Study

Evaluation of Hot Sauce® as a repellent for forest mammals

  • Published source details Wagner K.K. & Nolte D.L. (2000) Evaluation of Hot Sauce® as a repellent for forest mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 76-83

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

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

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, randomized, controlled study in 1997 on captive animals in a forested site in Washington, USA (Wagner & Nolte 2000) found that Hot Sauce® repellent reduced most measures of tree browsing by black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus columbi for four weeks, but not subsequently. There were fewer damaged trees in treated than in untreated plots during the first two weeks but not during the third and fourth weeks. There were fewer damaged terminal buds and lateral bites in treated than in untreated plots across all four weeks. There was no difference in the number of trees stripped of all leaves between treated and untreated plots on day one, but there fewer trees were stripped of all leaves in treated than untreated plots through to and including the fourth week. During weeks five and six, there were no differences in these measures between treated and untreated plots. Data were not presented. Three to four deer were held in each of four pens (0.75–2 ha). Two plots (>25 m apart) in each pen each contained three western red cedar Thuja plicata trees (0.5–1 m tall, 1 m apart). Plots were randomly assigned to a single application of 6.2% Hot Sauce® or were untreated. Tree damage was assessed between 4 February and 16 March 1997.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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

    A replicated, controlled study (year not stated) on captive animals in Washington, USA (Wagner & Nolte 2000) found that treating food with Hot Sauce® repellent (as a trial of its effectiveness at reducing crop consumption) reduced consumption by porcupines Erethizon dorsatum, reduced consumption by pocket gophers Thomomys mazama at two of four concentrations and did not reduce consumption by mountain beavers Aplodontia rufa. Porcupines consumed fewer treated than untreated apple pieces at all four Hot Sauce® concentrations. Pocket gopher consumption of apple pieces did not differ between treated and untreated food at 0.062% concentration. At 0.62%, fewer treated than untreated pieces were eaten on two of four days. At 3.1% and 6.2%, fewer treated than untreated pieces were eaten. Mountain beaver consumption of apple pieces did not differ between treated and untreated food at any of the four repellent concentrations. See paper for full details of results. Trials were carried out on four porcupines, 12 pocket gophers and 10 mountain beavers. All were held in enclosures and were offered two-choice tests between apple pieces treated with Hot Sauce®, a repellent containing capsaicin, and untreated apple pieces. Solutions containing 0.062%, 0.62%, 3.1% and 6.2% of Hot Sauce® were used. Each concentration was tested for four days with each animal. Tests ran consecutively, from lowest to highest concentrations of Hot Sauce® solution.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study (year not stated) on captive animals in Washington, USA (Wagner & Nolte 2000) found that treating cottonwood Populus spp. stems with Hot Sauce® repellent reduced the extent to which they were chewed by beavers Castor canadensis. At all three Hot Sauce® concentrations applied, chewing damage was lower in treated stems than in untreated stems (results expressed as damage indices). Eight adult beavers were housed in pens that contained 1-m-long cottonwood stems of 7–10 cm diameter. Adjacent pairs of stems were randomly assigned for treatment by Hot Sauce® at 0.062%, 0.62% and 6.2% concentrations and untreated stems were available. Beavers also had free access to apples, carrots, pelleted food and water. The test was run for six days, then repeated. Damage to cottonwood stems was assessed at the end of each six-day period.

    (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