Use reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

  • Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that when reward removal was practiced, the rate of San Clemente Island fox entry into traps set for feral cats was reduced.

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 1992 and 1994 on an island in California, USA (Phillips & Winchell 2011) found that providing inaccessible bait inside a perforated can conditioned San Clemente Island foxes Urocyon littoralis clementae to avoid feral cat Felis catus traps. In the first year, fewer foxes were recaptured in traps with perforated can baits (8% recaught) than with accessible baits (52%). In the second year, fewer foxes were recaptured in traps using perforated can baits (1% recaptured) than those using accessible baits (27%). When bait treatments were switched between areas, recapture rates increased in those then receiving accessible bait and fell in those with perforated cans. Cat capture efficiency remained high throughout trials. Baits were placed in 8–20 cage traps/area on a 146-km2 island. In 1992, perforated can baits were used in two areas and accessible baits were used in three areas. In 1994, two areas received perforated can baits and accessible baits were used in three areas. Treatments were swapped over in these five areas after 41 days. Inaccessible baits were perforated cat food canisters (1992) or perforated plastic canisters containing cat food, tuna, raw hamburger and a fish oil scent (1994). Accessible baits were cat food, tuna and raw hamburger. Baits were used in traps from February through to June–July in 1992 and 1994.

    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