Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and toxicosis in four species of birds of prey in Massachusetts, USA, 2012–2016, in relation to use of rodenticides by pest management professionals
- 395 Downloads
Restrictions on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) in the United States, which were partially implemented in 2011, prohibit the sale of SGAR products through general consumer outlets to minimize use by non-professional or non-agricultural applicators. This study analyzed liver tissue from four species of birds of prey admitted to a wildlife clinic in Massachusetts, USA, from 2012–2016 for residues of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs). Ninety-four birds were analyzed; 16 were symptomatic for AR toxicosis, and 78 asymptomatic. Ninety-six percent of all birds tested were positive for SGARs: 100% of those diagnosed with AR toxicosis ante-mortem and/or post-mortem and 95% of subclinically exposed birds. Brodifacoum was found in 95% of all birds. Sixty-six percent of all birds contained residues of two or more SGARs. A significant increase in exposures to multiple SGARs occurred in later years in the study. Pesticide use reports (PURs) filed with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources were reviewed to determine the frequency of use of different ARs by pest management professionals (PMPs) across five years. This study finds that the three SGARs favored by PMPs—bromadiolone, difethialone, brodifacoum—were present in combination in the majority of birds, with increases in multiple exposures driven by increased detections of bromadiolone and difethialone. Continued monitoring of AR residues in nontarget species following full implementation of sales and packaging restrictions in the US is needed in order to elucidate the role of PMP use of SGARs in wildlife exposures and to evaluate the effectiveness of current mitigation measures.
KeywordsAnticoagulant rodenticides Birds of prey Pesticide use reports Regulatory approach Diagnosis of toxicosis
Funding for this research was provided by the Ruby Memorial Research Fund, administered by the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University and supported by numerous generous donors, as well as the Blake-Nuttall Fund, Nuttall Ornithological Club. The author thanks Drs. Robert Poppenga and Adrienne Bautista for assistance with sample analysis, Michael Filigenzi for assistance with sample analysis and manuscript preparation, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources for assistance with access to public pesticide use records, and Jef C. Taylor for valuable input on this project.
This study was partially funded by the Nuttall Ornithological Club (grant number N/A).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.
- California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2013) DPR 13-002 Designating brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone (second generation anticoagulant rodenticide products) as restricted materials. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/rulepkgs/13-002/13-002.htm. Accessed 29 April 2017
- Erickson W, Urban D (2004) Potential risks of nine rodenticides to birds and nontarget mammals: a comparative approach. Office of prevention, pesticides, and toxic substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/052012-JFWM-042/suppl_file/10.3996_052012-jfwm-042.s4.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2017Google Scholar
- Huang AC, Elliott JE, Hindmarch S, Lee SL, Maisonneuve F, Bowes V, Cheng KM, Martin K (2016) Increased rodenticide exposure rate and risk of toxicosis in barn owls (Tyto alba) from southwestern Canada and linkage with demographic but not genetic factors. Ecotoxicology 25:1061–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krueger L, Newton J, Semrow A, Levy L, Nguyen K, Morgan T, Sun S, Sims J, Koenig S, Shaw L, Cummings R (2015) An analysis of the largest publically funded rodent control program in California: orange county mosquito and vector control district’s rodent control program, 2004–2014. Proc Papers Mosq Vector Control Assoc Calif 83:52–56Google Scholar
- Mendenhall VM, Pank LF (1980) Secondary poisoning of owls by anticoagulant rodenticides. Wildl Soc Bull 8:311–315Google Scholar
- Pest Control Technology (2014) State of the rodent market. Pest control technology, PCT http://www.pctonline.com/FileUploads/file/State-Rodent-Market.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
- Pest Control Technology (2015) State of the rodent market. Pest control technology, PCT. http://www.pctonline.com/article/exclusive-market-research-december-2015/. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
- Pest Control Technology (2016a) State of the rodent market. Pest control technology, PCT. http://www.pctonline.com/fileuploads/file/2016_State_of_the_rodent_market.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
- Pest Control Technology, PCT (2016b) Contrapest rodent control product earns EPA approval. http://www.pctonline.com/article/senestech-contrapest-rodent-product-epa-approval/. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
- Petterino C, Paolo B (2001) Toxicology of various anticoagulant rodenticides in animals. Vet Hum Toxicol 43:353–360Google Scholar
- Salim H, Noor HM, Hamid, Omar NH, Kasim D, Abidin CMRZ (2014) Secondary poisoning of Captive barn owls, Tyto alba javanica, through feeding with rats poisoned with chlorophacinone and bromadiolone. J Oil Palm Res 26:62–72Google Scholar
- US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA (2008) Risk mitigation decision for ten rodenticides. USEPA office of prevention, pesticides and toxic substances. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955-0764. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
- US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA (2014) Product cancellation order for certain rodenticide registrations. Federal register: the daily journal of the United States Government. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/06/2014-18361/product-cancellation-order-for-certain-rodenticide-registrations. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
- Watanabe KP, Kawata M, Ikenaka Y, Nakayama SM, Ishii C, Darwish wS, Saengtienchai AS, Mizukawa H, Ishizuka M (2015) Cytochrome P450-mediated warfarin sensitivity in avian species: in vitro assays in several birds and in vivo assays in chickens. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:2328–2334CrossRefGoogle Scholar