Plant crops to provide supplementary food for mammals

Overall effectiveness category Beneficial
Number of studies: 4
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

62%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Crops may be planted to provide supplementary food for a range of mammal species, either of economic or conservation importance. The intervention includes also studies that measure the response of non-target mammals where the crop is nonetheless planted for a wildlife conservation purpose.

See also: Species management - Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival.

Study locations

Key messages

Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting crops to provide supplementary food. Two studies were in the USA, one was in the UK and one was in Spain.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study), in the UK and Spain, found that crops grown to provide food for wildlife resulted in a higher abundance of small mammals in winter, but not in summer and increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) held higher overwintering mule deer abundance relative to barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye.

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

Use (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that mule deer consumed triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) more than they did barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary food provided for game species was also consumed by lagomorphs and rodents.

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

A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1979–1980 in a crop field in Texas, USA (Wiggers et al. 1984) found that on triticale (a cross between wheat and rye), overwintering mule deer Odocoileus hemionus abundance and crop consumption were higher than on barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. The preference index (values >1 indicate selection for that grass and values <1 indicate avoidance) for the quantity of triticale removed by deer (1.37) was higher than for barley (0.90), annual ryegrass (0.99), wheat (0.87) and rye (0.66). Average deer abundance was also higher on triticale (12.8 deer/plot) compared to barley (7.0), annual ryegrass (10.1), wheat (5.8) and rye (9.0). In August 1979, five crop types were planted in five replicate blocks (four plots in each block were 0.125 ha, one was 0.063 ha). Grass species were randomly assigned to plots. Grass production and forage removal by deer were estimated monthly from November 1979 to March 1980 using paired caged and uncaged quadrats. Deer abundance was assessed by time lapse photography.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Wiggers E.P., Wilcox D.D. & Bryant F.C. (1984) Cultivated cereal grains as supplemental forages for mule deer in the Texas Panhandle. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 12, 240-245.
A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1997 of cropland on six ranches in Texas, USA (Donalty et al. 2003) found that supplementary food provided for game species was also consumed by rodents and lagomorphs. Rodents ate 47% by biomass of winter oats Avena sativa grown for white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus that were consumed. Lagomorphs ate 10% and deer ate 44% of oats that were consumed. On each of six ranches, 2 ha of winter oats was grown. Twenty-four plots, each 1 m³, were established at each ranch from December 1996 to March 1997. Six plots were fenced using 10 × 10-cm mesh (to exclude deer), six using 2 × 3-cm mesh (to exclude deer and lagomorphs), six using 0.5 × 0.5-cm mesh (to exclude deer, lagomorphs and rodents) and six were unfenced. Consumption was assessed by comparing remaining oat biomass with that in the finest-mesh fenced plots.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Donalty S., Henke S.E. & Kerr C.L. (2003) Use of winter food plots by nongame wildlife species. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31, 774-778.
A replicated, controlled study in 2004–2005 on four arable farms in southern UK (Pywell et al. 2007) found that small mammals used plots sown with a wild bird seed mix more than wheat crop in winter but not in summer. In winter, more small mammals were caught on average in the wild bird mix (27 individuals/100 trap nights) than in adjacent crops (8 individuals/100 trap nights). However, in summer, fewer were caught in the wild bird mix (<1 individual/100 trap nights) than in adjacent crops (12 individuals/100 trap nights). A mix of white millet Echinochloa esculenta, linseed Linum usitatissimum, radish Raphanus sativus and quinoa Chenopodium quinoa was sown in a 150 × 30-m patch in the centre of a winter wheat crop on each of four farms, in April 2004 and 2005. Small mammals were live-trapped over three days and nights in November–December 2004 and again in May–June 2005.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Pywell R.F., Shaw L., Meek W., Turk A., Shore R.F. & Nowakowski M. (2007) Do wild bird seed mixtures benefit other taxa? Aspects of Applied Biology, 81, 69-76.
A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2004–2006 of forest, scrub and grassland mosaics on 14 estates in central Spain (Guil et al. 2014) found that sown grain crops were used more by, and had a higher abundance of, European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus relative to uncropped areas. Cropped plots had more rabbit latrines (52 latrines/km transect) than did uncropped plots (19 latrines/km transect). Rabbit relative abundance increased on sown areas (after sowing: 2.0 rabbits/km transect; before: 1.3) but not elsewhere on estates (after sowing: 3.0 rabbits/km transect; before: 3.3). Fourteen private estates in central Spain were studied. Across these, 125 plots were sown with barley and oat seed, at 150 kg/ha, in 2004–2006. There were 3–19 treatment plots/estate of 0.04–43.07 ha extent. For each treatment plot, an unsown control plot, ≥200 m away, with similar broad characteristics, was selected. Rabbit latrines were counted along transects in sown and unsown plots in late spring. Relative abundance was assessed by counting rabbits from transects in spring, before and after sowing.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Guil F., Fernandez-Olalla M., Martinez-Jauregui M., Moreno-Opo R., Agudín S. & San M.A. (2014) Grain sowing aimed at wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus L. enhancement in Mediterranean environments. Journal for Nature Conservation, 22, 552-558.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Establish long-term cover on erodible cropland Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Plant crops to provide supplementary food for mammals Action Link	Beneficial	4	Synopsis Link
Change mowing regime (e.g. timing, frequency, height) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link