Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals One study evaluated the effects of using signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in the USA found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2325https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2325Thu, 21 May 2020 08:38:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set minimum distances for approaching mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of setting a minimum permitted distance to which they can be approached. ‘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%2F2327https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2327Thu, 21 May 2020 10:36:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set maximum number of people/vehicles approaching mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of setting a maximum to the number of people or vehicles permitted to approach 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%2F2328https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2328Thu, 21 May 2020 10:38:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or limit number of visitors to reserves or protected areas Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of excluding or limiting the number of visitors to reserves or protected areas. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Ecuador and one was in Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Ecuador found that a road with restricted access had a higher population of medium-sized and large mammals compared to a road with unrestricted access. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that temporarily restricting visitor access resulted in fewer bears being killed to protect humans. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one a before-and-after study), in the USA and Thailand, found that restricting human access to protected areas resulted in increased use of these areas by grizzly bears and leopards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330Thu, 21 May 2020 10:43:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit extent of disturbance to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing paths to limit the extent of disturbance to 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%2F2337https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2337Thu, 21 May 2020 15:21:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use voluntary agreements with locals to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of using voluntary agreements with locals to reduce disturbance. ‘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%2F2339https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2339Thu, 21 May 2020 15:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Habituate mammals to visitors One study evaluated the effects of habituating mammals to visitors. 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 study in the USA found that brown bears that were highly habituated to humans showed less aggression towards human visitors than did non-habituated bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2340https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2340Thu, 21 May 2020 15:54:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals that have habituated to humans (e.g. bears) Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals that have habituated to humans. One study was in the USA and one was in the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in the USA found that almost half of the translocated ‘nuisance’ black bears returned to their capture locations. A review of studies in the USA and Canada found that black bears translocated away from sites of conflict with humans were less likely to return to their capture site if translocated as younger bears, over greater distances, or across geographic barriers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2341https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2341Thu, 21 May 2020 16:10:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans One study evaluated the effects of treating mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans. This study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Germany found that following a worming programme, proportions of red foxes infested with small fox tapeworm fell. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2342https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2342Thu, 21 May 2020 17:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use conditioned taste aversion to reduce human-wildlife conflict in non-residential sites Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using conditioned taste aversion to reduce human-wildlife conflict in non-residential sites. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies, in the USA, found that lacing foodstuffs with substances that induce illness led to these foods being avoided by coyotes and black bears.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2384Wed, 27 May 2020 15:03:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans Eight studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia, one was in the USA and Canada, one was in Austria and one was in Bangladesh. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Bangladesh found that when domestic dogs accompanied people to give advance warning of tiger presence, fewer tigers were killed by people. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Two studies, in the USA and Canada, found that pepper spray caused all or most American black bears and grizzly bears to flee or cease aggressive behaviour. One of these studies also showed that tear gas repelled half of American black bears. Two studies in the USA and Austria found that grizzly/brown bears were repelled by rubber bullets or by a range of deterrents including rubber bullets, chasing, shouting and throwing items. A study in the USA found that hikers wearing bear bells were less likely to be approached or charged by grizzly bears than were hikers without bells. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that ultrasonic sound deterrent units did not affect feeding location choices of dingoes. A study in Bangladesh found that domestic dogs accompanying people gave advance warning of tiger presence, enabling people to take precautionary actions. A study in Australia found that a motorised water pistol caused most dingoes to change direction or speed or move ≥5 m away, but sounding a horn did not.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385Wed, 27 May 2020 15:41:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning Thirty-seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using prescribed burning. Twenty-five studies were in the USA, three each were in Canada and South Africa, two each were in Spain and Tanzania and one each was in France and Auatralia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found similar small mammal species richness after prescribed burning compared to in unburned forest. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that prescribed burns early in the dry season resulted in higher small mammal species richness relative to wildfires later in the season. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Five of 10 replicated studies (of which eight were controlled and two were site comparisons), in the USA, Spain and Australia, found that prescribed burning did not increase abundances of small mammals. Three studies found mixed effects, on cottontail rabbits and small mammals and two found that burning increased numbers of European rabbits and small mammals. A systematic review in the USA found that two mammal species showed positive responses (abundance or reproduction) to prescribed burning while three showed no response. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in South Africa found that 92% of Cape mountain zebra foals were produced in the three years post-fire compared to 8% in the three years pre-fire. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA, found that prescribed burning did not reduce bot fly infestation rates among rodents and cottontail rabbits. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two site comparisons and one controlled study), in the USA and Canada, found that prescribed burning resulted in larger areas being occupied by black-tailed prairie dog colonies and smaller individual home ranges of Mexican fox squirrels. The third study found that prescribed burning did not increase occupancy rates of beaver lodges. BEHAVIOUR (22 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Ten of 21 studies (including eight controlled studies and eight site comparisons with a further four being before-and-after studies), in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Tanzania and France, found that prescribed burning increased use of areas (measured either as time spent in areas or consumption of food resources) by bighorn sheep, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, plains bison, Cape mountain zebrasand mouflon. Six studies found mixed effects, with responses differing among different ages or sexes of white-tailed deer, bison and elk, differing among different large herbivore species or varying over time for elk, while swift foxes denned more but did not hunt more in burned areas. The other five studies showed that prescribed burning did not increase use or herbivory by elk, black-tailed deer, white-tailed deer or mixed species groups of mammalian herbivores. Behaviour change (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that vigilance of Thomson’s gazelles did not differ between those on burned and unburned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2388Thu, 28 May 2020 08:57:08 +0100