Landscape Plants, Forest Trees, and Crops Most Resistant to Mammal Damage: an Overview
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center Proceedings for April 1991 LANDSCAPE PLANTS, FOREST TREES, AND CROPS MOST RESISTANT TO MAMMAL DAMAGE: AN OVERVIEW Rex E. Marsh University of California, Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Marsh, Rex E., "LANDSCAPE PLANTS, FOREST TREES, AND CROPS MOST RESISTANT TO MAMMAL DAMAGE: AN OVERVIEW" (1991). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 34. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/34 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 122 LANDSCAPE PLANTS, FOREST TREES, AND CROPS MOST RESISTANT TO MAMMAL DAMAGE: AN OVERVIEW REX E. MARSH, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis, California 95616 Proceedings 10th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Conference (S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Case, and R.J. Johnson, eds.) Published at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1991. To capitalize on mammal-resistant A few examples are offered to illustrate plants, several approaches may be taken. the practical value of careful and deliberate The most common is to select crops not variety or cultivar selection. Where deer are highly prone to mammal damage (i.e., a serious problem, standard size apple trees resistant crops). If a generally susceptible suffer less damage than dwarf or semidwarf crop is to be grown, the more resistant apple trees because a greater proportion of varieties or cultivars of that crop can be the flowering buds are above the deer's selected, if known. An approach that has reach (Moen 1983). The same, of course, is not received the attention it warrants is the true of other kinds of dwarf fruit trees. selection of parent stock with resistant Clements (1980) pointed out that with sugar- characteristics and the selective breeding of cane cultivars the persistence of the leaves useful species to develop strains, hybrids, or including sheaths influences the amount of cultivars with improved mammal resistance. rat {Rattus spp.) damage suffered. The "self- For several reasons, this latter approach stripping" type canes, such as "H37-1933," shows the most promise for forest tree are much more susceptible to rat damage species. than the so-called "trashy" canes. Russian comfrey (Symphytwn sp.) has been used in It has long been known that most England and elsewhere in Europe for stock mammal pest species, herbivorous or feed and as compost for small farms and omnivorous, have a preference for feeding gardens. Unlike alfalfa, comfrey is not on some plants or crops and not others. damaged by rabbits and some bird species Food preferences consist of gradient values because of the bristles on the plant (Hills and relate to a variety of factors, some 1954). innate and others learned. It has also been observed that certain varieties or cultivars of While many farmers know from normally susceptible crops are fed upon to experience that pest mammals cause damage different degrees. For example, 2 or 3 to specific crops, unfortunately very little has cultivars of the same crop grown in the same been published on which varieties, strains or field may differ dramatically in severity of cultivars should be selected to avoid the damage by deer (Odocoileus spp.) or rabbits more serious mammal damage problems. (Lepus spp. and Sylvilagus spp.). All other factors being equal, a grower would select Those researching bird depredation those cultivars least likely to sustain losses. problems on agricultural crops have made significant strides in selecting or developing For more information visit http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu 123 bird-resistant hybrids and cultivars of Where deer are a problem, and no sorghum, sunflower, and corn (Parfitt and deer-proof fence exists, artichokes, tomatoes, Fox 1986, Dolbeer and Woronecki 1988). squash, rhubarb, or chives may be planted to Much is known of the plant chemistry and help buffer the rest of a backyard garden. the morphological characteristics of those English and black walnuts, figs, crop cultivars that are most or least pomegranates, persimmons, olives, date susceptible to bird damage (Weatherhead palms, and prickly pears are also relatively and Tinker 1983, Bullard et al. 1989). unpalatable to deer. Some of the most Research on the selection and development common deer-susceptible fruit and nut trees of plants more resistant to mammal damage are apples, apricots, plums, prunes, cherries, significantly lags behind that directed toward peaches, oranges, almonds, and grapes. resolving bird problems. However, there is Beans, peas, carrots, and strawberries rank some renewed interest in mammal-resistant especially high in deer preferences. A deer- tree species for forest regeneration. With the proof fence may be needed to profitably emphasis on reforestation, Hansson (1988) grow these in some areas of high deer presented a review of some of the research populations. in the natural resistance of plants to pest rodents and an insight into some of the Pocket Gophers mechanisms by which they work. Gardeners have identified a few SELECTING CROPS, CULTIVARS, ornamentals, such as marigolds, narcissus, AND ORNAMENTAL and daffodils, that are not fed upon by PLANTS LESS DAMAGE PRONE pocket gophers. Deer According to some authorities, alfalfa cultivars with creeping or several large roots Through trial and error, and are less easily damaged by pocket gophers accompanied by some research, it has been (Thomomys spp. and Geomys spp.) than possible to rank ornamental plants for alfalfa plants with single taproots (Melton et landscape purposes that are relatively al. 1988). Less susceptible alfalfa varieties resistant to specific mammal damage in a such as Rambler, Teton, and Travois were particular area. Several such lists have been specifically mentioned with reference to developed and contain some useful Nebraska (Case and Stubbendieck 1976). selections. The most notable is the list of More recent studies in Nebraska indicate that mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) resistant Spredor 2 may be more resistant to gophers plants, primarily ornamentals, principally than the Wrangler (Jasch, pers. commun.). used in California (Cummings et al. 1980). Several other lists of deer-resistant Rats ornamental plants in the West have also been published (Cummings et al. 1963, To avoid roof rats (Rattus rattus) in Anon. 1966, Hogan 1988). In a Connecticut landscaped areas, lists of plants that are not study, Conover and Kania (1988) identified good harborage for roof rats in California and ranked a wide range of ornamental plant have been developed (Santa Clara County species as to their susceptibility to white- Health Department, n.d.; Anonymous 1978) tailed deer (O. virginianus) browsing. Those along with a list of plants highly favored by species with little or no deer damage are rats and which often harbors them (Table 2). provided in Table 1. For more information visit http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu 124 Table 1. Ornamentals found to be browsed Table 2. Ornamentals found to harbor roof little or not at all by white-tailed deer rats (Rattus rattus). This list was developed (Odocoileus virginianus) in a landscape by the Santa Clara County Health nursery study conducted in Connecticut. Department, California. These should be This list is after Conover and Kania (1988). avoided where roof rats are a potential problem. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American dogwood Cornus sericea American holly Ilex opaca Algerian ivy Hedera canariensis Bridal-wreath Spiraea spp. Arborvitae Platycladus Chinese holly Ilex cornuta orientalis spp. Colorado blue spruce Picea pungens Bamboo Bambusa spp. Common boxwood Buxus sempervirens Date palm Phoenix dactylifera Common lilac Syringa vulgaris Hall's honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Doghobble Leucothoe halliana fontanesiana Himalayan blackberry Rubus procerus Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Italian cypress Cupressus Evergreen hybrid sempervirens rhododendron Rhododendron spp. Lombardy poplar Populus nigra italica Flowering dogwood Cornus florida Pampas grass Cortaderia selloana Fraser fir Abies fraseri Star jasmine Trachelospermum Golden-bells Forsythia spp. jasminoides Japanese cedar Cryptomeria japonica Tamarix juniper Juniperus sabina Kousa dogwood Cornus kousa tamariscifolia Lily-of-the-valley Variegated Algerian Hedera canariensis bush Pieris japonica ivy variegata Magnolia Magnolia spp. Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia Mountain pine Pinus mugo As mentioned earlier, certain varieties of Norway spruce Picea abies sugarcane are more susceptible to rat Pear Pyrus communis damage. Varietal characteristics of rat- Rose-of-Sharon Hibiscus syriacus resistant sugarcane are thick-barreled, Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris moderate-to-hard-rinded, grow erect, and are Shadbush Amelanchier spp. not prone to lodging (Barnes 1974, King et Snowball viburnum Viburnum tomentosum al. 1965). In Taiwan the variety POJ2725, Weeping birch Betula pendula which is soft-rinded with inclined stems, White pine Pinus strobus suffers greater rat damage than POJ2878, White spruce Picea glauca which is hard-rinded