Provide supplementary feed to reduce tree damage

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of providing supplementary feed on the magnitude of tree damage caused by mammals. This study was in USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

  • Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that supplementary feeding reduced tree damage by black bears.

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, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 1999–2002 in 14 coniferous forest sites in Washington, USA (Ziegltrum 2004) found that supplementary feeding reduced tree damage caused by black bears Ursus americanus. The number of trees damaged by bears in sites where supplementary feeding was used was lower (3–10 trees/year) than in sites where no supplementary feeding was used (15–26 trees/year). When supplementary feeding was stopped at one site, the number of trees damaged by bears increased from 6 to 40/year. In March 1999, in fourteen 16–20-ha sites, bear-damaged trees were marked with paint. Sites with similar amounts of damage were paired. In April 1999, one site/pair was randomly chosen to have two plastic drums containing food pellets placed in it, while the other site had no supplementary food provided. Plastic drums were refilled weekly in April–July with 100 kg of pellets. In the first year, at sites where supplementary feed was provided, beaver Castor canadensis carcasses were hung from trees to attract bears. In July 2000, supplementary feeding was stopped at two of the seven sites (results not presented for the second site due to the feeding station not being maintained prior to this). Sites were surveyed for bear damage to trees in July of 1999–2002.

    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