Measuring bird damage to three fruit crops: A comparison of grower and field estimates

被引:14
|
作者
Elser, J. L. [1 ]
Lindell, C. A. [2 ]
Steensma, K. M. M. [3 ]
Curtis, P. D. [4 ]
Leigh, D. K. [5 ]
Siemer, W. F. [4 ]
Boulanger, J. R. [6 ]
Shwiff, S. A. [1 ]
机构
[1] USDA, APHIS, WS Natl Wildlife Res Ctr, 4101 Laporte Ave, Ft Collins, CO 80521 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, 1405 S Harrison Rd, E Lansing, MI 48823 USA
[3] Trinity Western Univ, 7600 Glover Rd, Langley, BC V2Y 1Y1, Canada
[4] Cornell Univ, 226 Mann Dr, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
[5] Western Washington Univ, 516 E Coll Way, Bellingham, WA 98225 USA
[6] Univ North Dakota, 10 Cornell St, Grand Forks, ND 58202 USA
基金
美国农业部;
关键词
Bird damage; Sweet cherries; 'Honeycrisp' apples; Wine grapes; Damage estimates; ABUNDANCES; BENEFITS; IMPACTS; COST;
D O I
10.1016/j.cropro.2019.05.010
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Birds are common pests in fruit orchards. They frequently consume and damage fruit resulting in decreased yields for growers. The true extent of damage is difficult to measure. Producer surveys are often implemented to estimate damage, but the accuracy of these estimates is uncertain. We compared damage estimates obtained through field studies with estimates from a producer survey for three fruit crops: wine grapes, sweet cherries, and 'Honeycrisp' apples. We also analyzed relationships between use of various damage management methods and levels of bird damage. We found wine grape and sweet cherry growers accurately assessed bird damage, while 'Honeycrisp' apple growers may overestimate damage. Growing region appears to be an important damage predictor for wine grape and sweet cherry crops. Significant relationships between management methods and damage were positive, suggesting growers only use these methods when bird damage is substantial.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 4
页数:4
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] A review and synthesis of bird and rodent damage estimates to select California crops
    Gebhardt, Karen
    Anderson, Aaron M.
    Kirkpatrick, Katy N.
    Shwiff, Stephanie A.
    CROP PROTECTION, 2011, 30 (09) : 1109 - 1116
  • [2] Bird damage to select fruit crops: The cost of damage and the benefits of control in five states
    Anderson, A.
    Lindell, C. A.
    Moxcey, K. M.
    Siemer, W. F.
    Linz, G. M.
    Curtis, P. D.
    Carroll, J. E.
    Burrows, C. L.
    Boulanger, J. R.
    Steensma, K. M. M.
    Shwiff, S. A.
    CROP PROTECTION, 2013, 52 : 103 - 109
  • [3] REDUCTION OF BIRD DAMAGE TO FIELD CROPS IN EASTERN-AFRICA WITH METHIOCARB
    BRUGGERS, R
    MATEE, J
    MISKELL, J
    ERICKSON, W
    JAEGER, M
    JACKSON, WB
    JUIMALE, Y
    TROPICAL PEST MANAGEMENT, 1981, 27 (02): : 230 - 241
  • [4] A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR MEASURING ROOT-GROWTH OF FIELD CROPS
    KOPKE, U
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ACKER UND PFLANZENBAU-JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY AND CROP SCIENCE, 1981, 150 (01): : 39 - 49
  • [5] SUCROSE AVOIDANCE BY AMERICAN ROBINS (TURDUS-MIGRATORIUS) - IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTROL OF BIRD DAMAGE IN FRUIT CROPS
    BRUGGER, KE
    NELMS, CO
    CROP PROTECTION, 1991, 10 (06) : 455 - 460
  • [6] Comparison of Methods for Estimating Damage by Wild Ungulates on Field Crops
    Drimaj, Jakub
    Skotak, Vlastimil
    Kamler, Jiri
    Plhal, Radim
    Adamec, Zdenek
    Mikulka, Ondrej
    Janata, Premysl
    AGRICULTURE-BASEL, 2023, 13 (06):
  • [7] A comparison of three methods of measuring exercise in a field study
    Moore, SM
    Ruland, CM
    CIRCULATION, 1997, 96 (08) : 1060 - 1060
  • [8] A COMPARISON OF 4 METHODS FOR MEASURING ROOTS OF FIELD CROPS IN 3 CONTRASTING SOILS
    KUCKE, M
    SCHMID, H
    SPIESS, A
    PLANT AND SOIL, 1995, 172 (01) : 63 - 71
  • [9] Measuring Natural Selection on Proportional Traits: Comparisons of Three Types of Selection Estimates for Resistance and Susceptibility to Herbivore Damage
    John R. Stinchcombe
    Evolutionary Ecology, 2005, 19 : 363 - 373
  • [10] Measuring natural selection on proportional traits: Comparisons of three types of selection estimates for resistance and susceptibility to herbivore damage
    Stinchcombe, JR
    EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY, 2005, 19 (04) : 363 - 373