Monoterpene Effect on Feeding Choice by Deer
- 178 Downloads
A previous study showed that Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) consumption was negatively correlated with monoterpene content in western redcedar (Thuja plicata). To test whether these monoterpenes were deterrent to Sitka black-tailed deer, we performed feeding choice experiments with four hydrocarbon (sabinene, myrcene, α-pinene, and d + l-limonene) and one oxygenated (α,β-thujone) monoterpene solution at their highest natural concentration in western redcedar foliage. To test whether deer response was species specific, we ran similar experiments on European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and rusa deer (Cervus timorensis russa). In all experiments, monoterpenes were repellent. Solutions with α,β-thujone, the major monoterpene in redcedar leaves, were the most repellent of the solutions tested. We then analyzed how black-tailed and roe deer responded to (1) an increase in concentration of the monoterpenes with the weakest repellent effects (hydrocarbon monoterpenes) and (2) a decrease in concentration of the monoterpene with strongest effect (α,β-thujone). Repellency tended to increase with concentration for hydrocarbon monoterpenes, but remained strong for α,β-thujone. As wild deer regularly feed on plants containing monoterpenes, this raises the question as to how the animals deal with these molecules.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Banthorpe, D. and Charlwood, V. 1980. The terpenoids, pp. 185–220, in E. Bell and V. Charlwood (eds). Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
- Bohlmann, J. and Croteau, R. 1999. Diversity and variability of terpenoid defenses in conifers: molecular genetics, biochemistry and evolution of the terpene synthase gene family in grand fir (Abies grandis), pp. 132–146, in D. J. Chadwick and J. A. Goode (eds). Insect Plant Interactions and Induced Plant Defense. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Carl, G. C. and Guiguet, C. J. 1972. Alien animals in British Columbia. B. C. Provincial Museum Handbook No. 14, Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
- Chardonnet, P. 1988. Etude de la faisabilité technique et économique de l' élevage de cerfs en Nouvelle- Calédonie. IEMVT/ADRAF, Nouméa.Google Scholar
- Coates, K. D., Pollack, J. C., and Barker, J. E. 1985. The effect of deer browsing on the early growth of three conifer species in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Research Report, No. RR85002-PR, British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Canada.Google Scholar
- Connolly, G. E., Ellison, B. O., Fleming, J. W., Geng, S., Kepner, R. E., Longhurst, W. M., Oh, J. H., and Russel, G. F. 1980. Deer browsing of Douglas-fir trees in relation to volatile terpene composition and in vitro fermentability. For. Sci. 26:179–193.Google Scholar
- Cowan, I. M. 1989. Birds and mammals on the Queen Charlotte Islands., pp. 175–187, in G. G. E. Scudder and N. Gessler (eds). The Outer Shores. Queen Charlotte Islands Museum Press, Skidegate, Haida, Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
- Duncan, A. J., Hartley, S. E., and Iason, G. R. 1998. The effect of previous browsing damage on the morphology and chemical composition of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) saplings and on their subsequent susceptibility to browsing by red deer (Cervus elaphus). For. Ecol. Manage. 103:57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gargominy, O., Bouchet, P., Pascal, M., Jaffre, T., and Tourneur, J. C. 1996. Conséquences des introductions d'espéces animales et végétales sur la biodiversité en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 51:375–401.Google Scholar
- Pojar, J., Lewis, T., Roemer, H., and Wilford, D. J. 1980. Relationships between introduced Blacktailed deer and the plant life in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Unpublished report. British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Smithers, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
- SAS. 1999. Release 8.00. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
- Zahorik, D. M. and Houpt, K. A. 1991. Species differences in feeding strategies, food hazards, and the ability to learn food aversions. pp. 289–310, in A. C. Kamil and T. D. Sargent (eds). Foraging Behavior. Garland, New York.Google Scholar