Comparative Analysis of Deer Repellents

The deer repellent literature is fhgmented and hard to interpret because there is no standard method to measure repellent effectiveness. Instead, studies differ in (1) which repellents were tested, (2) which plant or food was used as a carrier, (3) repellent concentration, (4) test duration, (5) experimental design, and (6) criteria for success. Despite these difficulties, we analyzed the literature seeking over-arching trends in repellent effectiveness. Deer-Away Big Game Repellenta (BGR) and predator odors were usually more effective than other repellents. In most field tests, the best repellents usually reduced deer damage by < 60%. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of area repellents and contact repellents. Factors affecting repellent effectiveness include relative palatability of the plant to be protected, size of local deer populations, availability of alternative forage, weather, amount and concentration of repellent used, and test duration. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (0. hemionus) may respond differently to predator odors; with the exception of this, differences among deer and elk (Cervus c d e n s i s ) in their responses to various repellents were not statistically significant.

[1]  R. Swihart,et al.  Reducing deer damage to yews and apple trees: testing Big Game Repellent, RO.PEL, and soap as repellents. , 1990 .

[2]  M. T. Harris,et al.  Preliminary Screening of White-Tailed Deer Repellents , 1983 .

[3]  T. Angradi,et al.  PRELIMINARY TESTING OF A SELENIUM-BASED SYSTEMIC DEER BROWSE REPELLENT , 1987 .

[4]  D. Decker,et al.  WILDLIFE DAMAGE TO CROPS: PERCEPTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL AND WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS IN 1957 AND 1987 , 1991 .

[5]  Conover,et al.  Review of Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses Caused by Wildlife in the United States , 1995 .

[6]  Michael R. Conover,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF HUMAN HAIR, BGR, AND A MIXTURE OF BLOOD MEAL AND PEPPERCORNS IN REDUCING DEER DAMAGE TO YOUNG APPLE TREES , 1987 .

[7]  D. Gustafson,et al.  Reduction of deer browsing of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings by quadrivalent selenium , 1984 .

[8]  T. W. Townsend,et al.  CHARACTERISTICS OF DEER DAMAGE TO COMMERCIAL TREE INDUSTRIES OF OHIO1 , 1985 .

[9]  D. L. Campbell,et al.  Preparation and evaluation of a synthetic fermented egg coyote attractant and deer repellent , 1978 .

[10]  Kenneth P. Burnham,et al.  Relative effectiveness of repellents for reducing mule deer damage , 1991 .

[11]  Kenneth P. Burnham,et al.  RELATIVE PREFERENCE OF CAPTIVE COW ELK FOR REPELLENT-TREATED DIETS , 1992 .

[12]  D. T. Brown,et al.  Temporal Changes in Winter Diet Selection by White-Tailed Deer in a Northern Deer Yard , 1991 .

[13]  J. Tigner,et al.  Evaluation of two mammal repellents applied to browse species in the Black Hills , 1968 .

[14]  W. Palmer,et al.  Evaluation of White-Tailed Deer Repellents , 1983 .

[15]  C. Leslie,et al.  Effectiveness of predator fecal odors as black-tailed deer repellents , 1985 .

[16]  D. D. Austin,et al.  EVALUATING PRODUCTION LOSSES FROM MULE DEER DEPREDATION IN APPLE ORCHARDS , 1989 .