Burrow fumigation versus trapping for pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) management: a comparison of efficacy and cost effectiveness
Roger A. Baldwin A C , Ryan Meinerz A and Steve B. Orloff B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, One Shields Avenue, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
B University of California Cooperative Extension, 1655 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: rabaldwin@ucdavis.edu
Wildlife Research 43(5) 389-397 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16037
Submitted: 25 February 2016 Accepted: 13 June 2016 Published: 3 August 2016
Abstract
Context: Pocket gophers (Geomyidae) cause extensive damage to many crops throughout western North America. A variety of methods are available to manage these populations, but data are often lacking on their efficacy and especially their cost effectiveness. Additionally, little peer-reviewed data are available that compare multiple methods simultaneously.
Aims: We tested aluminum phosphide and pressurised exhaust using the Pressurised Exhaust Rodent Controller (PERC) as burrow fumigants, and compared them to trapping to determine which approach was most efficacious and cost effective.
Methods: We assessed the efficacy of aluminum phosphide, the PERC machine, and trapping through the use of the open-hole monitoring method after single and multiple treatments over multiple years. We determined material and labour costs for each treatment type and amortised this cost over 1250 days of application to determine which treatment type was most cost effective.
Key results: Aluminum phosphide had the shortest time for application, but we were able to make far more applications per day using the PERC machine, given our ability to treat multiple burrow systems at once with this machine. Trapping and aluminum phosphide were more efficacious than was the PERC machine. When costs were amortised over time, trapping was the most cost-effective approach even with longer application times, given high efficacy. Multiple treatment applications were needed to maximise the efficacy of management programs.
Conclusions: For small-scale management efforts, aluminum phosphide was a cost-effective and efficacious option. For a greater number of treatments, trapping was the most successful and cost effective. However, a modest increase in efficacy could make the PERC machine a preferred tool as well. We also stress that regardless of the management approach, multiple treatment applications will generally be needed to manage pocket gopher populations.
Implications: The present study provides growers with information needed to determine efficient and cost-effective methods for managing pocket gophers. This information can be used to craft an integrated pest-management approach to manage damaging pocket gopher populations.
Additional keywords: aluminum phosphide, carbon monoxide, pressurised exhaust, trap.
References
Baker, R. O. (2004). Field efficacy of Fumitoxin® (55% aluminum phosphide) tablets for controlling valley pocket gopher. In ‘Proceedings of the 21st Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and W. P. Gorenzel.) pp. 253–257. (University of California: Davis, CA.)Baker, R. O., and Krieger, R. (2002). Phosphine exposure to applicators and bystanders from rodent burrow treatment with aluminum phosphide. In ‘Proceedings of the 20th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and R. H. Schmidt.) pp. 26–31. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Baldwin, R. A. (2011). Developing an IPM program for controlling pocket gophers and voles in alfalfa. In ‘Proceedings, 2011 Western Alfalfa and Forage Conference’. (Eds D. Putnam, M. Ottman and E. Creech.) pp. 99–107. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Baldwin, R. A. (2012). The importance of aluminum phosphide for burrowing pest control in California. In ‘Proceedings of the 25th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Ed. R. M. Timm.) pp. 151–159. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Baldwin, R. A. (2014). Determining and demonstrating the importance of training and experience for managing pocket gophers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38, 628–633.
| Determining and demonstrating the importance of training and experience for managing pocket gophers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baldwin, R. A., and Holtz, B. A. (2010). Fumigation of California ground squirrels revisited: are fumigants an effective method for controlling ground squirrels? In ‘Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and K. A. Fagerstone.) pp. 129–132. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Baldwin, R. A., and Meinerz, R. (2015). Using external characteristics for rapid identification of gender in pocket gophers. Western North American Naturalist 75, 251–258.
| Using external characteristics for rapid identification of gender in pocket gophers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baldwin, R. A., and Quinn, N. (2012). The applicability of burrow fumigants for controlling Belding’s ground squirrels in alfalfa. In ‘Proceedings of the 25th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Ed. R. M. Timm.) pp. 160–163. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Baldwin, R. A., Marcum, D. B., Orloff, S. B., Vasquez, S. J., Wilen, C. A., and Engeman, R. M. (2013). The influence of trap type and cover status on capture rates of pocket gophers in California. Crop Protection 46, 7–12.
| The influence of trap type and cover status on capture rates of pocket gophers in California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baldwin, R. A., Meinerz, R., and Orloff, S. B. (2014a). The impact of attractants on pocket gopher trapping. Current Zoology 60, 472–478.
| The impact of attractants on pocket gopher trapping.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baldwin, R. A., Salmon, T. P., Schmidt, R. H., and Timm, R. M. (2014b). Perceived damage and areas of needed research for wildlife pests of California agriculture. Integrative Zoology 9, 265–279.
| Perceived damage and areas of needed research for wildlife pests of California agriculture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24952967PubMed |
Baldwin, R. A., Chapman, A., Kofron, C. P., Meinerz, R., Orloff, S. B., and Quinn, N. (2015). Refinement of a trapping method increases utility for pocket gopher management. Crop Protection 77, 176–180.
| Refinement of a trapping method increases utility for pocket gopher management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baldwin, R. A., Meinerz, R., and Witmer, G. (). Novel and current rodenticides for pocket gopher Thomomys spp. management in vineyards: what works? Pest Management Science , .
| Novel and current rodenticides for pocket gopher Thomomys spp. management in vineyards: what works?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dolbeer, R. A., Bernhardt, G. E., Seamans, T. W., and Woronecki, P. P. (1991). Efficacy of two gas cartridge formulations in killing woodchucks in burrows. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19, 200–204.
Eason, C. T., Fagerstone, K. A., Eisemann, J. D., Humphrys, S., O’Hare, J. R., and Lapidge, S. J. (2010). A review of existing and potential New World and Australasian vertebrate pesticides with a rationale for linking use patterns to registration requirements. International Journal of Pest Management 56, 109–125.
| A review of existing and potential New World and Australasian vertebrate pesticides with a rationale for linking use patterns to registration requirements.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). ‘An Introduction to the Bootstrap.’ (Chapman and Hall: New York.)
Engeman, R. M., and Witmer, G. W. (2000). Integrated management tactics for predicting and alleviating pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) damage to conifer reforestation plantings. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5, 41–55.
| Integrated management tactics for predicting and alleviating pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) damage to conifer reforestation plantings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
Engeman, R. M., Nolte, D. L., and Bulkin, S. P. (1999). Optimization of the open-hole method for assessing pocket gopher, Thomomys spp., activity. Canadian Field Naturalist 113, 241–244.
Entz, M. H., Bullied, W. J., and Katepa-Mupondwa, F. (1995). Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 8, 521–529.
| Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Frey, S. N., and Wilks, R. (2012). A case study involving pocket gopher damage abatement in alfalfa. Journal of Extension 50, Article 5RIB9. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/rb9.php?pdf=1 [Verified 16 September 2015]
Howard, W. E., and Childs, H. E. (1959). Ecology of pocket gophers with emphasis on Thomomys bottae mewa. Hilgardia 29, 277–358.
| Ecology of pocket gophers with emphasis on Thomomys bottae mewa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hygnstrom, S. E., and VerCauteren, K. C. (2000). Cost-effectiveness of five burrow fumigants for managing black-tailed prairie dogs. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45, 159–168.
| Cost-effectiveness of five burrow fumigants for managing black-tailed prairie dogs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXntlGhurY%3D&md5=36808d54d624b9ea6913271277456b48CAS |
Khan, A. A., Mian, A., and Hussain, R. (2011). A delivery system for carbon monoxide fumigation of Indian crested porcupine, Hystrix indica, den using two-ingredient cartridge. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 43, 727–732.
Lee, L. L., Howard, W. E., and Marsh, R. E. (1990). Acquired strychnine tolerance by pocket gophers. In ‘Proceedings of the 14th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds L. R. Davis and R. E. Marsh.) pp. 87–90. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Lee, L. L., Howard, W. E., and Marsh, R. E. (1992). Laboratory studies of more durable baits for controlling pocket gophers. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds J. E. Borrecco and R. E. Marsh.) pp. 303–307. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Luce, D. G., Case, R. M., and Stubbendieck, J. L. (1981). Damage to alfalfa fields by plains pocket gophers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 45, 258–260.
| Damage to alfalfa fields by plains pocket gophers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marsh, R. E. (1992). Reflections on current (1992) pocket gopher control in California. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds J. E. Borrecco and R. E. Marsh.) pp. 289–295. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Matschke, G. H., and Fagerstone, F. A. (1984). Efficacy of a two-ingredient fumigant on Richardson’s ground squirrels. In ‘Proceedings of the 11th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds D. O. Clark.) pp. 17–19. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Matschke, G. H., Ramey, C. A., McCann, G. R., and Engeman, R. M. (1995). Evaluation of a 2-active ingredient gas cartridge for controlling northern pocket gophers. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 36, 151–160.
| Evaluation of a 2-active ingredient gas cartridge for controlling northern pocket gophers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Messmer, T. A., and Schroeder, S. (1996). Perceptions of Utah alfalfa growers about wildlife damage to their hay crops: implications for managing wildlife on private land. The Great Basin Naturalist 56, 254–260.
Miller, M. A. (1948). Seasonal trends in burrowing of pocket gophers (Thomomys). Journal of Mammalogy 29, 38–44.
| Seasonal trends in burrowing of pocket gophers (Thomomys).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller, M. A. (1954). Poison gas tests on gophers. California Agriculture 8, 10.
Miller, M. A. (1957). Burrows of the Sacramento Valley pocket gopher in flood-irrigated alfalfa fields. Hilgardia 26, 431–452.
| Burrows of the Sacramento Valley pocket gopher in flood-irrigated alfalfa fields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moline, P. R., and Demarais, S. (1987). Efficacy of aluminum phosphide for black-tailed prairie dog and yellow-faced pocket gopher control. In ‘Proceedings of the 8th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop’. (Eds D. W. Uresk, G. L. Schenbeck and R. Cefkin.) pp. 64–66. (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO.)
Orloff, S. B. (2012). Evaluation of a pressurized exhaust device to control pocket gophers and Belding’s ground squirrels in alfalfa. In ‘Proceedings of the 25th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Ed. R. M. Timm.) pp. 329–332. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Proulx, G. (1997). A northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) border control strategy: promising approach. Crop Protection 16, 279–284.
| A northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) border control strategy: promising approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Proulx, G. (2002). Effectiveness of trapping to control northern pocket gophers in agricultural lands in Canada. In ‘Proceedings of the 20th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and R. H. Schmidt.) pp. 26–31. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Proulx, G., Badry, M. J., Cole, P. J., Drescher, R. K., Kolenosky, A. J., and Pawlina, I. M. (1995). Summer above-ground movements of northern pocket gophers, Thomomys talpoides, in an alfalfa field. Canadian Field Naturalist 109, 256–258.
Proulx, G., MacKenzie, N., MacKenzie, K., and Walsh, K. (2011). Efficacy of aluminum phosphide tablets to control Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) populations in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. Crop Protection 30, 1039–1042.
| Efficacy of aluminum phosphide tablets to control Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) populations in southern Saskatchewan, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXmvFGjsL4%3D&md5=837dc7032657f93df3c62bb3dd14ba47CAS |
Richens, V. B. (1965). An evaluation of control on the Wasatch pocket gopher. The Journal of Wildlife Management 29, 413–425.
| An evaluation of control on the Wasatch pocket gopher.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Romañach, S. S., Reichman, O. J., and Seabloom, E. W. (2005). Seasonal influences on burrowing activity of a subterranean rodent, Thomomys bottae. Journal of Zoology 266, 319–325.
| Seasonal influences on burrowing activity of a subterranean rodent, Thomomys bottae.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Salmon, T. P., Gorenzel, W. P., and Bentley, W. J. (1982). Aluminum phosphide (Phostoxin) as a burrow fumigant for ground squirrel control. In ‘Proceedings of the 10th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Ed. R. E. Marsh.) pp. 143–146. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Savarie, P. J., Tigner, J. R., Elias, D. J., and Hayes, D. J. (1980). Development of a simple two-ingredient pyrotechnic fumigant. In ‘Proceedings of the 9th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Ed. J. P. Clark.) pp. 215–221. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Schneider, B. (1982). ‘Pesticide Assessment Guidelines: Subdivision G, Product Performance.’ (US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances: Springfield, VA.)
Smeltz, M. D. (1992). Summary of a USDA Forest Service pocket gopher trapping contract. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds J. E. Borrecco and R. E. Marsh.) pp. 296–298. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Whisson, D., and Villa-C, B. (1996). The pocket gopher as a pest in Mexico. In ‘Proceedings of the 17th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and A. C. Crabb.) pp. 151–153. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Witmer, G. W., Marsh, R. E., and Matschke, G. H. (1999). Trapping considerations for the fossorial pocket gopher. In ‘Mammal Trapping’. (Ed. G. Proulx.) pp. 131–139. (Alpha Wildlife and Research Management: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada.)
Zar, J. H. (1999). ‘Biostatistical Analysis.’ (Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.)
