Prevent mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    80%
  • Certainty
    60%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of preventing mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Switzerland.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

  • Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock devices prevented American black bears from accessing or damaging bird feeders. A before-and-after study in Switzerland found that electric fencing excluded stone martens from a building.

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 replicated, controlled study in 2004 of 10 forest sites in Minnesota, USA (Breck et al. 2006) found that installing electric shock devices prevented American black bears Ursus americanus from accessing or damaging bird feeders. Bird feeders protected by electric shock devices suffered less bear damage (none of 10 was accessed or damaged) than did unprotected feeders (four of 10 accessed or destroyed). Two imitation bird feeders were installed at each of 10 sites, ≥30 km apart. One feeder was protected by an electric shock device, the “Nuisance Bear Controller”. This device had two 6-volt batteries wired to an automobile vibrator coil/condenser, emitting 10,000–13,000 volts through a disk when contact was made by an animal. The other feeder was unprotected. Ground around each feeder was cleared to enable identification of bear signs. Feeders were in place from 1 July to 15 November 2004. They were monitored, and bait replenished, at least weekly.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 2006 on a building in Switzerland (Kistler et al. 2013) found that electric fencing excluded stone martens Martes foina from the property. The rate of martens passing through gaps into the building’s attic after electric fence installation was lower (0.1 martens/day) than before the fence was installed (1.9 martens/day). It was lower still (0 martens/day) after the fence was modified. The property, built in the 1950s, was used frequently by martens, resulting in serious damage. Two electric fence types were deployed: wire mesh net for larger gaps and electric wire strands for small openings. Marten movements were monitored by video camera from 12 June to 27 July 2006. This covered nine nights before and seven nights after fence installation and 10 further nights after a crevice was modified by adding an extra electric wire strand. Checks were made for marten re-entry over a further 103 nights, by monitoring for bait removal and for faeces.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal 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 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