Rodent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Rodents
Fossil range: Early Paleocene–
Recent
PreЄ
Є
O
S
D
C
P
T
J
K
Pg
N

Indian Palm Squirrel (Funambulus

palmarum)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Eutheria
Superorder: Euarchontoglires
Order: Rodentia
Bowdich, 1821
Suborders
Sciuromorpha
Castorimorpha
Myomorpha
Anomaluromorpha
Hystricomorpha
Rodentia is an order of mammals also known as rodents, characterised by two continuously
growing incisors in the upper and lower jaws which must be kept short by gnawing.[1][2]
Forty percent of mammal species are rodents, and they are found in vast numbers on all
continents other than Antarctica. Common rodents include mice, rats, squirrels, chipmunks,
gophers, porcupines, beavers, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, degus, chinchillas, prairie dogs, and
groundhogs.[1] Rodents have sharp incisors that they use to gnaw wood, break into food, and bite
predators. Most eat seeds or plants, though some have more varied diets. Some species have
historically been pests, eating seeds stored by people[3] and spreading disease[4].

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Size and range of order
• 2 Characteristics
• 3 Evolution
• 4 Classification
○ 4.1 Standard classification
○ 4.2 Alternate classifications
○ 4.3 Monophyly or polyphyly?
• 5 Notes
• 6 References
• 7 External links

[edit] Size and range of order

In terms of number of species—although not necessarily in terms of number of organisms
(population) or biomass—rodents make up the largest order of mammals. There are about 2,277
species of rodents (Wilson and Reeder, 2005), with over 40 percent of mammalian species
belonging to the order.[5] Their success is probably due to their small size, short breeding cycle,
and ability to gnaw and eat a wide variety of foods. (Lambert, 2000)
Rodents are found in vast numbers on all continents except Antarctica, most islands, and in all
habitats except oceans. They are the only placental order, other than bats (Chiroptera) and
Pinnipeds, to reach Australia without human introduction.
[edit] Characteristics

The capybara, the largest living rodent, can weigh up to 65 kg (140 lb).
Many rodents are small; the tiny African pygmy mouse can be as little as 6 cm (2.4 in) in length
and 7 g (0.25 oz) in weight at maturity, and the Baluchistan Pygmy Jerboa is of roughly similar
or slightly smaller dimensions. On the other hand, the capybara can weigh up to 80 kg (180 lb)[6],
and the largest known rodent, the extinct Josephoartigasia monesi, is estimated to weigh about
1,000 kg (2,200 lb), and possibly up to 1,534 kg (3,380 lb)[7] or 2,586 kg (5,700 lb)[8].
Rodents have two incisors in the upper as well as in the lower jaw which grow continuously and
must be kept worn down by gnawing; this is the origin of the name, from the Latin rodere, to
gnaw[9]. These teeth are used for cutting wood, biting through the skin of fruit, or for defense.
The teeth have enamel on the outside and exposed dentine on the inside, so they self-sharpen
during gnawing. Rodents lack canines, and have a space between their incisors and premolars.
Nearly all rodents feed on plants, seeds in particular, but there are a few exceptions which eat
insects or fish. Some squirrels are known to eat passerine birds like cardinals and blue jays.

Typical rodent tooth system

Rodents are important in many ecosystems because they reproduce rapidly, and can function as
food sources for predators, mechanisms for seed dispersal, and as disease vectors. Humans use
rodents as a source of fur, as pets, as model organisms in animal testing, for food, and even for
detecting landmines.[10]
Members of non-rodent orders such as Chiroptera (bats), Scandentia (treeshrews), Insectivora
(moles, shrews and hedgehogs), Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits and pikas) and mustelid carnivores
such as weasels and mink are sometimes confused with rodents.
[edit] Evolution
Masillamys sp. fossil from the Messel Pit fossil site
The fossil record of rodent-like mammals begins shortly after the extinction of the non-avian
dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as early as the Paleocene. Some molecular clock data, however,
suggest that modern rodents (members of the order Rodentia) already appeared in the late
Cretaceous, although other molecular divergence estimations are in agreement with the fossil
record.[11][12] By the end of the Eocene epoch, relatives of beavers, dormouse, squirrels, and other
groups appeared in the fossil record. They originated in Laurasia, the formerly joined continents
of North America, Europe, and Asia. Some species colonized Africa, giving rise to the earliest
hystricognaths. From Africa hystricognaths rafted to South America, an isolated continent during
the Oligocene and Miocene epochs. By the Miocene, Africa collided with Asia, allowing rodents
such as the porcupine to spread into Eurasia. During the Pliocene, rodent fossils appeared in
Australia. Even though marsupials are the prominent mammals in Australia, rodents make up
almost 25% of the mammals on the continent. Meanwhile, the Americas became joined and
some rodents expanded into new territory; mice headed south and porcupines headed north.
Some Prehistoric Rodents
Castoroides, a giant beaver
Ceratogaulus, a horned burrowing rodent
Spelaeomys, a rat that grew to a large size on the island of Flores
Giant hutias, a group of rodents once found in the West Indies
Ischyromys, a primitive squirrel-like rodent
Leithia, a giant dormouse
Neochoerus pinckneyi, a giant North American Capybara that weighed 50 kg (110 lb)
Josephoartigasia monesi, the largest known rodent
Phoberomys pattersoni, the second largest known rodent
Telicomys, a giant South American rodent
[edit] Classification
2/3 of rodent species are in the superfamily Muroidea (rats, mice, and related species). The
families Muridae (blue) and Cricetidae (red) make up the bulk of the Muroidea.
[edit] Standard classification
The rodents are part of the clades Glires (along with lagomorphs), Euarchontoglires (along with
lagomorphs, primates, treeshrews, and colugos), and Boreoeutheria (along with most other
placental mammals). The order Rodentia may be divided into suborders, infraorders,
superfamilies and families.
Classification scheme:
ORDER RODENTIA (from Latin, rodere, to gnaw)
• Suborder Anomaluromorpha
○ Family Anomaluridae: scaly-tailed squirrels
○ Family Pedetidae: springhares
• Suborder Castorimorpha
○ Superfamily Castoroidea
 Family Castoridae: beavers
○ Superfamily Geomyoidea
 Family Geomyidae: pocket gophers (true gophers)
 Family Heteromyidae: kangaroo rats and kangaroo mice
• Suborder Hystricomorpha
○ Family incertae sedis Diatomyidae: Laotian rock rat
○ Infraorder Ctenodactylomorphi
 Family Ctenodactylidae: gundis
○ Infraorder Hystricognathi
 Family Bathyergidae: African mole rats
 Family Hystricidae: Old World porcupines
  Family Petromuridae: dassie rat
 Family Thryonomyidae: cane rats
 Parvorder Caviomorpha
 Family †Heptaxodontidae: giant hutias
 Family Abrocomidae: chinchilla rats
 Family Capromyidae: hutias
 Family Caviidae: cavies, including guinea pigs and the capybara
 Family Chinchillidae: chinchillas and viscachas
 Family Ctenomyidae: tuco-tucos
 Family Dasyproctidae: agoutis
 Family Dinomyidae: pacaranas
 Family Echimyidae: spiny rats
 Family Erethizontidae: New World porcupines
 Family Myocastoridae: nutria
 Family Octodontidae: octodonts
• Suborder Myomorpha
○ Superfamily Dipodoidea
 Family Dipodidae: jerboas and jumping mice
○ Superfamily Muroidea
 Family Calomyscidae: mouse-like hamsters
 Family Cricetidae: hamsters, New World rats and mice, voles
 Family Muridae: true mice and rats, gerbils, spiny mice, crested rat
 Family Nesomyidae: climbing mice, rock mice, white-tailed rat, Malagasy
rats and mice
 Family Platacanthomyidae: spiny dormice
 Family Spalacidae: mole rats, bamboo rats, and zokors
• Suborder Sciuromorpha
○ Family Aplodontiidae: mountain beaver
○ Family Gliridae (also Myoxidae, Muscardinidae): dormice
○ Family Sciuridae: squirrels, including chipmunks, prairie dogs, & marmots
[edit] Alternate classifications
The above taxonomy uses the shape of the lower jaw (sciurognath or hystricognath) as the
primary character. This is the most commonly used approach for dividing the order into
suborders. Many older references emphasize the zygomasseteric system (suborders
Protrogomorpha, Sciuromorpha, Hystricomorpha, and Myomorpha).
Several molecular phylogenetic studies have used gene sequences to determine the relationships
among rodents, but these studies are yet to produce a single consistent and well-supported
taxonomy. Some clades have been consistently produced such as:
• Ctenohystrica contains:
○ Ctenodactylidae (gundis)
○ Hystricognathi containing:
 Hystricidae
 An unnamed clade containing:
 Phiomorpha
 Caviomorpha
• An unnamed clade contains:
○ Gliridae
○ Sciuroidea containing:
 Aplodontiidae
 Sciuridae
• Myodonta includes:
○ Dipodoidea
○ Muroidea
The positions of the Castoridae, Geomyoidea, Anomaluridae, and Pedetidae are still being
debated.
[edit] Monophyly or polyphyly?
In 1991, a paper submitted to Nature proposed that caviomorphs should be reclassified as a
separate order (similar to Lagomorpha), based on an analysis of the amino acid sequences of
guinea pigs.[13] This hypothesis was refined in a 1992 paper, which asserted the possibility that
caviomorphs may have diverged from myomorphs prior to later divergences of Myomorpha; this
would mean caviomorphs, or possibly hystricomorphs, would be moved out of the rodent
classification into a separate order.[14] A minority scientific opinion briefly emerged arguing that
guinea pigs, degus, and other caviomorphs are not rodents,[15][16] while several papers were put
forward in support of rodent monophyly.[17][18][19] Subsequent studies published since 2002, using
wider taxon and gene samples, have restored consensus among mammalian biologists that the
order Rodentia is monophyletic.[20][21]
[edit] Notes
• Adkins, R. M. E. L. Gelke, D. Rowe, and R. L. Honeycutt. 2001. Molecular phylogeny
and divergence time estimates for major rodent groups: Evidence from multiple genes.
Molecular Biology and Evolution, 18:777–791.
• Carleton, M. D. and G. G. Musser. 2005. Order Rodentia, pp. 745–752 in Mammal
Species of the World A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
 • David Lambert and the Diagram Group. The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life. New York:
Facts on File Publications, 1985. ISBN 0-8160-1125-7
• Jahn, G. C. 1998. “When Birds Sing at Midnight” War Against Rats Newsletter 6:10–11.
[1]
• Leung LKP, Peter G. Cox, Gary C. Jahn and Robert Nugent. 2002. Evaluating rodent
management with Cambodian rice farmers. Cambodian Journal of Agriculture Vol. 5, pp.
21–26.
• McKenna, Malcolm C., and Bell, Susan K. 1997. Classification of Mammals Above the
Species Level. Columbia University Press, New York, 631 pp. ISBN 0-231-11013-8
• Nowak, R. M. 1999. Walker's Mammals of the World, Vol. 2. Johns Hopkins University
Press, London.
• Steppan, S. J., R. A. Adkins, and J. Anderson. 2004. Phylogeny and divergence date
estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents based on multiple nuclear genes.
Systematic Biology, 53:533–553.
• University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2007 "Rodentia". [2]
• Wilson, D. E. and D. M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World A Taxonomic
and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
[edit] References
1. ^ a b "rodent - Encyclopedia.com". http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-rodent.html.
Retrieved 2007-11-03.
2. ^ "Rodents: Gnawing Animals".
http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Science/Animals/Rodents.htm. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
3. ^ Meerburg BG, Singleton GR, Leirs H (2009). "The Year of the Rat ends: time to fight
hunger!". Pest Manag Sci 65 (4). doi:10.1002/ps.1718.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121686000/abstract.
4. ^ Meerburg BG, Singleton GR, Kijlstra A (2009). "Rodent-borne diseases and their risks
for public health". Crit Rev Microbiol 35 (3). doi:10.1080/10408410902989837.
http://www.informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10408410902989837.
5. ^ Myers, Phil (2000). "Rodentia". Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Rodentia.html.
Retrieved 2006-05-25.
6. ^ Capybaras (Hydrochaeridae): Information and Much More from Answers.com
7. ^ Millien, Virginie (05 2008). "The largest among the smallest: the body mass of the
giant rodent Josephoartigasia monesi". Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1: -1.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0087.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/pg31525230323q27/?
p=35f8c90fe97d44c9b32766e547837566&pi=0. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
8. ^ Rinderknecht, Andrés; Blanco, R. Ernesto (01 2008). "The largest fossil rodent" (pdf).
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 923–928. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1645.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/34j867846u164624/fulltext.pdf. Retrieved 2008-
05-27.
 9. ^ Pearsall, J., ed (2002). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th ed. rev.. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. p. 1,239. ISBN 0-19-860572-2.
10. ^ Wines, Michael (2004-05-19). "Gambian rodents risk death for bananas". The Age (The
Age Company Ltd.).
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/18/1084783512636.html. Retrieved 2006-05-
25. "A rat with a nose for landmines is doing its bit for humanity" Cited as coming from
the New York Times in the article.
11. ^ Douzery, E.J.P., F. Delsuc, M.J. Stanhope, and D. Huchon (2003). "Local molecular
clocks in three nuclear genes: divergence times for rodents and other mammals and
incompatibility among fossil calibrations". Journal of Molecular Evolution 57: S201.
doi:10.1007/s00239-003-0028-x.
12. ^ Horner, D.S., K. Lefkimmiatis, A. Reyes, C. Gissi, C. Saccone, and G. Pesole (2007).
"Phylogenetic analyses of complete mitochondrial genome sequences suggest a basal
divergence of the enigmatic rodent Anomalurus". BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 16.
doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-16.
13. ^ Graur, D., Hide, W. and Li, W. (1991) 'Is the guinea-pig a rodent?' Nature, 351: 649-
652.
14. ^ Li, W., Hide, W., Zharkikh, A., Ma, D. and Graur, D. (1992) 'The molecular taxonomy
and evolution of the guinea pig.' Journal of Heredity, 83 (3): 174-81.
15. ^ D'Erchia, A., Gissi, C., Pesole, G., Saccone, C. and Arnason, U. (1996) 'The guinea-pig
is not a rodent.' Nature, 381 (6583): 597-600.
16. ^ Reyes, A., Pesole, G. and Saccone, C. (2000) 'Long-branch attraction phenomenon and
the impact of among-site rate variation on rodent phylogeny.' Gene, 259 (1-2): 177-87.
17. ^ Cao, Y., Adachi, J., Yano, T. and Hasegawa, M. (1994) 'Phylogenetic place of guinea
pigs: No support of the rodent-polyphyly hypothesis from maximum-likelihood analyses
of multiple protein sequences.' Molecular Biology and Evolution, 11: 593-604.
18. ^ Kuma, K. and Miyata, T. (1994) 'Mammalian phylogeny inferred from multiple protein
data.' Japanese Journal of Genetics, 69 (5): 555-66.
19. ^ Robinson-Rechavi, M., Ponger, L. and Mouchiroud, D. (2000) 'Nuclear gene LCAT
supports rodent monophyly.' Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17: 1410-1412.
20. ^ Lin, Y-H, et al. "Four new mitochondrial genomes and the increased stability of
evolutionary trees of mammals from improved taxon sampling." Molecular Biology and
Evolution 19 (2002): 2060-2070.
21. ^ Carleton, Michael D., and Musser, Guy G. "Order Rodentia". Mammal Species of the
World, 3rd edition, 2005, vol. 2, p. 745. (Concise overview of the literature)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent

http://www.kidport.com/reflib/science/Animals/Rodents.htm
Rodents: Squirrels, Mice, Porcupines and
Others
The largest family of mammals are the rodents. These mammals are named rodent,
means "gnawing animal," because of their large incisor teeth and the way they eat.
Top of Form long pairs of incisors are used like chisels to gnaw on hard foods like nuts and wood
partner-pub-6871 incisors must grow continuously since they are worn down by gnawing.
There are 3 major types of rodents, represented by squirrels, mice and porcupines.
FORID:10

ISO-8859-1

Search

Bottom of Form

Custom Search

About Animals:
Animal Kingdom
Animal Videos
Invertebrate Animals
Squirrel-like rodents such as the squirrel and gopher, have bushy long tails and larg
Vertebrate Animals They can live in trees or underground in tunnels. They may hibernate during the wi
Science Videos Mouse-like rodents include the mouse, rat and hamster. Some have a long, thin tail
legs. Others have a short tail. They mostly live above ground, although some burrow
Science Main Index ground. They may also hibernate during the winter. Rats and mice often live near h
sometimes in their buildings, so they can live off human food and garbage.
Porcupines differ from other mammals because they have long, sharp quills on thei
protection.
Interested in learning more about rodents. Check out our Mammal Video Collection
includes video on rodents such as the prairie dog and porcupine.

http://www.irri.org/publications/discussion/pdfs/Singleton.pdf

1
Summary
This paper provides an up-to-date review of the
preharvest impact of rodent pests on rice-based
agricultural systems in 11 Asian countries:
Bangladesh, Cambodia, People’s Republic of China,
India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and
Vietnam. Under traditional rice farming systems,
rodents generally cause chronic losses to production
in the order of 5–10% per annum. In many areas, this
figure has risen dramatically over the last few
decades, most noticeably in places where cropping
frequency has increased from one to two or three
crops per year. Today, it is not unusual for
smallholder rice farmers to report chronic yield losses
of 20–30% per annum, rising to 50% or even total
crop loss in certain seasons. In many areas, farmers
actually abstain from planting a second or third rice
crop because of the expectation of severe rodent
damage. This ‘forgone’ loss in productivity is rarely
taken into account. In Asia, a loss of 5% of rice
production amounts to approximately 30 million t;
enough rice to feed 180 million people for 12
months. Postharvest losses are probably of a similar
magnitude to preharvest losses. However, the data are
patchy and there have been few studies of the impacts
of rodents on postharvest storage of rice in the past
decade.
From the assessment of impacts of rodents on
pre- and postharvest operations, it is clear that
rodents play a significant role in influencing food
security and poverty alleviation programs for the
rural poor in Asia. Another important impact is the
influence of rodent-borne diseases on the health, and
hence, productivity output of humans (both rural and
urban). The prevalence of rodent zoonoses is
increasing and is likely to be an important impetus
for rodent management in rice agricultural
communities in the future.
This report highlights the relatively few
published studies on the ecology, biology, and
management of rodent pests compared with some
major insect and disease pests of rice. There is much
basic research still required to underpin the strategies
being developed to manage rodent pests. Moreover,
much of the current rodent control activities by
farmers are reactive rather than palliative. Few
farmers follow the recommendations of their
government agencies. This is a major issue (either the
recommendations are ineffective or they are
inappropriate for farmers (i.e., too expensive or too
labor intensive).
General research needs are identified in this
report as well as specific priorities for research and
extension for national agricultural research and
extension systems (NARES) determined from
consultations with collaborators in specific countries.
The Rodent Ecology Work Group of IRRI provides
one important avenue to promote research on rodent
pests in the region. However, stronger expert input is
required. IRRI is well placed to play an important
role in providing access to this expertise, in providing
leadership in research, and in building the capacity of
extension staff and farmers in Asia to translate
research outputs into management outcomes for the
rural poor.
In summary, IRRI has the unique comparative
advantage to provide the foci and regional linkages
for research and training and the continuity for
tackling the important problem of rodent impacts on
rice production. The major outcomes from this
research and extension effort would be significant
improvements in agricultural production, in food
security, and in both human and environmental
health.
Recommendations
1. IRRI develops the expertise that enables it to
provide scientific leadership and/or direction in
projects on rodent management in rice-based
agroecosystems in Asia. IRRI has the
institutional linkages (NARES and advanced

Impacts of Rodents on Rice

Production in Asia
Grant Singleton
2
research institutes [ARIs]), the high profile, and
the continuity that have it well placed to play an
important leadership role.
2. IRRI provides a catalyst for developing research
in rice-based agroecosystems that aims to
develop ecologically based rodent management
that is environmentally benign and is consistent
with sustainable agricultural practices. This is
currently being addressed through the Rodent
Ecology Work Group (REWG), although the
rodent expertise is being accessed via informal
linkages with the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Sustainable Ecosystems because of a collaborative
Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID)-funded project (ceases
June 2002).
3. IRRI takes a lead in addressing the critical
shortfall in research expertise on vertebrate pests,
particularly rodents, in Asia. The new 4-week
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) course
developed by the IRRI Training Center now
includes a 2-day module on rodent biology and
management. This is an encouraging
development; however, participants in the course
will not have a primary interest in rodent
management. I strongly recommend the
development of a 1-month training course
directed specifically at principles and practices
of rodent biology and management with an
emphasis on ecologically based rodent
management.
4. IRRI considers in the immediate future an annual
appointment of 2-3 months of a rodent specialist
who is active in research in the region (shuttle
scientist). This person would play a lead role in
the REWG as part of the Lowland Irrigated Rice
Research Consortium; concentrate in developing
multilateral linkages and promoting and
supporting key research priorities; assist with
developing and instigating training programs
(face-to-face) and training modules (web-based);
promote multidisciplinary linkages (e.g.,
ecology, sociology, and agronomy; upland and
lowland cropping systems; crop and forage
systems); and promote capacity-building of
farmers through facilitating the translation of
research outputs into management outcomes for
farmers.
5. IRRI considers in its next long-term plan a fulltime
position to provide leadership in research
and extension of rodent biology and management.
This position could be supported through
either core funds or external funds. Some
possible donor agencies based on current interest
are listed in a subsequent section .
6. IRRI considers developing or facilitating research
that links rodent management in rice cropping
systems with improvements in health of rural
farming communities. There are many rodentborne
zoonoses and it is recommended to
concentrate on one or two, such as leptospirosis
and rat typhus. A linkage between IRRI and the
World Health Organization (WHO) would be
beneficial in this circumstance.
7. The REWG is serving an important role in
fostering bilateral projects with NARES on
rodent management in Asia. However, a low
funding base limits its current activities. A brief
description of research and implementation
needs for Asia is presented on pages 19–22.
These are priority areas to develop if further
funds become available.
Linkages between IRRI, CSIRO, and
NARES
Rodent Ecology Work Group (1998-2001)
In 1998, the IRRI IPM Network and the CSIRO
Rodent Research Group established the REWG that
promotes
• communication between scientists and extension
personnel who are involved or interested in the
biology and management of rodent pests;
• collaborative research on decisions of rodent
management by farmers, population ecology of
rodents, and assessment of the association
between yield loss of crops and rodent density in
the region;
• strengthening of capacity through facilitating
exchange and collaboration between scientists
from NARES and advanced agricultural research
centers; and
• an important focus for the exchange of information
on rodent issues between institutions within
the CGIAR network (none of the CGIARs
currently have expertise on rodent biology and
management).
The specific objectives were as follows:
• To enhance ecological research in rodent
management;
• To utilize the ecological framework in
developing management strategies;
3
• To provide a forum for rodent experts for
reviewing, developing, and conducting
collaborative research on rodent management
and sharing of research methods and results;
• To develop a shared set of objectives and
research agenda and evaluations of control
options; and
• To share experiences, methodologies, and
results, and promote exchange of expertise
between countries.
Current activities of the IRRI REWG (linked
with CSIRO Rodent Research Group)
(i) Rodent Pest Network e-mail bulletin board
(established in June 1998, it currently has 115
members from 66 institutions in 29 countries.
(ii) Rodent Newsletter “War Against
Rats”(published twice a year, the newsletter
has 240 subscribers from 165 institutions in
49 countries.
(iii) Collaborative studies
• CSIRO, IRRI, Institute of Agricultural
Sciences (IAS) and Plant Protection
Department (PPD), Vietnam: “Enhancing
capacity in rodent management in the
Mekong delta region using nonchemical
methods.” This is funded by AusAID under
its Capacity-building for Agriculture and
Rural Development (CARD) scheme
(2000-2002).
• IRRI, IAS, PPD Vietnam, Danish Pest
Infestation Laboratory, CSIRO: Seed funds
to promote the establishment of the
REWG. This was funded by IRRI-Danish
International Development Agency
(DANIDA) (1998-99).
(iv) Annual meetings of rodent scientists from
Asia and elsewhere (1998-2001) under the
umbrella of the project “Management of
rodent pests in rice-based farming systems in
Southeast Asia” funded by the Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR).
The REWG (2001-2004) – as part of the IRRI
Irrigated Lowland Rice Research Consortium
New funding from the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC) came on
stream in 2001 to fund a 4-year consortium on
lowland irrigated rice. The REWG is one of five
work groups funded under this consortium.
The objectives of the REWG are as follows:
1. To enhance ecological research on rodent pest
species.
2. To develop further the concept of “ecologically
based rodent management (EBRM).”
3. To provide a forum for rodent experts to develop
and conduct research, to share research
methodologies, and to share results.
The budget is approximately US$123,000 with
US$20,000-25,000 distributed each year to NARES.
In an operational sense, the REWG will
1. serve as a platform for research and extension
partnerships,
2. optimize expertise in the region from scientists
belonging to advanced research centers,
3. assist through leveraging support from national
agencies and funding bodies to support bilateral
programs, and
4. provide an opportunity for joint planning of
research priorities and methodologies, and then
implementation.
An inaugural meeting of staff from IRRI and
NARES was held in Hanoi on 27 Sep 2001. Sixteen
people attended the meeting, drawn from Australia,
Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, United
Kingdom, and Vietnam. Two Cambodians were
present as observers. (Cambodia does not grow
sufficient irrigated lowland rice to be part of this
consortium.)
A key discussion point was on how to raise
awareness of the REWG. Physical actions were
identified (e.g., create a web page), and there was
discussion on the main focus of rodent management
and how to sell the high need for research and
extension in the region. Four selling points were
identified: poverty alleviation, food security, public
health, and environmental issues (sustainable
production). In countries such as Thailand and
Vietnam where rice is exported, it was decided that
public perception on health and environmental issues
would be of higher importance in lowland irrigated
rice regions.
Training
(a) Some researchers from developing countries
may be supported by REWG funds to attend
the 2nd International Conference on Rodent
Biology and Management.
(b) Training courses on IPM/EBRM at IRRI (it is
possible to use leverage of the REWG to get
bilateral funding to support in-country people
to attend international training courses.
4
Under traditional rice farming systems, rodents
probably caused chronic losses to production in the
order of 5-10% per annum. However, in many areas,
this figure has risen dramatically over the last few
decades, most noticeably in places where cropping
frequency has increased from one to two or three crops
per year. Today, it is not unusual for smallholder rice
farmers to report chronic yield losses of 20-30% per
annum, rising to 50% or even total crop loss in certain
seasons. In many areas, farmers actually abstain from
planting a second or third rice crop because of the
expectation of severe rodent damage. This ‘forgone’
loss in productivity is rarely taken into account.
REWG activities, October 2001 to March 2003
Each country identified key research and extension
activities to be funded during the 18-month period
from October 2001 to March 2003 (see table below).
These activities were given interim approval.
Each institution provided details on the methods,
budget, and timelines in November 2001. Dr.
Singleton, Prof. Escalada, and Dr. K.L. Heong
reviewed the proposed methodologies of each project
prior to final approval of their respective budgets in
early 2002.
Preharvest losses in rice production in
Asia caused by rodents
Economic importance of rice to the region
More than 90% of the world’s rice is produced and
eaten in Asia, with rice producing 35–60% of the
total food energy for the three billion people living in
the region (Khush 1993).
Rice is the single most important food crop in
Southeast Asia. In countries such as Indonesia, where
rice is the staple food, self-sufficiency in rice
production is an important influence on social
stability. In recent years, Indonesia has needed to
import rice to meet her domestic demand. The rat is
now the number one preharvest pest for rice crops in
Indonesia (Geddes 1992, Singleton and Petch 1994)
and its economic impact is of major concern to the
Government of Indonesia.
In Asia, claims of annual preharvest losses in rice
production by rodents range from 5% in Malaysia to
17% in Indonesia (Table 1). In countries where losses
are low on a national scale, the patchy distribution of
rat damage can still result in devastating losses on a
local scale. This is often the case in Malaysia.
Activity Country and Budget
institution (US$)
Economics of rat meat business, Mekong Delta, Vietnam Vietnam, PPD 4,000
Campaign for CTBS in Bac Lieu Province Vietnam, PPD 7,000
Movement on rats and their use of habitat Vietnam, IAS 4,000
Develop better methodology for damage assessment Vietnam, IAS 4,000
KAP survey (post-test) in Vinh Phuc, Vietnam Vietnam, NIPP 1,500
Assessment of impact of CTBS technology in Indonesia, RIR 3,000
Indonesia - Central Java and Sulawesi
KAP survey (post-test) in Cilimaya, West Java, Indonesia Indonesia, RIR 2,000
Anthropological effects of rodent management, Indonesia Indonesia, RIR/IRRI (Morin) 1,000
Problem definition and extent of rodent damage in Lao PDR 4,000
lowland irrigated rice
Baseline survey of KAP, Thailand Thailand, DAE 2,000
Baseline survey of KAP, Philippines Philippines, Leyte State University 5,500
Therefore, in Malaysia, rodents are still considered an
important preharvest pest.
In this section, I review the data available on
preharvest losses caused by rodents in Asian rice
fields. There are few detailed studies of rodent
damage to rice tillers at the field scale. The error
estimates from these intensive studies are usually
}2%. However, when one scales up to the village,
district, provincial, or national level, the damage
estimates become less robust. It is extraordinarily
difficult to provide accurate assessments of rodent
damage above the field level because of the typical
patchy pattern of rodent damage. Table 1 summarizes
the impacts of rodent pests at the national level.
Details of the origins of these data are provided for
each country in subsequent sections. A second table
converts these impacts for selected countries and for
Asia into forgone consumption of rice for humans
because of what has been consumed by rats (Table 2).
A word of caution may be given to those who
rely on the generic participatory rural assessment
(PRA) for gauging whether rodents are important
pests of rice systems. In most cases, the questions on
5
pest impact posed to the farmers will provide
responses that focus on insects because most farmers
equate the word pest to mean insects, not rodents.
Two recent books provide a good resource for
those interested in rodent biology and management.
The first book addressed the theme of ecologically
based management of rodent pests (Singleton et al
1999a). The second book has a broader theme of rats,
mice, and people (Singleton et al 2003). Both books
have contributions that specifically address the
problem of rodent pests in rice agroecosystems in
Asia.
BANGLADESH
There are two main rice agricultural systems in
Bangladesh: irrigated and lowland rainfed. The
Table 1. Overview of the preharvest impact of rodents on rice in Asia.
Country Preharvest loss (%) Comments
Bangladesh >50% in districts No national data
Cambodia Patchy; no national data High rank as pest by farmers
China PDR 5–10% Few data over past decade
India 5–15% Few data over past decade
Indonesia 15–17%
Lao PDR Upland 10–15%; higher in outbreak years Upland rice; <5% in lowland rice
Malaysia 5% Few data over past decade
Myanmar 5-40%; with outbreaks No national data
Philippines Variable; >20% in districts Require revision of national data
Thailand 6% lowland; 7% upland Few data over past decade
Vietnam >500,000 ha with high damage No estimate of percentage losses at national level
principal pest species are Bandicota indica and B.
bengalensis. There is limited economic assessment of
the effect of rats on rainfed deepwater rice. The
results of the evaluation, however, were impressive:
yield losses were 68% in 1987 and 32% in 1988
(Islam et al 1993). An important caveat to these
results is that the studies were conducted on a
research farm at sites that had a history of high rat
damage.
Another study in 1982-83 reported rat damage to
both the winter irrigated (“boro” rice crop) and the
deepwater crops (Karim et al 1987). The rat damage
was quantified for the deepwater crop by counting
the number of stems cut. On average, 3.5 and 2.1
stems m–2 were damaged at the flooding stage and at
harvest, respectively. A mean of 56.7 undamaged
stems m–2 were present at harvest, indicating that
Table 2. Forgone human consumption because of grain lost to rodent pests before harvest, based on 1999
estimates.a
Country Production ofEstimated rodentProduction Estimated Annual Rice People
and “rough rice” damage without production consumptionb daily fed/year if
population (‘000 t) (%) rodents loss (rough rice) calorie no rat loss
(million) (‘000 t) (‘000 t) (kg person-1 yr-1) intake (million)
(%)
ASIA 540,621 5 567,652 27,031 150 32 181
(3,585.4) 10 594683 54,062 362
(206.3) (1895 import) 10 54,487 4,953 19.9
Indonesia 49,534 17 57,955 8,421 249 52 33.8
Vietnamc 31394 30%–615,000 ha 33585 2,191 280 67 7.8
(77.6) (3800 export) 5%–7 million ha
20%–615,000 ha 32619 1,225 4.4
5%(3.5 million ha
aThe production and consumption figures are drawn from IRRI rice facts. bAnnual consumption is generally given as kg person-1 yr-1 of
milled rice
and production relates to “rough rice.” Therefore, we need to convert by dividing production figures, adjusted for exported and
imported grain, by
total population. For Vietnam, the high export indicates more grain in storage so we a used 1.7 multiplier based on figures from Asia
and
Indonesia. cVietnam has an average yield of 4.1 t ha-1; national figures in 1999 indicated that rats caused high damage (10–75%) to
245,000 ha
in the Mekong Delta and 370,000 ha in the Red River Delta. Low damage of 5–10% was recorded in 610,000 ha in the Red River
Delta.
Nationally, we have developed two scenarios: the first assumes an average of 30% loss in areas where damage is high (a
reasonable assumption,
given some crops are not harvested at all) and 5% loss on average elsewhere; and the second, a conservative estimate, assumes an
average
loss of 20% of production for 615,000 ha and an average loss of 5% for half of the remaining area of production (i.e., 3,500,000 ha).
6
mean loss of tillers m-2 to rats was 0.9% (5.6/62.3;
assuming additive effects of the damage). However,
estimates of minimum yield loss obtained by
excavating burrows of Bandicota spp. indicated that
crop losses were much higher. These rats hoard rice
in their burrows. A mean of 57.8 kg rice ha-1 was
stored in burrows, which reflected a 5.7% loss in
production based on the average national yield for
deepwater rice in 1982-83.
There are few data available on the ranking of
the impact of rodents on rice production in
Bangladesh. The most recent reports are at least 15
years old. One was a 4-year survey in Bangladesh
from the early 1980s that listed rodents as the fifth
most important pest of deepwater rice (Catling 1980).
Up to 52% of fields had significant rat damage at
harvest of the wet-season rice. A later survey ranked
rodents as the third most important pest (Catling et al
1988).
An impact survey of rodents to assess effects on
sustainable livelihood of subsistence farmers is
urgently needed and is proposed as part of a Poverty
Elimination Through Rice Research Assistance
(PETRRA) study on IPM involving rodents
(Belmain, pers. commun.).
CAMBODIA
In Cambodia, there are no reliable estimates of the
impact of rodents at the national level. Rodent pests
cause the greatest restraint to production, especially
in times of population outbreaks. The history of these
outbreaks is not documented. In non-outbreak years,
the impact of rats is greatest on individual families
(Jahn et al 1999). The best available data have been
collected from farmer surveys and are summarized in
Table 3. Annually, it is estimated that 0.1% of the
total rice production area suffers from 100% damage
by rats (DA 1998). At a finer scale, a PRA on factors
that reduce rice production found that 80–100% of
farmers generally considered rats to be their main
preharvest pest (Table 4). In a village where irrigated
rice was the main production system, a majority of
farmers estimated that losses caused by rats were
greater than 20% (L. Leung and M. Solieng, 2001,
pers. commun.).
The principal pest species appear to be Rattus
argentiventer, B. indica, and R. exulans. However,
few data are available. Based on farmers’
descriptions, R. rattus, R. koratensis (= R.
sikkimensis), and R. losea are probably present in
villages as well (Leung 1998).
The following quotes drawn directly from Jahn
et al (1999) summarize what is known about the
impact of rodents in Cambodia:
“....rice production is 86% rainfed lowland rice,
8% irrigated lowland, and 6% deepwater and upland
rice. Among lowland rice farmers (n = 1265), 27%
reported wet-season rat problems, and 46% reported
dry-season rat problems.”
“Due to the small-scale, subsistence nature of
Cambodian rice farming, and due to poor distribution
of food, rat outbreaks destroy savings and create food
shortages. An outbreak in 1996 destroyed rice
(>12,600 t) sufficient to feed over 50,000 people for a
year.”
“...in 1996, yield losses from rats represented
0.3% of national production and only 4% of Svay
Rieng’s total paddy production. National statistics do
not convey the fact that, during an outbreak,
hundreds of farmers lose their entire crop, sending
them into a cycle of poverty from which few escape.”
Table 3. Lowland rice areas that suffered high losses due to rats (>70%), Cambodia 1990–96 (Jahn et al 1999).
Province Area damaged (ha) Total Mean
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Kampong Thom - 161 118 76 68 456 1965 2844 474
Siem Reap - - 181 - - 103 - 284 142
Battambang 592 98 - 193 - - - 883 294
Kandal 452 - - 72 - - - 524 262
Prey Veng - 64 - - 86 511 125 786 197
Svay Rieng 93 164 236 472 230 786 4902 6883 983
Takeo - 56 - 183 - - 580 1011 337
Total 1512 543 535 1052 384 1856 7695 13577 1940
Av yield (t ha -1) 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.60 1.64
Estimated 1965 733 749 1525 576 2969 12619 21136 3019
production loss (t)
Value of285,818 106,618 108,945 221,818 83,782 431,855 1,835,490 3,074,327 439,190
production loss
(US$)
a Price of rice = 400 riel kg-1; exchange rate US$1 = 2,750 riel (1997); - = no information.
7
Table 5. Relationship between yield loss caused by rodents
and index of rodent abundance in late rice crops in Linxian,
Guangxi Province (Zhao 1996).
Index of
Year Area rodent Yield loss Average loss,
(ha) abundance (x 103 t) (kg ha-1)
(%)
1984 4,266.67 17.7 2.50 589.5
1985 5,000.00 7.7 1.44 289.5
1986 7,573.33 6.9 1.96 259.5
As for Lao PDR, the rice production systems are
changing toward greater irrigation and use of
varieties that allow two crops per year. This greater
intensification may lead to an increase in rodent
problems in rice crops in the future.
A new project funded by ACIAR focusing on
lowland irrigated rice cropping systems began in
September 2001. The project involves scientists from
the University of Queensland and is aimed at
incorporating strong farmer participation through an
adaptive management framework. The principal aim
of the project is to develop better rodent pest
management strategies that are consistent with the
ecological, technical, and socioeconomic constraints
faced by local communities. To achieve this goal,
Cambodian personnel have been drawn from the
principal research (Cambodian Agricultural Research
and Development Institute) and extension (Provincial
Office of Agricultural Extension) agencies.
CHINA
There are no published figures on the impact of
rodents on rice production in the 1990s. Before 1990,
the rodent problems were serious, especially from
1982 to 1986 (Table 5). In China, in the period
immediately prior to 1985, the official estimated loss
of rice to rodents was approximately 10% (Zhao
1996). The main species that cause damage to rice are
R. norvegicus, R. losea, R. flavipectus (=R.
tanezumi), Mus musculus, Apodemus agrarius, R.
nitidus, and B. indica. In the Dongting Lake area,
Hunan Province, Microtus fortis occasionally causes
very serious preharvest damage to rice (Zhang et al
1999).
Report on rodent impacts from Sichuan Plant
Protection Agency (2001)
Because of the lack of an integrated approach,
systematic monitoring, proper baiting technique,
hazards of poisoning, as well as changes in the
ecological and sociopolitical environment, the
damage caused by rodent pests is becoming serious
not only in the poorer mountainous areas but also in
the highly productive plains in Sichuan Province. The
mean food grain loss is estimated at about 320 kg
ha–1, with loss of rice yield for particular farmers
ranging from 0.5 to 15%. A significant amount of
grain (1 million t) is also lost in storage to rodent
pests.
The plains of Sichuan Province is a “rich” area
compared with the mountainous areas. Rice yield in
Sichuan is about 6,500 kg ha–1, and the area devoted
to rice is about 2,250,000 ha. No data from other
provinces exist, but Dr. Guo Cong (pers. commun.)
suggests that the rat problem may be easing
elsewhere in China.
In the 1980s, great effort was focused on
Table 4. Response to a question from a participatory rural assessmenta: “Which pests caused the highest damage to
your
rice crop?”.
Pests causing highest damage to rice crops
Farming community Farmer Rats Insects Crabs Birds
respondents (no.)
Svay Rieng (1) 35 100 0 0 0
Svay Rieng (2) 33 100 0 0 0
Bantey Mean Chay (2) 23 100 0 0 0
Bantey Mean Chay (2) 21 81 0 19 0
Siem Reap (1) 27 96 4 0 0
Seam Reap (2) 22 18 82 0 0
Pursat 12 92 8 0 0
Kamphong Cham 43 81 19 0 0
Battambang 18 61 0 39 0
aPRA conducted by Dr.Leung, Dr. Solieng, and others in Cambodia in 2000 (unpubl. data).

8
organized campaigns (Table 6). The scale of these
campaigns was very large. In recent years, however,
local governments are not as influential and these
campaigns are no longer being organized or financed.
Instead, the current method adopted by farmers is to
buy rodenticide or bait from local markets, with
management implemented at the individual farmer
level.
In China, the legal rodenticides are anticoagulants.
However, farmers do not like the “slow” action
and they do not see dead animals for their efforts.
Therefore, most of the rodenticides in the market are
illegal (Guo Cong, pers. commun.).
INDIA
In India, rodents have long been reported as having a
substantial impact on rice crops (Rao and Joshi 1986)
and are now the main constraint to rice production,
irrespective of production system (Parshad 1999, Rao
2003). The principal pest species are B. bengalensis,
Millardia meltada, and Mus booduga. Some 25 years
ago, rodents were reported to consume between 10%
and 15% of the national production of all grains in
India (Barnett and Prakash 1975). Recently, Hart
(2001) claimed that the overall losses of grain to
rodents in India were approximately 25% in the field
before harvest and 25-30% postharvest. She further
suggested that losses to rodents alone cost at least
US$5 billion annually in stored food and seed grain
in India. Rice crops are a vital food for India and both
chronic and catastrophic losses to rodents have been
reported. The chronic losses are economically more
important and often these losses go unrecognized
(Sridhara 1992).
Although Hart’s claims appear rather high, there
is compelling evidence that rodents have a major
impact on rice production in India. Parshad (1999)
has recently produced an excellent review of the
impact of rodents on rice production. The results of
his review, together with reviews by Sridhara (1992)
and Chopra et al (1996), are summarized in Table 7.
This analysis indicates that preharvest losses to rice
are generally in the range of 5–15%.
Added to the chronic annual losses caused by
rodents are episodic outbreaks that cause famine-like
conditions (Chauhan and Saxena 1983, Prakash and
Mathur 1987). A summary of rodent outbreaks in rice
production areas from 1990 to 2000 is provided in
Table 8.
Two regions particularly hard hit by these
outbreaks are Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The
cause of these outbreaks is not clear, although in
these regions, the flowering of bamboo is often given
as a causal factor.
Periodic outbreaks also occur in Andhra Pradesh
following flash floods or cyclones in this deltaic
region. For example, the 1996 cyclone was followed
by an outbreak of rodent populations in 1997, leading
to damage of up to 29% of the standing rice crop at
early tillering. This prompted the government to
provide free rodenticides at a cost of US$3.8 million.
In one district alone (West Godavari), 4.3 million
farmers were affected by the rodent outbreak (Rao
1998).
In India, major changes in agricultural systems
have increased the rodent problem in recent decades.
For example, the Indira Gandhi Canal brought more
cultivable land under irrigation, but there was a
concomitant increase in rodent impacts on crops
because the irrigation canals provided access routes
for the lesser bandicoot rat to move into areas where
it had never been previously recorded. This species
then replaced desert rodents as the dominant rodent
species (Mohan Rao, pers. commun.).
Dr. Rao is working in India in the development
wing of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. His role
is to try to link the research of the All-India
Table 6. Comparison of effects of three different control methods on rodent
damage to preharvest rice in Dongting Plain, Huanshou County,
Hunan Province (Chen 1996).
Treatment Year Mean yield Rate of Loss
(kg ha-1) loss (%) (kg ha–1)
Early-season rice Integrated 1988 6226.5 0.29 18.0
control 1989 5737.5 0.10 5.7
Control by 1988 6190.5 0.76 46.9
rodenticide 1989 5796.0 0.56 32.4
Traditional 1988 5887.5 9.13 537.3
control 1989 5643.0 7.49 422.7
Late-season rice Integrated 1988 6019.5 0.52 1.92
control 1989 6094.5 0.11 6.75
Control by 1988 6130.5 1.17 71.7
rodenticide 1989 5772.0 0.84 48.45
Traditional 1988 5763.0 8.59 495.0
control 1989 5875.5 8.60 505.35
9
Coordinated Research Project (consisting of 10
cooperating centers spread through India) with
extension staff working from within a different
institute (Institute of Central Agricultural Research
[ICAR]). ICAR extension staff have no training in
rodent management and have few linkages with
rodent researchers. Therefore, the national seminars
or workshops organized by ICAR institutes do not
cover topics on rodent problems. The result is that
research and extension departments are working in
isolation to address rodent pest problems; research
personnel are unaware of what is going on in
extension and vice versa. Dr. Rao has an unenviable
task. He took the lead in the following activities that
he is trying to instigate at different levels in India (see
also Rao 2003):
State sector
• Popularizing the nonchemical approach
• Popularizing the community approach among
Table 7. Preharvest losses to rice crops in India attributed to rodents.
Location Rice crop Rodent impact Reference
Punjab Irrigated 5% (range 1.1–17.5) Anonymous 1991 (Indian
(46–528 kg ha–1) Council of Agricultural
Research)
Uttar Pradesh Irrigated 98–213 kg ha–1) Rana et al 1994
Madhya Pradesh Rainfed 1.3–6.7% Patel et al 1992
60.8 kg ha–1
West Bengal Irrigated 261 kg ha–1 Chakroborty 1975
Meghalaya Lowland and 12.5% Singh et al 1994
upland rainfed 10%
Mizoram Upland rainfed 4.3% Singh et al 1994
Andhra Pradesh ?Delta rice 2.7–100% Rangareddy 1994
60–2,345 kg ha–1
Rainfed 9.6–60.6% Rajasekhraran and
Dharmaraju 1975
Delta rice 15% (range 10–60%) Anonymous 1977
Karnataka Various 1.1–44.5% Chakravarthy et al 1992
Various 62–79.7% Prakash et al 1986
?? Irrigated 13.3% Chaudhry and Badaya 1985
Haryana Irrigated 3.7% (range 0.5–16.4%) Chopra et al 1996
aModified from Sridhara (1992), Chopra et al (1996), Parshad (1999), and Rao (2003).

Table 8. Rodent outbreaks in India, 1990-2000 (Rao 2003).

Year State or territory Area affected Estimated loss
1990/91 Gujarat Saurashtra region Not available
1994 Pondicherry Karaikal region Not available
1994 Tamil Nadu Cauvery Delta Not available
1997/98 Andhra Pradesh 210,000 ha in Godavari Delta 3,301.85 t of rice
1999 Manipur 1,000 ha of jhum rice Not available
1999/2000 Mizoram 53,945 ha of rice, maize and vegetable crops Not available
1999/2000 Arunachal Pradesh 7,000 ha of rice and maize Not available
1999/2000 Nagaland 1,000 ha of rice Not available
2000 Manipur 1,264 ha of jhum rice Not available
farming communities
• Inclusion of rodents in pest/disease surveillance
activities
• Creating awareness through various
communication media
• Making available safer rodenticides at vulnerable
places
• Creating more trained manpower in rodent pest
management
• Liaising with public health authorities
• Ensuring quality control, especially in the use of
zinc phosphide
Central sector
• Enhancing research activities at ICAR on rodent
surveillance and nonlethal rodent management
strategies
• Extending timely guidance to states/UTs on
proper control operations
• Ensuring the availability of chemical inputs from
the pesticide industry
10
Private industry sector
• Timely supply of rodenticides by the industry
• R & D for developing safer formulations
• Ensuring availability of rodenticides at
vulnerable places
Dr. Rao provides the following quote, which is
true of much of Asia, with the possible exception of
China.
“In South Asia, there is a dwindling number of
competent scientists working on rodent pest
management. Scientists with entomology background
are normally recruited for rodent projects and
naturally they are not much interested in rodent
research since the subject is totally different and their
performance is often assessed in an entomological
framework for personal promotions.” (Mohan Rao
2001, pers. commun.)
INDONESIA
The most common rodent pest in rice fields is the rice
field rat, R. argentiventer, which in Indonesia is the
single most important preharvest pest to rice crops,
causing annual losses of around 17% (Geddes 1992,
Singleton and Petch 1994). This figure of 17% has
been used repeatedly for Indonesia. We will now
consider whether there is support for this estimate.
Discussion will focus on lowland irrigated rice
because this is the most important crop in Indonesia
and the information on rodent impacts is primarily
confined to this crop.
Detailed damage assessment
Buckle (1988) conducted detailed measures of crop
depredations by rodents in Java. His studies included
detailed damage assessment in farmers’ fields.
Buckle also used small fenced plots to estimate
potential yield where there was no rodent damage. He
concluded that 17% was a conservative estimate of
preharvest losses caused by rodents in rice.
An ACIAR-funded project on rodent biology and
management began in West Java in 1995. This study
included damage assessment across 6–8 sites with
rodent damage quantified at 10 transects per site (see
Singleton et al [1998] for details). In the 1995 dry
season and 1995-96 wet season, the combined mean
yield was approximately 10.1 t ha–1 on sites with
rodent management (using a trap-barrier system with
a lure crop) and 8.1 t ha–1 on untreated sites. Rodent
management did not eliminate rodent damage–for the
dry-season crop, 8% of tillers were damaged during
the ripening stage of the crop (Singleton et al 1998).
Therefore, in 1995-96, rats caused annual losses of
25–30% to rice production. Preharvest yield losses of
15–25% were similarly reported from a study
conducted in West Java in 1997 (Singleton et al 2003)
and these were similar to those reported by the
Indonesian Bureau of Statistics for West Java in 1997
(15–18%). However, in some years, losses were not
as severe. For example, in the 1996 dry-season crop
at the same study site, losses were estimated to be
less than 5%.
The ACIAR study indicated that annual losses in
rice production ranged from 5% to 30%, with most
years >15%. Again, this is consistent with an estimate
of annual losses of around 17%.
Broad-scale provincial damage assessment
Figures on rodent damage are collected at the
national level by the Forecasting Center for Pest and
Diseases. The provincial staff who collect these data
generally have training in entomology or plant
pathology. None would have been trained in rodent
biology and, consequently, they would only notice
rodent damage when it is at a high level. The
reporting consists of estimates of areas with moderate
(>10%), high (>30%), or severe (70–100%) rodent
damage (Tables 9, 11a & b). Given that 5% damage
to tillers is usually not noticeable, and 10% damage is
only detectable by a trained eye, then damage
estimates of 10(30% would typically be underestimates
of damage intensity. Nevertheless, estimates of
mean damage intensity were generally higher than
15%. Of particular note were the high losses in Java
and Sulawesi—the two principal rice bowls of
Indonesia.
Of interest is the fact that 5,225 ha were 100%
destroyed by rodents in 1995. Given an average farm
size of 0.75 ha (range of 0.5–1.0 ha) in Indonesia,
then approximately 7,000 families would have had no
crop to harvest. This alone highlights the important
impact of rodent pests on rice agricultural systems in
Indonesia.
Forgone rice cropping
In 1998, Indonesia faced a critical rice shortage
because of the effect of drought. A national IP-Padi
300 program was developed with the aim of
identifying areas where a third rice crop could be
produced (based on water availability) during
August-November. Rodents were identified as one of
11
the most important factors likely to severely limit the
yield of this third crop. Consequently, much
manpower and resources went into managing rodents
during this growing season. Although a reasonable
crop was produced, the threat of rodent impacts is
one of the main reasons that a third crop has not been
grown in these areas subsequently.
In both eastern and southern Kalimantan, large
tracts of land have been cleared and irrigated for the
express reason of growing rice. Rodent pests have
had a major influence on the success of these
transmigration regions. In southern Kalimantan, the
aim was to develop 900,000 ha. Rodent depredations
to the rice crops grown in these new lowland
irrigated ricecrops were a major factor that led to the
program stopping at 450,000 ha. In eastern
Kalimantan, the impact of rats was so severe that
some farmers stopped growing rice and converted to
livestock (R. Roothaert, CIAT, pers. commun.).
The above are clear examples of how rats can
limit when and where rice can be grown in some
Table 10. Ranking of economically important nonweed
pests of rice in Indonesia.
Ranking in decreasing order of economic significance
Pest
1983-85 1986-90 1991-94 1995-97
Rice field rat 1 1 1 1
Brown planthopper 2 4 2 3
Rice stem borer 4 2 3 2
Rice leaffolder 3 3 Not ranked Not ranked
aSource: Forecasting Center for Pest and Diseases, Jatisari, West
Java.
instances. This forgone cost of not growing rice
rarely enters into economic estimates of the impact of
rodents on rice cropping systems.
Summary of impacts of rodents
The above analysis reaffirms that rodent pests are
economically the number one preharvest pest in ricegrowing
agricultural systems in Indonesia. This fact
is clearly recognized by the Government of Indonesia
(Table 10). Moreover, approximately 17% losses in
preharvest production of rice nationally would be a
reasonable, and probably conservative, estimate.
If preharvest losses in Indonesia were reduced
from 17% to 8% (an achievable target), then it is
estimated that savings would amount to more than
US$0.6 billion per year. Put another way, rats
consume or damage enough rice to feed an extra 30
million Indonesians for a year—with rice on average
providing 70% of the daily energy requirements of
Indonesians . If these losses were halved, then there
would be sufficient rice to feed an extra 10–15
million Indonesians for a year.
Table 11a. Rodent damage and crop loss to rats for lowland
rice in 1995.
Damaged Mean damage Area of
Province area (ha) intensity (%) total crop
loss (ha)
DKI Jakarta 35 10.37 0
Jawa Barat 29,006 16.08 241
Jawa Tengah 11,282 14.32 662
D.I. Yogyakarta 2,138 11.28 0
Jawa Timur 4,493 22.18 485
D.I. Aceh 5,755 17.90 0
Sumatera Utara 878 16.00 10
Sumatera Barat 1,073 20.20 25
Riau 700 20.50 12
Jambi 597 24.10 105
Sumatera Selatan 2,380 22.50 217
Bengkulu 949 12.70 0
Lampung 1,473 18.60 70
Bali 212 25.40 0
NTB 550 15.90 0
NTT 45 5.30 0
Kalimantan Barat 1,476 32.40 337
Kalimantan Tengah 2,781 23.70 446
Kalimantan Selatan 140 20.20 0
Kalimantan Timur 1,385 23.10 19
Sulawesi Utara 612 28.80 110
Sulawesi Tengah 9,815 14.60 158
Sulawesi Selatan 23,362 32.40 2,179
Sulawesi Tenggara 1,972 24.80 149
a Source: Bureau of Statistics, Government of Indonesia.
Table 9. Preharvested rice areas damaged annually by rats
in Indonesia, 1997–2000.a
Year Area damagedb (ha)
L M H NH Total
1997 67,763 7,852 1,510 1,203 78, 328
1998 127,591 21,722 13,087 11,150 173,550
1999 153,349 49,254 19,497 15,602 237,702
2000 90,885 15,441 5,386 4,812 116,524
aSource: Directorate of Food Crop Protection.b L = light damage
(<25%); M = medium damage (25-50%); H = high damage (50-90%);
NH = no harvest (>90% damage).
12
LAO PDR
In Lao PDR, the greatest problem with rodents in
agricultural systems appears to be in the rainfed
upland habitats (Singleton and Pech 1984, Schiller et
al 1999), where the principal pest species are Rattus
exulans, R. losea, R. rattus, Bandicota spp. and Mus
spp. (mainly Mus caroli and M. cervicolor)
(Khamphoukeo et al 2003). Farmers rank rodents as
the second most important constraint to upland rice
production. (Weeds are number one.) However,
upland farmers consider rodents as the problem they
have least control over (Schiller et al 1999).
Lowland rainfed and irrigated rice
Most of the rice (>70%) is grown in the lowlands,
with irrigated rice making up only 12% of the crops.
Information on the impact of rodent pests on rice
production in this cropping system was restricted to
questionnaires conducted on farmers’ perceptions of
production constraints. Schiller et al (1999) reviewed
the data obtained from these questionnaires. Although
many farmers mentioned rodents, they generally
ranked them in the lowest three of 11-12 major
constraints identified.
An emerging issue, however, is that the amount
of land under irrigation is increasing by approximately
10% yr–1. This will result in greater
intensification of cropping, with more crops grown
per year. Based on the experiences of neighboring
countries in the Mekong Delta, rodent problems
would be expected to escalate, unless cropping
systems are developed with the biology of key rodent
pests taken into consideration.
Upland rainfed rice
A survey conducted in 1992 identified rats as the
second most important constraint to upland rice
production (Lao-IRRI 1992).
Acute losses. A major concern often expressed
was the episodic outbreaks of rodents in the upland
cropping systems. These massive outbreaks can lead
to crop losses of >50% and indeed some farmers
reported losses of 100% (Singleton and Petch 1994).
The causes of these outbreaks were not clear. Farmers
Table 11b. Intensity of rodent damage and area damaged by rodents in lowland irrigated rice
in 1995.a
Intensity of rat damage and area damaged (ha)
Province Low Medium High No harvest Total area
(<25%) (25-50%) (50-90%)
D.I Aceh 7,760 729 45 113 8,647
Sumatera Utara 2,204 180 42 35 2,461
Sumatera Barat 537 193 94 34 858
Riau 593 179 56 40 868
Jambi 434 88 16 9 547
Sumatera Selatan 3,295 383 47 225 3,950
Bengkulu 1,108 541 23 174 1,846
Lampung 5,248 764 213 779 7,004
DKI Jakarta 151 61 8 0 220
Jawa Barat 42,794 6,579 5,077 3,258 57,708
Jawa Tengah 14,341 2,298 3,321 925 20,885
D.I. Yogyakarta 757 310 3 54 1,124
Jawa Timur 4,020 444 585 235 5,284
Bali 364 21 0 0 385
Nusa Tenggara Barat 298 107 0 0 405
Nusa Tenggara Timur 212 2 0 0 214
Timor Timur 19 0 0 0 19
Kalimantan Barat 3,170 914 208 442 4,734
Kalimantan Tengah 4,248 417 189 121 4,975
Kalimantan Selatan 1,513 1,152 563 439 3,667
Kalimantan Timur 875 130 0 56 1,061
Sulawesi Utara 294 16 1 0 311
Sulawesi Tengah 1,231 220 72 2 1,525
Sulawesi Selatan 20,579 3,996 1937 3,671 30,183
Sulawesi Tenggara 8,013 1,581 563 685 10,842
Maluku 1,840 110 0 8 1,958
Irian Jaya 103 102 5 0 210
Total 126,001 2,1517 13,068 11,305 15,9057
a Source: Bureau of Statistics, Government of Indonesia.
13
linked these outbreaks to the flowering of bamboo,
but there was no strong evidence supporting or
denying this explanation. During the current ACIARfunded
project (1999-2002) on rodent biology and
management in upland agroecosystems in Laos,
historical data have been collected on the occurrence
of outbreaks from a minimum of four districts in each
of four provinces. Some records date back to the
early 1950s and it was evident that outbreaks of
rodent populations were not a recent phenomenon.
The earliest recorded outbreaks were in 1953 in
Houaphanh and in 1957 in Luang Prabang. The most
recent outbreaks were in two districts of Houaphanh
Province in July and August 2001 (Bounneuang
Duang Boupha et al 2003). This outbreak was in
upland rice and maize. Specimens were collected and
this outbreak may have been associated with bamboo
flowering.
Chronic losses. During 1998-2001, site visits to
villages in the uplands of Luang Prabang, Oudomxay,
Houaphanh, and Sekong have provided consistent
information from farmers that annual preharvest
losses to rats were generally around 15%.
Observations of damage to rice crops and recent
formal assessment of rodent damage both support
what farmers are telling us (Bounneuang Duang
Boupha et al 2003).
MALAYSIA
The main rodent pest species in Malaysian rice crops
is the rice field rat R. argentiventer. Annual losses to
rice caused by rodents are 4–5% (MARDI, unpubl.
data, 1994). The yield loss at the national level is
generally patchy, with individual farmers losing large
proportions of their crop. Therefore, for the individual
farmer, rats can have catastrophic effects on his
livelihood.
There have been no published reports on the
impacts of rodents in Malaysia since the review by
Singleton and Petch (1994). (Refer to this publication
for further details.)
MYANMAR
Agriculture is a major component of the Myanmar
economy, contributing 42% to its GDP with 65% of
the labor force involved in agriculture (http://
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
bm.html). The main crops are rice, maize, oilseed,
sugarcane, and pulses. Rodents cause significant
damage to each of these commodities, particularly to
rice. Rice is the national staple crop of Myanmar,
accounting for 97% of total food grain production.
There has been a national initiative since 1992 to
increase the area double-cropped with rice. It is
estimated that about 1.5 million ha are currently
double-cropped, although only 18% of rice is grown
under irrigation. A majority of cropping consists of
one rice crop (4 million ha) and other crops in the
spring and winter. Indeed, 53% of rice is grown under
rainfed conditions (http://www.irri.org/vis/facts/
myanmar.pdf).
Chronic rat problems have accompanied doublecropping
elsewhere in Southeast Asia, whereas acute,
sporadic rodent problems are generally associated
with rainfed single rice crops. The farming
communities are generally poorer in the single rice
crop regions, with livelihood security therefore of
major concern when occasional high losses in income
are accrued from rodent depredations. The Myanmar
Agricultural Service has identified the rainfed crops
as the priority for reducing rodent impacts on
production. Moreover, the greatest impacts of rodents
tend to occur among the poorer communities,
because they do not have the economic capital to
absorb chronic losses or sporadic acute losses and do
not have the knowledge base or living conditions to
minimize losses postharvest or to reduce rodent
contamination of food and drinking water. Therefore,
the main potential beneficiaries of rodent
management would be the rainfed farming
communities that have low annual average family
incomes (often less than US$200).
Rodent problems preharvest have a major impact
in Myanmar, where 75% of the population reside in
rural areas and depend on agriculture for their
livelihood. The rodent problem is not well defined,
but in the rice-dominated agricultural system, which
is largely rainfed, the rodent impacts appear to be
patchy and acute, with losses for affected individual
farmers typically in the range of 5-40%.
Little is known in Myanmar about the identity
and geographic distribution of the major rodent pest
species, let alone the biology of the main pest
species. Attaining such knowledge and developing a
simple rodent taxonomic key is a high priority.
Nothing is known about the causes of localized
rodent outbreaks, which occur every year but usually
in different localities each year. An analysis of the
spatial patterns and history of outbreaks against
patterns of rainfall, soil type, water levels, timing of
monsoon rains, etc. would be an essential step in
better defining the problem.
14
PHILIPPINES
The major rodent pest species in the Philippines are
R. tanezumi (synonym: Rattus rattus mindanensis) in
Luzon and the Visayas, and R. argentiventer in the
islands of Mindanao and Mindoro. Rattus norvegicus
and R. exulans generally are of minor concern, except
in the islands of Cebu and Palawan (Fall 1977).
Although there were claims that rodents caused
damage to crops (<1% of annual production) (Hoque
et al 1988, Sumangil 1990), the official figure has
been increased to 3–5% in recent years (Plant
Protection Section, Bureau of Plant Industry) and
reports in 2001 from farmer groups in Iloilo (Panay),
Isabela (northern Luzon); Nueva Ecija (Central
Luzon), and Pangasinan (central west of Luzon)
indicated that actual impact was higher than 10%.
Damage was patchy, with farmers from these regions
reporting annual losses of 30–50% in some years
(Singleton unpubl. data; E. Benigno and D. Sanchez,
NCPC, UPLB, pers. commun.; Appendix 1).
In Central and northern Luzon, the advent of
direct seeding has escalated the rat problem,
especially if there is a mixture between transplanted
and direct-seeded rice (R. Joshi, PhilRice, pers.
commun.). In 1998, 150 rice farmers surveyed from
three municipalities of the Ifugao rice terraces in
northern Luzon identified rats as a major pest. The
farmers also reported that they had little knowledge
on how to manage the impacts of rats (Joshi et al.
2000). PhilRice also has reported high rat damage to
hybrid rice nurseries.
A priority for the Philippines is to quantify the
impacts of rodents. Farmers living in the rice bowls
of the Philippines and staff from both PhilRice and
the National Crop Protection Center (NCPC) provide
a clear message that rodent pests are a major restraint
to rice production. However, the extent of the impact
has not been quantified.
An indirect measure of the importance of rodent
pests is the wide range of management actions
undertaken by farmers (Appendix 1) and the requests
for me to conduct mini farmer field schools (with
NCPC colleagues) on the biology of rats and on the
trap-barrier system. The outputs from the decision
analysis conducted with farmers on factors influencing
management actions for rodents are summarized
in Appendix 1.
THAILAND
The principal rodent pests of rice are R. argentiventer
and B. indica, although recent surveys showed R.
losea to be more abundant (Boonsong et al 1999).
In rice crops, losses average 6% in lowland and
7% in upland rice. Damage occurs every year in
upland rice, whereas damage is more variable in
lowland crops. Very few data have been collected in
the 1990s. Therefore, the reviews by Singleton and
Petch (1994) and Boonsong et al (1999) are still
current.
There is a heavy use of rodenticides in Thailand.
From 1993 to 1997, the annual government subsidy
for rodenticides for farmers was approximately 20
million baht (US$450,000) (A. Payakaphanta,
Department of Agriculture Extension, pers.
commun.).
VIETNAM
In Vietnam, recent changes in economic structure
affecting agricultural production have led to a
doubling in rice production. This increase has
occurred mainly in the Mekong and Red river deltas.
Factors contributing to this increase in yield include
more land under production and a general increase
from two to three crops per year. Both these practices
benefit rodents by way of increasing their food
supply and extending the periods in a year when
high-quality food is available. The latter would
extend the period of breeding of female rats because
their breeding season is linked with the stage of the
rice crop (from 1-2 wk before maximum tillering
through harvest). It is not surprising, therefore, that
serious rat problems have been reported nationally
since the adoption of the market economy in 1989.
Lowland irrigated rice
In Vietnam, the most common rodent pests in
lowland irrigated rice fields are the rice field rat, R.
argentiventer, and the lesser rice field rat, R. losea.
The rodent problem has escalated in the past 5–10
years. For example, the area of crop severely
damaged by rats increased to more than 600,000 ha
in 1998 (Singleton et al 1999b). In June 1997, the
Vietnamese Ministry for Agriculture and Rural
Development classified rodents as one of the three
most important problems faced by the agricultural
sector.
The rodent problem in Vietnam is thought by
many to be predominantly in the Mekong Delta. In
the early 1990s, this appeared to be the case.
However, in 1999 and 2000, severe rat damage was
reported in a greater rice area in the Red River Delta
than in the Mekong Delta (Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development).
In 1997, 22 provinces applied a rat bounty
scheme for specific times of the year and 55 million
15
rats were collected. The cost of the bounty scheme
was approximately 62 billion dong (approximately
US$4.5 million). In 1998, an estimated 82 million
rats were killed using bounties and other techniques.
In the province of Vinh Phuc alone, more than 5
million rat tails were returned from January to
September 1998. In this province of only 1.1 million
people, the authorities estimated that there were well
more than 10 million rats; 10 rats for every person.
In the Mekong Delta, in provinces such as Tien
Giang, Dong Thap, and Soc Trang, marked changes
in farming systems have led to increased reports of
rodent impact (Lan et al 2003). These changes
include both the expansion in area of planted rice and
the growing of two or three crops per year where
previously there were only one or two crops per year.
An overview of the increase in impact of rodent pests
in rice fields of the Mekong Delta is presented in
Table 12.
Lowland rainfed rice
There are some provinces in the Mekong Delta that
have significant areas of rainfed rice (e.g., Bac Lieu
and Bac Binh). Again, reports of rodent impacts have
been common in recent years, particularly in Bac
Lieu where there has been a marked expansion in rice
cropping.
CSIRO staff visited Bac Binh Province in March
2001. A survey of rodent impact on rice farmers in
the province had been conducted by World Vision
Vietnam (Le Anh Tuan, unpubl. data). The survey
indicates a current loss of productivity ranging from
10% to 35 %, with the highest losses concentrated in
the mid-land zone. Similar estimates of overall loss
were obtained during our own interviews, with
extreme losses of 50–100 % observed for some
marginal, rainfed cropping areas of the mid-land and
upland regions. Several fields were seen in which
100% loss of the “winter” crop had occurred.
Case study: Bin Thuan District, Bac Binh
Province (K. Aplin and G. Singleton, unpubl.
observations)
The Binh Thuan Pistrict of Bac Binh Province is
made up of a series of distinct landforms that largely
determine the distribution and nature of farming
systems. This natural system is being modified
through the construction of a series of dams and
irrigation canals that will greatly increase the
agricultural area with access to reliable, year-round
Table 12. Rodent situation in south Vietnam, 1991-2000 (see also Lan et al 2003).a
Year Area infected Total area cultivated Distribution
by rats (ha) year –1 (Heavily infected provinces)
(x 103 ha)
1991 6,200 3,162.7 Dong Thap, Long An, Kien Giang, Tien Giang
1992 18,640 3,213.4 Long An, Dong Thap, Kien Giang, Tien Giang, An Giang
1993 107,481 3,257.0 Dong Thap, An Giang, Tay Ninh, Tien Giang, Long
An , Can Tho, Soc Trang
1994 134,616 3,337.0 Long An, Tay Ninh, Soc Trang,
Can Tho, Kien Giang, Dong Thap.
1995 82,706 3,758.3 Long An, Kien Giang, An Giang,
Can Tho, Dong Thap, Minh Hai,
Tay Ninh.
1996 133,600 3,883.2 Long An, Dong Thap, Kien Giang, Can Tho, Bac
Lieu, Soc Trang, Tay Ninh, Vinh Long, An Giang.
1997 138,881 3,976.7 Can Tho, Tay Ninh, Soc Trang , An Giang, Vinh
Long, Ho Chi Minh city,
1998 189,468 4,053.6 Can Tho, Kien Giang, Soc Trang,
Vinh Long, Long An, An Giang,
Dong Thap, Bac Lieu,
1999 245,003 4,108.1 Vinh Long, Kien Giang, Soc Trang,
Tra Vinh, Dong Thap,An Giang,
Long An, Can Tho, Bac Lieu.
2000 111,865 4,049.7 Vinh Long, Ca Mau, Tay Ninh, An Giang, Soc
Trang, Can Tho , Dong Thap, Bac Lieu.
aBased on regular reports from field extension officers to the Southern Region Plant Protection Center at Tien Giang (data
provided by Mr. Ho Van Chien).
16
water resources. The major rodent species, based on
frequency of capture, were R. argentiventer, B.
savilei, and B. indica.
1. Coastal dune complexes (‘coastal area’): there are
at least two coastal dune complexes in the area, a
younger (Holocene?) complex that consists of white
sand with minimal soil development, and an older
(late Pleistocene?) complex with orange sand and a
more mature soil profile. Both complexes preserve
their original undulating dune morphology and hence
provide a variety of slopes and aspects for agricultural
use. These areas are used primarily for
horticultural activity, with only very small areas of
rainfed rice grown in low-lying areas. Apparently,
there are no plans to bring irrigation water to these
areas.
The communes located in this landform are
Hong Phong and Hoa Thang. Survey data for Hoa
Thang indicate a total of 11 ha of rice; with an
estimated yield loss of 30%. Our own interviews
suggested that 10 ha of rice are grown, with low
levels of rodent damage. Three rice crops are
produced per year using water available year-round
from a natural seepage and with synchronized
planting. The major crops for the commune are
watermelon (2,200 ha) and cashew.
2. Major rivers and associated alluvial fans and
terraces (mid-land area): the greater part of this
region consists of a complex of elevated alluvial fans
with predominantly sandy to gravel-rich soil. These
fans are clearly inactive and relate to periods of much
higher river flow and sediment transport than what
occur today. They have a poorly developed soil
profile and are used primarily for grazing or timber
reserves, with some horticultural crops including tree
crops.
The current river courses are inset within this
relict landscape. The channels are typically confined
and have narrow, active alluvial terraces that support
linear complexes of rice fields, presumably making
use of seasonal floodwaters. In several areas, such as
along the southern edge of the Luy River and north
along the lower reaches of its major tributaries, the
channels are bordered by broad, inactive (i.e.,
nonflooding) alluvial terraces with loamy, organic
soil. These terraces stand 3 m or more above the
active channels and constitute the major ricecropping
areas in Bac Binh District.
Among the communes visited, Luong Son, Phan
Thanh, Phan Ri Thanh, Hai Ninh, and Phan Hiep
have significant areas of rice fields situated on these
alluvial terraces, with smaller and less contiguous
areas in Binh An, Phan Dien, and Phan Hoa. In the
majority of areas, these rice fields are exclusively
rainfed and typically support a dual cropping regime
(summer [He Thu] and autumn [Mua] crops), with
occasional third crops (winter-spring [Dong Xuan]) if
conditions permit. Growing seasons are typically 90–
100 d, each separated from the next by a 20–30-d
fallow. All crops are direct-seeded, with the time of
seeding usually determined by individual farmers on
the basis of water availability.
3. Mountains and foothills (upland area): high
mountains enclose Bac Binh District to the north and
northeast, and form the border with Lam Dong and
Ninh Thuan provinces, respectively. The ranges rise
steeply from the alluvial landscape and are penetrated
by narrow valleys with streamside terraces and lower
slopes that provide arable land.
Phan Son Commune was visited where rice
fields are located along several distinct valley
systems, with fields located both in the active stream
channel (flow controlled by small-scale terrace
works) and on raised alluvial terraces (rainfed
systems). Areas immediately upslope of the rice
fields support hamlets and gardens, interspersed with
areas of open scrub. In many places, the stream
valley supports dense thickets of bamboo and shrubs,
often running between areas of rice fields.
The total area of cultivated rice at Phan Son is
close to 340 ha, divided into around 10–12 distinct
field complexes, with the largest areas situated on the
raised terraces. Three rice crops are usually grown,
with fallows of 20–30 d between each crop.
However, some fields were said to produce four crops
without fallow; these may be the fields located in the
valley floor where water is presumably available
year-round and where stream flow may provide
constant nutrient enrichment. All rice fields are
direct-seeded with the timing determined by the
Farmers’ Committee. The intensive cropping regime
was said to have begun in 1990 with the instigation
of a market economy; prior to that date, most fields
were cropped once a year. The farmers in these
habitats identified rodents as an important pest of
their rice crop.
At Phan Son in the uplands, it was claimed that
damage had increased about 10 yr ago, at the time
that they had increased cropping from a single to two
or three crops a year in response to the change to a
market economy.
At Binh An, rodent damage was said to be low at
present. However, the chairman of the People’s
17
Committee expressed the view that rodent damage
would increase as more areas are brought under
reliable irrigation.
These reports suggest a general link between
levels of rodent damage and increased frequency of
rice cropping. A similar link between agricultural
intensification and rodent damage has been suggested
for other regions of Southeast Asia, including the
Mekong Delta.
In comparison with the preharvest loss,
postharvest damage appears to be fairly minimal.
This was irrespective of whether grain was stored
inside residences or in separate rice stores.
Upland rainfed rice
Apart from the report at Phan Son in Bac Binh
Province, no other information was found on the
impact of rodent pests on upland crops in Vietnam.
Summing up
The statistics tell the story. Nationally, the area of
crop with high rat damage has increased from
approximately 50,000 ha in 1993 to 245,000 ha in
1995 and 600,000 ha in 1998. The impact appeared to
plateau in 1999 with “only” 500,000 ha. This is for a
country that has about 8.1 million ha under
cultivation.
In 1999, the Vietnamese Government developed
a special program on rodent control. Rat committees
were set up in provinces and although there was a
noticeable reduction in rodent impact, there were still
236,500 ha with high rodent damage (consisting of
221,800 ha of rice).
In summary, there is compelling evidence that
rats cause average annual yield losses preharvest to
rice of 10–15%.
Postharvest losses in rice production in
Asia caused by rodents
Rodent and insect pests have an enormous economic
impact on stored grain in developing countries. Many
Asian agricultural institutions regard the magnitude
of postharvest losses as a widespread problem, but
usually no common effort is made to control postharvest
damage (Hopf et al 1976). Moreover, few
studies have quantified the impact. Damage estimates
strongly depend on assessment methods and reports
of up to 20% postharvest losses of rice are not
unusual. Estimates worldwide put the annual loss of
food caused by rodents at about 11 kg per person; this
value is equivalent to the combined gross national
product of 25 of the poorest countries in the world
(Gwinner et al 1996). Postharvest damage by rodents
includes direct consumption of stored grain and
contamination by rodent excrements, parasites, and
corpses and damage to containers (e.g., bags). Also,
in Indonesia, Suharno (1987) reported that rodent
gnawing was the cause of treatment failures for insect
pests, and increased treatment costs in bag stacks
sealed under plastic enclosures after disinfestation
with carbon dioxide.
In India, losses of grain to rodents are estimated
to be 25-30% postharvest at a cost of at least US$5
billion annually in stored food and seed grain (FAO
1999). Another author claims that this could be a
conservative figure, based on estimates that there are
in excess of 2.5 billion rats in India and each one
potentially could cause US$10–15 billion in damages
each year (Hart 2001). The basis for these figures is
that rodents eat an amount of food equivalent to 7%
(rats) to 20% (mice) of their body weight daily.
Therefore, the potential annual consumption of grain
per rat is about 6.5 kg and per mouse, about 1.5 kg.
These figures consider the potential damage one rat
or mouse could do over a year, but the turnover of
rodent populations is such that the average survival
of rodents would be 3-5 mo. Nevertheless, the
estimates of loss are impressive.
One of the best estimates of rodent impact
postharvest is from a detailed study of rodent pests in
central Punjab in Pakistan, where for every person
living in a village, there were 1.1 house rats.
Extrapolating the results from this regional study to
the national level, it was estimated that 0.33 billion
metric t (rice, maize, and wheat) worth US$30
million were consumed by house rats in the villages
of Pakistan every year (Mustaq-Ul-Hassan 1992).
The study did not consider the impact of rats in and
around major cities.
Control measures are most likely to be efforts by
individual farmers (rodenticides, trapping) often with
little effect (Hopf et al 1976). In many Asian
countries, farmers simply accept postharvest damage
partly due to the lack of simple and effective methods
of rodent control.
In some Asian countries, the species involved in
postharvest damage of several storage facilities are
known from the survey of Hopf et al (1976).
Depending on type of storage, season, and country, a
diverse suite of small rodents such as Rattus spp.
(usually R. norvegicus and R. rattus), Mus spp., and
Bandicota spp. can be important for postharvest
losses. Often, for a particular region, the rodent
species causing damage in the fields are different
from those causing problems postharvest.
Although there is general consensus that rodents
cause substantial postharvest losses, surprisingly little
18
information is available in the scientific literature on
the actual damage and subsequent financial losses.
Rodent damage to stored grain is thought to be high
in tropical and subtropical countries; however,
estimates vary considerably (Table 13).
Within the ASEAN region, few estimates of
damage to grain in storage are available. In the
Philippines, Rubio (1972) estimated rodent damage at
40-206 kg per rice mill warehouse in Laguna.
Sayaboc et al (1984) observed an average daily loss
of 3.6 kg in commercial grain storage. Considering
that there were 100,223 grain storage structures in the
country, national daily loss was estimated to be
38,800-312,824 kg.
With reference to spillage, these authors report
that rodents spill 7.5 times as much grain as they
consume. The model developed by Benigno (1985)
indicated that rat control is more critical in ‘closed’
warehouses that provide optimum reproductive and
survival rates to a resident population. He
recommends long-term studies on reproduction,
survival, and movement, by age classes and by
species, as well as research on the effects of interspecific
competition on reproduction and survival.
An ‘expert consultation’ among staf f of OECD,
FAO, and WHO has classified rodent damage to
stored products as one of the top seven global rodent
pest problems. In 1979, it was estimated that 33
million t of stored cereal were lost to rodents each
year (WHO 1979). The main rodent species
implicated in eating stored grain are commensal
rodents such as the black rat (R. rattus), the Norway
rat (R. norvegicus), the house mouse (M. domesticus),
and the bandicoot rat (B. indica) (Prakash 1988,
Meyer 1994). All four of these species occur in
Indonesia, where the government’s main grain
handling authority (BULOG) has expressed a strong
interest in reducing rodent losses to stored grain
(Singleton and Petch 1994).
A literature search of several databases showed
that only one article on postharvest damage by
rodents has been published in the journals listed since
1994 (plant science) and 1989 (biological sciences).
In this article, the effectiveness of brodifacoum in
Table 13. Rodent damage in storage facilities, rearranged after Buckle and Smith (1994) and Hopf
et al (1976).
Country Species Damage Source
Laos Rattus spp. Up to 10% Direction de’l Agriculture,
Mus sp. widespread Vientiane, Laos
Malaysia R. exulans Common Crop Protection, Department of
Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
R. rattus diardii Muda (1986)
R. exulans
R. norvegicus
Mus musculus
Thailand R. norvegicus 5% Plant Pest Control Research
R. rattus widespread Centre, Plant Industry Division,
R. exulans Department of Agriculture,
Bandicota sp. Bangkhen, Thailand
Mus spp.
Philippines R. norvegicus 5% Bureau of Plant Industry, Region VI,
M. musculus Iloilo City, Philippines
R. norvegicus Caliboso et al (1986)
R. tanezumi
Korea R. norvegicus 20% Pest Control Section, Plant
R. rattus widespread in in Protection Division, Agricultural
Mus molissimus rural areas Production Bureau, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Seoul,
Korea
Indonesia R. rattus diardii Sidik et al (1986)
Mus musculus
(+ Suncus murinus; an
insectivore)
19
storage rooms and other structures on active burrows
is reported (Sarker and Jaeger 1997).
In theory, postharvest management to control
rodents should be relatively straightforward to
implement through focusing on making storage
facilities rodent-proof. However, mice can penetrate
gaps less than 8 mm in size and most rodents are
good climbers and/or can use drains to enter
premises. Moreover, rodent proofing is costly to
construct and also to maintain. Many novel methods
have been used to try to prevent rodents from
entering grain stores in villages in developing
countries, but, at best, these reduce rather than
eliminate infestation. Often, the rodents do not nest in
small village grain stores. This again shifts the focus
on the basic ecology of the rodents that cause
postharvest losses–which species are these, where do
they breed, where do they come from, and when do
they move into grain stores? The answers will depend
on the region, storage facility, and country.
Health impacts of rodents on rice
agroecosystems in Asia
The effect of rodents on human health will be an
emerging issue in the next 5–10 yr. There are more
than 60 rodent-borne zoonoses (diseases that affect
humans) (Gratz 1996). The main diseases for concern
within the rice-growing agricultural zones are
leptospirosis (6,000 cases in Thailand in year 2000
with 320 deaths; A. Payakaphanta, pers. commun.);
the arena- and hantaviruses that cause haemorrhagic
diseases (Mills 1999); the plague (Yersinia pestis); rat
typhus (Rickettsia sp.); and neuro-angiastrongyliasis
(from lungworm of rodents-see Prociv et al 2000).
Many research challenges exist because little is
known about
(i) the status of these zoonoses in Asia;
(ii) which are key reservoir species;
(iii) the persistence of the infective parts of the
disease life cycle in rice agroecosystems; and
(iv) the basic human epidemiology of these
diseases (incidence of infection, morbidity
rates; transmission rates, age- and sex-related
effects, effects of socioeconomic status, etc.).
There have been increasing concerns about
rodent-borne diseases over the past 5–10 yr (see box).
However, much of the work on rodent-disease
interactions has been conducted in developed
countries (e.g., hantaviruses and lyme disease in
USA), in Africa, or in South America (Mills 1999).
Future research and implementation
needs for Asia
An overview of the current management methods
adopted by farmers in the various Asian countries to
control rodents is presented in Table 14. This table
also summarizes the recommended national rodent
management strategies and the lead government
agencies for rodent research and extension. There is a
striking difference between countries in their
approaches to rodent management. Also, in only a
few instances are farmers adopting the management
strategies recommended by government. This serves
to highlight the lack of an integrated management
program for rodent pests that is both effective and
relevant to the needs of farmers with smallholdings.
Historically, farmers have had little direct involvement
in the formulation and testing of rodent
management strategies. A high priority, therefore, is
to develop management programs that consider what
farmers are prepared to implement and to have strong
farmer involvement in demonstration projects and
experiments aimed at testing the efficacy of rodent
management.
In Vietnam, farmer participation through
community groups has been an integral part of rodent
management projects in the Mekong and Red River
delta regions during the past 3 yr. The results have
been encouraging. More needs to be done elsewhere
in Asia to encourage strong farmer participatory
research on rodent pests in rice agroecosystems (see
points 7 and 8 in the next section). Linked with this is
the need to develop collaborative projects involving
biologists, social anthropologists, sociologists, and
There is a general lack of data on rodent-borne
diseases and their impacts in Asia, especially in
Southeast Asia.
There is a rise in concern of rodents as a health risk
in rice agroecosystems because of increase in travel
of people between rural and urban areas and between
countries, increased population density that amplifies
the ability of a disease to spread through a population,
and increased clearance of natural habitats that
promotes rodent-human contact.
In poorer communities, if a rodent zoonotic causes
disability for a poor farmer for a month at a key time,
then it may lead to no crop, a late crop, or reduced
crop yield. Each can lead to a debt treadmill.
20
agronomists. IRRI is well positioned to play a key
role in these multidisciplinary projects because of its
strength and leadership in Asia in socioeconomics
and social anthropology in agricultural systems.
The remainder of this section contains brief
descriptions of research and implementation needs
for Asia in general. Some specific requirements for
each country are provided in an abridged form in
Table 15.
Research and extension emphasis for NARES
(see also Table 15)
1. Basic taxonomy and ecology: Research in ricebased
agroecosystems that aims to develop
ecologically based rodent management that is
environmentally benign and is consistent with
sustainable agricultural practices through
(i) development of a clear understanding of
which rodent species are major pests for
Table 14. Review of current national government priority for managing rodent pests, the lead government agencies
for
research and extension, and the principal control actions currently conducted by farmers against rodent pests in
rice
production systems.
Country National Farmer Lead government Current control by farmers
government priority agency (government recommendation in parenthesis)
priority
Research Extension
Bangladesh High High BRRI and BARI (and Reactive use of rodenticides; fumigation of
BARI NGOs) burrows; traps (rodenticides-no clear
operational national policy)
Cambodia Moderate High in CARDI AEC Community rat hunts; digging; reactive use of
regions poison (ZnPh of variable quality)
(reactive provision of bounties and ZnPh)
China PR Moderate ?? Various Reactive use of acute and chronic rodenticides
(chronic rodenticides)
India Very high ?? AICRRP
in regions Funded by IRC ICAR Bunds–low growth; trapping; reactive use of
rodenticides in mass-scale control programs
(rodenticides: surveillance then pulse
application; fumigation);
Indonesia Very high Very high CRIFC: RIR DFCP; RIR Reactive use of poisons; fumigation (sulfur);
hunting; bunds – low growth (except main
channels); CTBS; bounty
(EBRM: CTBS; bunds–low growth; synchronous
crops; etc.)
Lao PDR High in uplands High in NAFRI: Provincial
uplands Provincial Dept Dept Agric Bounties; hunting; digging; reactive use of
Agric poison (ZnPh; unknown Chinese)
(no government recommendations formulated)
Malaysia Low Patchy MARDI Dept Agric Reactive use of acute poison (ZnPh);
anticoagulants
(use anticoagulant weekly for 8 wk after
planting crop; barn owls as predator)
Myanmar High High MAS MAS Reactive use of poisons; hunting; digging
Philippines Low Higha ?Not clear BPI,
PhilRice RCPC, Reactive use of acute poison (ZnPh); seasonal
NCPC rat drives (postharvest); digging; bunds–low
growth (sustainable baiting using anticoagulant
after planting crop)
Thailand Moderate ?? DOA-AZRG DOAE-PPS Reactive use of acute poison (ZnPh); digging;
(high for health) hunting (strategic use of chronic [or acute]
poisons; pit traps)
Vietnam Very high Very high MARD: MARD: Bounties; reactive use of poisons (ZnPh;
IAS-south PPD and unknown Chinese; BioRat; anticoagulant);
NIPP-north sub-PPDs plastic fences; CTBS (BioRat; cat as predator
(developing CTBS/EBRM principles))
a Based on personal visits to the main rice bowls of the Philippines (Iloilo, Isabela, Pangasinan) and on reports
directed to me
from other provinces (Laguna, Marinduque, Nueva Ecija).
21
specific regions and to develop up-to-date
and “user-friendly” taxonomic keys. These
regions include Laos and Cambodia; the
uplands of Vietnam and regions of rainfed
rice such as Bac Binh Province; Kalimantan
and eastern islands of Indonesia.
(ii) understanding the association between
population density and yield loss for the
major pest species in each rice-based
agricultural system (apart from Java,
Indonesia, little is known about this
association). This will set the density
thresholds for action and establish what
proportion of a population would need to be
controlled to reduce yield loss to acceptable
levels.
(iii) a better understanding of the population
ecology of the pest species: breeding
ecology (why is breeding triggered just
prior to maximum tillering), habitat use,
diet (what do rats eat during fallow period
and vegetative stage of rice) and population
dynamics associated with the cropping
systems.
2. Effect of farming systems on rodent dynamics:
Better definition of the impact of different
farming systems on the dynamics and behavior
of rodent pest species; working with farmers to
determine whether farming systems can be
slightly modified (e.g., greater synchrony of
growing of rice crops) to make it less attractive
to rodents.
3. Spatial use: Knowledge of seasonal and
interannual dynamics of how rodent species use
their habitat is fundamental to developing
effective management plans. This information is
lacking in Lao PDR and Cambodia, in rainfed
rice-growing areas of most countries, and is
rudimentary in Bangladesh, Thailand, and
Vietnam.
Table 15. Review of level of resources, available knowledge from participatory rural assessment (PRA) and some
major
opportunities for research and implementation needs.
Standard of resources PRA available Major opportunities (needs)
Country -region(s) In the next 5 yr
Infra- Rodent Extension
structure scientists
Bangladesh ? Limited ?? Limited Clear specification of problem; ecology; farmer
information participatory research; capacity building of
researchers and extension staff
Cambodia Poor Poor Poor Yes Taxonomy; ecology; build expertise in biology
and extension (participatory research);
national laboratory
China PR Good Good ?? Limited ??
information
India Poor Good Medium ?? Consolidation of biological data; coordinated
national program; capacity building and
implementation
Indonesia Good Good Medium to Yes – Java Capacity building of extension staff and
in Java poor farmers; biology of rats in rainfed systems;
biocontrol (sterility); zoonoses
Lao PDR Poor Poor Poor Yes – uplands Ecology; spatial use; build expertise in biology
and lowlands and extension; national laboratory
Malaysia Medium Too few ?? Limited Good experimental study of effect of barn owls on rat
information populations; lure crops for CTBS
Myanmar Poor None Medium None Clear specification of problem; ecology; farmer
participatory research; capacity building of researchers
and extension staff
Philippines Poor Poor Poor Only Iloilo Definition of needs (PRA); build expertise in biology and
extension; EBRM + CTBS
Thailand Good Aging Good Medium Build new expertise in biology; capacity building of
farmers; zoonoses
Vietnam Medium Medium Very good Yes – Red River Build expertise in biology; capacity
& Mekong Delta building of farmers; crop system and impact (GIS)
22
4. Changes in farming systems and rodent impacts:
Escalations in the impact of rodents on ricegrowing
systems in Vietnam indicate that
changes in farming systems (one rice crop to two
or three crops per year; two crops to three crops
per year) may have been responsible. The
collection by IRRI staff of GIS information on
farming systems in Bac Lieu and Soc Trang
since 1995, coupled with regular records of
rodent impact since 1993 for this region (at the
district level), provides an opportunity to
examine this association at a relatively fine scale.
Historical accounts of years of high rat impact
could provide an indication of the association at
a broad scale. Clarification of this association
would
(i) provide a basis for examining modifications
in farming systems for managing the rodent
problem;
(ii) clarify the impact of changing systems from
one rice crop to two crops; two crops to
three crops; rainfed to irrigated; etc, and
hence would assist in forecasting the
consequences of such changes.
5. Balance conservation of beneficial species with
control of pest species: Exploring the impact of
management actions on community ecology
(including nonpest species of rodents) and
alerting governments to the unwanted and
unintended effects of large-scale “culling”
operations. A corollary to this is identifying and
promoting the “ecological services” provided by
nontarget species at risk during these operations.
6. Biological control: Facilitating research on the
potential of biological control of rodent pests,
including the impact of predators, of biocides
such as Sarcocystis, and of fertility control
agents (e.g., immunocontraception).
7. Participatory problem assessment: Through links
with IRRI colleagues with a strong sociological
background, interacting with NARES personnel
and farmers to develop a decision analysis
process that focuses on “best practice
management based on current knowledge.” This
would also help identify key gaps in our
knowledge of the biology, ecology, and
management of particular rodent pests.
8. Sociocultural attitudes toward/economic
constraints to rodent control: It is important to
know why management actions for rodent pests
work in some rice agroecosystems, for some
socioeconomic groups, but not others.
Comparative studies across different cultural
groups and agricultural systems will provide an
important insight in the robustness of various
management techniques. Likewise essential are
collaboration with staff from national extension
agencies to assist in developing strong farmer
participation, and sociological studies to identify
which management actions are or are not
adopted and what factors will likely affect these
decisions.
9. Tools to assist researchers from NARES:
(i) Synopsis of the biology of key pest species:
Often researchers and extension personnel
in developing countries do not have easy
access to the literature on rodents. The
CSIRO Rodent Research Group maintains a
catalogue of publications for Southeast
Asia. Of immediate value would be a
synopsis of the biology of each species.
This information could be delivered
together with a taxonomic key using the
package Lucid (“Rodent Lucid”).
(ii) Techniques manuals: The CSIRO Rodent
Research Group has developed a manual on
research techniques for studying rats living
in lowland irrigated rice agroecosystems.
This manual needs to be extended to include
(a) tools for measuring sociological and
agronomical parameters, and (b) biological
techniques for South Asia and rainfed
agroecosystems.
10.Epidemiology of rodent-borne zoonoses: The
effect of rodents on human health will be an
emerging issue in the next 5–10 yr. Of the 60
or so rodent-borne zoonoses (diseases that affect
humans), the most important are leptospirosis,
the arena and hantaviruses that cause
haemorrhagic diseases, the plague, rat typhus,
and lung worm that causes neuroangiastrongyliasis.
Research is needed to look
into
(i) the status of these zoonoses in Asia,
(ii) the identity of key reservoir species, and
(iii) the persistence of the infective parts of the
disease life cycle in rice agroecosystems.
In summary, there is still much research required
on the general biology of the 8-10 most important
rodent pests in Asia. Our knowledge base falls well
behind that for some of the major insect pests and
disease agents of rice. To highlight this point, I have
summarized the differences in research effort on
these species compared with the principal rodent pest
in Asia, the rice field rat, R. argentiventer (Fig. 1, 2).
23
Value-adding to existing research at IRRI
The following existing IRRI projects could be
enhanced through the addition of a specific rodent
component:
1. Integrated Upland Agricultural Research
Program (Luang Prabang, Lao PDR)
2. Accelerating Poverty Elimination Through
Sustainable Resource Management in Coastal
Lands Protected from Salinity Intrusion: A Case
Study in Vietnam (Bac Lieu, Mekong Delta,
Vietnam)
3. Natural Resource Management-International
Rice Parks
Role of IRRI in advancing research and
extension activities on rodents
• IRRI, through the REWG, has identified key
NARES staff. Many of these people, the
extension staff in particular, have other calls on
their time but recognize that rodents are an
important issue. They require leadership on
rodent biology and management and collaborative
linkages with experts from ARCs in
developed countries and with colleagues from
other countries in Asia. IRRI can assist through
identifying the right people (from NARES and
ARCs) for the specific high-priority tasks in each
country and then in establishing and nurturing
these linkages (both bilateral and multilateral).
Therefore, the REWG could provide an
important platform to facilitate fruitful
interactions between scientists from a variety of
disciplines, nationalities, and agencies.
• IRRI will be able to provide leadership in
“broadly based IPM” projects in rice
agroecosystems through linking research on IPM
of insects and weeds with that of rodents. This is
a most exciting development.
• Monitor developments in contemporary
international rodent projects in agricultural
systems (e.g., EU Staplerat Project in eastern
Africa) to know progress in management of
rodent pests in rice systems.
• Develop an active international network from
developed countries of small mammal specialists
(e.g., ecologists, modelers, epidemiologists,
biotechnologists), wildlife managers, and
extension specialists. IRRI can act as a catalyst
to encourage and facilitate the inputs of these
scientists into practical rodent management in
developing countries. There is a vast pool of
rodent expertise in developed countries,
especially in basic research, but there is not a
focal point for assembling and redirecting this
knowledge and research energy toward food
security and poverty alleviation. IRRI can
provide a high-profile rallying point for this
expertise.
• Through focused training programs, IRRI can
help foster interest and the development of the
next generation of young rodent biologists and
wildlife managers. This is an express need in
Asia where there are too few tertiary institutions
offering appropriate undergraduate courses.
Fig. 1. Number of publications from 1986 to 2001 in the ISI
web of science on a subset of rice pests. (Note:The multimammate
rat is an African species.)
Fig. 2. Number of publications from 1986 to 2001 listed in
the IRRI rice bibliography on a subset of rice pests.
ISI - Web of science
1986-2001
0
150
300
450
Stem borer
BPH +WBPH
Multi-mammate
rat
Tungro
Leaf-eared
mouse
Ricefield rat
References (no.)
IRRI rice bibliography
1000
800
600
400
200
0
BPH
Tungro
Stem borer
Gall midge
Rats
Rattus
argentiventer
References (no.)
24
A permanent or part-time rodent biologist at
IRRI can play a major role in developing links with
universities in the region to
(i) assist with the development of syllabus for
tertiary courses in wildlife management in
Southeast Asia where there is a dearth of
such courses, and
(ii) assist with the supervision of post-graduate
students.
4. Capacity building and implementation in
countries where the infrastructure (rodent
expertise in biology and management and
institutional [government] support) is in place—
Vietnam (and, hopefully, Indonesia, although as
a nation, it has much more diversity in its
agroecosystems, cultural groups, etc.) (AusAID,
IRRI REWG, ACIAR, NGOs)
5. New emphasis (epidemiology of rodent-borne
diseases (leptospirosis, rat typhus, viral-borne
haemorrhagic diseases, plague, lung worm, etc.).
We see rodent impacts on human health as an
important driver for specialist expertise on
rodents in the next 5-10 yr (WHO, Rockefeller
Foundation, pharmaceutical private sector,
USAID, NGOs, Chinese government [for work
in China]).
Possible linkages with other CG centers
Possible links with the International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI)
1. Rodents as reservoirs for disease of livestock and
farmers (e.g., leptospirosis; rat typhus;
salmonella; angiostrongylus; fasciola;
cryptosporidium).
2. Benefits and risks of using rodents caught in
trap-barrier systems as a source of high-protein
supplement for pigs, ducks, and aquaculture (and
humans in some regions). What are the risks of
transferring disease? Can the rats be treated
appropriately (e.g., barbecued) to minimize this
risk?
3. Crop-Animal Systems Research Network
(CASREN)—an ADB-funded initiative in the
Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, and
Thailand that is concentrating on small
landholders (0.3-3.5 ha). Most are rainfed areas
(lowland and upland) and the emphasis is on
complementing livestock production with crop
production. One initiative being proposed for the
Philippines and Indonesia (West Java) is planting
of forage along the borders of crops and on the
banks of main irrigation channels. A conflict may
arise through providing “improved” habitat
harborage (source habitats?) for rats. However,
such conflicts may be resolved if they are
approached from an integrated perspective. For
example, there are key times to keep growth low
along these crop margin habitats for rodent
management, but, at other times of the year, the
focus should be on forage biomass and quality.
Indeed, there are already reports of conflict:
Other groups in the world may provide some of these
services from time to time but these groups come and
go, depending on the commitment of specific donor
agencies and/or on the energies of individual scientists.
IRRI has the unique comparative advantage to provide
the foci and regional linkages for research, training, and
continuity, for tackling the important problem of rodent
impacts on rice production.
Short-term “band aid” approaches have not provided
sustainable management in the past, partly because of
the complexity of the problem, but often because of the
lack of continuity of research and extension leadership
for staff from NARES. A concerted long-term coordinated
approach facilitated by IRRI is required to promote,
mentor, and encourage the current and future
generations of rodent research and extension staff in
developing countries.
Opportunities at country level and
possible donor agencies
Specific opportunities or needs for research and
implementation of rodent management on a country
basis are presented in Table 15. This section
addresses a subset of these needs and recommends
possible donor agencies. Most of these agencies have
provided funds in Asia sometime over the past 5 yr
for research on rodent pests or for capacity building
for rodent management.
There are five broad areas:
1. Build on the basic skills that have been
developed in countries such as Lao PDR to
provide progress on rodent management in
rainfed, upland systems (Lao PDR, Thailand,
Vietnam) (ACIAR, SDC)
2. Provide a resource base to support rodent
researchers and extension staff in developing
countries in Asia (IRRI REWG, SDC, ACIAR,
NGOs)
3. Provide assistance in countries that are sadly
lacking in “modern” rodent management
expertise (or simply have little expertise)—e.g.,
Bangladesh (PETTRA funds), Philippines
(AusAID, CIDA, NGOs) and Lao PDR (ACIAR,
AusAID, NGOs)
25
farmers in the Cirebon area of West Java are
reluctant to grow forage for stock along the
margins of crops because of their concerns about
providing good rat habitat (Dr. Beriajaya
[BALITVET], pers. commun.).
Possible links with Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)
There is nobody working on rodent biology or
management at CIAT but Dr. Anthony Bellotti
indicated that it was a definite gap in their expertise.
References
Anaeto SG, ed. 2000. Management of ricefield rats. Rice
Technology Bulletin No.28. Maligaya (Philippines):
Philippine Rice Research Institute.
Anonymous. 1977. Rodent menace in coastal areas of
Andhra Pradesh. Rodent Newsl. 1:4-5.
Anonymous. 1991. Report of the Second Quinquennial
Review Team 1985-1989 for the All India Coordinated
Research Project on rodent control. New Delhi (India):
Indian Council of Agricultural Research. 45 p.
Anonymous. 1996. National pest survey. Laguna
(Philippines): National Crop Protection Center,
College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines
Los Baños. 59 p.
Barnett SA, Prakash I. 1975. Rodents of economic
importance in India. New Delhi (India): Arnold
Heinemann. 175 p.
Benigno EA. 1985. Use of a population model for planning
control strategies against Rattus rattus mindanensis
Mearns. In: Proceedings of the 8th ASEAN Technical
Seminar on Grain Post-Harvest Technology. ASEAN
Crops Postharvest Programme, Manila, Philippines.
p 65-78.
Boonsong P, Hongnark S, Suasa-ard K, Khoprasert Y,
Promkerd P, Hamarit G, Nookam P, Jäkel T. 1999.
Rodent management in Thailand. In: Singleton GR,
Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based
management of rodent pests. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 338-357.
Bounneuang Douangboupha, Aplin K, Singleton GR. 2003.
Rodent outbreaks in the uplands of Laos: analysis of
historical patterns and the identity of nuu khii. In:
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds.
Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and
management. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 103-111.
Buckle AP. 1988. Integrated management of rice rats in
Indonesia. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 36:111-118.
Buckle AP, Smith RH. 1994. Rodent pests and their control.
Wallingford, Oxon (UK): CAB International.
Caliboso FM, Sayaboc PD, Amoranto MR. 1986. Pest
problems and the use of pesticides in grain storage in
the Philippines. ACIAR Proceedings 14. p 17-29.
Catling HD. 1980. Deepwater rice in Bangladesh: a survey
of its fauna with special reference to insect pests.
(UK): Bangladesh Rice Research Institute and
Overseas Development Administration. (mimeogr.)
Catling HD, Islam Z, Rahman L. 1988. Status of the pests
and diseases in Asian deepwater rice. In: Proceedings
of the 1987 International Deepwater Rice Workshop.
Los Baños (Philippines):International Rice Research
Institute. p 525-537.
Chakraborty S. 1975. Field observations on the biology and
ecology of the lesser bandicoot rat, Bandicota
bengalensis (Gray) in West Bengal. In: Proceedings of
the All Indian Rodent Seminar, Ahmedabad, Rodent
Control Project, Sidhpur, India. p 102-112.
Chakravarthy AK, Shadakshri YG, Gangappa E. 1992.
Rodent damage to rice germplasm in Mudigere,
Karnataka. Rodent Newsl. 16:6.
Chaudhary AK, Badaya AK. 1985. Assessment of losses
caused by field rats to paddy. Annual Report 1984-
1985, AICRP on rodent problems. India: All India
Coordinated Project. p 15-16.
Chauhan NS Saxena RN. 1983. Studies on composition
and ecology of important rodent species of Mizoram.
Rodent Newsl. 6:9-10.
Chen Anguo. 1996. The ecological characteristics and the
control techniques of rodent pests in south agricultural
area. In: Wang Z, Zhang Z, eds. Theory and practice of
rodent pest management. Beijing: Science Press.
p 247-312.
Chopra G, Kaur P, Guraya SS. 1996. Rodents: ecology,
biology and control. New Delhi (India): R. Chand &
Co. 202 p.
Fall MW. 1977. Rodents in tropical rice. Tech. Bull. No.
36. Laguna (Philippines): College of Agriculture,
University of the Philippines Los Baños. 37 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1999. Manual of
the prevention of postharvest grain losses-rodent pests.
http://www.fao.org/inpho/vlibrary/gtzhml/ x0065e/
x0065E0j.htm.
Geddes AWM. 1992. The relative importance of preharvest
crop pests in Indonesia. Bulletin 47. Kent
(UK): Natural Resources Institute. 70 p.
Gratz NG. 1996. Rodents as carriers of diseases. In: Buckle
AP, Smith RH. eds. Rodent pests and their control.
Wallingford (UK): CAB International. 405 p.
Gwinner J, Harnisch R, Muck O. 1996. Manual of the
prevention of post-harvest grain losses. Rodent pests.
http://www.oneworld.org/globalprojects/humcdrom.
Hart K. 2001. Postharvest losses. In: Pimentel D, ed.
Encyclopedia of pest management. New York: Marcel
Dekker. Electronic web access at http://dekker.com/
servlet/product/DOI/10.1081-E-EPM-100200058/
main/
Hopf HS, Morley GEJ, Humphries JRO. 1976. Rodent
damage to growing crops and to farm and village
storage in tropical and subtropical regions. London
(UK): Centre for Overseas Pest Research and Tropical
Products Institute. 155 p.
26
Hoque MM, Sanchez FF, Benigno EA. 1988. Rodent
problems in selected countries of Southeast Asia and
islands in the Pacific. In: Prakash I, ed. Rodent pest
management. Boca Raton (USA): CRC Press. p 85-99.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) 1999. IRRI
rice facts, Manila (Philippines): IRRI.
Islam Z, Karim ANMR. 1995. Rat control by trapping
deepwater rice. Int. J. Pest Manage. 41: 229–233.
Islam Z, Morton RG, Jupp BP. 1993. The effects of rat
damage on deepwater rice yields in Bangladesh. Int. J.
Pest Manage. 39:250-254.
Jahn GC, Mak, S, Cox PG, Chhorn N. 1999. Farmer
participatory research on rat management in
Cambodia. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H,
Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based management of
rodent pests. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 358-371.
Joshi RC, Matchoc ORO, Bahatan RG, Dela Peña FA.
2000. Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices of
rice crop and pest management at Ifugao rice terraces,
Philippines. 46, 43-48.
Karim ANMR, Ahmed MS, Mion MY, Hoque ME. 1987.
Rodent ecology and control in deepwater rice. In:
Proceedings of the International Deepwater Rice
Workshop, 23–26 Oct, Bangkok. Los Baños
(Philippines): International Rice Research Institute.
p 605-617.
Khamphoukeo K, Bounneuang Douangboupha, Aplin KA,
Singleton GR. 2003. Pest and non-pest rodents in the
upland agricultural landscape of Laos: a progress
report. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt
DM, eds. Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and
management. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 284-289.
Khush GS. 1993. More food and a safe environment. Food
comes first for Asia. Parkville (Australia): Crawford
Fund for International Agricultural Research. p 31-33.
Lan LP, Aplin KP, Hung NM, Quoc NV, Chien HV, Sang
ND, Singleton, GR. 2003. Rodent communities and
historical trends in rodent damage in the Mekong
Delta of Vietnam: establishing an ecological basis for
effective pest management. In: Singleton GR, Hinds
LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, mice and people:
rodent biology and management. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 290-296.
Lao-IRRI (1992). National rice research program 1991.
Annual technical report. Los Baños (Philippines):
International Rice Research Institute. 156 p.
Leung LK-P. 1998. A review of the management of rodent
pests in Cambodian lowland rice fields. A consultancy
report for Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project.
Canberra: CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.
Meyer AN. 1994. Rodent control in practice: food stores.
In: Buckle AP, Smith RH, eds. Rodent pests and their
control. Oxon (UK): CAB International. p 273-290.
Mills JN. 1999. The role of rodents in emerging human
disease: examples from Hantaviruses and
Arenaviruses. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H,
Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based management of
rodent pests. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 134-160.
Muda A. 1986. Pest problems and the use of pesticides in
grain storage in Malaysia. ACIAR Proceedings No.
14. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 11-16.
Mustaq-Ul-Hassan M. 1992. Population dynamics, food
habits, and economic importance of house rat (Rattus
rattus) in villages and farm houses of central Punjab
(Pakistan). Doctorate thesis, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan. 174 p.
Parshad VR. 1999. Rodent control in India. Int. Pest
Manage. Rev. 4: 97-126.
Patel RK, Avasthi AK, Dubey OP. 1992. Rat damage in rice
fields under dry conditions in Madhya Pradesh, India.
Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 17:21.
Prakash I. 1988. Rodent problems in Asia. In: Rodent pest
management. Prakash I, ed. Boca Raton (Florida):
CRC Press. p 67-84.
Prakash I, Mathur RP. 1987. Management of rodent pests.
New Delhi (India): Indian Council of Agricultural
Research. 112 p.
Prakash BG, Prakash KS, Mahadevappa M. 1986.
Assessment of rodent damage in a hybrid rice trial.
Rodent Newsl. 10:2-3.
Prociv P, Spratt DM, Carlisle MS. 2000. Neuroangiostrongyliasis:
unresolved issues. Int. J. Parasitol.
30:1295-1303.
Rajasekharan MR, Dharmaraju E. 1975. Studies on field
rodents in Andhra Pradesh. In: Proceedings of the All
India Rodent Seminar, Ahmedabad, Rodent Control
Project, Sidhpur, India. p 54-55.
Rana BD, Jain AP, Tripathi RS. 1994. Fifteen years of
coordinated research on rodent control. Technical
Bulletin No. 3. New Delhi (India): Indian Council of
Agricultural Research. 141 p.
Rangareddy A. 1994. Rodent management in cereal crops
with reference to rice. Paper presented at the Apex
Level Rodent Control Training, 24-26 Oct 1994,
ICAR, NEH Complex, Barapani, Shillong. p 86-92.
Rao AMKM. 1998. Rodent problem and its control in the
flood–affected districts of Andhra Pradesh during
Kharif 1997. Technical report. Hyderabad (India):
National Plant Protection Training Institute.
Rao AMKM. 2003. Rodent problems in India and strategies
for their management. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA,
Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, mice and people:
rodent biology and management. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 203-212.
Rao AMKM, Joshi NC. 1986. Crop losses due to rodents:
an overview. Indian J. Entomol. 48:366-371.
27
Rubio RR. 1971. Survey of rat damage in Laguna rice mill
warehouses. Unpublished undergraduate thesis,
College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines,
Laguna, Philippines.
Sarker SK, Jaeger MM. 1997. Control of post-harvest
rodent damage using brodifacoum wax blocks. Trop.
Sci. 37:13-15.
Sayaboc PD, Caliboso FM, Benigno EA, Hilario JM. 1984.
Rodent losses in commercial grain storage. In:
Proceedings of the 7th ASEAN Technical Seminar on
Grain Post-Harvest Technology, 21-24 Aug 1984,
Kuala Lumpur. ASEAN Crops Postharvest
Programme, Manila, Philippines. p 101-116.
Schiller JM, Bounneuang DB, Onechanh B. 1999. Rodents
in agriculture in the Lao PDR—a problem with an
unknown future. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H,
Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based management of
rodent pests. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 372-387.
Sidik M, Halid H, Pranata RI. 1986. Pest problems and the
use of pesticides in grain storages in Indonesia. In:
ACIAR Proceedings 14. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 37-43.
Singh YP, Kumar D, Gangwar SK. 1994. Status paper on
rodents in North-Eastern hill region and their
management. Rodent Newsl. 18: 3-11.
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM. 2003. Rats,
mice and people: rodent biology and management.
Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 564.
Singleton GR, Leirs H, Hinds LA, Zhang Z. 1999a.
Ecologically based management of rodent pests—
reevaluating our approach to an old problem. In:
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds.
Ecologically based management of rodent pests.
Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 17-29.
Singleton GR, Petch DA. 1994. A review of the biology
and management of rodent pests in Southeast Asia.
ACIAR Technical Report No. 30. Canberra
(Australia): Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research, p 65.
Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Brown PR. 2003. Are larger
physical barriers better for controlling the rice field
rat, Rattus argentiventer, in rice crops in Indonesia?
Crop Prot. 22: 7-13.
Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Sadeli Suriapermana. 1998. An
experimental field study to evaluate a trap-barrier
system and fumigation for controlling the rice field
rat, Rattus argentiventer, in rice crops in West Java.
Crop Prot. 17:55-64.
Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Tran Quang Tan, Jumanta,
Nguyen Quy Hung. 1999b. Physical control of rats in
developing countries. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA,
Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based
management of rodent pests. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 178-198.
Sridhara S. 1992. Rice. In: Prakash I, Ghosh PK, eds.
Rodents in Indian agriculture. Vol. 1. Jodhpur (India):
Scientific Publishers. p 211-230.
Suharno P. 1987. Implementation of the carbon dioxide
fumigation technique for insect control in BULOG
warehouses. In: Proceedings of the 9th ASEAN
Technical Seminar on Grain Post-Harvest Technology.
ASEAN Crops Postharvest Programme, Manila,
Philippines p 196-201.
Sumangil JP. 1990. Control of ricefield rats in the
Philippines. In: Quick GR, ed. Rodents and rice.
Report of an expert panel on rice rodent control, Los
Baños (Philippines): International Rice Research
Institute. p 35-47.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1979.
WHO.VBC.79.726, VBC Unit, WHO, Geneva.
Zhang Z, Chen A, Ning Z, Huang X. 1999. Rodent pest
management in agricultural ecosystems in China. In:
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds.
Ecologically based management of rodent pests.
Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 261-284.
Zhao G. 1996. Rodent pest control and plant protection In:
Wang Z, Zhang Z, eds. Theory and practice of rodent
pest management. Beijing: Science Press. p 19-37.
Acknowledgments
During my review of the impact of rodents at the
individual country level, I was fortunate to have
many colleagues provide me with additional
material and provide me with comments on my
findings. I particularly thank Dr. Mohan Rao for
providing information on India, Dr. Guo Cong for his
input on China, Mr. Bounneuang Duangboupha for
his input on Lao PDR, Drs. Sudarmaji for his input
on Indonesia, Mr. Le Thanh Hoa and Mr. La Pham
Lan for their input on Vietnam, Dr. Luke Leung for
his input on Cambodia, Dr. Ravi Joshi and Dr. Edwin
Benigno for their input on the Philippines, and Dr.
Steven Belmain and Dr. Zahirul Islam for their input
on Bangladesh. Dr. Dale Nolte assisted with
compiling the data for Appendix 1. However, the
final decision on what to include in this report is
mine, so I take the responsibility for any errors or
omissions. I wish also to thank Dr. K.L. Heong and
Ms. Ellen Genil for their tremendous support and
encouragement during my time at IRRI, and Dr. Ren
Wang, deputy director general of IRRI, for his
support and for having the vision to invest funds
into having me at IRRI as a consultant on rodents.
Ms. Genil also assisted with the layout of the final
report. I acknowledge too the support of the Chief
of Division of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Dr.
Stephen Morton, and my program leader, Dr. Lyn
Hinds, who strongly encouraged me to undertake
this consultancy. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the
sacrifice that my wife, Robyn, and children, Sally
and Rohan, made with me being in the Philippines
and them in Australia. I greatly appreciated their
support and understanding on the importance of
this consultancy for the future of rodent
management in Asia.
28
Decision analysis for Luna, Isabela Province, of current actions plus proposed use of CTBS.
Action Timing Feasible Socially OK Economic Environment- Politicallly Priority
(what) (when) (neighbor) (benefit- friendly acceptable
cost) (gov’t)
1. Zinc phosphide Before maximum Yes Yes Yes No Yes High
tillering
2. Racumin Before maximum Yes Yes Yes No Yes Medium
tillering or as
needed
3. Cleanliness (banks, Always (every 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
villages, etc.) mo - banks)
4. Clever bounty After land Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
(limited season) preparation
5. Digging/flooding When active hole Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
burrows (maximum
tillering to 1 wk
postharvest)
6. Battery operated Anytime Yes Noa Yes No No Low
electric current (with
flooding burrow)
7. Banks <30 cm Land preparation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
8. Two-month fallow Yes? Yes? Yes Yes Yes Medium
9. Alternate crops (to e.g., soybean Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
promote fallow)
10. CTBS 2-3 wk prior to Yes
main crops (availability Yes Yes Yes Yes Pilot study
of water?)b
aThought to affect the libido of male operators–this was a concern raised by a female farmer. bIf availability of water is a problem,
then perhaps
use direct seeding (matures 10 d earlier than transplanted rice). Other concern was anticipating when the irrigation water is to be
released. Many
plant 3 wk in advance but find the water is delayed for 2 wk so in effect have a 5-wk early trap crop. Direct seeding would reduce
this risk by about
10 d. Other action to consider–control of rats along the main irrigation canals. Apparently, this is the responsibility of a specific
authority. They
keep the growth of grass in check but that is all. Perhaps they should be encouraged to control rats using fumigation, flame
throwers, or
rodenticides.
Decision analysis for San Jacinto/San Jose, Pangasinan Province, of current actions plus proposed
use of CTBS. Note that scale of action is currently at the individual farmer level for most actions.
Action Timing Scale Feasible Socially OK Economic Environment- Politically Priority
(what) (when) (where) (neighbor) (benefit- friendly acceptable
cost) (gov’t)
1. Cleanliness Year-round Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
(banks,
villages, etc.)
2. Rat hunt (dig/ Oct/Nov Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
flooding burrows)
3. Rat drive Oct/Nov and Community Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
Mar/Apr
4. Small dikes Land preparation Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
5. Zinc phosphide Before harvest Farmer ? ? If >5% loss No Yes Medium
6. Racumin Before harvest Farmer ? ? If >5% loss No Yes Low
7. Biological control Year-round Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
8. Rat traps Year-round Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
9. Fumigation Dry season Farmer Yes No Yes Yes Yes Low
after harvest
10. Crop timing Planting Community Yes Yes? Yes Yes Yes High
11. CTBS 2-3 wk prior Communitya Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
to main (availability
crops of water?)
a Price of rice could drop if everyone harvests at the same time.
APPENDIX 1
29
May
June Plant crop (takes 2-4 wk to plant crop within barangay)
July Low problem with rats
August
September
Harvest crop (Sept/Oct) WET SEASON (100 cavans ha-1)
October
--------------------------1.5-mo fallow
November
December Plant crop (takes 2-4 wk to plant crop) Greatest problem with rats
January
February
March Moderate problem with rats
Harvest crop (March/Apr) DRY SEASON (120 cavans ha-1)
April
-----------------------------2-mo fallow
May
May
June Sow or transplant crops Most rat problems occur here
July
August WET SEASON
September
October
Harvest crop (Oct/Nov)
November
-------------------------------------------1-mo fallow
December Sow or transplant crops
January
DRY SEASON
February
March Moderate problem with rats
April
Harvest crop (March/Apr)
-----------------------------Mungbean, vegetable, or maize often grown (April to
June)
May
aMost rat control work is conducted during
December. Maize can be planted at any time
of the year.
Current practices (farmers’ comments):
*If funds are available, the municipality
provides zinc phosphide.
*There is no guarantee that the government
will respond when the farmers have a rodent
problem; occasionally, the response via
production of poison is too late.
*Zinc phosphide works the first time and a
few rats are killed, but it does not work as
well on subsequent attempts (bait shyness).
*Hazards are present; nontarget deaths-kills
dogs and chickens; they thought dogs were
eating poisoned rats; it is possible that dogs
were licking or eating bait directly because
zinc phosphide usually breaks down quickly
once ingested by a rat.
*One participant noted that zinc phosphide
kills only males and does little to harm the
potential for breeding females.
a10% of the farmers grow a third rice crop

other than the alternative crops listed. Maize

can be grown throughout the year. Main rat
problems occur during July and August. Rat
problems are less severe during October. Rat
damage sometimes occurs during the dry
season. Rat damage frequently happens to
maize. Average farm size is less than 1 ha.
Current rat control methods mentioned by
farmers include rat drives, prayer, use of
Racumin, zinc phosphide, and maintaining
cleanliness.
Fig. 1. Cropping schedule at Luna municipality, Isabela.a
Fig. 2. Cropping schedule at San Jacinto, Pangasinan. a
30
APPENDIX 2
Table 17. Decision analysis for rodent management on the IRRI Farm–12 Oct 2001.
Action Timing Scale (where) Feasible Economic Environment- Socially Politically Priority
(what) (when) (benefit- friendly OK accepted
cost) (public) (IRRI)
1. Sustained Whole year Perimeter and field √√ ?X √? √? M review
baiting
2. Need-based Relate to signs of Perimeter and √√ ?X? √? √ M review
baiting (pulse) rats (monitoring) field
3. Flame thrower (a) On request Perimeter of √√ √√ √ (a) Medium
(b)Strategic crops/fallow (b) High
4. Linear TBS– (a) Whole year Whole farm √Traps ? √√ √√? High (pilot
selected areas (b) Short season stolen? program)
5. Fallow
management Whole year Whole farm √√ √ √√ High
(sanitation)
6. CTBS Whole farm (end √Traps √? √√ √ √ High (pilot
plots?) stolen? program)
7. ABS On request Whole farm √√ ? √√ √√ Low user pays
8. Synchrony ofWhole farm √na √√ √ ?? High
cropping
9. Blanketing At harvest and √Labor- ?? √√ √√ High
mowing intensive?
10. Covered Canals √√ √√ √ Bait–high
canal: baits or Fum-low
fumigation
Comments: Research is required on (i) habitat use and movements by rats; (ii) efficacy of Racumin (first-generation
anticoagulant–sustainable baiting) and
bromadiolone (second-generation anticoagulant–pulse baiting); (iii) effectiveness of CTBS on IRRI farm; (iv) efficacy
of linear TBS; and (v) breeding ecology of
rats.

__________________

RODENTICIDE
Rodenticide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenticide
Jump to: navigation, search

A wild rat

Warning sign in a Chicago neighborhood

"Rat poison" redirects here. For the UNIX window manager, see ratpoison.
Rodenticides are a category of pest control chemicals intended to kill rodents.
Single feed baits are chemicals sufficiently dangerous that the first dose is sufficient to kill.
Rodents are difficult to kill with poisons because their feeding habits reflect their place as
scavengers. They will eat a small bit of something and wait, and if they don't get sick, they
continue. An effective rodenticide must be tasteless and odorless in lethal concentrations, and
have a delayed effect.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Poisonous chemicals
○ 1.1 Anticoagulants
○ 1.2 Metal phosphides
○ 1.3 Hypercalcemia
○ 1.4 Other
○ 1.5 Combinations
• 2 List of rat eradications
• 3 References
• 4 External links

[edit] Poisonous chemicals

[edit] Anticoagulants
Anticoagulants are defined as chronic (death occurs after 1 - 2 weeks post ingestion of the lethal
dose, rarely sooner), single-dose (second generation) or multiple-dose (first generation)
rodenticides, acting by effectively blocking of the vitamin K cycle, resulting in inability to
produce essential blood-clotting factors (mainly coagulation factors II (prothrombin), VII
(proconvertin), IX (Christmas factor) and X (Stuart factor)).
In addition to this specific metabolic disruption, massive toxic doses of 4-hydroxycoumarin or 4-
hydroxythiacoumarin and indandione anticoagulants cause damage to tiny blood vessels
(capillaries), increasing their permeability, causing diffuse internal bleedings (haemorrhagias).
These effects are gradual, developing over several days, but claims that they are painless are
unfounded: in humans both warfarin poisoning and haemophilia commonly cause moderate to
severe pain from bleeding into muscles and joints[1]. In the final phase of the intoxication, the
exhausted rodent collapses in hypovolemic circulatory shock or severe anemia and dies calmly.
However, because of the duration of discomfort and pain before death it has been suggested that
the use of rodenticides can be considered as inhumane [2].
The main benefit of anticoagulants over other poisons is that the time taken for the poison to
induce death means that the rats do not associate death with eating the poison.
• First generation rodenticidal anticoagulants generally have shorter elimination half-lives,
[3]
require higher concentrations (usually between 0.005 and 0.1%) and consecutive intake
over days in order to accumulate the lethal dose, and less toxic than second generation
agents.
• Second generation agents are far more toxic than first generation. They are generally
applied in lower concentrations in baits (usually in order 0.001 - 0.005%), are lethal after
 a single ingestion of bait and are also effective against strains of rodents that became
resistant to first generation anticoagulants; thus, the second generation anticoagulants are
sometimes referred to as "superwarfarins". [4]/
Class Examples
• First generation: warfarin, coumatetralyl
Coumarins/4-
hydroxycoumarins • Second generation: difenacoum, brodifacoum, [5] flocoumafen and
bromadiolone.
diphacinone, chlorophacinone, [6] pindone
These are harder to group by generation. According to some sources, the
1,3-indandiones indandiones are considered second generation.[7] However, according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, examples of first generation agents
include chlorophacinone and diphacinone.[5]
Other Difethialone is considered a second generation anticoagulant rodenticide .[8]
Sometimes, anticoagulant rodenticides are potentiated by an antibiotic or
bacteriostatic agent, most commonly sulfaquinoxaline. The aim of this
association is that the antibiotic suppresses intestinal symbiotic microflora,
Indirect
which are a source of vitamin K. Diminished production of vitamin K by
the intestinal microflora contributes to the action of anticoagulants. Added
vitamin D also has a synergistic effect with anticoagulants.
Vitamin K1 has been suggested, and successfully used, as antidote for pets or humans
accidentally or intentionally (poison assaults on pets, suicidal attempts) exposed to anticoagulant
poisons. Some of these poisons act by inhibiting liver functions and in advanced stages of
poisoning, several blood-clotting factors are absent, and the volume of circulating blood is
diminished, so that a blood transfusion (optionally with the clotting factors present) can save a
person who has been poisoned, an advantage over some older poisons.
[edit] Metal phosphides

Rat poison vendor's stall at a market in Linxia City, China

Metal phosphides have been used as a means of killing rodents and are considered single-dose
fast acting rodenticides (death occurs commonly within 1-3 days after single bait ingestion). A
bait consisting of food and a phosphide (usually zinc phosphide) is left where the rodents can eat
it. The acid in the digestive system of the rodent reacts with the phosphide to generate the toxic
phosphine gas. This method of vermin control has possible use in places where rodents are
resistant to some of the anticoagulants, particularly for control of house and field mice; zinc
phosphide baits are also cheaper than most second-generation anticoagulants, so that sometimes,
in the case of large infestation by rodents, their population is initially reduced by copious
amounts of zinc phosphide bait applied, and the rest of population that survived the initial fast-
acting poison is then eradicated by prolonged feeding on anticoagulant bait. Inversely, the
individual rodents, that survived anticoagulant bait poisoning (rest population) can be eradicated
by pre-baiting them with nontoxic bait for a week or two (this is important to overcome bait
shyness, and to get rodents used to feeding in specific areas by specific food, especially in
eradicating rats) and subsequently applying poisoned bait of the same sort as used for pre-baiting
until all consumption of the bait ceases (usually within 2-4 days). These methods of alterning
rodenticides with different modes of action gives actual or almost 100% eradications of the
rodent population in the area, if the acceptance/palatability of baits are good (i.e., rodents feed on
it readily).
Zinc phosphide is typically added to rodent baits in amount of around 0.75-2%. The baits have
strong, pungent garlic-like odor characteristic for phosphine liberated by hydrolysis. The odor
attracts (or, at least, does not repulse) rodents, but has repulsive effect on other mammals. Birds
(notably wild turkeys) are not sensitive to the smell, and will feed on the bait, and thus become
collateral damage.
The tablets or pellets (usually aluminium, calcium or magnesium phosphide for
fumigation/gassing) may also contain other chemicals which evolve ammonia which helps to
reduce the potential for spontaneous ignition or explosion of the phosphine gas.
Phosphides do not accumulate in the tissues of poisoned animals, therefore the risk of secondary
poisoning is low.
Before the advent of anticoagulants, phosphides were the favored kind of rat poison. During the
World War II, they came in use in United States because of shortage of strychnine due to the
Japanese occupation of the territories where strychnine-producing plants are grown (Strychnos
nux-vomica, in south-east Asia). Phosphides are rather fast acting rat poisons, resulting in the
rats dying usually in open areas instead of in the affected buildings.
Phosphides used as rodenticides are:
• aluminium phosphide (fumigant only)
• calcium phosphide (fumigant only)
• magnesium phosphide (fumigant only)
• zinc phosphide (in baits)
[edit] Hypercalcemia
Calciferols (vitamins D), cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) and ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) are used as
rodenticides. They are toxic to rodents for the same reason they are beneficial to humans: they
affect calcium and phosphate homeostasis in the body. Vitamins D are essential in minute
quantities (few IUs per kilogram body weight daily, only a fraction of a milligram), and like
most fat soluble vitamins, they are toxic in larger doses, causing hypervitaminosis. If the
poisoning is severe enough (that is, if the dose of the toxin is high enough), it leads to death. In
rodents that consume the rodenticidal bait, it causes hypercalcemia, raising the calcium level,
mainly by increasing calcium absorption from food, mobilising bone-matrix-fixed calcium into
ionised form (mainly monohydrogencarbonate calcium cation, partially bound to plasma
proteins, [CaHCO3]+), which circulates dissolved in the blood plasma. After ingestion of a lethal
dose, the free calcium levels are raised sufficiently that blood vessels, kidneys, the stomach wall
and lungs are mineralised/calcificated (formation of calcificates, crystals of calcium
salts/complexes in the tissues, damaging them), leading further to heart problems (myocardial
tissue is sensitive to variations of free calcium levels, affecting both myocardial contractibility
and excitation propagation between atrias and ventriculas), bleeding (due to capillary damage)
and possibly kidney failure. It is considered to be single-dose, cumulative (depending on
concentration used; the common 0.075% bait concentration is lethal to most rodents after a
single intake of larger portions of the bait) or sub-chronic (death occurring usually within days to
one week after ingestion of the bait). Applied concentrations are 0.075% cholecalciferol and
0.1% ergocalciferol when used alone. There is an important feature of calciferols toxicology, that
they are synergistic with anticoagulant toxicants, that means, that mixtures of anticoagulants and
calciferols in same bait are more toxic than a sum of toxicities of the anticoagulant and the
calciferol in the bait, so that a massive hypercalcemic effect can be achieved by a substantially
lower calciferol content in the bait, and vice-versa, a more pronounced
anticoagulant/hemorrhagic effects are observed if the calciferol is present. This synergism is
mostly used in calciferol low concetration baits, because effective concentrations of calciferols
are more expensive than effective concentrations of the most anticoagulants. The first application
of a calciferol in rodenticidal bait was in the Sorex product Sorexa D (with a different formula
than today's Sorexa D), back in early 1970s, which contained 0.025% warfarin and 0.1%
ergocalciferol. Today, Sorexa CD contains a 0.0025% difenacoum and 0.075% cholecalciferol
combination. Numerous other brand products containing either 0.075-0.1% calciferols (e.g.
Quintox) alone or alongside an anticoagulant are marketed.
Although this rodenticide was introduced with claims that it was less toxic to nontarget species
than to rodents, clinical experience has shown that rodenticides containing cholecalciferol are a
significant health threat to dogs and cats. Cholecalciferol produces hypercalcemia, which results
in systemic calcification of soft tissue, leading to renal failure, cardiac abnormalities,
hypertension, CNS depression and GI upset.
Signs generally develop within 18-36 hours of ingestion and can include depression, anorexia,
polyuria and polydipsia. As serum calcium concentrations increase, clinical signs become more
severe, manifesting often via anorexia, vomiting and constipation in the pet. Inability of the
kidneys to concentrate urine is a direct result of hypercalcemia. As hypercalcemia persists,
mineralization of the kidneys results in progressive renal insufficiency.
Additional anticoagulant renders the bait more toxic to pets as well as human. Upon single
ingestion, solely calciferol-based baits are considered generally safer to birds than second
generation anticoagulants or acute toxicants. A specific antidote for calciferol intoxication is
calcitonin, a hormone that lowers the blood levels of calcium. The therapy with commercially
available calcitonin preparations is, however, expensive.
[edit] Other
Civilian Public Service worker distributes rat poison for typhus control in Gulfport Mississippi,
ca. 1945.
Other chemical poisons include:
• ANTU (α-naphthylthiourea; specific against Brown rat, Rattus norvegicus)
• Arsenic
• Barium (a toxic metal) compound
○ Barium carbonate
• Bromethalin (which affects the nervous system, no antidote)
• Chloralose (narcotic acting condensation product of chloral and glucose)
• Crimidine (2-chloro-N, N,6-trimethylpyrimidin-4-amine; a synthetic convulsant poison,
antivitamin B6)
• 1,3-Difluoro-2-propanol ("Gliftor" in the former USSR)
• Endrin (organochlorine cyclodiene insecticide, used in the past for extermination of voles
in fields during winter by aircraft spraying)
• Fluoroacetamide ("1081")
• Phosacetim (a delayed-action organophosphorous rodenticide)
• White phosphorus
• Pyrinuron (an urea derivative)
• Scilliroside
• Sodium fluoroacetate ("1080")
• Strychnine
• Tetramethylenedisulfotetramine ("tetramine")
• Thallium (a toxic heavy metal) compounds
• Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide absorbed in an inert carrier)
[edit] Combinations
 In some countries, fixed three-component rodenticides, i.e. anticoagulant + antibiotic + vitamin
D, are used. Associations of a second-generation anticoagulant with an antibiotic and/or vitamin
D are considered to be effective even against most resistant strains of rodents, though some
second generation anticoagulants (namely brodifacoum and difethialone), in bait concentrations
of 0.0025 - 0.005% are so toxic that resistance is unknown, and even rodents resistant to other
rodenticides are reliably exterminated by application of these most toxic anticoagulants.
[edit] List of rat eradications
• Campbell Island, New Zealand, largest ever.
• Rat Island (Alaska)
• Mokapu Island, Molokai
• Falkland Islands
• San Jorge Islands, Mexico
• Canna, Scotland
[edit] References
1. ^ Choinière M, Melzack R (December 1987). "Acute and chronic pain in hemophilia".
Pain 31 (3): 317–31. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(87)90161-8. PMID 3501097.
2. ^ Meerburg BG, Brom FWA, Kijlstra A (2008). "The ethics of rodent control". Pest
Manag Sci 64 (12). doi:10.1002/ps.1623.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120746731/abstract.
3. ^ Vandenbroucke V, Bousquet-Melou A, De Backer P, Croubels S (October 2008).
"Pharmacokinetics of eight anticoagulant rodenticides in mice after single oral
administration". J. Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 31 (5): 437–45. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2885.2008.00979.x. PMID 19000263.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/resolve/openurl?
genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=0140-
7783&date=2008&volume=31&issue=5&spage=437.
4. ^ Kotsaftis P, Girtovitis F, Boutou A, Ntaios G, Makris PE (September 2007).
"Haemarthrosis after superwarfarin poisoning". Eur. J. Haematol. 79 (3): 255–7.

LANSONES

Lansones
Lansium domesticum Correa
LANGSAT
Scientific names Common names
Aglaia aquea Kosterm Boboa (Bis.)
Aglaia domestica Correa Buahan (Mbo., Sul.)
Aglaia dookoo Griff. Bulahan (Bis.)
Lansium aqueam Jack Buan (Mbo.)
Lansium javanicum Koord. & Valet. Bukan (Bis.)
Lansium parasiticum Sahni & Bennet Kaliboñgan (Mbo.)
Lanson (Span.)
Lansones (Tag.,, Bik.)
Langsat (Engl.)
Longkong (India)
Tubua (Bag.)

Botany
Tree growing to a height of 4 to 20 meters. Leaves are alternate, 20 to 40 cm long, with 5 to 7
leaflets, oblong to oblong-elliptic, pointed at both ends. Flowers are small, yellow and borne on
spikes, solitary or fascicled on the trunk or larger branches. Fruit is yellowish-white, occuring in
bunches on a single stem, ellipsoid or globose, 2-4 cm long, with bitter seeds that are surrounded
by a translucent pulp. The outer skin is thin and tough, abundant in a milky juice. The pulp occurs
in five sections with one well-developed seed.

Distribution
Cultivated for its fruit.

Chemical constituents and properties

The rind yields 6% lansium acid which is toxic.
The fresh peeling yielded a volatile oil, a resin, and some reducing acids.
The resin is believed to be nontoxic and protective to the stomach against alcohol.
The outer skin of the fruit is rich in tannin.
From the seeds, two toxic and bitter substances and traces of an alkaloid.
The fruit pulp contains sucrose, saccharose, fructose and glucose.
Bark is astringent.
• Study isolated a new tetranortriterpenoid (Source)
• Study yielded five tetranoterpenoids, domesticulide A-E (1-5) from the seed. The seed extract
was rich in limonoids.
• Triterpenoid lansiolides with antimalarial activity.
Parts utilized
Bark, fruit, leaves, seeds.
Uses
Nutritional
The fruit pulp is succulent and delicious, and may be candied or preserved in syrup.
Food value per 100 g of edible portion: Moisture 86.5 g; protein 0.8 g; carbohydrates 9.5 g, fiber
2.3 g; calcium 20 mg; phosphorus 30 mg; vitamin A 13 IU; thiamine 89 mcg; riboflavin 124 mcg;
ascorbic acid 1 mg.
Folkloric
- Decoction of bark and leaves used for dysentery.
- Peel, rich in oleoresin, used for diarrhea and intestinal spasms.
- Crushed seeds used for fevers.
- Astringent bark used for dysentery and malaria.
- Powdered bark used for scorpion stings.
- Bark resin used for flatulence and gastrointestinal colic, for swellings, and as antispasmodic.
- Grounded seeds mixed with water as vermifuge and antipyretic.
- Tincture prepared from the dried rind used for diarrhea and abdominal colic.
- In Indonesia, used for malaria
Cosmetics
- Cosmeceutical value from its antioxidant, moisturizing, whitening and lightening effects. Dry
extract of fruit, re-dissolved in propylene glycol is used for skin depigmentation and as a
moisturizer.
Others
- The dried fruit skins when burned emit an aromatic smell which repels mosquitoes. It also makes
a pleasant room inhalant.
- The juice of the bark and fruit is recorded as used for poison arrow.

Studies
• Anti-Malarial: (1) Lansium domesticum: skin and leaf extracts of this fruit tree interrupt the
lifecycle of Plasmodium falciparum, and are active towards a chloroquine-resistant strain of the
parasite (T9) in vitro: Study indicates extracts of LD are a potential source for compounds with
activity against chloroquine-resistant strains of P. falcifarum. (2) Study yielded firve
tetratriterpenoids – domesticulide A-E from the seeds of Lansium domesticum together with 11
known triterpenoids. Eight of the compounds showed antimalarial activity against Plasmodium
falcifarum.
• Antioxidant: Extract of LD has shown to have antioxidant activity against DPPH free radical and
anti-tyrosinase activity.
• Skin Moisturizing / Lightening Effect: Study showed LD extract can significantly increase skin
moisture and decrease the skin melanin index.
• Antimelanogenesis: LD methanol extract was one of the study extracts that showed strong
inhibition of melanin production of B16 melanoma cells without sginificant cytotoxicity, presenting
as a potential ingredient for skin-whitening cosmetics if their safety can be confirmed.
• Antibacterial: The air-dried fruit peel of LD yielded five onoceroid triterpenes; the air-dried
seeds yielded one onoceroid triterpene (lansionic acid) and germacrene D. Studies of the
compounds showed varying degrees of activity against P. aeruginosa, B subtilis, C albicans, A
niger among others.

Availability
Commercial cultivation.
http://www.stuartxchange.org/Lansones.html

http://www.oisat.org/control_methods/plants_in_pest_control/lansones.html

Lansones
Scientific name: Lansium domesticum
Family: Meliaceae

Photo by Jewel Bissdorf

Plant parts used
Seeds (Stoll, 2000: p. 171)

Mode of action
Insecticidal (Stoll, 2000: p. 171)

Formulation
Method of
Materials How to use Target pests
preparation

Lansones seed
extract
(Stoll, 2000: p.
171)

Finely pound
500 grams of
seeds. Spray early in the Armyworm and other
seeds
Soak in water for 1 morning leaf
20 liters of water
day. on infested plants. eating caterpillars
Mortar and pestle
Strain.
Pail

Standard procedures for the preparation and application of the plant

extracts
1. Select plant parts that are free from diseases.
2. When storing the plant parts for future usage, make sure that they are
properly dried and are stored in an airy container (never use plastic
container), away from direct sunlight and moisture. Make sure that they are
free from molds before using them.
3. Use utensils for the extract preparation that are not use for your food
preparation and for drinking and cooking water containers. Clean properly all
the utensils every time after using them.
4. Do not have a direct contact with the crude extract while in the process of
the preparation and during the application.
5. Make sure that you place the plant extract out of reach of children and house
pets while leaving it overnight.
6. Harvest all the mature and ripe fruits before plant extract application.
7. Always test the plant extract formulation on a few infested plants first before
going into large scale spraying. When adding soap as an emulsifier, use a
potash-based one.
8. Wear protective clothing while applying the extract.
9. Wash your hands after handling the plant extract.
Effect on humans
None

Effect on non-target organisms

None

External links
• Purdue University. Langsat.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/langsat.html

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/langsat.html

Morton, J. 1987. Langsat. p. 201–203. In: Fruits of warm climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL.

Langsat
Lansium domesticum Corr.

• Description
• Origin and Distribution
• Varieties
• Climate
• Soil
• Propagation
• Culture
• Season and Harvesting
• Yield
• Keeping Quality
• Pests and Diseases
• Food Uses
• Toxicity
• Other Uses

A somewhat less edible fruit of the family Meliaceae, the langsat, Lansium domesticum Corr., is
also known as lansa, langseh, langsep, lanzon, lanzone, lansone, or kokosan, and by various
other names in the dialects of the Old World tropics.
Description
The tree is erect, short-trunked, slender or
spreading; reaching 35 to 50 ft (10.5 to 15 m) in
height, with red-brown or yellow-brown,
furrowed bark. Its leaves are pinnate, 9 to 20 in
(22.5-50 cm) long, with 5 to 7 alternate leaflets,
obovate or elliptic-oblong, pointed at both ends,
2 3/4 to 8 in (7-20 cm) long, slightly leathery,
dark-green and glossy on the upper surface,
paler and dull beneath, and with prominent
midrib. Small, white or pale-yellow, fleshy,
mostly bisexual, flowers are home in simple or Fig. 53: The langsat, photographed by Dr. Walter T.
branched racemes which may be solitary or in Swingle, Plant Explorer for the United States
hairy clusters on the trunk and oldest branches, Department of Agriculture.
at first standing erect and finally pendant, and 4
to 12 in (10-30 cm) in length.
The fruit, borne 2 to 30 in a cluster, is oval, ovoid-oblong or nearly round, 1 to 2 in (2.5-5 cm) in
diameter, and has light grayish-yellow to pale brownish or pink, velvety skin, leathery, thin or
thick, and containing milky latex. There are 5 or 6 segments of aromatic, white, translucent, juicy
flesh (arils), acid to subacid in flavor. Seeds, which adhere more or less to the flesh, are usually
present in 1 to 3 of the segments. They are green, relatively large–3/4 to 1 in (2-2.5 cm) long and
1/2 to 3/4 in (1.25-2 cm) wide, very bitter, and sometimes, if the flesh clings tightly to the seed, it
may acquire some of its bitterness.
Origin and Distribution
The langsat originated in western Malaysia and is common both wild and cultivated throughout
the Archipelago and on the island of Luzon in the Philippines where the fruits are very popular
and the tree is being utilized in reforestation of hilly areas. It is much grown, too, in southern
Thailand and Vietnam and flourishes in the Nilgiris and other humid areas of South India and the
fruits are plentiful on local markets. The langsat was introduced into Hawaii before 1930 and is
frequently grown at low elevations. An occasional tree may be found on other Pacific islands.
The species is little known in the American tropics except in Surinam. There it is commercially
grown on a small scale. Seeds were sent from Java to the Lancetilla Experimental Garden at
Tela, Honduras, in 1926 and plants arrived from the same source in 1927. The trees have grown
well but are usually unfruitful, occasionally having a small number of fruits. There are bearing
trees in Trinidad, where the langsat was established in 1938, and a few around Mayaguez, Puerto
Rico, that have been bearing well for about 60 years. There were young specimens growing on
St. Croix in 1930.
Southern Florida does not have climatic and soil conditions favorable to the langsat, but the rare-
fruit fancier, William Whitman, has managed to raise two bearing trees in special soil and tented
for the first several years. Winter cold has caused complete defoliation and near-girdling at the
base of the trunks, but the trees made good recovery. Other specimens have survived on the
Lower Keys in pits prepared with non-alkaline soil. There have been attempts to maintain
langsats at the University of Florida's Agricultural Research and Education Center in Homestead,
but the trees have succumbed either to the limestone terrain or low temperatures.
Varieties
There are two distinct botanical varieties: 1) L.
domesticum var. pubescens, the typical wild
langsat which is a rather slender, open tree with
hairy branchlets and nearly round, thick-
skinned fruits having much milky latex; 2) var.
domesticum, called the duku, doekoe, or
dookoo, which is a more robust tree, broad-
topped and densely foliaged with
conspicuously-veined leaflets; the fruits, borne
few to a cluster, are oblong-ovoid or ellipsoid,
with thin, brownish skin, only faintly aromatic Plate XXIV: LANGSAT, Lansium domesticum
and containing little or no milky latex. The
former is often referred to as the "wild" type but both varieties are cultivated and show
considerable range of form, size and quality. There are desirable types in both groups. Some
small fruits are completely seedless and fairly sweet.
'Conception' is a sweet cultivar from the Philippines; 'Uttaradit' is a popular selection in
Thailand; 'Paete' is a leading cultivar in the Philippines.
Climate
The langsat is ultra-tropical. Even in its native territory it cannot be grown at an altitude over
2,100 to 2,500 ft (650-750 m). It needs a humid atmosphere, plenty of moisture and will not
tolerate long dry seasons. Some shade is beneficial especially during the early years.
Soil
The tree does best on deep, rich, well-drained, sandy loam or other soils that are slightly acid to
neutral and high in organic matter. It is inclined to do poorly on clay that dries and cracks during
rainless periods, and is not at all adapted to alkaline soils. It will not endure even a few days of
water-logging.
Propagation
Langsats are commonly grown from seeds which must be planted within 1 or 2 days after
removal from the fruit. Viability is totally lost in 8 days unless the seeds are stored in
polyethylene bags at 39.2º-42.8º F (4º-6º C) where they will remain viable for 14 days.
Seedlings will bear in 12 to 20 years. Air-layering is discouraging, as the root system is weak
and the survival rate is poor after planting out. Shield-budding has a low rate of success. Cleft-
and side-grafting and approach-grafting give good results. The budwood should be mature but
not old, 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 in (6.5-9 cm) long, 1/4 to 3/4 in (6-20 mm) thick, and it is joined to
rootstock of the same diameter about 2 1/2 to 4 in (6.5-10 cm) above the soil. Some preliminary
experiments have been conducted in Puerto Rico with hormone-treated cuttings under
intermittent mist. Whitman found that a potted cutting 3 to 4 in (7.5-10 cm) long, will root if
covered with a clear plastic bag.
Culture
The trees are spaced 25 to 33 ft (8-10 m) apart in orchards. In the Philippines they are frequently
planted around the edges of coconut plantations. Generally, the langsat is casually grown in
dooryards and on roadsides and receives no cultural attention. Regular irrigation results in better
fruit size and heavier crops. Whitman has demonstrated that thrice-yearly applications of a 6-6-6
fertilizer formula with added minor elements result in good growth, productivity and high quality
fruits even in an adverse environment.
Season and Harvesting
Langsats in Malaya generally bear twice a year-in June and July and again in December and
January or even until February. In India, the fruits ripen from April to September but in the
Philippines the season is short and most of the fruits are off the market in less than one month.
Yield
Trees in the Nilgiris average 30 lbs (13.5 kg) of fruits annually. In the Philippines, a productive
tree averages 1,000 fruits per year.
Keeping Quality
Langsats are perishable and spoil after 4 days at room temperature. They can be kept in cold
storage for 2 weeks at 52º to 55º F (11.11º-12.78º C) and relative humidity of 85-90%. Sugar
content increases over this period, while acidity rises only up to the 7th day and then gradually
declines.
Fruits treated with fungicide and held at 5% 0 and zero CO2 and 58º F (14.44º C) with 85% to
90% humidity, have remained in good condition for more than 2 weeks. High C02 promotes
browning and elevates acidity.
Waxing reduces weight loss, increases sweetness, but causes browning over at least half the
surface within 5 days in storage.
Pests and Diseases
In Puerto Rico, young langsat trees have been defoliated by the sugarcane root borer, Diaprepes
abbreviatus. Scale insects, especially Pseudaonidia articulatus and Pseudaulacaspis pentagona,
and the red spider mite, Tetranychus bimaculatus, are sometimes found attacking the foliage, and
sooty mold is apt to develop on the honeydew deposited by the scales. Rats gnaw on the
branchlets and branches and the mature fruits.
Anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides is evidenced by brown spots and other
blemishes on the fruit and peduncle and leads to premature shedding of fruits.
Canker which makes the bark become rough and corky and flake off has appeared on langsats in
Florida, Hawaii and Tahiti. It was believed to be caused by a fungus, Cephalosporium sp., and
larvae of a member of the Tineidae have been observed feeding under the loosened bark.
However, other fungi, Nectria sp. (perfect stage of Volutella sp.) and Phomopsis sp. are officially
recorded as causes of stem gall canker on the langsat in Florida.
Food Uses
The peel of the langsat is easily removed and the flesh is commonly eaten out-of-hand or served
as dessert, and may be cooked in various ways.
Varieties with much latex are best dipped into boiling water to eliminate the gumminess before
peeling.
The peeled, seedless or seeded fruits are canned in sirup or sometimes candied.
Food Value Per 100 g of Edible Portion*
Moisture 86.5 g
Protein 0.8 g
Carbohydrates 9.5 g
Fiber 2.3 g
Calcium 20.0 mg
Phosphorus 30.0 mg
Carotene (Vitamin A) 13.0 I.U.
Thiamine 89 mcg
Riboflavin 124 mcg
Ascorbic Acid 1.0 mg
Phytin 1.1 mg (dry weight)
*According to analyses made in India.
The edible flesh may constitute 60% of the fruit.
Toxicity
An arrow poison has been made from the fruit peel and the bark of the tree. Both possess a toxic
property, lansium acid, which, on injection, arrests heartbeat in frogs. The peel is reportedly high
in tannin. The seed contains a minute amount of an unnamed alkaloid, 1% of an alcohol-soluble
resin, and 2 bitter, toxic principles.
Other Uses
Peel: The dried peel is burned in Java, the aromatic smoke serving as a mosquito repellent and as
incense in the rooms of sick people.
Wood: The wood is light-brown, medium-hard, fine-grained, tough, elastic and durable and
weighs 52.3 lbs/ cu ft. It is utilized in Java for house posts, rafters, tool handles and small
utensils. Wood-tar, derived by distillation, is employed to blacken the teeth.
Medicinal Uses: The fresh peel contains 0.2% of a light-yellow volatile oil, a brown resin and
reducing acids. From the dried peel, there is obtained a dark, semi-liquid oleoresin composed of
0.17 % volatile oil and 22% resin. The resin is non-toxic and administered to halt diarrhea and
intestinal spasms; contracts rabbit intestine in vitro.
The pulverized seed is employed as a febrifuge and vermifuge. The bark is poulticed on scorpion
stings. An astringent bark decoction is taken as a treatment for dysentery and malaria. Leaves
may be combined with the bark in preparing the decoction. The leaf juice is used as eye-drops to
dispel inflammation.

Last updated: 4/2/99 by ch

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070908222412AAi06zO

What does the skin of a lanzones fruit

contain?
please help me....i really need it..
• 2 years ago
Report Abuse
 by dd
Member since:
August 28, 2007
Total points:
2713 (Level 4)
• Add to My Contacts
• Block User
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The skin of lanzones contains milky latex, which is a colloidal suspension, either the milky white
liquid emulstion found in the cells of flowering plants such as the Para rubber
tree (Hevea brasiliensis) or any of various manufactured water emulsions consisting of synthetic
rubber or plastic.

Do you know that lanzones can serve as a mosquito killer? As katol substitute, lanzones peelings
are indeed good mosquito killers and old folks could attest to this.

Here are the steps in transforming lanzones peelings into katol:

· Dry the lanzones peelings under the sun.

· Roast the dried peelings until crispy.
· Grind finely the roasted peelings, then cook with starch.
· Dry the feeling. Flatten and roll. Slice the rolled mixture just like any ordinary mosquito coil.

Presto, you have a katol.

The aromatic smell emitted by the mixture drives and kills mosquitoes away.

So there you are. It takes only creativity and patience to come up with an inexpensive, useful
invention.

The lanzones seed and rind is rich in tannin and contain chemical substances that are medicinally
and industrially useful. Lanzones flesh and juice are used by rural folk to treat sore eyes. The
fruit peel serves as a mosquito repellant while the bark is also used for malaria and dysentery
patients.
Source(s):
http://www.philonline.com.ph/~webdev/da-…

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morto…
• 2 years ago

http://www.philonline.com.ph/~webdev/da-amas/lanzones.html#uses
The Uses of Lanzones
The fruit of lanzones is eaten fresh. It contains 68% edible portion. The composition per 100 g. of the
edible portion is: water, 84 g.; carbohydrates with little of protein and fat, 14.2 g.; fiber, 0.8 g.; ash, 0.6 g.;
Ca, 19 mg; K, 275 mg. It contains vitamin B1, B2 and trace of vitamin C.
The lanzones seed and rind is rich in tannin and contain chemical substances that are medicinally and
industrially useful. Lanzones flesh and juice are used by rural folk to treat sore eyes. The fruit peel serves
as a mosquito repellant while the bark is also used for malaria and dysentery patients.

Lanzones Production
Lanzones is one of the major fruit crops grown throughout the Philippines. The relatively large areas
planted to lanzones are situated in ARMM, Southern Luzon and Mindanao. Tables 1 to 3 show the area
planted, volume of production and number of bearing trees of the top seven producing provinces of
lanzones.