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

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

21%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention covers use of manufactured repellents that emit a smell that is designed to repel animals from areas of crops or other property that is vulnerable to damage. If such repellents can prevent or reduce crop or property damage by wild mammals, this could reduce motivations for carrying out lethal control of these animals.

Study locations

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)

Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that a repellent reduced use of treated areas by moles.

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

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
Referenced paper
R. P. D. Atkinson & D. W. MacDonald (1994) Can repellents function as a non-lethal means of controlling moles (Talpa europaea)? Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 731-736.

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 light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Use loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link