We used infrared‐activated video cameras and direct observation to evaluate the effects of 2‐wire high‐tensile electric fence (2‐WF), 3‐wire high‐tensile electric fence (3‐WF), and 4‐wire high‐tensile electric fence (4‐WF) designs on elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) movements. In addition, high‐tensile electric fences (HTEF) were tested for their effectiveness on domestic cattle (Bos taurus; 2‐WF and 3‐WF) and bison (Bison bison; 3‐WF and 4‐WF). Shock energy on the test fences ranged from 0.5–4.5 J. The wildlife species we studied were physically capable of crossing all of the fence designs. However, difficulty in crossing the fences varied between species and designs. The elk and mule deer observed were more successful (100%) at crossing the 2‐WF than pronghorn (51%). Mule deer (95%) and pronghorn (91%) were more successful at crossing 4‐WF than elk (59%). The majority of elk (79%), mule deer (93%), and pronghorn (97%) successfully crossed 3‐WF. Electric shock did not appear to affect elk, mule deer, or pronghorn at a charge of 0.5–4.5 J, and overall < 1% were shocked when interacting with HTEF. For domestic cattle, 2‐WF was 99% effective in calf separation tests and 100% effective for bull separation. Bison were successfully contained by both 3‐WF (100%) and 4‐WF (99.8% [∼100%]). Our data suggest the 3‐WF design overall was the least restrictive for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn and effectively confined domestic cattle and bison.
Separate black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus (Ord), towns on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado, were treated with technical pyriproxyfen (Nylar) spray, powder, and oral bait. The treatments were applied to reduce relative abundance of the plague vector Oropsylla hirsuta (Baker). Because pyriproxyfen is a juvenile hormone analog, we were also concerned with the effects of the treatments on nontarget arthropods, which is the focus of this study. Pitfall traps and sweep net sampling were used to measure relative abundance of arthropod populations pre- and posttreatment. Nontarget arthropod sampling produced a large number of statistical comparisons that indicated significant declines (P < 0.05) in relative arthropod abundance. Many of the significant declines were probably because of natural fluctuations in arthropod populations rather than treatment effects. Because arthropod populations appeared to fluctuate randomly, we only made inferences about highly significant (P < 0.001) declines. In doing so, we hoped to abate some of the confusion created by the natural fluctuation in arthropod abundance and increase our chance of correctly attributing a population reduction to a treatment effect. Only Homoptera at the pyriproxyfen powder site exhibited highly significant reductions that appeared to be attributed to the treatments. Pyriproxyfen spray treatments did not significantly reduce relative arthropod abundance.
Separate black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus (Ord), towns on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado, were treated with technical pyriproxyfen (Nylar) using spray, powder, and oral bait carriers. Direct combing methods (1997 and 1998) and burrow flagging (1998) were used to estimate relative abundance of the plague vector Oropsylla hirsuta (Baker). Pyriproxyfen spray (0.05%) and powder (0.05%) did not significantly reduce (P > 0.05) O. hirsuta abundance. Pyriproxyfen bait, when applied every 4 wk at a concentration of 286 mg/50 g bait, significantly reduced (P < or = 0.05) O. hirsuta infesting prairie dogs, 4 mo after initial treatment. However, flea populations had recovered to pretreatment levels by the following summer (July 1999).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.