Classifications

• • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
  • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
  • A01M—CATCHING, TRAPPING OR SCARING OF ANIMALS; APPARATUS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF NOXIOUS ANIMALS OR NOXIOUS PLANTS
  • A01M29/00—Scaring or repelling devices, e.g. bird-scaring apparatus
  • A01M29/12—Scaring or repelling devices, e.g. bird-scaring apparatus using odoriferous substances, e.g. aromas, pheromones or chemical agents
• • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
  • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
  • A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
  • A01N35/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing organic compounds containing a carbon atom having two bonds to hetero atoms with at the most one bond to halogen, e.g. aldehyde radical
  • A01N35/06—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing organic compounds containing a carbon atom having two bonds to hetero atoms with at the most one bond to halogen, e.g. aldehyde radical containing keto or thioketo groups as part of a ring, e.g. cyclohexanone, quinone; Derivatives thereof, e.g. ketals

Definitions

• the present invention relates to an animal repellent mixture. More specifically it relates to a bird repellent mixture.
• Poisonous baits are widely used in New Zealand to kill introduced mammalian pests. Effective pest control operations have conservation benefits, including recovery of bird populations such as the North Island robin Petroica australis longipes (Powlesland et al., 1999) and North Island kokako Callaeas cinera (tnnes et al. 1999). It is generally assumed that the benefits of pest control outweigh the risks to non-target species (Spurr, 1991).
• Poison-based possum control causes some mortality of non-target species native bird species (Spurr, 2000). Ground feeding birds, such as the robin, are particularly vulnerable to poisoning (Brown, 1997; Powlesland et al. 1999; Empson and Miskelly, 1999). While there is currently no evidence of long-term adverse impacts of poisoning on populations of non-target species that have been adequately monitored, non-target mortality is a significant factor reducing the acceptability of pest poisoning operations to the public (Fitzgerald et al.2000). Further, the possibility remains that there may be adverse effects on species that have not yet been assessed. By reducing non- target bird mortality during pest control, populations may recover more quickly and successfully and pest control practices may be considered to be more ethically sound.
• bait acceptability to birds include the use of less preferred bait types (e.g. gel; Morgan, 1999), less preferred bait colours (e.g. blue; Hartley et al, 1999,2000), or bird repellent compounds (e.g. cinnamamide; Spurr and Porter, 1998).
• less preferred bait types e.g. gel; Morgan, 1999
• less preferred bait colours e.g. blue; Hartley et al, 1999,2000
• bird repellent compounds e.g. cinnamamide; Spurr and Porter, 1998.
• gel baits appear to be unattractive to native birds (Morgan, 1999), to date they have not been used to control pests over the very large areas that can be effectively controlled with aerially sown baits.
• some bait types e.g. cereal
• Blue dye is less attractive to native birds than green (Hartley et al 1999,2000), and is accepted by pests (Day and Matthews, 1999), but is not a long lasting deterrent.
• Chemical repellents that have been tested to date are either too costly or have deleterious effects on bait consumption by target pests (e.g. cinnamamide; Spurr and Porter, 1998; Spurr et al 2001).
• Repellents may be classified as either primary or secondary (Rogers, 1978).
• Primary repellents invoke instantaneous rejection responses through sight, taste, smell and/or irritation and do not require learning to be effective (Clark, 1998). They are often more benign, and are less effective at promoting long-lasting avoidance responses than secondary repellent (Domjan, 1998).
• Secondary repellents act via an illness-induced learned avoidance of the food. The degree of avoidance depends on the strength of the unpleasant experience. However, potent secondary repellents often have undesirable physiological and metabolic consequences (Sayre and Clark, 2001), and it may not be desirable to expose valued native species to such effects. Combinations of repellent stimuli can be more effective for deterring birds than single repellents.
• methiocarb (a secondary repellent) is more effective when paired with either another chemical or a visual cue (e.g. Mason and Reidinger, 1983). Also, secondary repellents are effective at much lower concentrations when paired with aversive primary repellents, such as tastes, odours or colours (Avery and Nel s, 1990; Avery and Mason, 1997; Nelms and Avery, 1997).
• d-Pulegone (CAS No. 89-82-7) is a volatile compound (a type of peppermint) and acts as a primary repellent for birds via both volatile cues (odour) and by direct contact (taste) (Wager-Page and Mason, 1996). It has been shown to repel several bird species at a 1% w/w concentration, including European starlings Stumus vulgaris (Mason, 1990) and northern bob whites Colinus virginianus (Mastrota and Mench, 1995). As d-pulegone repels birds without them having to ingest the food, the compound may be ideal for prevention of intake of poisonous baits. However, primary repellents often do not promote total or long lasting avoidance responses when they are used alone (Domjan, 1998). Wild brushtail possums and rats readily take carrot baits containing d-pulegone (Day et al, 2000).
• US patent no. 5,877,223 relates to the use of d-pulegone as a dog repellent. There is no mention in the '223 patent of using d-pulegone as a bird repellent.
• Anthraquinone is a commercially available compound (CAS No. 84-65-1). This compound has been recognised as an effective avian feeding deterrent since the 1950's(Neff andMeanley, 1957; GB1098687 and US 3,941,887).
• the repellent properties of anthraquinone have been rigorously evaluated with several bird species over recent years (e.g. Avery et al. 1998, 2001).
• Anthraquinone operates via conditioned taste aversion. Birds must taste anthraquinone-treated food, experience the post-ingestional effects, and thereby learn to avoid the treated food (Avery et al 1997). Baits treated with anthraquinone are readily eaten by possums, and wild rodents readily take anthraquinone treated baits from bait stations (Day et al. 2000).
• a bird repellent composition containing one of the following combinations: anthraquinone and a visual cue; anthraquinone and d-pulegone; anthraquinone, a visual cue and d-pulegone; characterised in that the combination produces a synergistic effect of repellence to birds.
• the visual cue used is novel to the bird to be repelled.
• the visual cue is a blue or green dye with a lowered relative reflective wavelength in the range from 500 to 700 nm. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that other visual cues are also possible.
• the bird repellent composition is in a form selected from the group consisting of: a liquid spray; a liquid dip; a gel; a paste; a solid powder. It will be appreciated that other forms of application are also possible e.g. an aerosol.
• the bird repellent composition as described above is applied to an environment or object by means selected from the group consisting of: dipping; spraying; dusting; and combinations thereof. It will be appreciated that a variety of other application methods are possible however the above means are simple, cost effective and easy to use.
• the bird repellent composition as described above is applied to any one of the group consisting of: the ground; a discrete area of ground; a plant; a portion of a plant; fruit; vegetable matter; a nut or nuts; bait and combinations thereof.
• composition as described above is applied to any one of the group consisting of: ground in an orchard; ground in a vineyard; a grapevine; a fruit tree; fruit; vegetable matter; grapes; plant support structures; and combinations thereof.
• Uses envisaged include application to the plant, fruit or ground of an orchard such as an apricot orchard.
• An alternative use is for vineyard applications where the composition is applied to the grapes, vines, support structures or ground of a vineyard to repel birds from ripening grapes.
• the bird repellent composition remains effective as a bird repellent for a duration of at least 8 days.
• the length of time that the repellent remains effective will however depend on the environment into which it is to be applied. By way of example, for wet and/or humid environments, the repellent will need to be reapplied more frequently than dry environments.
• the repellent of the present invention has a combination of both primary and secondary repellence. It has been found by the applicant that the combination of a visual cue and/or olfactory stimulant primary repellents (novel colour (e.g. blue or green dye) and d-pulegone), and a secondary repellent compound (anthraquinone), give a synergistic effect beyond that expected e.g. more effective than, for example, the repellence observed from using either repellent alone.
• a visual cue and/or olfactory stimulant primary repellents novel colour (e.g. blue or green dye) and d-pulegone
• a secondary repellent compound anthraquinone
• composition of the present invention can be further combined with one or more excipients and/or carrier substances.
• Further substances may include water, oils such as peanut oil and pennyroyal oil and other known substances to give further properties such as water resistance characteristics and longer-term stability.
• the bird repellent composition substantially as described above has an anthraquinone concentration from 0.001% to 5% by weight. It has been found by the applicant that such concentrations of anthraquinone produce the desired repellence effect. Adding more anthraquinone is also possible depending on the environment and/or application for which the repellent composition is used. For example, wet environments may require more anthraquinone and ground spray applications can be stronger as other pest repellence may not be of concern whereas in bait applications, the bait must still be attractive to the pest and hence is a consideration. It will be appreciated that lower concentrations are useful to reduce the cost of the repellent composition and need only be included until the desired effect is achieved.
• the d-pulegone concentration is from 0.001 % to 2% by weight.
• concentrations of d- pulegone produce the desired repellence effect. Adding more d-pulegone is also possible for specific environments and/or applications. It will also be appreciated that lower concentrations are useful to reduce the cost of the repellent composition and need only be included until the desired effect is achieved.
• a bait including a bird repellent composition substantially as described above.
• the bird repellent composition is applied to the bait surface.
• composition of the present invention has been found to be particularly successful in bait applications. Birds tend to eat poisonous baits used in animal eradication projects for example against possums and rats in New Zealand forests. By repelling birds from the bait, the process of using such baits may become more acceptable to at least the public as fewer non-target species (birds) will be harmed.
• Preferred bait base material is selected from group consisting of: a cereal; a carrot; a dough. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the bait base material is however primarily dependent on the pest to be attracted, so other bait materials may be used with the repellents. Certain pests prefer certain base materials. It is the applicants finding however that the repellent composition of the present invention does not cause any effects (positive or negative) on the attractiveness / palatability of the bait to the pest.
• the pests on which the bait of the present invention is used are animals including possums and rats.
• Such pests cause significant damage to native flora and fauna at least in New Zealand and hence a number of bait programmes exist to catch and / or kill possum and/or rat populations.
• the bait and bird repellent combination is particularly advantageous to use as it avoids non-target species (birds) being poisoned by the bait or hurt in animal traps.
• a method of repelling birds from an environment or object including the steps of selecting the environment to which the repellent is to be applied, and applying the repellent substantially as described above to the environment or object.
• a method of repelling birds from bait including the step of applying a bird repellent composition substantially as described above to the bait.
• a bird repellent composition substantially as described above to repel birds from an environment or object, wherein the repellent is applied to the environment or object from which the birds are to be repelled.
• a bird repellent composition which is synergistic in nature to more effectively repel birds.
• the repellent can be applied as a spray or dip or other application method to an environment or object such as a plant or the ground around a plant, or on pest baits.
• the repellent composition is useful in horticultural applications whereby birds can be successfully repelled from, for example ripening fruit.
• bait applications the birds are repelled from potentially toxic baits and/or traps that in themselves can harm the bird.
• Figure 1 Shows a possum-specific bait station used in accordance with the present invention as described in Example 1 and 2;
• Figure 2 Shows a rat-specific bait station used in accordance with the present invention as described in Example 1 and 2;
• Figure 3 Shows the peck frequency of standard versus repellent containing bait as described in Example 4;
• Figure 4 Shows the peck frequency of standard versus repellent containing bait as described in Example 5;
• Figure 5 Shows the peck frequency of standard versus repellent containing bait as described in Example 6;
• Figure 6 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 7;
• Figure 7 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 7;
• Figure 8 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 7;
• Figure 9 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 8.
• Figure 10 Shows the spectral reflectance profiles of the samples as described in Example
• Figure 11 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 8.
• Figure 12 Shows the spectral reflectance profiles of the samples as described in Example 8, Experiment 2;
• Figure 13 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 9;
• Figure 14 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 9;
• Figure 15 Shows the relatively repellence of different compositions on birds as described in Example 10.
• the possum-specific bait station ( Figure 1) is mounted on an elevated wire stake 4 with bait 2 attached in a perforated bag 1 at top of wire 4.
• a plastic disc 3 is used to stop rodents (not shown) climbing wire 4 has plasticine (not shown) on it to record animal activity.
• the rat-specific bait station ( Figure 2) is an approximately 60mm diameter tube 6 with bait 2 placed in the centre and tube 6 is pinned to ground with holding stake 4.
• Plasticine 5 is added at either end of the tube 6 to record animal activity.
• the bait stations ( Figures 1 and 2) enable dete ⁇ nination of the response of possums or rats to bait 2.
• Plasticine 5 is used to record the presence (e.g. footprints, claw marks, bite marks) and species of animal present at the bait station.
• Example 1 The palatability of varying baits and varying bird repellent compounds on possums and rats
• neem a known repellent
• lime a known repellent
• anthraquinone and d-pulegone compounds of the present invention
• Treatments are applied to the cereal and carrot bait surface at a rate of 10% of total bait weight.
• the treatments are applied to the paste bait by mixing the solution through the bait, again at a rate of 10% of total bait weight.
• Cinnamamide is used as a positive control, as cinnamamide is a known bird repellent.
• Salt baits are used as a negative control, as food containing high salt concentrations is known to be unpalatable to possums.
• the treatments are placed on the bait stations as described above and possum and rat activity measured.
• Table 1 Proportion of bait stations from each bait type left untouched or with bait eaten when encountered at first and subsequent exposures by wild possums.
• Table 2 Proportion of bait stations from each bait treatment left untouched or with bait eaten when encountered at first and subsequent exposures by wild possums.
• Table 3 Proportion of bait stations from each bait type left untouched, or eaten when encountered at first and subsequent exposures by wild rats.
• Table 4 Proportion of bait stations from each bait treatment left untouched, or eaten when encountered at first and subsequent exposures by wild rats.
• Example 2 The palatability of different combinations of bird repellent compounds to wild possums and rats
• Table 5 Proportion of bait stations from each bait treatment left untouched or eaten when encountered at first and subsequent exposures by wild possums.
• Table 6 Proportion of bait stations from each bait treatment left untouched, or eaten when encountered at first and subsequent exposures by wild rats.
• Example 3 The kill effect of rat baits treated with bird repellent compounds
• rats are offered toxic carrot baits containing 0.15% sodium monoflouroacetate (the toxin) and combinations of repellents (or a control bait).
• the repellents used on the toxin containing baits were as follows:
• Control baits - green dye and cinnamon oil non repellent standard baits used for pest control in NZ
• the repellent compounds of the invention do not impact on the kill effects of repellent treated bait to the pest. Tin The repellence effect from bait treated with repellent compounds on North Island robins
• Example 4 The repellence effect on North Island robins from bait treated with blue dye, anthraquinone and combinations of these compounds compared to standard repellent compounds
• Robins were trained to approach observers within their territory and were offered repellent- treated (blue colour + anthraquinone) and standard (green colour + cinnamon oil, as used for pest control operations in New Zealand) dough baits over four consecutive days on a test arena on a forest floor.
• Blue dye is used as the novel visual cue as this is known to have the least repellent effect from prior art experiments. By proving an effect with blue dye, it can be assumed that similar deterrent effects can also be attained using visual cues that are known to have a greater repellent effect on birds.
• Table 8 Adjusted mean number of pecks ( ⁇ SE) by robins directed at standard or repellent bait, summarised by season and robin class.
• Table 9 Total number of standard and repellent baits removed from the test arena by robins during winter and summer choice tests and the winter no-choice test.
• Table 10 Total number of standard and repellent baits that were eaten, dropped or taken out of sight (unknown result) by robins when they removed baits from the test arena.
• Example 5 The repellence effect on North Island robins from bait treated with d- pulegone and anthraquinone compounds compared to standard repellent compounds
• Robins removed standard baits from the arena more frequently than they removed repellent baits (Table 11) and they tended to eat standard baits when they removed them. In contrast, they did not eat repellent treated baits when they removed them from the arena (Table 11).
• Table 11 Number of baits removed from the test arena by robins during all exposures to baits and fate of the baits when removed (eaten, dropped or unknown). In summary it was found that bait treated with d-pulegone and anthraquinone was significantly less preferred than standard repellent treatment. In addition, where bait was removed from the test arena, bait treated with d-pulegone and anthraquinone was less likely to be subsequently eaten compared to standard treatments which were often eaten.
• Example 6 The influence of application method is determined
• Example 5 The same method was used as in Example 5, except the treatments were applied to the bait by dipping into treatment solutions rather than spraying in Example 5.
• Robins removed standard baits from the arena more frequently than they removed repellent baits (Table 12). They also tended to eat standard baits when they removed them. Robins did not eat repellent treated baits when removed from the arena (Table 12).
• Table 12 Number of baits removed from the test arena by robins during all exposures to baits and fate of the baits when removed (eaten, dron ⁇ ed or unknown").
• bait treated with d-pulegone and anthraquinone was significantly less preferred than standard repellent treatment and were also less likely to be subsequently eaten compared to standard treatments.
• no influences are noted between different methods of application i.e. spraying on the repellent compounds versus dipping.
• Example 7 Repellence effect on sparrows from differing levels of anthraquinone, d- pulegone, blue dye and combinations of these compounds applied to wheat.
• Example 8 Repellence effect on sparrows from differing levels of anthraquinone compound in combination with other compounds when applied to wheat.
• Figure 9 shows the mean ( ⁇ SED) daily percentage of wheat eaten over the 4-day test periods in Experiment 1 by house sparrows offered a choice between plain wheat, anthraquinone treated wheat and two of the other wheat treatments: anthraquinone and cinnamon oil (novel odour), anthraquinone and blue dye (novel colour), anthraquinone and 0.5% wt d-pulegone, or anthraquinone and 2% wt d-pulegone.
• Figure 10 shows the mean ( ⁇ SED) daily percentage of wheat eaten over the 8-day test period in Experiment 2 by house sparrows offered a choice between plain wheat and three types of treated wheat: green dye, blue dye or anthraquinone and blue dye in combination.
• green dyed wheat was consumed more readily (47.5 %) than blue dyed wheat (35.3 %) or anthraquinone and blue dyed wheat (14.7%).
• Example 9 Repellence effect on sparrows from differmg concentrations of anthraquinone compound in combination with blue dye and/or d-pulegone when applied to wheat.
• blue dye and anthraquinone is found to be less effective at 0.75% wt concentration than at an anthraquinone concentration of 2% wt for house sparrows, although both concentrations have a repellent effect.
• Example 10 Repellence effect on sparrows from differing concentrations of anthraquinone compound in combination with blue dye are further mixed with known excipients to determine if any unexpected effects found.
• Example 8 The same methodology as Example 8 is used except further excipients are used including peanut oil (at 1 % wt and 0.1 % wt concentration) and pennyroyal oil (0.5 % wt concentration).
• Examples 1 and 2 show that there is no loss in palatability to pests such as possums and rats, an important factor when using the repellent in a toxic pest control bait.
• Spurr, E.B. 2000. Impacts of possum control on non-target species. In: Montague, T.L. (Ed.), The Brushtail Possum: Biology, Impact, and Management of an Introduced Marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press, Wales, pp. 175 186. Spurr, E.B., Porter, R.E.R., 1998. Cinnamamide as a bird repellent for baits used in mammalian pest control. In: Proceedings of the 11 th Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp. 295 299.

Landscapes

• Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
• General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
• Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
• Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
• Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
• Environmental Sciences (AREA)
• Zoology (AREA)
• Dentistry (AREA)
• Agronomy & Crop Science (AREA)
• Plant Pathology (AREA)
• Toxicology (AREA)
• Birds (AREA)
• Insects & Arthropods (AREA)
• Pest Control & Pesticides (AREA)
• Agricultural Chemicals And Associated Chemicals (AREA)

Applications Claiming Priority (3)

Publications (1)

Family

ID=29997600

Family Applications (1)

Country Status (5)

Families Citing this family (7)

Family Cites Families (7)

• 2002
  • 2002-06-20 NZ NZ51968502A patent/NZ519685A/en unknown
• 2003
  • 2003-06-20 WO PCT/NZ2003/000127 patent/WO2004000014A1/en not_active Ceased
  • 2003-06-20 CA CA002489992A patent/CA2489992A1/en not_active Abandoned
  • 2003-06-20 EP EP03733670A patent/EP1524899A1/de not_active Withdrawn
  • 2003-06-20 AU AU2003238757A patent/AU2003238757A1/en not_active Abandoned

Non-Patent Citations (1)

Also Published As

Similar Documents

Legal Events