Walker's Mammals of the World, 4th Edition, Ronald M. Nowak, John L. Paradiso. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland (1983), 1xi, +1-568 (Vol. I), xxv+569-1362 (Vol. II). Price $65.00

Maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling has great potential for identifying distributions and habitat selection of wildlife given its reliance on only presence locations. Recent studies indicate Maxent is relatively insensitive to spatial errors associated with location data, requires few locations to construct useful models, and performs better than other presence-only modeling approaches. Further advances are needed to better define model thresholds, to test model significance, and to address model selection. Additionally, development of modeling approaches is needed when using repeated sampling of known individuals to assess habitat selection. These advancements would strengthen the utility of Maxent for wildlife research and management.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/11/4/854/pdf

Use of Maximum Entropy Modeling in Wildlife Research

Camera Traps in Animal Ecology

Groundwater is considered as the most important natural resources in arid and semi-arid regions. In this study, the application of random forest (RF) and maximum entropy (ME) models for groundwater potential mapping is investigated at Mehran Region, Iran. Although the RF and ME models have been applied widely to environmental and ecological modeling, their applicability to other kinds of predictive modeling such as groundwater potential mapping has not yet been investigated. About 163 groundwater data with high potential yield values of ≥ 11 m 3 /h were obtained from Iranian Department of Water Resources Management (IDWRM). Further, these selected wells were randomly divided into a dataset 70% (114 wells) for training and the remaining 30% (49 wells) was applied for validation purposes. In total, ten groundwater conditioning factors that affect the storage of groundwater occurrences (e.g. altitude, slope percent, slope aspect, plan curvature, drainage density, distance from rivers, topographic wetness index (TWI), landuse, lithology, and soil texture) were used as input to the models. Subsequently, the RF and ME models were applied to generate the groundwater potential maps (GPMs). Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was used to identify the impact of variable uncertainties on the produced GPMs. Finally, the results of the GPMs were quantitatively validated using observed groundwater dataset and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. Area under ROC curve (AUC) was used to compare the performance of RF with ME. The uncertainty on the preparation of conditioning factors was taken in account to enhance the model. The validation results showed that the AUC for success rate of RF and ME models was 86.5 and 91%, respectively. In contrast, the AUC for prediction rate of RF and ME methods was obtained 83.1 and 87.7%, respectively. Therefore, RF and ME were found to be effective models for groundwater potential mapping.

Application of GIS-based data driven random forest and maximum entropy models for groundwater potential mapping: A case study at Mehran Region, Iran

Increase in food production is the prime-most objective of all countries, as world population is expected to grow to nearly 10 billion by 2050 Based on evidence, world population is increasing by an estimated 97 million per year (Saravi and Shokrzadeh, 2011) The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has in-fact issued a sobering forecast that world food production needs to increase by 70%, in order to keep pace with the demand of growing population However, increase in food production is faced with the ever-growing challenges especially the new area that can be increased for cultivation purposes is very limited (Saravi and Shokrzadeh, 2011) The increasing world population has therefore put a tremen‐ dous amount of pressure on the existing agricultural system so that food needs can be met from the same current resources like land, water etc In the process of increasing crop pro‐ duction, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, fertilizers and soil amendments are now being used in higher quantities than in the past These chemicals have mainly come into the picture since the introduction of synthetic insecticides in 1940, when organochlorine (OCl) insecticides were first used for pest management Before this introduction, most weeds, pests, insects and diseases were controlled using sustainable practices such as cultural, mechanical, and physical control strategies

/pdf/pesticides-environmental-impacts-and-management-strategies-59v0x0zo9d.pdf

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

Background Rodenticides are often included as part of an integrated pest management approach for managing pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) given that they are relatively quick and inexpensive to apply. Strychnine has historically been the most effective toxicant for pocket gophers, but its use is currently limited in the United States; alternative registered toxicants have not proven effective. Recent research with baits containing cholecalciferol plus anticoagulant toxicants proved effective against pocket gophers in a lab setting. Therefore, we established a field study to compare cholecalciferol plus anticoagulant combinations [0.03% cholecalciferol plus 0.005% diphacinone (C + D), 0.015% cholecalciferol plus 0.0025% brodifacoum (C + B1), 0.03% cholecalciferol plus 0.0025% brodifacoum (C + B2)] with strychnine (0.5%) for pocket gopher management. Results Strychnine treatments resulted in 100% efficacy after two treatment periods. Both C + D and C + B2 resulted in efficacy significantly greater than 70% after two treatment periods (83 and 75% respectively). Efficacy from C + B1 (85%) was not significantly greater than 70%, but did yield high overall efficacy as well. Conclusion Although strychnine remains the most effective rodenticide for pocket gopher control, the cholecalciferol plus anticoagulant baits tested would be a good alternative when strychnine is unavailable. C + D may be the best option given that it uses a first-generation anticoagulant as the synergist. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.

/pdf/novel-and-current-rodenticides-for-pocket-gopher-thomomys-as51shhizz.pdf

Novel and current rodenticides for pocket gopher Thomomys spp. management in vineyards: what works?

The pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) is one of the most damaging wildlife species in California, as well as other locations throughout the United States. Several techniques are used to manage pocket gophers, including trapping and rodenticides. Improved protocols to increase the efficacy of rodenticide baiting programs, and quantifiable information on the time required to become a proficient pocket gopher trapper, would assist individuals interested in developing an Integrated Pest Management program for pocket gophers. Therefore, I initiated a study to address the following objectives: 1) determine the number of days required to become a proficient pocket gopher trapper; and 2) determine the impact of a thorough training program on efficacy of a rodenticide baiting program for managing pocket gophers. I determined that novice trappers became proficient with only 3 days experience (94% of the efficiency obtained by an expert trapper). Capture rates for novice trappers also exhibited a dramatic increase in just 3 days, although rates were not as proportionally high (77% of expert trapper). Clearly, the time required to set traps and detect active burrows should continue to decrease as trappers gain more experience. Baiting trials indicated that individuals who received a through training program on bait application were 3.6 times more likely to attain greater efficacy from baiting programs than were individuals who received only limited training. Proper training, particularly on identifying active tunnel systems, clearly increased the efficacy of baiting programs. These results should increase the applicability of both trapping and rodenticide baiting in pocket gopher management programs. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

Determining and demonstrating the importance of training and experience for managing pocket gophers

Author(s): Kross, Sara M.; Baldwin, Roger A. | Abstract: While many raptor species consume rodent pests, the behaviors and habits of barn owls make them particularly suitable candidates for consideration as a viable pest control strategy. As a cavity-nesting species, barn owls will readily nest in man-made structures including nest boxes. Barn owls are also less territorial than many other raptor species and will tolerate other pairs nesting nearby if prey is abundant. Barn owls preferentially consume rodents including voles (Microtus spp.) and pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) in habitats where they occur, but will also switch to more abundant prey so they may be able to sustain populations even if preferred prey numbers fall. These life-history traits allow for people to inflate barn owl populations in target areas, and this has been a factor in the widespread popularity of encouraging barn owls to nest in agricultural areas to provide natural pest control of small nocturnal vertebrate pests. However, the ability of barn owls to control rodent pests has only been formally tested in Malaysian rice and palm oil agriculture, and whether barn owls are capable of controlling rodent pests to economically acceptable levels in areas such as California is as yet unknown. We extracted and combined data from field studies of barn owl nesting behavior and diet in California vineyards to predict that annually, a pair of nesting barn owls and their progeny will consume 97.85 kg of prey. We predicted that an average barn owl nest in a California vineyard will therefore consume 843 pocket gophers, 578 voles, and 1,540 other prey items, most of which are mice. At these values, a barn owl population density of one nest/10 ha may be able to offset the annual productivity of an average population of pocket gophers, but even the highest barn owl densities of one nest/2 ha would be unable to control pocket gopher populations at maximum densities and reproductive rates. While valuable for making initial predictions of the ability of owls to control small rodent pests, our prediction methods are crude, and accurately assessing the capability of barn owls to control rodent pests will require more field data and more sophisticated modeling techniques.

/pdf/gopherbusters-a-review-of-the-candidacy-of-barn-owls-as-the-4lijb8tcwy.pdf

Gopherbusters? A Review of the Candidacy of Barn Owls as the Ultimate Natural Pest Control Option

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2813&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

Guiding the management of an agricultural pest: Indexing abundance of California meadow voles in artichoke fields

Context. Pocket gophers (Geomyidae) cause extensive damage to many crops throughout western North America. A variety of methods are available to manage these populations, but data are often lacking on their efficacy and especially their cost effectiveness. Additionally, little peer-reviewed data are available that compare multiple methods simultaneously. Aims. We tested aluminum phosphide and pressurised exhaust using the Pressurised Exhaust Rodent Controller (PERC) as burrow fumigants, and compared them to trapping to determine which approach was most efficacious and cost effective. Methods. We assessed the efficacy of aluminum phosphide, the PERC machine, and trapping through the use of the open-hole monitoring method after single and multiple treatments over multiple years. We determined material and labour costs for each treatment type and amortised this cost over 1250 days of application to determine which treatment type was most cost effective. Key results. Aluminum phosphide had the shorte...

https://bioone.org/journals/Wildlife-Research/volume-43/issue-5/WR16037/Burrow-fumigation-versus-trapping-for-pocket-gopher-Thomomys-spp-management/10.1071/WR16037.pdf

Roger A. Baldwin

Papers

Novel and current rodenticides for pocket gopher Thomomys spp. management in vineyards: what works?

Determining and demonstrating the importance of training and experience for managing pocket gophers

Gopherbusters? A Review of the Candidacy of Barn Owls as the Ultimate Natural Pest Control Option

Guiding the management of an agricultural pest: Indexing abundance of California meadow voles in artichoke fields

Burrow fumigation versus trapping for pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) management: a comparison of efficacy and cost effectiveness