Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native amphibians (e.g. cane toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native amphibians. '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%2F2498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2498Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:38:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native invertebrates One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invertebrates. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study the USA found that after the control of red imported fire ants, capture rates of northern pygmy mice increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals. Twenty-one studies were in Australia, and one was in each of France, the UK, Equador and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Ten of 18 controlled, before-and-after or site comparison studies, in Australia, found that after controlling red foxes, abundances, densities or trapping frequencies increased for rock-wallaby spp., eastern grey kangaroo, woylie,, brush-tail possum, tammar wallaby, chuditch and quenda. Seven studies found mixed results with increases in some species but not others, increases followed by declines or increases only where cats as well as foxes were controlled. The other study found no increase in bush rat numbers with fox control. One of three replicated, before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies), in Australia, France and Ecuador, found that control of invasive rodents increased numbers of lesser white-toothed shrews and greater white-toothed shrews. One study found that Santiago rice rat abundance declined less with rodent control and one found mixed results, with increased numbers of short-tailed mice at one out of four study sites. Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that controlling red foxes increased survival of juvenile eastern grey kangaroos. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Three studies (two before-and-after, one controlled), in the UK and Australia, found that after controlling non-native American mink, red foxes and European rabbits, there were increases in ranges or proportions of sites occupied by water vole, common brushtail possum, long-nosed potoroo and southern brown bandicoot and four native small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following removal of feral cats, vertebrate prey increased as a proportion of the diet of island foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:58:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area One study evaluated the effects on native mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals within a fenced area. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammal species richness was higher than outside the fenced area. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammals overall and two out of four small mammal species were more abundant than outside the fenced area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:51:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native plants Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invasive plants. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated study in the USA found that control of introduced saltcedar did not change small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partial removal of velvet mesquite did not increase abundances of six mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:23:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native/problematic plants to restore habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling invasive or problematic plants to restore habitat. '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%2F2530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2530Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:20:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce top predators to suppress and reduce the impacts of smaller non-native predator and prey species We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of reintroducing top predators to suppress and reduce the impacts of smaller non-native predator and prey species. '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%2F2531https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2531Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:22:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native prey species to reduce populations and impacts of non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling non-native prey species to reduce populations and impacts of non-native predators. '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%2F2532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2532Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:23:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial refuges for prey to evade/escape non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial refuges for prey to evade/escape non-native predators. '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%2F2533https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2533Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:24:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native species that could interbreed with native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native species that could interbreed with native species. '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%2F2534https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2534Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:26:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify traps used in the control/eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammal One study evaluated the effects of modifying traps used in the control or eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying traps used for catching non-native mammals reduced moderate but not severe injuries among incidentally captured San Nicolas Island foxes. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:30:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that using bait laced with lithium chloride reduced the rate of entry of San Clemente Island foxes into traps set for feral cats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2536https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2536Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:41:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using reward removal to prevent non-target species from entering traps. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that when reward removal was practiced, the rate of San Clemente Island fox entry into traps set for feral cats was reduced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2537Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:50:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use drugs to treat parasites Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using drugs to treat parasites. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Spain, one was in Germany and one was in Croatia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study the USA found that medical treatment of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep against lungworm did not increase lamb survival. Condition (6 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (one controlled), in Germany, the USA and Croatia, found that after administering drugs to mammals, parasite burdens were reduced in roe deer and in wild boar piglets and numbers of white-tailed deer infected were reduced. A third study found that levels of lungworm larvae in bighorn sheep faeces were reduced one month after drug treatment but not after three to seven months. One of these studies also found that the drug treatment resulted in increased body weight in roe deer fawns. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that higher doses of ivermectin treated sarcoptic mange in Spanish ibex faster than lower doses, and treatment was more effective in animals with less severe infections. A replicated, before-and-after study in Spain found that after injecting Spanish ibex with ivermectin to treat sarcoptic mange a mange-free herd was established. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2587https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2587Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:10:22 +0100