Chines Journal of Vector Biology and Control ›› 2015, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (5): 519-521.DOI: 10.11853/j.issn.1003.4692.2015.05.024

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison two assessment methods of deratization effect

QU Bao-quan1, ZHANG Shi-shui1, GONG Xue-shi1, JING Xiao1, XU De-jiang2, WANG Xue-jun1, LIU Feng1, ZHAO Zhi-gang1, SUN Lin1, FU Ying1, ZHANG Kui-wei1, KANG Dian-min1   

  1. 1 Shandong Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Jinan 250014, Shandong Province, China;
    2 Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Jinan Railway Bureau
  • Received:2015-05-04 Online:2015-10-20 Published:2015-10-20
  • Supported by:

    Supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (No. ZR2011HM033) and Shandong Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology (No. 2009HW055)

两种考核灭鼠效果方法的对比研究

曲宝泉1, 张世水1, 宫学诗1, 景晓1, 许德江2, 王学军1, 刘峰1, 赵志刚1, 孙林1, 付颖1, 张奎卫1, 康殿民1   

  1. 1 山东省疾病预防控制中心病媒生物防制所, 济南250014;
    2 济南铁路局疾病预防控制中心
  • 通讯作者: 张世水, Email: sdzhangshishui@163.com; 宫学诗, Email: sdgongxueshi@163.com
  • 作者简介:曲宝泉, 男, 主管医师, 从事病媒生物防治研究工作, Email: qubaoquan-6@163.com
  • 基金资助:

    山东省自然科学基金(ZR2011HM033); 山东省医药卫生科技发展计划(2009HW055)

Abstract:

Objective To observe the assessment for deratization effect used with rat footprint plate method and S100 check method, and comparison the accuracy of two methods. Methods On-the-spot test was carried out at the Zhangheitun village of Linyi city, a total of 280 households. It was divided into two groups, each group of 140 households, the first group put 0.05% Diphacine-Na corn poison bait in cement poison bait box, the second group put 0.05% Diphacine-Na wheat poison bait in. Two methods of rat footprint plate method and S400 check were used to evaluate the deratization effect at the same time. Results At the first group, the assessment of deratization rate with rat footprint plate method at different periods of time were 54.05%, 54.78%, 73.19% and 92.47% respectively on the 10 d, 20 d, 30 d and 60 d, and the assessment of deratization rate with S100 check method at different periods of time were 79.40%, 88.38%, 95.64% and 98.87% respectively on the 10 d, 20 d, 30 d and 60 d, comparison two assessment methods, they have statistically significant(10 d, χ2=71.540; 20 d, χ2=176.230; 30 d, χ2=181.730; 60 d, χ2=56.270, P<0.01). At the second group, the assessment of deratization rate with rat footprint plate method at different periods of time were 35.51%, 51.02%, 71.28% and 85.54% respectively on the 10 d, 20 d, 30 d and 60 d, and the assessment of deratization rate with S100 check method at different periods of time were 74.08%, 87.32%, 95.13% and 97.53% respectively on the 10 d, 20 d, 30 d and 60 d, comparison two assessment methods, they were statistically significant (10 d, χ2=145.720; 20 d, χ2=231.720; 30 d, χ2=214.560; 60 d, χ2=104.230, P<0.01). Conclusion The S100 check method is more suitable for the assessment of deratization effect, since its quality and accuracy. And the rat footprint plate method better suited to determine the population density of rats, and identifying the rat density situation, it was convenient and practical.

Key words: Rat footprint plate method, S100 check method, Cement poison bait box, Diphacine-Na, Deratization rate

摘要:

目的 观察鼠迹板法与格粉板法考核的灭鼠效果, 对比分析两种方法所测结果的准确性。方法 2012年11月选择临沂市张黑墩村共280户。将该村分为2组, 每组140户。第1组在水泥毒饵盒中投放0.05%敌鼠钠玉米毒饵, 第2组投放0.05%敌鼠钠小麦毒饵。采用鼠迹板法和格粉板法(S100格法)同时考核灭鼠效果。结果 第1组采用鼠迹板法于灭鼠后第10、20、30和60天时灭鼠率分别为54.05%、54.78%、73.19%和92.47%;格粉板法分别为79.40%、88.38%、95.64%和98.87%, 两种方法比较差异有统计学意义(10 d, χ2=71.540; 20 d, χ2=176.230; 30 d, χ2=181.730;60 d, χ2=56.270;均P<0.01)。第2组采用鼠迹板法于灭鼠后第10、20、30和60 d时灭鼠率分别为35.51%、51.02%、71.28%和85.54%;格粉板法分别为74.08%、87.32%、95.13%和97.53%, 两种方法比较差异亦有统计学意义(10 d, χ2=145.720;20 d, χ2=231.720;30 d, χ2=214.560;60 d, χ2=104.230;均P<0.01)。结论 格粉板法适合于判定灭鼠效果优劣, 且精细、准确性较好;而鼠迹板法则更适合于判定鼠类种群密度的高低, 从而判别鼠害发生的轻重情况, 简便实用。

关键词: 鼠迹板法, 格粉板法, 水泥毒饵盒, 敌鼠钠, 灭鼠率

CLC Number: