Use negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of using negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the 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 white-tailed deer presence at cattle feeders was usually reduced by a device that produced a negative stimulus.

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 2005 of captive deer on a farm in Michigan, USA (Seward et al. 2007) found that a deer-resistant cattle feeder device reduced white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus presence at feeders for the first five of six weeks. Fewer deer were recorded on camera traps within 1 m of feeders with active devices (0–0.2 deer/activation) than of feeders without devices (0.7–1.9 deer/activation) during the first five treatment weeks. There was no significant difference during the sixth week (active device: 0.4 deer/activation; no device: 1.2 deer/activation). During four weeks before device activation, deer number recorded on camera traps were similar between feeders with (2.3–2.9 deer/activation) and without (2.1–2.7 deer/activation) devices. Three feeders each were protected and unprotected by devices. Devices entailed a 3.4-m horizontal bar with a 1.6-m arm hanging on chains at each end, down to 45 cm above the ground. The rig rotated on a central pivot for 45 s, when an animal entered an infra-red-surveillance zone. Hanging arms struck animals within 1 m of feeders, startling, but not hurting, them. Monitoring, using camera traps, spanned 10 February to 10 March 2005 (devices inactive) and 13 May to 23 June 2005 (devices 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 2021 cover

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, 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 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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