. W., Jr., and R. B. Brunton: Chemicals as bird repellents-two promising agents. J. Wildl. Manage.35, 569 (1971).Google Scholar
  7. Schafer, E. W., Jr., and D. J. Cunningham: An evaluation of 146 compounds as avian immobilizing agents. USDI Spec. Sci. Rept. Wildl. 150, Washington, DC (1972).Google Scholar
  8. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. B. Brunton, and D. J. Cunningham: A summary of the acute toxicity of 4-aminopyridine to birds and mammals. Toxicol Appl. Pharmacol.26, 532 (1973a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. B. Brunton, and N. F. Lockyer: Evaluation of 45 chemicals as chemosterilants in adult male coturnix. J. Reprod. Fert.48, 371 (1976).Google Scholar
  10. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. B. Brunton, and N. F. Lockyer: Indicator bird species for toxicity determinations: Is the technique useful in test method development? Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials. ASTM STP 680 J. R. Beck (ed.). American Society for Testing and Materials, 157. Philadelphia, PA (1979).Google Scholar
  11. Schafer, E. W., Jr., J. L. Guarino, and R. B. Brunton: Use of male coturnix quail in the laboratory development of avian chemosterilants. Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials. ASTM STP 625 W. B. Jackson and R. E. Marsh (eds.). American Society for Testing and Materials, 225. Philadelphia, PA (1977).Google Scholar
  12. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. R., West, and D. J. Cunningham: DRC-1347-A new starling contact toxicant. Pest Control37, 22 (1969).Google Scholar
  13. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. B. Brunton, N. F. Lockyer, and J. W. DeGrazio: Comparative toxicity of 17 pesticides to the quelea, house sparrow and red-winged blackbird. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.21, 154 (1973b).Google Scholar
  14. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. B. Brunton, E. C. Schafer, and J. Chevez: Effects of 77 chemicals on reproduction in male and female coturnix quail. Ecotoxicol. Environm. Safety6, 149 (1982).Google Scholar
  15. Schafer, E. W., Jr., R. I. Starr, D. J. Cunningham, and T. J. DeCino: Substituted phenylN-methylcarbamates as temporary immobilizing agents for birds. J. Agric. Food Chem.15, 287 (1967).Google Scholar
  16. Shefte, N., R. L. Bruggers, and E. W. Schafer, Jr.: Repellency and toxicity of three bird control chemicals to four species of African grain-eating birds. J. Wildl. Manage.41, 453 (1982).Google Scholar
  17. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran: Statistical methods. 6 ed. Iowa State Univ. Press Ames, Iowa: (1971).Google Scholar
  18. Starr, R. I., J. F. Besser, and R. B. Brunton: A laboratory method for evaluating chemicals as bird repellents. J. Agric. Food Chem.12, 342 (1964).Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, W. R.: Use of moving averages and interpolation to estimate median effective dose. Bacteriol. Rev.11, 115 (1948).Google Scholar
  20. Thompson, W. R., and C. S. Weil: On the construction of tables for moving average interpolation. Biometrics8, 51 (1952).Google Scholar
  21. Weil, C. S.: Tables for convenient calculation of median effective dose (LD50 or ED50) and instructions in their use. Biometrics8, 249 (1952).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. W. SchaferJr.
    • 1
  • W. A. BowlesJr.
    • 1
  • J. Hurlbut
    • 1
  1. 1.Denver Federal CenterU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research CenterDenver

Personalised recommendations