Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Make introduction of non-native mammals for sporting purposes illegal We found no studies that evaluated the effects on native mammals of making introduction of non-native mammals for sporting purposes illegal. ‘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%2F2621https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2621Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:47:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Commercially breed for the mammal production trade We found no studies that evaluated the effects of commercially breeding mammals for trade on wild populations of those 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%2F2622https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2622Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:48:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting sustainable alternative livelihoods on 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%2F2623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2623Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote mammal-related ecotourism We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of promoting mammal-related ecotourism. ‘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%2F2624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2624Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:52:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ban exports of hunting trophies One study evaluated the effects of banning exports of hunting trophies on wild mammals. This study was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Cameroon found similar hippopotamus abundances before and after a ban on exporting hippopotamus hunting trophies. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2625https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2625Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:54:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Close roads in defined seasons One study evaluated the effects on mammals of closing roads in defined seasons. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that closing roads to traffic during the hunting season increased use of those areas by mule deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2626https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2626Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:07:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing crossings over/under pipelines. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A study in USA found that buried pipeline sections were used more frequently than their availability as crossing points by caribou. A study in USA found that pipeline sections elevated specifically to permit mammal crossings underneath were not used by moose or caribou more than were other elevated sections. A controlled study in Canada found that a range of large mammal species used wildlife crossings over pipelines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:14:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over waterways Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over waterways. One study was in the USA and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, one a site comparison) in the USA and Spain, found that bridges and overpasses over waterways were used by desert mule deer, collared peccaries and coyotes and by a range of large and medium-sized mammals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2628https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2628Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:38:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary feed to reduce tree damage One study evaluated the effects of providing supplementary feed on the magnitude of tree damage caused by mammals. This study was in USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that supplementary feeding reduced tree damage by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2629https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2629Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:41:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use tree tubes/small fences/cages to protect individual trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using tree tubes, small fences or cages to protect individual trees from 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%2F2630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2630Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:42:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees following clearfelling One study evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees following clearfelling. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that forest stands subject to tree planting and herbicide treatment after logging were used more by American martens compared to naturally regenerating stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2631Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:45:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control firewood collection in remnant native forest and woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling firewood collection in remnant native forest and woodland. ‘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%2F2632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2632Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:46:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest timber outside mammal reproduction period We found no studies that evaluated the effects of harvesting timber outside the mammal reproduction period. ‘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%2F2633https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2633Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:47:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow forest to regenerate naturally following logging One study evaluated the effects on mammals of allowing forest to regenerate naturally following logging. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that, natural forest regeneration increased moose numbers relative to more intensive management in the short- to medium-term but not in the longer term. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2634Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:49:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of coppicing trees on 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%2F2635https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2635Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:51:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along waterways We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along waterways. ‘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%2F2636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2636Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:05:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using selective harvesting instead of clearcutting. Four studies were in Canada, three were in the USA and one was a review of studies in North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that harvesting trees selectively did not result in higher small mammal species richness compared to clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): One of six replicated, controlled or replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada found more small mammals in selectively harvested forest stands than in fully harvested, regenerating stands. Three studies found that selective harvesting did not increase small mammal abundance relative to clearcutting. The other two studies found mixed results with one of four small mammal species being more numerous in selectively harvested stands or in selectively harvested stands only in some years. A systematic review in North American forests found that partially harvested forests had more red-backed voles but not deer mice than did clearcut forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partially harvested forest was not used by snowshoe hares more than was largely clearcut forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide mammals with escape routes from canals Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing mammals with escape routes from canals. Two studies were in Germany and one each was in the USA, the Netherlands and Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one before-and-after), in Germany and the USA, found that ramps and ladders reduced mule deer drownings whilst the other study found that ramps and shallow-water inlets did not reduce mammal drownings. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in Germany, the Netherlands and Argentina, found that ramps and other access or escape routes out of water were used by a range of medium-sized and large mammals species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2638Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. Two studies were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies and a replicated, site comparison study in Canada and Australia found that retaining patches of unharvested trees instead of clearcutting whole forest stands increased or maintained numbers of some but not all small mammals. Higher abundances where tree patches were retained were found for southern red-backed voles, bush rat and for female agile antechinus. No benefit of retaining forest patches was found on abundances of deer mouse, meadow vole and male agile antechinus. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:25:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in the USA found that snowshoe hares and tassel-eared squirrels used retained undisturbed forest patches more than thinned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:37:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear or open patches in forests Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of clearing or opening patches in forests. Two studies were in the USA, one was in Bolivia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies and a site comparison study), in Bolivia, the USA and Canada, found that creating gaps or open patches within forests did not increase small mammal abundance relative to uncut forest. One study found that it did increase small mammal abundance and one found increased abundance for one of four small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2641Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:46:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain dead trees after uprooting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining dead trees after uprooting. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that areas where trees were uprooted but left on site were used more by desert cottontails than were cleared areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2642Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:55:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use thinning of forest instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using thinning of forest instead of clearcutting. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinned forest areas were used more by desert cottontails than were fully cleared or uncleared areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2643Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:57:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled studies and one site comparison study), in the USA and Canada, found that where competing vegetation was removed to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas, American martens used the areas more. One study found mixed results for moose and one found no increase in site use by snowshoe hares. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:14:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain understorey vegetation within plantations One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining understorey vegetation within plantations. This study was in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more species of medium-sized mammal, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more visits from medium-sized mammals, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:19:21 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue