In Defense of Chemical Defense: Quantification of Volatile Chemicals in Feathers Is Challenging

Douglas, Hector D.

doi:10.1525/auk.2008.2408.3

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…those measured in auklet odorant by Hagelin et al [88]). In response, Douglas [89] argued that Hagelin et al's study underestimated the quantity of volatiles in auklet feathers because the samples were kept under suboptimal conditions, during which time they may have degraded (and see Hagelin [90]). …”

Section: Odorous Feathersmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Birds Combat Ectoparasites

Clayton¹,

Koop²,

Harbison³

et al. 2010

TOOENIJ

222

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Birds are plagued by an impressive diversity of ectoparasites, ranging from feather-feeding lice, to featherdegrading bacteria. Many of these ectoparasites have severe negative effects on host fitness. It is therefore not surprising that selection on birds has favored a variety of possible adaptations for dealing with ectoparasites. The functional significance of some of these defenses has been well documented. Others have barely been studied, much less tested rigorously. In this article we review the evidence -or lack thereof -for many of the purported mechanisms birds have for dealing with ectoparasites. We concentrate on features of the plumage and its components, as well as anti-parasite behaviors. In some cases, we present original data from our own recent work. We make recommendations for future studies that could improve our understanding of this poorly known aspect of avian biology.

show abstract

Section: Odorous Feathersmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Birds Combat Ectoparasites

Clayton¹,

Koop²,

Harbison³

et al. 2010

TOOENIJ

222

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, fresh auklet plumage did not repel or increase morbidity of feather lice [24] and auklet ticks experimentally exposed to fresh piles of scented or unscented feathers were not repelled by scented plumage [40]. The potential role of the auklet scent thus remains questionable and would require additional experimental test (see [23, 41] for a recent discussion about this putative function of the auklet scent).…”

Section: The Role Of Olfaction In the Control Of Reproductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The underestimated role of olfaction in avian reproduction?

Balthazart

Taziaux

2009

Behavioural Brain Research

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until the second half of the 20 th century, it was broadly accepted that most birds are microsmatic if not anosmic and unable to detect and use olfactory information. Exceptions were eventually conceded for species like procellariiforms, vultures or kiwis that detect their food at least in part based on olfactory signals. During the past 20-30 years, many publications have appeared indicating that this view is definitely erroneous. We briefly review here anatomical, electrophysiological and behavioral data demonstrating that birds in general possess a functional olfactory system and are able to use olfactory information in a variety of ethological contexts, including reproduction. Recent work also indicates that brain activation induced by sexual interactions with a female is significantly affected by olfactory deprivation in Japanese quail. Brain activation was measured via immunocytochemical detection of the protein product of the immediate early gene c-fos. Changes observed concerned two brain areas that play a key role in the control of male sexual behavior, the medial preoptic nucleus and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis therefore suggesting a potential role of olfaction in the control of reproduction. The widespread idea that birds are anosmic or microsmatic is thus not supported by the available experimental data and presumably originates in our anthropomorphic view that leads us to think that birds do not smell because they have a rigid beak and nostrils and do not obviously sniff. Experimental analysis of this phenomenon is thus warranted and should lead to a significant change in our understanding of avian biology.

show abstract

“…Douglas III (2008b) suggested that the analysis of CAO upon which Hagelin and Jones (2007) based their concerns had been compromised by the loss of volatiles and the oxidation of some components of their samples, giving a distorted impression of the chemical milieu of Crested Auklet plumage. Quantifying two of the CAO constituents, Hagelin et al (2003) estimated values for the concentrations of octanal and (Z)-4-decenal in feathers from the nape at 2.98 and 1.10 lg/g, respectively.…”

Section: Auklets Wick Feathers and A Citrus-like Odourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Arthropod deterrents from the plumage and uropygial gland are confirmed or suspected for birds in several families, including the Alcidae (auklets) (Douglas III et al 2001, 2005a, 2005b, Douglas III 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2013, Pachycephalidae (pitohuis) (Dumbacher 1997(Dumbacher , 1999, Parulidae (blackbirds) (Rice 2017) and Upupidae (hoopoes) (Tom as et al 2020). Although chemical defence against arthropods has been examined in few bird species, the ecological and taxonomic diversity of this assemblage suggests that the emission of arthropod deterrents from the avian integument is widespread (Mouritsen & Madsen 1994, Jønsson et al 2008) and often derived independently, even where identical compounds are involved (Dumbacher et al 2000(Dumbacher et al , 2008.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical aposematism: the potential for non‐host odours in avian defence

Weldon

2023

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many birds display plumage coloration and patterns that act as visual aposematic and mimetic signals for predators. Avian aposematism can also be communicated via chemical cues, where so‐called non‐host odours (NHO) emitted from the plumage, the uropygial (preen) gland or other chemical sources denote the status of birds as dangerous or unprofitable hosts for ectoparasitic and haematophagous arthropods. Avian NHO are aposematic signals that in natural concentrations repel nuisance arthropods or inhibit their attraction to hosts, as opposed to being generally unpalatable or toxic to predators. Birds that emit NHO preempt encounters with nuisance arthropods and the pathogens they transmit. Nuisance arthropods that respond to NHO avoid birds that exhibit disabling behavioural, anatomical, physiological and/or chemical defences. As with distinctive plumage patterns that evolved as visual warnings to predators, birds are selected to advertise their non‐host status to nuisance arthropods via distinctive semiochemicals. Short‐chain (C6–C10) aldehydes emitted from the plumage of some birds may act as NHO against a variety of nuisance arthropods. In some birds, the size of the uropygial gland (and presumably its secretory output) is negatively correlated with the degree of ectoparasite infestation or the incidence of malarial infection, thus implicating uropygial secretions in defence against dipteran vectors of haemosporidian pathogens. A field experiment demonstrates that volatiles emanating from the uropygial gland of the Eurasian Hoopoe Upupa epops deter some biting flies. Birds' risky habit of plucking hair from live mammals and incorporating the stolen hair tufts into their nests is hypothesized to serve as a mechanism of appropriating NHO from mammalian skin secretions for nest defence against arthropods. Feathers plucked from heterospecifics and shed snake skins that are incorporated into nests also may emit NHO. Behavioural assays measuring the repellence or attraction‐inhibition of arthropods are needed to elucidate avian NHO. Experimental efforts to elucidate the underlying defences that support avian NHO entail challenges that include the enactment of defences that are variously effective against different arthropods, and the emission of chemical signals that are variously ‘understood’, i.e. avoided, by different arthropods.

show abstract

In Defense of Chemical Defense: Quantification of Volatile Chemicals in Feathers Is Challenging

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

How Birds Combat Ectoparasites

How Birds Combat Ectoparasites

The underestimated role of olfaction in avian reproduction?

Chemical aposematism: the potential for non‐host odours in avian defence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About