Use light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

23%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention specifically refers to use of directional light or lasers aimed at animals. If such lights can reduce crop damage by mammals, this may reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of such species. See also Use lights and sound to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of using light or lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that red lasers did not disperse white-tailed deer from fields at night whilst a study in India found that spotlights directed at the eyes of Asian elephants did reduce the probability of crop damage.

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, randomized, controlled study in 2001 in arable fields on two adjacent wildlife refuges straddling Nebraska and Iowa, USA (VerCauteren et al. 2003) found that red lasers did not disperse white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus from fields at night. No differences were found in flight response between two different lasers (deer fled in 2–3% of encounters) or between these lasers and the control without lasers (3% fled). Thirty-two crop fields were randomly assigned one of two lasers, shone from a vehicle, or as the control (vehicle without laser). The two red lasers were the Desman® (633 nm, 5 mW, 12 mm beam) and Dissuader™ (650 nm, 68 mW, variable beam). Deer behaviour was monitored using night-vision binoculars on eight consecutive nights in July 2001 (total 177 deer encounters). Deer were initially located with a spotlight. Lasers were used for 2 minutes/deer, first on adjacent vegetation, then in a zig-zag manner, then on the body.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
VerCauteren K.C., Hygnstrom S.E., Pipas M.J., Fioranelli P.B., Werner S.J. & Blackwell B.F. (2003) Red lasers are ineffective for dispersing deer at night. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31, 247-252.
A study in 2006–2009 in two areas of Assam, India (Davies et al. 2011) found that using spotlights directed at the eyes of Asian elephants Elephas maximus reduced the probability of elephants causing crop damage. The chance of crop damage occurring was lower when spotlights were used to deter crop-raiding elephants compared to a range of other interventions or no intervention (results presented as statistical model coefficients). Only installing fences reduced crop raiding to a greater extent. Using loud noises alongside spotlighting reduced its effectiveness. Within two study areas, 33 community members were trained as monitors to record the 1,761 crop-raiding incidents, from 1 March 2006 to 28 February 2009. A range of deterrents were used, singly or in combination, including spotlights, chili smoke (from burning dried chilies, tobacco, and straw), two-strand electric fences, chili fencing (engine grease and ground chili paste, on a jute or coconut rope), elephant drives (using domesticated elephants to repel wild elephants), fire and noise.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Davies T.E., Wilson S., Hazarika N., Chakrabarty J., Das D., Hodgson D.J. & Zimmermann A. (2011) Effectiveness of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants. Conservation Letters, 4, 346-354.

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
Relocate local pastoralist communities to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
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 dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link