Use ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of using ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

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, paired sites study in 1995–1996 on a grassland site in Victoria, Australia (Bender 2003) found that ultrasonic devices (ROO-Guard) did not repel eastern gray kangaroos Macropus giganteus. The number of kangaroo faecal pellets counted with the devices running (0.36–0.38 pellets/m2/day) was not significantly different from the number counted in the presence of dummy devices (0.17–0.20 pellets/m2/day). ROO-Guards were reported by the manufacturer to emit high frequency noise that is inaudible to humans but which deters kangaroos by masking their ability to hear predators. ROO-Guard Mk II devices were operated in December 1995–January 1996 in five open grassy areas of ≥100 m diameter. Each was paired with a similar area ≥850 m away, where an inactive device was simultaneously placed. Kangaroo use of each area was assessed by counting faecal pellets after 5–10 days.

    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