Experimental studies on poisoning pocket gophers
AuthorMilton A. Miller
Author AffiliationsMilton A. Miller was Associate Professor of Zoölogy and Associate Zoölogist in the Experiment Station, Davis.
Hilgardia 22(4):131-166. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v22n04p131. May 1953.
Field and laboratory tests on poisoning the Sacramento Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae navus Merriam) are here reported. Nine poisons (including common and newly discovered rodenticides) and many kinds of bait materials were evaluated, graded dosages of the best poisons were bioassayed, and the effects of season of year, lures, and refrigeration on bait performance were tested.
Of the nine poisons field-tested on standard bait (mainly carrot), only Compound 1080, strychnine alkaloid, and strychnine sulfate gave practical kills; Castrix and thallium sulfate were moderately lethal; and zinc phosphide, ANTU, barium carbonate, and arsenic trioxide were relatively ineffective. Compound 1080 was far superior to strychnine, and the alkaloid form of strychnine proved better than the sulfate.
All three classes of bait materials tested—namely, root vegetables, grains, and fruits—were highly effective when poisoned with Compound 1080. With strychnine, root vegetables gave the best field-kills, fruits were significantly less effective, and grains gave poor results.
Recommendations based on these data and estimates of the cost of poisoning are given in the detailed summary of the paper. They will be useful to research workers, toxicologists, and rodent-control specialists, as well as to professional operators, agricultural commissioners, farm advisors, and farm managers.
Bliss C. I. The calculation of the dosage-mortality curve. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1935. 22:134-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1935.tb07713.x [CrossRef]
Buechner H. K. Interrelationships between pocket gopher and land use. Jour. Mamm. 1942. 23(3):346-48.
Cook J. B. Pocket gophers spread Canada thistle. California Dept. Agr. Bul. 1939. 28:142-43. 2 figs
Ellison L. The pocket gopher in relation to soil erosion on mountain range. Ecology. 1946. 27(2):101-14. 6 figs DOI: 10.2307/1932505 [CrossRef]
Finney D. J. Probit analysis 1947. p.vi-xiii + 256. p. 23 figs. Cambridge Univ. Press DOI: 10.2307/2332639 [CrossRef]
Fitch H. S., Bentley J. R. Use of California annual-plant forage by range rodents. Ecology. 1949. 30(3):306-21. 5 figs DOI: 10.2307/1932612 [CrossRef]
Grinnell J. The burrowing rodents of California as agents in soil formation. Jour. Mamm. 1923. 4(3):137-49. 3 pls DOI: 10.2307/1373562 [CrossRef]
Horn E. E. Some notes concerning the breeding habits of Thomomys townsendi, observed near Vale, Malheur County, Oregon, during the spring of 1921. Jour. Mamm. 1923. 4:37-39. 7 pl
Howard W. E. Tests of pocket gophers gnawing electric cables. Jour. Wildlife Management. 1953. (In press.) DOI: 10.2307/3797110 [CrossRef]
Kalmbach E. R. “Ten eighty,” a war-produced rodenticide. Science. 1945. 102:232-33.
Litchfield J. T., Fertig J. W. On a graphic solution of the dosage-effect curve. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bul. 1941. 69:276-86.
Litchfield J. T., Wilcoxon F. A simple method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. Jour. Pharm. and Exp. Therap. 1949. 96:99-113. 2 figs
Miller M. A. Reproductive rates and cycles in the pocket gopher. Jour. Mamm. 1946. 27(4):335-58. 6 figs DOI: 10.2307/1375341 [CrossRef]
Seasonal trends in burrowing of pocket gophers. Jour. Mamm. 1948. 29(1):38-44. DOI: 10.2307/1375279 [CrossRef]
Eradication of pocket gophers. Calif. Agr. 1950. 4(12):8-10. 2 figs DOI: 10.3733/ca.v004n12p8 [CrossRef]
Miller M. A., Howard W. E. Size of bait for pocket gopher control. Jour. Wildlife Management. 1951. 15(1):62-68. DOI: 10.2307/3796770 [CrossRef]
Moore A. W. The pocket gopher in relation to yellow pine reproduction. Jour. Mamm. 1943. 24(2):271-72.
Moore A. W., Reid E. H. The Dalles pocket gopher and its influence on forage production of Oregon mountain meadows. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 1951. 884:1-36. 15 figs DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.64505 [CrossRef]
Richter C. P. The development and use of alpha-napthylthiourea (ANTU) as a rat poison. Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc. 1945. 129:927-31.
Storer T. I. Control of field rodents in California. Calif. Agr. Ext. Serv. Cir. 1949. 138:1-50. 25 figs. [Revised.] DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.53397 [CrossRef]
Storer T. I., Mann Margery P. Bibliography of rodent control. Nat. Res. Council, Insect Control Committee Report No. 1946. 182:389 pp. mimeo
Bibliography of rodent control (first supplement), and bibliography of ANTU. U. S. Public Health Service, Nat. Inst. Health, Grant-in-aid RC-273 Report No. 1948. 1:75 mimeo
Sayama K., Brunetti O. The effects of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) on California quail. Calif. Fish and Game. 1952. 38(3):295-300.
Thomas A. Decay fungi in waterfront structures 1951. p.5. Report of Marine Borer Conference, May 10-12, 1951, U. S. Naval Civil Engineering Research and Evaluation Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Calif., 1951 T-1 to mimeo
Tourtellotte W. W., Coon J. M. Treatment of fluoroacetate poisoning in mice and dogs. Jour. Pharm. and Expt. Therap. 1951. 101:82-91.
Walls G. L. The vertebrate eye and its adaptive radiation. Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Cranbook Inst. Science Bul. 1942. 19:iii-xiv. 1-785 pp DOI: 10.1097/00005053-194409000-00057 [CrossRef]
Ward J. C., Spencer D. A. Notes on the pharmacology of sodium fluoroacetate—Compound 1080. Jour. Amer. Pharm. Assoc. 1947. 36(2):59-62.