NZ728465A - Ultraviolet strategy for avian repellency - Google Patents
Ultraviolet strategy for avian repellency Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- NZ728465A NZ728465A NZ728465A NZ72846514A NZ728465A NZ 728465 A NZ728465 A NZ 728465A NZ 728465 A NZ728465 A NZ 728465A NZ 72846514 A NZ72846514 A NZ 72846514A NZ 728465 A NZ728465 A NZ 728465A
- Authority
- NZ
- New Zealand
- Prior art keywords
- birds
- treatment
- anthraquinone
- repellent
- amount
- Prior art date
Links
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
- A01M29/06—Scaring or repelling devices, e.g. bird-scaring apparatus using visual means, e.g. scarecrows, moving elements, specific shapes, patterns or the like
- A01M29/08—Scaring or repelling devices, e.g. bird-scaring apparatus using visual means, e.g. scarecrows, moving elements, specific shapes, patterns or the like using reflection, colours or films with specific transparency or reflectivity
-
- 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
Landscapes
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Environmental Sciences (AREA)
- Zoology (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Pest Control & Pesticides (AREA)
- Insects & Arthropods (AREA)
- Birds (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Toxicology (AREA)
- Agronomy & Crop Science (AREA)
- Plant Pathology (AREA)
- Dentistry (AREA)
- Agricultural Chemicals And Associated Chemicals (AREA)
- Catching Or Destruction (AREA)
Abstract
By using visual cue agents that exhibit spectral characteristics sufficiently similar to a previously-applied repellent treatment, the amount of the repellent agents used in subsequent or repeat applications may be significantly reduced while still effectively repelling birds. The method for repelling birds from a target includes the application of a first treatment of a bird repellent agent to the target in an amount effective to repel the birds of interest. Subsequently, one or more additional treatment (s) is/are applied to the target including a visual cue agent that exhibits an ultraviolet absorbance spectrum or color which is sufficiently similar to the previously-applied repellent treatment. In these subsequent applications, the bird repellent agent may be applied at a significantly lower amount than the first treatment.
Description
Ultraviolet Strategy for Avian Repellency
Cross-Reference to Related Application
This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C.
1.19(e) of United States provisional number 62/021,393, filed
July 7, 2014, the contents of each of which are incorporated by
reference herein.
Background of the Invention
Field of the Invention
The invention relates to compositions and methods for
repelling wild birds from target foods or places.
Description of the Prior Art
Several bird species cause monetary losses to
agricultural production throughout the United States. For
example, red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), common
grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and brown-headed cowbirds
(Molothrus ater) caused approximately US$13.4 million of damage
to United States rice production in 2001 (Cummings et al. 2005,
Economic impacts of blackbird damage to the rice industry.
Wildlife Damage Management Conference. 11:317-322). Significant
economic losses due to birds are also incurred in a number of
other crops, including, but not limited to corn, fruit, grains,
grasses, legumes, lettuce, millet, oats, rice, row crops,
sorghum, sunflower, tree nuts, turf, vegetables, and wheat.
Efforts to manage damages to rice and other crops have included
the use of a variety of repellents and other nonlethal
management alternatives (Werner et al. 2005, Evaluation of Bird
Shield™ as a blackbird repellent in ripening rice and sunflower
fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33: 251-257). For example,
chemical repellents can be used as seed treatments to reduce
bird impacts to newly planted crops or as aerial applications to
reduce bird consumption of ripening crops.
Methyl and dimethyl anthranilate (MA and DMA,
respectively) are ester derivatives of anthranilic acid (also
known as orthoamino-benzoic acid). MA, DMA and other derivatives
of anthranilic acid as well as esters of phenylacetic acid, are
known to be bird aversion agents with preferred embodiments as
feed additives to deter feed loss (U.S. patent nos. 2,967,128
and 4,790,990), and as an anti-grazing compound for geese and
swans (Mason, J. R. et al., "Anthranilate Repellency to
Starlings: Chemical Correlates and Sensory Perception", JOURNAL
OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 53:55-64 (1989)). Cinnamamide has also
been shown to be a bird aversion agent (Crocker & Perry, PLANT
CHEMISTRY AND BIRD REPELLENTS, 132: 300-308 (1990)) .
U.S. patent no. 2,967,128 discloses the incorporation of
MA and other ester derivatives of anthranilic acid as bird
aversion agents into feed or pesticide additives, or into
liquids to be sprayed on material. U.S. patent no. 4,790,990
teaches that the aversion agent can be at least partially
trapped in a solid vehicle to improve its persistency. The solid
vehicle can be a modified starch, oil or polymer which
microencapsulates the aversion agent.
Schafer et al. (1983, The acute oral toxicity,
repellency, and hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more
species of wild and domestic birds. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. 12:355-382) identified caffeine as
a potential avian repellent with relatively low toxicity (LD50 =
316 mg/kg for European starlings [Sturnus vulgaris]). Avery and
Cummings (2003, Chemical repellents for reducing crop damage by
blackbirds. Pages 41-48 in Linz G. M. Proceedings of the
management of North American blackbirds symposium. The Wildlife
Society Ninth Annual Conference, 27 September 2002, Bismarck,
North Dakota, USA) found that 2,500 ppm caffeine reduced rice
consumption by 76% among male red-winged blackbirds in
captivity. Blackbirds consumed <10% of rice seeds treated with
,000 ppm caffeine and >80% of untreated rice seeds under field
conditions in southwestern Louisiana, USA (Avery et al. 2005,
Caffeine for reducing bird damage to newly seeded rice. Crop
Protection. 24: 651-657).
To extend the effectiveness of some repellents, repellent
agents have been combined with visual cues or colors. These
visual cues or colors serve as preingestive warnings to birds.
Birds readily learn to associate these visual cues with
unpleasant feeding experiences [Mason, Direct and observational
avoidance learning by red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius
phoeniceus): the importance of complex visual stimuli. In: T.
Zentall and B.G. Galef, Editors, Social Learning: A
Biopsychological Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
(1988), pp. 99-115].
While tastes are likely the most potent conditional
stimuli in the process of mammalian food consumption [Garcia,
Food for Tolman: cognition and cathexis in concert. In: T.
Archer and L. Nilsson, Editors, Aversion, avoidance and anxiety,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1989), pp. 45-85], food preference among
bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is affected by the color of
food, and visual stimuli can actually overshadow salient tastes
upon conditioning illness-induced aversions [Wilcoxon et al.
1971, Illness-induced aversions in rat and quail: relative
salience of visual and gustatory cues, Science, 171:826-828].
Food aversions can be reliably conditioned in red-winged
blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) using toxic gavage (methiocarb
and lithium chloride) paired with colored oats [Mason and
Reidinger, 1983, Importance of color for methiocarb- induced
food aversions in red-winged blackbirds, J Wildl Manage, 47:383-
393]: oats colored differently from the color paired with LiCl
were preferred through 4 weeks of post- treatment testing.
Furthermore, conspecifics that observed aversive conditioning
events similarly formed aversions to colors paired with
toxicosis, even though they did not ingest the toxin themselves
[Mason et al. 1984, Comparative assessment of food references
and aversions acquired by blackbirds via observational learning,
Auk, 101:796-803]. Similarly, quelea (Quelea quelea) [Elmahdi et
al. 1985, Calcium carbonate enhancement of methiocarb repellency
for quelea, Trop Pest Manage, 31:67-72] and eared doves (Zenaida
auriculata) [Rodriguez et al. An integrated strategy to decrease
eared dove damage in sunflower crops. In: J.R. Mason, Editor,
Repellents in wildlife management: proceedings of a symposium,
National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins (1997), pp. 409-
421] avoided calcium carbonate-treated crops when presence of
the white powder was associated with methiocarb-induced
toxicosis. Thus, at least for granivorous birds, color may be
the dominant cognitive cue during the food consumption process
and visual stimuli may enhance the efficacy of chemical
repellents used to reduce bird damage to agricultural production
[Avery and Mason, 1997, Feeding responses of red-winged
blackbirds to multisensory repellents, Crop Prot, 16:159-164]
and [Nelms and Avery, 1997, Reducing bird repellent application
rates by the addition of sensory stimuli, Int J Pest Manage,
43:187-190].
However, despite these and other advances, the need
remains for an improved system for repelling birds. Chemical
repellent applications are typically constrained by a variety of
factors, including cost, environmental effects, and food and
feed safety. Thus, effective long-term repellence of birds from
a target (i.e., food or place) typically requires repeated
applications of the chemical repellents. However, repeated
applications not only drive up costs, but such repeat
applications may be limited to legally permissible aggregate
concentrations of the repellent agent per season.
[0009a] It is to be understood that, if any prior art
publication is referred to herein, such reference does not
constitute an admission that the publication forms a part of the
common general knowledge in the art, in New Zealand or any other
country.
Summary of the Invention
I have discovered improved compositions and methods for
repelling birds using bird repellent agents in combination with
visual cue agents. By using visual cue agents that exhibit
spectral characteristics sufficiently similar to the previously-
applied repellent treatment that the birds do not visibly
differentiate between the treatments, the amount of the
repellent agent may be significantly reduced and yet effectively
repel birds. The method of this invention for repelling birds
from a target comprises the application of a first treatment of
a bird repellent agent to the target in an amount effective to
repel the birds of interest. Subsequently, one or more
additional treatment (s) is/are applied to the target including
a visual cue agent that exhibits spectral characteristics
sufficiently similar to the previously-applied repellent
treatment. In these subsequent applications, the bird repellent
agent may be omitted or applied at a significantly lower amount
than the first treatment, and the visual cue agent is applied at
an amount effective to be visibly recognized by the birds.
In accordance with this discovery, this invention
attempts to provide improved methods and compositions for
repelling birds from a target.
[0011a] In accordance with one aspect of the present invention
there is provided a method for repelling birds from a target
comprising:
a. application of a first treatment comprising (i) an
anthraquinone bird repellent agent to said target in an amount
effective to repel said birds and (ii) a visual cue agent that
exhibits UV absorption spectral characteristics sufficiently
similar to said anthraquinone that said birds do not visually
differentiate between said first treatment and subsequent
treatments,
b. application of one or more subsequent treatments comprising
said visual cue agent, wherein said anthraquinone is applied at
a significantly lower amount than said first treatment, and said
visual cue agent is applied at an amount effective to be visibly
recognized by said birds, and
c. repeating step (b) with each subsequent application including
a smaller amount of anthraquinone until the anthraquinone is
between 0.02% and 0.035%, by weight, and the visual cue agent is
0.2%, by weight, of the composition.
Another aim of this invention is to provide improved
methods and compositions for repelling birds using significantly
reduced amounts of bird repellent agents applied throughout the
period of needed repellency.
A further aim of this invention is to provide improved
methods and compositions for repelling birds utilizing multiple
applications of bird repellent agents wherein the amount of the
repellent agents may be significantly reduced after the initial
application.
Other aims and advantages of this invention will become
readily apparent from the ensuing description.
Brief Description of the Drawings
Figure 1 illustrates baseline preference of individually-
caged birds for treated (i.e., ultraviolet-absorbent cue) versus
untreated food (Example 1). Baseline results indicate
preferences independent of repellent consequences. Consumption
of treated and untreated food did not differ among 11 birds
during the 4-day test (P = 0.234).
Figure 2 illustrates baseline preference of group-caged
birds for treated (i.e., ultraviolet-absorbent cue) versus
untreated food (Example 1). Baseline results indicate
preferences independent of repellent consequences. Consumption
of treated and untreated food did not differ among 5 cages of
birds (5 birds per cage) during the 4-day test (P = 0.419).
Figure 3 illustrates preference of group-caged birds for
treated (i.e., ultraviolet-absorbent cue) versus untreated food
subsequent to repellent conditioning (Example 1). Consumption of
treated food was significantly less than that of untreated food
among 10 cages of birds (5 birds per cage) throughout the 4-day
test (P < 0.001).
Figure 4 illustrates test consumption among individually-
caged birds subsequent to repellent conditioning (Example 2).
Conditioning groups 1-3 received one bowl of sunflower seeds
treated with an ultraviolet-absorbent cue (control group), an
anthraquinone-based repellent (anthraquinone conditioning
group), or an methyl anthranilate-based repellent (methyl
anthranilate conditioning group); all birds were also gavaged
with 2 g of sunflower seeds treated in accordance with their
conditioning group during the 1-day conditioning period to
ensure preingestive cue/postingestive consequence conditioning.
All birds (groups 1-3) were subsequently offered sunflower seeds
treated only with the ultraviolet-absorbent cue during a 4-day
test. Sunflower consumption among birds conditioned with the
anthraquinone- or methyl anthranilate-based repellents was
significantly less than that exhibited among birds in the
control group (P < 0.001).
Figure 5 comparatively illustrates avian repellency of
food treated with 0.02-0.5% of the repellent and 0.2% of the
ultraviolet cue ("repellent + cue") and food treated only with
0.02-0.5% of the repellent ("repellent") as described in Example
3. Repellency of the "repellent + cue" treatment was 49% for the
0.02% and 0.035% targeted repellent concentrations; in contrast,
repellency of the "repellent" treatment was only 23% and 34% for
the 0.02% and 0.035% targeted repellent concentrations,
respectively. Whereas the ultraviolet cue itself is not
repellent to tested birds (Example 1; Werner et al. 2012, The
role of a generalized ultraviolet cue for blackbird food
selection. Physiology & Behavior. 106:597-601), a synergistic
repellency manifests from the addition of the ultraviolet cue to
relatively low concentrations of the repellent food treatment.
Detailed Description of the Invention
In contrast to the visual cues described in the prior art
which are distinct colors (i.e., different from the repellent
agent) that the birds learn to associate with a negative
response (caused by the co-applied repellent agent) and
therefore avoid, the visual cues of this invention exhibit
spectral characteristics sufficiently similar to the previously-
applied repellent treatment that the birds do not visibly
differentiate between the two agents or treatments. The combined
use of the visual cue of this invention with the repellent agent
allows the concentration of the repellent agent to be reduced
subsequent to the first application (Werner et al. 2008, Food
color, flavor, and conditioned avoidance among red-winged
blackbirds. Physiology & Behavior. 93: 110-117, the contents of
which are incorporated by reference herein).
The methods and compositions of the invention are
effective for repelling a variety of birds from any target
(i.e., food or place) of interest. The invention is preferably
used for repelling wild birds, including but not limited to,
blackbird species (Icteridae), including red-winged blackbirds
(Agelaius phoeniceus), grackles (Quiscalus spp.), yellow-headed
blackbirds (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), and brown-headed
cowbirds (Molothrus ater); starlings, including European
starlings (Sturnus vulgaris); geese, including Canada geese
(Branta canadensis), cackling geese (B. hutchinsii), and snow
geese (Chen caerulescens); crows, cranes, swans, pheasants, wild
turkeys, pigeons, sparrows, woodpeckers, larks, robins, finches,
and waxwings.
Bird repellent agents which are suitable for use in the
invention are those that are efficacious as primary and/or
secondary repellents. Primary repellents possess a quality
(e.g., unpalatable taste, odor, irritation) that evokes
reflexive withdrawal or escape behavior in an animal. In
contrast, secondary repellents evoke an adverse physiological
effect (e.g., illness, pain), which in turn is associated with a
subsequently-avoided sensory stimulus (e.g., taste, odor, visual
cue; Werner & Clark 2003, Understanding blackbird sensory
systems and how repellent applications work. In: Linz, G. M.,
ed. Management of North American Blackbirds. Washington, D.C.:
United States Department of Agriculture; p31-40).
A variety of bird repellents have been previously
described and are suitable for use herein, and include but are
not limited to anthraquinones, flutolanil, anthranilates
(including methyl and dimethyl anthranilate), methiocarb,
caffeine, chlorpyrifos, (plus -cyhalothrin), methyl phenyl
acetate, ethyl phenyl acetate, o-amino acerophenone, 2-amino-
4,5-dimethyl ecetophenone, veratroyl amine, cinnamic aldehyde,
cinnamic acid, cinnamide, and chitosan. These agents may be used
alone or in combination. Similarly, the techniques for
application of these agents are also well-known and have been
described, including formulations, application rates, and
application techniques. See, for example, Hermann (U.S. patent
no. 3,941,887) describing the use of anthraquinones, Wilson
(published U.S. application 2007/0178127 Al) describing the use
of flutolanil, Kare (U.S. patent no. 2,967,128) and Mason (U.S.
patent no. 4,790,990) describing the use of anthranilates and
esters of phenyl acetic acid, Crocker and Perry (1990, ibid)
describing the use of cinnamide, Schafer et al. (1983, ibid) and
Werner et al. (2005, Caffeine Formulation for Avian Repellency.
J Wildlife Management, 71:1676-1681) describing the use of
caffeine and caffeine plus benzoate, respectively, and Preiser
(U.S. patent no. 5,549,902) describing the use of any of
anthranilates, methyl phenyl acetate, ethyl phenyl acetate, o-
amino acerophenone, 2-amino-4,5-dimethyl ecetophenone, veratroyl
amine, cinnamic aldehyde, cinnamic acid or cinnamide, the
contents of each of which citations are incorporated by
reference herein. Many formulations of these repellents are also
available commercially, including but not limited to, 9,10-
anthraquinone (AVIPEL, FLIGHT CONTROL PLUS, AV-1011, and AV-
2022, all marketed by Arkion Life Sciences, New Castle, DE),
flutolanil (GWN-4770 and GWN-4771, marketed by the Gowan
Company, Yuma, AZ), methyl anthranilate (BIRD SHIELD, marketed
by the Bird Shield repellent Corp., Spokane, WA), methiocarb
(MESUROL, marketed by the Gowan Company, Yuma, AZ), caffeine
(Flavine North America, Inc., Closter, NJ), and chlorpyrifos
(plus-cyhalothrin; COBALT, marketed by Dow AgroSciences,
Indianapolis, IN).
As noted hereinabove, suitable visual cue agents of this
invention exhibit spectral characteristics sufficiently similar
to the previously-applied repellent treatment that the birds of
interest do not visually differentiate between the visual cue
agent and the bird repellent agent or the first treatment
formulation containing the repellent agent. For example, by way
of illustration and without being limited thereto, the preferred
bird repellents, anthraquinone, flutolanil, anthranilate,
methiocarb, caffeine, and chlorpyrifos (plus -cyhalothrin) all
exhibit UV-A (320-400 nm) and/or UV-B (280-320 nm) absorbance.
Thus, suitable visual cue agents should exhibit ultraviolet
absorbance at or sufficiently near these wavelengths. A variety
of visual cue agents are suitable for use herein, and may be
identified by determination of the UV absorption spectra of the
bird repellent agent of interest (or the formulation of the
first treatment in which the repellent agent is applied) and
candidate UV absorbing compounds or agents, and selecting as
visual cue agents those UV absorbing agents which possess a UV
absorbance spectrum or color that is substantially the same as
that of the bird repellent agent or the first treatment. The UV
absorption spectra of other bird repellent agents and visual cue
agents may be readily determined using conventional
spectroscopic analysis techniques. Although the visual cue agent
may itself be effective as a repellent, typically, the visual
cue agents will exhibit no statistically significant level of
repelling or attracting unconditioned birds when used alone.
Preferred visual cue agents for use herein, include, but are not
limited to, titanium (IV) oxides (TiO ), trisiloxanes, siloxanes,
and other UV-B- and/or UV-A-absorbent agents.
The amount of the bird repellent agent used will vary
from the initial to the subsequent applications. In the initial
application (as well as any subsequent applications in the
absence of visual cue agent), the amount of the repellent agent
is selected to effectively repel birds from a treated target
(i.e., food or place). Thus, as used herein, an "effective
amount" is defined as that amount which results in a significant
repellence of the birds from a treated target in comparison to
an untreated control (target without repellent). The actual
effective amount will vary with the particular repellent agent
selected, its formulation, the bird pest, the target, and
environmental factors, .and may be readily determined by routine
controlled experimentation. Suitable amounts and formulations
are described in the prior art as noted hereinabove, and are
also provided by the repellent manufacturers and suppliers. By
way of example and without being limited thereto, in the initial
application, preferred amounts of anthroquinone (AVIPEL, FLIGHT
CONTROL PLUS, AV-1011 or AV-2022) are approximately 2,000 ppm
active ingredient (a.i.) for most birds, but may be as low as
600 ppm a.i. for larks, preferred amounts of flutolanil are
,000 ppm (GWN-4770) or 15,000 ppm (GWN-4771), preferred
amounts of anthranilate (BIRD SHIELD) are 80,000 ppm a.i.,
preferred amounts of methiocarb (MESUROL 75-W) vary from 1,250
ppm a.i. for blackbirds to 30 ppm a.i. for larks and 15 ppm a.i.
for robins, starlings, grackles, finches, and waxwings,
preferred amounts of caffeine (1:1 caffeine plus sodium
benzoate) are 3,500 ppm a.i., and preferred amounts of
chlorpyrifos plus (-cyhalothrin (COBALT) are 2,500 ppm a.i. It
is also understood that while the visual cue agent may be
applied with the initial repellent application, its application
at this time provides no advantage and may be omitted until the
subsequent applications.
In the subsequent applications wherein the bird repellent
agent is applied in conjunction with the visual cue agent, the
amount of the repellent agent is significantly reduced. In these
later applications, suitable amounts of the repellent agent may
be between about 2% to about 60% of the amount used in the
initial application, preferably between about 10% to about 60%
of the amount used in the initial application, more preferably
between about 25% to about 60% of the amount used in the initial
application, and most preferably between about 40% to about 60%
of the amount used in the initial application. We have also
unexpectedly discovered that in applications wherein the amount
of the repellant agent is greatly reduced, that is, to less than
% of the amount used in the initial application, particularly
between 4% to 9%, and most preferably between 4% to 7%, a
synergistic increase in repellency is observed upon addition of
visual cue agent as demonstrated in Example 3. However, the
overall efficacy, as measured by % repellency, remains less than
that of formulations containing high levels of repellant agent
(Figure 5). The amount of the efficacious visual cue agent
applied can be readily determined by routine controlled
experimentation. The amount will also vary with the particular
visual agent, its formulation, and the target. By way of example
and without being limited thereto, preferred amounts of titanium
(IV) oxide may vary from 2,000 to 5,000 ppm (AEROXIDE P25,
Evonik Goldschraidt Corp., Hopewell, VA) to 3,500 to 5,000 ppm
(Catalog no. 232033 available from Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) to
4,000 to 7,000 ppm (Catalog no. 808 available from Merck & Co.,
Whitehouse Station, NJ; HOMBIKAT UV 100 available from
Sachtleben, Duisburg, Germany; Catalog no. 89490 available from
Aldrich, St. Louis, MO.; Catalog no. T315-500 available from
Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA). Preferred amounts of
trisiloxane may vary from 300 to 500 ppm, and siloxane may vary
from 3,500 to 5,000 ppm.
As a practical matter, it is anticipated that the bird
repellent agent will be formulated with a suitable inert carrier
as is known in the art. Formulations of the bird repellent agent
and the visual cue agent may vary with the particular target and
method of application. The agents may, for example, be
formulated as solutions, emulsions, emulsifiable concentrates,
suspension concentrates, wettable powders, dusts, granules,
adherent dusts or granules, and aerosols. Of greatest interest
are those carriers which are agronomically acceptable and those
suitable for application onto structures, agricultural fields or
crops, seeds, seedlings, orchards, vineyards, livestock feed,
fertilizers, pesticides, animal or insect baits, and
combinations thereof. The particular carrier selected is not
critical, and a variety of liquid and solid phase carriers may
be used, including but not limited to water, aqueous surfactant
mixtures, alcohols, ethers, hydrocarbons, halogenated
hydrocarbons, glycols, ketones, esters, oils (natural or
synthetic), clays, kaolinite, silicas, cellulose, rubber, talc,
vermiculate, and synthetic polymers. The bird repellent agent
and the visual cue agent may also be formulated in a single
composition or formulated in different compositions and applied
separately. The repellent agent and/or the visual cue agent may
also be formulated in admixture with other agriculturally
beneficial agents, including but not limited to, ultraviolet
stabilizers, antioxidants, baits, adjuvants, herbicidal agents,
fertilizers, and pesticides including insecticides and
fungicides.
The method of the invention may be used to repel birds
anywhere they pose a nuisance or, more importantly, to prevent
or minimize economic damage, particularly to agricultural
products. The repellent agent and the visual cue agent may be
applied on any target or spatial location of concern from which
birds are to be repelled. In accordance with this invention,
preferred targets for application include, but are not limited
to, one or more of structures, agricultural fields or crops,
seeds, seedlings, orchards, vineyards, livestock feed,
fertilizers, pesticides, animal or insect baits, and
combinations thereof. Crops include, but are not limited to, one
or more of corn, fruit, grains, grasses, legumes, lettuce,
millet, oats, rice, row crops, sorghum, sunflower, tree nuts,
turf, vegetables, and wheat.
The subsequent treatments of the target with the
repellent agent and the visual cue agent are typically applied
at any time following the initial application desired by the
user. For instance, in one anticipated embodiment, the
subsequent treatments are applied when the efficacy of the
initial application is significantly reduced or during periods
wherein heavier bird damage is anticipated. In practice, the
subsequent treatment is typically applied at least one week
after the first treatment (in the same growing season).
The following example is intended only to further
illustrate the invention and is not intended to limit the scope
of the invention which is defined by the claims.
Example 1
In the first of three experiments, 11 red-winged
blackbirds were offered one bowl of sunflower seeds treated with
an ultraviolet-absorbent cue (TiO , AEROXIDE P25, Evonik
Goldschmidt Corp., Hopewell, VA) and one bowl of untreated
sunflower seeds within individual cages. Daily food consumption
was measured. This baseline (i.e., control) experiment evaluated
preferences independent of repellent conditioning for
individually-caged birds. Consumption of treated and untreated
food did not differ during the 4-day test (P = 0.234; Figure 1).
In the second of three experiments, 5 red-winged
blackbirds within each of 5 cages were offered one bowl of
sunflower seeds treated with an ultraviolet-absorbent cue
(AEROXIDE P25, Evonik Goldschmidt Corp., Hopewell, VA) and one
bowl of untreated sunflower seeds. Daily food consumption was
again measured. This baseline (i.e., control) experiment
evaluated preferences independent of repellent conditioning for
group-caged birds. Consumption of treated and untreated food did
not differ during the 4-day test (P = 0.419; Figure 2).
In the final experiment, 5 experimentally-naive red-
winged blackbirds within each of 10 cages were offered two bowls
of sunflower seeds treated with an ultraviolet-absorbent bird
repellent (the anthroquinone, AVIPEL, ARKION Life Sciences LLC,
Wilmington, DE) during a single day of repellent conditioning.
All birds were subsequently offered one bowl of sunflower seeds
treated with an ultraviolet-absorbent cue (AEROXIDE P25, Evonik
Goldschmidt Corp., Hopewell, VA) and one bowl of untreated
sunflower seeds. This bird repellency experiment evaluated
preferences subsequent to repellent conditioning for group-caged
birds. Consumption of treated food was significantly less than
that of untreated food throughout the 4-day test (P < 0.001;
Figure 3).
These data demonstrate that, in the absence of repellent
conditioning, consumption of food treated with the UV-A- and UV-
B-absorbent cue was not different than that of untreated food.
Subsequent to conditioning with a UV-A- and UV-B-absorbent bird
repellent, however, birds significantly avoided the ultraviolet-
absorbent cue during the test of the final experiment. Thus, by
using visual cue agents that exhibit spectral characteristics
sufficiently similar to the previously-applied repellent
treatment, the amount of the repellent agent may be
significantly reduced and yet effectively repel birds.
Example 2
In this experiment, 35 experimentally-naive red-winged
blackbirds within individual cages were randomly assigned to 1
of 3 conditioning groups. All birds in the control group (n =
13) were offered one bowl of sunflower seeds treated with an
ultraviolet-absorbent cue (AEROXIDE P25, Evonik Goldschmidt
Corp., Hopewell, VA); all birds in the anthraquinone
conditioning group (n = 11) were offered one bowl of sunflower
seeds treated with an anthraquinone-based, ultraviolet-absorbent
bird repellent (AVIPEL, ARKION Life Sciences LLC, New Castle,
DE); and all birds in the methyl anthranilate conditioning
group(n = 11) were offered one bowl of sunflower seeds treated
with an methyl anthranilate-based, ultraviolet-absorbent bird
repellent (FOG FORCE, Natural Forces LLC, Davidson, NC) during a
single day of repellent conditioning. All birds were also
gavaged with 2 g of sunflower seeds treated with the AEROXIDE
P25 cue (control group), the anthraquinone-based repellent
(anthraquinone conditioning group), or the methyl anthranilate-
based repellent (methyl anthranilate conditioning group) to
ensure preingestive cue/postingestive consequence conditioning.
All birds were subsequently offered one bowl of sunflower seeds
treated with the ultraviolet-absorbent cue (AEROXIDE P25, Evonik
Goldschmidt Corp., Hopewell, VA) during a 4-day test. This bird
repellency experiment evaluated consumption of ultraviolet-
absorbent sunflower seeds subsequent to cue (i.e., control) and
repellent conditioning for individually-caged birds. Sunflower
consumption among birds conditioned with the anthraquinone- or
methyl anthranilate-based repellents was significantly less than
that exhibited among birds in the control group throughout the
4-day test (P < 0.001; Figure 4).
These data demonstrate that, in the absence of repellent
conditioning, consumption of food treated with the UV-A- and UV-
B-absorbent cue was not different than that of untreated food
(baseline experiments). Subsequent to conditioning with a UV-A-
and UV-B-absorbent bird repellent, however, birds significantly
avoided the ultraviolet-absorbent cue during the test of the
final experiment (Example 1). Moreover, results of Example 2
demonstrated that the ultraviolet absorbance of the bird
repellents tested enabled subsequent avoidance of ultraviolet-
absorbent sunflower seeds during the 4-day test (Figure 4).
Thus, by using visual cue agents that exhibit spectral
characteristics sufficiently similar to the previously-applied
repellent treatment, the amount of the repellent agent may be
significantly reduced and yet effectively repel birds.
Example 3
A demonstrated in Example 1 and Werner et al. (2112.
ibid, the contents of which are incorporated by reference
herein) the ultraviolet feeding cue is not itself repellent to
tested birds. This example demonstrates the synergistic
repellency of the ultraviolet cue added to repellent food
treatments. In this experiment, 110 experimentally-naive red-
winged blackbirds within individual cages were offered sunflower
seeds treated with (a) an anthraquinone-based, ultraviolet-
absorbent bird repellent (AVIPEL, ARKION Life Sciences LLC, New
Castle, DE) and an ultraviolet-absorbent cue (AEROXIDE P25,
Acros Organics, Fair Lawn, NJ; "repellent + cue") or (b) only
the repellent (AVIPEL; "repellent"). All birds were offered one
bowl of untreated sunflower, daily throughout a three-day
pretest. On the subsequent day, all birds in the "repellent +
cue" group (N = 55) received one bowl of sunflower treated with
one of six concentrations of the repellent (0.02-0.5% repellent,
by weight) and 0.2%, by weight, of the ultraviolet cue (n = 9-10
birds per test group); all birds in the "repellent" group (N =
55) received one bowl of sunflower treated only with one of six
concentrations of the repellent (0.02-0.5% repellent; n = 9-10
birds per test group). Food consumption was measured daily
throughout the pre-test and test. Percent repellency was
calculated as test consumption relative to average pre-test
consumption (Figure 5).
Example 1 demonstrated that, in the absence of the
repellent, consumption of food treated with the ultraviolet cue
was not different than that of untreated food (i.e., the
ultraviolet cue is not itself repellent to tested birds; Werner
et al. 2012). Compared to the repellency of food treated only
with 0.02% or 0.035% of the repellent, the addition of 0.2% of
the ultraviolet cue to these relatively low concentrations of
the repellent synergistically increased repellency by 45-115%
(Figure 5). Thus, the addition of the ultraviolet cue to the
repellent treatment synergistically increased the repellency of
the repellent agent at relatively low repellent concentrations.
It is understood that the foregoing detailed description
is given merely by way of illustration and that modifications
and variations may be made therein without departing from the
spirit and scope of the invention.
Claims (11)
1. A method for repelling birds from a target comprising: a. application of a first treatment comprising (i) an anthraquinone bird repellent agent to said target in an amount effective to repel said birds and (ii) a visual cue agent that exhibits UV absorption spectral characteristics sufficiently similar to said anthraquinone that said birds do not visually differentiate between said first treatment and subsequent treatments, b. application of one or more subsequent treatments comprising said visual cue agent, wherein said anthraquinone is applied at a significantly lower amount than said first treatment, and said visual cue agent is applied at an amount effective to be visibly recognized by said birds, and c. repeating step (b) with each subsequent application including a smaller amount of anthraquinone until the anthraquinone is between 0.02% and 0.035%, by weight, and the visual cue agent is 0.2%, by weight, of the composition.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said birds are wild birds.
3. The method of claim 1 or 2 wherein said targets comprise structures, agricultural fields or crops, seeds, seedlings, orchards, vineyards, livestock feed, fertilizers, pesticides, animal or insect baits, or combinations thereof.
4. The method of claim 3 wherein said crops comprise corn, fruit, grains, grasses, legumes, lettuce, millet, oats, rice, row crops, sorghum, sunflower, tree nuts, turf, vegetables, or wheat.
5. The method of any one of claims 1-4 wherein said visual cue agent is selected from the group consisting of titanium (IV) oxide, trisiloxanes, and siloxanes.
6. The method of any one of claims 1-5 wherein said visual cue agent comprises titanium (IV) oxide.
7. The method of any one of claims 1-6 wherein said lower amount of said anthraquinone in said subsequent treatment is between about 10% to about 60% of said amount in said first treatment.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein said lower amount of said anthraquinone in said subsequent treatment is between about 25% to about 60% of said amount in said first treatment.
9. The method of claim 8 wherein said lower amount of said anthraquinone in said subsequent treatment is between about 40% to about 60% of said amount in said first treatment.
10. The method of claim 6 wherein said anthraquinone comprises between 0.02% to 0.035%, by weight, of said subsequent treatment and said titanium (IV) oxide comprises 0.2%, by weight, of said subsequent treatment.
11. The method of any one of claims 1-10, wherein the amount of the anthraquinone and visual cue agent results in at least a 15% improvement in repellency over use of anthraquinone alone.
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US201462021393P | 2014-07-07 | 2014-07-07 | |
US62/021,393 | 2014-07-07 | ||
PCT/US2014/048119 WO2016007179A1 (en) | 2014-07-07 | 2014-07-25 | Ultraviolet strategy for avian repellency |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
NZ728465A true NZ728465A (en) | 2021-05-28 |
NZ728465B2 NZ728465B2 (en) | 2021-08-31 |
Family
ID=
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
PH12017500045A1 (en) | 2017-05-22 |
WO2016007179A1 (en) | 2016-01-14 |
PE20170933A1 (en) | 2017-07-13 |
AP2017009720A0 (en) | 2017-01-31 |
AU2014400622B2 (en) | 2019-07-18 |
CN106793770A (en) | 2017-05-31 |
BR112017000459A2 (en) | 2017-11-07 |
AU2014400622A1 (en) | 2017-02-09 |
CA2954333A1 (en) | 2016-01-14 |
BR112017000459B1 (en) | 2021-08-17 |
CL2017000042A1 (en) | 2017-08-18 |
MX2017000298A (en) | 2017-07-10 |
CA2954333C (en) | 2021-08-17 |
CN106793770B (en) | 2021-06-01 |
CO2017000617A2 (en) | 2017-04-28 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
JP6641353B2 (en) | Use of visual cues to enhance bird repellent compositions | |
US2967128A (en) | Bird repellent | |
US5296226A (en) | Bird repellent compositions | |
Avery | Avian repellents | |
AU2014400622B2 (en) | Ultraviolet strategy for avian repellency | |
US9131678B1 (en) | Ultraviolet strategy for avian repellency | |
US11252953B2 (en) | Repellent and attractant composition for dichromatic animals | |
Dieter et al. | Evaluation of foliar sprays to reduce crop damage by Canada geese | |
CN113329625B (en) | Preventing birds from ingesting pesticide-treated substances | |
NZ728465B2 (en) | Ultraviolet strategy for avian repellency | |
KR20190019296A (en) | The natural acaricide(miticide) | |
KR101481488B1 (en) | Solid-type wild animal aversion compositions | |
US4511579A (en) | Pest repellant | |
WO2024020079A1 (en) | Trigeminal cue for wildlife repellents | |
OA18939A (en) | Repellent and attractant composition for dichromatic animals | |
Lindsey | The Safety, Efficacy And Environmental Considerations For Implementing Methyl Anthranilate (MA) As A Bird Repellent. | |
Onolemhemhen et al. | Assessment of soybean oil and fernasan D for the control of Callosbruchus maculatus Fab. | |
GB2095557A (en) | Pest repellant |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
PSEA | Patent sealed | ||
RENW | Renewal (renewal fees accepted) |
Free format text: PATENT RENEWED FOR 1 YEAR UNTIL 25 JUL 2023 BY COMPUTER PACKAGES INC Effective date: 20220630 |
|
RENW | Renewal (renewal fees accepted) |
Free format text: PATENT RENEWED FOR 1 YEAR UNTIL 25 JUL 2024 BY COMPUTER PACKAGES INC Effective date: 20230630 |