Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat for mammals Seven studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for mammals. One study each was in Zambia, the USA, Tanzania, Brazil, Nepal and India and one was a systematic review of sites with a wide geographic spread. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): A systematic review of protected areas across the globe found that 24 of 31 studies reported an increase in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Three studies (including two site comparison studies), in Zambia, the USA and Nepal, found that populations of red lechwe, black bears and one-horned rhinoceros grew following site protection or were higher than in adjacent non-protected sites. One of three site comparison studies, in Tanzania, Brazil and India, found that populations of more mammal species increased inside protected areas than in adjacent unprotected areas. One study found that populations of only three of 11 species were higher on protected than on unprotected land whilst the third study found that 13 of 16 species were less abundant in a protected area than in a nearby unprotected area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:56:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage habitat protection of privately-owned land We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of encouraging habitat protection of privately-owned land. ‘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%2F2560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2560Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences around protected areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of building fences around protected areas. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mozambique. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A before-and-after study in Kenya found that after a fence was built around a protected area, mammal species richness initially increased in both study sites, but subsequently declined at one of the sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A paired sites study in Mozambique found that inside a fenced sanctuary there were more mammal scats than outside the sanctuary. A before-and-after study in Kenya found that after a fence was built around a protected area, mammal abundance initially increased in both study sites, but it subsequently declined at one of the sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2561Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:38:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining buffer zones around core 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%2F2562https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2562Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:46:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase size of protected area One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing the size of a protected area. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that expanding a fenced reserve resulted in the home range of a reintroduced group of lions becoming larger but the core range becoming smaller. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:55:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase resources for managing protected areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing resources for managing protected areas. This study was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Species richness (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that mammal species richness was higher in a well-resourced national park, than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study Tanzania found that there were greater occupancy rates or relative abundances of most mammal species in a well-resourced national park than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:57:32 +0100