Wildlife pests of California agriculture: Regional variability and subsequent impacts on management |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. University of California, Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 9240 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648, United States;2. University of California Cooperative Extension, 9335 Hazard Way, Suite 201, San Diego, CA 92123, United States;3. Utah State University, Department of Environment and Society, Logan, UT 84322, United States;4. University of California, Hopland Research and Extension Center, 4070 University Road, Hopland, CA 95449, United States;1. Division of Parasitology, Department of Zoology, University of Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff Str. 34, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany;2. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5, 65760 Eschborn, Germany;3. Horticultural Research Center, National Agriculture & Forestry Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Vientiane, Laos;1. Movement Analysis Laboratory, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy;2. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA;3. 1st Orthopaedic-Traumatologic Clinic, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy;4. Nursing, Technical and Rehabilitation Assistance Service, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy;1. National Institute of Research & Development for Electrochemistry and Condensed Matter – INCEMC Timisoara, 144 Dr. Aurel Păunescu-Podeanu, RO-300569 Timisoara, Romania;2. Institute of Applied Physics of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, 5 Academiei, MD-2028 Chisinau, Moldova;3. University Politehnica Timisoara, Faculty of Industrial Chemistry and Environmental Engineering, 6 Vasile Pârvan Blvd., RO-300223 Timisoara, Romania;4. Institute of Chemical Sciences and Centre for Advanced Energy Storage and Recovery, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK;5. “Vasile Goldis” Western University of Arad, Faculty of Pharmacy, 86 Liviu Rebreanu, RO-310414 Arad, Romania;1. Institute for Experimental Pathology, Biomedical Center, University of Iceland, Keldur, Keldnavegur 3, 112 Reykjavik, Iceland;2. ORF Genetics Ltd., Vikurhvarfi 7, 203 Kopavogur, Iceland;3. Departments of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA;4. Department of Clinical Research and Veterinary Public Health, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Länggass-Strasse 124, 3012 Berne, Switzerland;1. Institut National Agronomique de Tunisie (INAT), 43 Avenue Charles Nicole 1082 Tunis-Mahrajène, Tunisia;2. Laboratoire de Biotechnologie Appliquée à l’Agriculture, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT), Université de Carthage, Rue Hedi Karray, Tunis, Ariana, 2049, Tunisia |
| |
Abstract: | Numerous wildlife species are known pests of California agriculture. Effective management of these pests is required to maximize agricultural production, yet it is unclear how the importance of various wildlife pest species and associated management strategies may vary regionally throughout California. Accounting for these regional differences should yield management programs that are specifically tailored to the regions constituents and should be considered when managing wildlife pests at a more localized level. Therefore, we developed a survey to provide quantitative data on regional differences in research and management needs to better guide future research efforts in developing more effective, practical, and appropriate methods for managing wildlife pests. We found that coyotes were a more common pest in the mountain region, ground squirrels were a greater concern in the central and desert valley region, while birds were most commonly listed as pests by individuals working in multiple regions of California. Coyote damage varied regionally, with livestock depredation the greatest concern throughout most of California, although damage to irrigation tubing and sprinklers was of equal concern in the central and desert valley region. For bird pests, exclusionary devices were the most common and most effective methods of control in the coastal region. Frightening devices were the most commonly used method for bird control in all other regions, although the efficacy associated with frightening devices was considered far lower than their level of use, suggesting that better management options are needed for bird control in these regions. For all wildlife pests, nonlethal control options (e.g., exclusionary devices, habitat modification) were generally preferred in the coastal region while lethal removal options ranked higher in the central and desert valley region (e.g., baiting, burrow fumigation). Efficacy was considered the most important attribute of a control method for all regions, while Integrated Pest Management programs were considered the most effective method for controlling wildlife pests in all regions except for the central and desert valley region. Collectively, the importance of wildlife pests and the perception of associated control methods varied throughout California and reflects the need to consider these regional differences in order to optimize damage management strategies at the regional level. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|