INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Trap Success of House Rat (Rattus Tanezumi Temminck) Around  
The IPB Darmaga Campus, Bogor, West Java, Indonesia  
Nanda Qurrotul Uyun, Swastiko Priyambodo *, Dan Dadan Hindayana  
Dept. of Plant Protection, Fac. of Agriculture, IPB University, Jl. Kamper, Campus IPB Darmaga,  
Bogor, West Java, Indonesia 16680  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1411000064  
Received: 27 November 2025; Accepted: 02 December 2025; Published: 09 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
Trapping rats has become a practical and environmentally safe method of control as well as monitoring the  
presence of rats in a place. The study aims to determine the presence of house rats (Rattus tanezumi Temminck)  
and the trap success rate around the IPB Darmaga Campus, Bogor, Indonesia, using a single live trap. There  
were 10 traps installed incrementally over 3 consecutive nights at 10 locations both indoor and outdoor. The  
number of rats caught, the number of rat footprints, the size and sex of the rats, and the location of the trapped  
rats became an observed parameter. The results showed that house rats around the IPB Darmaga Campus caused  
damage to facilities, physical appearance, faeces, and urine odor. The trapping success around the IPB Darmaga  
Campus from 300 trappings reached 9%, which is 3.67% of trapped rats remained in traps and 5.33% rats  
escaped from traps. The trapping success was affected by trap shyness by 72.16%.  
Keywords: Presence of rat, single live trap, trap shyness  
INTRODUCTION  
Background  
Rats are wild animals that associate with and adapt to human life. Rats often move around residential areas to  
breed and obtain food (Widayani and Susilowati 2014). Rat species frequently found in residential areas are  
Rattus rattus, Rattus norvegicus, and Mus musculus (Suciananda 2016). Dirty, damp, and poorly lit areas are  
preferred habitats for rats (Yulianto and Candra 2019). The presence of rats often causes damage and loss to  
humans. Rats can transmit various diseases, such as plague, salmonellosis, leptospirosis, rickettsia, rat-bite fever,  
trichinosis, and hantavirus.  
Rats can cause damage to homes due to their grinding incisors. This damage can include bite marks or holes in  
foundations, electrical wiring, windows, and household appliances (Pramestuti and Widiastuti 2015). Residential  
environmental conditions also influence rat numbers, such as the presence of garbage piles. Furthermore, rats  
can contaminate residential homes by defecating and urinating in frequently visited areas or nests. Rat droppings  
and urine can transmit diseases that are dangerous to humans. Furthermore, house rats can cause noise when  
they build nests in ceilings or roof tiles. Meanwhile, sewer rats often dig holes in the ground around homes, even  
penetrating the foundations. House rats are highly adaptable to a wide variety of environmental conditions. This  
adaptability is supported by various factors, including a very high reproductive rate and excellent climbing and  
gnawing abilities, which enable them to survive in a wide range of environmental conditions (Ikhsan 2017).  
Common and frequently used rat control efforts include sanitation, physical, mechanical, chemical, and  
biological methods. Mechanical rat control can be achieved through the use of traps, including dead traps, live  
traps, and glue/sticky traps. Traps generally serve to monitor rat presence and are a method of controlling rat  
populations in an area. Meanwhile, chemical control typically involves the use of bait mixed with rodenticide.  
However, the use of poisoned bait can lead to rat resistance to rodenticides. Furthermore, the chemicals contained  
in rodenticides can pollute the environment. Excessive and uninformed use of rodenticides can lead to poisoning  
of non-target animals and users.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 703  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Live traps used for rat control include single live traps and multiple live traps. Single live traps have a wide-  
open door, allowing rats to easily enter. The trap door closes when a rat enters, preventing other rats from  
entering. This means that a single live trap can only be entered once (Ikhsan 2017). The advantage of this single  
live trap system is that rats can easily enter and cannot escape (Ivakdalam 2014). Using traps to control rats in  
residential areas is a simple and easy-to-apply control method (Ikhsan 2017). Rat control using traps is also  
relatively safe and poses no risk to the environment or users. Selecting the right bait can help increase trapping  
success. Salted fish and roasted coconut are more attractive to house rats (Siregar 2017). The bait treatment aims  
to make the coconut and salted fish aromas more potent, thus attracting rats to the trap. Junianto and  
Siwiendryanti (2015) added that roasted coconut is the WHO standard bait used for rat trapping.  
This study aims to determine the presence and measure the success rate of trapping rats using single live traps  
to control house rats around the IPB Darmaga Campus, Bogor. The benefit of this study is to obtain information  
on the presence and success of house rat trapping around the IPB Darmaga Campus, Bogor, so that appropriate  
management strategies can be formulated for house rat control.  
METHOD  
Time and Location  
The research was conducted at ten locations inside and outside around the IPB Darmaga Campus in Bogor, West  
Java, Indonesia. Site selection was based on signs of rat presence following site exploration. Signs of house rat  
presence observed included rat tracks, food scraps, slits, droppings, runways, and information from respondents  
(Balitbangkes 2015). The research was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023.  
Figure 1. Satellite photo of the trapping location (Source: Google Earth  
Tools and Materials  
The tools and materials used in the study include a single live trap, plastic, a digital scale, a ruler, a camera,  
cotton, roasted coconut, fried salted fish, flour, chloroform, and detergent.  
Working Procedure  
Field Observations  
Field observations began with trap preparation. The traps used were single live traps baited with roasted coconut  
and fried salted fish. Flour was sprinkled around the traps to mark the footprints of rats that approached the traps  
but did not enter. Trapping uses the removal method (trapping without replacement). Prepared traps are placed  
at predetermined locations. Traps are placed in the afternoon, between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM, as rats are most  
active at night. Traps are then checked the following morning between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM. Ten traps are set  
at each location in stages over three consecutive nights, for a total of 30 trapping sessions at each location.  
Trap inspection includes recording the number of rats trapped and the number of footfalls. Traps that successfully  
capture a rat are then thoroughly washed with water and detergent and dried to remove odors so they can be  
reused. Traps that fail to capture a rat are removed from their original location. Traps placed indoors are moved  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 704  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
at least 5 m from their original location or to another room. Traps placed outdoors are moved 5-10 m from their  
original location, forming a straight line or according to the characteristics of the trapping site for easy tracking  
(Balitbangkes 2015).  
Rat Identification  
Identification of captured rats was conducted in the Vertebrate Pest Laboratory, Department of Plant Protection,  
Fac. of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB Univ.). Rats were euthanized by placing them in a plastic  
bag filled with cotton soaked in chloroform and sealed until they ran out of breath. Then, the rats were identified  
based on their morphological characteristics, namely quantitative and qualitative characteristics (Priyambodo  
2009). Rat identification based on quantitative characteristics included: Body weight (W), head and body length  
(HB), tail length (T), total length (TL), ear length (E), hind foot length (HF), incisor width (I), and the mammary  
formula (MF). Rat identification based on qualitative characteristics included hair color, nose shape, body shape,  
hair texture, and sex. Captured house rats were categorized as large if their body weight was > 70 g, while those  
weighing < 70 g were categorized as small.  
Research Parameters  
Data on the number of mice successfully trapped, both those that remained inside and those that escaped, were  
used to calculate the trap success rate. Data analysis from field observations was conducted using the Microsoft  
Excel 365 application program. Trap success was calculated using the following formula:  
Trapping success (Yuliadi et al. 2016) = Number of rats trapped divided by (number of traps x duration of  
trapping) x 100%  
Rats footprints = Number of rat footprints divided by (number of traps x duration of trapping) x 100%  
Expected trapping success = (Number of rat footprints + number of rats caught + number of rats escaping)  
divided by (number of traps x duration of trapping) x 100%  
Trap shyness/deterrent = 100% - (Number of rats caught + number of rats escaping) divided by number of rats  
footprints x 100%  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
General Conditions of Trapping Sites  
Bogor Agricultural University (IPB Univ.) is located primarily in Darmaga District, Bogor Regency, West Java.  
Geographically, IPB Darmaga is located at 6°33’16” South Latitude and 106°43’18” East Longitude. Traps were  
mostly placed inside buildings, such as warehouses, kitchens, and work spaces, while others were located  
outside, around buildings that showed signs of rat passage (Figure 2).  
Figure 2. Trapping locations: (a) Warehouse; (b) Workroom; (c) Outdoors  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 705  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
The warehouse serves as a hiding place for rats, while the kitchen provides food for them (Siregar 2017). Rats  
forage in areas containing household waste, such as the kitchen and trash can. The proximity of the kitchen and  
workroom makes the workroom a pathway for rats to travel from the warehouse to the kitchen and vice versa.  
The disorganized arrangement of items in these spaces creates gaps or small cavities that serve as hiding places  
for rats. Rats have a habit of gnawing on hard objects to prevent their incisor teeth from growing (Arrasit and  
Wahyuni 2022). This causes damage to the facilities in the room where the trap is set (Figure 3).  
Figure 3. Signs of the presence of house rats: (a) Holes in the ceiling; (b) Footprints on the wall  
Rats not only gnaw to prevent their incisor teeth from growing but also create pathways to facilitate access to  
food sources. Some rooms have holes in certain areas that serve as passageways for rats. Rats also leave tracks  
on the walls of the rooms. Rats' movements in search of food, mates, and their territorial orientation tend to be  
regular or follow a similar trajectory. Rats' range of movement is influenced by the distance between food sources  
and nests or hiding places. Rats' range of movement is no more than 50 m if sufficient food and shelter are  
available, and can reach 700 m if food sources are insufficient (Syamsuddin 2007).  
Trap Success  
The rat species trapped was the house rats (Rattus tanezumi). Most of the trapped rats were caught in traps placed  
inside buildings, while others were caught outside. This finding is similar to the research by Priyanto et al. (2020)  
that found R. tanezumi caught in traps placed both inside and outside buildings. The habitat of R. tanezumi is  
residential areas, and its distribution follows the presence of residential areas, which is related to food sources.  
The success of trapping house rats depends on several factors, one of which is the rat population level. The  
results showed that far more rats approached the traps than were successfully trapped. This can be seen from the  
large number of rat foot prints detected (Table 1).  
Table 1. Trap success and rat foot prints at each trapping location  
Loca-  
tion  
Total trap  
Total rat  
trapped  
Trap  
Succes  
reality (%)  
Number of Rat escaped  
Total rat  
Rat foot  
print (%)  
rat  
(%)  
foot printB  
escapedA  
A
B
C
D
E
F
30  
30  
30  
30  
30  
30  
0
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
4
0
9
30  
33.33  
40  
6.67  
10  
3.33  
6.67  
10  
10  
12  
18  
10  
6
3.33  
3.33  
0
60  
3.33  
13.33  
33.33  
20  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 706  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
G
30  
30  
1
3.33  
1
3.33  
3.33  
0
4
13.33  
23.33  
40  
H
0
0
1
7
I
J
30  
1
3.33  
6.67  
3.67  
0
12  
9
30  
2
3
10  
30  
Total  
300  
11  
16  
5.33  
97  
32.33  
Note:  
A Based on the number of traps showing signs of rats escaping (closed trap door, missing bait, scattered flour in  
front of the trap door).  
B Footprint count based on the number of traps containing rat footprints, but no rats trapped.  
Trapping success is determined by several factors, including trap placement, bait selection, and trap duration  
(Armando 2016). The type of bait used also influences trapping success (Astuti 2013). The actual trapping  
success rate for house rats was only 3.67%, while the number of rat footprints reached 32.33%. This indicates  
that rats were attracted to the bait inside the traps, but were not successfully trapped. Syamsuddin (2007)  
explained that rats have highly developed brains. Using the same type of trap throughout a trapping session  
allows rats to learn from previous experiences, allowing them to approach the traps but avoid them.  
Trapping success is influenced by the trap's deterrent properties. Daily trapping results (Table 2) showed that  
rats tended to be rarely caught on the first day, then increased on the second day, and then decreased again on  
the third day. The same was true for escaped rats. This is inconsistent with trap shyness/deterrent (Table 3), a  
situation where rats are easily caught at the start of a trap, but difficult to catch on subsequent traps (Priyambodo  
2006).  
Table 2. Results of rat trapped, escaped, and footprint per day at indoor and outdoor locations  
Loca tion  
Total rat trapped (head)  
Total rat escaped (head)  
Total rat footprint  
Day-1  
Day-2  
Day-3  
Day-1  
Day-2  
Day-3  
Day-1  
Day-2  
Day-3  
A (I)  
B (I)  
C (I)  
D (I)  
E (I)  
F (I)  
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
4
0
0
0
3
0
1
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
3
5
4
2
3
6
4
2
7
5
6
4
3
3
4
0
2
Total (In  
door)  
26  
21  
18  
G (O)  
H (O)  
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
2
1
3
0
2
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 707  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
I (O)  
J (O)  
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
2
3
4
3
5
2
9
3
4
Total (Out  
door)  
12  
11  
Total (I  
and O)  
2
6
3
5
6
5
38  
32  
97  
27  
11  
16  
Note: I = Indoor; O = Outdoor, D-1, D-2, D-3 = Day-1, 2, 3  
The total number of rats caught, the number of rats that managed to escape, and the number of rats tracks around  
the traps showed that indoor rats were consistently higher than outdoor rats on all three observation days. This  
indicates that house/roof rat activity was consistently higher indoors than outdoors. This is consistent with the  
behavior and ecological conditions or habitat of the species of rat. Single live traps performed poorly both  
indoors and outdoors due to the trap door closing process when the bait was touched by a rat and the spring  
strength of the trap door to keep it closed. In contrast to the number of rats entering the trap, the number of rat  
footprints was high on the first day and tended to decrease from then on until the third day. This is consistent  
with the trap's deterrent properties. Trap deterrence can occur because rats are highly cautious with new objects,  
including traps (Ikhsan 2017) and have adapted to the trap (Khoirunnisa and Siwiendrayanti 2020). Furthermore,  
rats have highly developed senses of taste, touch, hearing, and smell. This is used by rats to pick up danger  
signals from trapped rats so that rats in the environment will not enter the trap. Efforts to overcome the deterrence  
of rat traps are by changing the location of the trap to another place and washing the trap that has successfully  
trapped rats.  
Table 3 Comparison of expected, reality trap success, and trap shyness in each location  
Location  
Expected Trap Success A  
(%)  
Reality Trap Success B (%) Trap Shyness/ Deterrent  
(%)  
A
B
30  
0
100  
70  
43.33  
56.67  
73.33  
40  
10  
C
16.67  
13.33  
6.66  
13.33  
6.66  
3.33  
3.33  
16.67  
9.00  
58.33  
77.78  
80  
D
E
F
33.33  
20  
33.33  
50  
G
H
26.67  
43.33  
46.67  
41.33  
85.71  
91.67  
44.44  
72.16  
I
J
Total  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 708  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
A Calculated from the number of rats that enter the trap and the number of rats footprints seen around the installed  
trap.  
B Calculated from the number of rats entering the trap, both those that remained inside and those that managed  
to escape.  
Locations A and I showed the highest levels of trap shyness (100% and 91%), this depended on the success of  
trapping rats and the activity of rats around/outside the installed traps, that indicated their suspicion to the new  
object (trap). In addition to the trap's deterrent effect, the low actual trap success rate was also due to rats escaping  
from the trap. This was evident from the disappearance of the bait in the trap and the closed trap door (Figure  
4). The number of rats that allegedly escaped from the trap reached 5.33%. The rats' ability to escape from the  
trap was thought to be due to their large size, which allowed them to push the trap door open. Furthermore, the  
traps used were standard factory traps, with some traps not closing tightly because the door leaf did not reach  
the bottom of the trap, creating gaps. Rats exploited these gaps to escape. If the door retaining springs were not  
strong enough, trapped, large rats would push the door open and escape (Mulyana 2017).  
To prevent rats from escaping, modifying the trap, such as replacing the trap door springs with stronger ones,  
can be done. In addition, to attract more rats to approach the trap and enter it, we can apply a more attractive  
type of lure for rats such as fried fish bones or chicken, with cooking oil used to fry ingredients that attract rats  
such as shrimp paste or salted fish. The type of trap that can hold the captured rats so they can not escape is by  
using a sticky trap, plus a more attractive bait for house rats. Sticky traps can only be used once, then immediately  
burned or buried, while single live traps can be used multiple times as long as they are washed thoroughly with  
soap or detergent, immediately after successfully catching a rat, to eliminate suspicion of the next rats caught.  
Figure 4. Trapping process conditions: (a) Rat successfully trapped; (b) Trap marks; (c) Signs of rat escaping.  
Trapping success is also determined by the location of the trap. Traps placed inside buildings showed higher  
trapping success rates than those placed outside. Similarly, rat footprints were detected (Table 4). This was also  
found in research of Siregar (2017), which found that trapping success rates for rats in domestic habitats were  
higher than those outside. R. tanezumi is often found indoors, such as in ceilings, kitchens, and storage areas  
(Kusumajaya et al. 2020). Environmental variables also have a significant influence on the success of trapping  
rats in this habitat, namely: Availability of food/feed for rats in the form of human food scraps inside and outside  
the building, human activities around the placement of rat traps, as well as seasonal factors such as temperature,  
relative humidity, rain, and wind.  
Table 4. Trapping success and rat footprints based on trap location  
Location  
Indoor  
Total trap  
Total rat  
trapped  
Trap  
Total rat  
Rat  
escaped  
(%)  
Total  
foot print  
Foot print  
(%)  
Success (%) escaped  
172  
7
4.07 or 2.33  
per 300  
16  
9.30 or  
5.33 per  
300  
65  
37.79 or  
21.66 per  
300  
(57.33%)  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 709  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Outdoor  
Total  
128  
(42.67%)  
300  
4
3.12 or 1.33  
per 300  
0
0
32  
25 or 10.66  
per 300  
11  
3.66  
16  
5.33  
97  
32.33  
Trap success for indoor use was 4.07% per 172 traps installed, or 2.33% per 300 traps. Meanwhile, trap success  
for outdoor use was 3.12% per 128 traps installed, or 1.33% per 300 traps. Similarly, the number of rats that  
managed to escape from the traps was 9.30% or 5.33% per total traps. The percentage of rats’ footprints was  
37.79% (indoor) and 25% (outdoor) per traps installed, and 21.66% (indoor) and 10.66% (outdoor) per total  
(300) traps. Trapping success reflects the relative rat population in a given area (Supriyati and Ustiawan 2013).  
The higher the trapping success rate, the higher the rat population (Siregar 2017). Trapping success is considered  
high if it exceeds 7% for indoors and above 2% for outdoors (Saragih et al. 2019).  
Rat Identification  
Rat identification was performed on 11 trapped rats based on their quantitative and qualitative characteristics.  
All trapped rats were of the Rattus tanezumi species or house/ roof rat. House/roof rats are arboreal creature, it  
adept at climbing. This is characterized by a tail length that is longer than the size of their head and body length  
(Table 5).  
Table 5. Identification of house rats based on quantitative characteristics  
Location  
Sex  
W
HB  
(mm)  
T
(mm)  
TL  
(mm)  
HF  
(mm)  
E
(mm)  
I (mm)  
MF  
(pair)  
2+3  
2+3  
2+3  
-
(g)  
B
B
C
C
C
D
E
G
I
Female  
Female  
Female  
Male  
150.58  
115.15  
87.0  
189  
172  
120  
120  
105  
171  
174  
170  
170  
170  
170  
215  
175  
160  
145  
115  
204  
207  
200  
200  
183  
200  
404  
347  
280  
265  
220  
375  
381  
370  
370  
353  
370  
35  
35  
35  
33  
29  
35  
35  
35  
38  
35  
35  
15  
15  
17  
15  
15  
16  
17  
19  
16  
16  
17  
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
42.0  
Female  
Female  
Female  
Female  
Female  
Male  
24.73  
138.42  
145.04  
132.32  
145.3  
121.0  
137.68  
2+3  
2+3  
2+3  
2+3  
2+3  
-
J
J
Female  
2+3  
Note: W= body weight, HB= head and body length, T= tail length, TL= total length, HF= hind foot length, E=  
ear length, I= incisor width, MF= mammary formula  
The results of qualitative character identification showed that house rats have a rather coarse, short hair texture,  
a slightly truncated cone, a cylindrical body shape, dorsal and ventral colors tending to be grayish brown (GB),  
and a tail color tending to be blackish brown (BB) (Table 6). The color of the body of R. tanezumi tends to be  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 710  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
grayish brown due to genetic diversity in each individual. A total of two house rats were identified to have  
grayish black on the ventral part of their bodies (Figure 5).  
Table 6. Identification of house/roof rats based on qualitative characteristics  
Loca-  
tion  
Sex  
Colour  
Nose shape  
(snout)  
Body shape  
Hair  
Texture  
Dorsal  
Body Tail  
Ventral  
Size  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
short  
Body  
Tail  
BB  
B
B
C
C
C
D
E
G
I
Female  
Female  
Female  
Male  
GB  
GB  
GB  
BB  
GB  
BB  
GB  
GB  
GB  
GB  
GB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
GB  
GB  
GB  
BG  
GB  
BG  
GB  
GB  
GB  
GB  
GB  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
cylindrical  
rather  
coarse  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
BB  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
Female  
Female  
Female  
Female  
Female  
Male  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
J
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
J
Female  
slightly  
truncated  
cone  
rather  
coarse  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 711  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Note: GB = greyish brown, BB = black brown, BG = black grey  
Figure 5. Differences in ventral hair color: (a) Grayish black; (b) Grayish brown  
The trapped house rats consisted of both male (two heads) and female (nine heads) rats. Based on their body  
weight, several of the trapped rats were classified as small or sub-adult rats, weighing < 70 g (Table 7). The  
identified sub-adult rats had a total length of 220-265 mm, while the trapped large rats reached a total length of  
404 mm (Figure 6).  
Table 7 Results of trapping house rats based on sex/gender and body size  
Variable observed  
Sex  
Number of rats (head)  
Male  
2
9
Female  
Body Size  
Big (> 70 g)  
Small (< 70 g)  
9
2
Figure 6. Caught house/roof rats: (a) Large size; (b) Small size; (c) Male; (d) Female  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 712  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Female house rats are more frequently caught than male rats. Yuliadi et al. (2016) suggest that within a rat group,  
females are the foragers for their young, while males act as nest or territorial managers. Large house rats are  
more frequently caught than small rats. This is because mother rats frequently leave their nests to forage for their  
young (Priyambodo 2009). Therefore, adult and female rats have a greater chance of being caught than male and  
sub-adult rats.  
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION  
Conclusion  
The presence of house rats (Rattus tanezumi Temminck) on the IPB Darmaga campus causes damage to property  
and facilities, such as damaged wiring, holes in ceilings and cabinets, and footprints on walls. The success rate  
for trapping house rats on the IPB Darmaga campus, out of 300 traps using single live traps, reached 9%. Of  
these, 3.67% of rats were successfully trapped and remained in the traps, while 5.33% of rats escaped. This  
success rate was influenced by trap shyness, which reached 72.16%.  
Suggestion  
Further research is needed to investigate the potential for increasing the success rate of trapping house rats using  
attractants and comparing this with pest control services agencies.  
REFERENCES  
1. Armando R. 2016. Pengaruh kondisi habitat kelapa sawit (Elaeis guineensis JACQ) terhadap artropoda  
dan hama tikus [tesis]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.  
2. Arrasit F, Wahyuni D. 2022. Higiene sanitasi terhadap keberadaan vektor tikus di RT. 02 RW. 03  
Kecamatan Bantan Kabupaten Bengkalis Tahun 2021. Jurnal Sains dan Kesehatan. [diakses 12 Mar  
2023]; 12(2):133-140. doi:10.37859/jpv12i2.3618  
3. Astuti DR. 2013. Keefektifan rodentisida racun kronis generasi II terhadap keberhasilan penangkapan  
tikus. J Kesehatan Masyarakat. [diakses 12 Mar 2023]; 8(2):183-189.doi:10.15294/kemas.v8i2.2820  
4. [Balitbangkes] Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan. 2015. Pedoman Pengumpulan Data  
Reservoir (Tikus) Di Lapangan. Jakarta: Lembaga Penerbit Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan  
Kesehatan Kementerian Kesehatan RI.  
5. Ikhsan M. 2017. Keberhasilan beberapa jenis perangkap dalam memerangkap tikus permukiman di  
Bogor [skripsi]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.  
6. Irawati J, Fibriana AI, Wahyono B. 2015. Efektivitas pemasangan berbagai model perangkap tikus  
terhadap keberhasilan penangkapan tikus di Kelurahan Bangetayu Kulon Kecamatan Genuk Kota  
Semarang tahun 2014. Unnes journal of Public Health. [diakses 9 Mar 2023]; 4(3):67-75. doi:  
10.15294/ujph.v4i3. 6374  
7. Ivakdalam LM. 2014. Uji keefektifan enam jenis perangkap dalam pengendalian tikus sawah (Rattus  
argentiventer). Jurnal Agribisnis Kepulauan [diakses 12 Mar 2023]; 2(2):38-46.  
https://ejournal.unpatti.ac.id/ppr_iteminfo_lnk. php?id=997  
8. Junianto DS, Siwiendrayanti A. 2015. Perbandingan jumlah tikus yang tertangkap antara perangkap  
dengan umpan kelapa bakar, ikan teri, dengan perangkap tanpa umpan (studi kasus di wilayah kerja  
Puskesmas Pandanaran). Unnes Journal of Public Health. [diakses 28 Feb 2023]; 5(1):67-74. doi:  
10.15294/ujph.v5i1.9708  
9. Khoirunnisa R, Siwiendrayanti A. 2020. The difference of lured rat number between uncombined and  
combined bait trapping. Unnes Journal of Public Health. [diakses 10 Juni 2023]; 9(1):28-33. doi:  
10.15294/ujph.v9i1.32571  
10. Kusumajaya A, Utomo B, Hikmandari H. 2020. Tikus pada daerah kasus leptospirosis (studi tentang  
tikus dan lingkungan pada daerah kasus leptospirosis di Kabupaten Banyumas). Buletin  
Keslingmas. [diakses 28 Feb 2023]; 39(3):111-120. doi: 10.31983/keslingmas.v39i3.4481  
11. Latifah DA, Rachman A, Mardiana, Yuliana, Nur R, Mahmud NK, Badriansyah AFA, Bodang SM,  
Abdullah A, Said, M. 2023. Promosi K3 tentang penggunaan alat pelindung diri pada pekerja pest control  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 713  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
di CV. Pestex Indone-sia. ABDIMAYUDA: Indonesia Journal of Community Empowerment for  
Health. [diakses 5 Mar 2023]; 2(1):8-13. doi: 10.19184/abdimayuda.v2i1. 350-13  
12. Lestari E, Kesuma AP, Djati AP. 2017. Studi kasus leptospirosis di Kecamatan Mijen Kabupaten Demak.  
Jurnal  
Medsains.  
[diakses  
26  
Feb  
2023];  
3(1):23-28.  
https://  
www.jurnal.polibara.ac.id/index.php/medsains/article/ view/52  
13. Manyullei S, Birawida AB, Suleman IF. 2019. Studi kepadatan tikus dan ektoparasit di pelabuhan laut  
Soekarno Hatta tahun 2019. Jurnal Nasional Ilmu Kesehatan. [diakses 3 Mar2023]; 2(2):100-108.  
https://journal. unhas.ac.id/index.php/jnik/ article/view/7970/4579  
14. Mulyana AN. 2017. Keberhasilan pemerangkapan tikus dengan tiga jenis umpan pada habitat luar rumah  
di Dramaga, Bogor [skripsi]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.  
15. Pramestuti N, Widiastuti D. 2015. Infeksi telur cacing pada tikus rumah (Rattus tanezumi) di areal  
permukiman. Jurnal Buski. [diakses 5 Mar2023]; 5(3):121-125. doi: 2435/buski.v5i3.4486.121-125  
16. Priyambodo S. 2006. Tikus. Dalam: Singgih H S dan Upik K H, editor. Hama Permukiman Indonesia.  
Bogor (ID): Unit Kajian Pengendalian Hama Pemukiman (UKPHP).  
17. Priyambodo S. 2009. Pengendalian Hama Tikus Terpadu. Ed ke-4. Jakarta (ID): Penebar Swadaya.  
18. Priyanto D, Raharjo J, Rahmawati R. 2020. Domestikasi tikus: kajian perilaku tikus dalam mencari  
sumber pangan dan membuat sarang. Balaba: Jurnal Litbang Pengendalian Penyakit Bersumber Binatang  
Banjarnegara, [diakses 5 Mar 2023]; 16(1):67-78. doi: 10.22435/blb.v16i1.2601  
19. Priyatomo CY, Santoso L, Martini, Hestiningsih R. 2015. Studi kepadatan tikus dan ektoparasit di daerah  
perimeter dan buffer Pelabuhan Laut Cilacap. Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat. [diakses 20 Mei 2023];  
3(2):86-96. doi: 10.14710/jkm.v3i2.11874  
20. Ramadhani NP, Rahayu U, Thohari I. 2018. Analisis kondisi rumah sekitar penderita leptospirosis di  
Kota Surabaya tahun 2018. Gema Kesehatan Lingkungan. [diakses 10 Mar 2023]; 16(2):139-147. doi:  
10.36568/kesling.v16i2.827  
21. Saragih RKP, Martini, Tarwatjo U. 2019. Jenis dan kepadatan tikus di Panti Asuhan “X” Kota Semarang.  
Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat. [diakses 20 Mei 2023]; 7(1):260-270. doi: 10.14710/jkm.v7i1.22880  
22. Siregar FS. Keberhasilan pemerangkapan tikus dengan tiga jenis umpan pada habitat rumah di Dramaga,  
Bogor [skripsi]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.  
23. Suciananda P. 2016. Uji perangkap, rodentisida, dan repelen, serta persepsi masyarakat dalam  
pengendalian tikus permukiman di Dramaga, Bogor [skripsi]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.  
24. Supriyati D, Ustiawan A. 2013. Spesies tikus, cecurut, dan pinjal yang ditemukan di Pasar Kota  
Banjarnegara, Kabupaten Banjarnegara tahun 2013 [internet]. J Litbang Pengendalian Penyakit  
Bersumber Binatang Banjarnegara. [diakses 7 Mar 2023]; 9(2):39-46. doi: 10.22435/blb.v9i2.822  
25. Sutikno A, Rasyad A, Amin A, Mahatma R. 2020. Persepsi masyarakat kota Pekanbaru terhadap  
gangguan hama permukiman. JIP (Jurnal Industri Perkotaan). [diakses 20 Mar2023]; 16(28):1-9. doi:  
10.31258/jip.16.2.1-8  
26. Syamsuddin. 2007. Tingkah laku tikus dan pengendaliannya. Di dalam: Saenong MS, editor. Prosiding  
Seminar Ilmiah dan Pertemuan Tahunan PEI dan PFI XVIII Komda Sul-Sel dan Balai Karantina  
Tumbuhan Kelas 1; 2007 Nov 24; Makassar, Indonesia. Makassar: Balai Pengkajian Teknologi Pertanian  
Sulawesi Selatan. hlm 179-185.  
27. Wahyuni D. 2022. Higiene sanitasi terhadap keberadaan vektor tikus di RT. 02 RW. 03 Kecamatan  
Bantan Kabupaten Bengkalis tahun 2021. Photon: Jurnal Sain dan Kesehatan. [diakses 7 Mar 2023];  
12(2):133-140. doi: 10.37859/jp.v12i2.3618  
28. Widayani HA, Susilowati S. 2014. Identifikasi tikus dan cecurut di Kelurahan Argasoka dan  
Kutabanjanegara, Kecamatan Banjarnegara, Kabupaten Banjarnegara, Tahun 2014. Balaba. [diakses 15  
Mar2023]; 10(1):27-30. doi: 10.22435/blb. v10i01.751  
29. Yuliadi, Muhidin, Indriyani S. 2016. Tikus Jawa, Teknik Survei di Bidang Kesehatan. Risyanto, Ahmadi  
AS, editor. Jakarta (ID): Lembaga Penerbit Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan RI.  
30. Yulianto B, Candra L. 2019. Kondisi fisik rumah dan sisa makanan terhadap keberadaan vektor tikus  
di Kelurahan Sukajadi Kecamatan Sukajadi Kota Pekanbaru. Jurnal Ilmu Kesehatan Masyarakat.  
[diakses 10 Mar 2023]; 8(1):41-47. https://jurnal. stikes-alinsyirah.ac.id/kesmas/article/view/131  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 714