Beranda  ›  Shrews Gifs Baby Size of a Barn Owl

Shrews Gifs Baby Size of a Barn Owl

Ditulis Kamis, 10 Maret 2022 Tulis Komentar Edit

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Sustainable Control of Rats by Rodenticide Application and Natural Propagation of Barn Owls (Tyto Javanica)

Submitted: September 29th, 2018 Reviewed: January 19th, 2019 Published: Nov 11th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84561

From the Edited Volume

Owls

Edited by Heimo Mikkola

IntechOpen

IntechOpen Downloads

691

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Abstruse

Rat infestation in crops has been dealt with the crudest method of hunting and trapping to reliance on natural enemies to awarding of rodenticides and the present arroyo of IPM by combining baiting with biological control past a suitable predator. Sustainability is the key feature where rat pest is kept below the carrying chapters of the habitat avoiding harming nontarget animals and preserving the environment. Combining rodenticides with predators calls for a balancing act whereby the latter is non exposed in as much every bit possible to intoxication by the former through secondary poisoning. Long-term exposure to the get-go-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (FGAR) has given rise to allurement resistance, prompting the formulation of highly toxic second-generation rodenticides (SGAR) that may overcome resistance in rat but lead to bioaccumulation of rodenticide residues in the predator leading to lethal or sublethal effects on the latter, which defeats the purpose. Therefore, the choice of rodenticides and applications may bring out the desired effects for a sustainable rat command plan in combination with predators as natural enemies. This paper reports on a number of studies to attain sustainable rat control programme by combining available rodenticide formulations with the natural propagation of befouled owls Tyto javanica in oil palm plantation in Malaysia.

Keywords

  • sustainable rat control
  • first-generation and 2nd-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGAR and SGAR)
  • biological control
  • the barn owl Tyto javanica
  • oil palm plantation

1. Introduction

Rat infestation is an age-old problem effectually the earth. Dealing with rat pest in crops or plantation posed a long time challenge that has been tackled over the ages from the crudest method of flushing and hunting [1, 2] to mechanical trapping [3, 4] to translocation of exotic predators or classical biological control [five, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, eleven, 12] to the applications of rodenticides of a certain active ingredient or another as a stand-lonely or in combination with the propagation of a selected predator [13, 14, fifteen, 16, 17, 18]. However, sustainability is the keyword whereby keeping the rat population below the conveying capacity of the habitat almost indefinitely and at the aforementioned time reduces the potential of harming other animals and the environment equally a whole. In agriculture and plantation where nutrient is overly abundant to the depredators such as rodent in this case, keeping the rat population low would be particularly a challenge. Even if a method is improvised whereby huge population of rats is removed at whatsoever in one case, the turnover rate is incredible that soon the vacant space will be reoccupied in no time, bringing the infestation level to where it originally was. Therefore, to design a sustainable control programme is non straightforward, and one may take to consider a number of options to get the most optimum outcome. In this chapter, conventional methods of baiting rats with rodenticides will be maintained but in combination with biological command approaches as outlined in the all likewise well familiar concept of integrated pest direction (IPM).

Advertisement

2. Overview of rat command in Malaysia

In the olden days, rat infestation tin be described as a plague, destroying whole fields of rice ingather ready to harvest. The sight of fallen tillers at day break can be a so heart-rendering sight. Rats seemed to have migrated en masse from someplace else to take advantage of the ripened rice grains. In the 1900s upwards to the 1940s as per documented, hunting parties involving the whole village were organized to flushed out rats from their burrows and the surrounding areas and actually chasing and beating them as they showed up [xix, 20]. Tens of thousands of rats were systematically bludgeoned to death in such campaigns. Despite of the decimation in numbers, there was no guarantee that the population will not be restored or replaced by a neighbouring colony. Notwithstanding, this gave some balls and a temporary mensurate for a grain harvest of the flavour afterward subsequently the Second World War with the advent of anticoagulant rodenticide; the warfarin became the quick respond to the rat infestation problem. Information technology has remained in the market place for decades since, although other more potent and toxic compounds found their mode into the market. These classes of rodenticides are fittingly called anticoagulants from their mode of action which induces perforations of the blood vessels leading to massive loss of claret as a outcome of the suppression of the clotting cistron in the claret. They eventually took over the more astute poisons with nigh immediate event upon consumption such as zinc phosphide. Although the application of the latter has been made unlawful, farmers are known to notwithstanding subscribing to it and other unspecified compounds. Applications of the warfarin or what was somewhen labelled as first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) have led to resistance as a consequence of prolonged exposure of the rat population over an extended period [21, 22]. Over-reliance of the warfarin has been attributed to the phenomenon of commensal rats in urban areas as well their agricultural counterparts, developing high tolerance and fifty-fifty complete resistance to the former [23, 24]. Not merely warfarin has been fabricated ineffective; rats are likewise not succumbing to other FGARs compounds perhaps by fashion of cross resistance. These have prompted the chemical companies to develop second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides with potency or toxicity that may reach 10fold compared to FGARs. Compounds such every bit bromadiolone and brodifacoum accept been in the market for a reasonably long fourth dimension that it is anticipated that rats volition eventually overcome them equally a issue of long-term exposure. Apart from existence highly toxic, which may expedite the evolution of resistance, they are likewise harmful to the other creatures which may consume the bait or the predators that become exposed to the compound indirectly by feeding on the casualty. Indirect feeding may also involve a secondary or a peak predator consequently causing third poisoning. The residues of the agile ingredient volition build up the food pyramid or downward the food concatenation, accumulating in the tissues and vital organs in the process. The stop or top predator will carry the burden equally the bioaccumulation of the residues has reached a level that is fatal [25, 26, 27]. Some other more destructive affect is the sequesterian of the residues on the eggs through the process of ovulation, leading to lower fecundity, addled eggs, lower clutch size and smaller less healthy brood [28, 29]. Many raptors in the temperate regions have become extinct in certain parts of their geographical distribution in Europe and Due north America [30]. Therefore, unsustainable rodenticide application has a huge impact on the wildlife at the terminate of the nutrient concatenation [31]. Thus, to redeem the situation and repossess our natural ecosystem, a more benign approach has to be discovered to supercede the standard conventional rat baiting method.

Advertising

three. Biological control of rats in oil palm

Resorting to biological control would exist the method of pick equally predators would keep prey population in check. In a natural environment where the ecosystem has reached an equilibrium, the population of prey and predator dynamics would e'er exist in tandem [32, 33, 34]. This would atomic number 82 to a stable relationship as there would non be cycles of trough and population crash every bit a result of over predation. Such an platonic association may be possible in a natural habitat where the vegetation and nutrient resource limit the population size. The conveying capacity of the habitat for any particular prey and in plow predator would always exist in keeping with the availability of resources which is heterogenous for the well-nigh function. In a monocropping situation, there is an overabundance of a particular resource to a scattering of consumer species which are best to adapt and exploit the resources. As a result the conveying capacity of these handfuls of species may explode by several folds compared to the more heterogenous natural habitat. This in turn will bring most huge crop and economic losses. The predators may be incapacitated to bargain with such loftier density of prey and may non be able to grow in population size to match the prey availability [35]. After all food limits non only the population density of the prey but likewise the nesting sites and foraging space. Therefore, the lower number of predators than what the habitat tin can actually support will only harvest a fraction of the surplus individuals of prey [36, 37]. This will only sustain an uncommonly high casualty density which translates into high volume of crop damage. Therefore, identifying a suitable predator for a rat prey would take to take into consideration the adjustability and the carrying chapters of the habitat of the said predator.

Small mammals such every bit rodents would exist the prey choice for about medium size predators like civet cats, mongoose, monitor lizards, the more agile snakes and birds of prey [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. These resident predators casually prey on rats apart from other invertebrate prey, amphibians, small reptiles and mollusc. The varied prey is suitable for a forest habitat that is home to a myriad of invertebrates to compensate for the scarcity of rodents and larger casualty which are occasionally present. Some of these animals also sample roots, tubers, fruits and other plant affair. The diet structure may non be suitable for candidacy of a biological control agent. The feeding capacity may not fulfil the criteria for an effective predator of the prey. Furthermore the range of food of such predators makes them less than ideal to be recruited as a biological command agent. Snakes and reptiles in particular have a lower nutrient requirement by virtue of its poikilothermic nature. It may non require as much nutrient to sustain its metabolism. Therefore, they consume less food and remove fewer prey than homeotherms.

Advertisement

4. The role of raptors

Birds of prey or raptors particularly eagle are day hunting predator. Although the nutrition of eagles may consist of a range of prey, they are predominantly small mammals such as rodents. However, rats are nocturnal animals, and in terms of temporal distribution, the prey and predator are not compatible. Therefore, eagles and the like are out of the question. Having discounting the eagle and allies, the owls on the contrary are nocturnal birds of prey. They are active from sunset to dawn, and their eyes and habits are designed for hunting rodents in the embrace of darkness. There are two types of owl: the true owl and the barn owl. In Malaysia and Indonesia, the 2 largest oil palm producers in the world, many wildlife take become adapted to inhabit and provender for food. Owls particularly befouled owl has go a common resident particularly where artificial nest boxes are provided. In those plantations where artificial nest boxes have been established, the barn owl population has grown considerably to effectively deal with rat infestation, especially in combination with a suitable rodenticide bait.

Advertisement

5. The barn owl Tyto javanica

The barn owl Tyto alba is believed to have arrived at Peninsular Malaysia from the island of Java, maybe at the plough of the century based on the first documented observation [48]. The starting time recorded breeding was documented in Johore in 1969 [49]. A vagrant species, the befouled owl has a worldwide distribution except for Antarctica where it is absent-minded every bit well as the remote atolls in the Pacific. It is associated to farm and agriculture landscape, where it typically seeks refuge or nest in barns and other farm buildings. While befouled owl is a mutual sight in the fields and natural mural of Europe and Due north America, information technology is not mutual in the agricultural mural of Malaysia. Rice farmers were non familiar with the owl prior to the late 1980s, whereby they were first introduced past the Department of Agronomics as part of the rat control plan in the ricefield in the country of Selangor and Perak [fifty]. The infrastructure which largely consists of concrete buildings may not be suitable as refuge for owls. Therefore, artificial nest boxes were installed which boost the local owl population. A twelvemonth after the implementation of the plan, ingather damage as a outcome of rat activities has dropped considerably from effectually 10–xv% to less than 2% [15]. The damage levels were maintained at that low level for 5 years directly and gradually increased to around 5% which was attributed to the dilapidated condition of the nest boxes. They were made of plywood and apparently were not durable and no longer habitable. Not simply the lower ingather loss was substantially lower, rat baiting was cut down from eight to just a single round per season. With only two baiting rounds necessary per year to bring downward the base rat population lower than the conveying capacity of the ricefield habitat, so that the owls can suppress the population turnover rate, the economical benefits are tremendous.

Advertisement

vi. Rat infestation in oil palm

Barn owl programme in the ricefield was really preceded by a pioneer programme in the oil palm. Oil palm was first grown in the state in 1917 and cultivated on a commercial calibration in 1950. Unlike in its original home where it grows naturally, in Malaysia oil palm is a cultivated crop with a high productivity. The release of the pollinating weevil Elaeidobius kamerunicus on a large scale has pushed the palm oil production to unprecedented levels. The oil palm fruit bunch provides nutritious nutrient source for birds and modest mammals, specially squirrels and rats. Squirrels peculiarly the plantain or red-bellied squirrel Callosciurus notatus and the gray squirrel Callosciurus caniceps are common in oil palm plantation [40, 51]. While the squirrels sample the oil palm fruitlets nibbling away its rich mesocarp and kernel during the day, rats feed on them at dark [52]. In the early stage, these rodents may visit oil palm plantations especially those that are contiguous with the natural forest to feed and return dorsum to their natural habitat where they breed and provender. Nonetheless, with these rodents particularly rat with a high learning capacity and adaptability, they somewhen adopt the oil palm plantation every bit home. The outset rat species that is known to adapt successfully in the oil palm plantation is the wood rat Rattus tiomanicus , which originally live in the shrubs and secondary forest [53]. When they start to nest in the spaces inside the bases of the oil palm fronds, the oil palm plantation is the new adopted dwelling house for R. tiomanicus. Thus, information technology is at present generally associated with oil palm [54]. With the high availability of such nutritious nutrient, the carrying capacity of the crop for rat was estimated at over 350 rats per hectare. In its natural habitat where food is scarce and with various niches which support more species of small mammals, the interspecific competition is greater [3, 4, 46, 47, 55]. Thus, the population density of R. tiomanicus tin exist manyfold college than its original natural habitat. Losses attributed to R. tiomanicus and other rat species to a smaller extant can reach anywhere from v% up to xxx% or even higher in some situations [56].

In areas where oil palm plantation is side by side to the ricefield, the common rat species found is the ricefield rat Rattus argentiventer. In that situation R. argentiventer is the dominant species, but studies have shown that its presence is transient, i.eastward. upward to iv- or 5-year-onetime stand only. Other rat species may take over such every bit R. rattus diardii, which is mutual in areas virtually human being habitation or R. tiomanicus. At any rate, the rat density hovers from 200 to 400 individuals per hectare. Impairment is confined non merely to the fruitlets merely also to the apical bud at the nursery and young planting stage [56, 57, 58, 59]. At xxx–36 months when the young oil palm starts to ingather, while the crowns are low lying, harm can exist severe on the fruit bunches. Rats may as well devour the male and female florescence, and they may as well feed on the larvae of the pollinating weevils, reducing the fruit set. Recently invasion by a much larger species the bandicoot rat Bandicota indica in plantation in the northern state of Perlis showed that not merely do they completely devour the florescence but they also feed away the base of the outer frond of young palms, killing them in the process [59].

The frequent use of rodenticide which has been the mainstay of rat control in oil palm has led to some serious implications to the ecosystem. The most straight outcome is the unintended poisoning of nontarget species especially wild animals. Since rodenticides are all wide-spectrum, it is fatal to any mammals of birds which casually swallow them. As the rodenticides are presented equally baits, they are likely to be picked up by wildlife including forest rat species which lives near the forest edge and may undertake daily foraging inside the plantation. Autonomously from primary exposure, predators or scavengers can be duly exposed to secondary poisoning from feeding on casualty or carcass that has succumbed to the furnishings of the rodenticide [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65]. Bioaccumulation of the active ingredients may pb to long-term sublethal effects or firsthand lethal effects [66, 67, 68, 69]. Some other implication which is counterproductive is the development of resistance individuals as a event of natural selection against rodenticide toxicity. Information technology volition somewhen requite rise to a population which is predominantly resistant, and the susceptible individual will systematically disappear over time [lxx, 71]. In such a situation, the rodenticide will be rendered ineffective, and a more potent rodenticide will have to be synthesised to overcome the resistant individuals. There is a possibility that resistant individuals will exhibit cross resistance to a range of other rodenticides of unlike active ingredients.

In the oil palm plantation, as a result of a long-term application of warfarin, a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide has led to many rat populations which turned resistant, prompting planters to switch to brodifacoum, a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) introduced in the early 1980s [72].

Advertising

7. The use of barn owl for rat control in oil palm

Therefore, biological control using predators is the closest to depict nature. However, the capacity or predation rate will have to go on with the prey population density [eight, 35]. Predators may human action in a numerical fashion, i.e. increment in prey will bring near increase in predation charge per unit. This tin be realised theoretically by higher charge per unit of hunting and consumption by an increase in predation numbers [73]. This tin be achieved by either increasing product rate or higher immigration charge per unit to take advantage of the higher prey density. Naturally this is difficult to accomplish because there is a lag fourth dimension for the predator numbers to go on upwardly with the casualty population. The result is college crop damage earlier the predator can decimate the prey. The other responses of the predator can be functional, i.east. each individual predator increases its consumption on that particular prey species [74, 75]. Theoretically this is applicable, simply in reality, the casualty species may not be varied which is ideal for a generalist predator which simply switches prey type based on availability [76]. In a situation of a crop habitat where there'due south only one common species, it is impossible for the predator to modify its diet unless it emigrate or emigrate depending on the availability of the single prey type. These are the theoretical consideration when choosing a natural enemy to be recruited for an effective biological control plan for rats in oil palm [77].

The befouled owl seems to exist an ideal predator given the circumstances in the oil palm plantation [78]. Information technology does non build its own nest. Natural potential nesting sites such as the pigsty in a body is next to incommunicable to come up by. Thus providing artificial nest boxes which the owl readily occupies boosts numbers to match with the rat infestation levels. With the huge prey availability, nest boxes not merely increase breeding pair to take up residence and breed; the reproductive level tin increment to take advantage of the food availability. The clutch size that ranges from typically iv to 7 is dictated by casualty availability [10, 66, 78, 79, 80]. A clutch size of x–12 eggs is documented during height flavor of the rat prey. This is apparent particularly in the ricefield during the land training stage after harvesting where the subadult rats born of the flavor offset to join the aboveground population [81]. They guarantee a skillful supply of food for a loftier brood size or owlet numbers of the season. The owls take a self-checking mechanism to regulate their population size. In times of low prey numbers, the clutch size is smaller to sustain most of the chicks. When nutrient is particularly scarce, the chicks will exist subjected to differential survival. Since the egg hatches asynchronously, i.due east. at intervals of 2 to 3 days, the size of the chicks from the same brood is different. In fact there is a gradation in size or height of the chick from the largest to the smallest [10, 78]. In unfavourable season only the larger owlets will get sufficiently fed to grow to fledglings. The smaller ones will starve to death past virtue of not being able to compete for food with the larger siblings. Fledging success is typically loftier in the region of 80% unless owl population is subjected to application of highly toxic rodenticide in the surroundings [66, 78]. There has too been cannibalism, i.due east. owlets being killed past the respective parents, and this behaviour may exist triggered by insufficient food. In a way this is a mechanism that leads to a numerical response of sort.

The loftier rate of casualty removal which is not necessarily translated into prey consumed is another attribute of the barn owl. The male person barn owl which has been observed to bring prey to the nest may accept domicile more prey than what is necessary to feed the chicks. In many occasions the carcasses were left to rot in the nest boxes, and only a fraction of the casualty was actually consumed. This is an added advantage as it increases the kill rate more than the daily food requirement. From coincidental survey in the fields, the number of rats removed from the fields by a breeding pair of barn owl is in the region of 800–1500 rats per convenance flavor. Thus, by having an optimum density of nest boxes in the plantation, befouled owl can bring down rat numbers substantially.

However, the prolificity of the rat population leads to a loftier turnover rate which the owls cannot keep up. Thus, the baseline population of the rat needs to be lowered by the application of rodenticides. Befouled owl in combination with a suitable rodenticide will bring about the desired outcome, i.due east. sustainable rat management in oil palm.

Barn owl has many of the attributes of owls which make them excellent nocturnal predators, features like the binocular vision and the almost complete 360 degree of the caput turn. Notwithstanding, information technology lacks the feature of the more secretive owl, the typical owls. The barn owl relies on dandy hearing more than eyesight, especially when hunting in the thickets and forest undergrowth. The differential positioning of the ear cavity enables the owl to detect its prey with near precision. Thus, the barn owl can hunt in darkness and rely on the sound fabricated past a potential prey equally the cue. The wing surface area to body weight ratio is particularly larger than about birds, and so that it does non have to flap harder to create elevator causing a lot of air turbulence. The owl simply needs to glide effortlessly and strike at its unsuspecting prey.

The features that make the barn owl shut to an ideal predator accept prompted efforts of translocating owls to areas that are non known to have a local resident population [82]. Several attempts have been made to translocate owls from the Peninsular Malaysia to Sabah and Sarawak. There has been some spectacular success in this venture. Even though the oil palm landscape may not be like with that in the Peninsular, with varied different species of rats abound, the translocated owls have established well and been convenance successfully [83]. In Lahad Datu, Sabah, owl's translocation programme that started with 10 pairs of owl in 2015 has grown to a population of more than than 700 individuals [84, 85].

Advert

8. Sustainability of application of biological control using barn owl

Since befouled owl is a generalist predator and responds to prey availability by numerical response, i.due east. increasing fecundity or immigration/emigration, the effectiveness equally a natural predator of rats in the long run relies much on the prey/food supply [86, 87]. Since, in many occasions, infestation of rats in oil palm plantation has reached epidemic levels, the reliability of the owls may not fulfil the control requirement. There was an affluence of prey that just surplus individuals of the aboveground population will exist harvested [35]. The infestation condition will remain to a higher place the economic threshold or crop injury level. Therefore, the awarding of rodenticide has to be placed in combination with the befouled owl program. Warfarin as the classical FGAR has been applied in combination with barn owl propagation since the 1970s and well into the 1980s. By studies have assumed warfarin has no apparent effects on barn owl fecundity and population status. When rat has shown evidence of resistance and plantations gradually or abruptly switched to SGAR particularly brodifacoum, barn owl population in a number of occasions experience a abrupt decline or were completely wiped out [72]. The susceptibility of owls to the effects of bioaccumulation of SGAR residues in the vital organs and tissues has rendered the combination of the latter with rodenticide futile [63, 66, 88, 89].

The impact of FGARs may not exist credible in terms of immediate lethal effects. Studies on sublethal effects measured in terms of lowered nest occupancies, fecundity, lower brood size and lower fledging success accept shown that FGARs can have some long-term effects on the viability of the barn owl population. It may lower the fettle of the individuals and eventually the population as a whole [ninety, 91]. A study investigating the sublethal furnishings of anticoagulant rodenticides in an oil palm plantation in Pahang, Malaysia, over four breeding seasons has indicated that FGARs similar chlorophacinone atomic number 82 to lower nest boxes occupancies, significantly lower brood size and lower fledging rates (Table ane). However, the upshot from the bromadiolone (SGAR)-treated surface area was significantly lower than chlorophacinone in terms of nest occupancy [92]. Some other study in oil palm in Perak suggested that the brood size and the fledging rate were lower in brodifacoum (SGAR)-treated plot than warfarin (FGAR)-treated plot which in turn was lower than the untreated plot (Table 2) [66].

Bromadiolone Chlorophacinone Rodenticide gratis
Occupancy 37.20 ± 1.14 a 51.79 ± 1.34 bc 83.33 ± 3.60 c
Clutch size 3.56 ± 0.10 a 3.69 ± 0.10 a 4.69 ± 0.xi a
Brood size 3.11 ± 0.06 a 3.38 ± 0.07 a 4.21 ± 0.12 b
Fledging rates ii.20 ± 0.x a ii.65 ± 0.06 a 3.95 ± 0.07 b

Table ane.

Occupancy rates, clutch size, breed size and fledging rates (mean % ± S.E) of barn owls in Pahang, Malaysia.

Values in rows with different messages are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Brodifacoum Warfarin Rodenticide gratuitous
Clutch size 4.83 ± 1.64 a iii.95 ± 0.68 a five.43 ± 1.07 a
Brood size ii.06 ± 1.42 a 2.17 ± 0.80 b four.21 ± 0.12 c
Fledging rates 0.50 ± 0.17 a 1.52 ± 0.73 b 4.forty ± 1.01 c

Table 2.

Clutch size, breed size and fledging rates (mean % ± S.East) of barn owls in Perak, Malaysia.

Values in rows with dissimilar letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Low mean fledging rates of 2.65 and ii.20 in chlorophacinone (FGAR)- and bromadiolone (SGAR)-treated areas, respectively, suggest that owls are at considerable risk in maintaining a stable population. The nestlings were almost likely to have succumbed to the toxic furnishings during their evolution stage. Similarly low fledging rates of 1.52 and 0.50 were recorded in the warfarin- and brodifacoum-treated plots, respectively. Henny [79] estimated that ane.9–2.2 fledging per convenance pair is the minimum reproductive rate to maintain a stable barn owl population. Based on these results, chlorophacinone and warfarin (FGAR) may not differ much compared to bromadiolone and brodifacoum (SGAR) as far as the long-term survival of owls for a sustainable rat control programme.

Nestlings in the rodenticide-complimentary plots testify the longest wingspan and greatest torso mass compared to the SGAR- and FGAR-treated areas in both Pahang and Perak (Tables three and 4). The reduction in wing length and body mass ranged from ten to xvi% to 7–x% from the sublethal furnishings of SGAR and two–eight% to 6–10% from the sublethal effects of FGAR, respectively. There were teratogenic signs in a few nestlings exposed to brodifacoum as a morphological testify to support claims of secondary poisoning. Nestlings raised in rodenticide-free expanse fledged successfully upon release into the field, but those from treated areas need another 1 or 2 weeks before they can accept to flying [66].

Bromadiolone Chlorophacinone Rodenticide gratis
Fly length (cm) 26.02 + 0.22 26.thirty + 0.23 28.70 + 0.14*
Weight (g) 544.4 ± 7.05 565.0 ± 8.44 579.9 ± 10.07*

Table 3.

Hateful fly length of befouled owls exposed to bromadiolone (SGAR) and chlorophacinone (FGAR) in Pahang, Malaysia.

*Wing length and weight of barn owls in rodenticide free area were significantly longer and higher to barns owls exposed to bromadiolone and chlorophacinone.

Brodifacoum Warfarin Rodenticide free
Wing length (cm) 22.xv + 0.23 25.86 + 0.13 26.28 + 0.11*
Weight (g) 554.nine ± 8.72 585.8 ± half dozen.62 613.iii ± 5.98*

Tabular array 4.

Mean wing length of barn owls exposed to brodifacoum (SGAR) and warfarin (FGAR) in Perak, Malaysia.

*Wing length and weight of befouled owls in rodenticide free expanse were significantly longer and higher to befouled owls exposed to brodifacoum and warfarin.

Advertisement

9. Conclusion

The barn owl is an constructive biological command agent on rats. However, its natural or facilitated rearing by providing nest boxes in combination with rodenticide can have long-term sublethal effects on the erstwhile. The selection of rodenticide is crucial to sustain owl population in oil palm. SGAR can have a greater implication in terms of lowered fecundity and morphological impairments. Nevertheless, the sublethal effects of FGAR only differ in terms of scale compared to that of SGAR. Therefore, baiting strategy and botanical-based or biological rodenticide need to be formulated for a sustainable rodent command with barn owl.

References

  1. 1. Southward FW, Birkinshaw F. Progress study on a campaign against rats in Krian district. Nov 15, 1924 – March three, 1925. Malay Agriculture Journal. 1925;13:168
  2. 2. Coleman-Doscas AD, Bird WD. Rat command in Krian, Perak Malay. Agricultural Journal. 1934;22:170-176
  3. 3. Wood BJ. Vertebrate pests. In: Corley RHV, Hardon JJ, Wood BJ, editors. Oil Palm Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press; 1976. pi-20, pp. 395-418, p. 532. (Chapter 28)
  4. iv. Woods BJ. A long term study of Rattus tiomanicus (miller) populations in an oil palm plantation in Johore, Malaysia. I— Study methods and population size without control. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1984;21:445-464
  5. 5. De Vos A, Manville RH, Van Gelder RG. Introduced mammals and their influence on native biota. Zoologica. 1956;41:163-194
  6. 6. Jackson W B. Pacific island rat ecology, study of a report made on Ponape and side by side islands, 1955-58(ed. T.I. Storer). Bernice P. Bishop Museum Message. 1962;255:14-xx
  7. 7. Pimentel D. Biological science of the Indian mongoose in Puerto Rico. Journal of Mammalogy. 1955;36:62
  8. 8. Uchida TA. Ascertainment of the monitor lizard,Varanus indicus(Daudin), as a rat control agent on Ifaluk, Western Caroline Islands. Bulletin of the Globe Health Organization. 1966;35:24
  9. 9. Gibb JA. What determines the number of small herbivorous mammals. New Zealand Journal of Environmental. 1981;4:73
  10. ten. Taylor I.Barn Owls: Predator-Prey Relationships and Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 304
  11. eleven. Wilson RT, Wolson MP, Durkin JW. Growth of nestling barn owlsTyto albain Fundamental Mali. Ibis. 1987;129:305-318
  12. 12. Abrams PA. The evolution of predator–prey interactions: Theory and evidence. Almanac Review of Ecology and Systematics. 2000;31:79-105
  13. thirteen. Duckett JE. Owls as major predators of rats in oil palm estates with particular reference to theBarnowl (Tyto alba). Planter, Kuala Lumpur. 1976;52:4-15
  14. 14. Lam YM. Reproduction in the ricefield rat, Rattus argentiventer. Malayan Nature Journal. 1983;36:249-282
  15. xv. Hafidzi MN, Zulkifli A, Kamaruddin AA. Barn owl as a biological control amanuensis of rats in paddy fields. In: Symposium on Biological Control in the Tropics. Serdang, Malaysia: Mardi Training Centre; 1999. pp. 85-88
  16. xvi. Noor Hisham H, Hasber S, Suksi TI, Samsudin A. Integrated approach and effective control measures of major pests and diseases in oil palm cultivation in FELDA-FASSB experiences Seminar APS Kumpulan Perladangan FELDA. Jerantut Pahang; 2007. pp. 45-57
  17. 17. Naim M, Umar UJ, Hafidzi MN. The ranging behaviour ofTyto albain oil palm under baiting with anticoagulant rodenticides, warfarin and brodifacoum and a biorodenticideSarcocystis singaporensis. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agronomical Science. 2012;35(ii):209-221
  18. 18. Hasber South, Hafidzi MN, Noor Hisham Hamid DO, Azhar Chiliad. Secondary poisoning in captive barn owls,Tyto alba javanicafrom feeding with rats poisoned with Chlorophacinone and Bromadiolone. Journal of Oil Palm Enquiry. 2014;26:62-72
  19. nineteen. Gallagher WJ. Extermination of rats. Agricultural Bulletin of the Straits and Federated Malay States. Kuala Lumpur. 1908;7:92-95
  20. 20. Gallagher WJ. Rats in rice fields. Agricultural Bulletin of the Straits and Federated Malay States. 1909;8:422
  21. 21. Boyle CM. Instance of apparent resistant ofRattus norvegicusto anticoagulant poisons. Nature. 1960;188:517
  22. 22. Greaves JH. Resistant to anticoagulants in rodents. Pesticide Scientific discipline. 1971;2:276-279
  23. 23. Cowan D, Dunsford G, Gill E, Jones A, Kerins One thousand, Nicoll M. The touch of resistance on the use of second-generation anticoagulants against rats on farms in southern England. Pesticide Scientific discipline. 1995;43:83-93
  24. 24. Bailey C, Fisher P, Eason CT. Assessing anticoagulant resistance in rats and coagulation effects in birds using pocket-sized book blood samples. Scientific discipline for Conservation. 2009;249:1-22
  25. 25. Lund M. Resistance to the 2nd generation anticoagulant rodenticides. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Vertebrate Pest Conference. Lincoln: Academy of Nebraska; 1984
  26. 26. Eason CT, Spurr EB. Review of the toxicity and impacts of brodifacoum on non-target wild animals in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology. 1995;22:371-379
  27. 27. Erickson W, Urban D. Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach. Washington, DC, USA: United States Environmental Protection Bureau, Office of Pesticides Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division; 2004. p. 225
  28. 28. Coueurdassier Grand, Poirson C, Paul J, Rieffel D, Michel AT, Reymond D, et al. The diet of migrant red kitesMilvus milvusduring a h2o voleArvicola terrestrisoutbreak in eastern France and the associated risk of secondary poisoning by the rodenticide bromadiolone. Ibis. 2012;154:136-146
  29. 29. Sheffield S. Owls equally Biomonitors of Environment Contagion. 1997. 2nd Owl Symposium. Canada: Manitoba; 1997. pp. 383-398
  30. xxx. Shore RF, Birks JDS, Afsar A, Wienburg CL, Kitchener AC. Spatial and temporal analysis of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide residues in polecats (Mustela putorius) from throughout their range in U.k., 1992-1999. Environmental Pollution. 2003;122:183-193
  31. 31. Sanchez-barbudo IS, Camarero PR, Mateo R. Primary and secondary poisoning by anticoagulant rodenticides of non-target animals in Spain. Science of the Full Surroundings. 2012;420:280-288
  32. 32. Davis DE, Myers K, Hoy JB. Biological control amidst vertebrates. In: Huffakar CB, Messenger PS, editors. Theory and Practice of Biological Control. New York: Bookish Press; 1976. p. 788
  33. 33. Howard We. Biological Command of Vertebrate Pests. In Proc. 3rd Vertebrate Pest Conf. California: San Francisco; 1967. pp. 137-157
  34. 34. Male monarch CM. The human relationship betwixt beech (Nothofagus sp.) seedfall and populations of mice (Mus musculus) and the demographic and dietary responses of stoats (Mustela erminea) in three New Zealand forests. The Journal of Animal Ecology. 1983;52:141-166
  35. 35. Erlinge S, Goransson G, Hogstedt M, Jansson G, Liberg O, Loman J, et al. Can vertebrate predators regulate their prey? The American Naturalist. 1984;123:125-133
  36. 36. Errington PL. Factors limiting higher vertebrate populations. Science. 1956;124:304-307
  37. 37. Ratcliffe F N. Factors involved in the regulation of mammal and bird populations. Australian Journal of Science. 1958;21:79-95
  38. 38. Duckett JE. Barn owls (Tyto alba)—A proven natural predator of rats in oil palm. In: Pushparajah E, Chew PS, editors. The Oil Palm in Agriculture in the Eighties. Vol. 2. Kuala Lumpur: Inc. Soc. of Planters; 1982. pp. 461-473
  39. 39. Duckett JE. The monitor lizard (Varanus sp) as a predator of rats in oil palm estates. Planter, Kuala Lumpur. 1986;62:488-492
  40. forty. Hafidzi MN. Plantain squirrelcallosciurus notatusin a plantation habitat. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agronomical Scientific discipline. 1998;21(1):23-28
  41. 41. Han KJ, Bose South. Some studies on the mammalian pests in cocoa planted nether coconuts. Planter, Kuala Lumpur. 1981;56:273-283
  42. 42. Jeyarajasingam A. The blackness-shouldered kite. Nature Malaysiana. 1984;nine(3):12-15
  43. 43. Kamarudin KA, Turizan B, ABD. RAUB, M. Limerick and habits of rodents pests. Teknologi Pertanian, MARDI. 1983;4(2):104-107
  44. 44. Lim BL. Snakes as natural predators of rats in an oil palm estate. Malayan Nature Journal. 1974;27:114-117
  45. 45. Lim BL. Poisonous Snakes of the Malay Peninsular. 3rd. ed. Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Gild Special Publication; 1991
  46. 46. Forest BJ. Biological control of vertebrates—A review, and an assessment of prospects for Malaysia. Journal of Plant Protection in the Tropics. 1985;ii(two):67-79
  47. 47. Woods BJ, Liau SS. A long term study of Rattus tiomanicus populations in an oil palm plantation in Johore, Malaysia. III – Bionomics and natural regulation. Periodical of Practical Environmental. 1984;21:473-495
  48. 48. Lenton GM. Wise owls flourish amid the oil palms. New Scientist. 1983;97:436-437
  49. 49. Smal CM. Enquiry on the use of barn owlsTyto albafor biological control of rats in oil palm plantations: 1986-1989. In: Sukaimi J, Zawawi Z, Paranjothy K, Darus A, Rajanaidu N, Cheah SC, et al. Proc. Intl. Palm Oil Dev. Conf. 5-nine September, 1989; Kuala Lumpur. pp 342-356. 1990
  50. 50. Shamsiah M, Goh NS. The use of barn owl (Tyto alba) to control ricefield rats—An experience in Seberang Perak. MAPPS Newsletter. 1991;15(2):20
  51. 51. Duckett JE. The plantain squirrel in oil palm plantations. Malayan Nature Journal. 1982b;36:87-98
  52. 52. Hafidzi MN. Quantitative analysis for distinguishing rat and squirrel harm to cocoa pods. Planter. 1993;69:67-72
  53. 53. Harrison JL, Quah SK. The house and field rats of Malaysia. Message of the Constitute for Medical Research. 1962;12:37
  54. 54. Duckett JE, Karuppiah. A guide to the planter in utilizing barn owls (Tyto alba) every bit an effective biological command in mature oil palm plantations. In: Sukaimi J, Zawawi Z, Paranjothy K, Darus A, Rajanaidu North, Cheah SC, et al. editors. Proceedings of 1989, Proc. Intl. Palm Oil Dev. Conf. 5-ix September, 1989. Kuala Lumpur: Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia; 1990. pp. 357-372
  55. 55. Wood BJ. In: Heong KL, Lee BS, Lim TM, Teoh CH, Ibrahim Y, editors. Progress in the Control of Tropical Field Rats, Dlm. Proc. Intl. Conf. Pl. Prot. in Tropics. Hlm. The Malaysian Plant Protection Order (MAPPS). 1982. pp. 423-448
  56. 56. Wood BJ, Chung GF. A disquisitional review of the development of rat control in Malaysian agriculture since the 1960s. Crop Protection. 2003;22(3):445
  57. 57. Liau SS. Rat population in oil palm replants and crop loss assessment. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Plant Protection in the Tropics, Vol. IV—Pest and Disorders of Plantation Crops, Pest and Affliction Direction in Tropical Forest, Phytophthora diseases in the Tropics; Genting Highland, Malaysia Plant Protection Lodge (MAPPS), Kuala Lumpur; 1990. pi-iv. pp. viii-18, 281
  58. 58. Liau SS, Chung GF, Sim SC, Ho CT. Rat species composition and distribution in Western Malaysian plantations (with particular reference to oil palm plantations). In: Proceedings 1991 PORIM International Palm Oil Briefing—Agronomics (Module 1). Kuala Lumpur: Palm Oil enquiry Found of Malaysia; 1993. pp. 511-516
  59. 59. Ng KY, Khoo KC. Rodent pests of oil palm. In: Khoo KC, Lam YM, Teoh CH, Lim WH, Mohammad BM, editors. Rodent Pests of Agricultural Crops in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: The Malaysian Constitute Protection Guild; 1982. p. 19, 24
  60. 60. Lohr MT. Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an Australian predatory bird increases with proximity to developed habitat. Science of the Full Environs. 2018;643:134-144
  61. 61. Ogilvie SC, Pierce RJ, Wright GRG, Booth LH, Eason CT. Brodifacoum residuum analysis in water, soil, invertebrates, and birds later on rat eradication on lady alice isle. New Zealand Journal of Environmental. 1997;22:371-379
  62. 62. Lambert O, Pouliquen H, Larhantec M, Thorin C, Fifty'hostis. Exposure of raptors and Waterbirds to anticoagulant rodenticides (Difenacoum, Bromadiolone, Coumatetralyl, Coumafen, Brodifacoum): Epidemiological survey in Loire Atlantique (France). Bulletin of Environmental Contagion and Toxicology. 2007;79:91-94
  63. 63. Mendenhall VM, Pank LF. Secondary poisoning of owls by anticoagulant rodenticides. Wildlife Social Bulletin. 1980;8(four):311-315
  64. 64. Rattner BA, Horak KE, Lazarus RS, Eisenreich KM, Meteyer CU, Volker SF, et al. Assessment of toxicity and potential take a chance of the anticoagulant rodenticide diphacinone using eastern screech owls (Megascops asio). Ecotoxicology. 2012;21:832-846
  65. 65. Robertson HA, Colebourne RM, Nieuwland F. Survival of niggling spotted kiwi and other forest birds exposed to brodifacoum rat poison on red Mercury Island. Notornis. 1993;xl:253-262
  66. 66. Naim M, Hafidzi MN, Kassim A, Abu J. Growth performance of nestling befouled owls,Tyto alba javanicain rat baiting area in Malaysia. ARPN Periodical of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. 2010;5(6):one-thirteen
  67. 67. Olsen P, Fuller P, Marples TG. Pesticide-related eggshell thinning in Australian raptors. Emu. 1993;93:ane-11
  68. 68. Wong YLJ. Screening on suspected secondary rodenticide poisoning past conclusion of coagulation times in Befouled Owls (Tyto alba) in Tanjung Karang, Selangor. Universiti Putra Malaysia. Final Year project Of Physician of Veterinary Medicine (D.5. One thousand). 2005
  69. 69. Wyllie I. Potential secondary poisoning of barn owls past rodenticides. Pesticide Outlook. 1995;6:19-25
  70. 70. Meerburg BG, Van Gent-Pelzer MP, Schoelitsz B, Van Der Lee TA. Distribution of anticoagulant rodenticide resistance in Rattus norvegicus in kingdom of the netherlands according to Vkorc1 mutations. Pest Management Science. 2014;lxx(xi):1761-1766
  71. 71. Berny P, Alexandra Estherjens and Jacob Colin Prescott. Development of resistance to anticoagulant rodenticides in rodents. In: Nico Westward, van den John Exist, Richard EF, Barnett A, Rattner S, editors. Anticoagulant Rodenticides and Wild animals. Heidelberg, Federal republic of germany: Springer Nature; 2017:259-286. Emerging Topics in Ecotoxicology Book Series (ETEP, Volume 5)
  72. 72. Duckett JE. Barn owls (Tyto alba) and the 'second generation' rat baits utilised in oil palm plantations in peninsular Malaysia. Planter, Kuala Lumpur. 1984;60:3-11
  73. 73. Ricklefs RE. Patterns of growth in birds. Ii. Growth rate and mode of development. Ibis. 1973;115:177-201
  74. 74. Jeschke JJ, Kopp M, Tollrian R. Predator functional responses: Discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecological Monographs. 2002;72:95-112
  75. 75. Nachman Chiliad. A functional response model of a predator population foraging in a patchy habitat. Journal of Fauna Ecology. 2006;75:948-958
  76. 76. Hochberg ME, Holt RD. The uniformity and density of pest exploitation equally guides to success in biological control. In: Hawkins BA, Cornell HV, editors. Theoretical Approaches to Biology Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 71-88
  77. 77. Van Der Meer J and ENS BJ. Models of interference and their consequences for the spatial distribution of ideal and costless predators. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1997;66:846-858
  78. 78. Lenton GM. The feeding and convenance environmental of barn owl, Tyto alba in peninsular Malaysia. Ibis. 1984;126:551-575
  79. 79. Henny CJ. Geographical variations in mortality rates and product requirements of the befouled owl (Tyto alba). Bird-Banding. 1969;40:277-290
  80. 80. Otteni LC, Bolen FG, Cotam C. Predator-prey relationships and reproduction of the barn owl in southern Texas. Wilson Bulletin. 1972;84(4):434-448
  81. 81. Hafidzi MN, Naim M, Ahmad ZAM. Influence of moisture and dry seasons on the convenance of befouled owl and its relation to rat damage. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science. 2007;30(ane):45-50
  82. 82. Fisher J, Lindemayer DB. An assessment of the published results of animate being relocations. Biological Conservation. 2000;96:1-11
  83. 83. Hoong HW. The introduction of barn owl (Tyto alba) to Sabah for rat control in oil palm plantations. The Planter. 2000;76(889):251-222
  84. 84. Rizuan CM, Hafidzi MN, Noor Hisham H, Salim H. Diet preferences and reproduction of translocated barn owlsTyto alba javanicain captivity. Periodical of Oil Palm Research. 2017;29(three):333-342
  85. 85. Rizuan CM, Hafidzi MN, Noor Hisham H, Salim H. Propagation of barn owls in an oil palm plantation of Sabah: FGV'south Experience. In: Briefing: 9th International Briefing on Plant Protection in the Tropics (ninth ICPPT); 3-5 August 2016; At: Hilton Hotel, Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia. Book: 9th ICPPT. 2016
  86. 86. Puan CL, Goldizen AW, Zakaria M, Hafidzi MN, Baxter GS. Absence of differential predation on rats by Malaysian barn owls in oil palm plantations. Journal of Raptor Research. 2011a;45(1):71-78
  87. 87. Puan CL, Goldizen AW, Zakaria M, Hafidzi MN, Baxter GS. Relationships amidst rat numbers, abundance of oil palm fruit and damage levels to fruit in an oil palm plantation. Integrative Zoology. 2011b;6(two):130-139
  88. 88. Durant JM, Handrich Y. Growth and food requirement flexibility in captive chicks of the European barn owl (Tyto alba). Journal of Zoology. 1998;245(02):137-145
  89. 89. Newton I, Willie I, Freestone P. Rodenticides in British barn owl. Environmental Pollution. 1990;68:101-117
  90. 90. Askham LR, Poche RM. Biodeterioration of chlorophacinone in voles, hawks and an owl. Mammalia. 1992;56:145-150
  91. 91. Belleville MJ. Assimilation, distribution, metabolism and excretion studies in the rat using 14C-labeled chlorophacinone. In: Erickson Westward, Urban D, editors. Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach. Washington, DC, Us: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division; 2004. p. 225
  92. 92. Salim H. Toxicity and sub-lethal effects of bromadiolone and chlorophacinone on barn owlsTyto alba javanicaGmelin in oil palm plantations [thesis]. University Putra Malaysia (unpub.). 2014

Written Past

Hafidzi Mohd Noor

Submitted: September 29th, 2018 Reviewed: January 19th, 2019 Published: November 11th, 2019

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution iii.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

byfordcomprignate.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/68798

Belum ada Komentar untuk "Shrews Gifs Baby Size of a Barn Owl"

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel