Use repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    21%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of using repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the UK.

KEY 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. Randomized, replicated, controlled studies in 1989–1990 on three farms in Oxfordshire, UK (Atkinson & MacDonald 1994) each found that a bone-oil based repellent (Renardine) reduced use of treated areas by moles Talpa europaea. Moles avoided the 25% of their home range that was treated with the repellent for 9–27 days (moles’ home ranges treated similarly, but with water, were not avoided). With close to 100% of their home ranges treated, moles avoided reoccupying treated areas for 42 hours to at least nine days. Moles took longer to cross a repellent-treated slit, cut across their home ranges (26 days) than a similar water-treated slit (four hours). The repellent, Renardine [use of which is prohibited in some countries], was soaked into rolled toilet paper and pushed into one mole tunnel/m2 in the 25% most heavily used part of home ranges (three moles) in spring 1989 or into all identified tunnels in the home range (four moles) in late summer 1989. One site was used in each case. Water-soaked toilet paper acted as a control at the 25% site (two moles). At a third site, 0.5 l/m of Renardine was poured into a 50-cm-deep slit across six home ranges in autumn/winter 1990. The slit was filled with peat, and a further 0.5 l/m of Renardine poured on top. One further home range was treated similarly, but with water. Mole movements were monitored by radio-tracking.

    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 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