THE IMPACT OF WOOD TYPE, SEASON, AND REPELLENT USE ON NORTH AMERICAN PORCUPINE DAMAGE

Andie S. Graham, Tolley Roen Keely
{"title":"THE IMPACT OF WOOD TYPE, SEASON, AND REPELLENT USE ON NORTH AMERICAN PORCUPINE DAMAGE","authors":"Andie S. Graham, Tolley Roen Keely","doi":"10.5325/jpennacadscie.86.1.0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We evaluated the impact of wood type, season, and repellent use on North American Porcupine damage to forty installed posts along Rails-to-Trails property in Brockway, Pennsylvania, USA. Treatments were (1) pressure-treated Pine posts with Ro-Pel (a liquid repellent), (2) pressure-treated Pine posts without Ro-Pel, (3) Black Locust posts with Ro-Pel, and (4) Black Locust posts without Ro-Pel. We assessed new damage to posts 1 – 4 times per month from June 2007 – January 2009. All damage was to Pine posts (x− = 12.9 cm2, SE = 3.70 cm2) and no damage was observed to Black Locust posts. Observed damage to untreated posts (x− = 9.93 cm2, SE = 2.10 cm2) was 3.3 times greater than damage to posts treated with Ro-Pel (x− = 2.99 cm2, SE = 2.86 cm2). Total monthly damage to Pine posts was greatest in August (x− = 2.31 cm2, SE = 1.51 cm2) and there was no observed damage in February, October, and November. When examining damage by season, damage to Pine posts was 54 times greater in summer (June – August; x− = 1.62 cm2, SE = 0.567 cm2) than in fall (September – November; x− = 0.030 cm2, SE = 0.030 cm2). We suspect the seasonality observed may be related to salt loss and salt-seeking behavior. We suggest that landowners and managers who anticipate Porcupine damage consider using alternatives to pressure-treated Pine for their wooden structures. In addition, repellent applications could be timed to correspond with the peak of damage to reduce cost.","PeriodicalId":85037,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jpennacadscie.86.1.0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We evaluated the impact of wood type, season, and repellent use on North American Porcupine damage to forty installed posts along Rails-to-Trails property in Brockway, Pennsylvania, USA. Treatments were (1) pressure-treated Pine posts with Ro-Pel (a liquid repellent), (2) pressure-treated Pine posts without Ro-Pel, (3) Black Locust posts with Ro-Pel, and (4) Black Locust posts without Ro-Pel. We assessed new damage to posts 1 – 4 times per month from June 2007 – January 2009. All damage was to Pine posts (x− = 12.9 cm2, SE = 3.70 cm2) and no damage was observed to Black Locust posts. Observed damage to untreated posts (x− = 9.93 cm2, SE = 2.10 cm2) was 3.3 times greater than damage to posts treated with Ro-Pel (x− = 2.99 cm2, SE = 2.86 cm2). Total monthly damage to Pine posts was greatest in August (x− = 2.31 cm2, SE = 1.51 cm2) and there was no observed damage in February, October, and November. When examining damage by season, damage to Pine posts was 54 times greater in summer (June – August; x− = 1.62 cm2, SE = 0.567 cm2) than in fall (September – November; x− = 0.030 cm2, SE = 0.030 cm2). We suspect the seasonality observed may be related to salt loss and salt-seeking behavior. We suggest that landowners and managers who anticipate Porcupine damage consider using alternatives to pressure-treated Pine for their wooden structures. In addition, repellent applications could be timed to correspond with the peak of damage to reduce cost.
木材类型、季节和驱虫剂使用对北美豪猪伤害的影响
我们评估了木材类型、季节和驱蚊剂使用对北美豪猪对美国宾夕法尼亚州Brockway铁路到小径沿线40根安装的柱子造成的损害的影响。处理方法为(1)用Ro-Pel(一种液体驱蚊剂)对松木进行压力处理,(2)不使用Ro-Pel对松木进行压力处理,(3)使用Ro-Pel对刺槐进行处理,(4)不使用Ro-Pel对刺槐进行处理。从2007年6月至2009年1月,我们每月评估1 - 4次新损失。所有损伤均发生在松木桩(x−= 12.9 cm2, SE = 3.70 cm2),刺槐桩未见损伤。观察到未经处理的岗哨损伤(x−= 9.93 cm2, SE = 2.10 cm2)是Ro-Pel处理岗哨损伤(x−= 2.99 cm2, SE = 2.86 cm2)的3.3倍。8月杉木月损最大(x−= 2.31 cm2, SE = 1.51 cm2), 2月、10月和11月均未见杉木月损。按季节分析,夏季(6 - 8月)对松树桩的损害是夏季的54倍;x−= 1.62 cm2, SE = 0.567 cm2)比秋季(9 - 11月;x−= 0.030 cm2, SE = 0.030 cm2)。我们怀疑观察到的季节性可能与盐损失和寻找盐的行为有关。我们建议预计豪猪损害的土地所有者和管理者考虑使用压力处理松的替代品来建造木结构。此外,驱避剂的施用时间可与危害高峰相对应,以降低成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信