Remove or control competitors

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    33%
  • Harms
    12%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling competitors. One study was across Norway and Sweden and one was in Norway.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Norway and Sweden found that red fox control, along with supplementary feeding, was associated with an increase in arctic fox litters.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

  • Use (1 study): A controlled study in Norway found that where red foxes had been controlled arctic foxes were more likely to colonize.

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 1999–2011 at 10 tundra sites in Norway and Sweden (Angerbjörn et al. 2013) found that the number of arctic fox Vulpes lagopus litters increased after control of red foxes Vulpes vulpes, along with supplementary winter feeding at arctic fox dens. Where red foxes were intensively controlled, the number of active artic fox dens in winter increased more than at sites where no control or a low level of control was undertaken (data reported as statistical model results). The same response was found in the number of arctic fox litters produced, and with more litters produced when food was provided at den sites (data reported as statistical model results). Three sites were intensive control sites, with an average of 19–92 red foxes culled, and supplementary feeding provided for an average of 11–13.5 arctic fox dens at two of those sites. Three sites had low levels of control, with 1.5–7 red foxes culled and 1–3 dens fed at each of those sites. Four sites had no fox control and only one den was fed at one site. Red foxes were controlled during winter from 1999. The number of arctic fox litters was counted in known arctic fox dens during July and August 1999–2011.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled study in 2005–2010 in 25 tundra sites in Finnmark, Norway (Hamel et al. 2013) found that the probability of colonization by arctic fox Vulpes lagopus was higher in sites where red foxes Vulpes vulpes had been controlled. Arctic foxes colonized some sites where red foxes were controlled but their probability of colonizing sites without fox control was zero (reported as statistical model results). Between 2005 and 2010, intensive culling removed 885 red foxes from the Varanger peninsula. Foxes were monitored annually, over a 2-month period in late winter, using automatic digital cameras in front of a frozen block of reindeer remains. Fifteen camera sites were located across the area where red foxes were controlled and 10 areas without control (Nordkynn peninsula and Ifjordfjellet). Each camera took photographs of the carcass and its close surroundings every 10 min.

    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, 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