Literature DB >> 24258734

Cover and efficacy of predator-based repellents for Townsend's voleMicrotus townsendii.

M Merkens1, A S Harestad, T P Sullivan.   

Abstract

Predator-based repellents have been used experimentally to control wildlife damage in both agriculture and forestry, but they have not always been effective. We examined the relative importance of cover and predator odors in forage patch selection by Townsend's vole,Microtus townsendii, and its behavior related to cover and predator cues. Experiments were conducted in which forage patch and area choices were related to available habitat alternatives. Outdoor enclosures were divided into halves: one side was treated and the other used as a control. Treatments consisting of "cover," "repellent," and "cover plus repellent" were compared to controls (no cover, no repellent). In the absence of cover, voles preferred to feed on the side without repellents. When cover was present, voles preferred to feed on the side with cover, regardless of whether or not repellents were present. Voles visited more feeding stations on the side without cover when repellents and cover were present than they visited during cover-only treatments. These additional feeding stations, visited outside of cover, were used only lightly as food sources. The amounts of oats eaten by voles decreased with increasing distance from cover. This inverse relationship had a steeper slope in coveronly treatments compared to cover plus repellent treatments. A selection model based on forage patch selection and a habitat preference hierarchy is proposed. We conclude that predator odors are effective as repellents, but their efficacy depends on habitat conditions. Managers intending to use predator-based repellents must ensure that alternative sites available to pests are better quality habitat than in areas to be protected.

Entities:  

Year:  1991        PMID: 24258734     DOI: 10.1007/BF00994341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Ecol        ISSN: 0098-0331            Impact factor:   2.626


  7 in total

1.  Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands?

Authors:  A Sih
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-11-28       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Effect of the odour of weasels (Mustela nivalis L.) on trapped samples of their prey.

Authors:  D Michael Stoddart
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1976-12       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Anal gland secretions of the stoat (Mustela erminea) and the ferret (Mustela putorius formafuro) : Some additional thietane components.

Authors:  D R Crump; P J Moors
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 2.626

4.  Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores : I. Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus).

Authors:  T P Sullivan; L O Nordstrom; D S Sullivan
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores : II. Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus).

Authors:  T P Sullivan; L O Nordstrom; D S Sullivan
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores : IV. Northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides).

Authors:  T P Sullivan; D R Crump; D S Sullivan
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 2.626

7.  Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores : III. Montane and meadow voles (Microtus montanus andMicrotus pennsylvanicus).

Authors:  T P Sullivan; D R Crump; D S Sullivan
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 2.626

  7 in total
  7 in total

1.  Separating natural responses from experimental artefacts: habitat selection by a diadromous fish species using odours from conspecifics and natural stream water.

Authors:  Robin Hale; Stephen E Swearer; Barbara J Downes
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Laboratory and field evaluation of predator odors as repellents for kiore (Rattus exulans) and ship rats (R. rattus).

Authors:  G N Bramley; J R Waas
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  Sexual differences in responses of meadow voles to environmental cues in the presence of mink odor.

Authors:  David M Midlick; Sarah S Garris; Karl N Rohrer; Michael H Ferkin
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.899

Review 4.  Scent marking behavior as an odorant communication in mice.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Arakawa; D Caroline Blanchard; Keiko Arakawa; Christopher Dunlap; Robert J Blanchard
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 8.989

5.  Effects of mongoose odors on rat capture success.

Authors:  M E Tobin; R M Engeman; R T Sugihara
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Effect of predator odors on heart rate and metabolic rate of wapiti (Cervus elaphus canadensis).

Authors:  D Chabot; P Gagnon; E A Dixon
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.626

7.  Why are predator urines aversive to prey?

Authors:  D L Nolte; J R Mason; G Epple; E Aronov; D L Campbell
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.626

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.