Aversion of the feral pigeon and the house sparrow to pellets and sprouts treated with commercial formulations of methyl anthranilate

Abstract

Two methyl anthranilate formulations, ReJex-iT TP-40 and AG-36, were tested as bird-repelling agents for animal feed and vegetable sprouts, respectively. Feral pigeons (Columbia livia) and house sparrows (Passer domesticus) are important pests of animal husbandry and field crops in Israel. In each 4-day experiment, four birds were held together in an aviary, and were offered four trays or dishes with animal feed or cauliflower sprouts in four corners of the cage. The trays and dishes were transposed daily in a Latin square sequence. Pigeons consumed significantly more untreated feed than treated feed. When no alternative untreated food was offered, there was no significant repellency. Treatment of animal feed with TP-40 to give 2.0 ml methyl anthranilate kg-1 or less had no repellent effect on sparrows. Concentrations of 4.0 ml kg-1 or more repelled the sparrows significantly. When no untreated feed was presented, pigeons and sparrows preferred the lowest concentration of methyl anthranilate presented. When AG-36 was tested on vegetable sprouts, the sparrows tended significantly to avoid the highest concentration used--14.5 ml methyl anthranilate litre-1 spray. The inter-specific differences between the birds indicate that the efficacy of methyl anthranilate formulations as a repellent has to be specified for every species. This study did not determine (1) the possibility of developing habituation, (2) the behaviour of birds under natural conditions in the field, or (3) the influence of the feeding behaviour of a sympatric bird species on the repellency of methyl anthranilate to other species.

Camouflaging of seeds treated with pesticides mitigates the mortality of wild birds in wheat and rice crops

“…In addition, evidences indicate that with animals, aversions and preferences for food items are often related to the taste and appearance of possible foods, but the poorly developed gustative sense of birds (Zuberbuehler et al, 2002) is a plausible reason for explaining limited results from Avery et al (1998) and Moran (2001), using chemical repellents in the absence of alternative food sources. As seeds treated with pesticides must receive a different color to prevent accidents with humans, the camouflaging may be used for mitigating the mortality of birds in plantations, substituting rhodamine B.…”

Are camouflaged seeds less attacked by wild birds?

“…Actually, aversions and preferences for food items by birds are related to flavor and appearance of possible foods (Zuberbuehler et al, 2002). The poorly developed gustative sense is a plausible reason for explaining limited results from Avery et al (1998) and Moran (2001), who used chemical repellants in the absence of alternative food sources. Usual sowing methods, such as 'direct planting', where there is a notable presence of non-decomposed vegetal matter on the surface, and the 'traditional planting', when the land is plowed, may positively affect camouflaging.…”

“…Nevertheless, the usage of blue-colored granular carbofuran was prohibited in Virginia (USA) in 1991 and in Canada in 1998, because of the mortality of birds caused by the direct ingestion of the product applied to the environment, as high mortality rates of carnivorous and granivorous birds caused by carbofuran have been documented (Eisler, 1985;Agriculture Canada, 1993;Mineau et al, 1999;Mineau, 2005), and many of the control methods tested to keep off undesired birds in agriculture have not brought completely satisfactory results, leading to the spending of high operational and financial resources (Avery and Mason, 1997;Nelms and Avery, 1997;Gill et al 1998a, b;James et al, 1999;Avery et al, 2001;Moran, 2001), to the disrespect of humane precepts, and causing unnecessary suffering to the birds (Dolbeer et al, 1999;Avery et al, 1998;Sayre and Clarck, 2001).…”

Camouflage of Seeds, a Control Method of the Bird Mortality in Grain Crops

“…Poorly developed sense of taste is a plausible hypothesis to explain the limited results of some authors, using chemical repellents in the absence of alternative food sources for birds: Avery et al (1998) with anthraquinone, Moran (2001) metil antranilato, Almeida et al (2010a) with carbosulfan, Almeida & Almeida (in press) employing carbosulfan and methiocarb. Taking the example of these cases, when grain stained with 'aversive' colors were used, there were also ingestion rates (Avery et al, 1999, Hartley et al, 1999, 2000 which can result in high mortality rates in situations where the density of birds is high.…”