Bioone.org will be down for maintenance on 16 May, 2022 from 18:00-22:00 Pacific US. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
28 February 2022 Conservation Letter: Raptors and Anticoagulant Rodenticides
Eres A. Gomez, Sofi Hindmarch, Jennifer A. Smith
Author Affiliations +

Introduction

Widespread use of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) creates an ongoing global conservation concern for raptors. ARs have the potential to negatively affect birds primarily by secondary exposure (via scavenging or depredating primary consumers of ARs), which may cause toxicosis following the consumption of a poisoned prey. Exposure to ARs has been documented in numerous raptor species sampled from a wide range of regions, including North America (Stone et al. 2003, Albert et al. 2010, Thomas et al. 2011, Murray 2017, Gabriel et al. 2018), Europe (Berny et al. 1997, Sanchez-Barbudo et al. 2012, Hughes et al. 2013), Asia (Naim et al. 2010, Hong et al. 2019), and Australia (Lohr et al. 2018). This Conservation Letter provides a scientific review of AR exposure to raptors at this global scale and highlights lessons learned and potential solutions. This letter is not intended as an exhaustive literature review. Rather, the intent of the Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) is to provide readers with enough evidence-based examples that readers can appreciate the scope and prevalence of AR exposure, understand the potential effects on raptor species and populations, and recognize some of the challenges associated with addressing AR exposure in raptors across regions.

ARs are a form of ingested rodent pest control that work by blocking the vitamin K cycle, which inhibits blood clotting and may cause internal bleeding, anemia, hemorrhagic shock, and death (Rattner et al. 2014a, Murray 2017, van den Brink et al. 2018). First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) such as warfarin, diphacinone, chlorophacinone, and coumatetralyl may require ingestion through multiple feedings before a lethal dose is reached, whereas second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs; e.g., brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, difethialone, and flocoumafen) are more toxic and only require a single feeding to cause death in target species (i.e., rodents; van den Brink et al. 2018). Due to their effectiveness, ARs are commonly used; in a survey of farmers in Delta, Canada, 72% of respondents reported using some sort of rodent control, most of which (82%) were rodenticides (Hindmarch et al. 2018). In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reported that homeowners spent $110 million in 2005 on rodenticides (USEPA 2011). The occurrence of ARs is also high in rural areas, where 75–95% of farms may use rodenticides (Tosh et al. 2011, Hughes et al. 2013, Hindmarch et al. 2018). Despite the benefits of this widespread application for pest control, increasing evidence suggests that nontarget species, including raptors, are often exposed to ARs when they consume contaminated prey or tainted carrion (Elliott et al. 2014, Rattner et al. 2014, van den Brink et al. 2018).

Effects of Anticoagulant Rodenticides on Individual Raptors

Secondary AR exposure can be lethal due to severe blood loss and internal hemorrhaging, both of which are associated with organ failure, shock, and death. Rates of mortality due to AR exposure are challenging to quantify in free-living birds because it is difficult to directly link AR exposure to death. In addition, differences in analytical methods and species sensitivity make it difficult to quantify the levels that indicate lethality (Thomas et al. 2011). Liver concentrations are typically measured against the suggested lethal range of >0.1–0.2 mg/kg wet weight (Newton et al. 1999, Thomas et al. 2011). However, further research is needed to better understand toxicity thresholds as variability exists among individuals and species (Thomas et al. 2011, Rattner and Mastrota 2018, Roos et al. 2021). Nevertheless, raptor mortality attributable to AR exposure has been well documented (e.g., Stone et al. 1999, Hughes et al. 2013, Murray 2017), with some studies suggesting that older birds may be more at risk due to bioaccumulation (Elliott et al. 2016, van den Brink et al. 2018). Evidence has also been derived from birds that were admitted to wildlife rehabilitation centers and subsequently died after exhibiting signs of lethargy, pallor (i.e., pale mucous membranes), bruising, or profuse bleeding from open wounds, nares, or mouths, all of which are associated with AR exposure (Murray 2011, 2018). These symptoms, as well as the presence of ARs at concentrations near the standard threshold levels, may indicate potential toxicosis of wild, free-living raptors (Thomas et al. 2011).

Experimental approaches in controlled laboratory settings indicate that exposure to ARs may also induce sublethal effects, defined as physiological or behavioral changes linked to trace levels that are too low to directly cause death. Sublethal effects can include delayed blood clotting, anemia, and impaired mobility (Newton et al. 1990, Stone et al. 2003, Rattner et al. 2014a). Sublethal AR exposure, combined with other anthropogenic stressors, potentially predisposes affected raptors to injury, disease, malnourishment, and predation (Rattner et al. 2014b, Herring et al. 2017, Hindmarch et al. 2019). Sublethal effects also may manifest on a molecular and cellular level (Rattner et al. 2014b), as vitamin K is needed for genetic processes including RNA transcription and xenobiotic metabolism (Fraser et al. 2018). More research is needed to fully understand the effects of sublethal exposure to ARs in raptors.

Raptors that live near human populations and also consume rodents, including many species of owls (Strigidae spp. and Tytonidae spp.), are at high risk of secondary AR exposure (Newton 1990, Slankard et al. 2019). For example, assessments of exposure rates in dead raptors collected along roadsides or following admission to a wildlife rehabilitation center demonstrate that 10–84% of Barn Owls (Tyto alba; Newton et al. 1990, Albert et al. 2010, López-Perea et al. 2015, Slankard et al. 2019), 65–100% of Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus; Albert et al. 2010, Murray 2011, Thomas et al. 2011), 75–92% of Barred Owls (Strix varia; Albert et al. 2010, Murray 2011), and 87% of Eastern Screech-Owls (Megascops asio; Murray 2011) tested positive for ARs across populations. Variability across populations is likely explained by site-specific differences in AR use, and in habitat and prey availability (Thomas et al. 2011, Hindmarch et al. 2017, Hindmarch and Elliott 2018).

Species with broad dietary breadths, such as Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), are also at risk of AR exposure (Stone et al. 2003, Murray 2011, Abernathy et al. 2018). For example, all 43 Red-tailed Hawks sampled at a wildlife rehabilitation center in Massachusetts tested positive for ARs (Murray 2020), and approximately 60% of liver samples from Red-tailed Hawk carcasses collected across Canada had detectable levels of ARs (Thomas et al. 2011). Numerous other opportunistic raptors are also exposed to ARs, including Common Buzzards (Buteo buteo; Berny et al. 1997), Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis; Sanchez-Barbudo et al. 2012), and Black Kites (Milvus migrans; Sanchez-Barbudo et al. 2012) in Europe, and Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; Stone et al. 2003, Niedringhaus et al. 2021) in North America. ARs have also been detected in raptor species whose dietary preference typically focuses on non-rodent prey, including Short-toed Snake-Eagles (Circaetus gallicus) in Europe (Sanchez-Barbudo et al. 2012), and Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) and Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus) in North America (Stone et al. 2003). ARs also affect raptor species that are primarily scavengers, including Red Kites (Milvus milvus) and Griffon Vultures (Gyps fulvus) in Europe (Sanchez-Barbudo et al. 2012), and Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura) in North America (Stone et al. 2003, Kelly et al. 2014). These results suggest that pathways of exposure to ARs for raptors are complex and may include transfer via non-rodent taxa such as birds and insects (Elliott et al. 2014, Rattner et al. 2014b).

Although the aforementioned studies provide insight into the exposure of raptors to ARs, the birds sampled represent a nonrandom subset of wild populations. Therefore, exposure rates at the population level likely differ from those reported. Similarly, exposure rates calculated from birds admitted to wildlife rehabilitation centers may not be representative of exposure levels at the population level (Stone et al. 2003, Albert et al. 2010, Murray 2017, Hindmarch et al. 2018). Unfortunately, assessments of AR exposure in wild-caught birds are scarce, which limits our ability to estimate unbiased AR exposure rates. Of the studies that have sampled free-living birds, Gabriel et al. (2018) demonstrated that 70% of Northern Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis caurina; n = 10) and 40% of Barred Owls (n = 84) in western North America tested positive for one or more ARs, suggesting that secondary AR exposure is a pervasive issue for at least some raptors. In contrast, only 7.8% (n = 116) and 8.2% (n = 97) of migrating juvenile Red-tailed Hawks in North America tested positive for ARs in their blood plasma (Abernathy et al. 2018, Kwasnoski et al. 2019). This low AR detection rate may be attributed to both the short half-lives of ARs and the insensitivity of AR analysis in blood (Murray 2020), as well as the sampled birds' migratory status, and the fact that they were young individuals that potentially had not yet bioaccumulated detectable levels of toxicants.

Effects of Rodenticides on Raptor Populations

Although examples of secondary AR exposure to raptors at the individual level are well documented, evidence for population level effects is absent, warranting further investigation (Rattner et al. 2014b, Herring and Eagles-Smith 2017, Quinn 2019, Roos et al. 2021). However, it has been suggested that the widespread application of SGARs in Canada may have resulted in the direct mortality of 11% of Great Horned Owls submitted to rehabilitation or veterinary centers (Thomas et al. 2011). These estimates considered probabilities of exposure in mostly human-dominated landscapes. Thus, because exposure rates vary across landscapes (Tosh et al. 2011, Hughes et al. 2013, Hindmarch et al. 2018), and because sensitivity to ARs varies among species and individuals (Rattner et al. 2011, 2014b), these estimates are specific to the population studied and may not be representative of other raptor populations from different landscapes. Moreover, the results of that study did not provide evidence of causation. Whether AR exposure manifests into population level effects remains unknown.

Under scenarios where lethal AR exposure could potentially manifest into population level effects, the impacts may be more acute for long-lived species with low reproductive rates (i.e., K-strategists), or those that are threatened or endangered where the removal of a few individuals could have marked effects on the population (Rattner et al. 2014b). For example, AR exposure is of growing concern for many vulnerable species including Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos; Herring et al. 2017, Niedringhaus et al. 2021) and Northern Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis caurina; Gabriel et al. 2018) in North America, Spanish Imperial Eagles (Aquila adalberti), Red Kites, and Common Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus; Roos et al. 2021) in Europe (Howald et al. 1999, van den Brink et al. 2018, Nakayama et al. 2019), and Wedge-tailed Eagles (Aquila audax; Pay et al. 2021) in Australia. If population level effects were to occur, a decline in ecosystem functions and services provided by raptors, including scavenging (i.e., removal of carcasses from the landscape), nature-based recreation (e.g., bird watching), and biological control of rodent agricultural pests (Donázar et al. 2016) may ensue. However further research is needed to validate this hypothesis and demonstrate a connection between AR exposure and changes in population growth, survival rate, and reproductive success (Quinn 2019).

Mitigating the Effects of ARs on Raptors

Several countries have implemented regulations pertaining to ARs with the goal of mitigating the effects to nontarget wildlife. For example, in the US, ARs are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which considers human and environmental risks following increased awareness of, and growing public concern for, nontarget exposure to children, pets, and wildlife (Eisemann et al. 2018). Most mitigation efforts have aimed to reduce the risk of nontarget exposure by limiting consumer access to SGARs, with emphasis on proper product labeling and application. However, recent changes to legislation in California have demonstrated this to be ineffective at reducing exposure in bobcats (Lynx rufus; Serieys et al. 2015, 2021). For example, although the new legislation requires labels that outline proper use that minimizes potential exposure, many consumers ignore the instructions and continue to expose wildlife to SGARs. Alternatively, some consumers have switched to FGARs, which have no regulations associated with them, but that are toxic to wildlife, as predicted by Rattner et al. (2014a). Additional legislation at state and local levels within the US further controls the use of ARs.

Canada has similar federal regulatory legislation under the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and provinces can further restrict usage. Outside North America, legislation has also been introduced to mitigate the potential for ARs to affect wildlife. For example, the European Union regulates ARs under the Biocidal Products Directive, while the United Kingdom (UK) mandates ARs through the Control of Pesticides Regulations (1986) statute. Notably, the UK has enacted the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use which uses stewardship to promote quality assurance and responsible rodent control aimed at protecting both consumers and wildlife (Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use 2020). In New Zealand, ARs are regulated by the Ministry for Primary Industries, while in Australia, AR products are regulated by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. Although changes are slow to take place, this widespread use of legislation to control the application of ARs is an important step in reducing raptors' exposure to ARs and represents a collective effort to curtail rodenticide use and risk to nontarget species such as raptors (Eisemann et al. 2018).

The risk of secondary AR exposure to raptors can also be minimized by instituting alternative measures to chemical rodent control. Eco-friendly, natural methods can be used as part of an integrated pest management approach which includes, for example, a combination of nontoxic lethal or nonlethal methods (e.g., habitat modification, trapping, and nontoxic repellants; Whitmer 2018). One of the simplest, and often most effective ways to discourage rodents is to identify, locate, and eliminate potential food sources (e.g., accessible trash, open compost bins, fallen bird seed, outdoor pet food) and practice structural exclusion by sealing off potential entry points into buildings (Murray et al. 2018, Whitmer 2018). Any thick and densely growing vegetation should be removed from building perimeters, as the vegetation provides rodents with an ideal habitat in terms of food and shelter (Whitmer 2018). For lethal control, snap traps, bucket traps, electric zappers, CO2 gas-powered traps, or automatic bolt traps are recommended, and dry ice can be used to plug burrows (Witmer 2018). It is also possible to encourage natural avian predators of rodents through the provision of perches and owl nest boxes (Huysman et al. 2018), but the success of these two methods is largely dependent on other factors such as landscape characteristics and local raptor and rodent prey abundance (Hindmarch and Elliott 2018).

Future Research Directions

The effects of ARs on raptors are well described in scientific literature, but are difficult to quantify and therefore require further study to develop a more complete understanding of sublethal effects at the individual level, including breeding productivity and behavior. How individual-level effects translate into population-level effects is also an important avenue for research and is critical for the conservation of at-risk species. Sensitivity to ARs varies at both the species and individual levels (Murray 2011, Hindmarch et al. 2019) with some individuals affected more than others. Therefore, the development of species sensitivity profiles along with blood-clotting reference values (to estimate blood-clotting time) is needed to better determine how raptor populations may respond to AR exposure. Where possible, an emphasis should be placed on assessments of AR exposure in wild, free-ranging raptors to reduce potential biases introduced to exposure estimates calculated using raptors admitted to wildlife rehabilitation centers. This is especially the case for geographic regions underrepresented in the literature (e.g., South America) where access to resources (e.g., lab equipment, money to process samples) prohibits investigations of AR exposure in the country of study, and where regulations prohibit export of samples to international laboratories (M. Saggese pers. comm.). Nevertheless, we encourage continued assessment of data derived from wildlife rehabilitation centers; such data continues to be instrumental in our understanding of the geographic range and physical effects of ARs on raptors.

Exposure rates and studies of AR effects on raptors have been derived primarily from assessments made in temperate regions of North America and Europe (e.g., Elliot et al. 1996, Hughes et al. 2013, López-Perea et al. 2015, Hindmarch et al. 2017). Although opportunistically collected data from wildlife rehabilitation centers suggest many species are exposed to ARs, empirical studies of AR exposure and studies of the concomitant effects often focus on species used to develop toxicological models for raptors (e.g., Eastern Screech-Owl and American Kestrel [Falco sparverius]; Rattner et al. 2010, 2014a), or common species of owls (e.g., Barred Owl; Gabriel et al. 2018) or Buteo hawks (e.g., Red-tailed Hawk; Abernathy et al. 2018). The potential for AR exposure appears to be both site- and species-specific (Stone et al. 2003, Hindmarch et al. 2017). Thus, more research is needed from other regions across a broad range of taxa, especially from understudied areas that are critical for raptors (e.g., areas encompassing key migratory routes).

As a leading professional society for raptor researchers and raptor conservationists, the RRF is dedicated to the accumulation and dissemination of scientific information about raptors, and to resolving raptor conservation concerns (RRF 2021). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in raptors remains an ongoing conservation concern, potentially presenting a global threat to raptor populations, many of which have little to no direct regulatory protection. Based on the science summarized here, reducing the sources and scale of anticoagulant rodenticide exposure will allow long-term co-occurrence of raptor populations with human populations.

Literature Cited

1.

Abernathy, E. V., J. M. Hull, A. M. Fish, and C. W. Briggs (2018). Secondary anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in migrating juvenile Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensus) in relationship to body condition. Journal of Raptor Research 52:225–230. Google Scholar

2.

Albert, C. A., L. K. Wilson, P. Mineau, S. Trudeau, and J. E. Elliott (2010). Anticoagulant rodenticides in three owl species from western Canada, 1988–2003. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 58:451–459. Google Scholar

3.

Berny, P. J., T. Buronfosse, F. Buronfosse, F. Lamarque, and G. Lorgue (1997). Field evidence of secondary poisoning of foxes and buzzards by bromadiolone, a 4-year survey. Chemosphere 35:1817–1829. Google Scholar

4.

Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU) (2020). Think Wildlife. Ossett, Wakefield, UK.  https://www.thinkwildlife.org/crru-uk/Google Scholar

5.

Donázar, J. A., A. Cortés-Avizanda, J. A. Fargallo, A. Margalida, M. Moleón, Z. Morales-Reyes, R. Moreno-Opo, J. M. Pérez-García, J. A. Sánchez-Zapata, I. Zuberogoitia, and D. Serrano (2016). Role of raptors in a changing world: From flagships to providers of key ecosystem services. Ardeola 63:181–234. Google Scholar

6.

Dwyer, J. F., S. Hindmarch, and G. E. Kratz (2018). Raptor mortality in urban landscapes. InUrban Raptors: Ecology and Conservation of Birds of Prey in Cities. ( C. W. Boal and C. R. Dykstra, Editors). Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. pp. 199–213. Google Scholar

7.

Eisemann, J. D., P. M. Fisher, A. Buckle, and S. Humphrys (2018). An international perspective on the regulation of rodenticides. InAnticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife ( N. van den Brink, J. Elliott, R. Shore, and B. Rattner, Editors). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 287–318. Google Scholar

8.

Elliott, J. E., S. Hindmarch, C. A. Albert, J. Emery, P. Mineau, and F. Maisonneuve (2014). Exposure pathways of anticoagulant rodenticides to nontarget wildlife. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186:895–906. Google Scholar

9.

Elliott, J. E., K. M. Langelier, P. Mineau, and L. K. Wilson (1996). Poisoning of Bald Eagles and Red-tailed Hawks by carbofuran and fensulfothion in the Fraser Delta of British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32:486–491. Google Scholar

10.

Elliott, J. E., B. A. Rattner, R. F. Shore, and N. W. van den Brink (2016). Paying the pipers: Mitigating the impact of anticoagulant rodenticides on predators and scavengers. Bioscience 66:401–407. Google Scholar

11.

Franklin, A. B., P. C. Carlson, A. Rex, J. T. Rockweit, D. Garza, E. Culhane, S. F. Volker, R. J. Dusek, V. I. Shearn-Bochsler, M. W. Gabriel, and K. E. Horak (2018). Grass in not always greener: Rodenticide exposure of a threatened species near marijuana growing operations. BMC Research Notes 11:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3206-zGoogle Scholar

12.

Frankova, M., V. Stejskal, and R. Aulicky (2019). Efficacy of rodenticide baits with decreased concentrations of brodifacoum: Validation of the impact of the new EU anticoagulant regulation. Scientific Reports 9:16779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53299-8Google Scholar

13.

Fraser, D., A. Mouton, L. E. K. Serieys, S. Cole, S. Carver, S. Vandewoude, M. Lappin, S. P. D. Riley, and R. Wayne (2018). Genome-wide expression reveals multiple systemic effects associated with detection of anticoagulant poisons in bobcats (Lynx rufus). Molecular Ecology 27:1170–1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14531Google Scholar

14.

Gabriel, M. W., L. V. Diller, J. P. Dumbacher, G. M. Wengert, J. M. Higley, R. H. Poppenga, and S. Media (2018). Exposure to rodenticides in Northern Spotted and Barred Owls on remote forest lands in northwestern California: Evidence of food web contamination. Avian Conservation and Ecology 13:2. doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01134-130102. Google Scholar

15.

Herring, G., C. A. Eagles-Smith, and J. Buck (2017). Characterizing Golden Eagle risk to lead and anticoagulant rodenticide exposure: A review. Journal of Raptor Research 51:273–292. Google Scholar

16.

Hindmarch S., and J. E. Elliott (2018). Ecological factors driving uptake of anticoagulant rodenticides in predators. InAnticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife ( N. van den Brink, J. Elliott, R. Shore, and B. Rattner, Editors). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 229–258. Google Scholar

17.

Hindmarch, S., J. E. Elliott, S. Mccann, and P. Levesque (2017). Habitat use by Barn Owls across a rural to urban gradient and an assessment of stressors including habitat loss, rodenticide exposure, and road mortality. Landscape and Use Planning 164:132–143. Google Scholar

18.

Hindmarch, S., J. E. Elliot, and A. Morzillo (2018). Rats! What triggers us to control for rodents? Rodenticide user survey in British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Environmental Studies 75:1011–1030. Google Scholar

19.

Hindmarch, S., B. A. Rattner, and J. E. Elliott (2019). Use of blood clotting assays to assess potential anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and effects in free-ranging birds of prey. Science of the Total Environment 657:1205–1216. Google Scholar

20.

Hong, S.-Y., C. Morrissey, H.-S. Lin, K.-S. Lin, W.-L. Lin, C.T. Yao, T.-E. Lin, F.-T. Chan, and Y.-H. Sun (2019). Frequent detection of anticoagulant rodenticides in raptors sampled in Taiwan reflects government rodent control policy. Science of the Total Environment 691:1051–1058. Google Scholar

21.

Howald, G. R., P. Mineau, J. E. Elliott, and K. M. Cheng (1999). Brodifacoum poisoning of avian scavengers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ecotoxicology 8:431–447. Google Scholar

22.

Hughes, J., E. Sharp, M. J. Taylor, L. Melton, and G. Hartley (2013). Monitoring agricultural rodenticide use and secondary exposure of raptors in Scotland. Ecotoxicology 22:974–984. Google Scholar

23.

Huysman, A., D. St. George, M. Johnson, R. Baldwin, M. Charter, C. Wendt, S. Hindmarch, S. Kross, G. Rozman, P. Rivadeneira, and E. Phillips (2018). A review of research methods for Barn Owls in integrated pest management. InBARD Conference on the Use of Barn Owls for Agricultural Pest Control. University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources, Hum-bolt State University, Arcata, CA, USA.  http://www.barnowlpestcontrol.com/uploads/1/1/7/3/117396152/Huysman_et_al_2018.pdfGoogle Scholar

24.

Kelly, T. R., R. H. Poppenga, L. A. Woods, Y. Z. Hernandez, W. M. Boyce, F. J. Samaniego, S. G. Torres, and C. K. Johnson (2014). Causes of mortality and unintentional poisoning in predatory and scavenging birds in California. Veterinary Record Open 1:e000028. https://doi.org/10.1136/vropen-2014-000028Google Scholar

25.

Kwasnoski, L. A., K. A. Dudus, A. M. Fish, E. V. Abernathy, and C. W. Briggs (2019). Examining sublethal effects of anticoagulant rodenticides on haemosporidian parasitemia and body condition in migratory Red-tailed Hawks. Journal of Raptor Research 53:402–409. Google Scholar

26.

Lohr, M. T. (2018). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an Australian predatory bird increases with proximity to developed habitat. Science of the Total Environment 643:134–144. Google Scholar

27.

López-Perea, J. J., P. R. Camarero, R. A. Molina- López, L. Parpal, E. Obón, J. Solá, and R. Mateo (2015). Interspecific and geographical differences in anticoagulant rodenticide residues of predatory wildlife from the Mediterranean region of Spain. Science of the Total Environment 511:259–267. Google Scholar

28.

Murray, M. (2011). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and toxicosis in four species of birds of prey presented to a wildlife clinic in Massachusetts, 2006–2010. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 42:88–97. Google Scholar

29.

Murray, M. (2017). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and toxicosis in four species of birds of prey in Massachusetts, USA, 2012–2016, in relation to use of rodenticides by pest management professionals. Ecotoxicology 26:1041–1050. Google Scholar

30.

Murray, M. (2018). Ante-mortem and post-mortem signs of anticoagulant rodenticide toxicosis in birds of prey. InAnticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife ( N. van den Brink, J. Elliott, R. Shore, and B. Rattner, Editors). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 109–134. Google Scholar

31.

Murray, M. H., R. Fyffe, M. Fidino, K. A. Byers, M. J. Rios, M. P. Mulligan, and S. B. Magle (2018). Public complaints reflect rat relative abundance across diverse urban neighborhoods. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6:189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00189Google Scholar

32.

Murray, M. (2020). Continued anticoagulant rodenticide exposure of Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) in the northeastern United States with an evaluation of serum for biomonitoring. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 39:2325–2335. Google Scholar

33.

Naim, M., H. Mohd Noor, A. Kasim, and J. Abu (2010). Growth performance of nestling Barn Owls, Tyto alba javanica in rat baiting area in Malaysia. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 5:1–13. Google Scholar

34.

Nakayama, S. M. M., A. Morita, Y. Ikenaka, H. Mizukawa, and M. Ishizuka (2019). A review: Poisoning by anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target animals globally. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 81:298–313. Google Scholar

35.

Newton, I., and I. Wyllie (1992). Effects of new rodenticides on owls. InThe Ecology and Conservation of European Owls ( C. A. Galbraith, I. R. Taylor, and S. Percival, Editors). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peter-borough, UK. pp. 49–54. Google Scholar

36.

Newton, I., I. Wyllie, and P. Freestone (1990). Rodenticides in British Barn Owls. Environmental Pollution 68:101–117. Google Scholar

37.

Niedringhaus, K. D., N. M. Nemeth, S. Gibbs, J. Zimmerman, L. Shender, K. Slankard, H. Fenton, B. Charlie, M. F. Dalton, E. J. Elsmo, R. Poppenga, et al. (2021). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and toxicosis in Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the United States. PLoS ONE 16: e0246134. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246134Google Scholar

38.

Pay, J. M., T. E. Katzner, C. E. Hawkins, L. A. Barmuta, W. E. Brown, J. M. Wiersma, A. J. Koch, N. J. Mooney, and E. Z. Cameron (2021). Endangered Australian top predator is frequently exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides. Science of the Total Environment 788:147673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147673Google Scholar

39.

Quinn, N. (2019). Assessing individual and population-level effects of anticoagulant rodenticides on wildlife. Human-Wildlife Interactions 13:200–211. Google Scholar

40.

Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) (2021). About us.  https://raptorresearchfoundation.org/about/history/Google Scholar

41.

Rattner, B. A., K. E. Horak, R. S. Lazarus, D. A. Goldade, and J. J. Johnston (2014a). Toxicokinetics and coagulopathy threshold of the rodenticide diphacinone in Eastern Screech-Owls (Megascops asio). Environmental Toxicology 33:74–81. Google Scholar

42.

Rattner, B. A., K. E. Horak, S. E. Warner, D. D. Day, and J. J. Johnston (2010). Comparative toxicity of to Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and American Kestrel (Falco sparverius). InProceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference ( R. M. Timm and K. A. Fagerstone, Editors). University of California Davis, CA, USA. pp. 146–152. Google Scholar

43.

Rattner, B. A., R. S. Lazarus, J. E. Elliott, R. F. Shore, and N. van den Brink (2014b). Adverse outcome pathway and risks of anticoagulant rodenticides to predatory wildlife. Environmental Science and Technology 48:8433–8445. Google Scholar

44.

Rattner, B. A., and F. N. Mastrota (2018). Anticoagulant rodenticide toxicity to non-target wildlife under controlled exposure conditions. InAnticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife ( N. van den Brink, J. Elliott, R. Shore, and B. Rattner, Editors). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 45–86. Google Scholar

45.

Roos, S., S. T. Campbell, G. Hartley, R. F. Shore, L. A. Walker, and J. D. Wilson (2021). Annual abundance of Common Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) is negatively associated with second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Ecotoxicology 30:560–574. Google Scholar

46.

Sanchez-Barbudo, I. S., P. R. Camerero, and R. Mateo (2012). Primary and secondary poisoning by anticoagulant rodenticides of non-target animals in Spain. Science of the Total Environment 420:280–288. Google Scholar

47.

Serieys, L. E. K., T C. Armenta, J. G. Moriarty, E. E. Boydston, L. M. Lyren, R. H. Poppenga, K. R. Crooks, R. K. Wayne, and S. P. D. Riley (2015). Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: Exposure, risk factors and potential effects based on a 16-year study. Ecotoxicology 24:844–862. Google Scholar

48.

Serieys, L. E. K., M. S. Rogan, S. S. Matsushima, and C. C. Williams (2021). Road-crossings, vegetative cover, land use and poisons interact to influence corridor effectiveness. Biological Conservation 253:108930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108930Google Scholar

49.

Slankard, K. G., C. L. Gaskill, L. M. Cassone, and C. M. Rhoden (2019). Changes in detected anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in Barn Owls (Tyto alba) in Kentucky, USA, in 2012–16. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 55:432–437. Google Scholar

50.

Stone, W. B., J. C. Okoniewski, and J. R. Stedelin (2003). Anticoagulant rodenticides and raptors: Recent findings from New York, 1998–2001. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 70:34–40. Google Scholar

51.

Thomas, P. J., P. Mineau, R. F. Shore, L. Champous, P. A. Martin, L. K. Wilson, G. Fitzgerald, and J. E. Elliott (2011). Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory birds: Probabilistic characterization of toxic liver concentrations and implications for predatory bird populations in Canada. Environment International 37:914–920. Google Scholar

52.

Tosh, D. G., R. F. Shore, S. Jess, A. Withers, S. Bearhop, W. I. Montgomery, and R. A. McDonald (2011). User behaviour, best practice and the risks of non-target exposure associated with anticoagulant rodenticide use. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1503–1508. Google Scholar

53.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2011). Risks of Non-Compliant Rodenticides to Nontarget Wildlife – Background Paper for Scientific Advisory Panel on Notice of Intent to Cancel Non-RMD Compliant Rodenticide Products. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Google Scholar

54.

van den Brink, N., J. Elliott, R. Shore, and B. Rattner (2018). Anticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. Google Scholar

55.

Witmer, G. W. (2018). Perspectives on existing and potential new alternatives to anticoagulant rodenticides and the implications for integrated pest management. InAnticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife ( N. van den Brink, J. Elliott, R. Shore, and B. Rattner, Editors). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 357–378. Google Scholar
© 2022 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
Eres A. Gomez, Sofi Hindmarch, and Jennifer A. Smith "Conservation Letter: Raptors and Anticoagulant Rodenticides," Journal of Raptor Research 56(1), 147-153, (28 February 2022). https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-20-122
Received: 3 November 2020; Accepted: 3 March 2021; Published: 28 February 2022
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
anticoagulant
blood clotting
nontarget poisoning
secondary exposure
toxicosis
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top