Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

38%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Wild mammals can compete with domestic herbivores for food, can predate domestic herbivores or can damage crops. Human-wildlife conflict can be reduced if wild mammals can be effectively excluded from fields. Gates through fences can provide crossing points if there is a risk of the gate being left open. Gates that close automatically may reduce the risk of wild mammals entering such fields. If successful, this may reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of such mammals.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammal movements of installing automatically closing gates at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in USA.

KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA found that vehicle-activated bump gates prevented white-tailed deer from entering enclosures.

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, controlled study, in 2006–2007, in three forest and grassland sites in Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, USA (VerCauteren et al. 2009) found that vehicle-activated bump gates prevented white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus entry into enclosures. Bump gates excluded deer from all enclosures. At enclosures without bump gates, there were averages across the three sites of 0.4, 33.0 and 49.0 deer entries/day. However, supplementary tests on a separate bump gate revealed that it did not always close securely following vehicle passage. Deer-resistant enclosures (6 × 6 m, baited with alfalfa cubes) were constructed at three sites. At each site, two enclosures (one each in forest and grassland) had bump gates installed (designed to open upon low-speed vehicle contact and close after vehicle passage) and two (one each in forest and grassland) had open gateways. Deer movements into enclosures were monitored using camera traps from December 2006 to April 2007.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
VerCauteren K.C., Seward N.W., Lavelle M.J., Fischer J.W. & Phillips G.E. (2009) Deer guards and bump gates for excluding white-tailed deer from fenced resources. Human Wildlife Interactions, 3, 145-153.

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 lights and sound to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link
Use scarecrows to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link