Survey of Rodent Populations Associated with an Urban Landfill

GENE D. SCHRODER, PHD, AND MICHAEL HULSE, MS

area or berm was then sealed with 60 cm of clay and topsoil. Vegetation on the seven completed berms was sparse. Older berms had some natural plant cover, and all had been seeded with Ryegrass (Lolium sp) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon sp) to reduce erosion. Some natural vegetation remained in interstitial areas, but was not as dense as in the fields surrounding the landfill. The only buildings on the site were the main office and the check station near the entrance, and a cluster of small offices and out-buildings near the garage. With the exception to be noted below, there were no piles of rubbish suitable for permanent rat habitations. Rat control efforts on the landfill consisted of the distribution of poisoned baits around the offices once or twice a year. Open fields surrounded the landfill on all sides, including a field 400 m across which separated the landfill from a large residential neighborhood (Figure 1). The dense vegetation in these fields was secondary growth typical of coastal prairies in this region. Dominant among the 34 identified plant species were Shrankia uncinata, Ambrosia artemistifolia, Solidago radula, Rosa brachteata, and Baccharis hali-

Abstract: Trap lines placed in fields along the margin of a Houston, Texas landfill failed to capture a Rattus in 2,358 trap-nights. However, another trap line adjacent to a nearby residential area yielded four Norway rats in 510 trap-nights. These results suggest that rats living in or near homes were not crossing the fields to reach the landfill. The distribution of two native rodent species normally found in such fields reflected no landfill influence. (Am J Public Health 69:713-715, 1979.)

Introduction
The ability of commensal rats (Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus) to utilize garbage for food and rubbish piles for shelters is well documented.1-4 Open dumps often support large rat populations which may pose health and nuisance problems for neighboring communities. Because of their many environmental advantages, including reduced pest production, sanitary landfills have replaced open dumps as the recipients of municipal wastes over the past decade.5' 6 Nevertheless, at large municipal landfills where wastes are accepted at all hours, exposed garbage is always present to feed rats which may live on the site or in surrounding areas. Rats are also unloaded at the landfill with the garbage. Many are probably buried with these wastes, but others may survive to contribute to local populations. Despite its public health importance, little is known about how rat populations are affected by normal landfill operations. This study was a preliminary examination of this subject.

Site Description and Methods

The study was conducted on and adjacent to a 142 ha landfill in Houston, Texas, in May and June, 1978. The landfill had been in 24-hour operation for eight years, and received approximately 1,500 tons of municipal solid wastes daily. The wastes were spread, compacted, and covered with dirt in a continuous process which moved back and forth across an area until it reached 10 to 15 m in height. The
From the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Address reprint requests to Gene D. Schroder, PhD, Assistant Professor of Ecology, University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, P.O. Box 20186, Houston, TX 77025. This paper, submitted to the Journal August 3, 1978, was revised and

accepted for publication November 3, 1978.

AJPH July, 1979, Vol. 69, No. 7

mifolia. Standard rat and mouse snap-traps baited with a combination of peanut butter, cat food, and cooking oil and sprinkled with rolled oats and millet seed were used exclusively. Traps were set and baited daily between 1700 and 1800 hours and checked the following day. Species identification was made at the time that the traps were checked and reference skulls or specimens were collected for each species. Four trap lines were positioned in the fields around the landfill to determine the distribution of rodents in the area and to intercept rats which might move into the landfill at night to feed (Figure 1). Lines 1 and 2 consisted of 72 trap stations at 8 m intervals. At each station a rat and mouse trap were placed about 1 m apart within the vegetation. The third and fourth trap lines were placed in the field which separated the landfill from the residential area. Line 3 paralleled the landfill 5 to 10 m from the boundary fence and about 30 m from the nearest berm. It consisted of 66 trap stations similar to those described above. The fourth trap line of 39 stations was adjacent to the subdivision. Traps were 15 to 50 m from the back yards of homes bordering the field in a zone in which St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) mixed with the native vegetation. Several sites on the landfill were also trapped to determine how rats were using the area and if they were breeding there. Locations were selected after the landfill had been carefully examined for evidence of rat activity. This survey included examination of old and active berms, drainage ditches, and maintenance buildings. The only clear evidence
713

PUBLIC HEALTH BRIEFS

indicated that a breeding population was probably living in the rubbish pile. The active face was watched on several nights. Observers periodically illuminated the garbage with a bright light and investigated any reflections or movements which might be rats. During ten man-hours of observation no rats were seen. A bulldozer operator with five years experience in night operations reported that he saw a rat once in three to four months where garbage was exposed, most of them escaping from containers of garbage which were being unloaded. He said that rats were more common around the maintenance buildings.

Discussion
Based on these data it appeared that the operation of this landfill had altered the structure of the rodent community only where the habitat was altered. Species normally found in coastal prairies were absent where landfill operations had destroyed the vegetation. Adjacent areas maintained a community structure typical of other undisturbed habitats.7 The Rattus populations were associated with human activity. Norway rats were breeding on the landfill where suitable shelter was available. Sufficient data to estimate rat density were not gathered, but breeding sites were few. The exact source of their food was uncertain. The clay sealing the berms appeared to discourage burrowing; but exposed garbage was present on the active face at all times, and enough edible material fell from passing trucks to support a moderate rat population. The rat population on the landfill may have reached a carrying capacity set by suitable shelter. With a few exceptions, such as the building materials at site 1 and the maintenance buildings, this area lacked man-made harborage suitable for rats. Normal operations covered and compressed all refuse too quickly for it to be used for nesting. For some unknown reason rats failed to burrow in the undisturbed topsoil which remained along the power lines easement and flood control ditch. The Norway rats trapped near the subdivision were over 400 m from the nearest berm and 1000 m from the exposed refuse. Rattus were not captured on the intervening trap line and inspection of the berms revealed no evidence of digging. Because rats in urban areas have been shown to have small home ranges,8 and since none were captured on Line 3, it is reasonable to believe that animals in this colony were not regularly traversing this field and were independent of the landfill operations. This population may have found adequate shelter and food in the area where they were captured. The field and adjacent yards contained boards, boxes, piles of composting vegetation, and gardens which rats could have used for food and shelter. Although it is noteworthy that rats were not captured on the margins of the landfill, the study was too short to estimate the rate of rat dispersion. Nothing is known about the dispersal of rats from dumps or landfills and the only studies which may be relevent show that rats released in strange urban settings were seldom recaptured in the area.9' 10 Further
AJPH July, 1979, Vol. 69, No. 7

FIGURE 1-Location of Trapping Efforts on and Adjacent to Landfill

of rat inhabitation were trails and footprints around the small buildings near the maintenance garage. There were no indications that rats were burrowing into the completed berms or into the banks of the drainage ditches, so traps were carefully placed in locations which could provide either shelter or food. These included a pile of cement rubbish near the main road (site 1), a large area of exposed rice hulls on the active berm (site 2), the maintenance area (site 3), and various locations on the active fill-face (site 4).

Results
The trapping results appear in Table 1. Lines 1, 2 and 3, trapped seven nights, captured 30 cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and 12 harvest mice (Reithrodontomys fulvescens) in 2,358 trap-nights. Line 4, also operated seven nights, yielded six cotton rats and four Rattus norvegicus in 510 trap-nights. On the landfill nine Norway rats and two house mice (Mus musculus) were trapped at various sites in 360 trap-nights. No rats were captured near the rice hulls. Five of the seven rats captured at site 1 were immature (Avg. wt: 41g) which

PUBLIC HEALTH BRIEFS TABLE 1-Results of Trapping In and around Landfill

Site

Trap-Nights 774

Rattus norvegicus

Mus musculus

Reithrodontomys fulvescens

Sigmodon hispidus

Line 1-field parallel to west edge of landfill Line 2-field perpendicular to west edge of landfill Line 3-field parallel to south edge of landfill Line 4-field parallel to residential area

Field Sites 0

0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0

5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

11

720 864 510

132 60 132 36

0 0
4

17 2 6
0 0 0 0

#1-rubbish pile near road #2-rice hulls on berm #3-maintenance buildings #4-exposed garbage on active face

Landfill Sites 7 0 1 1

study is needed to answer this dispersal question. Among the information necessary would be good estimates of the number of rats brought into the landfill in garbage, the rate of reproduction of rats on the landfill, and the frequency and range of dispersal of these animals.

REFERENCES
1. Schein MW and Orgain H: A preliminary analysis of garbage as food for the Norway rat. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2:1117-1130, 1953. 2. Brooks JE: A review of commensal rodents and their control. CRC Critical Review Env Control pp. 405-453, 1973. 3. Howard WE and Marsh RE: Rodent control manual. Pest Control. 42:41, 1974. 4. Walsh JD and Lusk EE: Rodent control prior to the closing of dumps. Cal Vector Views. 18:77-80, 1971. 5. Sorg TJ and Hickman Jr HL: Sanitary Landfill Facts. Public Health Service Publication No. SW-4ts, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

6. Steiner RL and Kantz R: Sanitary Landfill: A Bibliography. Public Health Service Publication No. 1819, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 7. Joule J and Cameron GN: Species removal studies I. Dispersal strategies of sympatric Signodon hispidus and Reithrodontomys fulvescens populations. J Mammal 56:378-396, 1975. 8. Davis DE, Emlen JT and Stokes AW: Studies of home range in the brown rat. J Mammal 29:207-225, 1948. 9. Calhoun JB: Mortality and movement of brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) in artificially supersaturated populations. J Wildl Manage 12:167-172, 1948. 10. Creel RH: The migratory habits of rats with special reference to the spread of plague. Pub Health Rep 30:1679-1685, 1915.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., for the use of their landfill and for their assistance and encouragement throughout the study. We also wish to thank Herbert Hand who assisted in the collection of the data.

AJPH July, 1979, Vol. 69, No. 7

715