Use visual deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

30%
Certainty

30%
Harms

10%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

A range of visual deterrents, including scarecrows, may be used to deter carnivores from approaching livestock. If successful, such deterrents could reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of carnivores.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of using visual deterrents, such as scarecrows, to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mexico.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in Kenya recorded more livestock predation at bomas with scarecrows than those without scarecrows whereas a replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that a combination of visual and sound deterrents reduced livestock predation.

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 study in 2001–2005 of bushland and savanna in Laikipia and neighbouring districts, Kenya (Woodroffe et al. 2007) found that at bomas with scarecrows positioned to deter predators, there were more, rather than fewer, carnivore attacks on livestock than at bomas without scarecrows. Scarecrows at bomas were associated with an increased risk of livestock attack by carnivores (results presented as odds ratio). The effect was strongest for leopards Panthera pardus. Scarecrows comprised cloth hung on trees or boma walls. They were present at 44% of 483 bomas (average 2.4/boma). Combining attacks on bomas with attacks on livestock herds grazing by day, the study documented 105 attacks by spotted hyenas Crocuta crocuta, 96 by leopards, 44 by African wild dogs Lycaon pictus, 35 by lions Panthera leo and 19 by cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus. From January 2001 to June 2005, eighteen local staff verified reports of livestock lost to predation and gathered data on animal husbandry practices used. Attacked bomas were compared to nearby bomas (median 323 m away) that had not been attacked.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Woodroffe R., Frank L.G., Lindsey P.A., ole Ranah S.M. K. & Romañach S. (2007) Livestock husbandry as a tool for carnivore conservation in Africa's community rangelands: a case–control study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 1245-1260.
A replicated, controlled study in 2010 of six farms in a forested area in central Mexico (Zarco-González & Monroy-Vilchis 2014) found that visual and sound deterrents reduced predation of livestock on ranches. The relative effects of the two deterrent types were not assessed individually. No large predators (puma Puma concolor or jaguar Panthera onca) were detected on ranches that used deterrents compared with 2 detections/ranch and 2–4 livestock attacks/ranch where deterrents were not used. Out of six ranches (44–195 ha extent, ≥6 km apart), two cattle ranches and two goat ranches deployed deterrents whilst no deterrents were deployed on one cattle ranch and one goat ranch. Visual deterrents were shirts worn by livestock owners, hung around paddocks. Sound deterrents were recordings of voices, motors, pyrotechnics, barking dogs and bells, played twice daily for 40 min, between 06:00–08:00 and 20:00–22:00 h. Deterrents alternated weekly between visual and sound, through July–August 2010. Large predators were monitored using two camera traps/ranch and by searching for tracks and other signs.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Zarco-González M.M. & Monroy-Vilchis O. (2014) Effectiveness of low-cost deterrents in decreasing livestock predation by felids: a case in Central Mexico. Animal Conservation, 17, 371-378.

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
Use ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use mobile phone communications to warn farmers of problematic mammals (e.g. elephants) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link