The Probe, Issue 206 – November 1999

Wildlife Damage Conferences: When, Where, and Why? -- Robert M. Timm, Editor, THE PROBE Booklet Review:"The Problem with Skunks!!" by Edward Kellems (34 pages, illustrated. $14.95) New NWCO Web Page url is http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/nwcoa.htm Abstracts from the 2nd International Wildlife Management Congress, Hungary Human Disturbance as a Design Factor to Aid Displacement of Canada Geese from Urban Parks -- P. C. Whitford, Biology Department, Capital University, Columbus, OH Leopard Problems in Nepal -- T. M. Maskey, National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Department, Kathmandu, Nepal Elk-human Conflict Management in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada -- J. A. McKenzie, Banff National Park Wildlife Laboratory The Avoidance of Virtual Barriers by Wolves in Captivity -- M. Musiani*, E. Visalberghi*, andL. Boitani, *CNR Psychology Institute, Rome, Italy Successful Field Trials of a New Slow-Release Capsaicin-Based Animal Repellent for Reducing a Variety of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Israel -- S. C. Nemtzov, Dept. of Terrestrial Ecology, The Nature and National Parks Protection Authority, Jerusalem, Israel Educational Workshops: A Proactive Approach to Conflict Resolution in Wildlife Management -- K. B. Reis, H. R. Campa III, R. B. Peyton, and S. Winterstein, Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Traps and Trapping in Sweden -- T. Svensson, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden Actual Problems of Predator Management in Hungary -- L. Szemethy, M. Heltai, and Z. Biro, Dept. of Wildlife Biology & Management, Godollo University of Agricultural Sciences, Godollo, Hungary Crop and Livestock Depredation by Wildlife -- N. Udaya Sekhar, Centre for Int'I. Environment & Development Studies, Aas, Norway Conservation of the Iberian Wolf in Portugal—The Everlasting Conflict with Man -- J. V. Vingada*, C. Eira, S. Scheich, C. Fonseca, M. Soares, F. L. Correia, M. Fana* P. Carmo, A. Ferreira, A. Soares, and B. Bobek. *Dept. deBiologia da Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Portugal Barkpeeling Damage in Relation to Red Deer Density and Forest Structure in Austria -- F. H. Voelk, Institute of Wildlife Biology & Game Management, Universitaetfuer Bodenkultur Wien, Vienna, Austria Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution: National Imperatives and Strategies -- P. 0. Wander a Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya An Overview and Evaluation of Deer Herd Management Programs in Urban and Suburban Communities of the USA -- R. J. Warren, Warnell School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA

Evaluation of Attractants for Live-Trapping Nine-Banded Armadillos

In the past 50 years, the range of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) in the south has been rapidly expanding. As their range expands, armadillos increasingly come into conflict with suburban landowners. When foraging, armadillos often uproot ornamental plants. Their rooting also destroys gardens, lawns, and flower beds. Their burrowing can damage tree roots and building foundations. Most armadillo damage is a result of their feeding habits. Armadillos dig shallow holes, 1- 3 inches deep and 3-5 inches long, as they search for soil invertebrates. A recent survey of Georgia county extension agents by scientists at the University of Georgia found that 77.6% of all agents reported receiving complaints or requests for information on armadillos. Armadillo related inquiries made up 10.1 % all inquiries for all agents across the state, surpassing even the white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Armadillos are often assumed to destroy nests of ground-nesting birds. Armadillo diets have been studied in several states including Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Florida. According to these studies, vertebrate matter, especially bird eggs, made up an minor portion of their diet. The armadillo’s diet often consists of more than 90% insects, grubs and earthworms. Based on these studies, it seems that claims of armadillos being significant nest predators are unfounded.

Potential Attractants for Detecting and Removing Invading Gambian Giant Pouched Rats (Cricetomys gambianus)

BACKGROUND: Native to Africa, Gambian giant pouched rats (Gambian rats; Cricetomys gambianus Waterh.) are a threatening invasive species on a Florida island, Grassy Key. Gambian giant pouched rats shifted from a domestic pet to invading species after suspected release from a pet breeder. Because of the large size of Gambian rats (weighing up to 2.8 kg), they pose a serious threat to native species (particularly nesting species) and agricultural crops, especially if Gambian rats invade mainland Florida. Also, Gambian rats pose a threat from disease, as they were implicated in a monkeypox outbreak in the mid-western United States in 2003. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services has initiated eradication and detection efforts in the Florida Keys, but trapping the sparse population of Gambian rats has proven difficult. RESULTS: Fifteen attractants that could be used in traps for capturing or detecting single or paired Gambian rats were tested. It was found that conspecific scents (i.e. feces and urine) from other Gambian rats were the best treatment for attracting single and paired Gambian rats. Single Gambian rats explored more attractant types than paired Gambian rats. CONCLUSIONS: Effective attractants for use with Gambian rats have been identified, and multiple attractant types should be used to capture or detect the sparse population. It is recommended that mainly urine and feces from Gambian rats be used, but peanut butter, anise, ginger and fatty acid scent could also be useful for attracting the currently small population of Gambian rats on Grassy Key.

Minimun Riparian Buffer Width for Maintaining Water Quality and Habitat Along Stevens Creek

ABSTRACT Riparian buffer zones are important sites of biodiversity, sediment trapping, pollutant removal, and hydrologic regulation that have significant implications for both people and wildlife. Urbanization’s influence on and need for adequate water quality increases the need for careful planning in regards to riparian areas. Wildlife are key components in the ecosystem functions of riparian zones and require consideration in peri-urban planning as well. This study reviews relevant literature to determine the recommended minimum riparian buffer width for maintaining water quality and habitat along Stevens Creek in Lincoln, Nebraska. Only sources that listed a specific purpose related to water quality and habitat for their buffer width recommendations were considered. The study found that the baseline buffer width recommended for Stevens Creek that would be adequate for both water quality maintenance and basic habitat is 50 ft (15 m) per side. This number may be modified based on other factors such as slope, soil particle size, adjacent land use, the presence of certain wildlife communities, stream size, and stream order.

BURROW-BUILDING STRATEGIES AND HABITAT USE OF VOLES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ORCHARDS

Seidel and Booth (1960) wrote that the "life histories of the genus Microtus are not numerous in the literature." In support of his observation he cited 6 publications, all dated between 1891 and 1953. Since then the literature has exploded with a proliferation of publications. An international literature review recently revealed over 3,500 citations for the genus. When Pitymys and Clethrionomys are included another 350 and 1,880, respectively, were found. Over the last 10 years approximately 3 new publications on voles appeared every 4 days; a significant output for what some would consider such an insignificant species. Most of the publications were the result of graduate research projects on population dynamics and species ecology. As such, many do not explore more than the rudimentary ecological relationships between the animal and their environments. Unfortunate, as well, is that all but one confined their observations to only a small part of their total environment. For many of these animals, their life underground may be more important for their survival than that above ground. Trapping studies conducted by Godfrey and Askham (1988) with permanently placed pitfall live traps in orchards revealed a significant inverse population fluctuation during the year. During the winter, when populations are expected to decrease, as many as 6 to 8 mature Microtus montanus were collected at any 1 time in the traps after several centimeters of snow accumulation. During the summer, when populations are expected to increase, virtually no animals were collected in the traps. According to current population dynamics theory, greater numbers of animals, including increasingly larger numbers of immature members of the community, should appear in any sample between the onset of the breeding period, generally in the spring, taper off during the latter part of the production season, usually late summer, and then decline as the limiting factors begin to take effect. For us, we trapped more animals in the fall and early winter than we did during the spring and summer. A review of the above literature did little to answer our question. Where are the animals going during the summer and why?

HAWAIIAN SUGAR CANE RAT CONTROL METHODS AND PROBLEMS

The problem of rats in our Hawaiian sugar cane fields has been with us for a long time. Early records tell of heavy damage at various times on all the islands where sugar cane is grown. Many methods were tried to control these rats. Trapping was once used as a control measure, a bounty was used for a time, gangs of dogs were trained to catch the rats as the cane was harvested. Many kinds of baits and poisons were used. All of these methods were of some value as long as labor was cheap. Our present day problem started when the labor costs started up and the sugar industry shifted to long cropping. Until World War II cane was an annual crop. After the war it was shifted to a two year crop, three years in some places. Depending on variety, location, and soil we raise 90 to 130 tons of sugar cane per acre, which produces 7 to 15 tons of sugar per acre for a two year crop. This sugar brings about $135 dollars per ton. This tonnage of cane is a thick tangle of vegetation. The cane grows erect for almost a year, as it continues to grow it bends over at the base. This allows the stalk to rest on the ground or on other stalks of cane as it continues to grow. These stalks form a tangled mat of stalks and dead leaves that may be two feet thick at the time of harvest. At the same time the leafy growing portion of the stalk will be sticking up out of the mat of cane ten feet in the air. Some of these individual stalks may be 30 feet long and still growing at the time of harvest. All this makes it very hard to get through a cane field as it is one long, prolonged stumble over and through the cane. It is in this mat of cane that our three species of rats live. Two species are familiar to most people in the pest control field. Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. In the latter species we include both the black rat and the alexandrine rats, their habits seem to be the same in Hawaii. Our third rat is the Polynesian rat, Rattus exlans, locally called the Hawaiian rat. This is a small rat, the average length head to tip of tail is nine inches and the average body weight is 65 grams. It has dark brownish fur like the alexandrine rats, and a grey belly. It is found in Indonesia, on most of the islands of Oceania and in New Zealand. All three rats live in our cane fields and the brushy and forested portions of our islands. The norway and alexandrine rats are found in and around the villages and farms, the Polynesian rat is only found in the fields and waste areas. The actual amount of damage done by rats is small, but destruction they cause is large. The rats gnaw through the rind of the cane stalk and eat the soft juicy and sweet tissues inside. They will hollow out one to several nodes per stalk attacked. The effect to the cane stalk is like ringing a tree. After this attack the stalk above the chewed portion usually dies, and sometimes the lower portion too. If the rat does not eat through the stalk the cane stalk could go on living and producing sugar at a reduced rate. Generally an injured stalk does not last long. Disease and souring organisms get in the injury and kill the stalk. And if this isn't enough, some insects are attracted to the injured stalk and will sometimes bore in and kill it. An injured stalk of cane doesn't have much of a chance. A rat may only gnaw out six inches of a 30 foot stalk and the whole stalk will die. If the rat only destroyed what he ate we could ignore them but they cause the death of too much cane. This dead, dying, and souring cane cause several direct and indirect tosses. First we lose the sugar that the cane would have produced. We harvest all of our cane mechanically so we haul the dead and souring cane to the mill where we have to grind it with our good cane and the bad cane reduces the purity of the sugar juices we squeeze from the cane. Rats reduce our income and run up our overhead.