|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 236
Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management.
1986. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Managing Resistance to Rodenticides
J. H. GREAVES
To manage rodenticide resistance, rodenticide susceptibility must
be conserved and the frequency of resistant phenotypes must be
reduced to an acceptable level and kept there. Several attempts to
manage resistance to anticoagulant rodenticides in the Norway rat,
Rattus norvegicus, are reviewed, and the responses of users, sup-
pliers of rodenticides, and official agencies to the problem of resis-
tance are discussed.
Although improvements in rodent-control techniques and further
analysis of genetical-ecological aspects of the problem would be
useful, the technical means for making long-term progress already
exist. Certain short-term factors, however, seem to predispose the
interested parties to act in ways that facilitate rather than retard or
reverse the continued development of resistance.
INTRODUCTION
Resistance to warfarin and some other anticoagulant rodenticides was re-
corded first in the Norway rat, Rattus norvegicus, in Scotland in 1958 (Boyle,
1960) and has since been found in other countries and species. The subject
has been reviewed most recently by Lund (1984) and Greaves (1985~. Briefly,
anticoagulant resistance in the Norway rat is generally due to a single major
gene, of which there seem to be more than two alleles whose effects are
subject to the action of modifiers and whose phenotypic expression is usually
dominant. (For a detailed discussion on biochemistry of resistance, see the
paper by MacNicoll in this volume.)
236
OCR for page 237
MANAGING RESISTANCE TO RODENTICIDES
RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT
237
Resistance to a rodenticide becomes a problem when the proportion of
resistant phenotypes in the targeted rodent population increases to where the
rodenticide cannot effectively control infestation. To manage resistance we
must conserve rodenticide susceptibility or reduce the phenotypic frequency
of resistance to, and keep it at, an acceptable level, preferably close to the
underlying mutation frequency. The only way to reach this objective is to
place resistant individuals at a selective disadvantage. In theory this may be
accomplished either by selecting against resistant individuals; within popu-
lations or by selecting against populations containing resistant individuals;
doing so in practice is more complex. This general approach is usually
reinforced by natural selection, since resistance alleles are usually deleterious
in the absence of artificial selection with the pesticide.
The concept of resistance management involves (1) setting practical man-
agement objectives, (2) determining how to reach the objectives, (3) assigning
resources commensurate with the size and nature of the task, and (4) iden-
tifying managers who will be accountable for reaching the objectives. That
such resistance managers rarely, or more probably never, exist reflects the
fact that the problem of resistance crosses the boundaries within which man-
agement functions normally are confined. This is why few, if any, of the
theoretical approaches to resistance management (Georghiou, 1983) have
been implemented successfully. Managing resistance requires a management
structure comparable perhaps with those that have been successfully devel-
oped to control communicable diseases.
PRACTICAL ATTEMPTS TO MANAGE RESISTANCE IN BRITAIN
Nipping Resistance in the Bud
For several years Britain maintained official vigilance for new outbreaks
of resistance using the procedures described by Drummond and Rennison
(1973) and tried to exterminate the resistant rats with acute rodenticides.
These operations normally involved joint action by the research and field
advisory services of the Ministry of Agriculture and staff of the local mu-
nicipal health departments, as well as official teams of pest-control opera-
tives.
The method was used 11 times (Drummond, 1971~. In seven cases no
subsequent evidence of resistance was found. Thus, nipping resistance in the
bud seems to have worked. The significance of these apparent successes,
however, is difficult to assess since insufficient evidence is available on the
genetic nature of the resistance. Therefore, it is not known whether the
successes were due to the promptness and efficiency of the countermeasures
OCR for page 238
238
POPULATION BIOLOGY OF PESTICIDE RESISTANCE
or because the resistance was of a kind inherently unlikely to survive and
spread. In the four unsuccessful cases the resistance was of the monogenic,
dominant type.
In principle it should be possible to eradicate local populations of rats
showing monogenic resistance by these means, except that a resistant infes-
tation develops 12 to 18 months before it is discovered (Drummond, 1970,
1971), during which time it might spread a radial distance of 5 to 10 kilo-
meters (km). Thus, prompt and sustained countermeasures probably should
be conducted within a radius of 20 km to eliminate any new outbreak of
monogenic resistance.
Eradicating Widely Established Resistant Populations
A pilot scheme to eradicate warfarin-resistant rats was conducted in a
rural area of five square miles in Wales, using the acute rodenticides zinc
phosphide, arsenious oxide, antu, and norbormide (Bentley and Drum-
mond, 19651. It failed because of the limited efficacy of the available
rodenticides and also probably because such a small experimental area is
vulnerable to invasion by rats from the surrounding countryside. Further,
the objective may have been defined inappropriately as the total eradication
of rats, both resistant and susceptible, rather than eliminating primarily
the resistant individuals. Resistance monitoring might have shown that
switching from warfarin to other, nonselective rodenticides had brought
the resistance under control.
The failure of this particular scheme, however, does not vitiate the concept
of selective targeting of relatively large areas for managing resistance. Today
a similar scheme would have a greatly increased chance of success, owing
to improvements both in rodent control-technology and in our understanding
of the problem.
Containment of Resistant Populations
A third approach adopted in Britain as a short-term expedient was to throw
a kind of guarded perimeter strip S km wide around a resistance area that
was about 60 km in diameter. A rat-control program was instituted on the
perimeter "containment zone." All sites were inspected regularly and, if
infested, treated with acute rodenticides (Drummond, 19661. Resistant rats,
however, were found 8 km outside the perimeter within two years (Pam-
philon, 1969), casting doubt on the efficacy of the scheme and indeed on
whether the entire resistant population had been enclosed within the perim-
eter.-Such considerations further emphasize the importance of resistance
monitoring in any management scheme.
OCR for page 239
MANAGING RESISTANCE TO RODENTICIDES
TABLE 1 Relative Fitness of Genotypes in Norway Rat Populations in the
Presence and Absence of Anticoagulant Treatment
239
Genotypes
Conditions RR RS SS
Anticoagulants Presenta 0.37 1.00 0.68
Anticoagulants Absentb 0.46 0.77 1.00
SOURCE: aGreaves et al (1977); Partridge (1979).
Natural Selection
Resistance to anticoagulants in Norway rats seems to be a pleiotropic effect
of a defect in vitamin K metabolism such that the dietary requirement for
the vitamin is increased (Hermodson et al., 19691. Two independent studies
in Britain suggest that this physiological defect alone may eliminate resistance
from natural populations when artificial selection with anticoagulant roden-
ticides is withheld.
In the first study, when acute rodenticides were substituted for anticoag-
ulants in a sizable experimental area, the frequency of phenotypic resistance
decreased steadily from 57 to 39 percent in two years. Simultaneously, in a
control area where approximately one-half of the farmers were using anti-
coagulants, the resistance frequency remained stable at about 44 percent
(Greaves et al., 19771. Analysis of the genotypic frequencies indicated that
the stability of the resistance in the control area represented a balanced
polymorphism in which selection favored heterozygotes (Table 11.
The second study concerned a single, somewhat isolated rat infestation on
a farm. During the 18 months when no treatment was applied to the infes-
tation, the frequency of phenotypic resistance decreased from approximately
80 to 33 percent. Evaluation of the phenotypic frequencies by an optimization
procedure suggested that in the absence of selection with anticoagulants,
heterozygotes as well as resistant homozygotes were at a substantial disad-
vantage compared with susceptibles (Table 1) (Partridge, 1979~. No detailed
analysis, however, has yet been made of the ecological-genetical processes
that control the level of anticoagulant resistance in wild rodent populations.
NEW RODENTICIDES
Although the previous experiences suggest that substantial progress could
be made in managing resistance (even with blunt instruments), the increasing
prevalence of resistance to anticoagulants has given considerable impetus to
research on new rodenticides. The most outstanding new products are three
highly toxic, broad-spectrum anticoagulants: brodifacoum, bromadiolone,
and difenacoum. Warfarin-resistant strains may show various, usually minor,
OCR for page 240
240
POPULATION BIOLOGY OF PESTICIDE RESISTANCE
degrees of cross-resistance to the new compounds, but they can usually
eliminate resistant rats. These compounds are potentially extremely valuable
tools for managing resistance.
Inadequate application methods, however, allow some rodents to survive
treatment. Populations then tend to increase both the degree and the frequency
of resistance. Thus, resistance to all three compounds is increasing (Lund,
19841. For example, difenacoum has suffered a very marked loss of efficacy
against Norway rats in one area of England,~where continual selection with
the new anticoagulants seems to have raised the frequency of phenotypic
resistance to warfarin to around 85 percent (Greaves et al., 1982a,b). The
introduction of new products to control resistant rodents, therefore, probably
has accelerated rather than retarded the evolution of resistance in this area.
Simply substituting new rodenticides for old ones to cope with resistance
rests on one of two assumptions, which if not palpably false may be insecure:
(1) resistance to new rodenticides will not evolve, or (2) the process of
developing new rodenticides to counter new forms of resistance can be re-
peated indefinitely. The essential question to ask about any technique in the
context of resistance management is not whether it can control resistant rats
but whether it can control resistant rats selectively, because only then will
it be possible to reverse the evolution of resistance or prevent it from pro-
ceeding at its natural pace.
THE CAUSE OF RESISTANCE
The origin of resistance may be a random event such as a mutation, but
its development into a practical problem results solely from human activities.
We must examine the behavior and attitudes of groups that are affected by
rodenticide resistance to help us decide how to manage the problem.
Users
The main users of rodenticides farmers, environmental health workers,
and professional pest-control operators often are unaware of the possibility
of resistance until a control method fails. Alternatively, if the resistance has
had any notoriety, they often blame all failures on resistance, although the
failures may be due to faults in formulation or method of application. Such
factors produce a confused picture of resistance. Users, therefore, should
report control problems promptly and accept expert advice on how to deal
with them.
If resistance is the problem an alternative rodenticide often gives acceptable
results. The alternative rodenticide, however, may be more expensive, more
hazardous, more difficult to use, or less effective than the original compound.
Consequently, users often revert to the original product, taking advantage
OCR for page 241
MANAGING RESISTANCE TO RODENTICIDES
241
of any recession in resistance, until further control failures occur. This be-
havior maintains resistance, causes persistent control problems, and promotes
the spread of the resistant strain. It also may promote readaptation, the
process by which a resistance gene may be integrated into the gene pool of
the population. One of the main objectives, therefore, in managing resistance
must be to prevent the use of compounds to which resistance has developed
or in circumstances that make the further development of resistance likely.
Industry
For many years industry has joined with others in voicing concern about
the strategic threat to crop protection posed by pesticide resistance, bearing
in mind the high cost of introducing new products and that every new com-
pound seems to be vulnerable to the development of resistance. When re-
sistance is first encountered, however, firms tend to respond with caution,
which is engendered by (1) confidence in the excellence of their products;
(2) an awareness that many reports of resistance turn out to be spurious;
(3) the knowledge that for a while the resistance, if real, is likely to be highly
localized; and (4) trepidation that publicity about the resistance may adversely
affect their competitive position in the market. This caution may militate
against early action to control the resistance.
A practical and indispensable response by industry is to develop new
rodenticides to control the resistant strains. The timing of this response tends
to be governed by economics. Thus, it tends to occur late, when markets
are being eroded significantly by the increasing prevalence of resistance, or
when the expiry of exclusive commercial rights make an existing product
less viable, or when a new concept for a competitive new product is invented.
Because rodenticides are specialized, minor-use compounds, investment
in research on new compounds frequently is regarded as unprofitable. Con-
sequently, little effective investment has been made in this area except when
a special commercial interest has been at stake, or when there has been some
form of official sponsorship or interest. Despite these difficulties several new
rodenticides have reached the market, thus lessening the resistance problem.
When new rodenticides with a useful degree of toxicity to resistant strains
are registered, normal marketing strategy dictates that they be promoted for
their "anti-resistant" and other favorable properties. Such action may be
counterproductive, in that the indiscriminate introduction of a new product
may speed up the evolution of resistance. This dilemma, although it may
not be perceived as such, is heightened when the first indications of resistance
to a new product are recognized.
The problem of how rodenticides may best be deployed to manage resis-
tance is complex, requiring some research and analysis. Since selective action
(increased deployment of certain compounds and restraint on the use of others
OCR for page 242
242
POPULATION BIOLOGY OF PESTICIDE RESISTANCE
in particular localities) is required, effective regulation of the sale and use
of certain compounds is essential. Industry may not be able to do this alone,
chiefly because companies cannot control the use of their products once they
are sold. It cannot be accomplished, however, without the consent and co-
operation of industry.
Official Agencies
The primary role of many official agencies is to provide a source of
impartial, expert advice to individual users of rodenticides and to undertake
or sponsor the investigational work necessary for sound advice. Sometimes
they may organize or conduct practical rodent-control operations. Official
agencies are usually responsible for administering legislation concerned with
the control of infestations and the use of rodenticides. They are in a powerful
position to influence whatever action is taken to manage resistance in rodent
populations.
Information on the extent to which such influence is actually exercised is
limited. What has been done ranges (in different countries) from almost no
action to fairly direct intervention. In Britain, for example, action by the
Ministry of Agriculture has included field investigations of new outbreaks
of resistance, development of diagnostic tests for resistance, research into
its formal genetics, local programs to control or eliminate resistant popula-
tions, and collaboration with industry in research on new rodenticides. These
efforts, in part, have prevented the situation from getting out of hand. Indeed
many countries are benefiting from the work done in Britain, most notably
from the introduction of new rodenticides to control resistant strains.
Nevertheless, the prevalence of resistance to rodenticides is not decreasing,
and in some countries it is getting worse. In this sense the success of official
intervention in resistance management has been limited. To the extent that
they have continued to advocate the use of rodenticides that could be expected
to further the development of resistance, the activities of these agencies, like
those of users and suppliers, are counterproductive.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing outline of how the rodenticide resistance problem has been
addressed points toward two general conclusions. First, the logical structure
of the problem seems to be clear in its technical aspects: rodenticide resistance
can be controlled by eliminating resistant populations faster than new ones
can develop. Such control requires information about the location and char-
acteristics of the resistant populations, prevents the use of rodenticides that
accelerate the development and spread of resistance, and increases the use
of nonselective or counter-selective control techniques against the populations
OCR for page 243
MANAGING RESISTANCE TO RODENTICIDES
243
concerned. Although further improvements in techniques for controlling re-
sistant populations would be welcome, the existing technical means may be
adequate. For practical implementation we need to understand more precisely
the genetical-ecological processes that control the level of resistance in natural
populations and, thus, how the available rodent-control techniques could be
deployed advantageously. Adequate resistance monitoring also is necessary
to steer and verify the progress of any practical scheme.
The human factors affecting the management of resistance are less easy
to assess since they concern subjective judgments of value, most notably of
how the certainty of short-term costs should be balanced against less-certain
long-term gains. Since resistance is responsive to selection, the actions of
users and suppliers of rodenticides and of advisory and regulatory agencies
play a crucial role in its management. The exigencies of rodent control in
the real world create pressures, however, that predispose the various partic-
ipants to cooperate involuntarily in the continued evolution of resistance
rather than to reverse or retard it.
Progress has been made in areas of technique, but rodenticide resistance
continues to develop, probably because resistance, like communicable dis-
ease, cuts across the boundaries of most ordinary management structures.
We need to improve coordination and above all to redirect the efforts of the
interested parties. Such coordination may be possible through consensus and
through vigorous promotion. The alternatives are either to increase official
regulation in the field of rodent control or to allow resistance to continue to
evolve at its own unregulated pace.
REFERENCES
Bentley, E. W., and D. C. Drummond. 1965. The resistance of rodents to warfarin in England and
Wales. Pp. 58-76 in Report of the International Conference on Rodents and Rodenticides. Paris:
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.
Boyle, C. M. 1960. Case of apparent resistance of Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout to anticoagulant
poisons. Nature (London) 188:517.
Drummond, D. C. 1966. Rats resistant to warfarin. New Sci. 30:771-772.
Drummond, D. C. 1970. Variation in rodent populations in response to control measures. Symp.
Zool. Soc. London 26:351-367.
Drummond, D. C 1971. Warfarin-resistant rats some practical aspects. Pestic. Abstr. News Sum.
17:5-8.
Drummond, D. C., and B. D. Rennison. 1973. The detection of rodent resistance to anticoagulants.
Bull. W.H.O. 48:239-242.
Georghiou, G. P. 1983. Management of resistance in arthropods. Pp. 769-792 in Pest Resistance
to Pesticides, G. P. Georghiou and T. Saito, eds. New York: Plenum.
Greaves, J. H. 1985. The present status of resistance to anticoagulants. Acta Zool. Penn. 173:159-
162.
Greaves, J. H., R. Redfern, P. B. Ayres, and J. E. Gill. 1977. Warfarin resistance: A balanced
polymorphism in the Norway rat. Genet. Res. 30:257-263.
OCR for page 244
244
POPULATION BIOLOGY OF PESTICIDE RESISTANCE
Greaves, J. H., D. S. Shepherd, and J. H. Gill. 1982a. An investigation of difenacoum resistance
in Norway rat populations in Hampshire. Ann. Appl. Biol. 100:581-587.
Greaves, J. H., D. S. Shepherd, and R. Quy. 1982b. Field trials of second-generation anticoagulants
against difenacoum-resistant Norway rat populations. J. Hyg. 89:295-301.
Hermodson, M. A., J. W. Suttie, and K. P. Link. 1969. Warfarin metabolism and vitamin K
requirement in the warfarin resistant rat. Am. J. Physiol. 217:1316-1319.
Lund, M. 1984. Resistance to the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Pp. 89-94 in Proc.
11th Vertebr. Pest Conf., D. O. Clarke, ed. Davis: University of California.
Pamphilon, D. A. 1969. Keeping the super-rats down. Munic. Eng. (London) 146:1327-1328.
Partridge, G. G. 1979. Relative fitness of genotypes in a population of Rattus norvegicus polymorphic
for warfarin resistance. Heredity 43:239-246.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
norway rat
