Advertisement

Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 1107–1113 | Cite as

The elusive search for an effective repellent against voles: an assessment of anthraquinone for citrus crops

  • Roger A. Baldwin
  • Ryan Meinerz
  • Gary W. Witmer
  • Scott J. Werner
Original Paper

Abstract

Vole (Cricetidae) girdling of tree trunks is a common form of damage experienced by tree and vine growers throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere. Management programs that effectively incorporate chemical repellents and vegetation management would be of substantial assistance to growers that experience such damage. Anthraquinone has proven effective as a repellent against voles in lab trials, yet controlled field tests of combined anthraquinone and vegetation management programs are lacking. Therefore, we established a mesocosm-based study in central California, USA, to test the efficacy of anthraquinone and vegetation management for reducing girdling damage caused by California voles Microtus californicus to Clementine citrus trees Citrus clementine under semi-field conditions. We observed a 90–100% reduction in girdling damage for trees following a single application of anthraquinone during two trials in summer and spring, respectively. Removal of vegetation around the base of trees further reduced damage during the summer sampling period, with no girdling observed on anthraquinone-treated trees that were surrounded by bare soil. We did not observe this same relationship during spring, and we observed no relationship between vegetation management in the absence of anthraquinone treatments in either seasonal trial, suggesting that vegetation management had a lesser impact on vole girdling than anthraquinone applications. We observed no decrease in efficacy of anthraquinone across the duration of both sampling periods (5–6 weeks), indicating substantial longevity for anthraquinone. Anthraquinone appears to have substantial utility for minimizing vole girdling damage. Field testing is warranted for additional mammalian species to determine potential uses for other taxa.

Keywords

Anthraquinone California vole Girdling Microtus californicus Repellent Vegetation management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ocean Mist and Sea Mist Farms for all of the assistance and resources they provided during this project. We also thank D. Langone with Vino Farms and R. Long for access to their property for vole captures, and to N. O’Connell for providing valuable feedback during the initial stages of this project. We greatly appreciate Arkion® Life Sciences providing anthraquinone for our use. This project was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service through Grant 1-SCBGP-CA-0046. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USDA. Additional support was provided by the University of California’s Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of California, Davis (Study Protocol 19052).

References

  1. Baldwin RA, Salmon TP, Schmidt RH, Timm RM (2014) Perceived damage and areas of needed research for wildlife pests of California agriculture. Integr Zool 9:265–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin RA, Meinerz R, Jantz HE, Witmer GW (2015) Impact of capture and transportation methods on survival of small rodents during relocation events. Southw Nat 60:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clapperton BK, Porter RER, Day TD, Waas JR, Matthews LR (2012) Designer repellents: combining olfactory, visual or taste cues with a secondary repellent to deter free-ranging house sparrows from feeding. Pest Manag Sci 68:870–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Conover MR (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowan P, Brown S, Forrester G, Booth L, Crowell M (2015) Bird-repellent effects on bait efficacy for control of invasive mammal pests. Pest Manag Sci 71:1075–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Curtis PD, Rowland ED, Good GL (2002) Developing a plant-based vole repellent: screening of ten candidate species. Crop Prot 21:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies RJ, Pepper HW (1989) The influence of small plastic guards, tree-shelters and weed control on damage to young broadleaved trees by field voles (Microtus agrestis). J Environ Manag 28:117–125Google Scholar
  9. Dolbeer RA, Seamans TW, Blackwell BF, Belant JL (1998) Anthraquinone formulation (Flight Control™) shows promise as avian feeding repellent. J Wildl Manag 62:1558–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeman RM, Witmer GW (2000) Integrated management tactics for predicting and alleviating pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) damage to conifer reforestation plantings. Integr Pest Manag Rev 5:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Jacob J (2015) The smell to repel: the effect of odors on the feeding behavior of female rodents. Crop Prot 78:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Imholt C, Jacob J (2016a) Plant secondary metabolites as rodent repellents: a systematic review. J Chem Ecol 42:970–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Jacob J (2016b) Effect of plant secondary metabolites on feeding behavior of microtine and arvicoline rodent species. J Pest Sci 89:955–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckmanns F, Meisenheimer M (1944) Protection of seeds against birds. Patent 2,339,335. US Patent Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Holm L, Gilbert FA, Haltvick E (1959) Elimination of rodent cover adjacent to apple trees. Weeds 7:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marsh RE, Koehler AE, Salmon TP (1990) Exclusionary methods and materials to protect plants from pest mammals—a review. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 14:174–180Google Scholar
  18. Mason JR (1998) Animal repellents: options and considerations for development. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 18:325–329Google Scholar
  19. Merkens M, Harestad AS, Sullivan TP (1991) Cover and efficacy of predator-based repellents for Townsend’s vole. J Chem Ecol 17:401–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Merwin IA, Ray JA, Curtis PD (1999) Orchard groundcover management systems affect meadow vole populations and damage to apple trees. Hort Sci 34:271–274Google Scholar
  21. Pauls RW (1986) Protection with vexar cylinders from damage by meadow voles of tree and shrub seedlings in northeastern Alberta. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 12:199–204Google Scholar
  22. Pugh SR, Johnson S, Tamarin RH (2003) Voles. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology management and conservation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 349–370Google Scholar
  23. Salatti CJ, Woolhouse AD, Vandenbergh JG (1995) The use of odor to induce avoidance behavior in pine voles. Proc East Wildl Damage Control Conf 6:149–151Google Scholar
  24. Sullivan TP, Krebs JA, Kluge HA (1987) Survey of mammal damage to tree fruit orchards in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. NW Sci 61:23–31Google Scholar
  25. Sullivan TP, Sullivan DS, Hogue EJ, Lautenschlager RA, Wagner RG (1998) Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to vegetation management in orchard agroecosystems: compensatory responses in abundance and biomass. Crop Prot 17:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Werner SJ, DeLiberto ST, Pettit SE, Mangan AM (2014a) Synergistic effect of an ultraviolet feeding cue for an avian repellent and protection of agricultural crops. Appl Anim Behav Sci 159:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Werner SJ, Tupper SK, Pettit SE, Ellis JW, Carlson JC, Goldade DA, Hofmann NM, Homan HJ, Linz GM (2014b) Application strategies for an anthraquinone-based repellent to protect oilseed sunflower crops from pest blackbirds. Crop Prot 59:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Werner SJ, DeLiberto ST, Mangan AM, Pettit SE, Ellis JW, Carlson JC (2015) Anthraquinone-based repellent for horned larks, great-tailed grackles, American crows and the protection of California’s specialty crops. Crop Prot 72:158–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Werner SJ, DeLiberto ST, Baldwin RA, Witmer GW (2016) Repellent application strategy for wild rodents and cottontail rabbits. Appl Anim Behav Sci 185:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Witmer GW, Hakim AA, Moser BW (2000) Investigations of methods to reduce damage by voles. Proc Wildl Damage Manag Conf 9:357–365Google Scholar
  31. Witmer G, Snow N, Humberg L, Salmon T (2009) Vole problems, management options, and research needs in the United States. Proc Wildl Damage Manag Conf 13:235–249Google Scholar
  32. Zimmerling TN, Zimmerling LM (1998) Effectiveness of a physical barrier in deterring vole and snowshoe hare feeding damage to lodgepole pine seedlings. West J Appl For 13:12–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger A. Baldwin
    • 1
  • Ryan Meinerz
    • 1
  • Gary W. Witmer
    • 2
  • Scott J. Werner
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.USDA/Wildlife ServicesNational Wildlife Research CenterFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations