Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An assessment of vegetation management practices and burrow fumigation with aluminum phosphide as tools for managing voles within perennial crop fields in California, USA

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Voles (Cricetidae) cause extensive damage to a variety of crops throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere. The removal of vegetation from crop fields at the end of the growing season, combined with a subsequent burrow fumigant application of aluminum phosphide, has the potential to substantially curtail vole activity but has not been thoroughly examined. We set up a study to test the impact of these management tools in perennial globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus) fields in Monterey County, CA, during 2010 and 2011, to determine their potential utility as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) program for managing California voles (Microtus californicus). We used both chewing indices and mortality estimates derived via radiotelemetry to assess the efficacy of aboveground vegetation removal and aluminum phosphide applications on vole abundance. We determined the impact of plowing artichoke fields on vole activity as well. Both removal of vegetation and applications of aluminum phosphide substantially reduced vole presence within treated fields. Plowing also reduced vole abundance to the point of little residual activity following treatment. These management practices appear to be effective at eliminating voles from crop fields. Combining these tools with management practices designed to slow down reinvasion by neighboring vole populations (e.g., barriers, repellents, traps) has the potential to substantially reduce farmer reliance on rodenticides for vole management, although rodenticides will still be needed to curtail populations that reestablish within crop fields. Such an IPM approach should substantially benefit both farmers and agro-ecosystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker RO (2004) Field efficacy of Fumitoxin® (55% aluminum phosphide) tablets for controlling valley pocket gopher. In: Timm RM, Gorenzel WP (eds) Proceedings of the 21st Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 253–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA (2012) The importance of aluminum phosphide for burrowing pest control in California. In: Timm RM (ed) Proceedings of the 25th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 151–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA, Holtz BA (2010) Fumigation of California ground squirrels revisited: are fumigants an effective method for controlling ground squirrels? In: Timm RM, Fagerstone KA (eds) Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 129–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA, Quinn N (2012) The applicability of burrow fumigants for controlling Belding’s ground squirrels in alfalfa. In: Timm RM (ed) Proceedings of the 25th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 160–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA, Salmon TP, Schmidt RH, Timm RM (2014) Perceived damage and areas of needed research for wildlife pests of California agriculture. Integr Zool 9:265–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA, Meinerz R, Jantz HE, Witmer GW (2015) Impact of capture and transportation methods on survival of small rodents during relocation events. Southwest Nat 60:385–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA, Meinerz R, Orloff SB (2016a) Burrow fumigation versus trapping for pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) management: a comparison of efficacy and cost effectiveness. Wildl Res 43:389–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA, Meinerz R, Witmer GW (2016b) Cholecalciferol plus diphacinone baits for vole control: a novel approach to a historic problem. J Pest Sci 89:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark JP (1984) Vole control in field crops. In: Clark DO (ed) Proceedings of the 11th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Edge WD, Wolff JO, Carey RL (1995) Density-dependent responses of gray-tailed voles to mowing. J Wildl Manag 59:245–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman R, Whisson D (2006) Using a general indexing paradigm to monitor rodent populations. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 58:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Baldwin RA, Stetson DI (2016) Guiding the management of an agricultural pest: indexing abundance of California meadow voles in artichoke fields. Crop Prot 88:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuelling O, Walther B, Nentwig W, Airoldi J-P (2010) Barriers, traps and predators – an integrated approach to avoid vole damage. In: Timm RM, Fagerstone KA (eds) Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 222–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Horak KE, Volker SF, Campton CM (2015) Increased diphacinone and chlorophacinone metabolism in previously exposed wild caught voles, Microtus californicus. Crop Prot 78:35–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob J (2003) Short-term effects of farming practices on populations of common voles. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:321–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob J, Hempel N (2003) Effects of farming practices on spatial behaviour of common voles. J Ethol 21:45–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob J, Tkadlec E (2010) Rodent outbreaks in Europe: dynamics and damage. In: Singleton GR, Belmain S, Brown PR, Hardy B (eds) Rodent outbreaks—ecology and impacts. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines, pp 207–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokić G, Vukša P, Vukša M (2010) Comparative efficacy of conventional and new rodenticides against Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778) in wheat and alfalfa crops. Crop Prot 29:487–491

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker WT, Muller LI, Gerhardt RR, O’Rourke DP, Ramsay EC (2008) Field use of isoflurane for safe squirrel and woodrat anesthesia. J Wildl Manag 72:1262–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pastor R, Luque-Larena JJ, Lambin X, Mougeot F (2016) “Living on the edge”: the role of field margins for common vole (Microtus arvalis) populations in recently colonised Mediterranean farmland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 231:206–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon TP, Lawrence SJ (2006a) Anticoagulant resistance in meadow voles (Microtus californicus). In: Timm RM, O’Brien JM (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 156–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon TP, Lawrence SJ (2006b) Zinc phosphide-treated bracts as an alternative rodenticide in artichoke fields for meadow vole (Microtus californicus) control. In: Timm RM, O’Brien JM (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 161–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon TP, Gorenzel WP, Bentley WJ (1982) Aluminum phosphide (Phostoxin) as a burrow fumigant for ground squirrel control. In: Marsh RE (ed) Proceedings of the 10th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 143–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlötelburg A, Bellingrath-Kimura S, Jaboc J (In press) Development of an odorous repellent against common voles (Microtus arvalis) in laboratory screening and subsequent enclosure trials. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1028-3

  • Singleton GR, Sudarmaji JJ, Krebs CJ (2005) Integrated management to reduce rodent damage to lowland rice crops in Indonesia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 107:75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whisson DA, Engeman RM, Collins K (2005) Developing relative abundance techniques (RATs) for monitoring rodent populations. Wildl Res 32:239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer GW, Hakim AA, Moser BW (2000) Investigations of methods to reduce damage by voles. In: Brittingham MC, Kays J, McPeake R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. Pennsylvania State University, State College, pp 357–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer G, Sayler R, Huggins D, Capelli J (2007) Ecology and management of rodents in no-till agriculture in Washington, USA. Integr Zool 2:154–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer G, Snow N, Humberg L, Salmon T (2009) Vole problems, management options, and research needs in the United States. In: Boulanger JR (ed) Proceedings of the 13th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, pp 235–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Fourth edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Ocean Mist/Sea Mist Farms, particularly JF Castaneda, C Drew, D Huss, and their field crews, for all of the assistance and resources they provided during this project.

Funding

This project was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service through Grant No. SCB09008. 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 Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (Grant No. 09-0643).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Denise I. Stetson

    Present address: National Ecological Observatory Network, Pacific Northwest, 1211 SE Cardinal Court, Vancouver, WA, 98683, USA

  2. Manuel G. Lopez

    Present address: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1700 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, 95811, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, One Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Roger A. Baldwin

  2. Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center, University of California, 9240 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA, 93648, USA

    Denise I. Stetson & Manuel G. Lopez

  3. USDA/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80521, USA

    Richard M. Engeman

Authors
  1. Roger A. Baldwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise I. Stetson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel G. Lopez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard M. Engeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger A. Baldwin.

Ethics declarations

All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of California, Davis (Study Protocol 15732).

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baldwin, R.A., Stetson, D.I., Lopez, M.G. et al. An assessment of vegetation management practices and burrow fumigation with aluminum phosphide as tools for managing voles within perennial crop fields in California, USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 18434–18439 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05235-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05235-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation