Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Use perches to increase foraging success

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies from the USA found that raptors and other birds used perches provided, whilst a replicated and controlled study in Sweden found that raptors used clearcuts with perches significantly more than those without.
  • However, a controlled study from the USA found that overall bird abundances were not higher in areas provided with perches and a small controlled cross-over trial on an island in the USA found that San Clemente loggerhead shrikes Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi did not alter their hunting patterns or increase their success rates following the installation of perches in their territories.


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 controlled study in June-July 1979 in tallgrass prairie at Konza Prairie Research Natural Area, Kansas, USA (Knodel-Montz 1981), found that bird densities in unburned prairie sites were no higher in areas provided with artificial perches than in areas without perches (31 males of all species/ha in both areas). Numbers were higher in a burned area with perches (56 males/ha vs. 27) but not when dickcissel Spiza americana and red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus (attracted to a stream in the former area) were excluded. Twenty three perches (1.5 and 2 m long wooden stakes) were added to a 35-ha area of annually burned prairie and 17 to an adjacent 25-ha unburned area. A 12-ha area of burnt and a 39 ha unburnt prairie with no artificial perches served as controls. Eight species used 48% of perches in the burned area, compared with 29% used by four species in the unburned area.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated trial in shrubland on Rhode Island, USA, in winter 1978-9 (Reinert 1984), found that ten raptor species appeared to make frequent use of 14 dead trees erected in 1977, whilst four species used nine man-made perches. In total, raptors were seen using the perches 525 times over 120 days, with most using the perches for resting and American kestrels Falco sparverius also using them for hunting and eating.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, controlled experiment in central Sweden (Widén 1994) found that raptors used clearcuts with perches significantly more than those without (49 raptor observations in clearcuts with perches vs. 16 in those without). In the 1986 post-breeding season, 11 clearcuts (3.7-19.9 ha) were provided with 6 m high, regularly-spaced, perches (2/ha), and 11 had no artificial perches. Natural perches were virtually absent. Raptor use of the clearcuts was recorded April-May in 1987-1988. In autumn 1987, perches were switched between areas. In total, 33 raptor observations were made in 1987 and 32 in 1988; 85% (55) were common buzzard Buteo buteo, 14% (9) common kestrel Falco tinnunculus plus one hen harrier Circus cyaneus.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A small controlled cross-over trial in shrubland and grassland on San Clemente Island, California, USA (Lynn et al. 2006), found that four pairs of San Clemente loggerhead shrikes Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi did not alter their hunting behaviour or success rate following the installation of 15 perches in their territories (approximately 50-75% success with perches vs. 60-65% without). However, some pairs did shift their hunting areas to include perches, suggesting that perches have the potential to increase the area of the island suitable for shrikes.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust