Translocate mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

23%
Harms

5%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Mammals may be vulnerable to habitat destruction at sites of developments such as energy generation installations or mines. If permission is granted for such developments to go ahead, translocating mammals away from the site may be a way of attempting to mitigate the effects of the development.

For related studies, see interventions within Species Management- Translocate Mammals.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments. One study was in Brazil and one was in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

Behaviour change (2 studies): A study in Brazil found that lesser anteaters translocated away from a hydroelectric development site remained close to release sites while a study in Australia found that at least one out of eight chuditchs translocated from a site to be mined returned to its site of capture.

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 study in 1996–1998 of savanna at a hydroelectric development scheme in Goiás, Brazil (Rodrigues et al. 2001) found that translocated lesser anteaters Tamandua tetradactyla remained close to release sites up to at least nine months after release. Anteaters moved 0.3–2.2 km from release sites during tracking periods. The greatest distances between recorded points in each anteater’s range were 0.3–2.6 km. Eight adult lesser anteaters were moved from an area being flooded for a reservoir and were released at the edge of the reservoir (distances from capture to release sites not stated). They were monitored by radio-tracking, over two weeks each month. Animals were monitored for between four days and nine months and were located between two and thirty times in total, between December 1996 and February 1998.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Rodrigues F.H.G., Marinho-Filho J. & dos Santos H.G. (2001) Home ranges of translocated lesser anteaters Tamandua tetradactyla in the cerrado of Brazil. Oryx, 35, 166-169.
A study in 2016 in a forest site in Western Australia, Australia (Cannella & Henry 2017) found that following translocation away from an area being cleared for mining, at least one out of eight chuditchs Dasyurus geoffroii returned to its area of capture. Out of eight translocated chuditchs, one was recaptured, 12 days after release, close to the initial capture site. Its recapture site was 13.5 km from the release point and 1 km from the original capture location. Between first capture and recapture, the individual had lost 13% of its body weight but was otherwise in good condition. In January–March 2016, eight chuditchs were live-trapped across four 53–73-ha woodland plots about to be cleared for mining. Chuditchs were marked with PIT-tags and released in a forest area, approximately 14 km away (linear distance). No details are provided about the release procedures or about post-release monitoring.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Cannella E.G. & Henry J. (2017) A case of homing after translocation of chuditch, Dasyurus geoffroii (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Australian Mammalogy, 39, 118-120.

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
Translocate mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Restore former mining sites Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	12	Synopsis Link
Use electric fencing to deter mammals from energy installations or mines Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link