Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce legal speed limit One study evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the legal speed limit. 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 speed limit reductions and enforcement did not reduce vehicle collisions with bighorn sheep or elk. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2596https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2596Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:03:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species Five studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of a mammal species. One study each was in Norway, the USA, South Africa, Poland and Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study), in the USA and Poland, found that prohibiting hunting led to population increases of tule elk and wolves. Survival (3 studies): A before-and-after study in Norway found that restricting or prohibiting hunting did not alter the number of brown bears killed. A study in Zimbabwe reported that banning the hunting, possession and trade of Temminck’s ground pangolins did not eliminate hunting of the species. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that increasing legal protection of leopards, along with reducing human-leopard conflict by promoting improved animal husbandry, was associated with increased survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:05:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install traffic calming structures to reduce speeds One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing traffic calming structures to reduce speeds. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that following installation of barriers to create a single lane, rumble strips, reflective wildlife signs, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and production of an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll population re-established in the area. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that following installation of barriers to create a single lane, rumble strips, reflective wildlife signs, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and production of an educational pamphlet, vehicle collisions with Tasmanian devils, but not eastern quolls decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2598https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2598Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:10:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers. ‘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%2F2599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2599Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:16:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:19:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove roadkill regularly to reduce kill rate of predators/scavengers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing roadkill regularly to reduce the kill rate of predators/scavengers. ‘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%2F2601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2601Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:32:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ban private ownership of hunted mammals One study evaluated the effects of banning private ownership of hunted mammals. This study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Sweden found that fewer brown bears were reported killed after the banning of private ownership of hunted bears. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2602https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2602Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/maintain road verges as small mammal habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining or maintaining road verges as small mammal 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%2F2604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2604Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:49:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Site management for target mammal species carried out by field sport practitioners One study evaluated the effects of site management for a target mammal species being carried out by field sport practitioners. This study was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the Republic of Ireland found that sites managed for the sport of coursing Irish hares held more of this species than did the wider countryside. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2605Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:49:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of fitting vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Shu Roo warning whistles did not reduce animal-vehicle collisions for eastern grey kangaroos or red kangaroos BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated), in the USA and Australia, found that ultrasonic warning devices did not deter mule deer, eastern grey kangaroos, red kangaroos or white-tailed deer from roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2606https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2606Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:50:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set hunting quotas based on target species population trends Three studies evaluated the effects of setting hunting quotas for mammals based on target species population trends. One study each was in Canada, Spain and Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Spain and Norway, found that restricting hunting and basing quotas on population targets enabled population increases for Pyrenean chamois and Eurasian lynx. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Canada found that setting harvest quotas based on population trends, and lengthening the hunting season, did not decrease the number of cougars killed by hunters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2607https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2607Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:07:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence. Four studies were in the USA one was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when wildlife signs were installed along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area. Survival (6 studies): Three of five studies (including four controlled and three before-and-after studies), in the USA and Canada, found that warning signs did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. The other two studies found that warning signs did reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. A before-and-after study in Australia found that wildlife signs along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, reduced collisions between vehicles and Tasmanian devils but not eastern quolls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, before-and-after), in the USA, found that signs warning of animals on the road reduced vehicles speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:22:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of particular sex/ breeding status/age animals Two studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of particular sex, breeding status or age animals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproduction (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that limiting hunting of male deer did not increase the numbers of young deer/adult female. Population structure (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that limiting hunting of older male elk resulted in an increased ratio of male:female elk. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:29:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incentivise species protection through licensed trophy hunting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of incentivising species protection through licensed trophy hunting. This study was in Nepal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in Nepal found that after trophy hunting started, bharal abundance increased, though the sex ratio of this species, and of Himalayan tahr, became skewed towards females. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2610Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:42:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective trapping methods in hunting activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects on non-target mammals of using selective trapping methods in hunting activities. ‘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%2F2611https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2611Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:44:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal species of using wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts. One study was in Canada and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated site comparison studies in Canada and Mexico found more moose in areas with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. The other study found mixed results with only one of five species being more numerous in a non-hunted refuge. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:07:10 +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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled and one before-and-after), in the USA, found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose. The other study found that road lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:16:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chemical repellents along roads or railways Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using chemical repellents along roads or railways. Two studies were in Canada and one each was in Germany, Norway and Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison), in Germany and Norway, found that chemical-based repellents did not reduce collisions between ungulates and road vehicles or trains. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of four studies (including three replicated, controlled studies), in Germany, Canada, and Denmark, found that chemical repellents, trialled for potential to deter animals from roads, did not deter ungulates. The other two studies found mixed results with repellents temporarily deterring some ungulate species in one study and one of three deterrents deterring caribou in the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:24:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alternative de-icers on roads We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of using alternative de-icers on roads. ‘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%2F2616https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2616Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:06:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways Three studies evaluated the effects of providing food or salt licks to divert mammals from roads. One study was in the USA, one was in Norway and one was a review of studies from across North America and Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that intercept feeding reduced mule deer road deaths along two of three highways in one of two years. A replicated, site comparison study in Norway found that intercept feeding reduced moose collisions with trains. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A review of feeding wild ungulates in North America, and Europe found that feeding diverted ungulates away from roads in one of three studies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2617Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:14:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide/increase anti-poaching patrols Seven studies evaluated the effects of providing or increasing anti-poaching patrols on mammals. Two studies were in Thailand and one each was in Brazil, Iran, Lao People's Democratic Republic, South Africa and Tajikistan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two studies, in Thailand and Iran, found more deer and small mammals and more urial sheep and Persian leopards close to ranger stations (from which anti-poaching patrols were carried out) than further from them. One of three before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Thailand and Lao People's Democratic Republic, found that ranger patrols increased mammal abundance. The other two studies found that patrols did not increase tiger abundance. A site comparison study in Tajikistan found more snow leopard, argali, and ibex where anti-poaching patrols were conducted. Survival (1 study): A study in South Africa found that anti-poaching patrols did not deter African rhinoceros poaching. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:16:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use reflective collars or paint on mammals to reduce collisions with road vehicles We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using reflective collars or paint on mammals to reduce collisions with road vehicles. ‘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%2F2619https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2619Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:31:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using wildlife decoys to reduce vehicle collisions with 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%2F2620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2620Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:32:37 +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