Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Grow unattractive crop in buffer zone around crops (e.g. chili peppers) to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of growing unattractive crops (such as chili peppers) in buffer zones around crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2491https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2491Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:20:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chili to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Seven studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using chili to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in Zimbabwe, two were in Kenya and one was in India. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (7 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (7 studies): Five of seven studies (including four replicated and two before-and-after studies), in Zimbabwe, Kenya and India, found that chill-based deterrents (chili-spray, chili smoke, chili fences and chili extract in a projectile, in some cases along with other deterrents) repelled elephants at least initially, whist two studies found that chili smoke (and in one case chili fences) did not reduce crop raiding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:22:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to protect water sources for use by wild mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fencing to protect water sources for use by wild 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%2F2493https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2493Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:02:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food after fire One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food after fire. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary feeding did not increase survival of hispid cotton rats following prescribed fire. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2494https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2494Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:06:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species. One study was in each of the USA, Australia and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that after fencing to exclude introduced herbivores, native mammal species richness increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated, paired sites study) in Spain and Australia found that using fences to exclude large or introduced herbivores increased the abundance of Algerian mice and native mammals. A replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that in areas fenced to exclude livestock grazing and off-road vehicles, abundance of black-tailed hares was lower compared to in unfenced areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2495https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2495Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:18:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using light or lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that red lasers did not disperse white-tailed deer from fields at night whilst a study in India found that spotlights directed at the eyes of Asian elephants did reduce the probability of crop damage. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2496https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2496Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:25:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species. Four studies were in Australia, four were in the USA and two were in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that fencing which excluded feral cats, foxes and rabbits increased small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, controlled studies), in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that abundances of European rabbits and small mammals were higher within areas fenced to exclude predators or other problematic species, compared to in unfenced areas. The third study found that hispid cotton rat abundance was not higher with predator fencing. A replicated, controlled study in Spain found that translocated European rabbit abundance was higher in fenced areas that excluded both terrestrial carnivores and raptors than in areas only accessible to raptors. Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that predator exclosures increased the number of white-tailed deer fawns relative to the number of adult females. Survival (7 studies): Four of six studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that fencing to exclude predators did not increase survival of translocated European rabbits, hispid cotton rats, southern flying squirrels or western barred bandicoots. The other two studies found that persistence of populations of eastern barred bandicoots and long-haired rats was greater inside than outside fences. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that electric fencing reduced coyote incursions into sites frequented by black-footed ferrets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2497Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:36:46 +0100Collected 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: Use fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Zimbabwe and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that a combination of large fires and people with drums and dogs repelled African elephants from crops faster than did a combination of people with dogs and slingshots, drums and burning sticks. A study in India found that fire reduced the chance of Asian elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2499https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2499Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:39:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use electric fencing to deter mammals from energy installations or mines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using electric fencing to deter mammals from energy installations or mines. ‘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%2F2500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2500Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:40:13 +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: Use repellents to reduce cable gnawing One study evaluated the effects of using repellents to reduce cable gnawing. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that repellents only deterred cable gnawing by northern pocket gophers when encased in shrink-tubing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2502https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2502Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:42:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2503Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:47:08 +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: Use predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that coyote scent reduced food consumption by mountain beavers and white-tailed deer. The third study found that it did not reduce trail use by white-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:01:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use target species scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using target species scent to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that African elephants were not deterred from feeding by the presence of secretions from elephant temporal glands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2506https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2506Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:31:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive rear in large enclosures prior to release Four studies evaluated the effects of captive rearing mammals in large enclosures prior to release. Two studies were in the USA, one was in Mexico and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): A study in Mexico found that peninsular pronghorn taken from the wild and kept in a large enclosure bred successfully and the population increased, providing stock suitable for reintroductions. Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that black-footed ferrets reared in outdoor pens had higher post-release survival rates than did ferrets raised indoors. A controlled study in Australia found that Tasmanian devils reared free-range in large enclosures did not have greater post-release survival rates than animals from intensively managed captive-rearing facilities. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that Tasmanian devils reared free-range in large enclosures did not gain more body weight post-release compared to animals from intensively managed captive-rearing facilities. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in USA found that captive-bred black-footed ferrets raised in large enclosures dispersed shorter distances post-release than did ferrets raised in small enclosures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2507Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars (combined with loud noise) reduced damage caused by black-tailed deer to tree seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Nine studies were in the USA, two were in the UK and one was in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (12 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (12 studies): Five of 11 controlled studies (including 10 replicated studies), in the USA, Italy and the UK, of a range of contact repellents, found that they reduced herbivory or consumption of baits. The other six studies reported mixed results with at least some repellents at some concentrations deterring herbivory, sometimes for limited periods. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a repellent did not prevent chewing damage by coyotes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2509https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2509Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:44:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals. Seven studies were in Australia, and in the USA, four were in the UK, three in Argentina, two in each of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China and one in each of Canada, Namibia, South Africa and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that a population of captive-bred Arabian sand gazelles kept in holding pens prior to release nearly doubled in size over four years. A before-and-after study in China found that following release of captive-bred animals from a pre-release enclosure into the semi-wild (free-roaming in summer, enclosed in winter and provided with food), Przewalski’s horses increased in number. Reproductive success (10 studies): Eight studies (one replicated) and one review in the UK, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Israel and Australia found that following the use of holding pens prior to release (and in some cases provision of supplementary food), captive-bred Eurasian otters, Arabian sand gazelles, eastern-barred bandicoots, some swift foxes, some red wolves and over 33% of Persian fallow deer reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the first year and the reproductive success of female Asiatic wild ass increased over 10 years. A study in Australia found that after being kept in a holding pen, all four mammal populations released into an invasive-species-free fenced enclosure reproduced. Survival (23 studies): One of three studies (two controlled, one replicated) in the UK, Canada and Australia found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred (and some translocated) animals resulted in greater post-release survival for water voles compared to animals released directly into the wild. The other two studies found similar survival rates for eastern barred bandicoots and swift foxes compared to animals released directly into the wild. A replicated study in the USA found that captive-bred Allegheny woodrats kept in holding pens prior to release, had higher early survival rates than those not kept in holding pens, but overall survival rates tended to be lower than wild resident woodrats. Three studies in South Africa, USA and Argentina found that released captive-bred (and some translocated) African wild dogs, riparian brush rabbits and guanacos that spent longer in, and in one case in larger, holding pens had a higher survival rate. Three studies (one controlled) in Australia and the USA found that captive-bred animals kept in holding pens prior to release had similar (bridled nailtail wallabies) or lower (black-footed ferret kits) annual survival rate after release to that of wild-born translocated animals and lower (black-footed ferrets) survival rates than resident animals. Ten studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study) and one review in Saudi Arabia, the USA, Argentina, China, Israel, Australia and Germany found that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred animals (or in some cases captive-reared/rehabilitated, or with provision of supplementary food), four of four mammal populations, 19% of red wolves, Asiatic wild ass, Persian fallow deer, most Arabian sand gazelles, most swift foxes, eastern-barred bandicoots and European mink survived at least 1-10 years, over half of giant anteaters, hare-wallabies and Père David’s deer survived for at least 1.5-6 months. Three studies in Namibia, the USA and Australia found that that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred or reared animals (some provided with nest boxes and/or supplementary food), red-tailed phascogales, most Mexican wolves and African wild dogs survived less than 6-12 months. Condition (4 studies): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that eastern barred bandicoots released after time in holding pens lost a similar proportion of body weight and recovered to a similar weight compared to bandicoots released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that common dormice lost weight after being put into holding pens whereas wild translocated dormice gained weight. A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies placed in holding pens prior to release lost body condition in holding pens. A before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies placed in a holding pen prior to release maintained good health. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being kept in holding pens and provided with supplementary food, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the UK. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that a repellent reduced use of treated areas by moles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2511https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2511Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:28:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that people with dogs took longer to repel African elephants from crops compared to scaring them by using combinations of people, dogs, slingshots, drums, burning sticks, large fires and spraying with capsicum. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2512Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:37:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Drive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using domestic animals to drive away wild mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in India found that using domestic elephants to drive wild Asian elephants away from villages did not reduce the probability of elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:48:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under roads. Eight studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, four were in Canada, two were in Spain, one each was in Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea and three were reviews with wide geographic coverage. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): A study in South Korea found that road sections with higher underpass density did not have fewer wildlife-vehicle collisions. A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation of mammals using crossings under roads. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that overwinter survival of mountain pygmy-possums increased after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed. BEHAVIOUR (23 STUDIES) Use (23 studies): Seventeen of 20 studies (including seven replicated studies and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and across multiple continents, found that crossing structures beneath roads were used by mammals whilst two studies found mixed results depending on species and one study found that culverts were rarely used as crossings by mammals. One of the studies found that crossing structures were used by two of four species more than expected compared to their movements through adjacent habitats. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was used by mountain pygmy-possums. A replicated study in Germany found that use of tunnels by fallow deer was affected by tunnel colour and design. A study in the USA found that a range of mammals used culverts, including those with shelves fastened to the sides. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed, dispersal of mountain pygmy-possums increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514Fri, 05 Jun 2020 10:17:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments. One study was in Brazil and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A study in Brazil found that lesser anteaters translocated away from a hydroelectric development site remained close to release sites while a study in Australia found that at least one out of eight chuditchs translocated from a site to be mined returned to its site of capture. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2517https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2517Mon, 08 Jun 2020 07:49:07 +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