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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.1009-1013 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 < 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.</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&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 < 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.</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 < 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.</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 |