CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Wildlife Research
  50 years of publishing quality research
You are here: Journals > Wildlife Research   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Board
Editorial Contacts
Print Publication Dates
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How to Order

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 

Comparison of 0.005% and 0.01% diphacinone and chlorophacinone baits for controlling California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi)

Terrell P. Salmon A D, Desley A. Whisson B C, Are R. Berentsen A and W. Paul Gorenzel B

A University of California, Cooperative Extension, 5555 Overland Drive, Suite 4101, San Diego, CA 92123, USA.
B Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
C Present address: Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia, PO Box 39, Kingscote, SA 5223, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: tpsalmon@ucdavis.edu


Abstract

Abstract. Diphacinone and chlorophacinone, first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, are frequently used for control of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) in agricultural and rangeland areas in California, USA. Owing to growing concerns over the risks to non-target species associated with the use of these rodenticides, the USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that the concentration of baits for above-ground use should be reduced from 0.01% to 0.005% active ingredient. We conducted field trials to compare the efficacy of 0.005% and 0.01% chlorophacinone and diphacinone baits in broadcast and spot applications for control of California ground squirrels on rangeland. We found no significant difference in efficacy owing to bait type, concentration or application method. Repeat testing is needed in other habitat types (e.g. crop areas) where alternative foods might reduce the effectiveness of a 0.005% bait application.

Wildlife Research 34(1) 14–18    doi:10.1071/WR06092
Submitted: 27 July 2006    Accepted: 13 December 2006    Published: 27 February 2007





   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (122 KB) $25
Export Citation
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010