Advertisement

Bone Density and Breaking Strength in UK Raptors Exposed to Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides

  • L. D.  Knopper
  • P.  Mineau
  • L. A.  Walker
  • R. F.  Shore
Article

Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) such as difenacoum, brodifacoum, and bromadiolone are more persistent and acutely toxic than their first generation counterparts (such as warfarin), and are designed to deliver a lethal dose during a single feeding (US EPA 2004). These properties make SGARs effective primary rodenticides and they have become extremely important for rodent control worldwide. However, their high acute toxicity and relatively long tissue half-lives present the potential for secondary exposure in predatory birds and mammals that feed upon exposed rodents. Mortality incidents have been documented amongst non-target predators but, perhaps more striking yet is the wide-scale (large proportions of each population, multiple species) exposure (Stone et al. 1999; Howald et al. 1999; Eason et al. 2002; Shore et al. 2006).

There is considerable concern that this widespread and large-scale ‘sub-lethal’ exposure (or at least, exposure not visibly associated with...

Keywords

Breaking Strength Predatory Bird Femur Density Brodifacoum Bromadiolone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded in part by The Predatory Bird Monitoring Scheme (supported by UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Environment Agency and CEH) and the Pesticide Science Fund from Environment and Health Canada. We thank Stanley Conley (Carleton University, Ottawa, ON) for the use of the Instron testing machine and the volunteers who sent in carcasses for analysis.

References

  1. Barnes C, Newall F, Ignjatovic V, Wong P, Cameron F, Jones G, Monagle P (2005) Reduced bone density in children on long-term warfarin. Pediatr Res 57:578–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eason CT, Murphy EC, Wright GRG, Spurr EB (2002) Assessment of risks of brodifacoum to non-target birds and mammals in New Zealand. Ecotoxicology 11:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Howald GR, Mineau P, Elliott JE, Cheng KM (1999) Brodifacoum poisoning of avian scavengers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ecotoxicology 8:431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Merkley JW, Wabeck CJ (1975) Cage density and frozen storage effect on bone strength of broilers. Poultry Sci 54:1624–1627Google Scholar
  5. Shore RF, Birks JDS, Afsar A, Wienburg CL, Kitchener AC (2003) Spatial and temporal analysis of second-generation rodenticide residues in polecats (Mustela putorius) from throughout their range in Britain, 1992–1999. Environ Pollut 122:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Shore RF, Malcolm HM, McLennan D, Turk A, Walker LA, Wienburg CL & Burn A (2006) Did Foot and Mouth Disease control operations affect rodenticide exposure in raptors? Wildl Manag 70:588–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Stone WB, Okoniewski JC, Stedelin JR (1999) Poisoning of wildlife with anticoagulant rodenticides in New York. J Wildl Dis 35:187–193Google Scholar
  8. US EPA (2004) Potential risks of nine rodenticides to birds and nontarget mammals: a comparative approach. Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Weber P (2001) Vitamin K and bone health. Nutrition 17:880–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. D.  Knopper
    • 1
  • P.  Mineau
    • 2
  • L. A.  Walker
    • 3
  • R. F.  Shore
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental & Occupational Health SciencesJacques WhitfordOttawaCanada
  2. 2.National Wildlife Research CentreScience and Technology Branch, Environment CanadaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.NERC, Centre for Ecology & HydrologyMonks WoodHuntingdonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations