DOCSLIB.ORG

Rodents and Cover Crops—A Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rodents and Cover Crops—A Review University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Proceedings of the Seventeenth Vertebrate Pest Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Conference 1996 collection 1996 Rodents And Cover Crops—A Review Gregory A. Giusti University of California Cooperative Extension Desley A. Whisson University of California - Davis W. Paul Gorenzel University of California - Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc17 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons, and the Environmental Engineering Commons Giusti, Gregory A.; Whisson, Desley A.; and Gorenzel, W. Paul, "Rodents And Cover Crops—A Review" (1996). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1996. 21. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc17/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1996 by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. RODENTS AND COVER CROPS—A REVIEW GREGORY A. GIUSTI, University of California Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Center/Courthouse, Ukiah, California 95482. DESLEY A. WfflSSON, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, California 95616. W. PAUL GORENZEL, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources-North Region, University of California, Davis, California 95616. ABSTRACT: Inter-row plantings of herbaceous cover crops has become a widely accepted practice by orchard and vineyard managers. Cover crops, used as part of a production management system, are not considered a cash crop and are therefore selected by individual growers for various reasons. Little is written regarding the relationship of cover crop management and the impact on rodent populations. This paper reviews the recent literature and examines how cover crop species and cultivar selection along with management procedures may be influential in limiting rodent populations and their damage to cropping systems. KEY WORDS: vertebrate pests, cover crop, field rodents Proc. 17th Vertebr. Pest Conf. (R.M. Timm & A.C. Crabb, Eds.) Published at Univ. of Calif., Davis. 1996. INTRODUCTION should be managed in order to minimize rodent damage. From a managerial perspective cover crops offer a This paper reviews the current literature and provides number of benefits to an orchard or vineyard manager. some recommendations from a managerial perspective. Cover crop species selection may include the planting of annual and/or perennial legumes and grasses or the THE INFLUENCE OF COVER CROP MANAGEMENT management of established forbs. Species and cultivars ON RODENTS are often selected based on the individual manager's Pocket Gophers (Geomyidae) cultivation practices. In tilled situations cover crops may Pocket gopher feeding impacts on agronomic crops include: bell beans (Vicia faba), field peas (Pisum are well documented (Fitch 1949; Foster and sativum), vetch (Vicia spp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.), Stubbendieck 1980; Luce et al. 1981; Case 1989) and fescues (Festuca spp.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and widely recognized by managers. Growers are acutely oats (Avena sativa). Under a non-till scenario a grower aware of the potential negative impacts from uncontrolled may choose clovers (Trifolium spp.), fescues (Festuca pocket gopher populations. However, the benefits spp.), Blando brome (Bromus mollis), perennial ryegrass realized from the inclusion of cover crops into their (Lolium perenne), bur clovers (Medicago spp.), trefoils management systems far exceeds the potential threat of (Lotus spp.), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), wildrye pocket gopher feeding damage. {Elymus spp.) and others. McGourty (1994) provides a Anecdotal information exists from individuals who thorough overview of cultivar selections and management have been experimenting with cover crop selections and for northern California. The inclusion of these plantings rotations. Norton (pers. comm., UCCE Farm Advisor, into an otherwise sterile production environment increases Merced County) suggests that the use of clovers in apple biological diversity thereby promoting cultural and pest and peach orchards has resulted in elevated pocket gopher management options. populations precluding the continued use of this perennial Cover crops are recognized for providing beneficial cover crop. Bugg (pers. comm., Pest Management aspects to soil fertility, stability and compaction Specialist, UCD) has observed relatively high numbers of (Nicholson and Richmond 1984; McGourty 1994). pocket gophers in perennial clovers as compared to Likewise, they often serve as a nursery crop for beneficial systems using perennial grasses. These generalizations organisms that otherwise would have to immigrate from are pervasive among a number of people who have adjacent sites. Proper cover crop selection can: 1) observed pocket gopher/cover crop interactions. Formal reduce the number of ice nucleating bacteria responsible evaluations of pocket gopher response to cover crop for frost damage to crops; 2) reduce the costs of selection is lacking. Managers are left to their own petro-chemical inputs into a production system; and 3) intuitive approaches to manage cover crop selections and serve to manage plant vigor by adding a measured degree pocket gopher population controls. of competition into a production system (G. McGourty, Loeb (1990) and Giusti (unpubl. data) reported that pers. comm., Plant Science Advisor, UCCE, Mendocino irrigation in alfalfa can increase pocket gopher fecundity County). by extending the breeding season and increasing litter Though widely used in orchard and vineyard cropping frequency and sizes. Case (1989) provides a strategy to systems, little is known about the impacts of cover crop minimize pocket gopher damage to alfalfa. He suggests selection and rodent populations or how cover crops using cultivars with a fibrous root system rather than a 59 tap root to minimize feeding damage on overall field have more of an effect on a surface-dwelling species, M. productivity. He argues fibrous cultivars can sustain pennsylvanicus, than on a fossorial species like M. higher levels of gopher feeding. From a managerial pinetorum. Throughout California the dominant species perspective, since cover crops are not managed as a cash is M. californicus. This species should be considered a crop, production is unimportant; therefore, the lower surface-dwelling type similar to M. pennsylvanicus. In yields of fibrous cultivars are not a factor. It could be their paper, Nicholson and Richmond (1984) discuss the argued that a plant with a fibrous root system, could importance of "heavy grass cover ... dense vegetation, potentially lower carrying capacity for pocket gophers, low light penetration and high moisture levels" as provide beneficial soil and crop amendments, yet still be beneficial to increasing vole populations. These criteria capable of tolerating high levels of pocket gopher damage. should also be viewed equally important when dealing Since the presence of pocket gophers is often first with the California species. They conclude that, noticed through the detection of mounds it is important to "vulnerability for this small prey species (from predation) select a cover crop that does not obscure a manager's can be increased by selecting orchard ground-covers with ability to view burrowing activity. Short statured grasses an erect, bunch-type growth habit that does not mat or would make visible detection relatively simple when lodge." This statement should be considered accurate for compared to a dense, mat-forming cover crop such as a any cropping systems having potential vole damage in perennial legume. This scenario provides a cover crop of California. relatively low density and canopy height for burrow Thompson (1965) evaluated the palatability of 30 detection, and avoids fleshy rooted plants conducive to plant species to voles. Generally, he demonstrated that increased pocket gopher fecundity. Sheep fescue (F. legumes were the most preferred followed by grasses of ovina cul. covar) and hard fescue (F. ovina var. European origin. He further determined that native duriuscula cul. durar) are examples of low growing (3" grasses and sedges were of intermediate preference while to 6" canopy heights), fibrous species appropriate for this boreal and bog plants were least favored. Rhodes et al. situation. (1983) found similar preferences with legumes being the most attractive forage to voles. In his work he further Management Implications demonstrated that crown vetch (Coronilla varia) and Since pocket gophers have the ability to cause creeping myrtle (Vinca minor) were highly unacceptable. catastrophic losses to perennial crops one should be Though these particular species may not be suitable for extremely cautious when trying to manage cover crops as cropping systems in the west it does point to the need for the only means of reducing pocket gopher populations. further investigative types of selections. Pragmatic approaches to a cropping system should include Coley et al. (1995) suggest that certain endophytic the use of cover crops in combination with time-tested fungi associated with fescue may play a role in reducing methods of pocket gopher controls. Cover crop selection vole fecundity. The impacts of endophytes on domestic and management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Controlling Pocket Gopher Damage to Conifer Seedlings D.S
    FOREST PROTECTION EC 1255 • Revised May 2003 $2.50 Controlling Pocket Gopher Damage to Conifer Seedlings D.S. deCalesta, K. Asman, and N. Allen Contents ocket gophers (or just plain Gopher habits and habitat.............. 1 P “gophers”) damage conifer seed- Control program ........................... 2 lings on thousands of Identifying the pest ......................2 acres in Washington, Assessing the need for treatment ...3 Idaho, and Oregon Damage control techniques ...........3 annually. They invade clearcuts and Applying controls .......................... 7 clip (cut off) roots or Figure 1.—Typical Oregon pocket gopher. Christmas tree plantations .............7 girdle (remove bark from) the bases of conifer seedlings and saplings, causing significant economic losses. Forest plantations ........................ 7 This publication will help you design a program to reduce or eliminate Summary .................................... 8 gopher damage to seedlings and saplings in your forest plantation or Christmas tree farm. Sources of supply ......................... 8 First, we describe pocket gophers, their habits, and habitats. Then we For further information .................. 8 discuss procedures for controlling pocket gopher damages—control techniques, their effectiveness and hazard(s) to the environment, and their use under a variety of tree-growing situations. Gopher habits and habitat Three species of pocket gopher can damage conifer seedlings. The two smaller ones, the northern pocket gopher and the Mazama pocket gopher, are 5 to 9 inches long and brown with some white beneath the chin and belly. The northern gopher is found east of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington and in Idaho; the Mazama lives in Oregon and Washington west of the Cascades. David S. deCalesta, former Exten- The Camas pocket gopher is similar looking, but larger (10 to 12 inches) sion wildlife specialist, and Kim than the two others.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Cape Provincial Gazette Vol 15 No
    ·.:.:-:-:-:-:.::p.=~==~ ::;:;:;:;:::::t}:::::::;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;:::;:;:.-:-:.:-:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::-:-:-:-: ..........•............:- ;.:.:.;.;.;.•.;. ::::;:;::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:::::. '.' ::: .... , ..:. ::::::::::::::::::::~:~~~~::::r~~~~\~:~ i~ftfj~i!!!J~?!I~~~~I;Ii!!!J!t@tiit):fiftiIit\t~r\t ', : :.;.:.:.:.:.: ::;:;:::::;:::::::::::;:::::::::.::::;:::::::;:::::::::;:;:::;:;:;:;:: :.:.:.: :.:. ::~:}:::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::tf~:::::::::::::::: ;:::;:::;:::;:;:;:::::::::;:;:::::: ::::::;::;:;:;:;=;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;::::::::;:.: :.;.:.:.;.;.:.;.:.:-:.;.: :::;:' """"~'"W" ;~!~!"IIIIIII ::::::::::;:::::;:;:;:::;:::;:;:;:;:;:::::..;:;:;:::;: 1111.iiiiiiiiiiii!fillimiDw"""'8m\r~i~ii~:i:] :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':.:.:.::::::::::::::{::::::::::::;:: ;.;:;:;:;:t;:;~:~;j~Ij~j~)~( ......................: ;.: :.:.:.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.:.; :.:.;.:.: ':;:::::::::::-:.::::::;:::::;;::::::::::::: EXTRAORDINARY • BUITENGEWONE Provincial Gazette iGazethi YePhondo Kasete ya Profensi Provinsiale Koerant Vol. 15 KIMBERLEY, 19 DECEMBER 2008 DESEMBER No. 1258 PROVINCE OF THE NORTHERN CAPE 2 No. 1258 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 19 DECEMBER 2008 CONTENTS • INHOUD Page Gazette No. No. No. GENERAL NOTICE· ALGEMENE KENNISGEWING 105 Northern Cape Nature Conservation Bill, 2009: For public comment . 3 1258 105 Noord-Kaap Natuurbewaringswetontwerp, 2009: Vir openbare kommentaar . 3 1258 PROVINSIE NOORD-KAAP BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 19 DESEMBER 2008 No.1258 3 GENERAL NOTICE NOTICE
    [Show full text]
  • The Naked Mole-Rat As an Animal Model in Biomedical Research: Current Perspectives
    Open Access Animal Physiology Dovepress open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article REVIEW The naked mole-rat as an animal model in biomedical research: current perspectives Laura-Nadine Schuhmacher Abstract: The naked mole-rat (NMR) is a subterranean rodent that has gained significant Zoé Husson attention from the biomedical research community in recent years as molecular mechanisms Ewan St. John Smith underlying its unusual biology start to be unraveled. With very low external mortality, NMRs have an unusually long lifespan while showing no signs of aging, such as neuro- Department of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK degeneration or cancer. Furthermore, living underground in large colonies (100 to 300 animals), results in comparatively high carbon dioxide and low oxygen levels, from which NMRs have evolved extreme resistance to both hypoxia and hypercapnia. In this paper we have summarized the latest developments in NMR research and its impact on biomedical research, with the aim of providing a sound background that will inform and inspire further For personal use only. investigations. Keywords: naked mole-rat, longevity, cancer, hypoxia, nociception, pain Introduction The naked mole-rat (NMR) (Heterocephalus glaber) is a subterranean mammal, which has recently gained interest from scientists across a variety of research fields. Unlike the majority of mammals, NMRs are poikilothermic and eusocial, ie, are cold-blooded and have a single breeding female within a colony.1 In addition to these features, which have limited biomedical translatability, NMRs have also evolved several physiological adaptations to habituate to their extreme environmental conditions, which have led researchers to study this mammal with the hypothesis Open Access Animal Physiology downloaded from https://www.dovepress.com/ by 131.111.184.102 on 07-Sep-2017 that by understanding the extreme biology of NMRs, more will be understood about normal mammalian physiology.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Movement by Burrowing Mammals: a Review Comparing Excavation Size and Rate to Body Mass of Excavators
    Soil movement by burrowing mammals: a review comparing excavation size and rate to body mass of excavators Natalie S Haussmann Department of Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology, University of Pretoria, South Africa Corresponding author: Natalie S Haussmann, Department of Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, South Africa. Email: [email protected] Tel: +27 (21) 420 4049 Abstract Mammal burrowing plays an important role in soil translocation and habitat creation in many environments. As a consequence, many burrowing mammals have at some point been studied in an ecosystem engineering context. From a geomorphological point of view, one of the focus areas of burrowing mammal research is on the amount of soil that is excavated and the rate at which this happens. As such, reviews exist on the volumes and rates of sediment removal by burrowing mammals in specific environments or for specific groups of species. Here a standardised comparison of mammal burrowing across a broad range of burrowing mammal species and environments is provided, focussing on both burrow volume and excavation rate. Through an ISI Web of Science-based literature search, articles presenting estimates of burrow volumes and/or excavation rate were identified. Relationships between species body size and burrow volume/excavation rate were explored and the influence of sociality and method of burrow volume estimation was assessed. The results show that, although bigger species construct 1 bigger burrows, it is the smaller species that remove more sediment per unit time at larger, site- level spatial scales. Burrow volume estimates are, however, independent of species sociality (solitary vs group-living) and method of burrow volume estimation (excavation-based vs mound- based).
    [Show full text]
  • Kangaroo Rat and Pocket Mouse
    Shrew Family Order Rodentia (Soricoidae) masked shrew vagrant shrew water shrew Sorex cinereus Sorex vagrans Sorex palustris grassland streambank streambank Mouse, Vole, Rats, and Muskrat (Cricetidae) meadow vole long-tailed vole heather vole Microtus pennsylvanicu Microtus longicaudus Phenacomys intermedius grassland streambank streambank/grassland/mountain Gapper’s red-backed vole deer mouse Western harvest mouse Clethrionomys gapperi Peromycus maniculatus Reithrodontomys megalotis mountain mountain/streambank grassland bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea mountain rock mouse Northern grasshopper mouse Peromyscus difficilis Onychomys leucogaster mountain grassland Jumping Mouse Kangaroo Rat and Family Pocket Mouse silky pocket mouse (Zapodidae) (Heteromyidae) Perognathus flavus desert Western jumping mouse Ord’s kangaroo rat Apache pocket mouse Zapus princeps Dipodomys ordii Perognathus apache streambank desert mountain 1:1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 inches 1 - Rodents Tracks are actual size. Pocket Gopher Porcupine Family Order Rodentia Family (Erethizonidae) (Geomyidae) Beaver Family (Castoridae) porcupine Erethizon dorsatum mountains/grasslands scale 1:3 beaver Castor canadensis streams/lakes/wetlands Northern pocket gopher scale 1:3 Thomomys talpoides grasslands scale 1:1 1:3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 inches Squirrel Family (Sciuridae) least chipmunk Colorado chipmunk chicaree Eutamias minimus Eutamias quadrivittatus Tamiasciurus douglassi mountain/grassland mountain forest Abert’s squirrel Sciurus aberti kaibabensis mountain/forest rock ground squirrel golden-mantled ground Spermophilus variegatus squirrel mountain Spermophilus lateralis streambank yellow-bellied marmot Gunnison’s prairie dog thirteen-lined ground squirrel Marmota flaviventris Cynomys gunnisoni Spermophilus tridecemlineatus mountain/rockslide grassland grassland 1:1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 inches 2 - Rodents Rodentia tracks vary in size. Sciuridae tracks are actual size.
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis School of Graduate Studies Addis Ababa University in Partial
    A BTUJlY ON SOlIS EGOLOGICJIL ASP.o;CTS Ob' THE GIAWJ: HOI)l~ ... R~'.'r T.'\CHYOnYC~E's HACnOCEPHALUS (nUPPEI,L,184z). IN lYILic HOUNTJ\INS, ETHIOPIA A Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies Addis Ababa University In Partial Fulfillment of tho Requirement for the Degree Muater of Sci onCe in Biology By Shimelis Beyene June 1986 i endemic to Ethiopia, waG 13i~u'li2d in two ohservutio!l llre~s at Bale Mountains National I'&lk i]l south eastern Ethiopia~ The burrow system 8Y.:cavated revBaled extensive underground tunnels, material consisting exclusively of grasses knitted into a hollow ball. One to several blind tlmnels ;iere found filled with foods to res and faec BE>. rJ~he underground tunnel SYR tems \'Jere marked by soil moundG, Garth plugs, foraging holes and haypiles resembled those of pocket gophers. Mole-rats spent an ave~Rge of about 70 minlltes a day on the surface, mainly foraL:inp; tut £1.1so observing ana. digging Q The time spent on the surface by mole-rats at high altitude was significantly greater thc1.n that spent by mole-rats .:;l.t low al ti tude. This difference appea.red to be related to the difference in vegetation cover. The populatiDn d(.nc;i ty of mole-rats 'lias estimated to be about 6000 mole-rats per kr/ at Sanetti and 570 mole-rats per 2 km at Badeae 0 l'his difference in population donai ty ;\'a8 probably due to differences in [;oil and vegetation types, it CompGtion with dom;)stic live stock at lovler al ti tudes might have also contributed.
    [Show full text]
  • List of 28 Orders, 129 Families, 598 Genera and 1121 Species in Mammal Images Library 31 December 2013
    What the American Society of Mammalogists has in the images library LIST OF 28 ORDERS, 129 FAMILIES, 598 GENERA AND 1121 SPECIES IN MAMMAL IMAGES LIBRARY 31 DECEMBER 2013 AFROSORICIDA (5 genera, 5 species) – golden moles and tenrecs CHRYSOCHLORIDAE - golden moles Chrysospalax villosus - Rough-haired Golden Mole TENRECIDAE - tenrecs 1. Echinops telfairi - Lesser Hedgehog Tenrec 2. Hemicentetes semispinosus – Lowland Streaked Tenrec 3. Microgale dobsoni - Dobson’s Shrew Tenrec 4. Tenrec ecaudatus – Tailless Tenrec ARTIODACTYLA (83 genera, 142 species) – paraxonic (mostly even-toed) ungulates ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BOVIDAE (46 genera) - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Addax nasomaculatus - Addax 2. Aepyceros melampus - Impala 3. Alcelaphus buselaphus - Hartebeest 4. Alcelaphus caama – Red Hartebeest 5. Ammotragus lervia - Barbary Sheep 6. Antidorcas marsupialis - Springbok 7. Antilope cervicapra – Blackbuck 8. Beatragus hunter – Hunter’s Hartebeest 9. Bison bison - American Bison 10. Bison bonasus - European Bison 11. Bos frontalis - Gaur 12. Bos javanicus - Banteng 13. Bos taurus -Auroch 14. Boselaphus tragocamelus - Nilgai 15. Bubalus bubalis - Water Buffalo 16. Bubalus depressicornis - Anoa 17. Bubalus quarlesi - Mountain Anoa 18. Budorcas taxicolor - Takin 19. Capra caucasica - Tur 20. Capra falconeri - Markhor 21. Capra hircus - Goat 22. Capra nubiana – Nubian Ibex 23. Capra pyrenaica – Spanish Ibex 24. Capricornis crispus – Japanese Serow 25. Cephalophus jentinki - Jentink's Duiker 26. Cephalophus natalensis – Red Duiker 1 What the American Society of Mammalogists has in the images library 27. Cephalophus niger – Black Duiker 28. Cephalophus rufilatus – Red-flanked Duiker 29. Cephalophus silvicultor - Yellow-backed Duiker 30. Cephalophus zebra - Zebra Duiker 31. Connochaetes gnou - Black Wildebeest 32. Connochaetes taurinus - Blue Wildebeest 33. Damaliscus korrigum – Topi 34.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodenticides Labeled for Use to Control Meadow Voles and Pocket Gophers Updated June 13, 2016 MEADOW VOLE PRODUCTS
    Rodenticides Labeled for Use to Control Meadow Voles and Pocket Gophers Updated June 13, 2016 ALWAYS read and follow the instructions printed on the pesticide label. The pesticides listed in these tables are currently registered with Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Pesticide labels change frequently and may have changed since this was written, therefore, check the current label to be sure it is registered for use. Products that are labeled as “Restricted Use” require an Idaho Pesticide Applicators License to purchase and apply. “General Use” products can be purchased and used by the general public 18 years and older. “General Use” products can be found in a variety of retail businesses, such as home improvement stores, farm stores, retail greenhouse businesses, and grocery stores. ATTENTION: If the product label lists any “commensal rodents” (Norway rat, roof rat, or house mouse), labels will have specific directions for use and location of bait stations, and product quantity allowed. Some, not all, of the products listed on these tables have commensal rodents listed on the labels. Be sure to thoroughly read and follow all label directions. MEADOW VOLE PRODUCTS GENERAL USE PESTICIDES—MEADOW VOLES THESE PRODUCTS ARE FOR HOMEOWNER/CONSUMER USE. Rodenticide Common Trade Restricted Rodenticide Consumer Labeled Uses/Comments Active Ingredient Names Use Pesticide Type Use Scoot Squirrel, Miller Hot Sauce Animal Biopesticide Spray on ornamentals, hay bales, vegetable crops. Do not use Capsaicin NO YES Repellent, Repellex spray, tablets indoors. Place tablet type formulations in water and apply to soil. Systemic tablets Mole Go Granules, Natural Use as a repellent around structures and plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Squirrel Control in Montana
    Ground Squirrel Control in Montana Jim Knight, Ph.D., MSU Extension Wildlife Specialist, and Joe Parks, MSU Toole County Extension Agent The most prominent ground squirrel found in Montana is the Richardson ground squirrel that prefer the meadow and grassland. The Columbian ground squirrel lives in western Montana and control methods are recommended MontGuide when they start to damage the land or overpopulate it. MT201406AG New 9/14 RICHARDSON GROUND SQUIRRELS ARE MEADOW Ground squirrels spend a considerable amount of time and grassland rodents and are the most prominent above ground, whereas pocket gophers spend 99 percent species of ground squirrel found in Montana. Because of of their life underground. their preferred habitat, Montana has large populations of ground squirrels throughout much of the state in Habitat & Biology cropland, pastures, golf courses and urban settings. Ground squirrels live in an extensive system of burrows The Columbian ground squirrel is found on the up to six feet in depth with multiple entrances to the western side of Montana. With minor variations surface that are left open (pocket gophers plug their (primarily related to later timing of treatments), entrances). Ground squirrels feed above ground and the control methods described here can be used for their diet consists of grasses, forbs and seeds. They also Columbian ground squirrels. store large quantities of food in their burrows before Control methods are hibernation which begins as recommended at times early as August. when land becomes Males emerge after damaged or overpopulated hibernation, during by ground squirrels. early spring to establish Research in Montana has territories.
    [Show full text]
  • An Integrated Approach to Managing Ground Squirrels and Pocket Gophers Roger A
    An integrated approach to managing ground squirrels and pocket gophers Roger A. Baldwin UCCE Wildlife Specialist-UC Davis Species Identification (Ground Squirrels) • Gray-brown fur with semi- bushy tail. • Are social. • Damage includes girdling of trees, consumption of forbs and grasses, chewing of irrigation lines, and abundant burrow openings. Species Identification (Ground Squirrels) • Squirrels are active throughout the day and are frequently visible. • They prefer to burrow next to buildings, on field edges, and alongside fencerows and roadsides. Species Identification (Pocket Gophers) • Burrowing rodent about 6-8 in long; rarely seen above ground. • Gopher mounds are plugged and often fan-shaped. Species Identification (Pocket Gophers) • They feed on taproots weakening and/or killing plants. • Then can girdle trees, particularly below ground. • Mounds can also kill plants and can create weed seed- beds. Current Control Strategies • Currently, we focus on an integrated approach that utilizes a number of strategies and tools to control vertebrate pests. Importance of Biology/Ecology • Understanding the biology and ecology of vertebrate pests will guide management decisions. • Example: - ground squirrels What Control Options are Available? Habitat Burrow Baiting Trapping Exclusion Repellent Frightening Shooting modification fumigation Ground squirrel X X X X X Pocket gopher X X X X ? Control Options—Biocontrol • Natural predators have been used to control vertebrate pests. Control Options—Biocontrol • Natural predators have been used to control vertebrate pests. • Owl boxes are inconclusive for gophers; raptor perches appear ineffective for ground squirrels. Control Options—Biocontrol • Natural predators have been used to control vertebrate pests. • Owl boxes are inconclusive for gophers; raptor perches appear ineffective for ground squirrels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis and Use of Methodologies for the Study of the Diets of Long-Eared Owls from Three Environments in North Central Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1985 The analysis and use of methodologies for the study of the diets of long-eared owls from three environments in north central Oregon John M. Barss Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Biology Commons, Nutrition Commons, and the Ornithology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Barss, John M., "The analysis and use of methodologies for the study of the diets of long-eared owls from three environments in north central Oregon" (1985). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3437. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5320 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF John M. Barss for the Master of Science in Biology presented May 15, 1985. Title: The Analysis and Use of Methodologies for the Study of the Diets of Long-eared Owls From Three Environments in North-central Oregon. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Richard B. Forbes Robert O. Tinnin Part I of this study presents a procedure for standardization of pellet analysis methodologies which improves estimation of prey biomass and determines the number of pellets needed to estimate prey diversity indices. The procedure was developed to provide a simple, easily replicated methodology for the study of pellets which also retains maximal data recorded from pellet analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Springs
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife List A Wildlife Oasis Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge since 1960, and includes 12 species (NWR) was established in 1959 under of reptiles, 2 amphibians, 4 fish, the authority of the Migratory Bird 44 species of mammals (at least Conservation Act as a refuge and 24 of these breed on the Refuge), breeding ground for migratory birds. and 298 species of birds (at least This Refuge is one of over 550 refuges 70 of these breed on the Refuge). This blue goose, in the National Wildlife Refuge designed by J.N. System – a network of public lands The checklist will be changed as “Ding” Darling, set aside specifically for wildlife. Refuge staff observe and report is the symbol The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service new sightings. The status of the listed of the National manages these lands to conserve species, particularly many of the bird Wildlife Refuge wildlife and their habitats for people species listed as rare or accidental, System. today and for generations to come. will be verified or revised with increasing observations. The Refuge provides nearly 18,000 acres of uniquely varied habitats Species abundance varies annually, that support a diversity of wildlife sometimes tremendously, due to in an otherwise arid landscape. changes in wetland water levels, A 10,000-acre portion of the Refuge fluctuations in available food, and consisting of wet meadow and marsh natural cycles. Many of the less habitats is fed by natural artesian common migrant songbird species spring flow. This area is managed by actually may be present only for Refuge staff using an impoundment a period of a week or so during system.
    [Show full text]