Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA
Identifieur interne : 000F69 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000F68; suivant : 000F70Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA
Auteurs : Gary Witmer ; Rodney Sayler ; David Huggins ; Jason CapelliSource :
- Integrative Zoology [ 1749-4869 ] ; 2007-09.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
No‐till farming is an important approach to sustainable agriculture because it can conserve soil and water resources. Unfortunately, rodent populations can thrive under no‐till conditions because burrow systems are not disrupted by annual plowing and plant residues build‐up on the surface, providing cover and insulation. This can result in substantial crop damage. We assessed rodent populations, habitat use, food habits, and crop damage in a no‐till cropping system in Washington, USA. We also conducted preliminary trials of methods to reduce rodent populations and crop damage. In the fall, many more rodents were captured in fields with unharvested crops than in fields containing only plant stubble, suggesting that rodents leave fields after crop harvest, providing that suitable habitats are nearby, even when adequate cover is still available in harvested crop fields. By spring, the number of voles captured was much lower relative to fall. Despite this, capture rates were much higher in surrounding permanent grass areas than in crop (barley, wheat, pea) fields, suggesting that these grassy areas serve as refugia for rodents. Furthermore, the permanent grass cover type was the landscape variable most associated with rodent capture rates. In three winter pea fields, rodents removed 5–15% of the pea plants over winter. Examination of stomach contents revealed that voles mainly fed on grain plants in spring, but that their diet was more diversified in fall. Deer mice fed heavily on grain plants in both spring and fall, but also used insects as food. Metal barrier exclosures (9 m × 9 m), extending above and below ground, did not prevent access by rodents. Rodent populations in areas treated with zinc phosphide on grain were comparable to untreated areas 1 year after application of the rodenticide, perhaps because of immigration and recruitment, suggesting that baiting does not provide a long‐term solution to rodent damage in no‐till agricultural fields.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title><author><name sortKey="Witmer, Gary" sort="Witmer, Gary" uniqKey="Witmer G" first="Gary" last="Witmer">Gary Witmer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sayler, Rodney" sort="Sayler, Rodney" uniqKey="Sayler R" first="Rodney" last="Sayler">Rodney Sayler</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Huggins, David" sort="Huggins, David" uniqKey="Huggins D" first="David" last="Huggins">David Huggins</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Capelli, Jason" sort="Capelli, Jason" uniqKey="Capelli J" first="Jason" last="Capelli">Jason Capelli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000F69</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000F69</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title><author><name sortKey="Witmer, Gary" sort="Witmer, Gary" uniqKey="Witmer G" first="Gary" last="Witmer">Gary Witmer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sayler, Rodney" sort="Sayler, Rodney" uniqKey="Sayler R" first="Rodney" last="Sayler">Rodney Sayler</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Huggins, David" sort="Huggins, David" uniqKey="Huggins D" first="David" last="Huggins">David Huggins</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Capelli, Jason" sort="Capelli, Jason" uniqKey="Capelli J" first="Jason" last="Capelli">Jason Capelli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Integrative Zoology</title><idno type="ISSN">1749-4869</idno><idno type="eISSN">1749-4877</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-09">2007-09</date><biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="154">154</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="164">164</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1749-4869</idno></series><idno type="istex">6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">INZ258</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1749-4869</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Microtus</term><term>Peromyscus</term><term>agriculture</term><term>damage</term><term>deer mouse</term><term>feeding ecology</term><term>rodent</term><term>vole</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">No‐till farming is an important approach to sustainable agriculture because it can conserve soil and water resources. Unfortunately, rodent populations can thrive under no‐till conditions because burrow systems are not disrupted by annual plowing and plant residues build‐up on the surface, providing cover and insulation. This can result in substantial crop damage. We assessed rodent populations, habitat use, food habits, and crop damage in a no‐till cropping system in Washington, USA. We also conducted preliminary trials of methods to reduce rodent populations and crop damage. In the fall, many more rodents were captured in fields with unharvested crops than in fields containing only plant stubble, suggesting that rodents leave fields after crop harvest, providing that suitable habitats are nearby, even when adequate cover is still available in harvested crop fields. By spring, the number of voles captured was much lower relative to fall. Despite this, capture rates were much higher in surrounding permanent grass areas than in crop (barley, wheat, pea) fields, suggesting that these grassy areas serve as refugia for rodents. Furthermore, the permanent grass cover type was the landscape variable most associated with rodent capture rates. In three winter pea fields, rodents removed 5–15% of the pea plants over winter. Examination of stomach contents revealed that voles mainly fed on grain plants in spring, but that their diet was more diversified in fall. Deer mice fed heavily on grain plants in both spring and fall, but also used insects as food. Metal barrier exclosures (9 m × 9 m), extending above and below ground, did not prevent access by rodents. Rodent populations in areas treated with zinc phosphide on grain were comparable to untreated areas 1 year after application of the rodenticide, perhaps because of immigration and recruitment, suggesting that baiting does not provide a long‐term solution to rodent damage in no‐till agricultural fields.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Gary WITMER</name><affiliations><json:string>US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Rodney SAYLER</name><affiliations><json:string>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>David HUGGINS</name><affiliations><json:string>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jason CAPELLI</name><affiliations><json:string>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>agriculture</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>damage</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>deer mouse</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>feeding ecology</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Microtus</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Peromyscus</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>rodent</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>vole</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>INZ258</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>No‐till farming is an important approach to sustainable agriculture because it can conserve soil and water resources. Unfortunately, rodent populations can thrive under no‐till conditions because burrow systems are not disrupted by annual plowing and plant residues build‐up on the surface, providing cover and insulation. This can result in substantial crop damage. We assessed rodent populations, habitat use, food habits, and crop damage in a no‐till cropping system in Washington, USA. We also conducted preliminary trials of methods to reduce rodent populations and crop damage. In the fall, many more rodents were captured in fields with unharvested crops than in fields containing only plant stubble, suggesting that rodents leave fields after crop harvest, providing that suitable habitats are nearby, even when adequate cover is still available in harvested crop fields. By spring, the number of voles captured was much lower relative to fall. Despite this, capture rates were much higher in surrounding permanent grass areas than in crop (barley, wheat, pea) fields, suggesting that these grassy areas serve as refugia for rodents. Furthermore, the permanent grass cover type was the landscape variable most associated with rodent capture rates. In three winter pea fields, rodents removed 5–15% of the pea plants over winter. Examination of stomach contents revealed that voles mainly fed on grain plants in spring, but that their diet was more diversified in fall. Deer mice fed heavily on grain plants in both spring and fall, but also used insects as food. Metal barrier exclosures (9 m × 9 m), extending above and below ground, did not prevent access by rodents. Rodent populations in areas treated with zinc phosphide on grain were comparable to untreated areas 1 year after application of the rodenticide, perhaps because of immigration and recruitment, suggesting that baiting does not provide a long‐term solution to rodent damage in no‐till agricultural fields.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595 x 779 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1981</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6267</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>38180</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>306</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>2</volume><publisherId><json:string>INZ2</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>11</total><last>164</last><first>154</first></pages><issn><json:string>1749-4869</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1749-4877</json:string></eissn><title>Integrative Zoology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1749-4877</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x</json:string></doi><id>6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7</id><score>0.041057356</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Gary</forename><surname>WITMER</surname></persName><affiliation>US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Rodney</forename><surname>SAYLER</surname></persName><affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">David</forename><surname>HUGGINS</surname></persName><affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">Jason</forename><surname>CAPELLI</surname></persName><affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Integrative Zoology</title><idno type="pISSN">1749-4869</idno><idno type="eISSN">1749-4877</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1749-4877</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-09"></date><biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="154">154</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="164">164</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">INZ258</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>No‐till farming is an important approach to sustainable agriculture because it can conserve soil and water resources. Unfortunately, rodent populations can thrive under no‐till conditions because burrow systems are not disrupted by annual plowing and plant residues build‐up on the surface, providing cover and insulation. This can result in substantial crop damage. We assessed rodent populations, habitat use, food habits, and crop damage in a no‐till cropping system in Washington, USA. We also conducted preliminary trials of methods to reduce rodent populations and crop damage. In the fall, many more rodents were captured in fields with unharvested crops than in fields containing only plant stubble, suggesting that rodents leave fields after crop harvest, providing that suitable habitats are nearby, even when adequate cover is still available in harvested crop fields. By spring, the number of voles captured was much lower relative to fall. Despite this, capture rates were much higher in surrounding permanent grass areas than in crop (barley, wheat, pea) fields, suggesting that these grassy areas serve as refugia for rodents. Furthermore, the permanent grass cover type was the landscape variable most associated with rodent capture rates. In three winter pea fields, rodents removed 5–15% of the pea plants over winter. Examination of stomach contents revealed that voles mainly fed on grain plants in spring, but that their diet was more diversified in fall. Deer mice fed heavily on grain plants in both spring and fall, but also used insects as food. Metal barrier exclosures (9 m × 9 m), extending above and below ground, did not prevent access by rodents. Rodent populations in areas treated with zinc phosphide on grain were comparable to untreated areas 1 year after application of the rodenticide, perhaps because of immigration and recruitment, suggesting that baiting does not provide a long‐term solution to rodent damage in no‐till agricultural fields.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>agriculture</term></item><item><term>damage</term></item><item><term>deer mouse</term></item><item><term>feeding ecology</term></item><item><term>Microtus</term></item><item><term>Peromyscus</term></item><item><term>rodent</term></item><item><term>vole</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007-09">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1749-4877</doi><issn type="print">1749-4869</issn><issn type="electronic">1749-4877</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="INZ2"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="INTEGRATIVE ZOOLOGY">Integrative Zoology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="09003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/inz.2007.2.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="2">2</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2007-09">September 2007</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="INZ258"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="11"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Rodent management</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2007-10-23"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2007-10-23"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.3 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-19"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-29"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-23"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="154">154</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="164">164</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><i>Correspondence:</i> Gary Witmer, Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521‐2154, USA. Email: <email>gary.w.witmer@aphis.usda.gov</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:INZ2.INZ258.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="48"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="4"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Gary</givenNames><familyName>WITMER</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Rodney</givenNames><familyName>SAYLER</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>David</givenNames><familyName>HUGGINS</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Jason</givenNames><familyName>CAPELLI</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">agriculture</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">damage</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">deer mouse</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">feeding ecology</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5"><i>Microtus</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k6"><i>Peromyscus</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k7">rodent</keyword><keyword xml:id="k8">vole</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>No‐till farming is an important approach to sustainable agriculture because it can conserve soil and water resources. Unfortunately, rodent populations can thrive under no‐till conditions because burrow systems are not disrupted by annual plowing and plant residues build‐up on the surface, providing cover and insulation. This can result in substantial crop damage. We assessed rodent populations, habitat use, food habits, and crop damage in a no‐till cropping system in Washington, USA. We also conducted preliminary trials of methods to reduce rodent populations and crop damage. In the fall, many more rodents were captured in fields with unharvested crops than in fields containing only plant stubble, suggesting that rodents leave fields after crop harvest, providing that suitable habitats are nearby, even when adequate cover is still available in harvested crop fields. By spring, the number of voles captured was much lower relative to fall. Despite this, capture rates were much higher in surrounding permanent grass areas than in crop (barley, wheat, pea) fields, suggesting that these grassy areas serve as refugia for rodents. Furthermore, the permanent grass cover type was the landscape variable most associated with rodent capture rates. In three winter pea fields, rodents removed 5–15% of the pea plants over winter. Examination of stomach contents revealed that voles mainly fed on grain plants in spring, but that their diet was more diversified in fall. Deer mice fed heavily on grain plants in both spring and fall, but also used insects as food. Metal barrier exclosures (9 m × 9 m), extending above and below ground, did not prevent access by rodents. Rodent populations in areas treated with zinc phosphide on grain were comparable to untreated areas 1 year after application of the rodenticide, perhaps because of immigration and recruitment, suggesting that baiting does not provide a long‐term solution to rodent damage in no‐till agricultural fields.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gary</namePart><namePart type="family">WITMER</namePart><affiliation>US Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Rodney</namePart><namePart type="family">SAYLER</namePart><affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David</namePart><namePart type="family">HUGGINS</namePart><affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jason</namePart><namePart type="family">CAPELLI</namePart><affiliation>Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-09</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="references">48</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">No‐till farming is an important approach to sustainable agriculture because it can conserve soil and water resources. Unfortunately, rodent populations can thrive under no‐till conditions because burrow systems are not disrupted by annual plowing and plant residues build‐up on the surface, providing cover and insulation. This can result in substantial crop damage. We assessed rodent populations, habitat use, food habits, and crop damage in a no‐till cropping system in Washington, USA. We also conducted preliminary trials of methods to reduce rodent populations and crop damage. In the fall, many more rodents were captured in fields with unharvested crops than in fields containing only plant stubble, suggesting that rodents leave fields after crop harvest, providing that suitable habitats are nearby, even when adequate cover is still available in harvested crop fields. By spring, the number of voles captured was much lower relative to fall. Despite this, capture rates were much higher in surrounding permanent grass areas than in crop (barley, wheat, pea) fields, suggesting that these grassy areas serve as refugia for rodents. Furthermore, the permanent grass cover type was the landscape variable most associated with rodent capture rates. In three winter pea fields, rodents removed 5–15% of the pea plants over winter. Examination of stomach contents revealed that voles mainly fed on grain plants in spring, but that their diet was more diversified in fall. Deer mice fed heavily on grain plants in both spring and fall, but also used insects as food. Metal barrier exclosures (9 m × 9 m), extending above and below ground, did not prevent access by rodents. Rodent populations in areas treated with zinc phosphide on grain were comparable to untreated areas 1 year after application of the rodenticide, perhaps because of immigration and recruitment, suggesting that baiting does not provide a long‐term solution to rodent damage in no‐till agricultural fields.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>agriculture</topic><topic>damage</topic><topic>deer mouse</topic><topic>feeding ecology</topic><topic>Microtus</topic><topic>Peromyscus</topic><topic>rodent</topic><topic>vole</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Integrative Zoology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1749-4869</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1749-4877</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1749-4877</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">INZ2</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>2</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>154</start><end>164</end><total>11</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00058.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">INZ258</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F69 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F69 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:6A7D02619B22D65636B1E119CA586AB792FCE9D7
|texte= Ecology and management of rodents in no‐till agriculture in Washington, USA
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |