Effectiveness of predator fecal odors as black-tailed deer repellents

作者: M. Anthony Melchiors , Charles A. Leslie

DOI: 10.2307/3801531

关键词:

摘要: Pen bioassays were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of predator fecal odors as deer repellents. Aqueous extracts from feces more effective than BGR (4.9% egg solids) and BGR-P (36% solids). In Test I, browsing reductions for tested were: bobcat (Felis rufus)-51%; mountain lion (F. concolor)-27%; wolf (Canis lupus)-17%; coyote (C. latrans)8%. The efficacy in I correlated with concentration initial formulations (5, 10, 20% by weight). II, increasing 30% did not increase their repellency. Fecal predators significantly suppressed feeding activities black-tailed (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus); however, additional laboratory fieldwork are needed before can be used operationally. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 49(2):358-362 Chemical signals an olfactory nature modify behavioral mammalian prey species (Griffith 1920, Stoddart 1976, Thiessen Rice Hennessy Owings 1978). some ungulates, elicit same response actual sightings (Schaller 1967). These concepts employed occasionally when people attempt protect gardens, orchards, landscaping, other plantings animal damage placing hides or seats around near vegetation (Ives 1960; Miiller-Schwarze 1972; I. Guaditz, pers. commun.). Pacific Northwest, forest tree seedlings elk (Cervus elaphus) cause seedling mortality height reduction such that reforestation efforts may fail (Black et al. 1969, Crouch 1974). Several repellents marketed control trees vegetation, yet there is a continuing interest scientific community develop repellent longer lasting formulation. Other investigators have demonstrated presence (Miiller-Schwarze 1972) (Campbell Bullard bowls food offered suppress feeding. found sympatric blacktailed elicited most consistent negative suggested possibly ungulates possess innate odors. Additional information on relationship cervid behavior determine whether As part comprehensive screening program, this investigation evaluated several deer-browsing deterrents. We thank D. L. Dunham statistical support during bioassay assistance M. Hancocks G. W. Jorgensen Woodland Park Zool. Gardens Iliff S. McCusker Washington Zoo appreciated providing captive animals. A. Rochelle, Gauditz, R. Anderson provided helpful comments manuscript.

参考文章(19)
Dan L. Campbell, Roger W. Bullard, A PREFERENCE-TESTING SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING REPELLENTS FOR BLACK- TAILED DEER Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. ,vol. 5, ,(1972)
John Garcia, Kenneth W. Rusiniak, What the Nose Learns from the Mouth Chemical Signals. pp. 141- 156 ,(1980) , 10.1007/978-1-4684-1027-3_10
I Gauditz, Bioassay Methods Guilding the Development of a Big Game Repellent ASTM special technical publications. pp. 34- 46 ,(1977) , 10.1520/STP27053S
William L. Brown,, Thomas Eisner, Robert H. Whittaker, Allomones and Kairomones: Transspecific Chemical Messengers BioScience. ,vol. 20, pp. 21- 22 ,(1970) , 10.2307/1294753
Del Thiessen, Maureen Rice, Mammalian Scent Gland Marking and Social Behavior Psychological Bulletin. ,vol. 83, pp. 505- 539 ,(1976) , 10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.505
Roger W. Bullard, Stephen A. Shumake, Dan L. Campbell, Frank J. Turkowski, Preparation and evaluation of a synthetic fermented egg coyote attractant and deer repellent Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. ,vol. 26, pp. 160- 163 ,(1978) , 10.1021/JF60215A037
P. Novellie, R. C. Bigalke, An Assessment of Antelope Browse Damage in a Pine Plantation and an Evaluation of Some Chemical Repellents South African forestry journal. ,vol. 119, pp. 8- 13 ,(1981) , 10.1080/00382167.1981.9630217
Coleman R. Griffith, The behavior of white rats in the presence of cats. Psychobiology. ,vol. 2, pp. 19- 28 ,(1920) , 10.1037/H0075330