Use noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    55%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

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

  1. 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
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 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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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