Plant growth regulator (Stronghold) enhances repellency of anthraquinone formulation (flight control) to Canada geese

There is a need for nonlethal methods of reducing conflicts between burgeoning populations of resident giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and humans at airports and other settings. An anthraquinonebased formulation (Flight Control™ [FC]; 50% anthraquinone [AQ], active ingredient) has shown promi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of wildlife management 1999-10, Vol.63 (4), p.1336-1343
Hauptverfasser: Blackwell, B.F, Seamans, T.W, Dolbeer, R.A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1343
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1336
container_title The Journal of wildlife management
container_volume 63
creator Blackwell, B.F
Seamans, T.W
Dolbeer, R.A
description There is a need for nonlethal methods of reducing conflicts between burgeoning populations of resident giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and humans at airports and other settings. An anthraquinonebased formulation (Flight Control™ [FC]; 50% anthraquinone [AQ], active ingredient) has shown promise in deterring grazing by Canada geese. We hypothesized that the addition of a plant growth regulator (Stronghold™ [SH]) might enhance the effectiveness of FC by minimizing the exposure of new, untreated grass. To isolate the effects of grass height, plant growth regulator, and the combination of a repellent with a plant growth regulator on grazing by geese, we conducted 3 experiments, each using 24 geese in 6 18.3- × 30.5-m pens in northern Ohio during 1998. We evaluated the response of geese to short (4-11 cm) and tall grass (16-21 cm) in a 9-day test (15-23 Jul). Next, SH (applied at 1.2 L/ha) was evaluated as a grazing repellent in a 14-day test (30 Jul-12 Aug). Finally, we evaluated the effectiveness of FC (2.3 L/ha) combined with SH (0.9 L/ha SH) as a grazing repellent in a 22-day test (11 Sep-2 Oct). We found no difference (P = 0.529) in the number of geese per observation in tall- (1.7 ± 1.5; x̄ ± SE) versus short-grass plots (2.3 ± 1.5), nor in bill contacts per minute (P = 0.777) in tall- (12.6 ± 9.3) versus short-grass plots (11.1 ± 7.9). In the SH test, 14 days postapplication, mean grass height was 12.9 cm in untreated plots and 7.2 cm in treated plots. However, the number of geese per observation on untreated (1.8 ± 1.3) and treated plots (2.2 ± 1.3) did not differ (P = 0.567). Also, there was no difference (P = 0.706) in the number of bill contacts per minute in untreated (15.3 ± 9.9) versus treated plots (18.1 ± 14.2). In contrast, over a 22-day FC/SH test, the mean number of geese per observation was 2.6 times greater (P < 0.001) on untreated (2.9 ± 0.5) versus treated plots (1.1 ± 0.5). Further, the mean number of bill contacts per minute was 8.2 times greater (P < 0.001) on untreated (54.4 ± 11.2) than treated plots (6.6 ± 2.3). We observed no abatement in repellency 22 days posttreatment. Thus, we conclude that SH greatly enhanced the repellency of FC to grazing Canada geese, and we contend that the use of a plant growth regulator with FC will prove effective in reducing goose foraging at airports and other sites.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/3802852
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17490588</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3802852</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3802852</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-7adc2a3adc6ccaf1b4ab9c3314ffb9e77cfdd3bbc4550366b98295663e9e0b4d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlKBDEQhoMoOC74CAYRl0Nrlt5ylMENBhRU8NZUp5PuHjLJmHQjvr0ZZkDx4KXqUF99VP0IHVFyxTgprnlJWJmxLTShghcJK2mxjSaEMJZkKX3fRXshzAnhlJb5BI3PBuyAW-8-hw571Y4GBufxxcvgnW07Z5pLrGwHVqoQ50tljLLyCzuN42Ln4WPsrbMKa-cXq-XeWXyhTd92A5bORo25xIPDU7DQAG6VCuoA7WgwQR1u-j56u7t9nT4ks6f7x-nNLJE850NSQCMZ8FhzKUHTOoVaSM5pqnUtVFFI3TS8rmWaZYTneS1KJrI850ooUqcN30dna-_Su49RhaFa9EHGF8AqN4aKFqkgWVlG8OQPOHejt_G2ivGUMR7JCJ2vIeldCF7paun7BfivipJqlX21yT6SpxsdBAlG-xhfH35wUUT8FzYPMfN_bMdrTIOroPXR9PbCCI0KQQVlgn8D3CmZHA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234223174</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Plant growth regulator (Stronghold) enhances repellency of anthraquinone formulation (flight control) to Canada geese</title><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Blackwell, B.F ; Seamans, T.W ; Dolbeer, R.A</creator><creatorcontrib>Blackwell, B.F ; Seamans, T.W ; Dolbeer, R.A</creatorcontrib><description>There is a need for nonlethal methods of reducing conflicts between burgeoning populations of resident giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and humans at airports and other settings. An anthraquinonebased formulation (Flight Control™ [FC]; 50% anthraquinone [AQ], active ingredient) has shown promise in deterring grazing by Canada geese. We hypothesized that the addition of a plant growth regulator (Stronghold™ [SH]) might enhance the effectiveness of FC by minimizing the exposure of new, untreated grass. To isolate the effects of grass height, plant growth regulator, and the combination of a repellent with a plant growth regulator on grazing by geese, we conducted 3 experiments, each using 24 geese in 6 18.3- × 30.5-m pens in northern Ohio during 1998. We evaluated the response of geese to short (4-11 cm) and tall grass (16-21 cm) in a 9-day test (15-23 Jul). Next, SH (applied at 1.2 L/ha) was evaluated as a grazing repellent in a 14-day test (30 Jul-12 Aug). Finally, we evaluated the effectiveness of FC (2.3 L/ha) combined with SH (0.9 L/ha SH) as a grazing repellent in a 22-day test (11 Sep-2 Oct). We found no difference (P = 0.529) in the number of geese per observation in tall- (1.7 ± 1.5; x̄ ± SE) versus short-grass plots (2.3 ± 1.5), nor in bill contacts per minute (P = 0.777) in tall- (12.6 ± 9.3) versus short-grass plots (11.1 ± 7.9). In the SH test, 14 days postapplication, mean grass height was 12.9 cm in untreated plots and 7.2 cm in treated plots. However, the number of geese per observation on untreated (1.8 ± 1.3) and treated plots (2.2 ± 1.3) did not differ (P = 0.567). Also, there was no difference (P = 0.706) in the number of bill contacts per minute in untreated (15.3 ± 9.9) versus treated plots (18.1 ± 14.2). In contrast, over a 22-day FC/SH test, the mean number of geese per observation was 2.6 times greater (P &lt; 0.001) on untreated (2.9 ± 0.5) versus treated plots (1.1 ± 0.5). Further, the mean number of bill contacts per minute was 8.2 times greater (P &lt; 0.001) on untreated (54.4 ± 11.2) than treated plots (6.6 ± 2.3). We observed no abatement in repellency 22 days posttreatment. Thus, we conclude that SH greatly enhanced the repellency of FC to grazing Canada geese, and we contend that the use of a plant growth regulator with FC will prove effective in reducing goose foraging at airports and other sites.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3802852</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society</publisher><subject>Airports ; Anthraquinones ; Aquatic birds ; Biological and medical sciences ; bird control ; bird repellents ; Branta canadensis ; Flight control ; Flight control systems ; Flowers &amp; plants ; Foraging ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Geese ; Grasses ; Grazing ; Growth regulators ; Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control ; Nuisances ; Plant growth ; Plant growth regulators ; plant growth substances ; vertebrate pests ; Waterfowl ; Wildfowl ; Wildlife damage management ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 1999-10, Vol.63 (4), p.1336-1343</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1999 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Wildlife Society Oct 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-7adc2a3adc6ccaf1b4ab9c3314ffb9e77cfdd3bbc4550366b98295663e9e0b4d3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3802852$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3802852$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1972302$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Blackwell, B.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seamans, T.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dolbeer, R.A</creatorcontrib><title>Plant growth regulator (Stronghold) enhances repellency of anthraquinone formulation (flight control) to Canada geese</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>There is a need for nonlethal methods of reducing conflicts between burgeoning populations of resident giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and humans at airports and other settings. An anthraquinonebased formulation (Flight Control™ [FC]; 50% anthraquinone [AQ], active ingredient) has shown promise in deterring grazing by Canada geese. We hypothesized that the addition of a plant growth regulator (Stronghold™ [SH]) might enhance the effectiveness of FC by minimizing the exposure of new, untreated grass. To isolate the effects of grass height, plant growth regulator, and the combination of a repellent with a plant growth regulator on grazing by geese, we conducted 3 experiments, each using 24 geese in 6 18.3- × 30.5-m pens in northern Ohio during 1998. We evaluated the response of geese to short (4-11 cm) and tall grass (16-21 cm) in a 9-day test (15-23 Jul). Next, SH (applied at 1.2 L/ha) was evaluated as a grazing repellent in a 14-day test (30 Jul-12 Aug). Finally, we evaluated the effectiveness of FC (2.3 L/ha) combined with SH (0.9 L/ha SH) as a grazing repellent in a 22-day test (11 Sep-2 Oct). We found no difference (P = 0.529) in the number of geese per observation in tall- (1.7 ± 1.5; x̄ ± SE) versus short-grass plots (2.3 ± 1.5), nor in bill contacts per minute (P = 0.777) in tall- (12.6 ± 9.3) versus short-grass plots (11.1 ± 7.9). In the SH test, 14 days postapplication, mean grass height was 12.9 cm in untreated plots and 7.2 cm in treated plots. However, the number of geese per observation on untreated (1.8 ± 1.3) and treated plots (2.2 ± 1.3) did not differ (P = 0.567). Also, there was no difference (P = 0.706) in the number of bill contacts per minute in untreated (15.3 ± 9.9) versus treated plots (18.1 ± 14.2). In contrast, over a 22-day FC/SH test, the mean number of geese per observation was 2.6 times greater (P &lt; 0.001) on untreated (2.9 ± 0.5) versus treated plots (1.1 ± 0.5). Further, the mean number of bill contacts per minute was 8.2 times greater (P &lt; 0.001) on untreated (54.4 ± 11.2) than treated plots (6.6 ± 2.3). We observed no abatement in repellency 22 days posttreatment. Thus, we conclude that SH greatly enhanced the repellency of FC to grazing Canada geese, and we contend that the use of a plant growth regulator with FC will prove effective in reducing goose foraging at airports and other sites.</description><subject>Airports</subject><subject>Anthraquinones</subject><subject>Aquatic birds</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>bird control</subject><subject>bird repellents</subject><subject>Branta canadensis</subject><subject>Flight control</subject><subject>Flight control systems</subject><subject>Flowers &amp; plants</subject><subject>Foraging</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Geese</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>Grazing</subject><subject>Growth regulators</subject><subject>Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control</subject><subject>Nuisances</subject><subject>Plant growth</subject><subject>Plant growth regulators</subject><subject>plant growth substances</subject><subject>vertebrate pests</subject><subject>Waterfowl</subject><subject>Wildfowl</subject><subject>Wildlife damage management</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMlKBDEQhoMoOC74CAYRl0Nrlt5ylMENBhRU8NZUp5PuHjLJmHQjvr0ZZkDx4KXqUF99VP0IHVFyxTgprnlJWJmxLTShghcJK2mxjSaEMJZkKX3fRXshzAnhlJb5BI3PBuyAW-8-hw571Y4GBufxxcvgnW07Z5pLrGwHVqoQ50tljLLyCzuN42Ln4WPsrbMKa-cXq-XeWXyhTd92A5bORo25xIPDU7DQAG6VCuoA7WgwQR1u-j56u7t9nT4ks6f7x-nNLJE850NSQCMZ8FhzKUHTOoVaSM5pqnUtVFFI3TS8rmWaZYTneS1KJrI850ooUqcN30dna-_Su49RhaFa9EHGF8AqN4aKFqkgWVlG8OQPOHejt_G2ivGUMR7JCJ2vIeldCF7paun7BfivipJqlX21yT6SpxsdBAlG-xhfH35wUUT8FzYPMfN_bMdrTIOroPXR9PbCCI0KQQVlgn8D3CmZHA</recordid><startdate>19991001</startdate><enddate>19991001</enddate><creator>Blackwell, B.F</creator><creator>Seamans, T.W</creator><creator>Dolbeer, R.A</creator><general>The Wildlife Society</general><general>Wildlife Society</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19991001</creationdate><title>Plant growth regulator (Stronghold) enhances repellency of anthraquinone formulation (flight control) to Canada geese</title><author>Blackwell, B.F ; Seamans, T.W ; Dolbeer, R.A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-7adc2a3adc6ccaf1b4ab9c3314ffb9e77cfdd3bbc4550366b98295663e9e0b4d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Airports</topic><topic>Anthraquinones</topic><topic>Aquatic birds</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>bird control</topic><topic>bird repellents</topic><topic>Branta canadensis</topic><topic>Flight control</topic><topic>Flight control systems</topic><topic>Flowers &amp; plants</topic><topic>Foraging</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Geese</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>Grazing</topic><topic>Growth regulators</topic><topic>Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control</topic><topic>Nuisances</topic><topic>Plant growth</topic><topic>Plant growth regulators</topic><topic>plant growth substances</topic><topic>vertebrate pests</topic><topic>Waterfowl</topic><topic>Wildfowl</topic><topic>Wildlife damage management</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Blackwell, B.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seamans, T.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dolbeer, R.A</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Blackwell, B.F</au><au>Seamans, T.W</au><au>Dolbeer, R.A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Plant growth regulator (Stronghold) enhances repellency of anthraquinone formulation (flight control) to Canada geese</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>1999-10-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1336</spage><epage>1343</epage><pages>1336-1343</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>There is a need for nonlethal methods of reducing conflicts between burgeoning populations of resident giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and humans at airports and other settings. An anthraquinonebased formulation (Flight Control™ [FC]; 50% anthraquinone [AQ], active ingredient) has shown promise in deterring grazing by Canada geese. We hypothesized that the addition of a plant growth regulator (Stronghold™ [SH]) might enhance the effectiveness of FC by minimizing the exposure of new, untreated grass. To isolate the effects of grass height, plant growth regulator, and the combination of a repellent with a plant growth regulator on grazing by geese, we conducted 3 experiments, each using 24 geese in 6 18.3- × 30.5-m pens in northern Ohio during 1998. We evaluated the response of geese to short (4-11 cm) and tall grass (16-21 cm) in a 9-day test (15-23 Jul). Next, SH (applied at 1.2 L/ha) was evaluated as a grazing repellent in a 14-day test (30 Jul-12 Aug). Finally, we evaluated the effectiveness of FC (2.3 L/ha) combined with SH (0.9 L/ha SH) as a grazing repellent in a 22-day test (11 Sep-2 Oct). We found no difference (P = 0.529) in the number of geese per observation in tall- (1.7 ± 1.5; x̄ ± SE) versus short-grass plots (2.3 ± 1.5), nor in bill contacts per minute (P = 0.777) in tall- (12.6 ± 9.3) versus short-grass plots (11.1 ± 7.9). In the SH test, 14 days postapplication, mean grass height was 12.9 cm in untreated plots and 7.2 cm in treated plots. However, the number of geese per observation on untreated (1.8 ± 1.3) and treated plots (2.2 ± 1.3) did not differ (P = 0.567). Also, there was no difference (P = 0.706) in the number of bill contacts per minute in untreated (15.3 ± 9.9) versus treated plots (18.1 ± 14.2). In contrast, over a 22-day FC/SH test, the mean number of geese per observation was 2.6 times greater (P &lt; 0.001) on untreated (2.9 ± 0.5) versus treated plots (1.1 ± 0.5). Further, the mean number of bill contacts per minute was 8.2 times greater (P &lt; 0.001) on untreated (54.4 ± 11.2) than treated plots (6.6 ± 2.3). We observed no abatement in repellency 22 days posttreatment. Thus, we conclude that SH greatly enhanced the repellency of FC to grazing Canada geese, and we contend that the use of a plant growth regulator with FC will prove effective in reducing goose foraging at airports and other sites.</abstract><cop>Bethesda, MD</cop><pub>The Wildlife Society</pub><doi>10.2307/3802852</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-541X
ispartof The Journal of wildlife management, 1999-10, Vol.63 (4), p.1336-1343
issn 0022-541X
1937-2817
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17490588
source JSTOR
subjects Airports
Anthraquinones
Aquatic birds
Biological and medical sciences
bird control
bird repellents
Branta canadensis
Flight control
Flight control systems
Flowers & plants
Foraging
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Geese
Grasses
Grazing
Growth regulators
Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control
Nuisances
Plant growth
Plant growth regulators
plant growth substances
vertebrate pests
Waterfowl
Wildfowl
Wildlife damage management
Wildlife management
title Plant growth regulator (Stronghold) enhances repellency of anthraquinone formulation (flight control) to Canada geese
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T13%3A33%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Plant%20growth%20regulator%20(Stronghold)%20enhances%20repellency%20of%20anthraquinone%20formulation%20(flight%20control)%20to%20Canada%20geese&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=Blackwell,%20B.F&rft.date=1999-10-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1336&rft.epage=1343&rft.pages=1336-1343&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3802852&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3802852%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234223174&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3802852&rfr_iscdi=true