Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of sterilizing predators. This study was in the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA and Canada found that sterilising some wolves (combined with trapping and removing others) did not increase caribou survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:59:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control competitors Two studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling competitors. One study was across Norway and Sweden and one was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Norway and Sweden found that red fox control, along with supplementary feeding, was associated with an increase in arctic fox litters. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A controlled study in Norway found that where red foxes had been controlled arctic foxes were more likely to colonize. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:11:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding for predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of providing diversionary feeding for predators. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that diversionary feeding of predators appeared to increase woodland caribou calf survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2578https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2578Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:20:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of sterilizing non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs). '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%2F2579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2579Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:30:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train mammals to avoid problematic species Two studies evaluated the effects of training mammals to avoid problematic species. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that training greater bilbies to avoid introduced predators did not increase their post-release survival. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in Australia found that greater bilbies trained to avoid introduced predators showed more predator avoidance behaviour, the second study found no difference in behaviour between trained and untrained bilbies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:32:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild mammals Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of treating disease in the wild. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): A replicated study in Germany found that medical treatment of mouflons against foot rot disease healed most infected animals. A before-and-after study in the USA found that management which included vaccination of Yellowstone bison did not reduce prevalence of brucellosis. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Uptake (1 study): A study in the USA found that a molasses-based bait was readily consumed by white-tailed deer, including when it contained a dose of a disease vaccination. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:45:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use vaccination programme Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using vaccination programmes. Three studies were in the UK and one study was in each of Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ethiopia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Poland found that following an anti-rabies vaccination programme, red fox numbers increased. Condition (6 studies): Five studies (including three replicated, three controlled and two before-and-after studies) in Belgium, Spain and the UK found that following vaccination, rabies was less frequent in red foxes, numbers of Eurasian badgers infected with tuberculosis was reduced and European rabbits developed immunity to myxomatosis and rabbit haemorrhagic disease. One of the studies also found that vaccination reduced the speed and extent of infection in infected Eurasian badgers. A study in Ethiopia found that following vaccination of Ethiopian wolves, a rabies outbreak halted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2582https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2582Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:01:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of eliminating highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area. '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%2F2585https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2585Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:54:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cull disease-infected animals One study evaluated the effects on mammals of culling disease-infected animals. This study was in Tasmania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in Tasmania found that culling disease-infected Tasmanian devils resulted in fewer animals with large tumours associated with late stages of the disease. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2586Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:02:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish populations isolated from disease One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing populations isolated from disease. The study was in sub-Saharan Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A site comparison study throughout sub-Saharan Africa found that fencing reduced prevalence of canine distemper but not of rabies, coronavirus or canine parvovirus in African wild dogs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2588Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control ticks/fleas/lice in wild mammal populations Two studies evaluated the effects of controlling ticks, fleas or lice in wild mammal populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that a grain-bait insecticide product did not consistently reduce flea burdens on Utah prairie dogs. A controlled study the USA found that treating wolves with ivermectin cleared them of infestations of biting dog lice. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2589https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2589Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:24:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators Ten studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling predators. Seven studies were in North America, one was in Finland, one in Portugal and one in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Three of six studies (including three controlled, one before-and-after and one replicated, paired sites study), in Finland Portugal, Mexico and the USA, found that removing predators increased abundances of pronghorns, moose and European rabbits and Iberian hares. One of these studies also found that mule deer abundance did not increase. The other three studies found that removing predators did not increase mountain hare, caribou or desert bighorn sheep abundance. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (one also controlled), in the USA, found that predator removal was associated with increased breeding productivity of white-tailed deer and less of a productivity decline in pronghorns. However, one of these studies also found that there was no change in breeding productivity of mule deer. Survival (5 studies): Two of five before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies and one replicated study), in the USA, Canada and the USA and Canada combined, found that controlling predators did not increase survival of caribou calves, or of calf or adult female caribou. Two studies found that moose calf survival and woodland caribou calf survival increased with predator control. The other study found mixed results with increases in white-tailed deer calf survival in some but not all years with predator control. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2613Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:19:37 +0100