Table 1 The expected foraging responses of fallow deer for each potential mechanism of repellent function. Deer were exposed to two-choice food trials with no and low or low and high concentrations of repellent (more repellent = more defended)
From: A mechanistic understanding of repellent function against mammalian herbivores
Mechanisms | Expected foraging response |
|---|---|
Sensory cues altered | |
Olfactory/visual | -Fewer trials involve consumption from more defended feeder in pair |
-More likely to initiate consumption at less defended feeder in pair | |
Gustatory/somatosensory | -Shift between feeders more often when consumption initiated at more defended feeder in pair |
-Consume more from less defended feeder in pair | |
-More selective for less defended feeder in more defended (low-high) pair | |
Adverse physiological effects | |
Yes | -More selective for less defended food with exposure |
No | -Less selective for less defended food with exposure |