Study

Influence of alternative foods on vole population and damage in apple orchards

  • Published source details Sullivan T.P. & Sullivan D.S. (1988) Influence of alternative foods on vole population and damage in apple orchards. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16, 170-175

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    A randomized, controlled study in 1983–1984 at an orchard in British Columbia, Canada (Sullivan & Sullivan 1988) found that diversionary feeding with treated plywood sticks did not reduce damage by voles Microtus spp. to spartan apple Malus domestica trees. The percentage of apple trees damaged by voles did not differ significantly in orchard blocks with treated plywood sticks (32%) or those without sticks (36%). Trees with treated plywood sticks around them had more bark and tissues removed by voles (average 20–27 cm2/tree) than trees without sticks (5 cm2/tree), although the difference was not tested for statistical significance. In November 1983, three treatments (plywood sticks treated with sucrose, soybean oil or sorbitol) were randomly assigned to each of three orchard blocks of 100 spartan apple trees (15 and 30 years old). Three plywood sticks (5 x 37.5 cm, 9 mm thick kiln-dried Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii) were placed in a triangle around each tree, 1–2 cm from the base. One control orchard block had no plywood sticks. The area of bark and vascular tissues removed by voles was measured on each of the 400 trees in March 1984.

  2. Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    A randomized, controlled study in 1984–1985 at a newly planted orchard in British Columbia, Canada (Sullivan & Sullivan 1988) found that diversionary feeding with bark-mulch logs treated with soybean oil reduced damage by montane voles Microtus montanus to crabapple Malus spp. trees, but logs treated with apple or apple and soybean oil did not. Orchard blocks with logs treated with soybean oil had a lower percentage of trees damaged by voles (25%) and trees with stem or root girdling (4%) than those without logs (63% damaged; 25% girdling). The difference was not significant between orchards with logs treated with apple (46% damaged; 17% with girdling) or apple and soybean oil (58% damaged; 33% with girdling) and those without logs. In November 1984, logs made from sifted Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii bark mulch mixed with wax and one of three treatments (soybean oil, apple powder or apple powder and soybean oil mixed together) were randomly assigned to each of three orchard blocks of 24 one year old crabapple trees. Three logs were placed around each tree, 8–10 cm from the base. Additional logs were added as required in December 1984–February 1985. One control orchard block had no logs. Numbers of trees with vole damage and stem or root girdling in each of the four orchard blocks were recorded in March 1985.

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust