Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Protect bird nests using electric fencing

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • One before-and-after study from the UK found an increase in tern numbers after the erection of an electric fence, whilst a study from the USA found an increase in the number of nests.
  • Five studies from the USA found higher survival or productivity at wader or seabird colonies with electric fencing, compared to areas without fencing, although one study found that hatching rates were no different, whilst nesting success was only higher in one of two years.
  • One study from the USA found lower predation by mammalian predators inside electric fence exclosures, whilst predation by birds was higher.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study in 1973 and 1984 on a sand spit in eastern Scotland (Forster 1975) found that the number of sandwich terns Sterna sandvicensis nesting in a colony increased from approximately 80 pairs in 1973 to approximately 450 pairs in 1974, following the erection of a 45 cm high electric fence to separate the colony from the mainland. Previous low numbers were attributed to red fox Vulpes vulpes predation, but after the fence was erected only a single fox was recorded breaching the fence and this animal did not approach the terns.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 1978 on a beach in Massachusetts, USA (Minsky 1980) found that the number of least tern Sterna antillarum nests in a colony decreased from 138 to 45 between the 20th and 23rd June (red fox Vulpes vulpes tracks were found in the colony), before the erection of an electric fence around the colony on the 24th June. The number of nests increased to 85 following the erection of the fence and no new fox tracks were found within the colony. No nests outside the fence survived. In total, 27 chicks fledged from the colony; the authors estimate that all, or nearly all, came from eggs laid after the erection of the fence.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, controlled trial from 1986-1988 in wetlands in North Dakota, USA (Mayer & Ryan 1991) found that nest survival of 54 piping plover Charadrius melodus nests on four beaches protected by a combined wire mesh and electric fence (1.2 m high, designed to stop mammalian predators) was 71% higher than for 234 nests on 21 unfenced beaches. Chick survival and the fledging rate were 55% and 82% greater on fenced than unfenced beaches, but these increases were not significant.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled trial from 1991-1994 on alkaline flats in Oklahoma, USA (Koenen et al. 1996) found that the nesting success (i.e. at least one egg hatching in a nest) of least terns Sterna antillarum was significantly higher inside two electric fence exclosures than outside (81% of 60 nests vs. 56% of 129 nests respectively). The same pattern was seen for snowy plovers Charadrius alexandrinus, but the difference was not significant (79% of 22 nests vs. 62% of 26 nests). The proportion of both tern and plover eggs predated (mainly by coyotes Canis latrans) was lower inside the fence (10% vs. 20% predation for terns; 6% vs. 11% for plovers. The fence was 86 cm high and designed to prevent coyotes from entering. This study is also discussed in ‘Provide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from extreme weather’.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, controlled trial from 1987-1991 in three wetland-grassland sites in North Dakota and Minnesota, USA (Cowardin et al. 1998) found that using fencing (1.8 m tall with an electrified top wire and with ground-level openings to allow broods to leave) to exclude mammalian predators from 25 ha of nesting habitat significantly increased the nesting success of dabbling ducks Anas spp. (75% of 452 nests inside exclosures), compared to those nesting outside exclosures (no data provided for control). The proportion of nests inside exclosures compared with control areas increased signifcantly for mallard A. platyrhynchos, gadwall A. strepera, blue-winged teal A. discors and northern pintail A. acuta, but not for northern shoveler A. clypeata and dabbling ducks. The authors note that there was a local and regional decline in dabbling duck numbers over the study period, probably due to an ongoing drought.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A replicated, controlled trial on the same study site as Koenen et al. (1996) in 1995-6 (Winton et al. 2000) found that the hatching success of snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nests was not significantly different (for either year of monitoring) between nests inside three electric fence exclosures (4.5, 24 and 20 ha) and outside exclosures (1995: 44% of nests inside vs. 34% nests outside; 1996: 61% vs. 57%). However, apparent nesting success did differ in 1996 (71% of 17 monitored nests were successful vs. 49% of 160 nests) but not in 1995 (37% of 70 nests inside vs. 38% of 168). The proportion of eggs lost to mammalian predators (mainly coyotes Canis latrans) was lower inside the exclosures (1% vs. 6%), but more eggs were predated by birds, mainly ring-billed gulls Larus delawarensis (11% vs. 3%).

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust