Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Location
Asheville, North Carolina
Start Date
3-10-1993 12:00 AM
Description
The bird repellent properties of methyl anthranilate (MA) and dimethyl anthranilate (DMA) are well-established. Nevertheless, development of means to reduce the amount of chemical needed to effect satisfactory repellency would reduce costs and make their use even more attractive. Thus, we evaluated the usefulness of a visual stimulus for increasing DMA repellency. We offered groups of captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) untreated food and OMA-treated food, and to some groups we also presented a putatively repellent eyespot pattern. As expected, a DMA concentration of 1.4% (g/g) reduced (P = 0.001) consumption of treated food compared to untreated; 0.3% DMA was ineffective. While, the presence of the eyespot pattern alone reduced food consumption by about 50%, pairing the eyespots with the DMA treatments did not improve the chemical's effectiveness at either level. Even though the eyespot pattern was initially aversive, prolonged exposure resulted in rapid habituation. Although visual scare devices using eyespot patterns are marketed for bird control, our findings suggest that alone they are probably of limited value against starlings. Instead, integrated approaches employing visual, aural, and chemical deterrents are needed.
Recommended Citation
Avery, M. L., & Matteson, R. E. (1993). Effectiveness of dimethyl anthranilate and eyespots for reducing feed consumption by starlings. In King, M. M. (Ed.), The Sixth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (pp. 128-133). Asheville, NC: Clemson University.
Included in
Effectiveness of Dimethyl Anthranilate and Eyespots for Reducing Feed Consumption by Starlings
Asheville, North Carolina
The bird repellent properties of methyl anthranilate (MA) and dimethyl anthranilate (DMA) are well-established. Nevertheless, development of means to reduce the amount of chemical needed to effect satisfactory repellency would reduce costs and make their use even more attractive. Thus, we evaluated the usefulness of a visual stimulus for increasing DMA repellency. We offered groups of captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) untreated food and OMA-treated food, and to some groups we also presented a putatively repellent eyespot pattern. As expected, a DMA concentration of 1.4% (g/g) reduced (P = 0.001) consumption of treated food compared to untreated; 0.3% DMA was ineffective. While, the presence of the eyespot pattern alone reduced food consumption by about 50%, pairing the eyespots with the DMA treatments did not improve the chemical's effectiveness at either level. Even though the eyespot pattern was initially aversive, prolonged exposure resulted in rapid habituation. Although visual scare devices using eyespot patterns are marketed for bird control, our findings suggest that alone they are probably of limited value against starlings. Instead, integrated approaches employing visual, aural, and chemical deterrents are needed.