Evaluation of foliar sprays to reduce crop damage by Canada geese
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks annually spends >$500,000 managing crop damage caused by grazing Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Foliar applications of a chemical feeding deterrent could provide an effective alternative to the methods currently being used to reduce damage. In 20...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Utah State University
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.26077/n8y6-1h96 https://doaj.org/article/02926c7a985d4b5583b318994ff4322c |
| Summary: | South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks annually spends >$500,000 managing crop damage caused by grazing Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Foliar applications of a chemical feeding deterrent could provide an effective alternative to the methods currently being used to reduce damage. In 2011 and 2012, we evaluated Rejex-It Migrate Turfguard®, Bird Shield®, Avian Control®, and Avipel® as grazing deterrents. We used a ground sprayer to apply the treatments every 7 days to plots in soybean fields in Day County, South Dakota. We monitored activity in the plots using time-lapse photography. We began treating the plots after geese had begun using them (late June through mid- July). Damage was estimated after geese had abandoned the plots (August). The methyl anthranilate products (Rejex-It, Bird Shield, and Avian Control) were ineffective at reducing crop damage. Damage was 100% on all plots treated with these products. Use of plots significantly increased (P < 0.02) between the pretreatment and postreatment periods for Rejex-It (180 minutes/day and 313 minutes/day) and Bird Shield (200 minutes/day and 299 minutes/day); whereas, use was similar (P = 0.99) between plots treated with Avian Control (111 minutes/day) and reference plots (104 minutes/day). Less time was spent on plots treated with the anthraquinone-based product, Avipel (44 minutes/day) than on reference plots (132 minutes/day; P < 0.01). Additionally, soybean damage was less on Avipel-treated plots than on reference plots (P < 0.01). We recommend more research on Avipel to assess rates and timing of application to make this product efficacious and economical in the field. |
|---|