Integrated Pest Management Reviews

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 41–55 | Cite as

Integrated Management Tactics for Predicting and Alleviating Pocket Gopher (Thomomys spp.) Damage to Conifer Reforestation Plantings

  • Richard M. Engeman
  • Gary W. Witmer
Article

Abstract

Pocket gophers cause extensive damage to reforestation plantings in the western United States, and pose acute and chronic problems for forest managers. We examine the components of an integrated pest management strategy for reducing pocket gopher damage to conifers: the predictive factors for assessing the risk for damage, techniques for monitoring gopher populations and assessing efficacy of control methods, and damage control strategies and methods. The information in each component is reviewed and presented so that an optimal damage reduction plan can be developed in a logical, cost-effective, environmentally responsible fashion.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Acord, B.R. (1992) Responses of the ADC program to changing American society. Vertebrate Pest Conference 15, 9-16.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, R.M. and Barnes, V.G., Jr. (1984) Plot occupancy for indicating pocket gopher abundance and conifer damage. In D.E. Kaukeinen (ed) Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: Fourth Symposium, ASTM STP 817, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 247-55.Google Scholar
  3. Baer, N.W. (1980) Tree guard tubes to reduce rabbit damage to shelterbelt trees in South Dakota. Tree Planters' Notes 31, 6-8.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, V.G., Jr. (1973) Pocket gophers and reforestation in the Pacific Northwest: a problem analysis. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 155, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, V.G., Jr. (1974) Response of pocket gopher populations to silvicultural practices in central Oregon. In H.C. Black (ed) Wildlife and Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR, pp. 167-75.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, V.G., Jr. (1978) Survival and growth of ponderosa pine seedlings injured by pocket gophers. Tree Planters' Notes 29, 20-23.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, V.G., Jr., Anthony, R.M., Evans, J. and Lindsey, G.D. (1982) Evaluation of zinc phosphide bait for pocket gopher control on forest land. Vertebrate Pest Conference 10, 219-25.Google Scholar
  8. Black, H.C. (1992) Silvicultural approaches to animal damage management in Pacific Northwest forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-287. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service, pp. 422.Google Scholar
  9. Black, H.C. (1994) Animal Damage Management Handbook. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-332. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service, pp. 236.Google Scholar
  10. Black, H.C. and Hooven, E. (1977) Effects of herbicide-induced habitat changes on pocket gophers in southwestern Oregon. 29th Annual California Weed Conference Sacramento, pp. 119-27.Google Scholar
  11. Black, H.C., Dimock II, E.J. Dodge, W.E. and Lawrence, W.H. (1969) Survey of animal damage on forest plantations in Oregon and Washington. Trans. N. Am.Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 34, 388-408.Google Scholar
  12. Bonar, R.E. (1995) The Northern Pocket Gopher-Most of What You Thought You Might Want to Know, but Hesitated to Look Up. USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program 2400-Timber, T02E11, pp. 62.Google Scholar
  13. Borrecco, J.E. (1976) Controlling damage by forest rodents and lagomorphs through habitat manipulation. Vertebrate Pest Conference 7, 203-10.Google Scholar
  14. Borrecco, J.E. and Anderson, R.J. (1980) Mountain beaver problems in the forests of California, Oregon, and Washington. Vertebrate Pest Conference 9, 135-42.Google Scholar
  15. Borrecco, J.E. and Black, H.C. (1990) Animal damage problems and control activities on national forest system lands. Vertebrate Pest Conference 14, 192-98.Google Scholar
  16. Burton, D.H. and Black, H.C. (1978) Feeding habits of Mazama pocket gophers in south-central Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 42, 383-90.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, D.L. and Evans, J. (1975) ‘Vexarseedling protectors to reduce wildlife damage to Douglas-fir. USDI Fish and Wildlife Svc. Leaflet 508, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, D.L. and Evans, J. (1978) Establishing native forbs to reduce black-tailed deer browsing damage to Douglas fir. Vertebrate Pest Conference 8, 145-51.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, D.L., Farley, J.P., Hegdal, P.L., Engeman, R.M. and Krupa, H.W. (1992) Field efficacy evaluation of diphacinone paraffin bait blocks and strychnine oat groats for control of forest pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.). Vertebrate Pest Conference 15, 299-302.Google Scholar
  20. Cantrill, S. and Ramsey, D.S.L. (1991) Development of Baiting Strategies for Rodents in Queensland Agricultural Systems. Part 1: General Considerations Joint research report of Centre for Biological Population Management, Queensland University of Technology and Rural Lands Protection Board. pp. 38.Google Scholar
  21. Capp, J.C. (1976) Increasing pocket gopher problems in reforestation. Vertebrate Pest Conference 7, 221-28.Google Scholar
  22. Case, R.M. (1983) Pocket gophers. In R.M. Timm (ed) Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Resources Committee and Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Agricultural and Natural Resources, Lincoln, NE, pp. B13-36.Google Scholar
  23. Case, R.M. and Jasch, B.A. (1994) Pocket gophers. In S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm and G.E. Larson (eds) Prevention and Control ofWildlife Damage. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, Lincoln, NE, pp. B117-29.Google Scholar
  24. Caughley, G. and Sinclair, A.R.E. (1994) Wildlife Ecology and Management. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, UK, pp. 334.Google Scholar
  25. Cristensen, M.D., Young, J.A. and Evans, R.A. (1974) Control of annual grasses and revegetation in the ponderosa pine woodlands. Journal of Range Management 27, 143-45.Google Scholar
  26. Crouch, G.L. (1971) Susceptibility of ponderosa, Jeffery and lodgepole pines to pocket gophers. Northwest Science 45, 52-56.Google Scholar
  27. Crouch, G.L. (1979) Atrazine improves survival and growth of ponderosa pine threatened by vegetative competition and pocket gophers. Forest Science 25, 99-111.Google Scholar
  28. Crouch, G.L. (1982) Pocket gophers and reforestation in western forests. Journal of Forestry 80, 662-64.Google Scholar
  29. Crouch, G.L. (1986) Pocket gopher damage to conifers in western forests: A historical and current perspective on the problem and its control. Vertebrate Pest Conference 12, 196-98.Google Scholar
  30. Crouch, G.L. and Frank, L.R. (1979) Poisoning and trapping pocket gophers to protect conifers in northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service Research Note, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. PNW-261, pp. 8.Google Scholar
  31. Crouch, G.L. and Hafenstein, E. (1977) Atrazine promotes ponderosa pine regeneration. USDA Forest Service Research Note, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. PNW-309, pp. 8.Google Scholar
  32. Cummins, E.B. (1975) Pocket Gopher Feeding Preferences for Ponderosa Pine Strains. MS Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, pp. 51.Google Scholar
  33. Emmingham, W.H., Holthausen, R. and Vomocil, M. (1992) Silvicultural systems and stand management. In H.C. Black (ed) Silvicultural Approaches to Animal Damage Management inPacific NorthwestForests, USDA/Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, pp. 123-42.Google Scholar
  34. Engeman, R.M. (In press) Evaluation of rodent damage to crops. In Ecologia y Manejo de Roedores Plaga.Google Scholar
  35. Engeman, R.M. and Campbell, D.L. (1999) Pocket gopher reoccupation of burrow systems following population reduction. Crop Protection 18, 523-25.Google Scholar
  36. Engeman, R.M., Campbell, D.L. and Evans, J. (1993) A comparison of 2 activity measures for northern pocket gophers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21, 70-73.Google Scholar
  37. Engeman, R.M., Barnes, V., Anthony, R.M. and Krupa, H.W. (1995a) Vegetative management for reducing damage to ponderosa pine seedlings from Mazama pocket gophers. Crop Protection 14, 505-508.Google Scholar
  38. Engeman, R.M., Campbell, D.L., Nolte, D. and Witmer, G. (1995b) Some recent research results on non-lethal means for reducing animal damage to reforestation projects in the western United States. In M. Statham (ed) Proc., 10th Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 10, 150-54.Google Scholar
  39. Engeman, R.M., Anthony, R.M., Krupa, H.W. and Evans, J. (1997a) The effects of Vexarr seedling protectors on the growth and development of lodgepole pine roots. Crop Protection 16, 57-61.Google Scholar
  40. Engeman, R.M., Barnes, V., Anthony, R.M. and Krupa, H.W. (1997b) Effect of vegetation management for reducing damage to lodgepole pine seedlings from northern pocket gophers. Crop Protection 16, 407-10.Google Scholar
  41. Engeman, R.M., Anthony, R.M., Barnes, V., Krupa, H.W. and Evans, J. (1998a) Double-stocking for overcoming damage to conifer seedlings by pocket gophers. Crop Protection 17, 687-89.Google Scholar
  42. Engeman, R.M., Barnes, V., Anthony, R.M. and Krupa, H.W. (1998b) Damage reduction to ponderosa pine seedlings from northern pocket gophers by vegetation management through grass seeding and herbicide treatment. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 42, 115-21.Google Scholar
  43. Engeman, R.M., Anthony, R.M., Barnes, V., Krupa, H.W. and Evans, J. (1999a) Evaluations of plastic mesh tubes for protecting conifer seedlings from pocket gophers in three western states. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14, 86-90.Google Scholar
  44. Engeman, R.M., Nolte, D.L. and Bulkin, S.P. (1999b) Optimization of the open-hole method for assessing pocket gopher activity. Canadian Field Naturalist 113, 241-44.Google Scholar
  45. Epple, G., Mason, J.R., Nolte, D.L. and Campbell, D.L. (1993) Effects of predator odors on feeding in the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Journal of Mammalogy 74, 715-22.Google Scholar
  46. Evans, J., Matschke, G.H., Campbell, D.L., Hegdal, P.L. and Engeman, R.M. (1990) Efficacy data for registration of strychnine grain baits to control pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) Vertebrate Pest Conference 14, 82-86.Google Scholar
  47. Fall, M.W. and Jackson, W.B. (1998) A new era in pest control? An introduction. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 42, 85-91.Google Scholar
  48. Fiedler, L.A. and Fall, M.W. (1994) Rodent control in practice: tropical field crops. In A. Buckle and R. Smith (eds) Rodent Pests and their Control. CAB International, pp. 313-18.Google Scholar
  49. Franklin, J.F. and Dyrness, C.T. (1973) Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR, PNW-GTR-8, pp. 417.Google Scholar
  50. Garcia, J., McGowan, B.K. and Green, K.F. (1972) Biological constraints on conditioning. In A.H. Black and W.F. Prokasy (eds) Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 3-27.Google Scholar
  51. Gates, C.A. and Tanner, G.W. (1988) Effects of prescribed burning on herbaceous vegetation and pocket gophers (Geomys pinetis) in a sandhill community. Florida Scientist 51, 129-39.Google Scholar
  52. Hansen, R.M. (1960) Age and reproductive characteristics of mountain pocket gophers in Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy 41, 323-35.Google Scholar
  53. Hansen, R.M. (1965) Pocket gopher density in an enclosure of native habitat. Journal of Mammalogy 46, 508-509.Google Scholar
  54. Hansson, L. (1975) Effects of habitat manipulation on small rodent populations. In L. Hansson and B. Nilsson (eds) Biocontrol of Rodents. Swedish Nat. Res. Counc, Stockholm, pp. 163-73.Google Scholar
  55. Hegdal, P.L. and Gatz, T.A. (1976) Hazards to Wildlife associated with underground strychnine baiting for pocket gophers. Vertebrate Pest Conference 7, 258-66.Google Scholar
  56. Hooven, E.F. (1971) Pocket gopher damage on ponderosa pine plantations in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 35, 346-53.Google Scholar
  57. Horton, A.J. (1987) Animal damage prediction models in conifer plantations. Animal Damage Management in Pacific Northwest Forests. Spokane, WA, pp. 29-36.Google Scholar
  58. Howard, W.E., Marsh, R.E. and Corbett, C.W. (1985) Raptor perches: their influence on crop protection. Acta Zool. Fennica. 173, 191-92.Google Scholar
  59. Hull, A.C., Jr. (1971) Effects of spraying with 2,4-D on abundance of pocket gophers in Franklin Basin, Idaho. Journal of Range Management 24, 230-32.Google Scholar
  60. Hunter, J.E. (1991) Grazing and pocket gopher abundance in a California annual grassland. Southwestern Naturalist 36, 117-18.Google Scholar
  61. Jacobs,W.W., Beauchamp, G.K. and Kare, M.R. (1978) Progress in animal flavor research. Proceedings, Flavor Chemistry of Animal Foods, American Chemical Society Symposium, pp. 1-20.Google Scholar
  62. Jameson, D.A. (1967) Relationship of tree overstory and herbaceous understory vegetation. Journal of Range Management 20, 247-49.Google Scholar
  63. Keith, J.O., Hansen, R.M. and Ward, A.L. (1959) Effect of 2,4-D on abundance and foods of pocket gophers. Journal of Wildlife Management 23, 137-45.Google Scholar
  64. Kimball, B.A., Nolte, D.L., Engeman, R.M., Johnston, J.J. and Stermitz, F.R. (1998) Chemically mediated foraging preference of free ranging black bear (Ursus americanus). Journal of Mammalogy 79, 448-58.Google Scholar
  65. Kingery, J.L. and Graham, R.T. (1987) Cattle grazing and forest animal damage interaction. In D.M. Baumgartner, R.L. Mahoney, J. Evans, J. Caslick and D.W. Breuer (eds) Proceedings, Animal Damage Management in Pacific Northwest Forests. Spokane, WA, pp. 119-32.Google Scholar
  66. Kingery, J.L., Graham, R.T. and White, J.S. (1987) Damage to first year conifers under three livestock grazing intensities in Idaho. USDA Forest Service Internal Research Station Research Paper. INT-376, pp. 8.Google Scholar
  67. Krueger, W.C. (1981) How a forest affects a forage crop. Rangelands 3, 70-71.Google Scholar
  68. Marsh, R.E. (1992) Reflections on current (1992) pocket gopher control in California. Vertebrate Pest Conference 15, 289-95.Google Scholar
  69. Marsh, R.E. (1997) Pocket Gopher Traps-A Collector's Manual. Self-published. Davis, CA, pp. 309.Google Scholar
  70. Marsh, R.E. (1998) One hundred years of gopher traps and trapping. Vertebrate Pest Conference 18, 221-26.Google Scholar
  71. Marsh, R.E. and Steele, R.W. (1992) Pocket gophers. In H.C. Black (ed) Silvicultural Approaches to Animal Damage Management in Pacific Northwest Forests, USDA/Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR, pp 205-30.Google Scholar
  72. Marsh, R.E., Koehler, A.E. and Salmon, T.P. (1990) Exclusionary methods and materials to protect plants from pest mammals-a review. Vertebrate Pest Conference 14, 174-80.Google Scholar
  73. Matschke, G.H., Ramey, C.A., McCann, G.R. and Engeman, R.M. (1996) Evaluation of a 2-active ingredient gas cartridge for controlling northern pocket gophers. International Biodeterioration and Degradation 36, 151-60.Google Scholar
  74. Neel, P.L. and Harris, R.W. (1971) Motion-induced inhibition of elongation and induction of dormancy in Liquidambar. Science 173, 58-59.Google Scholar
  75. Nolte, DL. and Otto, I.J. (1996) Materials and supplies for management of wildlife damage to trees. USDA Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center, Technical Report 9624-2808-MTDC. Missoula, MT, pp. 48.Google Scholar
  76. Nolte, D.L., Mason, J.R. and Lewis, J.L. (1994) Tolerance of bitter compounds by an herbivore, Cavia porcellus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 20, 303-308.Google Scholar
  77. Owsiak, A.M. (1996) A comparison of intensive sheep grazing and free-range cattle grazing for the reduction of pocket gopher populations on reforested rangelands. MS Thesis. Washington State University. Pullman, WA, pp. 110.Google Scholar
  78. Owsten, P.W., Smith, S.P. and Stein, W.I. (1992) Stand establishment. In H.C. Black (ed) Silvicultural Approaches to Animal Damage Management in Pacific Northwest Forests, USDA/Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR, pp. 143-65.Google Scholar
  79. Pase, C.P. and Understory vegetation as related to basal area, crown cover and litter production by immature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills. Proc. Society of American Foresters 156-58.Google Scholar
  80. Pipas, M.J. and Witmer, G.W. (1999) Evaluation of physical barriers to protect ponderosa pine seedlings from pocket gophers. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14: 164-168.Google Scholar
  81. Phillips, P. (1936) The distribution of rodents in overgrazed and normal grasslands of central Oklahoma. Ecology 17, 673-79.Google Scholar
  82. Proulx, G. (1997a) A preliminary evaluation of four types of traps to capture northern pocket gophers, Thomomys talpoides. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111, 640-43.Google Scholar
  83. Proulx, G. (1997b) A northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) border control strategy: a promising approach. Crop Protection 16, 279-84.Google Scholar
  84. Proulx, G. (1998) Evaluation of strychnine and zinc phosphide baits to control northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) in alfalfa fields in Alberta, Canada. Crop Protection 17, 135-38.Google Scholar
  85. Radwan, M.A., Crouch, G.L., Harrington, C.A. and Ellis, W.D. (1982) Terpenes of ponderosa pine and feeding preferences by pocket gophers. Journal of Chemical Ecology 8, 241-53.Google Scholar
  86. Record, R.C. and Marsh, R.E. (1988) Rodenticide residues in animal carcasses and their relevance to secondary hazards. Vertebrate Pest Conference 13, 163-68.Google Scholar
  87. Redhead, T.D. (1987) In G.R. Singleton (ed) The role of a biological agent for tactical prevention of losses caused by mouse plagues. Capillaria hepatica (Nematoda) as a potential control agent for mouse plagues. CSIRO Tech. Memorandum No. 28.Google Scholar
  88. Redhead, T.D., Enright, N. and Newsome, A.E. (1985) Causes and predictions of outbreaks of Mus musculus in irrigated and non-irrigated farms. Acta Zoologica Fennica 173, 123-27.Google Scholar
  89. Reid, V.H. (1973) Population biology of the northern pocket gopher. In G.T. Turner, R.M. Hansen, V.H. Reid, H.P. Teitjen and A.L. Ward (eds) Pocket Gophers and Colorado Mountain Rangeland, Bulletin 554S. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ. Experiment Station, pp. 21-41.Google Scholar
  90. Richens, V.B. (1967) The status and use of gophacide. Vertebrate Pest Conference 3, 118-25.Google Scholar
  91. Savarie, P.J., Tigner, J.R., Ellis, D.J. and Hayes D.J. (1980) Development of a simple two-ingredient pyrotechnic fumigant. Vertebrate Pest Conference 9, 215-21.Google Scholar
  92. Smallwood, K.S. and Erickson, W.A. (1995) Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest populations. Forest Science 41, 284-96.Google Scholar
  93. Steele, R. and Geier-Hayes, K. (1987) The grand fir/huckleberry habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT 228. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, pp. 66.Google Scholar
  94. Steele, R. and Geier-Hayes, K. (1989) The Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT 252. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, pp. 65.Google Scholar
  95. Stewart, W.L. and Baumgartner, D.M. (1973) Pocket Gopher Control. E.M.3799. Pullman, W.A.: Washington State Univ. Cooperative Extension Serv., pp. 17.Google Scholar
  96. Storer, T.I. (1953) Controlling pocket gophers and moles. California Agricultural Experiment Station Extension Service, pp. 16.Google Scholar
  97. Sullins, M. and Sullivan, D. (1993) Observations of a Gas Exploding Device for Controlling Pocket Gophers. Technical Report 93-01, Helena, MT: Technical Services Bureau, Agricultural Sciences Division, Montana Dept Agriculture. pp. 5.Google Scholar
  98. Sullivan, T.P. (1986) Understanding the resiliency of small mammals to population reduction: poison or population dynamics? In C.G.J. Richards and T.Y. Ku (eds) Control of Mammal Pests, Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. Tropical Pest Mgt. (suppl) 32, 69-82.Google Scholar
  99. Sullivan, T.P. (1998) Management of red squirrel feeding damage to lodgepole pine by stand density manipulation and diversionary food. Vertebrate Pest Conference 18, 196-202.Google Scholar
  100. Sullivan T.P. and Hogue, E.J. (1987) Influence of orchard floor management on vole and pocket gopher populations and damage in apple orchards. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112, 972-77.Google Scholar
  101. Sullivan, T.P., Crump, D.R., Weiser, H. and Dixon, E.A. (1990) Responses of pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) to an operational application of synthetic semiochemicals of stoat (Mustela erminea). Journal of Chemical Ecology 16, 941-49.Google Scholar
  102. Sullivan, T.P., Crump, D.R. and Sullivan, D.S. (1988) Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding by herbivores. IV. Northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides). Journal of Chemical Ecology 14, 379-89.Google Scholar
  103. Teipner, C.L., Garton, E.O. and Nelson, L., Jr. (1983) Pocket gophers in forest ecosystem. USDA Forest Service Forest Range Experiment Station General Technical Report. INT-154. pp. 53.Google Scholar
  104. Tietjen, H.P., Halvorsen, C.H., Hegdal, P.L. and Johnson, A.M. (1967) 2,4-D herbicide, vegetation, and pocket gopher relationships, Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology 48, 634-43.Google Scholar
  105. Turner, G.T. (1969) Responses of mountain grassland vegetation to gopher control, reduced grazing and herbicide. Journal of Range Management 22, 377-83.Google Scholar
  106. Volland, L.A. (1974) Relation of pocket gophers to plant communities in pine region of central Idaho of central Oregon. In H.C. Black (ed) Proceedings,Wildlife and Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR, pp. 149-66.Google Scholar
  107. Vossen, R. and Gadd, P. (1990) A comparison of several pocket gopher baits in the field. Vertebrate Pest Conference 14, 91-94.Google Scholar
  108. Ward, A.L. and Keith, J.O. (1962) Feeding habits of pocket gophers on mountain grasslands, Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology 43, 744-49.Google Scholar
  109. Whisson, D. (1996) The effect of two agricultural techniques on populations of the canefield rat (Rattus sordidus) in sugarcane crops of north Queensland. Wildlife Research 23, 589-604.Google Scholar
  110. Witmer, G.W., Fall, M.W. and Fiedler, L.A. (1995a) Rodent control, research needs, and technology transfer. In J. Bissonette and P. Krausman (eds) Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. Proceedings, First International Wildlife Management Congress. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 693-97.Google Scholar
  111. Witmer, G.W., Pipas, M.J. and Campbell, D.L. (1995b) Effectiveness of search patterns for recovery of animal carcasses in relation to pocket gopher infestation control. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 36, 177-87.Google Scholar
  112. Witmer, G.W., Sayler, R.D and Pipas, M.J. (1996) Biology and habitat use of the Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama) in the Puget Sound area, Washington. Northwest Science 70, 93-98.Google Scholar
  113. Witmer, G.W., Sayler, R.D and Pipas, M.J. (1997) Repellent trials to reduce reforestation damage by pocket gophers, deer, and elk. In J.R. Mason (ed) Proceedings, Repellents inWildlife Management, pp. 321-32.Google Scholar
  114. Witmer, G.W., Pipas, M.J. and Bucher, J.C. (1998) Field tests of denatonium benzoate to reduce seedling damage by pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides Rich.). Crop Protection 17, 35-39.Google Scholar
  115. Witmer, G.W., Marsh, R.E. and Matschke, G.H. (1999) Trapping considerations for the fossorial pocket gopher. In G. Proulx (ed) Proceedings, Mammal Trapping Symposium Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 131-139.Google Scholar
  116. Ziegltrum, G.J. (1994) Supplemental bear feeding program in western Washington. Vertebrate Pest Conference 16, 36-49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard M. Engeman
  • Gary W. Witmer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations