| Title |
Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Chemical Ecology, July 1985
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf01012077 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas P. Sullivan, Lance O. Nordstrom, Druscilla S. Sullivan |
| Abstract |
The effectiveness of predator odors (fecal, urine, and anal scent gland) in suppressing feeding damage by snowshoe hares was investigated in pen bioassays at the University of British Columbia Research Forest, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada. A total of 28 bioassay trials tested the effects of these odors on hare consumption of willow browse and coniferous seedlings. Lynx and bobcat feces, weasel anal gland secretion, and lynx, bobcat, wolf, coyote, fox, and wolverine urines resulted in the most effective suppression of hare feeding damage. Novel odors of domestic dog urine and 2-methylbutyric acid did not reduce feeding. A field bioassay with lodgepole pine seedlings and weasel scent provided significant results comparable to the pen bioassays. The short-term (up to seven days) effectiveness of these treatments was more likely due to evaporative loss of the active repellent components of a given odor than habituation of hares to the stimulus. Predator odors as repellents have a biological basis compared with the anthropomorphic origins of commercial repellents. When encapsulated in weather-proof controlled-release devices, these odors could provide long-term protection for forestry plantations and agricultural crops which experience hare/rabbit feeding damage. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 44% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,782,800
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Chemical Ecology
#239
of 2,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#984
of 9,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Chemical Ecology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 9,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them