2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99547-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Wild pigs quickly acclimated to bait box B in all trials, and moving the bait box several meters before deploying toxic baits is now standard practice in field applications during research trials. In addition, Snow et al 27 . reported that a combination of seasonal application (i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Wild pigs quickly acclimated to bait box B in all trials, and moving the bait box several meters before deploying toxic baits is now standard practice in field applications during research trials. In addition, Snow et al 27 . reported that a combination of seasonal application (i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…summer deployment rather than winter), the use of scare devices activated ~ 1 h before sunrise the morning after toxic deployment, and cleaning and spreading fresh topsoil across the area immediately adjacent to the bait station the morning after toxic deployment eliminated observed avian mortalities at bait sites in Texas. Although we would recommend cleaning bait sites as describe in Snow et al 27 as a best management practice associated with bait deployments, it will probably not eliminate the risk to all non‐target individuals. The double‐observer surveys described in this study were designed to maximize detection of spilled baits.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…14–100 for Mississippi samples). Measurements collected by USDA personnel were done conducted by following several USDA IACUC‐approved studies (Sanders et al, 2020; Snow et al, 2019; Snow et al, 2022; Snow, Halseth, et al, 2021; Snow & VerCauteren, 2019; Snow, Wishart, et al, 2021). Body mass and other morphometric data were gathered postmortem.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We attempted to offer test baits and corn ad libitum to avoid biasing a wild pig's choice. The amounts of baits offered were based on corn consumption rates from previous wild pig trials in our facility (Snow et al 2021). In every offering, earthworms were consumed prior to trial end thereby biasing earthworm results negatively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Corn may become less attractive as alternative food resources in an area become more abundant (Barrett and Birmingham 1994). Additionally, corn attracts a variety of other species (Snow et al 2021), resulting in decreased efficacy for wild pigs or endangerment of nontarget species. Finding alternative baits to corn may help wildlife managers increase and target wild pig visitation to bait sites, especially during seasons when corn is less effective.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%