Chinese Journal of Vector Biology and Control >
Comparison two assessment methods of deratization effect
Received date: 2015-05-04
Online 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)
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.
QU Bao-quan, ZHANG Shi-shui, GONG Xue-shi, JING Xiao, XU De-jiang, WANG Xue-jun, LIU Feng, ZHAO Zhi-gang, SUN Lin, FU Ying, ZHANG Kui-wei, KANG Dian-min . Comparison two assessment methods of deratization effect[J]. Chinese Journal of Vector Biology and Control, 2015 , 26(5) : 519 -521 . DOI: 10.11853/j.issn.1003.4692.2015.05.024
[1] 汪诚信, 潘祖安. 灭鼠概论[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社, 1983:270, 277-284.
[2] 郑智民, 姜志宽, 陈安国. 啮齿动物学[M]. 上海:交通大学出版社, 2008:506-508, 555.
[3] 王陇德. 病媒生物防制实用指南[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社, 2010:238-241.
[4] 曲宝泉. 夹夜法与鼠迹板法调查鼠密度的关系研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 1999, 10(2):94-95.
[5] 赵承善, 张世水, 曲宝泉. 格粉板法测定灭鼠效果的研究[J].中华流行病学杂志, 1983, 4(2):157-160.
[6] 李镜辉, 汪诚信. 特殊环境灭鼠三例[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 1983, 19(5):292-294.
[7] 赵承善, 曲宝泉, 张世水. 用不同格数的玻板测定灭鼠效果的研究[J]. 兽类学报, 1985, 5(3):229-232.
[8] 汪诚信, 赵月明, 郭成玉, 等. 晋东南农村的家鼠及其防制 Ⅰ.鼠情调查[J]. 中国鼠类防制杂志, 1985, 1(1):14-17.
[9] 张世水, 曲宝泉, 赵承善. 一次投放杀鼠灵散饵和袋饵灭家鼠尝试[J]. 中国鼠类防制杂志, 1985, 1(1):26-27.
[10] 张世水, 宫学诗, 曲宝泉, 等. 蜡皮混合毒饵对褐家鼠和小家鼠的灭效研究[J]. 现代预防医学, 2014, 41(6):1081-1082, 1085.
[11] 刘起勇, 李镜辉, 汪诚信. 一所新建医院的灭鼠试验[J]. 中国鼠类防制杂志, 1988, 4(1):37-39.
[12] 王灵岚, 洪朝长, 陈小彬, 等. 4种鼠情调查方法的比较研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 1995, 6(5):352-355.
[13] 宫学诗, 张世水, 曲宝泉, 等. 蜡皮整粒毒饵对小家鼠和褐家鼠杀灭效果研究[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械, 2012, 18(6):501-503.
[14] 曲宝泉, 单宝德, 霍新北, 等. 4种毒饵盒对小家鼠和褐家鼠的灭效研究[J]. 中华卫生杀虫药械, 2010, 16(1):45-49.
[15] 郭天宇, 鲁亮, 陈贵春, 等. 家栖鼠类数量估计方法[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2006, 17(1):63-65.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |