Assessing chemosensory-based snake repellents on target and non-target reptile species. Ati) AK. Wolfe, A.C. Febey, S.W. Tuckey & P.W. Bateman ‘Supported by the Cities of Armadale, Canning, EEFBEE Department of Environment & Agriculture, Curtin University Cockburn, Fremantle & Gosnells WA Commercially available “snake repellents” work on our fear of snakes and claim to keep snakes away from houses and gardens. Do they actually work? We recorded tongue-flick responses of “au? & to four repellents and three controls Treatment Ingredients Species used Scientific name ‘Observation control - Dugite Pseudonaja affinis ‘Odorous control Old Spice Cologne Tiger snake Notechis scutatus South-west carpet puthon Morelia spilota imbricata Bobtail skink Tiligua rugosa rugosa nised water HO Snake-A-Way granular 7% Naphthalene, 28% Sulphur 0.96% Cinnamon oil, 0.56% Geraniol Snake-B-Gon granular 0.37% Castor oil, 0.18% Peppermint oil 018% Clove oi! We presented repellents on cotton buds for 3 minutes 2% Eucalyptus oil, 2% Tea tree oil ~ Fi Emu Ridge liquid 2% Lavender oil, 2% Sandalwood ofl each (n = 158 trials) and 12% Oil of cloves, 40% Methylated spirits recorded number of tongue- SersPegaeriq rem eset TENS ETE If snake repellents are effective, we predict they would elicita different olfactory response to control stimuli. Observation BOdorous Control mDeionised water DSnake-A-Way nake-B-Gon mu Ridge Scott's Phenyle 8 8 S 3 8 Average number of tongue-flicks = 1 SD P. affinis (5) N. scutatus (7) M. s. imbricata (6) T.r. rugosa (8) Test species (n) Dugites and tiger snakes (both venomous elapids) tongue-flicked significantly more than did pythons or bobtails (Two-way FF ANOVA, F3 139 = 18.54; p < 0.001; Tukey HSD, p< 0.001). However, there was no significant effect of any treatment (Fs, 139 = 0.61; p = 0.722) and no interaction effect (F,3 139= 0.47; p = 0.968). We found NO evidence that these snake repellents caused any olfactory reaction in our study species. These repellents DO NOT appear to be effective.