Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 35, Issue 12, pp 1461–1470 | Cite as

Deer Responses to Repellent Stimuli

  • Bruce A. Kimball
  • Jimmy Taylor
  • Kelly R. Perry
  • Christina Capelli


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.


Aversion Foraging behavior Herbivore Odocoileus virginianus Wildlife damage management 



Mention of specific products does not constitute endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture. The authors are particularly grateful for the helpful review comments of two anonymous reviewers and Drs. Gary Beauchamp and Marci Pelchat on earlier versions of the manuscript.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BACHMANOV, A. A. and BEAUCHAMP, G. K. 2007 Taste receptor genes. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 27: 389–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, DavisGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GLENDINNING, J. I. 1994. Is the bitter rejection response always adaptive? Physiol. Behav. 56: 1217–1227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McGRAW, J. B. and FUREDI, M. A. 2005. Deer browsing and population viability of a forest understory plant. Science 307:920–922.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NOLTE, D. L. 1998. Efficacy of selected repellents to deter deer browsing on conifer seedlings. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 42:101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, DavisGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PROVENZA, F. D. 1995a. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manage. 48: 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. PROVENZA, F. D. 1995b. Tracking variable environments—there is more than one kind of memory. J. Chem. Ecol. 21: 911–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. RILEY, A. L. and TUCK, D. L. 1985. Conditioned taste-aversions—a behavioral index of toxicity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 443: 272–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. SAS. sas/stat. [9.1]. 2002. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  32. 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 <>
  33. WAGNER, K. K. and NOLTE, D. L. 2001. Comparison of active ingredients and delivery systems in deer repellents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29: 322–330.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce A. Kimball
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jimmy Taylor
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kelly R. Perry
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christina Capelli
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research CenterFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.USDA/APHIS/WS/NWRC Monell Chemical Senses CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.USDA/APHIS/WS/NWRC Olympia Field StationOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations