Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests from predators using non-electric fencing Two studies from the USA and UK found that fewer nests were predated or failed when predator exclusion fences were erected. Two studies from the USA found that nesting success or fledging success did not differ between areas with fences erected and those without fences; although one found that hatching rates were higher with fences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F183Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:15:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect bird nests using electric fencing One before-and-after study from the UK found an increase in tern numbers after the erection of an electric fence, whilst a study from the USA found an increase in the number of nests. Five studies from the USA found higher survival or productivity at wader or seabird colonies with electric fencing, compared to areas without fencing, although one study found that hatching rates were no different, whilst nesting success was only higher in one of two years. One study from the USA found lower predation by mammalian predators inside electric fence exclosures, whilst predation by birds was higher. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F188https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F188Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:59:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce nest predation by excluding predators from nests or nesting areasA 2011 systematic review found that excluding predators from nests significantly increased hatching success, although individual barriers around nests sometimes had adverse impacts. See also: Physically protect nests from predators using non-electric fencing; Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks; Protect bird nests using electric fencing; Use artificial nests that discourage predation; Guard nests to prevent predation; Plant nesting cover to reduce nest predation; Protect nests from ants; Use multiple barriers to protect nests; Use naphthalene to deter mammalian predators; Use snakeskin to deter mammalian nest predators; Play spoken-word radio programs to deter predators; Use 'cat curfews' to reduce predation; Use lion dung to deter domestic cats; Use mirrors to deter nest predators; Use ultrasonic devices to deter cats; Can nest protection increase nest abandonment?; and Can nest protection increase predation of adults and chicks?Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F396Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:28:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of ground nesting seabirds A before-and-after study from Japan found an increase in fledging rates of little terns Sterna albifrons following the provision of chick shelters and other interventions. Two studies from the USA and Canada found reduced predation of tern chicks following the provision of chick shelters. A small study from the USA found low levels of use of chick shelters, except when predators were present. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F397Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:01:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of waders Three of 13 studies from the USA found higher productivity from nests protected by individual barriers than unprotected nests. Two studies from the USA and Sweden found no higher productivity from protected nests. Eight studies from the USA and Europe found higher hatching rates, or survival, or low predation of nests protected by individual barriers, although two of these found that higher hatching rates did not result in higher productivity. Two small studies from North America found no differences in predation or survival rates between protected and unprotected nests. A meta-analysis from the USA found that there were differences in the effectiveness of different exclosure designs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F398Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:32:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of storks and ibisesA randomised, replicated and controlled study from Cambodia found that giant ibis Thaumatibis gigantean fledgling rates were higher for nests in protected trees than controls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F399Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:10:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of songbirds Three studies from across the world found increased fledging success for nests in trees protected by individual barriers. A replicated controlled study from the USA also found higher success for ground-nests protected by individual barriers. Two studies from the UK and Japan found lower predation rates on nests protected by individual barriers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F400Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:13:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Can nest protection increase nest abandonment? A replicated before-and-after study from the USA found that nest abandonment increased after nest exclosures were installed. Two replicated studies in Sweden and the USA found small levels of abandonment, or non-significant increases in abandonment following nest exclosure installation. A meta-analysis from the USA found that some designs of nest exclosures were more likely to lead to abandonment than others. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F401https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F401Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial nests that discourage predation Three trials in North America found lower predation or higher nesting success of wildfowl in nest boxes or nesting ‘tubs’ than natural nests in tree cavities or on the ground. A trial in captivity found that raccoons could be prevented from entering nest boxes if they were topped with a metal cone with a 7.6 cm overhang and the distance between entrance hole and the roof was increased from 30 to 60 cm. A replicated study in the USA found that fewer woods duck Aix sponsa used nest boxes with predator guards on when given the choice of unaltered boxes, but that both designs were used with equal frequency when only one design was available. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F402Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:40:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Can nest protection increase predation of adults and chicks? Three replicated and controlled studies from North America and Sweden found higher levels of predation on adult birds with nest exclosures, one study from Sweden found that predation was no higher. A replicated and controlled study from Alaska found that long-tailed jaegers Stercorarius longicaudus learned to associate exclosures with birds, targeting adult western sandpipers Calidris mauri and quickly predating chicks when exclosures were removed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F403https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F403Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:45:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use multiple barriers to protect nests A replicated, controlled study from the USA found no evidence that erecting an electric fence around nests protected by individual barriers increased fledging success in piping plovers Charadrius melodus. A replicated study from the USA found that removing the outer of two nest protection fences after 15 days appeared to reduce predation compared to when both fences were left for 18 days. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F404https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F404Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:00:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nesting cover to reduce nest predation We found no evidence of planting nesting cover to reduce nest predation for bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F405https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F405Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:01:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use snakeskin to deter mammalian nest predatorsA randomised, replicated and controlled trial in the USA found that artificial nests were less likely to be predated if they had snake skin wrapped around them than control nests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F406https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F406Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:07:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mirrors to deter nest predators We found no evidence for the effects of mirrors on nest predation rates. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F407Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use naphthalene to deter mammalian predatorsA replicated, controlled study from the USA found that scattering naphthalene moth balls near artificial nests did not affect predation rates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F408Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:11:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ultrasonic devices to deter cats We found no evidence for the effects of ultrasonic cat deterrents on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F409https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F409Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:12:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests from antsA randomised, replicated and controlled study from the USA found higher fledging success from white-eyed vireo Vireo griseus nests protected from ants with a physical barrier and a chemical repellent, compared to control nests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F410https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F410Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:15:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Guard nests to prevent predation We found no evidence on the effects of guarding nests to prevent predation for bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F411https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F411Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:16:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘cat curfews’ to reduce predation We found no evidence for the effects of ‘cat curfews’ on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F412Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:18:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lion dung to deter domestic cats We found no evidence for the effects of lion dung application on the use of gardens by cats or on cat predation. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F413Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:19:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Play spoken-word radio programmes to deter predators We found no published evidence for the effects of playing the radio on predation rates. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F414Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:20:00 +0100