Deer Responses to Repellent Stimuli
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Four repellents representing different modes of action (neophobia, irritation, conditioned aversion, and flavor modification) were tested with captive white-tailed deer in a series of two-choice tests. Two diets differing significantly in energy content were employed in choice tests so that incentive to consume repellent-treated diets varied according to which diet was treated. When the high-energy diet was treated with repellents, only blood (flavor modification) and capsaicin (irritation) proved highly effective. Rapid habituation to the odor of meat and bone meal (neophobia) presented in a sachet limited its effectiveness as a repellent under conditions with a high feeding motivation. Thiram, a stimulus used to condition aversions, was not strongly avoided in these trials, that included only limited exposures to the repellent. These data support previous studies indicating that habituation to odor limits the effectiveness of repellents that are not applied directly to food, while topically-applied irritants and animal-based products produce significant avoidance.
- ANDELT, W. F., BURNHAM, K. P., and MANNING, J. A. 1991. Relative effectiveness of repellents for reducing mule deer damage. J. Wildl. Manage. 55: 341–347. CrossRef
- ANDELT, W. F., BAKER, D. L., and BURNHAM, K. P. 1992. Relative preference of captive cow elk for repellent-treated diets. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 164–173. CrossRef
- ANDELT, W. F., BURNHAM, K. P., and BAKER, D. L. 1994. Effectiveness of capsaicin and bitrex repellents for deterring browsing by captive mule deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 58: 330–334. CrossRef
- BACHMANOV, A. A. and BEAUCHAMP, G. K. 2007 Taste receptor genes. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 27: 389–414. CrossRef
- BELANT, J. L., SEAMANS, T. W., and TYSON, L. A. 1998. Predator urines as chemical barriers to white-tailed deer, pp. 359–362, in R. O. Baker and A. C. Crabb (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis
- BENJAMINI, Y. and HOCHBERG, Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate—A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B—Methodol. 57: 289–300.
- BURRITT, E. A. and PROVENZA, F. D. 1989. Food aversion learning—Ability of lambs to distinguish safe from harmful foods. J. Anim. Sci. 67: 1732–1739.
- CHABOT, D., GAGNON, P., and DIXON, E. A. 1996. Effect of predator odors on heart rate and metabolic rate of wapiti (Cervus elaphus canadensis). J. Chem. Ecol. 22: 839–868. CrossRef
- COTE, S. D., ROONEY, T. P., TREMBLAY, J. P., DUSSAULT, C., and WALLER, D.M. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. System. 35:113–147. CrossRef
- GLENDINNING, J. I. 1994. Is the bitter rejection response always adaptive? Physiol. Behav. 56: 1217–1227. CrossRef
- JACOBS, G. H., DEEGAN, J. F., NEITZ, J., MURPHY, B. P., MILLER, K. V., and MARCHINTON, R. L. 1994. Electrophysiological measurements of spectral mechanisms in the retinas of 2 cervids—white-tailed deer (odocoileus-virginianus) and fallow deer (dama-dama). J. Comp. Physiol. [A]. 174: 551–557.
- KAMIYA, A. and OSE, Y. 1984. Study of odorous compounds produced by putrefaction of foods. 5. Fatty-acids, sulfur-compounds and amines. J. Chromatogr. 292: 383–391. CrossRef
- KIMBALL, B. A. and NOLTE, D. L. 2005. Herbivore experience with plant defense compounds influences acquisition of new flavor aversions. App. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91: 17–34. CrossRef
- KIMBALL, B. A. and NOLTE, D. L. 2006. Development of a new deer repellent for the protection of forest resources. West. J. Appl. For. 21: 108–111.
- KIMBALL, B. A., NOLTE, D. L., and PERRY, K. B. 2005. Hydrolyzed casein reduces browsing of trees and shrubs by white-tailed deer. HortScience. 40: 1810–1814.
- KIMBALL, B. A., RUSSELL, J. H., DEGRAAN, J. P., and PERRY, K. R. 2008. Screening hydrolyzed casein as a deer repellent for reforestation applications. West. J. Appl. For. 23: 172–176.
- LEMIEUX, N. C., MAYNARD, B. K., and JOHNSON, W. A. 2000. Evaluation of commercial deer repellents on ornamentals in nurseries. J. Environ. Hort. 18:5–8.
- LEWISON, R., BEAN, N. J., ARONOV, E., MCCONNELL, JR., J. E., and MASON, J. R. 1995. Similarities between big game repellent and predator urine repellency to white-tailed deer: The importance of sulfur and fatty acids, pp. 145-148, in M. M. King (ed.). Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh
- MAITA, K., TSUDA, S., and SHIRASU, Y. 1991. Chronic toxicity studies with thiram in wistar rats and beagle dogs. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 16: 667–686. CrossRef
- McGRAW, J. B. and FUREDI, M. A. 2005. Deer browsing and population viability of a forest understory plant. Science 307:920–922. CrossRef
- MILUNAS, M. C., RHOADS, A. F., and MASON, J. R. 1994. Effectiveness of odor repellents for protecting ornamental shrubs from browsing by white-tailed deer. Crop Protect. 13: 393–397. CrossRef
- NOLTE, D. L. 1998. Efficacy of selected repellents to deter deer browsing on conifer seedlings. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 42:101–107. CrossRef
- NOLTE, D. L. 1999. Behavioral approaches for limiting depredation by wild ungulates, pp. 60–69, in K. L. Launchbaugh, D. Sanders, and J. C. Mosely (eds.). Grazing Behavior of Livestock and Wildlife. University of Idaho, Moscow
- NOLTE, D. L. and WAGNER, K. K. 2000. Comparing the efficacy of delivery systems and active ingredients of deer repellents, pp. 93–100, in T. P. Salmon and A. C. Crabb (eds.). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis
- NOLTE, D. L., MASON, J. R., EPPLE, G., ARONOV, E., and CAMPBELL, D. L. 1994a. Why are predator urines aversive to prey? J. Chem. Ecol. 20: 1505–1516. CrossRef
- NOLTE, D. L., MASON, J. R., and LEWIS, S. L. 1994b. Tolerance of bitter compounds by an herbivore, Cavia porcellus. J. Chem. Ecol. 20: 303–308. CrossRef
- PFISTER, J. A., MULLERSCHWARZE, D., and BALPH, D. F. 1990. Effects of predator fecal odors on feed selection by sheep and cattle. J. Chem. Ecol. 16: 573–583. CrossRef
- PROVENZA, F. D. 1995a. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manage. 48: 2–17. CrossRef
- PROVENZA, F. D. 1995b. Tracking variable environments—there is more than one kind of memory. J. Chem. Ecol. 21: 911–923. CrossRef
- RILEY, A. L. and TUCK, D. L. 1985. Conditioned taste-aversions—a behavioral index of toxicity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 443: 272–292. CrossRef
- SAS. sas/stat. [9.1]. 2002. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc.
- TALROSE, V., YERMAKOV, A. N., USOV, A. A., GONCHAROVA, A. A., LESKIN, A. N., MESSINEVA, N. A., TRUSOVA, N. V., and EFIMKINA, M. V. 2009. UV/visible spectra, in Linstrom, P. J. and Mallard, W. G. NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD <http://webbook.nist.gov>
- WAGNER, K. K. and NOLTE, D. L. 2001. Comparison of active ingredients and delivery systems in deer repellents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29: 322–330.
- WYWIALOWSKI, A. P. 1998. Are wildlife-caused losses of agriculture increasing? pp. 363–370 in R. O. Baker, and A.C. Crabb (eds) Proc. of the 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis.
- Deer Responses to Repellent Stimuli
Journal of Chemical Ecology
Volume 35, Issue 12 , pp 1461-1470
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Foraging behavior
- Odocoileus virginianus
- Wildlife damage management
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA
- 2. USDA/APHIS/WS/NWRC Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
- 3. USDA/APHIS/WS/NWRC Olympia Field Station, 9730-B Lathrop Industrial Drive, Olympia, WA, 98512, USA