IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare99/124546.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Effective Control Of 1080 Bait-Shy Possums

Author

Listed:
  • Ross, James G.
  • Bicknell, Kathryn
  • Hickling, G.J.

Abstract

The brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), introduced to New Zealand in 1858, is a significant conservation pest and a major vector of bovine tuberculosis (Tb; Mycobacterium bovis). Consequently, central and local government agencies now spend more than $30 million (NZD) each year on possum management activities. The current objective of this effort is selective, sustained control to eliminate the transmission of Tb to domestic livestock (which is assumed to require a 60% reduction in possum numbers) and to protect the areas with high ranking indigenous flora and fauna that are most at risk from possums (assumed to require a 80% reduction in numbers). Previous simulation studies have suggested that regular aerial control with bait containing sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) is the most cost-effective large-scale possum control strategy. However, there is a growing awareness that the survivors of 1080 operations can develop ‘bait shyness’. This factor can markedly alter the efficacy of future 1080 control operations but has not been considered in previous simulation studies. I, therefore, constructed a possum control simulation model to assist in identifying the most cost-effective control strategy that would achieve sustained population reductions of 60% and 80%, given bait-shy behaviour and rapid possum population recovery due to immigration. The simulation results suggest that it is possible to achieve sustained 60% or 80% reductions in possum numbers using a 1080-based control strategy, provided reasonably large (>100 ha) areas are controlled and 90% of susceptible possums are killed in the 1080 operations. The chronic-acting toxicant brodifacoum (Talon) will kill the majority of any non-susceptible (i.e., 1080 bait-shy) survivors and its occasional use instead of 1080 during the follow-up control phase provided the most cost-effective way of maintaining a possum population at low density. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the most important variable influencing the overall sucess of these control strategies was the maximum rate of re-colonisation following control. With the high rates of immigration that are sometimes observed in small forest reserves, it was not possible to maintain a sustained 80% reduction in numbers using any combination of toxicants. Expensive, permanent bait stations may be required to minimise the effects of immigration into these small reserves.

Suggested Citation

  • Ross, James G. & Bicknell, Kathryn & Hickling, G.J., 1999. "Cost-Effective Control Of 1080 Bait-Shy Possums," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 124546, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare99:124546
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124546/files/Ross.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124546?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feder, G. & Regev, U., 1975. "Biological interactions and environmental effects in the economics of pest control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 75-91, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christiaans, Thomas & Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rudiger, 2007. "Optimal pest control in agriculture," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 3965-3985, December.
    2. Smith, Martin D. & Wilen, James E., 2000. "Analysis Of A Spatial Rotation Plan For The Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21847, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Erik Lichtenberg & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why Specification Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 261-273.
    4. Kovacs, Kent F. & Haight, Robert G. & Mercader, Rodrigo J. & McCullough, Deborah G., 2014. "A bioeconomic analysis of an emerald ash borer invasion of an urban forest with multiple jurisdictions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 270-289.
    5. Perry, Edward D. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2020. "Neonicotinoids in U.S. maize: Insecticide substitution effects and environmental risk," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Marsh, Thomas L. & Huffaker, Ray G. & Folwell, Raymond J. & Long, Gary, 1998. "An Intraseasonal Bioeconomic Model Of Plrv Net Necrosis," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20935, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Regmi, Anita, 1990. "The value of information in integrated pest management of corn rootworm and European corn borer in Minnesota," Faculty and Alumni Dissertations 307267, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    8. Melstrom, Richard T., 2014. "Managing apparent competition between the feral pigs and native foxes of Santa Cruz Island," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 157-162.
    9. Charles Sims & David Finnoff & Jason Shogren, 2016. "Bioeconomics of invasive species: using real options theory to integrate ecology, economics, and risk management," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 61-70, February.
    10. Charles Sims & David Finnoff & Jason F. Shogren, 2018. "Taking One for the Team: Is Collective Action More Responsive to Ecological Change?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(3), pages 589-615, July.
    11. Grogan, Kelly A., 2013. "When Ignorance Is Not Bliss: Pest Control Decisions Involving Beneficial Insects," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149610, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Archibald, Sandra O. & McCorkle, Chester O. Jr & Howitt, Richard E., 1986. "A Dynamic Analysis Of Production Externalities : Pesticide Resistance In California Cotton," Working Papers 225802, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Cobourn, Kelly M. & Goodhue, Rachael E. & Williams, Jeffrey C., 2009. "The Role of Harvest Timing in Pest Management: Grower Response to Infestation by the California Olive Fruit Fly," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49475, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Grogan, Kelly A. & Chakravarty, Shourish, 2017. "The Feasibility of Area-wide Pest Management under Heterogeneity and Uncertainty: The Case of Citrus Health Management Areas," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259188, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Hennessy, David A., 2018. "Managing Derived Demand For Antibiotics In Animal Agriculture," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274359, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Sims, Charles & Finnoff, David, 2013. "When is a “wait and see” approach to invasive species justified?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 235-255.
    17. Livingston, Michael & Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Unger, Jesse & Osteen, Craig & Schimmelpfennig, David & Park, Tim & Lambert, Dayton, 2015. "The Economics of Glyphosate Resistance Management in Corn and Soybean Production," Economic Research Report 205083, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Sims, Charles & Aadland, David & Finnoff, David, 2010. "A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2407-2419, December.
    19. Wetzstein, Michael E. & Szmedra, Philip I. & Musser, Wesley N. & Chou, Charlene C.J., . "Optimal Agricultural Pest Management With Multiple Species," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(01), pages 1-7.
    20. Kelly M. Cobourn & Gregory S. Amacher & Robert G. Haight, 2019. "Cooperative Management of Invasive Species: A Dynamic Nash Bargaining Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1041-1068, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare99:124546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.