Factors Affecting Bait Site Visitation: Area of Influence of Baits

McRae, Jacquelyn E.; Schlichting, Peter E.; Snow, Nathan P.; Davis, Amy J.; VerCauteren, Kurt C.; Kilgo, John C.; Keiter, David A.; Beasley, James C.; Pepin, Kim M.

doi:10.1002/wsb.1074

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We initially pre‐baited up to twice the number of sites than were ultimately used in the toxic phase of the trials to ensure we established enough bait sites and we selected the best bait sites for deploying the toxic bait. For selecting pre‐baiting sites, we used a goal of maintaining >500 m separation between bait sites, in attempt to locate discrete family groups of wild pigs 30,36,37 . We deployed time lapse cameras (see later) at all sites to enable determination of the approximate numbers and uniquely identifiable characteristics (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For selecting pre-baiting sites, we used a goal of maintaining >500 m separation between bait sites, in attempt to locate discrete family groups of wild pigs. 30,36,37 We deployed time lapse cameras (see later) at all sites to enable determination of the approximate numbers and uniquely identifiable characteristics (e.g. group of ten wild pigs with two nursing sows and eight piglets) of wild pigs at each site.…”

Section: Baiting Wild Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Snow

Wishart

Foster

et al. 2021

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are a destructive invasive species throughout many regions of the world. In 2018, a field evaluation of an early prototype of a sodium nitrite (SN) toxic bait in the United States revealed wild pigs dropped large amounts of the toxic bait outside the pig‐specific bait stations while feeding, and thus subsequent hazards for non‐target animals. We modified the SN‐toxic bait formulation, the design of the bait station, and the baiting strategy to reduce dropped bait. We tested the modifications in Queensland, Australia (December 2018), Alabama, USA (August 2019), and Texas, USA (March 2020) under differing climatic and seasonal conditions for one night. RESULTS Cumulatively we found 161 carcasses of all age classes of wild pigs using systematic transects. Remote camera indices indicated high lethality for wild pigs, achieving population reductions of 76.3 to 90.4%. Wild pigs dropped only small particles of SN‐toxic bait (average = 55.5 g per bait site), which represented a 19‐fold decrease from the previous trial. Despite this reduction, we found three Australian ravens (Corvus coronoides) in Queensland, two Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) in Alabama, and 35 granivorous‐passerine birds (mostly dark‐eyed juncos [Junco hyemalis]) in Texas dead from consuming the dropped bait. We did not detect any population‐level effects for those species. CONCLUSION Our modifications were effective at reducing populations of wild pigs, but the deaths of non‐target species require further steps to minimize these hazards. Next steps will include evaluating various deterrent devices for birds the morning after SN‐toxic bait has been offered. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baiting Wild Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Snow

Wishart

Foster

et al. 2021

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used the location information associated with the removal method (e.g., flight track logs, latitude/longitude of trap locations), number of removal events, and information on trap area of influence to estimate the availability by method. We set the area of influence as constant based on previous studies (Davis et al 2017, McRae et al 2020), but variation in the area of influence could be included to account for circumstances (e.g., duration of baiting, time of year; Snow and VerCauteren 2019, McRae et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An efficient method of evaluating multiple concurrent management actions on invasive populations

Davis

Farrar

Jump

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the efficacy of management actions to control invasive species is crucial for maintaining funding and to provide feedback for the continual improvement of management efficiency. However, it is often difficult to assess the efficacy of control methods due to limited resources for monitoring. To evaluate management actions there is often a trade-off in effort aimed at performing management actions and effort aimed at collecting monitoring data to evaluate management actions. We developed a method to estimate invasive species abundance, evaluate management effectiveness, and evaluate population growth overtime from a combination of removal activities (e.g., aerial gunning, trapping, ground shooting) using only data collected during removal efforts (the method of removal, the date, location, number of animals removed, and the effort). This dynamic approach allows for estimating abundance at discrete time points and the estimation of population growth between removal periods. We applied this method to removal data from Mingo National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri from December 2015 to September 2019, where the management objective is elimination. Populations of feral swine on Mingo NWR have fluctuated over time but have shown more marked declines in the last 3-6 months. More dramatic declines were observed in the center of the refuge. To counteract population growth (from both births and immigration) the percent of the population of feral swine removed monthly must be greater than the growth rate. On average, we found that removing 10% of the population monthly had only a 50% chance of causing a population decline, whereas removing 15% of the population monthly had a 95% chance of causing a population decline. Our method provides advancement over traditional removal modeling approaches because it can be applied to evaluate management programs that use a broad range of removal techniques concurrently and whose management effort and spatial coverage vary across time.

show abstract

“…1 ) using the highest ranked sites from this ranking system: (1) consistent wild pig visitation (i.e., ≥ 2 days in a row), (2) consistent visitation by a family group of wild pigs (i.e., ≥ 1 female with multiple juveniles or piglets), (3) consistent visitation by multiple family groups (4) consistent visitation of independent family groups not visiting other sites 42 . We also made sure to select bait sites that were > 500 m apart to maintain independence among the groups of pigs visiting each site 41 , 43 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterring non-target birds from toxic bait sites for wild pigs

Snow

Halseth

Foster

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxic baiting of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) is a potential new tool for population control and damage reduction in the US. Field trials testing a prototype toxic bait (HOGGONE 2 containing 5% sodium nitrite [SN]), though, revealed that wild pigs spilled small particles of toxic bait outside of bait stations which subsequently created hazards for non-target species that consumed those particles, primarily passerine birds. To deter non-target birds from consuming particles of spilled bait, we tested four deterrents at mock bait sites (i.e., baited with bird seed) in north-central Colorado, USA during April–May 2020. We found a programable, inflatable deterrent device (scare dancer) reduced bird visitation by an average of 96%. Then, we evaluated the deterrent devices at SN-toxic bait sites in north-central Texas, USA during July 2020, where the devices were activated the morning following deployment of SN-toxic bait. Overall, we found 139 dead wild pigs at 10 bait sites following one night of toxic baiting, which represented an average of 91% reduction in wild pigs visiting bait sites. We found that deterrent devices were 100% effective at deterring birds from toxic bait sites. We found two dead non-target mice at bait sites without deterrent devices. We noted that deploying toxic bait in mid-summer rather than late-winter/early-spring reduced hazards to migrating birds because they were not present in our study area during July. We recommend using deterrent devices (i.e., novel, programmable, battery operated, continuous and erratic movement, and snapping sounds) to reduce hazards to non-target birds at SN-toxic bait sites. We further recommend deploying SN-toxic bait during seasons when migrating birds are not as abundant until further research demonstrates minimal risks to migrating birds.

show abstract

Factors Affecting Bait Site Visitation: Area of Influence of Baits

Cited by 15 publications

References 42 publications

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

An efficient method of evaluating multiple concurrent management actions on invasive populations

Deterring non-target birds from toxic bait sites for wild pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About