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