Use noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals 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

55%
Certainty

30%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Aversive conditioning is the process of associating a negative stimulus with a secondary behaviour or outcome. In the case of this intervention, it involves associating a negative stimuli with a neutral one (noise) when carrying out undesirable behaviour (feeding on crops) to the extent that the neutral stimuli alone deters this behaviour. If this reduces crop damage, it may reduce motivations for carrying out lethal control of wild mammalian herbivores.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of using noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that noise aversive conditioning reduced bait consumption by white-tailed deer.

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 2001 on a pasture site in Georgia, USA (Gallagher & Prince 2003) found that attempts to condition white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus to avoid food when a metronome was played, by initially playing the sound alongside an electric wire deterrent, reduced, but did not eliminate, consumption of the food. With the metronome active but the electric wire deactivated, corn consumption (1.4–2.0 kg/day) was generally lower than at unprotected feeders (2.2 kg/day) but was higher than when both the metronome and electric wire deterrent were active (0–0.1 kg/day). Deer were studied in three 13-ha pasture plots, each containing two feeders, 6.5 m apart. Feeders comprised a plastic tray on a toolbox. At one feeder in each plot, the box housed an electric fence charger and an electronic metronome. An electric fence wire on each tray was likely to be touched by deer accessing corn. Each feeder was supplied with 2.3 kg/day of whole corn. Unconsumed corn was weighed and removed. Data were collected during six 5-day periods in April–May 2001. During the first, third and fifth periods, electric chargers and metronomes were activated. In alternate periods, only metronomes remained active.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Gallagher G.R. & Prince R.H. (2003) Negative operant conditioning fails to deter white-tailed deer foraging activity. Crop Protection, 22, 893-895.

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
Grow unattractive crop in buffer zone around crops (e.g. chili peppers) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use loud noises to deter crop damage (e.g. banger sticks, drums, tins, iron sheets) by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	10	Synopsis Link
Dispose of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link