Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding for mammals to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding for mammals to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Slovenia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Uptake (1 study): A site comparison study in Slovenia found that 22-63% of the estimated annual energy content of the diet of brown bears comprised provided diversionary food. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one also a site comparison) in the USA found that diversionary feeding reduced nuisance behaviour by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2323Wed, 20 May 2020 10:24:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing). 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2324https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2324Wed, 20 May 2020 11:54:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep cats indoors or in outside runs to reduce predation of wild mammals One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of keeping cats indoors or in outside runs. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated study in the UK found that keeping domestic cats indoors at night reduced the number of dead or injured mammals that were brought home. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2326https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2326Thu, 21 May 2020 09:53:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals. Three studies were in the UK, one was in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four randomized, controlled studies), in the UK, Australia and the USA, found that bells, a sonic device, and a neoprene flap (which inhibits pouncing) mounted on collars, and a brightly coloured and patterned collar all reduced the rate at which cats predated and returned home with mammals. In one of these studies, an effect was only found in autumn, and not in spring. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2332https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2332Thu, 21 May 2020 11:11:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep dogs indoors or in outside enclosures to reduce threats to wild mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of keeping dogs indoors or in outside enclosures to reduce threats to wild mammals. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2334https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2334Thu, 21 May 2020 13:18:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep domestic cats and dogs well-fed to reduce predation of wild mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of keeping domestic cats and dogs well-fed to reduce predation of wild mammals. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2335https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2335Thu, 21 May 2020 13:21:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate problem mammals away from residential areas (e.g. habituated bears) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of translocating problem mammals (such as bears) away from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Canada, one was Russia, one was in India and one was in Romania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): A controlled study in the USA found that grizzly bears translocated away from conflict situations had lower survival rates than did non-translocated bears. A replicated study study in the USA found that fewer than half of black bears translocated from conflict situations survived after one year. Two of three studies (two controlled), in the USA, found that after translocation away from urban sites, white-tailed deer survival was lower than that of non-translocated deer. The third study found that short-term survival was lower but long-term survival was higher than that of non-translocated deer. A study in Russia found that most Amur tigers translocated after attacking dogs or people did not survive for a year after release. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five studies (including one controlled and two replicated studies), in the USA and Canada, of brown/grizzly or black bears translocated away from residential areas or human-related facilities, found that at least some returned to their original capture location and/or continued to cause nuisance. In two of the studies, most returned to their capture area and one black bear returned six times following translocation. A before-and-after study in India found that leopards translocated away from human-dominated areas, attacked more humans and livestock than before-translocation. A controlled study in Romania found that translocated brown bears occurred less frequently inside high potential conflict areas than outside, the opposite to bears that had not been translocated. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2336https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2336Thu, 21 May 2020 14:09:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Issue enforcement notices to deter use of non bear-proof garbage dumpsters to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of issuing enforcement notices to deter use of non bear-proof garbage dumpsters to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that issuing enforcement notices requiring appropriate dumpster use did not reduce garbage accessibility to black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2345Fri, 22 May 2020 13:17:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of preventing mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock devices prevented American black bears from accessing or damaging bird feeders. A before-and-after study in Switzerland found that electric fencing excluded stone martens from a building. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346Fri, 22 May 2020 13:27:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict Ten studies evaluated the effects of scaring or otherwise deterring mammals from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, three were in Canada and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Two of four studies (including one randomized and controlled study) in the USA, found that a range of noise and pain deterrents did not prevent black bears from returning to urban areas or other human-occupied sites. The other two studies found that such actions did deter them from seeking food at human-occupied sites. Two of three studies, in the USA and Canada, found that chasing nuisance black bears with dogs and chasing elk with people or dogs caused them to stay away longer or remain further from human occupied areas. The other study found that attempts to scare coyotes did not cause them to avoid human occupied areas. A before-and-after study in Canada found that an electric fence prevented polar bear entry to a compound. A study in Canada found that chemical and acoustic repellents did not deter polar bears from baits in most cases. A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones caused African savanna elephants to quickly leave residential areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347Fri, 22 May 2020 14:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in residential areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in residential areas. This study was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Botswana found that retained wildlife corridors in residential areas were used by 19 mammal species, including African elephants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2354Tue, 26 May 2020 11:35:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install underpasses beneath ski runs One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing underpasses beneath ski runs. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Australia found that boulder-filled crossings beneath ski slopes were used by seven small mammal species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2355Tue, 26 May 2020 11:59:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide woody debris in ski run area One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing woody debris in ski run areas. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that placing woody debris on ski slopes did not affect overall small mammal abundance and had mixed effects on individual species abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2356https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2356Tue, 26 May 2020 13:30:50 +0100