You are here:
Landscape features influencing residential rodent control and animal movement in two urban areas of California
Citation:
MORZILLO, A. T., S. D. Riley, B. Cypher, AND D. A. Kamradt. Landscape features influencing residential rodent control and animal movement in two urban areas of California. Presented at Urban Wildlife Management Conference, Amherst, LA, June 21 - 24, 2009.
Impact/Purpose:
Residential “pest” control of both native (e.g., gophers, rabbits) and exotic (e.g., black and Norway rats, house mice) species may impact populations of non-target species inadvertently.
Description:
Residential “pest” control of both native (e.g., gophers, rabbits) and exotic (e.g., black and Norway rats, house mice) species may impact populations of non-target species inadvertently. We evaluated relationships among animal movement, rodent control, and landscape features in two urban locations in California. Southwestern Bakersfield consists of high- and medium-density development and is home to an urban population of San Joaquin kit foxes. Southeastern Ventura County (including part of western Los Angeles County; hereafter SMMNRA) contains low-and medium-density development interspersed with natural areas and is home to several large carnivores (bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions). We collected rodent control data via a survey of local residents and compared results to animal movement data from radio-tracking studies. Across both areas, exotic species were the most targeted for control; controlling for native species occurred at a greater rate among respondents in SMMNRA. In Bakersfield, kit foxes used altered open areas (sumps, golf courses, schoolyards) for denning and foraging, commercial areas for foraging, and occasionally used residential areas. Rodent control did not vary with distance from open space. In SMMNRA, bobcats, coyotes, and mountain lions used natural areas most intensively; bobcats and coyotes used altered open and low-density residential areas extensively and high-density residential and commercial areas occasionally. Rodent control was widespread, but more common in near natural areas. In both locations, rodent control was more prevalent among relatively low density development. Areas of overlap between wildlife use and rodent control increases potential for adverse impacts to wildlife and may be important target locations for mitigation measures.