Advertisement

Visual Cue Fails to Enhance Bird Repellency of Methiocarb in Ripening Sorghum

  • Richard A. Dolbeer
  • Paul P. Woronecki
  • Roger W. Bullard

Abstract

Methiocarb (Mesurol®) produces a conditioned aversion which birds associate with a particular treated food and then avoid (Rogers 1974). Numerous field tests have shown that methiocarb is generally effective in reducing bird damage to ripening fruits when applied at rates of 1 to 2 kg/ha. Methiocarb was registered in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency for use in cherries and blueberries during the 1980’s (Dolbeer et al. 1988). These registrations were withdrawn by the proprietary company in 1989 because of additional studies required by EPA related to methiocarb residues and environmental effects.

Keywords

Untreated Plot Food Aversion Bird Observation Agelaius Phoeniceus Chemical Repellent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avery, M. L., 1984, Relative importance of taste and vision in reducing bird damage to crops with methiocarb, a chemical repellent, Agric. Ecol. and Environ. 11:299–308.Google Scholar
  2. Avery, M. L., and Nelms, C. O., 1990, Food avoidance by red-winged blackbirds conditioned with a pyrazine odor, Auk, 107: 544–549.Google Scholar
  3. Bruggers, R., Matee, J., Miskell, J., Erickson, W., Jaeger, M., Jackson, W. B., and Juimale, Y., 1981, Reduction of bird damage to field crops in eastern Africa with methiocarb, Trop. Pest Manage., 27:230–241.Google Scholar
  4. Bruggers, R. L., Bohl, W. H., El Bashir, S., Hamza, M., Ali, B., Besser, J. F., DeGrazio, J. W., and Jackson, J. J., 1984, Bird damage to agriculture and crop protection in the Sudan, FAO Plant Prot. Bull., 32:2–16.Google Scholar
  5. Bullard, R. W., Bruggers, R. L., Kilburn, S. R., and Fiedler, L. A., 1983, Sensory-cue enhancement of the bird repellency of methiocarb, Crop Prot., 2: 387–398.Google Scholar
  6. Crase, F. T., and DeHaven, R. W., 1976, Methiocarb: its current status as a bird repellent, Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf., 7:46–50.Google Scholar
  7. DeHaven, R. W., Guarino, J. J., Crase, F. T., and Schafer, E. W., Jr., 1971, Methiocarb for repelling blackbirds from ripening rice, Internat. Rice Comm. Newsl., 20(4):26–30.Google Scholar
  8. Dolbeer, R. A., 1978, Movement and migration patterns for red-winged blackbirds: a continental overview, Bird-Banding, 49: 17–34.Google Scholar
  9. Dolbeer, R. A., 1980, Blackbirds and corn in Ohio, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Resour. Publ. 38, 18 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Dolbeer, R. A., Woronecki, P. P., and Bruggers, R. L., 1986, Reflecting tapes repel blackbirds from millet, sunflowers, and sweet corn, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 14:418–425.Google Scholar
  11. Dolbeer, R. A., Avery, M. L., and Tobin, M. E., 1988, Assessment of field hazards to birds and mammals from methiocarb applications to fruit crops, Denver Wildl. Res. Cent. Bird Sect. Res. Rep. No. 421, 43 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Elmandí, E. M., Bullard, R. W., and Jackson, W. B., 1985, Calcium carbonate enhancement of methiocarb repellency for quelea, Trop. Pest Manage., 31:67–72.Google Scholar
  13. Manikowski, S., and DaCamara-Smeets, M., 1979, Estimating bird damage to sorghum and millet in Chad, J. Wildl. Manage., 43:540–544.Google Scholar
  14. Mason, J. R., 1989, Avoidance of methiocarb-poisoned apples by red-winged blackbirds, J. Wildl. Manage., 53:836–840.Google Scholar
  15. Mason, J. R., and Reidinger, R. F., 1982, Observational learning of food aversions in red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Auk, 99: 548–554.Google Scholar
  16. Mason, J. R., and Reídinger, R. F., 1983, Importance of color for methiocarb food aversions in red-winged blackbirds J. Wildl. Manage., 47:383–393.Google Scholar
  17. Meanley, B., 1965, The roosting behavior of the red-winged blackbird in the southern United States, Wilson Bull., 77: 217–228.Google Scholar
  18. Rogers, J. G., Jr., 1974, Responses of caged red-winged blackbirds to two types of repellents, J. Wildl. Manage., 38:418–424.Google Scholar
  19. Seamans, T. W., and Dolbeer, R. A., 1989, A comparison of sorghum damage assessment methods, Denver Wildl. Res. Cent. Bird Sect. Res. Rep. No. 433, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Shumake, S. A., Gaddis, S. E., and Schafer, E. W., Jr., 1976, Behavioral response of quelea to methiocarb ( Mesurol ), Proc. Bird Control Semin., 7: 250–254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Dolbeer
    • 1
  • Paul P. Woronecki
    • 1
  • Roger W. Bullard
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Department of AgricultureDenver Wildlife Research CenterSanduskyUSA
  2. 2.DenverUSA

Personalised recommendations