Repellents to Reduce Cable Gnawing by Wild Norway Rats

Rodents gnaw communications and power cables, resulting in service interruptions, fires, and other safety concerns. Commensal rodents such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) have been implicated in many of these situations. Two chemical repellents (capsicum oleoresin-capsaicin and denatonium benz...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of wildlife management 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.1009-1013
Hauptverfasser: Shumake, Stephen A., Sterner, Ray T., Gaddis, Stanley E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1013
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1009
container_title The Journal of wildlife management
container_volume 64
creator Shumake, Stephen A.
Sterner, Ray T.
Gaddis, Stanley E.
description Rodents gnaw communications and power cables, resulting in service interruptions, fires, and other safety concerns. Commensal rodents such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) have been implicated in many of these situations. Two chemical repellents (capsicum oleoresin-capsaicin and denatonium benzoate) at 2.0% mass/mass concentrations in a polybutene carrier (Indopol®-control) were evaluated for repellent efficacy compared to a plastic mesh physical barrier material (Vexar®) and the polybutene carrier (placebo) alone using groups of individually caged wild Norway rats. The materials were applied to short lengths of communications cable (RG-8U) with the repellents enclosed in electrical shrink tubing around the samples and the plastic mesh attached to the samples for 7 days of continuous rat exposure. Measures of damage taken after rat exposure included mass of cable material damaged, volume loss to gnawing, depth of gnaw penetration, width of gnawing, and a qualitative index of damage based upon visual appearance. Using a stepwise discriminant analysis, we found less damage (P < 0.05) using the volume loss measure (cc) for the capsaicin and for the denatonium groups than for the polybutane-carrier (placebo) group. Other measures of gnawing damage did not improve statistical comparisons of the repellents. For all 5 measures of damage, there was a consistent rank order pattern among the means with capsaicin < denatonium < Vexar® < Indopol®-control.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/3803211
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17757374</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3803211</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3803211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-dc97439292939133e28fa26bfb3746e93b64b0e5d14020e87ef4fa7d62b44c433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kFFLwzAUhYMoOKf4F4KKPlWT3LRpHmXoFIbCUPQtpOmtdHTNTFrG_r0dGz4Ich_uy8d3DoeQc85uBTB1BzkDwfkBGXENKhE5V4dkxJgQSSr55zE5iXHBGHCeZyOSzXGFTYNtF2nn6RzL3iGd2KJBOm3tum6_aLGhH3VT0hcf1nZD57aLp-Sosk3Es_0fk_fHh7fJUzJ7nT5P7meJA8i7pHRaSdBiONAcAEVeWZEVVQFKZqihyGTBMC25ZIJhrrCSlVVlJgopnQQYk-uddxX8d4-xM8s6uqGwbdH30XClUjW4BvDiD7jwfWiHbkaA5FpxpQfoZge54GMMWJlVqJc2bAxnZjue2Y83kJd7nY3ONlWwravjL660yNNt6NWOWsTOh39lPwnddVk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234197179</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Repellents to Reduce Cable Gnawing by Wild Norway Rats</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Shumake, Stephen A. ; Sterner, Ray T. ; Gaddis, Stanley E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Shumake, Stephen A. ; Sterner, Ray T. ; Gaddis, Stanley E.</creatorcontrib><description>Rodents gnaw communications and power cables, resulting in service interruptions, fires, and other safety concerns. Commensal rodents such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) have been implicated in many of these situations. Two chemical repellents (capsicum oleoresin-capsaicin and denatonium benzoate) at 2.0% mass/mass concentrations in a polybutene carrier (Indopol®-control) were evaluated for repellent efficacy compared to a plastic mesh physical barrier material (Vexar®) and the polybutene carrier (placebo) alone using groups of individually caged wild Norway rats. The materials were applied to short lengths of communications cable (RG-8U) with the repellents enclosed in electrical shrink tubing around the samples and the plastic mesh attached to the samples for 7 days of continuous rat exposure. Measures of damage taken after rat exposure included mass of cable material damaged, volume loss to gnawing, depth of gnaw penetration, width of gnawing, and a qualitative index of damage based upon visual appearance. Using a stepwise discriminant analysis, we found less damage (P &lt; 0.05) using the volume loss measure (cc) for the capsaicin and for the denatonium groups than for the polybutane-carrier (placebo) group. Other measures of gnawing damage did not improve statistical comparisons of the repellents. For all 5 measures of damage, there was a consistent rank order pattern among the means with capsaicin &lt; denatonium &lt; Vexar® &lt; Indopol®-control.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3803211</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; Barriers ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cables ; Fire damage ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Materials ; Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control ; Nuisances ; Plastics ; Population size ; Power cables ; Rats ; Rattus norvegicus ; Repellents ; Rodents ; Statistical variance ; Wildlife ; Wildlife damage management ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.1009-1013</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2000 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Wildlife Society Oct 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-dc97439292939133e28fa26bfb3746e93b64b0e5d14020e87ef4fa7d62b44c433</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3803211$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3803211$$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=792854$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shumake, Stephen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterner, Ray T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaddis, Stanley E.</creatorcontrib><title>Repellents to Reduce Cable Gnawing by Wild Norway Rats</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>Rodents gnaw communications and power cables, resulting in service interruptions, fires, and other safety concerns. Commensal rodents such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) have been implicated in many of these situations. Two chemical repellents (capsicum oleoresin-capsaicin and denatonium benzoate) at 2.0% mass/mass concentrations in a polybutene carrier (Indopol®-control) were evaluated for repellent efficacy compared to a plastic mesh physical barrier material (Vexar®) and the polybutene carrier (placebo) alone using groups of individually caged wild Norway rats. The materials were applied to short lengths of communications cable (RG-8U) with the repellents enclosed in electrical shrink tubing around the samples and the plastic mesh attached to the samples for 7 days of continuous rat exposure. Measures of damage taken after rat exposure included mass of cable material damaged, volume loss to gnawing, depth of gnaw penetration, width of gnawing, and a qualitative index of damage based upon visual appearance. Using a stepwise discriminant analysis, we found less damage (P &lt; 0.05) using the volume loss measure (cc) for the capsaicin and for the denatonium groups than for the polybutane-carrier (placebo) group. Other measures of gnawing damage did not improve statistical comparisons of the repellents. For all 5 measures of damage, there was a consistent rank order pattern among the means with capsaicin &lt; denatonium &lt; Vexar® &lt; Indopol®-control.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Barriers</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cables</subject><subject>Fire damage</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Materials</subject><subject>Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control</subject><subject>Nuisances</subject><subject>Plastics</subject><subject>Population size</subject><subject>Power cables</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Rattus norvegicus</subject><subject>Repellents</subject><subject>Rodents</subject><subject>Statistical variance</subject><subject>Wildlife</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>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kFFLwzAUhYMoOKf4F4KKPlWT3LRpHmXoFIbCUPQtpOmtdHTNTFrG_r0dGz4Ich_uy8d3DoeQc85uBTB1BzkDwfkBGXENKhE5V4dkxJgQSSr55zE5iXHBGHCeZyOSzXGFTYNtF2nn6RzL3iGd2KJBOm3tum6_aLGhH3VT0hcf1nZD57aLp-Sosk3Es_0fk_fHh7fJUzJ7nT5P7meJA8i7pHRaSdBiONAcAEVeWZEVVQFKZqihyGTBMC25ZIJhrrCSlVVlJgopnQQYk-uddxX8d4-xM8s6uqGwbdH30XClUjW4BvDiD7jwfWiHbkaA5FpxpQfoZge54GMMWJlVqJc2bAxnZjue2Y83kJd7nY3ONlWwravjL660yNNt6NWOWsTOh39lPwnddVk</recordid><startdate>20001001</startdate><enddate>20001001</enddate><creator>Shumake, Stephen A.</creator><creator>Sterner, Ray T.</creator><creator>Gaddis, Stanley E.</creator><general>The Wildlife Society</general><general>Wildlife Society</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><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>20001001</creationdate><title>Repellents to Reduce Cable Gnawing by Wild Norway Rats</title><author>Shumake, Stephen A. ; Sterner, Ray T. ; Gaddis, Stanley E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-dc97439292939133e28fa26bfb3746e93b64b0e5d14020e87ef4fa7d62b44c433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Barriers</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cables</topic><topic>Fire damage</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Materials</topic><topic>Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control</topic><topic>Nuisances</topic><topic>Plastics</topic><topic>Population size</topic><topic>Power cables</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Rattus norvegicus</topic><topic>Repellents</topic><topic>Rodents</topic><topic>Statistical variance</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife damage management</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shumake, Stephen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterner, Ray T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaddis, Stanley E.</creatorcontrib><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>Shumake, Stephen A.</au><au>Sterner, Ray T.</au><au>Gaddis, Stanley E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Repellents to Reduce Cable Gnawing by Wild Norway Rats</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2000-10-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1009</spage><epage>1013</epage><pages>1009-1013</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>Rodents gnaw communications and power cables, resulting in service interruptions, fires, and other safety concerns. Commensal rodents such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) have been implicated in many of these situations. Two chemical repellents (capsicum oleoresin-capsaicin and denatonium benzoate) at 2.0% mass/mass concentrations in a polybutene carrier (Indopol®-control) were evaluated for repellent efficacy compared to a plastic mesh physical barrier material (Vexar®) and the polybutene carrier (placebo) alone using groups of individually caged wild Norway rats. The materials were applied to short lengths of communications cable (RG-8U) with the repellents enclosed in electrical shrink tubing around the samples and the plastic mesh attached to the samples for 7 days of continuous rat exposure. Measures of damage taken after rat exposure included mass of cable material damaged, volume loss to gnawing, depth of gnaw penetration, width of gnawing, and a qualitative index of damage based upon visual appearance. Using a stepwise discriminant analysis, we found less damage (P &lt; 0.05) using the volume loss measure (cc) for the capsaicin and for the denatonium groups than for the polybutane-carrier (placebo) group. Other measures of gnawing damage did not improve statistical comparisons of the repellents. For all 5 measures of damage, there was a consistent rank order pattern among the means with capsaicin &lt; denatonium &lt; Vexar® &lt; Indopol®-control.</abstract><cop>Bethesda, MD</cop><pub>The Wildlife Society</pub><doi>10.2307/3803211</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-541X
ispartof The Journal of wildlife management, 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.1009-1013
issn 0022-541X
1937-2817
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17757374
source Jstor Complete Legacy
subjects Animal behavior
Barriers
Biological and medical sciences
Cables
Fire damage
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Materials
Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control
Nuisances
Plastics
Population size
Power cables
Rats
Rattus norvegicus
Repellents
Rodents
Statistical variance
Wildlife
Wildlife damage management
Wildlife management
title Repellents to Reduce Cable Gnawing by Wild Norway Rats
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T06%3A23%3A17IST&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=Repellents%20to%20Reduce%20Cable%20Gnawing%20by%20Wild%20Norway%20Rats&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=Shumake,%20Stephen%20A.&rft.date=2000-10-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1009&rft.epage=1013&rft.pages=1009-1013&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3803211&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3803211%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=234197179&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3803211&rfr_iscdi=true