Monitoring agricultural rodenticide use and secondary exposure of raptors in Scotland
- 639 Downloads
Despite the documented risk of secondary poisoning to non-target species by anticoagulant rodenticides there is no statutory post-approval monitoring of their use in the UK. This paper presents results from two Scottish monitoring schemes for the period 2000–2010; recording rodenticide use on arable farms and the presence of residues in raptor carcasses. More than three quarters of arable farms used anticoagulant rodenticides; predominately the second generation compounds difenacoum and bromadiolone. There was widespread exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides in liver tissues of the raptor species tested and the residues encountered generally reflected agricultural use patterns. As found in other studies, Red Kites (Milvus milvus) appeared to be particularly vulnerable to rodenticide exposure, 70 % of those sampled (n = 114) contained residues and 10 % died as a result of rodenticide ingestion. More unexpectedly, sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus), which prey almost exclusively on birds, had similar exposure rates to species which prey on rodents. Although, with the exception of kites, confirmed mortality from rodenticides was low, the widespread exposure recorded is concerning. Particularly when coupled with a lack of data about the sub-lethal effects of these compounds. This raises questions regarding whether statutory monitoring of use is needed; both to address whether there are deficiencies in compliance with approval conditions or whether the recommended risk management procedures are themselves adequate to protect non-target wildlife.
KeywordsAnticoagulant rodenticides Secondary exposure Raptors
The authors would like to thank those who have assisted in the coordination and collection of rodenticide use data (Chris Bierley, Chris Griffiths, John Kerr, Gillian Reay, Louis Thomas, Andrew Walker and Jeremy Snowden) and those who conducted residue analyses (Anna Giela and Jennifer Watson). The authors would also like to thank the paper’s anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The post-registration surveillance of wildlife poisoning is funded by the pesticide industry under the Food and and Environmental Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) and the Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR). The monitoring of rodenticide use is funded by the Scottish Government. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.
- Anonymous (2007) Difenacoum pesticide fact sheet. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, p 34Google Scholar
- Berny P, Gaillet JR (2008) Acute poisoning of red kites (Milvus milvus) in France: data from SAGIR network. J Wildl Dis 44:417–426Google Scholar
- Booth LH, Eason CT, Spurr EB (2001) Literature review of the acute toxicity and persistence of brodifacoum to invertebrates. Sci Conserv 177:1–9Google Scholar
- Buckle AP, Prescott CV, Ward KJ (1994) Resistance to the first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides—a new perspective. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth vertebrate pest conference, University of California, Davis, pp 138–144Google Scholar
- Carter I, Burn A (2000) Problems with rodenticides: the threat to red kites and other wildlife. Br Wildl 11:192–197Google Scholar
- Cox P, Smith RH (1992) Rodenticide ecotoxicology: pre-lethal effects of anticoagulants on rat behaviour. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth vertebrate pest conference, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, pp 65–170Google Scholar
- Eason CT, Murphy E (2001) Recognising and reducing secondary and tertiary risks associated with brodifacoum. In: Johnston JJ (ed) Pesticides and wildlife. American chemical society symposium series 771, pp 157–163Google Scholar
- Empson RA, Miskelly CM (1999) The risks, costs and benefits of using brodifacoum to eradicate rats from kapiti Island, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 23:241–254Google Scholar
- Erickson W, Urban D (2004) Potential risks of nine rodenticides to birds and non-target mammals: a comparative approach. Environmental protection agency office of prevention, pesticides and toxic substances, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Fisher PM (2009) Residual concentrations and persistence of the anticoagulant rodenticides brodifacoum and diphacinone in fauna dissertation. Lincoln University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
- Hughes J (2012) Pesticide usage in Scotland: rodenticides on arable farms 2000 to 2010. Scottish Government Agriculture Food and Rural Communities Directorate, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- Meehan AP (1984) Rats and mice: their biology and control. Rentokil Limited, East GrinsteadGoogle Scholar
- Morgan DR, Wright GR, Ogilvie SC, Pierce R, Thompson P (1996) Assessment of the environmental impact of brodifacoum during rodent eradication operations in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth vertebrate pest conference, Rhonert Park, California, pp 213–218Google Scholar
- Myllymäki A, Pihlava J, Tuuri H (1999) Predicting the exposure and risk to predators and scavengers associated with using single-dose second-generation anticoagulants against field rodents. In: Cowan DP, Freare CJ (eds) Advances in vertebrate pest management. Filander Verlag, Furth, pp 387–404Google Scholar
- Newton I, Shore RF, Wyllie I, Birks JDS, Dale L (1999) Empirical evidence of side-effects of rodenticides on some predatory birds and mammals. In: Cowan DP, Feare CJ et al (eds) Advances in vertebrate pest management. Filander Verlag, Fürth, pp 347–367Google Scholar
- Ntampakis D, Carter I (2005) Red Kite and rodenticides—a feeding experiment. Br Birds 98:411–416Google Scholar
- Parmar G, Bratt H, Moore R, Batten PL (1987) Evidence for a common binding site in vivo for the retention of anticoagulants in rat liver. Hum Toxicol 6:431–432Google Scholar
- Rammel CG, Hoogenboom JJL, Cotter M, Williams JM, Bell J (1984) Brodifacoum residues in target and non-target animals following rabbit poisoning trials. N Z J Exp Agric 12:107–111Google Scholar
- Record CR, Marsh RE (1988) Rodenticide residues in animal carcasses and their relevance to secondary hazards. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth vertebrate pest conference, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, pp 163–168Google Scholar
- Sharp EA, Melton LM, Taylor MJ, Watson JE (2012) Pesticide poisoning of animals in 2011: A report of investigations in Scotland. Scottish Government Agriculture Food and Rural Communities Directorate, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- Shore RF, Walker LA, Thomas GO, Barber JL, Martin FR, Jones KC, Beresford NA, Rowland P, Pickup RW (2007) Review of the predatory bird monitoring scheme (PBMS) 2006. JNCC Report, No. 400Google Scholar
- Spurr EB, Drew KW (1999) Invertebrates feeding on baits used for vertebrate pest control in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 23:167–173Google Scholar
- Thomas PJ, Mineau P, Shore RF, Champoux L, Martin PA, Wilson LK, Fitzgerald G, Elliot JE (2011) Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory birds: probabilistic characterisation of toxic liver concentrations and implications for predatory bird populations in Canada. Environ Int 37:914–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Walker LA, Llewellyln NR, Pereira MG, Potter ED, Molenaar FM, Sainsbury AW, Shore RF (2010) Anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory birds 2007 & 2008: a predatory bird monitoring scheme (PBMS) report. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, LancasterGoogle Scholar
- Wyllie I (1995) Potential secondary poisoning of barn owls by rodenticides. Pestic Outlook 6:19–25Google Scholar