Evaluation of techniques to reduce deer and Elk damage to agricultural crops

作者: Heather E. Johnson , Justin W. Fischer , Matthew Hammond , Patricia D. Dorsey , W. David Walter

DOI: 10.1002/WSB.408

关键词: AgricultureAgroforestryEcologyUngulateCropRocky Mountain elkWildlife managementNuisance wildlife managementGeographyWildlifeOdocoileus

摘要: Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) provide important recreational, ecological, economic benefits, but can also cause substantial damage to agricultural crops. Cervid agriculture creates challenges for wildlife agencies responsible minimizing crop depredation while maintaining healthy populations. Sunflower producers in southwestern Colorado, USA, have experienced high were interested temporary methods reduce that cost-effective rotational To address this challenge, we investigated 3 temporary, non-lethal exclusion repellent techniques reducing sunflowers: 1) a polyrope electric fence, 2) the chemical Plantskydd TM , 3) winged fence. During July through October 2011 2012, used randomized block design test efficacy of these by quantifying cervid sunflowers number tracks traversing treatmentandcontrolplotboundaries. Usinggeneralized linearmixed modelswefoundthatpolyropeelectric fences reduced presence within plots, did not ungulate activity. Polyrope may be suitable tool areas where management want maintain populations seasonal cervids high-value In use an effective technique such as fence could decrease need lethal permits compensation payments, increase satisfaction among thepublic.Published 2014. This articleisa U.S.Government work andisin thepublic domain USA.

参考文章(29)
Stephen Demarais, Paul R. Krausman, Ecology and management of large mammals in North America Prentice Hall. ,(2000)
Douglas M. Bates, Josae C. Pinheiro, Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS ,(2000)
Nicholas J. Gotelli, Aaron M. Ellison, A Primer of Ecological Statistics ,(2004)
I. G. McKILLOP, R. M. SIBLY, Animal behaviour at electric fences and the implications for management Mammal Review. ,vol. 18, pp. 91- 103 ,(1988) , 10.1111/J.1365-2907.1988.TB00078.X
THOMAS W. SEAMANS, KURT C. VERCAUTEREN, Evaluation of ElectroBraid™ Fencing as a White-Tailed Deer Barrier Wildlife Society Bulletin. ,vol. 34, pp. 8- 15 ,(2006) , 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[8:EOEFAA]2.0.CO;2
Dale L Nolte, Efficacy of selected repellents to deter deer browsing on conifer seedlings International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. ,vol. 42, pp. 101- 107 ,(1998) , 10.1016/S0964-8305(98)00008-0
Jonathan Yoder, Deer-Inflicted Crop Damage and Crop Choice in Wisconsin Human Dimensions of Wildlife. ,vol. 7, pp. 179- 196 ,(2002) , 10.1080/10871200260293342
Morten Elmeros, Jens K. Winbladh, Poul N. Andersen, Aksel Bo Madsen, Jens T. Christensen, Effectiveness of odour repellents on red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): a field test European Journal of Wildlife Research. ,vol. 57, pp. 1223- 1226 ,(2011) , 10.1007/S10344-011-0517-Y
W. David Walter, Michael J. Lavelle, Justin W. Fischer, Therese L. Johnson, Scott E. Hygnstrom, Kurt C. VerCauteren, Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review Wildlife Research. ,vol. 37, pp. 630- 646 ,(2010) , 10.1071/WR10021