Study

Evaluation of two mammal repellents applied to browse species in the Black Hills

  • Published source details Dietz D.R. & Tigner J.R. (1968) Evaluation of two mammal repellents applied to browse species in the Black Hills. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 32, 109-114

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    A replicated, controlled study, in 1962–1964, on shrubland and a forest area of South Dakota, USA (Dietz & Tigner 1968) found that applying repellents to trees reduced browsing by white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus and mule deer Odocoileus hemionus. Treated aspen Populus tremuloides shoots suffered less browsing than untreated shoots (zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate cyclohexylamine (ZAC)-treated: 3% removed; tetramethylthiuram disulfide (TMTD)-treated: 3%; untreated: 12%). The same pattern applied for wild chokeberry Prunus virginiana shrubs (ZAC-treated: 0.7% removed; TMDT-treated: 6.8%; untreated: 28.9%). On trees transplanted from nurseries, there was less browsing on ZAC-treated than untreated chokecherry (ZAC-treated: 0.1% removed; untreated: 6%), American plum Prunus americana (ZAC-treated removed: 0.1%; untreated: 19.8%) and caragana Caragana arborescens (ZAC-treated: 0.8% removed; untreated: 4.5%). Herbivory on naturally growing Aspen and chokeberry was compared between groups of ZAC-treated, TMTD-treated and untreated trees (10 trees in each case). Chokecherry, American plum and caragana were transplanted from nurseries to two sites where they were either treated with ZAC or were untreated (total ≤64 trees/species). Herbivory was assessed as the proportion of shoot lengths removed. Aspen and wild chokeberry trees were assessed over winters of 1962–1963 and 1963–1964. Transplanted chokecherry, American plum and caragana were assessed in winter of 1963–1964.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust