The ecology of the deathwatch beetle, Xestobium rufovillosum de Geer
Dr Steven R. BelmainNatural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, ME4 4TB, United Kingdom
T: +44 1624 883761; F: +44 1634 883379;
Socio-economic tools for rodent management research: Recent experience from Africa and Asia
Dr Steven R. Belmain and colleaguesNatural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, ME4 4TB, United Kingdom
T: +44 1624 883761; F: +44 1634 883379;
The black box of social science
PhilosophyMathematical proofDeductive reasoningStatisticsEmpiricism
Physics Chemistry Biology Economics Sociology Political Science
Increasing complexity
Geography
Archaeology
Sociobiology Biological Anthropology
LinguisticsHistoryPsychology
Rodent Management will not work unless the Managers adequately understand the problem and its solutions in sufficient detail.
Tools and knowledge need to be appropriate
Rodent Managers
Everyone else – rural / urban settlements
Farmers
Households
Communities
Qualified personnel – service providers
Pest Control Operators
Environmental Health Officers
Agriculture Extensionists
Understanding the Manager
Tools that we can use to understand the Rodent Manager
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey
Community meetings
Tools that we can use to understand the Rodent Manager
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey
Community meetings
Resource mapping / survey
Tools that we can use to understand the Rodent Manager
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey
Community meetings
Resource mapping / survey
Individual meetings / questionnaires
Tools that we can use to understand the Rodent Manager
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey
Community meetings
Resource mapping / survey
Individual meetings / questionnaires
Observation
Tools that we can use to understand the Rodent Manager
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey
Community meetings
Resource mapping / survey
Individual meetings / questionnaires
Observation
It’s all about asking the right questions and interpreting the answers
Designing your survey
Culture
Gender
Education
Language
Consultation
Pre-testing
Experience
Actions (what) Timing (when) Where
Individual or community (Who)
Ecologically- based rodent management
Priority
1. Synchrony of cropping Planting/harvest Fields Community V High 2. Irrigation channel <30 cm All year Fields Community V High 3. Sanitation – keep grass growth low; clean around villages and rice stores
All year Fields & Houses
Individual V High
4. Kill traps; Live traps; pitfall traps (gourds, etc) †
1 week after transplanting
Houses Community High
5. Digging/flooding burrows † 1 week after transplanting
Fields Community High
6. Beating † 1 week after transplanting
Fields & Houses
Community High
7. Clean cultivation and harvest; manage straw stacks
Tillering and harvest Fields Individual High
8. Promote predators All year Fields & Houses
Community High
9. Lanirat (Bromadiolone) In upland habitats, edges of roads, etc., after land preparation (All crop stages)
Fields Houses (use kill traps instead)
Individual Medium
10. Zinc Phosphide As above (All crop stages)
Fields Houses (use kill traps instead)
Individual Medium
11. Line TBS Tillering and around harvest
Fields Community Test
12. CTBS Select crop Fields Community Test 13. Fumigate - Aluminium Phosphide Burning chilli
When rat numbers high Houses Individual Low
14. Smoking – chilli or tobacco
Dry season Fields & Houses
Individual Low
15. Predator symbol – banana tree like man; palm frond like cobra
All year Fields Individual Low
Crop calendar Province/Crop
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Jakunipara - Comilla BORO Rice Seedbed 40
day Transplant Harvest
AUS Rice Seed Transplant Harvest T. AMAN Rice Seed Transplant Harvest Nov/Dec Vegetables Sowara - Comilla Rice as above Potato Brassicas Sowing Harvest Fallow Nasir Gram – Feni BORO Rice Seedbed 40
day Transplant Harvest
Fallow 2-3 months fallow because of floods T. AMAN Rice Seed *Seedbed 45d Transp Harv. Dec AUS Rice none Vegetables Vegetables – near houses Potatoes - staggered
Province/Crop Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Actions (what)
Timing (when)
Where
Who (Individual or community)
Cost Effective Environ Friendly
Priority
1. Lanirat (Bromadiolone)
When rat numbers high
Fields + houses
Individual 300-500 taka/yr
Yes No High
2. Kill traps As needed Houses Individual Cheap Yes Yes 3. Sanitation All year Houses
+ Fields Individual Nothing Yes Yes
4. Live traps; pitfall traps (gourds, etc)
All year Houses + Fields
Individual Cheap Yes Yes
5.Digging/flooding burrows
When rat numbers high
Fields Individual Nothing Yes Yes
6. Cats as predators All year Houses Individual Nothing Yes Yes 7. Zinc Phosphide Dry season
rat numbers high
Fields Individual Yes No ??
8. Burning chilli to fumigate
When rat numbers high
Houses Individual Cheap Yes No
Illiterate28%
Primary22%
Secondary34%
Graduate3%
Adult Education2%
Madrasa (Religious school)
8%
Higher Secondary3%
Farmer42%
Petty trade3%
Housewife35%
Other20%
Amount of cultivable land (decimals) % of total response 1-49 20 50-99 13.3 100-149 20 150-199 1.6 200 and above 15 Landless 30
Poison safety % of total response Safe 13.8 Not safe 82.8 Maybe 3.4 Non-response 0
Rodent effect on human health % of total response Health problems 55.9 No health problems 23.7 Maybe 5.1 Do not know 15.3 Non-response 0
Synthesising the dataDecision trees, Flow charts, Matrices, Problem-cause diagrams, Bayesian belief networks
Taken from: Aplin, K.A., Brown, P.R., Jacob, J., Krebs, C.J. and Grant R. Singleton (2003). Field methods for rodent studies in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. ACIAR Monograph 100; ACIAR, Canberra, AU. 223 pp.
Are there generalisations we can make about Rodent Managers?
• People like to see dead bodies• Poison should act fast• Underestimation of the damage caused • Limited microbiological knowledge • Anthropomorphism• “Trap shy dogma”• The technology gap
Just a bunch of surveys?
Participation of the Rodent Managers in their own KAP assessment
• Five farmers in a group• Male and female groups• Six groups in a village• Four villages• Group leaders to manage
• Meeting once a week• NGO staff to oversee process
Farmer Diaries
Farmer DiariesRecording information on time and money spent related to rodent damage, repairs and rodent management activities
Item Input Jakunipara n=73
Sowara n=45
Anandapur n=48
Sahapur n=42
House wall Cost (taka) 54.5 5.7 18.5 23.3 Repairing time (minutes) 622.8 203.4 419.2 284.6 House floor Cost (taka) 24.0 4.0 16.1 25.1 Repairing time (minutes) 518.2 215.1 272.2 208.9 Rice store Cost (taka) 35.5 19.2 73.4 124.4 Repairing time (minutes) 100.3 34.5 162.5 179.0 Basket Cost (taka) 21.9 22.2 30.2 35.8 Repairing time (minutes) 29.1 19.0 51.1 44.4 Furniture Cost (taka) 66.3 39.8 71.6 116.2 Repairing time (minutes) 35.0 27.1 105.7 110.2 Clothes Cost (taka) 113.5 116.8 109.6 110.0 Repairing time (minutes) 48.4 28.0 76.5 83.2
Intervention No intervention{ {
Item Input Jakunipara n=73
Sowara n=45
Anandapur n=48
Sahapur n=42
Home garden Cost (taka) 33.9 51.0 79.5 49.6 Repairing time (minutes) 22.8 15.7 138.1 33.6 Rice field Cost (taka) 43.4 12.7 140.1 136.2 Repairing time (minutes) 23.5 13.2 135.9 92.2 Vegetable field Cost (taka) 9.9 12.0 66.8 39.3 Repairing time (minutes) 14.6 12.8 127.2 36.4 Bunds Cost (taka) 28.4 14.5 16.0 19.2 Repairing time (minutes) 102.7 51.0 108.3 88.7 Irrigation canal Cost (taka) 1.4 4.7 17.1 6.5 Repairing time (minutes) 4.9 19.2 71.6 10.8 Other Cost (taka) 89.9 64.8 102.6 144.1 Repairing time (minutes) 34.4 24.8 91.7 59.5 Total cost (taka) 522.7 367.2 741.5 829.8 Total time (minutes) 1556.7 663.6 1760.0 1231.5
Intervention No intervention{ {
Farmer recorded costs of repair
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
House
wall
House
floor
Rice st
ore
Baske
t
Furnit
ure
Clothe
s
Home
gard
en
Rice fie
ld
Veget
able
field
Bunds
Irriga
tion
cana
l
Mea
n ho
useh
old
(n=
100)
exp
endi
ture
(T
aka)
Intervention villageNon-intervention village
Farmer recorded time spent to repair
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
House
wall
House
floor
Rice st
ore
Baske
t
Furnit
ure
Clothe
s
Home
gard
en
Rice fie
ld
Veget
able
field
Bunds
Irriga
tion
cana
l
Mea
n ho
useh
old
(n=
100)
tim
e (m
inut
es)
Intervention villageNon-intervention village
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
week
Per
cent
age
of h
ouse
hold
s un
dert
akin
g re
pair
basketclothesrice storefurniturehouse damage
Households in Jakunipara (intervention village) involved in recording various repair activities within a farmer diary. Activities coincided with the commencement of village-wide intensive trapping of rodents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
weekP
erce
ntag
e of
hou
seho
lds
unde
rtak
ing
repa
ir
house repairbasketclothesrice storefurniture
Households in the village of Anandapur (non-intervention village) involved in recording various repair activities within a farmer diary
Activity Input Jakunipara n=73
Sowara n=45
Anandapur n=48
Sahapur n=42
Trapping houses Cost (taka) 78.5 82.9 0.0 0.0 Time (minutes) 2162.8 2094.9 0.0 0.0 Result (rats killed) 17.5 22.2 0.0 0.0 Trapping rice field Cost (taka) 2.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 Time (minutes) 65.8 88.0 0.0 0.0 Result (rats killed) 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 Trapping vegetable field Cost (taka) 1.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 Time (minutes) 72.8 82.2 0.0 0.0 Result (rats killed) 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 Flooding burrow Cost (taka) 0.2 0.0 1.5 2.9 Time (minutes) 37.0 57.6 66.4 91.9 Result (rats killed) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 Digging (house/bund) Cost (taka) 2.9 2.0 8.3 5.5 Time (minutes) 57.1 54.6 76.2 64.1 Result (rats killed) 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 Cleaning house Cost (taka) 1.6 3.2 8.3 0.0 Time (minutes) 2644.9 3268.8 4927.2 5553.3 Result (rats killed) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intervention No intervention{ {
Activity Input Jakunipara n=73
Sowara n=45
Anandapur n=48
Sahapur n=42
Cleaning rice field/bund/canal Cost (taka) 49.9 45.3 65.7 69.5 Time (minutes) 280.2 520.0 639.8 561.7 Result (rats killed) 3.3 0.0 7.5 0.0 Cleaning vegetable field Cost (taka) 18.1 11.3 53.1 30.2 Time (minutes) 199.5 349.5 661.1 759.9 Result (rats killed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hunting Cost (taka) 4.2 6.2 3.9 1.3 Time (minutes) 27.9 177.8 60.8 36.1 Result (rats killed) 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.9 Lanirat (chronic poison) Cost (taka) 1.2 1.3 4.9 0.8 Time (minutes) 16.7 10.4 62.6 21.4 Result (rats killed) 0.6 0.9 3.1 1.5 Zinc Phosphide (acute poison) Cost (taka) 0.8 0.9 11.8 7.4 Time (minutes) 0.7 1.4 32.8 11.1 Result (rats killed) 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 Total cost (taka) 161.5 162.7 157.5 117.6 Total time (minutes) 5565.3 6705.2 6527.0 7099.5 Total result (rats killed) 23.7 27.9 13.6 3.6
Intervention No intervention{ {
Tracking tiles as a socio-economic tool
Tracking tiles as a socio-economic tool
Rodents are too clever to be controlled and become trap shy / poison shy
Tracking tiles as a socio-economic tool
• Allows easy understanding of changes in rodent population dynamics
• Reduces need for dead bodies
• Efficacy of chronic poisons observed
• Encourages monitoring & evaluation
Yes
“New” management technology can• Inform the research process• Educate rodent managers• Change human behaviour
Future challenges for the social sciences in rodent management
research
Human behaviour and disease
Social stigmas and family decision making processes – late treatment
Self-medication with inappropriate treatments
Community cohesion levels - acceptance, apathy, dependence
Social conservatism – traditional treatments and behaviour
Damage remains hidden, impact on people’s lives is unclear, economic cost is unknown
Disease mechanisms and transmission
Witchcraft and traditional medicine• Belief in witchcraft, and that illnesses
are derived from bad luck, spells and curses is widespread throughout many countries
• Traditional healers can have supernatural powers (for good and bad) through spells and potions that go beyond their administering of herbal remedies to the sick.
• Rats are implicated in the spread of witchcraft in many cultures. Because rats are fast, they are believed to be used to bewitch others and make them ill - as a vessel of the curse sent by the witch.
Traditional beliefs of hygiene can vary among cultures and differ from modern scientific views, e.g. internal dirt, not external dirt
Emphasis on tidiness rather than removal of environmental dirt
Among young hygiene may relate to keeping one’s body clean and among older people to keeping a tidy kitchen
Food and water borne diseases – e.g. river water always clean, wild animals are clean
Rats, Hygiene and Sanitation
Concepts and socio-economics of disease
Thanks to all my collaborators
and
Thank You for listening