Effects of harvesting and stubble management on abundance of pest rodents (Mus musculus) in a conservation agriculture system

Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe shift to more environmentally sensitive agricultural practices over the last several decades has changed farmland landscapes worldwide. Changes including no‐till and retaining high biomass mulch has been coincident with an increase in rodent pests in South Africa, India, South America and Europe, indicating a possible conflict between conservation agriculture (CA) and rodent pest management. Research on effects of various crop management practices associated with CA on pest rodent population dynamics is needed to anticipate and develop CA‐relevant management strategies.RESULTSDuring the Australian 2020–2021 mouse plague, farmers used postharvest stubble management practices, including flattening and/or cutting, to reduce stubble cover in paddocks to lessen habitat suitability for pest house mice. We used this opportunity to assess the effects of both harvest and stubble management on the movement and abundance of mice in paddocks using mouse trapping and radio tracking. We found that most tracked mice remained resident in paddocks throughout harvest, and that mouse population abundance was generally unaffected by stubble management.CONCLUSIONRecent conversions to CA practices have changed how pest house mice use cropped land. Management practices that reduce postharvest habitat complexity do not appear to reduce the attractiveness of paddocks to mice, and further research into new management strategies in addition to toxic bait use is required as part of an integrated pest management approach. © 2023 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Background food influences rate of encounter and efficacy of rodenticides in wild house mice

“…In conservation farming systems, where grain losses (pre-and post-harvest) are often high, the challenge is to define strategies to reduce either the amount of background food or the availability of the background food prior to application of bait. Additional farm management practices to reduce background food accessibility post-harvest include (based on Brown et al 2004) (1) reducing spilled grain losses during harvest, (2) using seed destructors to remove weed seeds (Walsh et al 2012), (3) using livestock (eg: sheep) to graze post-harvest stubble and grain, and (4) treating post-harvest stubble in some way (burn, prickle-chain etc) (Ruscoe et al 2023a). Further research is needed to determine the benefits of these practices in reducing mouse food supply.…”

“…2004) (1) reducing spilled grain losses during harvest, (2) using seed destructors to remove weed seeds (Walsh et al . 2012), (3) using livestock (eg: sheep) to graze post-harvest stubble and grain, and (4) treating post-harvest stubble in some way (burn, prickle-chain etc) (Ruscoe et al . 2023a).…”

Exploring patterns of female house mouse spatial organisation among outbreaking and stable populations

“…Trapping data used here are from a subset of data collected between November 2020 and February 2021, across four trapping sessions. These data were collected as part of a larger study (Ruscoe, Brown, Henry, et al., 2023 ), and data have been reanalysed to answer different questions.…”