Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 2539–2551 | Cite as

Taxon-specific differences in responsiveness to capsaicin and several analogues: Correlates between chemical structure and behavioral aversiveness

  • J. Russell Mason
  • N. Jay Bean
  • Pankaj S. Shah
  • Larry Clark
Article

Abstract

The present set of experiments was designed to explore avian insensitivity to capsaicin. Based upon a molecular model of avian chemosensory repellency, we hypothesized that structural modifications of the basic capsaicin molecule, which is itself not aversive to birds, might produce aversive analogues. To this end, European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) were given varied concentrations of synthetic capsaicin and four analogues (methyl capsaicin, veratryl amine, veratryl acetamide, vanillyl acetamide) in feeding and drinking tests. The results agreed with a model that we are developing to describe the chemical nature of avian repellents. Synthetic capsaicin and vanillyl acetamide were not repellent to birds, owing to the presence of an acidic phenolic OH group. Conversely, veratryl acetamide was aversive, due to the basic nature of this compound. For rats, repellent effectiveness among compounds was reversed: synthetic capsaicin was the best repellent while veratryl acetamide was the worst. We speculate that this taxonomic reversal may reflect basic differences in trigeminal chemoreception. In any case, it is clear that chemical correlates of mammalian repellents are opposite to those that predict avian repellency.

Key words

Capsaicin chemosensory irritation rat Rattus norvegicus starling Sturnus vulgaris trigeminal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Clark, L., andMason, J.R. 1987. Olfactory discrimination of plant volatiles by the European starling.Anim. Behav. 35:227–235.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, L., andShah, P.S. 1991. Resonance and basicity as predictors of avian repellency and irritation.J. Wildl. Manage. 55:539–546.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, L.,Shah, P.S., andMason, J.R. 1991. Chemical repellency in birds. Relationship between structure of anthranilate and benzoic acid derivatives and avoidance response.J. Expl. Zool. In press.Google Scholar
  4. Dubbeldam, J.L., andVeenman, C.L. 1978. Studies on the somatotopy of the trigeminal system in the mallard,Anas platyrhyncous L.: The Ganglion Trigeminale.Netherlands J. Zool. 28:150–160.Google Scholar
  5. Green, B.G., Mason, J.R., andKare, M.R. 1990. Chemical Senses, Vol. II: Irritation. Marcel-Dekker, New York. 361 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Helson, E.K. 1919. Vanillyl acyl-amides.J. Amr. Chem. Soc. 41:2121–2123.Google Scholar
  7. Jakubas, W.J.,Mason, J.R.,Clark, L.,Shah, P.S., andNorman, D. 1991. Avian feeding deterrence as mediated by coniferyl benzoate: A structure-activity approach.Ecol. Appl. In press.Google Scholar
  8. Kare, M.R., andMason, J.R. 1986. The chemical senses in birds, pp. 59–74,in P.D. Sturkie (ed.). Avian Physiology. Springer-Verlag, New York. 516 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Mason, J.R., andClark, L. 1990. Evaluation of Blockout (Northwest Chemicals, Inc.) and Its Chemical Components as Avian Contact Repellents. Denver Wildlife Research Center Bird Section Research Report 457. 10 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Mason, J.R., andMaruniak, J.A. 1983. Behavioral and physiological effects of capsaicin in redwinged blackbirds.Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 19:857–862.Google Scholar
  11. Mason, J.R., andOtis, D.L. 1990. Chemical nociception in birds, pp. 309–322,in B. Green, J.R. Mason, and M.R. Kare (eds.). Chemical Senses, Vol. II: Irritation. Marcel Dekker, New York. 361 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Mason, J.R., andReidinger, R.F. 1983. Exploitable characteristics of neophobia and food aversions for improvements in rodent and bird control, pp. 20–42,in D.E. Kaukienen (ed.). Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: Fourth Symposium. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 315 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Mason, J.R., andSilver, W.L. 1983. Trigeminally mediated odor aversions in starlings.Brain Res. 269:196–199.Google Scholar
  14. Mason, J.R., Adams, M.A., andClark, L. 1989. Anthranilate repellent to starlings: Chemical correlates and sensory perception.J. Wildl. Manage. 53:55–64.Google Scholar
  15. Mason, J.R., Clark, L., andShah, P.S. 1991. Ortho-aminoacetophenone repellency to birds: Similarities to methyl anthranilate.J. Wildl. Manage. 55:334–340.Google Scholar
  16. Parker, G.H. 1912. The reactions of smell, taste, and the common chemical sense in vertebrates.J. Acad. Natl. Sci. Phila. 15:221–234.Google Scholar
  17. Riley, A.L., andClarke, C.M. 1977. Conditioned taste aversions: A bibliography, pp. 593–632,in L.M. Barker, M.R. Best, and M. Domjan (eds.). Learning Mechanisms in Food Selection. Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas 632 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Shah, P.S., Clark, L., andMason, J.R. 1991. Prediction of avian repellency from chemical structure: The aversiveness of vanillin, vanillyl alcohol and veratryl alcohol.Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 40:1–7.Google Scholar
  19. Soudek, J. 1929. The sense of smell in birds.Proc. Intl. Congr. Zool. 1929:755.Google Scholar
  20. Szolcsanyi, J., Sann, H., andPierau, 1986. Nociception in pigeons is not impaired by capsaicin.Pain 27:247–260.Google Scholar
  21. Walker, J.C., Tucker, D., andSmith, J.C. 1979. Odor sensitivity mediated by the trigeminal nerve in the pigeon.Chem. Senses Flav. 4:107–116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Russell Mason
    • 1
  • N. Jay Bean
    • 2
  • Pankaj S. Shah
    • 3
  • Larry Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Department of AgricultureAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Science and Technology Denver Wildlife Research CenterPhiladelphia
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentVassar CollegePoughkeepsie
  3. 3.Monell Chemical Senses CenterPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations